Re: [tied] Re: Some accentological thoughts...

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:17:23 -0000, "tgpedersen"
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <miguelc@...>
>wrote:
>>
>> The mechanism to look for is the one that explains the
>> attested facts. And the facts are that Proto-Slavic /i/ and
>> /u/ were "reduced" (to something like /'&/, /&/) everywhere,
>> independently of the stress. Then, following Havlík's law,
>> which is also independent of the position of the stress, the
>> weak yers were further reduced to zero. The mechanism
>> you're proposing would have produced cases of unreduced /i/
>> and /u/ under the stress (e.g. in fixed-stress paradigms),
>> which simply do not occur.
>
>But the standard one you propose would lead to stressed schwa's in
>those fixed-stress paradigms, and they don't occur either.

Yes they do.

>> >The reconstructions of PIE stress in whichever nominal paradigms
>> >I've seen had the same stress in Nsg and Asg. What is the reason
>> >for the stress alternation eg golová, gólovu?
>>
>> In the vowel stems, mobility is secondary in Balto-Slavic.
>> The mobility comes from the C-stems.
>>
>> The proterodynamic paradigm:
>>
>> PIE
>> N *h2ák^mo:n
>> A *h2ák^monm.
>>
>> Hysterodynamic:
>>
>> N *dhugHté:r
>> A *dhugHtérm.
>>
>> In Balto-Slavic, two things happened that caused nom. and
>> acc. stress to diverge. In the first place, a posttonic long
>> vowel (lengthened grade, not two contracted vowels or a
>> vowel + laryngeal) attracted the stress. Secondly, syllabic
>> resonants developed into diphthongs R. > iR (uR).
>>
>> This way, we get:
>>
>> N *h2ak^mó:n *dhugHté:r
>> A *h2ák^menim *dhugHtérim
>
>Erh, where did that Acc -e- come from?

The oblique (G. *h2ak^ménos, D. *h2ak^ménei, L. *h2ak^méni).

>> Polarisation of the stress to either initial or final
>> position gives Proto-Balto-Slavic:
>>
>> N *h2ak^mó~ *dhugHté~
>> A *h2ák^menim *dhúgHterim
>>
>> = Lith. akmuõ, àkmeniN; dukte~, dùkteriN
>>
>> This was the kind of mobility that was transferred to the
>> oxytone vowel-stems:
>>
>> N *dhroughós
>> A *dhroughóm > *dhróughom
>
>N drugó-, A drúgU ??

In Slavic, the nom. and acc. merge (dru~gU). In Lithuanian,
Nieminen's law retracts the stress from -á- in a final
syllable, but the original situation is well preserved in
the Lithuanian -jó- stems (nom. -y~s, acc. '-iN vs. barytone
nom. '-is, acc. '-iN).

>> N *ungnís
>> A *ungním > *úngnim
>>
>> N *suHnús
>> A *suHnúm > *súHnum
>
>I suppose Havlík cleans up here?

Slavic o``gnI; sy~nU, Lith. ugnìs, ùgniN; su:nús, sú:nuN
(ignoring for a moment the effects of Hirt's law in the
latter word).

>
>> N *galHwáh2
>> A *galHwáh2m > *gálHwah2m
>
>
>> but of course not the neuters:
>>
>> NA *pteróm
>>
>
>The i- and u-stems are obviously not much evidence, nor the o-stems.

Only if you ignore Lithuanian.

>Wouldn't it be easier to assume *-áx was stressed?

It was stressed when it was stressed, and unstressed when it
was unstressed. The words in unstressed *-ah2 give Slavic
a.p. a (ba"ba, ba"boN), when acute, and a.p. b (z^ená,
z^enóN < *géna:, *géna:N) when not.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...