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

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:44:30 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
>
>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/).

There were more vowels in Slavic (to wit: a/o, a:/o:, u, u:,
au, aN), where the result is simply /k/.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...