--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Mate Kapovic" <mkapovic@...> wrote:
> 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.
You tried to enlighten me so hard that seem to completely miss the
point. One more time:
1. Trubachëv suggested PIE *k^, *g(H)^ were reflected as *c', *3' in
pre-Slavic; the point seems to be supported, in his opinion, by a
number of very early (pre-Savic, certainly not "shortly before
written records") borrowings from pre-Slavic into Baltic, pre-Slavic
*c' being rendered as Baltic *st, since Baltic by that time had
deaffricated earlier *c', *3' into *s', *z' (thus *sti:rna: from pre-
Slavic *c'i:rna: etc.).
2. I suggested a word-initial pre-Slavic *3' was rendered by Baltic
*st, since [#zd-] was prohibited phonotactically in Baltic, and tried
to support the point by pointing to a possible pre-Slavicism in East
Baltic -- namely, *stumbras < pre-Slavic *3'ambra- 'aurochs'. I
suggested that the phonetic realization of pre-Slavic tautosyllabic
*am, *an was [om], [on], thus East Baltic *um in place of pre-Slavic
*am (yes, there probably were no *phonemic* /o/ in Slavic that early,
though Kortlandt, for instance, proposes a bit more convoluted scheme
than cozy (Late) PIE *o, *a > Baltic-Slavic *a > Late Common Slavic
(ca. 8 c.) *o you obviously have in mind.)
If the Lithuanian and Latvian words in question are East Slavicisms,
how would you explain the initial st- then?
Sergei