Re: [tied] PIE prek'- ; prok' ; prk'- 'to ask' -- a self-correction

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:23:03 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>> [mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Miguel Carrasquer
>
>> Both c^inU and c^initi are a.p. c, so there is no doubt that
>> the basic intonation was falling, both in pri- and in -c^ina.
>> The fact that it's a compound a-stem with a "minusovyj"
>> prefix explains the fixed (a.p. a) accentuation on the root,
>> at least for Russian: see Zaliznjak 2.26.
>
>Yes, if one takes the Moscow "valencies" doctrine for granted.

Well, as Zaliznjak notes, these compounds do *not* follow
the standard valency rules (udarenie [] obyc^no uz^e ne
podc^injalos' [hey! there's c^in- again!] bazisnomu
pravilu). He doesn't elaborate on why this is the case, or
what explains the different subtypes (potopU, otrokU, okupU,
zasuxa).

>But
>actually the fixed accentuation on the root can be explained as the
>effect of Dybo's Law if one supposes the ictus was initially fixed on
>the (non-acute) prefix (as is always the case with Lith. prie- --
><príedanga> etc., Lithuanian has generalized acute, while Slavic --
>non-acute).

Yes.

>My problem is that a long falling pitch accent should have yielded
>the ictus back to the prefix according to the original (Stang's)
>formualtion of Stang's Law ('retraction from medial or final
>circumflex', like in *nosîs^i > *nòsis^i or *be^lâgo > *bé^lago).
>Kortlandt's formulation (retraction 'from long falling vowels in
>final syllables') lets the ictus rest on the root, though.

I don't really believe in Stang's law as such...

Why *be^lãgo? I've forgotten.

>Anyway, *pric^îna (a) is a bit awkward a reconstruction for my taste.
>
>Sergei

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