Re: [tied] trzymac'

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapoviæ <mkapovic@...> wrote:

> >What it does, actually, is
> > 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.
>
> Yes, but the length would be shortened by the 2-mora-rule if there

was no

> retraction. Thus, the length is preserved only because of the

retraction.

OK, now I see your point.

> You can notice that my theory is corroborated by the development in
> Polish. Old Polish has, for instance, the expected

seNdzic' "judge" -

> saNdzisz (a. p. b), which has been transformed analogically to

Modern

> Polish saNdzic' - saNdzisz. In order to explain that, Kortlandt

assumes

> some imaginary suffix *-Ij-, which has dissapeared and who knows

what.

Yes, I've noticed it reading his article. He must have developed his
own theory of the origin of the non-acute *-i- in the present and the
acute (or short rising, for him) *-i- in the infinitive of *-i-verbs
(at least denominatives, to which *so(:)Ndi"ti belongs). The *-i- of
the present isn't a phonetically regular reflex of *-eje- (or
something like that) anyway and indeed demands explanation, though I
don't know how to get his *-Ìji:- from that (neither his *-Ìjiti of
the infinitive).

I vaguely remember Dybo to mention somewhere this strange behaviour
of *i-verbs belonging to a.p. b (no length in the infinitive), but if
I recall he didn't offer a solution (like your 2-mora-rule).

Sergei.