Re: Some accentological thoughts...
- --- In email@example.com, Mate Kapoviæ <mkapovic@...> wrote:
> >>> 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*-t6
> which was there, thus *be``roN > biorê (the length is shortened infinal
> open syllable), but *bero~Nt6 > bior± (the length from the neo-acute is
> preserved and then the final *-t6 drops of). The place of theaccent is
> different, but there is no need for "lengthening" of the 3rd personexplainable
> plural. It was already long. These examples are perfectly
> without your theory as well.is only
> Besides, your theory is not really convincing. In Èakavian, there
> ¾ivete``, roni:te``, peèemo`` etc. There is no **-te:, *-mo:anywhere. And
> there is no convincing analogy there since a. p. b does not havefinal
> 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.
- On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 02:20:53 +0100 (CET), Mate Kapović
>On Pon, ožujak 5, 2007 12:17 am, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal reče:*k^im is the masculine accusative, as seen in dInI-sI. The
>> 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]
>Jens derives them from *k'im. What do you think about that?
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