Re: [tied] Re: Various loose thoughts

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 36339
Date: 2005-02-16

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 05:46:28 +0000, pielewe
<wrvermeer@...> wrote:

>--- In, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> domU (~ Grk. dómos, Lith. nãmas) and dolU (Grk. thólos) are
>> originally a.p. b, so domò(v)i, dolò(v)i are regular, by
>> Dybo's law.
>That is interesting, but from a late Common Slavic point of view they
>are (c). And given that fact, the presence of end-stressed "dolój"
>and "domój" may (or may not) be significant.

They are relicts.

>> The ablative is also a "non-oxytonic" case (*-óod).
>> The vowel stems, when they became mobile in BS, did
>> introduce a few idiosyncracies of their own, like the
>> (originally) end-stressed o-stem Npl. *-ój, or the
>> end-stressed i- and u-stem's (*-é:i, *-é:u).
>Yes but that too has to be explained.

As far as I can see, those are the only three cases where
the vowel stems deviate from the C-stem pattern. The m.
Npl. *dhroughój was maintained as oxytone besides retracted
Apl. *dhróugho:ns (we might have expected the same in the f. -á:s vs. Apl. '-a:ns, but here the N. was replaced by
the A.; Lith. may have retacted the stress secondarily).
In the i- and u-stems, the non-oxytone's *-éjes,
*-éwes did not allow such an option. On the other hand, the
L.'s *-é:i, *-é:u, besides D. *-éjei, *-éwei, *did* call for
oxytonesis of the Lsg. ending, unlike in the o- and
a:-stems, where D. and L. were not syllabically different
(*-o~i ~ *-oi~; *-a~i ~ *-a~i).

>> I have written about this on several occasions. The word
>> peró (= Grk. pterón) is an oxytone neuter, and as such it
>> was a.p. b _before_ Dybo's law.
>I know, but we're not concerned with your theory here, but trying to
>clarify K's theory so that intelligent and effective criticism
>becomes possible instead of the ineffectual criticism based on
>externalities that has been the norm for the past thirty years.
>In K's theory oxytone neuters owe their existence to the limitations
>of Ebeling's law as sketched in AS: 5-6 ("unless the preceding
>syllable is closed by an obstruent"). Unfortunately, as I wrote
>yesterday, the further fate of that paradigm has been dealt with very
>skimpily by K or other accentologists continuing his work. We also
>need a suitable term to refer to these cases because real (b)'s are
>so completely different that it is courting disaster to operate with
>a term containing the element "(b)". I've considered "(e)" in the
>past, but that does not cover Baltic. [The point recurs later in this
>> The whole point of Pedersen's law (i.e. the spread of
>> mobility to the vowel stems), at least in the nouns, must
>> originally have been to distinguish the nominative sg. from
>> the accusative sg. prosodically (a secondary, but more
>> lasting, effect would have been to establish a prosodic
>> distinction between NA pl/du and oblique pl./du.). That is
>> why "oxytone" (better: theme-stressed) vowel stems were
>> affected, because they could retract the accent of the
>> accusative to the initial syllable, e.g. N. gol&vá: ~ A.
>> gól&va:m, mimicking dug&té:: ~ dúg&terim. This also means
>> that neuters were not affected. The neuter C-stems were
>> barytonic anyway (*nébhos, *n.'mn.), there were no neuter u-
>> and a:-stems, and the very few neuter i-stems (*mori) became
>> neuter jo-stems. That only leaves the oxytone neuter
>> o-stems, which remained theme-stressed and were unaffected
>> by Pedersen's law.
>> Illich-Svitych correctly identified the fate of oxytone
>> o-stems in Slavic (his [sg.] examples are peró (Grk.
>> pterón), gnêzdó (Skt. ni:d.ám), jeNdró (Skt. a:n.d.ám),
>> oNtró (Skt. a:ntrám), sidló (Gmc. saila), gUrnó (Skt.
>> ghr.n.ás), dUnó (*dhubnóm), sUtó (*k^m.tóm)), but this did
>> not fit into the Lithuanian-inspired "two-paradigms
>> paradigm", and was apparently forgotten by Dybo (who writes
>> that there is "insufficient data" to clear up the fate of
>> the PIE oxytone neuters).
>Interesting. Do you happen to have the reference? (I'm very much
>interested in this point.)

