On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:41:03 +0100, "Piotr Gasiorowski"
<
gpiotr@...> wrote:
>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-).
The way the law is formulated in Bräuer's Einführung is
(paraphrasing):
No formula has been found that explains all cases and has no
counterexamples. Most cases can be explained if {g,k,x} > {dz,c,s'}
after _unaccented_ {i,I,e~}, when there was no {y,u,o~,o(?)} [/U/ is
not mentioned] in the following syllable. Furthermore, /i/ < *i:
palatalizes more often than /i/ < *ei. In some (iterative) verbs (by
analogy?) palatalization also occurs after /Ir/ (/Il/). A good number
of exceptions to the rule can be explained if we add that the accent
had to fall on the following syllable, but this creates a whole new
set of exceptions. Ausgleich within paradigms plays an important
role.
I appreciate the lack of elegance in such a formulation, with /U/ the
only back/rounded vowel that definitely does not block the
palatalization ("Welche Laute zu den labialisierten und hier die
Palatalisierung hemmenden Vokalen gehören, ist umstritten. Mit
Sicherheit gehört wohl nur /y/ dazu, mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit
auch /u/ und /o~/, während es für /o/ sehr frachlich ist"). But I
find it hard to imagine that a law that should have been regularly
blocked in the Nom. and Acc. masc. (-U) would have come through the
paradigmatic Ausgleich with the success it evidently did have (outside
Krivichian, that is).
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...