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

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:45:43 +0000, elmeras2000
<jer@...> wrote:

>--- 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-.

In Lithuanian. Not in Slavic (-Ukó) or Indo-European
(*-(V)-kós).

>> 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'.

I doubt it. The length looks like Winter's law.

>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).

So what's the point in retracting and then advancing the
accent if _all_ these words simply fit oxytone o-stem
neuters in PIE????

I wasn't just referring to peró of course. It was shorthand
for (from Zaliznjak's Old Russian list): licé, loz^é, mytó,
peró, plec^é, pljuc^é, bIrvInó, veretenó, volokUnó, govInó,
gumInó, kopIjé, okUnó, pisImó, polotInó, pIs^enó, res^etó,
sedIló, sukUnó, sIrdIcé, tenetó, tolokUnó, jajIcé.

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