Re: [tied] Re: Russ. pilá

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:44:50 +0000, "Anders R. Jørgensen"
<ollga_loudec@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:59:57 +0000, "Anders R. Jørgensen"
>> <ollga_loudec@...> wrote:
>>
>> >Otherwise, the examples of Hirt's Law should then of course only
>> >reflect roots with -h1-. Indeed *wiH-ró- 'man' (to *wih1-
>> > 'strength'?), *dHuh1-mó- 'smoke', puh1-ró- 'wheat' show
>Hirt's
>> >Law and *gWih3wó- doesn't. On the other hand, isn't Latv. gru~ts
>> >'heavy' < *gWruh2-tó- problematic?
>>
>> My knowledge of Latvian accentuation is unfortunately
>> limited. What would the corresponding Lith. accent paradigm
>> be?
>
>As I understand it, Latv. gru~ts (and syllables with the Dehnton in
>general) reflects a root-stressed acute paradigm and would
>correspond to the Lith. AP 1. Had it been acute and mobile, we would
>have expected *grûts with the Brechton.

But could it have been acute and not mobile? If Latvian is
like Lithuanian, the answer is probably no, as my Lith.
grammar claims that bisyllabic adjectives are always mobile
(ap. 3 or 4). But then such adjectives can never show the
effect of Hirt's law.

I've found a counterexample. Russ. ryt', rýla (goes with
bit') surely comes from *reuh2- (ryti = Toch. rwa:tsi <
*ruh2-). Counterexample to the counterexample: the derived
noun in -je is ryt'ë (like byt'ë), as if AP c.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...