ࡱ>  "q`ևbjbjqPqP .::zdLLLjL` ` `  zzz8f,a" 6^8^8^8^8^8^8^$bhe>\^ ` & &&\^` ` ea]]]&v-` ` 6^]&6^]]` ` ] @\azS]6^{a0a]WeWWe]We` ^( ["0]#$ \^\^] a&&&& zzt H \ ` ` `  Mate Kapovi Filozofski fakultet Sveu iliata u Zagrebu Ivana Lu ia 3, HR-10000 Zagreb  HYPERLINK "mailto:mkapovic@ffzg.hr" mkapovic@ffzg.hr SLAVIC LENGTH AGAIN In this paper, the author explains some of the details of the development of Slavic length while comparing his own theory with the theory of Frederik Kortlandt. The author tries to prove the advantages of his own theory and shows some of the apparent shortcomings of the other approach which is found inadequate in describing the language material. In the article, the following problems are discussed (among others): the shortening of the final length, the reflection of the old acute and short neo-acute in Czech, the accentuation of the a. p. b definite adjectives, the problem of pretonic and posttonic length in South and West Slavic etc. 1. Introduction I have recently (Kapovi 2003, 2005a) presented my theory on the development of Slavic length  pretonic, posttonic and accented length. The reaction to the proposed conclusions was not uniform. Georg Holzer adopted them for his highly systematic and valuable treatment of the relative chronology of prosodic developments of Common Slavic and Early Croatian (Holzer 2005). However, the main proponent of the Leiden Accentological School, Frederik Kortlandt (2005), has, as expected, refused to accept them. It would be highly unlikely to presume that Kortlandt would give up his own theory of Slavic accentuation which he has been advocating since the early '70-ies of the last century. In this article, I shall reply to the criticism Kortlandt has directed at my theory and I shall also try to illuminate some aspects of the development of Slavic length which require further clarification. 2. Shortening of the long vowels in final open syllables Kortlandt begins with the claim that I disregard the evidence from all Slavic and West Slavic languages by maintaining the shortening of long vowels in final open syllables in Proto-Slavic. However, this is very far from the truth. It is clear that most cases of length in final open syllables can be accounted for by simple analogies and processes of post-Common-Slavic origin. Thus, the shortening of the long vowels in final open syllables is actually the simplest theory. Kortlandt says that this supposition drives me to assume massive analogical spread of vowel length under obscure conditions. For instance, he gives an example of Croatian gen. sg. ~ene. For some reason Kortlandt believes that the explanation of this length (originally neo-acute -e) as secondary, taken from the pronoun te < *toj , is obscure. He also finds it strange that this analogy occurred only in gen. sg. a-stems and not in other cases (like acc. sg.  u or nom. acc. pl.  e) or in other flexion classes. Let us start from the beginning. First of all, it is really difficult to understand why would the supposed analogical change of *te ~ene ! te ~ene be obscure. Every comparative linguist, especially Indo-Europeanists, should be well aware of the fact that the inflection of pronouns can influence the inflection of nouns. Cf. for instance the change of PIE *toy wl%kos those wolves (Sanscrit te vU%kas, Gothic ai wulfos) to *toy wl%koy (OCS ti vlJci, Lithuanian ta) vilka), Latin ist+ lup+, Greek o ) or the pronominal ending  am in the o-stem dat. sg. in Latvian. If several languages can independantly take the pronominal ending in nom. pl. of o-stems, how come it is impossible to assume this would happen in te ~ene? Kortlandt also objects, as already said, that there is no analogy in other case forms of the same paradigm (acc. sg.  u, nom. acc. pl.  e etc.). This is even a more difficult concept to grasp. Does Kortlandt actually believe that analogical changes are supposed to be regular? Should we try to find a phonological explanation for Balto-Slavic, Latin and Greek reflection of PIE *-oy in nom. pl. because the supposed analogy operated only in the nom. pl. and not in other cases? Should we try to find a phonological explanation for Latvian dat. sg. am as well? If Kortlandt really thinks that it is strange that this analogy could have worked only in gen. sg., how would he explain that in Old Irish, ending *-os gets analogically changed only in nom. pl. but remains unchanged in voc. pl. (cf. Old Irish nom. pl. fir < PIE *wiHroy ! *wiHros, voc. pl. firu < PIE *wiHros). Also, it is completely unclear how this analogy could work in other declensions. How could there be any analogy in *togo  vLlka (o-stems), *togo  gospodi (masc. i-stems), *t (< *toj ) noei (fem. i-stems) etc.? Clearly, the analogy worked only in *te ~ene because here the ending was identical, with the exception of accent. The original short ending is preserved in non-palatal ending *-y  in North akavian gen. sg. -1. Thus, one must conclude that Kortlandt's argument is simply false. He does not have to accept this  e as being analogical and secondary, but implying that this process is not at all possible, as he tries to insinuate, is simply distorting of the facts and all principles of historical grammar. 3. The reflection of the old acute and short neo-acute in Czech, Slovak and Upper Lusatian Traditional view, with which I agree, states that the old acute remained long in Czech (and Upper Lusatian in TorT syllables), cf. *vo rna crow > Czech vrna, UL wrna, but Croatian vrana. Kortlandt unnecessarily assumes that the old acute was first shortened and then lengthened again in Czech and UL. To support his hypothesis, he adduces four reasons why the length in Czech and UL must be reintroduced and not preserved. However, none of the four reasons he gives are very convincing. Kortlandt assumes that the quantitative alternation in Czech krva, inst. sg. kravou, gen. pl. krav, inst. pl. kravami etc. can only be explained by the lengthening of earlier shortened Proto-Slavic *a (supposedly from *a ). However, this is again a false claim. Traditional theory, as Kortlandt refers to it, has no trouble explaining krva, kravou. The length in Czech is preserved in mono- and disyllables, in words with three or more syllables (like *ko rvoj > kravou), it is regularly shortened (Carlton 1991: 195, Kapovi 2005a). There is no reason whatsoever which would point to the shortening and then again lengthening of the old acute in Czech rather than preservation. A typological parallel for this shortening in polysyllabic words but not in mono- and disyllabic is clear in Croatian where the circumflex