# PIE /a/;/o/ merger in protogermanic, a trace of distinction?



## Erkattäññe

I've read in a couple of papers that Protogermanic labiovelars lost their labial element next to an /o/ vowel resulting in plain velars before the /a/;/o/ merger. Any more detailed account of this? examples?

Update: Goth. hals < *kWolsom but English what < *kWod so this needs to be refined if there is any sound law at all.


----------



## ahvalj

They didn't:
*_kʷos_> Goth. _ƕas_, Ger. _wer_, E. _who_
*_kʷod_> Goth. _ƕa_, Ger. _was_, E. _what._


----------



## ahvalj

Erkattäññe said:


> Update: Goth. hals < *kWolsom


That would be an isolated example, but overall what are the reasons to reconstruct *_k__ʷolso-_? The only two cognates, Latin _collus, collum_ and Middle Irish _coll_, don't require _kʷ_ at all, and the only reason for _kʷ_ is the alleged link to _kʷel_- "wheel", which is just a speculation based on the Baltic _kaklas _(Lith.) / _kakls _(Latv.) "neck" < *_kʷokʷlo-_.


----------



## Erkattäññe

Yes, but there are some instances as:

_*okW_> Goth. _augo: (if metathesis why in this word?)_
_*wekW_> OHG. _giwahan_
_*(s)kWer_> ON. _skars
*pekW>_ OE. _a:-figan
*sekW>_ OHG. _sage:n
*slenkW>_ OHG. _slingan
*merHkW>_ OHG. _morgan
*skWa:bh>_ OHG. _scuob(b)a
*perkW>_ OHG. _for(a)ha

_Maybe others examples, maybe labial element eroded after verner's law, since most examples are affected by that law.

More examples:

_*gWelbh_> NE _calf_
_*gWou_> NE _cow_
_*gWel_> OHG _kelk_
_*kagWh_> ON _hagi_
_*lengWh_> ON _lunga_
_*nAgW_> OE _naca_
_*angW_> OHG _unko_
_*kneigWh_> OE _ni:gan_
_*gWhedh_> OE _ge-gada_
_*gWhembh_> MHG _gampen_
_*gWhen_> OHG _ganz_
_*gWhen_> Norwgian _gana_
_*dheigW_> ON _di:ki_
_*(s)la:gW_> OE _läccan_
_*angWh_> OHG _enka_

maybe more.
Sorry for the outdated look of the roots, I'm using a website based on Pokorny's dictionary, if PIE /o/ isn't causing delabialization, what would be the trigger?


----------



## ahvalj

It would be nice to provide translations.



Erkattäññe said:


> _*okW_> Goth. _augo: (if metathesis why in this word?)_


Usually explained as a remodelling after *_auzōn_ "ear"


Erkattäññe said:


> _*wekW_> OHG. _giwahan_


What word is this? If _giwahanen/giwahinen_ "erwähnen" then < *_ǥa-waxnijanan_ with_ kʷ_>_x_ before a consonant (also *_nokʷts_>_Nacht_)


Erkattäññe said:


> _*(s)kWer_> ON. _skars_


What word is this? If "giantess", Pokorny gives it next to *_kʷer_- with a doubt ("vielleicht").





Erkattäññe said:


> _*pekW>_ OE. _a:-figan_


What word is this?





Erkattäññe said:


> _*sekW>_ OHG. _sage:n_


_sagên_<*_saǥēnan_; _saga_<*_saǥō —_ no *_o_ here: the labial element is lost throughout.





Erkattäññe said:


> _*slenkW>_ OHG. _slingan_


<*_slenǥʷanan_ — cp. Norse_ slyngva _(http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sling)





Erkattäññe said:


> _*merHkW>_ OHG. _morgan_


_<*murǥanaz/*murǥunaz _— what is the evidence for a labiovelar?





Erkattäññe said:


> _*skWa:bh>_ OHG. _scuob(b)a_


What word is it? If _Schuppe_, it comes from *_skaƀanan_, which has no trace of a labiovelar in the related languages: Greek _σκάπτω.
_


Erkattäññe said:


> _*perkW>_ OHG. _for(a)ha_


What word is it? If _Furche_, it had *_kʲ_ (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/furhs). If _Föhre_, the Germanic reflexes aren't thematic (*_furxʷōn_, *_furxʷijōn_) and thus *_xʷ_<*_kʷ_ didn't stand before *_a_<*_o_ (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fir#Etymology).


----------



## Erkattäññe

_*okW> Goth. augo: (if metathesis why in this word?) *"oko < -o, -od? *_* "*_
"*wekW> OHG. giwahan _*"to shout, to say, thing"*dutch _gewagen_ with no consonant cluster too_
*(s)kWer> ON. skars *"dwarf"*
*pekW> OE. a:-figan _*"fry"*_
*sekW> OHG. sage:n *"say")*
*slenkW> OHG. slingan *"throw, crawl, wind" *__(_Norse_ slyngva_, then Norse is preserving the labiovelars "better" than the other germanic languages, see below)_
*merHkW> OHG. morgan *"morning"* _ON _mjorkvi, mürkvi, mörkvi m. ; mürkja, mürkva wk. '__mjorkvi, mürkvi, mörkvi m.; mürkja, mürkva wk._ pointing perhaps to a labiovelar_
*skWa:bh> OHG. scuob(b)a *"scale" *_cognate with latin _squa:ma_, hence the labiovelar._
*perkW> OHG. for(a)ha *"fir"*_cognate with latin _quercus_, hence de labiovelar.
*gWelbh> NE _calf 
*gWou> NE cow
*gWel> OHG kelk *"neck, gullet, precepice"*
*kagWh> ON hagi *"fence, hag, enclosure"*
*lengWh> ON lunga *"lung"*
*nAgW> OE naca *"boat"* anyway _*Old Norse: *nɔkkvi with a "v". Cognate with greek "naus" through laryngeal hardening as in quick???_
*angW> OHG unko *"lizard, snake"*
*kneigWh> OE ni:gan *"decline, stoop"*
*gWhedh> OE ge-gada *"hold together"*
*gWhembh> MHG gampen *"spring"*
*gWhen> OHG ganz *"all, whole"*
*gWhen> Norwgian gana *"battle"*
*dheigW> ON di:ki *"puddle, pool"*
*(s)la:gW> OE läccan *"seize" *_anyway this one is wrong because preform *lakjan with normal loss before j_
*angWh> OHG enka "*neck"
**mezgW> ON_ _mɔskvi_ m vs Old Saxon _maska "*loop"*
*wringWh>  OHG ringi *"light, quick, small"* _(no old norse cognate atested but perhaps **ringvi )


----------



## ahvalj

Erkattäññe said:


> _*gWelbh_> NE _calf_


Inexplicable.


