--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
> Illich-Svitych $47, $48.
>
> Dybo, SA, p. 24 footnote 10 ("v ètu gruppu [mobile o-stems <
> neuters] vxodjat lis^' dolgotnye oxytona neutra"), which in
> Dybo et al. OSA, p. 45, footnote 28 becomes: "v ètu gruppu
> vxodjat lis^' dolgotnye oxytona neutra, refleksacija
> kratkostnyx oxytona neutra do konca ne vyjasnena vvidu
> nedostatka materiala".
Thank you very much. [As for the quotation: how MAS can you get?]
[About terminology:]
> The first time I mentioned my theory about three
> Pro-Balto-Slavic accent paradigms, I called them I
> (barytone), II (theme-stressed) and III (mobile). I should
> perhaps return to that practice, given that the old a.p. I
> words have developed into a.p. a and b in Slavic (and then b
> > c or even a > c in some cases), and that the old a.p. II
> verbs have generally developed into a.p. a or b verbs (also
> some b > c here, as in the bodoN-group).
I think something along those lines would earn you the undying
gratitude of slavists.
> I see it as a return to etymology. I have only a limited
> grasp of the laws of accentuation concerning suffixes in
> PIE, but it seems to me that in PIE the situation was very
> different from that of BS (according to the MAS model).
As far as I know, the MAS people have not been very eloquent about
the PIE background of their rule(s), apart from claiming that there
is one (a PIE background, I mean).
On the Leiden side there is Sasha Lubotsky's doctoral dissertation on
Vedic, which I'm not in a position to evaluate, and also one or two
arguments by Kortlandt that are always laconic in the extreme and
unlikely to draw large crowds, perhaps most recently his "Indo-Uralic
consonant gradation", in: Etymologie, Entlehnungen und Entwicklungen
(Festschrift for Koivulehto), Helsinki, 2004.
[...]
> Without this etymological/PIE background, the terms
> "dominant" and "recessive" suffix are unmotivated labels.
> They do the job, but we know nothing about their genesis.
I think that is too strong. In the MAS view it is held to represent a
reflex of a system in which every morpheme had an inherent tone (high
or low or something along those lines), which then at some
[unspecified, Ed.] stage degenerated into a stress system, with every
left-most high now becoming the stressed syllable and the rest is
history.
Lubotsky's doctoral dissertation is intended to investigate some
details of the background of those tones against the background of
Vedic facts (but as I said earlier, I'm not in a position to judge
whether it cuts any ice).
The words "dominant" and "recessive" definitely are not intended as
mere descriptive devices and don't function as such in the world view
of those operating and living with them. Despite the fact that they
[the labels] have at times been used in ways that need the urgent
attention of the methodology police, notably in the Nikolaev sections
of the MAS corpus.
You wrote:
> That's why I added the gen. dvorcá.
I'd very much like to hear the opinion of the cognoscenti on this
point. Central Cakavian has examples like "otàc" Gsg "òca" (e.g.
Susak and Senj, I'm quoting by heart), which are not mentioned every
day in accentological discussions and which might suggest that the
accentuation of the type "dvorcá" is secondary.
Willem