VI TARPTAUTINIS BALTŲ IR SLAVŲ KALBŲ AKCENTOLOGIJOS SEMINARASVilniaus universitetas, 2010 m. liepos 7–10 d.

Prog rama ir tezės

6th INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON BALTO-SLAVIC ACCENTOLOGYVilnius University, 7–10 July 2010

Prog ramme and abstracts

6. INTERNATIONALE ARBEITSTAGUNG ZUR BALTO-SLAVISCHEN AKZENTOLOGIEUniversität Vilnius, 7.–10. Juli 2010

Prog ramm und Zusammenfassungen

VI МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ СЕМИНАР ПО БАЛТО-СЛАВЯНСКОЙ АКЦЕНТОЛОГИИВильнюсский университет, 7–10 июля 2010 г.

Программа и тезисы

3

PROGRAMA • PROGRAMME • PROGRAMM • ПРОГРАММА •

07-07-2010

12.00 Dalyvių registracija Registration of participants Anmeldung der Teilnehmer Регистрация участников

13.30 Įžanginis žodis: Opening speeches: Einleitende Worte: Вступительное слово:

prof. habil. dr. Juras Banys VU mokslo reikalų prorektorius Vice-rector of VU for Research Prorektor für Forschung der VU Проректор по науке ВУ

doc. dr. Antanas Smetona VU Filologijos fakulteto dekanas Dean of the VU Faculty of Philology Dekan der Philologischen Fakultät der VU Декан Филологического факультета ВУ

13.45 Paul Garde (Aix-en-Provence) Why is accentology different?

14.15 Владимир А. Дыбо (Москва) Балто-славянская акцентная система как

рефлекс «западноевропейского» варианта праиндоевропейской акцентной системы

14.45 Frederik Kortlandt (Leiden) Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited

SEminARO SVEtAinė intERnEtE:WORkShOP URL:URL DER ARBEitStAgUng:СтРаница СеМинаРа В интеРнете:http://www.latvistika.flf.vu.lt/iwoba/

ViEtA: germanistikos studijų kabinetas, VU Filologijos fakultetas (Universiteto g. 5)

REgiStRAcijA: Baltistikos katedra, liepos 7 d., 12.00–13.30PiEtūS iR VAkARiEnė: VU kavinė „Aula“ (Pilies g. 11)

LOcAtiOn: Room of germanic Studies, VU Faculty of Philology (Universiteto g. 5)

REgiStRAtiOn: Department of Baltic Linguistics, 7 july, 12.00–13.30DinnER AnD SUPPER: VU Aula café (Pilies g. 11)

ORt: Studienraum germanistik, Philologische Fakultät der VU (Universiteto g. 5)

AnmELDUng: Lehrstuhl für Baltistik, 7. juli, 12.00–13.30mittAg- UnDABEnDESSEn: café der VU „Aula“ (Pilies g. 11)

МеСто: Кабинет германистики, Филологический факультет ВУ (Universiteto g. 5)

РегиСтРация: Кафедра балтистики, 7 июля, 12.00–13.30оБеД и Ужин: кафе ВУ «аула» („Aula“, Pilies g. 11)

Leidinį parengė Vytautas RinkevičiusRenginį pagal „nacionalinę lituanistikos plėtros 2009–2015 metų programą“ finansavo Lietuvos mokslo taryba.

iSBn 978-9955-33-575-7

© Vilniaus universitetas, 2010

4 5

15.15 kavos pertrauka • coffee break • kaffeepause • Перерыв15.45 Aleksey Andronov (St. Petersburg)

the phonological element in morphological accentology: a problem or a solution?

16.15 Bonifacas Stundžia (Vilnius) Dominance as an accentual property of morphemes

17.00 Vakarienė • Supper • Abendessen • Ужин

08-07-2010

9.00 Рима Бацявичюте (Вильнюс) Фонетические признаки слоговых интонаций в

северных диалектах каунасского говора

9.30 Йолита Урбанавичене (Вильнюс) Слоговые интонации в восточно-аукштайтских

говорах Литвы: экспериментальное исследование10.00 Anna Daugaviete (St. Petersburg)

non-initial stress in Latvian

10.30 kavos pertrauka • coffee break • kaffeepause • Перерыв

11.00 Александра В. Тер-Аванесова (Москва) Ударение а-основ в диалектах русского языка

11.30 Dejan Sredojević, Ljiljana Subotić (novi Sad) neo-Štokavian accent shifting and the phonological

significance of suprasegmental features in different Štokavian dialects. Phono-acoustic analysis

12.00 Martina Peraić (Rijeka) Verb accent in the local dialect of Bosanski Svilaj

12.30 Pietūs • Dinner • mittagessen • обед

14.00 Mislav Benić (Zagreb) Der Akzent bei den Substantiven in der mundart

der Ortschaft kukljica

14.30 Dijana Ćurković (Zagreb) Fluctuations in the accentuation of Blatnica

Pokupska

15.00 Miriam Shrager (Bloomington) the accentuation of masculine nouns in the Susak

dialect spoken in new jersey

16.00 Ekskursija: Vilniaus pilys guided tour: Vilnius castles Ausflug: Die Burgen von Vilnius Экскурсия: Вильнюсские замки

09-07-2010

9.00 Miguel Villanueva Svensson (Vilnius) On the accentuation of the infinitive type Latv. kal̃t,

Sl. *kőlti

9.30 Михаил В. Ослон (mосква) В который раз о вост.-балт. *ei

10.00 Rick Derksen (Leiden) the accentuation of Latv. dēt and duot

10.30 Vytautas Rinkevičius (Vilnius) clitics in Old Prussian

11.00 kavos pertrauka • coffee break • kaffeepause • Перерыв

11.30 Mate Kapović (Zagreb) historical development of adjective accentuation in

croatian

6 7

12.00 Mijo Lončarić (Zagreb) Die kajkavische kreuzmetatonie

12.30 Pietūs • Dinner • mittagessen • обед

13.30 Orsat Ligorio (Zagreb) Observations about Latin and Latin-mediated loans

in Serbo-croatian

14.00 Mindaugas Strockis (Vilnius) A new interpretation of the syllable tones in Doric

greek

14.30 Ekskursija: Vilniaus universitetas ir biblioteka guided tour: Vilnius university and library Ausflug: Die Universität von Vilnius und die Bibliothek Экскурсия: Вильнюсский университет и библиотека

10-07-2010

9.00 Ekskursija: Senosios Lietuvos sostinės guided tour: Old capital cities of Lithuania Ausflug: Die alten hauptstädte von Litauen Экскурсия: Старые столицы Литвы

TURINYS • CONTENTS • INHALT • СОДЕРЖАНИЕ

ALEkSEY AnDROnOV. the phonological element in morphological accentology: a problem or a solution? . . . . . . . 9

РиМа БацяВиЧЮте. Фонетические признаки слоговых интонаций в северных говорах каунасского диалекта . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

miSLAV BEniĆ. Der Akzent bei den Substantiven in der mundart der Ortschaft kukljica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

DijAnA ĆURkOViĆ. Fluctuations in the accentuation of Blatnica Pokupska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

AnnA DAUgAViEtE. non-initial stress in Latvian . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Rick DERkSEn. the accentuation of Latvian dēt and duot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

ВЛаДиМиР а. ДЫБо. Балто-славянская акцентная система как рефлекс «западноевропейского» варианта праиндоевропейской акцентной системы . . . . . . 20

PAUL gARDE. Why is accentology different? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

mAtE kAPOViĆ. historical development of adjective accentuation in croatian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

FREDERik kORtLAnDt. Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

ORSAt LigORiO. Observations about Latin and Latin-mediated loans in Serbo-croatian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

mijO LOnČARiĆ. Die kajkavische kreuzmetatonie . . . . . . . . . . 31

МиХаиЛ В. оСЛон. В который раз о вост.-балт. *ei . . . . . . . 32

mARtinA PERAiĆ. Verb accent in the local dialect of Bosanski Svilaj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

VYtAUtAS RinkEViČiUS. clitics in Old Prussian . . . . . . . . . . . 35

8 9

ALEkSEY AnDROnOVSaint Petersburg State University

The phonological element in morphological accentology: a problem or a solution?

