Re: [tied] The "Mother" Problem

From: Rob
Message: 36083
Date: 2005-01-31

--- In, "elmeras2000" <jer@...> wrote:

> Well, that is basically the reason why I do not regard that an
> acceptable solution.

However, the later *-tor suffix could have been added later, at my
hypothesized stage where the stress-accent had weakened to a pitch-
accent, and whereby unstressed /a/ > /o/.

> The difference of accent did. Assuming that the change of e to o
> postdated the creation of zero-grade brings you nowhere as far as I
> can see, while the opposite chronology really does the trick. I see
> no motivation for your belief that the nominative lengthening was
> later than the full development of zero-grade. Things can be made
> to work if you tune the chronology in a constructive manner.

What caused the "difference of accent"? That's the question I'm
asking here.

> I think it is the case. It is only unaccented where the root
> vocalism is underlyingly long, i.e. in cases where the accent would
> shift to the initial even in weak-case forms.

So you surmise that accent was retracted where there was underlyingly-
long root vocalism?

- Rob