Re: [tied] More Slavic accentology

>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:39:14 +0100 (CET), mkapovic@...
> wrote:
>
>>> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:54:18 +0100 (CET), mkapovic@...
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> What it looks like is that i-stems behave as masc. o-stems,
>>> i.e. what should have become AP(b) i-stems after Dybo's law,
>>> appear as AP(c) mobile i-stems. There are plenty of AP(a)
>>> i-stems.
>>
>>Not really the same I think. I written something about it and it seems
>>that a. p. a i-stems also show a tendency of becoming a. p. c i-stems.
>
> Could you give some of the details?

There's a number of i-stems which show secondary a. p. c in all Slavic
languages. For instance, there are only three a. p. a i-stems in Croatian
(smr``t, mje``d and ni``t) and even those tend to become mobile. In
Slovene, for instance, me.^d is mobile, and smrt can be both a. p. a and
a. p. c. Also, if you compare Lith. váltis (1) with Slavic, you can see
the *volt6 is a. p. c in Slavic which is clearly secondary. There are more
examples... So mobile i-stems are not very reliable in Slavic.

Mate