From: Mate Kapovic
Message: 36276
Date: 2005-02-13
----- Original Message -----
From: "willemvermeer" <wrvermeer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 8:36 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Various loose thoughts
>As a consequence of the former chronology, the stress in pre-Dybo
>*stòlU was prevented from advancing to the final syllable by the time
>Dybo's law operated. Such more or less classical accentuations as
>*stolÚ have no place in Kortlandt's system. They just never arose.
>This is a crucial feature of Kortlandt's theory which has rarely
>(read never, Ed.) been taken into account by other accentologists,
>let alone publicly evaluated.
As I understand it, Kortlandt assumes that the long neo-acute in gen. pl.
*gor'U > *go~rU in a. p. c is a regular development (this is also the case
in the a. p. c present tense like *neset'I > *nese~tI as you state in your
1984 article). Thus, he assumes that in *st'olU there was no Dybo's law
because *stolU is short not long (and the a. p. b gen. pl. is long
analogically to a. p. c gen. pl.). But I really don't see what is gained by
supposing this kind of development. Analogical development of gen. pl. in a.
p. b is required anyway and the lengthening in present tense (*neset'I) is
also not very conviencing.
Also, I cannot find an explanation in Kortlandt 1975 why does the nom. sg.
of a. p. b have a neo-acute (*poN~tI) if there was no Dybo and no retraction
from the jer.
Mate