Re: [tied] Slavic adjectives

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:27:32 +0100 (CET), Mate Kapović
<mkapovic@...> wrote:

>On Pon, veljača 19, 2007 12:26 am, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:
>> We have (based on the Russian data) four types:
>>
>> a.p. a:
>> gla"dUkU, gla"dUko, gla"dUka
>> gla"dUkUjI, gla"dUkoje, gla"dUkaja
>>
>> a.p. a/b:
>> gotóvU, gotóvo, gotóva
>> gotóvUjI, gotóvoje, gotóvaja
>>
>> a.p. b:
>> teNz^élU, teNz^eló, teNz^elá
>> teNz^élUjI, teNz^éloje, teNz^élaja
>>
>> a.p. c:
>> ve``selU, ve``selo, veselá
>> vesélUjI, veséloje, vesélaja
>
>The latter is not archaic, cf. Croat. dial. veselî. There is no reason for
>polysyllabic stems to behave any different than monosyllabic ones.

Can you tell me more about the Croatian forms? I was under
the impression that South Slavic in general had retracted
the accent in a.p. c adjectives (I checked and found Bulg.
vésel, SCr ve``seo, ve``sela, Svn. vese^l).

BTW, what books can you recommend on South Slavic
[descriptive] accentology in general (and Croatian in
particular)?

>> Assigning +Re to the a.p. c forms here would have resulted
>> in *veselÚjI, *veselóje, *veselája, which is incorrect.
>
>That's why you cannot just look at Russian .-)
>
>> The
>> explanation through Stang's law works here, which of course
>> doesn't make up for the fact that it *doesn't* for the
>> "standard" 2-syllabic mobile adjectives, and that there's
>> still no contraction in Russian.
>>
>> So what is going here? I have no good explanation for
>> Russian vesëlyj, vesëlaja either.
>
>It's analogical after a. p. b. In polysyllabic stems, Russian eliminates
>the end-stress.
>
>[...]
>
>Veséloje is out of the picture and gotóvoje is exactly the same thing as
>béloje the only difference being that the stem has two syllables.

Hmm, I wonder if it's as simple as that... Why did Dybo's
law work in *go'tovo[je] > goto'vo[je], and in *be^'lo >
be^lo', but not in be^'loje? Is goto'voje analogical after
teNz^e'loje and vese'loje too?

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...