--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>[] An interesting but
> unexpected argument is introduced on p. 53, where I-S states
> that already in PIE, the NA pl. form of neuters in -a:
> showed a systematic(?) stress opposition with the singular.
> The examples given are Ved. cakrám vs. Grk. kúkla and Grk.
> neûron vs. pl. neurá, and this is compared inter alia with
> Lith. s^im~tas (*k^m.tóm) but pl. usually <trys s^im~tai>
> instead of (or next to) expected <trys s^imtai~>. It is
> mentioned that more details can be found in Hirt Akzent
> 243-246, but I'm a bit surprised that I have never seen this
> type of "mobility" mentioned anywhere. It would be
> significant if mobility in thematic nouns (albeit only in
> neuter o-stems) had a PIE pedigree. Does anybody have more
> details to add?
I use it all the time. Specifically, I have attributed the rise of
vrddhi in collectives to the old accent opposition which apparently
in some cases is so old that it feeds the ablaut. A fine case would
be Latin fa:num as against Oscan fíísnú 'temple' which would reflect
*dh&1s-nó-m, coll. *dhéH1s-na-H2. If other cases of vrddhi are
substantivized adjectives, they could be explained by the same
process. You spoke the magic word yourself when you said that the IE
accent is assigned by considerations of animacy. Both collective and
substantivization imply a distinct lowering of the degree of animacy
which could motivate leftward accent movement - which would lead to
the observed forms if applied early enough. So I, for one, am very
sure the accentual difference between base-word and collective is of
PIE age. The process lived on, however, and in younger forms it
works without vowel gradation - and in an intermediate stage it
produced barytone forms with -o-.
Jens