Re: [tied] Re: Balto-Slavic -RHj-?

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:00:09 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
<s.tarasovas@...> wrote:

>
>
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>>
>> I don't follow: dìrbu is dìrbu, not dirbù, so Saussure's law
>> doesn't work for former acute *ir' (now ìr).
>>
>
>It's a matter of syllabification: dír.bó: (acute), but *gì.rió:
>(short stress) (. -- syllable boundary). There are *no* 1 sg. praes.
>forms like CV`R-iu in Standard Lithuanian (there are in some dialects
>due to later retractions). <ìr> in <dìrbu> is still an acute
>diphthongoid in Modern Standard Lithuanian, while <ir> in <giriù> is
>a heterosyllabic sequence of a short vowel and and a sonorant.

Yes, and that was my point, and why I think the Lith. forms
*are* relevant to Slavic.

It may not be an original point, but I had never seen the
syllabification of the PIE suffix *-ye- (as it's usually
spelt) discussed in relation to its consequences for the
Balto-Slavic accent. Note that in the sequence -VHje- (e.g.
Slavic verbs in -ajoN, -êjoN, -ijoN, -yjoN) the /j/ behaves
as a consonant again (acute, not circumflex accent).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...