Re: Slavic *-je/o

From: Sergejus Tarasovas
Message: 45967
Date: 2006-09-05

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> Hirt's Law failed because the laryngeal was _vocalised_ after a
liquid,
> and the resulting schwa (which didn't cause any effects triggering
> Hirt's Law) was syncopated, as in Latv. dzer^t 'drink' < *gWer&téi
<
> *gWerh3-téi.

Do you follow Jens Rasmussen here? But I don't follow anyway. You
said laryngeals had been lost by the time of Hirt's Law, so that it's
the acuted length that triggered it, and at the same time you state
that the combinations with schwa, wich eventually ended up as the
acuted length as well (dzer^t, gérti), didn't trigger. What's the
trick? Is it something like postulating that the consonantal
laryngeals had been lost (yielding acuted length) by the time of the
operation of Hirt's Law, while the schwa survived only to be later
(after Hirt's Law) syncopated yielding the same acuted lehgth?

> How would you explain the root stress in mókyti?
>
> Derksen has "PIE *meh2k-", which might (with a little sleight-of-
hand)
> be connected with Gk. me:kHané:, as proposed by Fraenkel. I wish I
could
> propose a better etymology.

I meant if the infinitive ending (*-téi) was originally stressed (as
you seemed to state, if I followed you), how come the stress has
eventually occured on the root in mókyti? My point was that while
your explanation works for suffix-stressed infinitives like darýti
(where the infinitive ending would yield the ictus to the acuted
suffix -ý-), it fails to explain mókyti. Or am I missing somehting?

Sergei