Re: [tied] More Slavic accentology

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:30:25 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer
<mcv@...> wrote:

>
>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.

But I was wrong (e.g. vêdró).

>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).

Make that 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mobile, like all oxytone neuters) was retracted to mé:Nso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).

The idea is then that V~...V'# -> V':...V (unstressed
circumflex attracts ictus from immediately following
stressed final syllable and becomes acute. In the case of
me::nsó the resulting paradigm would have been:

*mé:nso, *mé:nsa, *mé:nsu, *mé:nsê, *me:nsomÍ
*mé:nsa, *mé:nsU, me:nsomÚ, me:nsêxÚ, me:nsomí,

which was then assimilated to AP(c).

>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.

Only if *(i/u)@(2/3) gave circumflex *i~, *u~.

>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).

Cancel that.

>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@...