Re: [tied] Slavic *dolbto and its Baltic cognates

From: Sergejus Tarasovas
Message: 20753
Date: 2003-04-03

--- In, "alex_lycos" <altamix@...> wrote:

> Sergei, but how is to explain that the cognates you all enumerates
> in slavic stil have the "lb" or "lbt" and just "dalto" doesn't have
> anymore?
> Let see the examples given here:
> zadolbál, *dolbto, *(na)dolbU ,*delbti ~ *dolbati ~ *dIlbati ~
> del~bti,délba, etc.
> Observation 1): there is lb, lbt, but no "lt"

It's easy, Alex, and Piotr has already explained that to you, so I'm
not sure another explanation will help.

OK, to begin with, the words I listed belong to three _different_

1. Lithuanian words. Lithuanian, unlike Slavic languages, retained
the sequence -elC-/-alC- (Proto-Slavic *-elC-/*-olC- [-alC-], C --
any consonant) (which was changed into -leC-/-loC-,-eloC-/-oloC- or -
le^C-/-laC- in Slavic); unlike Late Proto-Slavic, Lithuanian has no
problem with stops clusters like -bt- and, unlike Slavic, hasn't
simplified the latter to -t-. The main reason is that different
languages behave differently as to sound change. That's why we have
Lithuanian <del~bti> 'move down, stick down (into)' (whose -t- has
nothing to do with *t in Proto-Slavic *dolbto, by the way),
<délba> 'kind of shaft'.

2. Proto-Slavic reconstructions. Early Proto-Slavic was much like
Lithuanian as to the phonotactics: it's tolerated the sequences -elC-
/-olC- and stops clusters, including -bt-. That's why I gave Proto-
Slavic *dolbto, *(na)dolbU ,*delbti ~ *dolbati ~ *dIlbati ~ *dIlbiti.

3. Late Proto-Slavic ceased to tolerate stops clusters, and
simplified them to one stop consonant, so *-bt- was simplified to *-t-
. Ca. 800 AD the early Slavic languages -- the daughters of Late
Proto-Slavic -- ceased to tolerate the sequence *-elC-/*-olC- as
well, and changed it into -leC-/-loC-, -eloC-/-oloC- or -le^C-/-laC-
(depending on the specific language). That's why we don't find
neither -ol- nor -lbt- in historically attested Slavic languages (but
find them in Proto-Slavic and Lithuanian): the main reasoin is that
historical Slavic languages on one hand and Proto-Slavic and
Lithuanian on the other behave differently. There's neither -ol- nor -
lbt- in various Slavic reflexes of Proto-Slavic *dolbto, because this
word had the misfortune to contain two "dangerous" (subject to
change) sequences: -olb- and -lbt-. We find -lb- in Russian <dolbát'>
because it derives from Proto-Slavic *dIlbati (with *-Il- rather than
*-ol-), not from *dolbati (reflected in Russian dial. <dolobat'>).

> Let see the actual slavic languages and the word for "chisel":
> russian: rezeT, the verb is tocen-i

Russian <dolotó>, inform you as a native speaker (which opinion is
considered above all, even above your (mis)reading of a
dictionary ;) )

> ukrainian: rizeT

Ukrainian <dolotó> (ask George if you doubt).

> polish:dluto, verb rzezbic
> czech :dlato, tesat
> sloven: dleto; kiparstvo
> slovak: dlato
> serbian: dleto
> bulgarian: dleto, rezeT

> OK, the words which actually mean "chisel" are to find in Polish,
> Sloven, slovak, serbo-croatian, bulgarian.

... Russian, Ukrainian, ... -- every Slavic language.

> That means in South and West-Slavic.


> Having the word "rezet" in Rusian, Polish and Bulgarian it shows a
> panslavic word.

I agree. I think we can safely reconstruct Proto-Slavic
*re^zIcI 'cutter, cutting-tool', a deverbal < *re^zati 'cut'.

> And this one is too methatesised.

There's nothing to metathesize in *re^zIcI, so it's reflexes show no
metathesis at all.

> The word dlVto shows the usual methathesis of an older dalto.And it
> not in North Slavic to find. Should be enough for not seeing it as
a non
> panslavic word?

Obviously, not enough, because that's simply wrong.

> About "rizet". Question: is this word a word which presents a
> methathesis?