--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
<grzegorj2000@...> wrote:
[On the Progressive Palatalization]
> 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?
In the traditional formulation it is a very ordinary phonetic rule,
to wit a progressive palatalization of velars preceded by high front
vowels unless followed by a consonant or a high rounded vowel.
Note in this context that progressive palatalizations are less
frequent than the common or garden type of palatalization of velars
followed by front vowels. For that reason beginning linguists tend to
be unaware of them and uneasy with them. Rules that strongly resemble
the Slavic Progressive Palatalization have been reported for some
Andi languages of the Caucasus, notably Tindi and Godoberi.
> 2) why analogy did not originally occur in 1st or 2nd
palatalization but
> appeared so strong in 3rd palatalization?
It is easy to see why if you reconstruct the paradigms the way they
looked immediately after palatalization had taken place. In all
versions you get paradigms with extremely capricious alternations
crying out for morphological levelling. And there are several
contributing factors, such as the fact that the total number of
morphemes involved was tiny and the fact that the regressive
palatalizations were remained synchronically predictable for a long
time after they had taken place, whereas the progressive
palatalization became opaque almost immediately.
> 3) what factors decided that analogy occured and what factors
decided that
> it did not, in particular instances?
It always did, there are no extant examples of alternating paradigms.
> 4) what factors caused palatalization in a given word in some
dialects but
> not in other dialects?
The factors that caused palatalization were exactly the same in all
dialects, but the subsequent analogical levelling was carried through
in different areas in different ways, for instance:
(1) In iteratives the modified velar was generalized and even
extended in South Slavic, but eliminated or virtually eliminated
elsewhere.
(2) In a-stem nouns with a stem in *g, the modified velar was
generalized everywhere except in the Russian/Belorussian area.
(3) In all types of nouns, the modified velar was generalized if it
was a *k.
A precise answer is not always possible because not all types of
cases happen to be represented in the material, which, as I said in
an earlier posting, has serious limitations.
Then Grzegor wrote:
> The answers are very simple: the 3rd, or progressive,
palatalization, was a
> tendency rather than rule.
I'm not against tendencies on principle, although I can't help
worrying a bit about their theoretical status, but let us recall that
this discussion is not about the Progressve Palatalization per se,
but about the question whether or not it is an _obvious_ example of
an irregular or partial change. I should be clear by now that it is
by no means an obvious example.
GrzJ:
> 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.
Once again you make a caricature of the situation. I would urge you
to read the literature more attentively and pay attention to what
scholars have been saying and why.
I'd written:
> > 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.
Then GrzJ wrote:
> 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.
It is normal methodology to regard cases that can easily be the
consequence of analogical levelling as uninformative.
>
> 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?
Because the *i in -ikU reflects earlier *ei, which does not trigger
palatalization. This is standard knowledge. The examples are in the
second edition of Meillet's "Le slave commun" (1934).
> According to your
> argumentation, analogy (as if) caused the 3rd palatalization to
occur
> despite of the presence of -U.
No, first it is not "my" argumentation, but mainstream argumentation
since 1910 or earlier.
But what is much more important, the formulation distorts the
traditional view of what constitutes morphological analogy. It is not
a matter of the Progressive Palatalization "occurring" in examples
like *otIkU, but of the stem form *otIc-, which was found in such
forms as Gsg *otIca, being subsequently (quite possibly several
generations after the Progressive Palatalization had taken place)
generalized to those cases in which the stem form *otIk- was
phonologically regular, it is a matter of replacement resulting in
simplification of the grammar.
Unfortunately I can't go on at the moment. I'll react to the
remainder of this posting at another time.
Willem