From: mkapovic@...
Message: 35161
Date: 2004-11-21
>Lith. núogas, Slavic *nag7 (a.p.3/a) fits just fine for instance, cf.
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:02:16 +0100 (CET), mkapovic@...
> wrote:
>
>>> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
>>> <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But we still have acute, eg., in the infinitives: *pĂti, *bĂ˝ti,
>>>> *z^Ăti 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)
>
> Another source of AP 3 in Lith. is, if I'm not mistaken,
> Winter's law, which causes length / acute, but does not
> trigger Hirt's law.