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

Re: [tied] Some accentological thoughts...

Expand Messages
  • tgpedersen
    ... Let me see if I got this straight: you have to add -joN because *k^ixm should - *si:m - *sI, and the latter is because the development of vowels in
    Message 1 of 32 , Mar 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > There is only one other "long"
      > ending where we would expect the same to have happened, the
      > acc. sg. of the devi:-feminines, which should have developed
      > *-ih2m > *-i:m > *-iN > -I. Unfortunately, this accusative
      > has mostly been replaced by the ja:-stem accusative -joN.
      > But we do have the pronoun OCS f. <si> (< *k^ih2), acc.
      > <sIjoN> (< *k^ih2m + -joN) (hmm, maybe zimoN-sI is not so
      > ungrammatical after all!).

      Let me see if I got this straight: you have to add -joN because *k^ixm
      should -> *si:m -> *sI, and the latter is because the development of
      vowels in Slavic is independent of stress?


      Torsten
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        miguelc@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.