Illich-Svitych $47, $48.

Dybo, SA, p. 24 footnote 10 ("v ètu gruppu [mobile o-stems <
neuters] vxodjat lis^' dolgotnye oxytona neutra"), which in
Dybo et al. OSA, p. 45, footnote 28 becomes: "v ètu gruppu
vxodjat lis^' dolgotnye oxytona neutra, refleksacija
kratkostnyx oxytona neutra do konca ne vyjasnena vvidu
nedostatka materiala".

>> I'm confused by your terminology. "Genuine (b)" for me
>> means *pre-Dybo* (b)'s, in other words: (1) the neuter
>> oxytones like peró, vêdró, okUnó; (2) the compound words
>> made with dominant theme-stressed suffixes like *-ikós; (3)
>> the theme-stressed verbs in *-jé-, *-né-, *-í:-.
>What I call "genuine (b)" is Stang's (b), e.g. the paradigm that
>started off as stem-stressed in Balto-Slavic (because the stem was
>plus, in terms of the valency theory) until it became oxytone as a
>consequence of Dybo's law only to receive stem-stressed forms as a
>consequence of Stang's law. Since it is this paradigm that literally
>*everybody* has been calling (b) since Stang introduced his taxonomy
>in 1957, I think it is very confusing to use the designation (b) also
>for a paradigm that has a completely different history and background
>(even if they often merged with genuine (b)'s at a late Slavic
>A second reason why I can't help finding (b) a dangerous choice
>(dangerous from a communicative point of view) is that Stang's
>taxonomy refers to a late Slavic stage, whereas you use his scheme to
>talk about Balto-Slavic. To the extent that there is a traditional
>designation of BSl accentual paradigms it uses Roman numerals, so
>perhaps it might make sense to consider the possibility of calling
>your BSl (b) something like "III", or whatever.

The first time I mentioned my theory about three
Pro-Balto-Slavic accent paradigms, I called them I
(barytone), II (theme-stressed) and III (mobile). I should
perhaps return to that practice, given that the old a.p. I
words have developed into a.p. a and b in Slavic (and then b
> c or even a > c in some cases), and that the old a.p. II
verbs have generally developed into a.p. a or b verbs (also
some b > c here, as in the bodoN-group).

>> But the PIE accent was still *dhworikós and *moldikós (and,
>> incidentally, *bhrah2trikós). The suffix *-ikós is
>> dominant, i.e stressed.
>No. Please. This is important. Within the early MAS conception of BSl
>stress assignment, which K's theory is built on, a dominant suffix
>never attracts the stress from a dominant stem. So you inevitably end
>up with *dhwórikos and *bhráh2trikos. This is a central point. The
>MAS reconstruction just does not allow for suffixes that receive the
>stress independently of the prosodic characteristics of the stem they
>are attached to.
>Mind you, I can very well imagine the MAS reconstruction breaking
>down under scrutiny, but that's a point that should be addressed
>seriously and at length. A paper that would refute the MAS conception
>of stress assignment in a credible way and put something better in
>its place would constitute a revolution. I for one would welcome it.
>But as long as that has not been done it looks to me like an
>unnecessary regression to pre-Stangian confusion.

I see it as a return to etymology. I have only a limited
grasp of the laws of accentuation concerning suffixes in
PIE, but it seems to me that in PIE the situation was very
different from that of BS (according to the MAS model).
Some suffixes were usually unstressed, some were usually
stressed, and some others were either stressed or
unstressed, depending on meaning (Skt. ápas- "work", apás-
"active"; dá:tar- "giving", da:tár- "giver", etc.).

