From: mkapovic@...
Message: 38551
Date: 2005-06-12
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:I agree. Stang pulled a similar thing in Baltic with Lithuanian metatony
>> 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. wolĺ),
>> which indicates some kind of vowel contraction, parallel to,
>> but earlier than, Pol. dial. braciĺ < bra"tIja. Since we
>> have -Ijá (e.g. semIjá) and "-Ija (bra"tIja), but not -Ěja
>> (where one would expect *volĚja > *vňlIja), it stands to
>> reason that *volĚja became *voljă > vňlja:. This then also
>> explains kléNtva as from *kleNtŮwa > *kleNtwă > 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.]