From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 35155
Date: 2004-11-21
>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"Another source of AP 3 in Lith. is, if I'm not mistaken,
>> <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>>
>>> But we still have acute, eg., in the infinitives: *píti, *býti,
>>> *z^íti etc. Of course, *l is a sonorant and *t is not, so the
>>> vocalization rules might depend on that. Is that what you mean?
>>
>> On a second thought, this is not a problem, if the circumflex is not
>> a result of the contraction, but rather a metatony by Meillet's law
>> (infinitive stands out of the paradigm, so Meillet's law doesn't
>> operate on it).
>
>The accentuation of *pil7, *pila, *pilo is definitely due to Meillet's
>law, as is the accentuation of *byl7, *z^il7 etc. But the question is why
>do we have the mobility here in BSl and not the fixed root stress? The
>same goes for Slavic *pivo, *z^ir7 (this we have already mentioned),
>*dar7, *z^iv7 etc. It is not very clear how did the Lithuanian paradigm 3
>(mobile with the acute) come into being - if there is an acute in the root
>why is there no Hirt's law (and thus acc. paradigm 1)?
>Some of the examples like Lith. galva` (3) are explained like *golHweh2
>where there is no Hirt's law because the *H is not immediately after the
>vowel (ther is a *l in between)
> but how can you explain that PIEMy provisional explanation is that *gwih3wós first became
>*gWriHwéh2 is a. p. 1 in Lithuanian (a. p. a in Slavic) and that PIE
>*gWih3wós is a. p. 3 in Lith. (a. p. c in Slavic)? Both are oxytona in
>Vedic.