--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> 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
> []
> After Hirt's law :
> inf. *wid-éh1-tei
> []
> After Winter's law :
> inf. *wi:d-é:-tei
> []
> After -Dybo :
> inf. *wí:dE:te: []
This will of course demand a soundlaw if the development was
phonetic. But was it? If it was, why did it not operate in sêdê´´ti
and bêz^´´ati ? One would like to regard sly´´s^ati as analogical on
vi´´dêti, but why is there *-s- in OHG hlose:n? Could there be
influence the other way around regarding the accent? Did the
imperative *k^lu-dhí (Ved. s´rudhí) have an emphatic variant *k^lú:-
dhi with initial accent, and could that be the starting point of the
acute barytonesis? Greek klûthi does have the length but is of
course irrelevant for the accent. It seems to me that if only
vi´´dêti is somehow secondary there are no serious problems with the
rest.
Jens