Re: [tied] Vw again

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 07:45:27 -0000, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
> <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:
>

> But Ukrainian uses {i2} (izhica), the letter derived from Greek

iota,

> that looks just like Latin <i>, as well as {i1}, the letter derived
> from Greek eta, that looks like an inverted Latin N. The only
> effective way to transliterate this (at the cost of incompatibility
> with Russian trasliteration) is to use <i> for {i2} and <y> for

{i1}.

> The sound /ji/ is written {ï}, that is a "Latin" <i> with two dots.
>
> Historically, Ukr. <y> represents the merger of Common Slavic <i>

and

> <y>, while Ukr. <i> represents the merger of Common Slavic <e^>
> ("yat'"), and "long" <o> and <e> (i.e. in closed syllables after the
> loss of the yers) [e.g. lis, lisu "wood"; nic^, noc^i "night"; and
> ric^, rec^i "thing" < *le^sU, *noc^I, *rec^I].

I know. I just wasn't aware of your transcription principles (<y> for
{i1}). By the way, Ukrainian <i> is not derived from Greek iota in
the sense <y> derived from eta. Ukrainians used {yat'} for
etymological /e^/ and replaced it with what we can call 'Latin' {i}
in recent times. {ï}, on the other hand, more or less directly
continues a spelling variant of iota in the Byzantine uncial.

WHile we are at that, how would you explain quite unusual
transformation "prolongated" <o> > <i>.

Sergei

Sergei