Re: [tied] Re: trzymac'

On Uto, svibanj 30, 2006 4:28 pm, pielewe reče:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapović <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>
> On the seNdzic' vs. saNdzisz business:
>
>> Would you agree that this is a big lacuna in Kortlandt's theory? I
> mean,
>> you've always said one should criticize it from inside a theory.
>
>
> Honestly I wouldn't be able to say at the moment. (It also depends on
> what you call "big".)

I think it is big when the whole deal about pretonic length and Dybo's Law
crashes down, but OK...

>What FK writes on seNdzic' vs. saNdzisz in the
> article you quoted earlier today is not explicit enough for me to
> understand what he has in mind, let alone to criticize on other
> grounds than lack of explicitness.

He should be explicit though if he wants people to accept his theories.

> By and large, and discounting for the moment the seNdzic' vs.
> saNdzisz problem, I think that Kortlandt's theory copes very well
> with vowel quantity.

It's hardly just a seNdzic' vs. saNdzisz problem. There's a *big* problem
in explaining all the a. p. b verbs of this kind in a couple of
languages/dialects.

>However that does not preclude the existence of
> thousands of potential theories that can do even better. After all,
> vowel quantity has traditionally always been something of the step-
> child of Slavic accentology.

Only because nobody's actually looked at all the material carefully. Stang
was on the right way but he has not payed much attention to the details.
Kortlandt's mistake was that he took modern standard language data for
granted.

> Unfortunately there are quite a few issues where he either is overly
> secretive and/or expects his readers to do his work. To give an
> example, I would dearly like to hear from him how it is possible for
> *soNdU to be (b)-stressed and yet for *soNdIja to have stress on the
> suffix in the period before Dybo's law. (This is implied in the
> passage we're talking about.) According to Dybo's valency theory,
> which he claims to follow (unless I have misunderstood something at
> some point) this should not be possible. It seems obvious that he
> somehow operates with a mitigated variant of Dybo's valency theory,
> but he nowhere explains the details.

I would say it's another ad hoc solution to solve an unsolvable problem,
although not as big as the infinitive problem.

> Accentologists are weirdoes. :)

That's for sure .-)

Mate