From: Mate Kapović
Message: 47200
Date: 2007-02-01
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapović <mkapovic@...> wrote:That's putting it strangely. It's *not* long because it's on -i, cf.
>>
>> On Uto, siječanj 30, 2007 7:54 pm, mandicdavid reče:
>> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapović <mkapovic@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Uto, siječanj 30, 2007 12:17 am, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:
>> >> > On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:53:30 +0100 (CET), Mate Kapović
>> >> > <mkapovic@> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Pon, siječanj 29, 2007 11:20 pm, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> reče:
>> >> >>> Pardon my ignorance, but I was wondering about that. When
>> >> >>> Ivs^ic''s law causes withdrawal of the stress from a weak
>> >> >>> yer to the preceding syllable, that syllable receives
>> >> >>> neo-acute intonation. But what intonation does the next
>> >> >>> syllable receive when the stress is moved forward from an
>> >> >>> initial weak yer? Apparently, in Slovak (though not in
>> >> >>> Czech or Polish) dU``cer- > dcé:r-,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Oh it happens also in Czech and Polish, but dialectally... I
>> > think there
>> >> >>are forms like dcóra in both...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> with lengthening of /e/
>> >> >>> (neo-acute?). In kc'i^ / hc^i^, the intonation remains
>> >> >>> falling, but what happens when the newly stressed syllable
>> >> >>> is not final?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Well, the oblique cases in Croatian are G. kće``ri, D. kće``ri
>> > which
>> >> >>should derive from *d7``kter- so I guess that answers your
>> > question.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>And it doesn't just occur when the jor is accent, cf. Kajkavian
>> > *v7
>> >> >>ju´´tro > (v) ju^tro.
>> >> >
>> >> > Does that mean that these are two different soundlaws,
>> >> > separated in time (1. retraction from weak yer with
>> >> > neo-acute on preceding syllable; 2. advancement from weak
>> >> > yer with "neo"-circumflex on next syllable)? Or can they
>> >> > still be simultaneous (retraction from weak yer with
>> >> > neo-acute on preceding syllable, if there is one, else
>> >> > advancement from weak yer without neo-acute on next
>> >> > syllable)?
>> >>
>> >> Some of it may be simultaneous, some if it may not be... I don't
>> > know. But
>> >> I don't think we should lump it all together...
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I still find the whole story about weakening of stressed yers
> rather
>> > weird despite all the explanations in this thread. However, what I
>> > think is that stress (which is assigned automatically in
> enclinomena
>> > forms) simply started being assigned to the second syllable when
> the
>> > yer in the first one got weak. In other words, the yer got weak
> and
>> > thus unstressable, and the second (now indeed the first) syllable
> got
>> > stressed. The tone is, of course, falling because it's in an
>> > enclinomena form.
>> > In languages like Slovak (dcé:ra) this syllable must have been
>> > lengthened after the shortening of vowels in long falling
> syllables,
>> > and this means, I suppose, this 'shift' was carried through (and
> yers
>> > in the 1st syllable got weak) after the shortening.
>> > Thus:
>> > 1. *'gra:dU > 'gradU
>> > 2. *'dUcer- > 'dce:r-
>>
>> *dUcer- > dcér- is basically a process of compensatory lengthening
> so
>> there's no real problem in getting the length there.
>>
>
>
> Sure, but I wasn't talking about the length. I was talking about
> tone - what we have in kći^ is neither neo-circumflex nor neo-acute,
> it's rather the same thing we had in dU``t'i, only it's long because
> it's on a long vowel.
> There was no stress advancement at all - theSo basically the stress moved, right? :) Since it's on -i and not on *7
> stress has always (since the Meillet's Law?) been in the same place,
> i.e. on the first syllable, and the only difference is that the
> syllabic structure of the word changed from *dUt'i to *dt'i.
> Of
> course, the stress can be automatically assigned to the proclitic, if
> there's one.
>
> In any case, the two processes you were talking about might well have
> been simultaneous - if both final and initial yers got weakened at
> the same time. However, I don't think it was a single sound law, they
> can rather be regarded as inevitable consequences of the weakening of
> yers.
>
> Synchronically, the apparent 'advancement' was not a new rule,
> whereas the retraction was.
>
>
>