From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Message: 47663
Date: 2007-03-03
>On Èet, ožujak 1, 2007 10:27 pm, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reèe:That's a bit backwards. There is no evidence for thematic
>>
>> Yes, that works for a.p. c forms with final -tI. The
>> neo-acute length could have been analogically transferred to
>> a.p.'s a and b . But I don't believe that -tI just dropped
>> off. Novgorodian Russian uses forms with and without -tI in
>> the 3rd. person, with a distinction in meaning (the tI-less
>> carrying modal senses), which should go back to the PIE
>> present (*-e-ti) and the subjunctive or injunctive (*-e-t).
>> In my theory, the tI-less 3rd. person sg. -e: and pl. -oN:
>> also acquire length naturally (also through an analogical
>> development originating in a.p. c).
>
>Sure, but you have no proof that Polish was tI-less there...
>>>Besides, your theory is not really convincing. In Èakavian, there is onlyI wasn't finished... :-)
>>>živete``, roni:te``, peèemo`` etc. There is no **-te:, *-mo: anywhere.
>>
>> Actually, according to my theory we wouldn't expect any
>> length there.
>
>Why, those are *accented a. p. c endings*, am I right?
>> It was the length of 3sg. -e: (and 3pl. -oN:)There's only one soundlaw (lengthening of a.p. c stressed
>> that was transferred to the thematic vowel. So instead of
>> original
>>
>> *-oN
>> *-es^I:
>> *-e:
>> *-emU:
>> *-ete:
>> *-oN:
>>
>> we got "transposed":
>>
>> -oN
>> -e:s^I
>> -e:
>> -e:mU
>> -e:te
>> -oN:
>
>Very strange. You're just adding like 2 or 3 totally unnecessary
>sound-laws.
>The length of -e:- could simply be due to the length of -i:-,That is of course a possibility, but I've never found it
>-a:- < -aje-.
>> You said Slovene has neo-circumflex in the 1/2pl. and dual,My mistake, I had completely overlooked the relevant
>> but I can only find it in the imperative, not in the
>> present. What am I missing?
>
>Nothing. Infinitive had the acute, present tense had the neo-acute, so no
>neo-circumflex there.
>>>AndOn the contrary, my theory explains why we have no -eté.
>>>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.
>>
>> But there was -éme, -éte in Old Czech, and -ieme, -iete etc.
>> in modern Slovak.
>
>Yeah, but it's -éte, not -eté, that's my point. So your theory doesn't
>work.
>Why attribute -éte to -é (*and* you have to reconstruct *-e only,I wouldn't be so sure. Such a distribution can just as well
>not *-etI), when you can get the length easily from i-verbs?
>
>> Since posttonic length is lost or unstable in West Slavic,
>> the distribution makes sense: Old Czech and Slovak have the
>> length only in a.p. c,
>
>I think that -é- occurs in a. p. a and a. p. b in Old Czech as well.
>
>> where it was tonic or pre-tonic, but
>> not in a.p. a/b, where the length was posttonic. The
>> (sporadic?) cases of length in Old Polish a.p. a verbs fit
>> into this pattern, although it's hard to explain why the
>> lengthened thematic vowel is not found in Old Polish a.p. c
>> verbs.
>
>Of course, the same thing is in Croatian. Typical Western S^tokavian has
>bu``de:s^ (A), me``lje:s^ (B) but pe`c^es^ (C). Thus, no length *only* in a.
>p. C (and in mo``z^es^, ho``c'es^ which preserve old a. p. B paradigm and in
>-je- a. p. a verbs like vje``rujem). Old this points to length on -e-
>being secondary since the one place you got length in Slovak is the one
>place you don't have in Croatian etc.