Lietuvių kalbos cirkumfleksinės metatonijos kilmės aiškinimas remiantis latvių kalbos duomenimis

ENHypothetical as it may be, the historical relationship between the circumflex alternation of tonemes and the paradigm of mobile stress can account for some problems which so far have not yet been properly solved. For instance, adhering to the above presented hypothesis and drawing merely on the data of Lithuanian it would be difficult to explain why the circumflex metatony affected not only classical mobile-stress cases as kubilius < *kubiliius < kubilas, kubilai nom pi, but also such Lithuanian barytones, undeniable from first glance, as puodžius < puodas, puodai nom pi or kailius < kailis. Of course, there always remains a chance to account for the accentual development ol these words by analogy. However in this case it should be taken into consideration that the original accentual paradigm of their bases is not quite clear. The Lithuanian data support the treatment of these nouns as barytones; however, the Latvian broken toneme (Latv /mods - Lith "puodas, puodai nom pi, Latv cailis = Lith "kailys, kailiai nom pi) indicate that the reconstructed toneme should be mobile. The same is true of other cases such as e.g. uogius < * uogiūs < *uogiius, <*uoga. The dialects of Modern Lithuanian attest only a fixed accentuation of this word, while the Latv uoga indicates the possibility of a mobile paradigm. Zinkevičius [1987: 185] mentions some more a-stem nouns (lova 'bed', oda 'skin', siena 'wall', smilga 'bent grass', vinkšna 'eini'), the Latvian equivalents of which have the broken toneme rather than the sustained one: in such a case the mobile stress ''palovė, -ės >palovė, -ės could also be reconstructed in this suffixal derivative. It is obvious that in this situation in order to highlight the peculiarities of the Baltic nominal accentuation it is more preferable to draw on the Latvian rather than Lithuanian data.