is preserved in mono- and disyllabic words (sn, sna) but shortened in polysyllabic ones (s1novi). Kortlandt also adduces the *vo>a-type example Czech ko~e skin, but instr. pl. ko~emi where we find the same alternation as in krva. He sees this as a clear example of lengthening in Czech. I agree that Czech ko~e is lengthened from *ko~a and that there was no lengthening in front of two moras (thus long or two short vowels), but I do not agree with him that this was regular. I side with Carlton (1991: 2002-205) who says the supposition that both short and long neo-acute produced regularly length in Czech does not really solve anything. The long reflection of the short neo-acute in Czech (and Slovak) is very sporadic and cannot be taken as regular. We find it in Czech mo~ea (Slovak m~ea), stona, possibly in Slovak n~ (Czech no~ is not so reliable), bb (but Czech bob and also Czech/Slovak snop), in *vo>a-type nouns (cf. Kapovi 2006): Czech vole, choze, von, noae, ton, Slovak vl'a, chdza, vHa, tHa, but ko~a, noaa. In *vo>a-type nouns, the analogical long neo-acute has spread to all originally short neo-acute roots in Czech. In Slovak, there is no length in ko~a and noaa. But these are all cases of sporadic lengthening, Czech normally has a short reflex of the short neo-acute (the neo-acute on *o, *e, *L, *J). Cf. Czech bob bean, snop bundle (a. p. b) etc. The occasional and sporadic lengthening of the short neo-acute is not attested only in Czech and Slovak, cf. also Polish szsty 6th, sidmy 7th, smy 8th by analogy to pity 5th, dziewity 9th, dziesity 10th, Croatian dial. aest+, sedm+, osm+ instead of also attested aest+, sedm+, osm+, Croat. dial. gro~e grapes, zelje greens instead of also attested gro~e, zelje, Croat. je~ < je~ hedgehog, no~ < no~ knife instead of **je~, **no~. Cf. also Slovene lengthened j#~ (Slovak je~), but original no~. The typological parallel of this development could be seen in the phenomenon known as kanova ko duljenje (cf. Kapovi 2005c) in some modern Serbian and Croatian dialects where the lengthening of the short rising accent is irregular and sporadic in many cases (for instance in some dialects osip rash but omot ! mot wrapper). There is also one additional proof that the old acute length was indeed preserved long in Czech and that the length of the short neo-acute is not regular. If the old acute was shortened and then lengthened again together with the short neo-acute, how can one explain the fact that the old acute always provides us with the long vowel in Czech (in mono- and disyllabic words) but that the reflection of the short neo-acute is long only sporadically, as we have already said? That does not point to overall shortening and lengthening. As for the third example Kortlandt adduces, Czech l~ce spoon, but gen. pl. l~ic, inst. pl. l~icemi represents the same type as krva  the length of the old acute is preserved in l~ce, where the initial jer (*lJ~1 ca) must have been dropped rather early which is the reason why l~ce represents the same type as krva (because of the early dropping of the jer in the first syllable, l~ce is treated like a normal disyllabic acute word in Czech). The same goes for Czech psti write < *pLsa ti. Czech psal, which should be psl since it comes from *pLsa lJ (a. p. b), is short because of an analogy to Czech dti give, dal < *dalJ (a. p. c). Czech spti sleep, supine spat is also not at all unexpected in the traditional theory  cf. Kajkavian spati, but spat. The length of the old acute is also preserved in TorT formulas in UL as well: wrna crow, kBda log (Czech/Slovene vrna, klda, Croat. vrana, klada etc.). 4. *moldostL In the next section Kortlandt posits Croat. mladost as analogous to oblique cases and takes akavian (Hvar) mladost (he does not mention gen. sg. mladosti) as original. However, this is highly unreliable since the form mladost could be innovative as well, and there is no point in discussing just one isolated example without looking at the whole system. 5. Dybo's Law, Ivai's Rule and weak jers Kortlandt objects to my (and the traditional) theory that the neo-acute in Croat. dial. kut angle, putn+k traveler and du~n)k debtor is due to the retraction from the following weak jer (Ivai's Rule). He thinks this requires massive analogical lengthening in the oblique cases. However, there is no need for any analogy here, and especially for massive analogical lengthening. In kut, there is gen. sg. kuta, dat. sg. kutu, in putn+k < *ptL n+kJ; same happens in gen. sg. putn+ka < *ptL n+ka, and in du~n)k, gen. sg. etc. is also regular du~n+ka (Kapovi 2003: 65, 2005a). When mentioning the need for massive analogical lengthening in oblique cases, Kortlandt speaks in terms of his own framework, not the traditional one. In the traditional theory, there is no need for analogies here, as I have already mentioned. Kortlandt also says that my interpretation does not explain the quantitative and timbre alternations in the Slovene paradigm of the word konj 'horse' (cf. Kortlandt 1975: 13-19). However, in the Slovene paradigm of the word konj, I cannot see anything which would compel me, or others, to accept Kortlandt's idea that the accent could not be shifted to a jer by Dybo's Law. 6. A. p. b and a. p. c in the present tense and definite adjectives Following Stankiewicz's idea on the chain-reaction in a. p. b and a. p. c present tense and definite adjectives (1993: 14), in my article (Kapovi 2005a) I have suggested the existence of a tendency to preserve the formal distinction between a. p. b and a. p. c in the present tense of the verb (thus *toneaL sink < *tone aL in a. p. b when *zoveaL call < *zoveaL  in a. p. c). This, together with Ivai's Law (usually called Stang's Law) could explain the a. p. b neo-acute stress in the present tense and definite adjectives without any disappearing lengths in *mo~eaL etc. which Kortlandt is forced to assume. Kortlandt states that he sees absolutely no reasonable motivation for this tendency to preserve the formal distinction between a. p. b and a. p. c in the present tense. This is quite a strange claim. If there is absolutely no reasonable motivation for the preservation of the distinction, how would one explain that for instance Modern Russian (and other Slavic languages) still preserve the very same distinction of a. p. b and a. p. c in the present tense? If there is no motivation for the preservation of the distinctions of different accentual paradigms (which happened of course in some Slavic languages, like Macedonian), we would not be having this discussion today because all Slavic languages would have long