Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics: Volume 3 Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics 9783110542431, 9783110540369

Table of contents :
Contents
XIII. Slavic
80. The documentation of Slavic
81. The phonology of Slavic
82. The morphology of Slavic
83. The syntax of Slavic
84. The lexicon of Slavic
85. The dialectology of Slavic
86. The evolution of Slavic
XIV. Baltic
87. The documentation of Baltic
88. The phonology of Baltic
89. The morphology of Baltic
90. The syntax of Baltic
91. The lexicon of Baltic
92. The dialectology of Baltic
93. The evolution of Baltic
XV. Albanian
94. The documentation of Albanian
95. The phonology of Albanian
96. The morphology of Albanian
97. The syntax of Albanian
98. The lexicon of Albanian
99. The dialectology of Albanian
100. The evolution of Albanian
XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation
101. Phrygian
102. Venetic
103. Messapic
104. Thracian
105. Siculian
106. Lusitanian
107. Macedonian
108. Illyrian
109. Pelasgian
XVII. Indo-Iranian
110. The phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian
111. The morphology of Indo-Iranian
112. The syntax of Indo-Iranian
113. The lexicon of Indo-Iranian
XVIII. Balto-Slavic
114. Balto-Slavic
115. The phonology of Balto-Slavic
116. Balto-Slavic morphology
117. The syntax of Balto-Slavic
118. The lexicon of Balto-Slavic
XIX. Wider configurations and contacts
119. The shared features of Italic and Celtic
120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period
XX. Proto-Indo-European
121. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European
122. The morphology of Proto-Indo-European
123. The syntax of Proto-Indo-European
124. The lexicon of Proto-Indo-European
XXI. Beyond Proto-Indo-European
125. More remote relationships of Proto-Indo-European
General index
Languages and dialect index

Citation preview

Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics HSK 41.3

Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science Manuels de linguistique et des sciences de communication Mitbegründet von Gerold Ungeheuer Mitherausgegeben (1985−2001) von Hugo Steger

Herausgegeben von / Edited by / Edités par Herbert Ernst Wiegand

Band 41.3

De Gruyter Mouton

Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics Edited by Jared Klein Brian Joseph Matthias Fritz In cooperation with Mark Wenthe

De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-3-11-054036-9 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-054243-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-054052-9 ISSN 1861-5090 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Klein, Jared S., editor. | Joseph, Brian D., editor. | Fritz, Matthias, editor. Title: Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics : an international handbook / edited by Jared Klein, Brian Joseph, Matthias Fritz ; in cooperation with Mark Wenthe. Description: Berlin ; Boston : De Gruyter Mouton, 2017- | Series: Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft = Handbooks of linguistics and communication science, ISSN 1861-5090 ; Band 41.1- | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017042351| ISBN 9783110186147 (volume 1 : hardcover) | ISBN 9783110261288 (volume 1 : pdf) | ISBN 9783110393248 (volume 1 : epub) | ISBN 9783110521610 (volume 2 : hardcover) | ISBN 9783110523874 (volume 2 : pdf) | ISBN 9783110521757 (volume 2 : epub) | ISBN 9783110540369 (volume 3 : hardcover) | ISBN 9783110542431 (volume 3 : pdf) | ISBN 9783110540529 (volume 3 : epub) Subjects: LCSH: Indo-European languages--Grammar, Comparative. | Indo-European languages-Grammar, Historical. | BISAC: LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General. Classification: LCC P575 .H36 2017 | DDC 410--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017042351 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: Meta Systems Publishing & Printservices GmbH, Wustermark Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck Cover design: Martin Zech, Bremen www.degruyter.com

Contents

Volume 3 XIII. Slavic 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Slavic phonology of Slavic . . morphology of Slavic . syntax of Slavic . . . . . lexicon of Slavic . . . . dialectology of Slavic . evolution of Slavic . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1397 1414 1538 1557 1571 1585 1600

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1622 1640 1651 1668 1681 1698 1712

documentation of Albanian phonology of Albanian . . . morphology of Albanian . . syntax of Albanian . . . . . lexicon of Albanian . . . . dialectology of Albanian . . evolution of Albanian . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1716 1732 1749 1771 1788 1800 1812

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

1816 1832 1839 1850 1854 1857

XIV. Baltic 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Baltic phonology of Baltic . . morphology of Baltic . . syntax of Baltic . . . . . lexicon of Baltic . . . . dialectology of Baltic . evolution of Baltic . . .

XV. Albanian 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100.

The The The The The The The

XVI. Languages of fragmentary attestation 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106.

Phrygian . Venetic . Messapic Thracian . Siculian . Lusitanian

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

vi

Contents 107. Macedonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108. Illyrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109. Pelasgian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1862 1867 1873

XVII. Indo-Iranian 110. 111. 112. 113.

The The The The

phonology of Proto-Indo-Iranian morphology of Indo-Iranian . . . syntax of Indo-Iranian . . . . . . lexicon of Indo-Iranian . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

1875 1888 1924 1942

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

1960 1974 1985 2000 2012

119. The shared features of Italic and Celtic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120. Graeco-Anatolian contacts in the Mycenaean period . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2030 2037

XVIII. Balto-Slavic 114. 115. 116. 117. 118.

Balto-Slavic . . . . . . . . . . . The phonology of Balto-Slavic Balto-Slavic morphology . . . The syntax of Balto-Slavic . . The lexicon of Balto-Slavic . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

XIX. Wider configurations and contacts

XX. Proto-Indo-European 121. 122. 123. 124.

The The The The

phonology of Proto-Indo-European . morphology of Proto-Indo-European syntax of Proto-Indo-European . . . lexicon of Proto-Indo-European . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

2056 2079 2195 2229

125. More remote relationships of Proto-Indo-European . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2280

General index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Languages and dialect index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2293 2387

XXI. Beyond Proto-Indo-European

Contents

vii

Volume 1 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

v

General and methodological issues Comparison and relationship of languages . . . . . . . Language contact and Indo-European linguistics . . . . Methods in reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The sources for Indo-European reconstruction . . . . . The writing systems of Indo-European . . . . . . . . . Indo-European dialectology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European . The homeland of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

1 7 15 20 26 62 75 85

. . . . . .

93 98 105 114 121 129

. . . .

138

. . . . . . . .

171 210

. . . .

220

. . . . . .

239 249 256 274 291 298

II. The application of the comparative method in selected language groups other than Indo-European 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

The The The The The The

comparative comparative comparative comparative comparative comparative

method method method method method method

in in in in in in

Semitic linguistics . . . Uralic linguistics . . . . Caucasian linguistics . . African linguistics . . . Austronesian linguistics Australian linguistics . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

III. Historical perspectives on Indo-European linguistics 15. Intuition, exploration, and assertion of the Indo-European language relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. Indo-European linguistics in the 19 th and 20 th centuries: beginnings, establishment, remodeling, refinement, and extension(s) . . . . . . . . 17. Encyclopedic works on Indo-European linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . 18. The impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20 th century and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. Anatolian 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

The The The The The The

documentation of Anatolian . . . . . . . . phonology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . morphology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence lexicon of Anatolian . . . . . . . . . . . . dialectology of Anatolian . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

viii

Contents

V. Indic 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Indic . . . . . . . . phonology of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . morphology of Indic (old Indo-Aryan) syntax of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . lexicon of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . . . dialectology of Indic . . . . . . . . . . evolution of Indic . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

309 325 344 377 409 417 447

VI. Iranian 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Iranian phonology of Iranian . . morphology of Iranian . syntax of Iranian . . . . lexicon of Iranian . . . . dialectology of Iranian . evolution of Iranian . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

471 481 503 549 566 599 608

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

625 638 654 682 695 710 717

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

733 743 751 804 828 835 858

VII. Greek 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Greek phonology of Greek . . morphology of Greek . syntax of Greek . . . . . lexicon of Greek . . . . dialectology of Greek . evolution of Greek . . .

Volume 2 VIII. Italic 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Italic phonology of Italic . . morphology of Italic . syntax of Italic . . . . lexicon of Italic . . . . dialectology of Italic . evolution of Italic . . .

. . . . . .

Contents

ix

IX. Germanic 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Germanic phonology of Germanic . . morphology of Germanic . syntax of Germanic . . . . . lexicon of Germanic . . . . dialectology of Germanic . evolution of Germanic . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

875 888 913 954 974 986 1002

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1028 1037 1080 1097 1115 1132 1146

X. Armenian 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Armenian . . . phonology of Classical Armenian morphology of Armenian . . . . syntax of Classical Armenian . . lexicon of Armenian . . . . . . . dialectology of Armenian . . . . evolution of Armenian . . . . . .

XI. Celtic 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.

The The The The The The The

documentation of Celtic phonology of Celtic . . morphology of Celtic . . syntax of Celtic . . . . . lexicon of Celtic . . . . dialectology of Celtic . evolution of Celtic . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1168 1188 1203 1218 1250 1264 1274

documentation of Tocharian phonology of Tocharian . . morphology of Tocharian . syntax of Tocharian . . . . . lexicon of Tocharian . . . . dialectology of Tocharian .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

1298 1304 1335 1352 1365 1389

XII. Tocharian 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

The The The The The The

XIII. Slavic 80. The documentation of Slavic 1. Proto-Slavic 2. South Slavic 3. East Slavic

4. West Slavic 5. References

1. Proto-Slavic The early history of the Slavs is shrouded in obscurity. They do not appear in the historical record until the sixth century CE, and the earliest Slavic inscriptions and manuscripts that still exist today are no older than the tenth century. Archaeological findings from earlier periods are difficult to connect conclusively to the Slavic peoples, but starting in the fifth century we find evidence of a fairly uniform material culture in the Polesie region of Ukraine, which later spread into the same areas into which the Slavs were migrating, according to the testimony of Latin and Greek sources (Barford 2001: 40− 43). The greatest concentration of Slavic hydronyms is found in the same general region, north of the Carpathian mountains (Udolph 1979). The evidence of a common period of Balto-Slavic linguistic development and of early linguistic contacts with Germanic and Iranian, given what we know of the locations of these other Indo-European groups, also point to the middle Dnieper river basin (roughly the area from northwestern Ukraine to southeastern Belarus) as the most likely homeland for the Slavs (see Birnbaum 1973; Schenker 1995: 6−8). The Slavs were probably affected by the invasion of the Huns into Europe and the first phase of the Great Migrations in the fourth and fifth centuries CE, but they began to spread into territories bordering the Eastern Roman Empire only in the sixth century. The first mention of the Slavs is by Jordanes in his history of the Goths (De origine actibusque Getarum, ca. 550), where he describes a group of three related tribes, the Venethi, Antes, and Sclaveni, inhabiting a large area extending from the source of the Vistula river in the north to the Danube in the south, and reaching to the Dnieper river in the east (Schenker 1995: 9 quotes the relevant passage). Writing at about the same time, the Byzantine historian Procopius reports in various works on Slavic raids across the Danube in the first half of the sixth century, and also provides a description of Slavic customs and beliefs (see Schenker 1995: 15−16; Barford 2001: 50 ff.). The Slavs in the region north of the lower Danube became closely connected with the Avars, a group of Turkic nomads who arrived in this area around 560, and together they began to make more significant incursions into the Balkans. Unlike the Avars, however, the Slavs also began to settle south and west of the Danube in greater and greater numbers. During the sixth century other groups of Slavs were expanding to the north and west into the areas of present-day Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Germany, as attested by archaeological remains and mentions in written sources, such as Fredegar’s https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-001

1398

XIII. Slavic

Chronicle, which provides information about battles between the Slavs and Franks and describes the creation of a Slavic state led by a Frankish merchant named Samo in the first half of the seventh century. The duration of this political organization and its exact location are unclear. Barford (2001: 79) places it in the region of Vienna and questions whether it can be properly called a “state”. Other scholars have it encompassing parts of Lusatia, Bohemia, Moravia, or Carantania (Schenker 1995: 22). Archaeological evidence also shows the expansion of cultures associated with the Slavs to the east in Ukraine during this same period, but there are no written sources that could provide information about the Slavs in this region. Although there must have been some variation in the language spoken by the ProtoSlavs, we cannot reconstruct any dialectal differentiation for the pre-migration period. The displacement of Proto-Slavic peoples from their original homeland probably involved the mixing of different groups and the leveling of any pre-existing dialectal differences (Shevelov 1965: 2). Furthermore, the rapid expansion of Slavic speakers into such a large geographic area probably could not have been accomplished by normal population growth alone and must have involved the linguistic assimilation of other groups with whom they came in contact (Nichols 1993). It has been suggested that Slavic may have served as a lingua franca in the ethnically mixed region under the hegemony of the Avars, which may help account for its apparently high degree of homogeneity during a time of rapid geographic expansion (Pritsak 1983: 420; Lunt 1985). The assumption of the development of a more or less uniform Slavic lingua franca during this period of expansion may also help explain the relatively long period of common linguistic developments after the dispersal of the Slavs throughout Eastern Europe. Scholars generally agree that dialectal differences were probably not significant enough to impede communication up to about the year 1000, so that we may still speak of some sort of Slavic linguistic unity before this time. The last stage of parallel developments (the loss of the weak jer vowels) was completed by ca. 1200. As a result, even though Slavic is not attested until the tenth century, the language of the earliest manuscripts is very close to what we may reconstruct for Proto-Slavic. Slavic is traditionally divided into West Slavic, South Slavic, and East Slavic groups. This division should not be understood to mean that the languages of each group necessarily descend from a common intermediate ancestor, however. The complex historical changes from proto-Slavic to the individual modern Slavic languages cannot be seen as a strictly linear, Stammbaum-type process, but the classification into three groups generally corresponds with the majority of shared linguistic developments (see Birnbaum 1966).

2. South Slavic 2.1. Old Church Slavic The earliest Slavic manuscripts are written in a language called Old Church Slavic (or Old Church Slavonic) in English, abbreviated as OCS. The development of this literary language is attributed to the brothers Constantine (who later took the name Cyril) and

80. The documentation of Slavic

1399

Methodius, who were chosen by the Byzantine emperor Michael III to undertake a mission to the Slavs living in Moravia around 862. Although they were from a Greek family, the brothers were presumably bilingual in Greek and the eastern South Slavic dialect spoken in the area of their native town of Thessaloniki. Constantine/Cyril reportedly developed an alphabet for writing the language, and he and Methodius began translating biblical and liturgical texts necessary for their missionary work. Additional translations and some original texts were produced by the brothers and their disciples in Moravia, and later by the remaining disciples and their own students in centers of learning established in the Bulgarian Empire, after the expulsion of the Slavic missionaries from Moravia (see Schenker 1995 for more information on the Cyrillo-Methodian mission and its aftermath). Although OCS is identifiably South Slavic in its main features, we must keep in mind that it was a medium of literary production, which had to be adapted to convey complex ideas in an elevated style, and which was used over a broad territory. It cannot be identified with any single spoken dialect of this period. The grammar and lexicon were never formally codified, so there is a substantial amount of variation in the texts. In different Slavic-speaking areas where Church Slavic continued to be used as a literary medium, it was gradually adapted over time towards the local vernaculars, and texts may also contain a mixture of Church Slavic and the spoken language. As a result, it may be difficult to classify texts unambiguously as OCS, a local recension of Church Slavic, or as “Old Russian,” “Old Serbian,” etc. We reserve the name OCS for the language of a relatively small group of texts that are thought to have some direct connection to the original Cyrillo-Methodian mission or the subsequent work of their disciples in Bulgaria-Macedonia, and which preserve certain archaic features. These texts were composed and copied from the second half of the ninth century through the eleventh century, but the majority of the surviving manuscripts date to the eleventh century. In other languages OCS may be referred to simply as “Old Slavic” (e.g., French le vieux slave, Russian staroslavjanskij). The language has also been called “Old Bulgarian,” since most of the extant manuscripts are from the territory of the medieval Bulgarian Empire, but as noted above OCS manuscripts do not reflect a purely regional language variety, so this term is not accurate and is no longer widely used. Note that when speaking of the “Macedonian” or “Bulgarian” origin of various manuscripts, we are referring to the western or eastern areas of the Bulgarian Empire, since the states of Macedonia and Bulgaria in their modern forms did not exist at this time. The original writing system developed by Constantine/Cyril is known as the Glagolitic alphabet (Table 80.1). It does not appear to be modeled on a single pre-existing writing system; rather, it seems that Constantine/Cyril wanted to create a unique alphabet for Slavic. Some of the letters appear to be based on Greek, Hebrew, Samaritan, or Latin characters, while for others no source can be reliably determined. Glagolitic was used in Moravia during the time of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission and in the Balkans in the period that immediately followed. It was maintained in Macedonia up to the end of the 11 th c. and in Serbia until the 12 th c., but in Bulgaria was replaced very early by the Cyrillic alphabet (Vaillant 1964: 21). The only place where Glagolitic enjoyed a longer life was in Croatia, where scribes developed a new form of the alphabet, known as angular Glagolitic. Liturgical books in Glagolitic continued to be used in a few Catholic parishes on the Croatian coast and islands up into the twentieth century.

1400

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 80.1: The Glagolitic alphabet letter















translit.

a

b

v

g

d

e

ž

phoneme

/ɑ/

/b/

/v/

/g/

/d/

/ɛ/

/ʒ/

number

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

name

azъ

buky

vědě

glagoli

dobro

estъ

živěte

letter





,







translit.

ʒ

z

i (ı)

i

ǵ (d’)

k

l

/dz/

/z/

/i/

/i/

/ɟ/?

/k/

/l/

8

9

10

20

30

40

50

name

ʒělo

zemlja

i

iže

ǵervь/ d’ervь

kako

ljudie

letter

Ⰿ













translit.

m

n

o

p

r

s

t

phoneme

/m/

/n/

/ɔ/

/p/

/r/

/s/

/t/

number

60

70

80

90

100

200

300

name

myslite

našь

onъ

pokoi

rьci

slovo

tvrьdo

letter















translit.

u

f

x

o (ō)

št

c

č

phoneme

/u/

/f/

/x/

/ɔ/

/ʃt/

/ts/

/ʧ/

number

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

name

ukъ

frьtъ

xěrъ

otъ

šta

ci

črьvь

letter



, !

!

"

#

$

translit.

š

ъ (ŭ)

y

ь (ǐ)

ě

ju (ü)

ę (N)

phoneme

/ʃ/

/ʊ/

/ɨ/

/ɪ/

/æ/

/ju/ or /y/

/ɛ˜/

number

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

name

ša

erъ

ery

erь

jatь

ju

phoneme number

80. The documentation of Slavic

1401

Tab. 80.1: (continued) letter

%

&

'

(

)

*

translit.

ǫ

ę

jǫ (ǫ¨)

θ

i (υ, ü)

x

phoneme

/ɔ˜/

/ɛ˜/

/jɔ˜/ or /œ ˜/

/f/ or /t/?

/i/ or /u/?

/x/

number

−

−

−

−

−

−

fita

ižica

xlъmъ

name

Remarks on Table 80.1. The letter $ was used as the second part of digraphs to indicate nasality; when used by itself it had the value of a front nasal vowel. The usage in manuscripts varies: the Kiev Missal and Psalterium Sinaiticum use only & for the front nasal, while other Glagolitic manuscripts use $ after consonants and & in initial position or after a vowel. Scholars disagree about the phonemic values of the jotated vowel letters. Certain letters (, (, )) are used to transliterate Greek words; their pronunciation in Old Church Slavic is uncertain. The existence of variant letters to represent the sounds /i/ and /ɔ/ is probably also due to the influence of Greek. The letter * is rare, occurring only in the Paris and Munich abecedaria, in the Psalterium Sinaiticum, and the Codex Assemanianus. The difference in usage between this letter and the more common  is not entirely clear. Some manuscripts use a diacritic mark ҄ to indicate palatal or palatalized consonants.

The Cyrillic alphabet (Table 80.2) was created on the basis of Glagolitic by substituting corresponding Greek letters wherever possible. The simpler and more familiar forms of the letters no doubt played a role in the widespread adoption of this alphabet in place of the earlier Glagolitic. Tab. 80.2: The Cyrillic alphabet letter

+

-

.

/

0

1

2

translit.

a

b

v

g

d

e

ž

number

1

−

2

3

4

5

−

3, 4, 5

6, 7

8, н

9, : (

?

@

translit.

ʒ

z

i

i (ı)

k

l

m

number

6

7

8

10

20

30

40

letter

A

B, ѻ

C

D

E

F

G, H

translit.

n

o

p

r

s

t

u

number

50

70

80

100

200

300

400

letter

I

J

K

L

M

N, O

P

translit.

f

x

о (ō)

št

c

č

š

number

500

600

800

−

900

90

−

letter

1402

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 80.2: (continued) letter

Q

R, S, Q8

T

U

V

W

X

translit.

ъ (ŭ)

y

ь (ǐ)

ě

ju

ja

je

number

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

letter

Y, Z

[

\

]

^

_

translit.

ę

ǫ

ję

jǫ

θ

i (υ, ü)

number

−

−

−

−

−

−

Remarks on Table 80.2. The names of the letters are the same as for the corresponding characters in Glagolitic. The different forms for /i/ are also known as i osmeričьno (8) and i desęteričьno (10), according to their numerical values The Russian names jus bol’šoj and jus malyj are commonly used to refer to the back and front nasal vowels. The numerical values for Cyrillic are generally based on the order of the Greek alphabet, so that characters that do not have equivalents in Greek are usually not used to represent numbers. The Greek letters ѯ and ѱ are used to represent the numerals 60 and 700, and occasionally to spell the sequences [ks] and [ps], mainly in borrowed words. As in the Glagolitic alphabet, different letters are used to represent the front nasal vowel. Suprasliensis and Sava’s Book consistently use Z after consonants and Y elsewhere.

Most major OCS manuscripts have been published in several editions, not all of which are listed here. For a more complete bibliography and additional information on early Slavic writing, see Schenker (1995). The Kiev Missal (Hamm 1979; Nimčuk 1983; TITUS) is probably the oldest extant OCS manuscript, dating either to the late tenth/early eleventh century (Schenker 1995: 207) or perhaps even to the late ninth/early tenth century (Schaeken 1987: 201). It consists of seven folia written in the Glagolitic alphabet, containing parts of a missal according to the western rite. As it exhibits West Slavic features and is clearly a translation from Latin we may assume that it originated in Moravia or Bohemia. The Kiev Missal is notable also for its supralinear markings, which seem to indicate prosodic features (Kortlandt 1980; Schaeken 2008). In other OCS manuscripts such markings are purely ornamental imitations of Greek diacritic marks (Schenker 1995: 183). Also among the oldest manuscripts are two more or less complete fourfold Gospels written in the Glagolitic alphabet. Like all Glagolitic OCS monuments, apart from the Kiev Missal and possibly the Glagolita Clozianus, they are thought to be of Macedonian origin. Codex Zographensis (Jagić [1879] 1954; TITUS) consists of 271 folia in OCS and an additional 17 folia written in Macedonian Church Slavic, which are a later addition to replace a missing portion of the original gospel text. The codex also includes 16 folia containing a 13 th-century Cyrillic synaxarion (a calendar of saints’ days). The main portion of the codex is conventionally dated to the late tenth or early eleventh century and is phonologically closest to what we can posit as the Cyrillo-Methodian norm. Probably slightly later, but still dating to the first half of the eleventh century, is the Codex Marianus, with 173 folia (Jagić [1883] 1960; TITUS). The Codex Assemanianus (Vajs and Kurz 1929−1955; Ivanova-Mavrodinova and Džurova 1981; TITUS) is probably slightly later than either Zographensis or Marianus, perhaps from the second half of the eleventh century. It consists of 158 Glagolitic folia, containing an evangeliary (a collection of Gospel passages to be read in the liturgy) and

80. The documentation of Slavic

1403

a synaxarion. It is written in an inconsistent and somewhat innovative orthography (Lunt 2001: 8). The major Glagolitic manuscripts also include a psalter and a prayer book, both of which were found in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai and date to the eleventh century. The major part of the Psalterium Sinaiticum, 177 folia containing psalms 1− 137, was found in 1850 (Sever’janov [1922] 1954; Altbauer 1971). It appears to be the work of several scribes and contains numerous mistakes and some phonologically newer features (Lunt 2001: 8). The extant folia of the Euchologium Sinaiticum (Frček [1933− 1939] 1974; Nahtigal 1941−1942) represent only part of what must have been a larger codex containing translations made at different times in the early period of OCS (Mathiesen 1991: 195). The main portion of the manuscript (109 folia) was found together with the Psalterium Sinaiticum and includes prayers for various occasions and parts of the liturgy. In 1975 a new trove of manuscripts was discovered in the monastery, which included an additional 32 folia of the Psalterium Sinaiticum and at least 28 folia belonging to the Euchologium Sinaiticum. Photographic reproductions of these folia have been published by Tarnaidis (1988). The Glagolita Clozianus (Dostál 1959) consists of 14 folia out of what was originally a large codex of homilies and includes a fragment of a sermon that has been attributed to Methodius. The language exhibits features that may indicate a Croatian or Serbian origin for this manuscript (Schenker 1995: 189; Lunt 2001: 9). The only other Glagolitic manuscripts that belong to the OCS canon are shorter fragments or palimpsests containing gospel or liturgical texts. The Cyrillic OCS manuscripts are almost all of Bulgarian origin and date to the 11 th century. The Codex Suprasliensis (Sever’janov [1904] 1956; Zaimov and Capaldo 1982− 1983; TITUS), with 285 folia, is the longest surviving OCS manuscript. It is a lectionary menaeum for the month of March, containing 24 saints’ lives and 24 homilies, most of which are attributed to St. John Chrysostom. The language of the text is less archaic than that of the surviving Glagolitic OCS manuscripts. We also have part of an evangeliary in Cyrillic, known as Sava’s Book (Ščepkin [1903] 1959; TITUS). The manuscript is so called because of the comment поп сава ѱалъ ‘The priest Sava wrote [this]’ written at the bottom of folio 49 by the same hand as the main text; folio 54 has another marginal comment containing the same name. The surviving 129 folia of this manuscript are bound together in a codex with some later Russian Church Slavic texts. The manuscript appears to be a copy made from an earlier Glagolitic text, and the language shows innovations that mark it as being younger than that of Suprasliensis. In addition to texts from the gospels found in other manuscripts, we also have some readings from the Acts and Epistles in the Enina Apostol (Mirčev and Kodov 1965). Unfortunately, only 39 poorly preserved folia of the original manuscript survive. The remaining Cyrillic manuscripts classified as OCS are shorter fragments.

2.2. Eastern South Slavic The OCS manuscripts of Bulgarian or Macedonian origin, with the caveat mentioned above, provide the main source of early evidence for Eastern South Slavic dialects. We also have a number of early inscriptions, mostly in Cyrillic, which some scholars treat as part of the OCS canon. However, since they differ in terms of composition, transmission, and purpose from this textual tradition, they are perhaps best considered separately.

1404

XIII. Slavic

The oldest ones actually predate most or all of the surviving OCS manuscripts. The earliest dated Cyrillic inscription is from the year 921 and was found in the Krepča monastery near Tărgovište, Bulgaria (Konstantinov 1977). This then marks the latest possible date for the introduction of the Cyrillic alphabet. The most famous dated Cyrillic inscription is the tombstone erected by the Bulgarian Tsar Samuel for his parents and brother in 992/993, which was found on Lake Prespa in northern Greece. All of these inscriptions are fragmentary, and their interpretation is sometimes uncertain (see Schaeken and Birnbaum 1999: 127 ff. for more information). Beginning in the 12 th century, we have numerous texts with enough innovative regional features that they are classified as Bulgarian or Macedonian recensions of Old Church Slavic, or simply as Middle Bulgarian. Like the canonical OCS manuscripts, they are almost exclusively translations of Biblical or other religious texts. There are a number of evangeliaries, apostols, and psalters, including Dobromir’s Gospel (Macedonian, early 12 th c.; Altbauer 1973; Velčeva 1975), Dobrejšo’s Gospel (Macedonian, 13 th c.; Conev 1906), the Slepče Apostol (Bulgarian/Macedonian, 12 th c.; Il’inskij 1911), the Ohrid Apostol (Macedonian, late 12 th c.; Kul’bakin 1907), and the Bologna Psalter (Macedonian, 13 th c.; Jagić 1907; Dujčev 1968). The oldest Slavic parimeinik (a collection of readings from the Old Testament) is Grigorovič’s Parimeinik (Bulgarian, 12 th or 13 th c.; Brandt 1894−1901). Also worthy of mention is Dragan’s Menaeum, also known as the Zograph Trephologion, which contains short saints’ lives and liturgical texts with musical notation (Bulgarian, late 13 th c.; Sobolevskij 1913). The famous treatise On the letters (Kuev 1967; Džambeluka-Kossova 1980), which describes the creation of the Slavic (Glagolitic) alphabet and defends it as superior to the Greek letters, was most likely written in Bulgaria in the late ninth or early tenth century. It is ascribed to the monk Xrabrъ, about whom nothing certain is known. The oldest extant version is found in a Bulgarian miscellany from 1348.

2.3. Western South Slavic The oldest connected Slavic texts written in the Latin script are the Freising Fragments (Pogačnik 1968; Bernik et al. 1993; TITUS; eZISS), which date to the late 10 th century. They consist of a confessional, homily, and a prayer according to the western rite. The phonetic features of these texts are difficult to interpret because of their ad hoc orthography, but the language exhibits Slovenian characteristics and has been classified variously as OCS, Slovenian Church Slavic, or Old Slovene. Like the Kiev Missal, this manuscript also contains accentual markings. The linguistic features of the Freising Fragments have been analyzed by Kortlandt in several publications (1975, 1996a, 1996b, 1998). There are a number of early Glagolitic inscriptions from the territory of Croatia, the most important of which is the Baška Tablet from the beginning of the 12 th century (Fučić 1982; Schenker 1995: 270−271). This monument was found in the church of St. Lucija on the island of Krk; it commemorates King Zvonimir’s donation of the land for the church and tells of its construction. The style of lettering represents a transition from the rounded Glagolitic of earlier OCS manuscripts to the angular Glagolitic that was used later in Croatia. The Vienna Fragments (Weingart 1938) are two folia from a 12 th-century Glagolitic missal, probably of Croatian origin. We also have two fragments of Glagolitic apostols,

80. The documentation of Slavic

1405

the Gršković Fragment (Jagić 1893) and the Mihanović Fragment (Jagić 1868). Both of these appear to date to the late 12 th/early 13 th century and are possibly from southern Bosnia and Hercegovina, according to Jagić (1893: 40). We also have some early nonreligious texts in Glagolitic, such as the Vinodol Law Code of 1288, which has come down to us in a 16 th-century copy (Bratulić 1988). Early Cyrillic manuscripts include the Vukan Gospel from around 1200 (Vrana 1967) and Miroslav’s Evangeliary from the late 12 th century (Rodić and Jovanović 1986), both in Serbian Church Slavic. We also have several texts attributed to St. Sava (1174?− 1236): three typicons, the Vita Simeonis, and a letter, most of which have come down to us in late copies (Ćorović 1928). The oldest surviving copy of the first Slavic hexameron, which was compiled and translated by the Bulgarian John the Exarch (active early 10 th century), is a Serbian one from 1263 (Aitzetmüller 1958−1975).

3. East Slavic The East Slavic linguistic area is relatively homogenous, and most scholars assume the existence of an intermediate Common East Slavic dialect as the ancestor of all the modern East Slavic languages. The language of the oldest texts from the period of Kievan Rus’ is often referred to loosely as Old Russian, but these documents are mostly Church Slavic with varying degrees of influence from the vernacular, and the local features that they exhibit are better characterized as Common East Slavic in most instances. Not until the 13 th century or later do we really begin to see clear textual evidence of the divergence of Russian from Ukrainian and Belarusian (see Pugh 2007: 11). The East Slavic region is the source of a wider variety of text types than we find in South or West Slavic in this same period. The earliest inscription that we know of consists of seven or eight Greek or Cyrillic letters on an amphora, known as the Gnezdovo Inscription (Schenker 1989), and dates to the early 10 th century. Numerous other inscriptions, both on monuments and smaller objects, date to the 11 th and 12 th centuries. East Slavic writing was almost exclusively in Cyrillic, but there are some Glagolitic graffiti from the 11 th and 12 th centuries in the Church of St. Sophia in Novgorod (Schenker 1995: 236−237). There are several 11 th-century manuscripts containing the core biblical texts used in services. Ostromir’s Gospel is an evangeliary from 1056−1057, copied for the governor of Novgorod (Vostokov [1843] 1964). This manuscript is very close to the idealized OCS norm, particularly in the use of the jer vowels, but also has some East Slavic features. Another aprakos gospel is the Archangel Evangeliary of 1092 (Georgievskij 1912). Both of these were apparently based on South Slavic originals. We have two partial exegetic psalters from the eleventh century, Evgenij’s Psalter (Kolesov 1972) and the Čudovo Psalter (Pogorelov 1910). Slightly later, from the turn of the 11 th/12 th century, is Byčkov’s Psalter (Altbauer and Lunt 1978). The Galician Gospel of 1144 (Le Juge 1897) is the oldest dated East Slavic fourfold Gospel. It contains dialect features of the southwestern East Slavic area where the manuscript was copied. The Novgorod Menaea from 1095−1097 (Jagić 1886) contain services for saints’ days for the months of September, October, and November, together with marginal notes by different scribes. These texts exhibit some Novgorod dialectal features. Stories from the lives of monks and hermits are found in the Sinai Paterikon, which exists in an East Slavic copy from the 11 th century (Golyšenko and Dubrovina 1967).

1406

XIII. Slavic

The Izbornik of 1073 (Dinekov 1991−1993) is a copy made for Prince Svjatoslav of Kiev of a miscellany translated from Greek for the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon, containing excerpts from patristic literature. A second miscellany produced for Prince Svjatoslav, the Izbornik of 1076 (Golyšenko et al. 1965), does not appear to be a translation or copy of an existing miscellany; it was probably compiled in Rus’ on the basis of existing Slavic translations of the original sources, with some changes and adaptations. The text shows numerous East Slavic features, particularly in the portion copied by the second scribe (Lunt 1968). The Uspenskij sbornik (Kotkov 1971) of the 12 th/13 th century contains the earliest versions of some saints’ lives and homilies that represent original Slavic compositions, rather than translations, including the Vita Methodii. The Russian Primary Chronicle (Adrianova-Peretc 1950; Tschižewskij 1969) was compiled from various sources by the monk Nestor of the Kiev Cave Monastery and gives a history of Kievan Rus’ from 852−1110. The introductory section tells of the division of the earth among the sons of Noah (based on a Byzantine chronicle) followed by an original account of the early history of the Slavic tribes. The earliest extant version of the Primary Chronicle is found in the Laurentian Codex of 1377; the other main source is the Hypatian Codex from around 1425. While the language of the Primary Chronicle is mostly Church Slavic with some Eastern Slavic features, the First Novgorod Chronicle (Nasonov 1950) from the 13 th and 14 th centuries is much closer to the vernacular. A unique and rich source of documentation for the history of East Slavic is found in the birchbark documents (berestjanye gramoty) that began to be discovered in the 1950s, primarily in Novgorod. These are short texts dealing with everyday business, legal, and personal matters, which were scratched on strips of birchbark with a stylus. More than 1,000 of these documents have now been found, with the earliest dating to the 11 th century (Zaliznjak 1995; gramoty.ru). These documents exhibit certain linguistic features that differ from the rest of East Slavic, and Zaliznjak argues that East Slavic originally consisted of two distinct dialect zones, rather than representing a unified linguistic area, as commonly assumed. Another important source that is largely free of Church Slavic influences is the Law Code of Rus’ (Grekov 1940−1963; TITUS), which is a compilation of East Slavic customary law. It was composed during the reign of Prince Jaroslav the Wise (r. 1019−1054), but the earliest surviving copy is included in the Novgorod Kormčaja of 1280. The Igor Tale (Grégoire, Jakobson, and Rostovcev 1948; TITUS) is an epic poem describing the campaign led by Prince Igor against the Cumans (Polovtsy) in 1185. The only manuscript was found in 1795, and was dated by scholars at that time to the 16 th century. It was destroyed in the fires that burned most of Moscow in 1812 when Napoleon’s troops entered the city, so we possess only imperfect copies made shortly after the manuscript was discovered. A number of scholars have argued that the Igor Tale represents an 18 th-century forgery, but the linguistic evidence indicates that it was probably composed in the late 12 th century.

4. West Slavic After the disbanding of the Moravian mission, Latin was the predominant language of culture in the West Slavic lands up until the 15 th century. Consequently, the western

80. The documentation of Slavic

1407

recension of Church Slavic and the vernaculars are relatively sparsely attested before this time. The use of Church Slavic survived in Bohemia into the 12 th century, but the majority of early texts that were presumably originally written either in Moravia or Bohemia survive only in later copies made in the Orthodox Slavic lands (see Mareš 1979). Apart from the Kiev Missal, the only other early manuscript from this area is the Prague Fragments, which are two 11 th-century Glagolitic folia written in Czech Church Slavic (Mareš 1979: 41−45). From the 11 th or 12 th century we also have a significant number of Old Czech/Church Slavic glosses in Latin manuscripts: the Vienna Glosses (Jagić 1903) and the St. Gregory Glosses (Patera 1878). Mareš (1979: 211−216) gives excerpts from both, transcribed directly from the original manuscripts. Another important source of information for West Slavic is onomastic data found in various Latin manuscripts (see Schenker 1995: 239). For Old Polish, the Bull of Gniezno from 1136 (Taszycki 1975: 3−36) is particularly significant, with over 400 place and personal names. The 14 th century saw the production of a significantly greater number of West Slavic texts. These include the earliest surviving West Slavic homilies (in Polish), the Holy Cross Sermons (Łoś and Semkowicz 1934; TITUS) and the Gniezno Sermons (VrtelWierczyński 1953), as well as the earliest psalters. The Florian Psalter gives the text of the psalms in parallel Latin, German, and Polish translations (Bernacki et al. [1939] 2002), while the Wittenberg Psalter is Latin with an interlinear Czech translation (Gebauer 1880). The first historical text written in Czech, the Dalimil Chronicle (Daňhelka et al. 1988; TITUS) dates to the early 14 th century. The Czech hymn Hospodine, pomiluj ny [Lord, have mercy on us] may have been composed in the 10 th century, although the earliest manuscripts are from the late 14 th century (Mareš 1979: 208−210). The Polish Bogurodzica (Worończak 1962; TITUS) may also be connected with the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition (Schenker 1995: 221), but it is first attested in a 15 th-century manuscript. Other West Slavic languages are attested considerably later. Czech was long used as a written language also by the Slovaks; the earliest existing Slovak monument is the Žilina Town Book from the late 15 th century (Ďurovič 1980: 212). Polabian died out in the first half of the 18 th century and is attested only fragmentarily, mostly in lists of words and phrases that were collected when the language was already moribund (see Polański 1993). All of the extant Polabian material has been published by Olesch (1959, 1962, 1967). The oldest Sorbian text is the Bautzen Burgher’s Oath, from 1532, which citizens of Bautzen used to swear their loyalty to Bohemia and their feudal lord (Polański 1980: 234). A translation of the New Testament into Sorbian by Miklawuš Jakubica was completed in 1548 (Schuster-Šewc 1967), and the first Sorbian books began to be printed in the 1570s.

5. References Adrianova-Peretc, Varvara P. 1950 Povest’ vremennyx let [The tale of bygone years]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Aitzetmüller, Rudolf 1958−1975 Das Hexaemeron des Exarchen Johannes. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt.

1408

XIII. Slavic

Altbauer, Moshe 1971 Psalterium Sinaiticum. An 11 th century Glagolitic manuscript from St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mt. Sinai. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Altbauer, Moshe 1973 Dobromirovo evangelie. Kirilski spomenik od XII vek [Dobromir’s gospel. A Cyrillic monument of the 12 th century]. Skopje: Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite. Altbauer, Moshe and Horace G. Lunt 1978 An early Slavonic Psalter from Rus’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. Barford, Paul M. 2001 The early Slavs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Bernacki, Ludwik, Aleksander Birkenmajer, Ryszard Ganszyniec, Stefan Kubica, Władysław Podlacha, and Witold Taszycki 2002 [1939] Psałterz florjański. Łacińsko-polsko-niemiecki re˛kopis Bibljoteki narodowej w Warszawie [The Florian psalter. A Latin-Polish-German manuscript in the Warsaw National Library]. Łódź: Archidiecezjalne Wydawnictwo Łódzkie. [Lwów: Zakład narodowy imienia Ossolińskich]. Bernik, France, Darko Dolinar, Jože Faganel, Igor Grdina, Marko Kranjec, and Janez Zor 1993 Brižinski spomeniki. Znanstvenokritična izdaja [The Friesing fragments. A scholarly critical edition]. Ljubljana: Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Birnbaum, Henrik 1966 The dialects of Common Slavic. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-European dialects. Berkeley: University of California Press, 153−197. Birnbaum, Henrik 1973 The original homeland of the Slavs and the problem of early linguistic contacts. Journal of Indo-European studies 1: 407−421. Brandt, Roman F. 1894−1901 Grigorovičev parimejnik. V slichenii s drugimi parimejnikami. Čtenija v Imperatorskom obščestve istorii i drevnostej rossijskix pri Moskovskom universitete [Grigorovič’s parimeinik. In comparison with other parimeiniks. Lectures at the Imperial Society of History and Russian Antiquities at Moscow University]. Vol. 1−3. Moscow: Universitetskaja tipografija. Bratulić, Josip 1988 Vinodolski zakon, 1288. Faksimil, diplomatičko izdanje, kritički tekst, tumačenje, rječnik [The Vinodol law code, 1288. Facsimile, diplomatic edition, critical text, interpretation, dictionary]. Zagreb: Globus. Conev, Ben’o. 1906 Dobrejšovo četveroevangelie. Srednobălgarski pametnik ot XIII v. [Dobrejšo’s gospel. A Middle Bulgarian monument of the 13 th century]. Sofia: Dăržavna pečatnica. Ćorović, Vladimir 1928 Spisi Sv. Save [The writings of St. Sava]. (Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i književnost srpskog naroda 17). Belgrade: Srpska kraljevska akademija. Daňhelka, Jiří, Karel Hádek, Bohuslav Havránek, and Naděžda Kvítková (eds.) 1988 Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila [The Old Czech chronicle of Dalimil]. Prague: Academia. Dinekov, Petăr 1991−1993 Simeonov sbornik (po Svetoslavovija prepis ot 1073 g.) [Simeon’s miscellany (according to the copy made for Svjatoslav from the year 1073)]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite. Dostál, Antonín 1959 Clozianus. Starosloveˇnský hlaholský sborník tridentský a innsbrucký [The Clozianus. An Old Church Slavic Glagolitic miscellany of Trent and Innsbruck]. Prague: Československá Akademie věd.

80. The documentation of Slavic

1409

Dujčev, Ivan 1968 Bolonski psaltir. Ba˘lgarski knižoven pametnik ot 13 vek [The Bologna psalter. A Bulgarian literary monument from the 13 th century]. Sofia: Ba˘lgarska akademija na naukite. Džambeluka-Kossova, Alda 1980 Černorizec Xrabăr. O pismenex [The Monk Hrabar. On the letters]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite. Ďurovič, L’ubomír 1980 Slovak. In: Schenker and Stankiewicz (eds.), 211−228. eZISS (Elektronske znanstvenokritične izdaje slovenskega slovstva [Digital scholarly critical editions of Slovenian literature). http://nl.ijs.si/e-zrc/index-sl.html [Last accessed 27 June 2013]. Frček, Jan 1974 [1933−1939] Euchologium Sinaiticum. Texte slave avec sources grecques et traduction française. Paris: Firmin-Didot. Fučić, Branko 1982 Glagoljski natpisi [Glagolitic inscriptions]. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Gebauer, Jan 1880 Žaltárˇ Wittenberský [The Wittenberg psalter]. Prague: Matice česká. Georgievskij, Grigorij P. 1912 Arxangel’skoe evangelie 1092 goda [The Archangel Evangeliary of the year 1092]. Moscow: Rumjancovskij muzej. Golyšenko, Vera S. and V. F. Dubrovina 1967 Sinajskij paterik [The Sinai patericon]. Moscow: Nauka. Golyšenko, Vera S., Elena A. Mišina, Aleksandr M. Moldovan, and M. S. Mušinskaja 1965 Izbornik 1076 goda [The miscellany of 1076]. Moscow: Nauka. Grégoire, Henri, Roman Jakobson, and Mixail I. Rostovcev 1948 La geste du Prince Igor’. Épopée russe du douzième siècle. New York: Rausen. Grekov, Boris D. 1940−1963 Pravda russkaja [The law code of Rus’]. Moscow: Akademija nauk SSSR. Hamm, Josip 1979 Das glagolitische Missale von Kiew. Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Il’inskij, Grigorij A. 1911 Slepčenskij apostol XII v. [The Slepče apostol of the 12 th century]. Moscow: Tipografija G. Lissnera i D. Sobko. Ivanova-Mavrodinova, Vera and Aksinija Džurova 1981 Asemanievo evangelie [The Assemanianus evangeliary]. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo. Jagić, Vatroslav 1868 Građa za glagolsku paleografiju [Materials for Glagolitic paleography]. Rad JAZU 2: 1−35. Jagić, Vatroslav 1886 Služebnyja minei za sentjabr’, oktjabr’ i nojabr’. V cerkovnoslavjanskom perevode po russkim rukopisjam 1095−1097 [Saints’ services for September, October, and November. In the Church Slavonic translation according to Russian manuscripts of 1095−1097]. Saint Petersburg: Imperatorskaja akademija nauk. Jagić, Vatroslav 1890 Glagolitica. Würdigung neuentdeckter Fragmente. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse 38(2): 1−62. Jagić, Vatroslav 1893 Grškovićev odlomak glagolskog apostola [The Gršković fragment of a Glagolitic apostol]. Starine 26: 33−161.

1410

XIII. Slavic

Jagić, Vatroslav 1903 Kirchenslavisch-böhmische Glossen saec. XI−XII. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse 50(2): 1−44. Jagić, Vatroslav 1907 Slovenskaja psaltyr’. Psalterium Bonionense [A Slavic psalter. The Bologna psalter]. Vienna: Gerold. Jagić, Vatroslav 1954 [1879] Quattuor evangeliorum codex glagoliticus olim Zographensis nunc Petropolitanus [A Glagolitic codex of the four gospels formerly called Zographensis, now Petropolitanus]. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. [Berlin: Weidmann]. Jagić, Vatroslav 1960 [1883] Mariinskoe četveroevangelie s primečanijami i priloženijami [The Marianus gospels with notes and appendices]. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. [St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaja akademija nauk]. Kolesov, Vladimir V. 1972 Evgenievskaja psaltyr’ [Evgenij’s psalter]. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila Jószef nominatae. Dissertationis Slavicae 8: 57−69. Konstantinov, Kazimir 1977 Dva starobălgarski nadpisa ot skalnija manastir pri s. Krepča, Tărgovištki okrăg [Two Old Bulgarian inscriptions from the cave monastery near Krepča, Tărgovište district]. Arxeologija 19: 19−28. Kortlandt, Frederik 1975 Jers and nasal vowels in the Freising Fragments. Slavistična revija 23: 405−412. Kortlandt, Frederik 1980 Zur Akzentuierung der Kiever Blätter. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 41: 1−4. Kortlandt, Frederik 1996a The accentual system of the Freising manuscripts. In: Janko Kos, Franc Jakopin, and Jože Faganel (eds.), Zbornik Brižinski spomeniki. Ljubljana: Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU, 141−151. Kortlandt, Frederik 1996b On the accent marks in the First Freising Fragment. In: Adrian A. Barentsen, Ben M. Groen, Jos Schaeken, and Rob Sprenger (eds.), Studies in South Slavic and Balkan linguistics. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 23). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 167−171. Kortlandt, Frederik 1998 Rounded nasal vowels in the Freising Fragments. In: Adrian A. Barentsen, Ben M. Groen, Jos Schaeken, and Rob Sprenger (eds.), Dutch contributions to the 12 th International Congress of Slavists: Linguistics. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 24). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 309−315. Kotkov, Sergej I. 1971 Uspenskij sbornik XII−XIII vv. [The Uspenskij miscellany of the 12 th−13 th centuries]. Moscow: Nauka. Kuev, Kujo M. 1967 Černorizec Xrabăr [The Monk Hrabar]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite. Kul’bakin, Stepan M. 1907 Oxridskaja rukopis’ Apostola konca XII veka [The manuscript of the Ohrid apostol from the end of the 12 th century]. Sofija: Dăržavna pečatnica. von Le Juge, Vasil 1897 Das galizische Tetroevangelium von J. 1144. Eine kritische-palaeographische Studie auf dem Gebiete des Altrussischen. Leipzig: Drugulin. Lunt, Horace G. 1968 On the Izbornik of 1076. In: Robert Magidoff, George Y. Shevelov, Jon S. G. Simmons, and Kiril Taranovski (eds.), Studies in Slavic linguistics and poetics in honor of Boris O. Unbegaun. New York: New York University Press, 69−77.

80. The documentation of Slavic

1411

Lunt, Horace G. 1985 Slavs, Common Slavic, and Old Church Slavonic. In: Johannes Reinhart (ed.), Litterae slavicae medii aevi: Francisco Venceslao Mareš sexagenario oblatae [Slavic literature of the middle ages: offered for the sixtieth birthday of František Václav Mareš]. Munich: Sagner, 185−204. Lunt, Horace G. 2001 Old Church Slavonic grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Łoś, Jan and Władysław Semkowicz 1934 Kazania t. zw. świętokrzyskie [The holy cross sermons]. Cracow: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Mareš, František 1979 An anthology of Church Slavonic texts of western (Czech) origin. Munich: Fink. Mathiesen, Robert 1991 New Old Church Slavonic manuscripts on Mount Sinai. [Review of Tarnaidis 1988.] Harvard Ukrainian studies 15: 192−199. Mirčev, Kiril and Xristo Kodov 1965 Eninski apostol. Starobălgarski pametnik ot XI v. [The Enina apostol. An Old Bulgarian monument from the 11 th century]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite. Nahtigal, Rajko 1941−1942 Euchologium sinaiticum. Starocerkvenoslovanski glagolski spomenik [The Euchologium Sinaiticum. An Old Church Slavic Glagolitic monument]. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Nasonov, Arsenij N. 1950 Novgorodskaja pervaja letopis’ staršego i mladšego izvodov [The first Novgorod chronicle of the older and younger recensions]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Nichols, Johanna 1993 The linguistic geography of the Slavic expansion. In: Robert A. Maguire and Alan Timberlake (eds.), American contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 377−391. Nimčuk, Vasyl V. 1983 Kyjivs’ki hlaholyčni lystky [The Kiev Glagolitic folia]. Kiev: Naukova dumka. Olesch, Reinhold 1959 Vocabularium venedicum von Christian Hennig von Jessen. Cologne: Böhlau. Olesch, Reinhold 1962 Juglers lüneburgisch-wendisches Wörterbuch. Cologne: Böhlau. Olesch, Reinhold 1967 Fontes lingvae dravaeno-polabicae minores [The minor sources of the Drevani-Polabian language]. Cologne: Böhlau. Patera, Adolf 1878 České a starobulharské glosy XII stoleti v latinském rukopise kapitulní knihovny v Praze [12 th-century Czech and Old Bulgarian glosses in a Latin manuscript of the Library of the Metropolitan Chapter in Prague]. Časopis Českého musea 52: 536−557. Pogačnik, Jože 1968 Freisinger Denkmäler. Literatur, Geschichte, Sprache, Stilart, Texte, Bibliographie. Munich: Trofenik. Pogorelov, Valerij A. 1910 Čudovskaja psaltyr’ XI v. Otryvok tolkovanija Feodorita Kirrskago na psaltyr’ v drevnebolgarskom perevode [The Čudovo psalter of the 11 th century. A fragment of Theodorit Cyrrhus’s commentary on the Psalms in an Old Bulgarian translation]. St. Petersburg. Polański, Kazimierz 1980 Sorbian (Lusatian). In: Schenker and Stankiewicz (eds.), 229−245.

1412

XIII. Slavic

Polański, Kazimierz 1993 Polabian. In: Bernard Comrie and Greville Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages. London: Routledge, 795−824. Pritsak, Omeljan 1983 The Slavs and the Avars. In: Gli Slavi occidentali e meridionali nell’alto Medioevo: 15−21 aprile 1982. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 353−432. Pugh, Stefan M. 2007 A new historical grammar of the East Slavic languages. Vol. 1: Introduction and phonology. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Rodić, Nikola and Gordana Jovanović 1986 Miroslavljevo jevanđelje. Kritičko izdanje [Miroslav’s evangeliary. Critical edition]. Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti. Schaeken, Jos 1987 Die Kiever Blätter. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 9). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Schaeken, Jos 2008 Nochmals zur Akzentuierung der Kiever Blätter. In: Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken, and Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and counter-evidence. Essays in honor of Frederik Kortlandt. Vol. 1. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 32). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 489−498. Schaeken, Jos and Henrik Birnbaum 1999 Die altkirchenslavische Schriftkultur. Munich: Sagner. Schenker, Alexander M. 1989 The Gnezdovo inscription in its historical and linguistic setting. Russian linguistics 13: 207−220. Schenker, Alexander M. 1995 The dawn of Slavic. An introduction to Slavic philology. New Haven: Yale University Press. Schenker, Alexander M. and Edward Stankiewicz (eds.) 1980 The Slavic literary languages. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies. Schuster-Šewc, Heinz 1967 Das niedersorbische Testament des Miklawuš Jakubica 1548. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Sever’janov, Sergej N. 1956 [1904] Suprasl’skaja rukopis’ [The Codex Suprasliensis]. Graz: Akademische Druckund Verlagsanstalt. [St. Petersburg: Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj akademii nauk]. Sever’janov, Sergej N. 1954 [1922] Sinajskaja psaltyr’. Glagoličeskij pamjatnik XI veka [The Psalterium Sinaiticum. A Glagolitic monument of the 11 th century]. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. [St. Petersburg: Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Rossijskoj akademii nauk]. Shevelov, George Y. 1965 A prehistory of Slavic. New York: Columbia University Press. Sobolevskij, Aleksej I. 1913 Zografskij trifologij [The Zograph trephologion]. St. Petersburg: Obščestvo ljubitelej drevnej pis’mennosti. Ščepkin, Vjačeslav N. 1959 [1903] Savvina kniga [Sava’s book]. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. [St. Petersburg: Otdelenie russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj akademii nauk]. Tarnaidis, Ioannis C. 1988 The Slavonic manuscripts discovered in 1975 at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai. Thessaloniki: St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai, and The Hellenic Association for Slavic Studies.

80. The documentation of Slavic

1413

Taszycki, Witold 1975 Najdawniejsze zabytki języka polskiego [The earliest monuments of the Polish language]. 5th edn. Wrocław: Ossolineum. TITUS (Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien). http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/ indexe.htm [Last accessed 27 June 2013]. Tschižewskij, Dmitrij 1969 Die Nestor-Chronik. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Udolph, Jürgen 1979 Zum Stand der Diskussion um die Urheimat der Slaven. Beiträge zur Namenforschung 14: 1−25. Vaillant, André 1964 Manuel du vieux slave. Paris: Institut d’études slaves. Vajs, Josef and Josef Kurz 1929−1955 Evangeliarium Assemani, Codex Vaticanus 3. Prague: Československá Akademie věd. Velčeva, Borjana 1975 Dobromirovo evangelie. Bălgarski pametnik ot načaloto na XII vek [Dobromir's gospel. A Bulgarian monument from the beginning of the 12 th century]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite. Vostokov, Aleksandr X. 1964 [1843] Ostromirovo evangelie 1056−57 goda [Ostromir's gospel of the year 1056−57]. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. [St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaja akademija nauk]. Vrana, Josip 1967 Vukanovo evanđelje [The Vukan gospel]. Beograd: Naučno delo. Vrtel-Wierczyński, Stefan 1953 Kazania gnieźnieńskie [The Gniezno sermons]. Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciól Nauk. Weingart, Miloš 1938 Hlaholské listy Videňské. K dějinám staroslověnskeho misálu [The Vienna Glagolitic folia. On the history of an old Slavic missal]. Časopis pro moderní filologii 24: 105− 129. Worończak, Jerzy 1962 Bogurodzica [Mother of God]. Wrocław: Ossolineum. Zaimov, Jordan and Mario Capaldo 1982−1983 Suprasălski ili Retkov sbornik [The Suprasliensis or Retkov miscellany]. Sofia: Bălgarska akademija na naukite. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1995 Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt [The Old Novgorod dialect]. Moscow: Škola “Jazyki russkoj kul’tury”.

Keith Langston, Athens, GA (USA)

1414

XIII. Slavic

81. The phonology of Slavic 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Slavic Early Common Slavic (ECSl) changes Middle Common Slavic (MCSl) changes

5. 6. 7. 8.

Late Common Slavic (LCSl) changes Suprasegmental phonology Sectional references References

1. Introduction The Slavic (Sl) branch of Indo-European (IE) has three sub-branches − South (SSl), West (WSl), and East (ESl). SSl has eastern and western divisions. E-SSl comprises Bulgarian (Bg), Macedonian (Mc), and the Sl dialects of northern Greece; Old Church Slavonic (OCS, 10th−11th cc.) was E-SSl in its basis. W-SSl comprises Slovenian (Sln) and pluricentric Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS; separately Bo, Cr, Sb), also known as Serbo-Croatian. BCS has three markedly different dialects, each with an old written tradition: Štokavian (Što), the basis of standard Bo, Cr, and Sb; Kajkavian (Kaj) in Croatia, historically affiliated with ESln; and Čakavian (Čak) along the Adriatic coast and in the islands, in a continuum with WSln. WSl is divided into three zones: southern or Czecho-Slovak (CzSlk); southwestern or Sorbian (Sorb); and northern or Lechitic (Lech). CzSlk comprises the dialect continuum of Cz and Slk. Sorb, bridging CzSlk and Lech, survives in Lusatia (eastern Germany) − hence the alternative name Lusatian; Upper Sorbian (US) is spoken on the upper reaches of the Spree River, to the south of Lower (LS). Lech comprises Polish (Po); the Silesian ethnolect, which converges on Cz; the Pomeranian languages of the Baltic coast; and Polabian (Pb), spoken west of the Elbe in Hanoverian Wendland until the 18th c. Within Pomeranian, only Kashubian (Kb, also Cassubian) survives; spoken west of Gdańsk; it is sometimes presented as a dialect of Po − a tradition spurred by the political needs of interwar Poland. Slovincian (Slc), in a continuum with Kb, extended west to the Parsęta River; it died out in the early 20th c. Central Pomeranian dialects, spoken as far east as the Elbe, succumbed to germanization in the Middle Ages. The ESl languages are Rusyn, Ukrainian (Uk), Belarusian (BR), and Russian (Ru). Rusyn (Carpatho-Rusyn or Ruthenian) is spoken in eastern Slovakia and western Ukraine, and in enclaves in Romania, Serbia, and Croatia, where the dialects show heavy influence from SSl; in Uk scholarship, as in Soviet-era studies, it is usually presented as a WUk dialect.

