Re: [tied] Some accentological thoughts...

On Sub, ožujak 3, 2007 3:05 am, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:

>>Very strange. You're just adding like 2 or 3 totally unnecessary
>>sound-laws.
>
> There's only one soundlaw (lengthening of a.p. c stressed
> endings), which is needed anyway.

I don't really see the need.

> The transfer of the length
> from the desinence to the thematic vowel I wouldn't call a
> soundlaw: it's an analogical process which is entirely
> justifiable typologically: the paradigm adapts itself to the
> shape of the third person (singular [*-e:] *and* plural
> [*-oN:, *-oN:tI], in this case).

A very strange analogy, I would say.

>>The length of -e:- could simply be due to the length of -i:-,
>>-a:- < -aje-.
>
> That is of course a possibility, but I've never found it
> convincing or appealing.

Well, it's like 100 times more reasonable than yours in my opinion, but
OK, de gustibus...

>>> You said Slovene has neo-circumflex in the 1/2pl. and dual,
>>> 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.
>
> My mistake, I had completely overlooked the relevant
> paradigm:
>
> lĂŠ,sti "to climb" (< lĂŞ"zti)
>
> lĂŞ.zem, lĂŞ.zes^, lĂŞ.ze,
> lĂŞ.zeva, lĂŞ.zeta, lĂŞ.zeta,
> lĂŞ.zemo, lĂŞ.zete, lĂŞ.zejo,
>
> with neo-circumflex throughout.

In C-verbs, that's right. But that's different from the neo-circ. on the
thematic -i- in the imperative.

>>>>And
>>>>there is no convincing analogy there since a. p. b does not have final
>>>>accent in those forms. There is no *-tĂŠ, *-mĂŠ in Czech as well.
>>>
>>> But there was -ĂŠme, -ĂŠte in Old Czech, and -ieme, -iete etc.
>>> in modern Slovak.
>>
>>Yeah, but it's -ĂŠte, not -etĂŠ, that's my point. So your theory doesn't
>>work.
>
> On the contrary, my theory explains why we have no -eté.

It doesn't because the analogy is totally strange and there is no need to
posit -ete: in the first place. So your theory explains nothing actually.

>>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.
>
> I wouldn't be so sure. Such a distribution can just as well
> point to it being very old. For instance, Germanic and
> Hittite have the perfect and no aorist, while Baltic and
> Slavic have the aorist, but no perfect. That doesn't mean
> that the perfect/aorist distinction is secondary.

It's not the same thing, I'm afraid.

Mate