In Copenhagen, some of us believe in a sound law we call "Slaaby-Larsen's Law" (named
after Martin Slaaby-Larsen, who pointed it out to us). The sound law resembles "van Wijk's
Law" (see e.g. Collinge, The Laws of I-E, p. 197-198). Central to van Wijk, however, were
clusters containing *j (the so-called *vòlja-type), which I think is another - and much
more complicated - story. Accordingly, in order to avoid confusion, I call the law
presented here Slaaby-Larsen's law.
A tentative and, to some extent, theory-neutral formulation of the law is:
In Pre-Slavic, words with mobile accentuation containing a medial cluster C1C2 (where C1
= obstruent, C2 = any consonant, probably except j and w) get fixed root-stress (yielding
CS a.p. a or - via Dybo's law - a.p. b).
This explains:
Pre-Sl. mobile *dubna > CS *dUnò;
Pre-Sl. mobile *gnayzda > CS *gne^zdò;
Pre-Sl. mobile *seydla > CS *sidlò;
Pre-Sl. mobile *kirsnu *kirsna: *kirsna > CS *c^I´rnU *c^Irnà *c^Irnò;
Pre-Sl. mobile *agni > CS *ògnI;
Pre-Sl. mobile *mizda: > CS *mIzdà;
(? Pre-Sl. mobile *p(t)etra > CS *però;)
etc.
Pre-Sl. mobile *neslu *nesla: *nesla > CS *nèslU *neslà *neslò;
Pre-Sl. mobile *peklu *pekla: *pekla > CS *pèklU *peklà *peklò;
Pre-Sl. mobile *kla:dlu *kla:dla: *kla:dla > CS *kla"dlU *kla"dla *kla"dlo;
Pre-Sl. mobile *pa:dlu *pa:dla: *pa:dla > CS *pa"dlU *pa"dla *pa"dlo;
Pre-Sl. mobile *se:dlu *se:dla: *se:dla > CS *se^"dlU *se^"dla *se^"dlo;
Pre-Sl. mobile *e:dlu *e:dla: *e:dla > CS *e^"dlU *e^"dla *e^"dlo;
etc.
(Cf. Pre-Sl. mobile *derlu *derla: *derla > CS *dêrlU *derlà *dêrlo with C1 not = obstr.)
Pre-Sl. mobile *tapna:n *tapnexi etc. > CS *tonù *tònes^I etc.;
etc. (this applies to most ne-presents).
Pre-Sl. end-stressed *kla:dte:y > CS *kla"sti;
Pre-Sl. end-stressed *pa:dte:y > CS *pa"sti;
etc.
(Cf. Pre-Sl. end-stressed *ge:rte:y > CS *z^ertì with C1 not = obstr.)
Thomas
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, 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
[
]
> 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.