ago lost all accentual distinctions they possess. However, since we all know that many Slavic languages still preserve very complicated accentual systems in which all three a. p. are still clearly deducible, why would it be strange that already in Common Slavic there was a tendency to preserve this distinction in cases when regular phonological developments exposed them to danger of being lost? In any case, chain-reaction is hardly an obscure process in languages (cf. Labov 1994 for the phonological chain-reactions). Kortlandt explains the difference of a. p. b and a. p. c definite adjectives, like akavian be#l+ white : suh dry or Czech bl : such, by reconstructing *b#ly < *be#ly < *b#ly versus *suxj5 < *suxJjL . However, one cannot derive Croat. dial. suh from his *suxj with the neo-acute. The problem of the a. p. b definite adjectives requires special attention. In all the languages we find the neo-acute on the root in a. p. b and the final accent in a. p. c. Thus in a. p. b - *be#lJjL, *be#laja, *be#loje white: Croat. dial. be#l+, be#la, be#lo, Russ. 15;K9, 15;aO, 15;oe, Czech bl, bl, bl, Slovene b#li, Slovincian bjal+ etc. In a. p. c - *moldJjL, *molda ja, *moldo je young > Croat. dial. mlad, mlada, mlado, Russ. <>;>49, <>;>4O, <>;>4e, Czech mlad, mlad, mlad, Slovincian mlod+ etc. The ending is not contracted in nom/acc. sg/pl. in Russian, in Old Russian the contraction was not finished even in the oblique cases and the results of the contraction are different in the oblique cases in different languages  cf. OCS blajego, blaago, blago, Croat. be#loga (with the -o- analogous to toga), Russ. 15;o3o (-o- is secondary as in Croat.), Czech bilho, Polish biaBego etc. This is a clear indication that the contraction of the ending in definite adjectives was a younger development which has nothing to do with the accentuation. The contraction is very diverse while the accentuation is the same everywhere. In a. p. b, one would expect, according to the indefinite *be#lJ  (> *be#lJ), *be#la , *be#lo the forms *be#lJ jL, *be#la ja, *be#lo je. In a. p. c, with the application of Vasi>ev-Dolobko's Law (Dybo 1981: 48-54), from the indefinite *moldJ, *molda , *moldo, one should get definite *moldJjL , *molda ja, *moldoje . However, when *moldJjL  > *moldJjL by Ivai's Rule, this became identical to a. p. b *be#lJ jL (fem. was already the same). At first, the accent in a. p. c was either on the first or the second syllable of the ending, cf. *molda ja, but *moldoje , gen. sg. m. *moldaje go but f. *moldy (je)j etc. Then, the accent of the a. p. c was generalized on the first syllable of the ending  thus *moldo je, *molda jego (cf. Russian <>;>4e, <>;>4>3>) after *moldJjL, *molda ja etc. Because of that the a. p. c and a. p. b would get identical  in order to prevent that, the a. p. b adjectives shift the accent to the root thus creating a neo-acute on it. The creation of a fixed neo-acute on the root was enabled by the indefinite nom/acc. sg. m. which had already had the neo-acute on the root due to Ivai's Rule (*be#lJ) and which was thus a role-model for the new accentual pattern of the definite adjectives. This development is of course not really a regular chain-shift since we are really dealing with two analogies here  first, the analogical generalization of the stress on the first part of the ending in a. p. c and then the analogical generalization of the neo-acute on the root in a. p. b by analogy to the nom/acc. sg. indefinite adj. to avoid the merger of two a. p. 7. Pretonic and posttonic length I hold the view that the first pretonic syllable in Slavic regularly preserves the length, thus *trba  trumpet (a. p. b) > Croat. trba, Sln. tr#ba, Czech trouba, Slk. trba, Polish trba, Slovincian trba. In a. p. c however, the accent is mobile, *rka , *rk arm > Croat. rka, ruku. In West Slavic, the circumflex is regularly shortened and thus *rk > Czech ruku, Slk. ruku, Polish rk, Slovincian rk. Analogically to the acc. sg., the nom. sg. which would have preserved the length is also shortened  Czech/Slk. ruka, Polish rka, Slovincian rk. In Slovene, the circumflex of the acc. sg. is shifted regularly to the following syllable and the root becomes automatically short since there are no unaccented long vowels in Slovene: roko#. Analogically, nom. sg. also becomes short (rka instead of *r#ka). In Kortlandt's theory, all pretonic long vowels are shortened before Dybo's Law and that is why there is no length in West Slavic and Slovene. He believes that the length in Croatian rka is analogous to ruku. Slovak trba etc. is long because the accent shift *trba > *trba  by Dybo's Law supposedly took place only after all pretonic long vowels shortened. Kortlandt objects to the traditional theory that one has to assume massive analogical shortening in West Slavic and Slovene which do not show any trace of length in these positions. However, that is not really the case since here we are not dealing with massive analogical shortenings in every separate word as one could conclude from Kortlandt's suggestion. In a. p. b one expects long root vowel regularly in 8 cases and short in 6 cases (see Kapovi 2005a). In a. p. c, we expect the short root vowel regularly in 10 cases and long one in only 4 cases (in Slovene, the ratio is even higher  11 : 3 in a. p. c). Therefore it is no wonder that short forms are generalized in West Slavic and Slovene. In West Slavic, the short root vowel becomes a salient mark of a. p. c and in opposition to it, a. p. b takes the generalized length as its salient mark. Thus it is no wonder that there is no trace of length in a. p. c in West Slavic these forms were very rare among the short ones to begin with and since the brevity of the root is taken as a mark of a. p. c, all long forms are dispensed with. It is also not surprising that length is generalized in a. p. b since that is exactly what distinguishes it from the old a. p. c. Kortlandt thinks that it is quite unclear why accentual patterns (b) and (c) must everywhere be kept apart by large-scale analogical developments when they merged phonetically in the majority of case forms. He also states that there is no plausible motivation for maintaining the redundant formal distinction between the accent patterns (b) and (c). It is a somewhat strange claim that there is no plausible motivation for maintaining the distinction between a. p. b and c. Perhaps one should tell this to a speaker of Croatian or Russian since they surely do not know that there is simply no plausible motivation for them to maintain the distinction of rka, ruku - @C:0, @C:C and