Balto-Slavic accentology for dummies

43 Pages·0.877 MB·English

by  Carrasquer Vidal M.

Balto-Sla(cid:448)i(cid:272) a(cid:272)(cid:272)e(cid:374)tology (cid:858)for du(cid:373)(cid:373)ies(cid:859)
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal, October 2014
Introduction

The Zaporož’e Cossacks inventing the rules of Balto-Slavic accentology (Repin).

If there(cid:859)s one thing that I have learnt from the academia.edu analyti(cid:272)s,àit(cid:859)s that nobody wants to read
about Balto-Slavic accentology. While my papers on other subjects have over the months
accumulated views in the triple digits, my papers on Balto-Slavic accentology, as of Oct 5 2014, have
only gathered an average of 54 views per paper.
I can relate to why this is so. For many years, while I was investigating practically all other aspects of
Indo-European comparative linguistics, I was careful to avoid the field of Balto-Slavic accentology like
the plague. Perhaps it was reading Collinge(cid:859)sà(cid:271)ookào(cid:374)àI(cid:374)do-European sound laws that scared me off,
with the intimidating amount of Balto-“la(cid:448)i(cid:272)à(cid:858)a(cid:272)(cid:272)e(cid:374)tologi(cid:272)alàla(cid:449)s(cid:859)à(cid:272)o(cid:374)tai(cid:374)edàthe(cid:396)ei(cid:374)1. Perhaps it was
the couple of unsuccessful attempts to read and comprehend the few general introductions to the
subject I could find2.
Nevertheless, when I finally stumbled upon some material that I actually understood (Illič-“(cid:448)it(cid:455)č
1963, Rasmussen 1992), and after getting involved in online a(cid:272)(cid:272)e(cid:374)tologi(cid:272)alàdis(cid:272)ussio(cid:374)sà(cid:449)ithàыapo(cid:448)í,à
Olander, Rasmussen, and others, I finally decided that the field of Balto-Slavic accentology was just
too fascinating to leave aside. And it turned out that at least the descriptive facts are not all that
complicated. Thanks to the work of countless scholars specializing in the details of the languages

1 Dolo(cid:271)ko(cid:859)s [=Vasil(cid:859)ev-Dolo(cid:271)ko(cid:859)s],àD(cid:455)(cid:271)o(cid:859)s [=Illič-“(cid:448)it(cid:455)č(cid:859)s],àй(cid:271)eli(cid:374)g(cid:859)s,àй(cid:374)dzelī(cid:374)s(cid:859),àнo(cid:396)tu(cid:374)ato(cid:448)(cid:859)s II,àGa(cid:396)de(cid:859)s,
Geo(cid:396)gie(cid:448)(cid:859)s,àрa(cid:396)t(cid:373)a(cid:374)(cid:374)(cid:859)s,àрi(cid:396)t(cid:859)s I,àрjel(cid:373)sle(cid:448)(cid:859)s,àIllič-“(cid:448)it(cid:455)č(cid:859)s,àыo(cid:396)tla(cid:374)dt(cid:859)s,àLeskie(cid:374)(cid:859)s,àMeillet(cid:859)s,àNie(cid:373)i(cid:374)e(cid:374)(cid:859)s,
Pede(cid:396)se(cid:374)(cid:859)s II,à“aussu(cid:396)e(cid:859)s [=Fortunatov-“aussu(cid:396)e(cid:859)s],àŠa(cid:454)(cid:373)ato(cid:448)(cid:859)s,à“ta(cid:374)g(cid:859)s,à(cid:448)a(cid:374)àWijk(cid:859)s a(cid:374)dàWi(cid:374)te(cid:396)(cid:859)s laws.
2 e.g.àыo(cid:396)tla(cid:374)dt(cid:859)sà(cid:1005)(cid:1013)(cid:1011)(cid:1009) (cid:858)“la(cid:448)i(cid:272)àa(cid:272)(cid:272)e(cid:374)tuatio(cid:374)(cid:859).
involved (Lithuanian, Latvian, South Slavic —especially Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian—, and the
remaining Slavic languages) and the insights of a few generalists, among which it is worth giving
special mention to theà(cid:862)fathe(cid:396)àofà(cid:373)ode(cid:396)(cid:374)àa(cid:272)ce(cid:374)tolog(cid:455)(cid:863),àChristian Stang3 and his (cid:862)successors(cid:863):
Kortlandt of the Leiden school,àa(cid:374)dàIllič-“(cid:448)it(cid:455)č and Dybo of the Moscow school, the general picture is
by now clear enough, and there is little disagreement on the basic facts of the matter.
The central concept is that of the (cid:858)a(cid:272)(cid:272)e(cid:374)tàpa(cid:396)adig(cid:373)(cid:859)à(cid:894)a.p., Russian (cid:780)кце(cid:806)т(cid:806)(cid:780)(cid:833) п(cid:780)(cid:812)(cid:780)д(cid:795)(cid:784)(cid:805)(cid:780)), a group of
words thatàa(cid:396)eài(cid:374)fle(cid:272)tedàfollo(cid:449)i(cid:374)gàaàspe(cid:272)ifi(cid:272)à(cid:858)a(cid:272)(cid:272)e(cid:374)tà(cid:272)u(cid:396)(cid:448)e(cid:859)à(Russ. (cid:780)кце(cid:806)т(cid:806)(cid:780)(cid:833)àк(cid:812)(cid:795)(cid:783)(cid:780)(cid:833)). As it turns out,
all the different accentual variations in Lithuanian can be summarized in just four distinct accent
paradigms, traditionally labelled (1), (2), (3) and (4). In Slavic, there are just three accent paradigms,
traditionally labelled (a), (b) and (c).
Moreover, the Lithuanian and Slavic accent paradigms are interrelated, and can be derived from an
original Balto-“la(cid:448)i(cid:272)à(cid:373)odelà(cid:449)ithàjustàt(cid:449)oàsig(cid:374)ifi(cid:272)a(cid:374)tàfeatu(cid:396)es:à(cid:858)(cid:373)o(cid:271)ilit(cid:455)(cid:859)àa(cid:374)dà(cid:858)a(cid:272)ute(cid:374)ess(cid:859).
Proto-Balto-Slavic Lith. a.p. Slav. a.p.
-mobile, +acute 1 a
-mobile, -acute 2 b
+mobile, +acute 3
c
+mobile, -acute 4

