Re: Slavic accentual mobility

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
wrote:

>
> What about 1. sg *go``voroN : 1. pl. *govori:m'o? Is that also

influenced by

> aorist? Or supine *do``govorit7?

I did not say it was analogical on the aorist. Perhaps I should. I
do say it is mobile; this is the way mobility works. Incidentally,
the accent you ask about *is* in full accordance with that of the
aorist. As you know there is not very much accented evidence on
Slavic aorists, but the Serbo-Croatian facts are indeed
unproblematic here. The supine has the same accentuation as the l-
participle.

> And why does aorist influence only masc. and neutrum?

The whole l-ptc. is just as mobile as a mobile adjective (Russ. sux,
suxá, súxo; C^ak. sûh, su:ha``, sûho).

> Pattern *do``govoril7, *dogovori:l'a, *do``govori:lo; pl.

*do``govorili,

> *do``govorily, *dogovori:l'a is exactly the same thing we have in

nouns. We

> have *go``vor7, *go``vori (~ *do``govoril7, *do``govorili),

*zol^to,

> *zolt'a (~ *do``govorilo, *dogovori:l'a) and *golv'a, *gol^vy
> (*dogovori:l'a, *do``govorily).
> If you want adjectives it's the same as *gol^d6n7, *gold6n'a,

*gol^d6no;

> *gol^d6ni, *gol^d6ny, *gold6n'a. Funny coincidence, isn't it?

It's fully expected. And it's what I meant. What other point are you
trying to make?

> > > 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.
> >
> > The art is to bridge the gap. This was done for the first time by
> > Illic^-Svityc^ and Dybo who added the last missing link

explaining

> > type b. Now we can observe full continuity.
>
> Yes, but the things that are sometimes done in order to connect

Slavic and

> PIE are not an art. An illustrative example is Slavic *v6l^k7 (a.

p. c).

> That doesn't go well with stem-stressed forms in Greek, Vedic (and
> Germanic). And what does Illic^-Svityc^do? He finds some

Belorussian dialect

> in which *v6lk7 is supposedly a. p. b and says that is an

archaism. Of

> course he adduces no more evidence from that dialect but for that

word in N.

> and G. sg. (the right thing to do would be to exemplify the whole

system,

> individual words mean nothing if there's no context).

And what would that have shown? Please tell us, this sounds
important. Il.-Sv. is completely honest about the mobility of Lith.
vil~kas which he say just contradicts the evidence of the other
branches of IE. But since mobility is rather plainly productive I do
not see the great problem. The rules have to based on the archaisms,
and a mobile word just cannot be trusted.

Jens