trba, trbu - B@C10, B@C1C. If even the present day speakers of some Slavic languages feel the need to preserve the difference between a. p. b and a. p. c nouns some ten centuries after the Common Slavic period, why would it be strange for early West Slavs to do the same? Furthermore, if one accepts Kortlandt's position that `tokavian rka and akavian ruka have a secondarily reintroduced length, is it not somewhat strange that there is no attestation of the pattern **ruka, ruku in any `tokavian or akavian dialect? Since akavian preserves the original alternations of long and short root very well (ruka, ruke, ruci, ruku, ruko!, rukon, ruke, ruku, rukam, ruke, rukah, rukami), is it not a bit surprising that absolutely nowhere is this supposed **ruka attested. Also, most archaic Croatian dialects (like Dubrovnik) preserve the shortened root vowel in a. p. b as well as in a. p. c (trubama, svjeama candles like rukama, glavama heads). The opposition of strijlama : rukama found in some dialect is a clear innovation due to the overall tendency of to be generalized in all the cases (cf. Standard Croat. nrodi peoples, gen. pl. nroda with original nrodi, gen. pl. naroda found in many Montenegro dialects). Concerning the length of words like Croat. gmno threshing-floor, skno cloth, Kortlandt objects to my derivation *gumLno  > gmno with the simplest possible retention of pretonic length. He argues that I cannot explain Croat. variant krzno or Czech humno, sukno and Slovak humno (but skno). Croat. krzno is explained simply as a form from one of the many dialects which do not have long syllabic r. In Slovak dialects, there is also hmno/hvno with the attested length (SSN: 640). As for Czech humno, sukno and Standard Slovak humno, it is true that they are unexpected, but it is not so unusual to get an unexpected short vowel in Czech or Slovak, cf. Croat. rijka river, Sln. r#ka, Slk. rieka, but Czech Yeka; Croat. zvijzda star, Sln. zv#zda, Slk. hviezda, but Czech hvzda; Croat. jha star, Czech jcha, but Slk. jucha etc. Moreover, Kortlandt conveniently forgets to mention my other four examples (Kapovi 2005a): pltno linen, psmo letter, vpno lime and vlkno fiber which show length in all languages  Croat., Czech and Slovak (and also in TorT syllables in Polish and UL). Kortlandt himself derives these words like this: the long vowel is supposed to be the result of retraction by Ivai's Law (i. e. Stang's Law in his terminology) - *sukJna < *sukJna and the sg. supposedly had short vowel: *sukJno < *sukJno. However, there is a lacuna in Kortlandt's own theory. The word *sukJno , being a. p. b is to be derived from pre-Dybo's Law *sukJno, pl. *sukJna (as Kortlandt himself writes for the sg.). Thus, these forms had pretonic length syllable (*suk-) which, according to Kortlandt, had to be shortened in pre-Dybo's Law Slavic. That is what happens in the singular, according to his theory, but in plural he gets *sukJna with a long root vowel. Now, how did this long vowel get there if all pretonic vowels were supposed to be shortened? Kortlandt should get *sukJna and not *sukJna here, according to his own theory, and this certainly cannot explain aforementioned examples. Thus, Kortlandt has to admit that his own theory is incapable of explaining forms like vpno in Croat., Czech and Slovak. And if pretonic length had not been shortened here, there was certainly no shortening in a. p. c words like *rka  etc. Further on, Kortlandt comments on the a. p. b infinitives. He states that my postulate of general phonetic shortening in polysyllabic words puts me into major difficulties in the case of infinitives in ati and iti, where we usually find a long root vowel in accent pattern (b) and a short root vowel in accent pattern (c). He thus concludes that he is forced to posit massive analogical lengthening in all South and West Slavic languages and is unable to explain the distribution which is actually attested. As usual, Kortlandt is misrepresenting the actual attested state and again mistakes something that is widespread for something that is archaic. Long root vowels in a. p. b infinitives like Croat. mltiti beat, Czech mltiti, Slovak mltie, Polish mBci, UL mBi is easily explained as analogous to the present tense which has the neo-acute (Croat. dial. mlat+m etc.). That infinitive can be influenced by the present tense accent is clearly seen in Slovene, which besides the older mlatti also has the younger mltiti analogous to the present tense mltim. And while it is very easy to explain these forms as analogical, it is practically impossible to explain Slovincian mlocic  mloc+a, xvalic praise  xval+a with the alternation of a short vowel in the infinitive and a long vowel in present tense as secondary. In a. p. c (for instance iDic do  in+a), Slovincian expectedly has a short vowel in both the infinitive and the present tense. Slovincian mlocic cannot be explained as analogical in any possible way while the length of the infinitive of a. p. b is easily explainable as we have just seen. It is not enough just to say that the root vowel is usually long in a. p. b because what is usual is not necessarily archaic. On the contrary, the feature which can be explained only phonetically should be taken as archaic. And if Slovincian is not enough (although only Slovincian would do here to prove our point), we can also add that some Kajkavian dialects have only short vowels in the infinitive (in both a. p. b and a. p. c) and the same goes for Molise Croatian spoken in Italy. All this tears to shreds Kortlandt's myth of original pretonic length in a. p. b infinitives. Kortlandt explains Croat. lom+m break : polom+m as archaic. A. p. c i-verbs have supposedly had, according to him, compounds with initial stress. However, this is not very convincing. First of all, it is completely unclear why would Proto-Slavic a. p. c verb like *lom+te  have a prefixed form like *polom+te. The expected pattern would be *lom+te , *polom+te  - there is no reason whatsoever to expect the initial stress in a. p. c prefixed verbs. And secondly, there is also no reason whatsoever to perceive Croat. polom+m as archaic. Of course there are dialects which have the expected polom+m and it is in dialects that one can observe the different stages of the tendency to fix the stress of prefixed a. p. c verbs. Thus some dialects do not have this tendency at all, some have it only in i-verbs, some in both i- and je- verbs and the most innovative ones have it even in C-verbs like pozovem call instead of the usual and older pozovem. The exact parallel to this development can be seen in the development of the accent of the imperative in various Serbian dialects. In those dialects, there is the same kind of accent change in the imperative of prefixed verbs as in polom+m ! polom+m. There, in a. p. b and a. p. c verbs, instead of expected po eai scratch! (a. p. b) and pozovi call! (a. p. c), one finds innovative po eai and pozovi. Again, this development is obviously connected with the tendency of prefixed verbs to fix the stress. Since po eai! and pozovi! are clearly secondary, there is likewise no reason to assume that polom+m must be old. And now the consequences of Kortlandt's barren approach really begin to unwrap. BecauBn $ N P X Z x ҡyk[H[k5$hC5CJOJQJ\^JmH sH $hC6CJOJQJ]^JmH sH hCCJOJQJ^JmH sH hCOJQJ^JmH sH hCmH sH hC6]mH sH (hC0J6CJOJQJ]^JmH sH 3jhC6CJOJQJU]^JmH sH -jhC6CJOJQJU]^JmH sH $hC6CJOJQJ]^JmH sH hCCJOJQJ^JmH sH hC5\mH sH Bn" $ & N P X Z | }&~&&C"K$K&KBKNN$`a$$a$$a$ p#h ԇx z | :aF&@Dfj 4H^vbxdjad $!.!