1.1. Common Slavic and its speakers The reconstructed Sl protolanguage is called Common Slavic (CSl), or sometimes ProtoSlavic (PSl). The latter term will be reserved here for the starting-point for the CSl changes (see 2). There is a hoary tradition of presenting CSl as a single coherent, impermeable “language”. It is better approached as a permeable dialect continuum in which a https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-002

81. The phonology of Slavic

1415

set of shared changes took place. The time frame of the changes can be called the CSl period, but it should be kept in mind that its limits are relative and floating; the CSl changes did not come to a simultaneous end, and some overlapped with changes that belong to the histories of the individual languages. For brevity, the term Slavophone will be used to denote ‘speaker of CSl’. This carries no ethnic implications. In two centuries of debates about the ethnogenesis of the Urheimat of the Slavs, CSl has usually been envisioned as a distinct language from the beginning of the CSl changes; its speakers have usually been essentialized as “Proto-Slavs.” The discussions have been muddled by nationalism and essentialist notions of ethnic identity. Scholars have dated the emergence of CSl language, and thus the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, as early as ca. 1000 BCE and as late as ca. 400 CE. They have placed the Slavic Urheimat in regions from the Vistula below the Danube, and from the Bohemian Forest to southwestern Russia − often in their own homelands. Advocates of early emergence have projected “Proto-Slavs” into the Bronze-Age Lusatian culture (before ca. 500 BCE) and laid claim to opaque tribal names in Herodotus (ca. 440 BCE) and an obscure word in Aristophanes (422 BCE). Proponents of late emergence have assumed that there was no pre-migration CSl identity because none could be proven; they have even asserted that, in the 6th c., the Slavs were “a nascent ethnos with a newly consolidated language” (Lunt 2001: 182). It is not explained how the consolidation took place when the “nascent ethnos” was already diffused from the Baltic to the Danube and from the Elbe to the Don. The autonym *slau̯ɛ:n(isk)- ‘Slav(ic)’ is undoubtedly PSl. In the 6th−7th centuries, peoples calling themselves *slau̯ɛ:nɛ were settling in quite far-flung regions − Greece, the eastern Alps, the Carpathian Basin, the Elbe, northwestern Russia. As the various settlers could not have had direct contacts, their self-designation must have been coined before the Migration Period. The same is true of their shared exonym for ‘foreigner; Teuton’ (*nɛ:mika2 s); the fact that this was derived from the adjective *nɛ:m- ‘mute; jabbering’ shows that the various Slavophone groups distinguished themselves from others on linguistic grounds − the use of intelligible language. The autonym *slau̯(ɛn)continued to be used among the Sl peoples who experienced the most intense language contacts − the Slavs of Aegean Macedonia (with Greek), the Slovenians (with Italian and German), the Slovaks (with Hungarian), the Slovincians (with German), and the early medieval Slovenes of northwestern Russian (with Baltic Finnic [BFi]). There are clear historical references to Slavophones starting in 6th-c. Byzantine texts, when the Sclaveni (Σκλαβηνοί, from *slau̯ɛ:nɛ) began raiding, and later settling, in the imperial territories south of the Danube. Byzantine authors linked the Sclaveni with tribes called Veneti and Antae, who may also have been Slavophones. There were also Slavophone Veneti in central Europe, mentioned in 7th−8th-c. Frankish texts: OHG Winida ‘Slavs’; older German windisch ‘Slovenian’, Wenden ‘Sorbs’; cf. Finnish Venäjä ‘Russia’. In the Urheimat debates, the Veneti have been identified with the Venedi of the Vistula, mentioned by Roman authors in the 1st−4th centuries. Some scholars have gone further and have identified the Vistula region as the Slavic Urheimat. While Slavophones may have lived on the Vistula in the 1 st c., there is no certainty that the Venedi were ancestors of the later Veneti. Elsewhere in Iron Age Europe, a related ethnonym was used for clearly non-Slavophone peoples, including those who gave their name to Venice; cf. also Celtic *windo- ‘white’. There are no grounds for concluding that the Vistulan Venedi had lived there from time immemorial (see 1.1.1), or even that they were a

1416

XIII. Slavic

homogeneous ethnicity. Ethnonyms are often reassigned based on proximity or alliances rather than ethnolinguistic relatedness: Gmc gut- ‘Goth’ became gùdas ‘Belarusian’ in Lithuanian (Li); the Turkic ethnonym Bulgar came to denote the East Balkan Slavs by an elite transfer.

1.1.1. Localization of pre-migration CSl Judging from shared vocabulary relating to the natural world, pre-migration Slavophones lived primarily in inland, non-mountainous regions. They did not live close enough to a sea to develop maritime vocabulary; their word for ‘island’ presupposed currents rather than tides: *ab- ‘around’ + *srau̯a- ‘flow’. They had shared terms for the aspen, birch, hornbeam, linden, and maple, all native to the parkland (forested-steppe) zone of Eastern Europe, but not for the beech, bird-cherry, sorb, sycamore, or larch of central and southeastern Europe. Likewise, there was a shared word for the spotted grouse of parkland environments, but not for the partridge of the steppes. Their alpine vocabulary was meager. For example, they had no shared term for ‘chamois’; in the attested languages, the animal is denoted by older ‘roe deer’, by the compound ‘wild goat’, or by Gmc loanwords. For negative evidence, pre-migration Slavophones evidently had little or no contact with Celtic, Italic, or Greek (Gk); there are virtually no CSl loanwords from those languages, nor are there identifiably Sl names or words in Gk and Latin (La) sources prior to the 6th c. This rules out pre-migration settlements in the Balkans or the Romanized zones west of the Black Sea. For positive evidence, the pre-migration Slavophones had significant contacts with speakers of Iranian (Irn) languages, as shown, inter alia, by shared semantic innovations: PIE *nebhos ‘cloud’ → ‘heaven’; *bhag- ‘good lot’ → ‘god’. The Irn ethnonym Spali (Spalaei) may be the source of a CSl word for ‘giant’ − OCS, OESl spolъ, OESl ispolinъ, OPo stolin (with the individuative suffix -in-). The Sl ethnonym *xuru̯a:t- ‘Croat’ is of Irn origin, and *sirb- ‘Serb, Sorb’ may be as well. While the Irn dialects occupied a vast domain, the Sl-Irn contact zone can be narrowed to the “Scythia” of antiquity (7th c. BCE−2 nd c. CE), given the absence of CSl borrowings from Finno-Ugrian and the paucity of CSl loanwords from Turkic. The pre-migration Slavophones also had significant contacts with Germanic (Gmc). Among the numerous loanwords are *xu:z- ‘house’ and *kuning- ‘ruler’. Gmc speakers were the prototypical foreigners; CSl *ti̯ udi̯ - ‘foreign, alien’ is borrowed from the Gmc autonym (Go þiuda ‘nation’); cf. also *nɛ:mika2 s ‘jabberer; German’ (1.1). The zone of contact was probably the eastern part of the Northern European Plain and, from the 1 st c. CE, the plains east of the Carpathians. (In those regions, the Przeworsk [3 rd c. BCE− 5th c. CE] and Wielbark [1st−4th centuries] cultures are thought to have included Gmc speakers.) Slavophones also borrowed many words of specifically EGmc provenience, e.g. *kau̯p- ‘buy’ and *xandag- ‘skillful’. The probable zone of contact was north of the Pontic steppes, where the Cherniakhovo culture (2nd−5th centuries) developed after southward migrations by EGmc speakers, including the Goths (Go) documented in Roman and Byzantine sources. (Slavophones probably also had extensive contact with Baltic [Ba] speakers in the mixed-forested zone of northeastern Europe, but early Ba loan-

81. The phonology of Slavic

1417

words are difficult to identify because of the structural similarities between PSl and PBa [see 2].) The reconstructed vocabulary relating to the natural world and the evidence from early loanwords both suggest that the pre-migration Slavophones inhabited the parklands (forested steppe) in present-day central and northern Ukraine and southern Belarus, perhaps extending in the west to the outer foothills of the Carpathians (now Ukraine and Romania) and to the plains of eastern Poland. This localization triangulates with evidence from reconstructed river names. In the middle Dnieper region, south of the tributary Pripiat’, the old hydronyms are predominantly CSl in origin, e.g. Berezina (PSl *bɛrz- ‘birch’), Desna (PSl *dɛsn- ‘right’). To the north, in the forested belt, most of the major river names have etymologies that are transparent in Ba but not in Sl, e.g. Neman and Polota. To the northwest, in Poland, many of the hydronyms originated in other IE dialects, e.g. Wisła (Vistula), Narew, and San. In the south and east, in the steppes, the major rivers have etymologies that are transparent in Irn but not in Sl − e.g. Dniester, Dnieper, Donets, and Don, all formed from Irn *danu- ‘river’.

1.1.2. CSl during the Migration Period Slavophones spread to the outer foothills of the Carpathians in incremental waves of advance, probably along right tributaries of the Dnieper. By the late 5th c., the CSl linguistic domain ranged to the Danube in the south and to the Vistula, if not further, in the northwest. The expansion of the Slavophone zone was certainly due in large part to migrations; however, it may have also been promoted by acculturations, with CSl adopted as a lingua franca by peoples from other ethnolinguistic traditions. The migration of Slavophones seems to have proceeded hand in hand with the spread of the Korchak archaeological culture (first attested ca. mid-6th c. in present-day central Ukraine), which Heather (2011: 448−449) has interpreted as “a pared-down” material culture suitable for migration. In the 5th−6th centuries, Slavophones advanced westward into southeastern Europe along the Danube and its tributaries. The Sclaveni first appear in 6th-c. Byzantine sources, which record their raids south of the Danube beginning in the reign of Justin I (518− 526). In the 530s−550s, they were migrating along the Sava and Drava rivers into the Byzantine provinces of Pannonia and Dalmatia, as far as the Adriatic coast. By 600, they had moved northwest into the Eastern Alps, where they threatened the Lombards in northeastern Italy, and northward into the southern Pannonian Plain. It was in these regions that the W-SSl dialect zone crystallized. By the mid-6th c., Sclaveni migrating from the north overwhelmed the Byzantine frontier on the Danube and began settling in the central and eastern Balkans; as of 581, they were established in peninsular Greece as far south as the Peloponnesus. These were the regions where the E-SSl dialect zone crystallized, converging with W-SSl in the central Balkans. Only coastal regions and some inland garrisons remained under Byzantine control. Some of the Slavs became imperial federates. There was no exodus of the Gk- and Rom-speakers of the region; undoubtedly, there was extensive language contact, and probably language shifts from Gk or Rom to Sl and vice versa. To this day, there are still many speakers of E-SSl dialects in continental Greece (Aegean Macedonia). In

1418

XIII. Slavic

peninsular Greece, the Slavophones were gradually hellenized after the empire regained control of the region (ca. 800); unassimilated Slavophones (Milingoi and Ezeritai) still lived in the southern Peloponnesus in the 14th c. In 679, the Turkic-speaking Bulgars invaded the eastern Balkans. In the late 7th−early th 9 centuries, they established control over much of the region, including a large Slavophone population. By the mid-9th c., the Bulgars had become slavicized in language and culture, while the Slavophones in their domains had become identified as Bulgar(ian)s. The Sl movements into East Central Europe are not as well documented. According to Procopius (died ca. 560), when the Gmc Herulians migrated from the western Danube to Denmark (508−514), the territories that they crossed were all in the hands of the Sclaveni. If true, this indicates that Slavophones had settled in the basins of the Vltava (Moldau) and the Elbe during the 5th c., if not earlier. There they came into contact with residual Gmc groups, who over time acculturated to the new residents. Some Slavophone migrations into the Carpathian Basin had proceeded westward through passes; others came north from the Danube and the southern foothills of the Carpathians. (These migrations have been linked with the westward spread of Korchak-type cultures.) P-CzSlk crystallized in the inner foothills of the Western Carpathians; in the Pannonian Plain, it converged with P-W-SSl to form a continuum that endured until the early 10th-c. entry of the Magyars into the Puszta (LCSl1 *pust- ‘empty’). In the 560s, the Avars, nomads with roots in Central Asia, established themselves north of the Danube. Their ferocity made such an impression on the Slavophones of the region that their ethnonym *abr- came to mean ‘giant’: Sln ober, Slk obor, OCz ober, US hob(je)r, OPo obrzym. The Avar migration occasioned population shifts in the Carpathian Basin; some Slavophone groups migrated as federates, and others as refugees. Evidently, P-Sorb crystallized as a result of westward migrations; judging from lexical evidence, it originally had stronger affiliations with P-SSl and P-ESl than with P-WSl. Indeed, the ethnonyms ‘Sorb’ and ‘Serb’ have the same origin. Byzantine sources of the 8th−10th centuries mention “White Croats” in the northern reaches of the Carpathian Basin; Constantine VII (ca. 940) relates a tradition that the Croats and Serbs emigrated from “White Croatia” and the otherwise undocumented “White Serbia” to Dalmatia, where they were granted lands by Heraclius (reigned 610−641). This suggests an elite transfer rather than a mass migration: the incomers adapted to the P-SSl dialects already established in the region, whose speakers adopted the ethnonyms of the newcomers. Other Slavophones migrated in waves of advance across the Northern European Plain, probably in the wake of the Gmc westward migrations (4th−6th centuries). The Prezeworsk archaeological culture, thought to be predominantly Gmc in language, disappeared by the early 5th c.; thereafter, the Korchak-like Mogiła (early 6th c.) and Prague (later 6th c.) cultures began to spread to the west, while a somewhat distinct culture, termed Sukow-Dziedzice, emerged in the plains (later 6th c.); the latter may reflect interactions between new settlers and residual peoples. Some of the Slavophone migrants passed into the Carpathian Basin (see above); others moved along the outer foothills of the Carpathians and northward along river systems as far west as the Elbe (north of the confluence with the Havel). This was the region in which the P-Lech dialects crystallized. The presence of Slavic dialects between the Elbe and the Oder is well documented in medieval sources; while they eventually succumbed to the Ostsiedlung, they left numerous traces in the surnames and toponyms of eastern Germany, e.g. Lübeck (‘lovely’), Rostock (‘outward-flow’), Ribnitz (‘fishery’), Dresden (‘riverside forest’), and Leipzig (‘linden’).

81. The phonology of Slavic

1419

There was a convergent wave of P-Sorb settlement from the south, which reached the Elbe and Saale. There is no early documentation for the migrations of P-ESl speakers, but there is archaeological evidence that shows population movements eastward and northward from the Dnieper Basin in the 6th−8th centuries. It can be assumed that Slavophones moved gradually into Belarus and southwestern European Russia along the northern Dnieper and its tributaries. To the south, the Penkovka culture, similar to the Korchak, formed by the mid-6th c. and spread to the mid-Don basin in the 7th c. This has been connected with Slavophone migrations into eastern Ukraine and southwestern Russia. Successor cultures reached the mid-Volga in the 8th−9th centuries. There were undoubtedly Slavophones among the settlers; this is indicated by the fact that the northeastern OESl dialects, concentrated in the Oka River basin and adjacent parts of the northern Volga (the Rostov-Suzdal’ region), had more in common with Kievan OESl than with the Novgorodian (Novg) dialect to their northwest. The latter developed as Slavophones migrated along the northern Dnieper and the Lovat’ (ca. 7th−8th centuries). The territories that they settled were inhabited by Ba and BFi speakers, with whom they had intense language contact. By the 9th c., P-Novg crystallized on Lake Il’men’, the northern limit of the Lovat’, near the headwaters of the Volga. Later, there were additional waves of migration into northern Russia and down the Volga, which ultimately converged with the post-Penkovka settlements.

1.2. Early Slavic writing Slavophone writing began with Cyril and Methodius’ translations into OCS. Based on the E-SSl dialect spoken near Thessaloniki, OCS was first used in areas of CzSlk and Sln settlements (860s−885); fragments of OCS with Moravian (Cz) features, the Kiev Folia, have survived from the 10th c. By the 890s, OCS was established as the written language of the Bulgarian Kingdom (central and eastern Balkans); the main manuscripts date from the 10th−11th centuries. Later, the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition spread to other Eastern-rite lands, where it evolved into the regional varieties (“recensions”) of Church Slavonic (ChSl). Sb-ChSl inscriptions are known from the late 10th−11th c., and ESl-ChSl texts from the early 11th c. The Cyrillo-Methodian written language spread separately to Western-rite Croatia in the late 9th c.; the oldest attested Cr-ChSl texts date from the 10th−early 11th c. (During the Renaissance, a new tradition of vernacular writing developed in Croatia under Italian influence.) In Western-rite regions, vernacular literacy was slower to take root because of the use of La. Apart from the OSln Freising Fragments (later 10th-c.), vernacular Sl writing in the La alphabet is first attested in autonomous states − Bohemia (OCz, from the 13th c.) and Poland (OPo, from the 14th c.). For the stateless languages, enduring traditions of writing began with the Reformation, in the late 16th c. (Sln, Sorb, Kb, and Slc) or 17th c. (Slk). Pb never had a written tradition; its dying breaths were recorded by antiquarians in the 18th c.

1420

XIII. Slavic

1.3. Citation conventions 1.3.1. Correspondence sets When possible, the sets include data from SSl, ESl, CzSlk, and Lech, preferably from the languages of oldest attestation − OCS, OESl, OCz, and OPo. Cyrillic and Glagolitic are romanized according to the ISO 1995 standards for Cyrillic, except for the following. (a) Cyrillic «х» → h for Mc and Sb; x for Bg and ESl. (b) «W, є/ѥ, ю» → a, e, u after «C», but ja, je, ju initially and after «V». (c) «ѧ/ѩ» → OCS ę, OESl ja after «C», but OCS ję, OESl ja initially and after «V». (d) «ѭ» → OCS ǫ, OESl u after «C», but OCS jǫ, OESl ju initially and after «V». (e) «ѣ» = OCS, OESl ě, jě after «C»; OCS ja, OESl jě initially and after «V» (see also 5.2.1). (f) OCS and OESl palatalized sonorants → r j, n j, l j (not rj, nj, lj).

1.3.2. Reconstructed Sl forms Sl etymological dictionaries use an anachronistic transcription for vowels, based on OCS: i, ь, y, ъ, eˇ, e, a, o for *i:, *i, *u:, *u, *e:, *e, *a:, *a (see 5.1). They transcribe consonants at various stages of development; hence many of the reconstructed lemmas are chimerical, with vocalism and consonantism that never coexisted. To avoid this problem, the present work uses IPA transcription, with the caveat that the phonetic values are approximative. The Slavistic transcription conventions are mentioned when they differ from the IPA. The symbols c and y, which in IPA transcribe the voiceless palatal stop and close front rounded vowel, represent the voiceless dental affricate ts and close central vowel ɨ in the Slavistic tradition. To avoid confusion, c̟ is used for IPA c and ü for IPA y. Intonations are only reconstructed when suprasegmental phonology is discussed specifically (2.2, 4.9, and 6−6.4.4).

1.3.3. Glosses Words are not grammatically glossed if cited in their lemma forms − INF for verbs; NOM.SG for nouns; M.NOM.SG for adjectival pronouns; and M.NOM.SG.INDEF for adjectives in SSl and ESl, but DEF for WSl, where short-forms are rare. Non-lemma forms are glossed by the Leipzig rules; singular number is not glossed. The participles are abbreviated: PRAP = present active; PRPP = present passive; PAP = past active; PPP = past passive; and RES = resultative.

1.3.4. Slavic verbal classes Slavic verbal classes are labeled by the Leskien ([1871] 1962) system. Roman numerals refer to the PreSl themes: I = *e/o, II = *ne/no; III = *i̯ e/i̯ o (IIIa = Ø, IIIb = *a:); IV = *ei̯ (IVa = *i:, IVb = *e:, IVc = *a:); V = athematic. Lower-case letters refer to the

81. The phonology of Slavic

1421

infinitive classifiers: a = Ø (I and III) or *i: (IV); b = *a: (I, III) or *e: (IV); c = *a: (IV).

1.4. Symbols and Abbreviations > < → ⥬ 0 † ! ¶ ÷

«X» AP Ba BCS BFi Bg Bo BR Cˇ ak C Cen ChSl Cr Cz DIM

EEk Gmc Go IE Ik In I-Irn Irn Jek Kaj

precedes follows actualized as borrowed as reanalyzed as dialect irregular outcome different ending normalized grapheme X accent paradigm Baltic Bo-Cr-Sb (see fllg.) Baltic Finnic Bulgarian Bosnian Belarusian Common ˇ akavian BCS C Central Church Slavonic Croatian Czech diminutive Early; East(ern) Ekavian BCS Germanic Gothic Indo-European Ikavian BCS Indic Indo-Iranian Iranian Jekavian BCS Kajkavian BCS

Kb LLa Lech Li LS Ltv MMc NNovg OOCS OHG OI OPr PPb Po QD Rom Ru SSb Sl Slc SLG Slk Sln Sorb Sˇto Uk US VG W-

Kashubian Late Latin Lechitic Lithuanian Lower Sorbian Latvian Middle Macedonian North(ern) Novgorodian Old Old Church Slavonic Old High German Old Indic Old Prussian ProtoPolabian Polish see 5.1 Romance Russian South(ern) Serbian Slavic Slovincian Slavic Lengthened Grade Slovak Slovene Sorbian Sˇtokavian BCS Ukrainian Upper Sorbian Vocalized Grade West(ern)

1422

XIII. Slavic

2. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Slavic The term Proto-Slavic (PSl) refers to the starting-point for the CSl changes not shared by other IE dialects − the deepest linguistic system that can be established by comparative and internal reconstruction using exclusively Sl data. The individual items thus reconstructed may have various depths in real time. Using correspondences between Sl and other IE languages, an earlier layer of Pre-Slavic (PreSl) changes can be established. These were shared with neighboring PIE dialects, and especially with Baltic (Ba). Ba and Sl are linked by major phonological, morphological, prosodic (see 6), and lexical innovations; indeed, many scholars posit a common Balto-Slavic (BaSl) branch or clade. However, it is unclear that Ba and Sl had severed their ties to other PIE dialects during the period of their common developments; the changes that they share may have happened in a zone of convergence rather than a “branch” or “clade” that had conclusively diverged from the neighboring dialects.

2.1. Reflexes of the PIE vowels and glides The 2 x 2 x 1 vowel system of PIE evolved into a 2 x 2 system in PSl, with close *i(:), *u(:) and open *ɛ(:), *a(:). (For the LCSl1 values, see 5.1) There were also up to 36 falling diphthongs composed of vowels plus tautosyllabic glides and sonorants. Two features of this system differentiated PSl from the neighboring IE dialects. First, *o(:) and *a(:) had merged as open unrounded *a(:) (1). Second, (near-)open front *ɛ(:) remained distinct from *a(:) (2). PreSl (1)

(2)

w

PSl

LCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*ok os

*akas

*ɔkɔ

oko

oko

oko

oko

‘eye’

*ak̑sis

*asis

*ɔsɪ

MBg osь

osь

os

oś

‘axle’

*tu̯o:ris

*tu̯a:ris

*tvarɪ

tvarь

tvarь

tvář

twarz

‘creature’

*ma:term̥

*ma:tɛrim

*matɛrɪ

materь

materь

mateř

macierz

‘mother (ACC)’

*bhereti

*bɛrɛti

*bɛrɛtɪ

beretъ

beretь

beře

bierze

‘take (PRS.3SG)’

*u̯erHeH2

*u̯ɛ:ra:

*væra

věra

věra

viera

wiara

‘faith’

In Ba, by contrast, PIE *o and *a merged as *a rather than *o, and *o: and *a: remained distinct; in Indo-Iranian (I-Irn), *o(:), *e(:), and *a(:) merged as *a(:). The PSl vowel system can thus be viewed as transitional between Ba and I-Irn. It has been argued influentially (Ivanov and Toporov 1958) that the PSl vowel system originated in the Ba model of four short and five long vowels (*a:, *e|*e:, *o|*o:, *i|*i:, *u|*u:). This is mere conjecture in the absence of evidence that the merger of *o and *a preceded that of *o: and *a:.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1423

The PIE glides *i̯ and *u̯ (or *y and *w) persisted in PSl both as consonants and as part of falling diphthongs. In CSl, they were lost after consonants (3.2, 3.6, 3.7) and in codas (4.1). Where they have persisted (3), they are transcribed j (3) and v (4) in the attested languages. PreSl

LCSl1

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(3)

*i̯ a:ros

*i̯ a:ra2s

*jarъ

jarъ

jarъ

jako

jary

‘vernal; warm’

(4)

*u̯oi̯ de:te:i̯

*u̯ai̯ dɛ:tεi̯

*vædæti

věděti

věděti

věděti

wiedzieć

‘know’

2.1.1. Irregular outcomes In some twenty lexemes, PIE initial *e is reflected as PSl *a, sometimes with *ɛ doublets (1). A parallel variation occurs in Ba dialects. According to Andersen (1996), the back reflexes arose not by sound change but by contact with an unattested IE dialect, then spread by cross-migrations − hence their sporadic distribution. There are more *a outcomes in ESl because P-ESl dialects had more intensive contacts with the donor language. (In earlier studies, the change was treated as a LCSl1 change of *ɛ > *o in ESl only. This failed to account for the *a variants in SSl and WSl and for the *ɛ variants in ESl.) Other instances of *a for PreSl *e (2) are due to a posited change of *ɛ > *a/__u̯V[+back]. If this was a regular sound change, its regularity has been much obscured by leveling (3). The PreSl sequence *ei̯ e was reflected as PSl *ii̯ ɛ (4). PreSl *e:i̯ e developed as expected to PSl *ɛ:i̯ ɛ. PreSl (1)

*edske

PSl *ɛskɛ

OCS ješte

*askɛ (2)

*k̑leu̯os

*slau̯as

slovo

Bg

Sln

ešte

ešče

ješče

ošte

jošče

ošče

slovo

slovȏ

slovo

devet

deve˛̑t

OESl

OCz

OPo

ješče

jeszcze

Gloss ‘more, still’

†

oszcze

slovo

słowo

‘word’

dev atь

devět

dziewięć

‘nine’

revy

řeva

j

*deu̯entis

*dɛu̯ɛntis

devętь

(3)

*reu̯ants

*rɛu̯ants

revy

(4)

*trei̯ es

*trii̯ ɛs

trьjе

trijẹ̑

trьjе

třie

trzé

‘three (M)’

(5)

*dheHi̯ eti

*dɛ: i̯ ɛti

dějetъ

dẹ̑je

dějetь

děje

dzieje

‘do (PRS.3SG)’

‘bellow (PRAP)’

1424

XIII. Slavic

2.2. Reflexes of the PIE laryngeals In PreSl, the PIE laryngeals became *a between consonants in initial syllables (1). They were lost in other positions (2), but they left their traces on the neighboring syllabic segments. Vowels, syllabic sonorants, and diphthongs were lengthened before laryngeals (3) and developed a phonological property /+acute/ (˶̲), which eventually became a CSl tone (see 6.1, 6.3.1). In addition, the laryngeals “colored” (affected the quality of) adjacent vowels in PreSl, as in other IE dialects: PIE *e was centralized to *a (4) before or after *H2, and backed and rounded to *o before or after *H3 (5). In the first instance in each case the vowel was lengthened, appearing as PSl *a:; in the second instance both short reflexes merged as *a in PSl (see 2.1). PreSl

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(1)

*spH2ros

*spara2s

Bg spor

sporъ

sporý

spory

‘plentiful’; Bg ‘plenty’

(2)

*dhugH2term̥

*duktɛrim

dъsˇterь

dъcˇerь

dceř

(córę)

‘daughter’

*H1esmi

*ɛsmi

(j)esmь

jesmь

jsem

jeśm

‘be (PRS.1SG)’

*H3nogheH2

*naga˝:

noga

noga

noha

noga

‘foot; leg’

*dhuH2mo-

*du˝:ma2s

dymъ

dymъ

dým

dym

‘smoke’

*pr̥ H3u̯os

*pı˝:ru̯a2s

prъvъ

pьrvъ

prv

pirzwy

‘first’

*bholHto-

*ba˝:ltad

blato

bolo̍to

bláto

bƚoto

‘swamp’

*steH2te:i̯

*sta˝:tɛ˝:i̯

stati

stati

státi

stać

‘stand’

*H2er-

*ar-

orǫsˇtь

orati

orati

orać

(3)

(4)

‘plow’; OCS PRAP

(5)

*deH3te:i̯

*da˝:tɛ˝:i̯

dati

dati

dati

dać

‘give’

*H3eu̯ikeH2

*au̯ika˝:

ovьca

ovьca

ovce

owca

‘sheep’

The PSl column in the table includes acuted trimoraic glide and sonorant diphthongs. It has been hypothesized that the vocalic nuclei in such diphthongs were shortened at an early stage, perhaps as a shared BaSl development. While there is certainly no way to distinguish internal V:R, V:I̯ from VR, VI̯ , apart from the acute, in final syllables V:R and VR had different outcomes (see 3.1.3−3.1.4). For present purposes, I will assume that trimoraic diphthongs shortened, but I will indicate long vowels in the final syllables that had distinct outcomes. (Orr [2000: 36] argues that trimoraic shortening was blocked in final syllables to maintain morphological distinctions. Feldstein [2003: 256−257] claims that the sonorants or glides were not moraic, i.e. parts of diphthongs, until after the vowels shortened. Jasanoff [2004a: 250] posits that non-laryngeal long vowels in final syllables became trimoraic.)

81. The phonology of Slavic

1425

2.3. Reflexes of the PIE sonorants In PIE, the sonorants *r, *l, *m, and *n were non-syllabic next to a vowel, and syllabic elsewhere. In PSl, the non-syllabic sonorants were preserved without change (1). By contrast, the PIE syllabic sonorants were replaced by vowel-sonorant sequences in PSl, as in PBa. The standard account of this development posits anaptyxis: close vowels were inserted, so that the sonorants ceased to be the syllable nuclei. The anaptyctic vowel could be *i (2−4) or *u (*5−7); the same root can be attested with either vowel (8). (On the LCSl reflexes, see 5.6) PreSl (1)

(2)

(5)

(6)

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*ma:tɛrɛs

matere

matere

mateře

macierze

‘mother (GEN)’

*le:n(ei̯ u̯)os

*lɛ:n(ɛi̯ u̯)a2s

lěn(iv)ъ

lěnivъ

léný

leny

‘lazy’

*tr̥ pe:te::i̯

*tirpɛ:tεi̯

trъpeˇti

tьrpeˇ

trpeˇti

cirpieć

‘endure’

*k̑r̥ dika-

*si:rdikad

srъdьce

sьrdьce

srdce

si(e)rce

‘heart’

*kirna2s

črъnъ

čьrnъ

č(e)rný

czarny

‘black’

*u̯l̥ k os

*u̯ilka2s

vlъkъ

vъlkъ

vlk

wilk

‘wolf’

*ghl̥ tos

*gilta2s

OSb žlьtyi

žьltъi

žlutý

żołty

‘yellow’

*gwl̥ HneH2

*gilna:

Bg žu˘lna

Ru želna

žluna

żołna

‘woodpecker’

*dek̑m̥tos

*dɛsimta2s

desętъi

des jatъ

desáty

dziesiąty

‘tenth’

*n̥me:n

*inmɛ:n

imę

im ja

jmeˇ

jimię

‘name’

*r̥ ke:te:i̯

*urkɛ:tεi̯

Bg vru˘ča

vъrčati

vrčeti

warczeć

‘grumble; be noisy’

*bhr̥ g̑(h)o-

*burza2s

brъzo

bъrzo

brzo

barzo

‘swiftly; very’

*gwhr̥ nik-

*gurnik-

gъrnьčarь

gъrnьcь

hrnec

garniec

‘pot’; OCS ‘potter’

*ml̥ u̯eH2

*mulu̯a:

mlъva

mъlva

mluva

mołwa

‘noise; speech’

*stl̥ pos

*stulpa2s

stlъpъ

stъlpъ

stlup

słup

‘pillar’

*k r̥ nos

(4)

OCS

*ma:teres

w

(3)

PSl

w

j

j

(7)

*n̥

*un

vъ(n -)

vъ(n -)

v(nˇ-)

w(ń-)

‘in(to)’

(8)

*skr̥ bhei̯ neH2

*skirbɛi̯ n a:

OSb štrьbina

ščьrbina

ščrbina

szczyrbina

‘shard; damage’

*skr̥ bh-

*skurb-

skrъbь

skъrbь

skrbiti

skarb

‘grief’; OCz ‘amass’

As shown in the table, the *iR and *uR reflexes could appear in the same environments. Overall, roots with *iR are much more common than those with *uR. In Shevelov’s

1426

XIII. Slavic

(1965: 87−90) sample of 86 Sl roots, the only environment where *uR outnumbered *iR was after velars (19 out of 33 roots); after labials, *uR occurred in 10 out of 34 roots, and after dentals in only 3 out of 15. In Andersen’s (2003: 60) sample of 215 lexemes shared by Ba and Sl, *iR is the outcome in 73 %, and *uR in 17 %. Of the remaining 10 %, some show *iR reflexes in Sl but *uR in Ba or vice versa; others have outcomes of both kinds in Sl and/or in Ba.

2.3.1. Phonological explanations There have been many attempts to explain the twofold outcomes by regular sound change. It has been argued that the *uR outcomes were regular after velars or in lowtonality environments (K__, P__K). These claims fail to account for doublets from the same root or for exceptions like *u̯l̥ kwos, *ghl̥ tos (3). Alternatively, it has been posited that *uR was regular only after labiovelars (see 2.4.2), which remained distinct from velars until “Late BaSl.” This is dubious; the fact that labiovelars and velars merged in all satem dialects points to an earlier stage of PIE. Again, there are exceptions, e.g. *kwr̥nos (2), *gwl̥ HneH2 (3). Matasović (2004) argues that the BaSl syllable sonorants did not have a single uniform reflex; the outcomes differed according to manner of articulation and their position in the word. In initial syllables, the regular reflexes were *ir; *ul after velars and *il elsewhere; and *un and *um. In non-initial syllables, the only regular reflex was *iR. Matasović explains the numerous exceptions either as affective formations or as analogical extensions of *i based on ablaut patterns (ibid.: 351). However, as Kortlandt (2007) observes, some of the supposed extensions of *i occur in roots without known ablaut variation. Some scholars posit that *iR was the only regular reflex. They plausibly explain some of the *uR outcomes as phonaesthetic in origin, e.g., *r̥ke:te:i̯ (5), *ml̥ u̯eH2 (6), and several other evidently onomatopoetic words, where *u conveyed low-frequency noises. Other instances of *uR arose by analogy to the o-grade, e.g. gwhr̥nik- (5) under the influence of *gwor-, *gwo:r. Still others entered in borrowings, typically from Gmc. Some of the lexemes with *uR were undoubtedly borrowed: Gmc *fulka- ⥬ *pulka2 s ‘armed troop’ (with sound substitution), OESl pъlkъ, OPo pułk; Gmc *hulma- (with the Grimm’s Law reflex of PIE *k) ⥬ *xulma2 s ‘hill’, OESl xъlmъ, OPo Chełm. The fact that there are no instances of *uR after palatovelars, which cannot have been borrowed from Gmc, has also been cited as evidence, but the eligible roots are too few to permit any generalizations. PSl *suta- ‘hundred’ (OCS, OESl sъto, OCz, OPo sto) would be a counterexample if it directly reflects PIE *dk̑m̥to-; the loss of the nasal would also be irregular. For this reason, the word has sometimes been treated as a borrowing from Irn; cf. Avestan satǝm. It has also been proposed that it goes back to *dk̑uto-, reflecting the zero grade of a putative PIE *dek̑u- ‘ten’.

2.3.2. Language contact Andersen (1996: 107; idem 2003: 60−62) argues that the *uR outcomes arose by contact with IE dialects where it was the regular outcome; this explains why it did not occur

81. The phonology of Slavic

1427

after assibilated palatovelar reflexes, in grammatical morphemes, or in “productive ablaut alternations” (Anderson 2003: 60, following Stang 1966: 79). Once the borrowings were assimilated, *uR became available to replace *iR in expressiva and in onomatopoeia denoting low-pitched or indistinct sounds (Anderson 2003: 61−62). This explanation is more cogent than the attempts to define the *iR/*uR split by regular sound change. However, it may not explain all of the *uR outcomes − notably, the preposition *un ‘in(to)’. Moreover, the claim that *uR did not occur in grammatical morphemes is open to question: OCS sigmatic AOR.1SG -sъ, -xъ can be reconstructed as *s-um < *-s-m̥, the ending reflected in Gk -sa; there is no evidence that it was ever *s-im, pace Andersen (2013: 26−27). Also debatable is the notion that *um did not participate in productive ablaut. For PSl *gurn- (5) from PIE *gwhr̥- (10), all of the other grades are attested: *gr-, OESl grěti ‘to warm’); *ger-, OESl žeravъ ‘heated’; *ge:r-, OESl žarъ ‘heat’; *gor-, OESl gorěti ‘be burning’; and *go:r-, OESl razgarati s ja ‘be burning hotter [IPFV]’.

2.3.3. Perceptual ambiguity of syllabic sonorants A more flexible approach would be to emphasize perceptual innovations rather than sound change proper. Cross-linguistically, syllabic sonorant phonemes are often realized with ultrashort vowels in their opening or closing phases: /R̥/ → [R̥]~[ǝR̥]~[R̥ǝ]. Assuming that this kind of variation occurred in PreSl, the resulting ambiguity would have permitted innovative language learners to reanalyze the sonorant phase as the coda of a diphthong: [ǝR̥] 0 /VR/ → [ǝR]~[R̥]. The mechanism of the change would thus be phonemic reanalysis rather than actual anaptyxis (vowel-insertion). While the innovative learners could, in principle, have intuited that the vowel before the sonorant was a distinct phoneme /ǝ/, there was no supporting evidence for such a phoneme in other contexts. Thus they would be more likely to assign it to the adjacent vowels − to /i/, to /u/, or to both, on a lexeme-by-lexeme basis. Neither /i/ nor /u/ had occurred before sonorantconsonant sequences prior to the innovation, so there were no counterexamples to hinder the innovative learners from abducing that one or both had centralized allophones. This scenario explains how *iR and *uR outcomes could both develop in the same speech community, and even in the same idiolect. It also salvages the distributional patterns noted by previous scholars: whether the innovative speakers perceived [ǝ] as /i/ or /u/ could indeed be influenced by the adjacent consonants, but without the consistency of results expected in blind sound change. The innovative learners could also have been motivated by other factors suggested by previous scholars, including phonaesthetic associations; other ablaut grades of the same roots; semantic connections, e.g. sigmatic AOR.1SG *sm ̥ 0 *-sum under the influence of the back vowels in the root AOR.1SG *-om and PRS.1SG *-o:m; and substratum or adstratum input. Given that the innovative speakers had internalized /V[+high]R/ rather than /R̥/, they would be likely to implement [V[+high]R] more frequently than other possible realizations: /iR/ → [iR] (~ [ǝR]~[R̥]); /uR/ → [uR] (~ [ǝR]~[R̥]). (The phonetic symbols are purely relational here; the output of /iR/ could have been [ɪR], [ïR], etc., without altering the essential point.) The innovations would have mostly passed unnoticed by conservative speakers because of phonetic proximity; their own schwas probably varied, under the influence of the adjacent sounds, in the continua from near-back to near-front and from near-close to mid, if the realization of syllabic sonorants in living languages is any guide. Moreover, because their grammars lacked underlying /V[+high]R/, the conservative speak-

1428

XIII. Slavic

ers would tend not to perceive forms with [V[+high]R] as grammatical mistakes. New learners would have been more likely to acquire /V[+high]R/ instead of /R̥/ because of the increased frequency of [V[+high]R] input from the innovative speakers. Over time, the variations within the speech community would have been sorted out by normal processes of social accommodation. This need not have had homogeneous results; it could have led to the relatively random distribution of *iR and *uR reflexes that we actually see.

2.4. Reflexes of the PIE stops In PIE, stops came in voiceless, voiced, and voiced aspirate phonations and in labial, dental, palatovelar, velar, and labiovelar articulations. The PSl inventory was much smaller, with voiceless and voiced phonations and labial, dental, and velar articulations. Three changes transformed the PIE 3 x 5 system into the PSl 2 x 3: loss of aspiration (2.4.1); delabialization of labiovelars (2.4.2); and assibilation of the palatovelars (2.4.3). Some scholars posit a radically different reconstruction of the PIE stops, with ejective or glottalized stops for the voiced unaspirated series traditionally reconstructed. This “Glottalic Theory” is a lynchpin of some approaches to BaSl accentology (see 6.3.3). The present account assumes the traditional reconstruction as the one best in accord with the Comparative Method. If PIE had ejectives, it could only have been at a very early stage, given the uniformly voiced, pulmonic reflexes in Sl, Ba, Indo-Iranian, Albanian, Gk, Italic, and Celtic.

2.4.1. Loss of aspiration In PSl, as in Irn, PBa, and Albanian, the voiced aspirate stops lost their distinctive phonation feature and merged with the voiced series: Dh > D (1). The non-aspirated voiceless (2) and voiced stops (3) remained stable. PreSl (1)

(2)

(3)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*bhra:ter-

*bra:tra2s

brat(r)ъ

brat(r)ъ

bratr

brat

‘brother’:

*dhuH2mos

*du:ma2s

dymъ

dymъ

dým

dym

‘smoke’

*ghostis

*gastis

gostь

gostь

host

gość

‘guest; foreigner’

*prok̑-

*prasi:tεi̯

prositi

prositi

prositi

prosić

‘ask for’

*trei̯ (e)s

*trεi̯ s

tri

tri

tři

trzy

‘three’

*koseH2

*kasa:

MBg kosa

kosa

kosa

kosa

‘braid’

*bamb-

*bambina2s

MBg bǫbьnъ

bubьnъ

buben

bęben

‘drum’; OPo ‘belly’

*duu̯o:(u)

*dŭu̯a:

dъva

dъva

dva

dwa

‘two’

*i̯ ugo-

*i̯ ugad

igo

igo

jho

Po igo

‘yoke’

81. The phonology of Slavic

1429

2.4.2. Delabialization of the labiovelars Like neighboring Indo-Iranian and PBa, PSl was a satem dialect, in which the PIE labiovelars merged with the plain velars: Kw > K (1). PreSl (1)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

w

*kater-

koter-

koter-

k(o)ter-

ktor-

‘which’

w

*g ou̯ino-

*gau̯ina-

OSb govьno

govьno

hovno

gowno

‘feces’

*gwhor-

*garɛ:tεi̯

gorěti

gorěti

hořeti

gorzeć

‘burn’

*k oter-

2.4.3. Assibilation of the palatovelars In the satem division of PIE, the reflexes of the palatovelars remained distinct from those of the velars. In PreSl, *k̑ > *s, and *g̑(h) > *z. Thus the reflex of *ḱ merged with the non-dorsal (non-RUKI) allophones of *s (1) (see 2.5). In PIE, *z had only existed as an allophone of *s before voiced obstruents; in PSl, it became a distinct and widespread phoneme due to the assibilation of *g̑(h) (2). PreSl (1)

(2)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*k̑eHu̯eros

*sɛ:u̯ɛra2s

seˇverъ

seˇverъ

seˇver

siewier

‘north’; OCz ‘spring’

*a:k̑rembhos

*a:sremba2s

OSb jastrěbъ

jastr jabъ

jastřáb

jastrząb

‘goshawk’

*k̑luHsa:te:i̯

*slu:xɛ:tεi̯

slysˇati

slysˇati

slysˇeˇti

sƚyszeć

‘hear’

*g̑ombhos

*zamba2s

zǫbъ

zub

zub

ząb

‘tooth’

*g̑neH3te:i̯

*zna:tεi̯

znati

znati

znati

znać

‘know’

*g̑hei̯ meH2

*zεi̯ ma:

zima

zima

zima

zima

‘winter’

Presumably, in the satem dialects, the palatovelars developed into affricates with dorsal frication; then they lost their closure to become hushers: *k̑ > *tʃ > ʃ. The husher stage is attested in OI and non-sigmatic EBa: *dk̑́m̥to- > OI śatám, Li sˇim̑tas ‘hundred’. Subsequently, in the more central zone, the hushers became sibilants: *k̑ > *tʃ > *ʃ > *s: Avestan satǝm, Ltv sìmts ‘hundred’, OPr tu:simtons ‘thousands (ACC.PL )’, OCS sъto (*dk̑uto-). (Lunt [2001: 193] posits a different process : *k̑ > *ts > *s, *g̑ > *dz >* z.) In Sl, at least 40 roots have plain velars for the PIE palatovelars instead of expected *s, *z (3). In some cases, the same roots show both sibilant and velar outcomes (4−5). This phenomenon, termed Gutturalwechsel, also occurs in Ba, often in the same roots as in Sl: OLtv sirna, OPr sirvis ‘deer’, but Li kárvė ‘cow’ (4); Ltv zelts ‘gold’, but Li gel˜tas ‘yellow’ (5). Li zˇąsìs ‘goose’ has the expected palatovelar development where Sl shows Gutturalwechsel (3).

1430

XIII. Slavic PreSl (3)

(4)

(5) (6)

PSl

SSl

*su̯ek̑ru:-

0

OESl

OCz

OPo

*su̯ɛkru:-

*g̑hans-

OCS svekry

svekry

svekrev

świekra

‘husband’s mother’

0

OSb gusь

gusь

hus

gąs-

‘goose’

*k̑r̥ neH2

*sirna:

MBg srъna

sьrna

srna

sarna

‘roe deer’

*k̑oru̯eH2

0

OSb krava

korova

kráva

krowa

‘cow’

*g̑hl̥ tos

0

OSb zˇlьtь

zˇьltъ

zˇlutý

żołty

‘yellow’

*g̑holtom

0

OCS zlato

zoloto

zlato

złoto

‘gold’

*gansis

*karu̯a: *gilta2s *zaltad

Gloss

Efforts to explain the velar outcomes by regular sound change have not been convincing. For example, it has been argued that palatovelars regularly depalatalized before *r, *l, *m, *n, and *u̯ in BaSl. Even allowing for analogy to other ablaut grades, this claim has too many counterexamples to be cogent; cf. *a:k̑rembho-, *pik̑ro-s, *k̑luHsa:te:i̯ , and *g̑neH3te:i̯ (2.4.3). Given the doublets, the most likely explanation is borrowing and/or substratum influence from centum or, as proposed by Andersen (2003), pre-satem speakers. It is phonetically plausible that *k̑, *g̑h would have been perceived as *k, *g by speakers of dialects in which the palatovelars had already been assibilated; cf. Anglophone perceptions of Cz t’ [c̟] as /k/ and d’ [ɟ] as /g/.

2.5. Reflexes of IE *s PIE *s had two regular reflexes in PSl. In most environments, it remained a sibilant (1). After *i, *u, *r, *k, (the “RUKI” environment), it developed back allophones (RUKI1) (2); these later became the voiceless velar fricative *x (RUKI2). (In CSl, the velar became *ʃ before front vowels; see 3.2) The triggers for RUKI included both syllabic and non-syllabic *i, *u, and *r; the velar subsumed the reflexes of *k, *kw (see 2.4.2), and, by devoicing (see 2.7.1), *g(h), and *gw(h). PreSl

RUKI1

PSl/ RUKI2

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(1)

*sestreH2

*sestra:

*sεstra:

sestra

sestra

sestra

siostra

‘sister’

(2)

*u̯r̥ sus

*u̯irsus

*u̯irxus

vrъxъ

vьrxъ

vrch

wirzch

‘top’

*dhou̯sos

*dou̯sos

*dou̯xa2s

duxъ

duxъ

duch

duch

‘breath’

*lei̯ k sos

*lei̯ ksos

*lεi̯ kxa2s

lixъ

lixъ

lichý

lichy

‘poor; bad’

*stro:g-so-s

*stro:ksos

*stra:kxa2s

straxъ

straxъ

strach

strach

‘fear’

*moi̯ sos

*moi̯ sos

*mai̯ xa2s

měxъ

měxъ

měch

miech

‘sack’

w

RUKI also occurred in In, Irn, and Li, in the last two of which the reflex was *ʃ. It has been argued that the *s in OPr, Ltv, and some Li dialects also developed from an earlier

81. The phonology of Slavic

1431

*ʃ (Andersen 2003). As RUKI only occurred in satem dialects, it may have followed the delabialization of labiovelars (see 2.4.2). Pre-Li and PreSl have different relative chronologies for the change. In PreSl, as shown in (3), RUKI ceased operating before *k̑ became *s (see 2.4.3). In Pre-Li, by contrast, *k̑ merged with the reflex of RUKI *s in Pre-PBa: Li pie˜šti ‘draw’, †pìršys ‘chest (of a horse)’. This suggests that RUKI and satem assibilation overlapped in time in PreLi. Thus the RUKI change is one of the earliest changes − perhaps the earliest − to have divergent outcomes in Sl and Ba. Seeming exceptions to RUKI have several explanations. The target *s may have followed a labial or dental stop (3), which was lost in later cluster simplifications (3.1.3). Alternatively, the sibilant may reflect PIE *k̑ (4). Other exceptions are Post-RUKI loanwords, e.g. Vulgar Latin mēsa ⥬ OCS misa ‘platter’; or later affective formations, e.g. Ru plaksa ‘crybaby’. PreSl (3)

(4)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*H1rou̯dhsos

*rau̯(d)sa2s

MBg rusъ

rusъ

rusý

rusy

‘reddish blond’

*aps-

*a(p)s-

Bg osíka

osina

(v)os

osika

‘aspen’

*pei̯ k̑a:te:i̯

*pεi̯ s2a:tεi̯

pisati

pisati

pisati

pisać

‘write; paint’

*pr̥ k̑eis

*pirs2εi̯ s

prьsi

pьrsi

prsi

pirsi

‘breasts’

In its initial phase, RUKI was a complex of assimilations: *s developed retracted allophones (collectively *s2) after sounds produced deeper in the vocal tract. (Andersen [1969] treats this as “markedness assimilation” to sounds that were marked in their natural classes.) Some scholars posit that there was a single allophone *s2 [ʃ], as in Li and Irn, or retroflex [ʂ]. The palatal would be natural after *i(:), but less motivated after *u(:). The retroflex would be natural after *r, but it is unclear why the accommodation should only involve the shape of the tongue tip or blade, as in retroflexion, especially given that *k, *i(:), and *u(:) had dorsal articulations. To be sure, the rounding of *u(:) could produce much the same acoustic impression as retroflexion. Actually, there is no need to assume a single *s2; different allophones could have developed in assimilation to different triggers: /s/ → [s]~[s]~[ʂ]~[ʃ]~[sˠ] (or other retracted values). The key innovation would be the rephonologization of some or, in PreSl, all of the backed allophones as a new phoneme /s/. The latter (ultimately rephonologized as /x/) could likewise have had a range of realizations. Cf. Swedish sj [ɧ], whose articulation has been variously described as rounded, labiodental, velarized, velar, dorsovelar, or palato-alveolar-velar. In PSl, the *s2 reflex did not occur before consonants (5). Though clusters of *x plus sonorant were permitted in CSl, they only occurred over boundaries, where analogy could operate (6), or in loanwords and expressiva; there are no cases within (synchronic) morphemes (7). Some scholars posit that RUKI actually took place before consonants in PreSl, as in Li and Irn. Thus, in Andersen’s view (1968), BaSl *ʂ (*s2) merged with the reflex of *k̑ before consonants, then lost its retroflexion in the same environment in PreSl. While this claim cannot be falsified, neither can the alternative hypothesis that RUKI was blocked by a following consonant.

1432

XIII. Slavic PreSl (5)

(6)

(7)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

*pr̥ stis

*pirstis

prъstь

pьrstь

prst

*re:kste

*rɛ:kstɛ

reˇste

reˇste

řěste

‘say (AOR.2PL )’

*re:ksm̥

*rɛ:kxum

reˇxъ

reˇxъ

řěch

‘say (AOR.1SG)’

*susnonte:i̯

0

sъxnǫti

sъxnuti

schnúti

schnąć

‘dry out’

*sou̯so-

*sau̯xa2s

suxъ

suxъ

suichý

suchy

‘dry’

*poi̯ snis

*pai̯ snis

pěsnь

pěsnь

piesnˇ

pieśń

‘song’

*tei̯ sknos

*tεi̯ skna2s

těsnъ

těsnъ

těs(k)ný

ciasny

‘tight; narrow’

*suxnantεi̯

pirst-

Gloss ‘dust’

2.5.1. Initial *x The only regular source for initial *x was *ks- > *kx > *x (1). Other examples may have arisen by the extension of sandhi variants, e.g. after the prefixes *per-, *prei̯ -, and *ou̯. This is said to be the origin of *x in *xod- ‘go (INDET )’ and the innovative zerograde *xid- (2). Initial *x also appeared in onomatopoeia (3) and in loanwords from Gmc or Irn (4). PreSl

ECSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(1)

*ksou̯dos

*(k)xau̯da2s

xudъ

xudъ

chudý

chudy

‘bad’

(2)

*prei̯ sod i:te:i̯

*prεi̯ xadi:tεi̯

prixoditi

prixoditi

prˇichoditi

przychodzić

‘come’

*sod i:te:i̯

0

xoditi

xoditi

choditi

chodzić

‘go (INDET )’

*xidla2s

sˇьlъ

sˇьlъ

sˇedl

szedł

‘go (RES.M)’

*xleb-/-p-

Bg xlebam

xlepъtati

chleptati

Po chłeptać

‘slurp’

⥬*

xlěbъ

xlěbъ

chléb

chleb

‘bread’

(3) (4)

Gmc *hlaiƀ-

*xadi:tεi̯

xlai̯ ba2s

2.5.2. Extension of *x Once established as a phoneme, *x began to replace *s, *k, and *g in expressive lexemes (1). In some cases, the expected forms coexisted with the innovations. The affective value may have come from *x~*s doublets that had arisen in contacts with non-RUKI dialects or in interactions with conservative speakers in the same dialect.

81. The phonology of Slavic PreSl (1)

1433

PSl

*ko:p-

0

*smaur-

*smau̯r-

OCS

*xa:p-

0

OESl

xap-

*xmau̯ra:

OCz

OPo

Gloss

xap-

cháp-

chap-

‘grab’; OCS ‘bite’

smuryj

smúriti seˇ

Kb smura

‘grey’; ‘frown’; ‘cloud’

Ru xmura

Cz chmura

chmura

‘cloud’

†

In addition, *x was extended analogically in specific grammatical and derivational contexts. The ending *-su (nominal LOC.PL, pronominal GEN/LOC.PL ) was regularly reflected as *-xu after the themes *-i-, *-u-, and *-o-i̯ - (with intrusive *-i-) (2). Gradually, *-xu was extended to other inflectional classes (3). The phonologically expected *s was only preserved in personal pronouns − 1PL.GEN/LOC and 2PL.GEN/LOC (4). Relics of the consonant-stem LOC.PL in OCz toponyms, e.g. Doleass ‘in Doljane’ from *dali̯ ensu (modern Dolánky). Thus it is not true that “š replaced every desinential s (unless a consonant followed),” pace Lunt (2001: 191). PreSl

RUKI

ECSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

Gloss

*moi̯ stoi̯ su

*moi̯ stoi̯ xu

*mai̯ stai̯ xu

městeˇxъ

městeˇxъ

městiech

‘locales (LOC.PL )’

*toi̯ su

*toi̯ xu

*tai̯ xu

těxъ

těxъ

těch

‘those (GEN/LOC.PL )’

(3)

*gweneH2su

*gena:su

0

ženaxъ

ženaxъ

ženách

‘women (LOC.PL )’

(4)

*no:su

*no:su

*na:su

nasъ

nasъ

nás

‘us (GEN/LOC/PL )’

*u̯o:su

*u̯o:su

*u̯a:su

vasъ

vasъ

vás

‘you (GEN/LOC/PL )’

(2)

*gɛna:xu

By the regular sound change, PRS.2SG *-si had become *-si (*-xi) after the theme *-ei̯ - (5). In CSl, *-xi was extended to all thematic verbs and to athematic ‘have’ (6). The regular outcome survived only in the other four athematics − OCS jesi ‘be’, jasi ‘eat’, dasi ‘give’, and veˇsi ‘know’. In the sigmatic aorist, *-x- was phonetically conditioned in the 1SG, 1DU, 1PL, and 3PL of stems in *ī˘, ū˘, *r, *k, or *g (7). After phonetic RUKI ended, aorist *-x- and *-s- were reanalyzed as distinct allomorphs. By the earliest writings, -x- had displaced *-s- in all stems in vowels, and the innovative allomorph *-ox- was spreading to all consonant stems (8). PreSl

RUKI

ECSl

OCS

Gloss

(5)

*u̯ei̯ dei̯ si

*u̯ei̯ dei̯ xi

*u̯εi̯ dεi̯ xi(:)

vidiši

‘see (PRS.2SG)’

(6)

*H1nek̑esi

0

*nɛsɛxi(:)

nesesˇi

‘carry (PRS.2SG)’

*H1emeH2si

0

*ima:xi(:)

imaši

‘have (PRS.2SG)’

*nesesi *ima:si

1434

XIII. Slavic PreSl (7) (8)

RUKI

ECSl

OCS

Gloss

*bhuHsm̥

*bu:xum

*bu:xum

byxъ

‘be (PFV.AOR.1SG)’

*bhu̯eHsm̥

0

*bu̯ɛ:xum

beˇxъ

‘be (IPFV.AOR.1SG)’

*u̯edhosn̥t

0

*u̯edaxint

vedošę

‘lead (AOR.3PL )’

*bu̯e:sum *u̯edasint

2.6. Restructuring of ablaut Some of the roots in which syllabic sonorants were reinterpreted as /iR/ or /uR/ functioned as zero grades in ablaut alternations. Consequently, *i and *u joined the repertory of alternating vowels as what may be called the Vocalized Grade (VG). Initially, the VG alternated with the old zero grade in certain paradigms: (C)V[+high]R occurred before consonants, and (C)R before vowels (1−2). Thus some of the unsuffixed (Ia and IIIa) sonorant-stem verbs had the old zero-grade in both the present (tudáti-type, with theme vowels before the endings) and in the aorist and/or past participles (with consonantinitial suffixes). Such phonologically conditioned alternations were eliminated by the generalization of (C)V[+high]R, although (C)R could persist in derivationally related forms; cf. OCS granъ ‘verse’ (*gwr̥H2-). Pre-PSl (1)

(2)

PSl

ECSl

OCS

Gloss

*gwr̥ H2onti

*granti

0

žьrǫtъ

‘sacrifice (PRS.3PL )’

*gwr̥ te:i̯

*girtɛi̯

*girtɛi̯

zˇrьti

‘sacrifice’

*-knonti

*-knanti

0

nacˇьnǫtъ

‘begin (PRS.3PL )’

*-kn̥tos

*-kintas

*-kintas

nacˇętъ

‘begin (PPP)’

*giranti

*-kinanti

This leveling was an early instance of the tendency to replace the inherited zero-grade with the VG wherever it alternated in paradigms. The same tendency led to the rise of vocalized allomorphs that had not been phonologically conditioned − for example, in the aorist/infinitive stem (3). Eventually, the VG displaced the inherited zero-grade allomorphs in all sonorant-final stems, even in suffixed class IV verbs like ‘be ripe’ (4), where the sonorant had never been syllabic (cf. *g̑ r̥Hno- > PSl *zirna- > OESl zьrno ‘seed’). (CCV- roots where the zero-grade did not alternate within the paradigm were unaffected.) In addition, the VG spread by analogy to alternating zero-grade roots that did not end in sonorants, e.g. ‘call’ (PIE *g̑hu-) (5) and to “vowelless” verbal roots in general. For example, an inverted VG appeared in Schwebeablaut roots in which syllabic sonorants had alternated interparadigmatically with other grades, e.g. *-n̥g̑h- ‘stick’ (6) alongside o-grade causative *nog̑hi:te:i̯ ‘drive (a point) into’ (OCS vъnoziti).

