On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:49:11 +0200 (CEST),
mkapovic@...
wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:36:52 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer
>> <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>>>There were no other forms with medial accent at the time.
>>
>> A bit of an exaggeration. There were also suffixed words
>> with dominant (stressed) suffix, where the accent had been
>> retracted earlier by Hirt's law, e.g. bogátU. There are two
>> ways to deal with these:
>>
>> 1) reformulate Stang's law as: accent is retracted from a
>> non-acute stressed medial syllable (in which case Stang's
>> and Dybo's law do not affect boga//tU)
>>
>> 2) Leave it as above, in which case the developments are
>> more complicated, although the result is the same:
>
>I don't quite get why are you looking for such a broad definition of
>Stang's law
First, a correction: my formulation was only valid for
monosyllabic roots. A more general formulation would be:
accent is retracted to the root from a stressed medial
morpheme.
[This way, the accent is not retracted in e.g. *xorós^-o,
and Dybo's law can make that xoros^-ó, as attested].
Now this sounds broader than it is, because of the time
frame in which I've put it (before Dybo's law). At the
time, there were not so many accent class II nouns (only the
peró-group, and composite nouns with stressed (dominant)
suffixes). In the verb, on the other hand, class II was
very well represented (the vast majority of ne-, je-,
de-verbs, and a good number of i:-verbs).
The main advantage of reformulating and re-dating Stang's
law as I did, is that it immediately explains why the 2/3sg.
of mobile verbs is, against all expectations, oxytone.
>since it is present only in clearly defined cases of a. p. b
>present tense,
Which is indeed where we would expect it in my
reformulation.
>a. p. b imperfect,
Hmm, I overlooked this one. Can you give me the details?
>a. p. b long adjectives and ordinal numbers,
I don't think this has anything to do with Stang's law, at
least nothing to do with circumflex intonation. The
distribution is:
ap a: by"strU by"stra by"stro
by"strU-jI by"stra-ja by"stro-je
ap b: bê'lU bêlá bêló
bê'lU-jI bê'la-ja bê'lo-je
ap c: môldU moldá môldo
moldÚ-jI moldá-ja moldó-je
Russian has no contraction (belaja > belâ) in the nominative
forms, but the stress is retracted nevertheless.
The key is that these were compound words, with two stresses
(only one in enclinomenic forms):
by"strU-jÍ by"stra-já by"stro-jé
bê'lU-jÍ bê'la-já bê'lo-jé
moldU-jÍ moldá-já moldo-jé
Stang's law does not apply, and neither does Dybo's law
(which suggests that main stress was on the pronominal
element). The Common Slavic situation follows if the
pronominal element gave up its main stress to the secondary
stress of the root:
by"strU-jÍ by"stra-já by"stro-jé =>
by"strUjI by"straja by"stroje
bê'lU-jÍ bê'la-já bê'lo-jé =>
bê'lUjI bê'laja bê'loje
moldá-já => moldája
In a.p. c enclinomenic forms, two solutions were possible:
moldU-jÍ, moldo-jé => moldÚjI, moldóje
môldU-jÍ, môldo-jé => môldUjI, môldoje
>*volja-type nouns,
Stang's solution is to derive these from a.p. b volI'-ja >
vòl(I)ja > vòlja. I'm not sure if that is "old" a.p. b
(better said, class II < PIE -íyah2) or "new" a.p. b (by
Dybo's law). I still have some more thinking to do about
the vòlja-type.
>G. pl. of a. p. b with the acute in the middle syllable etc.
That is retraction of the stress from weak yers, which I
excluded from Stang's law.
>and it clearly has something to do with length (long falling
>middle accent retracts)
But I don't think it has anything to do with length. The
jé-, né-, dé-verbs have an etymologically short thematic
vowel. The vowel of the i:-stems is long, but that's
precisely where Stang's law does *not* always work (Dybo's
*loz^í:tI, *loz^í:te). In the peró-group, retraction of the
stress in the plural also has nothing to do with length, as
I don't believe everything here is analogical after the
loc.pl.
Of the five CS cases of retraction from circumflex medial
syllable that Stang himself gives, two have not been
mentioned:
ptc.praet.pass. (e.g. ORu. písanU). According to Zaliznjak
(based on Dybo), this has to with length, but of the _root_
syllable (pí:sa(:)nU vs. c^esá:nU). Dybo reconstructs CS
*pisánU.
That leaves the retraction in the a.p. b o-stem loc.pl.
(dvòrêxU). Here I must admit that the classic formulation
of Stang's law works, and my reformulation doesn't.
However, that doesn't weigh up against the fact that Stang's
law in its classic formulation fails to explain anything
else (in particular the accent pattern of a.p. b verbs).
There musty be a dufferent explanation for the retraction of
the accent in the a.p. b o-stem loc.pl. We know that an old
acute before this ending turns into a "neo-circumflex" in
South Slavic. We also know that a circumflex root syllable
attracts the stress from the ending in words of the
peró-group (meNsó > mêNso, ja:jé > jâje).
After Dybo's law, we had the following possible combinations
of acute (A) and non-acute long (L) and short (S) syllables
together with the ictus ('):
A' S (bra"tU) => no change
A' L (bra"têxU) => neo-circumflex brãtêxU
S S' (dvorá) => no change
S L'
(dvorê'xU, c^esá:nU) => retraction? (dvòrêxU, but c^esánU)
L S'
(meNsó, G. su:dá) => retraction? (mêNso, but sudá/sûda)
L L'
(pi:sá:nU, soNdê'xU) => retraction (písanU, sóNdêxU)
S A' (zUva"ti) => no change
L A' (pisa"ti) => no change
A' A (bê"gati) => no change
I hope I have all that right.
Clearly, length played an important part in late Common
Slavic accentological developments (in part already
dialectal), and the facts are difficult to sort out.
But I don't think length played any role in the
establishment of the neo-mobile verbal and nominal paradigms
(pisjóN, písjetI; peró, pl. [pèra], pèromU).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...