Re: [tied] Slavic accentology

>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:36:52 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer
>>> <mcv@...> wrote:

>>a. p. b imperfect,
>
> Hmm, I overlooked this one. Can you give me the details?

It's basically the same as the present tense. In Croatian, the
accentuation of the imperfect is in accord with that of the present, thus:
no``si:m "I carry" - no``s^a:h (b), lo`vi:m "I catch" ~ lo`vlja:h (c).

>>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: bę'lU bęlá bęló
> bę'lU-jI bę'la-ja bę'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.

No contraction in N. sg. you mean? Anyway, I do not insist that the
forming of the neo-acute fixed root stress a. p. b is strictly do to
retraction from the inner long falling syllable. I think there were other
factors there as well.

>>*volja-type nouns,
>
> Stang's solution is to derive these from a.p. b volI'-ja >
> vňl(I)ja > vňlja.

That is surely wrong. Many Slavic languages clearly distinguish between
*-ja and *-Ija suffixes.

>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 vňlja-type.

I will talk about it in Zagreb. Maybe it will be useful for you :)

>>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.

I was thinking on Croat. lo`pata "shovel" - G. pl. lo``pa:ta:

> But I don't think it has anything to do with length. The
> jé-, né-, dé-verbs have an etymologically short thematic
> vowel.

I agree.

>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).

Hm lo`z^i:m is (c) in my language.

>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.

I think that's a completely different process having nothing to do with
Stang.

> 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. [pčra], pčromU).

I agree for pe`ra, but I wouldn't just exclude the possibility of van
Wijk's law in pi~s^etI (anyhow, if -e- had been lengthened by van Wijk, I
believe it was again shortened after as shown by Croat. ho``tjes^ with a
short -e-).

Mate