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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen" <jer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] The disappearance of *-s -- The saga continues


>
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Mate Kapovic wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> I disagree. Both sets should have been type a because they contain
> sequences of the structure VHC which should trigger Hirt's retraction.

Yes, it's a damn shame those bloody 'proto-Slavs' didn't know their IE
linguistics.... :-)

> Some of the verbs however entered the mobile type for some reason. I can
> see only the monosyllabic aorist as the causal factor. Those that retained
> the phonetically regular falling tone (circumflex) of the monosyllabic
> forms of the aorist, joined the mobile type and so acquired the forms you
> mention.

Not very likely. You are supposing that monosyllables (those which were not
randomly regularised) influenced randomly other, polysyllabic verbs and then
even l-participle? This is highly unlikely especially if one has knowledge
of a whole system. Shift such as *do``govoril7 - *dogovori:la' has it's
paralels in other parts of the system. It can hardly be analogical after
aorist as you put it...
Anyway, I think that attestions of Slavic lgs are definitely more important
for the reconstruction of ProtoSlavic than what we think should happen with
it if we derive it from PIE.

Mate