Re: [tied] Re: More Slavic accentology

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 04:23:52 +0000, "Anders R. Jørgensen"
<ollga_loudec@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>>
>> >I think the comparison
>> >between Slav. (pre-Dybo) *-íko- : Lith. -ìka-, Slav.
>*-ímo-
>> >: Lith. -ìma- can hardly be ignored.
>>
>> Neither can the comparison between Slav. *-ikó- : PIE
>> *-ikó-, Slav. *-imó- : PIE *-imó-.
>
>Just bear in mind that we anyway have to explain why Baltic decided
>to put the stress on the -i- in *-íko- and *-ímo- and on the
>thematic vowel in *-inó- and *-iskó-. There is no sound law for
>that either (as far as I know).

There should be.

>Once we've explained that, there is a
>good chance we can use the same explanation for Slavic.

From where I stand, I don't need it for Slavic. Neuter
oxytone o-stems such as *pter-óm, *krid-lóm, *wedr-óm,
*o(:)ntróm, and words in *-inóm, *-ikóm, *-ijóm etc.
remained oxytone, which gives us exactly the accentual
pattern as attested in Slavic. This explains why barytone
non-acute o-stem neuters (*dhwórom, etc.) became masculines
when they were affected by Dybo's law: there was room to
move into in the AP(b) o-stem masc. category, while the
AP(b) o-stem neuter category was already occupied.

If we explain a part of these forms (the ones containing a
-CC- cluster) by Slaaby-Larsen's Law, on the other hand,
some problems remain:

- the ones not containing -CC- remain unexplained (i.e. we
still don't know what happened to all the oxytone neuters)
- why were the "CC-neuters" unaffected by Illich-Svitych's
law (i.e. did not become AP(b) masculines)?
- why were the "CC-neuters" with acute stem (kridló, vêdró,
sidló) affected by Dybo's law?

>What is PIE -imó-?

A mistake. Read *-ijó-.

>By the way, in Copenhagen we are taught that Lith. -ìmas is from *-
>m.no- > *-imno- > -ima-, a thematization of action nouns in *-men-,
>(cf. Rasmussen, Selected Papers, p. 201-2) This admittedly doesn't
>explain the accent, but otherwise seems reasonable

Yes.

>(could the suffix
>have been mixed up with the participle *-m.h1nó-, where Hirt's Law
>worked? > *-í´mno- > *-ímo-?)

Is Slavic -omU plus or minus?

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