81. The phonology of Slavic Pre-PSl (3)

1435 PSl

ECSl

OCS

Gloss

*bheronti

*bɛranti

*bɛranti

berǫtъ

‘take (PRS.3PL)’

*bhra:te:i̯

*bra:tɛi̯

0

bьrati

‘take’

(4)

*k̑omg̑rei̯ ti

*sumzrɛi̯ ti

0

sъzьritъ

‘be ripe (PRS.3SG)’

(5)

*g̑hau̯onti

*zau̯anti

*zau̯anti

zovǫtъ

‘call (PRS.3PL)’

*zu̯a:tɛi̯

0

zъvati

‘call’

*uzinzus?

0

vъznьzъ

‘stick into’ (PAP.M)

*g̑hu̯a:te:i̯ (6)

*ug̑hn̥g̑hus

*bira:tɛi̯ *suzirɛi̯ ti

*zuu̯a:tɛi̯ *uznizus

In CSl, the VG was reinterpreted as a type of full grade. Indeed, it displaced the inherited full grade in some paradigms; for example, OCS has present and aorist stem variants žeg-~žьg- (PSl *geg- ‘burn’, PIE *dhegwh-). Moreover, a new lengthened grade in *i:/*u: arose in iteratives derived from VG roots: VG *-mir-: SLG *-mi:r-, OCS umьr-: umira‘die (PFV: IPFV)’; VG *-zuu̯-: SLG *-zu:u̯-, OCS prizъv-: prizyva- ‘call (PFV: IPFV)’. This paralleled the relation between the inherited full grades (*e/*a) and lengthened grades (*e:/*a:). The Slavic Lengthened Grade was highly productive in CSl, where it was extended to consonant-stem roots that did not end in sonorants: PSl *prasupa:tεi̯ sɛ:m|*prasu:pa:tεi̯ sɛ:m > OESl prosъpati s ja|prosypati s ja ‘awaken (PFV|IPFV)’. It remains productive in the attested languages.

2.7. PreSl changes in consonant clusters 2.7.1. Voicing assimilation In PSl, voiced obstruents were regularly devoiced before voiceless ones and vice versa (1). This rule, inherited from PIE, persisted throughout the CSl period. PreSl (1)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*ma:k̑tis (*g̑)

*ma:stis

mastь

mastь

mast

maść

‘ointment’

*duzdi̯ εi̯ εti (*s)

*duzdi̯ εi̯ ti

dъžditъ

dъžditь

dščí

dżdży

‘cause to rain (PRS.3SG)’

2.7.2. Double dental rule In PreSl, as in Ba, Irn, Albanian, and Gk, PIE *tt, *dd became *st, *zd, almost certainly through a stage *tst, *dzd (1). In PSl, the results of the change were evident in stem allomorphy before derivational suffixes and endings with initial *-t-. One supposed exception is PSl *at-(ik)- ‘father’ (2), said to correspond to Hittite attaš, Gk átta, La, Go

1436

XIII. Slavic

atta. Actually, none of the cognates show expected outcomes for *tt. As a nursery word, *a(t)t- could potentially be (re)created with each first language acquisition. PreSl (1)

(2)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*kwit+ti-

*kistis

čьstь

čьstь

čest

cześć

‘honor’

*u̯edh+te:i̯

*u̯ɛstεi̯

věsti

věsti

věsti

-wieść

‘lead’

*i̯ eH2dh+dh-

*i̯ a:zda:

MBg jazda

jězdъ

jiezda

jazda

‘ride’

*a(t)t-

*atikas

otьcь

otьcь

otec

ociec

‘father’

2.7.3. Degemination of sibilants PreSl was one of several PIE dialects in which *ss became *s (1). This change recurred in the new *ss, *zz clusters (2) that developed by satem assibilation (2.4.3). In CSl, the resulting S~Ø alternations were preserved in the sigmatic aorist of s- and z-stems (3) and in prefixal sandhi (4). PreSl

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(1)

*H1essi

*ɛsi(:)

jesi

jesi

jsi

jeś

‘be (PRS.2SG)’

(2)

*ak̑sis (*ag̑-)

*asis

osь

osь

os

Po oś

‘axle’

*sk̑eH2ini

*sai̯ nis

sěnь

sěnь

sien

sień

‘shade’; OCz ‘hall’

(3)

*H1ne:k̑sm̥

*-nɛ:sum

vъzněsъ

(4)

*bek̑se:d(*g̑h)

*bɛsɛ:da:

besěda

besěda

besěda

*eg̑hg̑ob-

*izab-

izobati

zobati

zobać

‘exalt (AOR.1SG)’ biesiada

‘chat’ ‘eat a bit’

2.7.4. Sibilant + *r clusters Inherited *sr became *str in PreSl (1), as in Gmc, Albanian, and most of Ba. In PreSl, the change also applied to *sr from *k̑r (see 2.4.3), and there was a parallel change *g̑hr > *zdr (2). It is phonetically natural for closure to develop between continuants and trills. Andersen (1972: 38) treats the change as a “diphthongization”: *r was implemented with “an obstruent-like initial portion,” later reidentified as *t. The alternations that arose from this change in prefixal and prepositional sandhi were leveled out in most CSl dialects, but they continued to operate in OCS and, to a lesser extent, OPo (3). In Izdrail’- ‘Israel’ (4), a ca. 9th−10th-c. borrowing from Gk into OCS, and from there to OESl, or from La into OCz and OPo, Iz- was contaminated with the prefix iz.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1437

PreSl

PSl

(1)

*srou̯(i̯ )-

*strau̯i̯ -

struja

struja

Strumenˇ

strumeń

‘stream’

(2)

*ak̑ro-

*astr-

ostrъ

ostrъ

ostrý

ostry

‘sharp’

*pou̯g̑ro-

*pau̯zdra-

BCS pȕzdro

Ru puzdro

púzdro

puzdro

‘pizzle; sheath’

*eg̑h+rank

iz-d-rǫky

z-d-ręki

‘from the hand’

Iz(d)rael

‘Israel’

(3)

OCS

Izdrail jь

(4)

OESl

Izdrail jь

OCz

Iz(d)rahel

OPo

Gloss

2.7.5. Glide-liquid clusters In PreSl, as in PreBa, initial *u̯ was lost before non-syllabic *r and *l (1). If this “Lidén’s Law” was a regular change, it must have followed the rise of the new ablaut grade (see 2.6), since *u̯r-, *u̯l- clusters that alternated as zero grades became *u̯ir-, *u̯il- (2). Internal *u̯r, *u̯l were not affected by the change (3). PreSl

PSl

(1)

*u̯rodhos

*rada2s

rodъ

rodъ

rod

ród

‘kin’

(2)

*u̯re:te:i̯

*u̯irɛ:tεi̯

vьr-

v(ь)rěti

vřieti

wrzeć

‘seethe’

*u̯la:-

*u̯ula:-

vъla(ja)ti

vъlajati

Cz vlát

*tau̯ros

*tau̯ra2s

turъ

turъ

tur

(3)

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

‘toss (of waves)’ tur

‘bull’

3. Early Common Slavic (ECSl) changes In the ECSl period, the system of vowel phonemes remained identical to that of PSl (2.1); in particular, it continued to allow glide and nasal diphthongs (see 4.1−4.2). The ECSl sound changes had uniform results, without dialect differentiation. Two drifts or conspiracies are said to have operated − the Law of Open Syllables and the Law of Syllabic Synharmony. These labels are unobjectionable as metalinguistic descriptions of the results. However, there is a long tradition of reifying them as causal factors (cf. notably Jakobson [1929] 1962). The first law, also known as the Tendency to Rising Sonority, subsumes the ECSl loss of coda obstruents (3.1.3) and final sonorants (3.1.4); the MCSl monophthongizations of glide and nasal diphthongs (4.1−4.2); and changes in vowel-liquid diphthongs (4.9, 5.5). Feldstein (2003: 250) distinguishes an early “tendency to the open syllable” from a later “tendency to rising sonority.” The first applied only to non-moraic segments, not diphthongs; by contrast, the later tendency induced changes in falling diphthongs.

1438

XIII. Slavic

The second law subsumes tonality assimilations in which consonants became palatal or coronal before front vowels and *i̯ (3.2, 3.6, 4.4) and in which back vowels were fronted after palatal consonants (3.3). As a result, syllable onsets and nuclei had the same basic tonality − either “soft” (palatal + front) or “hard” (non-palatal + back). However, there are important exceptions (3.4), as well as tonality assimilations that transgressed syllable boundaries (3.7.2, 4.5). The changes covered by the law are quotidian assimilations, so there is no particular need to see an invisible hand behind them.

3.1. Changes in syllable structure In PSl, syllable onsets could have up to four consonants (1), and syllable codas could have up to three consonants (2). In ECSl, the canonical sequence for onsets was fricatives > stops > liquids > glides. Medial clusters that violated the canonical sequence were syllabified with a break before the rightmost licensed onset (3). PSl

MCSl1

OCS j

OESl j

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(1)

*i|za|stri̯ ɛ|n-

*izastrɛn-

izoštr en-

izostr en-

zostřen-

zostrzon-

‘sharpen (PPP)’

(2)

*tai̯ sk|na2s

*tɛ:2snu

teˇsnъ

teˇsnъ

teˇs(k)ný

ciasny

‘tight, crowded’

(3)

*mir|tu̯a2s

*mirtu̯u

mrъtvъ

mьrtvъ

mrtvý

martwy

‘dead’

*dɛlb|tad

*dɛlta

Bg dleto

Uk doloto

dláto

dłoto/dłuto

‘chisel’

3.1.1. Syncope of stops in non-canonical clusters In ECSl, stops were elided before obstruents in onsets (1) and codas (2). In *kt, the velar was lost, but the *t had bifurcating reflexes; see 3.6.1. PSl (1)

(2)

MCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*dsutad

*suta

sъto

sъto

sto

sto

‘hundred’

*kxau̯da2s

*xɔ:du

xudъ

xudъ

chudý

chudy

‘meager; bad’

*nɛptii̯ a2s

*nɛtii̯ i

OSb netii

netii

neć

‘nephew’

*nɛu̯ai̯ dgalsa2s

*nɛu̯ɛ:2galsu

nevěglasъ

nevěgolosъ

nevěhlas

*u:psakad

*u̯u:saka

vysoko

vysoko

vysoko

wysoko

‘high(ly)’

*(is)plɛkstɛi̯

*(i̯ is)plɛste:2

isplesti

isplesti

zplésti

pleść

‘weave’

‘ignoramus’

Clusters of *tl, *dl were permitted in ECSl (3); later, the stops were lost in some dialects, though they have left traces in all three branches of Sl (see 4.8). Before nasals,

81. The phonology of Slavic

1439

velar stops were preserved (4), but labial and dental stops were elided (5); apparent exceptions, like the OCz and OPo forms in (6), arose by post-CSl changes. In the clusters *stl and *skn, the stops were lost in all dialects, and sibilants were resyllabified as onsets (7). PSl (3)

*u̯ɛdla:

MCSl1 *u̯edla:

OCS vela

Sln védla

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

vela, vegl-

vedla

wiodƚa

‘lead (RES.F )’

†

(4)

*gna|i̯ a2s

*gnai̯ i

gnoi

gnọ̑j

gnoi

hnój

gnój

‘filth’

(5)

*supna2s

*sunu

sъnъ

sèn

sъnъ

sen

sen

‘sleep’

*abmarki:-

*amartʃi:-

omracˇiti

omrȃcˇiti

omorȏcˇiti

omračiti

*u:dmɛ:n

*u̯u:mɛ˜:

Bg vime

víme

j

vym a

‘darken’

vymě

wymię

‘udder’

v anuti

0

vadnuti

0

więdnąć

‘wither’

(6)

*(-)u̯indn-

*u̯ĩ:n:-

uvęnǫti

¶

(7)

*ma:stlad

*ma:sla

maslo

máslo

maslo

máslo

masło

‘oil’

*prɛ:skna2s

*prɛ:snu

prěsnъ

présen

prěsnъ

přiesný

przasny

‘unleavened’

véniti

j

While various processes could have caused the elision, the purely phonetic phase probably involved non-release of the stops, which is common cross-linguistically in clusters: /T/ → [T˺]/__{T, S, N} (where T = stop). The non-released stops would have had a range of articulations, including reduction of the hold phase to zero in allegro speech. Without the burst as a cue, they would have been open to reanalysis as non-segments: /T/ → [ T˺]0/Ø/ → [Ø]. The loss of coda stops took place after the period of shared BaSl developments − in particular, RUKI, in which the backed allophone of *s was conditioned after velar stops but blocked after labial and dental stops (see 2.5). Within CSl, there is no evidence to establish the relative chronology of the changes in noncanonical clusters. However, the fact that the simplifications had uniform results points to a time when the CSl dialects still formed a cohesive continuum. It seems likely that the loss of syllable-final obstruents preceded the MCSl monophthongization of diphthongs (4.1), where the mechanisms for opening syllables were different in kind and changed the articulation of the preceding vowels.

3.1.2. Syncope in nasal + nasal clusters Coda nasals were elided before onset nasals (1); the preceding vowel underwent no reconstructible change. Nasals before other consonants were not affected at this stage (see 4.2). Judging from PreSl *n̥men > *inmɛ:n, the change followed the reinterpretation of syllabic sonorants as diphthongs (see 2.3). The basis for the change may have been a lack of perceptible cues for the transition from the one nasal to the other. Cross-linguisti-

1440

XIII. Slavic

cally, nasals tend to be unreleased before other consonants; thus the continuous nasal resonance in the sequence could have promoted the perception that only a single segment was present. PSl (1)

*au̯smnii̯ ad *inmɛ:n

MCSl1 *ɔ:snii̯ ɛ *i̯ imɛ˜:

OCS

OESl

OSb usnije imę

OCz

usnije

usneˇ

j

jmeˇ

im a

OPo

Gloss ‘leather’

jimię

‘name’

3.1.3. Loss of final obstruents Obstruents were subject to elision in word-auslaut (1), just as they were in syllableauslaut (3.1.1). The weakening and loss of pre-pausal consonants is a typologically widespread change and can involve non-release or debuccalization. The only final obstruents in PSl were *t, *d, *s, *z (only in the 1SG pronoun), and the clusters *st, *ts. (The final *z and *b that occurred in certain prepositions are irrelevant for word-auslaut.) PSl (1)

MCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*bundai̯ s|-ai̯ t

*bũ:di:

bǫdi

budi

budi/ bud’

bądź

‘be (IMP.2SG|3SG)’

*mari̯ ad

*mare

mor je

mor je

morˇe

morze

‘sea’

*u̯εi̯ dints

*u̯e:2dĩ:

vidę

vid ja

videˇ

widzę

‘see (PRAP.M)’

*a:z(a2m)

*(i̯ )a:z(u)

azъ

jazъ/ja

jáz/já

ja

‘I (NOM)’

In close juncture, final obstruents were subject to the same tendencies as medial ones (see 3.1.1), so there was no conditioning for weakening or elision if the following word began with a vowel, sonorant, or glide. Presumably, the phase in which final weakening or loss was sound change proper was followed by one with sandhi or stylistic variation between elided and unelided forms; cf. French liaison. Eventually, the elided forms were generalized, even when the final consonants were verified by other forms in the paradigm (2). Evidence for the sandhi variation is found in athematic verbs − in the PRS.3SG of ‘be’ (3); in the OCS AOR.2−3SG of ‘give’ and ‘eat’ (4) and unsuffixed sonorant-stems belonging to the mobile accentual type (5) (see 6.3.5). In the athematic aorist (4), *-s-tu (where *s reflected the root-final dental) was reanalyzed as a morpheme and extended to ‘be’: OCS by~bystъ. A further relic of sandhi may occur in the suffix *-asi̯ a-, used to form hypocoristic nouns from adjectival roots (6). This suffix has been analyzed as an early univerbation of adjectival *-a2 s (M.NOM.SG) with the demonstrative *i̯ a2 s (M.NOM.SG). In CSl, as in Ba, phrases of this kind developed into compound (“long”) definite adjectives; cf. Li mãzˇas ‘little’|mazˇàsis (DEF ). However, in the attested compound declension, the M.NOM.SG reflects the loss of final *-s (7). (The internal *-a2- in [6] has the expected reflex *a; on the final *u outcome in [7], see 3.8)

81. The phonology of Slavic MCSl1

PSl (2)

1441

*a:gnɛnt

*a:gnɛ˜:

OCS agnę

OESl j

jagn a

OCz jěhně

OPo jagnię

Gloss ‘lamb (NOM/ ACC)’

*a:gnɛnt-

*a:gnɛ˜:t-

agnęta

jagn jat-

jěhnět-

jagnięt-

(OBLIQUE)

!

je~jest

je/~jeść~jest

‘be (IPFV.PRS.3SG)

(3)

*ɛst(+i)

*i̯ ɛ~i̯ ɛsti

je~ jestъ

je~jestь

(4)

*da:st(+u)

*da:~da:stu

da~dastъ

da~dastъ

(5)

*imt(-u)

*i̯ ɛ˜: ~i̯ ɛ˜:tu

ję~ jętъ

(6)

*mεi̯ la2si̯ a2s

*me:2laʃi

OSb Milosˇь

(7)

*mεi̯ la2+i̯ a2

*mi:lui̯ i

milъi

‘give (AOR.3SG)’ ‘take (AOR.3SG)’

milъi

Milosˇ

Miƚosz

‘Dear (name)’

milý

miły

‘dear (M. DEF )’

3.1.4. Loss of final nasals Final nasals were lost after short vowels (1−3), but preserved after long vowels (4) (see further 4.2). It is unclear whether their quiescence after short vowels was a sound change sensu stricto, since the targets of elision only occurred in endings − the ACC of (i̯ )o-, u-, i-, and consonant-stem nouns (1); the GEN.PL of all nouns (2); and the AOR.1SG of both the sigmatic and the root types (3). (On the N.NOM/ACC.SG, see 3.8) MCSl1

PSl (1)

*grabam

!

*grabu

OCS grobъ j

OESl grobъ j

OCz

OPo

Gloss

hrob

grob

‘grave (ACC)’

*agnim

*agni

ogn ь

ogn ь

oheň

ogień

‘fire (ACC)’

(2)

*lɛ:tam

*lɛ:tu

lětъ

lětъ

let

lat

‘year (GEN.PL )’

(3)

*bu:xum

*bu:xu

byxъ

byxъ

bych

bych

‘be (PRFV.AOR.1SG)’

(4)

*sɛ:mɛ:n

*sɛ:mɛ˜:

seˇmę

seˇm ja

siemeˇ

siemię

‘seed’

*mɛ:m

*mɛ˜:

mę

m ja

mě

mię

‘me (ACC)’

*gɛna:m

*ʒɛnã:

zˇenǫ

zˇenu

zˇenu

żonę

‘woman (ACC)’

The same change is supposed to have affected four prepositions/prefixes: PSl *un ‘in(to)’, *sun1 ‘with’, *sun2 ‘from’, and *kun ‘toward’ (OCS vъ, sъ, sъ, and kъ). These are traced to PIE *n̥, *s(o)m, *k̑(o)m, and *k(o)m. The change from *-m > *-n in these items occurred in PreSl and is shared with Ba; the nasal comes out as n where preserved − before verbal roots with initial vowels in an archaic pattern of prefixation (5); and before the anaphoric pronoun *i̯ - (6), where the nasal was metanalyzed, and the resulting “n mobile” generalized after all prepositions (7).

1442

XIII. Slavic PreSl (5)

(6) (7)

ECSl

OCS

OESl j

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*s(o)m ei̯ -

*sunεi̯ tεi̯ sε:m

sъniti sę

sъniti s a

sníti/sjíti seˇ

zniść się

‘come together’

*k̑(o)m im-

*sunintεi̯

sъnęti

sъn jati

*k(o)m i̯ -

*kun i̯ ai̯ mus

snieti/sieti

(zjąć)

‘take off’

j

kъ n imъ

j

kъ n imъ

k nim

k nim

‘to them’

j

j

*na: i̯ omi

*na: i̯ ami

na n emь

na n emь

na ňem

na niem

‘in it/him’

*k̑(o)m se:d-

*sunsɛ:da2s

sǫseˇdъ

suseˇdъ

súseˇd

sąsiád

‘neighbor’

Actually, the loss of final nasals is irrelevant for these four prepositions/prefixes, as they would never have been final in a phonological word; there is no trace of their being postpositions in CSl (cf. La mecum). The most plausible solution lies in the generalization of sandhi variants. In ECSl, the final nasals would had three forms: *-n/__{T, K, V}; Ø/__(#)N (see 3.1.2); and presumably *-m/__P. The least circumscribed and thus basic variant was *-n. With the metanalysis of *-n in certain concatenations, the Ø variants became unpredictable and had a proportionately larger domain; they were revaluated as basic and generalized in new formations. The *-n- and *-m- variants were then eliminated by morphophonemic simplification, apart from lexicalized relics (PSl *unantr- > OCS vъnǫtrь, OESl (vъ)nutrь, Sln nȏter ‘inside’).

3.1.5. Loss of final liquids In PreSl, final *l and *r occurred only in the NOM of l- and r-stem nouns. In CSl, almost all of these nouns were remade as thematics (8). The sole relics were ‘mother’ and ‘daughter’ (9). Here the final *r was lost, and the preceding *e: raised to *i: (cf. 3.8). The elision may be PreSl; forms without *r are also found in Ba and Indo-Iranian, and CSl permitted coda *r and *l in internal syllables. (OCz matě is probably not an archaism but a new formation based on the i̯ ā-stem ending.) PreSl

ECSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

brat(r)ъ

brat(r)ъ

bratr

brat

‘brother’

(8)

*bhra:te:r

0

(9)

*ma:te:r

*ma:ti:

mati

mati

máti/mátě

mać

‘mother’

*dhugHte:r

*dukti:

dъsˇti

dъcˇi

dci

(córa)

‘daughter’

*bra:tra2s

3.2. First Regressive Palatalization of Velars (1VP) In ECSl, velars were fronted before front vowels (1) and *i̯ (2); their ultimate reflexes were alveopalatal: *k > *tʃ, *g > *ʒ, *x > *ʃ (Slavistic č, ž, and š). This change has

81. The phonology of Slavic

1443

traditionally been called the First Palatalization of Velars (1VP) or, more recently, the First Regressive Palatalization, as there is debate over its order relative to the Progressive Palatalization (4.6.2). Before the fronted velars, sibilants underwent assimilatory backing (3): *sk > *ʃtʃ, *zg > *ʒdʒ (Slavistic šč, žʒˇ). In LCSl, *ʃtʃ and *ʒdʒ were simplified to št and žd in some dialects. When the palatalization trigger was *i̯ (2), it was ultimately reanalyzed as an off-glide (see 3.7.1). 1VP1

PSl (1)

*kistis *palagi:tεi̯

(2)

(3)

j

*k isti(s) j

*palag i:tεi̯ j

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

čьstь

čьstь

čest

cześć

‘honor’

polozˇiti

polozˇiti

polozˇiti

położyć

‘put’

*gɛna:

*g ɛna:

žɛna

žɛna

žɛna

żona

‘woman; wife’

*xɛlma2s

*x jɛlma2(s)

šlěmъ

šelomъ

Cz †šlem

szłom

‘helmet’; Cz ‘bonnet’

*pla:ki̯ a2s

*pla:k ji̯ a2(s)

plačь

plačь

pláč

płacz

‘lament’

*slu:xi̯ a:m

j

*slu:x i̯ a:m

slyšǫ

slyšu

slyšu

słyszę

‘hear (PRS.1SG)’

*skεi̯ ta2s

*sk jεi̯ ta2(s)

štitъ

ščitъ

ščít

szczyt

‘shield’

droždьję

droždьje

droždie

drożdża

‘yeast’

*drazgi̯ ens

j

*drazg ɛ:n

Presumably, the 1VP began as assimilatory softening (1VP1), followed by coronalization (1VP2), and assibilation (1VP3): *k j > *c̟ > *tʃ, *g j > *ɟ > *(d)ʒ, *x j > *ç > *ʃ, *s jk j > *s jc̟ > *ʃtʃ, *zg j > *z jɟ > *ʒdʒ. Ultimately, the reflex of *g j lost its closure except in the cluster *zg j. According to Andersen (1969), *g and *gj were lax (slack-voiced) and could be implemented without closure. Eventually, the fricative realization was generalized except when blocked by a constraint against fricative-fricative clusters, which arose after the loss of syllable-final obstruents (3.1.3) and persisted until the jer-shift (5.8). The terminus a quo of the 1VP is uncertain, but its uniform results point to the preMigration-Period, when CSl dialects were still relatively compact. The change ended before the monophthongization of glide diphthongs, since it was not triggered by *ɛ:2 from *ai̯ (4.1). It was also not triggered by *i(:) in borrowings from Go (ca. 2nd−4th c.). The assibilation phase (1VP3) was completed before the Sl settlements in the southern Balkans (6th−8th centuries); Byzantine sources have ts for *k j and z for *g j: *kɛlinεi̯ kas ‘headman’ ⥬ τσέλνικος (cf. OSb čelьnikь); *gɛu̯pa:nas ‘clan head’ ⥬ ζουπάνος (cf. OCS županъ). The 1VP created numerous morphophonemic alternations between velars and palatals. These have generally been stable in the Sl languages, as exemplified in (4−6). PSl (4)

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*bag-a2s

bogъ

bogъ

bóh

bóg

‘God’

*bag-ɛ

bože

bože

bože

boże

(VOC)

1444

XIII. Slavic PSl (5)

(6)

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*rɛk-ɛti

recˇetъ

recˇetь

ˇrcˇe

rzecze

‘say (PRS.3SG)’

*rɛk-anti

rekǫtъ

rekutь

ˇrkú

rzeką

(PRS.3PL )

*sau̯x-au̯

suxu

suxu

suchu

suchu

‘dry (N.DAT)

*sau̯x-i̯ a:

susˇa

susˇa

súsˇeˇ

susza

‘dry land’

3.3. Vowel fronting Back vowels developed advanced allophones after *i̯ and the alveopalatals (1−2): *a > *a̟ ([œ̞] or similar); *u(:) > *u̟(:) ([ʉ(:)] or similar). Over time, *a̟ was reinterpreted as /ɛ/. While *u̟(:) ultimately merged with *i(:), they were still rounded during the first phase of the Progressive Palatalization of Velars (see 4.6). This change called the First Umlaut, and the vowel fronting after the Progressive Palatalization the Second Umlaut. However, it is possible to treat these as two fronting episodes based on the same constraint, rather than separate changes. Unlike *a, *a: was not rephonologized as a front vowel. Presumably, both *a and *a: had fronted opening phases, assimilating to the domed tongue position of the preceding palatal. The long vowel would typically have had time to emerge from the transitional phase and still have a distinct phase with open tongue position; hence it would have been less susceptible to reinterpretation. By contrast, like short vowels in general (Labov 1994: 173), *a would often fail to emerge from the transitional phase in time to have a distinct main phase. MCSl1

OCS

OESl

*u̯ai̯ au̯ada:

*u̯ai̯ ɛu̯ada:

vojevoda

vojevoda

vévoda (*-ai̯ ɛ-)

wojewoda

‘warleader’

*i̯ aga

*i̯ ɛga

jego

jego

jego

jego

‘him (GEN)’

*i̯ ugad

*i̯ iga

igo

igo

jho (*i̯ i)

Po igo

‘yoke’

*si̯ u:i̯ a:

*ʃi:i̯ a:

šija

šьja

šíjeˇ

szyja

‘neck’

PSl (1)

(2)

OCz

OPo

Gloss

Vowel fronting preceded the monophthongization of glide-diphthongs (4.1). If it had followed, *i̯ ai̯ would have become *(i̯ )ɛ:2; its actual outcome was *i̯ εi̯ > *(i̯ )i:, as seen in *i̯ ai̯ xu > OCS ixъ ‘them (GEN/LOC.PL )’; cf. *tai̯ xu > těxъ ‘those’ (reflecting *ɛ:2). The change split the ā-stem (4) and o-stem declensions (5) into varieties with and without fronted endings, traditionally called ā-/jā- and o-/jo-stems (Lunt’s “twofold” declensions [2001: 54−59]). The differences between the fronted and non-fronted declensional variants became opaque after the monophthongization of diphthongs (4.1). Similar bifurcations occurred in derivational morphemes, e.g. (citing OCS) the PRPP suffix *-am(veˇdomъ|znajemъ, both ‘known’); the verbal determiner *-au̯a:- (radovati sę ‘rejoice’| vojevati ‘make war’); the nominalizing suffixes *-at- and *-ast- (sujeta ‘vanity’|tixota

81. The phonology of Slavic

1445

‘quiet’; radostь ‘joy’|dobl jestь ‘valor’); and the possessive suffix *-au̯- (gromovъ ‘thunder’s’| zmijevъ ‘snake’s’). PSl (4)

*gɛna *dau̯xi̯ a

MCSl1

Fronting

*dau̯ʃa̟

*gɛnai̯

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*ʒɛna

ženo

ženo

ženo

żono

‘woman (VOC)’

*dɔ:ʃɛ

duše

duše

duše

dusze

‘soul (VOC)’

*ʒɛnɛ:2

ženě

ženě

ženě

żenie

‘woman (DAT/ LOC)’

*dau̯xi̯ ai̯ (5)

*dau̯xi̯ a̟i̯

*mai̯ stad *mari̯ ad

*mari̯ a̟

*dɔ:ʃi:

duši

duši

duši

duszy

‘soul (DAT/LOC)’

*mɛ:2sta

meˇsto

meˇsto

meˇsto

miasto

‘place (NOM/ACC)’

*marɛ

mor je

mor je

morˇe

morze

‘sea (NOM/ACC)’

3.4. Merger of *i: and *a: after palatals In ECSl, *ɛ: merged with *a: after *i̯ (1) and the alveopalatal reflexes of the 1VP (2). Concomitantly, the alveopalatals ceased to function as allophones of velars. Unlike *a (3.3), *a: had not been rephonologized as a front vowel after alveopalatals (3); however, it probably had fronting in its opening phases, which would have facilitated the merger perceptually. PSl

MCSl1

(1)

*stai̯ ɛ:tεi̯

*stai̯ a:te:2

stojati

stojati

státi (*-ai̯ a-)

stojać

‘be standing’

(2)

*kɛ:sa2s

*tʃa:su

cˇasъ

cˇasъ

cˇas

czas

‘time’

*pagɛ:ra2s

*paʒa:ru

OSb pozˇarь

pozˇarъ

požár

pożar

‘conflagration’

*slu:xɛ:la2s

*slu:ʃa:lu

slysˇalъ

slysˇalъ

slysˇal

sƚyszaƚ

‘hear (RES.M)’

*dau̯si̯ a:

*dɔ:ʃa:

duša

duša

duša

dusza

‘soul’

(3)

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

The primary impetus for the merger was phonemic reanalysis. As *ɛ: was (near-)open, it neighbored *a: in phonetic space. Thus, innovative learners could interpret it as an allophone of *a: after consonants with palatal (co)articulation; they would perceive its palatality as environmental rather than inherent. Cf. the perception of foreign fronted rounded vowels in Ru: typically, the rounding is preserved, while the frontness is ascribed to the preceding consonant: Bonhoeffer ⥬ [bɔnx jofɛr], Flossenbürg ⥬ [flɔsɛnb jurg].

1446

XIII. Slavic

3.5. Glide prothesis In ECSl, on-glides developed before word- and syllable-initial *u(:), *i(:), and *ɛ(:) (1−3). The on-glides were homorganic − rounded before *u(:), and palatal before *i(:) and *ɛ(:). PSl (1)

(2)

(3)

MSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*unεi̯ dɛti:

*u̯une:2dɛti

vъnidetъ

vъnidetь

vníde

wnidzie

‘enter (PRS.3SG)’

*u:psaka2s

*u̯u:saku

vysokъ

vysokъ

vysoký

wysoki

‘high’

*inzu:ka2s

*i̯ ĩ:zu:ku

językъ

jazykъ

jazyk

język

‘tongue’

j

*inmɛ:n

*imɛ˜:

imę

im a

jmeˇ

jimię

‘name’

*paɛ:dla2s

*paɛ:dlu

poělъ [ja]

poělъ [je]

÷pojiedl

pojadƚ

‘eat (RES.M)’

*ɛsti

*i̯ ɛsti

jestъ

jestь

jest

jest

‘be (PRS.3SG)’

*εi̯ tεi̯

*i̯ e:2ti:

iti

iti

jíti

jici

‘go’

*daεi̯ tεi̯

*dai̯ e:2ti:

doiti

doiti

dojíti

dojć

‘go as far as’

In previous works, prothesis has often been presented as a means of eliminating hiatus. Actually, that was a consequence, not a cause. The initial mechanism of the change was evidently diphthongization, followed by phonemic reanalysis. As the speech organs moved from their rest position or, in close juncture (hiatus), from articulating the preceding vowel, the anlaut vowels were realized with non-syllabic opening phases: /u(:)/ → [u̯u(:)]; /i(:)/ → [i̯ i(:)], /ɛ(:)/ → [i̯ ɛ(:)]. This is a typologically common form of “peak attenuation” (see Andersen 1972). The transitional phases may have been more salient in slow or emphatic speech. Subsequently, innovative learners could reanalyze the non-syllabic phases as distinct segments, phonemically identical to the inherited glides, and inherent to the given roots: [u̯u(:)] 0 /u̯u(:)/ → [u̯u(:)], [i̯ i(:)] 0 /i̯ i(:)/ → [i̯ i(:)], [i̯ ɛ(:)] 0 /i̯ ɛ(:)/ → [i̯ ɛ(:)]. Thus the traditional term prothesis is misleading: the glide was not added to the vowel but developed from the vowel. Finally, the glide could spread by the usual processes of social accommodation and adaptation within the speech community. The results of u̯-prothesis were uniform; this suggests that it happened before the migrations, when CSl was still relatively compact. It ended before monophthongization (4.1) and the rounding of *a (5.1), since it did not affect the rounded vowels that arose in those changes, and before the delabialization of *u(:) (5.1), which removed its conditioning. While the attested results of i̯ -prothesis are not uniform (see below), it is reflected in all three branches of Slavic, including peripheral zones; thus, like u̯-prothesis, it took place while CSl was still relatively compact. It followed the backing of *ɛ: to *a: after palatals (3.4), since anlaut *ɛ:, which was subject to prothesis, had a different outcome from the *ɛ: that followed inherited *i̯ (4). (Examples with ja for anlaut *ɛ: arose by

81. The phonology of Slavic

1447

later dialectal changes − the merger of *i̯ ɛ: and *i̯ a: in E-SSl, e.g. OCS jasti ‘eat’; and the retraction of *ɛ: before unpalatalized dentals in Lech, e.g. Po jadł |jedzą ‘eatPST.M.3SG|PL’.)

(4)

PSl

MCSl1

*stai̯ ɛ:tεi̯

*stai̯ a:te:

stojati

stojati

státi (*-ai̯ a-)

stojać

‘be standing’

*ɛ:stεi̯

*i̯ ɛ:ste:2

jasti

jěsti

jiěsti

jeść

‘eat’

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

The regularity of i̯ -prothesis has been obscured by later dialectal tendencies to eliminate *i̯ - of either origin before i. The reflexes of *inmɛ:n (2) and *(da)εi̯ tεi̯ (3) show that the elision occurred consistently in SSl and most of ESl. The OSln Freising Fragments (later 10th c.) have ge- or ie- for /i̯ ɛ/, e.g. gest, iest ‘be (PRS.3SG)’; but plain i- rather than **gi for initial i-, e.g. iti ‘go’. The OCS and OESl spellings are ambiguous, since Glagolitic and Cyrillic had no way to distinguish ji/jь from i; the spelling krai, with «и, ι» could convey /krajɪ/ ‘edge’ with the same ending as in otьcь ‘father’, or /kraji/ (NOM.PL ), with the same ending as in otьci. In OCS, the PAP of *imus- ‘take’ could be written as imъ(š-) or jemъ(š-); both of these presuppose /jɪmǝ(š)-/. Nonetheless, both OCS and OESl provide unequivocal evidence for i̯ -prothesis before *i. In verbal roots (5), initial *i- is reflected as i- in unprefixed forms and after prefixes ending in vowels, i.e. environments where prothesis would have been conditioned, but as ɪ (ь) after prefixes ending in consonants, where prothesis would have been blocked. The cognate forms in OPo (representing Lech in general) followed a similar pattern: root-initial *i was reflected as ji in word-anlaut; as j in medial anlaut (after prefixes ending in vowels); and as zero after consonants when it was in “weak-jer” position (see 5.8). In other WSl dialects, *i underwent the same development after *i̯ in word-anlaut as elsewhere; cf. OCz jmeˇ (1) and jme, pojme (5); US jmje ‘take (PRS.3SG)’, pojmje take (PRS.3SG)’. PSl (5)

MCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*imɛti

*i̯ i(:)mɛ(ti)

imetъ

imetь

jme

jimie

‘take (PRS.3SG)’

*paimɛti

*pai̯ i(:)mɛ(ti)

poimetъ

poimetь

pojme

pojmie

‘take (PRS.3SG)’

*uzimɛti

*u̯uzimɛ(ti)

vъzьmetь

vъzьmetь

vezme

weźmie

‘take; grasp (PRS.3SG)’

3.5.1. Prothesis before open vowels Throughout Sl, *i̯ developed before initial *a: in lexical roots (6). On the southeastern periphery, in OCS and later Bg dialects (7), some of these roots are also attested without the glide. There was never prothesis before the conjunction *a: and its compounds (8). The adverbs *a:kad ‘as’ and *a:mas ‘to where’ show variation; the presence of the glide may have been due to contamination with the relative root *i̯ - (9).

1448

XIII. Slavic PSl (6)

(7)

OCS

*a:lau̯a2s

Bg

Mc

BCS

Sln

OCz

jalov

jalov

jȁlov

jálov

jalový

*a:rima-

jarьmъ

jarem

jarem

járam

jarem

Cz jařmo

*a:i̯ (ik)ad

aice

jajce/†ajce

jajce

jáje/jájce

jájce

vajce

*a:gada:

agoda

jagoda/†agudǝ

jagoda

jȁgoda

jágoda

jahoda

†

*a:gnent

agnę

agne/ jagnja

jagne

jȁgne

jágnje/ ágnje

jeˇhneˇ

*a:u̯εi̯ ti

avitъ/ javitъ

javi/†avi

javi

jȃvī

jȃvi

jeˇví

(8)

*a:lεi̯

ali

ali

ali

ȁli

àli

ali

(9)

*a:kad

ako/jako

ako

ako

ako

ako

ako/jako

(10)

*au̯ika:

ovьca

ovca

ovca

óvca

óvca

ovce

*akas

oko

oko

oko

ȍko

okȏ

oko

PSl (6)

*a:lau̯-

US jaƚowy

*a:rima-

(7)

OPo Po jaƚowy

Pb jolüwa˘

jarzmo

OESl

Gloss

jalovъ

‘barren, sterile’

jarьmъ

‘ox yoke’ ‘egg’

*a:i̯ (ik)ad

jejo/wejo

jaje/jajca

joji

jaice

*a:gada:

jahoda

jagoda

jod’a˘dåi

jagoda

‘berry’; Pb NOM.PL

jagn ja

‘lamb’

jawi

javitь

‘reveal’ (PRS.3SG)’

ali

ali

‘or; if; really?’

*a:gnent

jehnjo

jagnię

*a:u̯εi̯ ti

LS javi

jogną

(8)

*a:lεi̯

(9)

*a:ka

ako/jako

jako

Slc ãk/ja˙̑k

ako/jako

‘as’

*au̯ika:

wowca

owca

vüca˘

ovьca

‘ewe’

*akas

woko

oko

våt’ü

oko

‘eye’

(10)

Outside of E-SSl, the isolated lexemes with initial *a: may have non-phonological explanations. The Sln variant ágnje (7) was probably influenced by La agnus. Uk dialectal ajo ‘egg’ is an innovation of children’s speech; Novg aje- (ajesova ‘egg-shover’, with ‘egg’ in the sense ‘testicle’) may be a taboo deformation. (See below for an alternative explanation.) Because i̯ -prothesis occurred before *a: but not *a (10), some scholars have dated it to LCSl, after quantitative distinctions had given way to qualitative ones (*a > *ɔ, *a: > *a; see 5.1); concomitantly, they have interpreted the cases of non-prothesis in E-SSl as peripheral archaisms. This late dating seems implausible for a change attested, with the same restriction to lexical morphemes, in all Sl dialects, including E-SSl in most of the

81. The phonology of Slavic

1449

eligible roots. This distribution is comparable to that of ECSl changes, not LCSl. The OCS and Bg exceptions need not be archaisms, since there was a tendency in E-SSl to elide *i̯ in other environments. Given its restriction to lexical roots, i̯ -prothesis before *a: was probably not sound change proper. The palatal glide cannot have been a reinterpretation of the opening phase of *a:; the transition from rest position to the full articulation of *a: would not involve the doming of the tongue characteristic of *i̯ . A glottal consonant might be expected instead (and may have actually developed, though it cannot be reconstructed). On the other hand, the palatal glide could have arisen by provection rather than prothesis, from the final phase of front vowels in transition to *a: in close juncture; once reanalyzed as a distinct segment, it could have been generalized as a sandhi variant to other contexts. Presumably, there would have been a parallel tendency for *u̯ to develop in the transition from rounded vowels to *a:. This would account for certain roots in which CSl has an unexpected *u̯ before *a: and even *a, cf. Bg vatral ‘poker’, BCS vȁtra, Cz †vatra, Uk vatra ‘fire’, Slk vatra, Po †watra, ‘hearth’, if from PSl *a:tra: (cf. Avestan āter ‘fire’); OCS, OESl, von ja, OCz vóně, OPo wonia ‘smell’ (*ani̯ a:). Note also OCz, Slk vajce ‘egg’ (6). Concomitantly, the loss of inherited *u̯ in PIE *u̯ops- > OSb, OESl, OPo osa, OCz os ‘wasp’ could have been a hypercorrection. In this scenario, it would not be surprising to find forms without any glide at all; cf. Sln ágnje ‘lamb’, Novg aje- ‘egg’ (above). The tendency to extend *i̯ - more often than *u̯- may be linked with another change that involved *a: but not *a − its merger with *ɛ: after palatals (3.4). In PSl, initial *i̯ a: was limited to derivatives of the pronominal root *i̯ -. After the change of *i̯ ɛ: to *i̯ a: (3.4), the inventory grew to include other lexical roots (11). The existence of lexemes with semantically unmotivated (non-pronominal) *i̯ a: may have promoted the reanalysis of sandhi off-glides as /i̯ -/ and their extension as a phonotactic pattern. Similarly, in some LCSl dialects, there was sporadic i̯ -prothesis before anlaut *u:2 (PSl *au̯) (12) − not the u̯-prothesis that might be expected from the vowel’s articulation per se. This was probably a sandhi phenomenon, perhaps promoted by roots with *i̯ u:2 (from PSl *i̯ au̯). This process did not occur consistently anywhere in Sl, and it generally did not affect the preposition/prefix *u:2 (13). In ESl, there were hypercorrections in which inherited glides were lost before u (from *u:2 and *ǫ) (14). This has been treated as a sound change, and the exceptions as Church Slavonisms, but in fact there are many lexemes in which the glide has been preserved. PSl (11)

*i̯ ɛ:ra-

(12)

*au̯ga-

OCS

jugъ

*au̯gɛi̯ na:

Bg

BCS

OESl

OCz

jara

jȁr

jarъ

jaro

jug

jȕg

(j)ugъ

juh

juzˇina

ȕzˇina

uzˇina

ùzda

uzda zautra

*au̯zda:

uzda

uzda/ juzda

*za:au̯tr-

zautra

zautra/ zajutrě zàjutrak

zautrokъ

OPo jaro/jarz

Gloss ‘springtime’ ‘south’

juz˙yna

‘dinner’

uzda

uzda

‘bridle’

zajutra

¶

‘morrow’

zajutro

zajutrek

‘breakfast’

1450

XIII. Slavic PSl

OCS

Bg

BCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(13)

*au̯

u

u

u

u

u

u

‘at’

(14)

*iau̯na-

junъ

jun

jùna:k

unъ/junъ

junoch

junoch

‘young (man)’

3.6. Dental palatalizations Before *i̯ , dentals developed backed allophones with palatal (co)articulation: /Ti̯ / → [T ji̯ ] or [Ti̯ ]. (The retraction diacritic T is used to cover postalveolar and dorsal articulations.) Then the sequences were monophonemicized, and *i̯ interpreted as an offglide, which was later eliminated in a deductive change: ECSl1 [T ji̯ ] or [Ti̯ ] 0 /T j/ or /T/ → ECSl2 [Tji̯ ~ T j] or [Ti̯ ~ T]. This complex of changes (“yodization,” Schenker 1995; “iotation,” Lunt 2001), may have occurred at various times for the different manners of articulation. PSl *si̯ and *zi̯ became *ʃ and *ʒ (1), thus merging with the reflexes of 1VP *x j and j *g (see 3.2). PSl *li̯ and *ni̯ became either palatal *ʎ, *ɲ or palatalized dental *l j, *n j (2); *ri̯ (3) became *r j or post-alveolar *r. The reflexes will be indicated with the retraction diacritic (R). The clusters *ti̯ and *di̯ (4) had diverse reflexes in LCSl (see 4.7). However, all the outcomes can be derived from a stage parallel to the sonorants, with either palatal coarticulation (*t j, *d j) or primary (alveo)palatal articulation (*c̟, *ɟ). The ECSl2 reflexes will be indicated with the retraction diacritic (T). PSl (1)

(2)

(3)

*na:si̯ a2s

ECSl1 i̯

*na:s i̯

ECSl2

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*na:ʃi

nasˇь

nasˇь

násˇ

nasz

‘our’

*parazi̯ ɛn-

*paraz ɛn-

*paraʒɛn-

porazˇen-

porazˇen-

porazˇen-

porażen-

‘smite (PPP)’

*u̯ali̯ a:

*u̯ali̯ a:

*u̯ala:

vol ja

vol ja

vóleˇ

wola

‘will’

j

j

i̯

*mini̯ a:m

*min a:N

*mina:N

mьn ǫ

mьn u

mnˇu

mnię

‘think (PRS.1SG)’

*mari̯ ad

*mari̯ ɛ

*marɛ

mor je

mor je

morˇe

morze

‘sea’

The clusters *sti̯ , *zdi̯ merged with *sk j, *zg j from the 1VP (3.2). Evidently, the sibilants backed to assimilate to *t and *d; then they merged with the alveopalatals *ʃ and *ʒ; then the following stops *t and *d assimilated to hushers. (In some ESl and some SSl dialects, *t and *d became alveopalatals in all positions; see 4.7)

(4)

(5)

PSl

MCSl1

OCS

*su̯ai̯ ti̯ a:

*su̯ɛ:2ta:

sveˇsˇta

sveˇcˇa

sviece

świeca

‘candle’

*mɛdi̯ a:

*mɛda:

mezˇda

mezˇa

mezeˇ

miedza

‘boundary’

*pau̯sti̯ a:tɛi̯

*pu:ʃta:ti:

pusˇtati

pusˇcˇati

púsˇcˇeˇti/púsˇteˇti

puszczać

‘release’

dъždь

!

deżdż

‘rain’

*duzdi̯ us

*duʒdi

dъždь

OESl

OCz

déšč, Sk dázˇd’

OPo

Gloss

81. The phonology of Slavic

1451

The palatalization of dentals and loss of the triggering *i̯ had a major impact on morphology. In class III verbs (*i̯ e/*i̯ o themes), new root allomorphs appeared throughout the present-tense system; the stem formant *i̯ was no longer in evidence (6). In Class IV verbs, the theme had appeared in the e-grade *εi̯ or the lengthened grade *i: before consonantal suffixes, and in the zero-grade *i̯ before vocalic suffixes. After dental palatalization, the allomorphy shifted to the root; with the loss of the *i̯ and the development of nasal vowels (see 4.2), the old theme was no longer apparent throughout the paradigm. Where the predesinential vowel persisted, it was necessarily reinterpreted as part of the ending (7). MCSl1

PSl (6)

(7)

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*pɛi̯ sa:nad

*pe:2sa:na

pisano

pisano

pisano

pisano

‘write (PPP.N.SG)’

*pɛi̯ si̯ ɛti

*pe:2ʃɛ(ti)

pisˇetŭ

pisˇeti˘

písˇe

pisze

‘write (PRS.3SG)’

*(pa)radɛi̯ ti

*rade:2(ti)

roditъ

roditъ

rodi

porodzi [dʑ]

‘give birth (PRS.3SG)’

*(pa)radi̯ ɛna2s

*radɛnu

roždenъ

roženъ

rozený

porodzon [dz]

‘give birth (PPP.M.SG)’

3.6.1. *kt clusters As noted in 3.1.3, in *kt clusters the velar was lost, while the dental had bifurcating reflexes. It persisted before non-front vowels (1), but became t (see 3.6) before front vowels (2). PSl (1)

(2)

MCSl1

OCS

OSb

OESl j

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*pɛnkta2s

*pɛ˜:tu

pętъ

pětъ

p atъ

pátý

piątý

‘fifth’

*pakta2s

*patu

potъ

potь

potъ

pot

pot

‘sweat’

*tɛktεi̯

*tɛte:2

tesˇti [ʃt]

teći [c]

tecˇi [tʃ]

téci [ts]

ciec [ts]

‘run’

*naktis

*nati

nosˇtь [ʃt]

nokь [c]

nocˇь [tʃ]

noc [ts]

noc [ts]

‘night’

*pektis

*pɛti

pesˇtь[ʃt]

pekь [c]

pecˇь [tʃ]

pec [ts]

piec [ts]

‘oven’

The development here was presumably not *kt > *[k]ti̯ , as the drift in CSl was to eliminate postconsonantal *i̯ (see 3.7). Rather, *t developed a non-anterior allophone [t] in assimilation to the surrounding non-anterior segments; this merged with the phonetically similar or identical monophonemicized reflex of *ti̯ . When the preceding velar was elided, the conditioning of *t became unpredictable. (For the LCSl development of *t, see 4.7.) There may have been a parallel change *n > *n between velars and *i. Here BCS and some Sln dialects have /ɲ/: *(−)gni:da: > Sln ugnjída ‘ulcer’, BCS gnjȉda ‘nits’. In

1452

XIII. Slavic

OCS ogn jь ‘fire’ (PSl *agnis), the nasal is often written with the palatalization diacritic (н̑ ); however, the word is also attested as a i̯ o-stem. Elsewhere in Sl, there is principled uncertainty, as the reflexes of *n cannot be distinguished from those of *n before front vowels.

3.7. Elimination of glides in clusters 3.7.1. Homorganic glides After conditioning the 1VP (3.2) and dental palatalization (3.6), *i̯ was reinterpreted as an off-glide of the new palatals and ceased to exist as an independent unit (1−2): /ʃi̯ / → [ʃi̯ ] 0 /ʃ/ → [ʃi̯ ~ʃi̯ ~ ʃ]. There was a parallel reanalysis of *u̯ after labial consonants; the given clusters occurred in zero-grade forms of ‘be’ (3) and over prefix boundaries (4): /bu̯/ → [bu̯] 0 /b/ → [bu̯~bu̯~b]. (Counterexamples in the attested languages are the result of post-CSl changes or leveling: OESl obiniti but Ru obvinit’ ‘accuse’, cf. vina ‘fault’.) The changes in homorganic glides are traditionally presented as elision. This is accurate as a metalinguistic description of the outcomes, but the essential innovations were monophonemicizations, or monophthongizations in Andersen’s sense (1972). The changes differed from previous developments in consonant clusters in two ways: they worked progressively, and they involved sequences that did not violate canonical syllable structure (see 3.1). PSl

1VP2

*mangi̯ a2s

*manɟ i̯ a2

*mɔ˜:ʒɪ

mǫzˇь

muzˇь

muž

mąż

‘man’

*dau̯xi̯ a:

*dau̯ ʃ i̯ a:

*dɔ:ʃa:

duša

duša

dušě

dusza

‘soul’

(2)

*pεi̯ si̯ ɛti

*pεi̯ ʃ i̯ ɛti

*pi:ʃɛti

pisˇetъ

pisˇetь

písˇe

pisze

‘write (PRS.3SG)’

(3)

*bu̯ɛ:st

*bu̯ɛ:

*bɛ:

beˇ

beˇ

beˇ

*abɛlc̟i:

obleˇsˇti

obolocˇi

obléci

(1)

(4)

*abu̯ɛlktεi̯

u̯

*ab ɛltεi̯

LCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

‘be (AOR.3SG)’ oblec

‘clothe’

3.7.2. Labial + glide clusters CSl *i̯ became *l after labials (1−2). This affected not only inherited *i̯ (1−2) but also the *i̯ on-glide that developed in the monophthongization of *ɛu̯ (see 4.1). It is unclear whether the change began before or after the monophthongization. The lateral has traditionally been called epenthetic l, as if it were inserted for ease of pronunciation. In fact, the *l was a transmutation of the *i̯ , not an addition to the cluster. The phonetic mechanism was target undershoot as the tongue blade retracted from the rest position characteristic for labials to the domed position characteristic for *i̯ . The resulting not-quite-palatal approximant was perceptually similar both to *i̯ and to *l from *li̯ sequences (see 3.6), and hence open to rephonologization as *l.

81. The phonology of Slavic PSl (1)

*pi̯ uu̯a:tεi̯

1453

MCSl1 *plu̟u̯a:te:2

OCS j

pl ьvati j

BCS pljùvati

OESl

OCz

OPo

j

plváti

plwać

‘spit’

j

pl ьvati

Gloss

(2)

*bɛu̯i̯ ɛti

*blɔ:i̯ ɛti

bl ujetъ

bljȕje

bl ujetь

bl’uje

bluje

‘vomit (PRS.3SG)’

(3)

*tirpi̯ a:m

*tirplã:

trъpl jǫ

¶

tьrpl ju

trpiu

cierzpię

‘suffer (PRS.1SG)’

(4)

*zɛmi̯ a:

*zɛmlã:

zeml ja/-ja

zèmlja

zeml ja

země

ziemia

‘earth’

(5)

*kɛ:pi̯ a:

*tʃa:pla:

Mc cˇapja

cˇȁplja

Uk cˇaplja

cˇeˇpeˇ

czapla

‘heron’

(6)

*grabi̯ -

*grabl-

grȏblje

grobl ja

hróbě/

grobia/

‘grave, mound’;

hrobl’a

grobla

BCS ‘cemetery’

tŕpi:m

The *i̯ > *l change is usually treated alongside dental palatalizations [3.6], as if it involved palatal (co)articulation; in fact, it was a progressive rather than a regressive change. There are parallels from the historical period in which i̯ became l in new Pi̯ clusters: PSl mai̯ x- > LCSl1 *mæʃina > BCS mjèšina ~ †mljèšina ‘sack’. There are also counter-parallels with ʎ being rephonologized as i̯ : Rom Mileta > LCSl1 *mɪlætǝ > BCS Mljȅt ~ †Mjȅt (name of an Adriatic island); cf. La planus > Italian piano ‘level’; La sclavus > Italian schiavo ‘Slav; slave’. The change of *i̯ > *l is attested in all Sl dialects within morphemes (1−2). Over morpheme boundaries (3−4), the lateral has been preserved consistently in ESl and WSSl. Elsewhere, there was a late tendency to reanalyze it as a glide, presumably by leveling with related forms. This reversal was ongoing in OCS (10th−11th centuries), as seen in the spelling variants Pl j~Pj~Pьj [Pj]. In WSl, *l was lost consistently in paradigmatic alternations (3) and often elsewhere (4). However, non-alternating *l has left many relics: OPo ‘heron’ (5), US cˇapla, LS capla, Kb czapla; OCz toponyms Počeˇplice, Pocˇeˇpli, Pocˇapli; the doublets in OCz and OPo ‘mound’ (6), Slk hrobl’a ‘dam’, US hrobla ‘ditch’. This variation shows that the WSl loss of the lateral was relatively late and probably independent of the parallel tendency in E-SSl. (Alternatively, the variation could have arisen not by a “loss” of *l but by the coexistence of conservative and innovative forms within the same speech communities.) The change led to morphophonemic alternations in verbs. In class IIIb, *l appeared throughout the PRS system: OCS priimati|prieml jetъ, prieml ji, prieml jǫsˇt- ‘receive (INF|PRS. 3SG, IMP.2SG, PRAP)’. In class IV, *l appeared in the 1SG, but not in other PRS forms: OESl l jubl ju|l jubisˇi ‘love (PRS.1SG|2SG)’. In class IVa, *l occurred in the stems of the imperfect, archaic PAP, PPP, and deverbal noun: BCS ljubljasˇe (IMPF.3SG); OESl vъzljubl jь(PFV.PAP); BCS ljubljen (PPP); Sln ljubljenje (noun).

