From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 36278
Date: 2005-02-13
>> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>The mobility of ljudIje is itself secondary (*léudhi- =
>wrote:
>
>
>> 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?
>
>
>As Kortlandt's self-appointed spokesman this side of eternity I would
>like go on record as stating that the answer, which is very simple,
>should be pretty obvious to any attentive reader of "Slavic
>Accentuation".
>
>
>Kortlandt assumes that final jers lost the ability of being stressed
>very soon after they had arisen as a consequence of what he
>calls "The rise of the new timbre distinctions". That was before (1)
>Dybo's law, and (2) the rise of a difference between strong and weak
>jers.
>
>
>As a consequence of the former chronology, the stress in pre-Dybo
>*stòlU was prevented from advancing to the final syllable by the time
>Dybo's law operated. Such more or less classical accentuations as
>*stolÚ have no place in Kortlandt's system. They just never arose.
>This is a crucial feature of Kortlandt's theory which has rarely
>(read never, Ed.) been taken into account by other accentologists,
>let alone publicly evaluated. A (b)-stressed noun like the PSl.
>predecessor of R. "vorobej" can cast no light on the history of such
>forms as *ljudImÚ.
>As a consequence of the second chronology, the stress skipped aThe Old Russian D. pl. ending has the valency (-) in the
>syllable in *ljudImÚ and similar forms.
>
>
>The former point has all kinds of ramifications within Kortlandt's
>system, the latter is a natural assumption which just happens to
>account for a point preciously few other accentological theories have
>had the guts to face, let alone explained.
>
>
>Any questions?