From: alexandru_mg3
Message: 54582
Date: 2008-03-03
>Latvian
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> <miguelc@> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:56:03 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
> > <alexandru_mg3@> wrote:
> >
> > >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> > ><miguelc@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:43:56 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
> > >> <alexandru_mg3@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
> > >> ><S.Tarasovas@> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> 1. acute
> > >> >
> > >> > Lettish counterparts has no acute accent.
> > >>
> > >> Yes it has (-ît). And so has Slavic (-i"ti).
> > >>
> > >
> > >Miguel, better to read here I think:
> > >
> > >http://books.google.com/books?
> > >id=qNa73ncPKUAC&pg=PA345&dq=Latvian+causative+iterative+d-
> > >&sig=uAics3R5nKIzQ6HpKWd2ltg9MLc#PPA349,M1
> >
> > Interesting, but completely irrelevant. Here Derksen
> > discusses alternations of broken vs. sustained tone (both of
> > which are acute accents) in the _root_ of
> > causative-iteratives in -ît (e.g. bai~dît vs. baîdît). He
> > concludes that the broken accent in Latvian is old, as
> > indeed it should be: the IE causative/iterative suffix
> > *-éi(h1)-e- was stressed (and so was the suffix *-th2áj
> > which gives the Balto-Slavic infinitive).
> >
> >
> > =======================
> > Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> > miguelc@
> >
>
> 1. Irrelevant? I thought that this was one of the topic here...to
> clarify all the accentual aspects of this word.
>
> 2. By the way, you can well see there too (even is implicitly
> asserted by Derksen) that baidyti is NOT AT ALL DENOMINAL formation.
>
> 3. I remember also that you have derived here yesterday the
> form from one PIE form and the Lithuanian one from another one :)We
> are faraway from there isn't it?4. Also yesterday you have asserted that this word is a recent
>
> Marius
>