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

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:34:10 +0000, tgpedersen
<tgpedersen@...> wrote:

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

>> 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?

Italian kj > c^ (bracchium > braccio), tj > c (gratia >
grazia).

Spanish kj > c (bracchium > braço), jt > c^ (lectu > lejto >
lecho).

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

I'm not saying it never happened (e.g. Polish mazurzenie).
It's comparatively rare.

>I thought [ce] > /c^e/ was common Latin (except Sardic)?

The common development was /k/ > /k^/ (Sardo and Dalmatian
/k/ can go back to that), elsewhere > /t^/, and then the
split between East /c^/ and West /c/.

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