Re: [tied] More Slavic accentology

>
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:56:55 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer
> <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>>First, there is the problem of words such as dvňrU and and
>>sítU. They were originally barytone non-acute o-stem
>>neuters, so we would expect *dvoró and *sitó. Well,
>>*lautgesetzlich* we would expect dvňrU and sítU, since PIE
>>*-om regularly gives Slavic -U, but the question is why this
>>group of neuters has been singled out to follow the
>>soundlaws to the letter, while all others have replaced the
>>NAsg. ending PBS *-am with *-a (presumably from the neuter
>>pronominal ending -o(d) > *-a).
>>
>>One might be tempted to think of a conditioned development,
>>where stressed *-ám becomes -o, while unstressed *-am
>>becomes -U, but this is completely out of character for a
>>Slavic soundlaw (no other vocalic developments from PBS to
>>Common Slavic depend on the position of the ictus), and it's
>>contradicted by cases where stressed *-ám becomes -U
>>(acc.sg.masc. *tom > tU) and where unstressed *-am gives -o
>>anyway (AP(a) síto, AP(c) męNso).
>
> I've just read Kortlandt's explanation for dvorU in "Slavic
> Accentuation". When the acc.sg. of o-stems became barytone
> ("barytonesis"), the acc.sg. ending became markedly
> unstressed, which clashed with the existence of oxytone
> neuters with the same ending (e.g. *p(t)erám). These
> therefore adopted the pronominal ending *-á (< *-od). The
> barytonic neuters merged with the masculines.
>
> It would be a nice explanation, were it not for the fact
> that not _all_ barytonic neuters become masculines. The
> AP(a) ones, such as kręslo, síto, ordlo, lęto etc. remain
> barytonic and neuter. And not all of those can be explained
> as old oxytones affected by Hirt's law.
>
> This also shows that whatever happened to make dvorU etc.
> masculine cannot have happened earlier than Dybo's law,
> because before that there was no AP(a) vs. AP(b).
>
> That Dybo's law could affect the NA *dváram > *dvarám also
> shows that at the time, the form was still a neuter. Else
> the advancement of the stress would have been blocked as it
> was in the AP(b) masculines (e.g. Acc.sg. *zam~bas does not
> become *zambám, because of the pressure from AP(c) [and (a)]
> to the efefct that the acc.sg.masc. is supposed to be
> unstressed).
>
> What remains incomprehensible to me is why a paradigm like
> that of post-Dybo *dvarám didn't merge with the oxytone
> neuters such as *perá(m) > peró.

Well, I don't see why would you have to assume that *dvor7 had to still be
neuter by the time of Dybo's law? *dv'or7 > *dvor'7 by Dybo's law would
work just fine and *zoNb7 was probably already a. p. c at that time
because of the tendency of o-stems shifting from a. p. b to a. p. c like
with Lith. a. p. 2 > 4, and 1 > 3, spreading mobility. The process was
probably analogical. So at the time of Dybo's law, *dv'or7 and *'zoNb7
were probably already different - the first one was barytone and thus was
included in Dybo's law and the other one was already enclinomen (not
accented) and thus could not paricipate in Dybo's law.

Mate