You seem to be dissatisfied with 'long' essentially being used with 2 different meanings: the first one being 'long' = long by pronunciation and the second one being 'long' = taking up two morae. Would you feel better if I called latter 'heavy'?Edit: Again, it seems redundant to me, given that the 'other type' of long syllable (i.e. 'long by quantity' or whatever it's called) is so glaringly obvious. Books reading something like: 'A syllable is long if it contains a long vowel...' I would say, "Well, yeah...".
The OLD didn't give any, so I won't bother looking, eitherCan someone give an example of hoc being short?
I think in those cases the loss of the s is compensated by a lengthening of the vowel.I don't mean to belabor this, but there's really no need for a special rule of 'here long but here short'. Like, we know that pēs is from an original *pess, or ēs from original *ess, but when we encounter ēs in Plautus, we don't say that there's some secret phenomenon but that the vowel is simply long.
It's just in the case of hĭc and hīc, both are of equal standing, no matter the historical reason.
Are you saying that the same is happening in hoc? I.e. that shortening hocce to hoc leads to the vowel becoming long (as opposed to heavy ), i.e. to a different pronunciation of the o in hoc and in hocce?