[tied] Re: Slavic *-je/o

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> I have yet to see a consonant that attracts the ictus by itself

rather

> than indirectly, through the effect it has on the neighbouring

vowel.

What about the well-known Paradebeispiel *keh2uló- (Gr.
kaulós 'stem') > *kahuló- > (Hirt) *káhulo- > Lith. káulas (1), Latv.
kau~ls 'bone' vs. *tenh2wós (Gr. tanaós 'outstretched') > *tenhwós >
(no Hirt) Lith. (Z^em.) téNvas (3), Latv. tiêvs 'thin'? Why of two
synchronically identical acutes (*áu and *én) one attracts and the
other doesn't?

> Kortlandt interprets Winter's Law in glottalic terms -- something I
> wouldn't subscribe to, as modal voicing is perfectly capable of
> conditioning quantitative changes (with further prosodic

consequences),

> in my opinion.

Yes, but I fail to see how it could be relevant here.

> As far as I'm concerned, there's no need to insist that
> consonantal laryngeals survived _that_ long. The "old iterative"

acute

> may have arisen at just the right stage, possibly after the loss of

the

> laryngeals but before Winter's Law and the loss of the *d/*dH

contrast.

So you assume the following relative chronology:
1. the loss of laryngeals;
2. "old iterative" acute;
3. non-laryngeal formulation of Hirt's Law (prosodic acute attracts);
4. Winter's Law, right?

BTW, do you have any examples for the Lithuanian counterpart of the
Slavic "old iterative" acute? Any possible exmaples of stress
retraction to such an acute in Lithuanian?

Sergei