At this level, all the laws we need are:
1) “aussu(cid:396)e(cid:859)sàla(cid:449) in Lithuanian, which shifts the accent forward from a stressed non-acute
syllable to a following acute s(cid:455)lla(cid:271)le,àa(cid:374)dàthusà(cid:272)ausesàtheàsplità(cid:271)et(cid:449)ee(cid:374)àa.p.(cid:859)sà(1) and (2), and
(3) and (4).
2) Meillet(cid:859)sàla(cid:449) in Slavic, which eliminates acutes in mobile paradigms, and thus renders the
diffe(cid:396)e(cid:374)(cid:272)eà(cid:271)et(cid:449)ee(cid:374)àtheàLithua(cid:374)ia(cid:374)àa.p.(cid:859)sà(3) and (4) irrelevant in Slavic (all mobiles are in a.p.
(c)).
3) D(cid:455)(cid:271)o(cid:859)sàla(cid:449) in Slavic, which shifts the accent forward from a stressed non-acute syllable in a
non-mobile paradigm to the next one, causing the split between a.p.(cid:859)sà(a) and (b).

The Moscow school additionally i(cid:374)t(cid:396)odu(cid:272)esàtheà(cid:272)o(cid:374)(cid:272)eptàofà(cid:858)do(cid:373)i(cid:374)a(cid:374)t(cid:859)à(cid:894)+, пл(cid:832)(cid:813)о(cid:783)(cid:828)е(cid:895)àa(cid:374)dà(cid:858)(cid:396)e(cid:272)essi(cid:448)e(cid:859)à
(-, (cid:805)(cid:795)(cid:806)у(cid:813)о(cid:783)(cid:828)е) morphemes. All roots, suffixes and endings have inherent + or - valency, and the
accent curves follow from that by the application of combinatory rules: initial stress follows from [+ -]
or [+ +], final stress from [- +], left-marginal stress from [- -].

If that is all, one might ask, and if almost everybody agrees on the basic points explained above, then
what is all the fuss about, and why do we need all those accentological laws?
Of course, the answer is that this is not quite all. The simplified sketch given above still leaves many
questions open, the most important ones being:
 What exactly are theseàt(cid:449)oàfeatu(cid:396)esàofà(cid:858)(cid:373)o(cid:271)ilit(cid:455)(cid:859)àa(cid:374)dà(cid:858)a(cid:272)ute(cid:374)ess(cid:859),àa(cid:374)dàho(cid:449)àdidàthe(cid:455)àa(cid:396)iseài(cid:374)à
Balto-Slavic, if we take the inherited features of Proto-Indo-European as our starting point?
How can we explain the exact shape of the different accent curves in Baltic and in Slavic?

What explains the exact distribution of the lexical items in Baltic and Slavic over the different

accent paradigms, in other words: why is every word in the accent paradigm it is in?
And this is also where the disagreements start: there are a number of competing and contradictory
theories on what the origin is of Balto-Slavic mobility, and how it relates, if at all, to the mobility in

3 See Vermeer 1998.
the PIE nominal and verbal patterns. The same goes for the origin and fate of the acute syllables. It
does not help that there are obviously different points of view as well on the reconstruction of PIE
itself.
In the following, I will only try to outline my own views on the matter, hopefully in such a manner
that I will not lose too many readers along the way. I will occasionally explain my reasons for
accepting or rejecting the views of other scholars or accentological schools, but one of the drawbacks
of the complexity of the field of Balto-Slavic accentology is that it is unfortunately hardly possible to
explain the subject in a way that gives equal time in all details to all different theories, while at the
same time remaining readable (or even writable).
Mobility
Mobility in nominal and verbal paradigms certainly existed in Proto-Indo-European. In origin, PIE
mobility is simply a function of the number of syllables in the ending: asyllabic endings (including the
zero ending) have no effect on the stress, while endings with one syllable cause the stress to shift
one syllable to the right, and in general, endings with n syllables cause the stress to shift n syllables to
the right. The picture is somewhat complicated by the existence of suffixed nouns, where the basic
stress could be either on the root (proterodynamic, mainly inanimates) or on the suffix
(hysterodynamic, mainly animates), or where the suffix could be stressed and lengthened (inanimate
or animatized collectives). There were also two sound laws that affected the stress:
1. ‘as(cid:373)usse(cid:374)(cid:859)sàla(cid:449): the stress was retracted to the first pretonic *ā > *æ.
2. Amphidynamic law: in proterodynamic oblique forms, the stress was advanced from the
suffix to a posttonic long vowel, if the suffix had a short vowel in the casus recti.

