THE PROGRESSIVE PALATALIZATION OF SLAVIC

Contemporary mainstream linguistics has a strong theoreticai bias. This has offcen led to a negligent attitude toward the data, especially among linguists of a generative persuasionA Adequate knowledge of the material, though a prerequisite for any useful scholarly activity, is no guarantee of a valid analysis, however. In the following I intend to show how one or two false theoreticai assumptions can. lead astray a scholar who is known for his in-sistence on the perusal of an accurate and comprehensive body of data. 1. As far äs I can see, the final statement on the conditions and chronology of the Slavic progressive palatalization has been reached by A. Vaillant (1950: 53-55). Though the problem has rem ained populär among historical linguists and has even been th e subject of a nuinber of monographs2, later efforts have neither disproved Vaillant's view nor yielded a better alternative. Vaillant's position can be summarized äs follows: *i-, *g, *x became fronted after *j, *-, *,M unless they were followed by a consonant or by one of the high rounded back vowels *«, *-3. This assimilation did not take place after the diphthongs *»$ and *e { because these did not end in * « any longer. There is no reason to separate the progressive palatalization chronologically from the second regressive palatalization, which yielded the same reflexes in all Slavic languages. The locative forms otwi, otbtixb 'father(s) ' adopted the endings of the soft inflexion; the original endings were preserved in hze °permitted°, sicext> 'such', cf. rbcete csay ' (pl)'. 2. This view has a number of consequences for the relative chronology of sound laws