From: Mate Kapovic
Message: 32218
Date: 2004-04-24
----- Original Message -----
From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:41 PM
Subject: [tied] 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?
The point I am trying to make is that inital accent appears all around the
system in a. p. c and that there is no reason for claiming that it's origin
in aorist comes from monosyllabic verbs originally. So 2/3 sg aorist cannot
be evidence in your monosyllabic theory. Bad "evidence" only weaken your
theory.
> > > > 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.
That would shown that for instance this word is really an archaism and not
an innovation. If one cites only one word it means nothing (in some dialects
for instance, all the words can be either a. p. a or a. p. b - does an
attestion of a. p. b from that dialect mean anything if you're trying to
decide on whether a noun was originally b or c?).
>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.
I have no problem with that. BSlavic *can* be innovative here but I am
trying to say that this methodology of looking for archaisms or supposed
archaisms isn't very good. He stumbles upon a word which accidentally suits
him and there you have it - it's an archaism! (By the way, in PIE itself,
the accent *wl´kwos is not expected considering the Nullstufe. Could it be
that BSl mobile *vilkas is a real archaism here? :-)).
Another example of such a faulty methodology is one I saw in one of
Vermeer's articles. He quotes as an example Dubrovnik variant ne`` zna:m
alongside ne` zna:m "I don't know" and tries to push the first one back to
PIE as an example of original initial stress. The real truth is it's just a
very young innovation which is widely known and widespread in some dialects.
Mate