Thisà(cid:396)esultedài(cid:374)àfi(cid:448)eàPIйà(cid:858)á(cid:271)lautàpa(cid:396)adig(cid:373)s(cid:859):
1. acrostatic (a.k.a static)
2. proterodynamic (a.k.a. proterokinetic)
3. amphidynamic (a.k.a. amphikinetic)
4. hysterodynamic (a.k.a. hysterokinetic)
5. collectives

sg. 1 - ST (cid:858)foot(cid:859) 2 - PD (cid:858)sto(cid:374)e(cid:859) 3 - AD (cid:858)apple(cid:859) 4 - HD (cid:858)fathe(cid:396)(cid:859) 5 - Coll. (cid:858)tooth(cid:859)
N ṕds h2(cid:260)k(cid:373)̂ ōn h2(cid:260)(cid:271)ōl ph̥2t́r h̥1dónts
A p(cid:383)d(cid:373)̥ h2(cid:260)k(cid:373)̂ o(cid:374)(cid:373)̥ h2(cid:260)(cid:271)el(cid:373)̥ ph̥2t(cid:288)r(cid:373)̥ h̥1dó(cid:374)t(cid:373)̥
G péds h̥2km̂ énes h̥2blós ph̥2trés h̥1dénts
D pédei h̥2km̂ énei h̥2bélei ph̥2tréi h̥1déntei
L pédi h̥2km̂ éni h̥2béli ph̥2téri h̥1dénti
I pédeh1 h̥2kn̂ éh1 h̥2bléh1 ph̥2tréh1 h̥1dénteh1
pl. 1 - ST 2 - PD 3 - AD 4 - HD 5 - Coll.
N pódes h2(cid:260)k(cid:373)̂ o(cid:374)es h2áboles ph̥2téres h̥1dóntes
A p(cid:288)d(cid:373)̥s h̥2k(cid:373)̂ (cid:288)(cid:374)(cid:373)̥s h̥2bélms ph̥2tr(cid:373)̥́s h̥1d(cid:288)(cid:374)t(cid:373)̥s
G pédom h̥2k(cid:373)̂ (cid:288)(cid:374)o(cid:373) h̥2bélom ph̥2tróm h̥1déntom
D p(cid:288)d(cid:271)hio̯ s h̥2k(cid:373)̂ (cid:374)̥(cid:271)hi(cid:383)̯ s h̥2(cid:271)l(cid:271)̥ hi(cid:383)̯ s ph̥2tr̥(cid:271)hi(cid:383)̯ s h̥1d(cid:374)̥t(cid:271)hi(cid:383)̯ s
L pédsu h̥2k(cid:373)̂ (cid:374)̥s(cid:439) h̥2(cid:271)ls̥ (cid:439) ph̥2tr̥s(cid:439) h̥1d(cid:374)̥ts(cid:439)
I pédbhis h̥2k(cid:373)̂ (cid:374)̥(cid:271)hís h̥2(cid:271)l(cid:271)̥ hís ph̥2tr̥(cid:271)hís h̥1d(cid:374)̥t(cid:271)hís

Paradigms 2–4 were mobile.

Stems contai(cid:374)i(cid:374)gà(cid:858)the(cid:373)ati(cid:272)à(cid:448)o(cid:449)els(cid:859)à(cid:894)o-stems, eh2-ste(cid:373)s,àa(cid:374)dà(cid:858)(cid:272)a(cid:374)o(cid:374)i(cid:272)al(cid:859)ài- and u-stems) were not
mobile, but had, depending originally on the quality of the (cid:448)r̥ddhied root vowel (*ā, *ī or *ū), variants
with stress on the root (barytone, due to Rasmusse(cid:374)(cid:859)sàla(cid:449)), or stress on the thematic vowel (oxytone,
without stress retraction):

sg. o-stems eh -stems i-stems u-stems
2
N -ós -os -áh -ah -ís -is -ús -us
2 2
A -óm -om -áh m -ah m -ím -im -úm -um
2 2
V -e -e -oih -a -ei -ei -eu -eu
2
G -(cid:383)sio̯ -osio̯ -oiá̯ h2as -ah2as -́is -eis -óus -eus
D -́i -õi -oiá̯ h2ai -ah2ai -́iei -eiei -óu̯ei -eu̯ei
L -ói -oi -oiá̯ h2i -ah2i -́i -ēi -́u -ēu
I -óh -oh -oih áh -ah ah -íh -ih -úh -uh
1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
pl. o-stems eh -stems i-stems u-stems
2
N -́s,à-ój -õs, -oj -áh2as -ah2as -́ies -eie̯ s -(cid:383)u̯es -eu̯es
A -óms,à-́ms -oms, -ōms -áh ms -ah ms -íms -ims -úms -ums
2 2
G -́(cid:373) -õm -áh2om -ah2om -́io(cid:373) -eio̯ (cid:373) -(cid:383)u̯o(cid:373) -eu̯o(cid:373)
D -(cid:383)j(cid:894)(cid:271)hi(cid:895)̯os -oj(cid:894)(cid:271)hi(cid:895)̯os -áh2(cid:271)hio̯ s -ah2(cid:271)hio̯ s -í(cid:271)hio̯ s -i(cid:271)hio̯ s -(cid:439)(cid:271)hio̯ s -u(cid:271)hio̯ s
L -ójsu -ojsu -áh su -ah su -ísu -isu -úsu -usu
2 2
I -ójs -ojs -áh bhis -ah bhis -íbhis -ibhis -úbhis -ubhis
2 2

In the verb, the same principles applied. Briefly, the canonical athematic verbs had accentual
mobility, caused by an extra syllable in the plural and dual endings, versus the originally asyllabic
singular endings (the -i of the present tense endings was a later addition). The thematic verbs were
immobile, but had barytone and oxytone variants, for the same reasons as in the noun:

sg. athematic (cid:858)toà(cid:271)e(cid:859) them. barytone (cid:858)toà(cid:272)a(cid:396)(cid:396)(cid:455)(cid:859) them. oxytone (cid:858)toàst(cid:396)ike(cid:859)
present past inj. present past inj. present past inj.
1 h1ésmi h1(cid:288)s(cid:373)̥ (cid:271)h(cid:288)rō bhérom tud́ tudóm
2 h ési h és bhéresi bhéres tudési tudés
1 1
3 h ésti h ést bhéreti bhéret tudéti tudét
1 1

