On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 22:34:18 -0000, "alexandru_mg3"
<
alexandru_mg3@...> wrote:
> 1. Irrelevant? I thought that this was one of the topic here...to
>clarify all the accentual aspects of this word.
Irrelevant to your statement: "Lettish counterparts has no
acute accent" (of the verbal ending -ýti, -ît, -i"ti), which
is false.
> 2. By the way, you can well see there too (even is implicitly
>asserted by Derksen) that baidyti is NOT AT ALL DENOMINAL formation.
What verb is it derived from then?
> 3. I remember also that you have derived here yesterday the Latvian
>form from one PIE form and the Lithuanian one from another one :) We
>are faraway from there isn't it?
No. The fact remains that the circumflex in Lithuanian is
incompatible with the acute in Latvian. Derksen sees the
acute in Latvian as secondary, but he apparently departs
from a root *bhoi-dhh1- without laryngeal (otherwise I can't
understand why he says the acute should be an analogical
after bîtiês, if the words share the same root). I rather
think that the odd form is the Lithuanian one, without the
acute, and the only credible explanation for that was given
by Sergejus: it is derived, or at least influenced, by the
noun bai~das, which has undergone metatony.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...