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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> tgpedersen wrote:
>
> > Duly noted. They start from different points. Why don't those

two

> > Slavic palatalisations crash?
> >
> >
> > I had this thought: Suppose PIE /e/ and /i/ went palatal, /ye/
> > and /yi/ in Slavic? That would explain the 'palatal element'

of /c^/

> > vs. no such thing in /c/.
>
> That's impossible. Inherited *je and *ji contrasted with *e and *i

after

> consonants, which shows that *e and *i had no palatal onglide in
> Proto-Slavic

Example, please.

(except word-initially, but this is irrelevant).

Erh?

>If
> anything, the reflexes of the tense vowel *e^ (triggering the

first

> palatalisation if from *e: and the second if from *oi or *ai) are

often

> accompanied by palatal glides in Slavic languages.

I think we need a timeline.

>But the *t in *te^
> does not behave like the combination *tj, so it would be a mistake

to

> assume the pronunciation *[j]e^ after consonants at the time of

the

> second palatalisation.

Russ. xoc^ú, xótet' ?


There was no collision because:

>
> (1) The first palatalisation was already non-productive (except in
> derived environments, where it had become grammaticalised as a
> morphophonological rule of *k/*c^ alternation, not a living

phonetic

> process).
>

> (2) The results of the second palatalisation at the time of its
> productivity were different from the *c^, *z^, *s^ series. They

were,

> respectively, *c', 3', s' (predorso-postalveolar, then alveolar).

The

> traditional transcription of the affricates as *c and *3 conceals

the

> fact that they were still palatalised in Common Slavic; actually

their

> dispalatalisation took place much later and independently in

different

> dialects (and sometimes not at all).


>The fricative s' (from *x) merged
> with *s^ in West Slavic but not elsewhere.
>

Isn't that disputed, BTW? some say *s > x, *s' > s^ (and how do you
account for Russ. dux, dus^niy ?

> Non-intersecting alternative paths from velar stops to alveolar or
> dental affricates/fricatives are possible because the articulatory

space

> of oral obstruents is not linear: the configuration of the tongue

tip,

> blade and body has to be taken into account as well.
>

Yes that was the question. An example would be nice.



Torsten