--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...>
wrote:
> > The initial is meant as "Balto-Slavic reflex of IE *k^" as per
> > Trubac^ëv. Anyone who likes may read k^- or s^- instead. The long
> > vocalism is an easy way of writing "acute on /ar/ before
consonant".
>
> I would write * (a *s with a single hook ´) for BSl reflex of PIE
*k'
> considering the reflexes.
So would I if I had not seen the article by Trubac^ev where he
analyses a number of funny Baltic words with /st/ corresponding to
Slavic /s/ (and other Baltic /s^/). Some good examples are
stìrna 'deer', tú:kstantis '1000' and OPr. parstian 'pig' opposed to
Sl. *sIrna, *tysoNti, Lith. par~s^as. Trubacev interprets this to
mean that, when these words were borrowed from a prestage of Slavic
into a prestage of Baltic they still had some occlusion left. Since
that stage must logically be younger than Proto-Balto-Slavic, there
must also have been some occlusion in PBSl. The article is in a
congress report from a Slavicist congress in Warsaw 1973, published
in Moscow 1973. Trubac^ev posits [ts], but of course a palatal
pronunciation [t's'] (which I wrote c') is more likely.
>
> > > Seka is hardly equivalent to svraka. It is a much younger
> > formation.
> >
> > The *type* is IE.
>
> The type of sestra > se- > se-ka in Croatian is hardly IE. The
hypocoristic
> shortening of the stem is hardly of an old origin.
Given a bit of time I believe I could quote it from all corners of
IE, certainly in proper names, but probably also in other lexeme
classes. I find it fairly obvious that such "squashing" (Hamp's word
for it) was PIE already.
Jens