1. the difference between the two types of stress (fixed and free) is a difference between stress described in terms of phonology (fixed) or morphology (free). this relation is not symmetrical. the phenom-enon of stress belongs to the plane of expression, so its description cannot do without phonology. thus, although fixed stress does not require morphological analysis, free stress does require phonological analysis. On the other hand, every stress functions within an accentual unity (unité accentuelle) which is a grammatically defined segment (garde 1968, 16–20). this means that fixed stress is not absolutely independent from the plane of content.

2.1. the existence of double articulation of speech is connected with the possibility of an asymmetric relation between meaning and form. the description of free stress necessarily includes comments on possible cases of discrepancy between syllable and morpheme (gir- denis, Stundžia 1994): boundary mismatch, realization of stress of non-syllabic morphemes (Lith. šuñ‑S), stressable syllable of polysyl-labic morphemes (Lith. septiñ‑t‑as).

2.2. Free stress systems may arise due to morphologization of cer-tain phonological features (Dybo 2000, 5–9). historically, stress can be subject to phonetic shifts. Such shifts, adjusting the place of stress in-duced by morphological factors, can later be grammaticalized and give birth to new accentual paradigms (de Saussure’s Law). mora-counting is another phonological feature sometimes interfering with the morpho-logical stress placing or syllable intonation (kùbilas — kubìlius; púodas — puõdžius). changes in the phonological system can influence accentua-

mARiA (miRiAm) ShRAgER. the accentuation of masculine nouns in the Susak dialect spoken in new jersey . . . . . . . . . 36

DEjAn SREDOjEViĆ, LjiLjAnA SUBOtiĆ. neo-Štokavian accent shifting and the phonological significance of suprasegmental features in different Štokavian dialects. Phono-acoustic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

minDAUgAS StROckiS. A new interpretation of the syllable tones in Doric greek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

BOniFAcAS StUnDŽiA. Dominance as an accentual property of morphemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

ALEkSAnDRA tER-AVAnESOVA. Accentuation of *а-/*ja-stems in Russian dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

ЙоЛита УРБанаВиЧене. Слоговые интонации в восточно-аукштайтских говорах Литвы: экспериментальное исследование . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

migUEL ViLLAnUEVA SVEnSSOn. On the accentuation of the infinitive type Latv. kal̃t, Sl. *kőlti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

10 11

tion change (cf. Young 1991 on the consequences of neutralization of syllable accents on long monophthongs in colloquial Lithuanian).

3. there seem to be two contrary tendencies of language evolu-tion: consolidation of smaller parts in greater unities and gradual de-velopment of constituent parts of greater unities. Syllabomorphemic languages turn into agglutinative and inflexional ones by uniting syl-labomorphemes into words. Which syllable of the word will develop stress may depend on the hierarchy of morphemes merged or on the original intonation of the phrase that has been turned into a word. in the first case meaning or phonological features of the morphemes can play a role and a language with free stress arises. in the second case the inner structure of a new word is suppressed by the dominant in-tonation model, which fixes the stress on a certain syllable (cf. Wack-ernagel’s Law). this can be compared with the difference between logical intonation distinguishing inner structure of a syntactic unit and phrase intonation being a mere contour of such unit. this inter-pretation is based on t. nikolaeva’s hypothesis (1993) followed and developed on Lithuanian material by Yu. Stepanov (1997a, b).

REFEREncES

Dybo 2000 – В. а. Дыбо, Морфонологизованные парадигматические акцентные системы: Типология и генезис 1, Москва.

garde, P. 1968, L’accent, Paris, 1968.girdenis, A., B. Stundžia 1994, morfema ir skiemuo lietuvių kalbos ak cen-

tologinėje sistemoje, in A. girdenis, Kalbotyros darbai 3, Vilnius, 2001, 384–385.nikolaeva 1993 – т. М. николаева, Просодическая схема слова

и ударение. Ударение как факт фонологизации, Вопросы языкознания 1993/2, 16–28.

Stepanov 1997a – Ю. С. Степанов, непарадигматические передвижения ударения в индоевропейском (исходные положения), Вестник Московского университета. (Сер. 9: Филология) 1997/5, 63–80.

Stepanov 1997b – Ю. С. Степанов, непарадигматические передвижения уда рения в индоевропейском (i. Вокруг законов Ваккернагеля и Лес-кина), Вопросы языкознания 1997/4, 5–26.

Young, S. 1991, The Prosodic Structure of Lithuanian, Lanham, new York, London.

РиМа БацяВиЧЮтеИнститут литовского языка, Вильнюс

Фонетические признаки слоговых интонаций в северных говорах каунасского диалекта

Северная часть каунасского диалекта относится к юго-западным аукштайтским говорам, на основе которых сформиро-вался литовский литературный язык. от южной части каунасского диалекта она больше всего отличается сокращением безударных окончаний и некоторыми просодическими особенностями – пре-жде всего, так называемой протяжной интонацией, являющейся аллотоном циркумфлекса.

По данным экспериментальных исследований, слоговым ин-тонациям главного ударения – акуту и циркумфлексу – присущи следующие фонетические признаки:акутовые гласные слоги короче, основной тон более высокий,

вершины основного тона и интенсивности достигаются го-раздо раньше, диапазон основного тона более широкий, сла-бее выражены качественные признаки гласного.

циркумфлексные гласные слоги длинее, основной тон более низкий, вершины основного тона и интенсивности дости-гаются позже, диапазон основного тона ýже, качественные признаки гласного проявляются яснее. • акутовые двугласные и дифтонгические слоги отличаются

более широким диапазоном основного тона, раньше до-стигаются вершины основного тона, качественные при-знаки первого компонента проявляются яснее.

• циркумфлексные двугласные и дифтонгические слоги от-личаются более узким диапазоном основного тона, вер-

12 13

шины основного тона достигаются гораздо позже, каче-ственные признаки первого компонента редуцированы.

Самыми универсальными признаками, дифференцирирую-щими слоговые интонации этих говоров, можно считать два при-знака основного тона: диапазон изменения и время достижения вершины.

miSLAV BEniĆUniversität Zagreb

Der Akzent bei den Substantiven in der Mundart der Ortschaft Kukljica

Das grundanliegen dieser Arbeit ist, den Akzent der Substan-tive der Ortschaft kukljica auf der insel Ugljan in der Deklination und in der Wortbildung zu beschreiben. Dem kern, einer Beschrei-bung des Akzents in der Deklination aus überwiegend synchronischer Sicht und einigen Akzentregeln der Wortbildung, gehen die nötigen phonologischen (Phonemsystem, wichtigste Lautgesetze, Prosodie) und morphologischen Angaben voran, und ihm folgt eine Liste der öfter vorkommenden Substantive verteilt auf synchronische Akzent-paradigmen. Bei der Beschreibung der Betonung in der Deklination werden zuerst die Akzentparadigmen der Substantive der mundart von kukljica im Allgemeinen, und danach der Akzent im Dativ und Lokativ singular, im genitiv plural und im Vokativ sowie das Über-springen des Akzents im Besonderen behandelt.

14 15

DijAnA ĆURkOViĆInstitute of Croatian Language and Linguistics, Zagreb

Fluctuations in the accentuation of Blatnica Pokupska

this paper describes the kajkavian dialect of Blatnica Pokups-ka with emphasis on its accentuation. Although it can generally be grouped with other kajkavian dialects, it is actually in the border-line area between all three major croatian dialects, but also on the crossroads of several kajkavian dialects. Besides, the village has only 30 inhabitants. All this favours the deconstruction of the three unit system and emergence of fluctuations in length, tone and distribution of the accents.

AnnA DAUgAViEtESaint Petersburg State University

Non-initial stress in Latvian

The initial stress in Latvian has many exceptions which comprise borrowings as well as native words.

the accentuation of borrowings shows that Latvian actually per-mits stress on any syllable in the word, especially in proper names which are subject to great variation. For example, the name Pikaso ‘Picasso’ even according to the official pronunciation norm has three variants with the stress on the first, second, and third syllable, respec-tively. the common mistake in accentuation of foreign proper names is non-initial stress that does not reflect the location of stress in a do-nor language (kušķis, Paegle 2002), for example, Šahˈmatovs, Oˈžegovs for Russian Шáхматов, Óжегов. Some instances of such incorrect accentuation are, nevertheless, accepted in the standard Latvian, the most evident case being the name of the city Kaˈļiņingrada, Russian Калинингрáд as opposed to Zeļenoˈgrada, Russian Зеленогрáд).

