Re: [tied] Re: Some accentological thoughts...

From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 47642
Date: 2007-02-27

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:39:49 -0000, "tgpedersen"
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:53:43 -0000, "tgpedersen"
>> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>>
>> >> The solution is to start from a mobile paradigm
>> >> *vIdová, acc. vÍdovoN. Then, weak yers lose their
>> >> stressability: *vIdová, *vIdóvoN.
>> >
>> >In terms I can understand:
>> >*vidová, *vídovoN -> (jerification)
>> >*vIdová, *vídovoN -> (regularization)
>>
>> I wouldn't put it like that. The change i > I was
>> unconditional and independent of stress.
>>
>> >*vIdová, *vIdóvoN
>
>The *result* of the rule, yes. But was it applied everywhere
>simultaneously? We don't know. This mechanism ultimately delivers the
>same result. There's something that doesn't feel right about the idea
>of a vowel that gets so short that it can't carry the stress anymore.
>Why should that happen to a stressed vowel? Jerification of unstressed
>vowels makes phonological sense. Jerification of stressed vowels
>doesn't, so we better find a different mechanism which achieves the
>same result.

The mechanism to look for is the one that explains the
attested facts. And the facts are that Proto-Slavic /i/ and
/u/ were "reduced" (to something like /'&/, /&/) everywhere,
independently of the stress. Then, following Havlík's law,
which is also independent of the position of the stress, the
weak yers were further reduced to zero. The mechanism
you're proposing would have produced cases of unreduced /i/
and /u/ under the stress (e.g. in fixed-stress paradigms),
which simply do not occur. Phonologically, there is nothing
nonsensical about stressed schwa's. They exist in many
languages, such as Catalan, Romanian, English, Slovene,
Bulgarian, Sanskrit, etc.

>The reconstructions of PIE stress in whichever nominal paradigms I've
>seen had the same stress in Nsg and Asg. What is the reason for the
>stress alternation eg golová, gólovu?

In the vowel stems, mobility is secondary in Balto-Slavic.
The mobility comes from the C-stems.

The proterodynamic paradigm:

PIE
N *h2ák^mo:n
A *h2ák^monm.

Hysterodynamic:

N *dhugHté:r
A *dhugHtérm.

In Balto-Slavic, two things happened that caused nom. and
acc. stress to diverge. In the first place, a posttonic long
vowel (lengthened grade, not two contracted vowels or a
vowel + laryngeal) attracted the stress. Secondly, syllabic
resonants developed into diphthongs R. > iR (uR).

This way, we get:

N *h2ak^mó:n *dhugHté:r
A *h2ák^menim *dhugHtérim

Polarisation of the stress to either initial or final
position gives Proto-Balto-Slavic:

N *h2ak^mó~ *dhugHté~
A *h2ák^menim *dhúgHterim

= Lith. akmuõ, àkmeniN; dukte~, dùkteriN

This was the kind of mobility that was transferred to the
oxytone vowel-stems:

N *dhroughós
A *dhroughóm > *dhróughom

N *ungnís
A *ungním > *úngnim

N *suHnús
A *suHnúm > *súHnum

N *galHwáh2
A *galHwáh2m > *gálHwah2m

but of course not the neuters:

NA *pteróm


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