Re: [tied] Re: Indo-Iranian

----- Original Message -----
From: fortuna11111
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 8:52 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Indo-Iranian


> The typical development uridg. l.>iir. r. does not apply for Nuristani.

Even if the above were true (it isn't, strictly speaking), would it be
relevant to our discussion in any way?

>> The reconstruction *ko~tja for Proto-Slavic is secure, ...

> I am genuinely interested in understanding *how* it is made secure?
Macedonians speak a dialect of Bulgarian, even today (they will throw
tomatoes at me, if they hear this, but it is an obvious fact to anyone who
is acquainted with both langauges).

Whether something is to be regarded a distinct language or not is a
political rather than linguistic decision. The Bulgarian/Macedonian group
has always been a dialect continuum in which the forces of divergence and
convergence have been maintaining a state of relative equilibrium for a very
long time. Nevertheless, there are a number of old contrasts within it,
which justifies treating Bulgarian and Macedonian as different entities from
the point of view of historical linguistics (like, say, Scots and English).
Although Macedonian <k'> as the reflex of PSl. *tj may be the result of
early Serbian influence, it dates back to the Middle Ages nevertheless, and
contrasts with Bulgarian <s^t>.

> Serbs have been neighbors of Bulgarians for centuries.

Yes. But if they had borrowed (Old) Bulgarian kUs^ta, it wouldn't have ended
up as <kuc'a>. The correspondence Bulg. s^t = SCr. c' is found only in
inherited words, where Proto-Slavic had *tj or *kt (+ *-i). Likewise, Bulg.
U corresponds to SCr. u in words that originally had the back nasal vowel
/o~/.

> Therefore, if you claim the word is reconstructed in Proto-Slavic, I
naturally want to know how (unless you show there are examples in other than
Southern-Slavic languages, the logic remains a mystery to me). Of course,
you are not obliged to explain. Do it if you wish.

Why shouldn't I? I have already partly answered your question. Comparison
between Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian requires *ko~tja as the common
prototype. The related word *ko~tina is attested in West as well as South
Slavic (in Old Polish it was used of pagan temples). In the south, *ko~tja
expanded at the expense of *domU; the original meaning was more
specialised -- something like 'building' or 'shelter', perhaps. It is
related to *ko~tU 'angle, corner' (a word which survives in West Slavic,
also with meanings like 'hideout, shelter, hut').

> If you mean the Slavic languages mentioned above, I do not see why you
exclude the possibility of a loan. It does not sound logical to me.

I hope you can see the logic now.

>> A general remark: if one wishes to be taken seriously as a respectable
source of information, one _must_ adopt a professional approach.

> This takes time.

It will be time well spent. Paradoxically, experts are often less
self-confident and offer less authoritative opinions than people who still
have everything to learn and don't realise the extent of their own
ignorance.

Piotr