A possible explanation for this difference is that Latvian preserves the location of stress in related words: compare the name of another city and a Russian surname Kaˈļinins (Калнин) as well as the Russian word кална ‘viburnum’; Oˈžegovs, too, can be explained by Rus-sian ожóг ‘burn’. Latvian also avoids stress on endings so that many feminine nouns, having the stressed ending -á in Russian, receive the initial stress in Latvian while the ending is still identified with the Latvian feminine ending -a: ˈŅeva, ˈUfa (Russian Невá, Уфá). Words having stress on the final syllable of a stem before a non-syllabic ending are also prohibited, for instance, ˈBorodins, ˈKočubejs (Russian Бородн, Кочубéй), ˈMopasans (French Maupassant). this does not

16 17

affect indeclinable words like Borˈdo, Zoˈlā (French Bordeaux, Zola) (Endzelīns 1953).

it is claimed that bisyllabic and trisyllabic words are to bear the initial stress in Latvian even if the ending is syllabic: compare ˈPoltava, ˈOdesa and Russian, Ukrainian Полтáва, Russian Одéсса, Ukrainian Одéса (Freimane 1993), but the rule seems to be limited to simple stems, since the stress is retained before derivative suffixes in the trisyllabic place names Soˈvetska, Aˈginska (Russian Совéтск, Агнское). in any case, borrowings with non-initial stress form a sub-system which has accentuation rules of its own.

For the most part, native words with non-initial stress developed from combinations of two words and are not easily differentiated from them even in a synchronic approach. Such cases as neˈkas ‘nothing’, paˈvisam ‘fully’ are considered two separate words by girdenis (2003). Yet the fact that proclitics do not receive stress in an initial-stress lan-guage is notable in itself, as can be seen from comparison with czech which is different from Latvian in this respect (czech ˈdo‿Prahy, Latvian uz‿ˈPrāgu ‘to Prague’).

the list of exceptions to the initial stress can be somewhat struc-tured by introducing formatives that attract the stress to themselves or the adjacent morpheme.

-ītiņām: kluˈsītiņām ‘silently’, lēˈnītiņām ‘slowly’, pamaˈzītiņām ‘lit-tle by little’

-pat: tikˈpat ‘as much as; as many as’, tāˈpat ‘in the same way’, nuˈpat ‘just now’

ne-: neˈkas ‘nothing’, neˈviens ‘nobody’, neˈkad ‘never’, neˈkur ‘no-where’, neˈkādi ‘by no means’

ik-: ikˈviens ‘everyone, anyone’, ikˈreiz ‘every time’lab-: labˈdien ‘good afternoon’, labˈrīt ‘good morning’, labˈvakar

‘good evening’ar-: arˈdievu ‘adieu’, arˈvien ‘always, ever’, arˈlabvakar ‘have a nice

evening’

vis-: visˈmaz ‘at least’, visˈapkārt ‘around’, visˈlabākais ‘best (adj.)’, visˈlabāk ‘best (adv.)’.

in this light, the accentuation of superlatives falls under the same category as other words sharing the formative vis‑.

Further derivational processes neutralize the accentual properties of the formatives so that a new word has initial stress, compare ikˈreiz ‘every time’ → ikreizējs ‘happening every time’, arˈdievu ‘adieu’ → ardievas ‘parting words’, labˈdien ‘good afternoon’ → (teikt) labdienu ‘greet’. new formatives can belong to the same list as in the case of labˈvakar ‘good evening’ → arˈlabvakar ‘have a nice evening’.

REFEREncES

kušķis, j., Dz. Paegle 2002, Kā latvietis runā…, Rīga.Endzelīns, j. 1953, Referāts 1953. g. 25. martā iV valodniecības jautājumiem

veltītajā apvienotajā konferencē Rīgā, in j. Endzelīns, Darbu izlase 3(2), Rīga, 1980, 466–474.

Freimane, i. 1993, Valodas kultūra teorētiskajā skatījumā, Rīga.girdenis, A. 2003, Teoriniai lietuvių fonologijos pagrindai, Vilnius.

18 19

Rick DERkSEnLeiden

The accentuation of Latvian dēt and duot

the Latvian verbs dēt ‘to lay (eggs)’ and duot ‘give’ are usually ac-cented dêt and duôt, with broken tone. According to the dictionary by mühlenbach and Endzelīns (mE) as well as the supplement by Endzelīns and hausenberg (Eh), both verbs are also attested with sus-tained tone, however. interestingly, mE (1, 535) states that in a number of dialects the infinitive duõt is found alongside a present duôdu (see also Endzelīns 1922, 26). this points to *dóʔ- < *deh₃- in the infini-tive, with root stress in accordance with hirt’s law, alongside unstressed *doʔd- in the present *doʔd-mì < *dodh₃-mi (Winter’s law) << *dedeh₃-mi, which is in agreement with the final stress of Lith. duods ‘giving’ and the Slavic evidence (cf. Stang 1957, 125–127, 164). in the infini-tive dēt, too, the variant with sustained tone must be considered old in view of hirt’s law. here the variant with broken tone cannot originate from the present tense *ded‑mì < *dʰedʰh₁-mi, where Winter’s law did not apply. the broken tone must therefore be analogical after the many verbs in ‑êt. to sum up, one could say that the archaic tonal distinction between duõ‑ and duôd‑ reflects the different origins of the vocalism.

REFEREncES

Eh – j. Endzelin, E. hausenberg, Ergänzungen und Berichtigungen zu K. Mühlenbachs Lettisch‑deutschem Wörterbuch (j. Endzelīns, E. hauzenberga, Papildīnajumi un labojumi K. Mǖhlenbacha Latviešu valodas vārdnīcai) 1–2, Riga: Lettisches kulturfond / grāmatu apgāds, 1934–1946.

Endzelīns, j. [Endzelin, j.] 1922, Lettische Grammatik, Riga: gulbis. mE – K. Mühlenbachs Lettisch‑deutsches Wörterbuch. Redigiert, ergänzt und

fortgesetzt von j. Endzelin (= K. Mǖlenbacha Latviešu valodas vārdnīca. Rediģējis,

papildinājis, turpinājis j. Endzelīns) 1–4, Riga: Lettisches Bildungsministerium, 1923–1932.

Stang, c.S. 1957, Slavonic accentuation, Oslo, Bergen, tromsø: i kommisjon hos h. Aschehoug & co. (W. nygaard).

20 21

ВЛаДиМиР а. ДЫБоИнститут славяноведения РАН, Москва

Балто-славянская акцентная система как рефлекс «западноевропейского» варианта праиндоевропейской акцентной системы

ис сле до ва ния в об лас ти сла вян ской, бал тий ской и бал то-сла-вян ской срав ни тель но-ис то ричес кой ак цен то ло гии при ве ли в на-стоя щее вре мя к ре кон ст рук ции бал то-сла вян ской ак цен туа ци он-ной сис те мы. ти по ло гичес кое срав не ние этой сис те мы с дру ги ми ак цен туа ци он ны ми сис те ма ми язы ков с раз но ме ст ным уда ре ни ем по зво ля ет вы де лить тип ак цен туа ци он ных сис тем, ко то рым бы ло да но на зва ние сис тем па ра диг ма тичес ко го ак цен та, и отне сти бал-то-сла вян скую сис те му имен но к сис те мам па ра диг ма тичес ко го ак цен та. ти по ло гичес кое срав не ние сис тем па ра диг ма тичес ко го ак цен та с то но вы ми сис те ма ми об на ру жи ва ет яв ную бли зость пер-вых к сис те мам лек сичес ко го то на. Кро ме то го, ока за лось, что во всех случаях, ко гда от но си тель но ге не зи са сис тем па ра диг ма тичес-ко го ак цен та уда ет ся по стро ить достато чно убе ди тель ные срав ни-тель но-ис то ричес кие ги по те зы, они воз во дят ся к сис те мам лек-сичес ко го то на. Это за ста ви ло ме ня выдви нуть то но вую ги по те зу ге не зи са бал то-сла вян ской ак цен туа ци он ной сис темы.

