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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:16 PM
Subject: 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.

/c^/ > /c/ also occurs in many C^akavian dialects (which are then
appropriately called Cakavian :-)).

Mate