--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> If you mean the change of *au > *u, *eu > *ju, and *u: > *y, the
dates look plausible. Quite certainly some early loans from Germanic
were borrowed before the completion of those changes. Another example
similar to *þiud- is Goth. biud- --> Slavic *bljudo.
>
> Piotr
Sorry for the slip -- I actually meant _con_traction, of course.
Another question I've been concerning with is the (relative)
chronology of the 2nd and 3rd Slavic palatalizations. A conservative
point of view, mostly based on relative instability of the output of
the latter, attributed a later date to it, but (North) Krivichian
doesn't demonstrate the 2nd palatalization at all, while there's
nothing idiosyncratic as to the 3rd palatalization in it (_vIxU_
'all' instead of _vIsI_ being the only exception), and the results of
Sedov's excavations point to 450-500 as the date of the arrival of
Slavic tribes in the Pskov-Novgorod area (a second Slavic wave, dated
to ca. 700, is attributed to the Ilmen Slovenes), which would mean
the 3rd palatalization was over and the 2nd one hadn't yet started by
the middle of the 5th century.
Sergei