Re: Slavic ptc.praes.act.

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

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:53:01 +0000, elmeras2000
> <jer@...> wrote:
>
> >--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>

wrote:

> >
> >> This might explain the enigmatic N.sg. (m/n) of the ptc.
> >> praes. act. in Russian and Czech: <nesa>.
> >
> >Hey, how can that be enigmatic? If the "soft" form -eN yields -ja

in

> >these languages, the "hard" variant can be changed to -a by

simple

> >analogy. That's simple isn't it? And why is it wrong?
>
> That's what I thought, until my attention was drawn to the
> fact that the -a forms also occur in Czech (and according to
> Orr also sporadically in Old Polish).
>
> Needless to add, -eN does not give -ja in Czech (or Polish).

I have heard all that before, but is it really decisive? In Czech,
PSl. eN yields a, as in maso, jazyk, and the soft counterpart of -a
is -e^/-e (zeme^, dus^e), so I can't really see why myje, mluve^
could not analogically be given a hard counterpart nesa.

For Polish, it would work with present-day phonetics in the soft
type: if chwaleN, chwaleNcy were pronounced with [-e], [-enc-], then
the hard type with fem. niosaNcy could well change its *-y to the
actual form niosa. Man'czak notes the -a form from the XIV century;
I have no idea if denasalization of -eN could be accepted so early.
But if it could it would open relatively easy explanations by
analogy.

Jens