Re: [tied] More Slavic accentology

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 10:34:09 +0100 (CET), mkapovic@...
wrote:

>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 03:56:55 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer
>> <mcv@...> wrote:
>>
>> 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 krêslo, síto, ordlo, lêto 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.

My point was that before Dybo's law *dváram was just another
barytone neuter (and the merger of AP(b) and AP(c) in the
masculine o-stems cannot have preceded Dybo's law for the
same reason).

Before Dybo's law, there was no difference, ictus-wise,
between *dváram or *séitom (> sitÚ > sítU) and *séiHtom (>
si''to), nor between *zam~bam and *ra''kU.

Since only the barytone neuters affected by Dybo's law
become masculines, the change to masculinity must be related
to Dybo's law and cannot precede it. And since only the
barytone masculines affected by Dybo's law (at least in the
oblique plural) became mobile, the rise of mobility there
must be related to Dybo's law and cannot precede it.

In my earlier post, I noted that the distribution fits the
pattern of a push/pull chain:

>We seem to have a push or pull chain involving the following
>categories:
>
>1) expected AP(b) masculines => AP(c) [AP(d)] masculines
>(e.g. zôNbU)
>
>The empty slot is filled by:
>2) expected AP(b) neuters => AP(b) masculines;
>(e.g. dvorÚ > dvòrU)
>
>The empty slot is filled by:
>3) (some) expected AP(c) neuters => AP(b) neuters;
>(e.g. peró)
>
>The AP(c) neuters class does not empty, because the
>circumflex o-stem neuters remain (e.g. mêNso).

PIE oxytone neuters, such as *pteróm, always remained
oxytone[*]. When the non-acute barytone neuters became
oxytone by Dybo's law, the "oxytone neuter" category was
already taken, but the "oxytone masculine" category was
becoming empty because of the shift of non-acute barytone
masculines (also affected by Dybo's law, but not in the
singular) towards the mobile (AP(c)) paradigm.

From an abstract point of view, this makes perfect sense.
Practically, however, I don't really understand why it was
so important that the *dváram > *dvarám (AP(b)) class should
not merge with the *perám class, or why it was so important
that the category of oxytone masculines should not remain
empty (it was filled by ex-neuters, such as *dvorÚ, and also
by former u-stems, such as *volÚ).


[*] the driving factor behind the rise of mobility in the
a:- and o-stems (where PIE did not have mobility) was the
accusative sg. and pl. Since o-stem neuters did not have an
accusative, *pteróm and friends never became mobile. If the
class (which also includes acute roots) *had* acquired an
"enclinomenic" singular, there would no way for it to have
acquired final accent there again: Dybo's law can explain
peró (but that would then have had to become a masculine!),
but it cannot explain vêdró (*we:dróm < *wedróm) etc.
(Zaliznjak lists vinó, vêdró, gnêzdó, kriló, licé, mytó,
nutró, pljuc^é, prugló, runó, ruxló, siló, c^isló, jadró).
Remains the problem why mêNso and jâje (with PIE [super]long
vowel) *did* become AP(c), but here a simple soundlaw will
do: in inner syllables V:: > V:, with attraction of the
stress (like in final syllables we have -V:: > -V: with
raising of the vowel [e.g. ma:te:: > ma:ti:]).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...