Re: [tied] More Slavic accentology

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 11:15:35 +0100 (CET), mkapovic@...
> wrote:
>
> >I have always
> >wondered why do present's like *pec^et'e or *neset'e have *pekl'o

and

> >*nesl'o but I have never given it much thought.

To this, Miguel Carrasquer reacted as follows:

> Dybo's explanation (e.g. OSA, p. 36-37) connects it to the
> merger of AP(b) and AP(c) verbs that took place in this
> category (e-verbs with root ending in obstruent). We would
> have had:
>
> B C
> *bodlU' *ve``dlo
> *bodla' *vedla'
> *bodlo' *ve``dlo
>
> merging as:
>
> B/C
> ne`slU (peripheral ne``slU)
> nesla'
> neslo' (peripheral ne``slo)

One may want to compare Kortlandt's explanation of the same facts. He
attributes the end stress in *vedl'o etc. to the fact that they were
not subject to the stress retraction he calls "Ebeling's law" (Slavic
Accentuation, 1975, pp. 5-6). The further history of the paradigm
with fixed end stress that he assumes continued to exist besides a
paradigm with mobile stress has not received much in the way of
follow-up in the work of the Kortlandt school, but note (for
instance) that it is crucially involved in Rick Derksen's explanation
of the metatony in Lithuanian derivatives in -klas and -stas
(Metatony in Baltic, 1996, 66-128.

Willem Vermeer