Re: [tied] Some accentological thoughts...

On Sub, ožujak 3, 2007 6:31 pm, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:

> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 12:32:29 +0100 (CET), Mate Kapović
> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>
>>On Sub, ožujak 3, 2007 3:05 am, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:
>>
>>>>Very strange. You're just adding like 2 or 3 totally unnecessary
>>>>sound-laws.
>>>
>>> There's only one soundlaw (lengthening of a.p. c stressed
>>> endings), which is needed anyway.
>>
>>I don't really see the need.
>
> I think it's needed to explain a multitude of phenomena,
> ranging from preserved length (e.g. Slovak thematic verbal
> -ie-,

Other sources are possible.

> NA pl. -á;

A problem, but cf. short -a in the fem. sg.

> Czech Lpl. -ích (Kashubian -e.X),

*-ě~xU is immanently long. No need for secondary lengthening.

> Dpl.
> -u:m,

Also tricky, could be unrelated.

> even SCr. Gpl. -a: [I know you won't agree]),

It is just interesting that this -a:, whatever its origin, occurs only in
Štokavian (sic!), and not in any Štokavian, but only in *innovative*
(Neo-Štokavian) dialects. There are *no* dialects (Štokavian or other)
which have conservative morphology *and* -a: in gen. pl.
If you think that -a: is original, why not consider it original as Dybo does?

> the
> neo-circumflex in Slovene,

A very complicated matter and not really solvable with old posttonic
length only I'm afraid.

> and stress retractions in e.g.
> Russian (DLpl. ljúdjam, ljúdjax),

The yers got lengthened?

> Serbian/Croatian (DLIpl.
> ko``njima)

That's actually dialectal. You ment Posavian ko``nji: etc. Again, why not
posit original *-y~/i~ ~ Lith. -ai~s if you think the length is old?

> and Slovene (Lsg. kô,nju, Lpl. kó.njih, Ipl.
> kó.nji).

Kó.njih is OK anyway, kó.nji could be analogical or regular if you
reconstruct long *-i: (by analogy to *-Imi > *-mi: or regular from BSl.).
Loc. sg. is problematic, but I don't get your solution.

Mate