This thesis tries to resolve the problematic development of PIE *s after r,u,k,i in Lithuanian. First it summarizes how the ruki-rule works in other branches of PIE and why one would expect it to...Show moreThis thesis tries to resolve the problematic development of PIE *s after r,u,k,i in Lithuanian. First it summarizes how the ruki-rule works in other branches of PIE and why one would expect it to work in Lithuanian as well. Then it gives an overview of the development of PIE *s after r,u,k,i in Lithuanian and goes deeper into the opinions of several scholars on how to solve the irregularities. The two main positions are that either the ruki-rule did or it did not work in Lithuanian and examples that prove the opposite are usually explained by both sides as being new formations, borrowings or possibly of different origin. However, the evidence that ruki did take place is much bigger. The last chapter researches a selection of words that show *s after r,u,k,i to possibly find out how these can be explained. Unfortunately, a proper explanation for all the words could not be found, only for some examples new, significant points were obtained. Therefore it could very well be that the variation in s after r,u,k,i is due to older dialects, where the ruki-rule perhaps did not take place, but this cannot be proven. Therefore the author prefers the explanation that the ruki-rule originally did take place in Lithuanian, but that there are cases where it appears it didn't because of flection, borrowings, or association with suffixes in -s.Show less
