On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:46:51 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer
<
mcv@...> wrote:
>verbs in -e-
>do not neatly distinguish between AP(b) and AP(c) [see
>"Osnovy slavjanskoj akcentologii", pp. 36-37], although
>traces of AP(b) e-verbs can be observed.
I reproduce the table given on p. 37 (I can't do the accent
signs, so I'll use the following system:
old acute (//)
acute-type ictus (|)
(neo-)circumflex (^)
short (\\)
neo-acute long (/)
neo-acute short (\)
):
Original system Secondary (PS) system
a.p. b a.p. c a.p. b forms a.p c forms
pres. 1sg. *bodoN| *ve\\doN (*nesoN|) *ne\\soN
pres. 3sg. *bode|tI *vedetI| *nese|tI ~ *nese\tI
pres. 2pl. *bode|te *vedete| *nese|te *nesete|
l-ptc. m. *bodlU| *ve\\dlU *ne\slU (*ne\\slU)
f. *bodla| *vedla| *nesla|
n. *bodlo| *ve\\dlo *neslo| (*ne\\slo)
en-ptc. m. *bode|nU *ve\\denU *nese|nU (*ne\\senU)
f. *bode|na *vedena| (*nese|na) *nesena|
n. *bode|no *ve\\deno (*nese|no) [*neseno|]
Between () forms that are only attested in peripheral areas.
Between [] analogical forms.
As to the 3rd. p. sg., another factor which may have
confused the picture is the existence in Proto-Slavic of a
3rd. person subjunctive/injunctive mood, characterized by
the ending *-t (instead of *-ti). I discussed this some
time ago, with examples of modal use in Krivichian of the
endings without -tI.
The paradigm of a regular AP(c) thematic verb would have
been:
1. nèsoN
2. neses^Ì
3. nesetÌ
nesèt
1. nesemÙ
2. nesetè
3. nesoNtÌ
nesóNt,
giving:
1. ne\\soN
2. nese\s^I
3. nese\tI
nese|(tU)
1. nese\mU
2. nesete|
3. nesoN/tI
nesoN|(tU)
The forms in -tI have neo-acute, for the forms in -0 or -tU
we would expect old acute (in final position, Dybo's '|').
I'm not sure how this relates to the lengthening of the
thematic vowel, which is briefly discussed by Dybo et al.
(p. 17-18), and also by Vermeer (in Lehfeld 2001), but
neither of them giving the full details.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...