On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 03:29:19 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer
<
mcv@...> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:06:28 +0000, elmeras2000
><jer@...> wrote:
>
>>--- 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 ?
>
>I already discussed this. sêdê"ti and bêz^a"ti are mobile.
>The infinitive system is in itself non-mobile (the inf. and
>[s-]aor. always are, the l-ptc. has been immobilized here by
>Hirt's law), so the soundlaw could have worked, but it was
>blocked analogically by the fact that all other a.p. c verbs
>in -êti have stress on the -ê. Note that in a purely
>immobile context (bê"gnoNti) the soundlaw works fine.
More generally, I think this tends to confirm that Meillet,
+Dybo and -Dybo all worked at approximately the same time.
In principle, Meillet works only on a.p. c, +Dybo on a.p. a,
and -Dybo an a.p. b. But -Dybo can also be expected to work
on immobile parts of mobile paradigms, such as the
infinitive and the s-aorist. The evidence, however, is
contradictory. The law fails to work in cases such as
z^ertí, dertí, stertí, pertí (*-erH-), peNtí, teNtí (*-eNH-)
and stergtí (Winter's law), plus bêz^a"ti, sêdê"ti and
perhaps a few others of that ilk. It works in the cases of
by"ti, pi"ti and z^i"ti (if one accepts Francis/Normier for
Balto-Slavic), vi"ti, li"ti, pê"ti (*eiH/*oiH, so no Hirt),
s^e"kti (long grade *e:, so no Hirt), strê"gti, mel"zti,
preN"dti, stri"gti, bleN"dti (Winter's law, no Hirt).
If we consider that there was a leftward pull by -Dybo in
case of an acute pretonic syllable (e.g. se:dé:tei ~>
sé:de:tei) while at the same time, elsewhere in the
paradigm, that acute syllable was being destroyed by
Meillet's law (e.g. sé:djoN => se~:djoN), the mixed results
that we see are perhaps not surprising.
In the case of ê/i-verbs there is also the question of when
exactly they became mobile, and what they were before that.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...