При этом око ло 200 бал то-сла вян ских имен ных лек сем бы ли по став ле ны В.М. ил лич-Сви тычем и по сле дую щи ми ис сле до ва-те ля ми в дос та точно убе дительное со от вет ст вие с ак цен тов кой и.-е. язы ков, со хра нив ших релик ты пер вично го ак цен та или его рефлек сы: 104 бал то-сла вян ских име ни не под виж но го ак цент но-го ти па свя зы ва ют ся с и.-е. ба ри то на ми, 70 имен под виж но го ти-па — с и.-е. ок си то на ми, и 21 бал то-сла вян ское имя не подвижного ак цент но го ти па объ яс ня ет ся как ре зуль тат пре об ра зо ва ния и.-е.

ок си тон по за ко ну Хир та. Это яв но сви де тель ст ву ет об индоевро-пейском ак цент ном ис точни ке бал то-сла вян ско го уда ре ния.

но ин до ев ро пей ское уда ре ние, вос ста нав ли вае мое по сред ст-вом срав нения сис тем древ не ин дий ско го и гречес ко го язы ков с ограниченным привлечением пра гер ман ских реф лек сов по за ко-ну Вер не ра, ни ко гда не рассма тривалось в этой плос ко сти.

В последние годы появился ряд интересных работ, авторы которых пытаются объяснить балтославянскую подвижность уда-рения, исходя из первичности греко-арийской окситонезы, это работы т. оландера (Olander 2009) и Дж. Джасенова (jasanoff 2008). авторы исходят из попытки де Соссюра объяснить на-чальное ударение в «слабых» падежах многосложных атемати-ческих основ. Соссюр, однако, не решился преобразовать свои соображения в фонетический закон, такое преобразование по-пытался осуществить т. торбьёрнссон (torbiörnsson 1923), рас-пространив его на подвижную парадигму литовского глагола. но в глаголе торбьёрнссон пытался объяснить формы, переносящие ударение на отрицание и приставки, из форм с накоренным уда-рением, пренебрегши тем, что акцентовка соответствующих пре-зентных причастий связывает их именно с подвижной акцентной парадигмой и, следовательно, с греко-арийской окситонезой. В дальнейшем это направление поиска для акцентовки имен более осторожно обработал Педерсен (Pedersen 1933).

Конечно, вывести подвижность ударения в балтославянских основах из первичной колонной акцентовки на конечном гласном основы, равно как подвижность ударения в глаголе из накорен-ного колонного ударения, особенно при использовании морфо-нологических процессов (аналогий), нетрудно, но гораздо проще объяснить преобразование подвижной акцентной парадигмы в колонную, как я показал в своем докладе на Xiii Международном съезде славистов. Для этого достаточно предположить передви-жение акцента в «слабых» двусложных формах на один слог на-

22 23

право или выравнивание акцента в морфологической парадигме, как, например, в русском.

однако основной проблемой индоевропейской сравнительно-исторической акцентологии является разноместность индоевро-пейского первичного ударения и установление характера ее ор-ганизации. В балтославянском эта разноместность организована как парадигматическая акцентная система. Как я неоднократно писал, под сис те ма ми па ра диг ма ти че ско го ак цен та или па ра диг-ма ти че ски ми ак цент ны ми си сте ма ми по ни ма ют ся в Мо с ков ской ак цен то ло ги че ской шко ле та кие сис те мы, ко то рые ха рак те ри зу-ют ся дву мя или не сколь ки ми ти па ми по ве де ния ак цен та в сло-ве, име нуе мы ми ак цент ны ми ти па ми или ак цент ны ми (ак цен ту-а ци он ны ми) па ра диг ма ми (а. п.), по ко то рым рас пре де ля ют ся все сло ва со от вен ст вую ще го язы ка сле дую щим об ра зом:

1. В кор пу се не про из вод ных ос нов вы бор ак цент но го ти па для ка ж до го сло ва не пред ска зы ва ет ся ка кой-ли бо ин-фор ма ци ей, за клю чен ной в фор ме или в зна че нии это го сло ва, а яв ля ет ся при су щим дан но му сло ву (при пи сан-ным ему) тра ди ци он но.

2. В кор пу се про из вод ных ос нов вы бор ак цент ных ти пов оп ре де ля ет ся ак цент ны ми ти па ми про из во дя щих ос нов (обыч но с со от вет ст вую щей по прав кой на сло во об ра зо-ва тель ный тип).

гла голь ная ак цент ная сис те ма в этих язы ках обыч но по строе-на по доб ным же об ра зом: раз лич ные гла голь ные ка те го рии при этом рас смат ри ва ют ся как про из вод ные по от но ше нию к гла голь-ной ка те го рии, по ло жен ной в на ча ло опи са ния.

Была ли такая организация характерна уже для индоевропей-ского?

греческий и древнеиндийский дают крайне скудный матери-ал для ответа на этот вопрос. однако непроизводные имена пока-зывают акцентовку, согласующуюся с балто-славянской. В части имен древнеиндийский не согласуется с греческим. Показания

иранского языка пушту и дардского языка шина заставляют рас-сматривать эту особенность древнеиндийского как инновацию. Как было показано мной в работе (Дыбо 1974), древнеиндийский сохранил (c праиндоиранского состояния) парадигматический выбор в производных с уменьшительными суффиксами на -k‑.

основная область, в которой древнеиндийский противостоит балтославянскому, это акцентовка форм глагола, однако резуль-таты исследования а.а. Зализняка заставляют считать ее фоноло-гической или морфонологической инновацией (Зализняк 1978).

Моя работа (Дыбо 1961) показала возможность привлечения кельто-италийского материала для изучения глагольного ударе-ния и увеличила возможности германского в этом отношении. Эти языковые группы обнаружили ряд важных акцентологиче-ских соответствий с балтославянским. В частности, удалось по-казать наличие парадигматического выбора акцентных парадигм в системе прагерманского глагола. Все это позволяет рассматри-вать акцентные системы кельто-италийских и германских языков совместно с балтославянской как рефлекс «западноевропейско-го» варианта праиндоевропейской акцентной системы.

БиБЛиогРаФия

Дыбо, В.а. 1961, Сокращение долгот в кельто-италийских языках и его значение для балто-славянской и индоевропейской акцентологии, Во‑просы славянского языкознания 5, 9–34.

Дыбо, В.а. 1974, афганское ударение и его значение для индо ев ро-пейской и балто-славянской акцентологии 1: именная акцентуация, Балто-славянские исследования.

Зализняк, а.а. 1978, грамматический очерк санскрита, in В.а. Ко чер-гина, Санскритско-русский словарь, Москва, 785–895.

jasanoff, j.h. 2008, the accentual type *vèdō, *vedetı̍ and the origin of mobility in the Balto-Slavic verb, Baltistica 43(3), 339–379.

Olander, th. 2009, Balto‑Slavic accentual mobility, Berlin, new York.Pedersen, h. 1933, Études lituaniennes, københavn.Torbiörnsson, t. 1923, De litauiska akcentförskjutningarna och den litauiska

verbalakcenten, Uppsala.

24 25

PAUL gARDEUniversity of Provence

Why is accentology different?

Accentology (especially diachronic) is considered esoteric by the average linguist. Research in that field was belated as compared with the rest of iE historic and comparative linguistics.

the reason is that the methods used by 19th century linguists, including the Young grammarians, which aimed mainly at the for-mulation of phonetic laws, were adapted to the study of changes af-fecting oppositional features (either segmental or prosodic), but not of a contrastive prosodic feature: stress. in that field they were able to capture only general changes of the whole accentual system, such as the fixation of stress (Latin), its limitation (greek), general stress shifts (Štokavian); or some rare cases of segmental changes conditioned by stress location (Verner’s law). But they failed to describe and explain most facts of languages with free stress, because those facts are not phonologically, but morphologically conditioned.

A major achievement of that method was in 1896 the discovery of “Saussure’s law” in 1896. it is a phonetic law of the classical type, but for the first time it explained a stress shift operating in the whole system of a language, Lithuanian, by the action of a prosodic opposi-tional feature, tone.

