From: mcarrasquer
Message: 47101
Date: 2007-01-23
>They are both PSl. -i.
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mandicdavid" davidmandic@ wrote:
> >
> > Something similar happened in some
> > Croatian dialects, where the short i is frequently reduced or
> > dropped: vid (2sg imperative: look!) etc.
> > This probably has something to do with metrical properties of
> > words
> > in PSl.
>
> cf Russian derz^í!, vs búd'!, PSl *-í vs *´-I,
> ie PIE *-éi vs *´-i.PIE *-oih1-s
> > What I don't understand is how the word-final yers couldThey weren't stressed anymore when they disappeared.
> > disappear even if they were stressed.
> I think there is something methodologically wrong with a languageThat was indeed the state of affairs _before_ the rise of the yers.
> with 'normal' and 'supershort' vowels. Aren't linguists
> backprojecting the
> present state of affairs onto PSlav. (or even to ChSl.)? How about
> renaming them 'long' and 'short' as they are named in any other
> language with two vowel lengths, which would make PSlav i/u into
> i:/u: and I/U into i/u?
> That means stressed 'jers' (I question-mark themAll /i/ and /u/ were laxed, independently of the place of the stress.
> now, they are i/u) were not reduced to ghostly I/U, like the
> unstressed ones were,
> and with that formulation we need noThere is no "reinforcing of stressed yers". Yers are strong or weak
> 'reinforcing' of stressed 'jers'