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

On 2006-09-05 21:03, Sergejus Tarasovas wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
> wrote:
>
>> How about another well-known example (more in the evening -- don't
>> have my copy of "Imennaja..." to hand at the moment)
>
> Having re-read the relevant passage I realized that the best thing I
> can do is to refer you to it (V. M. Illic^-Svityc^. Imennaja
> akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom. Moskva, 1963, pp. 78-83).
> In short, he speaks of roots with long non-apophonic vowels (< *VH,
> Baltic *dó:na 'bread' etc.), long syllabic sonorants (< short syllabic
> sonorants + a laryngeal, Baltic *grí:va, *ví:ras 'man',
> *dú:mai 'smoke', *pú:ras 'winter crops' < *puHrós, Gk. pu:rós 'wheat',
> *tí:lta 'bridge' < *tlHtHóm, OInd. ti:rtHám 'road to a watering-place,
> ford', pí:lnas 'full', í:lgas 'long', WLatv. ju~ts 'furcation of a
> road, tendon' < Baltic *jú:tis < *juHtís, OInd yu:tís 'junction';
> sú:nus 'son') and long diphthongs (< *VH + a sonorant, CLatv.
> krau~ka 'phlegm' < Baltic *krá:uka: < *kraHwkaH > Gmc. *hro:3ó: > OEng.
> hro:g 'snivel'; Baltic *ká:ula 'bone' < *kaHwlós, *péimo: ~
> *póimo: 'herdsman' < *poHjmé:n, Gk. põü 'herd', *lé:imo 'damp place' <
> *leHjmó:n > Gk. leimó:n 'damp meadow', Sl. *le^joN 'I pour';
> *dá:iwe: 'husband's brother' < *daHjwé:r), which attract stress

I have no problem with any of these except for those for which *-VHW- is
proposed (*W = *i/j or *u/w). In some cases (like the 'herdsman' word)
the reconstruction *-VWH- (cf. Rasmussen's analysis) seems to make more
sense, but in the case of *krá:uka-, *ká:ula- and *dá:iwe: (all of them
with old *aW diphthongs) some special solution may apply. Is it
unthinkable that the contrast between PIE *oW and *aW became
quantitative in PBSl., the diphthongs becoming respectively *aW and
*a:W, the latter merging with the reflex of *oWH > *aWH > *a:W? (Even if
the qualitative contrast between short *a and *o was otherwise
maintained at least until the operation of Winter's Law.)

> vs.
> roots with a short diphthong and a schwa (< a laryngeal after a non-
> syllabic, Lith. láuz^as (3), Latv. dial. laûzs 'wind-fallen trees' <
> *low&g^ós < *lowHgós, OInd. logás 'lump of earth' < *lojás; *ten&wós <
> *tenHwós; Lith. jùngas (OLith, dial. 3), Latv. jûgs 'yoke' < (?)
> *jun&góm < *junHgóm; Lith. víenas (OLith. 3), Latv. viêns '1' < *oj&nós
> < *ojHnós), which don't, but I'm afraid of misrepresenting his
> argumentation. It's worth reading even if Rasmussen's "On Hirt's
> Law..." supercedes it.

Winter's Law takes care of *loug- and *ju(n)g- (you see how risky it is
to posit a laryngeal just to account for BSl. tones!), in *tenh2wós the
vocalisation of the laryngeal is regular. <víenas>/<vie^ns> is of course
problematic (someone should devote a monograph to the PIE numeral
'one'!) but I don't think we can say anything sensible about its
accentual evolution before we fully understand its morphological
structure (I can't say I understand it well).

Piotr