Re: [tied] Re: Slavic *-je/o

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 45961
Date: 2006-09-05

On 2006-09-05 08:57, Sergejus Tarasovas wrote:

> From the point of view of the contemporary standard (more or less)
> model of Slavic accentology (Stang-Moscow-Leiden), the accentual
> history of these forms is slightly different. *nosi"ti is a (b)-verb
> (Balto-Slavic columnal non-acute, vs. columnal acute in (a) and lateral
> mobility in (c)), so before the operation of Dybo's Law the forms in
> question would look like:
> Moscow:
> *'nosíti (ictus on -o-, -í- - unstressed old (Balto-Slavic) acute)
> *'nosi:tI/tU/0 (ictus on -o-, -i:- - unstressed long non-acute, the
> reflex of Balto-Slavic (unstressed) circumflex (vs. Slavic innovative
> phonetic circumflex of (c)-forms))
> Leiden:
> *nòsiti (short rising stress on -o-, short -i- as a result of the loss
> of post-tonic laryngeals)
> *nòsi:tI/tU/0 (short rising stress on -o-, long -i:-).
> After the operation of Dybo's Law, the picture would be like that:
> Moscow:
> *nosi"ti (-i"- - (stressed) old acute)
> *nosîtI/tU/0 (-î- - (stressed) long falling, now phonetically the same
> as the (long) falling of (c)-forms)
> Leiden:
> *nosìti (-ì- short rising)
> *nosîtI/tU/0 (-î- - long falling).
> After Stang's Law (in whatever formulation -- the result is the same in
> that specific case):
> Moscow:
> *nosi"ti
> *nòsitI/tU/0 (-ò- - short neo-acute)
> Leiden:
> *nosìti
> *nòsitI/tU/0 (-ò- - short rising).

Yes, and thanks for the detailed comparison. Whatever the differences,
the crucial point remains: the two medial *i's cause different accentual
effects and the one in the infinitive behaves as if it had been followed
by a laryngeal.