From: Mate Kapović
Message: 45050
Date: 2006-06-23
> ----- Original Message -----I don't understand the point. Do you wish to propose that these new long
> From: Miguel Carrasquer
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:13 AM
> Subject: [tied] Some lengthened vowel Slavic verbs
> As noticed by Dybo, the distribution of je-verbs with
> lengthened root vowel is the following:
> - i > i:, u > u: are in a.p. a (sy"pati, my"kati, smy"kati,
> ty"kati, sy"sati, pry"skati, bry"zgati, sti"gati)
> - e > e:, a > a: are in a.p. b (skaka"ti, xapa"ti, xrama"ti,
> maka"ti, kaza"ti, drĂŞma"ti)
>
> The lengthening of the root vowel in these verbs must
> therefore be relatively ancient, as it follows the PIE
> distribution where the only long /i:/ and /u:/ were acute
> (from /iH/ and /uH/), while a:, e: and o: could be either
> acute or circumflex.
> I'm not sure about the a.p. of kaniti, rac^iti and mariti,Neo-S^tokavian ka^ni:m is inconclusive. The a. p. b here can be secondary,
> but they appear to be a.p. b or c (SCr. kåniti kâni:m,
> mĂĄriti, mâri"m, Russ. rac^Ătel'nyj).
> The rule apparently does not apply to the causatives saditiIt is mobile, cf. Croatian pla^m ~ pla``me:n.
> and gasiti (a.p. c), but it may apply to the causative
> paliti (a.p. b). The root is reconstructed as *pel- in LIV
> ("Nur slav., Anit.-Wurzel, vgl. russ. pĂłlomja "Flamme" (skr.
> pla``me:n zeigt sekundäre Kßrzung"), but if <polmja>
> (*polHmn?) was mobile, Meillet's law would have taken care
> of the acute.
> In short, the accentological evidence from Slavic seems toSo you adhere to the traditional theory that the PIE lengthened grade
> suggest that iteratives with a long root vowel are indeed a
> category inherited from PIE. Furthermore, it confirms that
> PIE long non-circumflex vowels give a Balto-Slavic acute
> (unless followed by a semivowel/resonant, but we knew that
> already: Lith. s^uo~ < *k^wo:n, Lith. ah2-stem acc.sg. -aN~
> < *-a:m < *-ah2m).