3.8. Vowels in final closed syllables In certain grammatical forms, PSl *a(:) and *ɛ(:) in final syllables rose to, or were replaced by, *u(:) and *i(:). The same happened before final sonorants; cf. *ma:ti: and

1454

XIII. Slavic

*dukti: in 3.1.4. There is debate about whether the raised outcomes arose in sound changes limited to final syllables (Auslautgesetze) or in morphological substitutions. For PSl *-aN (1−2), the expected outcome was *-a (see 3.1.4); the actual reflex was *u, fronted to *i after palatals (see 3.4). In the (i̯ )o-stem M.ACC (1), the inherited ending would have merged with N.NOM/ACC.SG *-ad > *-a. If the ending *-u did not arise by sound change, it could have been imported from the u-stems (*-um); other u-stem endings were coopted during the CSl period. In the nonsigmatic (root) AOR.1SG, the expected reflex of *-am (cf. Gk -on) would have been *-a; the attested *u (izidъ ‘go out’) may have been reformed on the basis of the sigmatic AOR.1SG *-s-um (PreSl *-sm̥; cf. Gk -sa). The sigmatic aorist became the predominant type during the CSl period, and the two types otherwise interacted; for example, the root aorist ending was coopted to repair the erosion of the sigmatic 2/3SG in Leskien I, II, and V. PSl

MCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(1)

*grabam

*grabu

grobъ

grobъ

hrob

grob

‘grave (ACC)’

(2)

*lɛ:tam

*lɛ:tu

lětъ

lětъ

lét

lat

‘year (GEN.PL )’

For PSl *-as, the expected outcome was *a, fronted to *ɛ after palatals. This occurs in lexemes where *-as was part of the stem (3). However, in the (i̯ )o-stem M.NOM.SG (4), *-a2 s (with the subscript signaling a divergent outcome) rose to, or was replaced by, *-u, fronted to *-i after palatals. If *-a2 s had developed as expected, it would have been syncretic with the N.NOM.SG *-a < *-ad (not to mention the M.ACC.SG, see above). Such syncretism may account for seemingly “neuter” hypocoristics used for male referents, e.g. OSb Radivoje, OESl Stoiko, OCz Tenko, OPo Zdięto. (Conversely, the syncretism may explain why most PreSl barytone neuters became masculines.) While attempts have been made to explain the *-a2 s reflex by sound change, it was more probably analogical to the u-stem NOM/ACC.SG *u (< *-us/*-um). For the hypocoristics, syncretism was promoted by the fact that the neuter was already used to denote baby humans and animals (cf. *agnɛnt ‘lamb’ [6]). The directional adverbial suffix *-mas yielded both *-ma and *mu (5). The latter may be analogical to ACC.SG *-u or DAT.PL *-mu(s); accusative and dative both had directional meanings. PSl (3)

MCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*slau̯as

*slava

slovo

slovo

slovo

sƚowo

‘word’

*nebas

*nɛba

nebo

nebo

nebo

niebo

‘heaven; sky’

(4)

*baga2s

*bagu

bogъ

bogъ

bóh

bóg

‘god’

(5)

*ta:mas/-a2s

*ta:ma

tamo

tamo/tamъ

tamo/tam

tamo

‘thither’

*ka:mas/-a2s

*ka:ma

kamo

kamo

kamo/kam

kam

‘whither’

The sequence *-Vnt (nt-stem NOM/ACC.SG ) developed like internal *VN-C (6); the vowel and nasal monophthongized as Ṽ (see 4.2). By contrast, *-Vns (o-stem and āstem ACC.PL ) had different outcomes, depending on the preceding consonant. After nonpalatals, the vowel was lengthened without being nasalized (7): *-ins > *-i:, *-uns > *-u:, and *ans > *-u: (with raising). If this was a sound change, the lengthening was

81. The phonology of Slavic

1455

compensatory for the disappearing nasal; vowels otherwise did not undergo lengthening before final *s. (If the final *s had disappeared before the nasal, **VN > **Ṽ would be expected; see 3.1.4) When *ans followed a palatal, the loss of the nasal was delayed, for unclear reasons. The vowel was fronted to *ɛ, as expected (3.4). In WSl and ESl, *-ɛns > *ɛ:, parallel to the development of *-ins. In SSl, the vowel underwent both lengthening and nasalization, like internal tautosyllabic *ɛN (see 4.2): OCS ę [ɛ˜], OSb e [ɛ]. If the development was regular, the outcomes may be due to different relative chronologies: SSl *-ɛns > *-ɛ˜:ns > *-ɛ˜:, but WSl, ESl *-ɛ:ns > *-ɛ:s prior to nasalization. In (8), *ɛ˜: would have yielded OESl a, OPo ę [ɛ˜], while *ɛ: would have given OCS -ě [æ], OSb -ě [e]. (The WSl and ESl outcome is known as *ɛ:3, where *ɛ:1 = PSl *ɛ: [2.1] and *ɛ:2 = PSl *ai̯ [4.1]. However, it seems likely *ɛ:3 developed prior to *ɛ:2.) PSl

MCSl1

OCS

OSb

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(6)

*a:gnɛnt

*(i̯ )a:gnɛ˜:

agnę

jagnje

jagn ja

jěhně

jagnię

‘lamb’

(7)

*gastins

*gasti:

gosti

gosti

gosti

hosti

¶

‘guest (ACC.PL )’

*su:nuns

*su:nu:

syny

syny

syny

syny

syny

‘son (ACC.PL )’

*radans

*radu:

rody

rody

rody

rody

rody

‘kin-group (ACC.PL )’

*zɛmi̯ ans

*zɛmlɛ˜:/-ɛ:

zeml ję

zemlje

zeml jeˇ

zemeˇ

zemie

‘land (ACC.PL )’

*mangi̯ ans

*mã:ʒɛ˜:/-ɛ:

mǫzˇę

muže

muzˇeˇ

muzˇeˇ

męże

‘man (ACC.PL )’

(8)

goście

The outcome of *-ants# (PRAP.M/N.NOM) also bifurcated, with the same dialect divide. After non-palatals, the vowel was lengthened, and the nasal was lost before the development of nasal monophthongs in MCSl1. It was raised to *-u: in SSl but remained low *a: in WSl and ESl (6). After palatals, the loss of the nasal was again delayed; all dialects show the expected fronting, then lengthening and nasalization (7). (There is no way to determine if the vowel was also raised, as MCSl1 *ɛ˜: and *ĩ: merged in LCSl.) PSl

MCSl1

(6)

*rɛkants

*rɛku:/-a:

reky

reky

reka

řka

rzeka

‘say (PRAP.M.INDEF )’

(7)

*ka:zi̯ ants

*ka:ʒɛ˜:

kazˇę

kaže

kazˇa

kazˇeˇ

każę

‘show (PRAP.M.INDEF )’

OCS

OSb

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

4. Middle Common Slavic (MCSl) changes If ECSl was the period in which the vowel system was essentially the same as in PSl, MCSl began with a drastic restructuring of the vowel system − the monophthongization

1456

XIII. Slavic

of diphthongs (4.1−4.2) or First Slavic Vowel Shift (Andersen 1998), which probably occurred ca. 4th−5th centuries (idem 2014: 59). Like the ECSl changes, the monophthongizations had the same results in all the CSl dialects, but they were the preludes to developments with dialectally differentiated outcomes (4.4−4.6). The latter are treated as MCSl changes here if their isoglosses divide a unified WSl from SSl and ESl − that is, if CzSlk patterns with Lech. This distribution can be interpretated as follows: P-WSl extended into the Northern European Plain, which attenuated its contact with the other dialects, but it was still internally cohesive because all of its dialects were on the same side of the Carpathians. The P-ESl zone had been attenuated by northward migrations; thus pre-Novgorodian (Novg) patterned as a periphery to the central zone represented by P-SSl and P-ESl.

4.1. Monophthongizations of glide diphthongs ECSl had falling diphthongs with coda *i̯ and *u̯ before consonants or the word boundary. These tautosyllabic diphthongs became long/tense monophthongs: (1) PSl *ai̯ > LCSl1 *æ (Slavistic ě2 ), merging with the reflex of inherited *ɛ: (1); PSl *εi̯ > LCSl1 *i (Slavistic i2 ), merging with the reflex of inherited *i: (2); and PSl *au̯, *ɛu̯ > LCSl1 *u (Slavistic u2 ) (3−4). Heterosyllabic sequences of the same vowels and glides did not undergo monophthongization; examples from the same roots are included in the table for comparison. PSl (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

MCSl1

LCSl1

OCS

OESl

*kai̯ na:

j

*k ɛ:2na:

*tsæna

cěna

cěna

*kai̯ ɛti sɛ:m

*kai̯ ɛti sɛ˜:

*kai̯ ɛtɪ sɛ˜

kajetъ sę

*sɛi̯ tad

*se:2ta

*sitɔ

*sɛi̯ ɛti

*sɛ:i̯ ɛti

*da:rau̯i̯ ai̯ s *da:rau̯a:tεi̯

OCz

OPo

Gloss

cěna

!

cena

‘penalty; price’

kajetь s ja

kaje sě

kaje się

‘repent (PRS.3SG)’

Bg sito

sito

síto

sito

‘sifter’

*sæi̯ ɛtɪ

sějetъ

sějеtь

sěje

sieje

‘sow (PRS.3SG)’

*-ɔ:i̯ ɛ:2

*-ui̯ i

darui

darui

daruj

daruj

‘bestow (IMP.2SG)’

*-au̯a:te:

*-ɔvati

darovati

darovati

darovati

darować

‘bestow’

j

*rɛu̯i̯ ɛna2s

*rɔ:i̯ ɛnu

*rui̯ ɛnǝ

MBg r jujenъ

r ujenъ

řújen

‘September’

*rɛu̯ants

*rɛu̯-

*rɛu̯

revy

revy

řeva

‘bellow (PRAP.M)’

The split of tautosyllabic and heterosyllabic *au̯ created allomorphy in Leskien III verbs with stems in *-au̯- (3). The resulting morphophonemic alternation is still productive in the denominal suffix -ova-: Cz googlovat|googluje, Ru guglovat’|guglujet ‘Google (INF|PRS.3SG)’.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1457

The monophthongizations took place in several phases. First, the vowels assimilated to the tonality of the glides, if different: before *i̯ , *a became advanced *a̟, with the tongue slightly domed and closer to the palate; before u̯, *a, *ɛ became slightly rounded *a̹, *ɛ̹. Second, the vowels tensed in partial assimilation to the close, peripheral articulation of the glide: *a̟i̯ > *a̟ˑi̯ , *εi̯ > *εˑi̯ , *a̹u̯ > *a̹ˑu̯, and *ɛ̹u̯ > *ɛ̹ˑu̯ > *i̯ a̹ˑu̯. The breaking of the *ɛ̹ into a high-tonality opening and a low-tonality nucleus is a well-attested type of change. The front on-glide conditioned dental palatalization (3.6), which was not ordinarily an effect of *ɛ. Afterwards, it was reinterpreted as an off-glide of the preceding consonant, in accordance with the general CSl pattern (see 3.3, 3.6, 3.7.1). After labials, it became *l (3.7.2). The stage of monophthongizations proper is designated MCSl1. The tensed vowels became more moved along the peripheral track: *a̟ˑi̯ > *æˑi̯ encroached on *εˑi̯ , which rose to *eˑi̯ ; *a̹ˑu̯ > *ɔˑu̯. The glides were then revaluated as the closing phases of the long/tense vowels: [eˑi̯ ] 0 /*e:/ → [e:(i̯ )]; [*æˑi̯ ] 0 /ɛ:/ → [ɛ:(i̯ )], merging with inherited *ɛ: (a near-open vowel); and [a̹ˑu̯] 0 /ɔ:/ → [ɔ:(u̯)]. The dephonologized off-glides were later eliminated by deductive changes. The final stage, designated MCSl2, the mid- or close-mid monophthongs rose one cardinal position. Thus *e: merged with the reflex of inherited *i:. In rising, *ɔ: encroached on the space of inherited *u:1, which moved into the central vowel space (see 4.3); *ɔ: then occupied the vacated close back space as *u:2. As a result of the monophthongizations, the inherited ablaut relations ceased to be transparent in syllables that had been diphthongal. Thus the ablaut series *i|*εi̯ |*ai̯ became *i|*i:2 |* ɛ:2 (5), while *u|*ɛu̯|*au̯ became *u|*i̯ u:2 |*u:2 (6). Grade (5)

(6)

PSl

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

Zero

*ku̯itεti

cvьtetъ

cvьtetь

kv(e)te

‘bloom (PRS.3SG)’

Full e

*praku̯εi̯ tɛt

procvite

procvite

prokvite

‘bloom (AOR.3SG)’

Full o

*ku̯ai̯ ta2s

cveˇtъ

cveˇtъ

květ

Zero

*budɛ:tεi̯

bъdeˇti

bъdeˇti

bdieti

j

kwiat

‘be alert’

j

Full e

*bɛu̯d-anti

bl udǫtъ

bl udutь

Full o

*(au̯)bau̯di:tεi̯

ubuditi

(u)buditi

‘flower’

‘watch (PRS.3PL )’ (u)buditi

budzić

‘awaken’

4.1.1. Chronology As the reflex of *ai̯ did not condition the 1VP (3.2), it evidently was not yet a front vowel during that period. The reflex of *ɛu̯ was not yet a close vowel at the time of Vowel Fronting, since it had a different fate from inherited *i̯ u: (see 3.3). (On the relative chronology of monophthongization and the Progressive Palatalization, see 4.6) The monophthongizations sensu stricto had not begun during the main period of contacts with EGmc (ca. 2nd−4th cc.), since both borrowed and inherited *au̯ and *ai̯

1458

XIII. Slavic

underwent the same changes (5). However, the changes were at the MCSl1 stage by the time of early contacts with WGmc and Rom (from ca. 5th c.). Foreign *ɔ: or o: (6) was adapted as *ɔ:, the reflex of *au̯, prior to its rise to *u:2 in MCSl2. Gk toponyms of Sl origin, dating at earliest from the late 6th−early 7th centuries, were accessed during the MCSl1 stage, as the *au̯ reflex was rendered «ο, ω» rather than «ου»: PSl *strau̯mɛn‘stream’ ⥬ Στρώμην; PSl *sau̯x- ‘dry’ ⥬ Σωχός, Σοχᾶς. Similarly, early BFi borrowings (probably 7th−8th centuries) show a MCSl1 reflex of *au̯: PSl *gau̯minad ‘threshing floor’ ⥬ Votic kōmina, Vepsian gomin, Karelian kuomino, Eastern Finnish kuomina (from *ō). MCSl1

Source (5)

(6)

OCS

Go kausjan

⥬

Go kaisar

⥬

*kɛ:2sa:ri

ceˇsar ь

Go leihwan

⥬

*li:xu̯a:

La rōsālia

⥬

*rɔ:2sa:lii̯ -

*(is)kɔ:2si:ti:2

iskusiti

OESl

OPo

Gloss

zkusiti

kusić

‘test; taste’

ceˇsar ь

ciesař

cesarz

‘king, emperor’

lixva

lixva

lichva

lichwa

‘usury’

rusaliję

rusalija

j

kusiti

OCz

j

‘(pre-)Pentecost’

4.1.2. Alternative approaches The monophthongizations have been interpreted in strikingly different ways. In one approach (e.g. Jakobson 1963), the vowel and glide metathesized in obedience to the Law of Open Syllables; the vowel was lengthened and raised: *εi̯ > *i̯ e: > i:2, *ai̯ > *i̯ ɛ:2, *au̯ > *u̯ɔ: > *u:2. However, the *εu̯ outcome cannot be explained by metathesis (**u̯e:), so an intensity shift is posited instead (*i̯ u:2). This approach does not account for why dentals and labials underwent iotation changes before *i̯ u:2, but not before *i̯ e: and *i̯ ɛ:2; nor does it provide a coherent motivation for the lengthening and raising of the vowels. Another approach (Feldstein 2003) assumes that the diphthongs were not VV̯ but VV (“equal vocalic components”, ibid.: 249). When the components matched in tonality, the first assimilated totally to the second: *a͡u > *u͡u; *ä͡i > *i͡i (*ä = *ɛ in the present notation). When they differed in tonality, frontness spread from one to the other; then one assimilated totally to the other in sonority: *a͡i > *ä͡i > *ä͡ä; *ä͡u > *ä͡ü > *ü͡ü (*ü = *u̟ in the present notation). The notion of “total assimilation” conflicts with the evidence that there was an intermediate stage with mid-vowels (MCSl1, 4.1.1). The author does not explain why “total assimilation” proceeded right to left for *a͡i, but left to right elsewhere; nor does he account for how his *ü(:) avoided merger with the front(ed) rounded vowel *u̟: (3.3), which was still labialized at the time of the Progressive Velar Palatalization (see 4.3, 4.6). He treats the development of *i̯ before *u̟u̟ (*üü) not as an integral outcome of the monophthongization but as a separate (and ad-hoc) change that “provided additional redundancy” for frontness combined with rounding (ibid.: 261).

4.1.3. Unexpected outcomes Final *-ai̯ has the regular outcome *ɛ:2 in some endings, e.g. PSl *zei̯ mai̯ > OCS, OESl, OCz zimě, OPo zimie ‘winter (DAT/LOC)’. However, in four endings they are said to have

81. The phonology of Slavic

1459

yielded *-i:2. Of these, the DAT.SG enclitic personal pronouns − OCS mi (1SG), ti (2SG), si (REFL ) − can be excluded. Though compared with Gk μοι, σοι, they are more likely to be the regular outcomes of PSl *mɛi̯ , *tɛi̯ , *sɛi̯ ; the same ending occurred in the DAT.SG of i- and consonant-stem nouns (OCS pǫt-i ‘road’, dьn-i ‘day’), cf. OPr mennei, tebbei, sebbei, Li †manie, †tavie, †savie. The remaining endings almost certainly do go back to *-ai̯ , since they triggered the 2VP (4.4) rather than the 1VP (3.2): o-stem M.NOM.PL *u̯ilkai̯ > OCS vlъci, OESl vьlci, OCz vlci, OPo wilcy ‘wolves’; Leskien I−II IMP.2SG|3SG: *mag-ai̯ -s/-t > OCS modzi, OESl, OCz mozi ‘dare’. Moreover, forms of the imperative where the diphthong was non-final have the expected outcome *ɛ:2: OCS modzěte, OESl mozěte, OCz mozěte (IMP.2PL ). The problematic endings can be treated as analogical to inflection types with thematic *-i̯ - (i̯ o-stem nouns and Leskien III verbs). Alternatively, one could posit that *-ai̯ C# regularly became *-i:2, if the o-stem NOM.PL is reconstructed with a final *-s (cf. i-stem *-ii̯ ɛs, u-stem *-au̯ɛs, consonant-stem *-ɛs).

4.2. Monophthongization of vowel-nasal diphthongs In MCSl, tautosyllabic vowel-nasal diphthongs became unitary nasal vowels: *aN, *un > LCSl1 *ɔ˜ (1), and *ɛn, *in > LCSl1 *ɛ˜. These are the sounds represented by the OCS “jusy” ѫ (ǫ) and ѧ (ę), respectively. (For their outcomes in the individual Sl languages, see 5.2.2) PSl (1)

(2)

(3)

MCSl1

LCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*anzuka2s

*ã:zu:ku

*ɔ˜zɨkǝ

ǫzъkъ

uzъkъ

úzký

wąski

‘narrow’

*ranka:m

*rã:kã:

*rɔ˜kɔ˜

rǫkǫ

ruku

ruku

rękę

‘hand (ACC)’

*galumbis

*galũ:bi

*golɔ˜bɪ

golǫbь

golubь

holub

gołąbek

‘dove’

pameˇt

pamięć

‘memory’

*pa:mintis

*pa:mĩ:ti

*pamɛ˜tɪ

pamętь

j

pam atь j

i

*zɛntis

*zɛ˜:ti

*zɛ˜tɪ

zętь

z atь

zeˇt [ e]

zięć [ɛ˜]

‘son-inlaw’

*za:i̯ inka2s

*za:ĩ:c̟u

*zaɛ˜tsɪ

zajęcь

zajacь

zajiec

Po zając

‘hare’

lahú

lęgą

‘lie down (PRS.3PL )’

*lɛnganti

*lɛ˜:gã:ti

*lɛ˜gɔ˜tɪ

lęgǫtъ

j

l agutь

The development of nasal vowels took place in three phases. First, the vowels underwent assimilatory nasalization: /VN/ → [ṼN]/__{C, #}. Second, the nasals were reinterpreted as the closing phases of the vowels: [ṼN] → /Ṽ:/ → [Ṽ(N)]. In other words, they were revaluated as transitions to the closure (complete or partial) of the following units. Concomitantly, their distinctive tonality (*m or *n) was ascribed to the following consonants. Thus syllable-final nasals ceased to exist as phonologically independent units. The new nasal vowels were redundantly long, preserving the mora count of the old diphthongs. The stage that resulted from these first two phases is designated MCSl1, corresponding to the monophthongization phase of vowel-glide diphthongs (see 4.1). In the next phase, MCSl2, *ã: and *ũ: merged as mid-back rounded *ɔ˜: (Slavistic ǫ), and *ĩ: and

1460

XIII. Slavic

*ɛ˜: as (open-)mid-front ɛ˜: (Slavistic ę). It is not problematic that the merger involved both lowering of the close vowels and raising of the (near-) open ones. Cross-linguistically, close nasal vowels tend to be perceived as more open, and open nasal vowels as more close, than their oral counterparts. Presumably, the mergers were also facilitated by the relative perceptual difficulty of distinguishing between nasal vowels, as compared with their oral counterparts (see Ohala 1975: 294). (The existence of a separate MCSl1 stage, with distinct *ĩ: and *ɛ˜: vowels, is indicated by the fact that the Progressive Velar Palatalization occurred after *in, but not after *ɛn; see 4.6) ˜̄ The monophthongization created morphophonemic alternations between VN and V in nasal-stem verbs (Leskien Ia and IIIa) (4−5) and in neuter n-stem nouns (6). In addition, it obscured the ablaut patterns in inceptive verbs with infixed *n in the present system (7−8). PSl (4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

MCSl1

MCSl2

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*dumtεi̯

*dũ:te:2

*dɔ˜:ti

dǫti

duti

dúti

dąć

‘blow’

*dumɛti

*dumɛti

*dʊmɛti

dъmetъ

dъmetь

dme

dmie

(PRS.3SG)

*na:kintεi̯

*na:tʃĩ:te:2 *na:tʃɛ˜:ti:

nacˇęti

nacˇati

načieti

naczęć

‘begin (INF )’

*na:kinɛti

*na:tʃinɛti

nacznie

(PRS.3SG)

*plɛdmɛ:n

*plɛmɛ˜:

*na:tʃinɛti nacˇьnetъ nacˇьnetь načne j

*plɛmɛ˜:

plemę

plem a

plémě

plemę

‘tribe’

*plɛdmɛnɛs *plɛmɛnɛ

*plɛmɛnɛ

plemene

plemene

plémene

plemene

(GEN)

*bunda:m

*bũ:dã:

*bɔ˜:dɔ˜:

bǫdǫ

budu

budu

będę

‘be (PRS.1SG)’

*bu:xum

*bu:xu

*bɨ:xʊ

byxъ

byxъ

bych

bych

(AOR.1SG)

j

*lɛnga:m

*lɛ˜:gã:

*lɛ˜:gɔ˜:

lęgǫ

l agu

lahu

lęgą

‘lie (PRS.1SG)’

*lɛgtεi̯

*lɛte:2

*lɛc̟i:

lesˇti

lecˇi

léci

lec

‘lie’

4.2.1. For Feldstein (2003), this change, like the other CSl monophthongizations, involved gemination in a diphthong defined as “equal vocalic components” (Feldstein 2003: 249) − i.e. VN̥. The first portion assimilated to the nasality of the second, which then assimilated to the sonority of the first: VN̥ > ṼN > ṼṼ (Feldstein 2003: 262−263). However, the starting nucleus VN̥ is typologically improbable, whereas the assimilation/ monophthongization process described in 4.2 is well attested cross-linguistically.

4.3. Delabialization of *u(:)1 and *u (:)1 As mentioned in 4.1, as *ɔ: (from PSl *au̯, *ɛu̯) rose, it impinged on the phonetic space of inherited *u:1. As a result, *u:1 centralized and delabialized, not necessarily in that order (1): *u: > (*ɯ >) *ɨ: (Slavistic y). Short *u underwent a parallel centralization (2): *u > MCSl2 *ʊ or *ɵ (2); however, its reflex was still somewhat rounded in LCSl, at least in some peripheral dialects (see 5.1.1, 5.7). These developments evidently added

81. The phonology of Slavic

1461

to the push-chain: *u̟(:), which had arisen after palatals (see 3.3), moved into the front vowel space and eventually merged with *i(:) (3). This merger had not yet happened in the early phases of the Progressive Velar Palatalization (4.6), which was conditioned by *i(:) but not *u̟(:). PSl

MCSl2

LCSl1

OSb

OESl

OCz

OPo

(1)

*magu:la:

*magɨ:la:

*mogyla

mogyla

mogyla

Cz mohyla

mogiła

‘tumulus’

(2)

*supna2s

*sʊnʊ

*sʊnʊ

sъnъ

sъnъ

sen

sen

‘sleep’

(3)

*si̯ u:tεi̯

*ʃu̟(:)ti:2

*ʃiti

šiti

šiti

šíti

szyć

‘sew’

*si̯ uu̯a2s

*ʃu̟u̯ʊ

*ʃiu̯ʊ

sˇьvь

sˇьvъ

sˇev

szew

‘seam’

Gloss

Some of the Balkan Rom (post-Vulgar La) dialects with which migrating Slavophones had contact had front rounded vowels *u̟ and *o̟. These were adapted as MCSl *u̟: (4) or, after non-palatals, *i̯ u̟: (5), with the vowel diphthongized to accommodate CSl phonotactics (cf. 3.4). As shown in (5), *i̯ caused dental palatalization (see 3.6); then it was eliminated after palatals, in accordance with the usual CSl pattern (see 3.7). (Cf. Lombard lačüga. La lactūca could not have been the direct source of MCSl *lac̟u̟ :ka:, as *kt would be expected to yield *t; nor can the donor have been ERom: Romanian lăptucă.) MCSl2

Source (4) (5)

(6)

LCSl1

OSb

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

Rom *ʒu̟:d-

⥬

*ʒidʊ

židь

židъ

žid

żyd

‘Jew’

Rom *latu̟:k-

⥬

*loc̟ika

Cr loćika

Ru ločiga

locika

ƚocyga

‘lettuce’

Rom *cro̟:ʒ-

⥬

*kru̟:ʒi

*kriʒɪ

križь

križь

kříž

krzyż

‘Cross’

OHG mûta

⥬

*mu:1ta-

*mɨto

myto

myto

mýto

myto

‘toll’

*ʒu̟:du *lac̟u̟:ka:

The delabialization of *u(:) had not yet taken place during early Migration-Period (probably 6th−7th-c.) contacts with Gk and La. Slavophone settlers in Byzantine Dalmatia adapted the *u(:) of Rom toponyms as their own *u(:)1 (>*ɨ: > OCr i): Tragurium > MCSl1 *tragu:ri- > LCSl1 *trogɨrɪ > Trogir; Scardona > *skardu:na ⥬ MCSl1 *skardu:nu > LCSl1 *skardɨnʊ > Skradin. Likewise, Slavophones adapted OHG u: as their own MCSl1 *u:1 (> *ɨ:) rather than MCSl2 *u:2 (6). Conversely, Frankish sources of the 7th−8th centuries render CSl *u:1 as u rather than, say, i, oi, or ui: *u̯aldu:ka: ‘ruler’ ⥬ Walducus; *dabramu:slis ⥬ Dabramuzli. Similarly, some Gk loanwords and toponyms of CSl provenience, presumably dating from the early period of settlements (late 6th− 7th-centuries) show u (ου) for *u(:)1 instead of ü (υ) or i (ι, ει, η): *magu:la: (1) ⥬ μαγούλα ‘hill’ (also well represented in toponyms); *buz- ‘elderberry’ ⥬ Βούζι[ον] (toponym), cf. Bg bu˘z, BCS baz, Ru boz, Cz, Po bez.

1462

XIII. Slavic

4.4. Second Regressive Palatalization of Velars The Second Palatalization of Velars (2VP) was conditioned by the reflexes of PSl *ai̯ (see 4.1) − MCSl1 *ɛ:2 (1−2), and *i: from *ai̯ C# (3−4). It was also triggered by *i(:) in Migration-Period loanwords (5). It was the first CSl sound change to have dialectally diverse outcomes: *k > ts, *g > (d)z, but *x > ʃ in WSl, x j in Novg, and s elsewhere. These isoglosses suggest that the 2VP was happening as P-WSl speakers were migrating north of the Carpathians, and as P-ESl (P-Novg) speakers moved into northwestern Russia (see 1.1.2). PSl (1)

(2)

2VP1

OCS

OESl

Novg kěle

OCz

*kai̯ la2s

*k jɛ:2lu

cělъ

cělъ

*gai̯ lad

*g jɛ:2la

dzělo

zělo

zielo

*xai̯ ra2s

*x jɛ:2ru

MBg sěrъ

sěrъ

šěrý

*xai̯ ris

*x jɛ:2ri

*rankai̯

j

*rã:k ɛ:2

xěrь rǫcě

rucě

cělý

OPo caƚy

‘whole’ ‘strongly’

szary

šěř rucě

Gloss

‘grey’ ‘grey cloth’

ręce

‘hand (DAT/ LOC.SG)’

*nagai̯

*nag jɛ:2

nodzě

nozě

nozě

nodze

‘leg (NOM/ ACC.DU)’

(3) (4) (5)

*rikai̯ s *dau̯xai̯

*rik ji:2 j

*dɔ:x i:2 j

ˇrci/rci

rzec

‘say (IMP.2SG)’

dusi

duši

duszy

‘spirit (NOM.PL )’

rьci

rьci

dusi

reki

Go *kiriko:

⥬*k irku:

crьky

cьrky

crkev

cierkiew

‘church’

Rom *acitǝ

*akitu

ocьtъ

ocьtъ

ocet

ocet

‘vinegar’

Gmc Regin

⥬*rɛg jina

Řezno

‘Regen(sburg)’

The change proceeded in several phases. In 2VP1, velars developed fronted allophones, probably with palatal coarticulation: *k > *k j, *g > *g j, *x > *x j. This stage is attested in Novg, on the northeastern periphery. In 2VP2, the palatalized velars became palatals: *k j > *c̟, *g j > *ɟ, *x j > *ç. At this stage, P-WSl *ç merged with alveopalatal *ʃ from 1VP *x and from *si̯ (3.2, 3.6). In 2VP3, the palatals became dentals with palatal coarticulation: *c̟ > *t j, *ɟ > *d j, and, in P-ESl and P-SSl, *ç > *s j. The dental stops became affricates in all dialects: *t j > *ts j, *d j > *dz j (Slavistic c, dz or ʒ, and š). The voiced affricate was preserved as such in E-SSl, Slk, and Lech; otherwise it was lenited to *z j except when there was a preceding *z (see [11] below). For 2VP *x j, CenSlk has twofold reflexes − WSl ʃ in non-alternating environments, and quasi-SSl s stem-finally: šerý ‘grey’, but blcha|blse ‘flea (NOM|LOC)’; cf. OCz blcha|blšě ‘flea’ (PSl *bluxa:). The mixed outcome may be due to language contact; prior to the 10th c., CenSlk neighbored W-SSl, and it has SSl-like reflexes from certain

81. The phonology of Slavic

1463

other changes. It is also conceivable that the *s was analogical to the velar-to-dental mutations from *k and *g (2). The 2VP reflexes of *sk j (6−8) and the rare *zg j (9) show a more complicated dialect split. For SSl, WSl, and Novg, the outcomes were homorganic with the *x j reflexes. Thus, SSl had palatalized dental *s jts j and *z jdz j; with the loss of palatal coarticulation, these are reflected as st(s) (ts in some dialects) and zd. WSl had alveopalatal *ʃtʃ and *ʒdʒ; these became ʃc̟ [št’] and ʒɟ [žd’] in WCz. The alveopalatal outcomes in WSl presuppose that the sibilants first assimilated to the palatal (co)articulation of the stops: *sk j > *s jk j (or *sc̟) > *s jc̟; *zg j >*z jg j (or *zɟ) >*z jɟ. This may also have occurred in the other dialects; cf. the reflex ʃk that appears in a few lexemes in ESl (8), as well as in CzSlk (OCz sˇkieřiti~ščeřiti), if it is not affective in origin. However, only in WSl were the palatalized sibilants identified with the pre-existing alveopalatal fricatives, which conditioned the progressive assimilation of the stops. PSl

2VP1 j

SSl

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(6)

*-isk-

*-isk i:i̯ i:

OCS -ьscii

-ьstii

-ščí

-szczy

‘folk (M.NOM.PL )’

(7)

*skai̯ g-

*sk jɛ:2g-

OSb (s)cěglь

scěglъ

Cz sˇtíhlý

szczegelny

‘alone’; Cz ‘slim’

*skai̯ p-

*sk jɛ:2p-

OSb (s)cěpit

skěpanije

ščiepati

szczepać

‘splinter(ing)’

(8)

*skai̯ r-

*sk jɛ:2r-

BCS cȅriti se

Uk sˇkiryty

sˇkieřiti

szczerzyć się

‘grimace’

(9)

*drɛnzgai̯

*drɛ˜:zg jɛ:2

OCS dręzdě

dr jazdě

*mai̯ zgai̯

*mɛ:2zg jɛ:2

‘forest (LOC)’ míeždie

Po miażdże

‘sap (DAT/LOC)’

†

In Novg, where the palatalization halted at the 2VP1 stage, the reflex is *sk j, as expected: proskipomъ ‘pierced through (PRPP.M.INDEF )’. Less expectedly, the same reflex is well attested in OESl texts of non-Novg origin: rusьskěi ‘Rus’ (F.LOC.SG.DEF )’; *skai̯ p- > skěpanije ‘splintering’, oskěpъ ‘spear’, (o)skěpišče ‘spear shaft’, poskěpaša ‘hack up (AOR.3PL )’; *skai̯ mεi̯ m- > skěmim- ‘press (PRPP)’, cf. (7). The same outcome is attested in the modern languages: Uk skipka ‘chip’, BR skepka ‘pinch’, SRu raskep ‘split’. However, in OESl texts, *sk j is more often reflected as sts or st, and *zg j is meagerly reflected as zd: rusьscěi~rusьstěi; dr jazdě (9). These OCS-like reflexes appear only in alternating (stem-final) position (6, 9); in root-initial position, st is unattested, and sts only crops up in the rare word scěglъ (7), an element of the ChSl register borrowed from OCS. This points to the conclusion that the alternation sk|st arose in imitation of OCS protographs; this was probably true for sts, though that could also develop by analogy to the alternation of non-cluster k|ts. There are also lexemes in which 2VP *sk j seems to be reflected as quasi-WSl ʃtʃ: Uk ščemyty, BR ščemic’, Ru ščemit’ ‘press’; Uk ščepyty, BR ščepac’, Ru ščepit’ ‘splinter’. However, these are probably e- or zero-grades with the regular 1VP reflex of *sk j; cf. Ru ščomy ‘pincers’ (*skim- or *skem-), OPo szczmić ‘press’ (*skim-); OESl ščьpь ‘wan-

1464

XIII. Slavic

ing crescent moon’, ščopy ‘splinters’, OCz ščpieti ‘produce a stinging odor’ (*skip-); Uk ščyryty ‘bare one’s teeth’ (*skεi̯ r-), contrast sˇkiryty (8), reflecting o-grade of the same root. These lexemes aside, the evidence points to *sk j as the pan-ESl − not just Novg − reflex of *sk j. In ESl, as in WSl, the preceding sibilant evidently arrested the coronalization process. In relative chronology, the terminus a quo for 2VP1 is generally considered to be the monophthongization of *ai̯ (4.1). In a late-6th-c. Byzantine text, Κελαγάστου (GEN), the name of an Antae emissary, probably renders pre-2VP2 *kɛ:2 lagast-; cf. OCS cěl‘healthy’ and gostь ‘guest’. For E-SSl, the phonological constraints introduced by the change were still active in the 860s, when the protographs of the OCS manuscripts were composed − hence the perceived need for a special Glagolitic letter «`» (misleadingly transliterated ћ) to render foreign «g» before a front vowel; the scribes sometimes replaced it with «g» (g̑eorgii ‘George’), or hypercorrected «g» to «ћ» (golъgota ~ ћolъћota|ћelъћota ‘Golgotha’). The 2VP created several stem alternations: in the ā-stem DAT/LOC (2) and NOM/ ACC.DU (2); in the o-stem LOC, M.NOM.PL (4), and LOC.PL, and N.NOM/ACC. DU; and in the IMP of velar-stem verbs (3). These alternations have been leveled out over time in some of the Sl languages.

4.5. Ku  clusters The 2VP (4.4) was, for the most part, blocked if there were consonants between the velar and the potential trigger (1). However, in some dialects, palatalization seems to have proceeded without hindrance in Ku̯ clusters. This took place in SSl and non-peripheral ESl dialects, but not in WSl or Novg; thus the isogloss essentially matches that of the 2VP. The change was conditioned not only by *ɛ:2 (2) but also by inherited *i (3) and *i:2 from *εi̯ (4) − front vowels that would have triggered the 1VP in immediately preceding velars. However, if the target velar was preceded by *s, the palatalization was blocked in all dialects (5). PSl (1) (2)

*gnai̯ zda-

OCS gneˇzdo

OESl

OCz

OPo

gneˇzdo

†

Novg/NRu j

hniezdo

gniazdo

‘nest’

†

j

kveˇt

kwiat

‘flower’

gn ezdo

Gloss

*ku̯ai̯ ta2s

cveˇtъ

cveˇtъ

*gu̯ai̯ gzda:

(d)zveˇzda

zveˇzda

gveˇzdъkeˇ

hveˇzda

gwiazda

‘star’

kv(e)te

kwicie

‘bloom (PRS.3SG)’

hvízd-

gwizd-

‘whistle’; Novg toponym

kv et

(3)

*ku̯itεti

cvьtetъ

cvьtetь

†

j

(4)

*gu̯εi̯ zd-

BCS zvȋzd

zvizd-

Pogvizdъ

(5)

*skvirna:

skvrъna

skvьrna

kv et-

skvrna

‘filth’

Prima facie, it is odd that the lip rounding and low tonality of *u̯ did not block the 2VP. Rather than assuming that *u̯ was somehow “transparent” for the 2VP when *n, *r, *l

81. The phonology of Slavic

1465

were not, it can be posited that *u̯ first underwent assimilatory fronting between velars and front vowels, at least in non-peripheral zones: *u̯ >*ɥ /K__V[+front]. Thus, in (2), PSl *ku̯ai̯ t- > *ku̯ɛ:2 t- > *kɥɛ:2 t- > *k jɥɛ:t- > *c̟ɥɛ:t- *tsɥɛ:t-. The posited labiopalatal glide − a more natural conduit for the 2VP than *u̯ − would not be isolated in place or manner of articulation; syllabic [u̟(:)] (IPA [y(:)]), reflecting PSl *i̯ u(:) (3.3) existed at the time of the Progressive Palatalization (4.6). (For other changes with progressiveregressive conditioning, see 3.6.1 and 4.6)

4.6. Progressive Palatalization The Progressive Velar Palatalization (PVP) or Palatalization of Baudouin de Courtenay was triggered by the reflexes of PSl syllabic *i(:)1 (1) and *in (2). The attested reflexes are the same as those of the 2VP: *k > c , *g > dz, and *x > WSl ʃ, SSl and ESl s(j). The affricate dz is attested in E-SSl, Slk, and Lech; elsewhere it lenited to z prior to the historical period. The PVP had two phases. In PVP1, the articulation changed from velar to fronted dorsal: *k > *k j > *c̟; *g > *g j > *ɟ; and *x > *x j > *ç. In PVP2, the reflexes coronalized and assibilated: *c̟ > *t j > *ts j; *ɟ > *d j > *dz j; *ç > *ʃ in WSl, *s j in SSl and ESl. The voiced affricate *dz j was preserved on the NW and SE peripheries (Lech and parts of E-SSl) but lenited elsewhere. It is sometimes posited that the PVP and 2VP were a single change (see 4.6.2); a less controversial position is that PVP2 and 2VP2 were a single change. The PVP was more precisely progressive-regressive: velars were regularly affected only before *a(:). By contrast, the 1VP reflexes (see 3.2) appear before PSl *ɛ(:), *i(:), and *i̯ (3), and no palatalization at all occurs before PSl *u(:) (4). The blocking effect of *u(:) is evident where the PSl velar was always followed by the same vowel, as in (4). When the PSl velar was stem-final, before alternating desinences, there was allomorphy between velars and PVP reflexes. This was leveled out − not always in favor of the PVP outcome; for *stiga: (1), cf. OSlk Prěsteg (toponym); Ru †stega; Ru zgi in ni zgi ni vidno ‘pitch-black’ (literally, ‘the path could not be seen’). PSl (1)

(2)

PVP1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*li:kad

*li:c̟a

lice

lice

líce

lice

‘face’

*atika:d

*atic̟a:

otьca

otьca

otceˇ

otca

‘father (GEN)

*stiga:

*stiɟa:

stь(d)za

stьza

stzeˇ

śćdza

‘path’

*u̯ixad

*u̯iça

vьse

vьse

vsˇe

wsze-

‘all (N)’

j

*mɛ:sinka:d

*mɛ:sĩ:c̟a:

meˇsęca

meˇs ac

meˇsieceˇ

miesięca

‘moon (GEN)’

⥬

*kuninga-

*kunĩ:ɟa:

kъnędza

kъn jaza

kneˇzě

księdza

‘prince (GEN)’

⥬

*pɛ:ning-

*pɛ:nĩ:ɟ-

pěnędzь

pen jazь

peniez

pieniędz-

‘penny’

1466

XIII. Slavic PSl

PVP1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

(3)

*atikɛ

*atitʃɛ

otьcˇe

otьcˇe

otcˇe

otcze

‘father (VOC)

(4)

*ligukad

*liguka

lьgъko

lьgъko

lehko

lekko

‘light (ADV)’

*kuningu:ni̯ i:

*kunĩ:gu:ni:

OSb knegyni

kъn jagyn ji

kněhně

¶

‘princess’

ksieni

Two relative chronologies should be noted. First, the reflexes of *u̟(:), from PSl *u(:) after palatals (3.3), were distinct from inherited *i(:) at the time of PVP1 (5); presumably, they were still labialized (IPA [y(:)]) or not fully fronted (IPA [ʉ(:)]). As the PVP was blocked before rounded *u(:), it makes sense that it should have been impeded after a rounded vowel. Second, PVP1 took place before MCSl2. Unlike *ĩ (from PSl *in), *ɛ˜ (from PSl *εn) did not condition the change, so the two nasal vowels were still distinct (6) (see 4.2, 4.4). Likewise, the reflex of *εi̯ , which was not a trigger (7), was still distinct from inherited *i:1, which was. (Apparent exceptions, e.g. OCS pomidzati, have morphological explanations; see 4.6.1). Scholars who treat the PVP1 as an ECSl phenomenon (see 4.6.2) argue that the nasal in PSl *in had become *ɲ between *i(:) and velars; this *ɲ was transparent or a trigger for PVP1, unlike the dental nasal in *ɛn. This ad-hoc explanation fails to explain why other consonants (*l, *r *s, and *z) did not retract (e.g., *l > *ʎ) in the same environment and remained “opaque” for PVP1. In any case, it is hard to swallow the notion that *ɲ would be a better vector for PVP1 than *i̯ (7−8). PSl (5)

PVP

LCSl1

*i̯ ugad

*i̯ u̟ga

*i̯ ɪgo

*bli:zi̯ u:ka:

*bli:ʒu̟(:)ka:

*bliʒika

OCS igo

OESl igo

OCz jho

OPo Po igo

Gloss ‘yoke’ ‘neighbor’

j

(6)

*tɛng-astis/-a(:)

*tɛ˜:g-

*tɛ˜g-

tęgostь

t agostь

teˇhost

cięga

‘weight’

(7)

*tεi̯ xad

*te:2xa

*tixo

tixo

tixo

ticho

cicho

‘quiet

(8)

*rai̯ ka:

*rɛ:2ka:

*ræka

reˇka

reˇka

ˇreˇka

rzeka

‘river’

Borrowings to and from Sl indicate that PVP1 was operating in the 6th−7th centuries. Thus *pɛ:ning- (2) came from a source with WGmc umlaut (*panning- > *penning-; from the late 5th c.); the term is attested in WGmc from the mid-7th c. (There is no known cognate in EGmc; Go had skatts in the given meaning.) This terminus a quo corresponds to the period of Sl settlement in ECen Europe and hence more extensive contacts with WGmc. (For ‘shilling’, also borrowed from Gmc, Go could be the source: OCS skъlędzъ, OESl stьl jadzь, Cr †clez.) Likewise, P-Sln borrowed the La hydronym Longaticum before the completion of PVP1: *lãgatik- > Logatec. P-Sln settlements in the Eastern Alps date to the late 6th−7th centuries. P-ESSl toponyms in southern and central Greece have also been cited for absolute chronology: *au̯arik- ‘sycamore (DIM)’ ⥬ Ἀβαρῖκος; Γαρδίκι (attested in multiple locales) from *gardika2s ‘walled town’; etc. (Vasmer 1941: 301). These loanwords, probably accessed in the 6th−8th centuries, do not necessarily show the absence of PVP1, given

81. The phonology of Slavic

1467

the limitations of the Gk writing system and the possibility of leveling within Sl. The soft declension of Γαρδίκι may perhaps be due to non-Slavophone perceptions of CSl *k j or *c̟ as *ki. However, the loanwords may suggest that their Sl models had not completed PVP2 at the time of accession; cf. the cognate toponyms Ἀβαρινίτσα, Γαρδίτσα, which reflect PVP2. Vasmer (1941: 301−302) cautions that the Sl suffixes may have been contaminated with the Gk suffix -ikeia. It is debatable whether PVP2 tapered off on the northeastern periphery, as 2VP had (see 4.4−4.5). In Novg, *k after PVP triggers is mostly reflected as ts: otьcь ‘father (NOM)’, veˇvericeˇ ‘currency (NOM/ACC.PL )’ (*u̯ai̯ u̯eri:k-); exceptions may be analogical in origin. For *g in the PVP environment, Novg has k(ъ)n jaz- ‘prince’ but leg (÷lьg-) ‘be permitted’ (*lig-). The former could be a borrowing from Kievan; the latter could be due to stemleveling. For *x, there is a near-complete paradigm of *u̯ix- ‘all’ with stem-final x and hard type endings: voxo (÷vъxo), vъxoeˇ, etc., corresponding to Kievan OESl vьsь (M.NOM.SG), vьse (N.NOM/ACC.SG), vьseeˇ (F.GEN.SG). On this basis, Zaliznjak (2004: 45−46) concludes that P-Novg *x did not undergo the PVP. However, most of the relevant forms do not represent the PVP1 triggering environment, since they show the change of *u̯ix- > *u̯ux- (see Zaliznjak 2004: 54−55) − hence the spellings vъx- or vox- instead of vьx- or vex-. Zaliznjak suggests (2004) that the vowel backing did not occur when there was a front vowel in the following syllable, based on the form vьxemo (÷vьxeˇmъ DAT.PL; OESl vьseˇmъ). However, this may have been a contamination from ChSl or a mistake; the token dates from the time when “weak” ъ and ь were being lost. Cf. voxь (÷vъxe), with the early Novg hard-stem(!) M.NOM ending -e. Until the chronology of *u̯ix > *u̯ux- is clarified, the root ‘all’ cannot be considered secure evidence that P-Novg *x was unaffected by the PVP.

4.6.1. Leveling of stem alternants Several suffixes are attested both with and without PVP outcomes. While some of the variation may have arisen in the historical period, others are pan-Slavic. For example, in the suffix *-(in)i:k-, the generalization of the unpalatalized consonant to signal masculine and the palatalized one to signal feminine (or common gender) was undoubtedly prehistoric, as in the forms for ‘sinner’ in (1). PVP1

OCS

*-ini:ka:d

*-ini:k ja:

grěšьnika

*-ini:ka:

*-ini:k ja:

PSl (1)

(2)

*kli:ka:tɛi̯

j

*kli:k a:te:2

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

grěšьnika

hřiešníka

grzesznika

(M.GEN)

grěšьnica

grěšьnica

hřiešnicě

grzesznica

(F.NOM)

klicati

0

klícěti

klicati

‘shout’

0

klikati

(3)

*kli:knantɛi̯

*kli:knɔ˜:te:2

vъskliknǫti

kliknuti

*mirka:tɛi̯

*mirka:te:2

0

mьrkati

Bg †mrъka

0

mrъcati

mьrkati

‘shout (PFV)’ mrkati

‘grow dim’ Slc mjie̯řkac są

1468

XIII. Slavic

The expected outcomes have often been obscured by analogical extensions of stem allomorphs (PVP or non-PVP). For example, the alternations k|ts and g|dz were regular in some Leskien II−III aspectual pairs, as seen in (2). In some LCSl dialects, the alternations were extended to Leskien II−III pairs where the PVP had not been phonologically conditioned, e.g. when a consonant intervened between the trigger and the velar (3); cf. also OCS blьsnǫti | bliskati (regular)/bliscati (analogical) ‘shine’ (PFV|IPFV)’ (PSl *bli[:]sk-). Alternatively, the regularly palatalized imperfective stem could be leveled out on the model of the non-palatalized perfective, as seen in OESl klikati (2). One factor that promoted the leveling out of the PVP alternations was their semiotic vacuity in noun stems. The 1VP and 2VP alternations indexed specific endings; the basic allomorphs ended in velars. By contrast, the PVP alternations had no indexical value within paradigms: the distribution of *g and *dz was morphologically arbitary in *stidza:|*stigu:| *stidza:mu (NOM|GEN, NOM/ACC.PL|DAT.PL ), etc. as compared with unpalatalized *darga:| *dargu:|*darga:mu ‘road’. After *ɛi̯ became *i:2, the alternations were no longer predictable. If the basic stem ended in a PVP reflex, the direction of the alternations (high tonality → low tonality) was the reverse of the pattern seen in the 1VP and 2VP reflexes.

4.6.2. Chronological controversy The PVP is the most debated of the CSl changes. The main point of contention has been its chronology relative to the regressive palatalizations. There are four main schools of thought. In the earliest view (PVP 3 2VP), the PVP is a “special case” of the 2VP (see 4.4); the identity of reflexes points to a single event. In a second approach (PVP < 2VP), the PVP was the “Third Palatalization.” It began while the 2VP was in progress and continued for some some time after the 2VP ended. The rationale is that the PVP has more exceptions than the 2VP; this is taken to indicate that it happened when the CSl dialect continuum was less cohesive. However, this argument is not cogent; unlike the 2VP, the PVP only occurred where leveling could operate, and there are good reasons why the alternations it produced should be unstable (see above). In fact, there is no convincing evidence that the 2VP preceded the PVP. Whether the 2VP and the PVP should be treated as a single regressive-progressive change or as separate events is a moot point. In a third view (PVP1 > 2VP), PVP1 took place before the monophthongization that triggered the 2VP (4.1). The rationale for this claim is the fact that PSl *-ai̯ - was reflected as OCS -i- rather than -eˇ- in noun endings after PVP reflexes: otьci instead of *otьceˇ (LOC). This can be interpreted as a regular development, with vowel fronting conditioned by the PVP1 reflex: *atikai̯ > *atik ja̟i̯ > *atic̟εi̯ > otьci. However, another pattern has -eˇ- for PSl *-ai̯ - after the PVP reflexes (see below), and there are other facts that are hard to reconcile with the “PVP > 2VP” approach. The crucial -i- in noun endings has a simple morphological explanation: when the basic stem palatalized, the declension pattern appropriate for palatal stems was adopted wholesale, except for the marginal vocative (otьcˇe).

81. The phonology of Slavic

1469

A fourth view (PVP1 > 1VP) treats PVP1 as an ECSl phenomenon. Though initially proposed in a functionalist framework (Martinet 1955: 366−367), this approach became widespread under the influence of generative grammar, which ordered mutations from the PVP before those from the 1VP and 2VP. The argument goes that, as an intersyllabic change, PVP1 would have contradicted the later CSl trend toward syllabic synharmony (see 3.1); thus it must have occurred before the 1VP, like the other prominent progressive change, RUKI. The reflexes of PVP1 and the 1VP, it is argued, merged before front vowels; elsewhere, they remained stable until they merged with the 2VP reflexes. As PVP1 and vowel fronting (3.3) preceded monophthongization (4.1), the declension of nouns like otьcь|otьci|otьcˇe (NOM|LOC| VOC) is phonologically expected. Vocatives like otьc ˇ e and kъnęzˇe ‘prince’ are problematic for this approach; the original masculine i̯ o-stems − i.e., those whose stemfinal consonants were affected by the 1VP or dental palatalization − adopted the ustem VOC in CSl, e.g. OCS vracˇu ‘physician’ (*u̯arki̯ -). The PVP1 > 1VP viewpoint requires scrutiny because of its drastic ramifications for reconstruction. The crux is the relative chronology of monophthongization. There is consensus that the 1VP happened before *ai̯ >*ɛ:2, since the latter triggered the 2VP (4.4). Significantly, neither *ai̯ (*ɛ:2) nor *εi̯ (*e:2, MCSl2 *i:2) conditioned the PVP (1), even though palatal glides are typologically common triggers for velar palatalization. If *i̯ had the same tongue configuration as *i, its nonsyllabicity should not have blocked the PVP; the velar would have been the onset of a new syllable in any case. This suggests that PVP1 began after monophthongization, and hence after the 1VP. PSl (1)

PVP

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*tεi̯ xad

*te:2xa

tixo

tixo

ticho

cicho

‘quiet’

*mεi̯ ga:tεi̯

*me:2ga:te:2

pomidzati

migati

míhati

migać się

‘wink’

*rai̯ ka:

*rɛ:2ka:

reˇka

reˇka

ˇreˇka

rzeka

‘river’

To circumvent this problem, the proponents of PVP > 1VP posit that the CSl diphthongs had non-close slopes − *ae̯ and *ie̯ instead of *ai̯ and *εi̯ . This solution is entirely ad hoc. While *i̯ can be reconstructed from other contexts, there is no such evidence for *e̯. As an opening diphthong, *ie̯ would be isolated in the CSl vowel system, and its glide would still have to become close at some point to yield the attested outcome *i:. Moreover, if *e̯ is supposed to be a mid or near-close vowel, its syllabic counterpart only arose as a consequence of monophthongization. Further evidence that monophthongization preceded the PVP comes from the different outcomes of the theme vowels in the pronominal-adjectival declension, PSl *-a- (2) and *-ai̯ - (3). In ECSl, a “soft” subdeclension emerged due to the fronting of *a to *ɛ and *ai̯ to *εi̯ after palatals, as seen in *na:si̯ - (3.3). Significantly, in the pronominal adjectives *si:k- and *u̯ix-, whose stems ended in PVP targets, thematic *a was fronted, but thematic *ai̯ was not. The resulting mixture of “hard” and “soft” endings was phonologically regular and morphologically conservative if *ai̯ monophthongized to *ɛ:2 before PVP1 began.

1470

XIII. Slavic PSl (2)

MCSl1

2VP

LCSl

*taga *na:si̯ aga

(3)

Fronting

*na:ʃɛga

OCS

Gloss

togo

‘this’ (M/N.GEN)

nasˇego

‘our’ (M/N.GEN)

*si:kaga

*si:k ja̟ga

*si:c̟ɛga

MBg sicego

‘such’ (M/N.GEN)

*u̯ixaga

*u̯ix ja̟ga

*u̯içɛga

vьsego

‘all’ (M/N.GEN)

*tɛ:2mi

teˇmь

*tai̯ mi

*tɛ:2mi

‘this’ (M/ N.INST )

*na:si̯ ai̯ mi

*na:ʃεi̯ mi

*na:ʃe:2mi

*na:ʃi:mi

nasˇimь

‘our’ (M/N.INST )

*si:kai̯ mi

*si:kɛ:2mi

*si:k jɛ:2mi

*si:c̟ɛ:2mi

siceˇmь

‘such’ (M/N.INST )

*u̯ixai̯ mi

*u̯ixɛ:2mi

*u̯ix jɛ:2mi

*u̯içɛ:2mi

vьseˇmь

‘all’ (M/N.INST )

If PVP1 had come first, *ai̯ would have been fronted to *εi̯ (LCSl *i:2); forms like siceˇmь and vьseˇmъ would then be highly irregular. To salvage the PVP > 1VP chronology, proponents have cast doubt on the antiquity of *si:k- and *u̯ix-, despite the fact that *u̯ix- has precise cognates in Ba (Lith vìsas, Latv viss, OPr wissa-). In addition, they argue that *si:k- and *u̯ix- adopted certain oblique “hard” endings after the PVP and fronting: *u̯içi:mi → *u̯içɛ:mi. Such a change would undo the otherwise regular “soft” declension pattern; it would have no motivation, unlike the wholesale adoption of softdeclension endings by nouns. There is no reason to assume that the pronouns would be more prone than nouns to undergo “peculiar innovations along with haphazard rearrangements of old materials,” as Lunt claims (1981: 86). All in all, the PVP > 1VP view requires too much special pleading to be credible.

4.6.3. Vowel Fronting after PVP Following the PVP reflexes, *a was fronted to *ɛ: PSl *li:cad > PVP1 *li:k ja > OCS, OESl, OPo lice, OCz líce (see 4.6). This is sometimes treated as a Second Vowel Fronting, but it probably was a new manifestation of a phonotactic constraint introduced after the “first” Vowel Fronting that followed the 1VP (see 3.3). In a related development, endings in *-ī˘(-) were substituted for pre-PVP *-u(:): *kuningu: 0 *kunĩ:g ji: > OESl kъn jazi ‘prince (INST.PL )’. This change must have been morphological rather than phonological in nature, given that the PVP was blocked by close back *u(:) (see 4.6).

