Re: [tied] *kuningaz (again)

Belic' (1921) and Vaillant (1950) formulated it that way. The fact is, the palatalisation fails before *y if there is no basis for analogical levelling, (thus in *kUne,g-yni-), and occasionally in archaic forms unaffected by analogy like Russ. <zgi> = {stg-i} < *stIgy, gen.sg. of *stIdza 'path' (cf. Old Pol. s'c'dza). The operation of the palatalisation before *U is capricious, but I suppose that examples like otIcI < *otIkU are more archaic than unpalatalised -I-k-, which may easily be analogical (after -U-k-, -a-k-).

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:28 PM

Subject: Re: [tied] *kuningaz (again)

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:11:03 +0200, "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...> wrote: >The third palatalization is the same change */k/>/c/([ts]), */g/>/dz/, >*/x/>/s/ or /s^/ but _after_ */i/,*/I/,*/Ir/ or */e,/ if that */e,/ is >from earlier *[in] or *[In]. It has sometimes succeded, sometimes >failed, and there are no strict rules to predict that succes or failure. >It's often stated, though, that it was blocked by a consonant or a >middle or back vowel (first of all, */y/,*/U/, Are you sure about /U/? ======================= Miguel Carrasquer Vidal mcv@...