From: Anders R. Jørgensen
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 21:59:35 +0000, "Anders R. Jørgensen"wrote:
> <ollga_loudec@...> wrote:
> >--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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-.This
> >gives end-stressed adjectives in -ÌcI, -Icà, -Icè and-ÌjI, -
> >Ijè (SA 190).The same that produced Lith. -ìka-. I don't think it is a sound
> But by what law does PIE *-ikó- become *-íko-?
>I may not have been paying sufficient attention to this alternative
> >So it seems to have nothing to do with neuters in
> 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]).