An unexpected result of that discovery (and of the formulation in 1897 of its pseudo-twin, the quite different “Fortunatov’s law”, more general but less well-founded) was that in the first half of the 20th century most accentologists tried to explain any stress shift as a result of a difference in tone. Since languages with “free” (i.e. morphologi-cally conditioned) stress may undergo many stress shifts, one has to assume many cases of tone change (metatony), which must have re-

sulted in a system with many tones. this is why those scholars have been labelled “the metatonist school” (hamm) and the sort of tone system they assumed – “mnogozvëzdnoe nebo” (jakobson).

this period ended in the middle of the century with the books of kuryłowicz (1952) and Stang (1957). Both realized that in free stress languages phonetic laws cannot explain everything, and, since stress in those languages has to do with morphology, analogical changes must play a major role. kuryłowicz tried to deny all phonetic changes, even the most well-founded ones, and to explain everything by anal-ogy. in spite of many valuable remarks, this method led nowhere and had few followers.

Stang on the contrary retained most assets of 19th century pho-netic laws, including Saussure’s, but added the concepts necessary for analyzing morphological data and analogical changes in a free stress system. All accentology since that time follows the line initiated by his book, including the pioneering moscow school and many other scholars all over Europe and America. not only were new phonetic laws discovered (mainly Dybo’s law), but it was established that in ac-centology, analogical, i.e. morphologically conditioned changes, may have as large a scope as phonetic ones, and, unlike them, a very long duration.

So the functional particularity of stress as contrastive and of free stress as morphologically conditioned explains the particular tempo of diachronic accentology: it was in a standstill in the first half of the 20th century and flourished in the second half, while for the rest of iE diachronic linguistics it was more or less the other way round.

26 27

mAtE kAPOViĆUniversity of Zagreb

Historical development of adjective accentuation in Croatian

the presentation will deal with the outline of the historical de-velopment of the accentuation of adjectives in croatian dialects. the stress will be on general tendencies in the development as well as on some previously unexplained details (like the accentuation of the ad-jectives like krȁtak/krȃtak or glȁsan/glȃsan etc.). Some new dialectal material will also be adduced.

FREDERik kORtLAnDtLeiden University www.kortlandt.nl

Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited

there is every reason to welcome the revised edition (2009) of thomas Olander’s dissertation (2006), which i have criticized else-where (Baltistica 41(3)). it must be hoped that the easy access to a complex set of problems which this book offers will have a stimulat-ing effect on the study of Balto-Slavic accentology.

however, what the author evidently regards as his main result, the “mobility law”, cannot be accepted because it is incompatible with the data. the origin of the mistaken analysis which has resulted in Olander’s “mobility law” must be sought in his reconstructions of Proto-indo-European and Proto-Slavic. his “mobility law” is irrec-oncilable with the quantitative reflexes of vowels and diphthongs in Slavic. the same holds for his early date of Dybo’s law. Olander omits a large and essential part of the evidence.

While i am happy to see that Olander has accepted my view that the Balto-Slavic acute can be identified as glottalization, i am sorry that he has not (yet) seen why glottalized vowels must have remained distinct from earlier long vowels in Slavic. i am glad to see that Olan-der has accepted my derivation of -ī- from athematic *‑ei‑ in the Slavic i‑presents.

As a result of Olander’s erroneous assumption that “after Dybo’s Law the glottalisation disappeared and long glottalised vowels merged with long non-glottalised vowels”, he is unable to explain the nu-merous formations where Dybo’s law introduced new long vowels in pretonic syllables. Olander ignores the fact that PiE lengthened grade

28 29

vowels are never acute and (unlike the acute vowels) did not lose their length when the new timbre distinctions arose in Slavic.

As a result of Olander’s mobility law, end-stressed word forms became “unaccented” and received an automatic Low tone “ictus”, either on the final syllable before an enclitic particle or (if there was none) on the first proclitic element or initial syllable of the phono-logical word. this is a peculiar compromise satisfying neither the Slavic mobility between pre-phrasal and phrase-final syllables nor the Lithuanian mobility between pre-radical and word-final syllables. One cannot escape the impression that Olander’s reconstruction of “Proto-indo-European” endings is strongly influenced by the out-come of his mobility law.

Olander’s interpretation of meillet’s law cannot be correct be-cause the prosodic merger of acute and circumflex in Slavic was lim-ited to pretonic and post-posttonic syllables while the distinction be-tween acute and non-acute was preserved under the stress and in the first posttonic syllable, where it is reflected as short versus long in the historical languages. my chief objection is not the typological improbability of Olander’s mobility law but the fact that it is contra-dicted by the evidence.

in my view, generalization of the Low tone of pretonic syllables to barytone forms of mobile accent paradigms gave rise to Olander’s “unaccented word-forms” with distinctive Low tone on the initial syl-lable. this introduction of a distinctive Low tone is an essentially syntactic development with a perfect analogue in Vedic. the Low tone had a falling contour after a preceding high tone, as a result of which the high tone received a rising contour after a preceding Low tone. At a later stage, the rising contour shifted the high tone to the following syllable (Dybo’s law). in Slovene, the distinctive Low tone became high when the falling contour shifted to the right while the high tone became Low. the rise of a distinctive Low tone was not an automatic consequence of the retraction of the stress to a preposition or prefix.

it must be regretted that Olander does not draw the reader’s at-tention to the fact that his “Proto-Slavic” phonological system differs from my Early Slavic system in the absence of a glottal stop which accounts for the rise and development of the new timbre and quantity distinctions, which he does not discuss. he also does not discuss the rise and development of the nasal vowels, nor of *j, which have con-siderable impact on the reconstruction of the phonological system. i am sorry that he has not replaced his confusing analysis in terms of “accent” and “ictus” by a consistent treatment in terms of high and Low tone, which could have avoided a number of misunderstandings. Olander’s free choice between “Proto-indo-European” alternatives as input and his limitation of the Slavic evidence by excluding the new timbre and quantity distinctions as output enable him to explain al-most any reconstructed word form, either as a regular phonetic reflex or as the result of influence from alternating forms. this is in stark contrast with my aim to explain the actual distribution of accent, tone and quantity as they are attested in the Slavic languages.

30 31

ORSAt LigORiOUniversity of Zagreb

Observations about Latin and Latin-mediated loans in Serbo-Croatian

in this paper i shall discuss the findings that R. matasović presented at IWoBA 1. in the paper entitled “On the accentuation of the earliest Latin and Romance loanwords in Slavic” he argues that paradigm affiliation can be easily predicated on the basis of gender, so that a-stems (feminines) are affiliated to a.p. A and o‑stems (mas-culines) to a.p. B while there are no a.p. c loans. Regardless of cer-tain points of disagreement, what i intend to do in light of this dis- covery is, first, corroborate the corpus of evidence supporting the claim, then, to account for some counter-evidence disapproving it. more importantly, i intend to address the issue of codependent crite-ria, in terms of accentology and etymology, and their mutual role in the matters of stratification of Latin, Latin-mediated and neo-Latin loans in Serbo-croatian.

mijO LOnČARiĆInstitut für kroatische Sprache und Sprachwissenschaft, Zagreb

Die kajkavische Kreuzmetatonie

ivšić hat im nordwesten kroatiens, in der kajkavsischen Dialekt-gruppe, eine sehr spezifische Entwicklung der Akzentologie entdeckt – die kreuzmetatonie des kajkavischen grundzirkumflexes (langfallend) und des urslavischen neoakuts (langsteigend) > /^ > ~ und ~ > ̂ /. Er hat sie mit der bekannten litauischen metatonie der balto-slavischen Akzente verglichen.

Es wird die hypothese über die relative chronologie der kajka-vischen metatonie (in Oberlonja- und glogovnica-Bilogora-Dialek-ten) – das X jh. – gestellt und mit der zweiten wichtigen Entwicklung der kajkavischen Prosodie verglichen – mit der Begrenzung der Beto-nungstelle im nordosten, im kajkavischen Podravina-Dialekt.

Es wird ein Überblick über die Erscheinung der kreuzmetatonie gegeben.

