Re: [tied] Re: bg. nvEsta

On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:27:52 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:26:03 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >So we would expect Slavic *novIsta instead of neve^sta.
>>
>> *novIs^ta, in fact (because of the RUKI-rule).
>>
>>
>
>Rather *novIxta (*s > *x/{*i,*u,*r,*k}_, the progressive
>palatalization being blocked by an obstruent that follows and even
>not being blocked would yield *s' rather than *s^ here), but I'm not
>sure the *xt cluster adheres to Proto-Slavic phonotactics. Any
>(counter)examples?

I was thinking of the Slavic comparative in -jI, obl. -jIs^- (PIE
*-yos, *-yes- ~ *-is-, on which "superlative" *-is-to- is built),
which has /s^/ in all oblique forms [albeit before vowels, not
consonants]. That can't be 2nd palatalization, can it? One would in
that case expect OCS /s/, not /s^/.

According to Bräuer, *x{C} gives /sC/, as in the the aor. 2.pl. ending
-ste. That would bring me back to my original proposal *novIsta. Or
*nove^jIsta. In any case, clearly not the origin of neve^sta.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...