[tied] Re: Polish G. -ga

From: Sergejus Tarasovas
Message: 17573
Date: 2003-01-13

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

> There are a few Avestan spellings showing no contraction in the o-
> ablative (as.a:at~ca:, vira:at~ca:, Beekes Gatha-Avestan, p. 53).

But Beekes himself thinks that "<-a:at~ca:> for /-a:t-ca/ is probably
due to accent. In the Gathas it is found only in <as.a:at~ca:>
28.10a, 32.4c and <vira:at~ca:> 31.15c [obviously, the spellings are
more common in Late Avestan texts -- S. T.]. So it is a later

By the way, Russian forms with [-v-] are traditionally supposed to
spread from (originally rather narrow?) northern dialectal area,
showing general lenition of intervocalic /g/ to [?] or [w]. And,
IMHO, [h] and [w]-prostheses better fit with Late (since 8th c.?)
Common Slavic *o [o] than earlier [a]. If the development of the
prostheses is so late, how did the Slavs get along with anti-
phonotactical *-oo-'s > *-aa-'s at least for centuries? If the
development is very early, it can hardly be paralleled by obviously
late (or what?) [h] and [w]-prostheses in anlaut, and the natural
question rises: where else do you find such a hiatus-filling in Early
Common Slavic?