Re: [tied] Re: kentum/satem: why Lithuanian kg before e/i

A question about satemic labio-velars in Baltic:

Why labio-velars before palatal vowels in Baltic didnt develop into palatals, like other satem languages (cf. Slavic k/c^, Indo-Iranian k/c^, but Baltic k)?

Why gW in Armenian didnt develop into the same expected alternation, k/c^, but only k, for *gW (cf. kh/c^h for *kW, g/j^ for *gHW)

Joao SL

Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> escreveu:

On 2006-08-07 23:56, tgpedersen wrote:

> And we know that if we find root-final -s where it's expected,
> it's because the 'suffix' is -o-/-e-, and if we find -s^ where
> we would expect -s it's because the suffix was -yo-/-ye-, and
> in no case is either the result of regularizing a paradigm
> with alternating -s^ and -s ?

_If_ forms with and without *-j- appear in the same paradigm (as in the
*pros^oN : *prositI type), *s^ and *s alternate as expected, without any
sort of levelling. There is no independent evidence of the *K^ series
being treated differently before front vowels in Proto-Slavic. *k^ > *s
in all environments except before *j, where it gets palatalised in the
same way as inherited *s, yielding *s^.

Piotr

Você quer respostas para suas perguntas? Ou você sabe muito e quer compartilhar seu conhecimento? Experimente o Yahoo! Respostas!