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

From: tgpedersen
Message: 41756
Date: 2005-11-05

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 09:38:41 +0000, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:55:13 +0000, tgpedersen
> >> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Here's a version with even fewer rules:
> >>
> >> But they're all wrong.
> >>
> >
> >Because...?
>
> Because the rules you gave were:
>
> >PIE > pp-PS
> >*ai, *oi > *e
>
> Obviously wrong. *ai gives /ê/, not /e/, and only after the
> first palatalzation.

*i, *e, *j palatalise. The whole point of the exercise is to "tag"
the vowels *i and *e with a *j which to simplify the palalisation
condition (as ' / *j'), which has the added affect of distinguishing
original *e (> *je) from later by-products (here *ê) such that the
two Slavic palatalisations don't have to be done in any particular
sequence. You would have noted that if you had taken time to think
over the proposal, instead of rejecting it for not conforming to the
traditional scheme.


> >pp-PS > p-PS
> >*V(:) > *jV(:), /V front
>
> Wrong as I explained (*ji would have given /i/, not /I/, in
> OCS).

No you didn't. You explained that *ji would have given /ji/. I
wonder what you will claim to have explained the next time? I assume
it occurred to you in the meantime that the /j/ was consumed in the
process of palatalising the preceding consonant? And I haven't
discarded the *i > /I/ rule, I just want it to apply after
palatalisation.



> >p-PS > PS
> >*k > *c
> >*kW > *k
> >PS >
> >*cj > *c^
>
> Wrong, since PIE *k and *kW before vowels merged already in
> PBS, giving Slavic /k/ before back vowels, /c^/ before front
> vowels (and later /c/ before secondary /ê/ from *ai, as well
> as after *i(:(N))).


Blah-blah-blah. I was making a new proposal, namely that the
secondary palatalisations of B-S, I-I and Tokharian was present
already in PIE, and I've made that abundantly clear. Please don't
insult me by implying that the reason I propose new rules is that I
don't know the old ones.

I thought originally that Tokharian might present a problem for that
idea, since it has a First Palatalisation which affricates dentals
(*d, *t, *dh > *ts / _V, V front) before it has a Second
Palatalisation involving velars too. But it's actually possible to
reverse the sequence of the two, if one duplicates the rule af
affrication of the First Palatalisation so that it affects both
second-palatalised and non-second-palatalised dentals.


Torsten