On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:09:16 +0000, tgpedersen
<
tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
>
>Let me see if I got this right:
>
>After (*kWe- >) *ke > *c^e, the /c^/ stayed immobile, while (*kWay-,
>*kWoy-) > *ki: > ci.
Not quite: *ai > *E: > *ie (= ê). The development to -i
only happens word-finally, sometimes, and analogically under
the influence of the soft declension.
>In other words, while one dorsal turns palatal, the other palatal
>(generated previously) stays the same, because the new palatal has
>found a route around it
What route around it?
A palatalised velar / palatal stop (k^, t^) can go directly
to a palatalized alveolar/dental laminal affricate [c']
(after which the palatalization can be lost, resulting in
plain /c/). This in no way requires an intermediate stage
[c^]. In fact, the two developments appear to be mutually
exclusive: if the palatalized velar goes to /c^/ (French
second palatalization; Slavic first palatalization), it
doesn't go to/through [c], and if the palatalized velar goes
to /c/ (French first palatalization; Slavic second
palatalization), it doesn't go to/through [c^].
Whether a language takes the [c] or the [c^] route is
completely arbitrary. In Romance, the Western dialects went
the [c] route, the Eastern ones the [c^] route (except there
are indications that Mozarabic in the far West also went
[c^]). And then some centuries later, the opposite route
can be taken (e.g. French, Slavic).
Sometimes /k/ palatalizes to /c^/, and /t/ palatalizes to
/c/, sometimes it's the other way around, and sometimes they
both palatalize to the same thing, whether /c/ or /c^/.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...