ηηΧΧ$hC6CJOJQJ]^JmH sH hCCJOJQJ^JmH sH hC\mH sH hCB*\mH phsH hCmH sH $hC5CJOJQJ\^JmH sH +jhC0JCJOJQJU^JmH sH :.!T"X"""""$$t%z%~&&&(((())))**++++(+0+-2-.$.61H11122*2.2L2Z222R3\36 66&6,6<6b6j6x66666667j7+jhC0JCJOJQJU^JmH sH hCmH sH $hC5CJOJQJ\^JmH sH $hC6CJOJQJ]^JmH sH hCCJOJQJ^JmH sH @j777777 829<9D9P9~:::::::;;;;;<<<,<8<B<Z<d<|<<<=6=P=`=t=====>>>&>0>4>>>>>>>>???LAXAnAҼ記hCCJOJQJ^JmH sH 'hCB*CJOJQJ^JmH phsH *hCB*CJOJQJ]^JmH phsH *hC6B*CJOJQJ^JmH phsH -hC6B*CJOJQJ]^JmH phsH ONOlOzOOOQQQQQQQQLR^RRRRRV VVVWWWWW XXղղ՜*hC56CJOJQJ\]^JmH sH +jh*CJOJQJ^JmH sH +jhC0JCJOJQJU^JmH sH $hC6CJOJQJ]^JmH sH hCCJOJQJ^JmH sH =V|X|n|||||||||||| }}}"}&}}}X~d~n~z~~~~~Tdā܁Zdzjl3567$*ȏЏ xjhC0JUmH sH hCmH sH hC6]mH sH XN–Ɩ:^ʘؘ.>Pd8Dʛ"ܜ&> &0>RZ\^l~ȟܟ .@L.:NZhC]mH sH hCmH sH hC6]mH sH ZZp~ڥDPJNثܫخܮ 8JXhvR`TdܱҲ 24BL\$4vxзҷܷݷʸθ,@Rv~RV48`dnjhC0JUmH sH h *-ti- > *-ti (sic!) in the infinitive and a *-Lj+- > *-Lj- > *-- with the retraction in the present tense. It is needless to say that this derivation with an imaginary suffix *-Lji- in this verb looks completely ad hoc and completely unbelievable. Old Polish sdzi, sdzisz is a simple a. p. b verb *sd1 ti, *sd+aL ( ak. sud1ti, sud+a, Russ. AC48BL, AC48HL) with the expected short vowel in trisyllabic infinitive and the expected neo-acute long vowel in the present tense. Kortlandt is also at pains to prove that Old Polish type of przystpi to approach, przystpi- in the present tense preserves the quantitative alternation of a. p. c (sic!). He obviously tries to connect this (although not explicitly) with Croat. lom+m, polom+m type, but again this is just the expected reflection of a. p. b verb *pristp1 ti, *pristp+aL (a. p. b is clear in ak. pristup1ti, pristup+a and Russ. ?@8ABC?8BL, ?@8ABC?8HL) and one cannot dream of a. p. c here. Furthermore, Kortlandt again says that I assume massive analogical lengthening in trisyllabic deverbal nouns of the type Croat. zbava party, Czech zbava etc. Again, he is mislead by bare numbers. Just because most Slavic languages/dialects show length in *zaba va-type words, he automatically assumes that this must be an archaism. But this is of course not true. The length in zbava could have been introduced very easily from long z- in words like zkon law, where the length was preserved phonetically. However, dialectal `tokavian forms like zabava or zabava (with a secondarily retracted accent) cannot be explained here by any analogy. This must be the same kind of shortening we find in Croat. malina, Czech malina < *mal1 na raspberry. Kortlandt tries to separate *mal1 na and *zaba va using Dybo's Law. He assumes that at the time of his general pretonic shortening *zaba va was still *zabava. However, his claim that words like *zaba va and *osno va base were actually *zabava and *osnova in pre-Dybo's Law Slavic is also not certain. If *pergo rda partition is to be derived from *pergorda in pre-Dybo's Law Slavic why would the root *gord-, which is normally a. p. c root, get the acute accent there (cf. Russian ?5@53>@>40)? In fact, the fixed stress on the first syllable of this kind of derivative might have nothing to do with Dybo's Law. The stress could have been in that same position even before Dybo's Law. The stress of words like *pergo rda, *osno va, *sse# dJ neighbour and *zako nJ can be regarded as the same type of stress we find in Slavic compounds like *bosono gJ barefoot (Croat. bosonog, Russian 1>A>=>389) etc. The same rule could synchronically govern both the derivatives with a prefix and compounds in Slavic  the fixed stress is on the first syllable of the second part of derivative or compound. If the root is long, like *gord- or *bav-, it will have the old acute on it, no matter what the original accentuation of this root is, and if it is short, it will get a short accent, identical to the short neo-acute in reflection (cf. Slovene nrod, nar#da). An advantage of my theory in opposition to Kortlandt s is that it does not depend on the operation of Dybo s Law, comparison to Lithuanian etc. in order to explain the changes that occur with pretonic length in Slavic. Next we turn to pretonic and posttonic length in polysyllabic words. In my view, the posttonic length has been regularly preserved in Croatian in trisyllabic words (Kapovi 2003, 2005a). In West Slavic, the posttonic length has been shortened regularly in a. p. c which is governed by the same rule by which the circumflex is shortened  in West Slavic in a. p. c, if the last syllable of the word is long, it is shortened; thus Czech vlast government : oblast jurisdiction (Croat. vlast, oblast, Sln. vlast, oblast). In a. p. a, we would expect the preservation of the posttonic length in West Slavic but the attestations of it are inconsistent, probably due to some older West Slavic processes and younger shortenings in various languages. Again, Kortlandt has a complicated theory. He believes that all languages preserve the posttonic length and that the pretonic length is regularly shortened. Thus, in a. p. a, where the length can be only posttonic, it is preserved and in a. p. c, where the accent is mobile, the length can be posttonic (and thus preserved) or pretonic (and thus shortened). According to Kortlandt, West Slavic has generalized the pretonic short vowels in a. p. c and Croatian has generalized the posttonic long vowels. Thus, in Croatian loc. sg. na korku, the length is analogical after the nom. sg. korak step etc. One has to note that both mine and Kortlandt's theory predict the same results here  shortened posttonic length in a. p. c in West Slavic and preserved posttonic length in a. p. a. The difference is that Kortlandt must explain the shortened posttonic