Re: [tied] Some lengthened vowel Slavic verbs

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:52:04 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapović
<mkapovic@...> wrote:

>On Sub, lipanj 24, 2006 12:58 pm, Miguel Carrasquer reče:
>> I beg to disagree. The question is *why* are meNso and jaje
>> mobile? My answer is: precisely _because_ they had a
>> circumflex root diphthong in an open syllable in pretonic
>> position (a.p. II meN~sa' > a.p. c meN~sa).
>
>I fail to see why.

Because the words are descended from the PIE oxytone neuters
*me:msóm and *o:uyóm. They were in the peró-group in
Proto-Balto-Slavic. The shift to mobile accentuation
happened after Meillet's law, as it did in the oxytone né-
and yé-verbs ending in an open syllable (da~jó: > dâjoN,
vi~nó: > vînoN), by identfication of the old circumflex in
the pretonic syllable with the new "mobile circumflex"
resulting from Meillet's law.

>>>>Latv. sa`:ls (*sa:ls),
>>>
>>>I cannot accept long PIE *a: of non-laryngeal origin, but we've discussed
>>>this before.
>>
>> Yes. In any case the presence or absence of a laryngeal is
>> irrelevant, as *sah2l(s) would give exactly the same result
>> as *sa:l(s) (cf. a:-stem acc. sg. -ah2m, which also gives a
>> circumflex diphthong).
>
>*seh2ls would yield the acute. That's communis opinio.

I know it's communis opinio. It's still wrong, as Latvian
sa`:ls shows. The rising tone of the laryngeal is followed
by a falling tone of the resonant, and the result is a
falling diphthong.

>>>Many of those examples are indeed mobile and irrelevant, that is true.
>>> But
>>>not all. Cf. Czech c^ára, Ukr. c^ará with the exact parallel in Avestan
>>>c^a:ra:.

If this is originally a root noun *kWé:r-, circumflex is
what we expect (rising vowel, falling /r/). I'm not sure
why this word was in the barytone a.p. in Balto-Slavic.
What's the a.p. of Lithuanian ke~ras?


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