From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 41276
Date: 2005-10-11
>(2C) The immediate phonological context of the velar plays a role.If the triggers _before_ the velar are *i, *i: and *iN, it
>This idea was first aired by S^axmatov in Izve^stija ORJS 1 (1896),
>p. 703, but was more or less ignored while everybody was enthusing
>about Baudouin de Courtenay's stress rule, without, however, anybody
>taking the trouble to verify it on the basis of the available factual
>material.
>
>
>It is 2C that provides the class of solutions I have been
>calling "traditional".
>
>
>Carlton's version operates with the assumption that Prog was blocked
>by the reflexes of following *u: and *u. Consensus about this point
>has been virtually complete since it was first aired by Josef Zubatý
>in 1910 and Tadeusz Lehr-Spl/awin/ski in 1911.
>
>
>Carlton appears however to be oblivious of the fact that scholars
>have in addition paid attention to the vowel triggering
>palatalization. Baudouin de Courtenay may have seen already (his text
>is somewhat ambiguous) that it is not just any *i, *I and nasal *e
>that triggers palatalization but a subset. This idea was pursued with
>particular persistence by Antoine Meillet in a series of
>publications. Its most consistent variety holds that palatalization
>is triggered only by *i, *I and nasal *e reflecting earlier high
>front vowels, hence not by *i reflecting earlier *ei or umlauted *u:,
>by *u reflecting umlauted *u, and by nasal *e reflecting a sequence
>*eN. The implication is, of course, that Prog preceded the mergers
>involved. Despite slight variations, Meillet's view of the matter has
>become part of a broad consensus.
>
>
>Scholars have disagreed notably about the effect of *ei and about
>whether or not nasal *o blocked palatalization.
>Since in linguistics it is considered acceptable to ignore orNot having read the literature you mention, what exactly is
>ridicule criticism, the Martinet chronology is probably here to stay
>for a long time, whatever its merits.