Re: [tied] Slaaby-Larsen's law

On Uto, lipanj 13, 2006 8:04 pm, Miguel Carrasquer reče:

>><je-verbs: da~.jóN => dâ.joN,
>>> ne-verbs: vi~.nó: => vî.noN, etc.).
>>
>>*vi:n'o has end-stress.

Sorry, I though you were talking about the noun *vino "vine" :) My mistake...

>>> - 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.
>
> The original form is mobile (*h2ábo:l(s), *h2abulós; Lith.
> obuoly~s).

Lithuanian example obuoly~s proves nothing. It's a. p. 3, which is
secondary for the original a. p. 1 (cf. dial. óbuolas), and in a. p. 3
-y~s is alway accented in the nominative.

> Addition of the stressed suffix *-kó immobilized
> it as a.p. II. The acute comes from Winter's law, so there
> is no possibility that the word had become a.p. I by Hirt's
> law. The retraction must stem from a different soundlaw, as
> it does in vę"dęti (but vędę"la), by"ti (but bylá), ę"sti
> (*d), preN"sti (*d), stri"ktji (*g), bleN"sti (*d), me"lzti
> (*g^), vi"ti (but vilá), gni"ti (but gnilá), li"ti (but
> lilá), pi"ti (but pilá), z^i"ti (but z^ilá), rju"ti, snu"ti,
> tru"ti, z^u"ti; du"ti, c^u"ti, -u"ti... (all with *euH),
> sę"sti (*d), vi"dęti (*d), etc.

Yes, the old problem of *bylá...

>>> - Stang's law, which eliminates non-acute stress on all
>>> medial (but not final)
>>
>>Not in final? How about *volja^ > *vo`lja:?
>
> By my definition of Stang's law, it comes before Dybo's law.
> The retraction in volja~ is therefore a different thing (and
> late).

Stang 2? :) Not very convincing, I'm afraid... It looks like typical
Stang's Law to me...

>>> 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.
>
> But the aorist is, I believe, ę"sU, ę" [a-a] (contrast with
> e.g. *byxÚ, by^ [b-c], where Meillet's law _did_ work).
> Correct me if I'm wrong.

Don't know about the first verb, I don't know if its accentuation is
actually attested anywhere. The second one is *býxU, *by^. And yes, I
agree it's Meillet's law in the second form.

Mate