32 33

МиХаиЛ В. оСЛонИнститут славяноведения РАН, Москва

В который раз о вост.-балт. *ei

Делается очередная попытка обнаружить закономерность в распределении восточнобалтийских отражений и.-е. дифтонга *ei. о вопрос происхождения восточнобалтийских дифтонгов ei и ie сломано немало копий. целый век исследователи безуспешно пытаются решить эту проблему, приходя иногда к «решениям», совершенно противоположным друг другу. так, Хирт, в первой работе, посвящённой данной проблеме (1892), объяснял переход *ei > ie ударением на дифтонге. а в последней такой работе (не считая обзорных) Каралюнас (1987) объясняет прабалтийскую монофтонгизацию исконного дифтонга *ei̯ его безударным поло-жением в словах подвижной парадигмы (т.е. *ei > *ē > ie). Эти и другие решения не могут не вызывать недоумения, принимая во внимание удручающее количество контрпримеров. Поддерживая тезис о связи монофтонгизации (*ei > *ē > ie) и ударения, я ввожу в оборот более сложные просодические единицы, а именно ак-центные валентности морфем (по В.а. Дыбо). я постараюсь по-казать, что действительно имеется зависимость между просоди-ческим типом слова и развитием дифтонга, но буду рассматривать не принадлежность слов к той или иной акцентной парадигме, а проанализирую их морфемный состав, т.е., кроме корня, введу в рассмотрение и суффикс, а также происхождение долгот (в т.ч. «апофоническое» и по закону Винтера). таким образом, несмотря на большую затёртость рефлексов, кое-что новое, кажется, уда-лось выявить в сложной эволюции рассматриваемых дифтонгов.

БиБЛиогРаФия

hirt, hermann 1892, Vom schleifenden und gestossenen ton in den indogermanischen Sprachen, Indogermanische Forschungen 1, 1–42, 195–231.

karaliūnas, Simas 1987, Baltų kalbų struktūrų bendrybės ir jų kilmė, Vilnius.

34 35

mARtinA PERAiĆUniversity of Rijeka

Verb accent in the local dialect of Bosanski Svilaj

the dialect of Bosanski Svilaj is spoken by croatian popula-tion living in this village on the Bosnian coast of the river Sava. it is an old-Štokavian dialect, which means that it is characterized by a specific accentual system, having five distinctive accents, as well as pre-tonic and post-tonic length. this suggests that the morphono-logical system of this dialect is very complex. this paper deals with the accents in the verb system. Verbs are classified according to their stems and accentual patterns. there are three main accent paradigms, a. p. A, a. p. B and a. p. c. the dialect is particularly distinctive by the neoacute, which is preserved in many old positions, and therefore can give us information about early stages of accentuation development in Old Slavic. Phonological properties are also given in detail. A theory about the origin of ijekavism in this dialect is given. the author be-lieves that the dialect of Bosanski Svilaj was ikavian originally and gives reasons.

VYtAUtAS RinkEViČiUSVilnius University

Clitics in Old Prussian

the orthography of the 3rd Old Prussian catechism provides sufficient grounds to assume that in Old Prussian two clitics regularly constituted a separate accentual unity (phonological word) with automatic stress on the first syllable. in most cases these accentual unities consisted of a preposition and a monosyllabic pronominal form, e.g. ēnstan, pērwans, prēidin, pōstan, sēnku, etc. the unexpected macron in the preposition, rather than the fact that two clitics are attested in one orthographic word (cf. ēn mans, pēr wans), should be regarded as the main criterion for the identification of such accentual unities in a text. in combination with words other than monosyllabic forms of pronouns, prepositions are usually attested with no macron. cases like prēistan klausīwingin, pērstans wāldnikans etc. show that sequences of clitics constituted accentual unities independently, i.e. not together with accentogenic words.

36 37

mARiA (miRiAm) ShRAgERIndiana University, Bloomington

The accentuation of masculine nouns in the Susak dialect spoken in New Jersey

this paper describes and analyzes the accentual system of mascu-line nouns in the croatian Čakavian dialect of Susak island spoken in new jersey. the current study is based on recordings we have done in new jersey in December, 2007 and march, 2010.

the first description of the Susak dialect (hamm et al. 1956) de-scribes a peculiar accentuation type of certain masculine nous. these nouns, which in other Slavic languages have reflexes of the accentual paradigm (AP) -c, in Susak have a mixed type of accentuation: in the nom-acc they have the accentuation type of AP-c, but in oblique cases they have reflexes of AP-B, an oxytonic accent (1956, 10). this description together with other dialectal evidence later served as the basis for the theory of AP-D for the late cSl period. (Dybo et al. 1990; 1993). it is known that in most of the Slavic Languages and dialects both iE dominant and recessive short root nouns coincide in AP-c. According to this theory, some Slavic dialects preserve the distinction between the iE masculine nouns with dominant roots and those with recessive roots.

the problem with the description of hamm et al is that eve-rything was done by hand, there are no recordings, and the whole description is hard to validate, since the island is currently inhabited by newcomers; most of the original Susak inhabitants left the island in the 1950’s.

Several years ago we discovered a large Susak community in new jersey and conducted fieldwork there. Although these people have

lived in the USA for about fifty years, they still preserve their Susak identity, their distinctive dialect, and many of them do not speak English. An analysis of the recordings we have shows traits specific to the Susak dialect described by hamm, et al. Upon examining these traits it becomes clear that the accentual system of these Susak speak-ers does indeed have the mixed-type masculine noun paradigm as well as many other interesting peculiarities.

REFEREncES

Dybo, V.A., g.i. Zamjatina, S.L. nikolaev 1990, Osnovy slavjanskoj ak cen‑tologii, moscow: nauka.

Dybo, V.A., g.i. Zamjatina, S.L. nikolaev 1993, Osnovy slavjanskoj ak‑centologii. Slovar’, moscow: nauka.

hamm, j., m. hraste, P. guberina 1956, govor otoka Suska, Hrvatski dija‑lektološki zbornik 1, Zagreb.

38 39

DEjAn SREDOjEViĆ, LjiLjAnA SUBOtiĆUniversity of Novi Sad

Neo-Štokavian accent shifting and the phonological significance of suprasegmental features in different Štokavian dialects. Phono-acoustic analysis

the results of phonetic research of neo-Štokavian accents made so far, established two different views: according to one group of sci-entists, a vowel with rising accent has a rising pitch movement, the next vowel has a falling movement and its onset is at the same or higher pitch than the ending stressed vowel. According to the other views, the vowel with rising accent has a rising pitch movement, the next vowel has a falling pitch movement and its onset is at lower pitch than the pitch of the ending stressed vowel. With speakers from East-Štokavian area, it was noticed that vowels with short accents (falling and rising) can have identical pitch movement, with the only dif-ference being the ratio between pitch height at the end of a stressed vowel and at the onset of the next vowel. On the other hand, a vowel with a long rising accent has indeed a rising pitch movement, and the vowel with long falling accent – has the falling pitch movement.

in the research whose results we present, the realization of four neo-Štokavian accents in eight speakers from different parts of Štokavian territory was observed. According to the audio analysis of 1912 samples, out of which 600 have been spectrographically ana-lysed, it was concluded that vowels with rising accents most often have consistently rising or broken pitch line which, after the flat or falling onset, has rising movement. the vowel following the stressed one has a falling pitch movement and most often has onset at the same pitch where the stressed vowel ended. however, with some speakers,

the post-stressed vowel had the onset at lower pitch than the stressed vowel before it. Based on audio and spectrographic analysis of 3900 samples provided by eleven speakers from novi Sad, it was concluded that a vowel with rising accent, either short and long, has falling pitch movement while the onset of the next vowel is significantly superior than the ending stressed vowel. the rising tendency may continue to the end of that vowel and with words consisting of more than two syllables – this may continue to the next vowel. According to this research, we can conclude that different phonetic realizations of the same phonological unit are the result of unevenly realized process of accent shifting which was caused by difference in the significance of suprasegmental features in observed Štokavian speech variants.

40 41

minDAUgAS StROckiSVilnius University

A new interpretation of the syllable tones in Doric Greek

A thorough understanding of ancient greek accentuation, espe-cially of the nature of the greek syllable tones, can contribute to our knowledge of the accentuation of other indo-European languages, among them Baltic, at least by furnishing some useful typological examples.

