Re: [tied] Re: Slavic accentology

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 38609
Date: 2005-06-14

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 02:40:49 +0200 (CEST), mkapovic@...
wrote:

>> 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/Èakavian 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.

The only information I had available was Zaliznjak, who
gives lodi/lodIji as a.p. 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.
>
>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.

Not really. The exact same thing happens in Vedic with the
"independent svarita". For instance, the i:-stems have:

G. dhiyás (vr.ki:h.-monosyllables)
G. rathías > rathyàs (vr.ki:h.-polysyllables)
G. de:vyá:s, rá:s.t.riya:s (de:vi:-group)

The sequence /iya/ remains as such when the accent is /iyá/
or /'..iya/, but it becomes /yà/ when originally /íya/.

The same with /uva/, e.g. in the u:-stems:

G. bhuvás vs. tanúas > tanvàs.

This independent svarita (ía > yà, úa > và) is a falling
accent, like presumably the Slavic circumflex.

I don't see why I should prefer a phonetically impossible
(or at least highly implausible) compensatory lengthening of
a _following_ vowel (after the loss of a completely
unattested geminate consonant) over a solution which is
parallelled in Vedic under the exact same accentual
circumstances (the "independent svarita"), and which
occurred again in Polish under different accentual
conditions (bra"tija > braciå).

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