Re: [tied] Slaaby-Larsen's law

On Uto, lipanj 13, 2006 1:07 am, Miguel Carrasquer reče:

> - The "meNso"-law, by which the presence of a pretonic long
> circumflex causes the accent paradigm to become mobile. This
> only applies in an open syllable (meN~.só => mę.so, perhaps
> sIr.dI.cé => sIr~.dI.ce;

In *sIrdIce, the end-stress would synchronically be expected, as in Slavic
*-Ice deminutives, cf. Croat. pívce, Russ. pivcó. I would rather attribute
the initial circumflex in *sIrdIce to an archaism than to an innovation.
*sIrdIc'e > *sIr^dIce makes no sense when all the other *-Ice words have
desinential stress. Thus, it must be an archaism. I have argued that all
the *-Ice words had mobile accentuation, and that *pi:vIc'e, *pi:vIc'a
comes originally from *pi^vIce, *pi:vIc'a. The original circumflex is
preserved in *sIr^dIce because it was semantically not a deminutive
anymore.

<je-verbs: da~.jóN => dâ.joN,

> ne-verbs: vi~.nó: => vî.noN, etc.).

*vi:n'o has end-stress.

> - The "jablUko"-law, whereby a pretonic acute attracts the
> stress (ja_blUkó => ja"blUko; vę_dę'ti => vę"dęti, etc.)

Your *jablUk'o is ad hoc. It is easier to assume *jáblo > *jáblUko. No
additional laws are needed. The accent of the original form remains
unchanged.
And how do you now that the accent in *vEdEti was not on the first
syllable originally?

> - Stang's law, which eliminates non-acute stress on all
> medial (but not final)

Not in final? How about *volja^ > *vo`lja:?

> Where Slaaby-Larsen's law fits in in this scheme is as a
> restriction on Meillet's law: the law fails if the syllable
> is closed.

Huh? Do you mean cases like *grýzlU, *grýzla?
What about *tE^sto "dough" ~ Old Irish táis (PIE *teh2yst-?)? You must
have Meillet there to get rid of the acute from the laryngeal.

> On the other hand, da(d)mI, ę(d)mI and vę(d)mI do not behave
> as expected. If Meillet's law failed in a closed syllable,
> we would expect *da"mI, *ę"mI and *vę"mI etc.

But Meillet's Law could have occurred after the *d's were dropped here.

Mate