Re: Slavic KYa(K)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Grzegorz Jagodzinski"
<grzegorj2000@...> wrote:

> 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 rule is completely regular; it is not the only rule that
depalatalizes K() in Slavic. I didn't set out to describe every one
of them, though I have mentioned some before, just the one which
described the development of *gYhans.+.

You don't mention the most important of these rules for both Baltic
and Slavic (unlike mine):

KY > K / _ C+sonorant V+back

which creates great variation in some words, or among words derived
from the same root (and so is sometimes eliminated by analogy (which
can be seen by comparing Baltic and Slavic, since one may retain what
has been reanalyzed by the other)).

see:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/44685

I'd also say

KY > KW / _ w o

existed, but with much less (and less certain) evidence.

> 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-);

vs. Lith z^vaigz^de:, but also Polish gwizdac' 'whistle' vs. Lith
z^vigti 'squeal' with no possibility of either rule explaining both.
In this case there's most likely either metathesis or dis- or
assimilation of whatever the original two g() were. Without more
certain cognates it's hard to say which branch did what.

> 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);

Not the result of apophony; it's just that e>a is optional by K.

> 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".

Since PIE *s was so common, I'm not sure its presence is anything
more than a coincidence:

KY > K / _ C+sonorant V+back explains *swekYru:x > -kr- but
*swekYuros > -s^- with analogy dif. in Baltic and Slavic.

If a-depal. could cross sonorants and fricatives *laskUrdI would be
explained (though I have a dif. explanation, it doesn't matter at the
time).

As for ostez^a and *s/c^ermUxa, doesn't this look more like opt.
K>KY near s instead of KY>K? If the rule were opt., why only opt. by
fric. instead of opt. anywhere? That would "explain" everything just
as well.

> 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);

This is one of those I mentioned that would seem to be less certain.
The timing makes it most likely that KY > K / _ C+sonorant V+back
occurred before the metathesis. Since -ax- wouldn't cause depal., a
met. like *xakYmo:n > *kaxYmo:n or something similarly odd would be
needed; the other rule works better.

> 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?

No. In Pokorny "k^em-2 ... russ. komolyj `hornlos'

I'd say *komnjI seems like a possible but unlikely candidate for my
rule.

> 15. *kopyto "hoof" (no evidence for *a here);

Well, no certain evidence, but it seems most likely. That is, if
the others are correct, there's no reason not to include this.

> 16. *korva "cow", note *sUrna "roe-deer";

There's no reason these two need to be connected. *korwa:x shows k-
everywhere.

> V. Examples that contradicts Meillet's rule
>
> 1. *sluxati "listen" (note Lith. klausyti).
> See also I 1, III 1, III 2.

Probably just analogy in Slavic.