1 h̥1smés h̥1smé bhéromes bhérome tudómes tudóme
2 h̥1stés h̥1sté bhéretes bhérete tudétes tudéte
3 h̥1sénti h̥1sént bhéronti bhéront tudónti tudónt

In the old ̮i-conjugation, the only syllabic ending had been the 3pl. (again, the *-e is a later addition),
leading to a slightly different Ablaut pattern, as reflected in the root aorists and their lengthened-
grade presents, the (cid:373)olō-verbs, both of which were later (the root aorist already before the
Anatolian split) reassigned to the mi-conjugation:

sg. ̮i-verbs (cid:858)toàg(cid:396)i(cid:374)d(cid:859),à(cid:858)toàput(cid:859) > mi-verbs
present past present thematized aorist inj.
1 mólh h e dhéh h e mólh mi mólh ō,à(cid:373)(cid:288)lh ō dhéh m
2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
2 mólh th e dhéh th e mólh si mólh esi, mél- dhéh s
2 2 1 2 2 2 1
3 mólh e dhéh s mólh ti mólh eti, mél- dhéh t
2 1 2 2 1

1 mólh me dhéh me mélh mes mólh omes, mél- dhéh me
2 1 2 2 1
2 mólh e dhéh e mélh tes mólh etes, mél- dhéh te
2 1 2 2 1
3 mélh2r̥ dhh1́r mélh2(cid:374)̥t mólh2ont, mél- dhh1́r

Theà(cid:858)Na(cid:396)te(cid:374)-verbs(cid:859)à(cid:271)elo(cid:374)gàtoàthisàsa(cid:373)eà(cid:272)atego(cid:396)(cid:455),à(cid:271)utà(cid:449)ithào(cid:396)igi(cid:374)alà*ī-vocalism of the root:

sg. ̮i-verbs (cid:858)toàp(cid:396)aise(cid:859) > mi-verbs
1 st́uh e st́u(cid:373)i
2
2 st́uth e st́usi
2
3 st́u̯e st́uti

1 st́u(cid:373)e st́u(cid:373)es, steumés
2 st́u̯e st́utes, steutés
3 stu̯ér stuénti
The fundamental difference between mobility in Indo-European, as outlined above, and mobility in
Balto-Slavic is that in Balto-Slavic certain thematic paradigms also show mobility, which was almost
never the case in PIE. In the nominals, the oxytone vowel stems became mobile, while in the verb,
this happened with the barytone thematic verbs.

The(cid:396)eàisàaà(cid:448)e(cid:374)e(cid:396)a(cid:271)leàtheo(cid:396)(cid:455)àa(cid:271)outàho(cid:449)àthisà(cid:272)a(cid:373)eàa(cid:271)out,àusuall(cid:455)à(cid:396)efe(cid:396)(cid:396)edàtoàasà(cid:862)Pede(cid:396)se(cid:374)(cid:859)sàla(cid:449)(cid:863):àtheà
vowel stems acquired their mobility by copying the accent curve from the athematic paradigms. The
problem with this explanation is that it relies on analogy only. Ideally, we would like to have a proper
sound law to explain this phenomenon, and the search for such a sound law is ongoing. Two recent
examples are Thomas Olander(cid:859)sà(cid:862)mobility law(cid:863) (Olander 2006 and 2009), and Jay Jasanoff(cid:859)sàt(cid:449)o-
pronged approach:à(cid:862)“aussu(cid:396)e-Pede(cid:396)se(cid:374)(cid:859)sàLa(cid:449)(cid:863)à(cid:894)“PL(cid:895),àfollo(cid:449)edà(cid:271)(cid:455)à(cid:862)P(cid:396)oto-Vasil(cid:859)e(cid:448)-Dolobko(cid:859)s Law(cid:863)à
(Proto-VDL) (Jasanoff 2009).

Ola(cid:374)de(cid:396)(cid:859)sà(cid:373)o(cid:271)ilit(cid:455)àla(cid:449), in its 2006 formulation, states that if the stress falls on a short or hiatal final
vowel, the word form loses its stress and the paradigm becomes mobile. This fails immediately on
the o-stem Nsg. *-ós, which remained oxytone in Proto-Balto-Slavic, although it so happens that both
Slavic and Lithuanian subsequently withdrew the stress from this particular form. The accentuation
of the Lithuanian definite adjective (-às-is) and the ijo-stem Nsg. (-̃s), however, prove that the stress
was on the ending before the working of the retraction known as Nie(cid:373)i(cid:374)e(cid:374)(cid:859)sàla(cid:449).àTheà(cid:396)esultàisàalso
not as expected for the Nsg. forms of the mobile i- and u-stems, Lith. -ìs and -ùs. Moreover, this
mobility law does not explain why barytone thematic verbs became mobile.

Jasanoff(cid:859)sàapp(cid:396)oa(cid:272)hàalsoàfailsàtoàp(cid:396)odu(cid:272)eàtheàcorrect accent curve for the Balto-Slavic mobile
paradigms. SPL is said to d(cid:396)a(cid:449)àtheàa(cid:272)(cid:272)e(cid:374)tà(cid:862)o(cid:374)eàs(cid:455)lla(cid:271)leàtoàtheàleftàf(cid:396)o(cid:373)àaà(cid:449)o(cid:396)d-internal short open
syllable. When the newly accented syllable was word-initial, it received a distinctive left-marginal
(cid:894)falli(cid:374)g?(cid:895)à(cid:272)o(cid:374)tou(cid:396)(cid:863).àThisàfailsàtoàe(cid:454)plai(cid:374)àtheàa(cid:272)(cid:272)e(cid:374)tà(cid:396)et(cid:396)a(cid:272)tio(cid:374)ài(cid:374)àtheàa(cid:272)(cid:272)usati(cid:448)esà*-om, *-im, *-um and
*-ah m. It also fails to explain why barytone thematic verbs acquired a left-marginal contour.
2

There is, in my view, a reason why the search for a sound law to explain the mobility in the vowel
stems has proven to be so elusive. In fact, such a sound law cannot exist. This follows from the
observation that the neuter o-stems, which have case forms identical to those of the masculine o-
stems, but for the NAsg. *-óm (which is identical to the masculine Asg.), the NApl. *-éh , and the
2
NAdu. *-óih , failed to become mobile in Balto-Slavic. The Paradebeispiel is Slavic però (PIE *pteróm)
1
(cid:858)feathe(cid:396),àpe(cid:374)(cid:859),à(cid:449)hi(cid:272)hàisài(cid:374)àa.p.à(b).

ádditio(cid:374)all(cid:455),àthe(cid:373)ati(cid:272)àfo(cid:396)(cid:373)atio(cid:374)sà(cid:373)adeà(cid:449)ithà(cid:858)do(cid:373)i(cid:374)a(cid:374)t(cid:859)àsuffi(cid:454)esàsu(cid:272)hàasà*-ikós, *-otáh2, *-tós, *-nós,
*-lós also failed to become mobile, but remained end-stressed.

The conclusion must be that mobility spread to the vowel stems by analogy with the consonant
(athematic) stems. This also explains why in the nouns and adjectives it was the oxytone thematic
paradigms which became mobile, while in the verbs it was the other way around: the barytone
thematics became mobile. The most salient aspect of the accent curve of the athematic nominals
was end-stress on the nominative singular, left-marginal stress on the accusative singular. This was
copied by the stems in nominative *-ós, new accusative *(cid:859)-om, but obviously not by the neuters in
*-óm (or perhaps already *-ód), which, being neuters, made no distinction between nominative and
accusative. A by-product of the analogy was that the vowel stems also copied the other features of C-
stem mobility: end-stress in the gen. and ins. sg., the whole of the dual and plural oblique, and left-
marginal stress on the voc., dat.-loc. (and abl.) sg., and the dual and plural casus recti. In the verbs,
the most salient aspect of the mobility was simply left-marginal stress in the singular, end-stress in
the dual and plural. This was copied by the barytone thematic stems, which shared the barytone
stress in the singular with the athematic forms, by shifting the accent forward in the dual and plural
forms, on the athematic model.
Acute syllables
The rise of acute intonation in Balto-Slavic is another controversial subject. Everybody agrees that
vowels and diphthongs followed by a tautosyllabic laryngeal (*V(R)H) developed into Balto-Slavic
acute vowels and diphthongs. Most scholars would also agree that vowels and diphthongs followed
by one of the PIE mediae, *b *d, *̂, *g and *gw also developed acute intonation (although there is
no agreement on what, if any, factors blocked this Balto-“la(cid:448)i(cid:272)àde(cid:448)elop(cid:373)e(cid:374)t,àk(cid:374)o(cid:449)(cid:374)àasà(cid:862)Wi(cid:374)te(cid:396)(cid:859)sà
law(cid:863)(cid:895).àWhe(cid:396)eàopi(cid:374)io(cid:374)sà(cid:448)a(cid:396)(cid:455),àisàa(cid:271)outà(cid:449)hethe(cid:396)àPIйàlo(cid:374)gà(cid:448)o(cid:449)elsà(cid:894)*ā, *ē, *ō) also gave Balto-Slavic
a(cid:272)utes,àa(cid:374)dà(cid:449)hethe(cid:396)àthe(cid:396)eà(cid:449)asàalsoàaà(cid:272)atego(cid:396)(cid:455)àofà(cid:862)supe(cid:396)-lo(cid:374)g(cid:863),àt(cid:396)i-moraic vowels (*ã, *ẽ, *õ),
originating in vowel contractions (*V(H)V) and compensatory lengthening of already long vowels (e.g.
Nsg. *h2(cid:260)k(cid:373)ō(cid:374) > *h2ákmõ (cid:858)sto(cid:374)e(cid:859)).

My own views on the matter are that the intonation of the Balto-Slavic syllable can be derived
directly from the segments (ignoring consonants other than laryngeals, mediae and resonants) in its
rhyme. The rules are as follows:
1. a short vowel (V) remains short
2. aàlo(cid:374)gà(cid:448)o(cid:449)elà(cid:894)V̄(cid:895)à(cid:271)e(cid:272)o(cid:373)esàa(cid:272)ute
3. a contracted vowel (VV, VHV), or a lengthened long vowel (-V̄‘#à>à-̃#(cid:895), becomes circumflex.
4. if the syllable ends in a resonant (*i, *u, *m, *n, *l, *r), no matter what precedes, the syllable
is circumflex.
5. if the syllable ends in a laryngeal or a Winter-media, no matter what precedes, the syllable is
acute.

Rules 1–(cid:1007)àa(cid:396)eài(cid:374)àli(cid:374)eà(cid:449)ithàtheàt(cid:396)aditio(cid:374)alà(cid:894)(cid:862)(cid:374)eo-g(cid:396)a(cid:373)(cid:373)a(cid:396)ia(cid:374)(cid:863)(cid:895)à(cid:448)ie(cid:449); rule 5 is rather uncontroversial,
e(cid:454)(cid:272)eptàpe(cid:396)hapsàfo(cid:396)àtheà(cid:858)(cid:374)oà(cid:373)atte(cid:396)à(cid:449)hatàprecedes(cid:859).àá(cid:374)àe(cid:454)a(cid:373)pleà(cid:449)ouldàbe the o-stem ins. sg. ending,
which gives a Balto-Slavic acute *-́, even if on theoretical grounds it should be derived from
contracted *-o-eh1,ài.e.à-̃р.

The most interesting rule is the fourth. Thanks to it, we can explain a number of curious facts, some
of which are listed below:
 TheàLat(cid:448)ia(cid:374)à(cid:449)o(cid:396)dàfo(cid:396)à(cid:858)(cid:374)ose(cid:859),ànãss (PIE *(cid:374)ā́s), has acute intonation, while the Latvian word for
(cid:858)salt(cid:859),àsā̀ls (PIE *sā́ls), has falling intonation. The difference stems from the fact that *sāl-
ends in a diphthong, while *(cid:374)ās- ends in a (non-Winter) obstruent.
 The Slavic word sla̋(cid:448)a (cid:858)glory(cid:859) (*çlōu̯ā, from the aniṭàroot *kl̂eu-) has acute intonation (a.p. (a)),
while Slavic travá (cid:858)g(cid:396)ass(cid:859)à(cid:894)*trōuʔā, from the seṭàroot *treuH-) is circumflex (a.p. (b)). This is
because in the first word, the syllabification was çlō·(cid:449)ā with long (acute) first syllable, while
in the second case the syllabification was trōu·ʔā, with a diphthongal (circumflex) first
syllable.
 TheàLithua(cid:374)ia(cid:374)à(cid:449)o(cid:396)dàfo(cid:396)à(cid:858)(cid:449)hite(cid:859),àbáltas (cf. Slavic (cid:271)olt̋o < *bholH·tó- (cid:858)s(cid:449)a(cid:373)p(cid:859)(cid:895)àhasàa(cid:272)uteà
intonation, while the variant bãlas (*bhol·Ho-) (cid:858)(cid:449)hite(cid:859)àhad circumflex intonation, as has Slavic
(cid:271)̌lъ̀ (a.p. (b)(cid:895)à(cid:858)(cid:449)hite(cid:859)<à*(cid:271)ēl·Hos).
 In Lithuanian, the accusative sg. of the eh2-stems, -ą < *-eh2m, doesà(cid:374)otàt(cid:396)igge(cid:396)à“aussu(cid:396)e(cid:859)sà
law. It therefore has circumflex intonation, as expected for a syllable ending in a resonant.

Late PIE and PBS had only three super-long vowels, *ã, *ẽ and *õ, as against a full catalogue of
simple long vowels *ā, *ē, *ī, *ō and *ū.àThisàe(cid:454)plai(cid:374)sàtheà(cid:862)D(cid:455)(cid:271)o-effect(cid:863), whereby new iteratives
(presumably created by the procedure of geminating the vowel of the verbal root) with vocalism *a
or *e are in Slavic a.p. (b) (circumflex verbal stem, e.g. skaka̋ti (cid:858)toàju(cid:373)p(cid:859), (cid:454)apa̋ti (cid:858)toàseize(cid:859), (cid:454)ra(cid:373)a̋ti (cid:858)toà
li(cid:373)p(cid:859), (cid:373)aka̋ti (cid:858)toàdip(cid:859), kaza̋ti (cid:858)to command(cid:859), dř(cid:373)a̋ti (cid:858)toàslu(cid:373)(cid:271)e(cid:396)(cid:859)), while iteratives with root vocalism
*i and *u end up in Slavic a.p. (a) (e.g. s(cid:455)p̋ ati (cid:858)toàpou(cid:396)(cid:859), (cid:373)(cid:455)k̋ ati (cid:858)(cid:271)ello(cid:449)(cid:859), s(cid:373)(cid:455)k̋ ati (cid:858)toàli(cid:374)k(cid:859), t(cid:455)k̋ ati (cid:858)toà
th(cid:396)ust(cid:859), s(cid:455)s̋ ati (cid:858)toà(cid:449)histle(cid:859), pr(cid:455)s̋ kati (cid:858)toàsp(cid:396)i(cid:374)kle(cid:859), (cid:271)r(cid:455)z̋ gati (cid:858)toàsp(cid:396)i(cid:374)kle(cid:859), stig̋ ati (cid:858)to reach(cid:859)), because, at
the time, circumflex x̃ or x̃ simply did not exist in the language.
The accent curves
In view of what I said above about mobility, it is clear thatàtheà(cid:858)(cid:272)o(cid:374)se(cid:374)sus(cid:859)à(cid:448)ie(cid:449)àthatàP(cid:396)oto-Balto-
Slavic had only t(cid:449)oà(cid:271)asi(cid:272)àa(cid:272)(cid:272)e(cid:374)tàpa(cid:396)adig(cid:373)s,àaà(cid:271)a(cid:396)(cid:455)to(cid:374)eàa(cid:272)(cid:272)e(cid:374)tàpa(cid:396)adig(cid:373)àgi(cid:448)i(cid:374)gàLithua(cid:374)ia(cid:374)àa.p.(cid:859)sà(cid:894)(cid:1005)(cid:895)à
a(cid:374)dà(cid:894)(cid:1006)(cid:895)àa(cid:374)dà“la(cid:448)i(cid:272)àa.p.(cid:859)sà(cid:894)a(cid:895)àa(cid:374)dà(cid:894)(cid:271)(cid:895),à(cid:448)e(cid:396)susàaà(cid:373)o(cid:271)ileàa(cid:272)(cid:272)e(cid:374)tàpa(cid:396)adig(cid:373)àgi(cid:448)i(cid:374)gàLithua(cid:374)ia(cid:374)àa.p.(cid:859)sà(cid:894)(cid:1007)(cid:895)àa(cid:374)dà
(4) and Slavic a.p. (c), must be incomplete. There were, in my opinion, actually three distinct accent
paradigms:
Balto-Slavic accent paradigm (I), with columnar stress on the root

