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

From: tgpedersen
Message: 41652
Date: 2005-10-29

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

True, but does it disprove the idea?
AfaIk, PIE *i > Proto-Slav. *I which palatalises, so that would fit in
with my idea, which goes something like:
1) P.-Slav *k > c before front vowels (including *E)
2) P.-Slav. I palatalises the preceding consonant (standard theory)
3) /c/ becomes /c^/ if palatalised.


What does PIE *e become in Proto-Slavic?


Torsten