Re: [tied] Re: More Slavic accentology

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:59:35 +0000, "Anders R. Jørgensen"
<ollga_loudec@...> wrote:

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

But by what law does PIE *-ikó- become *-íko-?

>So it seems to have nothing to do with neuters in
>particular.

The connection with neuters is accidental. Lacking a
separate accusative case, they were resistant to becoming
mobile. That's why the original paradigm with stress on the
thematic vowel was retained there, as it was in other
isolated cases (-ikó-, -ijó-, the [thematic] s-aorist,
perhaps the l-ptc. [of obstruent-stems]).

>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.

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