From: Grzegorz Jagodzinski
Message: 50492
Date: 2007-11-12
----- Original Message -----
From: stlatos
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 3:32 AM
Subject: [tied] Slavic KYa(K)
>> A very complicated rule, limited to only few examples
> There are plenty of examples, especially if all those with no depal.
> before ax, ak, etc., are considered a part of it.
Let's count then (see my page
http://www.aries.com.pl/grzegorzj/lingwpl/slowindoeuro2.html#kentum for more
details if needed).
I. Examples which can be explained by both Meillet's rule and by your rule.
1. *goNsI "goose" (note that Ukrainian dzus' may also belong here);
2. *gve^zda "star" (assuming PIE *g^hwaigW-st-);
3. *kosa "scythe" (if really PIE *k^asa: - there are forms with *k^es- here
as well, see Pokorny; the apophony e : o is more probable than e : a);
4. *skokU "jump, leap" (the vowel is mysterious here as Lith. skuoc^ "jump!"
points at *sko:k- while s^okti "to jump" at *ska:k-; also other cognates
point at long vowels; the original Slavic form may be *skakati "to jump"
then).
II Examples explained by Meillet's rule but not by yours.
1. *c^ermUxa "bird cherry / wild garlic", note *serm- as well;
2. *laskUrdI "a wish";
3. *stegati "to perforate" / stegU "stitch" / ostez^a "overcoat";
4. *svekUrU / svekrU "father-in-law" / svekry "mother-in-law".
III Examples explained by your rule but not by Meillet's
1. *blagU "miserable, poor, minute, hardly perceptible" - if we assume
*bhlaHg^- and that depalatalization took place also after -a(H)-; note
*blaznU as well;
2. *brUkati "to throw / cast"; note *brUsati as well;
3. *kamy "stone" (if from IE *Hak^mo:n with metathesis: *k^aHmo:n);
4.
> *kYaNmYo+ 'small straight horn(ed) > hornless' >>
> *kYaNmYLo+ > *kYamYLo+ > *kamYaLo+ > *komolU
Hmmm... I do not recognize this word. Do you have *konjI / *komonjI "horse"
in mind? I would accept this etymology (with pleasure), seeing possible
connections between Slavic *konjI and Semitic words for camel.
5.
> *kYatu+, *kYatro+? 'battle, enemy?' >
> *kate/oro+ 'fight'
On the meaning, cf. Slavic *kotiti "to throw away" (also *kotiti seN "to
bring forth (lambs, kittens etc.)", cf. *metU "the young, litter" and "cast,
throw"), *katU "executioner", and Skr. s'a:tayati "is casting down; is
chopping into pieces";
6. *kropU "boiling water" (if related to Greek kerannymi "I am stirring",
and if the rule worked "through" -r-);
IV Examples not explained by either rule
1. *bergU "shore";
2. *dIrz^e^ti "to hold", note *dIrzUkU "brave, bold, courageous";
3. *z^IltU "yellow" (*z^ < *g, not *z), note *zelenU "green" and *zolto
"gold";
4. *z^ely "tortoise";
5. *gybati "to bend. to curve", note *zybati "to bend" (about the ground);
6. *gniti "to decay, to rod", note *zne^ti "to smoulder";
7. *gordU "city / castle / fenced place", note *zordU "a fenced place for
hay";
8. *c^erda / *kUrdo "herd, flock";
9. *kUrmU / *kUrma "food, nourishment";
10. *kleNc^e^ti "to kneel", note also *sleNc^e^ti "to bother; to sit bent"
(here also *kloniti / *sloniti);
11. *kleNti "to swear";
12. *kle^tI "cage, closed room";
13. *ce^va "pipe";
14. *koNtU "angle, corner" / *koNtja "hut";
15. *kopyto "hoof" (no evidence for *a here);
16. *korva "cow", note *sUrna "roe-deer";
17. *kuna 1. "bitch", 2. "marten", note *suka "bitch";
18. *kve^tU "flower", note *sve^tU "light, world" (semantic connections
between world, light and flower also in other langages);
19. *pIlgati "to crawl", note *pIlzati;
20. *puga "something swollen", note also *pyza "a kind of ball of boiled
paste", *puzo "abdomen"
V. Examples that contradicts Meillet's rule
1. *sluxati "listen" (note Lith. klausyti).
See also I 1, III 1, III 2.
VI. Examples that contradicts your rule
See I 1, II 1.
> There are more possible examples, but less certain.
From the total number of 34 given examples (the list may be far from
completeness) of kentum development in Slavic, 20 (59%) have NO EXPLANATION.
Even if your rule explains 10 examples while Millet's rule 8, I would not
say that "this depal. is completely regular in Slavic". Your rule explains
only 29% examples. "Completely" is far from being correct here.
The deduction is that I agree that your rule may have worked in real. You
have my vote then in this point - but only in this point.
Note however that:
- 4 examples can be explained by Meillet's rule while not by yours, so you
should not reject Meillet's rule,
- from the total number of 6 examples explained exclusively by your rule,
contradicting alternative forms exist in two (1 and 2) examples,
- since 59% examples lack any explanation, we cannot say that the discussed
process is regular,
- since a number of alternations (k/c^ ~ s, g/z^ ~ z) we cannot say that any
rule will ever explain the process completely.
Naturally, we may discuss on such or another example (e.g. IV 15 *kopyto MAY
be from PIE *k^apH-) but I do not think it would change the statistics
considerably (for example, we may consider I 4 *skokU as not "yours"). In
addition, various authors quote more examples which may also be "kentumized"
(*braga "kind of beer", *c^esati "to comb" / *kosa "kind of head-dress,
tress", *gladUkU "smooth", *goloMbI "dove, pidgeon" etc.), and some of them
may be relieble even if personally I do not give them enough credence. Only
one or two from this additional list may be explained by your rule, and the
same, only one or two may be explained by Meillet's rule.
Once again, the deduction:
The process of kentum development of some satem words in Slavic is not
explained, even if a number of examples may be explained by either your rule
or Meillet's rule, or both. However, most examples still lack any
explanation. Because of this, and because of numerous variants, nobody can
say that this process was completely regular.
Grzegorz J.
___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail Tired of Vi@...@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html