Re: [tied] i-verbs in Baltic and Slavic

On Sri, svibanj 24, 2006 12:36 pm, Piotr Gasiorowski reče:

> On 2006-05-24 11:16, Mate Kapović wrote:
>
>> This looks impossible, considering the fact that Balto-Slavic (and
>> Albanian)also show a depalatalization process (cf. Lith. akmuo~), which
>> proves that *k' has remained *k' for some time after the break-up of
>> PIE.
>> *s´, *s^, *c^ etc. cannot depalatalize to *k.
>
> It would have been enough for the original PIE phoneme to have undergone
> fronting and affrication in Proto-Satem, without yet shifting to fully
> coronal consonants, so it wasn't past the point of no return at the time
> when the group split up into the uncontroversial subgroupings. The rest,
> including depalatalisation in some preconsonantal positions (where
> palatalisations often fail to be carried through), would have happened
> in the individual branches.

How can *k' become a fricative or an affricate and then be converted back
to a *k by depalatalization? It must have still been *k', *kY or some sort
of palatalized, fronted /k/ after the break up. It couldn't have been *s,
*s^, *ts, *T etc.
Proto-Satem is a myth, especially when we consider Albanian, Armenian and
Luwian. If one had a formula *k' =/= *k = *kW everywhere, one could say
that it was a common innovation, but since this does not apply everywhere,
it is obvious that centum and satem developments were later trivial
independent innovations.

> I hope you wouldn't argue that Baltic and
> Slavic can't be closely related because the one has kl- and the other
> sl- in the root *k^leu-. It's a bit like Russ. cv'et vs. Pol. kwiat <
> *kve^tU.

Certainly not. kl- is from *k'low- and s(^)l- is from *k'lew-.

Mate