From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 38609
Date: 2005-06-14
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:15:55 +0200 (CEST), mkapovic@...The only information I had available was Zaliznjak, who
>> wrote:
>>
>>>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?
>>
>> My preferred solution would involve a vowel contraction, as
>> that is the most likely source for a long circumflex vowel.
>>
>>>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/Èakavian dialects but not
>>>in *all*, so it's clearly a local and later development.
>>
>> At a much earlier stage *-ije- *did* contract to /i:~/ in
>> the causative/iteratives (*-éje-) and denominatives
>> (*-ijé-). Although it didn't in the i-stem masc. nom. pl.
>> -Ije.
>>
>>>P.S. Miguel, you haven't responded to my examples of the difference of
>>>*-dja and *-dIja.
>>
>> Well, lodIja is ap c,
>
>How did you get to that conclusion? In what language is it a. p. c? Croat.
>la~dja, Bulg. ládija, Russ. lódIja/lodIjá.
>>and gordja is a vo`lja-word, so theNot really. The exact same thing happens in Vedic with the
>> two are not necessarily equatable. If, as Stang's solution
>> implies, in *gordI`ja > go`rdja the yer was elided/
>> contracted _before_ the breakup of Common Slavic, the
>> sequence *dj will show its usual reflexes in the daughter
>> languages.
>
>I still don't get it why would some *-Ija get contracted and some
>wouldn't. And what is worse, only supposedly accented *-Ija gets
>contracted. Very strange.