81. The phonology of Slavic

1471

4.7. Reflexes of *t, *d As noted in 3.6, in the PSl clusters * ti̯ , * di̯ the stops developed retracted allophones *t, *d in assimilation to the palatal glides. Subsequently, the glides were reanalyzed as off-glides and, over time, eliminated (see 3.7). The PSl cluster *kt was also reflected as *t before front vowels (see 3.6.1). The precise articulation of *t, *d − e.g. [c̟, ɟ] or [t j, *d j] − was uncertain and may have differed by dialect. Their subsequent changes definitely occurred at different times in different dialects. The eventual reflexes fall into four zones − ESl, WSl, W-SSl, and E-SSl. By contrast, *sti̯ and *zdi̯ had uniform outcomes − *ʃtʃ and *ʒdʒ, merging with the 1VP reflexes of *sk, *zg (see 3.2). Evidently, the sibilants assimilated to *t, *d; they became hushers directly or were identified with the hushers produced by the 1VP and dental palatalization (see 3.6). Then retracted *t, *d developed fricative releases in assimilation to the hushers and were identified with the pre-existing *tʃ and *(d)ʒ. (Later, in ESSl, CzSlk, and some Ru dialects, the fricative-affricate clusters dissimilated to *ʃt, *ʒd.) MCSl1

PSl (1)

(2)

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*pau̯sti̯ a:tɛi̯

*pɔʃtʃa:te:2

pusˇtati

pusˇcˇati

púsˇcˇeˇti

puszczać

‘release’

*bursti̭ a2s

*burʃtʃi

Sln br̀šč

boršč

Cz bršt’

barszcz

‘hogweed’

*duzdi̯ us

*duʒdʒi

dъzˇdь

dъzˇčь [ʒdʒ]

Slk dážd’

deżdż

‘rain’

Within ESl, the reflex of *zdi̯ in ‘rain’ (2) varies. The most frequent spelling žd, though OCS-like, may reflect a vernacular pronunciation ʒd, which is widely attested in Ru dialects. The outcome ʒdʒ is also widespread; in OESl texts of WUk origin, it is spelled «žč», with the letter for the voiceless affricate in the absence of one for the voiced. In OESl texts of northwestern, especially Novg, origin, the outcome was ʒg j («žg»). In P-ESl, *t and *d became alveopalatal affricates *tʃ (3) and *ʒ (4) in all environments. Thus they merged completely with the 1VP reflexes of *k, *g (see 3.2). This suggests that the development of fricative release was completed prior to the onset of the 2VP in P-ESl. PSl (3)

(4)

OESl

Uk

BR

Ru

ESl-ChSl

Gloss

*su̯ai̯ ti̯ a:

sveˇcˇa

svicˇa

svecˇa

svecˇa

svěšča

‘candle’

*naktis

nocˇь

nicˇ

nocˇ

nocˇ’

noščь

‘night’

*tɛu̯di̯ a2s

cˇuzˇь

cˇuzˇyj

cˇuzˇy

cˇuzˇoj

!

čuždyj

‘foreign’

*mɛdi̯ a:

meža

meža

mjaža

meža

mež(d)a

‘boundary’

OESl ecclesiastical (ChSl) texts tend to have ∫ t∫ «щ» for *t and either ʒ «ж» or ʒd «жд» for *d. While ʒ was vernacular, the other spellings arose under OCS influence. In 11thc. texts, the voiceless reflex could be spelled «шт», in direct imitation of OCS ∫ t. The reflex ∫ t∫ was derived from the *st reflex by analogy to OCS, where *t and *st both came out as ∫ t (see below).

1472

XIII. Slavic

In P-WSl, *t, *d were assibilated and became the dental affricates *ts (5), *dz (6). These outcomes merged with those of *k, *g in the 2VP (see 4.4) and PVP (see 4.6). Evidently, then, the assibilation phases of the three changes overlapped in P-WSl. The fact that CzSlk patterns with Lech rather than W-SSl may indicate that the change was completed before LCSl (see 4.1). (In Sorb, Cz, and Kb, the reflex of *d ultimately lost its closure.)

(5)

(6)

PSl

Slk

*su̯ai̯ ti̯ a:

svieca

*naktis

OCz

US

LS

OPo

Kb

Pb

Gloss

svieceˇ

swjeca

swjeca

świeca

swiéca

÷sveca˘

‘candle’

noc

noc

noc

noc

noc

noc

÷nc

‘night’

*tɛu̯di̯ a2s

cudzí

cuzí/cizí

cuzy

cuzy

cudzy

cëzy

÷cau̯ʒeˇ

‘foreign’

*mɛdi̯ a:

medza

mezě

mjeza

mjaza

miedza

miedza

÷midza

‘boundary’

In W-SSl and western E-SSl dialects (7−8), MCSl *c̟, *ɟ were conserved longer than elsewhere; their eventual resolutions belong to the post-CSl period. Unassibilated palatal stops («k[ь]» and «g[ь]») are found in the oldest Sb texts (12th−14th centuries). (The clusters št and žd, borrowed from OCS, [see below] were preferred in texts of the ecclesiastical [Sb-ChSl] register.) Unassibilated palatal stops are also preserved in some Što and Čak dialects, in much of Mc, including the standard, and in some WBg dialects. In other Mc and WBg dialects, the stops have advanced to dental t j and d j, but without assibilation. In Sln, Čak, and Kaj, *c̟ typically merged with t∫ from the 1VP («č»), while *ɟ lenited through *ɣ j to *i̯ («j»). In the OSln Freising Fragments (later 10th c.), which were written through the filter of OHG perceptions, the *c̟ reflex can be spelled as a stop («k») or as an affricate («z, c, c∫, t∫, ∫»). The *ɟ reflex is rendered «g» or «i», which can be interpreted as the intermediate stage *ɣ j or as the end result *i̯ . The outcomes t∫ («č») and i̯ («j, ћ») are also attested in medieval Cr ChSl, though the quasi-OCS št and žd are more frequent. In most modern Što dialects, including standard Bo, Cr, and Sb, the primary palatals assibilated. In the standard, and in many dialects, they are now palatal affricates tɕ and dʑ (also in some Kaj dialects). In other dialects, dental tʃ, dʒ are found. In much of E-SSl, *c̟, *ɟ became the clusters *ʃtʃ, *ʒdʒ, merging with the reflexes of *sti̯ , *zdi̯ . These reflexes are preserved in some WBg and SMc dialects. In EBg, including Cyrillic OCS and the modern standard, the clusters simplified to sˇt, zˇd. PSl (7)

(8)

Sln

Čak

OSb

BCS

Mc

OCS

Bg

Gloss

*su̯ai̯ ti̯ a:

svẹ́ cˇa

sviečȁ

svěkja

svéća

sveḱa

sveˇsˇta

(svjašt)

‘candle’

*naktis

nọ̑ cˇ

nuȏć

nokь

nȏć

noḱ

nosˇtь

nosˇt

‘night’

*tɛu̯di̯ a2s

tȗj

tȕj-

tug-

tȗđ

tuǵ

(sˇ)tuzˇdь

!

cˇuzˇd

‘foreign’

*mɛdi̯ a:

méja

megja

mèđa

meǵa

mežda

mežda

‘border’

81. The phonology of Slavic

1473

To account for the E-SSl clusters, some scholars have posited gemination followed by lenition (*t > *tt > *ʃt; *d > *dd > *ʒd), parallel to the PreSl degeminations of *tt > *st and *dd > *zd (see 2.7.2). According to Lunt (2001: 188), this occurred “to fit the constraint that the first of two obstruents must be a sibilant.” The problem is how such geminates could have arisen in the first place, given the constraint, which was already in operation in ECSl (see 3.1.2). Velcheva (1988: 74−75) proposes that the degeminations of {*tt, *dd} and {*tt, dd} (delayed-release consonants) were not just parallel but actually simultaneous. This claim is anachronistic; the first change was a PIE dialectal development, while the second was limited to a single sub-sub-branch of LCSl. (Velcheva 1988: 74 treats the geminates as delayed-release stops; this also seems problematic, since the husher precedes rather than follows the stop or affricate portion.)

4.8. *tl, *dl clusters The clusters *tl and *dl, which were permitted in ECSl syllable structure (see 3.1.1), were subject to changes in MCSl. Their reflexes fall into two main zones: the clusters were preserved in WSl, but lost in most of SSl and in non-peripheral ESl: *tl > *dl > l; *dl > l. (Apparent counterexamples with tl and dl arose due to metathesis [5.5] or the jer-shift [5.8]: OCS dlanь < *dalnis ‘palm’; Bg, Ru metla < *mɛtila: ‘broom’.) In transitional CenSlk and NWSln, the stops were preserved across boundaries (2) but underwent elision within morphemes (3); elsewhere in Sln, the clusters are only preserved across boundaries (1 & 2). PSl

Po

LS

US

(1)

*plɛtla:

plotƚa

platła

plotƚa

pletla

plietla

(2)

*u̯ɛdla:

wiodƚa

wjadƚa

wjedla

vedla

viedla

(3)

*(s)kri:dlad

skrzydƚo kśidƚo

krˇidƚo

krˇídlo

*madlεi̯ ti

modli się

modli sa

modlí sa

modlí seˇ

Mc

Bg

OCS

BCS (1)

(2)

OCz

OESl

Slk

CenSlk NWSln

Sln

plétla

plétla

viedla

védla

védla

krídlo

krielo

kridwo

krílọ

modlí sa

modli

Uk

BR

mo˛́li

Ru

Gloss

plȅo

plel

plel

plelъ

pliv

plëuˇ

plël

‘plait (RES.M)’

plȅla

plela

plela

plela

plela

pljala

plela

‘plait (RES.F)’

vȅo

vel

vel

viv

vëuˇ

vël

‘lead (RES.M)’

vȅla

vela

vela

vela

vjala

vela

‘lead (RES.F )’

(sъ)velъ velъ vela

1474

XIII. Slavic BCS (3)

Mc

Bg

OCS

OESl

Uk

BR

Ru

Gloss

krílo

krilo

krilo

krylo

krylo

krylo

krylo

krylo

‘wing’

mȍlī

moli

moli

molitъ

molitь

molit’

malic’

molit

‘entreat (PRS.3SG)’

In regions with Ba substrata, the dental stops became velars before *l: NEPo (Mazowian): moglitwa ‘prayer’; Old Pskovian (NW Ru): sočkle s ja ‘settle accounts (RES.PL )’ (*su-kitl-), veglě ‘lead (RES.PL )’ (*u̯ɛdl-).

4.9. Initial vowel-sonorant diphthongs Initial tautosyllabic *aR underwent metathesis, with lexicalized exceptions on the peripheries of Lech and E-SSl. (The handful of lexemes in which initial *εR has been reconstructed pose great problems and will not be discussed here.) The reflexes of the metathesis fall into two zones; the isogloss must have formed before the late 9th−early 10th c., when the WSl-W-SSl continuum was disrupted by the Magyar invasion of the Carpathian Basin. In the southern zone (SSl and CenSlk), *a was lengthened in all environments, so that the bimoraicity of the old diphthongs was preserved (1−2): *aRC > *Ra:C. In the northern zone (Sorb, CzSlk, non-peripheral Lech, and ESl), the vowel was only lengthened (1) if it bore an acute accent (see 6.3−6.3.4). Elsewhere, it remained short (2): *a˝RC > *Ra:C, *aRC > *RaC. In all dialects, *Ra:C was reflected as RaC, and *RaC as RoC, once quantitative differences yielded to qualitative ones (see 5.1). PSl (1)

(2)

OCS

Sln

CenSlk

OCz

OPo

OESl

Gloss

*a˝rdlad

ralo

rálo

rálo

rádlo

radƚo

ralo

‘plow’

*a˝lkama2s

lakomъ

lákom

lakomý

lakomý

ƚakom-

lakomъ

‘greedy’

*aru̯inad

ravьno

rávno

rávno

rovno

rowno

rovьno

‘evenly’

*arzau̯ma2s

razumъ

razȗm

razum

rozum

rozum

rozumъ

‘reason’

*alnεi̯

MBg lani

láni

laňi

loni/loní

ƚoni

loni

‘last year’

In OESl of the ecclesiastical register (ChSl), forms with ra- and la- for expected *roand *lo- often appear in imitation of OCS protographs; some have become part of the standard Ru lexicon: razum ‘reason’; raznyj|†roznyj ‘various, separate’. Initial metathesis had not yet run its course during the Slavophone migrations into the Balkans (ca. 6th−7th centuries). The name *ardagasta2 s (post-metathesis ‘Radogostъ’) is attested as Ἀρδάγαστας in an early 7th-c. Byzantine source. There are also many toponyms in Greece that were borrowed from CSl in an unmetathesized form. In the northwestern Balkans, Slavophones were already settling near Albona in Istria and near the Byzantine fortress of Arsa in present-day South Serbia by the late 6th or early 7th c. Likewise, metathesis had not happened in the western Balkans in the late 6th−early 7th centuries. Thus the name of the Istrian city of Albona, Rom *albuna was borrowed in time to undergo metathesis: MCSl2 *albu:n- > *albɨn > OCr Labin-. The same is true

81. The phonology of Slavic

1475

of the name of the Byzantine fortress Arsa in what is now southern Serbia: MCSl2 *arsʊ > OSb Rasь. As a terminus ad quem, the change was a fait accompli for the Slavophones near Thessalonica by the 820s−830s, when Methodius and Cyril acquired the dialect. The sequence *ar- was still possible in P-WSl when Slavophones settled near the Elbe, no later than the 6th c. They borrowed the name of the river from OHG or Rom; it was later subject to metathesis, like native words: OHG Albiz, La Albis ⥬ MCSl2 *a:lb(i̯ )a: > LCSl1 *lab(i̯ )a > OCz Labě, US Łobjo, OPo Łaba, Pb ÷Lobü. (The o in US and Pb is due to later developments.) The change was definitely finished in CzSlk by the 9th c., as shown by proper names in La sources: Rastiz (Rastica) for *arstislāṷ as in the Annals of Fulda (later 9c), cf. OCz Rostislav. The earliest WSl texts, the Kiev Folia (early 10th c.), show consistent metathesis. In the northeast, metathesis had not yet been completed in the early 9th c., when Slavophone settlers near Novgorod borrowed the BFi toponym *aaldokas ‘wavy’ ⥬ MCSl2 *aldaga: > LCSl1 *ladɔga > OESl Ladoga. The location became important with the founding of the Norse trading post of Aldeigja (Aldeigjuborg) in 753. Conversely, Vepsian borrowed the name of the Slavophone settlement *a˝rdagasti̭a- prior to metathesis: Arśkaht (Ru Radogošča). By ca. 900, the metathesis was over: Old Norse Helgi ⥬ P-ESl *ɔlˠɪgʊ (with svarabhakti) > LCSl1 *ɔlɪgʊ > OESl Olьgъ (ruler of Rus’ from 881−912).

4.9.1. Exceptional outcomes In OCS (10th−11th centuries, with protographs from the later 9th−10th centuries), the change is complete for all lexemes with initial *ar- and for virtually all with initial *al-.The exceptions are two roots that show variation between metathesized and unmetathesized forms: *a˝lk(a:)- ‘hunger’ (6 la- vs. 19 al-, 9 alъ-, 7 al’-); *aldii̯ - ‘boat’ (10 la-, 2 al’d-, 1 ald-). These forms were lexicalized from contacts with conservative speakers. They are also attested in MBg, along with al(ъ)nь ‘deer’ (PSl *alnis), and in some modern dialects (Bg †alne ‘young chamois’). Some of the OCS copyists found the syllable-final *l exotic − hence the epenthetic schwas in alъ-, al’-. Similar svarabhakti can be seen in the loanwords for ‘altar’, borrowed in missionary contacts of ca. the later 7th−early 9th centuries: OHG altâri ⥬ OCS olъtar j-|ol’tar j-|oltar j-; Gk ἀλτάριον ⥬ OCS al’tar j-|altar j-. The centrality of the altar to religious ritual would favor preservation or restoration of the conservative form. (The lexicalized alk-, as in ‘hungering after righteous’, spread from OCS to other ChSl recensions.)

5. Late Common Slavic (LCSl) changes As noted in 1.1, it is impossible to fix a precise upper time limit for the LCSl period. Some LCSl changes were completed in some dialects before they had begun in others. Moreover, some LCSl changes overlapped with changes that belong to the histories of the individual languages. What defines a change as “LCSl” is thus not the “real time” in which it was actualized but the fact that its impetus came from the structure of the LCSl linguistic system (see Andersen 1977, 1986). For this reason, it is a moot point

1476

XIII. Slavic

whether the LCSl changes were “shared” or “parallel” in the various dialects, which after the migrations (see 1.1.2) were spread out over a vast territory, albeit with contacts in some zones. It is evident that there were still connections of some kind, given the radiation of loanwords from west to east or south to north; however, the nature of the connections is not fully understood. In the present work, the LCSl period of changes begins and ends with two major restructurings of the vowel system − Qualitative Differentiation (5.1) and the Jer-Shift (5.8). These are also known as the Second and Third Slavic Vowel Shifts, respectively (Andersen 1998). The reflexes of LCSl changes typically have central vs. peripheral distributions, based on the historically known positions of the CSl dialects after the Migration Period (see Birnbaum 1966). The actual centers and peripheries differed from one change to another. For the most part, CzSlk patterned with the neighboring dialects of W-SSl in the Carpathian Basin rather than with Lech, with which it was bound in the MCSl changes.

5.1. Qualitative differentiation in the vowel system In Qualitative Differentiation (QD), or the Second Slavic Vowel Shift (Andersen 1998), the old distinctions in length gave way to differences in relative peripherality and tenseness. The resulting LCSl1 vowel system is attested in OCS (10th−11th centuries). The MCSl2 short vowels became lax and non-peripheral (1): *i > ɪ; *ʊ > ʊ or ǝ (see 5.1.1); *ɛ > ɛ; and *a > ɔ. These reflexes are transcribed ь, ъ, e, o in the Slavistic tradition. The MCSl2 long vowels became tense and peripheral (2): *i: > i; *ɨ: > ɨ; ɔ: > u (“u2”); *ɛ: > æ (see further 5.2.1); and *a: > a. These reflexes are transcribed i, y, u, eˇ, a in the Slavistic tradition. In the nasal subsystem (3), the outcomes were mid vowels *ɛ˜: > *ɛ˜ or *æ˜ ; and *ɔ˜: > ɔ˜ or õ (see 5.2.2). These reflexes are transcribed ę, ǫ in the Slavistic tradition. PSl (1)

(2)

(3)

MCSl1

MCSl2

LCSl1

OCS

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

*u̯isis

*u̯isi

*u̯isi

*u̯ɪsɪ

vьsь

vьsь

ves

wieś

‘village’

*supna2s

*sunu

*sʊnʊ

*sǝnǝ

sъnъ

sъnъ

sen

sen

‘dream’

*gεna

*ʒεna

*ʒεna

*ʒεnɔ

ženo

žono

ženo

żeno

‘woman (VOC)’

*u̯εi̯ dɛ:la2s

*u̯e:2dɛ:lu

*u̯i:2dɛ:lʊ

*u̯idælǝ

videˇlъ

videˇlъ

videˇl

widziaƚ

‘see (RES.M)’

*su:nus

*su:nu

*sɨ:nʊ

*sɨnǝ

synъ

synъ

syn

syn

‘son’

*rau̯da:

*rɔ:da:

*ru:2da:

*ruda

ruda

ruda

ruda

ruda

‘ore’

*lɛ:ta:

*lɛ:ta:

*lɛ:ta:

*læta

lěta

lěta

léta

lata

‘year (ACC.PL )’

*pɛnktis

*pɛ˜:ti

*pɛ˜:ti

*pɛ˜tɪ

pętь

p jatь

peˇt

pięć

‘five’

*bunda:m

*bũ:dã:

*bɔ˜:dɔ˜:

*bɔ˜dɔ˜

bǫdǫ

budu

budu

będą

‘be (FUT.1SG)’

81. The phonology of Slavic

1477

While QD is traditionally presented as a set of phonetic changes, it was principally a phonological reanalysis, in which the previously redundant feature [±tense] took precedence over /±length/. The MCSl2 vowels had multiple realizations in phonetic space, which clustered around central or prototypical values; for example, *i could be realized inter alia as [ɪ]. What QD altered was not the range of phonetic values but the underlying relations between the long and short phonemes. The post-QD reflexes of MCSl2 long vowels could still be long phonetically; when shortened in final position (see 5.3), they maintained their LCSl1 articulation rather than merging with their former short counterparts: [a:] > [a], not [o], etc. Likewise, new long vowels developed by accentual retractions (see 6.4.3), contractions (see 5.12), and other changes, but their articulation remained the same: *-ɛi̯ ɛ > *ɛ:, not *æ. QD evidently occurred in the 8th−early 9th centuries. In loanwords accessed prior to the 8th c., foreign a ⥬ MCSl2 *a > LCSl1 *ɔ (4); foreign o(:) ⥬ MCSl2 *ɔ: > LCSl1 *u2 (5); and foreign u: ⥬ MCSl2 *u:1 >LCSl1 *ɨ (6). In loanwords accessed after QD, the outcomes were LCSl1 *a, *ɔ, *u2, respectively (7). Compare the pre-QD borrowing sotona (4) with the post-QD form seen in OPo szatan, from Latin satanas, borrowed during the Christianization of Poland in the 10th c. MCSl2

LCSl1

Gk Σατανᾶς

*satana:

*sotona

La pappa(s)

*papʊ

La Aquileia

Source (4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

OCS/SSl

OESl

OCz

OPo

Gloss

sotona

sotona

sotona

*popǝ

popъ

popъ

pop

*aglɛ:i̯ -

*oglɛ

Sln Oglej

Gk Σαλονί(κη)

*salɔ:ni

*solunɪ

Solunь

Solunь

Gk κυδώνιον

*kudɔ:na:

*kǝduna

OSb gdunja

gduńa

kdúle

gdula

‘quince’

WGmc *plo:g-

*plɔ:gʊ

*plugǝ

OSb plugь

plugъ

pluh

pług

‘turnplow’

Rom * salunǝ

*salu:nʊ

*salɨnǝ

Cr Sòlīn

‘Salona’

Rom *nunǝ

*nu:nʊ

*nɨnǝ

Cr Nȋn

‘(Ae)nona’

Gk ἀπόστολος, La apostolus

*apostolǝ

apostolъ

apostolъ

apostol

apostoł

‘apostle’

Gk Λουκάς, La Lucas

*lu2ka

Luka

Luka

Luka

Luka

‘Luke’

‘devil’ pop

‘priest’ ‘Aquileia’ ‘Salonica’

Several of these loanwords have clear termini a quo. Sclaveni began raiding northeastern Italy, where Aquileia (4) was the principal city, in the final years of the 6th c. They first besieged Thessalonica (5) in the 580s, though they presumably knew the second city of the Empire by reputation long before. They first attacked Salona (6), on the Adriatic, in 536, and seized the town of Nona (6) in the early 7th c. (The toponyms in [6] reflect the Dalmatian raising of La o to *u in stressed open syllables; cf. locum > Vegliote luk.)

1478

XIII. Slavic

The renditions of Sl names in 6th−7th-c. Byzantine texts also reflect the pre-QD stage; *a is rendered with «α» [a] rather than the «ο» or «ω» that would have been expected in LCSl1 (7). (Of course, the use of α need not imply that the Sl vowel was unrounded, just that it was too open or not rounded enough for a 7th-c. Greek to perceive it as [o].) The same reflex appears in early BFi borrowings (perhaps 7th c.): *akun- ‘window’ ⥬ Finnish, Votic akuna; *kasa:ri̯ - ‘chopper’ ⥬ Finnish, Karelian kassara, Vepsian karaŕ ‘billhook’. BFi undoubtedly had the means to distinguish open and mid-vowels at the time. There is good evidence for placing the terminus ad quem of QD in the early-to-mid9th c. Sl names inscribed in the Cividale Gospel (late 9th−early 10th centuries) appear in post-QD form: MCSl2 *katsilʊ ⥬ cozil (= Kocьlъ); MCSl2 *dabraʒi:zni ⥬ dobrosisne (= Dobrožiznь). The Glagolitic alphabet (ca. 860), based on the dialect spoken around Thessalonica, has separate letters, transliterated a and o, to render the reflexes of MCSl2 *a: and *a. For W-SSl and CzSlk, there is evidence from the rendition of Sl names in La and OHG texts. For ESl, the change was a fait accompli by the 940s, given how Constantine VII renders the names of Dnieper rapids (8) with o [ɔ] for LCSl1 *ɔ (< MCSl2 *a) and η [i] for LCSl1 *ɨ (< MCSl2 *u:1). MCSl2 (7)

(8)

LCSl1

Rendition

OCS

Gloss

*slau̯ɛ:ni:

Σκλαβηνοί

[sklaven-]

*slɔu̯æni

OESl slověni

‘Slav (NOM.PL )’

*dabrai̯ ɛ:zdʊ

Δαβραγέζας

[dabrai̯ ɛz-]

*dɔbrɔi̯ azdǝ

dobr-, jazd-

(name)

*pi:ragastʊ

Πειράγαστος

[piraɣast-]

*pirɔgɔstǝ

pir-, gost-

(name)

*astrau̯in-

Ὀστροβουνι-

[ɔstrɔvuni-]

*ɔstrɔu̯ɪn-

OESl ostrovьn-

‘island [ADJ]’

*nɛi̯ ɛ˜su:tʊ

Νεασητ

[nε(i̯ )asit]

ESl *nɛi̯ æsɨtʊ

OESl nejasytъ

‘pelican’

5.1.1. Delabialization of *w In LCSl1 (see 5.1), *i and *u (from PSl *i, *u, and *a2) were realized in most positions as near-close lax *ɪ and *ʊ/ǝ. In Slavistic terminology, *ɪ is called the front jer (ь), and *ʊ/ǝ the back jer (ъ); these terms are used for convenience in the subsequent discussion. The rounded articulation of *ʊ was preserved in peripheral zones − ESl; southwestern E-SSl (as seen in standard modern Mc); Sorbian; and some CenSlk dialects. PSl (1)

*duzdi̭ us

OCS dъzˇdь/ dozˇdь

*muxa2s *pisa2s

pьsъ/pesъ

Bg

Mc

BCS

Sln

CenSlk

Slk

OCz

da˘zˇd [ǝ]

dozˇd

dȁzˇd

dèzˇ [ǝ]

doždík

dažd’

désˇč

ma˘x

mov

mȃh

mȃh/mèh

moch

mach

mech

pes

pes

pȁs

pȅs [ǝ]

pes

pes

pos

81. The phonology of Slavic US (1)

LS

désˇć

de(j)sˇć

moch

mech

pos

pjas

1479 Pb

Po

➣dåzd

deszcz

dъzˇdь/ dozˇdь

mech pies

➣pjas

OESl

Uk

BR

Ru

Gloss

dosˇcˇ

dozˇdzˇ

dozˇd’

‘rain’

mъxъ/ moxъ

mox

mox

mox

‘moss’

pьsъ/ pesъ

pеs

pës [o]

pës [o]

‘dog’

5.2. Post-QD changes in vowel quality 5.2.1. Reflexes of LCSl1 *æ LCSl1 *æ (Slavistic eˇ “jat’”), from PSl *ɛ:1 and MCSl1 *ɛ:2, had a (near-)open front articulation. Numerous Gk toponyms and loanwords of Slavic provenience, probably borrowed during the late 6th−8th centuries, render *æ as (ι)α rather than ε. In the historical period, open reflexes were preserved in two peripheral zones − Lech and E-SSl (also areas in which nasal vowels persisted after CSl [5.2.2]). In Lech, *æ backed (by a diphthongization process) to a before hard dentals (1), but rose to e elsewhere (2). In ESSl, the reflex æ or a persists in scattered enclaves: EBg, Aegean Mc v’æra ~ v’ara ‘faith’. In most of EBg, *æ bifurcated in assimilation to the following consonant: it backed to a (1), with no raising of the dorsum toward the palate, before non-palatal consonants, but rose to ɛ (2), with raising of the dorsum, in auslaut and before consonants with palatal coarticulation (see 5.2). In auslaut, *æ became e, with raising of the dorsum (2). In WBg, *æ became e in all positions. PSl (1)

*u̯ɛ:ra:

OCS veˇra

*kai̯ pa2s

Mc

Bg

EBg

Po

Pb

Gloss

vera

vjara

v’æra

wiara

cep

cep

cap

cep

÷cepoi

‘flail’

‘faith’

*lɛ:tad

leˇto

leto

ljato

l’æto

lato

÷l’otü

‘summer’

*bɛ:la2s

beˇl-

bel

bjal

b’æl

biaƚy

÷b’oleˇ

‘white’

*lɛ:tai̯

lětě

lete

lete

w lecie

÷vå letaˇ

‘(in) summer’

*bɛ:li:tεi̯

beˇliti

beli

beli

b’æli

bielić

(3)

*ɛ:dinti

eˇdętъ/ja-

jadat

jadat

jadat

jedzą

(4)

*i̯ a:kad

jako/ě-

jako

jako

jako

jak(o)

(2)

‘whiten’; Bg, Mc 3SG ÷jedeˇ

‘eat (PRS.3PL )’; Pb 3SG ‘as, how’; Mc, Bg ‘very’

In Mc, the outcome is a after i̯ (j) (3) and e elsewhere (1, 2). The former reflects the Central Balkan merger of LCSl1 *æ with *a after *i̯ (3−4). OCS Glagolitic, associated

1480

XIII. Slavic

with the central Balkans (Ohrid), has a single grapheme «a», transliterated eˇ, for both *i̯ a and *æ after consonants. OCS Cyrillic, associated with the eastern Balkans (Preslav), has separate letters «ѣ» (ě) for æ and «W» (ja) for ja; however, ja is sometimes spelled «ѣ» due to copying from Glagolitic protographs: огнa |огнѣ (ogn ja ~ ogn jě) ‘fire (GEN)’. Elsewhere in Slavic (5), *æ rose to *e. It has been proposed that this was due to a push-chain: *æ rose to remain distinct from *æ ˜ , which was losing its nasalization (see 5.2.2). For most dialects in this zone, there actually was a merger − across the board in P-Ek, P-Sln, and P-LS; before soft consonants in P-Cz; and in final position in PUS. Thus the push-chain hypothesis explains nothing. In fact, tense vowels naturally tend to rise along the peripheral track: æ > e > i. The real issue, then, is the chronology of the raising of *æ relative to denasalization. In most of the dialects where there was denasalization (see 5.2.2), *æ ˜ went through the change before *æ began to rise or while it was still relatively open − hence the merger. In peripheral areas (NW Sln, Slk, and ESl), *æ ˜ denasalized after *æ rose to mid-position, which preempted the merger. The rise of LCSl1 *æ halted at the *e stage in non-peripheral Sln and in dialect islands in WŠto, CenSlk, and Cen and NE Ru. Elsewhere, the intermediate reflex *e took three paths − diphthongization to iɛ(:), laxing to ɛ, or raising to i. The diphthongal outcome occurred in Jek («je» [short], long «ije»), Slk («ie»), Sorb («eˇ»), NUk, and some Cen and NE Ru dialects. The laxed open mid outcome arose in Ek, including Kaj and much of Što, Mc, WBg, BR, and most of Ru. The raised outcome merged with i(:) (from LCSl1 *i) in Ik and some NRu dialects, but remained distinct in WUk: i > ɪ, making room for e > i. In Cz, *e(:) had trifurcating outcomes: *e > OCz iɛ («eˇ») > Cz (i̯ )ɛ («e|ě|je»); *e: > OCz ɛ: («é») after l, but OCz ie («ie») > Cz i: («í») elsewhere.

(5)

PSl

Ek

Jek

Ik

Sln

Slk

OCz

Cz

*u̯ɛ:ra:

vȅra

vjȅra

vȉra

vẹ́ra

viera

viera

víra

*lɛ:tad

lȅto

ljȅto

lȉto

lẹ́to

leto

léto

*bɛ:la2s

bȅo

bijȇl

bȋo

bẹ̑ł

biely

*bɛ:li:tεi̯

béliti

bijéliti

bíliti

bẹ́liti

bielit’

LS

OESl

Uk

Ru

wjera věra

vira

vera

léto

leˇto

lěto

lito

leto

bielý

bílý

beˇƚy

běl

bilyj

belyj

bieliti

beˇlit

běliś

běliti

bilyty belit’

The open reflex is evidenced in early loanwords of P-ESl origin (ca. 7th−9th centuries) in BFi, which had the means to distinguish between open and mid front vowels: LCSl1 *mæra ‘measure’ ⥬ Finnish määrä, Karelian meärä, Olonetsian meärü, Ludic miär, Estonian määr; LCSl1 *xlævǝ ‘cowshed’ ⥬ E Finnish lääva, Karelian leävä, Vepsian l’äu. In NW Ru dialects, there are isolated lexemes with a for LCSl1 *æ, which have been interpreted as relics of the open pronunciation: jal ‘eat (RES)’ (PSl *ɛ:dla2 s); k’ap ‘flail’ (PSl *kai̯ pa2 s). By the historical period (beginning in the 11th c.), OESl had close mid e for LCSl1 *æ. In early Novg (11th−mid-12th centuries), writers often interchanged the letters «ѣ» (ě) [e] and «є» [ɛ], but this was due to orthographic latitude rather than a merger; e remained distinct from ɛ and eventually merged with i.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1481

5.2.2. Reflexes of LCSl1 nasal vowels By the end of the LCSl period, the distinction between oral and nasal vowels (see 4.2, 5.1) was only preserved in peripheral dialects − Lech, E-SSl, and NSln (now only in the Jaun Valley [Podjuna] dialect). In these dialects, *ɛ˜ had a (near-)open, front articulation (*æ˜), distinguished from LCSl1 *æ solely by the feature /+nasal/. Elsewhere in CSl, *ɛ˜ and *ɔ˜ denasalized, for the most part merging with existing oral vowels. At the time of their denasalization, they must have been unitary vowels /Ṽ/ → [Ṽ], since there are no lexicalized traces of decomposition /VN/ → [ṼN]. The table gives the reflexes in the various languages in a no-fine-print version. Among the factors that influenced the language-specific outcomes were vowel length and the quality of the preceding or following consonant. (The length in question developed after QD from contraction [5.12], the acute [6.1.1], neoacute retraction [6.4.3], or compensatory lengthening before weak jers [5.8].) LCSl1

OCS

(1) *dɛsɛ˜tɪ

desętь

[ɛ˜]

deset

(2) *dɛsɛ˜tɨi̯ i

desętyj

[ɛ˜]

(3) *mɛ˜so

męso

[ɛ˜]

Bg

(4) *i̯ astrɛ˜bǝ

Mc

BCS

Sln

OESl

[ɛ]

desеt

[ɛ] dȅset

[ɛ]

desẹ̑t

[e] des jatь

[a]

deseti

[ɛ]

desеtti

[ɛ] dèsētī

[ɛ]

dese˛́ti

[e] des jatъi

[a]

meso

[ɛ]

meso

[ɛ] mȇso

[ɛ]

mesọ̑

[e] m jaso

[a]

jastreb

[ɛ]

jastreb

[ɛ] jȁstrēb

[ɛ]

jȃstreb

[e] jastr jabъ [a]

(5) *rɔ˜ka

rǫka

[ɔ˜] ru˘ka

[ǝ] raka

[a] rúka

[u] róka

[o] ruka

[u]

(6) *dɔ˜bǝ

dǫbъ

[ɔ˜] du˘b

[ǝ] dab

[a] dȗb

[u] dọ̑b

[o] dub

[u]

(7) *mɔ˜ka

mǫka

[ɔ˜] mu˘ka

[ǝ]

[u] mọ́ka

[o] muka

[u]

Slk

OCz

US dźesać

múka LS

Po

Kb

Gloss

[a] źaseś

[e] dziesięć

[ɛ˜ɲ]

dzesãc [ã] ‘ten’

[ɔ˜n]

dzesąty

(1) desat’

[a]

desět

[e]

(2) desiaty

[ia]

desátý

[a:] dźesaty

[a] źasety

[ɛ]

(3) mäso

[æ/ɛ]

maso

[a]

mjaso

[a] měso

[e] mięso

(4) jastrab

[a]

jastřáb

[a:] jatřob’

[o] jatśeb

[e] jastrząb [ɔ˜m] jastřib

[i]

(5) ruka

[u]

ruka

[u]

ruka

[u] ruka

[u] ręka

[ɛ˜ŋ]

rãka

[ã] ‘hand’

(6) dub

[u]

dub

[u]

dub

[u] dub

[u] dąb

[ɔ˜b]

dãb

[ã] ‘oak’

(7) múka

[u:]

múka

[u:] muka

[u] muka

[u] mąka

[ɔ˜ŋ]

mąka

[õ] ‘flour’

dziesiąty

[ɛ˜w̑] mãso

[õ] ‘tenth’ [ã] ‘meat’ ‘goshawk’

Nasal vowels are robustly attested in the oldest E-SSl texts in OCS; indeed, the main diagnostic for identifying a manuscript as OCS, rather than ChSl, is that the reflexes of *ɛ˜ and *ɔ˜ are spelled as the “jus” letters «ѧ» (ę) and «ѫ, ѭ» (ǫ, jǫ) with a high degree of accuracy. MBg (12th−15th centuries) shows inchoate denasalization; the process has run its course in modern Bg and Mc. In peripheral southwestern Mc, there are isolated lexemes that show decomposition: zǝmp, zamp ‘tooth’ (OCS zǫbъ). (In Mc, besides the

1482

XIII. Slavic

standard reflex a, *ɔ˜ can be reflected as u [N, cf. BCS], o [SW], or ǝ [SE and Aegean, cf. Bg].) In prehistoric Lech, *æ ˜ backed to *ã before hard dentals (2−3), just as *æ backed to *a. In Kb and Slc, the remaining instances of *æ ˜ rose and eventually denasalized (4): *ɛ˜(:) > *ẽ(:) > *ĩ(:) > *i(:). Short *ã was preserved as ã (2, 6) («ã», earlier «ę»). Long *ã: was raised to õ («ą») (3, 5, 7). (In ‘ten’ [1], the nasal is probably analogical to the ordinal [3].) In OPo, ɛ˜ and ã merged in the 14th c. as low ã («ø, φ» in some texts). Long ã: rose and backed to ɔ˜ («ą») (3−5, 7); short ã eventually fronted to ɛ˜ («ę») (1−2, 6). As a rule of thumb, a former front nasal can be detected from softness reflexes in the preceding consonant (see 5.4). In many dialects, including the standard, ɛ˜ and ɔ˜ have decomposed (diphthongized), in a counterparallel to the MCSl monophthongization: the coda is a glide w ˜ before fricatives (2) and finally, and a homorganic nasal stop before stops and affricates. There has been denasalization before laterals. Elsewhere in Slavic, nasal vowels were denasalized early; they became unitary vowels rather than vowel + nasal diphthongs. In WSln and NWSln, the denasalization took place without changing the vowel height; thus *ɔ˜ and *ɛ˜ merged with LCSl1 *ɔ and *ɛ. In adjacent Sln, Čak, and some areas of Kaj, *ɔ˜ and *ɛ˜ became close-mid *o and *e; the front vowel merged with the reflex of LCSl1 *æ, which had risen on a peripheral track. (There are also Kaj dialects in which *ɛ˜ merged with *ɛ; here the reflexes are often near-open.) In a vast central territory (Što, CzSlk, Sorb, and ESl), contiguous until ca. 900, *ɔ˜ rose to merge with LCSl1 *u2. In the same zone, *ɛ˜ became tense near-open *æ ˜ , so that there was the possibility of a merger either with LCSl1 *æ (see 5.2.1) or with *a. In LS, *æ ˜ underwent a merger with *æ. In US, *æ ˜ merged with *æ in final position and with *a elsewhere. (In [3], the o comes from an e > o change.) In Cz, *æ ˜ merged with *æ before soft consonants (1, 5), but with *a before hard. In Slk, *æ ˜ denasalized and moved into the space formerly occupied by LCSl1 *æ. The reflex of *æ ˜ is æ(:) in some dialects; in others, æ has merged with ɛ, and æ: with a:, or else æ: became a sequence ia or i̯ a:. In the standard, based on CenSlk, æ appears after labials (2), and ɛ elsewhere; the long reflex is ia (3, 5). In ESl, *æ ˜ merged with *a, while *æ rose along the peripheral track, perhaps in a push chain. (This reconstruction departs from the traditional Structuralist approach, which rejected the possibility of a LCSl merger of *æ and *a because it would entail inherent softness prior to the jer-shift. Instead, it was posited that *æ ˜ became the distinct vowel *ä [5.8].) There is evidence that denasalization was not completed until the 10th c. in the Carpathian Basin. Hungarian settlers in the Pannonian Plain (from 895) borrowed toponyms from Slk with intact nasalization: Molenta (LCSl1 *molɛ˜ta, a name); Dumbo (LCSl1 *dɔ˜bǝ ‘oak’). No later than 894, monks in Cividale (northeastern Italy), recorded the visit of the Moravian ruler Svátopluk I as Szuentiepulc (LCSl1 *su̯ɛ˜těpl̥ kǝ). In a donation charter of 892, the name of the Croatian ruler Mutimir (LCSl1 *mɔ˜timirǝ) is recorded as Muncimiro. However, the OSln Freising Fragments (later 10th c.) contain only three tokens with residual nasality (en, on, un); *ɛ˜ is otherwise reflected as e and *ɔ˜ as o or u. Early BFi borrowings from ESl reflect nasal vowels: Finnish sunta ‘direction’, Old Estonian sundja ‘judge’ from LCSl1 *sɔ˜d- ‘judge, court’. Mikkola (1938: 19) suggests that these date from 9th−c. contacts, when the ESl settlers were establishing political

81. The phonology of Slavic

1483

institutions. By the early 10th c., denasalization had evidently taken place in ESl; cf. Constantine VII’s Βερούτσι for LCSl1 *uɪrɔ˜tʃi ‘seething’ (the name of a Dnieper rapid). Norse Ingvarr, the name of an early-10th-c. prince of Kiev, was adapted as *igorɪ.

5.3. New length distinctions Although QD eliminated length on the phonemic level (see 5.1), it is posited that the peripheral, tense vowels *i, *ɨ, *u, *æ, and *a and the nasal vowels *ɛ˜ and *ɔ˜ remained phonetically long. Subsequently, in a stage indicated here by LCSl2, they were shortened in certain phonetic positions, which lay the ground for new oppositions with new long vowels that arose by contraction (5.12), compensatory lengthening (5.10), and neoacute retraction (6.10). The following table gives a no-fine-print summary of the long-vowel outcomes in the Sl languages that reflect the LCSl2 length distinction. LCSl1

BCS

Sln

OCz

Cz

Slk

Sorb

OPo

Po

Kb

SWUk

*a:

a: «a»

a: «a»

a: «á»

a: «á»

a: «á»

a

ɔ «å»

a

ɔ «ô»

a

*ɔ:

ɔ: «o»

ɔ: «o, ọ»

uo «ó»

u: «ů»

u̯o «ô»

uo «ó»

o «ó»

u «ó»

o «ó»

i

*ɛ:

ɛ: «e»

ɛ: «e, ẹ»

ɛ: «é»

e: «é»

i̯ ɛ «ie»

ie «ě»

e «é»

e

e «é»

i

*u:

u: «u»

u: «u»

u: «ú»

ou, u: «ú»

ú

u

u

u

u

u

*ɨ:

i: «i»

i: «i»

ɨ: «ý»

i: «ý»

i: «ý»

ɨ «y»

ɨ

ɨ

i

ɪ

*i:

i: «i»

i: «i»

i: «í»

i: «í»

i: «í»

i

i

i

i

ɪ

Final vowels were shortened in words of two or more syllables − a process completed before contraction (see 5.12). Thus, the endings in (1) reflect shortening, while those in (2) show length from contraction (except for Sln, which only preserves length in stressed syllables). In addition, long vowels were shortened under or after the ictus in words of three or more syllables (6.1.1). In (3), if the stressed vowel had been long in LCSl2, it should have yielded **a: in N/Što BCS («ā») and OCz («á»), and a near-open rather than open vowel in OPo and Slc; cf. also the short vowel in Čak BCS lopȁta. In (4), the OCz root has a long vowel in the disyllabic NOM.SG, but a short in the trisyllabic forms of the paradigm. In OPo and Slc, the length has been eliminated by stem-leveling. (The BCS and Sln outcomes in [4] have the regular reflex of the old acute accent; see 6.1.1) Polysyllabic shortening did not affect syllables immediately before the ictus (5). If the nasal vowel in the first syllable had been shortened, OCz would have **u-, OPo **ę-, and Slc **ɵ; cf. also Čak utrȍba. MCSl2 (1)

*dabra:

LCSl2 *dobra

N/Što dòbra

Sln dóbra

OCz dobra

OPo dobra

Slc dʉɵ̯bra˘

Gloss ‘good (GEN)’

1484

XIII. Slavic MCSl2

LCSl2

(2)

*dabra:i̯ a:

*dobra:

dòbrā

(3)

*laˈpa:ta:

*lɔˈpata

(4)

*ˈma:tɛrɛ *ˈma:ti:

(5)

*ɔ˜:ˈtraba:

N/Što

*matɛrɛ

Sln

OCz

OPo

Slc

Gloss

dóbra

dobrá

dobrå

dʉɵ̯brå

(F.NOM)’

lòpata

lopáta

lopata

łopata

lʉ̀ ɵ̯pata˘

‘shovel’

mȁterē

!

mateře

macierze

mãceřä

(GEN)

!

mãc

‘mother’

vo˙ų̯ trǜ ba˘

‘intestines’

mátere

*ma:ti

mȁti

máti

máti

!

*ɔ˜:ˈtrɔba

!

†

útroba

wątroba

ȕtroba

vo˛́troba

macierz

̯

5.4. Secondary softening In some LCSl dialects, prior to the loss of weak jers (see 5.8), labial and dental consonants developed secondary softening (palatal coarticulation) before front vowels: {P, T} > {Pj, Tj}/__ V[+front], where V[+front] = {*i, *ɪ, *e, *ɛ, *æ, * ɛ˜/æ ˜ }. This is a common type of anticipatory assimilation: the blade of the tongue adopted the domed configuration that characterized the following vowel. This secondary softening had different outcomes from the earlier dental palatalization before *i̯ (3.6, 4.7), since the affected consonants remained primarily dentals. (The earlier change of Pi̯ > Pl did not involve labial softening; see 3.7.2) The hard consonants may have been redundantly velarized; this is particularly likely in the development of *l (see 5.5−5.6). Secondary softening led to an opposition between hard (velarized) and soft (palatalized) consonants in CzSlk, Sorb, Lech, ESl, and ESSl. Subsequent changes in articulation, illustrated (with no fine print) in (1−3), belong to the histories of the individual languages. The archaic system is best preserved in Ru: LCSl1 *polʊdɪnʊ: *polʊdɪnɪ > *polʊd jɪnʊ: *polʊd jɪn jɪ > OESl polъd jьnъ: polъd jьnь > Ru poldën [d j]: polden’ [d j, n j] ‘midday (†GEN.PL: NOM.SG)’; LCSl1 *krou̯ʊ: krʊu̯ɪ > OESl krovъ: krъv jь > Ru krov: krov’ [v j] ‘shelter’: ‘blood’ LCSl (1)

j

*P /__{C, #} j

(2)

(3)

Slk P

Cz P

j

US P

j

LS P

j

P

Kb P

j

*P /…

P /Pi̯

P /Pi̯

P

*t j *d j

c̟ ɟ

c̟ ɟ

tʃ j dʒ j

ɕʑ

*s j *z j

sz

sz

sz

*n j *l j

ɲʎ

ɲl

*r j/C̥__

r

*r j/…

r

P

Po P

j

Uk P

j

BR P

j

P

j

Ru

Bg

P

j

P

P

j

P j/P

P, † Pi̯

P

ts dz

tɕ dʑ

tj dj

ts j dz j

tj dj

t j/t d j/d

sz

sz

ɕʑ

sj zj

sj zj

sj zj

s j/s z j/z

nj lj

nj lj

ɲ lj

ɲl

nj lj

nj lj

nj lj

n j/n l j/l

r̝ [-vcd]

ʃ

ʃ

r̝

ʃ

r

r

rj

r j/r

r̝

ʀ

ʀ

r̝

ʒ

r

r

rj

r j/r

In (3), the hardening of *r j was a central LCSl development; it occurred in BCS, Slk, Uk, and BR. On the northeastern periphery (Ru), *r j was preserved. On the northwestern

81. The phonology of Slavic

1485

periphery, *r j assibilated, probably to *r̝ , an alveolar trill with lamino-palatal frication, which was preserved in Cz, extreme SPo, Kb, and Slc; in Sorb and Po, the reflex underwent further developments. In SSl, softening is reflected in Bg, but not in Sln, BCS, and Mc. The Bg outcomes of LCSl1 *æ (see 5.2.1) depended on the hardness or softness of the following consonant. Ultimately, in most dialects, soft consonants were eliminated except before back vowels, where they had arisen in post-CSl changes (Scatton 1993: 197). The dialect geography of softening indicates that the assimilation and its subsequent phonemicization was a LCSl change, which happened well before the loss of weak jers (see 5.7). (It was also undoubtedly a LCSl change in the sense that it stemmed from the structure of the LCSl phonological system; see 5.) Nevertheless, it has traditionally been assumed that inherent softening developed as a consequence of, and thus subsequent to, the loss of weak jers. That sequence of events is categorically impossible: if softness had not already been inherent (phonemic), the soft allophones conditioned by weak *ɪ would have hardened automatically in the absence of their trigger. Nevertheless, it is highly probable that the reduction of *ɪ facilitated the covert rephonologization of [C j] 0 /C j/. For learners, softening was ambiguous: they could ascribe it to the following vowel or, in a covert innovation, assess it as a feature inherent to the consonant: /dɪnɪ/ → [d jɪn jɪ] 0 /d jɪn jɪ/ → [d jɪn jɪ]. The shorter *ɪ became, the more likely the innovative analysis became for any given learner. Thus the jer-shift did not open the door for learners to analyze softness as an inherent consonantal feature; it shut the door to their interpreting it as a subphonemic, vowel-driven feature. There was also systemic support for the reanalysis of [C j] 0 /C j/ in some LCSl dialects. Soft *s j already existed in ESl (as well as SSl) in the reflex of *x from the 2VP and PVP (see 4.4, 4.6). Likewise, soft *z j existed in dialects where the reflex of *g from the same changes had lost its closure. These outcomes were distinct from inherited *s and *z: P-ESl *kunæ˜ z ja|*kunæ˜ z ju ‘king (GEN|DAT )’, *u̯ɪs ja|*u̯ɪs jɔ˜ ‘all (F.NOM|F.ACC)’; cf. *voza|*vozu ‘cart (GEN|DAT )’, *kosa|*kosɔ˜ ‘braid (NOM|ACC)’. Here, instead of softness, the traditional Structuralist approach posits ad-hoc vowels *ü and *ä. It is unclear how the putative *ü could have remained distinct from MCSl2 *ü: (>LCSl1 *i:, see 4.3, 5.1), or the putative *ä from LCSl1 *æ (see 5.2.1), unless PVP2 (4.6) and the consequent vowel fronting were later than QD (5.1). In addition, *ü and *ä entail morphological complications (at least, for a Structuralist approach); for example, the endings in *kunæ˜ zä |*kunæ˜ zü would be allomorphs of those in voza|vozu. According to Lunt (1956: 310), the presence and usage of «W» and «ю» in the Cyrillic alphabet corroborate the existence of /ü/ and /ä/ in OESl. In fact, they stem from an orthographic tradition that began under the influence of Gk perceptions (see Collins 1992).

5.4.1. Fate of the soft sonorants The reflexes of *n, *l, *r from dental palatalization (3.6) merged entirely with new soft *n j, *l j, *r j in the dialects in which secondary softening developed (5.4). There was no corresponding merger in W-SSl (1−2), where *n and *l are reflected as primary palatals ɲ, ʎ, and *r as the sequence rj (before vowels only). In Mc, *n and *r are reflected as dentals, and *l as l j or ʎ, in contrast to the velarized lˠ from *l dental.

1486

XIII. Slavic LCSl1 (1)

(3)

Bg

Mc

BCS

Sln

Slk

Po

Uk

Gloss

*u̯ola

volja [l j]

volja [l j]

vȍlja [ʎ]

vólja [ʎ]

vol’a [ʎ]

wola [l]

volja [l j]

‘will’

*ognɪ

ogu˘n [n]

ogon [n]

òganj [ɲ]

ògenj [ɲ]

oheň [ɲ]

ogień [ɲ]

ohon’ [n j]

‘fire’

*mоrɛ

more [r]

more [r]

mȏre [r]

morjȇ [rj]

more [r]

morze [ʒ]

more [r]

‘sea’

5.5. Internal open vowel-liquid diphthongs Tautosyllabic *ar, *ɛr, *al, *ɛl (traditionally called TORT formulas) underwent changes whose effect was to remove the liquids from the syllable coda. The reflexes fall into three zones − southern, northwestern, and northeastern; there are two conservative peripheries. The change straddled QD (5.1) in SSl and CzSlk but postdated it elsewhere. The dialect geography is LCSl in that it has a post-Migration-Period center/periphery, and CzSlk patterns entirely with SSl rather than with Sorb and Lech (see 4.1). In the southern zone, SSl and CzSlk, the sequences underwent metathesis; the vowels were lengthened, so that the sequences remained bimoraic: PSl *ɛR > MCSl2 *Rɛ: > LCSl1 *Ræ; PSl *aR > MCSl2 *Ra: > LCSl1 *Ra. The lengthening took place before or at the same time as the metathesis, given that inherited (non-metathesized) *Rɛ-, *Rawere not affected: LCSl1 *rɛ, *rɔ, cf. OCS drevl jьn jь ‘ancient’, plešte ‘shoulder’, plodъ ‘fruit’, krovъ ‘covering’. PSl

OCS

Bg

Mc

Ek

(1)

*u̯arta:

vrata

vrata

vrata

vráta

(2)

*bεrg-

brěgъ

brjag

breg

(3)

*galu̯a:

glava

glava

(4)

*xɛlma2s *mɛlkad

mlěko

Jek

Sln

Slk

Cz

Gloss

vráta

vráta

vráta

vrata

‘gates’

brȇg

brijȇg

brȇg

breh

břeh

‘bluff’

glava

gláva

gláva

gláva

hlava

hlava

‘head’

šlem

šlem

šlȅm

šlijèm

šlẹ̀ m

†šlem

‘helmet’

mljako

mleko

mléko

mlijèko

mlékọ

mléko

‘milk’

mlieko

On the southern periphery, the lengthening stage began before the metathesis. This can be seen from isolated lexemes that reflect lengthening only: MBg baltina ‘bog’ (*balt-), zaltarinъ ‘goldsmith’ (*zalt-), maldicˇie ‘youth’ (*mald-); Bg †dalta ‘chisel’ (*dalbt-). In the same zone, the isolated lexemes with unmetathesized initial diphthongs (4.9) also reflect lengthening. In the northwest, in Sorb and non-peripheral Lech, the sequences underwent metathesis but not lengthening: PSl *ar > LCSl1 *rɔ (5); PSl *ɛr > *r jɛ (6), PSl *al > LCSl1 *lɔ (7), and PSl *ɛl > *l jɛ (8). In the same dialects, the reflexes of initial open-vowel-liquid diphthongs had undergone pre-QD lengthening under the acute accent (4.9) In the internal diphthongs, the loss of bimoraicity suggests that the change followed QD (5.1); that is, it occurred at a time when length was no longer distinctive in these dialects. The

81. The phonology of Slavic

1487

vowels were sometimes lengthened in later prosodic changes − compensatory lengthening (5.10), seen in the US, Kb, and Slc forms in (6), or neoacute lengthening (6.4.3) seen in the Kb and Slc forms for (8). PSl

US

LS

(5)

*barda:

broda

broda

(6)

*bεrg-

brjóh

(7)

*galu̯a:

hłowa

(8)

*xɛlma2s

(9)

Kb

Slc

Pb

Gloss

broda

broda

brʉ̀ ɵ̭ da˘

÷brödǝ

‘beard’

brjog

brzeg

brzég

brˇėg

÷brig

‘bluff’

głowa

głowa

głowa

glova

÷glåva˘

‘head’

szłom

szłom

mleko

mlékò

mloko

OPo

‘helmet’

*mɛlkad

mloko

*bardau̯ika:

brodawka brodajca

brodawka bardówka bo˙rˇdãi̯ ca

*karu̯a:

krowa

krowa

krowa

mlȯ́ ko

÷mlåka˘

krʉ̀ ɵ̭ vaˇ

karva

‘milk’

÷brödǝvai̯ - ‘wart’ ća ÷korwò

‘cow’

Throughout Lech, tautosyllabic *ɛr, *ar, and *al are consistently reflected with metathesis. However, in peripheral Lech *ar is often reflected as or ~ ar (9). Cf. also Pb ÷bordåi̯ ńǝ ‘hachet’, Kb korwińc, Slc kãrwińc ‘cow-patty’; OPo karw ‘bull’. Evidently, there has been dialect contact in both directions: Kb bardówka ~ brodówka ‘wart’; korwa|krowa ‘cow’. For Pb, *or was the norm; forms with *ro were accessed in contacts with Sorb or CenLech. In the northeastern zone, comprising ESl, there was neither lengthening nor metathesis; instead, a matching vowel was added after the sonorant: *ar > *ɔrɔ (10); *ɛr > *ɛr jɛ (11); *al > *ɔlˠɔ (12); and *ɛl > *ɛl(ˠ), with bifurcating reflexes: *ɛl(ˠ) > *ɛl(ˠ)ɔ after palatals (13), but *ɔl(ˠ)ɔ elsewhere (14). This change is traditionally called pleophony. PSl

OESl

Uk

BR

Ru

ESl-ChSl

Gloss

(10)

*u̯arta:

voro̍ta

voro̍ta

varo̍ty

voro̍ta

vrata

‘gate(s)’

(11)

*bɛrga2s

be̍regъ

be̍rih/-eh

be̍rah

be̍reg

breˇgъ/bregъ

‘shore’

(12)

*galu̯a:

golova̍

holova̍

halava̍

golova̍

glava

‘head’

(13)

*xɛlma2s

šelo̍mъ

šolo̍m

(šelo̍majka)

šelo̍m

sˇleˇmъ

‘helm’; BR ‘head’

(14)

*mɛlkad

moloko̍

moloko̍

malako̍

moloko̍

mleˇko

‘milk’

For the Uk lexeme in (11), the predicted outcome is bereh; berih reflects *ɛ:, usually ascribed to either neoacute lengthening (see 6.4.3) or compensatory lengthening before a weak jer (see 5.10). The OESl ChSl register seen in most OESl writings typically employed the SSl reflexes in imitation of OCS protographs. However, for *ɛr sequences, the compromise spelling re is more common than rě, even in texts that otherwise distinguish e and ě. There is abundant evidence that the changes in internal open-vowel-liquid diphthongs did not begin until the 7th c. or later. Many Slavic proper names are cited in unmetathesized form by Byzantine authors of the 7th−8th centuries: Βαλδίμερ (*u̯aldɛi̯ mɛ:ras),

1488

XIII. Slavic

Δαργαμηρός (*dargami:ras) − after metathesisis, Vladimirъ, and Dragomirъ. During the same period of early contacts, pre-metathesis forms made their way into other languages of southeastern Europe: *balta- ‘swamp’ ⥬ Albanian baltë ‘mud’, Romanian balta˘ ‘swamp’; *mέrgi̯ a: ‘net’ ⥬ Gk dial μέρζα. There are numerous toponyms of Slavic provenience in central and southern Greece that show no sign of metathesis: *gardika‘walled town’ ⥬ Γαρδίκι; *bɛrg- ‘bank’ ⥬ Βέργος; *sálminεi̯ ka- ‘bed of straw’ ⥬ Σαλμενῖκον. (There are also toponyms that reflect metathesis: *bɛ´̄ l- + *gard- ‘white town’ ⥬ Μπελιγράδια; *gardika- ⥬ Γραδίτσα. These are less frequent in the south, where the hellenization of Slavophone inhabitants began ca. 800.) In the late 6th−early 8th centuries, CSl borrowed loanwords with tautosyllabic *ar, *ɛr, *al, *ɛl from WGmc and La; these underwent the same changes as the native sequences (15). Sl names in 7th−mid-8th-c. Frankish sources likewise reflect the pre-metathesis stage: *u̯aldu:ka: ‘ruler’ ⥬ Walducus, *dɛru̯a:n- ⥬ Deruanus (620s−640s); *bɛrʒinik⥬ Bersnicha (834). It is often claimed that metathesis was still underway during the time of Charlemagne (771−814), on the assumption that his OHG name Karl- supplied LCSl1 *karl- ‘king’, attested in all Sl languages except Pb (16). Spellings that reflect metathesis appear in Frankish sources from the late 8th c. and become the norm by the mid-9th c.: LCSl1 *tɛrbɛli̯ - > P-Slk *trɛbɛʎ- ⥬ Trebel (784); LCSl1 *pɛrdǝslau̯ǝ > *prɛ:dǝslau̯ǝ ⥬ predezlaus (late 8th−early 9th c.).; LCSl1 *sɛbædarg- > P-Sln *sɛbedarg⥬ sebedrago (late 8th c.), Zebedrach (864). Metathesis is reflected consistently in the Kiev Folia (10th c.; protograph 860s−880s), in the Freising Fragments (later 10th c.), and in the canonical OCS manuscripts (10th−11th c. with later 9th-c. protographs). MCSl2

OSb

La marmor

*marmarʊ

mramorь

mramor

OHG karmala

*karmala:

kramola

kramol(a)

Rom *skarduna

*skardu:n-

Cr Skradin

Gmc *karl

*karli

kraljь

Source (15)

(16)

OCz

OPo

OESl

Gloss

(marmor)

moromorъ

‘marble’

koromola

‘unrest’ ‘Scardona’

král

król

korol jь

‘king’

In the northeast, pleophony probably occurred in the 8th−9th centuries. BFi accessed some loanwords from P-ESl prior to the change: *vɛrtɛnad ‘spindle’ ⥬ Votic värttänä, Karelian värt’t’inä, Estonian värten; *talkunad ⥬ Finnish, Karelian talkkuna, Vepsian taukun ‘oat flour’.

