pielewe wrote:
>>> The 3d palatalization in Slavic has received a fairly wide range of
>>> formulations in the course of time, the overwhelming majority of
>>> which conform to the "neogrammarian" requirement of regularity.
> Then Grzegorz Jagodzinski wrote:
>> I do not think that any of these formulation is correct. [...]
> This caricatures the situation way beyond what is still enlightening
> or fun. In otIcI < *otIkU 'father' and instr. plur. otIci
> *otIky 'with fathers' the velar is stem final, so the modified velar
> in the attested forms can easily be analogical. No historical
> linguist in his right mind uses that kind of material to evaluate a
> difficult sound law. One should concentrate on cases that can't
> easily be explained as analogical.
But why this sound rule is so difficult? Because there are plenty of
proposed conditions (and counterexamples). We should answer the following
questions:
1) how could have existed and functioned so multi-limited phonetic rule?
2) why analogy did not originally occur in 1st or 2nd palatalization but
appeared so strong in 3rd palatalization?
3) what factors decided that analogy occured and what factors decided that
it did not, in particular instances?
4) what factors caused palatalization in a given word in some dialects but
not in other dialects?
The answers are very simple: the 3rd, or progressive, palatalization, was a
tendency rather than rule. Of course we could multiply detailed conditions
to so large number that even all known instances would appear regular (but
the number of instances is finished even if it may be large). I do not think
this is the right way as it violates Occam's Razor. Instead we should seek
the simplest explanation, and it means we should agree that the 3rd
palatalization was a tendency (or a "weak change"), thus it was so
inconsequent and irregular because many factors were able to prevent that
process.
> Unfortunately there is not a great amount of suitable material
> around. This is caused by the fact that the Progressive
> Palatalization is progressive: as a consequence most instances of
> velars potentially subject to it stand in stem-final position.
> Informative examples or counterexamples are very few and very far
> between. But they aren't completely absent either.
Once again, the explanation that examples of stem-final consonants are not
informative because of the analogy - cannot be treated seriously. Other
palatalizations affected all consonants, also those stem-final ones, and
examples of such consonants are as good as any others.
In other words: self-protection with analogy is only a desperate trial to
save neogrammarian ideas, nothing more. In order to admit that the 3rd
palatalization was a regular process we would have to know that it occured
in all instances where it should occur, and only next some of those
instances were retracted because of analogy. But we have not such knowledge.
Which is more, according to formulated rules, the instances like otIcI <
*otIkU should not show the 3rd palatalization (before -U). Why did it happen
in otIcI but not in numerous formations with -ikU? According to your
argumentation, analogy (as if) caused the 3rd palatalization to occur
despite of the presence of -U. In other instances, inversely, analogy caused
the 3rd palatalization not to occur. I am not sure if there are many
examples of other such processes with so strong and so various affection for
the part of analogy.
> The traditional formulation (actually a range of formulations) is
> based on a tiny number of forms
A tiny number of forms means a tiny number of pieces of evidence. Thus, we
have no base to assert that the 3rd palatalization was in keeping with the
thesis of regular character of phonetic processes.
> that cannot well be analogical and on
> general considerations involving the shape of the vowel system at the
> stage the Progressive Palatalization took place.
And all these forms are in accordance with the formulated rules? I do not
think so.
> The assumption that *y blocked the Progressive Palatalization is
> based on the retained velar in *kUneNgyn/i 'princess, queen' (not in
> OCS, but early attestations in Old Russian and elsewhere), a
> derivation from _kUneNdzI_ 'prince, king'. It is the only example of
> a retained velar in this stem and cannot conceivably be analogical.
> The first to see this was Josef Zubaty/ (Sborni/k filologicky/ 1,
> 1910, 150-153). To the best of my knowledge it has never been
> questioned since.
A reliable rule (or a restriction of a rule) based on _one_ example? It is
really funny, just like you have stated above. But it is methodologically
incorrect, and those who believe in such a rule are also believers in
neogrammarian-like exceptionless processes. It is hard to discuss with
beliefs, especially in the instance when rules based on one example are
taken into consideration. I cannot imagine that other branches of knowledge
would apply such one-example rules (and term them "laws" in addition). As a
man who keeps a level head, I reject any deduction based on single examples,
irrespective of how many authoritative thinkers have not rejected it. If you
do not, I am affraid that we never understand each other.
