--- In
cybalist@egroups.com, Andrei Markine <andrey@...> wrote:
> When writing "common", I meant "not unusual" since suffix -nu- is
used in
> very large number of verbs. Infinitive of such verbs has full
suffix -nu-,
> future/present - only -n-.
>
You're perfectly right, it was my neglect to left the idea
unexpanded. -no,-class verbs change infinitive's -no,- to -n- in
present tense forms.
> I still have doubts about this - all other verbs with identical
structure
> (prefix on vowel + im + ti) do not have -n- in present/future
forms:
> pon'at' - pojmu, zan'ati - zajmu, and infinitive shows expected -'a-
.
> Can the stress be of importance here?
>
Yes, that's just what I meant and noted
>>(taking into account acute's generalization on vy-):
Old acute stress on u: prevents stress retraction onto other
syllables (compare pon'At'-pOn'al-pon'alA-pojmU, zan'At'-zAn'al-
zan'alA-zajmU and vYnut'(<vun'at', analogical equalization ?)-vYnul-
vYnula-Vynu). What else can provide us with variants is -j-:-n-
alternation across Slavic dialects. Consider this:
*poje,ti *pone,ti *vyje,ti *vyne,ti
*pojImo, *ponImo, *vyjImo, *vynImo,.
Possible Russian reflexes (in view of stress):
**pojat' pon'at' **vyjat' **vyn'at'(>vynut' ?)
pojmu **pon'mu **vyjmu **vyn'mu (>vynu ?).
** forms haven't come into Standard Russian (it doesn't mean they
can't be found in dialects etc). It seemes that Standard Russian
consistently prefers -n-variant for infinitives and -j-variant for
present tense when the stress is not fixed. It seemes very probable
that nonretractable stress made vyn'mu>vynu more preferrable to
expected vyjmu, but we should find another old-acuted-prefix to test
this. *Vy- is the only I know. Any ideas?
Sergei