Erkattäññe said:


> _*gWou_> NE _cow_


Since Germanic has both *_kōwz_ and *_kūz_, the shift must have been generalized after the second form, where *_gʷ_>*_kʷ_>_k_ is regular before _u/ū_.


Erkattäññe said:


> _*gWel_> OHG _kelk_


What word is this?


Erkattäññe said:


> _*kagWh_> ON _hagi_


<*_xaǥōn_ — Pokorny reconstructs a plain *_gʰ_.


Erkattäññe said:


> _*lengWh_> ON _lunga_


Only Gothic and Norse may distinguish *_nǥ_ from *_nǥʷ_, but the Gothic form seems to be unattested and the Norse _lungu_ can come from both.


Erkattäññe said:


> _*nAgW_> OE _naca_


<*_nakʷōn_, cp. Norse _nǫkkvi_ "small boat".


Erkattäññe said:


> _*angW_> OHG _unko_


What word is this? In any case, *_nǥ_ and *_nǥʷ_ have merged in the attested stages of West Germanic.


Erkattäññe said:


> _*kneigWh_> OE _ni:gan_


<*_xnīǥʷanan_, Gothic _hneiwan_


Erkattäññe said:


> _*gWhedh_> OE _ge-gada_


_*gʰedʰ_- has a simple velar in Pokorny.


Erkattäññe said:


> _*gWhembh_> MHG _gampen_


This root is based on the comparison of Greek -_θεμβ_- (attested once) and Germanic _gemp_- solely, which is purely conjectural.


Erkattäññe said:


> _*gWhen_> OHG _ganz_


<*_ǥantaz_; the comparison with *_gʷhen_- (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ganz) is conjectural.


Erkattäññe said:


> _*gWhen_> Norwgian _gana_


Linking _gana_ "to cut branches" and _gandr_ "stick" to *_gʷʰen_- "hit, fight" is rather bold. 


Erkattäññe said:


> _*dheigW_> ON _di:ki_


Orel ("A handbook of Germanic etymology") characterizes *_đīkōn_ as "of unknown origin". 


Erkattäññe said:


> _*(s)la:gW_> OE _läccan_


<*_lakʷjanan_ — position before a consonant.


Erkattäññe said:


> _*angWh_> OHG _enka_


Pokorny has *_ang_- with a simple velar. The only reason for *_gʷ_ is the presumable connection with _διθύραμβος_, which has to be proven first.


----------



## Erkattäññe

Well, it seems the theory falls really short, perhaps there is no trace of PIE /a/ vs /o/ in any atested germanic language, I wonder if this is possible with baltoslavic, the pie /o/ is raised in final *om# but I don't know of any pie instance of PIE *am#  to make a development contrast, *a:m# seems to be shortened but maybe after the *om# raising. we're relying on early loans to uralic for a supposed vowel contrast. I wonder too what was the trigger for the northern /a/;/o/ merger, what could squeeze a symetric 5 vowel system like that?


----------



## ahvalj

Still can't find _kelk _and_ āfigan_. 

What is _durchgewagen_?
_
Squāma_ seems to have no IE etymology. In any case, the connection with *_skōƀō_ is far from evident.
_
Myrkvi _is an _an_-stem (http://cisedictionar001857#page/304/mode/2up), so actually *_kʷ _preserves here before _ij__a_<*_ı̯__o_ (Acc. Sg. _myrkvan_<*_murkʷijanun_<*_mr̥gʷı̯onm̥_)._

mǫskvi/maska _come from *_mezg_- with a plain velar (Pokorny and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mesh#Etymology).

OK, I have spent 3 hours on commenting, let anybody else continues.


----------



## ahvalj

Erkattäññe said:


> Well, it seems the theory falls really short, perhaps there is no trace of PIE /a/ vs /o/ in any atested germanic language, I wonder if this is possible with baltoslavic, the pie /o/ is raised in final *om# but I don't know of any pie instance of PIE *am#  to make a development contrast, *a:m# seems to be shortened but maybe after the *om# raising. we're relying on early loans to uralic for a supposed vowel contrast. I wonder too what was the trigger for the northern /a/;/o/ merger, what could squeeze a symetric 5 vowel system like that?


Balto-Slavic distinguishes *_a_ and *_o_ in reflexes of Winter's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter's_law): *_hₐebl_->*_abl_->*_ābl_- "apple" vs. *_nogʷ_->*_nōg_- "naked". 

I don't believe in Kortland's ideas about the development of Balto-Slavic *-_om _(as well as in many of his other guesses). For example, we find Prussian -_an_ in the thematic neutra: _buttan, dadan, aswinan, kirsnan, sywan, labban._ Lithuanian has -_ą_<-*_an_ in the thematic Acc. Sg. (_vyr__ą_<*_vīran_ [Prussian _wijran_] <*_uīrom_<*_uihₓrom_). In Slavic -*_om_>-*_un_>-_ъ(n)_: *_som_>*_sun_>_sъ(n); mehₐterom>*māterom>materъ _(Gen. Pl.); *_suhₓneu̯om_>*_sūneu̯om_>_synovъ_ (Gen. Pl.); *_sedom_>_sědъ_ (Aorist Sg. 1).

*-_am_ most probably didn't exist in PIE: it only developed from -_m̥_ in the languages that had open reflexes of the syllabic sonorants.


----------



## ahvalj

Erkattäññe said:


> I wonder too what was the trigger for the northern /a/;/o/ merger, what could squeeze a symetric 5 vowel system like that?


Well, this has been discussed here recently: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2894769 
The only remark is that I had confused _Lydian_ and _Lycian_, as usual. 

So, as you can see, about a half of daughter lineages merged *_a_ and *_o_. The most probable reason for this was the virtual absence of the phoneme _a_ in PIE and the scarcity of its occurrence after the coloring effect of _hₐ_ took place: most instances of this new *_a_ were present word-initially and in the _ā_-, _ı̯ā_- and _u̯ā_-declensions and the _ā-_conjugation.


