Re: Dybo's law

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

>
>
> I read on in the article so I could understand Dybo's law and get

to

> understand why some Russian verbs end-stress the 1sg and root-

stress

> other persons and numbers. This is what I found
>
> *vezó:
> *vezés^U
> *vezétU
> *vezémo
> *vezéte
> *vezó,tI
>
> ->
>
> *vezó,
> *vezes^Ú
> *vezetÚ
> *vezemó
> *vezeté
> *vezo,tÍ
>
> etc
>

The 2sg has -s^I (as you notice in a following post yourself).

> So this is where that alternating stress appears. All forms move

the

> stress out to their final vowel or jer, but 1st sg. doesn't have
> one, so it can't.

That is correct - meaning, that is what the article says, right or
wrong. The task was to provide a rationale for mobility in simple
thematic verbs as opposed to lack of it in some other types which in
this analysis are derived from athematic structures (again right or
wrong). The accentuation on the thematic vowel, though deviating
from Sanskrit and other diagnostic material, is as in the Lithuanian
present participle. It may reflect an earlier standardization of the
tudáti type.

> But there is something I can't understand. Instead of moving

stress,

> the 1st sg. lets its vowel grow a tail! It self-nasalises! Is this
> part of Dybo's plan?

That has nothing to do with it. The nasal accretion is somewhat
enigmatic. The only reasonable explanation I know is Vaillant's: a
reduced secondary *-mi from athematic verbs. The phonetic
developmenmt is then as with the instrumental feminine in -ojoN (Sl.
tojoN : Ved. táya:, sénaya:, Lith. baltáN-ja). In both cases an
added analogical *-mi has been reduced to a simple nasal feature.

Jens