5.6. Tautosyllabic close vowel-liquid diphthongs LCSl1 *ɪ and *ǝ (“jers”) have different outcomes in tautosyllabic *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl sequences than in other environments (see 5.8). The reflexes fall into southern, northern, eastern, and northeastern zones. In the southern zone, comprising SSl and CzSlk, the sequences became syllabic sonorants (1−2); that is, the vowels were reinterpreted as opening phases rather than independent nuclei, in a counter-parallel to the PreSl development (see 2.3).

81. The phonology of Slavic

(1)

(2)

1489

PSl

OCS

Bg

Mc

BCS

Sln

Slk

OCz

Gloss

*u̯irb-

vrьbij-

vu˘rba

vrba

vŕba

vŕba

vŕba

vrba

‘willow’

*gurst-

grъst-

gru˘st

grst

grst

gŕst

hrst’

hrst

‘handful’

*dulga2s

dlъgъ

du˘lg

dolg

dȗg

dȏƚg

dlh

dluh

‘debt’

*u̯ilka2s

vlъkъ

vu˘lk

volk

vȗk

vȏlk

vlk

vlk

‘wolf’

In OCS, the outcomes are spelled «rъ, rь» and «lъ, lь», where the choice of the jer letter was orthographic rather than etymological. (OCS dictionaries add to the phonological illusion by using entry-forms with Rь for *Ri and Rъ for *Ru. In the tables here, the most frequent variant is given.) The placement of the jer letter after the liquid was a convention influenced by the phonological perceptions of Gk speakers. In original *rɪ, *lɪ, *rǝ, *lǝ (see 5.10), the reflexes of *ɪ and *ǝ acted like jers in other positions (see 5.8); they could be strengthened (krъvь > krovь) or condition the strengthing of a preceding jer (vъ krъvi > vo krъvi). This did not happen with the reflexes of *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl, because no jers were present. In later Bg, R̥ became ǝR when followed by a single consonant, and Rǝ elsewhere: vu˘rba ‘willow’~vru˘bnica ‘Willow [Palm] Sunday’. In monosyllables, the ǝ could develop on either side of the sonorant. The expected outcomes have often been obscured by leveling. Elsewhere in the southern zone, r̥ (1) has generally been stable; l̥ (2) has survived as such only in CzSlk and some WBg dialects. Slk distinguishes l̥ and l̥ :, with neoacute lengthening (see 6.4.3). OCz preserves l̥ only after labials; elsewhere, the sonorant has diphthongized: *l̥ > lu, *l̥ : > lu: (lú; modern lou). Similar reflexes occur in the northern zone (below). In Sln, BCS, Mc, and some WBg dialects, *l̥ was probably velarized [lˠ]; its opening phase was reanalyzed as a back rounded vowel: Sln ɔlˠ > ɔw («ol», tonemic-system «ɔƚ»); BCS *ɔlˠ > u. In the northern zone (Sorb and Lech), LCSl1 *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl also became syllabic sonorants. Subsequently, they again became diphthongs − either VR or RV; the order and the timbre of the vowel depended on the surrounding consonants, and in particular on whether the following consonant was a hard (plain) dental. To account for this environment, scholars who view consonant softening as a consequence of the jer-shift have to reconstruct four syllabic sonorants, with a distinction in second tonality: *ɪR > *R̥ j, *ǝR> *R̥ˠ; then *R̥ j > *R̥ˠ/__Tˠ. This is superfluous; palatal coarticulation developed prior to the jer-shift (see 5.2), and it can also be assumed before *ɪr and *ɪl became syllabic sonorants. Accordingly, northern-zone *r̥ split into new back vowel-hard sonorant sequences after hard consonants (3); and between consonants with palatal (co)articulation and hard dentals, *or (western), *ar (eastern), but higher-tonality *ɛr(j) elsewhere (4). For *l̥ , the outcomes are more complex but follow the same general pattern. After hard consonants and after consonants with palatal (co)articulation preceding hard dentals (5), *l̥ split into back vowel and hard sonorant portions (not necessarily in that order): US *olˠ; LS *lˠu (after dentals) and *olˠ (elsewhere); Slc and Kb *lˠu; Po olˠ or *ɛlˠ (after labials, with variation perhaps due to dialect contacts), *lˠu (after dentals), and *ɛlˠ (after velars). After consonants with palatal (co)articulation preceding other consonants, *l̥ had the following reflexes: Sorb *ɛl j (after labials before consonants other than hard dentals), *olˠ (elsewhere in US; after labials before hard dentals and after palatals in US), and

1490

XIII. Slavic

*lˠu (in LS after dentals); Slc and Kb *olˠ; and Po *ɛlˠ (after labials before hard dentals), *il (after labials before other consonants), *lˠu (after dentals), and *olˠ (after palatals) (6). Pb was an outlier, in that *r̥ , *l̥ became sequences of back vowel plus sonorant without regard to the neighboring consonants. PSl

LCSl

US

LS

Po

Kb

Slc

Pb

Gloss

(3)

*burze

*br̥ zɛ

bórze

bórze

bar(d)zo

barzo

bãrzɵ

÷borz

‘quickly’

(4)

*kirn-

*tʃr̥ nɨ:

cˇorny

carny

czarny

cˇôrny

cˇãrnï

÷corneˇ

‘black’

(5)

(6)

j

*kiru̯ɛn-

*tʃr̥ u̯ ɛnɨ:

cˇerwjeny

cerwjeny

czerwony

cˇerˇvjony

cˇe˘rˇvjùɵ̯nï

÷carvene˘

‘red’

*u̯irba:

*v jr̥ ba

wjerba

wjerba

wierzba

wierzba

vjìe̯řba˘

÷varba˘

‘willow’

*dulga2s

*dl̥ gǝ

doƚh

dƚug

dƚug

dƚug

dlʉ˙́g

÷dåu̯g

‘debt’

*kiln-

*tʃl̥ nǝ

cˇoƚm

coƚn

czóƚno

!

cˇoƚen

cˇɵ̀ .ʉ̭ n

÷cåu̯n

‘canoe’

*piln-

*p jl̥ nɨ:

połny

połny

pełny

pełny

pɵ̀ .ʉ̭ nï

÷påu̯neˇ

‘full’

*dilg-

*djl̥ gɨ:

doƚhi

dƚugi

dƚugi

dłëdzi

dlʉ˙́ђï

÷dåu̯d’eˇ

‘long’

*u̯ilka2s

*v jl̥ kǝ

wjelk

wjelk

wilk

wóƚk

vɵ̀ .ʉ̭ k

÷vauk

‘wolf’

In ESl, coda *l developed velarized articulation [lˠ]; cf. its modern Uk and BR reflex w. Then *ɪ backed to *ʊ before *lˠ (like *ɛ to *ɔ, see 5.5). The backing was blocked when the *ɪ followed palatals, where, since LCSl, phonotactics did not permit *ʊ in that environment. Later, the vowels in tautosyllabic *ɪr, *il, *ʊr, *ʊl sequences developed like ordinary strong jers (9−10); see 5.8. In peripheral Novg, there was a “Second Pleophony” (cf. 5.5): a copy of the vowel before the sonorant developed after it as well: *ɪr > ɪrɪ («ьrь»), *ur > ʊrʊ («ъrъ»), *ʊlˠ > ʊlʊ («ъlъ»), and *ilˠ > ɪlʊ («ьlъ»). The mechanism was probably the same as in the apparent metatheses in CzSlk, Lech, and ESSl: the sonorants were realized with schwa-like final phases, which could be rephonologized as independent units. PSl (9)

(10)

P-ESl

OESl bъrz-

Uk

BR

Ru

Novg

Gloss

borzo

borzo

borzo

bъrъzeˇ

‘quickly’

*burz-

*bʊrz-

*kɛtu̯irtεi̯ s

*tʃɛtu̯ jɪrt ji cˇetvьrti

cˇetverti

cˇvèrci

cˇetverti

cetvereti

‘quarter (NOM.PL )

*dulga2s

*dʊlˠgʊ

dъlgъ

dovh

dowh

dolg

dъlъgъ

‘debt’

*u̯ilka2s

*u̯ʊlˠkʊ

vьlkъ

vovk

vowk

volk

*u̯ilkika2s

*u̯ʊlˠtʃɪ

vovčok

vawčok

volčok

Vъlъcˇьk-

‘wolf cub’; Novg name

*giltai̯ ad

*ʒɪlˠtoi̯ ɛ

zˇovtoje

zˇowtaje

zˇëltoe

zˇьlъtoe

‘yellow (N.DEF)’

zˇьltoje

‘wolf’

81. The phonology of Slavic

1491

5.7. Tensing of *i and *ǝ before *i After qualitative differentiation (5.1), the “jer” vowels *ɪ and *ǝ were subject to tensing before *i̯ (1−3). As a result, they merged with the reflexes of PSl *i: and *u:1 in most dialects. LCSl1 Tense

Bg

Mc

BCS

Sln

Slk

OCz

*bii̯ ɛ

*bɪi̯ ɛ

*bii̯ ɛ

bie

bie

bȉje

bȋje

bije

*mui̯ ɛ

*mǝi̯ ɛ

*mɨi̯ ɛ

mie

mie

mȉje

mȋje

myje

PSl (1)

US

OPo

Gloss

bie

bije

bije

‘beat (PRS.3SG)’

myje

myjе

myje

‘wash (PRS.3SG)’

In the table, Bg and Mc ie is a disyllabic sequence. In OCz, ie was a diphthong, which arose from the contraction of *ii̯ ɛ (see 5.12). Non-tensed reflexes were preserved in three peripheral areas − Pb, western (Ohrid) OCS, and Ru (excluding Novg) (2). (If there had been tensing in Ru and Pb, the expected outcomes would be **-i-, **-y-, and diphthongal **ai̯ , **åi̯ , or **oi̯ , respectively.) PSl (2)

OCS

OESl

Uk

BR

Ru

Pb

Gloss

*bii̯ ɛ(ti)

bьetъ|-i-

bьetь|-i-

bij

bi

bej

÷bėj

‘beat (PRS.3SG)’

*krui̯ ɛ(ti)

kryjetь

krъjetь|-y-|-o-

kryjet’

kryjec’

kroet

÷kråje˘

‘cover (PRS.3SG)’

Judging from spelling variations, the tensing was still an active process in OCS (10th− 11th centuries) and Kievan OESl (11th−13th centuries). In OCS, there was graphic vacillation in the tensing position between «ь» and «и, ı» for *-ɪ- and between «ъ» and «ъı, ъи» for *ǝ, e.g. sandhi въ истинѫ~въı истинѫ ‘in truth (ACC)’, прѣдамь и~прѣдами и ‘hand over (PRS.1SG) him (ACC)’. In manuscripts originating in the Ohrid milieu, strongjer reflexes (see 5.8) could appear instead: прѣдаме и. Similar variation can be seen in OESl manuscripts. Tensing overlapped with other changes to *ɪ and *ǝ (see 5.8). In “strong-jer” position, the reflex is generally tense (close) rather than “strong” (mid or near-open). In “weakjer” or reduced position, leveling has obscured the development, but generally, the tense reflex occurs in roots (3), the weak in suffixes (4). (For W-SSl and WSl, the change of *ɪi̯ V to i̯ V has also been treated as a contraction, but it does not follow the usual course of contraction [5.12].) In eastern OESl, where there was no tensing, quasi-tense spellings of weak jers as и|ı and ъı are probably ChSl imitations of OCS protographs. LCSl1 (3)

(4)

OCS

BCS

OCz

LS

OPo

OESl

Uk

Gloss

*bii̯ ai̯ s

bii

bȉj

bí

bij

bij

bii|bьi

byj

‘beat (IMP.2SG)’

*ʃɪi̯ a

šija

šȉja

šijeˇ

šyja

szyja

šija

šyja

‘neck’

*brat(r)ɪi̯ a

bratьja|-ij-

brȁća

bratrˇie

bratśa

bracia

bratьja|-ij-

brattja

‘brethren’

1492

XIII. Slavic

5.8. The jer-shift LCSl1 *ɪ and *ǝ/*ʊ (“front jer” and “back jer”) underwent a complex of changes known as the jer-shift (Isačenko 1970) or the Third Slavic Vowel Shift (Andersen 1998a). The shift had such major consequences for phonology, syllable structure, and morphology that it is generally, and justifiably, taken as the great divide between LCSl and the history of the individual languages (with the provisos discussed in 5). Among the most important consequences were the abolition of the constraint against closed syllables and the rise of new, previously non-canonical clusters; in the history of the individual languages, this led to new voicing assimilation and final devoicing rules. In addition, in the dialects where consonants developed palatal (co)articulation before front vowels (5.2), the loss of *ɪ in the jer-shift removed the possibility of interpreting them as subphonemic (voweldriven). The jer-shift (JS) was not a single punctiliar change. In its first phase (JS1), there was a tendency, traditionally known as Havlík’s Law, for *ɪ and *ǝ/*ʊ to be reduced (1.0 → 0.5 moras) unless there was an *ɪ or *ǝ/*ʊ in the following syllable: *ɪ > *ɪ˘ and *ǝ > * ǝ˘ (breve = IPA “extra short duration”). There was a countervailing tendency to avoid sequences of two ultrashort vowels. By Havlík’s Law, jers were “weak” (subject to reduction) finally (1) and in syllables before non-jer vowels (2); they were “strong” (not subject to reduction) in syllables before weak jers (1, first syllable). In sequences of three jers, the final was weak, the penultimate strong, and the antepenultimate weak (3). (For the further development of strong jers, see 5.8.1) In the second phase (JS2), weak jers were subject to further reduction: {*ɪ˘, *ǝ˘} > Ø. This process has traditionally been called the fall of the weak jers, which has the misleading implication that the process was sudden. The principal mechanism was not a sound change proper but a phonemic reanalysis, which elapsed over multiple generations, with a great deal of social accommodation. At any given time, LCSl1 /ɪ/ and /ǝ/ (or peripheral /ʊ/) had a range of phonetic realizations, from short in lento speech through ultrashort [V] to Ø in allegro speech. Presented with these ambiguities, innovative learners could covertly reanalyze the weak jers as /Ø/. Presumably, for the sake of social continuity, they learned to produce jer-like paragogic vowels as lento or emphatic actualizations of consonants that were final or pre-consonantal in their grammars: /C/ → [Cǝ]; cf. American English emphatic sweet [sǝˈwijt], incredible [ɪnkǝˈrɛdɪbl̥ ]. Undoubtedly, the actualization was gradual and influenced by pragmatic factors such as rate of speech and style. Overall, innovative speakers would favor null realizations as the best match to their grammars. The null realizations would thus increase in frequency, influencing new learners to make the reanalysis as well. Therefore, the traditional label “fall” or “loss” of weak jers is inaccurate except as a metalinguistic description of the end result. The adjacent consonants also played a role in the implementation. In OESl, the loss of weak jers is first registered between voiceless consonants (LCSl1 *kʊn jazɪ > kъn jazь|kn jazь ‘prince’). Another factor was the position of the jer in the word. Final jers were eliminated earlier than non-final; this is very clearly evidenced in Novg, where null spellings of final jers crop up from ca. 1075, while the main implementation took place in the 1120s−1210s. The data in the table come from the earliest Sl manuscripts − the Kiev Folia (10th c.), written in OCS of Moravian (Mor) provenience; the canonical OCS codices of ESSl provenience (late 10th−11th c.); the earliest OESl writings (11th−early 12th c.); and

81. The phonology of Slavic

1493

the Freising Fragments, hand III, written in OSln (later 10th c.). They illustrate the spelling of weak jers in final (1) and medial position (2), as well as sequences of three jers (3). JS1

Mor

(1)

*dɪnɪ˘

dьnь

dьnь

dьnь

(2)

*dɪ˘nɛ

dьne

dьne

dьne

*dɪ˘ni

dьni

dьni

*dɪ˘nɪsɪ˘

dьnьsь

*dɪ˘nɪʃɪ˘n-

dьnьšьn- dьnьšьn- dinizn-

(3)

OESl1

OCS1−2

OSln1−2

OESl2

OSln2

denь

denь

den

dne|d’ne|dъne

d(’)ne

(LOC)

dьni

dni|d’ni|dъni

d(’)ni

(ACC.PL )

dьnьsь

dnesь|dъnesь

d(’)nesь

‘today’

dneš’n-

dnešneje

‘today’s’

dine

OCS2

Gloss ‘day’

At the JS1 stage, both weak and strong jers are written with jer letters, without omissions or conflations. This is attested in Mor and in OESl1. (The occasional omissions of jers in 11th-c. OESl manuscripts is thought to be a “bookish” imitation of OCS rather than a sound change in progress.) At the JS2 stage, strong jers can be replaced by other vowel letters (see 5.8.2); weak jers can be dropped, written with an apostrophe, or confused with the other jer (ъ for ь in the OCS2 examples). This is attested in OCS2, OESl2, and OSln2. While the canonical OCS manuscripts were all produced by JS2 scribes, the majority of their jer spellings reflect JS1; this is due to the scribes’ copying from JS1 protographs, receiving dictation in a JS1 pronunciation, or following JS1 orthographic rules. In the table, conservative spellings are cited under OCS1−2, and innovative under OCS2. In the OSln1−2 spellings, weak jers («i») are omitted after the stress, but preserved elsewhere; the strong jer («i, e») (1, 3) has not yet been conclusively identified with another vowel. (The scribe was probably a German copying from an older text.)

5.8.1. Rephonologization of the strong jers As weak jers grew shorter (JS2), strong jers were lengthened in proportion; ultimately, they were rephonologized as mid- or near-open vowels. This process has traditionally, though illogically, been called the vocalization of strong jers. The reflexes fall into a central zone and peripheries. In the central zone (W-SSl, WSlk and ESlk, Cz, Sorb, and most of Lech), strong *ɪ and *ǝ (from LCSl1 *ʊ [5.1.1]), merged as *ǝ or a similar mid-central vowel. (In WSl, *ɪ left its traces in the softness of the preceding consonant [see 5.4].) In early OSb and OCr, ǝ was spelled with the front jer letter «ь»; the back jer letter «ъ» went into abeyance. During the Middle Ages, ǝ was rephonologized as a in Što and most of Čak, and as ɛ («e») in Kaj and in the Čak dialects of a few Adriatic islands. In Sln, the merged reflex bifurcated, depending on length: *ǝ > ǝ («e»); *ǝ: > a: in the southwest, adjoining Čak, and close-mid e («ẹ » or «é») to the east, adjoining Kaj. In WSl, apart from Pb (see 5.8.2) and part of CenSlk, the merged reflex of *ɪ and *ǝ was identified with LCSl1 *ɛ. In Sorb, this could change to o in US and a in LS, depending on the adjacent consonants. In the table, Slk1 is SE CenSlk dialects, which have rounded reflexes of *u; Slk2 is CenSlk, with forms from the standard. (Cf. WSlk déždž, pes, den.)

1494

XIII. Slavic PSl (1)

(2)

BCS

Sln

Slk1

Slk2

OCz

US

LS

OPo

Gloss

*duzdi̯ us

dȁzˇd

dè zˇ [ǝ]

dožd-

dážd’

desˇč

désˇć

de(j)sˇć

deżdż

‘rain’

*suna2s

sȁn

sèn [ǝ]

son

!

sen

sen

són

soń

sen

‘sleep’

*pisa2s

pȁs

pȅs [ǝ]

pes

pes

pes

pos

pjas

pies

‘dog’

*dinis

dȃn

dȃn

deň

den

dźeń

źeń

dzień

‘day’

In the other peripheral zones (Bg, Mc, ESl, and CenSlk), strong *ɪ and *ǝ /*ʊ remained distinct, for the most part. Generally, strong *ɪ was reflected as ɛ («e»); in BR and Ru, it bifurcated into ɔ before hard consonants and e before soft. Strong *ʊ became ɔ («o») in ESl, in part of CenSlk, in western (Ohrid) OCS, and in many Mc dialects, including the standard (though a also occurs as an intrusion from BCS). In Bg, its outcome was delabialized ǝ («u˘»), merging with the reflex of LCSl1 *ɔ˜.

(1)

(2)

PSl

OCS

Preslav

Ohrid

Bg

Mc

OESl

Uk

BR

Ru

Gloss

*duzdi̯ us

dъzˇdь

dъzˇdь

dozˇdь

du˘zˇd [ǝ]

dozˇd

dъzˇdь

dosˇcˇ

dozˇdzˇ

dozˇd’

‘rain’

*suna2s

sъnъ

sъnъ

sonъ

su˘n [ǝ]

son

sъnъ

son

son

son

‘sleep’

*pisa2s

pьsъ

pesъ

pesъ

pes

pes

pьsъ

pеs

pës [o]

pës [o]

‘dog’

*dinis

dьnь

denь

denь

den

den

dьnь

den’

dzen’

den’

‘day’

5.8.2. Pb outcomes The reflexes of *ɪ and *ǝ did not follow Havlík’s Law in the northwesternmost Slavic language, which therefore was an outlier. Weak jers in initial syllables became strong if they were stressed or in the first pre-stress syllable: LCSl1 *kʊto > ÷kåtü ‘who’ cf. OCS kъto|kto; LCSl1 *pɪsi > ÷pasåi, cf. OCS pьsi|psi ‘dog (nom. pl.)’. Other weak jers were lost, as expected. Strong *ɪ and *ǝ merged as ɒ (å in normalized spelling) in some environments, but remained distinct in others − a for front, and close-mid e (ė in normalized spelling) for back: LCSl1 *dʊzɟɪ > ÷dåzd ‘rain’, cf. OCS dъzˇdь; LCSl1 *pɪsa2 s > ÷pjas ‘dog’; LCSl1 *dɪnɪ > dan ‘day’; LCSl1 *lokʊtɪ > ÷lüt’ėt ‘elbow’.

5.8.3. Irregular outcomes At the time of the jer-shift, conservative speakers presumably tolerated (or even produced) null implementations of weak jers as allegro forms. Conversely, innovative

81. The phonology of Slavic

1495

speakers in the same community must have retained awareness of the existence of vowels in weak-jer position and interpreted them as paragogic vowels − that is, as potential realizations of consonants not immediately followed by vowels in high-style or largo speech. This natural result of generational continuity would have provided many opportunities for irregular outcomes, e.g. insertion of non-etymological vowels in inherited clusters (1). The regular operation of Havlík's Law created extensive allomorphy (“vowel-zero alternations”). Thus, in the individual languages, the distribution of strong and weak jer reflexes has often been disrupted by stem-leveling to break up complex consonant clusters − though the bar for complexity is set quite high in Sl − or to eliminate multiple vowel-zero alternations in the same stem. Thus, e.g. in ‘stalk’ (2), the ESl and SSl languages have generalized the root allomorph that reflects the strong jer; cf. also modern Cz steblo. In ‘light’ (3), the masculine indefinite form, in accordance with Havlík’s Law, should have a null outcome for the rightmost jer; however, the strong-jer reflex has been extended from forms in which it was regular. PSl (1)

*anglis

(2)

*stibl-

(3)

*liguka2s

OCS

BCS

Sln

ǫglь

ȕgalj

(v)ǫ̑gǝƚ

stáblo lȁk

lьgъk-

OCz

LS

OPo

Uk

Ru

uhel

hugel

stáblọ

stblo

láhǝk

lehek

Gloss

węgiel

vuhil’

ugol’

‘coal’

spƚo

źdźbƚo

steblo

steblo

‘stalk’

(lekki)

(lekki)

(lehkyj)

lëgok

‘light (M)’

5.9. Tautosyllabic liquid-jer sequences By Havlík’s Law (5.8), LCSl1 tautosyllabic *rɪ, *lɪ, *rǝ, *lǝ (peripheral *rʊ, *lʊ) are predicted to yield RV in strong position (1), and R in weak (2). In fact, these outcomes only developed in WSl, excluding Slk, and in the more western dialects of ESl. In the WSl dialects, the new interconsonantal sonorants did not become syllabic; the words in (2) are monosyllabic. (By contrast, tautosyllabic *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl had become syllabic; see 5.6). In Sorb, interconsonantal *l ultimately developed into *ɨl (2), with a different vowel from the strong-jer reflex *e. In western ESl, both interconsonantal liquids developed a following epenthetic ɨ, again differing from the strong-jer reflexes (2). In some words, leveling has interfered with the outcomes, as in Uk krovi, sl’oza for expected *kryvi, *slyza.

(1)

(2)

PSl

LCSl1

OCz

*kruu̯im

*krǝu̯ɪ

krev

kréj

*slizam

*slɪzǝ

slz

*kruu̯ɛs

*krǝu̯ɛ

*sliza:

*slɪza

US

LS

Po

Uk

BR

Ru

kšej

krew

krov

krow

krov’

‘blood (ACC)’

(sylzow)

(łdzow)

łez

sl’oz

slëz

slëz

‘tear (GEN.PL )’

krve

krwje

kšwě

(krwi)

!

kryvi

krovi

‘blood (GEN)’

slza

sylza

łdza

łza

!

sljaza

sleza

‘tear’

krovi sl’oza

Gloss

1496

XIII. Slavic

The outcomes in Ru differ from those in other ESl languages in that the strong-jer reflexes developed even in weak position. According to Isačenko (1970), Ru actually developed interconsonantal liquids, but they were eliminated, after a period of “trial and error,” by a morphological rule that eliminated vowel-zero alternations adjacent to consonant clusters. In Slk and SSl, tautosyllabic *rɪ, *lɪ, *rǝ, *lǝ became syllabic sonorants, thus merging with tautosyllabic *ɪr, *ɪl, *ǝr, *ǝl (see 5.6). This happened regardless of whether *ɪ and *ǝ were strong (3) or weak (4) by Havlík’s Law. Exceptions can be found in western (Ohrid) OCS, where the normal strong-jer reflexes are sometimes found. (Some scholars have posited that W-OCS was a peripheral conservation of the same pattern seen in WSl and ESl; consequently, the syllabic reflexes in Slk and in other SSl dialects was a central LCSl innovation.)

(3)

(4)

PSl

E-OCS

W-OCS

Bg

Mc

BCS

Sln

*slizina:

slьz(ь)na

slez(ь)na

*kruu̯im

krъvь

*kruu̯a:u̯*sliza:

Slk

Gloss

slu˘zna

solzna

sȕzna

sółzna

slzná

‘tearful (F )’

krovь

kru˘v

krv

kȓ v

kȓ v

krv

‘blood (ACC)’

krъvavъ

krъvavъ

ku˘rvav

krav

kȑ vāv

krvȃv

krvavý

‘bloody’

slьza

slьza

su˘lza

solza

sȕza

sóƚza

slza

‘tear’

In OCS, the syllabic sonorants of either origin were spelled «rъ, rь» and «lъ, lь»; the jer-letter used was a matter of convention rather than phonology. In EBg dialects, syllabic sonorants were re-diphthongized, with their opening or closing phases reanalyzed as ǝ («u˘r, ru˘» and «u˘l, lu˘»). The tendency was for the opening phase to be reanalyzed before single consonants, and the closing phase before consonant clusters; however, this distribution has been greatly obscured by leveling. (In [3−4], only kru˘v shows an unpredicted outcome.) Syllabic sonorants have been preserved in many WBg dialects. In Mc and WSSl, r̥ has been stable; *l̥ eventually re-diphthongized to olˠ, which gave Mc ou̯ («ol»), BCS u, and Sln ou̯ («ol», tonemic-system «oƚ»).

5.10. Compensatory lengthening Jer-strengthening (5.8.1) was a form of compensatory lengthening (CL): as the weak jer decreased in duration, the strong jer increased. Other vowels also underwent CL before weak jers, at least in the central dialects of LCSl; the process has left no detectable trace in E-SSl, BR, or Ru. In the table, the first form in each set shows the reflex of a vowel lengthened in the CL environment; the second shows the reflex when the following vowel was not a jer. (For the reflexes of lengthened vowels, see 5.3)

81. The phonology of Slavic

(1)

(2)

LCSl1

LCSl2

*samʊ

ǝ

*sa:m

*samɔ

*samɔ

*lɛdʊ

(j)

*lɛda (3)

(4)

ǝ

*l ɛ:d (j)

*l ɛda

BCS

Sln

Slk

sȃm

sȃm

sám

sȁmo

samȏ

OCz

US

OPo

Kb

Uk

Gloss

sám

sam

såm

sóm

sam

‘alone’

samo

samo

samo

samo

samò

samo

(N)

l’ad

!

led

lód

lód

lód

lid

‘ice’

lȇd

lẹ̑d

lȅda

ledȗ

(ľadu)

(ledu)

loda

lodu

(lodu)

(l’odu) (GEN)

*bɔgʊ

*bo:g

bȏg

bọ̑g

†

bóh

bóh

bóh

bóg

bóg

bih

‘God’

*bɔga

*bɔga

bȍga

bogȃ

boha

boha

boha

boga

bòga

boha

(GEN)

lȗg

lo˛̑g

luh

lúh

łuh

łąg

łąg

luh

‘fen’

!

!

luha

luha

łuha

łęga

łãga

luha

(GEN)

*lɔ˜gʊ *lɔ˜ga

ǝ

1497

*lɔ˜g

ǝ

*lɔ˜ga

lȗga

lo˛̑ga

In Sorb, post-16c Po, and Uk, the results of CL can only be seen in the outcomes of LCSl1 *ɛ (2) and *ɔ (3). In Sorb, the reflexes are either close mid-vowels or diphthongs ie and uo («ě» and «ó»). Similar diphthongs developed in Uk and are preserved in northern dialects. In WUk (including the standard language), uo fronted to iü (OUk «ю»), then lost its labialization; thus it merged with the reflex of ie, and also with the outcome of LCSl1 *æ (*mæra: > OESl měra > Uk mira ‘measure’). (The reflex of LCSl1 *i became lax ɪ.) The regular distribution of CL reflexes has been disturbed by rampant analogy − hence the irregular outcomes (marked !). In various LCSl dialects, the implementation of new length depended on the accent type and the following consonant (see Timberlake 1983a). In WSl, another interfering factor was vowel abridgment, which occurred when the consonant between the target vowel and the weak jer was voiceless. This explains outcomes, especially common in peripheral Lech, where penultimate strong jers have null (quasi-weak jer) outcomes: LCSl1 *ɔu̯ɪsʊ > Kb óws ‘oats’, cf. Po owies; LCSl1 *nɔgʊtɪ > Kb nokc, cf. Po nogieć.

5.11. Lenition of *g In a central zone of the post-migration CSl, PSl *g was lenited to *ɣ (1). The zone affected stretched from southern WSl (US, CzSlk) to non-peripheral ESl (Rusyn, Uk, BR, SRu); there was a southward extension from Slk to westernmost SSl (NWSln, WSln, and parts of Čak). The lenition also extended into proximal NRu dialects, but its effects can only be seen between vowels: togo > toɣo (0 tovo) ‘that (M/N.GEN.SG)’, but gost’ ‘guest’. Eventually, *ɣ backed to ɦ or ʕ in US, Cz, Slk, NWSln, Rusyn, Uk, and SWBR. This was definitely a secondary development; the reflex in those dialects was evidently still *ɣ when new devoicing rules developed after the jer-shift: /ɦ/ and /ʕ/ devoice to /x/ rather than /h/ or /ħ/ (2). Likewise, /x/ voices to [ɣ] rather than [ɦ] or [ʕ].

1498

XIII. Slavic PSl (1)

(2) (3)

US

OCz

Slk

WSln

OUk

BR

SRu j j

Gloss

*gra:b-

hrabać

hrabiti

hrabat’

ɣrabiti

hrabiti

hrabic’

ɣrab it

‘snatch’

*naga:

noha

noha

noha

nǫɣa

noha

naha

naɣa

‘leg’

*baga:

boha

boha

boha

boɣa

boha

boha

boɣa

‘God (GEN/ ACC)’

*baga2s

bóh [x]

bóh

bôh [x]

bux

bоh

boh [x]

box

(NOM)

mjazha

j

‘pulp’

*mai̯ zga: mjezha

miezha

miazga

†

mezga

m azɣa

Given its dialect geography, the lenition of *g was undoubtedly a LCSl change. For absolute chronology, it can be noted that the southward extension must have developed while WSl and W-SSl still formed a continuum, i.e. probably before the early 10th c. Nevertheless, some scholars treat it as post-CSl because of names spelled with «g» instead of «h» in La sources and the earliest La-alphabet Sl texts (prior to the 13th c.): early OCz bogu ‘God (DAT.SG)’. The rationale is that lenition could not be CSl if it happened after the jer-shift (5.8). This is a weak argument. First, «g» is a plausible way of rendering /ɣ/, especially when there is no contrast with /g/, and when «h» was used to render voiceless /x/, along with ch. (In Hebrew-alphabet Knaanic [Judeo-Czech] glosses from the same period, the *g reflex is spelled as velar gimel instead of he or heth.) Second, the argument is predicated on the false view that the end of LCSl was a punctiliar event. Granted that the jer-shift was the last “common” change, it took place over an extended period; its actualization ended in some dialects before beginning in others. The lenition of *g may have had a different chronology relative to the jer-shift in some dialects than others, but it was a development rooted in the laxness of CSl *g, reflected in the lenited reflexes of the velar palatalizations (3.2, 4.4−4.6.; see Andersen 1969, 1977). As shown by Andersen (1969), the lenition began at a time when the CSl constraint against fricative-fricative clusters was still in force (see 3.1) − that is, before the jer-shift (5.8). This explains why *zg remained zg rather than becoming *zh in ECz, Slk, Uk, and SW BR (3), the dialects most central for − and hence first affected by − the change. (BR zh is pronounced [zg].) As the change radiated outward, it affected dialects where the fricative-fricative constraint had been lifted by the jer-shift; thus the reflex is zɦ in WCz and US dialects (but cf. US mjezga, Cz †mízga), and zɣ in the SSl and more peripheral ESl dialects in the lenition zone.

5.12. Contraction Following QD (5.1), there was a tendency for Vi̯ V sequences, found only over boundaries, to contract to V:. This was one of the changes that created new distinctions in length/tenseness, along with neoacute retraction (6.4.3) and compensatory lengthening (5.10). Contraction occurred throughout Sl, from Pb to Novg; it was most intensive in CzSk and W-SSl, and least in ESl. Nowhere did it reach its ultimate extent; variation between contracted and uncontracted forms still occurred in the historical period, to varying degrees in different grammatical categories. Some of the uncontracted forms

81. The phonology of Slavic

1499

may have been resurrected by stem-leveling, but others were probably original lento forms that persisted as stylistic variants. In OCS (1−2), four stages of contraction can be observed: 1. pre-contraction; 2. glide loss; 3. assimilation of the second vowel to the first; and 4. monosyllabification (contraction proper). Not every sequence went through all the stages. For example, the assimilation phase could not happen in *-ǝi̯ i- or *ɨi̯ i, since ǝ and ɨ could not follow other vowels. LCSl1

PSl (1)

(2)

OCS1

OCS2

*-ɛ:+a:s+ɛt

*-æaʃɛ

-ěaše

*-a:+i̯ +a:

*-ai̯ a

-aja

-aa

*-au̯+i̯ +amau̯

*-ui̯ ɛmu

-ujemu

-uemu

*-a:m+i̯ +a:m

*-ɔ˜i̯ ɔ˜

-ǫjǫ

*-a2m+i̯ + ai̯ sa2m

*-ǝi̯ ixǝ

-ъixъ|-yixъ?

*i̯ + a2m+i̯ + ai̯ sa2m

*-ɪi̯ ixǝ

OCS3 -ěěše

OCS4

Gloss

-ěše

IMP.3SG

-a

F.NOM

-umu

M/N.DAT

-ǫǫ

-ǫ

F.INST

-ъixъ|-yixъ?

-yxъ

HARD

-uumu

GEN/.PL

-ьixъ|-iixъ?

-ьixъ|-iixъ?

-ixъ

SOFT GEN.PL

The forms in (2) are ambiguous, like other definite adjective endings formed on the bases *-ǝ- and soft *-ɪ-. As discussed in 3.5, OCS did not have the graphic means to differentiate *i and *i̯ i. While the spellings «ъıи», «ии» are clearly disyllabic, they could convey either /ɨi̯ i/, /ii̯ i/ (OCS1, with tense-jer reflexes) or /ɨi/, /ii/ (OCS2). Because /ɨ/ was spelled with digraphs («ъı» or «ъи», transliterated y), «ъı, ъи» can be read as disyllabic [ǝi̯ i] or monosyllabic [ɨ]. The sequence -ii- («ии») could have arisen by jertensing (5.7) as well as assimilation (OCS3). The reflexes of contraction were long. If the first vowel was LCSl1 *ǝ or *ɪ (2), it tensed prior to contraction (see 5.7). When the two vowels were identical, they simply monosyllabified (3). The sequence *ɔjɛ (4) contracted as *ɔ: in SSl, but *ɛ: in WSl (with no secondary softening of the preceding consonant). When the two vowels differed in height, the reflex of contraction matched the more peripheral vowel, regardless of its order in the sequence, according to the following hierachy: close-mid > (near-)open > open-mid (5). The sequence *ii̯ V2 (6), insofar as it contracted at all, became *i̯ V2 or, in WSl, V2 with preceding secondary softening. LCSl1

BCS

Sln

Slk

OCz

LS

OPo

Kb

*ai̯ a

dòbrā

dȏbra

dobrá

dobrá

dobra

dobra

dobrô

‘good (F.NOM)’

*õi̯ õ

dȍbrū

dȏbro

dobrú

dobrú

dobru

dobrą

dobrą

(F.ACC)

*ɛjɛ

tùđē

túje

cudzie

cuzé

cuze

cudze

cëzé

‘foreign (N.NOM/ACC)’

*ii̯ i

dȍbrī

dȏbri

dobrí

dobrˇí

dobri

dobrzy

dobrzi

(M.NOM.PL )

(4)

*ɔjɛ

dȍbrō

dȏbro

dobré

dobré

dobre

dobre

dobré

(N.NOM/ACC)

(5)

*ei̯ ɛ

sȅje

sẹ̑ je

seje

sěje

sejo

sieje

seje

‘sow (PRS.3SG)’

(3)

Gloss

1500

XIII. Slavic LCSl1

BCS

Sln

*ei̯ a

(6)

Slk

OCz

LS

OPo

Kb

Gloss

siat’

sieti

seś

siać

sôc

(INF )

*ai̯ ɛ

znȃsˇ

znȃsˇ

znáš

znásˇ

znaš

znasz

znôsz

‘know (PRS.2SG)’

*ɔi̯ a

pȃs

pȃs

pás

pás

pas

pas

pas

‘belt’

*-ɔi̯ a-

stȃti

státi

stát’

státi

stać

stac

‘stand’

*-ii̯ a

brȁća

brȃtja

bratia

bratřie

bratśa

braća

bracô

‘brethren’

*-ii̯ u

brȁću

brȃtjo

bratřú

bratśu

braćę

(ACC.SG)

Uncontracted forms are also attested: BCS sȅjati, Sln sejáti ‘sow’; BCS pȍjās, Sln ̣ † pojȃs ‘belt’; BCS †stójati, LS stojaś, OPo stojać, Kb stojec ‘stand’. These, plus the lacunae in the table, show the varying extent of implementation or morphological interference in the various dialects. The contraction *ai̯ ɛ > *-a:- in Leskien III verbs like *znati, *znai̯ ɛ- ‘know’ opened the door to a major morphological development − the exaptation of the athematic PRS.1SG *mi. The contracted stem in *-a:- was reanalyzed as a theme comparable to the long vowel in athematic *da- ‘give’, *jima- ‘have’; then the thematic PRS.1SG *-ɔ˜ was replaced by *-mi. The innovation spread to other classes, to differing extents, in SSl and WSl (see Janda 1996). (The endings are given in their LCSl1 form; the actual spread happened in historical times.)

6. Suprasegmental phonology BaSl accentology has been characterized as the “most complex problem of IE historical grammar” (Watkins 1965: 117). The present account for the most part presents the approach of the Moscow Accentological School (Dybo, Illič-Svityč, and Zaliznjak). For brevity, Ba outcomes are only discussed if shared with Sl. BaSl was a dialect continuum; there is no warrant for assuming that PreSl accentual developments always marched in lockstep with Pre-Ba. In the tables, API gives the accent paradigm (AP) reconstructed for PIE: 1 = barytone (fixed on the stem); 1s = fixed on a suffix; 2 = oxytone (fixed on the ending). APII gives the accent pattern reconstructed for CSl (see 6.7−8): a = fixed on the stem; A = fixed on a suffix; b = fixed on the post-root syllable; B = fixed on the post-suffix syllable; c = mobile stress. Forms given in [ ] are supplied from other dialects. The glosses for the meaning of the protoform are based on the majority of attested forms. For BCS, the data come from NSˇto (Neo-Sˇtokavian), the BCS standard, cited in its Ek ˇ ak1 = Orbanići [Kalsbeek 1998]; Cˇak2 = Orlec variety; and from Čak (Čakavian) (C 3 ˇ [Houtzagers 1985]; Cak = other).

81. The phonology of Slavic

1501

6.1. Sl accentual correspondences CSl had mobile ictus with distinctive tones under stress. The place of the ictus can be reconstructed from correspondences among the four zones that have preserved accentual mobility: W-SSl, E-SSl (Bg, some EMc), ESl, and peripheral Lech (Cen/NKb, Slc, and Pb). The earliest texts (MBg, OSb, MRu) that indicate ictus by supralinear marks date to the 14th−15th centuries. Elsewhere in Slavic, the stress has been bound to a non-final syllable − initial in Sorb, Cz, W/CenSlk, far SPo, and SKb; penultimate in Po, SWCz, NECz, and ESlk, and separately in peripheral WMc; and antepenultimate in most of Mc. ˝ ), and the non-acute, traditionally known In LCSl, there were two tones − the acute (V ̑ as the circumflex when long (V) and the short falling when short (V̏). A new accent, the neoacute (V́), arose in LCSl2 (see 6.4.3). These tones can be reconstructed from the intonational distinctions preserved in BCS and Sln, with supplementary data from length or stress correlations in the non-tonemic languages.

6.1.1. Acute The acute accent appeared on syllables with long vowels or diphthongs that reflected laryngeal length (see 2.3), regardless of the stress. While it was originally non-prosodic (see 6.3.1, 6.3.3, 6.3.4), by LCSl it had become a low-high tone with a fall in the subsequent syllable. In the Slavic languages with accentual mobility, lexemes reconstructed with the CSl acute regularly have stress fixed on the root (1−3) or on a derivational suffix (5−6). CSl (1)

(2)

˝ |V# V

˝ |ɪ/ǝ# V

ˇ ak1 C

LCSl1 *ʒa˝bɨ

zˇȁbi

˝ ra *mæ

˝ R|CV CA

(4)

˝ R|Cɪ/ǝ# CA

(5)

˝ |V|V# V

(6)

˝ |V V|V

Sln

zˇȁbe

zˇábe

OCz

MRu

Gloss

zˇáby

ˈzˇaby

‘frog (NOM.PL )’

méra

miera

ˈměra

‘unit’

díma

0

ˈdymъ

‘smoke (GEN)’

mȅra

mȅra

*dı˝̠ ma

dȉma

¶

*dı˝̠ mʊ

di˜m

dȉm

dìm

dým

ˈdymъ

‘smoke’

¶

0

měr

měrъ

‘unit (GEN.PL )’

blȁto

bláto

bláto

boˈloto

‘swamp’

kráva

kráva

koˈrova

‘cow’

kráv

krav

koˈrovъ

(GEN.PL )

˝ rʊ *mæ (3)

NŠto

dȉmovā

mjȇrā

mér

dýma

SSl *bla˝to

blȁto

SSl *kra˝u̯a

krȁva

krȁva

krȃf

¶

SSl *kra˝u̯ami

krȁvami

¶

krȁvama

¶

krávama

kravami

koˈrovami

(INST.PL )

*ka˝mɛnɛ

¶

¶

¶

kamene

¶

‘stone (GEN)’

*boga˝ta

bogȁta

bohata

boˈgata

SSl *kra˝u̯ʊ

kȁmena

krȃvā

kȁmena

bògata

kámna

bogáta

ˈkameni

‘rich (F )’

1502

XIII. Slavic

The acute does not have a distinct reflex in Lech, LS, most of Slk, and E-SSl. In WSSl, lexemes reconstructed with root acutes have the same tone throughout the paradigm, though its length may differ in open (1, 3) and closed syllables (2, 4). Sln has a lowhigh accent: long V́, or short V̀ in closed syllables. BCS has a high-low accent V̏, or long V̑ in closed syllables (2). In Čak dĩm [2], the accent is a rising tone of post-CSl origin. In NŠto bògata (6), the place of the ictus reflects the definitional NŠto change: non-initial stresses shifted leftwards, and the receiving syllables developed low-high tones − long V́, short V̀ . In P-Cz and P-WSlk, root acutes were reflected as length in disyllabic forms (1, 3), but not in polysyllables (5−6); cf. OCz ¶ kámen ‘stone (NOM)’, žabami ‘frog (INST.PL )’. In forms that became monosyllabic by the jer-shift (5.8), acuted vowels were also shortened (2, 4); cf. OCz blat ‘swamp (GEN.PL )’. In the history of Czech, the resulting root allomorphy was usually leveled out in one direction or the other: OCz 0dým (2), but 0 mier alongside regular měr (2). In ESl, the acute has a distinct reflex only in internal open-vowel-sonorant diphthongs (see 5.5). The pleophonic outcome is stressed on the second syllable (COˈROC) when the root vowel had been acuted in CSl (3), but on the first (ˈCOROC) when it had been circumflexed (see 6.1.2). In the same environment, US has tense-vowel reflexes leˇ, rě, ló, ró: bƚóto, wróna.

6.1.2. Non-acute In LCSl, initial stressed syllables with non-acute accents had high-low tone if long (V̑), and high-low or level if short (V̏). On internal and final non-acuted syllables, only the ictus can be reconstructed. Lexemes reconstructed with non-acute belonged historically to mobile accent paradigms. CSl

LCSl1

Čak1

NŠto

Sln

MBg

MRu

Gloss

(1)

#ˈV|V

*sɨ̑na

(2)

#ˈV|V

*rȍda

rȍda

rȍda

rodȃ/rȏda

ˈroda

ˈro̍da

‘kin (GEN)’

*u̯ɛ̏tʃɛra

vȅcˇera

¶

večȇra

ˈvecˇera

ˈve̍cˇera

‘evening (GEN)’

sȋna

sȋna

sȋna

ˈsyna

ˈsyna

‘son (GEN)’

vȅcˇeri

(3)

#ˈV |ɪ/ǝ#

*rȍdu

ruȏt

rȏd

rȏd

ˈrodъ

ˈro̍dъ

‘kin’

(4)

ˈCARC-

SSl *brȃda

brȃdo

brȃdu

bradọ̑

ˈbradǫ

Ru ˈborodu

‘beard (ACC)’

In W-SSl, non-acute accents are reflected as high-low tones − long V̑, and short V̏ (1− 2). In Sln, the ictus has tended to shift rightwards from circumflexed syllables; though analogy has wreaked havoc on the distribution, generally the presence of a circumflex on a suffix or ending points to an original root circumflex. Similar rightward shifts occurred in Kaj in trisyllabic forms, and Bg in disyllabic. In BCS, short non-acute syllables were lengthened when closed by the jer-shift (3). In ESl, the only distinct reflex of

81. The phonology of Slavic

1503

the non-acute accents occurs in disyllabic roots from CSl open vowel-liquid diphthongs, where the stress falls on the first syllable (4) rather than the second (see 6.1.1). In WSl, the non-acute accents do not have distinct reflexes.

6.2. Prosodic features inherited from PIE PreSl and PreBa shared several major innovations in prosody, as compared with other IE dialects (see 6.3). Early scholarship on BaSl accentology tried to reconstruct common BaSl acute and circumflex tones and to trace them back to PIE; hence the use of the terms acute and circumflex, coopted from Gk. These efforts were unavailing, as the acute proved to be a purely BaSl innovation that was non-tonal in its origin (see 6.3.1, 6.3.3, 6.3.4). Moreover, the tones sensu stricto evidently developed independently in CSl and Ba; the LCSl circumflex has a different history from its Li namesake (see 6.4.2). However, even if the PreSl and PreBa tones cannot be traced back to PIE, there were several crucial prosodic features that can − ictus patterns (6.2.1), lengths (6.2.2), and accent valencies (6.2.3).

6.2.1. Ictus patterns PreSl inherited two lexically specified ictus patterns from PIE − barytone (API = 1), with stressed root or derivational suffix, and oxytone (API = 2), with stressed desinence. (There is no clear trace of the PIE mobile pattern.) In the PSl oxytones, the stress originally fell on the final syllable of the desinence (1); later there was retraction if there was a laryngeal in the first syllable (see 6.3.2) or if the final syllable consisted solely of a jer. Relics of end-stressed desinences are found in various Sl languages: PSl *-ɛi̯ ˈma > Čak1 drzˇimȍ ‘hold (PRS.1PL )’, Uk bizˇymoˈ ‘run (PRS.1PL )’, prynesemoˈ ‘bring (PRS.1PL )’; PSl *-ɛˈtɛ > MRu prineseˈte ‘bring (PRS.2PL )’. Similarly, PSl *-ɛˈmɛ, *-ɛˈtɛ > Slk nesieme ‘carry (PRS.1PL )’, nesiete ‘carry (PRS.2PL )’, where the penultimate ie reflects *ɛ lengthened by neoacute retraction (see 6.4.3). PSl (1)

LCSl2

Sln

*da:ruˈmi

*darǝˈmi

*lɛu̯diˈmi

*ludɪˈmi

ljudmí

*damaˈu̯am

*-oˈvǝ > *-ˈo:vǝ

domọ́ v

MBg

MRu

Slc

Gloss

darъˈmi

darъˈmi

darmḯ

‘gift’ (INST.PL )

ljudьˈmi

le˘ʒmḯ

‘people (INST.PL )’

dɵmȯ́ u̯

‘house (GEN.PL )’

domôvъ

6.2.2. Length PreSl inherited PIE length from several sources. One was the lengthened grade in ablaut, seen in the root in (1−2) and the suffix in (6). Another was contraction in PreSl V.V,

1504

XIII. Slavic

VHV, and Vi̯ V sequences, as in the endings in (1, 3, 4, 7). A third source was lengthening before tautosyllabic laryngeals (see 2.2, 6.3.1). In other cases, PIE lengths do not have reconstructible origins; these are often ascribed to laryngeals as well. However, some of the roots in question originated in babbling (5−6), so it is doubtful a priori that they began as closed syllables. Other roots with obscure length may have been borrowed from non-IE languages (7). In any event, PreSl syllables with obscure length developed like those with laryngeal length (see 6.3.1), in contrast to those with length from ablaut or contraction. PreSl

API

PSl

APII

Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

MRu

OCz

w

c

zˇȃra

zˇȃra

zˇȃra

ˈzˇara

Cz žár

*ga:si:ˈti c

gȃsi

gási

gasí

gaˈsitь hasí

‘extinguish (PRS.3SG)’

Gloss

(1)

*ˈg he:ra:d

1

*ˈgɛ:ra:d

‘heat (GEN)’

(2)

*gwo:ˈsi̯ eti

1s

0

(3)

*ˈu̯l̥ kwa:d

1

*ˈu̯ilka:d

c

ȗka

vȗka

vȏlka

ˈvolka vlka

‘wolf (GEN)’

(4)

*g̑hei̯ meˈH2i

2

*zεi̯ ˈma:i̯

c

zīmȉ

zími

zími

ziˈmeˇ

zimeˇ

‘winter (LOC)’

(5)

*ˈba:beH2

1

*ˈba˝:ba˝:

a

bȁba

bȁba

bába

ˈbaba

bába

‘granny’

(6)

*ma:ˈte:r

2

*ˈma˝:tɛ:r

a

mȁt

mȁti

máti

ˈmati

máti

‘mother’

(7)

*ˈma:ka:d

1

*ˈma˝:ka:d

a/b

mȁka

máka

ˈmaka

máka

‘poppy (GEN)’

6.2.3. Accent valency In the reconstruction of the Moscow Accentological School (influenced by Jakobson’s 1963 concept of enclinomena), every BaSl morpheme had an inherent valency − higher {+}, also known as dominant; or lower {−}, also known as recessive. The valencies are hypothesized to be morphologizations of PIE suprasegmental features. Roots and suffixes that occurred solely in barytone lexemes were dominant and thus inherently stressable; whether they were actually stressed in a given lexeme depended on the concatenation of morphemes. Roots and suffixes that were stressless in oxytone forms were recessive and thus inherently unstressed. Prefixes, theme vowels, and endings were also recessive; they were only stressed by default, in forms where there was no dominant root or suffix. If a lexeme contained at least one dominant morpheme, it was inherently stressed (orthotonic); if not, it was an enclinomenon with variable stress, depending on other elements in the phonological word.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1505

6.3. Development of the acute and related changes in PreSl 6.3.1. Acuting before tautosyllabic laryngeals In PreSl, as in PBa, syllables became /+acute/ if their nuclei directly preceded tautosyllabic laryngeals; when the laryngeals disappeared (2.2), they underwent compensatory ˝ :/__C. This first wave of acuting affected full-grade vowels (1) and lengthening: VH > V zero-grade *i, *u, and syllabic sonorants (2). Vowels with length of obscure origin in non-ablauting roots also became /+acute/ (3), unlike those with length from ablaut or contraction. As the feature /+acute/ arose by assimilation to a laryngeal consonant, it is posited that it was initially a feature of phonation or voice quality reflecting assimilation to radical articulation − e.g. laryngealized or glottalized/checked. Some scholars argue that it was a glottal stop, which persisted in defiance of the usual treatment of coda stops (see 3.1.3). PreSl (1)

(2)

(3)

API PSl

APII

Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

MRu

OCz

Gloss

*ˈbhageH2t- 1

*baˈ-ga˝:ta˝:

c/A

bogȁta

bògata

bogáta

boˈgata bohata

‘rich (F )’

*ˈseH1me:n

1

*ˈsɛ˝mɛ:n ̄

a

sȅmen

sȅme

séme

ˈseˇm ja

siemě

‘seed’

*ˈu̯l̥ HneH2

1

*ˈu̯˝ılna˝:

a

(v)ȕna

vȕna

vóƚna

ˈvolna

vlna

‘wool’

*ˈsuHra:d

1

*ˈsu˝:ra:d

a

sȉra

sȉra

síra

ˈsyra

sýra

‘cheese (GEN)’

*ˈbhra:tra:d

1

*ˈbra˝:t(r)a:d a

brȁta

brȁta

bráta

ˈbrata

bratra

‘brother (GEN)’

6.3.2. Retraction of the ictus to acuted syllables In PreSl, as in PBa, the ictus in oxytone lexemes retracted to preceding acuted syllables ˝ (H)ˈCnV > ˈV ˝ CnV. This change is known as Hirt’s Law. As originally formulat(1−2): V ed, the retraction was conditioned by “non-apophonic length” − in modern terms, compensatory length before laryngeals, as well as acutes of obscure origin, for which some scholars posit otherwise unreconstructible laryngeals (3). Pre-Hirt (1)

(2)

API

PSl

APII Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

MRu

OCz

Gloss

*bhu˝H2ˈtei̯

2

*ˈbu˝:tεi̯

1

bȉt

bȉti

bíti

ˈbyti

býti

‘be’

*de˝H2i̯ ˈu̯er-

2

*ˈda˝i̯ u̯eris

a

dȅver

dȅver

dẹ́ ver

ˈdeˇverь

deverˇ

‘brotherin-law’

*dl̥˝Hˈghe˝H2

2

*ˈdı˝lga˝:

a

dȕga

dȕga

dóƚga

ˈdolga

dlhá

‘long (F )’

*grı˝Hˈu̯e˝H2

2

*ˈgrı˝:u̯a˝:

a

grȉva

gríva

ˈgriva

hříva

‘mane’

*pH3ii̯ e˝H2ˈnos

2

*piˈi̯ a˝:nas

A

pìjan

pijȁn

pьˈjanъ Cz pján

pijãn

‘drunk (M)’

1506

XIII. Slavic Pre-Hirt

(3)

API

PSl

APII Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

A

pijȁna

pìjana

pijána

pьˈjana Cz pjána

(F )

MRu

OCz

Gloss

*pH3ii̯ e˝H2ˈne˝H2

2

*piˈi̯ a˝:na˝:

*ma˝:ˈterm̥

2

*ˈma˝:tɛrim a

mȁter

mȁtēr

máter

ˈmaterь

mátě

‘mother (ACC)’

*pu˝:ˈra:d

2

*ˈpu˝:ra:d

pȉra

pȉra

píra

ˈpyra

¶

‘spelt (GEN)’

a

pýru

According to Illicˇ-Svitycˇ (1963), the retraction did not happen if the originally stressed syllable had its own tautosyllabic laryngeal; however, this hypothesis, based on Ltv outcomes, lacks Sl evidence and runs afoul of examples like (2). While Hirt’s Law changed accent contours, it did not cause oxytone paradigms to become barytone (API = 1). Ultimately, some lexemes did develop constant root stress by stem-leveling (1−4). Others remained oxytone (API = 2), to become mobile in CSl (APII = c) (5). This implies that some of the disyllabic endings had final stress at the time of the change; otherwise, the given words would have become barytone across the board: **CVHCV̍CV > **CV̍HCVCV.

