From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
>I disagree. Both sets should have been type a because they contain
> No. The differens between bi``ti (bu``de:m), da``ti, pra``ti, li``ti and
> bi``ti (bi``je:m), s^i``ti, zna``ti etc. is that the first are a. p. c
> the second are a. p. a. It's the same thing we have in Chakavian
> dogovori``ti, l-part. do``govori:l and pomoli``ti se, l-part. pomoli``l
> The first one is mobile and the second is not because it's a. p. b. You
> can't explain initial stress in a. p. c in 2/3 sg aorist, masculine and
> neutrum l-part. etc. with your monosyllable rool. It's a completely
> different thing.
> > Phonetic rules have to be made on the basis of the examples thatI'd say it's a complex question of both, like most problems we have to
> > cannot be analogical, and forms that differ from each other are not
> > analogically connected.
> This is not question of phonetics. This is a morpho(phono)logical