Re: [tied] trzymac'
- On Sri, svibanj 31, 2006 9:12 pm, Miguel Carrasquer reče:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 11:32:42 +0200 (CEST), Mate KapovićAnd that you know how? Does it need to be a phoneme?
> <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.
>>Hardly. Romance length could have just been percepted as rising and thusAgain, you can't know that. It is impossible to tell what were the exact
>>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.
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?If you read his other articles, I think you would see that he did not
> Only the IWoBA paper.
invent his Proto-Slavic. It is really well based.
>>Because he's not just making it up. ForThere were. But I think it's pretty clear that 2nd and 3rd palatalization,
>>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.
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?
- On Čet, lipanj 1, 2006 8:34 pm, Miguel Carrasquer reče:
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:12:27 +0200 (CEST), Mate KapovićHm why? I'm not so sure... Anyway, they need not be phonemes in order for
> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
> It's rather obvious. There were no minimal pairs involving
> /l/ and /l^/. That only happened when /lI/ became /l^/.
foreign /l/ to be interpreted as domestic /l^/.
>>Again, you can't know that. It is impossible to tell what were the exactOK. Again, check how did we get to the Holzer topic. It was just my
>>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
> 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.
innocent remark about what he calls Proto- and Common Slavic :)