Re: [tied] Re: Slavic accentology: "Pedersen's Law"

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:11:15 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>> >> 2) Hirt's law. A non-vocalic laryngeal in the first
>> >> syllable attracts the stress. Raises the number of
>> >> barytones.
>> >>
>> >> [3) Winter's law. Causes acute tone, but does not (usually)
>> >> result in retraction of the stress, so must come after
>> >> Hirt's]
>> >
>> >Only if the prosodic trigger was the same in the two cases. Since
>> >that does not have to be so, nothing seems to be really known
>about
>> >that point. It will be an argument only to those who assume
>> >that "glottalization" had coalesced with laryngeals. How they can
>> >believe they know that is beyond me.
>>
>> I wasn't implying anything of the kind. I do observe that
>> both Winter's law and laryngeals result in acute prosody.
>> But that includes vocalized laryngeals that do *not* trigger
>> Hirt's law, so there is no basis even _without_ Winter's
>> law.
>
>Then what *did* you imply? What caused you to use the fact that
>Winter's law does not cause stress retraction to assign it to a
>later period? I can't follow your reasoning here.

The fact that sometimes, Winter's law does cause retraction,
or so it seems. Besides the cases Mate mentioned, there are
also the AP(a) infinitives like pasti (pad-), stric^i
(str(e)ig-), and such l-ptc. as séla, éla (frequently
mentioned by Kortlandt).


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