Re: [tied] trzymac'

On Pon, svibanj 29, 2006 12:07 am, Miguel Carrasquer reče:

> 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 (znajř, znajesz /
> umiejř, 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.

By Common Slavic, I presume (following Georg Holzer) the period between
7th and 11th century, when both pan-Slavic and non-pan-Slavic changes
occurred (one of the non-pan-Slavic being this contraction in
Czech/Slovak/South Slavic). The real proto-language from which all Slavic
languages stem is Proto-Slavic from around the year 600 (before 2nd
palatalization, monophthonigzation etc.).

Mate