Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Some lengthened vowel Slavic verbs

Expand Messages
  • Miguel Carrasquer
    As noticed by Dybo, the distribution of je-verbs with lengthened root vowel is the following: - i i:, u u: are in a.p. a (sy pati, my kati, smy kati,
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 20, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      As noticed by Dybo, the distribution of je-verbs with
      lengthened root vowel is the following:
      - i > i:, u > u: are in a.p. a (sy"pati, my"kati, smy"kati,
      ty"kati, sy"sati, pry"skati, bry"zgati, sti"gati)
      - e > e:, a > a: are in a.p. b (skaka"ti, xapa"ti, xrama"ti,
      maka"ti, kaza"ti, drêma"ti)

      The lengthening of the root vowel in these verbs must
      therefore be relatively ancient, as it follows the PIE
      distribution where the only long /i:/ and /u:/ were acute
      (from /iH/ and /uH/), while a:, e: and o: could be either
      acute or circumflex. In particular, the formation of these
      verbs must predate the development *ei~ > i~ and Meillet's
      law (which created new i~'s and u~'s (y~'s)).

      The lengthenings seen in bIra"ti > bira"ti or zUva"ti >
      zyva"ti are more recent: I and U lengthen to circumflex (or
      at least non-stress attracting) i and y, and the relative
      youth of these formations is confirmed by the fact that
      these are aje-verbs, not je-verbs.

      There is a category of verbs with lengthened root vowel
      which could be even older than the group of
      sy"pati/sti"gati/skaka"ti/drêma"ti, at least it is claimed
      to be of already PIE origin by the makers of LIV. These are
      cauative/iteratives (Slavic i/i-verbs) with a lengthened
      root vowel, LIV category 4b (R(ó:)-je-).

      If the claim were false, and these formations were of early
      (Balto-)Slavic age, one would expect these verbs (all with
      root vowel /a/) to fall into a.p. b, like the
      skaka"ti-verbs. This is not the case. Instead, we find the
      verbs in question scattered over all three accent paradigms:
      ga"ziti, pa"riti and va"diti are a.p. a
      davi"ti, pali"ti and travi"ti are a.p. b
      sadi"ti and gasi"ti are a.p. c.
      I'm not sure about the a.p. of kaniti, rac^iti and mariti,
      but they appear to be a.p. b or c (SCr. kániti kâni:m,
      máriti, mâri"m, Russ. rac^ítel'nyj). I'm ignoring skaka"ti,
      kaza"ti and ka"jati, which LIV puts into this category,
      because they are not i-verbs in Slavic (even though ka"jati
      may well be an original R(ó:)-je-verb).

      What explains this distribution? The verbs are not
      uniformly a.p. b, so they cannot be lengthened /a/'s of the
      skakati-type (/aa/ > /a~/). But a lengthened vowel of PIE
      origin (Dehnstufe) should be reflected in Balto-Slavic as an
      acute long vowel (/a:/ > /a"/), and the verbs are not
      uniformly a.p. a either. Could the length be (Balto-)Slavic
      (and therefore circumflex) and the exceptions with an acute
      be due to laryngeals in the root? Most definitely not. In
      fact, quite the opposite is true: all the verbs with a
      laryngeal in the root are a.p. b or c! So perhaps that is
      the pattern: roots of the structure /o:C/, /o:R/ are a.p. a,
      while roots of the structure /o:RH/ are a.p. b. We have:

      *g(W)o:g^h-éje- => gó:z-i:-
      *(s)po:r-éje- => pó:r-i:-
      *wo:dhh1-éje- => wó:d-i:-

      as opposed to:

      *dho:uH-éje- => do:w-í:-
      *tro:uH-éje- => tro:w-í:-
      *ko:nh1-éje- => ko:n-í:-

      This now makes perfect sense. In the first set, the
      syllabification is *g(W)o:-g^hé-je-, *(s)po:-ré-je-,
      *wo:-dh(h1)é-je- with a long rising vowel in the first
      syllable. In the second set, it is *dho:u-Hé-je-,
      *tro:u-Hé-je-, *ko:n-h1é-je-, with a long falling diphthong
      in the first syllable, and therefore a circumflex (cf. the
      circumflex in *o:u-yóm > o~jé > vâje/jâje). When the
      laryngeal fell away, the semivowel/resonant was pulled to
      the next syllable, but the circumflex accentuation stayed.

      The rule apparently does not apply to the causatives saditi
      and gasiti (a.p. c), but it may apply to the causative
      paliti (a.p. b). The root is reconstructed as *pel- in LIV
      ("Nur slav., Anit.-Wurzel, vgl. russ. pólomja "Flamme" (skr.
      pla``me:n zeigt sekundäre Kürzung"), but if <polmja>
      (*polHmn?) was mobile, Meillet's law would have taken care
      of the acute. The other two exceptions are doubtful
      (rac^iti (*rek-) may be a Germanic loanword, and of mariti
      (*(s)mer-) the footnote in LIV says that its "Zugehörigkeit
      [ist] zweifelhaft").

      In short, the accentological evidence from Slavic seems to
      suggest that iteratives with a long root vowel are indeed a
      category inherited from PIE. Furthermore, it confirms that
      PIE long non-circumflex vowels give a Balto-Slavic acute
      (unless followed by a semivowel/resonant, but we knew that
      already: Lith. s^uo~ < *k^wo:n, Lith. ah2-stem acc.sg. -aN~
      < *-a:m < *-ah2m).

      =======================
      Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
      mcv@...
    • Miguel Carrasquer
      On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:13:55 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer ... Another case of V:RHV is bêlU (a.p. b), from *bhé:lHos, syllabification bhe:l-Hos, with first
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:13:55 +0200, Miguel Carrasquer
        <mcv@...> wrote:

        >We have:
        >
        >*g(W)o:g^h-éje- => gó:z-i:-
        >*(s)po:r-éje- => pó:r-i:-
        >*wo:dhh1-éje- => wó:d-i:-
        >
        >as opposed to:
        >
        >*dho:uH-éje- => do:w-í:-
        >*tro:uH-éje- => tro:w-í:-
        >*ko:nh1-éje- => ko:n-í:-
        >
        >This now makes perfect sense. In the first set, the
        >syllabification is *g(W)o:-g^hé-je-, *(s)po:-ré-je-,
        >*wo:-dh(h1)é-je- with a long rising vowel in the first
        >syllable. In the second set, it is *dho:u-Hé-je-,
        >*tro:u-Hé-je-, *ko:n-h1é-je-, with a long falling diphthong
        >in the first syllable, and therefore a circumflex (cf. the
        >circumflex in *o:u-yóm > o~jé > vâje/jâje). When the
        >laryngeal fell away, the semivowel/resonant was pulled to
        >the next syllable, but the circumflex accentuation stayed.

        Another case of V:RHV is bêlU (a.p. b), from *bhé:lHos,
        syllabification bhe:l-Hos, with first syllable long and
        falling. After the loss of the laryngeal, the intonation
        was maintained (*bé:~-las). The same root also gives an
        example of Hirt's law affecting the sequence *oRH: Lith.
        báltas, Latv. bal~ts, Slav. bol"to < *bholHtó-.

        =======================
        Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
        mcv@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.