Re: [tied] trzymac'

On 2006-05-28 17:38, Sergejus Tarasovas wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> If, as Piotr just mentioned, some Kashubian dialects still
>> preserve uncontracted -ajeN, I don't think there's any point
>> in trying to explain Slovincian forms by an appeal to early
>> contractions.
>
> Still a possibility remains that the *-VjV- contraction was a
> dialectal phenomenon in Common Slavic. Statistically, it looks as if
> East Slavic is mostly immune to contraction while West Slavic is
> mostly prone to it, with South Slavic being somewhere in between.
> Anyway, the Slovincian forms should be explained this way or other,
> and Stang's text must still make some sense (not exactly the one
> presented in my posting -- I could well misread him).

Even in those Kashubian dialects that have no contraction in the 1sg.
and 3pl. (<szëkaje,>, <szëkaja,>, etc.) the endings are always
contracted in the remaining persons, according to the lingusitic atlas
of Kashubian (Stieber et al. 1964-1978):

1. -aje,
2. -ôsz
3. -ô

4. -ómë
5. -ôta (old du.) ~ -ôce
6. -aja,

Piotr