Re[2]: [tied] Re: 3rd Slavic palatalization

From: Brian M. Scott
Message: 41156
Date: 2005-10-08

At 3:28:03 PM on Saturday, October 8, 2005, Grzegorz
Jagodzinski wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

>> At 12:47:14 PM on Friday, October 7, 2005, Grzegorz
>> Jagodzinski wrote:

>>> willemvermeer wrote:

>> [...]

>>>> In the traditional formulation it is a very ordinary
>>>> phonetic rule, to wit a progressive palatalization of
>>>> velars preceded by high front vowels unless followed by a
>>>> consonant or a high rounded vowel.

>>> The traditional formulation is a little different: the
>>> process occured after a front vowel (including 'r.) and
>>> before a vowel, a more precise formulation is that the
>>> process occured after i, I, e, perhaps 'r. (in the
>>> dialects where such a sonant existed), and before a vowel.

>> Admittedly my knowledge of Slavic linguistics is minimal,
>> but Willem's version is the only one that I've encountered.
>> E.g., Terence R. Carlton (Introduction to the phonological
>> History of the Slavic Languages, 1990) gives it as follows:

>> /i(:)/, /e,/ + /k/, /g/, /x/ + vowel (except /u(:)/) >
>> /c/, /dz/ or /z'/, /s^/ or /s'/.

>> Certainly what I've read gives me no reason to doubt that
>> this is now the traditional formulation, even if it's not
>> the original one. (In my own field the traditional and
>> original definitions of 'compact space' are quite different,
>> for instance.)

> Brian, you know, it seems that all depends on what we
> understand as "traditional". I am a Pole and I live in a
> Slavic country. For us the Poles, only the view which is
> presented in school and academic books or encyclopaedias
> can be termed "traditional".

And I gave you just such a view: Carlton is (or was) in the
Department of Slavic and East European Studies at the
University of Alberta, and his book is a high-level academic
textbook and general reference on comparative Slavic


> Of course, such a view is based on more "serious" sources,
> see my quotations in one of the previous posts. Perhaps
> these sources are not available in English.

Your chauvinism and condescension are misplaced: the book
that I cited is a serious source.