length in a. p. c in West Slavic by analogy while in my theory it is regular and covered by the same rule which covers the shortening of the circumflex in West Slavic. Also, Kortlandt must interpret Croat. na korku as analogical while it is perfectly regular in my theory. Since both theories predict the same outcome and mine is clearly much simpler (it needs no analogy and Kortlandt's needs two analogies), it is clear that the hypothesis I proposed is in advantage once again. Kortlandt objects that my theory does not explain Czech jeYb partridge and ovd gadfly which are a. p. c (Sln. jere#b, ovad). However, these two examples are not very relevant as I have explained in my original article. Both end in voiced plosive and in Czech sporadic lengthening in front of a voiced plosive at the end of the word is hardly unusual (cf. in a. p. c Czech boh god, snh snow). Also, Czech jeYb could have the length by analogy to the a. p. a word jestYb hawk or to the diminutive jeYbek. Kortlandt further objects that my theory does not explain the short vowel in Czech havran raven, labue swan, pame mind and kapra fern (all originally a. p. a), but the same is true for his theory. Czech havran might have been influenced by Czech vran crow (Croat./Sln. vrn). The shortening in Czech penz coin, gen. pl. penz, loc. pl. penzch and in Polish pienidz, gen. pl. pienizy, inst. pl. pienidzmi is expected  gen. pl. *pnzJ/pe#nzJ with the neo-circumflex (cf. Czech krva  gen. pl. krav) and also regular in polysyllabic forms (or in front of a long  ch in Czech etc.). Attributing the shortening to the original long final vowel (supposed gen. pl. *-+ and inst. pl. *-y), which is Kortlandt's solution, is simply unnecessary. He agrees with me that Czech havran, labue, pame, kapra and jabloH are originally a. p. a but he thinks that they adopted mobile stress at an early stage. I agree that that could be one of the possible explanations of the unexpected short vowels in West Slavic but I shall not get into Kortlandt's speculation about it except for saying that I find it hard to believe that Slovene prprot with  ro- is a reflection of *-or- in a pretonic syllable while  ra- in Slovene variant prprat is a reflection of posttonic *-or- especially in the light of the fact that the word for fern is notorious for having many different variants even in the same language (cf. `ivic-Dular 1990). Kortlandt believes that Slovene preserved the original a. p. a in gavran but also the a. p. c variant in gavran. However, Slovene gavran is most probably an innovation  from the forms like za gavrana (: gavran), the circumflex has wrongly been reinterpreted as being the same as in za go#loba (for a pidgeon, a. p. c) and by analogy to za go#loba : golo#b the older za gavrana : gavran became za gavrana : gavran. There is no need to push something to Common Slavic if the same can be explained as a very young innovation in Slovene. Kortlandt thinks that Croatian has preserved a trace of the original shortening of pretonic long vowels in the numerals devet nine and deset ten. However this is quite unbelievable since these numbers are indeclinable in Croatian and there is simply no form in which the length could be pretonic in order for the supposed shortening to be transferred to the posttonic position as well. Additionally, devet and deset are easily explainable as allegro-forms of also attested and expected devet and deset. This kind of shortening is not unusual in numbers. Kortlandt says that his views on the development of post- and pretonic length are corroborated by Czech derivatives like pekaY baker but rybY fisherman. He accuses me of dismissing these examples without discussion. However, it is not clear what Kortlandt wants to accomplish by these examples. If he wants to maintain the idea that the difference between a. p. c and a. p. a in preserving the length is clear, he should note that if this were so, these examples would also be in accord with my theory (mobile *pekarL > Croatian pekar, Czech pekaY with no length in a. p. c). However, I do not believe that the example pekaY is archaic since one does not expect mobile accentuation in an *-arL derivative from the mobile root (cf. Dybo 1981: 176-178). Thus one would not expect **pekarL, gen. sg. **otL pekara but *pekarL, gen. sg. *pekara . Croat. pekar could be secondary, derived, for instance, from peka baking lid. Kortlandt also thinks that the medial short vowel in Croat. starica old woman and m1sliti think is regular and not analogical. However he does not explain the Montenegrin and Serbian dialectal forms like puakama guns (a. p. a) but ~enama women (a. p. b), nogama (a. p. c). Of course one could say it is regular in some dialects that all posttonic syllables which can be accented (= i. e. have an original acute) are shortened but it is very doubtful that a rule like that could be a strictly phonetic one. 8. Conclusion In the conclusion of his paper, Kortlandt accuses me of a supposed heavy reliance on my mother tongue (i. e. Croatian) which, according to him, creates a bias against the West Slavic and Slovene evidence. He also kindly reminds me of a need of a proper assessment of earlier scholars' opinions. As for the first comment, I shall cite the fourth sentence of Kortlandt's own paper: I shall focus on the Serbo-Croatian dialectal area, where the Proto-Slavic accentual system is better preserved than elsewhere. Now, if Kortlandt himself admits the value of the data of the language which is incidentally my mother tongue, why is he accusing me of doing the same? Of course, these accusations are simply bogus  if one browses through my original article (Kapovi 2005a), one will see that there is no truth in the claim that I discriminate other languages because of Croatian. For instance, I note that the distinction of the old a. p. b and a. p. c definite adjectives is best preserved in West Slavic and not in Croatian, in the case of the pretonic length in verbs, I take Slovincian to be the most archaic etc. As for the objection that I did not assess earlier scholarship, that is simply not true. Although the purpose of my paper was not to assess earlier theories but rather to explain the material in the best possible way I for instance did mention shortly Kortlandt's theory. Indeed, one of the reasons for proposing my own theory on the development of length in Slavic was that I was not happy with the way earlier theories tried to explain it. I think that in this paper I have successfully showed some of the reasons why Kortlandt's theory on Slavic length cannot be acceptable. Kortlandt's