From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 47679
Date: 2007-03-04
>On Ned, ožujak 4, 2007 1:50 am, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:I don't think so: the reduction of 3-moraic "long
>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 18:53:33 +0100 (CET), Mate Kapović
>> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, a detailed discussion of all these issues is
>> impossible, as I don't have the time.
>>
>> Just a few words about:
>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> I suppose you're referring to the fact that Dybo links the
>> length in Gpl. -U: somehow to the etymology, with a PIE
>> superlong *-őm (4 morae!).
>
>I don't think that Dybo thinks it was superlong. Just plain long.
>
>> I don't think the etymology is
>> relevant. The reduction of the 4 morae to 3 (*-u:m), then 2
>> (*-uN), then 1 (*-U) was a thing of the distant past
>
>And also problematic of course since that kind of shortening is pretty
>strange.
>> by theJust C. If B final stress had played a role, things would be
>> time the lengthening of stressed endings took place.
>> It is
>> clear that the process (OK, if it took place at all), took
>> place _after_ quantity had given way to quality as the main
>> marker of "long" vowels. I think we can get much more
>> interesting results if we let go of the prejudiced notion
>> that _etymological_ length or shortness played any role at
>> all in the process of final lengthening.
>
>Wouldn't you get too much lenghts in final syllables if all accented
>syllables lenghtened? (Both B or C or just C?)
>> About Gpl. -a:, I think it may indeed reflect the lengthenedThere is -ima, -ama of course. I don't want to dispute the
>> jer -U:, so is original, but that it cannot be the _normal_
>> reflex of final -U: (which is of course -0), so it's also
>> innovative.
>
>If -a: is from old long -U:, it is strange that there is no **-oma: in D.
>pl.,
>**-ěxa: in L. pl. Also there is not **pekoxa: in 1. pers. sg. ofThe 1st person (sg., du., pl.) aorist is a.p. B, so I
>aorist etc. (by the way, according to Kortlandt, one would expect aor.
>**peko~x which is nowhere to be found).
>> The only way -a: can be derived from a weakYes. Did I add that I wouldn't bet my life on the -sI
>> final -U: is if an enclitic followed. A "Bulgarian-like"
>> z^enU:-ti:xU, mu:z^I:-ti:xU won't do, but perhaps something
>> like z^enU:-sI, mu:z^I:-sI (as ungrammatical as zimu-sI >
>> zimu:s or le^to-sI > l(j)etos) could work. There is of
>> course no special reason why -sI should have been optionally
>> appended to the Gpl. as opposed to other cases, but only in
>> the Gpl. (and Dpl., Lpl.) would it have produced such a
>> phonetically striking result (z^ena:-s, z^enama(:)-s,
>> *z^enaha(:)-s), making it available for grammaticalization
>> as a replacement for the lost Gpl. ending in o- and
>> a:-stems. All we need is one dialect with a fondness of
>> adding -sI all over the place, from which the innovation
>> would have spread.
>
>I'm afraid that is completely ad hoc.
>-a: is confirmed as -U^ or -UUSure, I already agreed that -a: is innovative. Especially in
>(probably long schwa) in some Serbian Church Slavic monuments, that may
>point to its antiquity (or it may not), but in modern dialects it looks
>like a clear innovation (of whatever origin) since it appears *only* and
>*exclusively* in innovative Štokavian dialects. All Štokavian dialects
>with conservative morphology have -0 like Čakavian, Kajkavian etc.