Re: [tied] trzymac'

On Uto, svibanj 30, 2006 12:39 am, Miguel Carrasquer reče:

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

That is hardly certain. The borrowings are not always subject to strict
rules. Also, Slavic had /l/ and /l^/ in that period, and it is a common
phenomenon that languages with a "hard" and "soft" l's borrow foreign
"hard" l as their "soft" l, thus in Turkish and Albanian for example.
There are also other examples when Romance /l/ > Slavic /l^/, as I seem to
remember from Holzer's articles.
Anyway, his theory is not at all relying on this word only. It is
established by numerous attestations of Slavic words in old documents
(German, Latin, Greek etc.), other loanwords into and from Slavic,
toponyms etc.

You cannot reject the whole theory, which is in my opinion quite
uncontroversial, just because of *korljI.

> 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.

Old Polish has uncontracted endings in *pytajes^I?
Verbs like *znajes^I are quite different (cf. Macedonian znaes^). I think
that this contraction was a longtime process with dialectal differences.
It is well known that the origin of the contraction was somwhere in Czech
area from whence it spread elsewhere.

Mate