Re: [tied] More Slavic accentology

>
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:54:18 +0100 (CET), mkapovic@...
> wrote:
>
>>The mobility of i-stems is not relevant, as I have already once mentioned
>>since there is an overall tendency for i-stems to become mobile.
>
> What it looks like is that i-stems behave as masc. o-stems,
> i.e. what should have become AP(b) i-stems after Dybo's law,
> appear as AP(c) mobile i-stems. There are plenty of AP(a)
> i-stems.

Not really the same I think. I written something about it and it seems
that a. p. a i-stems also show a tendency of becoming a. p. c i-stems.

> In the u-stems, something like the opposite has happened.
> AP(b) u-stems are not uncommon (they have a tendency to
> become o-stems, however, filling part of the void left by
> AP(b) o-stems becoming mobile), and there are practically no
> AP(a) u-stems. If the AP(a) u-stems became AP(c), that
> would explain why Hirt's law apparently does not apply to
> synU.

Yes, like *vol7, *volu (b) which later becomes o-stem (b).
I think you may be on the right track with *syn7. Everybody seems to
forget (including me) that su:nus was originally a. p. 1 in Lith. and that
mobility is secondary. So Slavic *syn7 may not be a case of Meillet's Law
- it may have just changed the paradigm because it was an u-stem. That
seems to be common in Slavic.

Mate