I wrote the following on sci.lang:
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:39:27 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
<
grammatim@...> wrote:
>I'm no fan of Henning Andersen, so if you can refute his 1968 article,
>after explaining what he said (Collinge's summary isn't terribly clear),
>I'd welcome it.
I'm afraid I have no access to the Acta Linguistica Hafniensia.
What Collinge says about Baltic and Slavic RUKI is the following:
"Pedersen [the original formulator of the RUKI-law] exchanged ideas with
Fortunatov. The latter had affirmed, at least in lectures, that the same
shift was to be observed in Lithuanian. But there the input was to be
split into:
/s/1 > [s'] / {i, u}_
/s/2 > [s^] / {r, k}_
Fraenkel is prepared to agree, despite Pedersen's own doubts. But [s^] can
arise from /s/1, and that was perhaps the basic result and only countered
by morphological analogy: so argues Karaliunas. On the other side, Andersen
questions _both_ the [s^] output after /i/, /u/ in Lithuanian _and_ the
constraint located in a following obstruent in Slavic."
What does this mean?
There are two questions: (1) the development of /s/ after /i/ and /u/ in
Lithuanian, where we mostly find /s/ instead of expected /s^/ (Slavic /x/ ~
/s^/); (2) the development of /RsC/ (R=i,u,r, C=obstruent) in Slavic, where
we find /RsC/ instead of expected /RxC/ (/Rs^C/?) (Lithuanian /rs^C/).
On question (1), Collinge detects three schools of thought:
(1) Karaliunas' (this view also adopted by Beekes) theory that the normal
development after /i/ and /u/ was Lith. /s^/, as still shown by a few
isolated words [unfortunately, I have no examples at hand]. The general
reversal towards /s/ would have been due to morphological analogy (e.g. the
nominatives -as, -is^, -us^ would have been renormalized to -as, -is, -us).
(2) Fortunatov's view that the results of RUKI were slightly different
after /i/, /u/ than after /r/, /k/.
(3) Andersen's (and perhaps Pedersen's) view that RUKI failed to work in
Lithuanian after /i/ and /u/.
I would have to know more about the examples adduced for /is^/ and /us^/ in
Lith. _without_ analogical levelling in order to take sides on this. If
the examples are convincing, Karaliunas' view is of course the most
satisfactory one.
As to the second question, it is illustrated by examples such as Slav.
pIrstU "finger" ~ Lith. pirs^tas (*pr.st-os), Slav. pe^sta (*poista:)
"pestle" vs. pIxati (*pisa:-) "to crush". It seems clear that RUKI was
blocked (or, rather, reversed) in Slavic if an obstruent followed. I'm not
aware of any evidence that would justify Andersen's doubts.
--------------------- [end quote]
What are the examples of Lith. *is > is^ and *us > us^ (vetus^as and aus^rà
come to mind)? What reasons are there to doubt the blocking of RUKI before
obstruent in Slavic? Any other comments on the matter?
[Anything you say may be quoted on sci.lang :-)]
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...