Re: [tied] Some lengthened vowel Slavic verbs

On Sub, lipanj 24, 2006 2:06 am, Miguel Carrasquer reče:

> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 01:51:02 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapović
> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> 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 don't understand the point. Do you wish to propose that these new long
>>*i: and *u:'s got the acute because *i: and *u:'s had the acute always
>>originally?
>
> They got the acute beacuse at the time there was no such
> thing as circumflex long /i~/ or /u~/. Only /a~/, /e~/ and
> /o~/ had been inherited from PIE.

On a second thought, I have some trouble with this. Do you presume *short*
circumflexed vowels by /a~/, /e~/ and /o~/? :-/ Acute long *a:, *e: and *:
were of course present in Balto-Slavic (< PIE *eh2, *eh1, *oH).
In the case of examples like skoc^iti - skakati we are apparently dealing
with old long *o: here. But according to you, PIE *o: should yield the
acute, right?
Why the difference between sy´´pati and skaka´´ti then?

Mate