--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
> If the triggers _before_ the velar are *i, *i: and *iN, it
> would be reasonable, or at least symmetric, to suppose that
> the blockers after the velar would be *u, *u: and *uN (in
> other words, /oN/ from *un, but not /oN/ from *an).
Yes. Of course this comes pretty close to the problem of Slavic
Auslautgesetze, so please ...
I'd written:
> [...]
> >Since in linguistics it is considered acceptable to ignore or
> >ridicule criticism, the Martinet chronology is probably here to
stay
> >for a long time, whatever its merits.
Then Miguel wrote
> Not having read the literature you mention, what exactly is
> wrong with it?
Well, it is a long story and the chronological problem is extremely
complex. Moreover not all of the evidence that has been adduced
against Martinet's chronology is equally acceptable.
One point (discussed by Steensland) is that it is based on very
superficial reasoning, which has remained the same from Martinet to
Schwartz.
Another point (discussed most clearly by Meillet in 1900 and Lorentz
in 1904) is that all chronologies that put the Progressive
Palatalization before the monophthongization of diphthongs fail to
yield the correct endings in pronominal stems subject to Prog. So
far, nobody has ever proposed a solution for this except for
Trubetzkoy, who assumed that *oi blocked Prog, which is very awkward
if one assumes simultaneously that *o did not block Prog, as nearly
all investigators do. If Prog is put after the monophthongization the
difficulty is avoided, but in that case Prog cannot have preceded the
First Regressive Palatalization.
A third point (adduced by Schenker) is that toponyms in Austria
appear to show that the Progressive Palatalization had not yet taken
effect at the stage involved.
(This isn't all, but it is pretty serious as it is.)
> The problem with a late date for the progressive
> palatalization is that the later it comes, the more
> difficult it becomes to explain analogical Ausgleich in the
> masculine o-stems. At the very end of Common Slavic, we
> have /U/, /y/ and /u/ in the N, A, D sg. (in some dialects
> Isg. as well), and in the A, G, I pl., and we have either
> 1st. or 2nd. palatalization in the V, L sg., and in the N, L
> pl., leaving only the genitive singular and the dative
> plural as possible sources of the generalized /c/ (/dz/,
> /s'/). Clearly, there's an advantage in putting the
> progressive law as early as possible.
I think it is important to realize that at the stage the
monophthongization took place we are still pretty far removed from
the type of language that is attested in OCS. This leaves quite a bit
of leeway. In my view it is not at all fanciful to assume that the
Nsg was still *-o (given the fact that it has survived almost
everywhere) and had not yet been ousted by the Asg. The innovations
that produced the attested Isg endings may have been later as well,
given the fact that they are different in different dialects and
given the survival of the original ending in remnants. Moreover,
there is no telling whether the Dsg in -u did or did not block Prog
and actually there is no evidence that it did. It follows that the
only case forms to have had a retained velar may well have been the
Asg in the singular, and in the plural the Gpl, Apl and Ipl.
It is probably impossible to reach anything approaching consensus
here because reconstructions of the early history of the o-stem
paradigm differ so strongly. I would be inclined to reverse
priorities and to regard with scepticism any reconstruction that does
not yield a basis for the levellings the Progressive Palatalization
requires.
Willem