--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
> Would the Lithuanian diphthong attract the acute before long medial
<y>? Cf. <kláusti> : <klausýti>; that's different from the *dah2iwer-
case.
I'm not sure I follow you here. You probably meant that {-ý-} should
attract the ictus from every diphthong, even an acuted one? Indeed,
since the causative/iterative suffix {-ý-} forming infinitives of *-
ja-/*-e:- verbs is accentologically weak (has negative accentological
valency), the ictus is postulated to be on the root for the pre-
Saussure state. Anyway, Saussure's-Fortunatov's law, in this case
formulated as "the ictus is attracted from the root's last non-acuted
syllable to an acuted (even accentologically weak) suffix and is not
attracted to a non-acuted (accentologically weak) suffix", seemes to
work in most cases (exceptions are rare and at least some of them are
alleged).
Examples:
1. acuted root, the ictus is not attracted:
<síeki> ~ <sáikstyti> (-st-)
<díegti> ~ <dáigyti>
<spáusti> ~ <spáudyti>
<tráukti> ~ <tráukyti>
<gniáuz^ti> ~ <gniáuz^yti>
<gríez^ti> ~ <gráiz^yti>
<láuz^ti> ~ <láuz^yti>
<niáukti> ~ <niáukstytis> (-st-)
<bré:z^ti> (< *bríez^ti < *bHreiH-g^-) ~ <bráiz^yti>
<spráusti> ~ <spráudyti>
<dz^iáuti> ~ <dz^iáustyti> (-st-)
<kráuti> ~ <kráustyti> (-st-)
<máuti> ~ <máustyti> (-st-)
<pjáuti> ~ <pjáustyti> (-st-)
<ráuti> ~ <ráustyti> (-st-)
<líeti> ~ <láistyti> (-st-)
<svíesti> ~ <sváidyti>
<s^áuti> ~ <s^áudyti>
<gáuti> ~ <gáudyti> (-d-)
dial. <c^íez^ti> ~ <c^áiz^yti>
<gnýbti> ~ <gnáibyti>
<mýgti> ~ <máigyti>
<skíesti> ~ <skáidyti>
<léisti> ~ <láidyti>
<smáugti> ~ <smáugyti>
<káuti> ~ <káustyti> (-st-)
2. circumflexed root, the ictus is attracted:
<plau~kti> ~ <plaukýti>
<sklei~sti> ~ <sklaidýti>
<brau~kti> ~ <braukýti>
<dau~z^ti> ~ <dauz^ýti>
<drie~kti> ~ <draikýti>
<gau~bti> ~ <gaubstýti>
<glau~bti> ~ <glaubstýti> (-st-)
<glau~sti> ~ <glaudýti>
<ie~z^ti> ~ <aiz^ýti>
<kniau~sti> ~ <kniausýti>
<krei~kti> ~ <kraikýti>
<lau~pti> ~ <laupýti>
<lie~z^ti> ~ <laiz^ýti>
<mau~kti> ~ <maukýti>
<grie~bti> ~ <graibýti>
<klei~pti> ~ <klaipýti>
<krei~pti> ~ <kraipýti>
<pie~s^ti> ~ <pais^ýti>
<smei~gti> ~ <smaigýti>
<s^ie~pti> ~ <s^aipýtis>
<drau~sti> ~ (dial.) <draustýti> (-st-)
<kau~pti> ~ (dial.) <kaupýti>
<stie~ptis> ~ <staipýtis>
<vie~pti> ~ <vaipýtis>
<kei~sti> ~ <kaistýti>
<rie~sti> ~ <raitýti>
<siau~sti> ~ <siaustýti> (-st-)
<skliau~sti> ~ <skliaustýti> (-st-)
<s^vei~sti> 'do something intensively' ~ <s^vaistýti> (-st-)
<s^vie~sti> 'shine' ~ <s^vaistýti> (-st-)
<glie~ti> ~ <glaistýti> (-st-)
<s^lie~ti> ~ <s^laistýti> (-st-)
<sie~ti> ~ <saistýti> (-st-)
<grie~ti> ~ <graistýti> (-st-)
<kláusti> ~ <klausýti> is not even an exception supporting the rule --
it's rather a lame (even if celebrated) counterexample, since some
lexemes belonging to the root are reconstructed with a laryngeal and
others without it for Proto-Balto-Slavic and even PIE (cf. Derksen's
hesitations in Leiden's PIED). Such "vacillating" underlying
laryngeals might have easily trigger metatony, or <kláusti> ~
<klausýti> could well be underlied by different -- laryngeal and
laryngealless -- protoforms.
> Besides, isn't <dailýti> just a dialectal by-form of <dalýti>,
possibly influenced by ORuss. de^liti?
Quite possible, but the form has been cited in the literature so
consistently that I have nearly accepted its value. BTW, the normal
Lithuanian substitute for Standard Old Russian /e^/ is /ie/ even in
the earliest loans. I'm not good at language influences, but it looks
a bit strange to me when somebody changes <dalýti> to <dailýti>
having heard his neighbour to utter what he percieves as [dielyti].
Can the Germanic influence on Lithuanian be excluded in that case?
Sergei