> [mailto:cybalist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of pielewe
> What I mean is the fixed end stress in the present tense (and
> the end stress in the PPP), which historically is (c) stress,
> whereas the non- learned or genuinely Russian forms of the
> word (like poc^init' 'mend,
> fix') have retracting stress, which historically is (b)
> stress.
I see, thanks. I had to figure out those poc^ínit < *poc^ínitI <
*poc^inîtI < *po'c^initI (pre-Dybo (b)) and pric^inít < *pric^inítI <
*pric^initÌ (pre-fall-of-jers (c)) myself.
Just to clarify: do you mean that the (c) stress of Slavonicisms
presents an archaism and the (b) stress of genuinely Russian forms is
a late innovation? Or you are inclined to ascribe it to accentual
differences between the dialects of Common Slavic? (The latter is
less probable, though, as I remember you to criticize the Moscow
School for postulating Common (or Proto-)Slavic dialectal differences
sine necessitate in "Modus operandi...").
> If I'd known about this earlier I'd given up
> learning the language.
Have you ever tried to master the stress rules of Standard
Lithuanian? My subjective evaluation would be that the proportion of
native speakers outwitted by the rules of Standard Lithuanian
accentuation is much greater than that of native speakers of Russian
confused by the Volxonka norm.
Sergei