--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Alwin K." <alwinmail@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 1/27/09, Anders R. Joergensen <ollga_loudec@...> wrote:
> "I hope I haven't misrepresented the views of the Leiden school,
but
> at least one member of it subscribes to this list and will be able
to
> correct me :-)"
>
> I guess that was aimed at me :)..
>
> Well, your description of the ideas of the "Leiden School" is
mostly correct (although opinions vary from person to person, so
don't regard us as all following one doctrine).
> About the loss of laryngeal after lengthened grade in Balto-Slavic:
this is not an ad-hoc-rule in order to only explain the circumflex in
sa:`ls, but is also necessary to explain e.g. Lith. duõs 'he will
give' < *de:h3-s-t (the original injunctive of the sigmatic aorist).
Here you see as well that *e: is coloured by *h3, and that later on
the laryngeal is lost after the long vowel, causing the circumflex
intonation.
> The only thing that is slightly ad hoc in the explanation of sa:`ls
is the postulation of a long *e: in its preform *se:h2ls, which is
from a PIE morphological point of view a bit awkward (cf. also
Kortlandt, Baltistica 21: 119 (1985)).
>
>
> Btw, Oliver & Arnaud: in my dictionary you can find a more explicit
denial of Eichner's Law on page 98 fn. 218, where the example duõs
would have been very appropriate as well. And Arnaud, thanks for the
praise :).
>
> Best, Alwin K
>
Thanks Alwin for this update.
But I need to tell you that the *de(:)h3-s-t 'problem' was
rejected by Jens, by Jassanof , etc...and not with 'bad' arguments.
Jens has proposed <a rule of monosyllabic circumflexion>
As for Jasanoff, I think you are familiar with his below article:
http://www.leidykla.eu/fileadmin/Baltistika/39_-_2/02-Jasanoff.pdf
So please go on with your argumentation till the end, if possible,
following also, all the positions in discussion.
Thanks,
Marius