From: Mate Kapovic
Message: 30462
Date: 2004-02-02
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: [tied] Re: Slavic *sorka (was: Satem and desatemisation (was:
Albanian (1)))
> East Slavic only?
Nope, Czech/Slovak and Lusatian also. I wouldn't say the same for Central
South Slavic (Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian) because it seems that /u/ here is
the result of the later change from /o./.
> Yes, what you write is more or less generally accepted (not to say
trivial),
But you seem to have been unaware of that...
> but my point was that *oN was higher than *o across Late Common Slavic in
> general despite obvious fluctuations in their realization.
See? It seems to me you still don't get it. How can it be higher than *o
generally if we have /a/ in Macedonian and /@/ in Bulgarian? Even Polish
seems to point that it was not higher. In many parts of Slavic it was but
not generally.
>If so, that would
> seem to support the early narrowing of tautosyllabic *am, *an in Slavic --
> at least as early as the suggested Slavic loans in Lithuanian. What do you
> think of *that*?
I fail to see what is so awkward or so interesting here...
Mate