Re: [tied] Phonetic status of *y1 in Proto-Slavic

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:41:27 -0000, "Sergejus Tarasovas"
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>I wonder if the phonetic status of the Proto-Slavic *y1<*{u:,
>(prologated)*U} is found out or at least a majority opinion exists.
>
>An idea of it's bi-phonemic status seemes attractive to me,
>considering:
>
>1. A combined orthogram - actually <Ui> - is used in Cyrillic. It's
>authors didn't hesitate to invent a completely new sign
>for 'phoneticaaly monolithic' sound and never used a combined
>orthogram in such cases (<oy> for /u/ being the only exception - but
>they just followed a Greek tradition here).
>
>2. Sound combinations whith adjacent *U and *i:*I reflected as /y/,
>eg, in Russian (podymu' 'I will pick up' < *podUImo,). Proto-Slavic
>*y reflected in the same way.
>
>3. Early Baltic loans from East Slavic (Lith. mui~las 'soap' < East
>Slavic *mylo < Proto Slavic *my1dlo, Lith. smui~kas 'violin' < East
>Slavic *smykU 'the same') render East Slavic (etimological) y1 as
>[ui].
>
>Phonetic status of Proto-Slavic *y2<*o:n(s) is another interesting
>issue.

In Russian, <y> (bI) certainly sounds diphthongal (especially after
labial consonant: my-, by-, vy-). On the other hand, Russian may be
the only Slavic language where *Uj (in the nom.sg.masc. adjective *-U
+ *-jI) did not merge with *y < **u:, since we have the pronunciation
-oj when stressed (bol'shój) and a colloquial variant -@... when
unstressed, in rivalry with "official" -yj/-ij (russkij = [rusk@...] or
[rusk^ij]).


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