Re: [tied] trzymac'

On Čet, lipanj 1, 2006 8:34 pm, Miguel Carrasquer reče:

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

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

Hm why? I'm not so sure... Anyway, they need not be phonemes in order for
foreign /l/ to be interpreted as domestic /l^/.

>>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.

OK. Again, check how did we get to the Holzer topic. It was just my
innocent remark about what he calls Proto- and Common Slavic :)

Mate