Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tied] trzymac'

Expand Messages
  • Mate Kapović
    ... And that you know how? Does it need to be a phoneme? ... Again, you can t know that. It is impossible to tell what were the exact phonetics of the Romance
    Message 1 of 76 , Jun 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      unreliable evidence.

      >>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
      recent.
      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?

      Mate
    • Mate Kapović
      ... Hm why? I m not so sure... Anyway, they need not be phonemes in order for foreign /l/ to be interpreted as domestic /l^/. ... OK. Again, check how did we
      Message 76 of 76 , Jun 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Čet, lipanj 1, 2006 8:34 pm, Miguel Carrasquer reče:
        > On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:12:27 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapović
        > <mkapovic@...> wrote:

        > It's rather obvious. There were no minimal pairs involving
        > /l/ and /l^/. That only happened when /lI/ became /l^/.

        Hm why? I'm not so sure... Anyway, they need not be phonemes in order for
        foreign /l/ to be interpreted as domestic /l^/.

        >>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
        >>unreliable evidence.
        >
        > Holzer doesn't. His claim that Dybo's law happened ca. 600
        > is based on that kind of evidence. I feel, based on the
        > same evidence, that he's mistaken on this particular point.

        OK. Again, check how did we get to the Holzer topic. It was just my
        innocent remark about what he calls Proto- and Common Slavic :)

        Mate
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.