On Sri, svibanj 31, 2006 9:12 pm, Miguel Carrasquer reče:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 11:32:42 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapović
> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>>Why do you suppose there was no *lj before the loss of the years?
> I don't. I said there was no palatalized phoneme /l^/
> before the loss of the yers.
And that you know how? Does it need to be a phoneme?
>>Hardly. Romance length could have just been percepted as rising and thus
>>interpreted as the old acute in Slavic. That's very common in language
>>contact. For instance, in Croatian the German accent is perceived as
>>rising, so almost all the German words get rising accents.
> My point is that the place of the ictus takes precedence
> over the intonation. In the feminines, the only option,
> ictus-wise, was a.p. a, so that's what they became. If
> Dybo's law was yet to come, there would have been no reason
> to treat the feminines any different from the masculines.
Again, you can't know that. It is impossible to tell what were the exact
phonetics of the Romance names and how did the Slavc percept those names.
We *can* guess, but I hesitate making strong claims based on such
>>Have you read Holzer's articles?
> Only the IWoBA paper.
If you read his other articles, I think you would see that he did not
invent his Proto-Slavic. It is really well based.
>>Because he's not just making it up. For
>>instance, if you look at early Slavic loanwords in Greek, there are
>>toponyms like Karouta /karu:ta/ ~ Slavic *koryto and Gardiki ~ Slavic
>>*gordIcI. Get the picture? Slavic *did* indeed change a lot in that
>>period, that is quite clear.
> I know. I just have the suspicion that there were also a
> couple of changes in the millennia before AD 600.
There were. But I think it's pretty clear that 2nd and 3rd palatalization,
monophthongization, change of *u: > *y, *u and *i to *U and *I are rather
By the way, why do you find it impossible to believe that Slavic around
the year 600 could have been phonologically on the same approximate
innovative stage as Lithuanian still is today?