Re: [tied] az+

> Btw, Serguey, I was interested how the reflexes of the OCS
> "jatova glasna" (which is resolved as /ja/ or /e/ in
> Bulgarian, depending on the position and stress) are
> considered in Russian? (I mean words like bulg.sg.m. bjal
> "white", plural beli, vs. russ. belyj) No such changing
> pattern seems to exist in modern Russian. The e/ja in
> Bulgarian is either /e/ or /ja/ in the whole corresponding
> paradigm in Russian.

The reflex of *e^ has indeed merged with those of *e (in the positions
where the latter hasn't yielded /(j)o/) and (strong) *I in Standard
Russian, where the merger had been completed by the 19th c, yielding
/e/. Before the merger, the reflex of *e^ was mostly realized as [ie] or
(close) [e.] (such pronunciation is still retained in some northern
dialects), and only a few dialects seem to have had [æ]. These
[æ]-dialects, but also (and mostly) Church Slavonic are the main source
for the number of ja-reflexes (thus we have Church Slavonicism <jastvo>
'cates, viand' vs. inherited <jeda> 'food').

> The corresponding vowel in Polish seems
> to be /ja/ in all paradigms. I have no idea what this means.

This is not true, AFAIK.

>
> Is _that_ what you are inclined to
> > explain via Iranian influence?
>
> The /ja/ as being derived from an azU, does not sound
> convincing to me.

The alternative hypothesis (mentioned by Miguel and Piotr) assumes a
Proto-Slavic status of *ja, which in that case would be a regular reflex
of PIE (enclinominal) *h1eg^ (*jazU being a regular reflex of PIE
(orthotonic) *h1eg^om).

BTW, what, IMO, is really irregular about the Balto-Slavic reflexes of
*h1eg^(om) are those on the Baltic side. The comparative evidence of all
the (including archaic and dialectal) material points to *es' < *ez'
with _short_ *e, different from the expected *é: (thus one would expect
Lithuanian <e:~s^> -- with monosyllabic circumflex -- rather than
attested (East Lithuanian) <ès^> (and the dialectal vacillation between
a- and e- would also point to an original short *e).

> > OCS _azU_
> > Macedonian _jas_
> > Serbo-Croatian _jâ_, dial. j"az
> > Slovenian _jàz_
> > Czech _já_, Old Czech _jaz_
> > Slovak _ja_
> > Upper Sorbian _ja_
> > Lower Sorbian _ja_
> > Polabian _jo_, _joz_
> > Polish _ja_, Old Polish _jaz_
> > Slovincian _jå'u__
> > Old Russian (both Standard Kievan and Krivichian) _jazU_,
> later _ja_
> > Russian _ja_ Ukrainian _ja_
> > Belarusian _ja_
>
> Okay, now look at just the modern languages (and be careful
> with the Serbian dialects and Macedonian) and see what you
> come up with. That was just an idea.

What would be the rationale behind that? Why just the modern languages
count? Because in that case the picture better fits your expectations?
;)

Sergei