Re: Some accentological thoughts...

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

>
> Miguel:
>
> >>> It's also attested in Old Polish. It's attested in Modern
> >>> Polish, if you count ja biorê, oni bior±...
> >>
> >>That's different, I think.
> >
> > How is it different? What I'm saying is that
> > "a.p.c-stressed" endings were lengthened (if not already
> > long), and that "a.p.c-unstressed" endings were shortened
> > (if not already short). Biorê :: bior± is exactly that.
>
> No. This is the same thing wee see in archaic Croatian ve``lju -

ve`le:.

> The length in the 3rd person pl. (always there!) is due to a former

*-t6

> which was there, thus *be``roN > biorê (the length is shortened in

final

> open syllable), but *bero~Nt6 > bior± (the length from the neo-

acute is

> preserved and then the final *-t6 drops of). The place of the

accent is

> different, but there is no need for "lengthening" of the 3rd person
> plural. It was already long. These examples are perfectly

explainable

> without your theory as well.
>
> Besides, your theory is not really convincing. In Èakavian, there

is only

> ¾ivete``, roni:te``, peèemo`` etc. There is no **-te:, *-mo:

anywhere. And

> there is no convincing analogy there since a. p. b does not have

final

> accent in those forms. There is no *-té, *-mé in Czech as well.
>

The length in -te: and -mo: in Slovene might be a product of analogy
after the corresponding dual forms -vì/va, -ta, where it might have
been original (if we accept that not all final long vowels had been
shortened, of course).
Also, alternatively, the neo-circumflex, and not the length itself,
might have been transferred from the dual to the plural forms (at a
later date). Of course, this too implies the preservation of length
in final syllables under some conditions.

David