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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> 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?

Pardon my clumsy English. I meant that I need further information to
be sure the suffix *-ko- was originally accented in this word; if it
wasn't the example is not a very good one to demonstrate accent
retraction.

>
> >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.

Stang's Baltic grammar gives some Lith. and Latv. examples with
radical accent: klú:poja beside klú:po, ry´moju (sic) beside ry´mo,
Latv. me~ta~ju 'werfe hin und her', te~ka~ju 'laufe hin und her',
ne~sa~ju 'trage hin und her' (p. 360). The Lith. infinitives are
klú:poti 'kneel' (I guess this really means 'remain kneeling'),
ry´moti 'lean, remain leaning'. This looks to me like an old
structure *té:k-a:-tei with initial accent already in Balto-Slavic.
That makes the type useless as evidence for a Slavic-only
retraction. That could also go for "sê"jati, rê"zati, etc.".

> >If Winter + d + t can trigger the same retraction as
> >clusters
>
> d+t *is* a cluster. What do you mean? Which retraction by
> clusters?

We were told many messages ago that the Slavic type Russ. tonú,
tónes^' (with omega) from *tópn-e- (via Dybo + Stang) had been
brought about by a general accent retraction caused by consonant
clusters of some types. Thomas Olander presented it as Slaaby-
Larsen's analysis, not dissimilar to a theory put forward by van
Wijk. I yet have to digest the full message, but it would go a long
way towards unifying the original structures. Now, if *some*
clusters caused retraction, why could sê"sti, ê"sti not have been
produced by the same process?

>
> >, and vi´´dêti is analogical on sly´´s^ati, the evidence has
> >evaporated.
>
> I don't think so.

What you have presented this time around, *has* then evaporated
(reservations being due for jabloko). If there is more that tips the
balance you may have to produce that again.

>
> >> 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.

The agreement between Slavic and Latvian only shows that the
repartition was Balto-Slavic, which we would assume anyway.

>
> >> 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.

I think there is plenty wrong with it. It has a zero-grade alternant
with short -u- in tùkti (prs. tuñka) 'grow fat'; the Latv. form is
tàuks 'fat'. LIV posits *tewk- besides *tewH2-. It looks like a case
of laryngeal hardening, the -k- being then a variant of the -H2-,
not an addition to it.

If Balto-Slavic had a more reduced propvowel with laryngeals after u-
diphthongs than after sonants proper, sequences like *-ewHt- might
work just as *-eyHt- and *-eHt- by attracting the ictus from the
following syllable. That would make regular forms out of the
counterexamples you adduce. I really think you hit a sore spot, for
it is not very realistic that they all reflect old reduplicated
intensives with e- instead of the expected o-vocalism. Still, even
that remains possible.

Jens