From: mkapovic@...
Message: 35215
Date: 2004-11-27
>But the shift of o-stems from a. p. b > c was probably analogical and it
> 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 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.
>
> 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 > dvňrU)
>>
>>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. męNso).
>
> 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 vędró (*we:dróm < *wedróm) etc.
> (Zaliznjak lists vinó, vędró, gnęzdó, kriló, licé, mytó,
> nutró, pljuc^é, prugló, runó, ruxló, siló, c^isló, jadró).
> Remains the problem why męNso 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@...
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>