We should accept another explanation here. There were plenty of forms with
the suffix *-ynji in Proto-Slavic but no forms with *-inji. If *kUne,gynji
had undergone the 3rd palatalization, it would have yielded **kUne,3inji and
it would have been the only word with -inji. And this was the reason why the
change had not occured, not the presence of -y-.
> The assumption that *U blocked the Progressive Palatalization is
> based on the retained velars in _lIgUkU_ 'light' and _meNkUkU_ 'soft'
> (as first adduced in this context by Aleksandar Belic/,
> Juz^noslovenski filolog 2, 1921, p. 26) coupled with the
> consideration that at the stage involved, *U was still the short
> counterpart of *y and is most likely to have behaved the same (which
> is, I think, already present in Zubaty/).
Once again, very few examples cannot be the base for formulating rules. Note
that the non-restricted 3rd palatalization would cause chain changes in both
words:
lIgUkU > **lI3IkU > **lI3IcI,
me,kUkU > **me,cIkU > **me,cIcI
And again, the reason why the 3rd palatalization did not occured here was
morphology (presence of -UkU and absence of -IcI among adjectives), not
phonetic environment. Let's imagine two following possibilities:
1) there is a rule which functions in 2 instances and is stopped because of
analogy in 100 instances,
2) there is a rule which functions in 100 instances and is stopped because
of analogy in 2 instances.
Which one should be taken into account? I state that forms like otIcI <
*otIkU are "regular" even if the 3rd palatalization occurred here before -U.
There are plenty of such words. You state that lack of the 3rd
palatalization was regular in lIgUkU, me,kUkU - i.e in only two instances.
And you believe that hundreds of instances for the 3rd palatalization
before -U are the result of analogy... Whose point is more correct?
> The case of the other conditions is similar. There are some residual
> uncertainties that are purely the outcome of the limitations of the
> material. It is not clear, for instance, whether or not *u < *ou
> blocked palatalization. It may or may not have done so, npbpdy can
> tell.
> A lot has been written about the Progressive Palatalization, perhaps
> too much, but it makes no sense to just brush everything aside and
> start where we were back in 1880.
No, it makes progress that we understand that neogrammarians were not fully
right. But I am not the only one who rejects the "all rules without
exceptions" law in linguistics. All works whose authors did nothing except
searching for another condition for the progressive palatalization are of
little value indeed... Unfortunately, those conditions were of areal and
morphologic rather than phonetic nature.
> Then GrzJ writes:
>> Inversely, the 3rd palatalization is a typical example of a limited
>> sound change. It was limited because it occurs only after some front
> vowels - ex.
>> after nasal e, but not after oral e (nor e^).
> Not true, it is limited to instances of nasal e that reflect earlier
> *i plus nasal, so that it can to be assumed that it preceded the
> merger of the reflexes of *eN and *iN. Jan Baudouin de Courtenay
> appears to have realized this as early as 1893. As a result of this
> it can be assumed that the Progressive Palatalization was triggered
> exclusively by high front vowels (unless it was blocked by high
> rounded vowels). From a phonetic point of view this is simple and
> unproblematical.
Even if such a factor was at work, it did not function in all instances -
but me,kUkU < *mínk- < *mn.Hk-. Thus it must have been very weak.
> GrzJ:
>
>> We can observe also dialectal
>> limitations, namely all examples of palatalization after r.'
> (syllabic soft
>> r) are probably South Slavic, and little or no examples of the 3rd
>> palatalization are known from northern Ruthenian dialects (esp.
> Novgorod /
>> Ilmenian) where also 2nd palatalization did not occur.
>
>
> All examples of palatalization after *r' occur in derived
> imperfectives (aka iteratives), which is a productive formation
It means you admit that the boundaries of the 3rd palatalization was
delimited by morphologic rather than phonetic factors. In other words, we
agree. The 3rd palatalization was not a regular phonetic process (really, it
is hard to say that it was regular if the number of exceptions caused by
analogy is similar to the number of positive instances, or even exceeds
them).
