Re: Slavic accentology

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:50:54 +0000, pielewe
> <wrvermeer@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>

wrote:

[On the accentuation of *volja-type nouns]

> Well, I find Stang's reasoning perfectly clear and
> unobjectionable. The final -a is long (Pol.dial. wolå),
> which indicates some kind of vowel contraction, parallel to,
> but earlier than, Pol. dial. braciå < bra"tIja. Since we
> have -Ijá (e.g. semIjá) and "-Ija (bra"tIja), but not -Ìja
> (where one would expect *volÌja > *vòlIja), it stands to
> reason that *volÌja became *voljã > vòlja:. This then also
> explains kléNtva as from *kleNtÙwa > *kleNtwã > kléNtva:.
>

The point is that the _I_ that is needed for the explanation to work
is not attested in the nouns involved in texts that otherwise show
weak jers, so one has to postulate an unparalleled contraction only
for this type of case. Stang does not argue the point and writes as
if the _I_ is nicely attested.


[In addition the mechanism by which the _I_ is held to disappear
precisely in those instances in which it is purported to have been
stressed is too unnatural not to raise suspicion.]


W.



W.