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

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

>
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:09:16 +0000, tgpedersen
> <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Let me see if I got this right:
> >
> >After (*kWe- >) *ke > *c^e, the /c^/ stayed immobile, while

(*kWay-,

> >*kWoy-) > *ki: > ci.
>
> Not quite: *ai > *E: > *ie (= ê). The development to -i
> only happens word-finally, sometimes, and analogically under
> the influence of the soft declension.
>
> >In other words, while one dorsal turns palatal, the other palatal
> >(generated previously) stays the same, because the new palatal

has

> >found a route around it
>
> What route around it?
>
> A palatalised velar / palatal stop (k^, t^) can go directly
> to a palatalized alveolar/dental laminal affricate [c']
> (after which the palatalization can be lost, resulting in
> plain /c/). This in no way requires an intermediate stage
> [c^]. In fact, the two developments appear to be mutually
> exclusive: if the palatalized velar goes to /c^/ (French
> second palatalization; Slavic first palatalization), it
> doesn't go to/through [c], and if the palatalized velar goes
> to /c/ (French first palatalization; Slavic second
> palatalization), it doesn't go to/through [c^].
>
> Whether a language takes the [c] or the [c^] route is
> completely arbitrary. In Romance, the Western dialects went
> the [c] route, the Eastern ones the [c^] route (except there
> are indications that Mozarabic in the far West also went
> [c^]). And then some centuries later, the opposite route
> can be taken (e.g. French, Slavic).
>
> Sometimes /k/ palatalizes to /c^/, and /t/ palatalizes to
> /c/, sometimes it's the other way around,

Erh, what? Do you have examples of both?

>and sometimes they
> both palatalize to the same thing, whether /c/ or /c^/.
>

I believe too there's no /c/ > /c^/. But your manifesto doesn't say
where the evidence is that /c^/ > /c/ never happened. I thought [ce]

> /c^e/ was common Latin (except Sardic)?

Torsten