> and
> can easily be analogical, all the more so because it is clear that
> the alternation caused by the Progressive Palatalization has been
> productive in iteratives in South Slavic. OCS has even an example
> after *y: navycajemU 'we are learning' (Supr 373, 11-12). This too is
> an old insight. (Modern SCr has numerous examples after *y and *e^
> and nobody has ever regarded those forms as anything else than
> secondary.)
Thanks a lot for reminding me of it! It appears that the progressive
palatalization became soon clearly morphologic phenomenon, and it began to
occur even when there were no phonetic conditions for it to occur.
> All local differences involve reflexes of velars in stem-final
> position, where analogical levelling explains results perfectly well.
> It just is not true that Novgorod differs from the remained of Slavic
> in this respect.
Differences exist even today. For example, northern Russian dialects
prefer -ica while southern - -ika (see bibliography in Russian: N. P.
Grinikova - O nazvanijax nekotoryx jagod v vostoc^noslavjanskix jazykax,
1958, cited by S. Bernstein in his Oc^erk sravnitel'noj grammatiki
slavjanskix jazykov). Some forms can even be in use side by side.
> GrzJ:
>
>> In a number of
>> instances both forms of a given word preserved in a given dialect,
> like in
>> OCS sicI ~ sikU 'such'.
> The pronoun _sikU_ is not OCS, quite the contrary, OCS has only
> _sicI_.
Even if it were true (I am not convinced), it would be a piece of evidence
for areal limitation of the 3rd palatalization.
> The form _sikU_ is late and Serbian and can easily be
> explained as analogical on the basis of _takU_ and _kakU_, with which
> it is correlated.
Really? Then, why should this analogy be strong enough in Serbian but not in
OCS? And what about ex. velikU 'large, big' - can it also be explained
easily? As analogical to what?
> As far as OCS is concerned, _sikU_ is a ghost form.
> See particularly Vaillant, Revue des Etudes Slaves, 34, 1957, pp. 137-
> 138, who traces the persistence of this ghost form back to Vatroslav
> Jagic/'s famous glossary of the Codex Marianus (1883).
I also know newer works whose authors mention sikU as an OCS form. Of course
it is unimportant. We known plenty of instances when two variants exist side
by side and thus your explanation is not very convincing. It would have been
convincing if you had managed to show that "regular" forms with the 3rd
palatalization are older than "analogic" forms without it. And even then,
the question would have remained why there are so many analogic formations
without the 3rd palatalization while we know no old forms without 1st or 2nd
palatalization at all.
> The problem about the Progressive Palatalization is primarily
> logistic: it is too complicated to explain in an introductory
> textbook. You need at least 15 pages to explain it properly without
> leaving loose ends and/or room for misunderstandings. I know what I'm
> talking about because I've tried to write a "Progressive
> Palatalization for Dummies" (in Dutch) for my students. The result
> was a 22 page text that was still too concentrated for the poor runts
> to understand.
Even if (as you can see) I have serious and strong reservation towards your
explanations, it would be very nice to be able to acquaint oneself with this
work, preferably in English of course. I can see other than logistic
problems here. It is mainly a problem what we should admit to be a rule and
what we should call a belief not based on facts.
> Willem
To end with, I am going to present one more example of troubles with the 3rd
palatalization.
--- beginning of citation ---
Russian: lico `face, person' [n o]
Old Russian: lice `face' [n o]; lico `face' [n o]
Czech: líce `face, (lit.) cheek' [n o]
Old Czech: líce `cheek' [n o]
Polish: lice `cheek, (pl.) face' [n o]
[...]
Since the third palatalization is generally considered not to have operated
after *ei, one may advance the hypothesis that the root originally had zero
grade.
--- end of citation ---
Once again, it appears that there are no determined limits for the process
we are talking about. It is quite ridiculous that some authors, trying to
save the neogrammarian unexceptional character of the 3rd palatalization,
carry things too far, up to complete fantasy. The cited author prefers to
see IE *i ("zero grade") when there is everywhere the Slavic i < IE *ei or
*i: (and no way *i) than to admit that the 3rd palatalization was only a
tendency, and not an unexceptional rule ("law"). The author here is Derksen
(
http://www.indo-european.nl/cgi-bin/startq.cgi?flags=endnnnl&root=leiden&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cslav)
Grzegorz J.
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com