Re: [tied] Re: Slavic accentology

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Slavic accentology


> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 02:40:49 +0200 (CEST), mkapovic@...
> wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:15:55 +0200 (CEST), mkapovic@...
>>> 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.
>
> The only information I had available was Zaliznjak, who
> gives lodi/lodIji as a.p. c.

Yes, but that's an -Iji (-i) stem. It's different from secondary -Ija stem.

>>>and gordja is a vo`lja-word, so 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.
>
> Not really. The exact same thing happens in Vedic with the
> "independent svarita". For instance, the i:-stems have:
>
> G. dhiyás (vr.ki:h.-monosyllables)
> G. rathías > rathyàs (vr.ki:h.-polysyllables)
> G. de:vyá:s, rá:s.t.riya:s (de:vi:-group)
>
> The sequence /iya/ remains as such when the accent is /iyá/
> or /'..iya/, but it becomes /yà/ when originally /íya/.
>
> The same with /uva/, e.g. in the u:-stems:
>
> G. bhuvás vs. tanúas > tanvàs.
>
> This independent svarita (ía > yà, úa > và) is a falling
> accent, like presumably the Slavic circumflex.
>
> I don't see why I should prefer a phonetically impossible
> (or at least highly implausible) compensatory lengthening of
> a _following_ vowel (after the loss of a completely
> unattested geminate consonant) over a solution which is
> parallelled in Vedic under the exact same accentual
> circumstances (the "independent svarita"), and which
> occurred again in Polish under different accentual
> conditions (bra"tija > braciå).

Because there's no reason to think there was a -Ija contraction in
Proto-Slavic which is completely ad hoc.
And of course, it is very curious that there exist a. p. a -ja nouns (like
*krádja), a. p. c -ja nouns (like *dus^a) and instead of "normal" a. p.
b -ja nouns (which would have to have fixed ending stress) we find -ja nouns
(like *volja) with retracted accent. So there's no a. p. b -ja stems,
because we have some ad hoc contraction in Proto-Slavic. Not very likely.
*volja (b) type is clearly parallel to *kradja (a) and *dus^a (c) ja-nouns.
We *can* argue as to why the -ja got lengthened in a. p. b but I think that
contracted *-Ija is out of the question if one looks all the material and
not just 2 or 3 words.

Mate