[tied] Re: More Slavic accentology

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> >> neuters
> >> ending in -inó-, -imó-, -ikó-, -ijó- etc. are also AP(b):
> >> bIrvInó, govInó, gumInó, kopIjé, pisImó, sIrdIcé, etc., so
> >> the phenomenon is by no means restricted to formations
> >> containing -CC-.
> >
> >I may well be missing some points, but how do we know that we

should

> >reconstruct -inó-, -imó-, -ikó, -ijó- etc. in these words?
>
> Most of them will be substantivized neuter adjectives, where
> the stress was normally on the suffix, Skt. -(i)yá-, -má-,
> -(i)ká-, etc.
>
> >In Lith., -ìmas and -ìkas belong to AP 2, and thus point to older
> >immobile *-íma-, *-íka- (> Slav. -Imó, -Icé).
>
> The PIE accentuation is reflected in Skt. -(i)ká-, Grk.
> -(i)kó-. There was no PIE *-íko-, as far as I know.
> I see no reason to think there ever was a change in position
> of the ictus from PIE *-ikóm to Slavic -Icé. Lithuanian
> must have retracted the accent.
>

But Slavic itself shows that -iko- and -ijo-, when stressed (derived
from a PIE end-stressed word), were accented *-íjo-, *-íko-. This
gives end-stressed adjectives in -ÌcI, -Icà, -Icè and -ÌjI, -Ijà, -
Ijè (SA 190). So it seems to have nothing to do with neuters in
particular.

On the other hand, the suffix -ino- produces real mobility when
derived from mobile nouns in Lith. and Slavic. So I guess your
bIrvInó, govInó, gumInó may be problematic afterall.

Anders