We possess a fairly good knowledge of ancient greek accentua-tion, but most of it is confined to the classical form of greek, the Attic. the accentuation of the Doric dialect is scantily attested, and its relationship to the Attic is not quite clear. the amount of evidence that we have about Doric accentuation is just such as to make the problem interesting: not enough for obvious and decisive conclusions, but neither so little that one must abandon any attempt at interpreta-tion altogether.

the evidence about Doric accentuation that was gathered by classical scholarship from the papyri of Alcman, Pindar, and the-ocritus, as well as from the descriptions of ancient grammarians, was summarised by Ahrens in 1839. During more than a century and a half that has elapsed since that time hardly any new evidence has emerged, though various interpretations have been offered, notably by Brugmann (1913), hermann (1919), hirt (1929), Schwyzer (1939) and kuryłowicz (1958), as well as others. As it appears, Brugmann (1913) was the first to call the Doric accentuation ‘processive’, that is, the place of the accent appears to be shifted rightwards by one mora (seldom, by two) in comparison with Attic. this obvious conclusion

was supported by Schwyzer (1939); hirt (1929) argued that it was not the Doric accent that was ‘shifted rightwards’, but conversely that the Attic was, historically, ‘shifted leftwards’, while the Doric placing of the accent, presumably, retained its original position. kuryłowicz of-fered an explanation of certain Doric accentual phenomena by means of complex relations of morphological analogies. Yet there was no satisfactory explanation how this difference in accent placement be-tween Attic and Doric, usually on different adjacent morae (regardless of syllable boundaries!) could have historically developed. individual cases were given various separate explanations, so that a reader might get an impression that various accent changes, processes, phonetic laws, and analogies operated, or failed to operate, in Doric, and nearly always with the same outcome: the Doric placement of the accent every time ended on the mora to the right from the Attic accent placement on the same word form.

So there is a strong temptation to offer a new explanation of the Doric placement of word accent.

it is to be borne in mind that there was no system of accent nota-tion devised specially for the Doric dialect. the Alexandrine system of greek accent notation was intended primarily for homeric and clas-sical Attic (which varieties of greek, in terms of accentuation, were practically identical). Also one must bear in mind that greek gram-marians (not unlike their counterparts in ancient india) described and marked with written signs not the phonological accent in its modern sense, but the tone contour of an entire word (or even phrase). it is modern scholars who extract the phonological place of the word ac-cent from the contour notation in ancient manuscripts, be it Alexan-drine greek or Vedic Sanskrit. While in Attic greek the phonological accent is obvious, in Doric it is less so. in other words, when modern books say that the Dorians accented, for example, γεραιτάτοι instead of Attic γεραίτατοι, one must not forget that such Doric placement

42 43

of accent was distilled by scholars from the original notation (found in papyri) which is γεραὶτάτοι. the written form γεραὶτάτοι does not at all reveal exactly which tone, low on ραι, or high on τα, carried the function of the phonological accent of the word.

We argue that the Doric accents that we have on papyri and de-scribed in ancient grammatical treatises were marked by ancient gram-marians who based their markings not on some phonological analysis (a thing that one would not readily expect from ancient grammar-ians), but on acoustic impression, as compared with the sound of classical Attic.

So we propose a hypothesis that the phonological accent in Doric was phonetically actualised with a lower tone (not higher, as in Attic) than that of the subsequent syllable (or mora); accordingly, the Doric accent was indicated in writing by grammarians with the grave, which mark meant low tone in the Alexandrine system of accent notation; the subsequent syllable (or mora) had an acoustically higher tone in Doric, and was accordingly marked with an acute – which mark, from the Attic point of view, is now understood as the mark of the phono-logical word accent – and this creates the impression that the Doric accent was shifted by one mora rightwards in comparison to Attic.

if we accept this explanation of the Doric accent, we would see that the phonetic actualisation of Attic and Doric syllabic tones in long vowels (acute and circumflex) was phonetically inverted: the At-tic circumflex was, as it is universally known, rising-falling; the Doric counterpart appears to be falling-rising, and therefore marked in writ-ing, to our confusion, with an acute. Aside from this phonetic inver-sion of tones, the phonological placement of the word accent in Doric appears to be identical to that of the classical Attic.

the fact that two dialects of the same language have their syl-labic tones phonetically inverted furnishes us a typological example, which might be useful also in the study of Baltic accentuation. As we

know, it happens that closely related languages or dialects may have their syllabic tones phonetically inverted; the example of the greek dialects confirms that this is possible and should not be considered extraordinary.

REFEREncES

Ahrens, h.L. 1839–1843, De Graecae linguae dialectis 1–2, gottingae.Brugmann, k. 1913, Griechische Grammatik (bearbeitet von Dr Albert

thumb), münchen.herman, E. 1919, in: Nachrichten der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wi ssen‑

schaften zu Göttingen, 176.hirt, h. 1929, Indogermanische Grammatik 5: Der Akzent, hei delberg.Schwyzer, E. 1939, Griechische Grammatik 1: Allgemeiner Teil. Lautleh re.

Wortbildung. Flexion, münchen.kuryłowicz, j. 1958, L’accentuation des langues indo-européennes, Wrocław,

kraków.

44 45

BOniFAcAS StUnDŽiAVilnius University

Dominance as an accentual property of morphemes

Accentologists interpret the term dominance differently. Paul garde (1976; 1980), who seems to have introduced this term to ac-centology, treats it as an accentual property of derivational affixes (as a rule, suffixes), which neutralises the accentual properties of base stems. therefore, the placement of stress in derivatives is predeter-mined exclusively by dominant affixes, which are classified into au-to-accented, pre-accented and post-accented ones. Vladimir Dybo’s (1981) dominant / recessive morphemes correspond to garde’s ac-cented (strong) / non-accented (weak) morphemes. the author of this paper (Stundžia 1995) adds metatony to the phenomena, for which dominant affixes are responsible, thus distinguishing between metatonic and non-metatonic non-accented (weak) affixes.

garde, Dybo and other accentologists interpret dominance as a syntagmatic phenomenon, while Aleksas girdenis (1985; 1997) em-phasizes the paradigmatic character of dominance (relative accentual value according to his terminology), distinguishing between strength-ening and weakening suffixes in nominal derivation. girdenis’ classi-fication is based on the effect dominance suffixes make on base stems, which follows the principles of word-formation and form-building oppositions delineated by Louis hjelmslev (1959[1938]), jerzy kuryłowicz (1960[1938]) and others. Antanas Pakerys (2008, 28), on the contrary, argues that “the classification of nominal suffixes into strengthening and weakening ones should be based on the effect these suffixes make on the stems of the derivatives rather than on the stems

of the base words” (about different interpretation of dominance see in Rinkevičius 2009).

in this paper i will try to show that taking into account both syn-tagmatic and paradigmatic aspects of dominance a scholar is able to carry out a more thorough investigation into the history of accentua-tion systems.

SELEctED BiBLiOgRAPhY

Dybo, Vladimir A. 1981, Slavjanskaja akcentologija. Opyt rekonstrukcii sistemy akcentnych paradigm v praslavjanskom, moskva: nauka.

garde, Paul 1976, Histoire de l’accentuation slave, Paris: institut d’études slaves.

garde, Paul 1980, Grammaire russe l: Phonologie. Morphologie, Paris: institut d’études slaves.

girdenis, Aleksas 1985, Akcentuacija, in Grammatika litovskogo jazyka, Vilnjus: mokslas, 61–68 (= Accentuation, in Lithuanian Grammar, Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1997, 77–83).

hjelmslev, Louis 1959[1938], Essai d’une théorie des morphèmes, in idem, Essais linguistiques, copenhague: nordisk Sprog- og kulturforlag, 153–164.

kuryłowicz, jerzy 1960[1938], Struktura morfemu, in idem, Esquisses linguistiques, Wrocław–kraków: Wydawnictwo PAn, 51–65.

Pakerys, Antanas 2008, Dėl akcentinės lietuvių kalbos vardažodžių priesagų galios, Baltistica 43, 17–29.

Rinkevičius, Vytautas 2009, Prūsų kalbos kirčiavimo sistema. Daktaro disertacija, Vilniaus universitetas.

Stundžia, Bonifacas, 1995, Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos kirčiavimo sistema, Vilnius: Petro ofsetas.

