Re: Decircumflexion, N-raising, H-raising: Slavic soundrules on-line

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

> Well, after struggling the whole day to get it working, I've
> finally succeeded.
>
> The idea is simple. There are three vowel raising factors:
> (1) circumflex raising [C]
> (2) *-n or *-m (> *-N) raising [N]
> (3) *-s (> *-h) raising [H]
>
> There are three factors affecting the length:
> (1) shortening by decircumflexion [DC]
> (2) shortening by elimination of long diphthongs (V:i, V:u,
> V:N, V:l, V:r) [LDE]
> (3) lengthening by *-Rs [NH]

Thank you, Miguel. I must admit I tried to check the idea myself, but
run up against some -- unsurmounteable, as it seemed to me at the
moment -- difficulties and decided the idea doesn't work in the end.
Still I hoped you'll probably be more luckier and come up with
something -- and you have. :)

The main difficulty was the fact that the "LDE shortening" one needs
to account for the *o-stems G.pl. conflicts, say, with *y of the *-
and *a:-stems Acc.pl. I thought that the shortening was blocked (or
the length was restored) before [#h], but the idea seemed too
speculative and ad hoc to me. You have overcome the controversy by
postulating a lengthening by *-Rs. This raises the question: are
there any other examples (except *-o::is, *-a:ms and *-o:ms you
listed) to support the rule? And why would one classify *i as a
sonorant (or at least put it in the same natural class along with
*m)? I think it's the crucial point for the whole idea, and an ad hoc
rule would deeply compromise it.

> The problems start with the "soft" endings, which have f.
> gen.sg. (and f.nom.pl.), m/f/ acc.pl. -jeN where the "hard"
> endings have -y. After having hacked through most
> permutations in the ordering of C-raising, N-raising,
> H-raising, shortening, lengthening, and J-umlaut, and never
> getting it right, I accidentally (well, by quitting hacking
> the code and thinking about the matter) stumbled upon the
> corect answer (at least, an answer that gets all the results
> right in the Sound Changer).
>
> Surprisingly, this answer does not involve the Umlaut of
> -jo- > -je-, as I had incorrectly assumed all day long.

So had I before I looked up in Kortlandt's FPITS.

> The
> answer involves raising *-o:ms/*-a:ms all the way to *-u:Nh,
> and then, to quote the Sound Changer:
>
> [input: g^hem-j-eh2-ms]
> ...
> a:N->o:N /_(h)# applies to 3emja:Nh at 8
> o:->u: /_(N)h# applies to 3emjo:Nh at 8
> u->i /j_ applies to 3emju:Nh at 5
> i:->X /_ applies to 3emji:Nh at 6
> X->i /_ applies to 3emjXNh at 5
> 3->z /_ applies to 3emjiNh at 1
> iN->e~ /_ applies to zemjiNh at 6
> h-> /_# applies to zemje~h at 7
> [output: zemje~]
>
> The only trick is the development -iN > -e~, besides -eN and
> -IN > -e~ (this part *was* accidental, I meant -IN > e~, but
> the code said -iN).

Kortlandt actually offers the same solution (which I reported in one
of my recent postings). The fact that you have come to the same idea
independently raises the probability you're both right. He even goes
a bit further (trying to account for non-South Slavic *-e^) assuming
the reflexes of *-iN and *-eN didn't merge in non-South Slavic, *-iN
yielding *-e.N, later denasalized in East Slavic (and in Lekhitic?)
to -e^, and *-eN yielding *-äN, denasalized to *-'a (except Lekhitic).

Sergei