Re: [tied] Re: Slavic accentology

> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:07:15 +1000, Kim Bastin
> <kimb@...> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:16:26 +0200, you wrote:
>>
>>>I meant: are there any examples in any language of a
>>>geminate consonant (I'll also accept a consonant cluster)
>>>being simplified with compensatory lengthening of the
>>>_following_ vowel? I'm aware of thousands of soundlaws, but
>>>I don't recall ever running into this one. Compensatory
>>>lengthening of the preceeding vowel, yes. No effect on
>>>neighbouring vowels, of course. But lengthening of the next
>>>vowel? I find it very unlikely from a phonetic point of
>>>view, and it certainly doesn't seem to happen in Slavic
>>>cases like *attikos > otIcI or *dubno > dUno, *supnos >
>>>sUnU.
>>
>>It's certainly unusual, but I can quote a case from some dialects of
>>Finnish where G disappears after liquids with lengthening of the
>>following vowel, e.g. *jalGan > jalaan (standard Finnish jalan 'foot,
>>leg (agsg)'). The nsg is jalka � *G is the weak grade

that appears

>>before a closed syllable.
>
> Thanks, that's an example. I'm afraid, however, that it
> doesn't really help to diminish my lack of trust in the
> alleged development vol'l'a > vol'a:. The mechanism behind
> the Finnish case is clearly some kind of "laryngeal
> vocalization".

OK, but there was not *I there, as I have shown, and we *do* get a
lengthened -ja. It is obvious that for some reason it lengthened. Do you
have an alternative solution?

Another reason why *-Ija is not possible is that in that case we would
also expect for instance *-Ije to lengthen. Ofcourse, that *does* happen,
e. g. in Polish dialects and in some Štokavian/Čakavian dialects but not
in *all*, so it's clearly a local and later development.

Mate

P.S. Miguel, you haven't responded to my examples of the difference of
*-dja and *-dIja.