Re: [tied] trzymac'

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:12:27 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapović
<mkapovic@...> wrote:

>On Sri, svibanj 31, 2006 9:12 pm, Miguel Carrasquer reče:
>> On Wed, 31 May 2006 11:32:42 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapović
>> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>>>Why do you suppose there was no *lj before the loss of the years?
>>
>> I don't. I said there was no palatalized phoneme /l^/
>> before the loss of the yers.
>
>And that you know how?

It's rather obvious. There were no minimal pairs involving
/l/ and /l^/. That only happened when /lI/ became /l^/.

>Does it need to be a phoneme?

You said: "Slavic had /l/ and /l^/ in that period".

>>>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.
>>
>> My point is that the place of the ictus takes precedence
>> over the intonation. In the feminines, the only option,
>> ictus-wise, was a.p. a, so that's what they became. If
>> Dybo's law was yet to come, there would have been no reason
>> to treat the feminines any different from the masculines.
>
>Again, you can't know that. It is impossible to tell what were the exact
>phonetics of the Romance names and how did the Slavc percept those names.
>We *can* guess, but I hesitate making strong claims based on such
>unreliable evidence.

Holzer doesn't. His claim that Dybo's law happened ca. 600
is based on that kind of evidence. I feel, based on the
same evidence, that he's mistaken on this particular point.

>>>Have you read Holzer's articles?
>>
>> Only the IWoBA paper.
>
>If you read his other articles, I think you would see that he did not
>invent his Proto-Slavic. It is really well based.

I never said it wasn't. I merely have doubts about the
absolute chronology and some of the relative chronologies,
paticularly the accentological ones.

>>>Because he's not just making it up. For
>>>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.
>>
>> I know. I just have the suspicion that there were also a
>> couple of changes in the millennia before AD 600.
>
>There were. But I think it's pretty clear that 2nd and 3rd palatalization,
>monophthongization, change of *u: > *y, *u and *i to *U and *I are rather
>recent.

I agree.

>By the way, why do you find it impossible to believe that Slavic around
>the year 600 could have been phonologically on the same approximate
>innovative stage as Lithuanian still is today?

A lot has happened with Lithuanian accentuation since PBS,
possibly more than in Slavic. Phonological systems can be
robust, and they are usually more robust than prosodic
systems.

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