Re: [tied] trzymac'

On Pon, svibanj 29, 2006 1:40 am, Miguel Carrasquer reče:

> On Sun, 28 May 2006 23:39:17 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer
> <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 May 2006 20:00:11 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
>><S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>>
>>>I've just realized I don't know and can't think of the etymology of
>>>Polish <trzymac'> 'hold'. Does it continue Common Slavic *tri(:)ma"ti
>>>(b? -- in view of Kashubian <tr^îma,> 'I hold' with î vs. ĺ~ in the
>>>infinitive) or is it a borrowing?
>>
>>To return to the original point, the Kashubian/Slovincian
>>forms seem fit Mate's two-mora-rule (pretonic length is
>>shortened before two or more morae) quite well. tri:má:ti
>>(final open syllables count as 1 mora) has 3 morae after the
>>length
>
> That is true.
>
>>, while tri:móN has one.
>
> Nonsense, it's t(vI)ri:má:joN, which should have shortened
> the /i:/ if it was pretonic.

Yes, but only if the accent remains on *-áj-. If it's contracted, the
accent retracts as a neo-acute and this happens before the 2-moras-rule.
However, the 1st person singular has no contraction (because of the nasal
and not simple *-e- in the second syllable) and the contracted vowel is
rather analogical due to the influence of the other forms.

Mate