The example of vi"dêti clearly illustrates the need for a
leftward accent shift besides Hirt's law. The PIE prototype
is a fientive/essive, with aorist root *wid-éh1-, present
root *wid-h1-yé- (> *wid-ih1é-?). We have:
inf. *wid-eh1-téi
l-ptc. *wid-eh1-lós
*wid-eh1-láh2
aor.1. *wid-eh1-sóm
aor.3. *wid-éh1-t
(*wid-eh1-ét ?)
pr.1. *wid-ih1-ó:
pr.3. *wid-ih1-éti
*wid-ih1-ét
After Hirt's law, that becomes:
inf. *wid-éh1-tei
l-ptc. *wid-éh1-las
*wid-éh1-lah2
aor.1. *wid-éh1-sam
aor.3. *wid-éh1-t
(*wid-eh1-ét ?)
pr.1. *wid-ih1-ó:
pr.3. *wid-ih1-éti
*wid-ih1-ét
After Winter's law:
inf. *wi:d-é:-tei
l-ptc. *wi:d-é:-las
*wi:d-é:-la:
aor.1. *wi:d-é:-xam
aor.3. *wi:d-é:-t
(*wi:d-é::-t ?)
pr.1. *wi:d-i-ó:
pr.3. *wi:d-í:-ti
*wi:d-í:-t
We now have an AP(b) paradigm, and the MAS model offers no
law that I know of to turn this into what's actually
attested (an AP(a) paradigm).
So I'm proposing:
After -Dybo:
inf. *wí:dE:te:
l-ptc. *wí:dE:luh
*wí:dE:la:
aor.1. *wí:dE:xuN
aor.3. *wí:dE:(tU)
pr.1. *wí:djo:
pr.3. *wí:di:ti
*wí:di:(tU)
We go on with a.p. b verbs:
Athematic jImamI. Accentuation jImámI or ímamI by Stang's
law: Zaliznjak gives the valency of -a- as [-Re]. This
suggests a circumflex -a~-, which can then only be explained
by accepting Rasmussen's derivation of the form as from a
PIE perfect *h1e-h1om- > *-o::m- ("I have got" => "I have").
The present tense root *im- "get, take" was prefixed to that
for clarity, resulting in *im-o::m-mi => imó~-mi, imó~-ti,
etc.
"C-thematics":
jIdóN "I go", jI-tí. Based on the imperative of *h1ei-,
*i-dhí (therefore inherently oxytone and athematic => AP b).
mogóN "I can", mog-tí. Must originally have had fixed
barytone accent (Ablaut *mógh- ~ *mágh- ?) => AP a. Became
AP b through +Dybo. The accent was retracted again by
Stang's law (mogóN, mòz^etI, etc.).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...