tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post7378636619213767209..comments2024-02-19T12:11:32.695+01:00Comments on Language Evolution: Twos and Troops: Sifting the EvidencePiotr Gąsiorowskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-44514871846928040162022-03-28T14:04:59.412+02:002022-03-28T14:04:59.412+02:00United Arab Emirates, Federal Decree Law No. (48) ...<a href="https://communicationdubai.com/laws/united-arab-emirates-federal-decree-law-no-48-of-2021-56993" rel="nofollow"> United Arab Emirates, Federal Decree Law No. (48) of 2021 </a><br /><a href="https://communicationdubai.com/laws/united-arab-emirates-federal-decree-law-no-47-of-2021-56992" rel="nofollow"> United Arab Emirates, Federal Decree Law No. (47) of 2021 </a><br /><a href="https://communicationdubai.com/laws/united-arab-emirates-federal-decree-law-no-45-of-2021-56991" rel="nofollow"> United Arab Emirates, Federal Decree Law No. (45) of 2021 </a><br /><a href="https://communicationdubai.com/laws/united-arab-emirates-federal-decree-law-no-44-of-2021-56990" rel="nofollow"> United Arab Emirates, Federal Decree Law No. (44) of 2021 </a><br /><a href="https://communicationdubai.com/laws/united-arab-emirates-federal-decree-law-no-46-of-2021-56989" rel="nofollow"> United Arab Emirates, Federal Decree Law No. (46) of 2021 </a><br />Legal Translation Company in Dubaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12100134093346014583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-12388949836958127822014-11-02T16:01:47.518+01:002014-11-02T16:01:47.518+01:00Those on the opposite side of the spectrum go as f...<i>Those on the opposite side of the spectrum go as far as to claim that simplification of any bi-consonantal cluster induced compensatory lengthening.</i><br /><br />Have you got a reference for that?<br /><br />Not directly relevant, but also something that puzzles me: isn't the accentuation of *<b>doba</b> 'time, period, opportunity' similarly deviant? Russ., Bulg. <i>dóba</i>, SCr. <i>dȍba</i> point to *<b>dòba</b>. Do you happen to know how it's explained?Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-51133699432208569002014-11-02T14:08:22.097+01:002014-11-02T14:08:22.097+01:00Thank you for the kind words! On second thought, y...Thank you for the kind words! On second thought, you well may be right suggesting that "the contrast between <b>*četa̍</b> and <b>*čèta</b> is old and distinguishes two words of different origin". There seems to be a spectrum of takes on the <b>*vòlja-type</b>. Some prefer to remain agnostic as to the exact mechanism of how this group of words avoided Dybo's Law and simply claim it takes <b>*j</b>. Others think <b>*Cj</b> yielded <b>*Cʲː</b> later shortened to <b>*Cʲ</b> with a compensatory lengthening of the following vowel which after receiving the ictus by Dybo's Law acquired the long falling pitch in turn thrown back by Stang's Law (a short vowel would acquire the short rising pitch which failed to trigger Stang's Law). Those on the opposite side of the spectrum go as far as to claim that simplification of any bi-consonantal cluster induced compensatory lengthening. If they are right then something like <b>*kèktaH</b> would end up as exactly <b>*čèta</b>, and this strongly resembles the Lith. word <a href="http://langevo.blogspot.com/2014/10/two-is-company-four-is-party.html?showComment=1413974225009#c2026650836620732791" rel="nofollow">brought up by Octavià Alexandre</a> whose (the word's, that is) semantics fits like a glove.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16563703429973544635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-69620752468191655622014-09-26T15:21:27.388+02:002014-09-26T15:21:27.388+02:00Thanks for the comment, Sergei, I appreciate it ve...Thanks for the comment, Sergei, I appreciate it very much! You are right: the point is that the South Slavic accentuation can't be original, so one can't exclude *<b>četa̋</b> as the protoform (or demonstrate that it <i>was</i> the protoform, for that matter). In my opinion, loose semantics is the greatest obstacle here. The meaning 'troop' can be equated with 'multitude' and derived from a collectyive meaning 'multitude pairs' or, while we are at it, 'multitude of anything at all'. 'Pairs' are quite superfluous in this scheme.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4569985457770997949.post-45999039972681193312014-09-26T12:42:10.154+02:002014-09-26T12:42:10.154+02:00PIOTR: Like Blažek, he considers the predominantly...PIOTR: Like Blažek, he considers the predominantly South Slavic *četa ‘troop, military unit’ (hence Serbo-Croatian Četnici ‘Chetniks’) to be part of the word-family of čët, and tries to explain the accentual difference between the end-stressed word četá (< *četa̍) in Russian and the root-stressed South Slavic forms – Bulgarian čéta, Serbian/Croatian čȅta, Slovene čẹ́ta (< *čèta) – in order to defend their common origin. ... It seems reasonable to conclude that the contrast between *četa̍ and *čèta is old and distinguishes two words of different origin.<br /><br />SERGEI: First, sorry for not answering in the 'lamb'-thread: collecting evidence against the jabloko-rule takes time (which I still hope to find).<br /><br />The important point Greenberg makes is that the Proto-Slavic form the South-Slavic evidence seems to point to -- <b>*čèta</b> -- is an impossible one. Accentual paradigm (a) is out of the question here -- there's neither acute we need for the main case nor the <b>*j</b> we need for the <b>*vòlja</b>-type. A.p. (b) would have yielded end-stressed <b>*četa̋</b> by Dybo's Law and a.p. (c) the same <b>*četa̋</b> by definition. So the South Slavic forms are clearly secondary, of analogical origin. One of course can question the way Greenberg explains the analogy has worked -- I for one would think of the influence of the exactly <b>*vòlja</b>-type -- but he by no means is "explaining away" a real problem: there are no accentological obstacles to the South and East Slavic words being of common origin. Which, of course, still doesn't prove they are.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16563703429973544635noreply@blogger.com