poedyvaet

[William Ryan]

John puts it neatly. And his second sentence also suggests to me that is 
a prosodic element in this kind of formation - the number of syllables 
and position of the stress is the same in both. This kind of analogy 
does not contradict Josh's diffusionist explanation but it is hard to 
see how "this distribution is predictable"(if predictable means 
probable) with regard to stressed e in other derivatives of est' - e.g. 
is pojest'> pojost' predictable? Or pojekhat'>pojokhat'?
Further on Stuart's point, the jo in pojobyvat' is a regular development 
historically - it is a stressed je, not a iat'. It was first recorded by 
Rev. Richard James in 1618-19 ("priyobonna") .

Will

On 04/09/2012 15:26, John Dunn wrote:
> I think that it does work if you accept that поёдывать [pojodyvat'], being facetious, is a transgressive form, in that works by applying the right logic in the wrong place.   In which case the parallel is simpler:
> if from поебать [pojebat'] you can form поёбывать [pojobyvat'], then from поедать [pojedat'] it should be possible to form поёдывать [pojodyvat'].  It probably helps that any close parallels that would counter this 'logic', such as the поедовать [pojedovat] mentioned by Will Ryan are few in number and rare.
>
> Curiously the pair поёдывать/поёдываю [pojodyvat'/pojodyvaju] and поедовать/поедую [pojedovat'/pojeduju] reproduces one of the features that distinguished Russian and Church Slavonic at the turn of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as reflected, for example, in Polikarpov's Leksikon trejazyčnyj.  I somehow doubt, however, that this impinges on the linguistic consciousness of present-day Russians of a facetious cast of mind.
>
> John Dunn.
> ________________________________________
> From: SEELANGS: Slavic & East European Languages and Literatures list [SEELANGS at LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Goldberg, Stuart H [stuart.goldberg at MODLANGS.GATECH.EDU]
> Sent: 04 September 2012 15:32
> To: SEELANGS at LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] poedyvaet
>
> I don't think this does the trick. All the imperfective/iterative
> derivatives from that root have a ё (cf. выёбываешься =
> выпендриваешься), as do many noun derivatives. Note also the ё in ёб,
> which, I recall from an article by Uspensky, is an archaic masculine
> past tense. In the case of есть, such parallels don't come to mind.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Dunn" <John.Dunn at GLASGOW.AC.UK>
> To: SEELANGS at LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 5:57:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [SEELANGS] poedyvaet
>
> What we do not know, because this is not the sort of verb that gets itself into dictionaries, is whether the verb was coined as поедывать and changed later into поёдывать, or whether it has existed only with ё.  I strongly suspect the latter, in which case we are looking for a model, and I would propose for that honour another facetious verb that has eluded dictionaries only to be captured by the all-seeing algorithms of Dr Google, namely поёбывать.  Though others who move in more refined circles than I seem to do might be able to suggest other possibilities.
>
> John Dunn.
> ________________________________________
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
>    options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
>                      http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------