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

> This looks odd. I would rather have [k] > ([k'] > [t'] > [c^] >

[s^]. The

> change [t'] > [c´] > [c^] is attested in Slavic for the reflex of
> Proto-Slavic *tj, with [t'] in Cakavian, [c´] in Stokavian and [c^]

in most

> Slavic languages (and of course [k´] in Macedonian which should be a
> development of [t']).

That's *t' > /k´/ in Macedonian? That's looks backward. Are you sure
it's not induced by some type of paradigm regularisation?


Torsten