(4)

(5)

(6)

Čak1

Post-Hirt

PSl

*ˈdhu˝H2ma:d

*ˈdu˝:ma:d

dȉma

díma

ˈdyma

‘smoke (GEN)’

*dhu˝H2moˈmi

0

dȉmom

dímom

ˈdymom

(INST )

*grı˝Hˈu̯e˝H2su

0

grívah

Ru ˈgrivax

‘mane (LOC.PL )’

*de˝H3roˈu̯om

*da:raˈu̯am

¶

*su˝Hˈnuns

0

*ranˈke˝H2mus *ranˈke˝H2mi

*ˈdu˝:mami *ˈgrı˝:u̯a˝:xu

MBg

MRu

Gloss

darọ́ v

daˈrovъ

daˈrȏvъ

‘gift (GEN.PL )’

sȋni

¶

ˈsyny

ˈsyny

(ACC.PL )

*ranˈka˝:mus

rokãn

rokȁm

rǫˈkamъ

ruˈkamъ

‘hand (DAT.PL )’

*ranˈka˝:mi:

rokȁmi

rokȃmi

rǫˈkami

ruˈkami

(INST.PL )

*su:ˈnuns

dãri

Sln

sȋne

In (5), the use of the graphemes «ȏ» and «ω» in MRu, signifying o instead of ɔ, point to neoacute retraction from a stressed final jer (see 6.4.3); cf. Slc sïnóu̯ ‘son (GEN.PL )’, with the reflex of *o: from retraction. The penultimate stress in disyllabic endings of the (i̯ )ā-stem declension (6) is a regular product of Hirt’s Law, since the -eH2 theme attracted the ictus. In the approach of the Moscow Accentological School, themes with laryngeals acquired {+} valencies, i.e. became inherently stressable. However, there are many exceptions, u-stem nouns with CVHC roots like *deH3ru̍s (5), *suHnu̍s (5), *piH3ru̍s ‘feast’, *steH2 nu̍s ‘camp’. Here the absence of the root acute is difficult to explain by analogy, since Hirt’s Law should have affected most of the paradigm, including all of the singular.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1507

6.3.3. Acuting before voiced stops According to Winter’s Law, syllable nuclei immediately before PIE voiced non-aspirates ˝ :/__(R)D (1). This change occurred became long and acuted in PreBa and PSl: V > V after Hirt’s Law, since it did not condition any retraction of the ictus. PreSl (1)

API

PSl

APII

Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

Uk

OCz

Gloss

jiedla

‘eat (RES.F )’

*ˈH1edleH2

1

*ɛ˝dla˝:

a

jȅla

jȅla

jéla

ˈjila

*ˈml̥ g̑leH2

1

*ˈmı˝lzla˝:

a

mȕzla

mȕzla

móƚzla

ˈmolzla

*ˈma˝:zi̯ ɛxi a

mȃzˇesˇ

mȁzˇesˇ

mȃzˇesˇ

ˈmažeš

!

*ˈsɛ˝dla˝:

sȅla

sȅla

séla

ˈsela

!

*ˈmog̑i̯ esi *ˈsedleH2

1

a

‘milk (RES.F )’ mažeš ‘anoint (PRS.2SG)’ seˇdla

‘settle (RES. F )’

Sln mȃzˇesˇ shows the W-SSl “neocircumflex,” which replaced old acutes in thematic presents and certain other categories. Of the OCz forms, only jiedla is regular; mažeš has undergone shortening by analogy, but seˇdla for expected **siedla is a true exception to Winter’s Law. Winter’s Law is much honored in the breech. Many exceptions show lengthening without acuting (2), including cognates of forms cited above (3); the only evidence for the acute in these words comes from Ba. There are also counterexamples with short, non-acute vowels (4). PreSl (2)

w

API

PSl

APII

Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

bezˇitȅ

bèzˇite

bezˇíte

*bheˈg ei̯ te

1s

*bɛ:gεi̯ ˈtɛ

c

*ˈdodH3n̥ti

1

*da:dinˈti

c

*da:dunˈti

c

*ˈk̑r̥ dikaw

*noˈg eH2

1 2

*si:rdiˈkad c *na:ˈga˝:

Uk

OCz

bizˇyˈte beˇzˇíte

‘run (PRS.2PL )’

dadie

‘give (PRS.3PL )’

dāduõ

dádū

dadȏ

daˈdut’

sȑ ce

sȑ ce

sȓ ce

ˈserce

srdce

‘heart’

naˈha

¶

‘naked (F )’

c

nága

nága

nahá (3)

*ˈH1edn̥ti

1

* ɛ:dinˈti

c

* ɛ:dunˈti

c

*mog̑oi̯

*ma:ˈzai̯

c

*mog̑ei̯

*ma:ˈzɛi̯

c

Gloss

jiˈdjat’ jědie i

eduõn

jédū

‘eat (PRS.3PL )’

jedó

mȃzu

maza mazȋ

maˈzi

‘grease (LOC)’

1508

XIII. Slavic PreSl (4)

API

PSl

APII

*ˈstogou̯

1

*stagau̯

b/c/d

*u̯oˈdeH2

2

*u̯aˈda˝:

c

Čak1

vodȁ

NSˇto

Sln

Uk

OCz

stȏgu

stȏgu

stoˈhu

stohu

‘rick (LOC)’

vòda

vóda

voˈda

voda

‘water’

Gloss

To explain the irregularities, it has been argued that Winter’s Law was blocked when the triggering consonant was followed by a nasal (5), a voiced stop, or a liquid (Dybo); however, there are also examples with the expected outcomes in these environments, as seen in (1). For other recalcitrant roots, it has been argued, often on shaky grounds, that they actually had aspirated stops (6) or else were later loanwords (7). Some of the argumentation has been casuistic, as when the *d in *-pod- (6) is declared to have arisen after Winter’s Law because it contradicts Winter’s Law (Derksen 2008: 180), despite the fact that it also occurs in Gk δεσπóζω ‘I rule’ [*di̯ ], νέποδες ‘descendants’. Given the many exceptions and the difficulties in explaining them, it might be worthwhile to explore the possibility that Winter’s Law was not pan-BaSl but the result of substratum interference or dialect changes that spread by (cross-)migrations. PreSl

API

PSl

APII

Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

Uk

OCz

Gloss

jieme

‘eat (PRS.1PL )’

!

*ɛ:dˈmas

c

(j)īmȍ

jémo

jémo

jiˈmo

*ˈsebdmos 1

*ˈsɛbdm-

b

sie˜dmi

sȇdmī

sédmi

ˈs’omyj sedmý

‘seventh (M)’

(6)

*ghostˈpod-

1

*ˈgaspad-

c

gospodȉn

gȍspo:di

gospọ̑ da

ˈhospoda

hospodi

‘lord (GEN)’

(7)

*ˈbhaga:d

1

*baˈga:d

c

bȍga

bȍga

bogȃ

ˈboha

boha

‘God (GEN)’

*sediˈlom

2

*sɛdiˈlad

b

sȅdlo

sèdlo

sédlọ

sidˈlo

sedlo

‘saddle’

(5)

*ˈH1edmos

1

Winter’s Law is claimed to provide evidence for the Glottalic Theory (2.4). Putatively, the PIE egressives (the theory’s version of *b, *d, *g̑, *g, *gw) split into glottal and buccal portions, e.g. *t’ > *ʔd; the first part was identical to the *ʔ that the theory posits as the laryngeal reflex. In LCSl, the laryngealized quality in Vʔ was reinterpreted as the acute accent. In this approach, forms lengthened before devoiced stops are regular: *H1e̍ste ‘eat [PRS.2PL]’ from *H1ed-; *pe:tsios ‘on foot’ from *ped-. In Winter’s formulation, such lengthening would have been blocked by PIE cluster assimilations and voicing rules; the irregular long vowels can be explained by morphological factors. In general, the idea that there were glottalic stops in PIE flies in the face of the compelling evidence for voiced unaspirated stops in all branches of IE; thus it conflicts with the Comparative Method in general. If glottalic stops were still present to condition BaSl prosodic changes, it is necessary to assume that they changed to voiced stops independently in every branch of PIE (see Jasanoff 2004b: 172).

81. The phonology of Slavic

1509

6.3.4. Acuting before heterosyllabic laryngeals Another wave of acuting, sometimes called “Bezzenberger’s Law,” affected syllables with coda sonorants or glides followed by laryngeals (1): V > V:/+acute/ /__{R, J}HC. These sequences were originally disyllabic, so they did not attract the ictus by Hirt’s Law (see 6.3.2). It has been posited that the the vowels were also lengthened, since acuteness and length were coupled elsewhere; however, there must be principled uncertainty about this if non-final trimoraic diphthongs were shortened (see 2.2). PreSl (1)

API

PSl

APII

Čak1

NSˇto

Sln

Ru

OCz

Gloss

a

brȅza

brȅza

bréza

beˈreza

brˇieza

‘birch’

*ˈbherHg̑eH2

1

*ˈbɛ˝rza˝:

*ˈbherHme:n

1

*ˈbɛ˝rmɛ:n a

brȅme

brȅme

bréme

beˈremja brˇiemeˇ

‘burden’

*ˈH2erH3dhlo-

1

*ˈa˝:rdla-

a

¶ rȁlice

rȁlo

rálọ

ˈralo

rádlo

‘plow’

*ˈmelH2tei̯

1

*ˈmɛ˝ltεi̯

a

mlȅt

mlȅti

mlẹ́ ti

moˈlot’

mlieti

‘grind’

For Slavic, this phase of acuting is only well established for lexemes that were barytone (API = 1), where the target syllable was stressed at the time of the change. Lexemes known to have been oxytone (API = 2), where the target syllable was unstressed, belong to the CSl mobile pattern (APII = c); they have non-acuted roots (2) or stressed suffixes (3). In other cases, the PIE ictus pattern is unknown. The supposition that PreSl oxytones underwent Bezzenberger acuting rests solely, and therefore shakily, on Ba evidence. In (4), the most cited CVRH root, the sole evidence for acuting or, indeed, for a PIE laryngeal is the acute in Li galvà, gálvą (AP-3). (Some scholars posit that the root was not *gal- ‘bald’ but *gho:lu-; cf. Armenian glux ‘head’.) PreSl (2)

w

API

PSl

APII

ˇ ak1 C

NSˇto zˇȋvo

Sln

*g ei̯ H3ˈu̯om

2

*gεi̯ ˈu̯ad

c

zˇȋvo

zˇȋvo

*tou̯Hˈka:d

2

*tau̯ˈka:d

c

tȗka

*H2i̯ ou̯H1ˈnom

2

*i̯ au̯ˈnad

c

(3)

*H2i̯ ou̯H1ˈno-

2

*i̯ au̯nˈı˝:ka:

A

junȉca

jùnica

juníca

(4)

*galHˈu̯eH2

2

*galˈu̯a˝:

c

glāvȁ

gláva

gláva

*galHˈu̯eH2m

2

*galu̯ˈa˝:m

c

glȃvo

glȃvu

glavọ̑

junọ̑

OCz

Ru

Gloss

zˇivo

ˈzˇivo

‘alive (N)’

tuka

ˈtuka

‘fat (GEN)’

Cz juný

ˈjuno

‘young (N)’

juˈnica

‘heifer’

hlava

goloˈva

‘head’

hlavu

ˈgolovu (ACC)’

1510

XIII. Slavic

6.3.5. Root acutes in oxytones In PreSl, some lexemes affected by Hirt’s Law (6.3.2) became barytone (API = 1; APII = a); in forms with disyllabic desinences, the non-root stress was leveled out (1). Other lexemes that had been eligible for Hirt’s Law remained oxytone (API = 2). In CSl, they became accentually mobile (APII = c), but they preserved no trace of the acute in forms with root stress (2), unlike their cognates in Li (AP-3, mobile with acuted roots: stónas ‘status’). Likewise, PreSl oxytones whose roots were eligible for the other waves of acuting (6.3.3−6.3.4) also became mobilia with non-acuted roots (3−4), again in contrast to Li AP-3 (péntis ‘axe poll’). Acuting (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

PSl

APII

*ı˝Hˈlus

*ˈı˝:lus

a

*ı˝Hluˈmi

*ˈı˝:lumi

a

*ste˝H2ˈnus

*sta:ˈnus

c

¶

Čak2

NSˇto

Sln

jȉlo

ìl (¶ ȉlo)

íƚ (¶ ílo)

jíl

il

‘silt’

ȉlom

ílom

jílem

ˈilom

(INST )

stȃn

stȃn

stan

stan

‘camp’

stánu

†

stanu

staˈnu

(LOC)

stȃn

Cz

Ru

Gloss

*ste˝H2ˈnou̯

*sta:ˈnau̯

c

*kso˝u̯ˈde˝H2

*xau̯ˈda˝:

c

húda

húda

(chudá)

xuˈda

‘bad (F )’

*kso˝u̯ˈdod

*xau̯ˈdad

c

hȗdo

hudọ̑

(chudé)

ˈxudo

( N)

*smo˝rˈda:d

*smarˈda:d c

smrȃda

smrȃda

smrȃda

smrada

ˈsmoroda

‘stink (GEN)’

*ˈg̑ho˝lH3tom

*zalˈtad

c

zlȃto

zlȃto

zlatọ̑

zlato

ˈzoloto

‘gold’

*ˈpe˝nHteH2

*pɛnˈta˝:

c

pētȁ

péta

péta

pata

pjaˈta

‘heel’

stanȕ

stȃnu

For (1), cf. the non-acuted root in Čak1 ilovȁcˇka, Čak2 ilovãcˇka ‘clayey soil’; Sln ilovácˇa ‘bog’, ilovàt ‘silty’; Ru †iˈlovyj,ˈilovyj ‘silty’. For (3), cf. the non-acuted root in Čak1 hudȁ, hȗdo. To explain the mismatch between the acute in Li AP-3 and the non-acute in CSl AP˝ underwent metatony to V̑ in CSl by analogy to other oxytones c, Meillet proposed that V (“Meillet’s Law”). Skeptical that an analogical change would been so consistent, Dybo (1979: 39) posits that root acutes in mobilia were eliminated by a general morphophonemic rule that assigned non-acute accents to all {−} morphemes: ROOT{−} → V/−acute/ (see 6.2.3, 6.4.1). Other scholars have explained the discrepancy by sound changes plus analogy. According to Kortlandt (1975: 10−11), the heterosyllabic laryngeals that triggered Bezzenberger acuting (6.3.4) were lost earlier in pretonic than in post-tonic syllables: VRHCV> (a) V:RˈCV-; (b) ˈVRHCV-. In barytone lexemes, the laryngeal was always posttonic (b), so there was consistent acuting. In oxytones, the loss of the pretonic laryngeal (a) created allomorphy; consequently, the post-tonic laryngeal was eliminated by stem-leveling before it could condition the acute. According to Jasanoff (2004a: 251−252), the glottalized (“acuted”) length that had developed before laryngeals lost its glottalization to become the CSl acute accent, but only under stress. Subsequently, in AP-c, the acutes in stressed root syllables were leveled out.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1511

While these explanations are feasible, they all take it for granted that unstressed syllables were subject to acuting by the operation of Winter’s Law and Bezzenberger’s Law. However, the only evidence for this comes from Ba, which is insufficient reason to assume it for PreSl. Indeed, if pretonic syllables are excluded, Bezzenberger acuting ˝ /'__{R, J}HC. is regular in PreSl, and there is no need to appeal to analogy: V > V Oxytones would not have been affected, as they would not yet have had any stemstressed forms (see 6.4.1).

6.4. CSl changes in suprasegmental phonology In CSl, /+acute/ ceased to be a distinctive voice quality or phonation (see 6.3.1) and became a suprasegmental feature − rising tone in bimoraic syllables. In the absence of a rising tone, initial stressed syllables are reconstructed with level or falling tones (“circumflex” or “short falling”). Elsewhere in the word, the tonal quality of stressed non-acute syllables is unknown. The development of the accent in CSl can be divided into three periods. In the first stage (CSl1, 6.4.1), the ictus became linked with the presence or absence of an acute accent. In the second (CSl2, 6.4.2), the inherited barytone paradigm (API = 1) split into stem-stressed and post-stem-stressed varieties (APII = a and b, respectively). In the third stage (6.4.3−6.4.4), the ictus was shifted from weak jers, with concomitant prosodic changes.

6.4.1. Development of marginal accents CSl1 saw the rise of the acute as a rising tone − that is, low on the first mora and high on the second in bimoraic syllables. In a given phonological word, the rising tone − or the leftmost one, if there were several − became the focus of the intonational contour. Over time, acutes in syllables to the right of the intonational focus became less prominent and were eliminated. Non-acuted initial or medial syllables, which occurred in some words of the barytone paradigm, probably had level intonation. In the oxytone paradigm, the ictus was, as expected, assigned to a rising tone if there was one in the desinence (1). In the absence of a rising tone, the word was phonologically unstressed. The ictus, which had been final in PreSl, was assigned by default to one of the marginal syllables in the phonological word − to the rightmost, if the desinence was disyllabic (2) (see also 6.2.1) or if there was an enclitic (3); and otherwise to the leftmost, which could be the first syllable of the lexeme (4) or a proclitic (5). The tone associated with marginal ictus was falling − that is, high on the first mora of a bimoraic sequence. The given pattern is known as AP-c. In the approach of the Moscow Accentological School, these changes are presented as a morphological rule, according to which the ictus was fixed on the leftmost {+} morpheme. In enclinomena, which had no {−} morphemes, the ictus was assigned by default to one of the marginal syllables, as described. (In the table, the CSl1 segmental units are given at the PSl stage, as the relative chronology of the ictus shifts is unknown.)

1512

XIII. Slavic CSl1 (1)

*u̯aˈda˝:

vodȁ

*u̯aˈda˝:s

vodȉ

*u̯aˈda˝:xu (2)

*u̯adai̯ a:N

(3)

*u̯ada:m ˈgɛ

(4)

*ˈu̯ada:m

¶

u

vod õn

vȍdo

*ˈu̯ada:ns (5)

ˈna: u̯ada:m

NSˇto

Čak1

nȁ vodo

*ˈ u̯u u̯ada:m

Sln

MBg

MRu

Slc

Gloss

vòda

vóda

voˈda

voˈda

vʉ̀ ɵda˘

‘water’

vòde

vodẹ́

voˈdy

voˈdy

vʉ̀ ɵdä

(GEN)

¶

vòdama

vodȁh

voˈdaxъ

voˈdaxъ

vɵdãχ

(LOC.PL )

¶

vòdom

vodó

vodoˈju

vɵdȯ´ų̯

(INST )

vodǫˈzˇe

voduˈzˇe

(ACC +

vȍdu

PC)

vodọ̑

ˈvodǫ

ˈvodu

vʉ̀ ɵdą

(ACC)

vȍde

vodẹ̑

ˈvody

ˈvody

vʉ̀ ɵdä

(NOM.PL )

nȁ vodu

¶

ˈna vodu

nã vɵdą

‘to’ + (ACC)

ȕ vodu

¶

vъ ˈvodu

vȇ vɵdą

‘in’ + (ACC)

na vodọ̑ v vodọ̑

ˈvь vodǫ

The CSl1 pattern is preserved in Čak, MBg and MRu. For LOC.PL (1), cf. Čak2 vodãh; for NOM.PL (2), cf. Čak2 võdi. MRu vъ vo̍du is not an exception, as there was no vowel in the preposition; the letter «ъ» was an orthographic convention. In NSˇto, the forms with stressed root ò in (1−2) reflect the leftward shift from non-initial syllables, which occurred in that dialect from the 14th c.; prior to that, the accent had been on the first syllable of the desinence. The NSˇto forms with stressed initial ȍ or stress on the preposition reflect an unshifted circumflex accent. In Sln, non-initial rising tones regularly retracted from open final syllables (vóda), while the initial falling tones moved right; stress shifts onto prepositions were eliminated. In Slc, the stress retracted from final open syllables, but remained on endings that had been disyllabic (vɵdãχ). The shift of the stress onto proclitics, functioning as the leftmost syllables, is sometimes known as Šaxmatov’s Law; the shift onto enclitics, functioning as the rightmost syllables, is called the Law of Vasil’ev-Dolobko. The alternations created by these changes are well attested in medieval SSl and ESl manuscripts: MRu ˈpocˇalъ ‘begin (RES.M)’, but pocˇalъˈsja REFL.ACC). The Vasil’ev-Dolobko pattern is preserved in Bg mobile-stress nouns with enclitic definite articles (glas ‘voice’~glaˈsu˘t [DEF]; ˈesen ‘autumn’~esenˈta [DEF]) and in lexicalized relics, e.g. adverbs with the particle *si (5). ECSl (4)

(5)

Čak2

NSˇto

Bg

Ru †

Gloss

*ˈɛsɛnim

jȅsēn

ˈesen

ˈosen’, ˈesen’

‘autumn (ACC)’

*ɛsɛnim ˈsi

jesènas

eseˈnes

†

‘last autumn’

oseˈnjas’, †eseˈnes’

*ˈnaktim

nȏć

nȏć

nosˇt

nocˇ’

‘night (ACC)’

*naktimˈsi

noćȅs

nòćas

ˈnosˇtes

†

‘last night’

noˈcˇes’

81. The phonology of Slavic

1513

6.4.2. Law of Dybo-Illič-Svityč In CSl2, the barytone pattern, consisting of lexemes with {+} roots or derivational suffixes, was split into two AP’s. If the stressed syllable was acuted, the ictus stayed put (1). The lexemes with this pattern formed CSl AP-a (usually corresponding to Li AP-1, with acute on the stem). However, if the stressed syllable was non-acuted, the ictus advanced to the following syllable (2); this created AP-b, with columnar post-stem stress − not to be confused with fixed final ictus, since the stress fell on the penultimate in disyllabic desinences.

(1)

(2)

APII

PSl

Dybo

*ˈra˝:na˝:

*ˈra˝:na˝:

*ˈra˝:na:ns

*ˈra˝:na:ns

*ˈra˝:na˝:mi:

NSˇto

Čak1

Sln

MBg

MRu

Gloss

a

rȁna

rȁna

rána

ˈrana

ˈrana

‘wound’

a

rȁni

rȁne

ráni

ˈrany

ˈrany

(ACC.PL )

*ˈra˝:na˝:mi:

a

rȁnami

¶

rȁnama

ránami

ˈranami

ˈranami

(INST.PL )’

*ˈgɛna˝:

*gɛˈna˝:

b

zˇenȁ

zˇèna

zˇéna

zˇeˈna

zˇeˈna

‘wife’

*ˈgɛna:ns

*gɛˈnans

b

zˇenȉ

zˇène

ženẹ́

zˇeˈny

žeˈny

(ACC.PL )

zˇenȁmi

¶

ženámi

zˇeˈnami žeˈnami (INST.PL )

*ˈgɛna˝:mi:

*gɛˈna˝:mi:

b

zˇènama

6.4.3. Neoacute retraction The neoacute accent in LCSl arose in tandem with leftward shifts of the ictus. Such retraction regularly occurred in AP-b when the stressed vowel was a weak jer (see 5.8) − a change called Stang’s Law (1−2): VˈCn{ɪ˘, ǝ˘} > ˈVCn. As a result, in AP-b the intonation alternated between forms with the neoacute in the final stem syllable and forms with stressed non-reduced vowels in the post-stem syllable (2). In addition, the neoacute developed when the ictus was retracted from long vowels that had arisen by contraction (3), or when the initial syllable was contracted (4) (see 5.12). Retractions also occurred, for reasons that are not clear, in specific morphological contexts − e.g. in AP-b feminine nouns with the suffix i̯ -a:- (5); and in the present of AP-b e- and i̯ e-theme verbs (Leskien I and III), apart from the 1SG, which retained post-root stress (6). MCSl2 (1)

(2)

ǝ

*galˈu̯ʊ

*gɔ́lu̯

*gɛˈnʊka:

*ʒɛ́nǝka

*kaˈni

*kɔ́nɪ

*kaˈna: (3)

LCSl2

*aˈstra:i̯ a:-

*kɔˈna̍ *óstrai̯ ɪa

Čak2

NSˇto

glãf

!

gláv

hláv

hláv

† zˇȇnka

zˇénka

zˇénka

zˇienka zˇȯ́ u̯nka˘ ˈzˇonka

kȍnj

kònj

kóň

kôň

†

kõnj

konjȁ ȍsˇtra

glávā

kònja ȍsˇtra:

Sln

OCz

Slk

Slc glȯ́ u̯v

kȯ́ u̯n

kónja

koně

koňa

kʉ̀ ø̭ńa˘

ọ́ stra

!

!

!

ostrá

ostrá

vʉ̀ ø̭strï

Ru† u

ˈgol of

kuon j j

kɔˈn a u

v ostrɨj

Gloss ‘head (GEN.PL )’ ‘woman (DIM)’ ‘horse’ (GEN) ‘sharp (M.DEF )’

1514

XIII. Slavic MCSl2

LCSl2

NSˇto

Čak2

Sln

OCz

Slk

(4)

*staˈi̯ a˝:ti:

*stɔˈi̯ -a˝:ti

stãt

stȃti

státi

státi

stát’

(5)

*starˈʒa:

*stɔ́rʒa

strázˇa

strȃzˇa

strázˇa

strázˇeˇ

strázˇa

(6)

*maˈʒɛʃi

*mɔ́ʒɛʃɪ

! mȍresˇ

mȍzˇesˇ mọ́ resˇ

mózˇesˇ

môzˇesˇ

*maˈʒɔ˜̄

*mɔˈgõ

!

mògu

mohu

!

mȍren

mọ́ rem

môzˇem

Ru†

Slc !

stʉ̀ ø̭je˘c

stojat

j

Gloss ‘stand’

stɔruo̍zˇa

‘guard’

mȯ́ u̯zˇe˘sˇ̍

muo̍zˇesˇ

‘can (PRS.2SG)’

mʉ̀ ø̭gą

mɔgu̍

(PRS.1SG)’

The reflexes of the neoacute fall into several zones. In Sln, the neoacute merged with the acute, a rising tone − long V́, or short V̀ in final closed syllables. Neoacuted midvowels have close-mid reflexes in old bimoraic syllables (ę́, ó ,̣ ǫ́). In Čak, Kaj, and some archaic Što dialects, the neoacute became a distinct long rising tone (V́ or Ṽ) on syllables that were bimoraic at the time of the retraction (1). In other dialects of Što, it merged with the circumflex as long falling V̑ on old bimoraic syllables (1). Throughout BCS, the neoacute on monomoraic syllables merged with the acute as short falling V̏ (2). The regular outcomes in BCS have been somewhat obscured by the tendency for short vowels to lengthen before sonorants: Čak kõnj (2), NŠto zˇȇnka (1). In WSl, the neoacute is reflected as a long vowel in syllables that were bimoraic at the time of the retraction. In Cz and Slk, long vowels are written as V́; the neoacuted midvowels yielded the diphthongs ie and uo (Cz í /i:/ and ů /u:/; Slk ie and ô /uo/). In Slc, where stressed vowels generally became bimoraic, the neoacute reflex became trimoraic (written Ṽ or V́V̯). In ESl, length reflexes have generally been lost. However, in some MRu and isolated modern Ru dialects, neoacuted (lengthened) *ó is reflected as a falling diphthong [uo] or as a close-mid vowel [o] (written as ȏ, ω in some MRu manuscripts).

6.4.4. Advancement of stress from reduced vowels Some AP-c lexemes had stressed jers in their initial syllables. When these jers were reduced (5.8), the ictus shifted to the right, with preservation of the falling accent (1). By contrast, in AP-b final accents were reflected as short acutes − BCS V̏, Sln V̀ (2). MCSl2 (1)

(2)

LCSl2 ɪ

*ˈdinɛ

*d nɛ̏

¶

*ˈsʊta

*sǝtɔ̑

stȏ

*dʊˈna

ǝ

*d nɔ̏

*sʊˈna:

ǝ

*s nȁ

NSˇto

Čak2

Sln

OCz

Slk

dnę̑

dne

¶

stȏ

stọ̑

sto

dnȍ

dnȍ

dnǫ̀

snȁ

snȁ

snà

dȃna

¶

dȃna

Slc

Ru

Gloss

dńã

¶

sto

stʉ̀ ɵ̭

sto

‘hundred’

dno

dno

dnʉ̀ ɵ̭

dno

‘bottom’

sna

sna

snã

sna

‘dream (GEN)’

dnˇa

dnja

‘day (GEN)’

81. The phonology of Slavic

1515

7. Sectional references 1. Languages: see also the chapter introductions in Comrie and Corbett (1993). Silesian: see Hannan 1996. Kb as a Po dialect: e.g. Topolińska 1974. Slc: Lorentz 1925; Topolińska 1974. Rusyn: see Birnbaum 1983, Kushko 2007, and Pugh 2007. Novg: Zaliznjak 2004. 1.1. CSl and PSl: Birnbaum 1975: 1−5; 1987b; Andersen 1986; 1996: 183−184. The term Proto-Slavonic is used for ‘CSl’ in the chapters in Comrie and Corbett 1993. Lower limit: ca. 1000 BCE: Van Wijk (1956: 7); ca. 300 CE: Lunt (2001: 182). Upper limit: Birnbaum 1975: 3; Andersen 1985: 78−80. Urheimat debate: for overviews, see Filin 1962: 83−151. Stanislav 1967: 110; Birnbaum 1975: 5−7; Schenker 1995: 1−8; Barford 2001: 15, 22; Heather 2011: 12−21, 388−392; Pronk-Tiethoff 2013: 59−64. See also the map in Barford 2001: 332. Lusatian culture: Dvornik 1956: 8−13; rebutted by Schenker 1995: 2. Herodotus and Aristophanes: Dvornik 1956: 13; Mareš 1965: 20. Term *slau̯ɛ:n(isk)-: Filin 1962: 55−57; Vasmer 1986 slavjanin. Exonym ‘German’: Vasmer 1986 nemec; ÈSSJa *němьcь. Byzantine sources: Filin 1962: 53−55; Schenker 1995: 9, 15−18. Veneti and Venedi: Filin 1962: 50−53; Schenker 1995: 3−5. Venäjä: Mikkola 1938: 13; Xaburgaev 1980: 61. Elite-transfer model: Heather 2011: 23. 1.1.1. Localization: see also 1.1.2 on the Urheimat debate. See the cautionary words in Barford 2001: 14−15. No maritime terms: Filin 1962: 117−118. Tree terms: Filin 1962: 143−147; Friedrich 1970; Gołąb 1992: 272−280 (map 306). ‘Hazel grouse’ and ‘partridge’: Andersen 1998b. Limited alpine vocabulary: Filin 1962: 119−121; Lenček 1982: 34. Chamois (Rupicapra): denoted by a term derived from ‘goat’ in Po; ‘wild’ + ‘goat’ in Bg, Mc, BCS, and Uk; by a German loanword in Sln, Slk, and Cz; and by the inherited Sl (including OESl) word for ‘roe deer (Capreolus capreolus)’ in BR and Ru. Language contacts: Filin 1962: 134−143; Shevelov 1965: 613−622; Kiparsky 1975: 54−61; Gołąb 1992: 310−414; Pronk-Tiethoff 2013. Gmc autonym > ‘foreign’: Vasmer čužoj. ‘Spali’ > ‘giant’: Dvornik 1956: 22−23; Filin 1962: 58. Ethnonyms ‘Serb’ and ‘Croat’: Dvornik 1956: 26−27; Xaburgaev 1980: 67, 68; Vasmer 1986 serb, xorvat; Barford 2001: 15; Heather 2011: 406. Borrowing of *xu:z- and ‘ruler’: ÈSSJa *chyzina, *chyzъ, *chyža, *chyžina; Vasmer xižina. Przework, Wielbark, and Cherniakhovo cultures: Barford 2001: 24−25, 38−42, 332. Hydronyms: Toporov and Trubačev [1962] 2009; Xaburgaev 1980: 55−57; Gołąb 1992: 236−267. 1.1.2. Migration Period: Wave of advance model: Heather 2011: 22. Adoption of CSl: Barford 2001: 49. Korchak Culture: J. Hermann in Hermann (ed.) 1985: 21−32; Barford 2001: 47−49, 53−56, 63, 65−66; Heather 2011: 448−449. Migrations: Menges 1953; Dvornik 1956: 3−45; Trubačev 1991; Gołąb 1992: 236−309; Schenker 1995: 1−60; Barford 2001: 45−88; Curta 2001; Heather 2010: 386−451. SE Europe: Vasmer 1941; Dvornik 1956: 34−36, 40−45; Vlasto 1970: 3−12, 185−186; Schenker 1995: 15−18; Heather 2011: 399−406, 423−424. Eastern Alps: Lenček 1982: 27−30; Schenker 1995: 22−25. Milingoi and Ezeritai: Vasmer 1941: 16−18; Heather 2011: 404, 423. Bulgars: Dvornik 1956: 70−72; Schenker 1995: 19−21; Heather 2011: 403−404. Central Europe: Dvornik 1956: 32−34; Schenker 1995: 21−22, 46−48; Andersen 1999: 56−59. Sclaveni and Herulians: Dvornik 1956: 34; Barford 2001: 53 (with caution). Slavophones in Eastern Ger-

1516

XIII. Slavic

many: Jeżowa 1961; Hermann (ed.) 1985: 7−65. Avars: Dvornik 1956: 36−40; Schenker 1995: 10−11; Heather 2011: 400−401. ‘Avar’ > ‘giant’: Schenker 1995: 11. Occidentalization of the Sorbs: Andersen 1999: 59. Serbs and Croats: Dvornik 1956: 27−28, 62− 63; Vlasto 1970: 185; Schenker 1995: 19; Barford 2001: 73−75; Heather 2011: 404− 406. P-Lech migrations: Barford 2001: 53−55, 63; Heather 2011: 410−414. Mogiła and Sukow-Dziedzice cultures: Barford 2001: 53−55, 65−66; Heather 2011: 412−413. PreESl migrations: Schenker 1995: 53−54; Barford 2001: 96−101. 1.2. Traditions of writing: see the chapters in Schenker and Stankiewicz (eds.) 1980. Cyril and Methodius: Vlasto 1970: 25−82; Schenker 1995: 25−43; Tachiaios 2001. Kiev Folia: Schaeken 1987; Freising Fragments: Kolarič 1968; Bernik 1993. Pb: Olesch 1967; Polański 1993. 1.3. Correspondence sets: the data have been culled from the following sources: OCS − SJS, SS; OESl − Srez; OCz − VW; OPo − SJP, SP16; BCS − Rječnik, HJP; Bg − Gerov, RBE; BR: TSBM; Cz − PřSJČ; Kb − Gołąbek, Ramułt; LS: Muka; MBg − Miklosich; Mc − DRMJa; Novg: Zaliznjak 2004; OSb − Daničić, Miklosich, Rječnik; Pb − Olesch; Po − SJP; Ru: Vasmer 1986; Slc: Lorentz; Slk − Slovníky; Sln − Pleteršnik, SSKJ; Hrinčenko, SUM; US: Kral. Uk. The main etymological dictionaries used to corroborate reconstructions were ÈSSJa, IEW, and Vasmer 1986. Also consulted: AHD (for PIE laryngeals), Derksen 2008, BER, Bezlaj, Boryś, Brückner, ESUM, Machek, SEJDP, and Skok. 2. PSl and PreSl: Andersen 1986; 1996: 183−184. BaSl branch or clade: Meillet [1922] 1967: 59−67; Vaillant 1950: 13−15; Szemerényi 1957; Ivanov and Toporov 1958; Bräuer 1961: 14−20; Shevelov 1965: 613−614; Birnbaum 1970; 1975: 18−21; Beekes 1995: 22−23; Schenker 1995: 70; Andersen 1996: 62−63, 187−188; Fortson 2004: 364. 2.1. PSl vowels and glides: Vaillant 1950: 106−122; Shevelov 1965: 22−26, 150−152, 164−166; Schenker 1993: 63−64, 66−67; 1995: 77−78, 81−82; Lunt 2001: 192. Baltic vocalism: Endzelīns 1971: 32−33, 51. PSl from Ba model: see also Xaburgaev 1980: 49−50. (1d) SJS, Srez mati; VW matě; SP16 macierz; (2a) SJS bьrati, Srez brati, VW bráti, SP16 brać. 2.1.1. Initial *e ~ *a: Andersen 1996. *ed-sk-e: ibid.: 117−118. Backing of *ɛ before *u̯: Shevelov 1965: 357−359. Sequence *ei̯ e: Shevelov 1965: 359−360; Lunt 2001: 202. 2.2. Laryngeal reflexes: Shevelov 1965: 28−31; Schenker 1995: 77−78; Lunt 2001: 190−191. Trimoraic shortening: Shevelov 1965: 24; Jasanoff 1983a, 1983b, 2004a, 2004b, 2011; Feldstein 2003: 251. See also Collinge 1985: 127−131 on “Osthoff’s Law.” Length in final syllables: Jasanoff 2004a: 249−251. Alternative approaches: Mareš 1965; Shevelov 1965: 24; Lunt 2001: 193; Orr 2000: 36−37. (2a−b) OPo: BZ córy, jeśm; (4) OCS: SJS, SS orati. 2.3. Syllabic sonorants: Vaillant 1950: 167−177; Shevelov 1964: 96−98; Stang 1966: 77−82; Lunt 2001: 191; Collins forthcoming. (1a) OCS: SJS, SS mati; OESl: Srez mati; OCz: VW matě; OPo SP16 macierz.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1517

2.3.1. *uR after velars: e.g. Kuryłowicz 1956: 235. *uR adjacent to low tonality: Shevelov 1965: 90. *uR after labiovelars: Vaillant 1950: 172; Kortlandt 1994, 2007, 2008; Beekes 1995: 136, n. 1. *iR after palatovelars: Kuryłowicz 1956: 235; Andersen 2003: 60. 2.3.2. Language contact: Andersen 2003: 59−62. Expressiva: Stang 1966: 79; Andersen 2003: 60. Sl ‘hundred’: see IEW *dek̑m̥; Vasmer 1986 sto; Shevelov 1965: 90−91. 2.3.3. Perceptual ambiguity: see Collins forthcoming. Phonetics of syllabic sonorants: Wiese 1996; Toft 2002; Fougeron and Ridouane 2008. 2.4. Glottalic approaches: see e.g. Kortlandt 1978, 1985, 2006; Derksen 2008. 2.4.1. Aspirates: Vaillant 1950: 24−26; Bräuer 1961: 164−166, 167−169; Shevelov 1964: 32−34; Schenker 1993: 65; 1995: 79−80; Lunt 2001: 190. (3c) ÈSSJa *jьgo. 2.4.2. Labiovelars: Vaillant 1950: 24−26; Bräuer 1961: 165, 168, 169; Shevelov 1965: 123−126; Schenker 1993: 65; 1995: 80; Lunt 2001: 190. 2.4.3. Palatovelars: Vaillant 1950: 34−35; Bernsˇtejn 1961: 151, 154; Bräuer 1961: 165, 167, 168; Shevelov 1965: 139−141; Endzelīns 1971: 50−51, 56; Schenker 1993: 65; 1995: 80; Lunt 2001: 193; Andersen 2003: 53. Gutteralwechsel: Andersen 1996: 106− 107; 2003: 54−58; 2009: 25. See also Vaillant 1950: 36−38; Bernsˇtejn 1961: 152−154; Bräuer 1961: 169−172; Shevelov 1965: 141−145; Beekes 1995: 112. Depalatalization before sonorants: e.g. Beekes 1995: 112. 2.5. RUKI: Andersen 1968, 2003: 58−59. See also Vaillant 1950: 28−32; Meillet 1951: 26−28; 80−81; Bernsˇtejn 1961: 160−165; Bräuer 1961: 178−181; Shevelov 1965: 127− 131; Schenker 1993: 65−66; 1995: 80−81; Lunt 2001: 191, 194. Articulation of *s2 : Palatal: Meillet 1951, Vaillant 1950, Bräuer 1961, Lunt 2001, Schenker 1993: 65. Retroflex: Andersen 1968; 2009: 24; Schenker 1995. Swedish sj: Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 171−172, 330. 2.5.1. Initial *x: Bräuer 1961: 183−184; Shevelov 1965: 134−136. 2.5.2. Affective extension: Vaillant 1950: 31; Shevelov 1965: 132−134; Priestly 1978. Analogical extension: Vaillant 1950: 30−31; Shevelov 1965: 131−132; Sławski 1974− 1979, 2: 31−32, 34, 71. Consonant-stem LOC.PL: We˛glarz 1933; Čornejová 2007. 2.6. New ablaut grades: Vaillant 1950: 299−300; Shevelov 1965: 96−98; Schenker 1993: 64−65; 1995: 79; Lunt 2001: 209. (1) žьrǫtъ: SJS žrьti; (2) nacˇьnǫtъ, nacˇętъ: SJS nacˇęti; (3a) berǫtъ: SJS bьrati; (4) sъzьritъ: SJS sъzrěti; (5) zovǫtъ: SJS zъvati; (6) vъznьzъ: SJS vъznisti. 2.7.1. Double-Dental Rule: Vaillant 1950: 101−102; Shevelov 1965: 182; Fortson 2004: 69.

1518

XIII. Slavic

2.7.2. Degemination: Vaillant 1950: 80−81, 98−99; Meillet 1951: 108; Bräuer 1961: 202−203; Shevelov 1965: 181−183; Fortson 2004: 69−70. (3) OPo: BZ jeś. 2.7.3. Sibilant + *r: Vaillant 1950: 76−77; Meillet 1951: 109−111; Bräuer 1961: 292; Shevelov 1965: 200−201; Endzelīns 1971: 73. (2b) Ru: Vasmer 1986 puzdro; (4) OPo: SSP (Izdraelski). *zark: BER zdrak; DRMJa zdrak. 2.7.4. Lidén’s Law: Lidén 1899; Vaillant 1950: 94−95; Bräuer 1961: 201; Shevelov 1965: 196−197; Endzelīns 1971: 67. 3. Early Common Slavic: Andersen’s (1986: 72) “Early Slavic I, the period of tautosyllabic vowel chains.” Schenker (1993) calls this period “Early Proto-Slavonic.” Law of Open Syllables: see Lunt 1956: 309; Birnbaum 1975: 139−141; 1987a: 105−108; Schenker 1993: 67−68; 1995: 82. Law of Syllabic Synharmony: Jakobson 1962; Lunt 1956: 309; Birnbaum 1975: 140, 141−142; 1987a: 106, 108−109; Schenker 1993: 67; 1995: 82. 3.1. Syllable structure: (1) OCS: SJS izostriti; OESl: Srez izostriti. 3.1.1. Syncope of stops: Vaillant 1950: 79−80, 81−85; Shevelov 1965: 187−196; Schenker 1993: 68; 1995: 91−92. (4d) OCS: SJS dati; OESl: Srez dati; OCz: VW dáti; OPo BZ dam. 3.1.2. Nasal + nasal clusters: Shevelov 1965: 323; Lunt 2001: 198. (1) OPo jimię: SSP. 3.1.3. Coda obstruents: Vaillant 1950: 200−202; Bernštejn 1961: 184−185; Shevelov 1965: 226−227; Schenker 1995: 82; Lunt 2001: 197. 1SG pronoun: Hamp 1983; Andersen 1996: 148−149. Sandhi: Aorist: Lunt 2001: 103; Andersen 2013: 26−27, 29. Suffix -oš-: Shevelov 1965: 228; Sƚawski 1974−1979, 1: 78. (1a) OCS: SJS byti. OESl: Srez byti. OCz: VW budi; OPo: BZ bądź. (1c) OCS: SJS viděti; OESl: Srez viděti; OCz: VW procútiti; OPo: Klemenszewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk (eds.) 1964: 381. (3) OCS: Lunt 2001: 137−138; OESl: Zaliznjak 2004: 715; OCz: VW býti; OPo: Klemenszewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk (eds.) 1964: 363. (4−5) Lunt 2001: 103, 138 (6) OSb: Daničić. 3.1.4.−3.1.5. Final sonorants: Shevelov 1965: 225; Lunt 2001: 200. Sandhi variants: Orr 1988: 57, 2000: 172−174. (2a−b) OPo: BZ; (3) OCS: SJS lěto; OESl: Srez lěto; OCz: VW léto; OPo: BZ. 3.2. 1VP: Vaillant 1950: 48−49; Meillet 1951: 72−74; Bernštejn 1961: 168−172; Bräuer 1961: 186−189; Shevelov 1965: 249−263; Schenker 1993: 68; 1995: 83−84; Lunt 2001: 194−195. Lenition of *g j: Andersen 1969, 1977. Byzantine sources: Vasmer 1941: 232, 276. (1d) Cz: Vasmer 1986 šelom. (4) OPo: BZ. 3.3. Fronting: Shevelov 1965: 264−270; Schenker 1993: 70; 1995: 86; Lunt 2001: 196. (4−5) OPo: Piesni.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1519

3.4. Backing of *ɛ: after palatals: Shevelov 1965: 257−263; Schenker 1995: 88; Lunt 2001: 196. Ru perceptions of front rounded vowels: Andersen 1972: 22−23. 3.5. Prothesis: Vaillant 1950: 140−144, 178−182, 184; Meillet 1951: 65−68; Bräuer 1961: 99−103; Shevelov 1965: 235−238. 240−242; Schenker 1995: 83; Lunt 2001: 203− 204. Peak attenuation: Andersen 1972: 28−32. 3.5.1. Prothesis before *a: Shevelov 1965: 240−244. Prothesis before *u2 : Shevelov 1965: 241−242; Zaliznjak 2004: 53−54. ‘Egg’: ÈSSJa *aje, *ajьce; Shevelov 1965: 243; Zaliznjak 2004: 54, 335. 3.6. Dental palatalization: Vaillant 1950: 62−67, 70−72, 292−293; Bernštejn 1961: 166−172; Shevelov 1965: 207−219; Schenker 1993: 69, 76; 1995: 84−85; Lunt 2001: 187−189. Hardening of *r: see also Bräuer 1961: 208−210. (1b) OPo: BZ. (6) OCS, OESl: SJS, Srez pisati; OCz: VW pisano, píše; OPo: BZ pisano, Piesni pisze. (7) OCS, OESl: SJS, Srez roditi; OCz rodi, rozený; OPo: EwZam porodzi, SP16 porodzony. 3.6.1. *kt outcomes: Vaillant 1950: 65−66; Shevelov 1965: 191, 212−213; Lunt 2001: 188. *Kn: Vaillant 1950: 92; Shevelov 1965: 209. (1−2) OSb: Daničić. (2b−c) OPo: BZ. 3.7.1. Homorganic glides: Vaillant 1950: 67, 86−88; Meillet 1951: 73, 115; Bräuer 1961: 196−198, 202; Shevelov 1995: 197−198, 210−211; Velcheva 1988: 69−70; Schenker 1995: 84; Lunt 2001: 195. (2) SJS, Srez napisati; VW napsati; BZ napisze. (3) SJS, Srez byti, VW běch. 3.7.2. Pi̯ : Vaillant 1950: 67−70; Bernštejn 1961: 170; Shevelov 1965: 218−222; Shenker 1993: 69; 1995: 84−85. Bg: RBE. BCS: Rječnik. (3c) see ÈSSJa *čapia; (3d) see ÈSSJa *grobja. 3.8. Auslautgesetze: Orr 2000. See also Jasanoff 1983a, 1983b. *-aN#: Phonological: Shevelov 1965: 332−333; Lunt 2001: 196. Morphological: Orr 1988, 2000. Barytone neuters > masculines: Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 40; Kortlandt 1994; Derksen 2008: 20 (presented as a sound change). *-Vns: Phonological: e.g. Lunt 2001: 19. Morphological: Orr 2000: 153−157. Extension of u-stem endings: Schenker 1995: 125. *-Vnts: (4c) OPo: BZ. (5) OPo: BZ. 4. MCSl: Andersen’s (1986: 73) “Early Slavic I” ends with the monophthongizations (4.1−4.2), which are here classified as MCSl1; his “Early Slavic II” shows raising of the new monophthongs and delabialization of *u(:) − my MCSl2 (see 4.1−4.3). Lunt (2001: 182) posits a late emergence of “Early Common Slavic” (ca. 300 CE) and uses the term “Middle Common Slavic” for the period that is “virtually without dialects” − the “Early Common Slavic” of the present work. However, the “Middle Common Slavic” vocalism that he posits is post-Qualitative Differentiation (see 5.1), i.e. follows a period in which there have already been major changes with isoglosses (see especially 4.9). 4.1. Glide diphthongs: Meillet 1934/1951: 47−49; Vaillant 1950: 115, 117−118, 121− 122; Bräuer 1961: 70−75; Mareš 1965: 15−20; Shevelov 1965: 271−282, 285−287, 288−

1520

XIII. Slavic

292; Andersen 1972: 25; 1998a: 240; Schenker 1995: 86−88; Lunt 2001: 202; Feldstein 2003; Vermeer 2008: 548−553. (1b) OPo: BZ. (2b) OPo: BZ. (3) OPo: SPJ 17−18 siać. (5a) OCS: SJS cvisti; OESl: Srez cvisti; OCz: VW kvísti; (5b) VW prokvísti. (6) OCS: SJS bljusti; OESl: Srez bljusti. 4.1.1. Gk loanwords: Vasmer 1941: 239. BFi: Kiparsky 1975: 56; Mikkola 1938: 31, 56. 4.1.2. Metathesis: Jakobson 1962: 25−26; 1963: 158; Vaillant 1950: 115, 118, 121; Shevelov 1965: 285, 298. Critique: Schenker 1995: 86−88; Vermeer 2008: 551−552. 4.2. Nasal diphthongs: Bräuer 1961: 84−85; Shevelov 1965: 311−316, 326−333; Schenker 1995: 92−93, 99; Lunt 2001: 192−193, 201−202; Feldstein 2003. 4.3. Delabialization: Vaillant 1960: 49−55; Bernštejn 1961: 200−202, 204; Bräuer 1961: 189−191; Shevelov 1965: 294−301, 302−307; Schenker 1995: 89−90; Lunt 2001: 205− 206. Novgorodian: Zaliznjak 1986: 111−119; 1993: 195−197, 2004: 41−45. Balkan Rom front vowels: Bartoli 1906, 2: 337−338. ‘Lettuce’: ÈSSJa *loktika; Vasmer 1986 ločika. Frankish sources: Shevelov 1965: 379. Gk contacts: Vasmer 1941: 62, 91, 143, 151, 311. 4.4. 2VP: Vaillant 1960: 55−56; Bernštejn 1961: 202−204; Bräuer 1961: 191−192; Shevelov 1965: 301−302; Schenker 1995: 90; Lunt 2001: 205−206. Novgorodian: Zaliznjak 1986: 112−114; 1993: 197, 2004: 45. Novg/NRu: Zaliznjak 1986: 112−113. Kelagast-: Moravcsik 1958: 158. Glagolitic «ћ»: Collins 1992. 4.5. Ku̯ clusters: Birnbaum 1956. See also Vaillant 1950: 55−56; Bräuer 1961: 191− 192; Shevelov 1965: 301−302; Schenker 1995: 90. Novg/NRu: Zaliznjak 1986: 112− 114, 2004: 45. 4.6. PVP: Bräuer 1961: 193−196; Mareš 1965: 32−38; Shevelov 1965: 338−365; Velcheva 1980: 31−37; Schenker 1995: 89−92; Lunt 2001: 193−195; Vermeer 2003, 2008. Blocking action of close back vowels: Vermeer 2008: 526−528. Loanwords: Shevelov 1965: 349−350; Schenker 1995: 92. Gmc ‘penny’: Grierson and Blackburn 2007: 15. Greek toponyms: Vasmer 1941: 301−302; Shevelov 1965: 350−351; Schenker 1995: 92. Novgorodian: Zaliznjak 2004: 45−47; Vermeer 2008: 543−545. Vocalism of ‘all’: Vermeer 2008: 517, n. 27. 4.6.1. Leveling: Shevelov 1965: 340−343; Vermeer 2008: 513−518, 527−528, 546−547. 4.6.2. Controversy: Channon 1972; Birnbaum and Merrill 1983: 27−29; Schenker 1995: 90−92; Vermeer 2003, 2008. PVP 3 2VP: Baudouin de Courtenay 1894: 49−50; Vaillant 1950: 53−55. PVP < 2VP: Shevelov 1965: 353. PVP1 > 2VP: Pedersen 1905; Mareš 1965: 34−36. Criticism: Vermeer 2008. PVP > 1VP: Martinet 1955: 366−367; Channon 1972; Velcheva 1980: 32−33; Lunt 1987, 2001: 193−195. Criticism: Kortlandt 1984, 1989; Schenker 1995: 91−92; Vermeer 2008: 554−561. Generative grammar: Chomsky

81. The phonology of Slavic

1521

and Halle [1968] 1991: 420−426, 428−430. Pronouns: Vermeer 2008: 519−525. Vocatives: Vermeer 2008: 521, 528. 4.6.3. Vowel Fronting after PVP: Shevelov 1965: 347−349; Lunt 2001: 196; Vermeer 2008: 505. 4.7. Reflexes of *t, *d: Vaillant 1950: 65−67; Shevelov 1965: 212−215; Andersen 1969; 1977: 9−10; Schenker 1993: 76; 1995: 95−96; Lunt 2001: 187−189; Zaliznjak 2004: 47−49. Freising Fragments: Kolarič 1968: 32−33; Bernik et al. 1993: 145−146 (tige, toie, tomuge). 4.8.*tl, *dl: Andersen 2006. See also Vaillant 1950: 88−90; Shevelov 1965: 202, 370− 375; Schenker 1995: 92. Sln: Lenček 1981: 86−87. CenSlk: Stanislav 1967: 366−370; Krajčovič 1975: 38. Pskovian: Zaliznjak 2004: 49. 4.9. Initial diphthongs: Vaillant 1950: 158−160; Shevelov 1965: 391−399. See Feldstein 2003 for an attempt to subsume this under a “uniform” diphthongization rule. CenSlk: Stanislav 1967: 324−328; Krajčovič 1975: 37−38. Early loanwords: Shevelov 1965: 395−396; Bezlaj 1955−1961: 142; Vasmer 1985 oltar’. Gk borrowings: Vasmer 1941: 290. Rostislav: Stanislav 1967: 326, 330. Ladoga: Vasmer 1986 s.v. Vepsian: Vasmer 1941: 290. (2) OPo: PsFƚ. 4.9.1. *a˝lk(ā)- and *aldii̯ -: OCS: SJS. MBg: Miklosich. See also Vaillant 1950: 161. 5. Late Common Slavic: As periodized here, LCSl is Andersen’s (1986: 73−74), between the Second and the Third Vowels Shifts (QD, 5.1, and Jer-Shift, 5.8). Lunt (2001: 182) uses “Late Common Slavic” for the “dialect continuum that existed c800−c1100” and assigns QD to “Middle Common Slavic.” There is quite clear evidence that QD was going on in the 8th−early 9th centuries in much of the Slavophone domain. 5.1. QD: Andersen 1998a. See also Jakobson 1962: 33−36; Bräuer 1961: 86−94; Shevelov 1965: 376−386, 388−390, 422−431; Schenker 1993: 79; 1995: 99; Lunt 2001: 192− 193, 201−202. Absolute chronology: Andersen 2014: 59. Byzantine texts: Mikkola 1938: 21; Vasmer 1941: 11−19; Bräuer 1961: 87; Vlasto 1970: 24; Heather 2011: 424. Cividale Gospel: Stanislav 1968: 382. BFi borrowings: Mikkola 1938: 20−21, 25−26, 30−31; Kiparsky 1979: 77−87. Dnieper Rapids: Kiparsky 1979: 77; Schenker 1995: 58−59. 5.1.1. *ʊ: Shevelov 1965: 434; Flier 1998. Slk outcomes: Krajčovič 1975: 44−48; Greenberg 1988. 5.2.1. *æ: Vaillant 1950: 113−117; Samilov 1964; Shevelov 1965: 164−166; Schenker 1993: 79. OCS: Diels 1963: 25, 31−36, 42−43; Lunt 2001: 25. Bg: Scatton 1993: 244. Mc: Friedman 1993: 301. BCS: Browne 1993: 308−309. Kaj: Browne 1993: 382. Sln: Lenček 1981: 99, 103−104; Priestly 1993: 448−449. Slk reflexes: Krajčović 1975: 69− 72. OCz: Komárek 1962: 49−51. Merger avoidance: Feldstein 2003: 261. Novg: Zal-

