From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 36706
Date: 2005-03-11
>Mobile root (PBS *abó:l => obuoly~s etc.) (a.p. c),
>
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> >I don't understand you. Do you mean it does not work for you
>because
>> >you refuse to posit a reduplicated form, or do you mean it would
>not
>> >work even if you did reduplicate the protoform?
>>
>> I mean that in my view of Slavic accentology, any acute root
>> in a non-mobile paradigm attracts the accent, even if
>> unaffected by Hirt's law. Let's call it the "jábloko-rule".
>
>This is important. Could you rehearse the main evidence for such a
>rule? What shows that the accent has been moved in jábloko?
>> [...]What don't you understand?
>> >> Indeed not. But I have an explanation for o/e ablaut which
>> >> works for nouns and verbs alike: *ó is the reflex of an
>> >> earlier lengthened vowel (**a:) under the stress, and *é
>> >> results from the same lengthened vowel in pretonic position.
>> >
>> >Then you don't have a place for /é:/ in the acrostatic paradigms.
>> >You just killed Narten and now act innocent.
>>
>> Absolutely not. You are right of course that Narten-forms
>> are closely connected to the o/e-Ablaut I describe above.
>> They are different aspects of the same thing.
>>
>> Actually, most of the phenomena falling under "Narten" are
>> equally well described as cases of o/e-Ablaut according to
>> my definition above. For instance, if we look in LIV for
>> verbal forms classified as "acrostatic root presents", that
>> includes:
>>
>> (1) forms that show /e/ in otherwise weak paradigms (e.g.
>> the middle);
>> (2) forms that have /a:/ in Indo-Iranian in an open
>> syllable, not after a palatal.
>>
>> These might as well be cases of o/e-Ablaut.
>>
>> We are left with a relatively small but important group that
>> shows strong forms with /e:/ and weak forms with zero or /e/
>> (Ved. dá:s.t.i, má:rs.t.i, rá:s.ti, s'á:sti, tá:s.t.i;
>> ks.n.áuti, stáuti; perhaps some forms with BS /e:/, like
>> sêkoN, smêjoN, tré.s^kiu).
>>
>> These forms reflect a lengthened vowel *i:, which regularly
>> develops into /é:/ under the stress. That there are much
>> fewer cases of /e:/ than there are of /o/ is as expected,
>> given that /o/ is the result of the lengthening of both */a/
>> => /a:/ > /o/ and */u/ => /u:/ > /o/, while only */i/ =>
>> /i:/ gives /e:/. In the weak grade, we would expect *i: and
>> *u: to give zero, while *a: gives /e/. In practice, there
>> has been some levelling (zero grade in má:rs.t.i, mr.jánti;
>> stáuti, stuvánti; but /e/-grade in e.g. tá:s.t.i
>> [*té:tk^-ti], táks.ati [*tétk^-n.ti]).
>>
>> The levelling may have affected the expected Ablaut of roots
>> with original *u (o ~ zero) even more, at least I can't
>> think of a good example right now (the o ~ 0 Ablaut of the
>> perfect must explained otherwise). Presumably, there was a
>> tendency to unite the three expected Ablaut grades (o ~ e, o
>> ~ 0 and e: ~ 0) into either o ~ e or e: ~ e.
>>
>> There is one instance where perhaps Narten is endangered by
>> something you proposed, namely the explanation of Vedic 1sg.
>> past middle -i as from reduced *-h2. If we compare the
>> behaviour of the element *-e- added to the stative endings
>> *-h2, *-th2 etc. in the middle versus the
>> perfect/hi-conjugation, we see that this *-e- always carries
>> the stress in the middle forms (*-h2ái, *-th2ái, *-ói,
>> *-ntói, leaving the root in zero grade), while in the
>> perfect it is unstressed in the singular (o-grade + *-h2e,
>> *-th2e, *-e), but stressed in the 1/2 plural (zero-grade +
>> *-mé, *-té or something similar), and appears to be absent
>> in the 3pl. (perhaps expected *-né (*-ré) was replaced by
>> *-én > *-ér(s) here). But if -i indeed comes from *-&2 (I
>> would actually prefer *-h2-i, but that's not the point),
>> then perhaps the element originally behaved similarly in
>> both middle and perfect, and the middle singular once
>> regularly had e-grade and stress on the root, before it was
>> polarized as an end-stressed form. In that case, "Narten
>> middles" are in fact archaisms unrelated to the rest of the
>> Narten system. If my analysis of the middle vs. the
>> perfect/hi-conjuation is correct ("I have to X" vs. "I have
>> X'ed"), we wouldn't expect "lengthened grade" (e: or o) in
>> the middle anyway.
>
>You have lost me completely here. We are just not communicating;
>seems a pity.