--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> An iterative like *nositI had *i from circumflexed (superlong) *í~
> resulting from the contraction of *-éje-. Like other non-acute
stresses
> in medial syllables, it was eliminated and the outcome of the Slavic
> accentual rules in this case is 3sg. *nòsitI, with initial stress. By
> contrast, the *i of the infinitive *nositi has fixed stress on the
> medial syllable (*nosi"ti), reflecting an acuted *í: [...].
From the point of view of the contemporary standard (more or less)
model of Slavic accentology (Stang-Moscow-Leiden), the accentual
history of these forms is slightly different. *nosi"ti is a (b)-verb
(Balto-Slavic columnal non-acute, vs. columnal acute in (a) and lateral
mobility in (c)), so before the operation of Dybo's Law the forms in
question would look like:
Moscow:
*'nosíti (ictus on -o-, -í- - unstressed old (Balto-Slavic) acute)
*'nosi:tI/tU/0 (ictus on -o-, -i:- - unstressed long non-acute, the
reflex of Balto-Slavic (unstressed) circumflex (vs. Slavic innovative
phonetic circumflex of (c)-forms))
Leiden:
*nòsiti (short rising stress on -o-, short -i- as a result of the loss
of post-tonic laryngeals)
*nòsi:tI/tU/0 (short rising stress on -o-, long -i:-).
After the operation of Dybo's Law, the picture would be like that:
Moscow:
*nosi"ti (-i"- - (stressed) old acute)
*nosîtI/tU/0 (-î- - (stressed) long falling, now phonetically the same
as the (long) falling of (c)-forms)
Leiden:
*nosìti (-ì- short rising)
*nosîtI/tU/0 (-î- - long falling).
After Stang's Law (in whatever formulation -- the result is the same in
that specific case):
Moscow:
*nosi"ti
*nòsitI/tU/0 (-ò- - short neo-acute)
Leiden:
*nosìti
*nòsitI/tU/0 (-ò- - short rising).
Sergei