Re: [tied] Re: Various loose thoughts

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 36310
Date: 2005-02-14

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 06:34:19 +0000, willemvermeer
<wrvermeer@...> wrote:

>--- In, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> The mobility of ljudIje is itself secondary (*léudhi- =
>> Latv. l^àudis; Lith. for some reason has an unetymological
>> acute here: liáudis). As a barytone i-stem with circumflex
>> root, the word should have developed into an a.p. b i-stem.
>> These a.p. b i-stems, with few exceptions, subsequently
>> became mobile, but this can only have happened _after_
>> Dybo's law.
>Kortlandt's discussion is not about ljudIje but about the
>accentological characteristics of mobile (in Slavic) i-stems. So the
>specific background of ljudIje is irrelevant.

Perhaps not.

>> The Old Russian D. pl. ending has the valency (-) in the
>> o-stems as well (Zaliznjak p. 141) [the has (-Re), but
>> that comes to the same thing in a.p. c words], and we have
>> the accentuation zúbomU, pó gradomU (enclinomenic) in a
>> large part of the East Slavic dialectal area (Zaliznjak
>> 3.45, 3.46).
>> It seems, then, that this has nothing to do with yers.
>I suspect Kortlandt (at least the 1975 Kortlandt) would not like this
>for a number of reasons, e.g. because it separates Baltic and Slavic

Why? I think the original Common Slavic accentuation in
mobile paradigms was *-VmÚ, *-VxÚ. I was talking about a
local East Slavic development (perhaps with some South
Slavic parallels?).

>and because bisyllabic endings are always plus so you expect the Dpl
>to be plus too.

I don't see a connection between the number of syllables and
the valency: o-stem -omI/-UmI, u-stem -ovi, -ove, and i-stem
-Ije are minus.

>Kortlandt's mechanism explains how stem-stressed Dpl
>forms arose in Slavic in i-stems and u-stems. It goes without saying
>that speakers immediately reinterpreted these forms as enclinomenic
>because *all* stem-stressed form of mobile paradigms were
>enclinomenic, so the stem-stressed Dpl was spectacularly anomalous.
>Indeed, they could hardly have done otherwise. The analogical spread
>of this accentuation to the o-stems is so trivial as not to need
>comment. Note that Czech appears to have retained the reflex of the
>original end-stressed ending.

I would go along with Stang, who reconstructs for Common
Slavic *kostI`mU, *kostI`xU, with final accent. The
question then is why in Old Russian the D and L pl. became
enclinomenic in i-, u-, jo- and o-stems, and why ljudIje
specifically (and dêti and perhaps a few others) show signs
of barytonesis on an even wider scale (Common Slavic?).

The fact that in ORuss. we have areas with innovative
'zubomU, 'muz^emU besides old zubómU, muz^émU, but that
transitional areas often show zubómU, 'muz^emU may be taken
as evidence that the accent shift originated in the i-stems,
affecting first the jo-stems and only later the o-stems.
Within the i-stems, it's possible that the accentuation of
'ljudImU, 'ljudIxU in turn affected that of originally
mobile i-stems, where we would expect zvêrImÚ, zvêrixÚ >
zvêrÌmU, zvêrÌxU (or originally a.p. b i-stems, where we
would expect *ko``stImU, *ko``stIxu > *kostÌmU, kostÌxU).
However, I find it a bit hard to believe that a handful of
aberrant i-stems would have completely reshaped the
accentuation of the D and L pl. In the Lpl. at least, it
seems more likely that it was the o- (and jo-) stems which
initiated the shift: the accent retraction (by Stang's law)
of originally a.p. b (> a.p. c/d) words with the ending -êxU
can easily have spread to originally mobile nouns, and then
have been mimicked by u-stems, and i-stems. In the i-stems,
if the model of 'ljudIxU, 'ljudImU already existed, the D
pl. may have followed suit ('kostImU, 'zvêrImU), and this
then spread in some areas to the jo-stems and u-stems and
eventually to the o-stems, perhaps helped along by the fact
that the D is enclinomenic in the sg. too. The
root-stressed/enclinomenic forms in the Old Russian o-stem (-y) must in any case be attributed to influence
from the Lpl. (a.p. b) or Apl. (a.p. c).

The remaining question is: where did 'ljudIxU, 'ljudImU come
from? If the other mobile i-stems adhered to the pattern
kostI`mU, kostI`xU (originally root-stressed with short root
vowel); zvêrI`mI, zvêrI`xU (originally ending-stressed),
Stang would seem to be correct in assuming that the origin
lies in originally root-stressed nouns with circumflex root
vowel. It would be interesting to know the accentuation of
ORuss. D and L pl. putImU, putIxU (ap b). Zaliznjak's rules
would predict putI`mU, putI`xU, would I wouldn't be
surprised if pu'tImU, pu'tIxU also existed.

Stress shift in the presence of a pretonic circumflex is
also seen in e.g. *meNsó > 'meNso, *jaje' > 'jaje. Perhaps
that has something to do with it, although I'm unable to
formulate a soundlaw (it's certainly not the case that a
pretonic circumflex _always_ attracts the ictus). And, as
Stang notices, it's difficult to explain why we see D, L
lju^dImU, lju^dIxU, but not G, I *lju^dIjI, *lju^dImi. The
G and L are supposed to have had a long final vowel
(ljudIjI:, ljudImi:), so there may be a pattern there, but
it's also one that's difficult to generalize.

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal