Re: [tied] trzymac'

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

> >I forgot to add that East Slavic, which escaped the contraction,

indeed

> >doesn't allow us to distinguish between (b) and (c) types of *a/aje
> >verbs (Russ. <pytájes^'>, Ukr. <pytájes^>, Russ. <kopájes^'>, Ukr.
> ><kopájes^> vs. Russ. <délajes^'>, Ukr. <pádajes^> 'fall').
>
> I was just about to point that out.
>
> This means that the retraction (and the contraction) cannot
> be Common Slavic, and cannot be due to Stang's law proper.

Only if one sticks to the view that the situation when the pre-Dybo
contraction wasn't pan-Slavic while later Dybo and Stang-Ivs^ic' were
is impossible. Is it, really?

Sergei