o acrostatic athematic nominals
o barytone nominal vowel stems
o acrostatic athematic verbs ((cid:373)olō, Narten, long vowel causatives)
Balto-Slavic accent paradigm (II), with columnar stress on the thematic vowel

o oxytone nominal vowel stems (only neuter o-stems)
o compound nominals with dominant thematic ending (*-ikós, *-otáh )
2
o oxytone thematic verbs (*-é- (tudáti-group),*-jé-, *-né-, *-(H(cid:895)sk(cid:288)̂ -, *-dhé-, causative-
iteratives)
o infinitives (*-th áj)
2
Balto-Slavic accent paradigm (III), with mobile accent: left-marginal or oxytone, depending on

the accent curve.
o mobile athematic nominals (PD, AD & HD)
o oxytone nominal vowel stems (non-neuters)
o mobile athematic verbs
o barytone thematic verbs (bhárati-group, je-verbs, essive-fientives)
The accent curves of accent paradigms (I) and (II) are not very interesting, having fixed stress on the
root or on the thematic vowel. To be sure, mobility of a kind was introduced in those paradigms at
later stages by the working of selective stress-ad(cid:448)a(cid:374)(cid:272)i(cid:374)gàsou(cid:374)dàla(cid:449)sàlikeà“aussu(cid:396)e(cid:859)sàla(cid:449)ài(cid:374)àLithua(cid:374)ia(cid:374),
a(cid:374)dàD(cid:455)(cid:271)o(cid:859)sàla(cid:449)ài(cid:374)à“la(cid:448)i(cid:272),ào(cid:396)à(cid:271)(cid:455)àsele(cid:272)ti(cid:448)eàst(cid:396)ess-(cid:396)et(cid:396)a(cid:272)ti(cid:374)gàsou(cid:374)dàla(cid:449)sàlikeà“ta(cid:374)g(cid:859)sàla(cid:449)ài(cid:374)à“la(cid:448)i(cid:272).
The accent curves of the mobile paradigms can be reconstructed as follows: in the nominals, the
nominative sg. was end-stressed, as were the genitive and instrumental. The accusative, vocative,
dative, locative and ablative were recessive, as were the nominative and accusative plural, and the
nominative-accusative dual. The whole of the plural and dual oblique (genitive, dative-ablative,
locative, instrumental plural; genitive-locative, dative-ablative-instrumental dual) were oxytone. In
the verbs, the singular had left-marginal stress, while the dual and plural were oxytone. There are a
few exceptions however: the o-stems had replaced the genitive by the ablative, and the i-and u-stem
locatives retained the stress on the long vowel they had acquired earlier. If the o-stem acc. pl. -ōNS
and the verbal 1st. person ending -ō hadàa(cid:272)(cid:395)ui(cid:396)edàst(cid:396)essà(cid:271)(cid:455)à(cid:862)нo(cid:396)tu(cid:374)ato(cid:448)(cid:859)s law(cid:863), then that stress was
given up subsequently under analogical pressure. Whether the o-stem Npl. *-oj was stressed or not is
difficult to tell. Slavic -i is not stressed in mobile paradigms, but Lithuanian adjectival -ì is. The Slavic
form may have lost its stress due to theà(cid:862)sho(cid:396)tà(cid:448)o(cid:449)elàla(cid:449)(cid:863),àsi(cid:374)(cid:272)eà*-oj was not a diphthong, but
originally a short vowel followed by a consonant (as it is in Greek -οι,à(cid:449)hi(cid:272)hà(cid:272)ou(cid:374)tsàasàshort for the
purposes of the limitation law). On the other hand, it eventually did become a long *-ī in Slavic. Even
then, it might have been stressed in Balto-Slavic, with stress retraction analogical after all the other
Npl. forms. But is Lithuanian stressed -ì original in the mobile adjectives? In the nouns, the ending is
stressed -ã, most likely an amalgamation of the stressed NApl. ending *-éh + -oj (the neuters had
2
become masculines in East Baltic), which makes it hard to assess the probative value of the stress in
this form. Since the ending -oj eventually gave an acute diphthong in Lithuanian, shortened to -ì by
Leskie(cid:374)(cid:859)sàla(cid:449),àthe(cid:396)eàisàalsoàtheàpossi(cid:271)ilit(cid:455)àofài(cid:374)te(cid:396)fe(cid:396)e(cid:374)(cid:272)eà(cid:449)ithà“aussu(cid:396)e(cid:859)sàla(cid:449),ài.e.àtheàst(cid:396)essào(cid:374)à-ì may
have originated in a.p. (2), and have been analogically t(cid:396)a(cid:374)sfe(cid:396)(cid:396)edàtoàa.p.(cid:859)sà(3) and (4) from there.
In summary, I reconstruct the following mobile accent curves for Late Balto-“la(cid:448)i(cid:272)à(cid:894)ig(cid:374)o(cid:396)i(cid:374)gàрi(cid:396)t(cid:859)sà
law):
o-stems ā-stems i-stems u-stems C-stems ath. them.
N -àS -ā́ -ìS -ùS -e, ́à-́ 1 -mi, -máj -ō
A -aN -āN -iN -uN -eR-iN 2 -si, -sáj -eSi
V -e -a -ei -au -- 3 -t(i) -et(i)
G -- -a Ś -èiS -àuS -eR-èS
D -õi -ãi -ejei -awei -eR-ei
L -ai -ãi -́i -́u -eR-i
I -́ -ā́,à-ajā́(cid:894)N) -ī,́à-imì -ū́,à-umì -eR-́,à-eR-mì
Ab -ã -- -- -- --
NV -aj -áj -ãS, -āNS -ejeS -aweS -eR-eS 1 -mèS, -màS -amèS, -amàS
A -ōNS -āNS -iNS -uNS -eR-iNS 2 -tèS -etèS
G -́N -́N -ej́N -aẃN -eR-́N 3 -eNtì, -èNt -aNtì, -àNt
DAb -amàS -ā(cid:373)(cid:259)S -imàS -umàS -eR-màS
L -ajSù -āSù -iSù -uSù -eR-Sù
I -àjS -ā(cid:373)īŚ -i(cid:373)īŚ -u(cid:373)īŚ -eR-(cid:373)īŚ
NAV -ō -aiʔ -ī -ū -eR-ī 1 -(cid:449)ā́ -a(cid:449)ā́
GL -àu -àu -ejàu -awàu -eR-àu 2 -tā́ -etā́
DAbI -a(cid:373)́ -ā(cid:373)́ -i(cid:373)́ -u(cid:373)́ -eR-(cid:373)́ 3 -tè -etè
The Laws: Balto-Slavic

