Re: [tied] Re: Slavic accentology

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:15:55 +0200 (CEST), mkapovic@...
wrote:

>OK, but there was not *I there, as I have shown, and we *do* get a
>lengthened -ja. It is obvious that for some reason it lengthened. Do you
>have an alternative solution?

My preferred solution would involve a vowel contraction, as
that is the most likely source for a long circumflex vowel.

>Another reason why *-Ija is not possible is that in that case we would
>also expect for instance *-Ije to lengthen. Ofcourse, that *does* happen,
>e. g. in Polish dialects and in some Štokavian/Čakavian dialects but not
>in *all*, so it's clearly a local and later development.

At a much earlier stage *-ije- *did* contract to /i:~/ in
the causative/iteratives (*-éje-) and denominatives
(*-ijé-). Although it didn't in the i-stem masc. nom. pl.
-Ije.

>P.S. Miguel, you haven't responded to my examples of the difference of
>*-dja and *-dIja.

Well, lodIja is ap c, and gordja is a vo`lja-word, so the
two are not necessarily equatable. If, as Stang's solution
implies, in *gordI`ja > go`rdja the yer was elided/
contracted _before_ the breakup of Common Slavic, the
sequence *dj will show its usual reflexes in the daughter
languages.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...