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 >
>>>>> 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)
>
> 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?

Well yes and no. In verbs there might be but it's not clear because of all
the secondary developments. In o-stems, there can be none, since it's
hardly concievable that a final yer would be lenghtened. Thus, a-stems is
all we have. If you insist on *-Ija, I cannot see how can you explain
Russian lódIja, Slovene ládja (not *laja!), older Croat. la~dja with a
preserved *I (in a sense the outcome is different) but Russian goróz^a,
Sln. grája, Croat. gra~d'a/gra~ja.

> Stang's explanation, on the other hand, is simply CVV > CV:,
> with a close parallel in Polish braciĺ. 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.

Ups. It's apparently not. OCS has kleNtva. We know it was *-tUva though
because of Lith. -tuva and there are no problems as in -Ija/ja since *-tva
and *-tUva would yield the same result in all the languages (probably) and
*CIja and *Cja don't.

Mate