--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> As for the "vocative theory", the absence of the first
> palatalisation of final velars before the nom.sg. -e is another
> important counterargument.
Yep. It goes without saying that the normal thing is to assume that the
ending -e was just added to the stem shape that appeared in the regular
Nsg. Novgorod/Pskov Slavic differed from the bulk of Slavic in having
frequent sequences of velars followed by front vowels because it
(Novgorod/Pskov Slavic) had not carried through the Second Regressive
Palatalization, so you had Lsg zamUke^ 'lock' where normal Slavic had
zamUce^. Even as late as OCS the only word forms where you find
sequences of velars and front vowels is biblical loans, so if this
would have happened in regular Slavic, speakers might well have been
tempted to replace the velars by the outcome of the one or the other
palatalization. Speakers of Novgorod/Pskov Slavic didn't have that
problem.