THREE PROBLEMS OF BALTO-SLAVIC PHONOLOGY

-Slavic (1976). I take the matter up again because his analysis has certain implica-tions for the relative chronology of sound laws. After a detailed study of the earlier literature, Endzelin concludes that both prevocalic and preconsonantal *eu have a twofold reflex in Balto-Slavic, viz. *ev and *jau (Slavic ju) if the following vowel is front, but *av (Slavic ov) and *au if the following vowcl is front, but *av (Slavic ov) and *au (Slavic u) if the follo-wing vowel is back (1911: 78-104). This point of view is often repeated in the more recent literature (e. g., Vaillant 1950: 110 and 123, Stang 1966: 32 and 74). I agree with Hamp that it cannol be correct. The Slavic dat. sg. synovi < *-euei and nom. pl. synove < *-eues suffice to show that prevocalic *eu yielded Slavic ov before front vowcls äs well. Since H. Pedersen's conclusive discussion of Lith. tau (1935), it can hardly be doubted that the only phonetic reflex of preconsonantal *eu was *jau in Balto-Slavic. If the Balto-Slavic reflex of PIE *eu was *av (or rather *ov) before vowels and *jau (or tarher *jou) before consonants, the occurrence of ev requires an ex