Re: [tied] Re: Balto-Slavic -RHj-?

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 35813
Date: 2005-01-05

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:10:56 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
<s.tarasovas@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> What I meant was simply that if we take the suffix *-yé- as
>> having had the structure -CV-, blind application of the
>> syllabification rules would yield *gWr.H-yé- = gWr.:-yé-
>> (where /r.:/ is a traditional "long syllabic resonant"),
>> which presumably would have given Slavic *z^ir"joN (a.p. a)
>> and Lith. *gìr-ju (syllabified like dìr-bu).
>
>I wouldn't like to look like a hair-splitter, but I'm afraid you
>still don't get my point. +gìr-ju is impossible in (Modern)
>Lithuanian -- it's prohibited by its phonotactics

What exactly is the phonotactical constraint?

>(as well as *gí:r-
>jó: was impossible at the time Saussure's law operated). It would be
>impossible as a reflex of *gWr.H-yé- (with consonantal yod) even if
>the laryngeal were not deleted. You can't reject *gWr.H-yé- simply on
>the ground that it hasn't given a phonotactically impossible reflex.
>Of course it hasn't. So before we go any further, what (Modern
>Standard) Lithuanian outcome (different from <giriù>) would you
>expect from *gWr.H-yé-?

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...