From: Mate Kapovic
Message: 30452
Date: 2004-02-01
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 8:52 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Slavic *sorka (was: Satem and desatemisation (was:
Albanian (1)))
> Thank you for the support (if I get you right). It would be
> interesting to examine early borrowings from Slavic into Baltic and
> other languages in that respect. Early borrowings from East Slavic in
> Lithuanian seem to show /un/ in place of Slavic etymological *oN
> (arch. <unguras> 'Hungarian' <*oNgUrU, <pùndas> 'pound' < *poNdU --
> unfortunately, I can't recollect better examples),
This is not strange considering that *oN gives /u/ in East Slavic. We have
to bear in mind that what we reconstruct as *oN does not really need to be
exactly that. In the case of East Slavic it may have been likewise *uN. I
think it is a mistake trying to reconstruct PSl *oN, *eN or *e with the same
quality everywhere in the Slavic world.
>while Slavic *o
> uniformely yields /a/ (all the early loans), but of course that can't
> be easily projected back into, say, 500 BC - 1 AD. Vaillant (in
> _Manuel du vieux slave_) suggests Late Common Slavic *oN to be
> realized as [ouN] (and *o as [å]).
See, this is what I ment. Why would there have to be one and only
pronountiation of Late Common Slavic (!) *oN? Wouldn't it be reasonable to
presume that the actual pronountiation may have been different in different
parts of Slavia? That PSl *o gives /a/ is not strange seens Lithuanian
didn't have /o/ then and the Slavic *o is anyway very young becoming from *a
probably not much sooner before written records (and it hasn't changed
everywhere).
Mate