I always wondered if there is any reason to establish separate accentual subparadigms for Lithuanian nouns of the third accentuation class, other than the acute/non-acute. To date, Lithuanian grammars and dictionaries distinguish between the following subclasses: (3): lángas - langáms - lángus (3a): áudeklas - audekláms - áudeklus (3b): kẽpalas - kepaláms - kẽpalus (34a): laiškanešỹs - laiškanešiáms - láiškanešius (34b): tẽtervinas - tetervináms - tẽtervinus (examples from Ambrazas et al., 2006). In my view, there are only two subtypes here: the one with the acute initial vowel (3, 3a, and 34a) and the one with a non-acute (3b and 34b), and the stress simply moves between the ending and the initial syllable, so that the count from the end (3: second syllable from the end, 3a-b: third syllable from the end, and 34a-b: fourth syllable from the end) seems to be irrelevant. The origin of this entire accentuation class is pretty transparent: in the proto-language, those stems consisted of low-toned syllables, and when both the stem and the ending consisted of low-toned syllables, the accent automatically fell on the initial syllable of the word, and when the ending was high-toned (Dat. Pl.), the accent fell on it, according to the general rule for the Balto-Slavic ("the accent falls on the first high-toned syllable of the [word] or [word + enclitic] or [proclitic+word] or [proclitic+word+enclitic], otherwise an accent of a different kind falls on the first syllable"). So, my question is whether there are words in modern Lithuanian that belong to the third accentuation class but have non-initial stems stressed in the Acc. Pl.? Otherwise, as I had written, I see no need in the existing notational complexity.