----------



## Erkattäññe

Sorry, 
- I mispelled, it's "ā-figen" cognate with latin _coquo:_ and sanskrit _pac-_ as well as a lot of slavic words, one of the top 40 PIE roots I guess
- OHG kelk, modern english jawl, latin gula
- not _durchgewagen, dutch (language) gewagen, cognate with latin vo:x

I_ forgot winter's law, so excluding baltoslavic, indoiranian thanks to brugmann's law and anatolian via PIE /o/ consonant lenition and lycian PIE /e/;/o/ merger but no /a/ it seems that germanic is the sole branch that doesn't show any trace of different behavior for PIE /a/ and /o/, at least from the recoverable texts.
I neither follow all the Kortlandt theories, but most of them, contrary to his views I do believe in vowel raising before final /s/ for PIE *os# *o:s# and *a:s# for baltoslavic thus there were no /o/ stem ending borrowings to the eh2/a: stems in slavic (OCS -y)(ridiculous theory). 
I do believe that raised and unraised variants coexisted for the /o/ stem declensión /as,am/-/us,um/(confront old czech _ve^ceros_, bibliography on these forms is appreciated _ ) _difference triggered maybe due stress as I've read. Forms coexists in lithuanian with transfers to the /u/ stems but in slavic the raised variant was generalized, just making conjectures here.


----------



## ahvalj

Kortland's theory is *-_om_>*-_um_ in Balto-Slavic, required for his explanation of the Slavic Gen. Pl. (which I don't believe, since the matter is more complicated — the Gen. Pl. ending in Slavic was not an ordinary -_ъ_: it produces a long vowel in Serbo-Croatian and certain accentual mutations everywhere, so it is safer to regard it as a peculiar merger of *-_õm_ and *-_om_). In all the cases Baltic simply shows -_an _(_an>un_ in East Lithuanian occurs anywhere in the word), and in Slavic the rising of _o/a_ in final closed syllables is postulated since the 19th century. 

*-_om_ always results in -_ъ_ in Slavic (including -_om_>-_ъ_ in those neutra that are reflected as masculines of the Slavic accentual paradigm (b): _dvorъ_ vs. Skr. _dvāram, _Lat._ forum_); -_o_ in the remaining neutra, judging from Baltic borrowings into Finnish, like _silta_ vs. Lithuanian _tìltas_ "bridge" and from Lithuanian neuter adjective forms on -_a_, like _sẽnas/senà/sẽna_ "old", comes from *-_o_ or *-_od_, with no traces of *-_m_. 

*-_os_ is more complicated, we have three reflexes in Slavic: 
-_o_ in -_os/es_- stems (*_nebʰos_>_nebo_), which may be explained analogically after other neutra; 
-_e_ in north-western Old East Slavic (North Krivichian dialect of Pskov and Novgorod), Nom. Sg. _stole_ (<*_stolhₐos_) vs. Acc. Sg. _stolъ_ (<*_stolhₐom_) "table", _keto_ (*<*_kʷos_ _tod_) "who" vs. e. g. Nom. Sg. _synъ_ (<_sūnus_, _sūnum_) "son" in the _u_-stems and Nom. Sg. _vedъ_ (<*_u̯edus_) "who has lead" in the Perfect Active Participle, so *-_os>*-ə>-e_ is distinct from *-_om_, *-_us_ and *-_um_ here;
-_ъ_ elsewhere in Slavic (with the obscure origin of personal names and similar words on -_o_ in some dialects — _Petro_, _ujьko _"uncle").


----------



## ahvalj

Erkattäññe said:


> (confront old czech _ve^ceros_, bibliography on these forms is appreciated _ ) _difference triggered maybe due stress as I've read. Forms coexists in lithuanian with transfers to the /u/ stems but in slavic the raised variant was generalized, just making conjectures here.


I am not aware of any varying forms in Czech or anywhere else, other than these instances of -_e_/-_ъ_/-_o_ outlined above. The -_o_ forms in personal names of some Slavic idioms correspond in -_a_ in Russian (attested since the 11th century), e.g. West Slavic _Janko_ vs. Old East Slavic (Novgorod) _Janъka,_ diminutive for "John", or Ukrainian _Il'ko_ vs. Old Novgorod _Ilьka,_ diminutive for "Elias", so all this leaves an impression of a word-formational rather than a phonetic phenomenon. We do find an alternation between -_mъ_/-_me_/-_mä_/-_mo_/-_my_ in the Pl. 1 of verbs, but it can be easily explained as continuing *-_mos_/-_me(s)_/-_men_/-_mo_/-_mōs_ (for the latter cp. OHG -_mês_ or Lithuanian reflexive _-mė-s_), among other possibilities (e. g. -_my_ after _my_ "we" like Du. 1 -_vě_ after _vě_ "we two"). 

There is a good book _Shevelov GY · 1964 · A prehistory of Slavic: the historical phonology of Common Slavic_ (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJYUZ1ck5vdWE2Q1U&authuser=0) but, as I always warn, the author believed to understand much more than the actual material allowed, so I wouldn't take too seriously most of his detailed explanations. The factology is good, however.

If you read Russian, the Nom. Sg. -_e_ forms in Old Slavic are discussed in _Зализняк АА · 2004 · Древненовгородский диалект:_ 147–149 (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJUEhqQzJXT2p3ZUk&authuser=0).

The contrasting reflexation of _o_-neutra in Slavic barytona is treated in _Дыбо ВА · 2000 · Морфологизированные парадигматические акцентные системы. Типология и генезис. Том I:_ 48 & 51 (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJVUhZYi1pbFR3ODA&authuser=0) and in _Иллич-Свитыч ВМ · 1963 · Именная акцентуация в балтийском и славянском: _120–140 (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJZFFSdXE0ektpQ2M&authuser=0). Interestingly, the former neutra and masculina with -_ъ_ didn't merge, since neutra acquired the accentual paradigm (b) with the columnal stem-stress (later converted into end-stress in many dialects, e. g. in Russian, _dvor—dvorá—dvorý<*dʰu̯orom _"court"), whereas masculina of this kind belonged to the accentual paradigm (d) with the enclitic Nom. and Acc. Sg. and columnal stress elsewhere (in modern Russian they mostly show a stem-stress in Sg. and end-stress in Pl., e. g. _voz—vóza—vozý_<*_u̯ogʲʰos_ "carriage", Greek _ὄχος_)


