Re: [tied] Re: Slavic accentology

> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:50:54 +0000, pielewe
> <wrvermeer@...> wrote:
>
>>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>>
>>[On the accentuation of:]
>>
>>> >*volja-type nouns,
>>>
>>> Stang's solution is to derive these from a.p. b volI'-ja >
>>> vňl(I)ja > vňlja.
>>
>>That solution can't be correct because there is no shred of evidence of
>>the presence of a *I in those nouns. I've never understood what on
>>earth caused Stang to make this elementary blunder, which would be
>>embarrassing in an undergraduate term paper.
>
> Well, I find Stang's reasoning perfectly clear and
> unobjectionable. The final -a is long (Pol.dial. wolĺ),
> which indicates some kind of vowel contraction, parallel to,
> but earlier than, Pol. dial. braciĺ < bra"tIja. Since we
> have -Ijá (e.g. semIjá) and "-Ija (bra"tIja), but not -Ěja
> (where one would expect *volĚja > *vňlIja), it stands to
> reason that *volĚja became *voljă > vňlja:. This then also
> explains kléNtva as from *kleNtŮwa > *kleNtwă > kléNtva:.
>
> I wouldn't swear it's true (perhaps it was rather *volĚja >
> *vňlIja > *vňljă, with contraction _after_ stress
> retraction), but it certainly is by far the best explanation
> for the vňlja-group that I have ever seen.

Yes, *but* OCS, Russ., Slovene, Older Croat., Bulg. etc. all cleary differ
between old *-ja and *-Ija. There is absolutely no trace of a yer in
*volja.
I think Kortlandt's explanation is basically correct: *vo`lja (pre-Dybo) >
*vo`l'l'a (*lj > *l'l') > *vo`l'a: (lengthening of final -a: in
compensation for CC > C, van Wijk) > *vol'a^ (by Dybo, the long syllable
becomes accented and falling) > *vo`l'a: (the accent is retracted as a
neo-acute by Stang, -a: remains long and shortens in most dialects
afterwards analogically).
Kle~tva is OK but *U is clearly attested there.

Mate