From: Mate Kapovic
Message: 30414
Date: 2004-02-01
----- Original Message -----
From: "elmeras2000" <jer@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 12:13 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Slavic *sorka (was: Satem and desatemisation (was:
Albanian (1)))
> 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.
OK. I didn't konw this. Thank you (and Piotr) for this information.
> 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.
I have no problem with that. I just don't know if we can really connect
these things genetically or are we just talking about some kinds of
universals here. This seems a very normal thing to expect in hypocoristics.
Mate