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

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:39:32 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> What's that to do with the fact that *ai does *not* give
>> /e/?
>
>I'll have to ask with a question: is /ê/ documented or
>reconstructed?

Documented (jat').

>> No it wasn't. Cf. ORuss. spellings like c^judo, etc.
>
>What phonetic sense is there in that? How would you distinguish
>between /c^/ and /c^j/?

By pronouncing a /j/ after the /c^/. Try it.

>> An easier way to demonstrate that *e and *i never acquired a
>> j-glide (except in the Anlaut) is the fact that for instance
>> *te and *ti develop differently from *tj(V). Cf. the verbs
>> metoN, metes^I (Pol. mioteN, mieciesz) vs. xUtjoN, xUtjes^I
>> (Pol. chceN, chcesz).
>
>The former might be regularization (-tje- > -te-). Isn't the latter
>an Iranian loan?

Doesn't matter. Take any other je-verb and compare it to an
e-verb ending in the same consonant. Or take, say, the word
<bez>, which would be *<bljez> in East and South Slavic, if
<e> had given <je>.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...