46 47

ALEkSAnDRA tER-AVAnESOVAV.V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow

Accentuation of *а-/*ja-stems in Russian dialects

Accentuation of simplex *a-/*ja‑stems in East Russian dialects correlates with ORu. accentual reconstruction (Zalizn’ak 1985). As an intervening stage between the manuscripts used by A.A.Zalizn’ak and the present-day dialectal systems the examples from the poetry of the XViii-XiXcc. (Es’kova 2008) can be regarded. Vocalization of *a-/*ja‑stems with *o, *ъ, *e, *ь in the root in most cases supports accentual reconstruction: the last three vowels are usually reflected as /o/, and *o – as /uo/ under the “autonomous” stress (= in orthotonic word forms) or /o/ – under the “automatic” stress (= in enclinomena-forms); it is decisive for interpretation of time and origin of the shifts of stress in certain grammatical forms.

the collection of dialectal data illustrates developments of accen-tuation of a.p. b *a-/*ja‑stems: rise of root stress in n(A)pl. forms of a.p. b; rise of columnar root stress in plural forms of a.p. b.

Root stress in n(A)pl. of a.p. b feminine nouns, a late innovation in East Ru., now occurs everywhere in East Ru. dialects with rare ex-ceptions. in plural oblique cases, in a.p. b feminine nouns, root stress should be cSl. (Dybo 2000), at least in a part of dialects. in present-day north-East Ru., however, it lacks, and a.p. b and c have become similar in plural, e.g., b: (1) Asg. rosu\, npl. ro\sy, gpl. ruo\s, ipl. rosa\m; (2) Asg. grozu\, npl. gro\zy, gpl. gros, ipl. groza\m; c: (1) Asg. go\ru, npl. go\ry, gpl. guo\r, i.pl. gora\m; (2) Asg. ko\su, npl. ko\sy, gpl. ko\s, ipl. kosa\m. in South-East Ru., mobile and co-lumnar root stress coexist in plural of a.p. b feminine nouns. in a

number of words columnar stress is accompanied by /uo/ in the root, a usual reflex of neo acute, e.g., b: (1) Asg. vdovu\, npl. vduo\vy, gpl. vduo\f, Dpl. vduo\vam; (2) Asg. polu\, npl. po\ly, gpl. puo\l, isg. pola\mi; (3) Asg. soxu\, npl. so\xi, gpl. sox, ipl. soxa\mi; c: (1) Asg. no\gu, Apl. po\d nəgi, gpl. nuo\k, Dpl. noga\m; (2) Asg. ko\su, npl. ko\sy, gpl. kos, ipl. kosa\m). the influence of a.p. b *o-stems neutra is also possible, cf. mid.-South Ru. npl. doluo\ty ‘chisel’; npl. guo\vny, ipl. guo\vnəmi ‘excrement’; pəlotnuo\, npl. poluo\tny, gpl. poluo\tin ‘linen’, etc., while in north-East Ru. root /o/ is found in the same class of words: polotnuo\, npl. polo\tna, gpl. polo\tin, ipl. polo\tnam, etc.

REFEREncES

Dybo 2000 – В.а. Дыбо, Морфонологизованные пара диг матические акцентные системы. Типология и генезис 1, Москва.

Es’kova 2008 – н.а. еськова, Нормы литературного языка XVIII-XIX веков, Москва.

Zalizn’ak 1985 – а.а. Зализняк, От праславянской акцентуации к русской, Москва.

48 49

ЙоЛита УРБанаВиЧенеИнститут литовского языка, Вильнюс

Слоговые интонации в восточно-аукштайтских говорах Литвы: экспериментальное исследование

В докладе анализируются монофтонгические аллотоны слого-вых интонаций, которые по традиционному мнению в восточно-литовских говорах образуют лишь факультативную оппозицию. однако в самых восточных говорах виленчан (как и в периферий-ных диалектах) противопоставление акута и циркумфлекса более контрастивно. но относительная значимость акустических при-знаков может быть иной, нежели в литературном языке. В ходе эксперимента установлено, что статистически значимыми разли-чиями между акутом и циркумфлексом являются качественные (артикуляционные) признаки, а также основной тон и интенсив-ность. обнаружено, что акутовые гласные пикового значения до-стигают раньше, чем циркумфлексные. Результаты эксперимента не показали статистически значимого различия по длительности между акутом и циркумфлексом.

migUEL ViLLAnUEVA SVEnSSOnVytautas Magnus University, Vilnius University

On the accentuation of the infinitive type Latv. kal̃t, Sl. *kőlti

Building on earlier work by Dybo (Slavjanskaja akcentologija, moscow, 1981, 233ff.), Rasmussen (Selected Papers on Indo‑European Linguistics, copenhagen, 1999, 184ff. [first published 1985]) has con-vincingly argued that the Balto-Slavic infinitive was originally ac-cented on the ending. Root or suffix accentuation in principle reflects the effects of hirt’s law (e.g. Latv. dzet “drink”, Sl. *žert “devour” < *gwerh3-téi- vs. Latv. duõt, Sl. *dti “give” < *dóh3‑tei- < *doh3-téi-). Exceptions to the general rule can be reasonably explained under two general tendencies: a tendency to extend mobility in Latvian (East Baltic), and a tendency to generalize root accentuation for verbs with acute intonation in Slavic (e.g. Latv. vît vs. Sl. *vti “twist”, Sl. *mlzti “milk” vs. Latv. mizt “swell”). Some exceptions remain that do not enter easily into these explanatory schemas. the most consistent group is constituted by o-grade verbs with unexpected Dehnton in Latvian and root accentuation in Slavic: Latv. kal̃t “forge” / Sl. *kőlti “stab”, Latv. bãrt “scold” / Sl. *bőrti “fight”, Latv. mal̃t / Sl. *mlti “grind” (!), Latv. kat “hang (tr.)”, Sl. *pőrti “unstitch”, *pőlti “stir, fan, scoop”. Rasmussen (loc. cit. 189ff., and other publications) derives these verbs from reduplicated intensives of the type Ved. jaṅghanti “strikes violently” (*m-mólh2‑ti/*mél-mh2-ti, under his reconstruc-tion). in reduplicated formations the laryngeal remained consonan-tal (cf. Ved. carkarmi, gAv. carəkərəmahī “praise”, to *kerH-), thus yielding a Balto-Slavic infinitive *molH-téi- that (unlike*gerə-téi-, with vocalized laryngeal) retracted the accent according to hirt’s law.

50

Virtually every step in this scenario is problematic. As an alternative solution, i propose that these verbs displayed ablaut in Balto-Slavic: pres. *bhorH- / aor. (?), inf. *bhH-. the accent was regularly retract-ed in the original infinitive *bhH-téi-. the presence of zero grade in the original paradigm of this class is supported by some inner-Balto-Slavic material: 1) Lith. mìltai, Latv. mil̃ti “flour”, Slavic imperfective iz‑milati beside mal̃t/*mlti, 2) Lith. bùrti, Latv. but “practice witch-craft” beside bãrt/*bőrti, 3) Lith. kùlti, Latv. kul̃t “thresh, beat” beside kal̃t/*kőlti. in a comparative perspective, e-grade in the Balto-Slavic aorist and infinitive seems to be favored among aoristic roots, zero grade among present roots.

1 ĮėjimasEntranceEingangВход

2 Baltistikos katedraDepartment of Baltic LinguisticsLehrstuhl für BaltistikКафедра балтистики

3 Germanistikos studijų kabinetasRoom of Germanic StudiesStudienraum GermanistikКабинет германистики

4 Kavinė „Aula“Aula caféCafé „Aula“Кафе «Аула»

VI TARPTAUTINIS BALTŲ IR SLAVŲ KALBŲ AKCENTOLOGIJOS SEMINARASVilniaus universitetas, 2010 m. liepos 7–10 d.Prog rama ir tezės

6th INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON BALTO-SLAVIC ACCENTOLOGYVilnius University, 7–10 July 2010Prog ramme and abstracts

6. INTERNATIONALE ARBEITSTAGUNG ZUR BALTO-SLAVISCHEN AKZENTOLOGIEUniversität Vilnius, 7.–10. Juli 2010Prog ramm und Zusammenfassungen

VI МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ СЕМИНАР ПО БАЛТО-СЛАВЯНСКОЙ АКЦЕНТОЛОГИИВильнюсский университет, 7–10 июля 2010 г.Программа и тезисы

Viršelio dailininkė Audronė Uzielaitė

maketavo Vida Vaidakavičienė

tiražas 80 egz. 3,25 sp. l. 1,5 aut. l.išleido Vilniaus universiteto leidyklaUniversiteto g. 1, Lt-01122 VilniusSpausdino UAB „Biznio mašinų kompanija“jasinskio g. 16a, Vilnius