Re: [tied] Re: slavic methathesis

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 15515
Date: 2002-09-16

Tendential or sporadic schwa-insertion in CVRC groups may have existed already in Proto-Slavic on a dialectally limited scale. Krivichian, which in many respects differs from "Neo-East Slavic", seems to have had CVR&C for *CVRC. But *-oro- > -ro-/-ra- or even *-orU- > -ro-/-ra- (or the like) fails as an explanation of liquid metathesis, since _inherited_ *-oro-, *-orU- did not develop like that in West and South Slavic (they simply survived in the original shape). Nor does "intermediate pleophony" explain the falling together of *CelC and *ColC in East Slavic but not elsewhere (<moloko> as opposed to <mleko> and <mle^ko>), or the survival of unmetathesised forms in West and South Slavic long after the disintegration of proto-Slavic. In a comparable case, that of the old English r-metathesis, there is no evidence of "intermediate stages" between, say, <frost> and <forst>, and pleophony is attested only occasionally in a special context (/Vr_xt/, as in <wyrihta> beside <wyrhta> and <wrihta>), in a type of metathesis that is restricted mainly to Northumbrian OE.
----- Original Message -----
From: tgpedersen
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:57 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: slavic methathesis

Wouldn't it be possible to argue for (without loss of generality):
*or > *oro > *ro etc, so that pleophony becomes an intermediate
stage? If so, it would be one, not separate developments.
Dutch has the pronunciation /mel&k/ for 'melk', probably because of
the 'thick' l.