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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Grzegorz Jagodzinski" <grzegorj2000@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Slavic palatalistions: why /c^/, /c/?


> tgpedersen wrote:
>>> Old French: Latin /k/ before /a, au, e, i/ (e.g., carrum >
>>> char, with k > t^ > c^ > s^).
>>
>> This is very interesting. Do you have documentation for this *t^ar- ?
>>
>>
>> Torsten
>
> Only two remarks to this interesting discussion. First, all would be OK if
> we assume [k] > [kJ] > [c] > [tS] > [S] in IPA transcription, with the
> palatal stop [c] instead of the obscure t^, at least for Old French.

This looks odd. I would rather have [k] > ([k'] > [t'] > [c^] > [s^]. The
change [t'] > [c´] > [c^] is attested in Slavic for the reflex of
Proto-Slavic *tj, with [t'] in Cakavian, [c´] in Stokavian and [c^] in most
Slavic languages (and of course [k´] in Macedonian which should be a
development of [t']).
Do you have an example of [c] > [c^], I can't seem to be able to remember
one (although I think there should be some examples).

Mate