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

On Sri, svibanj 24, 2006 3:40 pm, Piotr Gasiorowski reče:

> I certainly didn't propose that a _fricative_ should have been
> convertible back into *k. I meant a kind of predorso-palatal stop that
> may still count as dorsal in terms of distinctive features ("ky", if you
> like). Such sounds are often non-distinctively affricated because of the
> extensive area of contact between the articulators, making it difficult
> to release the stop abruptly.

You're basically saying that it was still *k'... I don't see the point in
talking about "non-distinctive affrication" etc.

> I find it hard to believe that all the satem developments are
> independent (except for the Luwian palatalisations), given the fact that
> the dialects affected by them were more or less contiguous. At the very
> least we have a wave of innovations spreading across neighbouring
> languages. Add to that the RUKI treatment of *s, which unites the "core
> Satem" groups (BSl. and IIr.)

Still, since *k' must have been preserved as some /k/ sound in early
Balto-Slavic and Albanian, the common innovation is very questionable. At
least in my opinion. I don't find your argument about "non-distinctive
affr." convincing.

>> Certainly not. kl- is from *k'low- and s(^)l- is from *k'lew-.
>
> Nevertheless, in Slavic we only have the satemised forms (also in
> reflexes of *k^lou-, *k^luHs-, etc.), while some of the Baltic reflexes
> have reverted to /k/ (for whatever reason). This means that the
> palatalisation was still reversible in Proto-BSl times.

Kortlandt's theory, which I accept, is basically that the palatovelars are
depalatalized in front of a sonant + a back vowel. For this cf. Lith.
akmuo~, but a~s^menys. In many roots, one variant was generalized (like in
*k'lew-/k'low-).

Mate

P.S. *k'luHs-? If you mean Slavic *slys^ati, wouldn't that be a Slavic
iterative with secondary lengthening?