Re: [tied] The disappearance of *-s -- The saga continues

----- Original Message -----
From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] The disappearance of *-s -- The saga continues


> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
> wrote:
> > But in Slavic monosyllables need not be circumflexed. In Croatian
> there is
> > aorist bi^ from bi``ti "to be" < *byti (PIE *bhuH-), but aorist
> from bi``ti
> > "to beat" < *biti (PIE *bhiH-) is bi`` (ra`zbi, u`bi etc.).
>
> I know that, these things got lexicalized, and levelling analogy hit
> biti 'beat' and many other, but not some very prominent and
> important verbs like biti 'be', dati 'give' and a number of others.

No. The differens between bi``ti (bu``de:m), da``ti, pra``ti, li``ti and
bi``ti (bi``je:m), s^i``ti, zna``ti etc. is that the first are a. p. c and
the second are a. p. a. It's the same thing we have in Chakavian
dogovori``ti, l-part. do``govori:l and pomoli``ti se, l-part. pomoli``l se.
The first one is mobile and the second is not because it's a. p. b. You
can't explain initial stress in a. p. c in 2/3 sg aorist, masculine and
neutrum l-part. etc. with your monosyllable rool. It's a completely
different thing.

> Phonetic rules hhave to made on the basis of the examples that
> cannot be analogical, and forms that differ from each other are not
> analogically connected.

This is not question of phonetics. This is a morpho(phono)logical question.


Mate