pielewe wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
> <grzegorj2000@...> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The most typical
>> example for breaking the as-if-unexpectional character of sound
> changes
>> (called very incorrectly "sound laws") is the 3rd palatalization in
>> Slavic.
>
> [...]
>
>
> The 3d palatalization in Slavic has received a fairly wide range of
> formulations in the course of time, the overwhelming majority of
> which conform to the "neogrammarian" requirement of regularity.
I do not think that any of these formulation is correct. I mean that there
are plenty of counterexamples. For example, it was assumed that final -U
(hard year) had prevented palatalization. It is very easy to show that it is
not correct formulation, and even double suffixes like -IkU ~ -IcI exist
(cf. Polish -ek and -ec, both with floating "e"). It was also assumed that
final -y and -Q had prevented that process. It is not true when analysing
declension: we have both otIcI < *otIkU 'father' and instr. plur. otIci <
*otIky 'with fathers' in OCS.
> In
> any case it is not at all an obvious case of irregularity, hence it
> is unsuitable for falsifying the neogrammarian position, whether or
> not the latter is correct.
>
>
> Willem
Inversely, the 3rd palatalization is a typical example of a limited sound
change. It was limited because it occurs only after some front vowels - ex.
after nasal e, but not after oral e (nor e^). We can observe also dialectal
limitations, namely all examples of palatalization after r.' (syllabic soft
r) are probably South Slavic, and little or no examples of the 3rd
palatalization are known from northern Ruthenian dialects (esp. Novgorod /
Ilmenian) where also 2nd palatalization did not occur. In a number of
instances both forms of a given word preserved in a given dialect, like in
OCS sicI ~ sikU 'such'. In general, we can also observe more intensivity of
this process in South Slavic when compared to North Slavic, cf. OCS dvi3ati
'to lift, to move' and Polish dz'wigac' 'to lift', OCS naricati 'to name'
and Polish narzekac' (with the changed meaning 'to complain'), OCS po-lI3a
'advantage' and OCS lIgUkU 'light, easy', Polish u-lga 'relief'. But OCS
ovIca, zaje,cI and Polish owca 'sheep', zaja,c 'hare' are all with
palatalization. Morphologic factors may also have been important - but again
only to some degree: we have only masc. suffix -ikU (mainly diminutive) but
fem. both -ika and -ica.
Really, I see no place for any phonological limitations of the discussed
change. But if you know such limitations, and you are sure that they really
worked, we can discuss.
Grzegorz J.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com