Miguel said:
I was trying various queries against Derksen's Slavic
Inherited Lexicon,
and I noticed some trisyllabic a.p. b
words which may be relevant to the
question of which came
first: Dybo's law or the retraction of the ictus from
weak
yers (Ivs^ic''s law). The words in question are bIc^elá
"bee" and
vIdová "widow". Now, I believe that before Dybo's
law, Proto-Slavic had no
non-acute interior stressed
syllables. Words had either fixed stress (a.p. I)
on the
first syllable (or acute stress on an interior syllable:
jeNzy"kU,
kopy"to, etc.), or were mobile (a.p.'s II and
III), with stress on the first
or the last syllable (II and
III were in complementary distribution: where
III had
initial stress (meN~so, ne``soN), II had final (peró, idóN),
and
vice-versa (meNsá, neses^í vs. péra, ídes^I)).
Therefore, the proto-forms
cannot have been *bIc^éla and
*vIdóva.
> Why not? There are no real arguments in
"I believe there was no non-acute interior stressed syllables"...
I have the vague feling that
I've seen something somewhere about a 2pl.
-ete:, but
perhaps I'm wrong.
> Slovene has a neo-circumflex in 1. and 2. pl.
and dual.
I thought I was smart, and had come up
with the idea that the peculiar
shortening in Czech kráva,
Gpl. krav may also be due to neo-circumflex
metatony, but
Dybo already says that in "Osnovy".
> That's actually ancient (Czech krav ~ Croat.
kra^va:, Slovene kra^v) but it does not solve anything since it's pretty much
the only example of a neo-circumflex in Czech. Saying the length is caused by a
long yer is just obscurum per obscurius.
Mate