Re: [tied] Re: Lith. Z^em. obuolas 'apple' That's IT(was: Slavic co

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:47:46 +0000, whetex_lewx
<whetex_lewx@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
><s.tarasovas@...> wrote:
>
>> Did Piotr indeed postulate N.sg. *h2abo:los? Could you quote his
>> message?
>>
>> Sergei
>
>Oops, sorry, Piotr, forgive me. Miguel did so.

I didn't.

>Quatation here:
>
>"The rules also work for synchronically intransparent
>compounds, such as the word for "apple" (j)a"blUko (a.p. a).
>The root is itself mobile, coming from a PIE athematic
>mobile paradigm *h2ábo:l(s), *h2(a)búlos. In Balto-Slavic
>that became *abó:l(s), *ábolim, *abulés (with lateral
>mobility), thematized as Lith. óbuolas, Latv. âbols, with
>Winter's lengthening (in Shintani's formulation) originating
>in the end-stressed nominative (as also shown by the Latvian
>Brechton. Hirt's law of course never applied, and Winter's
>law applied because the word was _not_ (exclusively)
>barytonic. In Slavic the stressed suffix *-kóm was added
>(to the oblique?), and the word became immobile (*a:bul-ká
>-> *a:blUkó). Retraction of the ictus to the acute root
>syllable by "-Dybo" finally resulted in Slavic ja"blUko.
>"

It doesn't change anything in the argument if we substitute
thematization with *-ijo- in Lith. obuoly~s, Latv. dial.
âbolis.

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