From: Mate Kapović
Message: 44781
Date: 2006-05-30
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapović <mkapovic@...> wrote:The length of the neo-acute (*~) = the length that has its origin in the
>
>> >Indeed, in that case
>> > Slovincian <tr^îma,> 'I hold' (if <*tri:mň, with -ajo, dialectally
>> > contracted already in Common Slavic?) vs. <tr^ĺ~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:mň,).
>>
>> Actually, the shortening is in the infinitive, but in present
> tense, the
>> length is neo-acute in origin. The 1st person final accent would
> yield
>> exactly the same result in Slovincian since the accent is retracted
> (also
>> a long vowel).
>
> My aim has been more than modest so far -- to read Stang correctly.
> If he didn't mean what I wrote (shortening in <tr^ĺ~mac> because -i-
> goes before a stressed inner syllable in *trima"ti and non-shortening
> in <tr^îma,> because -i- occurs before a stresses non-inner syllable
> in *tri:mň,), what did he mean then?
>
> And then I don't quite understand your comment (no tongue in cheek --
> your formulation is too succinct).
> What do you mean by neo-acute length exactly?
> lengthening as a result of retraction from weak jers (not relevant inExactly.
> that context), so you must have meant the retraction by Stang-
> Ivs^ic''s Law.
>But does that retraction lengthen short vowelsIt doesn't. Only long vowels get the long neo-acute (*~), the short ones
> aquiring the ictus? I'm not sure it does.
>What it does, actually, isYes, but the length would be shortened by the 2-mora-rule if there was no
> that it imparts rising tone to a vowel which was already long before
> the retraction, so it's not the retraction one needs to have length --
> rather ictus on the long (non-acute) vowel before Dybo's Law.
>> > Stang didn't know Dybo's Law and considered the place of ictus inSent.
> 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:mň,),
>>
>> Nope. It is clear that there is a shortening in the first case. I
> have
>> written about it at length. If you are interested, I can send you my
>> article.
>
> Thanks, it would be very helpful, since so far I've been able to
> judge your paper only by Kortlandt's critical article.