----------



## Erkattäññe

So the slavic neutra probably come from either *_-o or *-od_ and it seems plausible that the moribund suffixed _*-os_ stems got assimilated or maybe see below.
The -e in north-western Old East Slavic thematic stems seems to be in relation with the obscure personal names in -o, some feature prevented the rising, as I said it could be the stress, I have not the bibliography here but I've read a paper that states that barytone balstoslavic *CoC(C)os > *CaC(C)as while oxytone *CoC(C)os > *CaC(C)us, many lithuanian examples of this alternation are given.
Anyway why the oxytone variant would be so prevalent in slavic? both endings -e and -o do not show rising a we can posit an /a/ value at the baltoslavic stage, I know of a parallel development in the middle indoarian languages, some prakrits developed -o from thematic -as as already seen in sanskrit sandhi but in other prakrits the ending develops into -e. 
It would be necessary to see the vowel system as a whole to perceive if there is a motivation for such a change like that, if there were pressure or vacancy in the vowel system. I don't know if all the other vowels in the north-western Old East Slavic were kept just as the other slavic branches, the lack of palatalization dates the change very late.
Some other very unrelated developments but still similar are _*-os > e_ in tocharian B and Lycian. surprisinly in the case of tocharian B the vowel seems to have made its transit without colliding with any other central vowels.


----------



## ahvalj

As far as I understand, the choice of earlier Slavic neutra to become _ъ_-masculina or _o_-neutra in late Common Slavic didn't depend on the stress itself: it depended on the accentual paradigm (see Dybo and Illich-Svitych links above). Balto-Slavic had inherited two accentual paradigms, one barytonic (Lithuanian AP 1 & 2; Slavic AP a, b & d) and the other mobile (Lithuanian AP 3 & 4; Slavic AP c). In Slavic, the barytonic paradigm further split into (a) (bisyllabic nouns with acute root vowels), which remained barytonic, and (b)/(d) (bisyllabic nouns with non-acute, i. e. short or Balto-Slavic circumflex long vowels), which tended to move stress one syllable to the right in many dialects. The neutra of the paradigms (a) and (c) display -_o_, whereas neutra of the paradigm (b) became masculine with the ending -_ъ_. Adjectives and pronouns have only -_o_, like in Lithuanian. We don't know whether the shift of the stress to the ending had occurred in the paradigm (b) to the time when the vowel in *-_om_>*-_an_ became a higher sound: if yes, that ending was *stressed* in contrast to the unstressed *-_o(d)_>*-_a_>*-_o_ of the AP (a) and (c), but if not, all three paradigms had this ending unstressed.


----------



## Erkattäññe

About _dvor—dvorá—dvorý, __the "y" _in the neuter wouldn't require a common slavic long vowel? 
On the other hand it's strange that in the case of -o personal names ukranian has the same vowel as the south-west slavic but russian shares an -a with Old Novgorod, languages that don't agree in the nominative thematic vowel reflex (I guess vowel reduction in russian wasn't a feature in the 11th century so no phonetic unstressed o>a).


----------



## ahvalj

Erkattäññe said:


> About _dvor—dvorá—dvorý, __the "y" _in the neuter wouldn't require a common slavic long vowel?
> On the other hand it's strange that in the case of -o personal names ukranian has the same vowel as the south-west slavic but russian shares an -a with Old Novgorod, languages that don't agree in the nominative thematic vowel reflex (I guess vowel reduction in russian wasn't a feature in the 11th century so no phonetic unstressed o>a).


Not quite sure that I understand your question. -_Y_ continues the Acc. Pl. *-_ōns_ (_n_ is attested in the corresponding soft ending -_ę_ in Old Church Slavonic; the acute long vowel is attested by some accentological phenomena in South Slavic), so it is not a neuter form etymologically.

The origin of unstressed _o_>_a_ in Belarusian and Central–Southern Russian is obscure (this isogloss almost ideally corresponds to the former presumably Baltic archeological cultures assimilated by Slavs, cp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balts#/media/File:East_europe_3-4cc.png , but on the other hand there are no good linguistic signs of its antiquity), but Old Novgorod didn't display it anyway. I don't think there is currently any good explanation of all the data on the fate of *-_os_ in Slavic: new evidence is required. In Novgorod, the soft ending was still -_ь_, as everywhere, plus the neutra>masculina show -_e_ as other thematic masculina (i. e. Nom. Sg. _dvore_ vs. Acc. Sg. _dvorъ_, despite both originating from *_du̯aran_<*dʰu̯orom), so either they were leveled after the standard masculina, or the idea that *-_as_>*-_ə_>-_e_ is wrong.


----------



## ahvalj

By the way, I am not aware of any examples of the Lithuanian -_us_ derived from thematic nouns: I suspect this Kortlandesque approach is based on a mistake. Likewise, I don't find it productive to search this split anywhere in Slavic: as far as I imagine, we don't see an unambiguous opposition of rised and preserved vowels anywhere — one might suspect it somehow in this neutra distribution, but the presence of -_an_ in some Prussian dialects vs. -_a_ in others and in East Baltic, as well as the opposition of a nasal reflex in the Lithuanian thematic Acc. Sg. vs. the absence of such in the Lithuanian neuter adjectives clearly shows that this is a morphological, not phonetical distribution. It appears that at some point the Balto-Slavic adjectives acquired -_od_ from the pronouns (or leveled -_o_ after -_i_ and -_u_ in neutra of other declensions), and this ending then penetrated into neuter nouns, to various extents in various Balto-Slavic dialects.


----------



## Erkattäññe

I cannot post links. look for "Eugene Hill, *Two laws* of final syllables in the common prehistory of Baltic and slavic" the PDF link will appear. Phantasy or not it is worth the reading, Kortlandt is not with this theory, he abhors vowel rising before final *s. 
I'm going to study more about baltoslavic accentual paradigms, the matter seems unavoidable to undestand the idiosyncracies of this branch. Btw I thought you were implying neuter -y from PIE *-om# , everything ok with *o:ns#.


----------



## ahvalj

Erkattäññe said:


> I cannot post links. look for "Eugene Hill, *Two laws* of final syllables in the common prehistory of Baltic and slavic" the PDF link will appear. Phantasy or not it is worth the reading, Kortlandt is not with this theory, he abhors vowel rising before final *s.


