From: Piotr Gasiorowski
> How about another well-known example (more in the evening -- don'tHirt's Law failed because the laryngeal was _vocalised_ after a liquid,
> have my copy of "Imennaja..." to hand at the moment):
> *gWrihwéh2 (OInd. gri:vá: 'neck') > Latv. gri~va 'river mouth', Sl.
> *gri"va (a) 'mane' vs. *g(W)(H)olhwéh2 > Lith. galvà (3), Latv.
> gal^va 'head'? The laryngeal still remained consonantal after *l at
> the time Hirt's Law operated and thus the law failed? But I've got an
> impression you insisted the segmental laryngeals didn't survive into
> that time?
> I see (though the accentual variants klu:póti ir rémti do exist). ButDerksen has "PIE *meh2k-", which might (with a little sleight-of-hand)
> how whould one demonstrate that a pretonic acute of this kind
> attracts stress in Lithuanian? BTW, by and large (analogical
> complications and by-variants apart), the distribution of suffixal
> vs. root stress in the infinitives in -yti- is quite simple: the root
> is stressed if it's acute, and the suffix is stressed otherwise (i.
> e. the original columnal root stress in the relevant cases protracted
> by Saussure's Law), like in mókyti 'teach' vs. darýti 'make' (I don't
> mean that the columnal stress is itself original, but at least this
> seems to be the case already at the time of the operation of
> Saussure's Law). How would you explain the root stress in mókyti?