-----Original Message-----
From: Miguel Carrasquer [mailto:
mcv@...]
Sent: 2002 m. spalio 8 d. 02:34
To:
cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Lith. Acc.pl.
>I might not understand the English either, but any chance of a
translation?
Sorry, Muguel, I had an awful headache last night, my English is far
from being fluent, and, AFAIK, Jens can read Lithuanian, so I took the
freedom not to translate. Kazlauskas goes,
(p. 37) "Stress alternation in mobile paradigm operated not only between
root (or stem) and the last syllable, but in some (nominal) cases
penultimate syllable could be stressed as well, cf., eg., D. pl.
_galvóms_ < _galvómus_".
(p. 167) "Acute pitch accent [in _galvóms_ etc. -- ST] shows that the
modern stress came into being rather early... But, on the other hand,
this acute hardly points to the fact the penultimate stress is original
in D. pl. ... One can guess that ... D. pl. ... had a final stress. In
D. pl. stress could be retracted already at the time when tonal stress
["melodinis kirtis" -- ST] still existed, so as the penultimate syllable
acquired stress and the final syllable lost it, the penultimate syllable
must have acquired high tone vs. former non-high tone of the final
syllable. ... The stress retraction from the final to the penultimate
syllable itself has been probably triggered by the tendency to uniform a
colon stress across paradigm [if I follow him here; literally "a
tendency to have a colon stress on the same syllable of the paradigm"],
i.e. to place a stress on the syllable which is stressed in most
paradigm's (nominal) cases."
Sergei