--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> Also, why does <vienas> "one" have <v->?
Here's what might have happened.
In Slavic, we find *i"nU (a) 'some, another', which looks like the original '1' (<*(H)(e)iHno-) downgraded to an indefinite pronoun/article by grammaticalization. To remedy this, Proto-Slavic univerbated *ed i"nU '*only one'>'1', with a limitative *ed (<(h1)edH- '?') found also in *edva" 'just only' > 'hardly, barely'. Now the va" 'just (?)' of this *ed va" looks suspiciously cognate to Lith. vo~s 'just, barely'; they both can continue some *(H)weh2- '?'. It may well be that -- differently from Old Prussian -- East Baltic sided with Proto-Slavic in feeling the need to strengthen its '1' by adding something like 'just' (a mere speculation, of course -- deriving Lith. ýnas 'true, real' from '1' doesn't look promising at all). Now, this *wa? ai?nás 'just one' (end stressed, as evidenced by the mobile paradigm of Lith. víenas and by the broken tone of Latv. viêns) was contracted into *wai?nás whose -ai- was -- despite being unstressed (!) -- monophthongized and then again dissolved into -ie-.