From: Mate Kapović
Message: 44799
Date: 2006-05-30
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapović <mkapovic@...> wrote:Would you agree that this is a big lacuna in Kortlandt's theory? I mean,
>
> I had written:
>
>> > ... Kortlandt does not talk about the
>> > alternation of seNdzic' vs. saNdzisz, but about the accentuation
> of the
>> > noun meaning 'judge', i.e. *soNdIji, which does have the suffix *-
> Ij-.
>> > As far as I know (but I may be mistaken), the alternation
> seNdzic' vs.
>> > saNdzisz is not treated anywhere in his work. Indeed I vividly
> recall
>> > him saying at some point in the mid seventies that he felt that
> that
>> > was the only more or less serious problem in Slavic accentology
> his
>> > theory failed to account for. Of course I am not in a position to
> tell
>> > whether or not he would still say that today.
>
>
> Then Mate wrote:
>
>> It's not a misunderstanding. Cf.
>> http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art222e.pdf
>>
>> Side 15 (his IWoBA 1 contribution).
>
>
> Thanks, I hadn't noticed that, and don't recall ever having seen it.
> It obviously needs a lot more backing if he wants to convince people.