(cid:858)Fortu(cid:374)ato(cid:448)(cid:859)s la(cid:449)(cid:859)
T(cid:396)aditio(cid:374)all(cid:455),àнo(cid:396)tu(cid:374)ato(cid:448)(cid:859)sàla(cid:449)àisàtheà“la(cid:448)i(cid:272)à(cid:272)ou(cid:374)te(cid:396)pa(cid:396)tàtoà“aussu(cid:396)e(cid:859)sàla(cid:449)ài(cid:374)àLithua(cid:374)ia(cid:374).àй(cid:448)e(cid:396)àsi(cid:374)(cid:272)eà
Stang, stress advancement in Slavic due to a following acute syllable has been rejected. I will
therefore borrow the term to denote another, early Balto-Slavic, stress advancement phenomenon,
whereby posttonic vowels (of non-laryngeal origin!) attracted the stress from a preceding stressed
syllable. This affects first and foremost the Nsg. of PD and AD paradigms:

*h (cid:260)k(cid:373)̂ ō(cid:374) > *h ak(cid:373)̂ ́(cid:374)
2 2
*h (cid:260)(cid:271)ōl > *h a(cid:271)́l
2 2

Since Balto-Slavic, like Indo-Iranian and Greek, had generalized the o-stem Gpl. ending -õm to all
noun classes, these forms are also affected:

*h (cid:894)a(cid:895)k(cid:373)̂ (cid:288)(cid:374)õ(cid:373) > *h ak(cid:373)̂ e(cid:374)́(cid:373)
2 2
*h (a)bélõm > *h a(cid:271)eĺ(cid:373)
2 2

While the law applies to the circumflex long vowel in the gen. pl., caused by compensatory
lengthening of a sequence *-oj-m, and in the i- and u-stem loc. sg., where the length is also of
compensatory origin (*-ei-i > *-ēi, *-ou-u > *-ōu), and the stress is also advanced (*-́i, *-́u), it does
not seem to work for hiatal circumflex vowels (e.g. the o-stem dat. sg. *-õi < *-o-ei, which remains
barytone). We might have expected the law to also work in the 1st person sg. present of thematic
verbs (-ō), where in my view the length cannot be of laryngeal origin: *-e-h would have given x-ā,
2
and the thematic vowel cannot be *-o- before a voiceless consonant, which rules out x-oh and x-oh .
1 2
There is the possibility of *-oh , but we otherwise have no evidence for the existence of a 1st person
3
ending containing -h . Perhaps the stress was advanced there, as it might also have been in the o-
3
stem Apl. *-ō(cid:374)s, but the effect was later undone by analogical pressure from the other (barytone)
verbal singular forms, and the other (barytone) accusatives plural. Except for the advancement in the
i- and u-stem loc. sg., then, the overall effect of the law was to bring the different PIE athematic
mobile paradigms (PD, AD and HD) closer together, which smoothly segues to the next law...

Pederse(cid:374)(cid:859)s la(cid:449)
Weà(cid:272)a(cid:374)àsplitàPede(cid:396)se(cid:374)(cid:859)sàla(cid:449)àinto two components. The first causes the total merger of the PIE PD, AD
and HD paradigms, already initiated by the forward shift in the nom. sg. (and the gen. pl.) discussed
above, and completed at this stage. The law affects forms with medial stress, but is analogical in
nature, and we can see that the medial stress can either be retracted (marked in blue) or advanced
(marked in red), in order to achieve the desired analogical effect. The net result is the total
elimination of medial stress, and the merger of the three PIE mobile accent paradigms:

PD ‘sto(cid:374)e(cid:859) AD (cid:858)apple(cid:859) HD (cid:858)daughte(cid:396)(cid:859)
Nsg. hak(cid:373)́ hak(cid:373)́ ha(cid:271)́l ha(cid:271)́l dhughte ́ dhughte ́
A hàkmoniN hàkmeniN hàbeliN hàbeliN dhughtèriN dhùghteriN
G hakmèneS hakmenès hablàS habelèS dhughtrès dhughterès
D hakmènei hàkmenei habèlei hàbelei dhughtèrei dhùghterei
L hakmèni hàkmeni habèli hàbeli dhughtèri dhùghteri
I haknèh hakmenéh hablèh habelèh dhughtrèh dhughterèh