From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 36339
Date: 2005-02-16
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:They are relicts.
>
>> domU (~ Grk. dómos, Lith. nãmas) and dolU (Grk. thólos) are
>> originally a.p. b, so domò(v)i, dolò(v)i are regular, by
>> Dybo's law.
>
>
>That is interesting, but from a late Common Slavic point of view they
>are (c). And given that fact, the presence of end-stressed "dolój"
>and "domój" may (or may not) be significant.
>> The ablative is also a "non-oxytonic" case (*-óod).As far as I can see, those are the only three cases where
>>
>> The vowel stems, when they became mobile in BS, did
>> introduce a few idiosyncracies of their own, like the
>> (originally) end-stressed o-stem Npl. *-ój, or the
>> end-stressed i- and u-stem L.sg's (*-é:i, *-é:u).
>
>
>Yes but that too has to be explained.
>> I have written about this on several occasions. The wordIllich-Svitych $47, $48.
>> peró (= Grk. pterón) is an oxytone neuter, and as such it
>> was a.p. b _before_ Dybo's law.
>
>
>I know, but we're not concerned with your theory here, but trying to
>clarify K's theory so that intelligent and effective criticism
>becomes possible instead of the ineffectual criticism based on
>externalities that has been the norm for the past thirty years.
>
>
>In K's theory oxytone neuters owe their existence to the limitations
>of Ebeling's law as sketched in AS: 5-6 ("unless the preceding
>syllable is closed by an obstruent"). Unfortunately, as I wrote
>yesterday, the further fate of that paradigm has been dealt with very
>skimpily by K or other accentologists continuing his work. We also
>need a suitable term to refer to these cases because real (b)'s are
>so completely different that it is courting disaster to operate with
>a term containing the element "(b)". I've considered "(e)" in the
>past, but that does not cover Baltic. [The point recurs later in this
>posting.]
>
>
>
>> The whole point of Pedersen's law (i.e. the spread of
>> mobility to the vowel stems), at least in the nouns, must
>> originally have been to distinguish the nominative sg. from
>> the accusative sg. prosodically (a secondary, but more
>> lasting, effect would have been to establish a prosodic
>> distinction between NA pl/du and oblique pl./du.). That is
>> why "oxytone" (better: theme-stressed) vowel stems were
>> affected, because they could retract the accent of the
>> accusative to the initial syllable, e.g. N. gol&vá: ~ A.
>> gól&va:m, mimicking dug&té:: ~ dúg&terim. This also means
>> that neuters were not affected. The neuter C-stems were
>> barytonic anyway (*nébhos, *n.'mn.), there were no neuter u-
>> and a:-stems, and the very few neuter i-stems (*mori) became
>> neuter jo-stems. That only leaves the oxytone neuter
>> o-stems, which remained theme-stressed and were unaffected
>> by Pedersen's law.
>>
>> Illich-Svitych correctly identified the fate of oxytone
>> o-stems in Slavic (his [sg.] examples are peró (Grk.
>> pterón), gnêzdó (Skt. ni:d.ám), jeNdró (Skt. a:n.d.ám),
>> oNtró (Skt. a:ntrám), sidló (Gmc. saila), gUrnó (Skt.
>> ghr.n.ás), dUnó (*dhubnóm), sUtó (*k^m.tóm)), but this did
>> not fit into the Lithuanian-inspired "two-paradigms
>> paradigm", and was apparently forgotten by Dybo (who writes
>> that there is "insufficient data" to clear up the fate of
>> the PIE oxytone neuters).
>>
>
>Interesting. Do you happen to have the reference? (I'm very much
>interested in this point.)
>> I'm confused by your terminology. "Genuine (b)" for meThe first time I mentioned my theory about three
>> means *pre-Dybo* (b)'s, in other words: (1) the neuter
>> oxytones like peró, vêdró, okUnó; (2) the compound words
>> made with dominant theme-stressed suffixes like *-ikós; (3)
>> the theme-stressed verbs in *-jé-, *-né-, *-í:-.
>
>
>What I call "genuine (b)" is Stang's (b), e.g. the paradigm that
>started off as stem-stressed in Balto-Slavic (because the stem was
>plus, in terms of the valency theory) until it became oxytone as a
>consequence of Dybo's law only to receive stem-stressed forms as a
>consequence of Stang's law. Since it is this paradigm that literally
>*everybody* has been calling (b) since Stang introduced his taxonomy
>in 1957, I think it is very confusing to use the designation (b) also
>for a paradigm that has a completely different history and background
>(even if they often merged with genuine (b)'s at a late Slavic
>stage).
