From: Mate Kapovic
Message: 32161
Date: 2004-04-22
----- Original Message -----
From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] The disappearance of *-s -- The saga continues
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
> wrote:
> > > 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
> > > mention.
>
> > Not very likely. You are supposing that monosyllables (those which
> were not
> > randomly regularised) influenced randomly other, polysyllabic
> verbs and then
> > even l-participle? This is highly unlikely especially if one has
> knowledge
> > of a whole system.
>
> Well, that is already part of the theory. The two are pragmatically
> associated as means of expressing the past.
>
> > Shift such as *do``govoril7 - *dogovori:la' has it's
> > paralels in other parts of the system. It can hardly be analogical
> after
> > aorist as you put it...
>
> It is simply the way mobility works (between the extremes). It can
> be analogical on any mobile form that qualifies.
What about 1. sg *go``voroN : 1. pl. *govori:m'o? Is that also influenced by
aorist? Or supine *do``govorit7?
And why does aorist influence only masc. and neutrum?
Pattern *do``govoril7, *dogovori:l'a, *do``govori:lo; pl. *do``govorili,
*do``govorily, *dogovori:l'a is exactly the same thing we have in nouns. We
have *go``vor7, *go``vori (~ *do``govoril7, *do``govorili), *zol^to,
*zolt'a (~ *do``govorilo, *dogovori:l'a) and *golv'a, *gol^vy
(*dogovori:l'a, *do``govorily).
If you want adjectives it's the same as *gol^d6n7, *gold6n'a, *gol^d6no;
*gol^d6ni, *gol^d6ny, *gold6n'a. Funny coincidence, isn't it?
> > Anyway, I think that attestions of Slavic lgs are definitely more
> important
> > for the reconstruction of ProtoSlavic than what we think should
> happen with
> > it if we derive it from PIE.
>
> The art is to bridge the gap. This was done for the first time by
> Illic^-Svityc^ and Dybo who added the last missing link explaining
> type b. Now we can observe full continuity.
Yes, but the things that are sometimes done in order to connect Slavic and
PIE are not an art. An illustrative example is Slavic *v6l^k7 (a. p. c).
That doesn't go well with stem-stressed forms in Greek, Vedic (and
Germanic). And what does Illic^-Svityc^do? He finds some Belorussian dialect
in which *v6lk7 is supposedly a. p. b and says that is an archaism. Of
course he adduces no more evidence from that dialect but for that word in N.
and G. sg. (the right thing to do would be to exemplify the whole system,
individual words mean nothing if there's no context).
Mate