> [mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Miguel Carrasquer
> Both c^inU and c^initi are a.p. c, so there is no doubt that
> the basic intonation was falling, both in pri- and in -c^ina.
> The fact that it's a compound a-stem with a "minusovyj"
> prefix explains the fixed (a.p. a) accentuation on the root,
> at least for Russian: see Zaliznjak 2.26.
Yes, if one takes the Moscow "valencies" doctrine for granted. But
actually the fixed accentuation on the root can be explained as the
effect of Dybo's Law if one supposes the ictus was initially fixed on
the (non-acute) prefix (as is always the case with Lith. prie- --
<príedanga> etc., Lithuanian has generalized acute, while Slavic --
non-acute).
My problem is that a long falling pitch accent should have yielded
the ictus back to the prefix according to the original (Stang's)
formualtion of Stang's Law ('retraction from medial or final
circumflex', like in *nosîs^i > *nòsis^i or *be^lâgo > *bé^lago).
Kortlandt's formulation (retraction 'from long falling vowels in
final syllables') lets the ictus rest on the root, though.
Anyway, *pric^îna (a) is a bit awkward a reconstruction for my taste.
Sergei