Re: Order of Some Indo-Iranian Sound Changes

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Jarrette" <anjarrette@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@> wrote:
> >
> > On 2009-02-24 01:33, Andrew Jarrette wrote:
> >
> > > So the Russian character which they always say is pronounced

"shch" is

> > > actually not so pronounced, rather /S:/? Is it never and nowhere
> > > pronounced "shch", or do some dialects have /StS/ instead of general
> > > Russian /S:/? My Ukrainian girlfriend (who speaks primarily Russian)
> > > pronounces it /S:/, I think, although I've read that it also has

some

> > > palatalization in it, similar to /S:j/ or something like that, so at
> > > times I think I hear her saying /S:/ with a slight [j]-like sound.
> > > But that may be merely because that is what I expect to hear,

not that

> > > I actually hear it. So what is the real, actual pronunciation of the
> > > Russian "shch" character, throughout Russia (and Ukraine)?
> >
> > Russian. Ordinary Russian /S, Z/ are apico-postalveolar, or even
> > slightly retroflex, with a "dark" quality. By contrast, /tS/

(without a

> > voiced counterpart) is a "soft" medio-palatal [tS']; the tongue is
> domed
> > rather than curled back. The long fricatives /S:, Z:/ traditionally
> > pattern with the latter, i.e. they are pronounced as [S':, Z':].
> >
> > /S:/ can be spelt <{s^c^}> [one grapheme], <sc^, zc^, z^c^>. It does
> > have a variant realisation, [S'C'] (a cluster of two "soft"
> consonants),
> > but I don't think this pronunciation is common any longer.

Word-finally

> > and next to a consonant, /S:/ may be pronounced short ([S']).
> >
> > /Z:/ can be spelt <z^z^, zz^>. Alongside traditional [Z':], there

is a

> > second, increasingly common pronunciation, a long "dark" [Z:].

They may

> > occur in free variation with each other.
> >
> > <doz^d'> 'rain' is a case apart (the spelling is unusual, perhaps
> > borrowed from CS). It used to be pronounced [doS'(:)] ([doZ':-]

before

> > inflectional endings), but the most widespread realisation today is
> > [doSt', doZd'-] (presumably a spelling-pronunciation).
> >
> > As far as I know, Ukrainian has /S, Z, tS, dZ/. All of them are
> > allophonically palatalised when followed by /i/, and /S, Z/ are
> likewise
> > "soft" when doubled. I hope George Knysh will correct me if I got the
> > facts wrong.
> >
> > Piotr
> >
>
>
> Thanks for the precise information, I've always wanted to know whether
> what I read in books or what I hear among native speakers is actually
> correct (and what it actually was that I heard).
>
> Andrew
>

To tell the truth, I actually have a few more questions concerning the
Russian postalveolar/medio-palatal spirants and affricate.

1. If Russian <c^> comes from palatalized *k(W) and Russian <z^>
comes from palatalized *g(W) and *g(W)H, why do they differ in
articulation in that <c^> is soft medio-palatal as you described it,
while <z^> is apical postalveolar? They both arise from the
palatalization of (labio)velars which only differed in voicing in
Proto-Slav, did they not?

2. In many grammars of Slavic languages, <s^> is listed as the
palatalization of [x]. Is this the main origin of <s^> (<sz>, etc.)
in Slavic languages? I always noticed that in dictionaries at least,
<s^> seems to be noticeably less frequent than <z^> or <c^>, except in
words of foreign origin (thus especially less frequent in OCS). Is
this because it really is primarily the result of palatalization of
[x] of whatever origin? Or are there other major sources for the <s^>
sound? And is there any reason why it aligns with <z^> rather than
<c^> apart from the fact that it is a fricative rather than an
affricate (i.e. because of the IE or Proto-Slav consonants or
consonant-vowel combinations it derives from)?

3. Apart from *s after RUKI, what _is_ the origin of Slavic [x]? It
sometimes seems to correspond to IE initial *ks- or *kWs-, sometimes
to IE *sk- (at least before consonants), yet sometimes it seems IE
*sk- is preserved before consonants. What could be the conditioning
factors? I fully realize that these questions have been addressed by
many scholars, and that the question is not resolved. I just seek
your opinion or the opinions of the other members of the list, or
maybe you could cite the journalistic articles or books which deal
with this issue.

Andrew