Re: [tied] Re: Various loose thoughts

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:56:23 +0000, willemvermeer
<wrvermeer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>
>I'd written:
>
>> >Kortlandt's discussion is not about ljudIje but about the
>> >accentological characteristics of mobile (in Slavic) i-stems. So
>the
>> >specific background of ljudIje is irrelevant.
>
>Then you wrote:
>
>> Perhaps not.
>
>Well, anything can happen, but it's important to realize that K's
>discussion is *not* about particular lexical items but about what
>happened to a particular accentual paradigm during a fairly late
>Common Slavic stage.

It's a fact that ljudIje and dêti behave differently from
other i-stems. This may be due to their status as pluralia
tantum, and/or it may reflect their etymological background.

>I'd written:
>
>> >I suspect Kortlandt (at least the 1975 Kortlandt) would not like
>this
>> >for a number of reasons, e.g. because it separates Baltic and
>Slavic
>
>
>Then you wrote:
>
>
>> Why? I think the original Common Slavic accentuation in
>> mobile paradigms was *-VmÚ, *-VxÚ. I was talking about a
>> local East Slavic development (perhaps with some South
>> Slavic parallels?).
>
>
>In that case there is no difference of opinion. What Kortlandt tries
>to do at the place involved is propose a mechanism explaining why the
>stress shifted to the stem and why Slavic differs from Baltic here.
>By the way, it is unlikely to have been a local development because
>stem-stressed dative plurals are attested so widely.

But so are end-stressed dative plurals.

>I'd written:
>
>
>> >and because bisyllabic endings are always plus so you expect the
>Dpl
>> >to be plus too.
>
>Then you wrote:
>
>> I don't see a connection between the number of syllables and
>> the valency: o-stem -omI/-UmI, u-stem -ovi, -ove, and i-stem
>> -Ije are minus.
>
>
>I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. The point depends on the
>mechanisms K sketches to account for the shape of the mobile paradigm
>in BSl (SA: 4-10). Any Npl in -s is minus, like one or two other case
>forms, as a consequence of analogical extension of the stem stress in
>consonant stems of the type *dùkteres by the mechanism proposed by
>Pedersen (SA: 9). All other cases of stem stress in mobile paradigms
>are attributed to the phonetic retraction K calls "Ebeling's law",
>which entirely depends on the shape of the ending (see notably p. 5-
>6). Since bisyllabic endings never undergo Ebeling's law, they are
>automatically stressed (i.e. "plus") unless they happen to have
>received stem stress as a consequence of Pedersen's mechanism.

That still doesn't explain -ovi, unless the dative falls
under the "one or two other case forms", in which case one
may as well dispense with Ebeling's law altogether. A much
simpler solution is to see the mobile stress as a direct
continuation of Indo-European mobility, only extended
analogically to vowel stems. The cases with end-stress in
the paradigm of a PD stem like *dhug(h)&2té:r (Nsg., Gsg.,
Isg., Gpl., Dpl., Lpl., Ipl., GLdu., DIdu.) are plus, the
others are minus (although the Dsg. is a bit of a problem
here too).

[...]

>> Stress shift in the presence of a pretonic circumflex is
>> also seen in e.g. *meNsó > 'meNso, *jaje' > 'jaje. Perhaps
>> that has something to do with it, although I'm unable to
>> formulate a soundlaw (it's certainly not the case that a
>> pretonic circumflex _always_ attracts the ictus).
>
>
>If I remember rightly, K puts the analogical introduction of the
>pronominal ending *-o < *-od into the (at the time) oxytone neuter o-
>stems at some relatively late Balto-Slavic stage preceding Ebeling's
>law. The attested stem stress in these examples is then due to the
>retraction he calls Ebeling's law. In that conception, it is not a
>matter of circumflexes attracting the ictus, but of final syllables
>of certain shapes losing it.

But that cannot be right. Only the oxytone o-stems with
circumflex become mobile (meN^so, ja^je), not those with
acute (vêdró) nor those with short vowel (peró).

>> And, as
>> Stang notices, it's difficult to explain why we see D, L
>> lju^dImU, lju^dIxU, but not G, I *lju^dIjI, *lju^dImi. The
>> G and L are supposed to have had a long final vowel
>> (ljudIjI:, ljudImi:), so there may be a pattern there, but
>> it's also one that's difficult to generalize.
>
>
>In K's theory the difference arose phonetically as a consequence of
>the loss of stressability of final jers. In the Ipl there was no
>final jer, so there was no retraction. In the Dpl and Lpl the stress
>was retracted and skipped the intervening jer because Havlík's rule
>had not yet arisen. In the Gpl the intervening jer was not skipped
>because before *j jers were realized more strongly than in other
>positions, so that they were not prevented from receiving the ictus
>(AS: 16). (The greater strength of jers followed by *j is of course
>well documented.)

That's what seems totally backwards to me. The concept of
"weak" and "strong" yers in the sense of Havlík's rule
(pIpIrI'cI > pIprI'c) is clear enough, even given a few
exceptions (irregular strong yers in a.p. a initial
syllable, or sometimes before *j). But in Kortlandt's
account yers are first weak (unaccentable) in final
syllables only, although they are also unaccentable in
medial syllables, which get skipped, except before *j. Then
medial yers become accentable again, to account for the
behaviour of Dybo's law, and only after that Havlík's rule
sets in. I could accept that if it explained all the facts,
and if it were the only way to explain the facts, but it
doesn't, and it isn't. There is sufficient evidence that
shows that when a final yer lost the stress, a preceding yer
(strong, by definition) could and did receive the stress
(*dhworikós > dvorIcI' > dvorI'cI > dvoréc; *moldikós >
moldIcI' > moldI'cI > molodéc). K.'s soundlaw would predict
that the ins.sg. of mobile i- and u-stems (*-ImI, *-UmI)
would be barytone/enclinomenic, which is incompatible with
the evidence (adverbial R. verxóm cannot be secondary, and
the word is an old oxytone, Lith. virs^ùs, so the u-stem
a.p. c Isg. was *-U'mI without a doubt).

I also think the consequences of such a soundlaw have not
been thought through completely. I notice that in his reply
to Olander, Kortlandt says: "The obvious objection to
Olander's proposal is that the accent would have been
retracted in accordance with Hirt's law throughout a
Balto-Slavic paradigm *suHnù- with fixed stress on the
second syllable, so that accentual mobility could not have
been preserved." But the same can be said for Kortlandt's
model with regard to the "retraction from final yers
skipping middle yers"-law (for want of a better name). K.'s
model predicts *sy'nU, *sy'nU, *sy'nu, *sy'novi(?), *sy'nu,
*sy'nUmI; *sy'nove, *sy'ny, *syno'vU, *sy'nUmU, *sy'nUxU,
*synUmi', where it is hard to see how accentual mobility may
have been preserved based solely on the G and I pl. (Stang
p. 81 gives OR pl. sy'nove, sy'ny, syno'vU, syn(ov)o'mU,
syno'xU, synmí).

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