Re: [tied] Slavic *sla"va

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:16:14 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
<s.tarasovas@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>>> > So (excluding myself from this equation) there are three
>persons
>> >that reject *klow : Derksen, Kortlandt and Sergei: all of them "see"
>> >an *e/e: in the PIE form and not an *o.
>>
>> No-one in his right mind sees an /e:/ there.
>
>
>As you probably already know from Derksen, his reconstruction is (as
>usual) actually a Kortlandt's one, stemming (if I haven't missed
>something) from Kortlandt's article in Baltistica (21, p. 120) of 1985
>(https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/retrieve/2555/344_045.pdf).
>
>It seemes he (Kortlandt) is as usual reluctant to elaborate on his
>proposal; at least a dilettant like me would appreciate any assistance
>in trying to understand what he means exactly.

I don't understand that passage either.

In any case, the solution of slava/slove: seems clear to me:
there is no PIE prototype, and what we have is a
Balto-Slavic vowel lengthening *s^law- > *s^la:w- of the
type we also see in the verbs mentioned by Dybo in SA, p.
210 (skaka"ti, skac^jóN; xapa"ti, xapjóN; xrama"ti, xramjóN
etc.) [In the process of lengthening [*k^léwos >] *s^láwas
=> *s^lá:w(ij)a:, the root-stress of the NAsg. was
apparently carried over to the new formation, which explains
why slava is a.p. a (and s^love: probably a.p. 1), while
slovo is a.p. c]

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