Re: [tied] More Slavic accentology

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 35384
Date: 2004-12-08

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:08:56 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer
<mcv@...> wrote:

>[*] 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

I now think the soundlaw actually applies to all final
stressed vowels preceded by a long vowel.

If we look at verbal i-stems, we see a couple of unexpected
acute forms in AP's b and c:

infinitive: (B) nosi''ti
(C) lovi''ti
supine: (B) nosi''tU
-- not in C --
aorist: (B) nosi''xU
(C) lovi''xU
aor 2/3 sg: (B) nosi' (?)
-- not in C --
l-ptc.: (B) nosi''lU, nosi''lo, nosi''la
-- not in C --

As I suggested before, the accentual charateristics of
i-verbs can be derived from their original PIE shapes
(causative/iteratives *-éie- > -íye- > -i~:- with falling
intonation, denominatives -iyé- > -í:- with rising
intonation). A third possibility is of course unstressed
-iye-, which gives -i:- (unstressed long, not circumflex).
Unstressed -iye- is what we originally had in the
infinitive, supine, s-aorist and l-ptc. (*nok^/low-eie-téi,
*nok^/low-eie-tós, *nok^/low-eie-sóm, *nok^/low-eie-lós).

In AP(b) i-verbs, which maintain the PIE ictus unchanged,
the expected outcomes would have been: *nosi:tí, *nosi:tÚ,
*nosi:xÚ and *nosi:lÚ. These were all retracted to nosí:ti,
nosí:tU, nosí:xU, nosí:lU, just like *me~:Nsó (also not
mobile, like all oxytone neuters) was retracted to mé~:Nso
(which then *did* decome mobile analogically).

In AP(c) i-verbs, the retraction only affected non-mobile
paradigms: the infinitive (not a paradigm but a frozen
case-form) and the s-aorist (immobile in PIE). It did not
affect inherently mobile paradigms (l-ptc., 2/3 aor., sup.)

This retraction law also explains the infinitives by''ti,
pi''ti etc., for expected mobile bytí, pití, etc.
Analogical extension of the infinitive accentuation to the
rest of the "infinitive system" might also explain strígti
(stríc^i) and other such AP(c) verbs with AP(a) infinitive
system (and acute root due to Winter's law).

For pá:dla, sé:dla, jé:dla/já:dla (with e/o-grade of the
(C1)VC2 root [where C2=stop]), I perhaps prefer an
explanation involving already PIE barytone *pód-los,
*séd-los, *h1éd-los.

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