--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
<grzegorj2000@...> wrote:
[On the progressive palatalization of Slavic. I reacted to the
beginning of this posting last week.]
> 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.
I'm inclined to agree. If somebody would stand up and launch
Neogrammarian thinking on the basis solely of the Progressive
Palatalization of Slavic, he would not have a particularly convincing
case, but the discussion was about a different matter: is the
Progressive Palatalization of Slavic an obvious example of a set of
data Neogrammarian method is unable to handle?
[...]
I'd written:
> > 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.
Then Grz wrote:
> A reliable rule (or a restriction of a rule) based on _one_
example? It is
> really funny, just like you have stated above.
Yet it is ordinary Neogrammarian method. For some reason outsiders
and beginners are inclined to assume that Neogrammarian thinking
consists exclusively of the concept of sound law plus a number of
fudge factors. One doesn't have to read a lot of Meillet and Pedersen
to see that that is a caricature of what really goes on.
Numbers just aren't important here. What is important is the way the
relevant evidence is accounted for. In the case at hand, we have a
number of cases of modified velars followed by the reflex of *y plus
a single case of a retained velar in the same position. The modified
velars can all be easily explained as a trivial consequence of
analogical levelling whereas the single retained velar, which takes
part in an alternation hence _has_ to be explained, cannot be so
explained. So if you assume the retained velar was retained because
of the following *y, you account for all of the evidence. If on the
other hand you assume that velars followed by *y were palatalized,
you leave part of the evidence unaccounted for.
This isn't all, of course. For one thing, [u:] (the earlier stage of
*y) is just the kind of vowel to block a palatalization, so the
restriction is phonetically plausible. For another, the assumption
that the short counterpart of [u:] ([u], i.e. attested U] also
blocked palatalization accounts for some evidence too, so the
formulation can be generalized to the statement that high rounded
vowels blocked palatalization.
But even in the absence of contributing factors the retained velar of
*kUneNgyn/i would be taken extremely seriously. To the best of my
knowledge it has not been questioned since it was first brought into
the discussion by Zubatý, despite the sometimes acrimonious character
of the debate.
Then Grz wrote:
> 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).
The word "law" is an innocent piece of inherited terminology. Nothing
would change if a different word would have been chosen (which, in
hindsight, would have avoided a lot of misunderstandings).
As for the importance of numbers, linguists happen to have unhealthy
traditions. If linguists were astronomers they would never have
differentiated in their thinking between stars and planets because
there are zillions of the former and only a dozen or so of the
latter.
[...]
> 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-.
This is entirely speculative. There is nothing wrong with
**kUneNdzinji, which would have lived on and given rise to Russian
**knjazínja and Serbian **knèzinja etcetera. At the relevant stage of
the development of Slavic just about all suffixes and endings
occurred in variants differentiated by whether or not the preceding
consonant was palatal, for instance the o-stem instrumental plural
ending -y/-i or the suffix -yka/-ika found in vladyka vs. bliz^ika. I
suggest you write this up and publish it and see what happens.
[Much of the remainder of the posting repeats stuff we have seen
already and nothing would be gained if I reacted but for the
following point:
> 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.
Basically what you call morphological is exactly the same as what is
called analogy in traditional neogrammarian methodology. It is a
terminological difference of the same kind as "contrastive"
vs. "distinctive".
> [...] and thus your explanation is not very convincing.
I wish you wouldn't attribute mainstream thinking to me all the time.
The point is that something along the line of the traditional
formulation is accepted by investigators with completely different
theoretical backgrounds.
[...]
> --- 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 ---
>
A lot has been written about this word. Some adduce it as evidence
that the Progressive Palatalization did after all take place after
*ei. Others point out that the word is derivationally isolated within
Slavic and lacks suitable cognates outside because the proposed
connections outside Slavic (OPr _laygnan_ and Old Irish _lecco_, both
derivations in n) are problematic themselves. In any case a word of
such an uncertain background is hardly a proper place to initiate a
major theoretical shift.
Willem