theory fails to explain the length in the skno-type words which also disproves his theory about the general shortening of pretonic length. Furthermore, it also fails to explain the short pretonic vowel in a. p. b infinitive but a long vowel in the present tense in Slovincian, Old Polish, some Kajkavian dialects and Molise Croatian. He is thus forced to make up most unbelievable theories in order to explain Old Polish verbs sdzi : sdzisz, przystpi : przystpisz. Kortlandt cannot explain the short vowel in Croat. dial. words like zabava and in order to obtain the same results as my theory does in polysyllabic words with the posttonic (and pretonic) length he has to assume different analogies while my theory requires none. Kortlandt also tries to criticize my theory by often claiming that this or that development is impossible or unlikely but in each case his objections are invalid. For instance, the case of analogical accent in Croat. dial. ~ene is quite clear  nobody can argue that it is impossible for pronoun forms to influence nouns forms. Kortlandt also criticizes my and the traditional treatment of a. p. b and a. p. c a-stems in West Slavic by saying that this kind of development is not likely, even though we find a similar one in Proto-Latvian, and by saying that there is absolutely no reason to keep the a. p. b and a. p. c distinct. If the latter were correct, accentologists would have nothing to do since all the different paradigms would have been leveled by now in all the languages. Because of all this and because of apparent lacunae in Kortlandt's theory (like the myth of general shortening of pretonic length and of a long pretonic vowel in a. p. b infinitives), one has to conclude that Kortlandt's theory simply does not explain the material in the satisfactory manner and that it has to be modified, if that is even possible, or simply abandoned. 9. References Carlton, Terence R. 1991, Introduction to the phonological history of the Slavic languages, Slavica Publishers, Inc., Columbus Dybo, Vladimir A. 1981, !;02O=A:0O 0:F5=B>;>38O. ?KB @5:>=AB@C:F88 A8AB5<K 0:F5=B=KE ?0@0483< 2 ?@0A;02O=A:><, 740B5;LAB2>  0C:0 , >A:20 Holzer, Georg 2005, Zur relativen Datierung prosodischer Prozesse im Gemeinslavischen und frhen Kroatischen, Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch (forthcoming) Illi -Svity , V. M. 1979, Nominal Accentuation in Baltic and Slavic, The MIT Press Cambridge & London [translation of: <5==0O 0:F5=BC0F8O 2 10;B89A:>< 8 A;02O=A:><, 740B5;LAB2> :045<88 =0C: !!! , >A:20 1963] Kapovi, Mate 2003 (2005), Razvoj starih dugih samoglasa u hrvatskom i ostalim slavenskim jezicima [The Development of Old Length in Croatian and Other Slavic Languages], Filologija 41: 51-82 Kapovi, Mate 2005a, The Development of Proto-Slavic Quantity (from Proto-Slavic to Modern Slavic Languages), Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch (forthcoming) Kapovi, Mate 2005b, Naglasak praslavenske rije i *sLrdLce [The Accent of Proto-Slavic Word *sLrdLce], Croatica & Slavica Iadertina (forthcoming) Kapovi, Mate 2005c, Nove duljine u hrvatskom jeziku (nakon opeslavenskoga razdoblja) [The New Length in Croatian Language (after Common Slavic period)], Filologija (forthcoming) Kapovi, Mate 2006, The *vo>a-type Accent in Slavic, Proceedings of IWoBA 2005 (forthcoming) Kortlandt, Frederik 1975, Slavic Accentuation, a Study in Relative Chronology, The Peter de Ridder Press, Lisse/Netherlands Kortlandt, Frederik 2005, From Serbo-Croatian to Indo-European, Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch (forthcoming) Labov, William 1994, Principles of Linguistic Change, Volume I: Internal Factors, Blackwell, Oxford UK & Cambridge USA Micklesen, Lew R. 1986, Polabian Accentology, Wiener slavistischer Almanach 17: 365-381 SSN = Slovnk slovenskch nre , I. A-K, Veda Vydate>stvo Slovenskej akadmie vied 1994 Stang, Christian 1957, Slavonic accentuation, I kommisjon hos H. Aschehoug & Co. (W. Nygaard), Oslo Stankiewicz, Edward 1993, The Accentual Patterns of the Slavic Languages, Stanford University Press, Stanford `ivic-Dular, Alenka 1990, Poimenovanje za 'Filix' v slovanskih jezikih, Razprave SAZU XIII: 73-97 Opet o slavenskim duljinama U lanku se govori o odreenim pojedinostima razvoja duljine u slavenskim jezicima usporeujui teoriju autora lanka s teorijom Frederika Kortlandta. Autor pokuaava dokazati prednosti svoje teorije i nedostatke drugoga pristupa koji se pokazuje neprikladnim za opisivanje jezi noga stanja u slavenskim jezicima. U lanku se, izmeu ostaloga, govori o: kraenju duljine u posljednjem slogu, o odrazu staroga i novoga akuta u eakom, o naglasku odreenih pridjeva n. p. b, o problemu odraza prednaglasnih i zanaglasnih duljina u ju~noslavenskim i zapadnoslavenskim jezicima itd. Klju ne rije i: duljina, akcentuacija, slavenski jezici Key words: length, accentuation, Slavic languages  I would like to thank Thomas Olander and Sergei Tarasov for their comments on the first draft of the paper and Kristina Mareni for reading the text thoroughly.  That is actually what happened in Slovene but it is clear that Slovene lengthening of all non-final syllables does not have anything to do with Czech.  There are of course examples like Czech ryba fish and pleva chaff which are unexpectedly short (cf. Croat. r1ba, pljeva) but these were long in Old Czech and their shortening is of a younger date.  Kortlandt is not explicit as to why he considers srce heart and acc. sg. djecu children (cf. Kapovi 2005b) as original but mladost as secondary.  Concerning the idea of a chain-reaction in definite adjectives, cf. also Micklesen 1986.  /e#/ stands here for any akavian phonetic realisation of *.  Kortlandt's * stands for the long neo-acute which is *  in my notation.  I would like to thank Bulcs Lszl for discussing this problem with me.  The view that the accentuation of the definite adjectives of a. p. b is due to the retraction by Ivai's Law which in turn is due to a previous contraction is held for instance by Stang 1957: 101-102. However, it is highly unlikely that such a uniform accentuation of the a. p. b definite adjectives could be the result of such a late and diverse contraction.  Slovincian is quoted in the notation suggested by Stankiewicz 1993 and not in the traditional (Lorentz's) which is not so apt for historical reasearch.  