Thanks, will try to find. Anyway, Lithuanian has countless masculine nouns in all its four accentual paradigms (_Ambrazas V, Geniušienė E, Girdenis A… · 2006 · Lithuanian grammar:_ 126–133 & 77–83 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJMWs2ODBpRG0tMzQ&authuser=0 and _Mathiassen T · 1996 · A short grammar of Lithuanian:_ 42–43 & 34–36 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJTXdsbjA1a2dHVGc&authuser=0), continuing both barytonic and mobile PIE types, so in any case that law has to explain the preservation of the thematic paradigm in both.


----------



## ahvalj

Concerning Hill's paper. I don't agree with any of his suggestions. 

*Genitive Plural*
(1) As I have written a couple of days ago, in Slavic, the Gen. Pl. -_ъ_ wasn't an ordinary reduced vowel, like e. g. -_ъ_ in Nom. Sg. or Acc. Sg.: it produces a (long!) -_ā_ in Serbo-Croatian: _delā_<_dělъ_ and a whole number of accentual mutations in the stem vowel in several dialects — the acute becomes the "new circumflex" in western South Slavic and the vowel shortens in Czech (_děl_ vs. _dílo_); similar phenomena occur in western South Slavic before the endings and suffixes that contained Balto-Slavic non-acute long vowels, both in nouns and verbs (_Дыбо ВА · 2000 · Морфологизированные парадигматические акцентные системы. Типология и генезис. Том I:_ 21–34 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJVUhZYi1pbFR3ODA&authuser=0). It appears that this -_ъ _in the Slavic Gen. Pl. is a peculiar merger of *-_ōm_ (thematic and _ā_-stems) and *-_om_ (elsewhere), that inherited the timber of the latter and the prosody of the former.

(2) The traditional explanation regards the East Baltic -_ų/u_ as an outcome of a circumflex _uo_<*_ō_ followed by a nasal. 

In Lithuanian, the Acc. Sg. of _o_- and _ā_-declensions (_vyrą, miglą, seną_) never coincides with the Gen. Pl. (_vyrų, miglų, senų_). As the ending of Gen. Pl. was not an acute vowel, it doesn't restore its form in compound adjectives, so we find _senų_/_senųjų_ "old" in both cases. Since we find _senus/senuosius_ vs._ senas/senąsias,_ i. e. the nasal is restored in the Acc. Pl. of compound adjectives in the _ā_-stems but is still absent in the _o_-stems, there is no compelling reason to postulate *-_ōns_ for Proto-Lithuanian: the available evidence only points to _-uos_<*-_ōs_. So, I don't see how the Lithuanian facts may point to the proposed_ *-an>*-un._

Latvian Gen. Pl. has -_u_ in the simple forms and -_o_ [_uo_] in compound ones, the unshortened Acc. Sg. = Gen. Pl. — _vecaistēvs_ "grandpa" has Acc. Sg./Gen.Pl. _vecotēvu_ and _klausītājies_ "listener" has Acc. Sg./Gen. Pl. _klausītājos _(_o_-declension), _vecāmāte_ "grandma" has Acc. Sg. _vecomāti_ and Gen. Pl. _vecomāšu_ and _klausītājās_ "listener (fem.)" has Acc. Sg./Gen. Pl. _klausītājos_. Since _o_ [_uo_] in Latvian as an outcome of vowel+nasal develops only from _an/am_ (Lith. _ranka_ vs. Latvian _roka_ "hand", Lith. _žambas_ "sharp angle" vs. Latvian _zobs_ "tooth") vs. _ū_ from _un/um_ (Lithuanian _jungas_ vs. Latvian _jūgs_ "yoke"), the Latvian data obviously excludes *-_un_ both in Acc. Sg. and Gen. Pl.

Prussian, too, in its scarcely attested forms points to -_an_ in Acc. Sg. and Gen. Pl., e. g. _wirdan_ from _wirds_ "word" or _swintan_ from _swints_ "holy". The Acc. Sg. _druwingin_ "believer" and the Gen. Pl. _nidruwingin_ "non-believer" rather suggest, however, that the Gen. Pl. was reshaped (as etymologically it must have contained a vowel after_ i_ in any case). Contrary to East Baltic, *_ō_ produces _ā_ in Prussian (_dātwei_ "to give" and _dāts_ "given" vs. _duoti/dot _and_ duotas/dots_, _imma_ "I take" vs._ imu/imu_). The short _a_ in the Sambian dialect often corresponds to _o_ in Pomesanian.

(3) *-_om_ is attested not only in Celtic (cf. also Gaulish _bnanom_ "women"): it exists in Latin (-_um_) and Hittite (-_an_). The long *-_ōm_>-_ām_ has to be read as disyllabic in many places in Vedas (_Burrow T · 2011 · The Sanskrit language:_ 239 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJbnRsajFpUmJZZW8&authuser=0) and in Avesta (_Beekes RSP · 1988 · A grammar of Gata-Avestan:_ 90–91, 112 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJMGdVdWp5NHQ0MW8&authuser=0). So, I see no reason to disagree with the traditional explanation (since the 19th century) that the original ending was *-_om_, which merged with -_o_- and -_ā_- in the respective declensions producing the newer *-_ōm_, and that either form may have been subsequently generalized.

(4)  Contrary to Hill: 170 (12th line and further), there are cases when an ending from a small declensional type was borrowed into the dominant one, e. g. in Slavic this -_ъ_ in the Gen. Pl. of the _o_-declension was replaced in the first half of the 2nd millennium with -_ovъ_ from the almost extinct _u_-declension (_stolъ_ -> _stolovъ_ after _domovъ_).


*Accusative Singular*
(5) The Acc. Sg. ending is circumflex (it doesn't attract stress in accentual paradigms 2 and 4 in Lithuanian: cp. [2] Acc. Sg. _rañką_ vs. Acc. Pl. _rankàs_ or [4] _žìnią_ vs. _žiniàs_), so it must have contractional origin -_ą_<*-_ān_<*-_ehₐm̥_ [with _m̥ _vocalized before the fall of _hₐ_] vs. the Acc. Pl. _-as/ąsias_ <*-_āns_ (the acute _ą_ shortens word-finally even nazalized as also seen in the Instr. Sg. _senà/seną́ja_). I can't comment the Prussian evidence as we have only scattered words preserved for this type. Thus, I don't see how Hill's arguments could confirm that the Acc. Sg. ending in the _ā_-declension was short in later Baltic.

