From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 36329
Date: 2005-02-16
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:domU (~ Grk. dómos, Lith. nãmas) and dolU (Grk. thólos) are
>
>[On the mechanism that gave rise to BSl. mobility.]
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>I doubt one can build much on -ovi, for the following reasons:
>
>
>(1) Granted for the sake of the argument that it did not retract the
>stress in accordance with what Kortlandt calls Ebeling's law (it
>can't have), it risked receiving stem stress analogically because all
>other singular datives were stem-stressed.
>
>
>(2) By the time Slavic is attested, the u-stems as an inflexional
>pattern were no longer a distinct entity but were merging with the
>masc o-stems, increasing the chances of mutual influence of any
>conceivable kind.
>
>
>(3) What about modern Russian end-stressed "domój" and "dolój"?
>> A muchThe ablative is also a "non-oxytonic" case (*-óod).
>> 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).
>
>
>Perhaps also the o-stem Gsg (= Ablsg).
>Whatever may have been the case, I do think that we urgently need anI have written about this on several occasions. The word
>update of this section of Kortlandt's theory, particularly in the
>light of everything that has happened since 1975, notably the arrival
>of the valency theory, which was not yet on the scene when "Slavic
>Accentuation" was published.
>
>> [...]
>
>I'd written:
>
>> >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.
>>
>
>Then you wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
>
>Here again we are faced with a section of Kortlandt's theory that has
>not been formulated explicit enough for me to understand it
>completely. But let me see what I can do. After all one lives only
>once. Or twice.
>
>
>Synchronically speaking, the type of which "pero" is a representative
>is squarely Stang's (b), which implies that it had fixed stem stress
>in the period immediately preceding Dybo's law. (I'm no admirer of
>the practice of referring to (b) as "oxytone" because it was barytone
>during most of the pre-history of Slavic and only became oxytone as a
>consequence of Dybo's law, only to turn into a new kind of mobile
>pattern as a consequence of Stang's law.) Now in view of the way
>neuter nouns are supposed to have arisen (more or less along the
>lines developed by Illic^-Svityc^), there is no immediately
>recognizeable source for (b)-stressed neuter o-stems. To the best of
>my knowledge the rise of (b)-stressed neuter o-stems is nowhere
>explicitly treated. But I've probably missed something.
>The case of "ve^dro" is different, but yet again in a way thatI think I wrote about that too:
>highlights a point where the theory has not been formulated very
>clearly, at least clearly enough to avoid misunderstandings. Read on.
>
>
>It has not often been realized that Ebeling's law splits the mobile o-
>stems into two subtypes, to wit one that undergoes retraction and one
>that doesn't (in other words: remains oxytone). The latter type is
>continued most clearly by such l-participles as modern
>Russian "neslo" (see SA 5-6). However, the further history of the
>subtype that did *not* retract the stress has not been reconstructed
>in very sufficient detail, at least in published texts. As I
>understand it (but I may be totally wrong here and I take all
>responsibility for the collapse of the bridge -- might it collapse) K
>assumes that masculine members of this subtype just merged with
>ordinary mobile nouns at some Balto-Slavic stage, in other words that
>they carried out Ebeling's law analogically. The case of neuter nouns
>is different. In their case the unretracted subtype lived on and Rick
>Derksen has argued in a way I tend to find attractive that it can be
>used to explain certain types of "metatony" in Lithuanian that have
>proved elusive and cannot be brought under some version of
>Hjelmslev's law. [Please read Derksen's book, I can't summarize it
>here or anywhere.]
>The noun ve^dro may well be a specimen of this subtype. Since itsI'm confused by your terminology. "Genuine (b)" for me
>stem ends in -dr- it is formally of the non-retracting sub-type. At
>first sight it looks like a (b), but it obviously isn't a genuine (b)
>because in a genuine (b) the *e^ should be long and here it is short,
>showing that it was unstressed
>before Dybo's law caused genuine (b)'s to become end-stressed.
>Then you exclaim in the context of plural datives and locatives.Tut-tut. I *have* paid attention and I understand K's
>
>
>> That's what seems totally backwards to me.
>
>
>Tut-tut.
>
>
>> 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).
>
>
>You haven't understood K's theory, which [and *please* pay attention
>now, because I explained the same point on this very list only three
>days ago] at no point of the chronology generates accentuations like
>**dvorIcI'. Since the stressability of final jers is held to have
>been lost *before* Dybo's law operated there is no way of getting o-
>stem singular accusatives with stress on the final jer. This is a
>central point of the theory which for some reason keeps getting
>misunderstood.
>Shënim: *dvorIcI is a derivation from (pre-Dybo) *dvòrU, which is (b)That is wrong. The word is dvoréc, dvorcá in Russian.
>and as such is assumed to retain the stress in suffixal derivations.
>The MAS scheme (which K adheres to) unambiguously generates *dvòrIcI
>here, which is shifted to *dvorÌcI by Dybo's law.
>> K.'s soundlaw would predictI know, but how does Kortlandt explain that? Are *-e:i and
>> 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).
>
>
>Nice.
>
>
>> 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).
>
>Interesting point, but the Lsg should have been added to the list of
>forms with a stressed ending. (Whatever its precise origin it is
>obvious that the Lsg was end-stressed in (c)-stressed u-stems in
>PSl.)
>And don't forget that an important component of a mobleIn the case of synU, I would say that the BS form *was*
>paradigm was also the fact that the stem-stressed forms were clitic.
>A learner of the language needed to hear, say *zà synU or *synU bò
>only once to know that the word was mobile. And how many (a)-stressed
>and (b)-stressed u-stems were available as a model for analogical
>introductino of fixed stem stress? Preciously few if any. The
>situation cannot be compared with the Olander reconstruction , which
>renders the BSl predecessor of synU consistently stem-stressed, just
>like, say, the word for 'brother'.