On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:09:45 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
<
S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, mkapovic@... wrote:
>
>> 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.
>...
>>but how can you explain that PIE
>> *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.
>
>Hey, THAT was Miguel's point: Hirt's Law fails in the *iHC or *uHC
>contexts if the laryngeal was h2 or h3. Actually, your examples
>(*pih3u- > *pivo 'a drink', *gWih3ru- >*z^irU 'generous fare, fat',
>*deh3r- > *darU 'gift'
This one falls outside the scope of my suggestion. *e +
(any) laryngeal should have triggered Hirt's law,
independent of the nature of the laryngeal.
Kortlandt's explanation is that the mobility in Russ. dalá
arises from the fact that the form still had zero-grade at
the time of Hirt's law (*dh3-l-áh2), and that the form with
full grade *oh3 > a is analogical.
I was just re-reading Jens' "Die Vorgeschichte der BS
Akzentuierung", and I see that Latvian infinitives in -i:t
and -u:t show the same phenomenon.
Many of them have Dehnton (= acute barytone):
sku~t, gu~t, pu~t, s^u~t
ri~t, mi~t, pazi~t
This is in accordance with Hirt's law.
But others have Brechton (pointing to formerly end-stress):
bût "be",
liêt/lît "pour/rain", vît "turn,wind", dzît "live", mît
"change", pît "twine", plîties virsu: "sich aufdrängen",
where at least the first four match the Slavic forms nicely
(bylá, lilá, vilá, zhilá).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...