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

----- Original Message -----
From: "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Slavic palatalistions: why /c^/, /c/?



> 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']).

<That's *t' > /k´/ in Macedonian? That's looks backward. Are you sure
<it's not induced by some type of paradigm regularisation?

Yup. No paradigms here. Since it's originally *tj, C^akavian /t'/ must be
the oldest one and we should derive Macedonian /k'/ from older *t'.

Mate








Yahoo! Groups Links