Would the Lithuanian diphthong attract the acute before long medial <y>? Cf. <kláusti> : <klausýti>; that's different from the *dah2iwer- case. Besides, isn't <dailýti> just a dialectal by-form of <dalýti>, possibly influenced by ORuss. de^liti?
Whatever be the case, the Slavic accentuation of *de^liti is fatal enough for my *dHoh1ilo- :-((
The fact remains that in both Slavic and Germanic the verb (Sl. *de^liti, Gmc. *dailjan-) appears to be derived from the noun 'division, portion, share' (Sl. *de^lU, Gmc. *dailiz ~ *dailaz ~ *dailo:), not the other way round, and that *dHoil- is not a well-formed PIE root. It must involve a suffix: *dHoi-l- (but what root would that be?) or *dHoH-il-. Since *-il- is something of a Germanic speciality as a deverbal noun suffix (as are also *o-grade derivatives of *dHeh1-), I think it's possible that *dHoh1-il- 'was formed in pre-Germanic, developed into *dail- and then was borrowed into Slavic without any traces of the laryngeal. It may have replaced any inherited Slavic synonyms based on of the *del- root, perhaps thanks to the deceptive similarity of *del-/*dol- and *de^l-.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:28 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Balto-Slavic *daili:te:i
But how the accent of Lith. dial. <dailýti> 'divide' (retracted to
the acuted suffix by Saussure's law) goes with *dHoh1-ilo-, which is
expected to yield acute (**dáilyti, cf. <díeveris> from *dah2iwer-)
rather than circumflex accent? I'm not sure what SCr <dijèliti> (1
sg. pr. <dìjelji:m>) and Russian <delít'> (3 sg. pr. <délit>) would
point to (but probably not to an old acute).