Re: Slavic endings

>> 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^.

>
> > This is not ex-Fennic Slavic-learners creolically regularizing
> > a confusing (to them) paradigm?
>
> No, it is not *in a general sense* about regularizing paradigms.
> The reasoning starts from the specific expectations you have as
> a speaker of Finnic given the structure of your own case system
> faced with the specific structure of the Slavic case system at
> a specific stage just after the loss of word-final *s. And yes,
> I'm convinced that we are entitled to take such things into
> account, particularly if they help to account in a straightforward
> way for a problem that leaves everybody else baffled.

No argument there, I'be used that type of reasoning myself, as you
may recall.


I think you misunderstand me. I was talking about the apparent
lack of 2nd and 3rd palatalizations in Novgorod and wondered
if -k- for -c- instead might be from an unexperienced speaker
generalizing from the cases with -k- ?


Torsten