Metatony in monosyllables

Bibliographic Data

ID20342355
AuthorsFrederik Kortlandt (Leiden University, corresponding author)
Year2014
Volume49
Issue2
Pages217-224
Publication date2014-12-31
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueBaltistica (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0132-6503 • E-ISSN: 2345-0045
PublisherVilnius University Press (PUBLISHER • LT)
DOI10.15388/baltistica.49.2.2209
OpenAlexW1911213894
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited12

There are two chronological layers of metatonical circumflex in monosyllables, viz. an early Balto-Slavic layer which is reflected e.g. in Lith. dė̃s, jõs, duõs and a recent Aukštaitian layer which is found e.g. in nom.pl. tiẽ, acc.pl. tuõs, inst.sg. tuõ. Leskien’s law was younger than the former but older than the latter. This analysis is not based on a comparison with Slavic or Indo-European but on the internal evidence of the East Baltic languages. The Baltic future represents two Indo-European paradigms, viz. an s‐present with accentual mobility between the suffix and the ending and an s‐aorist with fixed stress on the root and monosyllabic lengthening in the 2nd and 3rd sg. forms. Both of these formations have exact correspondences in the Old Irish subjunctive. They must have existed side by side in Proto-Baltic in view of Prussian teīks ‘make!’ beside postāsei ‘you will become’. The circumflex of Latvian sā̀ls and gùovs shows metatonical length as a result of monosyllabic lengthening. There is no evidence for a PIE phoneme *a in sā̀ls, zùoss and nãss, nor for the vowel *e in the PIE paradigm of gùovs, nor for a PIE paradigm with fixed stress in the case of gùovs, nãss and zvrs, nor for a generalization of the original nom.sg. instead of acc.sg. accentuation in sā̀ls and nãss

Art · Croatian · Irish · Latvian · Linguistics · Literature · Slavic languages · Suffix · Vowel · History · Linguistics and language evolution · Mathematics · Philosophy

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access