[tied] Re: More Slavic accentology

From: Anders R. Jørgensen
Message: 35416
Date: 2004-12-10

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:59:35 +0000, "Anders R. Jørgensen"
> <ollga_loudec@...> wrote:
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
> >>
> >> 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
> >from a PIE end-stressed word), were accented *-íjo-, *-íko-.
> >gives end-stressed adjectives in -ÌcI, -Icà, -Icè and
-ÌjI, -
Ijà, -
> >Ijè (SA 190).
> But by what law does PIE *-ikó- become *-íko-?

The same that produced Lith. -ìka-. I don't think it is a sound

> >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]).

I may not have been paying sufficient attention to this alternative
explanation. Why was the adjectival suffixes -ikó- and -ijó-
to mobility, and not -inó- and -iskó-? I think the comparison
between Slav. (pre-Dybo) *-íko- : Lith. -ìka-, Slav. *-ímo-
: Lith. -
ìma- can hardly be ignored.

And it is unlikely to be a coincidence that the neuter nouns we find
belonging to AP (c) do not contain the sequence C1+C2 described
earlier: polje, morje, te^sto, meNso, etc.