On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:19:06 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapoviæ
<
mkapovic@...> wrote:
>On Uto, lipanj 13, 2006 8:04 pm, Miguel Carrasquer reèe:
>> 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.
I very much doubt the Lithuanian a.p. 3 is secondary. The
paradigm was mobile athematic in PIE, and Latvian âbols
confirms the end-stress.
>>>> - 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...
Yes, Stang 2, and Stang 3, Stang 4 and maybe more. I know
it's not very convincing, but it's absolutely necessary. The
concept of a monolithic Stang's law stands in the way of a
proper understanding (my understanding, anyways) of the
relative chronology that shaped the attested Slavic (verbal)
accentological phenomena.
I would propose to split what is usually known as Stang's
law into four separate laws, two of which predate Dybo's
law, and two of which come after it. I'll use the term
"Stang's law" only for the first one, which is the
retraction of the stress from non-acute medial (not final)
syllables. The law works primarily in the verbal system,
retacting the stress from the 2/3 sg. and the whole dual and
plural of a.p. II verbs. It also affects the a.p. II nouns
(the peró-group), which retract the stress in the plural. It
does not affect any a.p. b forms which came about due to
Dybo's law, so it preceeds taht law. The accent on the
newly stressed initial syllable is short and long neo-acute,
depending on the quantity of the vowel/diphthong.
Stang 2 (Dolobko's law) affects composite words (consisting
of prefix + base word, or base word + postfix). It's
probably older than Stang 1, and appears to be related to
Slaaby-Larsen's law (in my reformulation as a restriction on
Meillet's law). In the case of postfixes, most notably the
definite adjectives and the words with postfixed -sI
(lêtosI, dInIsI, etc.), the results are familiar. A.p. a
adjectives have acute stress on the stem (sta"rU ~
sta"rU-jI), a.p. c adjectives stress the desinence (mol^dU ~
moldÚ-jI) and a.p. b adjectives have unexpected initial
stress (bêlÚ ~ bê'lU-jU).
As we saw in the case of Slaaby-Larsen's law, it appears
that Dybo's and Meillet's laws are blocked. More or less
the same happens in the case of prefixes. The results here
are perhaps less familar: Zaliznjak 2.26 (p. 153ff)
discusses the four different types as they appear in the Old
Russian data. In the most common type (potópU, potópa), the
initial receives the stress (+ marking), no matter what the
accent paradigm of the base word is. In the ''okupU type,
the compound is an enclinomenon, no matter what the original
a.p. of the base word, although usually it is a.p. c. The
zásuxa-type represents stress on the (originally acute)
prefix. Most of the examples given contain za- (Lith.
az^, az^ù, with acute), but one may also compare all the
verbs in vy'-. Finally, there is the marginal otrókU
(otroká) type, with -> marking of the compund, irrespective
of the accentuation of the base word. In Old Russian, it
lost ground to the potópU-type. Still, if we look at the
examples given by Zaliznjak, a kind of pattern emerges:
potópU, perlómU, dosáda, postélja, ubógU, bezboródU,
najI'mU, sUnI'mU, zajI'mU, ..., pric^I'tU, ..., prítUca,
podU's^Iva, prórUva, ..., ós^Iva, pólIza, bézdUna, póz^Inja,
ósUpa, pristávU, oblákU, priznákU, prizrákU, nasmU'rkU,
pristúpU, zagovórU, uz^ásU, zapáxU, vUzdúxU, provoloká.
otrókU, pokróvU, poklónU, oslópU, iskúsU, poxvála, posÚlU,
zamÚkU, zakónU, naródU, prilógU, s(U)vódU, pozórU, pobê'da.
We note that most potópU words have the prefix in an open
syllable (including s- and z-clusters), while a number of
the otrókU words show a closed syllable.
In the most common type (potópU), the accent becomes fixed
on the first syllable of the base word. The resulting
accent is [old] acute if long, short neo-acute if short, as
Mate assures me, based on the Croatian data. In Russian
bezboródU we cannot tell the difference between old acute
and neo-acute. Czech bezbradý (not *bezbrádý) may be due to
the shortness in the base word brada (*bordá). I still
think it's not a "normal" old acute: it alternates with a
short neo-acute, and it often results in a neo-circumflex in
Slovenian (zabâva, osnôva).
Stang 3 (Ivs^ic's law) is the loss of stressability of weak
yers. It predates the loss of yers themselves (which is
post-Common Slavic), but probably postdates Dybo's law. The
resulting stress is neo-acute, with dialectal and/or
positionally conditioned lengthening of short vowels.
Stang 4 is an assorted lot of retractions, which usually do
not affect the whole of Slavic. We can put here: voljâ >
vòlja, pyta"je- > py'ta:- [not in East Slavic], and the
retraction in the verb mogóN, moz^ès^I > mo`z^es^I (perhaps
also xòtjes^I). The vólja-retraction is not complete in
Lekhitic, and Czech shows a lengthened vowel consisently
(vuole [I can't do the u-krouzêk]). The same happens in
muoz^es^, which suggests a late retraction also in this verb
(it's striking that for the purposes of lengthening of
thematic -e-, mogtji behaves as an a.p. c verb both in
S^tokavian [mo``z^es^ with short -e- like plètes^] and Old
Czech [moz^éme like vedéme]). In Czech, this late
retraction can be compared to and is probably contemporary
with that in nestí > né:sti or peró > pé:ro.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...