Re: [tied] trzymac'

On Sun, 28 May 2006 08:54:11 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>--- 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.?

Or, perhaps more resonably, from an m-participle/adjective
(like terpêti ~ terpimU).

>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?)

If, as Piotr just mentioned, some Kashubian dialects still
preserve uncontracted -ajeN, I don't think there's any point
in trying to explain Slovincian forms by an appeal to early
contractions.

> 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?

My suggestion was a connection between turé:ti and the
initial part of trzymac'. Where the *-m-a(je)- comes from
is not entirely clear to me, so not much can be said about
the accent from that perspective.

What does it mean for an a/aje-verb with monosyllabic root
to be a.p. b? As far as I can see, there should be no
difference between a.p. b and c here. The stress is always
on the -a-, whether from an a.p. c root (c^ita"ti,
c^ita"je/o-) or an a.p. b root (strelja"ti, strelja"je/o-)
(Polysyllabic roots, like a.p. b rabòtati, rabòtajoN are
different, and take their accent from the noun they are
derived from). In my view, Dybo's law never operated in
these forms: the accent was -ah2téi > -áh2tei and -ah2jé- >
-áh2je- by Hirt's law, and never moved again, except in a.p.
a, where there was a further retraction to the acute
root-syllable (my "ja"blUko-law"), as in dê"lati, dê"lajoN.

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