Re: [tied] Re: the glottalic theory

> From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen [mailto:jer@...]

> > But are there any
> >non-commonplace
> > points in Kortlandt's _Slavic Accentuation_
> > (http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/sa/) and _From Proto-Indo-
> > European to Slavic_
> (http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art66e.pdf)
> > you do agree with?

> I credit him with the Old Prussian accent shift law, which is
> a first-rate
> discovery.

This idea was also supported by those belonging to the Moscow
Accentological School, AFAIK.

>Meillet's law of circumflex in barytone parts of
> mobile paradigms in Slavic is accepted by us both, although
> we explain it
> very differently.

Kortland posits prosodically-conditioned deletion of a laryngeal,
analogically extended to all the barytone forms of mobile paradigms.
What's your solution?

> For the totality of Balto-Slavic we both accept
> polarization of mobility (Pedersen's law)

Do you accept loss of genuine PIE accentual mobility in
Proto-Balto-Slavic? If I get it right, the basic insight is that when
only columnal mobile paradigms survived, even the columnicity couldn't
guarantee the stress fixed on the same morpheme simply because of
inherited null-grade forms like *dHugHh2trós (where the -er-columnicity
cannot be hold), and this irritating problem was solved at the expense
of innocent properly colunmnal forms like *dHugHh2térm., throwing the
ictus to the first syllable because due to love of order the
Proto-Balto-Slavs in the cases they let stress go back and forth at all
they tended to keep one of the counters (from the beginning or the end
of the word) at the value of zero (and the phenomenon Kortlandt calls
"oxytonesis" can be explained along the same lines)?

> My objection
> that it strains credulity that a different accentual doublet is always
> chosen whenever other IE languages point to a sequence -VHCV'- is
> countered by reference to the single example gývas (3) which
> has retained
> the accent position of *gWiH3wo'-s. *My* objection to that is
> in turn that
> "living" is a strange word with irregular development in so
> many languages
> that it cannot be used as serious evidence. Some languages
> have lost the
> laryngeal (Celtic) or assimilated it to the initial (Germanic), and if
> BSl. has replaced it by simple length by dissimilation it is
> not evidence
> against Hirt's law.

If we accept (as Kortlandt does) the development *CHV- (not only *CVH-)

> (acuted) *CV:'- in Balto-Slavic and reconstruct the archetype as

*gWh3iwós, the problem disappears. Or what?

Sergei