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

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

> 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.

Nieminen's law could potentially explain the nominative in -ùkas,
but not the other inflectional forms. The underlying stem is -úka-,
not -uká-.

>
> >Would that not give *a:blúka >
> >*abl'Uko, whence with Stang *j'ablUko?
>
> No. Stang?

Yes, retraction from accented reduced vowel.

> >> >> >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).
> >
> >Thomas Olander reported on this list, Dec. 9, 2004:
> >
> >"> A tentative and, to some extent, theory-neutral formulation of
> >the law is:
> >>
> >> In Pre-Slavic, words with mobile accentuation containing a

medial

> >cluster C1C2 (where C1
> >> = obstruent, C2 = any consonant, probably except j and w) get
> >fixed root-stress (yielding
> >> CS a.p. a or - via Dybo's law - a.p. b)." [End of quote]
>
> OK, I forgot. The point is that it doesn't work. There can
> be no Dybo in vêdró, and there is no cluster in peró.

The word ve^dró is a vrddhi formation *we:d-r-ó- 'associated with
water'. It seems to be an isolated example, and the conditioning may
appear odd, but it looks as if an already-long vowel does not accept
the retraction (not really out of character as Slavic accent matters
go). If there is not cluster in peró it is not a counterexample (it
just fits Gk. pterón). My experience with the retraction theory has
been that it works embarrassingly well, and I have had to make some
adjustments.

Jens