From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 39685
Date: 2005-08-21
>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:Not in the Auslaut.
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:53:01 +0000, elmeras2000
>> <jer@...> wrote:
>>
>> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >> This might explain the enigmatic N.sg. (m/n) of the ptc.
>> >> praes. act. in Russian and Czech: <nesa>.
>> >
>> >Hey, how can that be enigmatic? If the "soft" form -eN yields -ja
>in
>> >these languages, the "hard" variant can be changed to -a by
>simple
>> >analogy. That's simple isn't it? And why is it wrong?
>>
>> That's what I thought, until my attention was drawn to the
>> fact that the -a forms also occur in Czech (and according to
>> Orr also sporadically in Old Polish).
>>
>> Needless to add, -eN does not give -ja in Czech (or Polish).
>
>I have heard all that before, but is it really decisive? In Czech,
>PSl. eN yields a, as in maso, jazyk
>, and the soft counterpart of -aI find it hard to believe. Why would a masc/neuter nom. sg.
>is -e^/-e (zeme^, dus^e), so I can't really see why myje, mluve^
>could not analogically be given a hard counterpart nesa.
>For Polish, it would work with present-day phonetics in the softThere was no -eN as such in 14th. century Polish. There
>type: if chwaleN, chwaleNcy were pronounced with [-e], [-enc-], then
>the hard type with fem. niosaNcy could well change its *-y to the
>actual form niosa. Man'czak notes the -a form from the XIV century;
>I have no idea if denasalization of -eN could be accepted so early.