From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 44840
Date: 2006-05-31
>On Sri, svibanj 31, 2006 1:40 am, Miguel Carrasquer reče:I don't. I said there was no palatalized phoneme /l^/
>> On Tue, 30 May 2006 10:58:15 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapović
>> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>>
>>>On Uto, svibanj 30, 2006 12:39 am, Miguel Carrasquer reče:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>> Which period? That is the question. Slavic didn't have a
>> phonemic contrast between /l/ and /l^/ until the loss of the
>> yers. Whether and when there was a phonetic contrast is
>> anybody's guess. The word *karljI has /lj/.
>
>Why do you suppose there was no *lj before the loss of the years?
>>>, and it is a commonReminds me of Alb. pyll < padule < palu:dem.
>>>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.
>>
>> In his Zagreb article I find one example (Pola > Pűlj), and
>> several with l = l. A quick scan doesn't reveal any with -l
>>> -o, but that may be coincidental.
>
>There is also a toponym Poljud from something like palu:des, as I remember
>it from the top of my head.
>> I don't have Matasovic''s paper handy right now, but as IMy point is that the place of the ictus takes precedence
>> recall the gist of it was that Latin feminines were adopted
>> into a.p. a, while masculines/neuters were adopted into a.p.
>> b.
>
>I don't have it here either, but yes, it was something like that.
>
>> Since Latin feminines are never stressed on the -a, a.p. c
>> is out of the question, and so is a.p. b if Dybo's law had
>> already worked. The fact that Latin feminines became a.p. a
>> in Croatian, in spite of their not having anything like
>> acute accentuation in the source language, shows that Dybo's
>> law predates the influx of Latin words.
>
>Hardly. Romance length could have just been percepted as rising and thus
>interpreted as the old acute in Slavic. That's very common in language
>contact. For instance, in Croatian the German accent is perceived as
>rising, so almost all the German words get rising accents.
>> There are other reasons, one of them outlined above. InOnly the IWoBA paper.
>> general, I feel a bit uncomfortable with the implication
>> that almost nothing happened between Proto-Balto-Slavic (2nd
>> millennium BC?) and 600 AD, and almost everything happened
>> between 600 and, say, 1200 AD.
>
>Have you read Holzer's articles?
>Because he's not just making it up. ForI know. I just have the suspicion that there were also a
>instance, if you look at early Slavic loanwords in Greek, there are
>toponyms like Karouta /karu:ta/ ~ Slavic *koryto and Gardiki ~ Slavic
>*gordIcI. Get the picture? Slavic *did* indeed change a lot in that
>period, that is quite clear.