Re: Balto-Slavic C-stems / long vowel endings

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapoviæ <mkapovic@...> wrote:

>
> > >
> >
> > Sure, but I wasn't talking about the length. I was talking about
> > tone - what we have in kæi^ 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.
>
> That's putting it strangely. It's *not* long because it's on -i, cf.
> *s7``to > stô.
>

I mean it's long because the 'i' is long here for some reason. What I
wanted to say is that we really don't need to posit special rules for
the appearance of a circumflex (ie. long falling tone) - the vowel
is long (in both kæi and sto) for some reason (compensatory
lengthening after the fall of yers in the 1st syllable?) so
the 'accent' is long too. Just a trivial remark.

> > There was no stress advancement at all - the
> > 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.
>
> So basically the stress moved, right? :) Since it's on -i and not

on *7

> anymore...
> (I get what you mean but it makes no difference...)

It doesn't indeed