From: Thomas Olander
Message: 35431
Date: 2004-12-11
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Anders R. Jørgensen <ollga_loudec@...> wrote:
> I now seem to recall that we (Slaaby-Larsen, Thomas and I), when
> discussing the retraction some years ago, found it not to apply to a
> sequence of -s- + -t/k-. Thus the suffix -iskó- > mobile '-IskU, -
> Iskà, '-sko, (cf. Lith. -is^kas, which gives a mobile paradigm
> with
> mobile words). However, -k^-C- and -z-d/g- does trigger the
> retraction.
True, C1 = *s does not trigger the law. The law distinguishes between Pre-Slavic *s (z) <
PIE *s (z) (not triggering the law) and Pre-Slavic *k´ g´(> CS *s z) < PIE *k^ g^ (triggering
it).
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> How does the theory deal with mobile words such as [from
> Zaliznjak's list] (o-stems) voskU, grozdU, drozdU, z^eslU,
> listU, mozgU, mostU, nerestU, piskU, rostU, (i-stems)
> grozdI, gostI, tIstI, volostI, v^estI, kostI, lIstI, mastI,
> mIstI, nozdrI, noktI, pektI, peNstI, slastI, strastI,
> trUstI, c^astI, c^IstI, s^IrstI, vlastI, s^estI, (a-stems)
> bedra, vesna, vIrsta, dUska, zvêzda, (adj) gustU, desnU,
> prostU, prêsnU, pustU, têsnU, xolostU, c^astU ?
*c^eNstI, *c^IstI, *orstU, *solstI, *strastI, *vêstI, *volstI seem to indicate that *-st- from
*-dt- or -tt- does not trigger the law. Then, as Anders has pointed out to me, infinitives
such as *ê"sti must be analogical after *gry"zti, probably due to the identical accentuation
of the l-participle (*ê"dlU, *gry"zlU).
A revised version of the law would be:
In Pre-Slavic, words containing a medial cluster C1C2 (where C1 = stop, C2 = any
consonant, probably except j and w) get fixed root-stress.
(*k^ g^ still being stops; the development of *-tt- to *-st- having been carried through)
Remaining counter-examples to Slaaby-Larsen's Law are:
*mastI, *notjI, *petjI (unexpected mobility)
- As Mate says, probably because of the productive mobility of i-stems.
*pre^snU (unexpected mobility)
- Might be Pre-Slavic *pre:sn- with *-sn-*;
*kridló, *vêdró, *sidló (unexpected Dybo's law because of acute root)
- Do we expect *kridló to be acute?
As to *sidló, Jens in his "Studien zur Morphophonemik" (1989), p. 60, says "unmittelbar
*séy-dHlo-m/-tlo-m" and asks if this might be a contaminated form. A pre-form
*séydHlom (or *seydHlóm) would yield *sidló.
- *vêdró is difficult. Perhaps like *bedra, i.e. an ablauting paradigm?
For *bedra, *de^snU, cf. what Anders said:
> bedra 'thigh' is etymologically obscure, as far as I know. It is
> sometimes connected with Lat. femur, -inis (with -bH- ~ -m-?). If
> this is correct, we would have had an ablauting paradigm, with
> instances of -en-, where the syllable wasn't closed.
> This leaves some adjectives
> in -no-, of which at least one one reflects an earlier *-ino-,
> desno, cf. Lith. de~s^inas, Skt. daks.iná-.
Thomas