Derivation of Nouns from Verbs in English

[Melteor]

Interestingly, <protest> has the same kind of stress shift, but the noun form seems to be overtaking the verb form as the verb form. Denominalization strikes again! I have no idea how old this change is though.

I don't know that it really is overtaking the verb form. I think it more likely to be a newer verb, distinct in meaning from the original:
protést: (v.) to raise an objection, make a counterargument
prótest: (n.) an organized demonstration of such an objection, such as marching or picketing
prótest: (v.) to participate in such an organized demonstration

The first verb meaning is a kind of speech act; protesting, for example, when told you'll have to do something you don't want to. In that use I'm pretty sure I retain the final stress. Whereas I have initial stress for the second verb meaning. But unless you think prótest is coming to be used in the first meaning, there is not necessarily any overtaking going on - aside from the fact that these days we might use the second verb meaning more often than the first.

It can't help that even with a stress on the second syllable the first syllable may be full or reduced. I can't imagine saying e.g. "I protést!" any other way. Perhaps "We prótest" otoh.

The final with initial stress has a clear relationship to 'protesters', which could theoretically contrast with 'pro(-)testers'. (As in "professional"?)

To me, prótesters are people waving placards about some particular cause or other - a synonym, perhaps American, of 'demonstrators'. Protésters are an altogether more unruly lot - the sort of who gather unpredictably and throw eggs at people and don't have a slogan negotiated by committee in advance.

It may be more than stress, then, and be some sort of free pitch accent...so not lexical per se.

[Terra]

One of the biggest barriers to communication in my experience is bad stress. It matters more than having the exact correct vowel.

And to make things worse, English is very fond of realizing any unstressed syllable as a schwa.

[Salmoneus]

Interestingly, <protest> has the same kind of stress shift, but the noun form seems to be overtaking the verb form as the verb form. Denominalization strikes again! I have no idea how old this change is though.

I don't know that it really is overtaking the verb form. I think it more likely to be a newer verb, distinct in meaning from the original:
protést: (v.) to raise an objection, make a counterargument
prótest: (n.) an organized demonstration of such an objection, such as marching or picketing
prótest: (v.) to participate in such an organized demonstration

The first verb meaning is a kind of speech act; protesting, for example, when told you'll have to do something you don't want to. In that use I'm pretty sure I retain the final stress. Whereas I have initial stress for the second verb meaning. But unless you think prótest is coming to be used in the first meaning, there is not necessarily any overtaking going on - aside from the fact that these days we might use the second verb meaning more often than the first.

It can't help that even with a stress on the second syllable the first syllable may be full or reduced. I can't imagine saying e.g. "I protést!" any other way. Perhaps "We prótest" otoh.

The final with initial stress has a clear relationship to 'protesters', which could theoretically contrast with 'pro(-)testers'. (As in "professional"?)

To me, prótesters are people waving placards about some particular cause or other - a synonym, perhaps American, of 'demonstrators'. Protésters are an altogether more unruly lot - the sort of who gather unpredictably and throw eggs at people and don't have a slogan negotiated by committee in advance.

It may be more than stress, then, and be some sort of free pitch accent...so not lexical per se.

What? Of course it's lexical! Protésters is stressed on the syllable, and 'foresters' is stressed on the first syllable, so it's not the phonetic environment that's key, it's what word it is.
What do you mean by 'pitch accent' in this context? I don't use pitch so much as stress - yes, stress goes along with a raised pitch, but not to the extent of the pitch differences in Swedish or Japanese.

[Melteor]

A pitch accent is a stressed syllable with a pitch distinction compared to surrounding stressed or unstressed syllables (depending on your definition). It's probably got another, better, name.

I think the stress matters less to the interpretation than the pitch but its hard to say, for example.

I also have a hard time saying 'prótesters' stressed on the 2nd syllable. Is it like the first 2 examples?

[Salmoneus]

Well, actually I think 'pitch accent' is more commonly used for a particular type of whole-word tonal contour.

There's nothing magical about 'protésters'. It's just a plain English word with the stress on the second syllable. Like 'contéstant' or 'coméstible' or 'projécter' or 'protéctor'.

Just say 'protector' but with an /s/ rather than a /k/. [I'm assuming you don't say prótector, of course]

[Herr Dunkel]

Protestor?

[Melteor]

Well, actually I think 'pitch accent' is more commonly used for a particular type of whole-word tonal contour.

It's used for tone-marked lexical pairs in Swedish which I wondered if this might not be, but I guess it isn't.

There's nothing magical about 'protésters'. It's just a plain English word with the stress on the second syllable. Like 'contéstant' or 'coméstible' or 'projécter' or 'protéctor'. Just say 'protector' but with an /s/ rather than a /k/. [I'm assuming you don't say prótector, of course]

/prə"testə/?
I don't believe I would ever produce this unconsciously. (I'm American btw)

Protestor?

Indeed!

[clawgrip]

It may be more than stress, then, and be some sort of free pitch accent...so not lexical per se.

Actually, based on what he said, it is lexical and not free at all, because the stress according to what he says is fixed and clearly differentiates subtle meanings.

What? Of course it's lexical! Protésters is stressed on the syllable, and 'foresters' is stressed on the first syllable, so it's not the phonetic environment that's key, it's what word it is.
What do you mean by 'pitch accent' in this context? I don't use pitch so much as stress - yes, stress goes along with a raised pitch, but not to the extent of the pitch differences in Swedish or Japanese.

Stress doesn't really "go along" with pitch; pitch is a more or less integral element of stress in English. I would say that in English, stress is a combination of pitch, length, loudness, and vowel quality. You can eliminate pitch and still convey stress, but it is unnaturally monotone and we tend not to do this unless we are Steven Wright.

I'm also not quite clear on what you mean by "the extent of the pitch differences." Japanese employs pitch accent the same way and to the same extent that English employs stress. It's just that Japanese uses pitch alone, and does not combine it with length, loudness, or vowel quality. I can't comment on Swedish.