Re: [tied] The disappearance of *-s -- The saga continues

From: Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen
Message: 32071
Date: 2004-04-20

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Mate Kapovic wrote:

> 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
> and
> 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
> se.
> 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.

I disagree. Both sets should have been type a because they contain
sequences of the structure VHC which should trigger Hirt's retraction.
Some of the verbs however entered the mobile type for some reason. I can
see only the monosyllabic aorist as the causal factor. Those that retained
the phonetically regular falling tone (circumflex) of the monosyllabic
forms of the aorist, joined the mobile type and so acquired the forms you

> > Phonetic rules have to be made on the basis of the examples that
> > 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
> question.

I'd say it's a complex question of both, like most problems we have to
deal with.