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,

How did you get to that conclusion? In what language is it a. p. c? Croat.
la~dja, Bulg. ládija, Russ. lódIja/lodIjá.

>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.

I still don't get it why would some *-Ija get contracted and some
wouldn't. And what is worse, only supposedly accented *-Ija gets
contracted. Very strange. According to your/Stang's solution, you need to
operate with an ad hoc contraction/dropping of the yer which supposedly
elides some yers but not others. And this all yer story is unnecessary
since only -ja will do. Nouns in -ja show lengthening, that is clear, how
do we account for that lengthening phonetically is another question but I
certainly think it's not necessary to posit an anattested yer just because
we have a long vowel.

Mate