Re: [tied] Slaaby-Larsen's law

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:42:56 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapoviæ
<mkapovic@...> wrote:

>On Uto, lipanj 13, 2006 1:07 am, Miguel Carrasquer reèe:
>
>> - The "meNso"-law, by which the presence of a pretonic long
>> circumflex causes the accent paradigm to become mobile. This
>> only applies in an open syllable (meN~.só => mê.so, perhaps
>> sIr.dI.cé => sIr~.dI.ce;

(I should have omitted the side remark on sIrdIce, as it's
not well thought-through yet)

>In *sIrdIce, the end-stress would synchronically be expected, as in Slavic
>*-Ice deminutives, cf. Croat. pívce, Russ. pivcó. I would rather attribute
>the initial circumflex in *sIrdIce to an archaism than to an innovation.
>*sIrdIc'e > *sIr^dIce makes no sense when all the other *-Ice words have
>desinential stress. Thus, it must be an archaism. I have argued that all
>the *-Ice words had mobile accentuation, and that *pi:vIc'e, *pi:vIc'a
>comes originally from *pi^vIce, *pi:vIc'a. The original circumflex is
>preserved in *sIr^dIce because it was semantically not a deminutive
>anymore.

The IE suffix *-ikó- had consistent end-stress, so the
expected accentuation is Balto-Slavic a.p. II, Slavic a.p. b
(before the meNso-law). The fact that sIrdIce was not
semantically a diminutive explains why the soundlaw was free
to act here, while it did not in similarly structured
diminutives, where the pressure from the normal end-stressed
forms was felt.

><je-verbs: da~.jóN => dâ.joN,
>> ne-verbs: vi~.nó: => vî.noN, etc.).
>
>*vi:n'o has end-stress.

-vinoNti, manoNti, minoNti and -meNnoNti are the only a.p. c
ne-verbs in Zaliznjak's list. They all have original
circumflex and open root syllable.

>> - The "jablUko"-law, whereby a pretonic acute attracts the
>> stress (ja_blUkó => ja"blUko; vê_dê'ti => vê"dêti, etc.)
>
>Your *jablUk'o is ad hoc. It is easier to assume *jáblo > *jáblUko. No
>additional laws are needed. The accent of the original form remains
>unchanged.

The original form is mobile (*h2ábo:l(s), *h2abulós; Lith.
obuoly~s). Addition of the stressed suffix *-kó immobilized
it as a.p. II. The acute comes from Winter's law, so there
is no possibility that the word had become a.p. I by Hirt's
law. The retraction must stem from a different soundlaw, as
it does in vê"dêti (but vêdê"la), by"ti (but bylá), ê"sti
(*d), preN"sti (*d), stri"ktji (*g), bleN"sti (*d), me"lzti
(*g^), vi"ti (but vilá), gni"ti (but gnilá), li"ti (but
lilá), pi"ti (but pilá), z^i"ti (but z^ilá), rju"ti, snu"ti,
tru"ti, z^u"ti; du"ti, c^u"ti, -u"ti... (all with *euH),
sê"sti (*d), vi"dêti (*d), etc.

>And how do you now that the accent in *vEdEti was not on the first
>syllable originally?

It was on the last syllable, as in all infinitives.
*woid-eh1-té(:)i becomes *waidé:tei by Hirt's law,
*wai_dé:tei by Winter's law, *waíde:ti: by the jablUko-law
(infinitives are never mobile, so Meillet's law never
applies).

>> - Stang's law, which eliminates non-acute stress on all
>> medial (but not final)
>
>Not in final? How about *volja^ > *vo`lja:?

By my definition of Stang's law, it comes before Dybo's law.
The retraction in volja~ is therefore a different thing (and
late).

>> Where Slaaby-Larsen's law fits in in this scheme is as a
>> restriction on Meillet's law: the law fails if the syllable
>> is closed.
>
>Huh? Do you mean cases like *grýzlU, *grýzla?
>What about *tE^sto "dough" ~ Old Irish táis (PIE *teh2yst-?)? You must
>have Meillet there to get rid of the acute from the laryngeal.

As I said, I'm not doing nouns at the moment. That said, I
recall Thomas or Anders mentioning that Slaaby-Larsen's law
doesn't work in sC-clusters (syllabification tê.sto?). Also,
there's no such thing as an ancient Balto-Slavic mobile
o-stem neuter noun: barytone neuters became a.p. I, oxytone
neuters a.p. II. All a.p. c neuters are secondary, or
adjectives.

>> On the other hand, da(d)mI, ê(d)mI and vê(d)mI do not behave
>> as expected. If Meillet's law failed in a closed syllable,
>> we would expect *da"mI, *ê"mI and *vê"mI etc.
>
>But Meillet's Law could have occurred after the *d's were dropped here.

But the aorist is, I believe, ê"sU, ê" [a-a] (contrast with
e.g. *byxÚ, by^ [b-c], where Meillet's law _did_ work).
Correct me if I'm wrong.

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