From: mkapovic@...
Message: 35190
Date: 2004-11-23
>That's just modern Lithuanian. There has been a general change in
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:44:50 +0000, "Anders R. Jřrgensen"
> <ollga_loudec@...> wrote:
>
>>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:59:57 +0000, "Anders R. Jřrgensen"
>>> <ollga_loudec@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Otherwise, the examples of Hirt's Law should then of course only
>>> >reflect roots with -h1-. Indeed *wiH-ró- 'man' (to *wih1-
>>> > 'strength'?), *dHuh1-mó- 'smoke', puh1-ró- 'wheat' show
>>Hirt's
>>> >Law and *gWih3wó- doesn't. On the other hand, isn't Latv. gru~ts
>>> >'heavy' < *gWruh2-tó- problematic?
>>>
>>> My knowledge of Latvian accentuation is unfortunately
>>> limited. What would the corresponding Lith. accent paradigm
>>> be?
>>
>>As I understand it, Latv. gru~ts (and syllables with the Dehnton in
>>general) reflects a root-stressed acute paradigm and would
>>correspond to the Lith. AP 1. Had it been acute and mobile, we would
>>have expected *grűts with the Brechton.
>
> But could it have been acute and not mobile? If Latvian is
> like Lithuanian, the answer is probably no, as my Lith.
> grammar claims that bisyllabic adjectives are always mobile
> (ap. 3 or 4). But then such adjectives can never show the
> effect of Hirt's law.