Re: [tied] Re: Mi- and hi-conjugation in Germanic

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:49:44 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> >> 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?
>>
>> Mobile root (PBS *abó:l => obuoly~s etc.) (a.p. c),
>> immobilized by stressed (dominant) suffix *-kó(m) (=> a.p.
>> b). Stress retracted to Winter acute: a:bUlkó > a"bUlko (=>
>> a.p. a).
>
>I am not sure I can accept this; it depends on the motivation for
>the accent in the forms you depart from.

What does that mean?

>Moreover, if it is a Slavic-
>only rule it is not relevant for the discussion, for the analysis of
>Lith. málti, Slav. *me´´lti as originally reduplicated is primarily
>based on Latvian. I have a vague recollection that you had some
>story about that too. Could you tell me how you avoid seeing Hirt's
>Law retraction in Latvian mal~t, kal~t, ba~rt, ka~rt?

I haven't studied the Latvian accent, so I can't really say
anything for sure. But it looks good for you.

>> The main evidence. Where shall I begin?
>>
>> Acutes caused by Winter's law (so no Hirt):
>> sed-téi > sê"sti
>> ed-téi > ê"sti
>> beg-ah2-téi (Hirt)> beg-a"-ti > bê"gati
>> beg-non-téi > bê"gnoNti
>> vid-eh1-téi (Hirt)> vidê"ti > vi"dêti
>> (in mobile ê-verbs the rule doesn't work:
>> beg-eh1-téi (Hirt)> bêz^ê"ti, idem sêdê"ti)
>
>> Double retraction:
>> Cases like seh1i-ah2-téi (Hirt)> sêja"ti > sê"jati, rê"zati,
>> etc.
>
>Was the infinitive morpheme ever accented in the iterative -ati
>verbs?

It was everywhere else, so yes. And it's bê"gajoN, vê"dajoN
anyway (as opposed to, say, vita"joN, z^ela"joN), so it has
nothing to do with the infinitive morpheme per se.

>If Winter + d + t can trigger the same retraction as
>clusters

d+t *is* a cluster. What do you mean? Which retraction by
clusters?

>, and vi´´dêti is analogical on sly´´s^ati, the evidence has
>evapoarated.

I don't think so.

>> Failure of Hirt's law due to laryngeal breaking (*i/uH2/3):
>> byla` (but by"ti)
>> vila` (but vy"ti)
>> gnila` (but gni"ti)
>> pila` (but pi"ti)
>> z^ila` (but z^i"ti)
>
>I do not see a significant correlation in this.

It's clear that Hirt's law didn't work in these verbs, or
the l-ptc. wouldn't be mobile, so something else caused the
accent retraction in the infinitive. I think it's my turn
to throw in some Latvian: bût, vît, dzît, pît.

>> Failure of Hirt's law due to euH, eiH, etc.:
>> c^u"ti (*keuh1-), du"ti (*deuh2-), rju"ti (*h3reuH-), etc.
>> (there are a handful of exception in mobile verbs with *erH,
>> *eNH: derti`, sterti`, perti` and peNti`, teNti`).
>
>If the first set of verbs were reduplicated Hirt's law should work.
>You cannot disprove that by just saying it didn't.

c^u"ti, c^u"joN from *kekóuh1-, *kékuh1-? Why would I want
to posit something like that?

And what about u"joN, blju"joN, plju"joN, su"joN; du"noN,
su"noN; nu"djoN, c^u"djoN, ru"s^joN; ku"tajoN, ku"s^ajoN?

>Or did Hirt's law
>work also on u-diphthongs (jáunas is not such a clear example
>anyway)?

I see nothing wrong with Illich-Svitych's tu~kU.

>> My hypothesis was that the stative endings (*-h2, *-th2,
>> etc.) [originally an enclitic copula "I am", "you are",
>> etc.] when extended with the element *-e can roughly be
>> translated as "I have", "you have", etc. (by way of a "mihi
>> est" construction). When added to a verbal form that we can
>> roughly render as a past passive participle, we get the
>> perfect/stative "I have X'ed", and when added to a kind of
>> infinitive, we get the middle "I have to X" (for
>> involuntary, accidental and other acts over which the
>> subject has no control). We can see by the endings that the
>> middle and the stative are related, but I have never seen an
>> explanation that made sense and could be summarized in a few
>> words of *why* that is so. I think this one makes sense,
>> and can be summarized summarily as: "the endings mean "to
>> have"."
>
>Of course I understand that, it is in fact very close to what I
>wrote myself in the Beekes festschrift, if only as a loose thought.
>The middle-voice forms are weak forms and so are expected to have
>underlying vowels; they show them too, so that is fine. The perfect,
>on the other hand, always has a vowel *-e, and that does not
>influence the accent the least bit, so that is not very fine. The
>personal markers are the same, and the functional relationship is as
>between 'be' and 'have', mid. 'is seen', pf. 'has seen'. That comes
>very close to the actual meaning, but we do not have the rules to
>make it work. The only thing reminiscent of an ablaut-resistent
>possessive -e is the thematic vowel which does have these
>properties, but we have no other cases where a thematic marker is
>added to a full word without consequences for the accent. This
>surely has not been analyzed fully satisfactorily yet.

We agree there.

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