From: whetex_lewx
Message: 35831
Date: 2005-01-06
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:30:44 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovaswrote:
> <s.tarasovas@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
> >Lith. accentuation:
> >> What exactly is the phonotactical constraint?
> >
> >/Rj/ (let alone heterosyllabic /R.j/) is impossible (R={r,l,m,n})
> >(except for recent borrowings like <kolje:~> 'collier').
>
> That /Rj/ is impossible doesn't worry me (I can analyze
> <giriu> [g'ir'u] as /girju/ and, say, <kac^iukas>
> [kac^'ukas] as /katjukas/ if I want), but the fact is indeed
> that the syllabization is always <gi-riu> etc. I have no
> idea how CS z^IrjóN was syllabified (z^I-rjóN or z^Ir-jóN?).
> As to your question how a hypothetical PIE/PBS *gWr.H-jó:
> (syllabified thusly) would have come out in Modern
> Lithuanian, I cannot tell. It depends on the exact nature
> of the acute diphtongs: did *r.H give /i:r/ with acute
> _length_ on the vowel (I don't think so, because that would
> have made the _syllable_ circumflex, as e.g. acc.sg. fem.
> *-ah2m with acute vowel, but circumflex syllable) or /ir/
> with short vowel and acute (rising) intonation over the
> course of the diphthong? If there was actual vowel length,
> then when were the long diphthongs shortened: before or
> after Saussure's law, and before or after the change in
> syllabification? If there was no length, merely tone, then
> what happened to it when the syllable boundary shifted? Or
> was the PBS syllabification already *gi-rjó:? Depending on
> the answers to those questions, we can have *gìriu, giriù,
> *gýriu.