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

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:26:12 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- 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:
>>>>>>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.

I don't think there any reason to doubt that "apple" was
mobile in PBS. It's a consonant stem, originally
proterodynamic (*h2ábo:l, *h2ábolm., oblique *h2(a)bélos ~
*h2(a)búlos), but reshaped in Balto-Slavic to the
generalized mobile type *h2abó:l, *h2ábolim etc.
It was thematized in Latvian and Lithuanian, remaining
mobile. In Slavic, the suffix *-ko can either be dominant or
recessive. If it was recessive, the word should have
remained mobile, which isn't the case. If the suffix was
dominant (like the cognate -IcI/-Ice, -ikU, -akU,
-UkU/-Uko), the word should have become immobile (which it
is) and stress should have been fixed on the thematic vowel.
The latter is not the case, which means that the stress was
retracted to the acute root syllable. This cannot be due to
Hirt's law, because the acute is not of laryngeal origin,
and because the retraction skips a syllable.

>> >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.

I don't know what significance can be ascribed to this
handful of forms. The vast majority of Lith. verbs in -oti
are accented -óti (by Hirt's law), no matter what the
accentual characteristics of the root. In the index to LIV,
the most convenient source I have at hand, we have:

-ýti 30 '-yti 14
-é:ti 73 '-e:ti 3
-óti 10 '-oti 0

>> >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.

If I rememeber correctly, Slaaby-Larsen's law was about
*non*-retraction in the presence of clusters (però <
*p(t)etróm).

>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?

Because clusters per se don't cause retraction in
infinitives. If we have *legtí with *-ght- versus *strígti
with *-gt- then there is no difference between what you are
saying (some clusters, namely the ones with C1 = *b, *d, *g,
cause retraction) and what I'm saying (Winter's acute causes
retraction).

>> >> Failure of Hirt's law due to laryngeal breaking (*i/uH2/3):
>> >> byla` (but by"ti)
>> >> vila` (but vi"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.

Of course: Francis/Normier is at least dialectal IE, Hirt's
law is at least Balto-Slavic.

What's your explanation?

>> >> 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.

I don't have the time now to study the material. I'll be
back on this later.


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