Re: [tied] Re: Meillet's law

On Sri, siječanj 17, 2007 6:55 pm, mcarrasquer reče:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mandicdavid" <davidmandic@...> wrote:
>>
>> But would the laryngeal have triggered lengthening if it had been a
>> part of the onset of the following syllable?
>> Wouldn't the development of this word in that case look like this:
>> trów-HeH2 > trów?a: > tráwa: > trová ?
>
> The laryngeal has nothing to do with the lengthening.
>
> We have a root *trawH- (or *s'law-), which is lengthened to *tra:wH-
> (*s'la:w-) by a process known as vr.ddhi (in this case, late Balto-
> Slavic vr.ddhi, as shown by Lithuanian s^love:, not *s^luove:).
>
> The laryngeal, in my view, is significant only for the syllabification
> of the lengthened form (*tra:w-HaH vs. *s'la:-waH), which subsequently
> determines the development of the accentuation in Slavic (travá vs.
> sláva).

Why complicate, Miguel? Is it not possible that vrddhis got automatic
acute at one stage and automatic circumflex at another stage in
Balto-Slavic?
I don't get the idea that both pro-acute and pro-circumflex fans promote
that every vrddhi from PIE till Common Slavic must have the same
accentuation.