From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 36727
Date: 2005-03-13
>Sorry I wasn't paying attention. You mean "Stang" as in
>On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:36:28 +0000, elmeras2000
><jer@...> wrote:
>
>>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>But is there retraction? The suffix -uka- forms class-2 derivatives
>>in Lithuanian, pointing to *-úko-.
>
>From *-ukó- by Nieminen's law.
>
>>Would that not give *a:blúka >
>>*abl'Uko, whence with Stang *j'ablUko?
>
>No. Stang?