... Let me see if I got this straight: you have to add -joN because *k^ixm should - *si:m - *sI, and the latter is because the development of vowels inMessage 1 of 32 , Mar 4, 2007View Source
> There is only one other "long"Let me see if I got this straight: you have to add -joN because *k^ixm
> ending where we would expect the same to have happened, the
> acc. sg. of the devi:-feminines, which should have developed
> *-ih2m > *-i:m > *-iN > -I. Unfortunately, this accusative
> has mostly been replaced by the ja:-stem accusative -joN.
> But we do have the pronoun OCS f. <si> (< *k^ih2), acc.
> <sIjoN> (< *k^ih2m + -joN) (hmm, maybe zimoN-sI is not so
> ungrammatical after all!).
should -> *si:m -> *sI, and the latter is because the development of
vowels in Slavic is independent of stress?
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 02:20:53 +0100 (CET), Mate Kapoviæ ... *k^im is the masculine accusative, as seen in dInI-sI. The feminine accusative is *k^ih2-m *k^i:m.Message 32 of 32 , Mar 5, 2007View SourceOn Mon, 5 Mar 2007 02:20:53 +0100 (CET), Mate Kapović
>On Pon, ožujak 5, 2007 12:17 am, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:*k^im is the masculine accusative, as seen in dInI-sI. The
>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:45:10 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>> <miguelc@...> wrote:
>>>(hmm, maybe zimoN-sI is not so ungrammatical after all!).
>> I think I'll drop the "maybe". All of the words in this
>> group are feminine (noktjI-sI, jesenI-sI, vesnoN-sI,
>> zimoN-sI), except dInI-sI (masc.) and lęto-sI [for lęto-se]
>Jens derives them from *k'im. What do you think about that?
feminine accusative is *k^ih2-m > *k^i:m. I had never
actually thought about applying my rules to the accusative
of the de:vi:-stems, because, well, it wasn't supposed to
exist. That the result is expected -I, as shown in these
relict forms, is a nice confirmation.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal