From: Rick McCallister
Message: 63416
Date: 2009-02-24
> From: Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>That's what I heard, s^c^ or StS, when I was in Szczecin. Is there any practical difference between the 2?
> Subject: [tied] Re: Order of Some Indo-Iranian Sound Changes
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 3:44 PM
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
> <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> >
> > On 2009-02-24 04:29, Andrew Jarrette wrote:
> >
> > > To tell the truth, I actually have a few more
> questions concerning
> > > the Russian postalveolar/medio-palatal spirants
> and affricate.
> > >
> > > 1. If Russian <c^> comes from palatalized
> *k(W) and Russian <z^>
> > > comes from palatalized *g(W) and *g(W)H, why do
> they differ in
> > > articulation in that <c^> is soft
> medio-palatal as you described it,
> > > while <z^> is apical postalveolar? They
> both arise from the
> > > palatalization of (labio)velars which only
> differed in voicing in
> > > Proto-Slav, did they not?
> >
> > Yes. Already in Common Slavic a sligh asymmetry
> developed as *3^ was
> > deaffricated, becoming *z^. Other Slavic languages
> developed new
> > affricates later on, but Russian deaffricated all the
> voiced ones and
> > was left with /c^/ and /c/ (the latter from the second
> palatalisation or
> > progressive palatalisation of PSl. *k). I suppose this
> skewedness of the
> > obstruent system made /c^/ available for individual
> treatment.
>
>
> Is it possible that *g in Common Slavic, or at least
> Proto-Slavic, was
> actually [G] rather than [g]? After all, that could
> explain why it
> becomes /h/ (actually _voiced_ /h/, no?) in Czech, Slovak,
> and
> Ukrainian (and Belorussian? On Wiki it says that
> Belorussian <h> is
> pronounced [G]), and why its palatalized form is /Z/ rather
> than /dZ/.
> Later developments such as the second palatalization might
> have
> operated after a *[G] was hardened to [g], and therefore
> led to
> phonemes such as /dz/ in some dialects.
>
> >
> > In standard Polish, by the way, the sounds represented
> <sz>, <z.>, <cz>,
> > <dz.> (s^, z^, c^, 3^) area all
> apico-postalveolar; so are the reflexes
> > of palatalised *r (spelt <rz>), which have
> merged with /z^/ and /s^/
> > (once upon a time it was a trilled fricative, like
> Czech r^). There is
> > also a regional phenomenon known as
> "mazurzenie" (Masovian
> > pronunciation) -- the merger of the whole
> apico-postalveolar series with
> > the dental sibilants <s, z, c, 3>. The
> reflexes of Old Polish /r^/
> were
> > not affected, since they developed more recently.
>
>
> Just to be certain, is <szcz> actually [StS] in
> Polish, unlike Russian?