--- In cybalist@..., (in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/15802 to be precise)
Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> In the plural, we have a different picture. The acuteness of the
acc.pl. (and the nom.pl. of adjectival o-stems), apparently reflects
the PIE short prosody of e.g. o-stems nom.pl. *-oy and acc.pl. *-ons,
as opposed to long prosody in the oblique (e.g. G.pl. *-o~m). If
this principle had been applied in the singular, we would expect the
nom. and acc. sg to have been subject to Saussure's law as well. In
fact, where mobility shifts the accent to the last syllable in the i-
and u-stems, we see that the accent on at least the nom.sg. [but not
the acc.sg.] is acute (-ìs, -ùs). And yet, an accent class 2
noun like tur~gus, in violation of Saussure's law, does not change to
*turgùs in the nom.sg.
How do you deduce that the nominative singular (-ìs, -ùs) is
acute? My understanding is that acute and circumflex are only
distinguished in stressed long vowels and diphthongs, and so in
themselves these forms reveal nothing. Moreover, PIE -is, -us should
have yielded circumflex, not acute.
I have notes that say that Saussure's law applies synchronically. Is
this wrong? I certainly can't reconcile it with the dative dual and
plural endings (o-stems -ám, áms and a:-stems óm, óms) where rãtas
forms rãtam, rãtams, not *ratám, *ratáms, and similarly
rankà forms ran~kom, ran~koms.
Richard.