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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:

>
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:07:50 +0000, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >As far as I know, the "natural" development of palatalisation is
> >k > c^ > c > s^ > s.
>
> c > s^ is not natural at all (can't think of any real life
> examples). c^ > s^ is natural, as is c > s, or c > þ.
>
> The natural developments can be summarized as follows:
>
>
> k -- t^ -- c -- þ -- t
> \ \ \- s
> \ \------ s
> \
> - c^ - s^ - s
>

True, I was being sloppy. You need a k^ after k, though. And I'm not
sure I agree with your t^> c^ (from Dutch?). Swedish has gone k > k^

> t^ (ke, kje, tje pronounced the same) > ç (German ich) > s^.

Torsten