--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:
>That's why we have Russ. <volk>, with hard
> /l./ and Pol. <wilk> with soft /l^./, where Baltic <vilkas> (and OCS
> <vlIkU>) seem to suggest Polish has here maintained the original
> quality (while in <mërtvyj> vs. <martwy> the opposite seems to be
the
> case).
>
> A form like Pol. <martwy> cannot be derived from Slavic *mUrtvU-, so
> for Common Slavic we have to reconstruct syllabic */r./ and */r^./
in
> any case.
I will not deprive Piotr of the pleasure to comment on Polish (yet I
should note the development Pre-Slavic *mirtv- > Slavic *mIrtvU
(phonetically probably [*mr^.tw-]) > Polish <martwy> doesn't look
improbable), but as for Russian, as is commonly known, Old Russian
/l/ has undergone secondary velarisation and was phonetically
rendered as [lW] in many positions, so the dvelopement *vIlkU > Old
Russian vUlkU > Russian <volk> is a _must_. Cf. similar development
of Slavic *-elC- in Old Russian: > -eloC- after palatalized consonant
and -oloC- after non-palatalized, as in *xelmU > s^elomU and *melko >
moloko. I guess Piotr's explanation is the most logical one.
Sergei