Re: [tied] Re: IE thematic presents and the origin of their themati

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:03:23 +0000, Rob
<magwich78@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> >> The usual pattern for this kind of verbs is short voweled
>> >> i-verb (e.g. skoc^iti, skoc^joN, skoc^itI) vs. long-voweled
>> >> a/je-verb (skakati, skac^joN, skac^jetI).
>> >
>> >So the *-j- comes from the verb stem?
>> >
>> >When do you think the *-a- ending was added?
>>
>> The use of *-ah2- as an iterative ending is at least PIE.
>
>Yes, I agree. It seems to be related to the collective (later
>feminine stem and neuter plural) affix *-(e)x.
>
>> The lengthening of the root vowel is Balto-Slavic (PIE /o/
>> (> /a/) is lengthened to /a:/, not /o:/).

Also, PIE /r./ > /ir/ in Balto-Slavic, which is lengthened
to /i:r/ (e.g. bIrati => birati, Russ. so-brat' =>
so-birat').

[..]

>> The accentuation (lengthened a: and e: are circumflex, but i: and
>> u: are acute) suggests that it happened before the Slavic soundlaw
>> *ei > i: (which creates a circumflex /i:/) and/or before Meillet's
>> law (which turns acutes in mobile paradigms into circumflexes).
>
>This is off-topic, but what caused acutes in mobile paradigms to
>become circumflexes?

I think Jens gave the correct solution to this question.

Mobile paradigms have either initial or final stress. Having
an acute in the initial syllable is inconsistent because an
acute has high tone (stress) on the second mora (\/).
Changing it to a circumflex (/\) fits better into the accent
polarity (which also causes the stress to be retracted to a
preceding preposition, e.g. ná golovu).

East Slavic polnoglasie helps to illustrate the concept:
initially stressed acc. *gal&wa:m > *ga\l/voN (before
Meillet) would have given Russian *golóvu. After Meillet's
law we have a circumflex (*ga/l\voN), which gives Russian
gólovu, which is better polarized with respect to nom.
*galwá: > golová.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...