Re: [tied] Slavic adjectives

On Pon, veljača 19, 2007 10:56 pm, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:27:32 +0100 (CET), Mate Kapović
> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>
>>On Pon, veljača 19, 2007 12:26 am, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:
>>> We have (based on the Russian data) four types:
>>>
>>> a.p. a:
>>> gla"dUkU, gla"dUko, gla"dUka
>>> gla"dUkUjI, gla"dUkoje, gla"dUkaja
>>>
>>> a.p. a/b:
>>> gotóvU, gotóvo, gotóva
>>> gotóvUjI, gotóvoje, gotóvaja
>>>
>>> a.p. b:
>>> teNz^élU, teNz^eló, teNz^elá
>>> teNz^élUjI, teNz^éloje, teNz^élaja
>>>
>>> a.p. c:
>>> ve``selU, ve``selo, veselá
>>> vesélUjI, veséloje, vesélaja
>>
>>The latter is not archaic, cf. Croat. dial. veselî. There is no reason
>> for
>>polysyllabic stems to behave any different than monosyllabic ones.
>
> Can you tell me more about the Croatian forms?

Well, there is not much to tell except that the archaic dialects have
veselî, bolesnî etc. like dragî, bosî. The number of syllables is
irrelevant. I think you can find some examples in Ivšić's Današnji
posavski govor.

> I was under
> the impression that South Slavic in general had retracted
> the accent in a.p. c adjectives (I checked and found Bulg.
> vésel, SCr ve``seo, ve``sela, Svn. vese^l).

Stand. Croat. is indeed ve``seo, -la, -lo, -li: but that is innovative.
Conservative dialects have ve``seo, vese`la/vesela``, ve``selo - veselî
(younger is vese``li:/ve`seli: and ve``seli: is the youngest - Budmani
actually observed the analogical change of ve`seli: to ve``seli: around
1900 in Dubrovnik), also bo``lestan, bo``lesno, but bole`sna (bo``lesna is
levelled) etc. This is usually extended to old a. p. a adjectives so
instead of ra``dostan, ra``dosna (*ra´´dost6na) we have rado`sna by
analogy to bole`sna etc.

> BTW, what books can you recommend on South Slavic
> [descriptive] accentology in general (and Croatian in
> particular)?

I'm sure you've seen Stankiewicz's 1993 book (Acc. patterns in Slavic
lgs). For synchronic purposes it's very valuable for all Slavic languages.
For Croatian/Serbian see for instance Josip Matešić, Der Wortakzent in der
serbokroatischen Schriftsprache, Heidelberg, Carl Winter -
Universitätsverlag, 1970.

>>> Assigning +Re to the a.p. c forms here would have resulted
>>> in *veselÚjI, *veselóje, *veselája, which is incorrect.
>>
>>That's why you cannot just look at Russian .-)
>>
>>> The
>>> explanation through Stang's law works here, which of course
>>> doesn't make up for the fact that it *doesn't* for the
>>> "standard" 2-syllabic mobile adjectives, and that there's
>>> still no contraction in Russian.
>>>
>>> So what is going here? I have no good explanation for
>>> Russian vesëlyj, vesëlaja either.
>>
>>It's analogical after a. p. b. In polysyllabic stems, Russian eliminates
>>the end-stress.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Veséloje is out of the picture and gotóvoje is exactly the same thing as
>>béloje the only difference being that the stem has two syllables.
>
> Hmm, I wonder if it's as simple as that... Why did Dybo's
> law work in *go'tovo[je] > goto'vo[je], and in *be^'lo >
> be^lo', but not in be^'loje? Is goto'voje analogical after
> teNz^e'loje and vese'loje too?

gotóvoje is like gotóvo - the a. p. b accent in ind. forms is on the last
syllable before the ending. Therefore this is what is expected. *gótovoje

> *gotóvoje is not problematic I think since it yields the result which is

identical to *béloje with the retraction or no Dybo.

Mate