Early Balto-Slavic seems to have simplified and regularized
this system, leading to two well-defined classes of
suffixes, stressed and unstressed (traces of the previous
situation still remain, e.g. o"rdlo is a.p. a, despite the
fact that -dló is a stressed suffix, but in accordance with
the PIE etymon *h2ár&3-trom).

Without this etymological/PIE background, the terms
"dominant" and "recessive" suffix are unmotivated labels.
They do the job, but we know nothing about their genesis.

>> The a.p. of the base noun doesn't
>> matter. All words in *-ikós (and similar suffixes) were
>> a.p. b in Proto-Slavic. The retraction law which I have
>> dubbed "minus Dybo" (or "Kurylowicz's law"), which is
>> simultaneous to Dybo's law, pulls the accent back to any
>> preceding acute (e.g. bra/tIcI' > bra"tIcI), but all others
>> (i.e. from a.p. b and a.p. c base words) remain a.p. b, the
>> only thing happening is retraction of the stress from a
>> final yer (dvorI`cI, dvorIca`; moldI`cI, moldIca`).
>That's all very nice, but you really need to show why "The a.p. of
>the base noun doesn't matter" because that statement constitutes a
>*fundamental* departure from one of the corner stones of post-
>Stangian accentology. MAS accentology derives its strength from the
>simple stress rule it reduces the multiplicity of Baltic and Slavic
>stress patterns to. You need a strong case if you want to convince
>people that that rule should be abandoned again.
>I'd written:
>> >Shënim: *dvorIcI is a derivation from (pre-Dybo) *dvòrU, which is
>> >and as such is assumed to retain the stress in suffixal
>> >The MAS scheme (which K adheres to) unambiguously generates
>> >here, which is shifted to *dvorÌcI by Dybo's law.
>Then you wrote:
>> That is wrong. The word is dvoréc, dvorcá in Russian.
>It is a misunderstanding to think that R. "dvoréc" cannot continue

That's why I added the gen. dvorcá.

>[I won't discuss you reconstruction here because in my view that will
>make sense only after it has been shown that the MAS rule for stress
>assignment is insufficient.]
>[On the Lsg of i- and u-stems:]
>> ... how does Kortlandt explain that? Are *-e:i and
>> *-o:u closed syllables?
>I've no idea, but those endings are end-stressed in mobile paradigms
>in Common Slavic and that's the point that is at issue here.
>> In the case of synU, I would say that the BS form *was*
>> stem-stressed (OLith sú:nus, 1>3). There are no a.p. a
>> u-stems in Slavic, so something must've happened to them
>> (they have become mobile).
>Unless they didn't exist to begin with. Note that the word for 'son'
>expresses a key concept and is one of the most frequent nouns of the
>language. If it would have received consistent (a)-stress it is
>pretty unlikely to have abandoned that stress pattern again even if
>such other (a)-stressed u-stems as were around did become mobile. The
>word is ideally fitted for a "last Mohican" role. It is quite often
>idiosyncratic (cf. the Russian plural "synov'ja" or the Czech or Old
>Croatian Vsg synu/sinu, to mention no other examples). It strongly
>influenced the afterlife of the u-stem paradigm in Slavic. It was
>supported by the semantically related word for 'brother'. This just
>won't wash.

It apparently washes in Lithuanian. I have no clear picture
in my mind at present as to how and why a.p. a u-stems
became mobile in Slavic, but I'll have another think about

>> Hirt's law did affect the Nsg. (*suHnús > *súHnus), which
>> was enough to make the whole paradigm barytone, cf. C-stems
>> like z^I"rny < *gWr.h2núh2, where _only_ the was
>> affected by Hirt's law [_all_ other case forms have two or
>> more syllables, and Hirt's law could not affect them]. When
>> Hirt's law killed mobility's raison d'être, it was given up
>> (which makes it more remarkable that mobility wasn't killed
>> off later when nom. and acc. merged in most root types).
>That must be it, for the time being,

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal