[tied] Re: Slavic palatalistions: why /c^/, /c/?
From: tgpedersen
Message: 41610
Date: 2005-10-26
BTW I had this thought:
Suppose /c^/ ("/c´/") was once the palatalised partner of /c/ (they
are both unmatched now, afaIk). Then original /i/, /e/ would have
palatalised (result /c´/ > /c^/) and *ay > /E/ wouldn't (result /c/).
And on top of that, the two palatalisations might have taken place
simultaneously.
Torsten