(6) In Slavic the Acc. Sg. -_ъ_<*-_an_<*-_om_ (_novъ_<*_nau̯an_<*_neu̯om_) in the _o_-declension and -_ǫ_<*-_ān_<*-_ām_<*-_ehₐm̥_ in the _ā_-declension (_novǫ_<*_nau̯ān_<*_neu̯ãm_<*_neu̯ehₐm̥_) never merge, and since Slavic (and Baltic) have no traces of _ŏ/ă_ distinction after the period when Winter's law operated, how does Hill imagine these two endings to look like after his shortening of *-_ām_?


*The loss of -i after V̄m*
(7) Slavic has -_mь_<*-_mi_ in Sg. 1. _jьmamь_ (<*_ьmāmi_ [_ь _means IE schwa secundum here, the zero grade of _*e_]) "I have".

(8) The Slavic _-ǫ_ in the thematic Sg. 1 is usually explained as *-_ohₓ_>*-_ō_>*-_ā_ to which the *_-n_<*_-m_ from the secondary endings was added at some later period (a similar phenomenon occurred once more in the 2nd millennium, which resulted in the modern Slovene, Serbo-Croatian and Slovak Sg. 1 _berem_ vs. the Old Church Slavonic _berǫ_, Russian _beru_, Czech _beru_, Polish _biorę _with_ -m<-mь _taken from the abovementioned _jьmamь_).


*Raising of short o before final -m and -s*
For Slavic this has been discussed in the beginning of this thread (beginning with #13).

(9) The Prussian Infinitive on -_ton_ is obviously the same as the Lithuanian Sg–Pl. 3. Subjunctive -_tų_, Latvian -_tu_ (from the Supine *-_tun_<-*-_tum_), Slavic Supine -_tъ_ (of the same origin), the Latin Supine -_tum_ and the Sanskrit Infinitive on -_tum_. That it is originally the _u_-declension in Prussian is confirmed by the alternative Infinitives on -_twei _and_ -twi_: _dātwei, limtwei_, _girtwei_, _poutwei, crixtitwi_.

(10) The Baltic -_us_ and Slavic -_ъkъ_ adjectives are perfectly comparable with the _u_-type in other branches, e. g. "thin": Lithuanian _tęvas_ (_e_-grade and thematicized), Old Church Slavonic _tьnъkъ/tъnъkъ_, Sanskrit _tanus_ & _tanukas_, Greek _τανυ_- in compounds. This type became productive, with the meaning of an active or passive ability, and Otkupschikov (1983/2001) lists 85 pairs of Lithuanian and Russian adjectives of this type (_варкий/varus, гладкий/glodus, громкий/grumus, едкий/ėdus, зудкий/žaudus, ловкий/lavus, сладкий/saldus_ etc.).

(11) -_ì_ in the adverbs (_tolì_ etc.) can't be compared with the thematic Loc. Sg. -_iẽ_<*-_oı̯/eı̯_ (_namiẽ_ etc.) since the circumflex vowel doesn't shorten word-finally. As to its origin, it may be related to the corresponding thematic type on -_aĩ _(_labaĩ_).


Hill's views on the Balto-Slavic accentuation are completely outdated, so it should have been a separate post if I had patience and three more hours for typing all that.


----------



## Erkattäññe

ahvalj said:


> Concerning Hill's paper. I don't agree with any of his suggestions.
> 
> *Genitive Plural*
> (1) As I have written a couple of days ago, in Slavic, the Gen. Pl. -_ъ_ wasn't an ordinary reduced vowel, like e. g. -_ъ_ in Nom. Sg. or Acc. Sg.: it produces a (long!) -_ā_ in Serbo-Croatian: _delā_<_dělъ_ and a whole number of accentual mutations in the stem vowel in several dialects — the acute becomes the "new circumflex" in western South Slavic and the vowel shortens in Czech (_děl_ vs. _dílo_); similar phenomena occur in western South Slavic before the endings and suffixes that contained Balto-Slavic non-acute long vowels, both in nouns and verbs (_Дыбо ВА · 2000 · Морфологизированные парадигматические акцентные системы. Типология и генезис. Том I:_ 21–34 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJVUhZYi1pbFR3ODA&authuser=0). It appears that this -_ъ _in the Slavic Gen. Pl. is a peculiar merger of *-_ōm_ (thematic and _ā_-stems) and *-_om_ (elsewhere), that inherited the timber of the latter and the prosody of the former.


Such a monumental post , I'm not going to argue with you about baltoslavic stuff because you master things I don't. One thinh I suspect from the Hill's paper is why the generalization in baltic of the non raised thematic vowels against the generalization of slavic raised ones. Thus so far it seems that the rising of non front vowels in closed finals is a strict slavic development.

One question: what does a BSL circunflex allow us to reconstruct? a merger of 2 short vowels or a short with a long one? I ask this because of the diferent outcomes of vowel mergers in classical greek (spurious dihpthong vs circumflex) on this respect.

I think that thematic and eh2 stems didn't just lose its theme final element before the GP ending too, as most liguistics. I wonder why Kortlandt and others ignore that double reflex in slavic.

i'll keep posting when I have the time.


----------



## Erkattäññe

ahvalj said:


