[tied] Re: Slavic palatalistions: why /c^/, /c/?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...>
wrote:

>
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>

wrote:

>
> >>As far as I know, the "natural" development of palatalisation is
> >>k > c^ > c > s^ > s. So /c/ should be more front than /c^/, but

in

> >>this case /c^/ and /c/ go together with (/e/, /i/) and

(/oy/, /ay/)

> >>respectively, of which the former is more front than the latter.
> >>That puzzles me, how did the results of last

palatalisation "pass"

> >>the the results of the first, on their "way to the front"?
> >
> >
> > As far as I'm aware, the paths are:
> >
> > k > c^ > c > s
> > k > c^ > s^ > s
> > and k > c > s
> >
> > Old French has the 'first palatalisation' k > c (no comment on
> > intermediate stages), i.e. the Common Romance palatalisation,

and a

> > 'second palatalisation' k > c^ before original Latin *a. These

thave

> > simplified c > s and c^ > s^, as in _cent chevaux_ from _centum
> > caballos_ 'a hundred horses'.
> >
> > As to the overtaking, the 'first palatalisation' was k > c^ in

Picard

Do you have a reference?

> > and the second was k > c, so there's nothing unique about

Slavic.

> > I think k > c directly is indeed possible.

Am I correct in assuming that your claim of non-collision of the
paths of those two Slavic palatalisation rests that last sentence of
yours (and your 'third path', different from the first only in
leaving out the /c^/ stage)? Train B skips over train A at /c^/
junction?

> The transition from a dorso-palatal stop [k'] to a predorso-

postalveolar

> one [t'] (= <ty>) is continuous; both, and especially the latter,
> involve a large area of contact between the tongue body and the

roof of

> the mouth, and so strongly tend to be affricated, becoming [c'],

which

> may then change into a laminal or apical [c].
>

And it avoids bumping into /c^/?

> > As an indication of the independence of paths, you might like to

also

> > consider the Romance softening /k/ > /c^/ in Romanian with the
> > Daco-Romance softening /t/ > /c/ (i.e. '<tz>').

But the starting point was /k/ for both Slavic palatalisations (or
so the theory says).

> Note also the Albanian palatalisations:
>
> *k^ > *c > th [T] (not conditioned by vowel quality);
> *kW and *k^w > *c^(W) > s (before front vowels, the second change
> probably via post-PAlb. [c], thus avoiding collision with *s > sh

[s^]);

> *k > q [k'] (recent palatalisation before front vowels and in the
> cluster *kl).
>

Duly noted. They start from different points. Why don't those two
Slavic palatalisations crash?


I had this thought: Suppose PIE /e/ and /i/ went palatal, /ye/
and /yi/ in Slavic? That would explain the 'palatal element' of /c^/
vs. no such thing in /c/.

Comments?


Torsten