Instead of talking about the salient brevity and length of the root, we could also speak about the salient circumflex in a. p. c or the salient neo-acute in a. p. b. Thus, in West Slavic, in a. p. c one would have generalized *gollva, *golv (instead of *golva , golv) and in a. p. b *trba, *trb (from *trba , *trb ). Cf. Illi -Svity  1979 (: 161): It can be proposed that, in West Slavic, the rising intonation that appeared as the result of stress retraction to a long root syllable (...) was replaced by a falling intonation, characteristic of the barytone forms of the mobile AP (Nom. Sing. *rka to *rka to *rka under the influence of the Acc. Sing. *rk; cf. SC dial. ruka, ruku).  A typological paralel can be found in Proto-Latvian. There, two accentual paradigms were differentiated in a way that one had the sustained tone  in all the forms and that the other had  in some and the broken tone ^ in other forms. The first a. p. remained the same and in the second one ^ was generalized in all the forms because it was the salient mark of this paradigm. Cf. also another typological paralel suggested by Illi -Svity  (footnote 10): ruka/rka, ruku ! ruka, ruku in certain `tokavian/ akavian dialects. Of course, it is quite concievable that something like this could have occured in West Slavic as well.  As I have discussed in Kapovi 2005a, the possibility of an analogical length in all the words of skno type is highly unlikely if not impossible.  Besides modern dialects which preserve this feature, it is also preserved in the dialect of Juraj Kri~ani.  In the case of Polish, it is obvious that the introduction of the length to the a. p. b infinitives is an innovation which occured in historical time.  Pretonic length is preserved in front of less than two moras in Slavic (jer being counted as half a mora, short vowel as one mora and long vowel as two moras), cf. Kapovi 2005a.  Kortlandt says that the shortening of the suffix in potegnut to pull is regular before the lost  i but not in dv1gnut to lift. That claim can be understood only within his own doctrine, which I cannot accept. In fact, these example only show the regular reflection of Common Slavic *potgn ti (the length is reintroduced from the present tense of course) and *dv1 gnti. The original length of the second example has not been shortened analogically to -nut verbs here (as is the case in many dialects).     Mate Kapovi, Slavic length again FILOLOGIJA 45(2005), 29-45 PAGE  PAGE 12 RXfTbZ\h0TX^,@Pd!hC6CJOJQJ^JmH sH h < @   ` d v :<HT*df"JR˻hCCJOJQJ^JmH sH hCCJOJQJ^JmH sH $hC6CJOJQJ]^JmH sH !hCCJOJQJ]^JmH sH JR*>Rh$,L ,4    !"!8!J!l!|!!!""""""#.#2#B#V#n#r######%%%%''''2(B((((( **0*<**$hC6CJOJQJ]^JmH sH hCCJOJQJ^JmH sH Q**++,,-J-Z-\-h-t-----../////00 0"0$0@0J0V0n0001.12*2F2H2T2d22𺤓l$h8hCCJOJQJ^JmH sH 'h8h8CJOJQJ]^JmH sH !h8CJOJQJ]^JmH sH *h8h86CJOJQJ]^JmH sH $h86CJOJQJ]^JmH sH $hC6CJOJQJ]^JmH sH hCCJOJQJ^JmH sH h8CJOJQJ^JmH sH *22222222444;; <<HBTBCCDDLEXE^ElEpEEEE,F@HTitle$a$CJ OJQJ^JmHnHu4 @4 Footer  p#.)@. Page Number6U@!6 Hyperlink >*B*ph>@2>  Footnote TextCJaJ@&@A@ Footnote ReferenceH*4@R4 Header  p#HB@bH Body Text $1$a$CJOJQJ^JbC@rb Body Text Indent$^a$CJOJQJ^JaJtH*W@* Strong5\HP@H Body Text 2$a$CJOJQJ^J<A$)[/667;1CiJK[|glr < @B$ ' u y|     < B$ $ ' u u yy|   "& "& "& "& "& "& "& "& "& "& "& "& "&@ +(?59BhL[ jVxTţh x O !7W,->c~$)(*(+(9()))...,6X78B9B:B[BGSj\eUkpz. )ţ[A] LMZ\D^۸p޹w,=_p#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#p#p#Œp#Œp#p#Œp#O p#Op#Op#O$p#Op#Op#O.p#O p#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#O p#O#p#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#O,p#Op#Op#p#O(p#Op#p#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#Op#p#Op#Op#Op#p#p#p#p#p#p#p#p#p#p#p#p#p#p#p#p#p#p#p# !7W,->c~$)(*(+(9()))...,6X78B9B:B[BGSj\eUkpz. )ţ[A] LMZ\D^۸p޹w,0134679:<=_z0000000(0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000I00I0l0I00I0ܕ0I00(00I0ARI0I000I0 JUcccfx .!j7nA@KXgV|ZnRR*2Q[hx@ևcfghijlmnopqNP*lևdkԇeW~XJQU\_f!!8@0(  B S  ?k5$fm<6$n|oq<7$s8$|u<9$w:$|y<;$<$,#=$D8?$7#@$<##A$$#C$D:#D$#E$7#F$)#G$]#H$4#I$L4J$\#K$D#PPzz  QQkSkS$$ddm     VVQQuSuS$$!**lww 9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceTypeB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region $  !,/67<=C5=>GPWfo'   $ v x _ a c g k m o s M U f n o q r y     A N 79BDVX  (//137Zb "$-QZr{#&,]d $(5:@Fpu!&8?MQSXZ^`dfjsxz15:>y  " $ * , 1 @ G R X { !!!!r!{!|!!!!>"C"O"T"W"["$$$$$$$$%%4%9%M%P%S%Z%%%%%%%&&Y&^&j&q&y&}&&&&&&&&&&&''j's't'z''''''''''(( ((((!(/(8(N(W(f(o((((((((((()!))))))))))*-*7*>*N*T*****Z+^+n+p+r+w+z+}+++++++++++++++++++, , ,,w,,!-*-----. .M.X.......m/t/00"0)0;0B0M0S0v0}0001#1/181N1W155,656666666666666666667/737>7C78"8%8-80888O8U8W8]8`8f8o8u8w8}888888888888888888888 999999'9.9097999@9H9M9O9T9V9[9]9g9h9n999a:i:k:r:t:z:::::::::::+<1<7<=<A<G<K<Q<]<f<i<r<u<~<<<<<<<<<<<==!=)=,=3=E=L=Q=Y=]=d===>>&>->5>7>=>G>W>Y>Z>\>>>>>>>>>>???@@U@\@d@j@BB=BEBJBSB{BBBBBBBBBBBCCC CCCCC(C)C0C^CcCgClC|CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCDD D"D.D0DrDuDwD{DDDDDDDDDUEYEpErEEEEEEEEEEEXF\FmFrF{FFFFFFFFFFGGaHlHHHKKtNxNzNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOqPuPxP}PPPPPPPPPQQQ QQQQQQ$Q&Q+Q-Q1Q4Q:QUIU|UUUUUU"V(V2V5V7VVAVCVHVTVXVaViVrVuVwV~VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV"W)W2W8WBWGWRWWWcWiWWWWWMXTXZX[X`XgXXXXXXXXXXXXXYYDYJYPYWY^YeYjYsYYYYYYYYYZ ZlZsZZZZZZ[[[|[[[[[\^\c\w\\7]:]@]C]w^^1_8_G_N_W_]_f_l_q_w___U`\`r`y``` aaaaa&a(a/a;aCaaaaaaa2bllllllmm mmm6m9m?mBmHmImmm nnnn7n>nAnHnJnMnOnWnYn_ngnnnpnwnnnnn)o3oCoLoooooKpVplpopqp}ppppppppp(q3q4qxBxHxKxyyy$yRy]yyyyyzz z)zXzazzzzzzz{{{{{{{{||||F|O||}I}R}g}o}}}~ ~9~A~e~n~~~~~ 79;Br}%AJ"āρ.7fk|σԃ .57@ 7;KNPTotȅԅޅ,1=AQWY^`egmrxT_È.7ʉՉ݉&GNah689ADKVXYadksuv~ U]z'/nw8Av~ÎȎ3<<D MU\^bfgnt{БՑ (9AՒܒDMqr&debm 0:S^_jϚԚ (ai̛՛QWZacmp{}Ȝ"+19eiϞ؞)Ѡܠ *2kvy[bҥߥ "#)+2V]`hkrs|¦ǦȦצئ(2AH[` ')1gtu} $%0:GHPcjkvw} %ǪȪϪҪڪ ()67>?FIST\]ijqrxy«ëȫɫЫѫҫӫݫޫ $%+.89AEKPVW_agkst{~ŬƬϬЬج)*+,=>FGJMTU[]dfrt}~֭ݭ18YZ\"#34rt¯\^DFxyxyxy9;?AZ`۸ݸpr޹wy,.<=mnPQ\] /1=y 6 ]  ' r++++--2266/7W7O8n889 9&9U>W>B7BB1C|CC D$DDDDD]EsEeIiI,J/J@MBMQQvRRSSkTTTTTT"V`V~VVVV[[]]GeJe*g>g%j'jCjEjAoBoWqxqqqss{{}W~~\IK=Ci"(QY)^ǥɥ B\¯[^CF]`ڸݸorݹvy+./1=^_y:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::EOR[do!!!"$'$@$@$A$A$B$B$)(*(( )=)>)))))))**[/\/]/]///11J4Q4V7V7777777;;;;;;8B9B0C0C1C1C2C2ChJhJiJjJ]K]KKKKKKKYYYYz[{[[[[[[[[[]]eehTkBpCpPpRpppq$qqqrrrrrrttvvFvUvvvrwwww&yzW2А֐ˑq kprtu|̠͠ţ~2A\ޭYZZ\DDƲвѲӲ^۷ڸ۸۸ppww,,..8<==/1={1 @ @C@@@@@D@J@N@@@V@X@Z@\@@@b@d@f@j@n@z@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@X@@@@@@l@@@@@@@@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z ArialO& k9?Lucida Sans Unicode"qh={ ʓ X;ʓ X;!24d__3QHP(?@*0@b} ʓ՜.+,D՜.+,H hp|  ;X_  TitleTitel 8@ _PID_HLINKSAhvAmailto:mkapovic@ffzg.hr  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~    !Root Entry F0#Data 1TableWeWordDocument.SummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q