Re: [tied] Re: More Slavic accentology

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 01:46:23 +0000, "Anders R. Jørgensen"
<ollga_loudec@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>>
>> But by what law does PIE *-ikó- become *-íko-?
>
>The same that produced Lith. -ìka-. I don't think it is a sound
>law, however.

What is it then?

>> >So it seems to have nothing to do with neuters in
>> >particular.
>>
>> The connection with neuters is accidental. Lacking a
>> separate accusative case, they were resistant to becoming
>> mobile. That's why the original paradigm with stress on the
>> thematic vowel was retained there, as it was in other
>> isolated cases (-ikó-, -ijó-, the [thematic] s-aorist,
>> perhaps the l-ptc. [of obstruent-stems]).
>
>I may not have been paying sufficient attention to this alternative
>explanation. Why was the adjectival suffixes -ikó- and -ijó-
>immune to mobility, and not -inó- and -iskó-?

Haven't really looked at that yet. Why are some suffixes
"plus" and others "minus"? In this case, I would guess that
*-inó- ("belonging to") merged with *-ino- ("made of"), and
that *-isko- was just -ísko-, as in Greek.

>I think the comparison
>between Slav. (pre-Dybo) *-íko- : Lith. -ìka-, Slav. *-ímo-
>: Lith. -ìma- can hardly be ignored.

Neither can the comparison between Slav. *-ikó- : PIE
*-ikó-, Slav. *-imó- : PIE *-imó-.

>And it is unlikely to be a coincidence that the neuter nouns we find
>belonging to AP (c) do not contain the sequence C1+C2 described
>earlier: polje, morje, te^sto, meNso, etc.

Now we're getting the heart of the problem. Where are the
o-stem neuter oxytones?

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