Re: [tied] Slavic palatalistions: why /c^/, /c/?

From: alex
Message: 41506
Date: 2005-10-21

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:
> c > s^ is not natural at all (can't think of any real life
> examples). c^ > s^ is natural, as is c > s, or c > þ.
>
> The natural develpments can be summarized as follows:
>
>
> k -- t^ -- c -- þ -- t
> \ \ \- s
> \ \------ s
> \
> - c^ - s^ - s


regarding :
t^> c^
t^> ts
which should be the explanation for a development of two forms in the
same lannguages here? Should be just an accident that for some words the
speaker has prefered "c^" and for some words has been prefered "ts"?
Or -depending on the language- there can be some rules here?

more, I wonder about the quality of the palatalisation here. Should be a
second vowel (next to the palatalised consonant) the one who imprimed
the difference between "c^e/c^i" and "tse/tsi"?

Alex