Re: [cybalist] Hamp and his dog, an IE shepherd

----- Original Message -----

From: Sergejus Tarasovas

To: cybalist@egroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 6:32 PM

Subject: RE: [cybalist] Hamp and his dog, an IE shepherd

 

Sergei wrote:

 

1.  The so called third palatalization acted much later than RUKI rule (with its cognates in Baltic and Indo-Iranian).( Cf. such amazing examples from beech bark inscriptions like вьхъ 'all' etc. They show that in North Krivichian dialect of Old Russian this palatalization hadn't been completed yet by the X-XI cc).

2. So we can suppose the following development:

*pis-o-/-u->*piS-o-/-u->*pьxъ>*pьs'ь>various derivates in Slavic languages with 'hardened' (depalatalized) s and consecutive involving of the word in -o-stem paradigms (qiute normal developement). By the way, why the -u- stem is reconstructed?

 

---

 

Dear Sergei,

 

Your scenario might work for East Slavic, but not for West Slavic, where the third palatalisation worked differently (*x > *š) and was NEVER "reversed" to yield s. Starting with *pis-o/u-, we would end up with Polish *piesz, not pies. Had the third palatalisation failed, as it non uncommonly did, the result would be *piex (with RUKI S > x). To sum up, whatever the origin of the word, the West Slavic reflexes exclude old *s and support the reconstruction *pik'-.

 

As for your final question, if you re-read my posting, you will see that I did NOT reconstruct a -u- stem (the Slavic nom. sg. *pIsU is ambiguous, of course). Actually, all the evidence I know of favours a Slavic -o- stem, which is precisely why I don't INSIST on the identification of *pIsU with *peku but merely offer it as a remote possibility.

 

Piotr