Papers by Letas Palmaitis
Baltistica, Dec 29, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2022
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
SANSKRIT devasya , PRUSSIAN deiwas , LITHUANIAN dievojis , RUSSIAN евоный AND THE MYTHICAL GENITI... more SANSKRIT devasya , PRUSSIAN deiwas , LITHUANIAN dievojis , RUSSIAN евоный AND THE MYTHICAL GENITIVE FORMANT *- so Summary To develop the ideas of V. Ivanov and V. Mažiulis, the author states that in course of the decaying of the prenominative IE structure, when the sigmatic nominative/fientive and genitive/fientive forms appeared to be identical, genitive was either differentiated from nominative by stress (so in Prussian and probably in Hittite) or was substituted e. g. by the degenitive adjective form (as in Aryan, Greek and many other languages) of the pattern stem + gen.-s + relative formant (= derivative suffix) *ya (* o ) + case endings. The latter is preserved in Anatolian forms of the Luvian massanassis type. Here is the origin of the s. c. “genitive formant” *-so>, since genitives of the type Skt. devasya; Horn, λνκοιο etc. are fossilized stems which earlier were declined: nom. *devas-ya-s, acc. *devas-ya-m etc. Prussian ſteſſe, Slavic ceso genitives show the archaic vocalization e/o of the sigmatic formant. S. I. devasya , PR. deiwas , LIE. dievojis , R. евоный IR MITINIS GENITYVO FORMANTAS *- so Reziumė Tesiant V. Ivanovo ir V. Mažiulio mintį, keliama nuomonė, kad ide. priesnominatyvinės sandaros irimo metu sutampant sigmatinėms nominatyvo/fientyvo bei genityvo/fientyvo formoms, genityvas arba tapo diferencijuojamas nuo nominatyvo kirciu (prūsų kalba, galbūt — hetitų), arba buvo pakeistas, pvz., degenityvine būdvardine forma (arijų, graikų, daugelyje kitų kalbų): kamienas + gen. -s + reliatyvinis formantas (= darybinė priesaga) *ya ( *o ) + linksmų galūnės. Sis reiskinys islikes luv. massanassis tipo anatoliecių formose. Tokios kilmės bus vad. „genityvo formantas“ *-so, nes s. i. devasya, Ноm. λύκοιο tipo genityvai rodo sustabarėjusį kamieną, kadaise linksniuojamą nom. *devas-ya-s, acc. *devas-ya-m tt. Pr. ſteſſe, sl. ceso genityvinės formos rodo archaine sigmatinio formanto vokalizaciją e/o.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Baltistica, 2011
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Letas Palmaitis