Re: [tied] trzymac'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>...Btw, in
> Northern Kashubian dialects it still has the archaic ending of the

1st

> conjugation <-aje,> (elsewhere one finds innovated <-óm> like

Polish

> <trzymam> or analogical <-ie,> today).

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> The only possible connection I can imagine is with Lith.
> turé:ti "to have". The Slavic equivalent could have been
> originally *tureih1-mi "I hold" > *t(U)rim(I). Would it be
> too far-fetched to derive *trim-ati from such a 1st person
> sg.?

Actually, I came up with the question after I had read a passage in
Stang's Slavonic Accentuation (p. 42), where he -- speaking of b-
verbs ("where the present has a long vowel as a result of neo-
acute") -- adduces some Slovincian verbs (from Lorentz's grammar) to
illustrate a thesis that "in the syllable immediately preceding a
stressed inner syllable we find shortening". Indeed, in that case
Slovincian <tr^îma,> 'I hold' (if <*tri:mò, with -ajo, dialectally
contracted already in Common Slavic?) vs. <tr^å~mac> 'to hold' (if <
*trima"ti) would demonstrate shortening before a stressed inner
syllable (*trima"ti) and non-shortening before a stressed final
syllable (*tri:mò,).

Stang didn't know Dybo's Law and considered the place of ictus in b-
verbs original, while from contemporary point of view one would
probably expect non-shortening in both cases (*trí:mati > *tri:ma"ti
in the same way as *trí:mo, > *tri:mò,), but anyway, if the verb
indeed belonged to a.p. b, would it be compatible with *h1 of
*tureih1mi (or *turHeih1mi, in view of Lith. tvérti 'seize' < *tuerH-
?) Shouldn't one expect a.p. a in that case?

Sergei