Re: [tied] trzymac'

On Mon, 29 May 2006 13:44:39 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapović
<mkapovic@...> wrote:

>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.).

By Common Slavic I mean the final, pre-breakup stage of
Proto-Slavic. I know the line is hard to draw in a
situation of contiguous dialectal spread as in the case of
Slavic, but the contraction of the -aje- presents is
obviously post-Common Slavic, for the reasons given above.

I don't think I can accept Holzer's chronology, in any case
not where it relates to absolute dates. I don't believe
that Slavic <kórljI> has anything to do with Charles Martel
or even with Charlemagne (Karl would have given *kórlU).

I have a chronological problem with the fact that old Polish
still had uncontracted forms in the XIV ~ XV centuries, at a
time when the accent was already fixed on the initial in
_all_ words. If so, that must mean that the accent
retraction and the contraction are unrelated phenomena, at
least in Lekhitic.


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