Re: [tied] trzymac'

On Sun, 28 May 2006 17:20:12 +0000, Sergejus Tarasovas
<S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

>--- 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?

Yes, I think so. There is no contraction in (most of) OCS,
and there is no contraction in Old Polish (znajø, znajesz /
umiejø, umiejesz, etc. still up to XV century). If it isn't
in East Slavic, and it wasn't in the earliest attested South
Slavic and West Slavic, then it cannot be Common Slavic, not
even dialectal Common Slavic.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...