--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> I'll try to recapitulate my thoughts.
[]
> The existence of a.p. II = a.p. b verbs (-né-, -jé-, -sk^é-
> verbs, iteratives and denominatives in -i~- and -í:-) and
> nouns (o-stem neuters) _before_ Dybo's law is something of a
> novelty, as far as I know. It raises the possibility of a
> parallel "Obyd's law" (Dybo's law in reverse), retracting
> the accent to the left in non-acute a.p. II verbs (this
> certainly didn't happen in the o-stem neuter nouns, which
> remain oxytone even if the root is acute: vêdró, stadló,
> dêdló, etc.).
[]
This is precisely what Slaaby-Larsen takes care of. I do not find it
proper to call the presumed law by somebody else's name, just
because he said the opposite about something else.
It seems to me at the present moment that the retraction is common
to Slavic and Baltic, cf. Lith. prs.ptc. s^au~kiaNs : keliaN~s (like
Russ. pís^es^´ : orjës^´; and vedaN~s like Russ. vedës^´. It looks
akin to Hirt's law, only with different limits: The ictus is
retracted from a thematic vowel onto a preceding syllable of a
certain degree of weight. Some clusters, pointed out by Anders,
apparently did not carry enough weight. And other vocalisms did
apparently not give up their ictus by this rule. Exactly where the
line is to be drawn will have to depend on closer inspection.
Perhaps Martin (Slaaby-Larsen, that is) sees this and will tell us?
The lack of retraction in vêdró, stadló, dêdló could perhaps reflect
a stage with a Sievers-triggered extra syllabic peak, i.e. *we:dr.ó-
(with length because of vrddhi - Winter should not work here),
*staH2-t(h)l.ó-, *dheH1-t(h)l.ó-. If the nearest preceding syllabic
peak was in the sonant it would not cause retraction by this rule.
Since we do not have a living Sievers' rule in BSl., it is no
embarrassment that the traces of its operation are otherwise lost.
Jens