Re: [tied] More Slavic accentology

From: mkapovic@...
Message: 35410
Date: 2004-12-09

>
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 00:13:01 +0000, Thomas Olander
> <olander@...> wrote:
>
>>In Copenhagen, some of us believe in a sound law we call "Slaaby-Larsen's
>> Law" (named
>>after Martin Slaaby-Larsen, who pointed it out to us). The sound law
>> resembles "van Wijk's
>>Law" (see e.g. Collinge, The Laws of I-E, p. 197-198). Central to van
>> Wijk, however, were
>>clusters containing *j (the so-called *vňlja-type), which I think is
>> another - and much
>>more complicated - story. Accordingly, in order to avoid confusion, I
>> call the law
>>presented here Slaaby-Larsen's law.
>>A tentative and, to some extent, theory-neutral formulation of the law
>> is:
>>
>>In Pre-Slavic, words with mobile accentuation containing a medial cluster
>> C1C2 (where C1
>>= obstruent, C2 = any consonant, probably except j and w) get fixed
>> root-stress (yielding
>>CS a.p. a or - via Dybo's law - a.p. b).
>>
>>This explains:
>>
>>Pre-Sl. mobile *dubna > CS *dUnň;
>>Pre-Sl. mobile *gnayzda > CS *gne^zdň;
>>Pre-Sl. mobile *seydla > CS *sidlň;
>>Pre-Sl. mobile *kirsnu *kirsna: *kirsna > CS *c^I´rnU *c^Irnŕ *c^Irnň;
>>Pre-Sl. mobile *agni > CS *ňgnI;
>>Pre-Sl. mobile *mizda: > CS *mIzdŕ;
>>(? Pre-Sl. mobile *p(t)etra > CS *perň;)
>>etc.
>
> How does the theory deal with mobile words such as [from
> Zaliznjak's list] (o-stems) voskU, grozdU, drozdU, z^eslU,
> listU, mozgU, mostU, nerestU, piskU, rostU, (i-stems)
> grozdI, gostI, tIstI, volostI, v^estI, kostI, lIstI, mastI,
> mIstI, nozdrI, noktI, pektI, peNstI, slastI, strastI,
> trUstI, c^astI, c^IstI, s^IrstI, vlastI, s^estI, (a-stems)
> bedra, vesna, vIrsta, dUska, zvęzda, (adj) gustU, desnU,
> prostU, pręsnU, pustU, tęsnU, xolostU, c^astU ?

The mobility of i-stems is not relevant, as I have already once mentioned
since there is an overall tendency for i-stems to become mobile. In
o-stems, there is only a few a. p. b short-root words so that is also
hardly relevant (Illič-Svityč - Dybo's rule).
All your examples seem to have s/z+C (mostly t/d, some k/g and l/n)... So
maybe this type should be excluded...
But anyhow, i-stems and o-stems are definitely *not* a place to look for
decisive proof of mobile words....

Mate