> (2) The traditional explanation regards the East Baltic -_ų/u_ as an outcome of a circumflex _uo_<*_ō_ followed by a nasal.
> 
> In Lithuanian, the Acc. Sg. of _o_- and _ā_-declensions (_vyrą, miglą, seną_) never coincides with the Gen. Pl. (_vyrų, miglų, senų_). As the ending of Gen. Pl. was not an acute vowel, it doesn't restore its form in compound adjectives, so we find _senų_/_senųjų_ "old" in both cases. Since we find _senus/senuosius_ vs._ senas/senąsias,_ i. e. the nasal is restored in the Acc. Pl. of compound adjectives in the _ā_-stems but is still absent in the _o_-stems, there is no compelling reason to postulate *-_ōns_ for Proto-Lithuanian: the available evidence only points to _-uos_<*-_ōs_. So, I don't see how the Lithuanian facts may point to the proposed_ *-an>*-un._
> 
> Latvian Gen. Pl. has -_u_ in the simple forms and -_o_ [_uo_] in compound ones, the unshortened Acc. Sg. = Gen. Pl. — _vecaistēvs_ "grandpa" has Acc. Sg./Gen.Pl. _vecotēvu_ and _klausītājies_ "listener" has Acc. Sg./Gen. Pl. _klausītājos _(_o_-declension), _vecāmāte_ "grandma" has Acc. Sg. _vecomāti_ and Gen. Pl. _vecomāšu_ and _klausītājās_ "listener (fem.)" has Acc. Sg./Gen. Pl. _klausītājos_. Since _o_ [_uo_] in Latvian as an outcome of vowel+nasal develops only from _an/am_ (Lith. _ranka_ vs. Latvian _roka_ "hand", Lith. _žambas_ "sharp angle" vs. Latvian _zobs_ "tooth") vs. _ū_ from _un/um_ (Lithuanian _jungas_ vs. Latvian _jūgs_ "yoke"), the Latvian data obviously excludes *-_un_ both in Acc. Sg. and Gen. Pl.
> 
> Prussian, too, in its scarcely attested forms points to -_an_ in Acc. Sg. and Gen. Pl., e. g. _wirdan_ from _wirds_ "word" or _swintan_ from _swints_ "holy". The Acc. Sg. _druwingin_ "believer" and the Gen. Pl. _nidruwingin_ "non-believer" rather suggest, however, that the Gen. Pl. was reshaped (as etymologically it must have contained a vowel after_ i_ in any case). Contrary to East Baltic, *_ō_ produces _ā_ in Prussian (_dātwei_ "to give" and _dāts_ "given" vs. _duoti/dot _and_ duotas/dots_, _imma_ "I take" vs._ imu/imu_). The short _a_ in the Sambian dialect often corresponds to _o_ in Pomesanian.
> 
> (3) *-_om_ is attested not only in Celtic (cf. also Gaulish _bnanom_ "women"): it exists in Latin (-_um_) and Hittite (-_an_). The long *-_ōm_>-_ām_ has to be read as disyllabic in many places in Vedas (_Burrow T · 2011 · The Sanskrit language:_ 239 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJbnRsajFpUmJZZW8&authuser=0) and in Avesta (_Beekes RSP · 1988 · A grammar of Gata-Avestan:_ 90–91, 112 — https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJMGdVdWp5NHQ0MW8&authuser=0). So, I see no reason to disagree with the traditional explanation (since the 19th century) that the original ending was *-_om_, which merged with -_o_- and -_ā_- in the respective declensions producing the newer *-_ōm_, and that either form may have been subsequently generalized.
> 
> (4)  Contrary to Hill: 170 (12th line and further), there are cases when an ending from a small declensional type was borrowed into the dominant one, e. g. in Slavic this -_ъ_ in the Gen. Pl. of the _o_-declension was replaced in the first half of the 2nd millennium with -_ovъ_ from the almost extinct _u_-declension (_stolъ_ -> _stolovъ_ after _domovъ_).



So again, evidence for thematic vowel rising only in slavic and evidence for long vowel in thematic GP in PBS times.
I've noted how -u stems lend forms in -ov to the -o declension in slavic, very idiosyncratic, but somethimes amending like de GP forms in -ov instead of zero.


ahvalj said:


> *Accusative Singular*
> (5) The Acc. Sg. ending is circumflex (it doesn't attract stress in accentual paradigms 2 and 4 in Lithuanian: cp. [2] Acc. Sg. _rañką_ vs. Acc. Pl. _rankàs_ or [4] _žìnią_ vs. _žiniàs_), so it must have contractional origin -_ą_<*-_ān_<*-_ehₐm̥_ [with _m̥ _vocalized before the fall of _hₐ_] vs. the Acc. Pl. _-as/ąsias_ <*-_āns_ (the acute _ą_ shortens word-finally even nazalized as also seen in the Instr. Sg. _senà/seną́ja_). I can't comment the Prussian evidence as we have only scattered words preserved for this type. Thus, I don't see how Hill's arguments could confirm that the Acc. Sg. ending in the _ā_-declension was short in later Baltic.
> 
> (6) In Slavic the Acc. Sg. -_ъ_<*-_an_<*-_om_ (_novъ_<*_nau̯an_<*_neu̯om_) in the _o_-declension and -_ǫ_<*-_ān_<*-_ām_<*-_ehₐm̥_ in the _ā_-declension (_novǫ_<*_nau̯ān_<*_neu̯ãm_<*_neu̯ehₐm̥_) never merge, and since Slavic (and Baltic) have no traces of _ŏ/ă_ distinction after the period when Winter's law operated, how does Hill imagine these two endings to look like after his shortening of *-_ām_?



Something that strikes me, PBS an and a:n results in the same _ǫ? _shouldn't we have something like_ aN / oN _in lithuanian and_ oN _and_ aN _slavic? see_ AC BSL *ranka:n > r__ǫk__ǫ _in_ OCS, _at least based on What you said the stress pattern in baltic shows a former distinction.

The explanation Hills offer is that -om raised early than the -a:m shortening thus not merging.


ahvalj said:


> *The loss of -i after V̄m*
> (7) Slavic has -_mь_<*-_mi_ in Sg. 1. _jьmamь_ (<*_ьmāmi_ [_ь _means IE schwa secundum here, the zero grade of _*e_]) "I have".
> 
> (8) The Slavic _-ǫ_ in the thematic Sg. 1 is usually explained as *-_ohₓ_>*-_ō_>*-_ā_ to which the *_-n_<*_-m_ from the secondary endings was added at some later period (a similar phenomenon occurred once more in the 2nd millennium, which resulted in the modern Slovene, Serbo-Croatian and Slovak Sg. 1 _berem_ vs. the Old Church Slavonic _berǫ_, Russian _beru_, Czech _beru_, Polish _biorę _with_ -m<-mь _taken from the abovementioned _jьmamь_).



Didn't know of such verbs in _amь, _are they numerous? do contain a thematic ablauting vowel or /a/ in the whole present? perhaps we are dealing with another verb class, athematic with /a:/ infix.
I thought the forms like modern _berem _were inherited, greek had Ionic _phileo:_ besides Aeolic _phile:mi_


ahvalj said:


