On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:30:22 +0100 (CET),
mkapovic@...
wrote:
>Is it really necessary to reconstruct *everything* from PIE?
You make it sound like that's a bad thing :-)
>In Slavic, a synchronic rool states that (in a. p. a) the accent (=acute)
>stays where it is in all the derivatives. Thus there is nothing
>exceptional in these examples if you only accept that verbs like
>*z^alovati or *staviti are younger derivatives, which they obviously are.
I wasn't suggesting that there was a form *gWe:l-eu-ah2-téi
in PIE (there probably *was* a causative *stoh2-éie-: Skt.
stha:páya-, Av. sta:ya-, OP asta:ya-).
The synchronic rule z^al(+)-ova'(+)-ti(+) => z^a"lovati
works just fine, of course. The question I am trying to
answer is how we got from the PIE situation to the Slavic
synchronic rule, and in order to do that we need a rule or
set of rules to explain how the accent was retracted. And I
mean something that actually works, not merely
misapplication of Hirt's law (as in Lehfeldt p. 60 and again
on p. 66).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...