From: Mate Kapovic
Message: 30537
Date: 2004-02-03
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sergejus Tarasovas" <S.Tarasovas@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 11:24 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Slavic *sorka (was: Satem and desatemisation (was:
Albanian (1)))
> 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?
I see what you mean. I did get tangled up a bit. Sorry. Your stumbras
explanation sounds good to me. I started talking about nasals and *o's and
forgot with what we started.
As for Kortlandt, I wouldn't pay much attention to him... He loves
complicating things... :-)
Mate