> *Raising of short o before final -m and -s*
> For Slavic this has been discussed in the beginning of this thread (beginning with #13).
> 
> (9) The Prussian Infinitive on -_ton_ is obviously the same as the Lithuanian Sg–Pl. 3. Subjunctive -_tų_, Latvian -_tu_ (from the Supine *-_tun_<-*-_tum_), Slavic Supine -_tъ_ (of the same origin), the Latin Supine -_tum_ and the Sanskrit Infinitive on -_tum_. That it is originally the _u_-declension in Prussian is confirmed by the alternative Infinitives on -_twei _and_ -twi_: _dātwei, limtwei_, _girtwei_, _poutwei, crixtitwi_.
> 
> (10) The Baltic -_us_ and Slavic -_ъkъ_ adjectives are perfectly comparable with the _u_-type in other branches, e. g. "thin": Lithuanian _tęvas_ (_e_-grade and thematicized), Old Church Slavonic _tьnъkъ/tъnъkъ_, Sanskrit _tanus_ & _tanukas_, Greek _τανυ_- in compounds. This type became productive, with the meaning of an active or passive ability, and Otkupschikov (1983/2001) lists 85 pairs of Lithuanian and Russian adjectives of this type (_варкий/varus, гладкий/glodus, громкий/grumus, едкий/ėdus, зудкий/žaudus, ловкий/lavus, сладкий/saldus_ etc.).
> 
> (11) -_ì_ in the adverbs (_tolì_ etc.) can't be compared with the thematic Loc. Sg. -_iẽ_<*-_oı̯/eı̯_ (_namiẽ_ etc.) since the circumflex vowel doesn't shorten word-finally. As to its origin, it may be related to the corresponding thematic type on -_aĩ _(_labaĩ_).
> 
> 
> Hill's views on the Balto-Slavic accentuation are completely outdated, so it should have been a separate post if I had patience and three more hours for typing all that.



Rather conclusive, althogh a rule for /u/ lowering in Prussian needs to be posited, anyway I think your evidence is overwhelming, you could write a paper on this matters to amend some Hill's and Kortland's views.


----------



## ahvalj

More evidence concerning the Genitive Plural in Baltic.

In Latvian, the final stem vowels remain unreduced in the pronouns _kas_ "who" (kas - Wiktionary), _tas/tā_ "that" (tas - Wiktionary) and _šis/šī_ "this" (šis - Wiktionary). Here, both in the Acc. Sg. and Gen. Pl. we find _-o_ [uo], not _*-ū _we'd have expected from _*-un_._ Uo_ in Latvian comes from two sources: from _*ō_ (_dot_ "to give") and from _*an_ (_roka_ "hand"), so, while the Acc. Sg. obviously originates from _*-an_ (_*tan/*tān>to_), the Gen. Pl. allows derivation from both _*-an_ (<_*-om_) and _*-ōn_ (_<*-oom and *-ehₐom_).

In the Samogitian variety used in Wikipedia, we find the following forms (Žemaitiu kalba - Wikipedia):
_o/e_-stems: Acc. Sg. _-a_ (_vīra_ : Standard Lithuanian _vyrą_ < _*u̯īran_); Gen. Pl. _-ū _(_vīrū : vyrų_) "man"
_ā_-stems: Acc. Sg. _-a_ (_rasa : rasą < *rasān_); Gen. Pl. _-ū_ (_rasū : rasų_) "dew"
_u_-stems: Acc. Sg. _-o_ (_sūno : sūnų < *sūnun_); Gen. Pl. _-ū_ (_sūnū : sūnų_) "son"
consonantal stems: Acc. Sg. _-i_ (_šoni, dokteri : šunį, dukterį < *šunin, *dukterin_); Gen. Pl. -_ū_ (_šonū, dokterū : šunų, dukterų_) "dog", "daughter".​We see that _-Vn_ in the Acc. Sg. produces a short vowel, whereas the Gen. Pl. has a long one; in particular notice the opposition in the _u_-stems: _sūno_ (_<*sūnun_) vs. _sūnū,_ whereas Standard Lithuanian has _sūnų_ (with different stress) in both. In addition, _*-an_ gives _-a_ (_vīra_). This leads to the only possible explanation: that the Samogitian Gen. Pl. goes back to _*-ōn_.

Thus, the only idiom where the Gen. Pl. may phonetically be derived from _*-un_ is Standard Lithuanian (based on Aukstaitian dialects), but even there this ending is equally derivable from _*-uon<*-ōn_.


----------



## ahvalj

In my above interpreration, there remains a question: why does _*-ān_ (Acc. Sg. of the _ā_-stems) give _-a_ (_rasa_) with a short vowel, whereas _*-ōn_ (Gen. Pl. of all stems) gives _-ū,_ with a long one?

This can be explained if we look at the other Samogitian endings with final long vowels and diphthongs (Žemaitiu kalba - Wikipedia):

_šou_ (Nom. Sg., Standard Lithuanian _šuo < *kʲ(u̯)ō_),
_doktie_ (Nom. Sg.; Standard Lithuanian _duktė < *dug⁽ʰ⁾hₐtē_),
Dat. Sg. masc. _-ou_ (Standard Lithuanian _-ui_ < _*-ōı̯_),
Nom. Pl. masc. _-ā_ (Standard Lithuanian _-ai < *-oı̯_),
Dat. Sg. fem. _-ā_ (Standard Lithuanian _-ai < *-āı̯_) and _-ē_ (Standard Lithuanian _-ei < *-ēı̯_)
Voc. Sg. _-ėi, -au_ (Standard Lithuanian _-ie, -au_).
The Loc. Sg. _-ie, -uo_ are secondarily monosyllabic, cp. _dontie, sūnuo_ and the Standard Lithuanian _dantyje_ (_y_ is secondary after the _ı̯o_-stems; the regular form would be _**dantije_), _sūnuje_.

As we see, the final long vowels/diphthongs are found in the place of the former circumflected diphthongs and diphthongized circumflected *_ō̃ _and *_ē̃ _(the acute _*-ō_ shortens to_ -o_ as seen in the Instr. Sg. _vīro,_ verbal Sg. 1 _vežo_ and in _do_ "two"). In particular, _*ō_ gives _ou_ in this variety of Samogitian vs. _uo _in Standard Lithuanian: _šou : šuo, douna : duona, darboutėis : darbuotis, garoutė : garuoti, groudis : gruodis, joukoutė : juokauti, somaloutė : sumeluoti, ondou : vanduo, važioutė : važiuoti _(Vikipedėjė:Lietoviu-žemaitiu kalbū žuodīns - Wikipedia). Word-finally we find in the nominal endings _*ō̃>ou_ (_šou_ and _ondou)_ vs. _*ā>a_ (_rasa_) and _ē>ė_ (_pīlė_), i. e. the preserved diphthong vs. the shortened simple long vowels, so the vowel length in _*-Vn_ is simply retained after the loss of nasalization: _*-ōn>*-oun>-ū_ vs. _*-ān>*-an>-a_ and _*-ēn>*-en>-e._


----------

