From: mkapovic@...
Message: 35513
Date: 2004-12-20
>Is it really necessary to reconstruct *everything* from PIE?
> Some final a.p. c verbs:
>
> The infinitives dertí, z^ertí, pertí, stertí, volstí (if not
> a borrowing from Goth.) and stergtí come from sequences
> involving *-VRH-. As such they did not trigger Hirt's law,
> as is evident from their oxitonicity. The presents dIroN,
> z^IroN (z^eroN), pIroN, stIroN, voldoN, stergoN, being
> thematic, also did not trigger Hirt's law (syllabically
> *dr.-Hé, *wol&-dé-, etc.).
>
> More problematic is why they did not trigger [-Dybo] as is
> the case with all other a.p. c acute-root infinitives. The
> fact that only these *-VRH-C- verbs fail to retract the
> accent makes it likely that the phenomenon is connected to
> the metathesis / polnoglasie suffered by these sequences
> (and their circumflex *-VR-C- counterparts) in Late Slavic.
>
>
> a.p. a verbs:
>
> Both Kortlandt and Rasmussen state explicitly that Hirt's
> law retracts the accent if the _immediately preceding_
> syllable contains a (non-vocalized) laryngeal. Given that
> both rarely agree on anything involving Slavic accentology,
> this must be true. Or is it?
>
> There's a small problem with a.p. a infinitives (as well as
> l-participles and s-aorists). There are those that involve
> a non-laryngeal or polysyllabic suffix: -iti and -ovati.
> Strict application of Hirt's law would mean that (using Late
> Common Slavic forms for convenience's sake) *stavití and
> *z^alovatí => *z^alováti would not end up with the correct
> placement of the ictus. Verbal formants that do contain a
> laryngeal (-a-ti, -ę-ti, -noN-ti [I'm assuming this comes
> from secondarily nasalized PIE *-nah2-, which I'm not sure
> is the standard etymology]) would come out as e.g. dvigáti,
> vidę'ti and dvignóNti, as you can only Hirt once [and there
> wasn't anything anyway to trigger Hirt's law in the root of
> say vidęti].
>
> We can of course simply assume that in these cases we had
> analogy after the barytone present system.
>
> The introduction of the [-Dybo]-law fixes this problem (and
> the formulation of Hirt's law by Kortlandt and Rasmussen
> *is* correct): after Hirt's law, we had AP(b) forms:
>
> *dvigáti, *dvignóNti, *vidę'ti, [*stavití], *z^alováti.
>
> (in the inf. of the iterative i-stems, the stress was
> retracted by the circumflex metatony rule [a.p. b nosi::tí
> => nosí:ti], but ę/i-verbs, denominatives and causatives(?)
> may still have had an oxytone infinitive system before the
> working of -Dybo. The present system of course always had
> stress on the -i:-, be it acute or circumflex).
>
> When acute-root AP(b) words became AP(a) by the reverse of
> Dybo's law, the stress was retracted to the root [c.q. the
> acute part of the root, as in plújoN but pljIváti, lelę'joN
> etc.] (that formulation can even take care of *z^alováti >
> z^álovati and *stavití > stáviti).
>
> Given what was said at the beginning, I may still need
> analogical retraction in the infinitive of e.g. vI"rgoN,
> ver"gti.
>
> Some other time, I'll discuss some interesting non-suffixed
> a.p. a verbs.