Re: [tied] Some lengthened vowel Slavic verbs

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:08:31 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapović
<mkapovic@...> wrote:

>On Sub, lipanj 24, 2006 2:06 am, Miguel Carrasquer reče:
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 01:51:02 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapović
>> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Miguel Carrasquer
>>>> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:13 AM
>>>> Subject: [tied] Some lengthened vowel Slavic verbs
>>>
>>>> As noticed by Dybo, the distribution of je-verbs with
>>>> lengthened root vowel is the following:
>>>> - i > i:, u > u: are in a.p. a (sy"pati, my"kati, smy"kati,
>>>> ty"kati, sy"sati, pry"skati, bry"zgati, sti"gati)
>>>> - e > e:, a > a: are in a.p. b (skaka"ti, xapa"ti, xrama"ti,
>>>> maka"ti, kaza"ti, drĂŞma"ti)
>>>>
>>>> The lengthening of the root vowel in these verbs must
>>>> therefore be relatively ancient, as it follows the PIE
>>>> distribution where the only long /i:/ and /u:/ were acute
>>>> (from /iH/ and /uH/), while a:, e: and o: could be either
>>>> acute or circumflex.
>>>
>>>I don't understand the point. Do you wish to propose that these new long
>>>*i: and *u:'s got the acute because *i: and *u:'s had the acute always
>>>originally?
>>
>> They got the acute beacuse at the time there was no such
>> thing as circumflex long /i~/ or /u~/. Only /a~/, /e~/ and
>> /o~/ had been inherited from PIE.
>
>On a second thought, I have some trouble with this. Do you presume *short*
>circumflexed vowels by /a~/, /e~/ and /o~/?

No, certainly not. I just thought the notation /a:~/ etc.
would be redundant.

>Acute long *a:, *e: and *o: were of course present in Balto-Slavic
>(< PIE *eh2, *eh1, *oH).
>In the case of examples like skoc^iti - skakati we are apparently dealing
>with old long *o: here. But according to you, PIE *o: should yield the
>acute, right? >Why the difference between sy´´pati and skaka´´ti then?

No I don't think we're dealing with old long *o: here. I
think we're dealing with new (Balto-)Slavic */aa/, etc.:
expressive reduplication of the root syllable to denote the
iterative aspect.

The chronology I sketched in my original mesage was:

1) Inherited PIE long grade in certain R(o:)-[e]ye
causative-ieratives (Slavic i/i-verbs). Yields Slavic acute
(unless of course occurring in a diphthong). This is a PIE
phenomenon with PIE prosody [ga"ziti ~ davi"ti].

2) Old (Balto?-)Slavic expressive lengthening in newer
iteratives (Slavic je/a-verbs). Yields Slavic circumflex if
the root vowel was *a or *e (*aa > a~, *ee > e~), but acute
if the vowel was *i or *u (ii > i:, uu > u:). This is a
(Balto-)Slavic phenomenon with still PIE prosody [sy"pati ~
skaka"ti].

3) New Slavic expressive lengthening in newest iteratives
(Slavic aje/a-verbs). Yields Slavic circumflex (ii > i~, uu

> u~). This is a Slavic phenomenon with Slavic prosody

[-bira"ti, -zyva"ti].

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