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

Re: Some accentological thoughts...

Expand Messages
  • mandicdavid
    ... ve`le:. ... *-t6 ... final ... acute is ... accent is ... explainable ... is only ... anywhere. And ... final ... The length in -te: and -mo: in Slovene
    Message 1 of 32 , Feb 28, 2007
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Mate Kapoviæ <mkapovic@...> wrote:
      > Miguel:
      > >>> It's also attested in Old Polish. It's attested in Modern
      > >>> Polish, if you count ja biorê, oni bior±...
      > >>
      > >>That's different, I think.
      > >
      > > How is it different? What I'm saying is that
      > > "a.p.c-stressed" endings were lengthened (if not already
      > > long), and that "a.p.c-unstressed" endings were shortened
      > > (if not already short). Biorê :: bior± is exactly that.
      > No. This is the same thing wee see in archaic Croatian ve``lju -
      > The length in the 3rd person pl. (always there!) is due to a former
      > which was there, thus *be``roN > biorê (the length is shortened in
      > open syllable), but *bero~Nt6 > bior± (the length from the neo-
      acute is
      > preserved and then the final *-t6 drops of). The place of the
      accent is
      > different, but there is no need for "lengthening" of the 3rd person
      > plural. It was already long. These examples are perfectly
      > without your theory as well.
      > Besides, your theory is not really convincing. In Èakavian, there
      is only
      > ¾ivete``, roni:te``, peèemo`` etc. There is no **-te:, *-mo:
      anywhere. And
      > there is no convincing analogy there since a. p. b does not have
      > accent in those forms. There is no *-té, *-mé in Czech as well.

      The length in -te: and -mo: in Slovene might be a product of analogy
      after the corresponding dual forms -vì/va, -ta, where it might have
      been original (if we accept that not all final long vowels had been
      shortened, of course).
      Also, alternatively, the neo-circumflex, and not the length itself,
      might have been transferred from the dual to the plural forms (at a
      later date). Of course, this too implies the preservation of length
      in final syllables under some conditions.

    • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
      On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 02:20:53 +0100 (CET), Mate Kapoviæ ... *k^im is the masculine accusative, as seen in dInI-sI. The feminine accusative is *k^ih2-m *k^i:m.
      Message 32 of 32 , Mar 5, 2007
        On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 02:20:53 +0100 (CET), Mate Kapović
        <mkapovic@...> wrote:

        >On Pon, ožujak 5, 2007 12:17 am, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:
        >> On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:45:10 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
        >> <miguelc@...> wrote:
        >>>(hmm, maybe zimoN-sI is not so ungrammatical after all!).
        >> I think I'll drop the "maybe". All of the words in this
        >> group are feminine (noktjI-sI, jesenI-sI, vesnoN-sI,
        >> zimoN-sI), except dInI-sI (masc.) and lęto-sI [for lęto-se]
        >> (n.).
        >Jens derives them from *k'im. What do you think about that?

        *k^im is the masculine accusative, as seen in dInI-sI. The
        feminine accusative is *k^ih2-m > *k^i:m. I had never
        actually thought about applying my rules to the accusative
        of the de:vi:-stems, because, well, it wasn't supposed to
        exist. That the result is expected -I, as shown in these
        relict forms, is a nice confirmation.

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