Re: [tied] *kuningaz (again)

--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@...> wrote:

> 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/?
>

I'm not sure about anything - in fact, I haven't seen a satisfactory
interpretation of the blocking rules so far. Consonants do block, but
as for vowels, how one can be sure even about /y/? Yes, kUne,gynji,
but why not Acc. pl. **kUne,gy (instead of attested kUne,dze, ~
kUne,ze^) then? Analogy? Then kUne,dzI could also be analogical.
Sometimes the regressive palatalization is chaotically distributed
across Slavic idioms or even lexemes within the same idiom (zIrcalo ~
zIrkalo, zeml'anika ~ zeml'anica), and many cases of palatalization
(or non-palatalization) are obviously spurious.

Sergei