>
>
>A second reason why I can't help finding (b) a dangerous choice
>(dangerous from a communicative point of view) is that Stang's
>taxonomy refers to a late Slavic stage, whereas you use his scheme to
>talk about Balto-Slavic. To the extent that there is a traditional
>designation of BSl accentual paradigms it uses Roman numerals, so
>perhaps it might make sense to consider the possibility of calling
>your BSl (b) something like "III", or whatever.
> c or even a > c in some cases), and that the old a.p. IIverbs have generally developed into a.p. a or b verbs (also
>> But the PIE accent was still *dhworikós and *moldikós (and,I see it as a return to etymology. I have only a limited
>> incidentally, *bhrah2trikós). The suffix *-ikós is
>> dominant, i.e stressed.
>
>
>No. Please. This is important. Within the early MAS conception of BSl
>stress assignment, which K's theory is built on, a dominant suffix
>never attracts the stress from a dominant stem. So you inevitably end
>up with *dhwórikos and *bhráh2trikos. This is a central point. The
>MAS reconstruction just does not allow for suffixes that receive the
>stress independently of the prosodic characteristics of the stem they
>are attached to.
>
>
>Mind you, I can very well imagine the MAS reconstruction breaking
>down under scrutiny, but that's a point that should be addressed
>seriously and at length. A paper that would refute the MAS conception
>of stress assignment in a credible way and put something better in
>its place would constitute a revolution. I for one would welcome it.
>But as long as that has not been done it looks to me like an
>unnecessary regression to pre-Stangian confusion.
>> The a.p. of the base noun doesn'tThat's why I added the gen. dvorcá.
>> matter. All words in *-ikós (and similar suffixes) were
>> a.p. b in Proto-Slavic. The retraction law which I have
>> dubbed "minus Dybo" (or "Kurylowicz's law"), which is
>> simultaneous to Dybo's law, pulls the accent back to any
>> preceding acute (e.g. bra/tIcI' > bra"tIcI), but all others
>> (i.e. from a.p. b and a.p. c base words) remain a.p. b, the
>> only thing happening is retraction of the stress from a
>> final yer (dvorI`cI, dvorIca`; moldI`cI, moldIca`).
>
>
>That's all very nice, but you really need to show why "The a.p. of
>the base noun doesn't matter" because that statement constitutes a
>*fundamental* departure from one of the corner stones of post-
>Stangian accentology. MAS accentology derives its strength from the
>simple stress rule it reduces the multiplicity of Baltic and Slavic
>stress patterns to. You need a strong case if you want to convince
>people that that rule should be abandoned again.
>
>
>I'd written:
>
>
>> >Shënim: *dvorIcI is a derivation from (pre-Dybo) *dvòrU, which is
>(b)
>> >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.
>
>Then you wrote:
>
>> That is wrong. The word is dvoréc, dvorcá in Russian.
>
>
>It is a misunderstanding to think that R. "dvoréc" cannot continue
>*dvorÌcI.
>[I won't discuss you reconstruction here because in my view that willIt apparently washes in Lithuanian. I have no clear picture
>make sense only after it has been shown that the MAS rule for stress
>assignment is insufficient.]
>
>
>[On the Lsg of i- and u-stems:]
>
>
>> ... how does Kortlandt explain that? Are *-e:i and
>> *-o:u closed syllables?
>
>
>I've no idea, but those endings are end-stressed in mobile paradigms
>in Common Slavic and that's the point that is at issue here.
>
>
>> In the case of synU, I would say that the BS form *was*
>> stem-stressed (OLith sú:nus, 1>3). There are no a.p. a
>> u-stems in Slavic, so something must've happened to them
>> (they have become mobile).
>
>
>Unless they didn't exist to begin with. Note that the word for 'son'
>expresses a key concept and is one of the most frequent nouns of the
>language. If it would have received consistent (a)-stress it is
>pretty unlikely to have abandoned that stress pattern again even if
>such other (a)-stressed u-stems as were around did become mobile. The
>word is ideally fitted for a "last Mohican" role. It is quite often
>idiosyncratic (cf. the Russian plural "synov'ja" or the Czech or Old
>Croatian Vsg synu/sinu, to mention no other examples). It strongly
>influenced the afterlife of the u-stem paradigm in Slavic. It was
>supported by the semantically related word for 'brother'. This just
>won't wash.
>> Hirt's law did affect the Nsg. (*suHnús > *súHnus), which=======================
>> was enough to make the whole paradigm barytone, cf. C-stems
>> like z^I"rny < *gWr.h2núh2, where _only_ the N.sg. was
>> affected by Hirt's law [_all_ other case forms have two or
>> more syllables, and Hirt's law could not affect them]. When
>> Hirt's law killed mobility's raison d'être, it was given up
>> (which makes it more remarkable that mobility wasn't killed
>> off later when nom. and acc. merged in most root types).
>>
>
>Interesting.
>
>
>That must be it, for the time being,
>
>
>
>Willem