Re: [tied] Some lengthened vowel Slavic verbs

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 10:58:35 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapović
<mkapovic@...> wrote:

>Could you provide me to an exact reference where Dybo talks about these
>iteratives?

SA p. 209-210, briefly repeated in OSA p. 65.

>> My preliminary conclusion is
>> that it does: the verbal category itself can be traced back
>> to PIE times rather solidly (and Jens has provided a
>> rationale for the presence of the long vowel). If the long
>> vowel is inherited from PIE, then the fact that ga"ziti,
>> pa"riti and va"diti are a.p. a can only be explained if this
>> lengthened vowel indeed yields a Balto-Slavic acute.
>
>Where is the proof for the PIE lengthened grade for these Slavic verbs?

For these three in particular, LIV only gives a non-Slavic
cognate within the same category for *wedhh1-, namely Greek
o:théo: (*wo:dh(h1)éye-). If we take a wider look and
compare all (24, 12 given as "certain") entries in LIV of
alleged long-vowelled iterative-causatives, I found that
there are just enough Slavic, Baltic and non-Balto-Slavic
correspondences to overcome my initial skepticism. Your
mileage may vary.

>> Lith. me:sa`, Latv. mi`esa, Slavic me^Nso
>> (*me:m-sóm),
>
>Lithuanian me.sa` is possibly a Slavic loanword or a word influenced by
>Slavic (Fraenkel), thus not the best evidence. Slavic męso is mobile and
>thus irrelevant.

I beg to disagree. The question is *why* are meNso and jaje
mobile? My answer is: precisely _because_ they had a
circumflex root diphthong in an open syllable in pretonic
position (a.p. II meN~sa' > a.p. c meN~sa).

>>Latv. sŕ:ls (*sa:ls),
>
>I cannot accept long PIE *a: of non-laryngeal origin, but we've discussed
>this before.

Yes. In any case the presence or absence of a laryngeal is
irrelevant, as *sah2l(s) would give exactly the same result
as *sa:l(s) (cf. a:-stem acc. sg. -ah2m, which also gives a
circumflex diphthong).

>> guňvs (*gWo:us). But when a (non-resonant) consonant
>> follows, we have Latv. năss, năsi (*na:ss, *nasm.),
>
>The same as with the 'salt' word.

Well, no: "nose" has a Latvian Dehnton (acute), so there's a
difference.

>> with
>> what looks like an acute. The Slavic examples with a
>> consonant after the long vowel given by Kortlandt are:
>> (vodo-)tęc^I, ręc^I, (noc^-)lęgU, sapU, slępU, krâsU,
>> (u-)z^âsU. If I'm not mistaken, they are all mobile (as
>> they should be, if from original root nouns), so Slavic is
>> inconclusive: Meillet's law should have eliminated the
>> acute. Kortlandt does not give Baltic counterparts for any
>> of them.
>
>Many of those examples are indeed mobile and irrelevant, that is true. But
>not all. Cf. Czech c^ára, Ukr. c^ará with the exact parallel in Avestan
>c^a:ra:. There are more examples like this, but Kortlandt as usual gives
>only hints and one has to look for the examples by himself.

Could you give the (other) examples you have?

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...