From: Mate Kapovic
Message: 30522
Date: 2004-02-02
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 2:27 PM
Subject: RE: [tied] Re: Slavic *sorka (was: Satem and desatemisation (was:
Albanian (1)))
> But Polish seems to point that it was more labialazed than *o (regular
> v-prosthesis before *oN, not *o). And we can reformulate "more labialized"
> as "higher" in that context. Can't we?
But the merger of *eN and *oN wouldn't point to *oN being higher...
> Not so sure. But even so, if it was mostly higher -- that's enough for my
> stumbras-point.
It was surely higher in East Slavic. So your stumbras is expected.
> Have you kept track of the discussion from the very beginning? That would
> explain /u/ we find in Lith. <stum~bras> and Latv. <stumbrs> (if borrowed
> from pre-Slavic *3'ambra- [3'ombra-]). Pre-Slavic [o] was rendered by East
> Baltic /u/).
What Pre-Slavic *o? There was no *o in Slavic till shortly before written
records when *a > *o. Before that there was only *o: which became *u. And in
Lithuanian there was also no *o. Your stumbras is expected considering East
Slavic.
Mate