Re: [tied] Re: Various loose thoughts

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <s.tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 6:28 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Various loose thoughts




--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "willemvermeer" <wrvermeer@...>
wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> > > 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 the accent was retracted in i-stem ljudImÚ, ljudIxÚ from the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

> A change like ljudÍmU, ljudÍxU > ljúdImU, ljúdIxU is impossible
> because non-final jers are not held to have lost the stress at the
> stage involved and because those particular jers ultimately became
> strong, so reconstructed *ljudÍmU and *ljudÍxU would end up with
> stress on the ending in the attested material, just like *sestr'amU
> *sestr'axU or *voz'omU *voz'e^xU or what have you, leaving R.
ljúdjam
> ljúdjax (and other phenomena) unaccounted for.

>I may well be missing something (or even asking a silly question),
>but if *ljudImÚ gives *ljúdImU (final jers lose stressability, the
>ictus skips middle jer(s)), why do we have Russ. <vorobéj> (<
>*vorbIjÍ, a. p. b) rather than +voróbej and Russ. <voronój> (<
>*vornUjÍ, *vôrnU being a. p. c) rather than +vorónyj?

I don't really understand why would the accent be retracted from final jers
to the first syllable (skipping the middle jers) at the first place?

Mate