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

On 2006-09-05 15:33, Sergejus Tarasovas wrote:

> Do you follow Jens Rasmussen here?

More or less.

> But I don't follow anyway. You
> said laryngeals had been lost by the time of Hirt's Law, so that it's
> the acuted length that triggered it, and at the same time you state
> that the combinations with schwa, wich eventually ended up as the
> acuted length as well (dzer^t, gérti), didn't trigger. What's the
> trick? Is it something like postulating that the consonantal
> laryngeals had been lost (yielding acuted length) by the time of the
> operation of Hirt's Law, while the schwa survived only to be later
> (after Hirt's Law) syncopated yielding the same acuted lehgth?

Precisely. Two chronological layers of compensatory lengthening, with
Hirt's Law sandwiched in between.

> I meant if the infinitive ending (*-téi) was originally stressed (as
> you seemed to state, if I followed you), how come the stress has
> eventually occured on the root in mókyti? My point was that while
> your explanation works for suffix-stressed infinitives like darýti
> (where the infinitive ending would yield the ictus to the acuted
> suffix -ý-), it fails to explain mókyti. Or am I missing somehting?

It's an idea I've borrowed from Miguel (his "jablUko law"): a pretonic
acute attracts the stress. The rule is later than Hirt's Law, and so
applies to its output.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/44944

Piotr