Re: [tied] self-correction

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 6209
Date: 2001-02-26

Sorry for the clumsy wording. It was the Second Palatalisation that wasn't carried out consistently. What I mean is that Old Russian included a dialectal substrate with "failed" Second Palatalisation (no c [ts] < *k before e^ or secondary i, etc.), cf. Sergei's description of Krivichian on this list. Russian has generalised non-alternating velars -- a state of affairs originally characteristic of "non-standard" northern dialects. Literary Old Russian had <-ka> : <-ce^> (an alternation backed up by Church Slavic influence), though sporadic occurrences of levelled-out velars in the Dat./Loc.sg. of a-stems (<-ka> : <-ke^>) can be found in very early texts.
 
Piotr
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Ingvar and Ivar

Russian eliminated this type of alternation [resulting from the "Second Palatalisation" of velars] (or maybe didn't carry it out consistently) ...