Re: [tied] Re: Slavic accentology

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 00:28:08 +0200 (CEST), mkapovic@...
wrote:

>> 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 >
>>>> vòl(I)ja > vòlja.
>>>
>>>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. wolå),
>> which indicates some kind of vowel contraction, parallel to,
>> but earlier than, Pol. dial. braciå < bra"tIja. Since we
>> have -Ijá (e.g. semIjá) and "-Ija (bra"tIja), but not -Ìja
>> (where one would expect *volÌja > *vòlIja), it stands to
>> reason that *volÌja became *voljã > vòlja:. This then also
>> explains kléNtva as from *kleNtÙwa > *kleNtwã > kléNtva:.
>>
>> I wouldn't swear it's true (perhaps it was rather *volÌja >
>> *vòlIja > *vòljã, with contraction _after_ stress
>> retraction), but it certainly is by far the best explanation
>> for the vòlja-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)

The problem I have with that is that Kortlandt's/van Wijk's
explanation suggests a development CCV > CV:, without any
indication that I have seen of parallel developments
anywhere else. I'm not aware of any cases of such
compensatory lengthening. Are there any?

Stang's explanation, on the other hand, is simply CVV > CV:,
with a close parallel in Polish braciå. And it also
explains kléNtva: in a nicely parallel fashion.

> *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.

Is it? Stang writes *kleNtUva with an asterisk.

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