On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:32:38 +0100, Mate Kapovic
<
mkapovic@...> wrote:
>I have just read Kortlandt's article. I still believe that Olander's
>solution is much better. Kortlandt assumes the desinence stress in mobile
>paradigms goes back to BSl. time but he does not really explain it. Also, I
>think that the argument that the accent must have been for instance
>*suHnumi` and not *suHnu`mi because there's no Hirt's Law is just false. The
>word *suHnus is problematic by itself, having no Hirt's Law as it is usually
>adduced - I think that Dauksa's súnus, a. p. 1 must be original and that
>Standard Lith. su:nu`s is just secondarily mobile. Slavic *sy^n7 should be
>either also secondarily mobile (and thus influenced by Meillet's Law) as
>Lithuanian or it just became mobile later because there seems to be no a. p.
>a u-stems in Slavic (similar as the lack of a. p. b o-stems etc.) as Miguel
>suggested a while back. *-u`mi can be valid for any u-stem without an acute
>on the root.
Yes, I think both su:nús and sy~nU have become secondarily
mobile (independently in Lithuanian and Slavic).
I must confess I don't fully understand Kortlandt's *suhnus
argument. It is true that in a Balto-Slavic laterally
mobile paradigm, only the N.sg. (suhnús^ > súhnus^), G.sg.
(suhnéus^ > súhneus^) and the L.sg. (suhné:u > súhne:u)
should have been affected by Hirt's law, while the other
cases were already barytonic (A.sg., V.sg., D.sg., N.pl.,
A.pl., NA.du.), or should have escaped Hirt's law by having
polysyllabic endings (I.sg. suhnumí, G.pl. suhneuóm, D.pl.
suhnus^ú, I.pl. suhnumí:s^, GL.du. suhneuóu(s^), DI.du.
suhnumóh). But there is no reason to set the u-stems apart
in this respect: we expect exactly the same in the i-stems.
The fate of suhnús should be the same as that of an oxytone
i-stem like g^noh3tís (> Latv. znuo~ts), and witness OLith.
sú:nus, it was. The polysyllabic endings which had escaped
Hirt's law were evened out, and the whole paradigm became
barytonic.
I also don't really understand Kortlandt's argument about R.
détjam, détjax, ljúdjam, ljúdjax. I gather the idea is that
the accent was retracted in i-stem ljudImÚ, ljudIxÚ from the
final yer all the way to ljúdImU, ljúdIxU, skipping the
middle yer, but how does that invalidate the possibility of
ljudÍmU, ljudÍxU > ljúdImU, ljúdIxU? What am I missing?
A final criticism concerns the demonstrative pronoun tàs/tU,
which is mobile in Baltic and Slavic and therefore must go
back to a mobile PIE paradigm. Vedic barytonesis, as often,
must be secondary.
For the rest, I agree with Kortlandt that Hirt's law
explains the Slavic forms (a:-stem -a"mU, -a"mi, -a"xU) and
that Lith. -omìs, -osù must have received end-stress again
analogically. Besides Polish -om vs. -ami, -ach, I seem to
recall that the O.Russian D.pl. also shows a marked tendency
to become barytonic (after the D.sg.), so that would be
another parallel case. Lith. ran~kose etc. indeed seems to
indicate that Saussure's law did not work on the *-a:- of
the a:-stem plural cases: it had become circumflex for some
reason (after the singular?, like Slav. -akU?). The
evidence for mobility in the Lith. verb (Dauks^sa: z^inomé,
z^inoté) is noted.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...