Re: [tied] Re: Slavic *sorka (was: Satem and desatemisation (was: A

> From: Mate Kapovic [mailto:mkapovic@...]

> > Yes, what you write is more or less generally accepted (not to say
> trivial),
>
> But you seem to have been unaware of that...

I was aware, actually.

> See? It seems to me you still don't get it. How can it be
> higher than *o generally if we have /a/ in Macedonian and /@/
> in Bulgarian?

That's why I mentioned Vaillant's remark. OK, he suggests [ouN] for OCS, not
the LCS (I wrote from memory then and have just re-checked) partly deciding
from variant spellings /u/~/oN/ (in OCS per se, not RCS). What is true for
OCS should be true for the ancestors of Macedonian and Bulgarian as well.
Shouldn't it?

> Even Polish seems to point that it was not
> higher.

But Polish seems to point that it was more labialazed than *o (regular
v-prosthesis before *oN, not *o). And we can reformulate "more labialized"
as "higher" in that context. Can't we?

> In many parts of Slavic it was but not generally.

Not so sure. But even so, if it was mostly higher -- that's enough for my
stumbras-point.

> >If so, that would
> > seem to support the early narrowing of tautosyllabic *am, *an in
> >Slavic -- at least as early as the suggested Slavic loans in
> >Lithuanian. What do you think of *that*?
>
> I fail to see what is so awkward or so interesting here...
>

Have you kept track of the discussion from the very beginning? That would
explain /u/ we find in Lith. <stum~bras> and Latv. <stumbrs> (if borrowed
from pre-Slavic *3'ambra- [3'ombra-]). Pre-Slavic [o] was rendered by East
Baltic /u/).

Sergei