1522

XIII. Slavic

iznjak 2004: 52−53. BFi borrowings: Mikkola 1938: 30, 83. NRu relics: Shevelov 1965: 173; Nikolaev 1990: 60; Zaliznjak 2004: 52. 5.2.2. Nasal vowels: Vaillant 1950: 144−154; Shevelov 1965: 164−171; Stankiewicz 1986: 25, Schenker 1993: 79−80. Mc: Friedman 1993: 301. Bg: Scatton 1993: 244. NWSln. Lech backings: Andersen 1978; Topolińska 1974: 33; Stone 1993: 764. Kb and Slc outcomes: Topolińska 1974: 33−34; Stone 1993: 764. Sln reflexes: Lenček 1981: 100− 101. Kaj reflexes: Browne 1993: 382. Slk reflexes: Krajčovič 1975: 44−47. Cz reflexes: Komárek 1962: 49−50. Putative ESl *ä: e.g. Jakobson 1962, Lunt 1956. Hungarian borrowings: Krajčovič 1975: 45. Cividale Gospel: Krajčovič 1975: 44−45. Muncimiro: Mužić 2007: 205. Freising Fragments: Kolarič 1968: 24−25. Contact evidence for ESl: Mikkola 1938: 19, 28−29, 30, 83; Kiparsky 1979: 77−78, 83. 5.3. New length distinctions: Shevelov 1965: 507−520; Krajčovič 1975: 58−61. Čakavian: Kalsbeek 1998. 5.4. Secondary softening: Shevelov 1965: 488−505, 588−590; Flier 1998. Cz: Komárek 1962: 51−54. Traditional approach: e.g. Jakobson 1962; Lunt 1956: 309, 311. 5.4.1. Soft sonorants: Komárek 1962: 52−53; Shevelov 1965: 208−209. 5.5. Internal open-vowel diphthongs: Vaillant 1950: 156−158; Shevelov 1965: 399−420; Schenker 1993: 74−76; Andersen 1998: 241−243; Lunt 2001: 189; Zaliznjak 2004: 39− 41. Peripheral SSl: Vaillant 1950: 161−162; Shevelov 1965: 406, 409; Stanislav 1967: 338. OPo: Klemenszewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk (eds.) 1964: 124−127. Pb: Polański 1993: 803. CenLech: Jeżowa 1961: 78−81. Compensatory lengthening: Stang 1957: 36; Timberlake 1983a−b. Uk long reflexes: for an alternative interpretation, see Andersen 1998: 242−243. Foreign adaptation: Bethmann 1876; Mikkola 1938: 25−27; Vasmer 1941: 287−290; Shevelov 1965: 415, 417; Stanislav 1967: 337−338. Kiev Folia: Schaeken 1987. Freising Fragments: Bernik 1993. ‘King’: ÈSSJa *korljь; Vaillant 1950: 165−166; Shevelov 1965: 415−416; Lunt 1966; Stanislav 1967: 338; Schenker 1995: 11. 5.6. Internal close vowel diphthongs: Shevelov 1965: 466−486; Schenker 1993: 74−75; Feldstein 2003. OCS: Diels 1963: 61−63; Lunt 2001: 28−39. Bg: Shevelov 1965: 477− 478. Po: Klemenszewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk (eds.) 1964: 118−122. Ru: Isačenko 1970: 100−102; Zaliznjak 2004: 49−52. 5.7. Tense jers: Shevelov 1965: 439−440; Schenker 1993: 81; Schenker 1995: 101. OCS: Diels 1963: 64−69; Lunt 2001: 34−35. OESl: Zaliznjak 1985: 116−118; Flier 1988. 5.8. Jer-Shift: Havlík 1889; Shevelov 1965: 432−464; Stanislav 1967: 383−384; Isačenko 1970: 73−77; Schenker 1993: 78; Andersen 1998a; Flier 1998. Paragogic vowels: Andersen 1972: 35−36. Kiev Folia: Schaeken 1987: 93−94. OCS: Diels 1963: 54−55, 96−97; Lunt 2001: 24−25, 36−40. OESl: Kiparsky 1979: 97−111; Shevelov 1979; Isačenko 1970. Novg: Zaliznjak 2004: 58−67. Omissions imitating OCS: Isačenko 1970:

81. The phonology of Slavic

1523

74; Gribble 1989; Zaliznjak 2004: 60. Freising Fragments: Kolarič 1968: 25−26. Czech: Komárek 1962: 47−49. 5.8.1. Strong jers: Shevelov 1965: 434; Stanislav 1967: 384−387; Isačenko 1970: 74− 77. CenSlk: Stanislav 1967: 381−387; Krajčović 1975: 50−55; Greenberg 1988. Sorb: Timberlake 1988. Vowel abridgment: Andersen (1970); Timberlake (1983b). 5.8.2. Pb: Polański 1982 (arguing that the strong reflexes in initial syllables were morphological in origin); 1993: 801−802; Timberlake 1988. 5.8.3. Vowel-zero alternations and stem-leveling: Isačenko 1970: 77−124. 5.9. Liquid-jer sequences: Shevelov 1965: 466−486; Lunt 2001: 28−39; Isačenko 1970: 111−112. 5.10. Compensatory lengthening: Timberlake 1983a, 1983b; Andersen 1970: 70−71. Reflexes: Shevelov 1965: 446−448. Vowel abridgment: Andersen 1970. 5.11. Lenition of *g: Andersen 1969, 1977. See also Vaillant 1950: 32−34; Lunt 2001: 188. Ru dialects: Flier 1983. Slovenian: Lenček 1981: 111−113. Post-CSl phenomenon: e.g. Shevelov 1965: 593−595; Komárek 1962: 67−70; Krajčovič 1975: 81−86; Kiparsky 1979: 131−133. Knaanic: Ulična 2006: 70; 2014: 146−147. 5.12. Contraction: Shevelov 1965: 524−528; Marvan 1979; Andersen 2014: 55−58. See also Vaillant 1950: 193−199; Bräuer 1961: 153−154; Shevelov 1965: 524−530; Stanislav 1967: Schenker 1993: 81; 1995: 101. OCS: Diels 1963: 191−198. Cz: Komárek 1962: 45−47. 6. Suprasegmental phonology: In the correspondences below, the non-Slavic data are cited from Pokorny 1959, Illič-Svityč 1963, Vasmer 1986, and Derksen 2008; the comparisons are based on the most widely accepted etymologies, but often there are no exact correspondences for the Sl formations. Moscow School: see especially Dybo 1981; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990; Zaliznjak 1985; and articles by the same authors listed in the References. Criticism: Vermeer 2001; Derksen 2004. Alternative approaches: see Kortlandt (1975, 1994), Stankiewicz (1993), Derksen (2008), Jasanoff (2004, 2008, 2011), and Olander (2009). 6.1. Sl accentual correspondences: Stang 1957: 20−21, 179; Bogatyrev 1995: 6−7, 9− 11. Acute not tied to ictus: Jasanoff 2011. Dated manuscripts: Illič-Svityč 1963: 91−92. Accent paradigms: Stang 1957: 56−154; Illyč-Svityč 1963: 4, n. 1, 157−161; Dybo 1979; Zaliznjak 1985: 125−127, 131−140; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 7−16, 34− 47; Bogatyrev 1995: 5, 7−9; Andersen 2009: 4−5; Pronk-Tiethoff 2013: 30−38. Neoacute: see 6.4.3. 6.2. Reconstruction attempts: for surveys, see Illič-Svityč 1963: 10−17, 93−96; Bogatyrev 1995: 12−17; Derksen 2004. BaSl innovations: see, e.g., Dybo, Zamjatina, and Niko-

1524

XIII. Slavic

laev 1990: 107; Derksen 2004: 81. Separate origins of the circumflex in Ba and Sl: Dybo 1979: 43. Inherited features: Stang 1957: 5, 173−179; Illič-Svityč 1963: 162−164; Bogatyrev 1995: 1−4. 6.2.1. Ictus patterns: Stang 1957: 21; Illič-Svityč 1963: 8−10, 89−161; Derksen 2004: 87−88. 6.2.2. Length: Kortlandt 1975: 20−24; Jasanoff 2004a: 247−248. Babbling: (3a) Li bóba (AP-1), Ltv bãba; (3b) Li móteris ‘woman’ (AP-1), Ltv mâte, OI mātár-, ‘mother’, Gk μητρός − μητέρος ‘mother (NOM − GEN). Borrowings from non-IE: (4) Gk μήκων ‘poppy’, OHG māho (*x instead of *ɣ); ÈSSJa makъ. 6.2.3. Accent valencies: Zaliznjak 1985: 118−127, 140−146; Dybo 1989: 7−10; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 85, 98−99, 107−108; Bogatyrev 1995: 2−4. Criticism: Vermeer 2001: 155−156; Derksen 2004: 86, 87. PIE suprasegmentals: Dybo 1989, 2003; Nikolaev 1989; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 107−108. Orthotonic words and enclinomena: Jakobson 1963. 6.3.1. Acuting before tautosyllabic laryngeals: Jasanoff 2004a, 2011. Acuting as glottalization: Stang 1966: 137. Acute as glottal stop: Kortlandt 1975: 16; Derksen 2008; for criticism, see Jasanoff 2004b: 172−173. Acute as checked length: Jasanoff 2004a: 251− 252; Jasanoff 2011. 6.3.2. Hirt’s Law: Hirt 1895: 95, 165−166; Shevelov 1965: 49−55; Illič-Svityč 1963: 78−82; Kortlandt 1975: 2−4, 22−23, 52−54; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 50; Derksen 2004: 83−85; Jasanoff 2011. MRu: Zaliznjak 1978, 1979. 6.3.3. Winter’s Law: Winter 1978; Collinge 1985: 225−227; Derksen 2004: 82−83; Jasanoff 2004a. Neocircumflex: Stang 1957: 23−35; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 16−31. 6.3.4. Bezzenberger’s Law: Bezzenberger 1891; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 7, 71; Jasanoff 2004a: 251. 6.3.5. Meillet’s Law: Meillet 1902; Kortlandt 1975: 10−12, 27−29, 54−55; Dybo 1979: 43; Collinge 1985: 117−118; Jasanoff 2004a: 254; Andersen 2009: 5. 6.4.1. CSl ictus placement: Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 85; Dybo 2000: 94. MBg: Dybo 1971, 1975. MRu: Dybo 1971, 1975; Kolesov 1972. Šaxmatov’s Law: Šaxmatov 1915; Zaliznjak 1989; Andersen 2009: 5. Vasil’ev-Dolobko: Dolobko 1927; Vasil’ev 1929; Dybo 1971, 1975, 1977; Kortlandt 1975: 38−40; Collinge 1985: 29−30; Dybo, Zamjatina, and Nikolaev 1990: 54; Bogatyrev 1995: 3, 14−15; Andersen 2009: 5. 6.4.2. Law of Dybo-Illič-Svityč: Dybo 1962; Illič-Svityč 1963: 157−161; Collinge 1985: 31−33; Bogatyrev 1995: 4−5; Jasanoff 2004a: 254; Andersen 2009: 4−5. MBg: Dybo 1971, 1975. MRu: Dybo 1971, 1975; Kolesov 1972.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1525

6.4.3. Neoacute: Stang 1957: 20−23, 167−173; Jakobson 1963: 164−173; Collinge 1985: 179; Bogatyrev 1995: 10−11; Schenker 1995: 98. Ru dialects: Illič-Svityč 1963: 91; Schenker 1995: 98. MRu: Vasil’ev 1929; Illič-Svityč 1963: 91−92; Zaliznjak 1978, 1979. 6.4.4. Ictus advancement from weak jers: Shevelov 1965: 443−445.

8. References AHD = Calvert Watkins. (ed.) 2000 The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots. 2nd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Andersen, Henning 1968 IE *s after i, u, r, k in Baltic and Slavic. Acta Linguistica Hafnensia 11: 171−190. Andersen, Henning 1969 Lenition in Common Slavic. Language 45: 553−574. Andersen, Henning 1970 Kashubian dobëtk ‘dobytek’ and its Kind. Die Welt der Slaven 15: 61−76. Andersen, Henning 1972 Diphthongization. Language 48: 11−50. Andersen, Henning 1977 On Some Central Innovations in the Common Slavic Period. In: Franc Jakopin (ed.), Slovansko jezikoslovje [Slavic linguistics]. Ljubljana: Univ. v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, 1−13. Andersen, Henning 1978 Perceptual and Conceptual Factors in Abductive Innovations. In: Fisiak (ed.), 1−22. Andersen, Henning 1985 Protoslavic and Common Slavic. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 31−32: 67−80. Andersen, Henning 1996 Reconstructing Prehistorical Dialects. Initial Vowels in Slavic and Baltic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Andersen, Henning 1998a The Common Slavic Vowel Shifts. American Contributions to the International Congresses of Slavists 12: 239−248. Andersen, Henning 1998b A Glimpse of the Homeland of the Slavs. In: Angela della Volpe (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh UCLA Indo-European Conference. Washington, D. C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 1−67. Andersen, Henning 1999 The Western South Slavic Contrast Sn. sah-ni-ti || SC sah-nu-ti. Slovenski jezik 2: 47− 62. Andersen, Henning 2003 Slavic and the Indo-European Migrations. In: Henning Andersen (ed.), Language Contacts in Prehistory. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 45−76. Andersen, Henning 2006 On the Late Common Slavic Dialect Correspondences Kl−Tl−l. International Journal of Slavic Language and Poetics 44/45: 37−48.

1526

XIII. Slavic

Andersen, Henning 2009 The Satem Languages of the Indo-European Northwest. In: Angela Marcantonio (ed.), The Indo-European Language Family: Questions about its Status. Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 1−31. Andersen, Henning 2013 On the Origin of the Slavic Aspects. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 21: 17−43. Andersen, Henning 2014 Early Vowel Contraction in Slavic. Scando-Slavica 60: 54−107. Barford, Paul M. 2001 The Early Slavs. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Bartoli, Matteo G. 1906 Das Dalmatische. 2 vols. Vienna: Hölder. Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan 1894 Einiges über Palatalisierung (Palatalisation) und Entpalatalisierung (Depalatalisation). Indogermanische Forschungen 4: 45−57. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1995 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. BER = Vladimir I. Georgiev, Ivan Galabov, Iordan Zaimov, and Stefan Ilcev (eds.) 1962− Bălgarski etimologičen rečnik [Bulgarian etymological dictionary]. 6 vols. to date. Sofia: BAN. Bernik, France, Jože Faganel, Kajetan Gantar, Igor Grdina, Franc Jakopin, Janko Kos, Marko Kranjec, Tine Logar, Klaus Detlef Olof, Božo Otorepec, Boris Paternu, and Marijan Smolik 1993 Brižinski spomeniki [The Freising literary monuments]. Ljubljana: Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti. Bernsˇtejn, Samuil B. 1961 Očerk sravnitel’noj grammatiki slavjanskix jazykov [An outline of the comparative grammar of the Slavic languages]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Bethmann, Conrad L. 1876 Die Evangelienhandschrift zu Cividale. Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere Deutsche Geschichtskunde 2: 113−128. Bezlaj, France 1956−1961 Slovenska vodna imena [Slovenian river names]. 2 vols. Ljubljana: Slovenska Akademija znanosti i umetnosti. Bezlaj, France 1976−2007 Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika [Etymological dictionary of the Slovenian language] 4 vols. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. Bezzenberger, Adalbert 1891 Zum baltischen Vocalismus. Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 17: 213−227. Birnbaum, Henrik 1956 Zu urslav. Kv-. Scando-Slavica 2: 29−40. Birnbaum, Henrik 1966 The dialects of Common Slavic. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-European dialects. Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics Held at the University of California, Los Angeles April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley: University of California Press, 153−197. Birnbaum, Henrik 1970 Four Approaches to Balto-Slavic. In: Velta Rūk̦ e-Dravin̦ a (ed.), Donum Balticum. To Professor Christian S. Stang on the occasion of his seventieth birthday 15 March 1970. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 69−76. Birnbaum, Henrik 1975 Common Slavic: Progress and problems in its reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Slavica.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1527

Birnbaum, Henrik 1983 Language families, linguistic types, and the position of the Rusin microlanguage within Slavic. Die Welt der Slaven 28: 1−23. Birnbaum, Henrik 1987a Praslavjanskij jazyk: Dostiženija i problemy v ego rekonstrukcii [Proto-Slavic: Achievements and problems of its reconstruction]. Translated by Vladimir A. Dybo. Moscow: Progress. Birnbaum, Henrik 1987b Some Terminological and Substantive Issues in Slavic Historical Linguistics. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 35/36: 299−332. Birnbaum, Henrik and Peter T. Merrill 1983 Recent Advances in the Reconstruction of Common Slavic (1971−1982). Columbus, OH: Slavica. Bogatyrev, Konstantin K. 1995 Akcentuacija severolexitskix govorov s istoričeskoj točki zrenija. [The accentuation of Northern Lechitic dialects from a historical perspective]. Munich: Sagner. Boryś, Wiesław 2005 Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego [Etymological dictionary of Polish]. Cracow: Wydawnictwo literackie. Bräuer, Herbert 1961 Slavische Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter. Browne, Wayles 1993 Serbo-Croat. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 306−387. Browning, Timothy 1989 The Diachrony of Proto-Indo-European Syllabic Liquids in Slavic. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Brückner, Aleksander 1993 [1927] Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego [Etymological dictionary of Polish]. Reprint. Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna. Bulatova, Rimma V. and Vladimir A. Dybo (eds.) 1989 Istoričeskaja akcentologija i sravnitel’no-istoričeskij metod [Historical accentology and the comparative-historical method]. Moscow: Nauka. BZ = Biblia królowej Zofii [The Queen Sofia Bible] 2015 www.ijp-pan.krakow.pl/publikacje-elektroniczne/korpus-tekstow-staropolskich [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Channon, Robert 1972 On the Place of the Progressive Palatalization of Velars in the Relative Chronology of Slavic. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle 1991 [1968] The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Collinge, Neville E. 1985 The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Collins, Daniel E. 1982 Front rounded vowels and the phoneme /j/ in Proto-Church Slavonic. Die Welt der Slaven 37: 1−32. Collins, Daniel E. forthcoming The Proto-Slavic Reflexes of the PIE Syllabic Sonorants. Comrie, Bernard and Greville G. Corbett (eds.) 1993 The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. Cˇornejová, Michaela 2007 Studie k dokladů m cˇeských mı́stnı́ch jmen na -any v 11.−13. Stoletı́ [Studies in the documentation of Czech place names in -any in the 11th−13th centuries]. Linguistica

1528

XIII. Slavic

ONLINE. http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/cornejova/cor-003.pdf [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Curta, Florin 2001 The Making of the Slavs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Derksen, Rick 2004 Balto-Slavic Accentuation: An Update. Histoire Épistémologie Langage 26: 81−92. Derksen, Rick 2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Daničić, Đura 1962 [1863−1864] Rječnik iz književnih starina srpskih [Dictionary of Serbian literary antiquities]. 2 vols. Reprint. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt. Diels, Paul 1963 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Vol. 1. 2nd edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Dolobko, Milij G. 1927 Noč’-nočés’, ósen’-osenés’, zimá-zimús’, léto-létos’. Slavia 5: 678−717. DRMJa = Digitalen rečnik na makedonskiot ezik [Digital dictionary of the Macedonian language] 2015 http://www.makedonski.info [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Dvornik, Francis 1956 The Slavs: Their Early History and Civilization. Boston: American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1962 O rekonstrukcii udarenija v praslavjanskom glagole [On the reconstruction of ProtoSlavic word-accent]. Voprosy sovetskogo jazykoznanija 6: 3−27. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1971 Zakon Vasil’eva-Dolobko i akcentuacija form glagola v drevnerusskom i srednebolgarskom [Vasil’eva-Dolobko’s Law and the accentuation of verb forms in Old Russian and Middle Bulgarian]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 20: 93−114. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1975 Zakon Vasil’eva-Dolobko v drevnerusskom [Vasil’eva-Dolobko’s Law in Old Russian]. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 18: 7−81. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1977 Imennoe udarenie v srednebolgarskom i zakon Vasil’eva-Dolobko [Nominal accentuation in Middle Bulgarian and Vasil’eva-Dolobka’s Law]. In: Leonid A. Gindin and Galina P. Klepikova (eds.), Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie [Slavic and Baltic linguistics]. Moscow: Nauka, 189−272. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1979 Rekonstrukcija sistemy akcentnyx paradigm v praslavjanskom [Reconstruction of the system of accentual paradigms in Proto-Slavic]. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 22: 37−71. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1980 Balto-slavjanskaja akcentnaja sistema s tipologičeskoj točki zrenija i problema rekonstrukcija indoevropejskogo akcenta [The Balto-Slavic accentual system from a typological perspective and the problem of the reconstruction of the Indo-European accent]. In: Tamara M. Sudnik (ed.), Balto-slavjanskie ètnojazykovye kontakty. [Balto-Slavic ethnolinguistic contacts]. Moscow: Nauka, 91−150. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1981 Slavjanskaia akcentologija: Opyt rekonstrukcii sistemy accentnyx paradigm v praslavjanskom [Slavic accentology. An attempt at a reconstruction of the system of accentual paradigms in Proto-Slavic]. (Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Slavjanovedenija i Balkanistiki). Moscow: Nauka.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1529

Dybo, Vladimir A. 1989 Tipologija i rekonstrukcija paradigmatičeskix akcentnyx system [Typology and the reconstruction of paradigmatic accent systems]. In: Bulatova and Dybo (eds.), 7−45. Dybo, Vladimir A. 2000 Morfonologizovannye paradigmatičeskie akcentnye sistemy. Tipologia i genezis [Morphophonologized paradigmatic accent systems. Typology and genesis]. Vol. 1. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury. Dybo, Vladimir A. 2002 Balto-Slavic Accentology and Winter’s Law. Studia Linguarum 3: 295−515. Dybo, Vladimir A. 2003 Balto-slavjanskaja akcentologičeskaja rekonstrukcija i indoevropejskaja akcentologija [Balto-Slavic accentual reconstruction and Indo-European accentology]. In: Viktor M. Živov and Tat’jana Mixajovna Nikolaeva (eds.), Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie: XIII Meždunarodnyj Sъezd Slavistov, Ljubljana, 2003 g. Doklady rossijskoj delegacii [Slavic linguistics: 13th international session of slavists, Ljubljana, 2003. Reports of the Russian delegation]. Moscow: Indrik, 131−161. Dybo, Vladimir A., Galina I. Zamjatina, and Sergej L. Nikolaev 1990 Osnovy slavjanskoj akcentologii [Principles of Slavic accentology]. Moscow: Nauka. Dybo, Vladimir A., Galina I. Zamjatina, and Sergej L. Nikolaev 1993 Osnovy slavianskoj akcentologii: Slovar’ [Principles of Slavic accentology: dictionary]. Vol. 1, part 1. Moscow: Nauka. Endzelīns, Jānis 1971 Jānis Endzelīns’ Comparative Phonology and Morphology of the Baltic Languages. Trans. William R. Schmalstieg and Benjamin̦ š Jēgers. The Hague: Mouton. ÈSSJa = Trubačev, Oleg N. (ed.) 1974− Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskix jazykov [Etymological dictionary of the Slavic languages]. 36 vols. to date. Moscow: Nauka. ESUM = Mel’nyčuk, Oleksander S. (ed.) 1982−2006 Etymolohičnyj slovnyk ukraïns’koï movy [Etymological dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. 7 vols. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. EwZam = Ewangeliarz Zamoyskich [Zamoyski’s Gospel] 2015 www.ijp-pan.krakow.pl/publikacje-elektroniczne/korpus-tekstow-staropolskich [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Fasmer, Max (= Max Vasmer) 1986 Ètimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Etymological dictionary of the Russian language]. Translated from German with comments by Oleg N. Trubacëv. 4 vols. Moscow: Progress. Feldstein, Ronald F. 2003 The Unified Monophthongization Rule of Common Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11: 247−281. Filin, Fedot P. 1962 Obrazovanie jazyka vostočnyx slavjan [The formation of the language of the Eastern Slavs]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) 1978 Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton. Flier, Michael S. 1982 The Origin of the Desinence -ovo in Russian. In: Markov and Worth (eds.), 85−104. Flier, Michael S. 1988 Morphophonemic consequences of the development of tense jers in East Slavic. American Contributions to the International Congresses of Slavists 10: 91−105.

1530

XIII. Slavic

Flier, Michael S. 1998 The Jer Shift and Consequent Mechanisms of Sharping (Palatalization) in East Slavic. American Contributions to the International Congresses of Slavists 12: 360−374. Fortson, Benjamin W. IV. 2004 Indo-European Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell. Fougeron, Cécile and Rachid Ridouane 2008 On the Phonetic Implementation of Syllabic Consonants and Vowel-Less Syllables in Tashlhiyt. Estudios de Fonética Experimental 18: 139−175. Friedrich, Paul 1970 Proto-Indo-European Trees. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Friedman, Victor A. 1993 Macedonian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 249−305. Garde, Paul 1976 Histoire de l’accentuation slave. 2 vols. (Collection de manuels de l’Institut d’Études Slaves 7). Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves. Gerov, Naĭden 1975−1978 [1895−1904] Rěčnik na bu˘lgarskyj jazyk [Dictionary of the Bulgarian language]. I−V. Reprint. Sofia: Bŭlgarski Pisatel. Gołąbek, Eugeniusz 2010−2012 Słownik polsko-kaszubski: Słowôrz pòlskò-kaszëbsci [A Polish-Kashubian dictionary]. http://www.skarbnicakaszubska.pl/slownik-polsko-kaszubski [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Greenberg, Marc L. 1988 On the vocalization of jers in Slovak. Die Welt der Slaven 33: 43−62. Gribble, Charles E. 1989 Omission of the Jer Vowels in Early East Slavic Manuscripts. Russian Linguistics 13: 1−14. Grierson, Philip and Mark Blackburn 2007 Medieval European Coinage. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamp, Eric P. 1983 Ja = Runic ek. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 27: 11−13. Hannan, Kevin. 1996 Borders of Language and Identity in Teschen Silesia. New York: Lang. Havlík, Antonín. 1889 K otázce jerové v staré češtině [On the jer-question in Old Czech]. Listy filologické 16: 45−51, 106−116, 342−353. Heather, Peter 2010 Empires and Barbarians. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hermann, Joachim (ed.) 1985 Die Slawen in Deutschland. 2nd edn. Berlin: Akademie. Hirt, Hermann 1895 Der indogermanische Akzent: Ein Handbuch. Strassburg: Trübner. HJP = Hrvatski jezični portal [Croatian language portal] 2015 http://hjp.znanje.hr/index.php?show=main [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Houtzagers, H. Peter 1985 The Čakavian Dialect of Orlec on the Island of Cres. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Hrinčenko, Borys 1958−1959 [1907−1909] Slovar’ ukrajins’koji movy [A dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. Reprint. 4 vols. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. IEW = Pokorny, J. 1959 Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 vols. Bern: Francke.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1531

Illič-Svityč, Vladislav M. 1963 Imennaja akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom [Nominal accentuation in Baltic and Slavic]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR. IPA = International Phonetics Association 2005 The International Phonetic Alphabet and the IPA Chart. https://www. internationalphoneticassociation.org/content/ipa-chart [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Isačenko, Aleksandr. V. 1970 East Slavic Morphophonemics and the Treatment of the Jers in Russian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 13: 73−124. ISO = International Standards Organization 1995 Transliteration of Cyrillic Characters into Latin Characters. https://www.iso.org/ standard/3589.html [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Ivanov, Vjačeslav Vs. and Vladimir N. Toporov 1958 K postanovke voprosa drevnejšix otnošenijax baltijskix i slavjanskix jazykov [On the status of the question concerning the oldest relationships of the Baltic and Slavic languages]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo A. N. SSSR. Jakobson, Roman 1962 [1929] Remarques sur l’évolution phonologique du russe comparée à celle des autres langues slaves. In: Roman Jakobson, Selected writings 1. The Hague: Mouton, 7−116. Jakobson, Roman 1952 On Slavic diphthongs ending in a liquid. Word 8: 306−310. Jakobson, Roman 1963 Opyt fonologičeskogo podxoda k istoričeskim voprosam slavjanskoj akcentologii: Pozdnij period slavjanskoj jazykovoj praistorii [An attempt at a phonological approach to the historical questions of Slavic accentology: The late period of Slavic linguistic prehistory]. American Contributions to the International Congresses of Slavists 5 1: 153−178. Janda, Laura A. 1996 Back from the Brink. Munich: LINCOM. Jasanoff, Jay 1983a A rule of final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 139−149. Jasanoff, Jay 1983b A reply to Schmalsteig and Kortlandt. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 187−190. Jasanoff, Jay 2004a Acute vs. Circumflex. In: Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Jenny Helena Larsson, and Thomas Olander (eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos: Studia indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii idibus Martiis anno MMIV. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Band 112). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Kulturen der Universität, 247−255. Jasanoff, Jay 2004b Balto-Slavic Accentuation: Telling News from Noise. Baltistica 39: 171−177. Jasanoff, Jay 2008 The Accentual Type *vèdō, *vedetí and the Origin of Mobility in the Balto-Slavic Verb. Baltistica 43: 339−379. Jasanoff, Jay 2011 Balto-Slavic Mobility as an Indo-European Problem. In: Roman Sukač (ed.), From Present to Past and Back. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 52−74. Kalsbeek, Janneke 1998 The Čakavian dialect of Orbanići near Žminj in Istria. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kiparsky, Valentin 1975 Russische Historische Grammatik. Vol. 3. Heidelberg: Winter. Kiparsky, Valentin 1979 Russian Historical Grammar. Vol. 1. Translated by J. Ian Press. Ann Arbor, MI: Ardis.

1532

XIII. Slavic

Klemensiewicz, Zenon, Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński, and Stanisław Urbańczyk (eds.) 1964 Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego [Historical grammar of the Polish language]. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Nauk. Kolarič, Rudolf 1968 Sprachliche Analyse. In: Jože Pogačnik (ed.), Freisinger Denkmäler, Brižinski spomeniki, Monumenta Frisingensia. Munich: Trofenik, 18−120. Kolesov, Vladimir V. 1972 Istorija russkogo udarenija [A history of Russian accent]. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press. Komárek, Miroslav 1962 Historická mluvnice česka [Historical grammar of Czech]. Vol. 1. Hlaskosloví [Phonetics]. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1975 Slavic Accentuation. Lisse: de Ridder. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1978 Proto-Indo-European Obstruents. Indogermanische Forschungen 83: 107−118. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1984 The Progressive Palatalization of Slavic. Folia Linguistica Historica 5: 211−219. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1985 Proto-Indo-European Glottalic Stops. Folia Linguistica Historica 6: 183−201. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1989 On methods of dealing with facts and opinions in a treatment of the progressive palatalization of Slavic. Folia Linguistica Historica 9: 3−12. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 1994 From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 22: 91−112. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 2007 The Development of the Indo-European Syllabic Resonants in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica 42: 7−12. Kortlandt, Frederik H. H. 2008 Balto-Slavic Phonological Developments. Baltistica 43: 5−15. Krajčovič, Rudolf 1975 A Historical Phonology of the Slovak Language. Heidelberg: Winter. Kral, Jurij 1927 Serbsko-němski słownik hornjołužiskeje rěče [A Sorbian-German dictionary of the Upper Sorbian language]. Bautzen: Domowina. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1956 L’apophonie en indo-européen. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Kushko, Nadiya 2007 Literary Standards of the Rusyn Language: The Historical Context and Contemporary Situation. Slavic and East European Journal 51: 111−132. Labov, William 1994 Principles of Language Change: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Maddieson 1996 The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell. Lencek, Rado L. 1982 The Structure and History of the Slovene Language. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Leskien, August 1962 [1871] Handbuch der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen) Sprache. 8th edn. Heidelberg: Winter. Lidén, Ewald 1899 Ein baltisch-slavisches Anlautgesetz. (Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift 5). Gothenburg: W. Zachrissons.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1533

Lorentz, Friedrich 1908−1912 Slovinzisches Wörterbuch [Slovincian dictionary]. 2 vols. St. Petersburg: Vtoroe Otdelenie Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk. Lorentz, Friedrich 1925 Geschichte der pomoranischen (kaschubischen) Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter. Lunt, Horace G. 1966 Old Church Slavonic “*kraljь”? In: Dietrich Gerhardt (ed.), Orbis scriptus. Munich: Fink, 483−489. Lunt, Horace G. 1981 The Progressive Palatalization of Common Slavic. Skopje: MANI. Lunt, Horace G. 1987 The Progressive Palatalization of Early Slavic. Folia Linguistica Historica 7: 251−290. Lunt, Horace G. 2001 Old Church Slavonic Grammar. 7th edn. Berlin: De Gruyter. Machek, Václav 1968 Etymologický slovník jazyka českého [Etymological dictionary of the Czech language]. Prague: Československé akademie věd. Maresˇ, František 1965 The Origin of the Slavic Phonological System and its Development up to the End of Slavic Language Unity. (Michigan Slavic Materials 6). Translated by J. F. Snopek and A. Vitek. Ann Arbor, MI: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan. Markov, Vladimir and Dean S. Worth (eds.) 1983 From Los Angeles to Kiev. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Martinet, André 1955 Économie des changements phonétiques. Berne: Franke. Marvan, Jiri 1979 Prehistoric Slavic Contraction. Translated by Wilson Gray. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Matasović, Ranko 2004 The Proto-Indo-European Syllabic Resonants in Balto-Slavic. Indogermanische Forschungen 109: 337−354. Meillet, Antoine 1902 O nekotoryx anomalijax udarenija v slavjanskix imenax. Russkii filologičeskii vestnik 48: 193−200. Meillet, Antoine 1934 Le slave commun. 2nd edn. revised by André Vaillant. Russian trans. by Peter S. Kuznecov 1951. Obščeslavjanskij jazyk. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoj literatury. Meillet, Antoine 1967 [1922] The Indo-European Dialects. Translated by S. N. Rosenberg. University, AL: University of Alabama Press. Menges, Karl H. 1953 An Outline of the Early History and Migrations of the Slavs. New York: Department of Slavic Languages, Columbia University. Mikkola, Josef J. 1938 Die älteren Berührungen zwischen Ostseefinnisch und Russisch. Helsinki: Suomalaisugrilainen seura. Miklosich, Franz 1963 [1862−1865] Lexicon palaeoslovenico-graeco-latinum. Reprint. Aalen: Scientia. Moravcsik, Gyula 1958 Byzantinoturcica. Vol. 2. Berlin: Akademie.

1534

XIII. Slavic

Muka, Ernst 1926 Wörterbuch der nieder-wendischen Sprache und ihrer Dialekte. 3 vols. Prague: Czech Academy of Sciences. Mužić, Ivan 2007 Hrvatska povijest devetoga stoljeća [A History of 9th-century Croatia]. 2nd edn. Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika. Nikolaev, Sergei L. 1989 Balto-slavjanskaja akcentuacionnaja sistema i ee indo-evropejskie istoki [The BaltoSlavic accentual system and its Indo-European sources]. In: Bulatova and Dybo (eds.), 46−109. Nikolaev, Sergei L. 1990 K istorii plemennogo dialekta krivičej [On the history of the tribal dialect of the Krivi’s]. Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie 4: 54−63. Ohala, John J. 1975 Phonetic Explanations for Nasal Sound Patterns. In: Charles A. Ferguson, Larry M. Hyman, and John J. Ohala (eds.), Nasalfest: Papers from a Symposium on Nasals and Nasalization. Stanford: Language Universals Project, 289−316. Olander, Thomas 2009 Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility. Berlin: De Gruyter. Olesch, Reinhold 1967 Fontes linguae dravaenopolabicae minors [Minor sources of the Polabian language]. Cologne: Böhlau. Orr, Robert 1988 A Phantom Sound-Change. Canadian Slavonic Papers 30: 41−61. Orr, Robert 2000 Common Slavic Nominal Morphology. Bloomington, IN: Slavica. Piesni = Polskie zabytki wierszowane do końca XV wieku [Polish literary monuments in verse to the end of the 15th century] 2015 www.ijp-pan.krakow.pl/publikacje-elektroniczne/korpus-tekstow-staropolskich [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Pleteršnik, Maks 2010 [1894] Pleteršnikov Slovensko-nemški slovar [Pletersnik’s Slovenian-German dictionary]. http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/pletersnik.html [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Polański, Kazimierz 1982 Some Remarks on the Development of Jers in Polabian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 25/26: 379−381. Polański, Kazimierz 1993 Polabian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 795−824. Priestly, Tom M. S. 1978 Affective Sound Change in Early Slavic. In: Zbigniew Folejewski, Edmund Heier, George Luckyj, and Gunter Schaarschmidt (eds.), Canadian Contributions to the VIII International Congress of Slavists. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Slavists, 143−166. Priestly, Tom M. S. 1993 Slovene. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 388−451. Pronk-Tiethoff, Saskia 2013 The Germanic Loanwords in Proto-Slavic. Amsterdam: Rodopi. PřSl = Oldrich Hujer, Emil Smetánka, Miloš Weingart, Bohuslav Havránek, Vladimír Šmilauer, and Alois Získal (eds.) 1935−1957 Příruční slovník jazyka českého [A reference dictionary of the Czech Language]. 8 vols. Prague: Česká Akademie Věd a Uměni. Pugh, Stefan M. 2009 The Rusyn Language. Munich: LINCOM.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1535

Ramułt, Stefan 1893 Słownik języka pomorskiego cyzli kaszubskiego [A dictionary of the Pomeranian or Kashubian language]. Cracow: Akademii umiejętności. RBE = Rečnik na bu˘lgarskija ezik [A dictionary of the Bulgarian language] 2015 http://rechnik.chitanka.info [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Rječnik = Đura Daničić et al. (eds.) 1880−1976 Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika [A dictionary of the Croatian or Serbian language]. 23 vols. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umetnosti. Samilov, Michael 1964 The Phoneme Jat’ in Slavic. The Hague: Mouton. Šaxmatov, Aleksej A. 1915 Ocˇerk drevnejšego perioda istorii russkogo jazyka. [A sketch of the oldest period of the history of the Russian language]. Petrograd: Otd-nīe russkago i︠a︡zyka i slovesnosti Imp. Akademīi nauk. Scatton, Ernest A. 1993 Bulgarian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 188−248. Schaeken, Jos 1987 Die Kiever Blätter. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Schenker, Alexander M. 1995 The Dawn of Slavic. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies. Schenker, Alexander M. and Edward Stankiewicz (eds.) 1980 The Slavic Literary Languages. Columbus: Slavica. SEJDP = Lehr-Spławiński, Tadeusz and Kazimierz Polański 1962−1994 Słownik etymologiczny języka Drzewian połabskich [Etymological dictionary of the Polabian language]. 6 vols. Wrócław: Ossolineum. Shevelov, George Y. 1965 A Prehistory of Slavic: The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. New York: Columbia University Press. Shevelov, George Y. 1979 A Historical Phonology of the Ukrainian language. Heidelberg; Winter. SJP = Słownik języka polskiego [A dictionary of the Polish language] 1997−2014 http://sjp.pwn.pl [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. SJS = Kurz, Josef (ed.) 1958−1997 Slovník jazyka staroslověnského [A dictionary of Old Czech]. 5 vols. Prague: Československá akademie vĕd. Slovanský ústav / Euroslavica. Skok, Petar 1971−1974 Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika [Etymological dictionary of the Croatian or Serbian language]. 4 vols. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Sławski, Franciszek 1974−1979 Zarys słowotwórstwa prasłowiańskiego [Outline of Proto-Slavic word-formation]. In: Franciszek Sławski (ed.), Słownik prasłowiański [Proto-Slavic dictionary], Vol. 1: 43−141, Vol. 2: 13−60, Vol. 3: 11−19. Wrocław: Ossolineum Sławski, Franciszek (ed.) 1961−2001 Słownik prasłowiański [Proto-Slavic dictionary]. 8 vols. Wrocław: Ossolineum. Slovníky = Slovenské slovníky [Slovak dictionaries] 2009−2015 http://slovnik.juls.savba.sk [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. SP16 = Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku [A dictionary of 16th-century Polish] 2010−2015 https://spxvi.edu.pl/indeks/ [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. SP17−18 = Elektroniczny słownik języka polskiego XVII i XVIII wieku [An electronic dictionary of 17th and 18th-century Polish] 2015 http://xvii-wiek.ijp-pan.krakow.pl/pan_klient/ [Last accessed 26 June 2017].

1536

XIII. Slavic

Srez = Sreznevskij, Izmail I. 1989 [1893−1912] Slovar’ drevnerusskogo jazyka [A dictionary of Old Russian]. Reprint. 6 vols. Moscow: Kniga. SS = Ralja M. Cejtlin, Radoslav Večerka, and Emilie Bláhová (eds.) 1994 Staroslavjanskij slovar’ [Old Church Slavonic dictionary]. Moscow: Russkij jazyk. SSKJ = Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika [Dictionary of the Slovenian literary language] 2000 http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/sskj.html [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. SSP = Słownik staropolski [Old Polish dictionary] 2002−2014 http://staropolska.pl/slownik/ [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Stang, Christian S. 1957 Slavonic Accentuation. (Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Hist.-Fil. Klasse, No. 3). Oslo: Aschehoug W. Nygaard. Stang, Christian S. 1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Stanislav, Ján 1967 Dejiny slovenského jazyka [History of the Slovak language]. Vol. 1. 3rd edn. Bratislava: SAV. Stankiewicz, Edward 1986 The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. In: Edward Stankiewicz, The Slavic Languages: Unity in Diversity. Berlin: De Gruyter, 21−34. [Originally 1973 in International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 16: 179−192.] Stankiewicz, Edward 1993 The Accentual Patterns of the Slavic Languages. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Stone, Gerald 1993 Cassubian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 759−794. SUM = Bilodid, Ivan K. (editor-in-chief) et al. (eds) 1970−1980 Slovnyk ukrajins’koji movy [Dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. 11 vols. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Szemerényi, Oswald 1957 The Problem of Balto-Slav Unity − A Critical Survey. Kratylos 2: 97−123. Tachiaos, Anthony-Emil 2001 Cyril and Methodius. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Timberlake, Alan 1983a Compensatory Lengthening in Slavic, 1. In: Markov and Worth (eds.), 207−235. Timberlake, Alan 1983b Compensatory Lengthening in Slavic, 2. American Contributions to the International Congresses of Slavists 9, 1: 293−319. Timberlake, Alan 1988 The Fall of the Jers in West Slavic. Die Welt der Slaven 33: 225−247. Timberlake, Alan 1995 Mechanisms and Relative Chronology of Polabian Sound Changes. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 35: 281−296. Toft, Zoe 2002 The Phonetics and Phonology of Some Syllabic Consonants in Southern British English. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 28: 111−144. Topolińska, Zuzanna 1974 A Historical Phonology of the Kashubian Dialects of Polish. The Hague: Mouton. Toporov, Vladimir N. and Oleg N. Trubačev 2009 [1962] Lingvističeskij analiz gidronimov verxnego Podneprov’ja [A linguistic analysis of hydronyms of the upper Dnieper area]. Reprinted 2009 in Oleg N. Trubačev, Trudy po ètimologii [Works on etymology], Vol. 4. Moscow: Akademija Nauk, 9−380.

81. The phonology of Slavic

1537

Trubačev, Oleg N. 1991 Ètnogenez i kul’tura drevnejšix slavjan: Lingvističeskie issledovanija [Ethnogenesis and culture of the oldest Slavs: linguistic investigations]. Moscow: Nauka. TSBM = Kandrat K. Atraxovič (ed.) 1977−1984 Tlumačal’ny sloŭnik belaruskaĭ movy [An explanatory dictionary of the Belarusian language]. 5 vols. Minsk: Belaruskaja Saveckaja Encyklapedyja. Uličná, Lenka 2006 Staročeské glosy ve spisech Or zarua a Arugat ha-bosem [Old Czech glosses in the Or zarua and Arugat ha-bosem]. Unpublished rigorosum thesis, The Charles University of Prague. Uličná, Lenka 2014 Starocˇeské glosy ve strˇedoveˇkých hebrejských rabínských spisech [Old Czech glosses in medieval rabbinic Hebrew writings]. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The Charles University of Prague. Vaillant, André 1950 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. 1. Paris: Lyon: IAC. Vasil’ev, Leonid L. 1929 O značenii kamory v nekotoryx drevnerusskix pamjatnikax XVI−XVII vekov [On the significance of the kamora in some Old Russian literary documents of the 16th−17th centuries]. Leningrad: Akademija Nauk. Vasmer, Max 1941 Die Slaven in Griechenland. Berlin: De Gruyter. Vermeer, Willem 2001 Critical Observations on the Modus Operandi of the Moscow Accentological School. In: Werner Lehfeldt (ed.), Einführung in die morphologische Konzeption der slavischen Akzentologi. 2., verbesserte und ergänzte Auflage. Mit einem Appendix von Willem Vermeer. (Vorträge und Abhandlungen zur Slavistik, Band 42). Munich: Sagner, 131− 161. Vermeer, Willem 2003 Comedy of Errors or Inexorable Advance? In: Jos Schaeken, H. Peter Houtzagers, and Janneke Kalsbeek (eds.), Dutch Contributions to the Thirteenth International Congress of Slavists. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 397−452. Vermeer, Willem 2008 Pedersen’s Chronology of the Progressive Palatalization. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 34: 503−71. Vlasto, Alexis P. 1970 The Entry of the Slavs into Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VW = Vokabulář webový [Web vocabulary] 2006−2015 vokabular.ujc.cas.cz/default.aspx [Last accessed 26 June 2017]. Watkins, Calvert 1965 Evidence in Balto-Slavic. In: Werner Winter (ed.), Evidence for Laryngeals. 2nd edn. The Hague: Mouton, 116−122. We˛glarz, W 1933 Staroczeski loc. plur. na -as w nazwach miejscowych na -any [The Old Czech loc. plur. in -as in place-names in -any]. Slavia occidentalis 12: 34−41. Wiese, Richard 1996 The Phonology of German. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. van Wijk, Nicolas 1956 Les langues slaves: De l’unité à la pluralité. The Hague: Mouton. Winter, Werner 1978 The Distribution of Short and Long Vowels in Stems of the Type Lith. ésti: vèsti: mèsti and OCS jasti: vesti: mesti in Baltic and Slavic. In: Fisiak (ed.), 431−446.

1538

XIII. Slavic

Xaburgaev, Georgij A. 1980 Stanovlenie russkogo jazyka [The making of the Russian language]. Moscow: Vyssaja Skola. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1978 Novye dannye o russkix pamjatnikax XIV−XVII vekov s različeniem dvux fonem “tipa o” [New data concerning Russians literary documents of the 14th−17th centuries from the distinction of two phonemes “of the type o”]. Sovetskoe slavjanovedenie 3: 74−96. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1979 Akcentologičeskaja sistema drevnerusskoj rukopisi XIV veka “Merilo pravidnoe” [The accentological system of the 14th-century old Russian manuscript “Merilo pravidnoe”]. In: Evgenija I. Demina (ed.), Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie [Slavic and Baltic linguistics]. Moscow: Nauka, 47−128. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1985 Ot praslavjanskoj akcentuacii k russkoj [From Proto-Slavic to Russian accentuation]. Moscow: Nauka. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1986 Novgorodskie berestjanye gramoty s lingvističeskoj točki zrenija [Novgorod birchbark documents from a linguistic perspective]. In: Valentin L. Janin and Andrej A. Zaliznjak, Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste [Novgorod birchbark documents]. Moscow: Nauka, 89−219. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1989 Perenos udarenija na proklitiki v starovelikorusskom [The transfer of accent onto proclitics in Old Great Russian]. In: Bulatova and Dybo (eds.), 116−134. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1993 K izučeniju jazyka berestjanyx gramot [Toward the study of the language of the birchbark documents]. In: Valentin L. Janin and Andrej A. Zaliznjak, Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste [Novgorod birchbark documents]. Moscow: Nauka, 191−343. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 2004 Drevnenovgorodskij dialect [The Old Novgorod dialect]. 2nd edn. Moscow: Škola “Jazyki russkoj kul’tury”.

Daniel Collins, Columbus, OH (USA)

82. The morphology of Slavic 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction Nouns Adjectives Numerals

5. 6. 7. 8.

Non-personal pronouns Personal pronouns Verbs References

1. Introduction The Slavic system of nominal inflection is relatively conservative, with 7 cases and singular, dual, and plural numbers. However, in many instances the grammatical endings cannot be transparently derived from standard reconstructions of IE forms according to https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-003

82. The morphology of Slavic

1539

regular sound changes, and there is no consensus about the origin of certain Slavic forms. The adjective developed a new opposition between indefinite and definite forms, the latter created by the addition of the relative pronoun to the basic declined form. The verbal system of Slavic is considerably simpler than that reconstructed for IE. A number of grammatical categories were lost with little or no trace, while others were replaced with new formations. Another innovation characteristic of the Slavic verb is the development of aspect as a regular grammatical category. The earliest attested Slavic language, Old Church Slavic (OCS), exhibits a morphological system that is very close to what can be reconstructed for late Proto-Slavic. In some instances a single Proto-Slavic desinence cannot be reconstructed, so the tables below primarily present forms that are attested in OCS, occasionally abstracting away from specific phonological and orthographical features of this language. Unless otherwise noted, all attested forms in the following text are cited from OCS (or occasionally later recensions of Church Slavic), and PIE reconstructions are generally given as in Derksen (2008).

2. Nouns 2.1. Noun derivation Slavic does not exhibit any direct continuations of PIE root nouns; these have all been adapted into various suffixed types, although traces of the original non-suffixed inflection may be seen in forms such as kry ‘blood’ < *kruh2-, reinterpreted in Slavic as a suffixed y-stem (see below), or the dual forms oči ‘eyes’ < *h3ekw-, uši ‘ears’ < *h2eu̯s-, which are generally understood as representing suffixless formations (Birnbaum 1972: 146), although these nouns have otherwise been adapted to the s- and ultimately the ostem declension in Slavic; e.g. uxo ‘ear’, GEN.SG ušese/uxa. The expected phonological reflexes of some endings of the root nouns overlapped with those of the i-stems in Slavic, so many of the original root nouns were reinterpreted as belonging to this declension; e.g. myšь ‘mouse’ < *muHs-i-; cf. Lat. mūs. However, as already illustrated, these nouns could also be adapted to either consonantal stem declensions or the productive (j)o- and (j)a-stem types, with or without additional suffixes. A number of IE consonantal suffixes are reflected as distinct inflectional types in Slavic, although these nouns also tended to be assimilated into the productive vocalic declensions; e.g. korenь/korę ‘root’ (M) < *kor-en-, kamy ‘rock’ (M), GEN.SG kamene < *h2ek̑-men-, imę ‘name’ (N), GEN.SG imene < *h1n̥h3-men-, nebo ‘sky, heaven’, GEN.SG nebese < *nebh-es-. One should note in particular the productive use in Slavic of the *-nt suffix to derive words for young people/animals; e.g. agnę ‘lamb’, GEN.SG *agnęte; cf. Lat. agnus. Stems in -y/-ъv < *-uH also enjoyed a certain degree of productivity, as shown by the adaptation of loanwords and the creation of new compounds belonging to this type; e.g. smoky ‘fig’, GEN.SG smokъve < Goth. smakka or *smakkō˜, ne-plod-y ‘barren woman’ < ne ‘not’ + plod- ‘fruit’. Nouns formed with the productive agentive suffix -teljь, presumably a variant of the PIE agentive suffix *-ter (but cf. also Vaillant 1958: 222−223) followed the consonantal stem declension pattern in the plural and the jo-stem declension in the singular; e.g. dělateljь ‘doer’, NOM.PL dělatele. Only two of the original

1540

XIII. Slavic

kinship terms in -r clearly preserved their original declension in Slavic: mati ‘mother’, GEN.SG matere, dъšti ‘daughter’, GEN.SG dъštere. The nouns bratrъ ‘brother’, *děverь ‘husband’s brother’, sestra ‘sister’, and *nestera ‘niece’ have been adapted into the o-/ jo- and a-stem declensions, while jętry ‘husband’s brother’s wife’ has become an y-stem. The etymon *ph2ter- ‘father’ is unattested in Slavic, except for a possible derivative *stryjь, ChSl. stryi ‘paternal uncle’, if this reflects *ph2tr- > str- (against this hypothesis, see Kortlandt 1982: 26). Heteroclitic stems are not attested as such in Slavic, but traces can be found in the different shapes of cognate forms; e.g. voda ‘water’ < *u̯odōr, vědro ‘bucket’ (< *u̯ēdr-o), Russ. dial. zavon’ ‘inlet’ < *za-vodn-ь, from an original r/n-stem (Birnbaum 1972: 149). One of the most common productive suffixes in Slavic is the formant -k, which occurs in combination with other suffixes and in various guises due to phonological changes. These complex suffixes are used to derive diminutive, agentive, and other types of nouns (in all three genders) from nouns, verbs, and adjectives; e.g. ablъko, ORuss. jablъkъ, S./ Cr. jabuka ‘apple’ from PSl. *ablo/*ablъ (cf. Sln jablo/jabel); Russ. vdovec < *vьdovьcь ‘widower’, vdovica < *vьdovica ‘widow’, from *vьdova ‘widow’ (OCS vъdova); srьdьce ‘heart’ < *k̑r̥d-, etc. Deadjectival abstract nouns are productively derived with the suffix -ostь, which is attested in Hittite and in isolated forms in a number of other languages; e.g. dlъgostь ‘length’, Hitt. dalugašti- ‘length’. A competing formation in -ota (< PIE *-teh2) has parallels in other IE languages; e.g. dlъgota, Skt dīrghatā ‘length’; nagota ‘nudity’, Lith. nuogatà, Skt nagnatā (see Vaillant 1974: 372; Witczak 2002). Slavic exhibits compounds that were probably inherited from PIE (e.g. medvědь ‘bear’ < *medhu-h1ed-, cf. Skt madhvád- ‘honey-eater’), and compounding continued to be used as a productive word-formation process. The different types of compounds posited for PIE are attested to a greater or lesser degree: copulative (rarely; e.g. bratъsestra ‘brother and sister’, declined as a masculine dual form in OCS), dependent determinative (e.g. bratu-čędъ ‘brother.DAT.SG’ + ‘child’ = ‘nephew’), descriptive determinative (e.g. lixo-klętva ‘bad, evil’ + ‘oath’ = ‘perjury’), possessive (e.g. malo-moštь ‘little’ + ‘power, strength’ = ‘cripple; poor person’), and governing compounds (e.g. vodo-nosъ ‘water’ + ‘carry’ = ‘vessel for water’; see Pohl 1977 for a discussion of these and other examples). As can be seen here, most compounds have a linking element which reflects the thematic vowel. The most common type of verbal governing compound in PIE had the verb as the second element, but in Slavic compounds with an imperative verb form as the first element were productive; e.g. Rosti-slavъ ‘(make) grow’ + ‘glory’ (personal name), ORuss. and ChSl. Daž(d)ь-bogъ ‘give’ + ‘god’ (name of a pagan god), S./Cr. kaži-prst ‘show’ + ‘finger’ = ‘index finger’ (Vaillant 1974: 765−767). Reduplication is attested in a few forms; e.g. glagolъ ‘speech, word’ < PSl. *gol-gol-. For a recent survey of Slavic nominal word-formation, see Matasović (2014), which appeared after this chapter was written.

2.2. Noun inflection In many instances the morphological markers of the various grammatical categories in Slavic do not correspond with what one would expect from the PIE system reconstructed

82. The morphology of Slavic

1541

on the basis of other languages and the regular sound laws of Slavic. Many scholars have posited special phonological changes in final syllables (Auslautgesetze) to explain these forms, but some of these proposals lack a clear phonetic motivation and may be inconsistent with other forms or create problems of relative chronology. Other linguists rely more on analogical changes of varying degrees of plausibility to account for the anomalous endings. A third possibility is the reconstruction of different dialectal IE endings as a starting point for the forms in question. Orr (2000) and Halla-aho (2006) give comprehensive surveys of previous scholarship and arguments for and against these different approaches (for both nominal and verbal inflection, see also Olander 2015, which appeared after this chapter was written). Slavic also developed variant forms of endings due to the fronting of vowels after j (or palatal consonants derived from C+j sequences), resulting in a differentiation of the inherited paradigms into so-called “hard” and “soft” declensional types. These forms are separated by slash marks in Table 82.1. The a/ě alternation in the hard and soft patterns seen in some early OCS mss. is ignored, since it is not consistently represented in these texts and can be considered a phonetic or orthographic feature by the time of OCS. OCS regularly has i for original ь before or after j, so the endings given as -ьjǫ, -ьje, -ьju, -ьjь appear most often as -ijǫ, -ije, -iju, -ii. Note also that there is no separate letter in either the Glagolitic or early Cyrillic alphabet for j. Tab. 82.1: Noun endings o/jo-stem SG

a/ja-stem

i-stem M

u-stem

C-stem

M

N

F

NOM

ъ/ь

о/е

a, i

ь

ъ

y, ę, o, i

ACC

ъ/ь

о/е

ǫ

ь

ъ

ь, =

NOM

GEN

a

y/ę

i

u

e

LOC

ě/i

ě/i

i

u

e

DAT

u

ě/i

i

ovi

i

INS

omь/emь

ojǫ/ejǫ

ъmь

ьmь, ьjǫ

VOC

e/u

=

NOM

o/jo-stem PL NOM/VOC ACC

ьmь

ьjǫ

o/e

i

u

a/ja-stem

i-stem

u-stem

C-stem

ove

e, a, i

M

F

ьje

i

=

NOM

M

N

i

a

y/ę

y/ę

a

y/ę

i

y

i, a

GEN

ъ/ь

ъ/ь

*ьjь

ovъ

ъ

LOC

ěхъ/iхъ

axъ

ьxъ

ъxъ

ьxъ, еxъ

DAT

omъ/emъ

amъ

ьmъ

*ъmъ

ьmъ, еmъ

INS

y/i

ami

ьmi

ъmi

ьmi, y

1542

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 82.1: (continued) o/jo-stem DU

M

N

NAV

a

ě/i

a/ja-stem

i-stem

u-stem

C-stem

ě/i

i

y

i, ě

GEN/LOC

u

u

ьju

ovu

u

DAT/INS

oma/ema

ama

ьma

ъma

ьma

2.2.1. Endings that correspond regularly to reconstructed PIE forms Fewer than half of the endings given above can be transparently derived from standard reconstructions of IE protoforms by regular sound changes. Such processes include the Slavic loss of final consonants (e.g. NOM.SG i-stem -ь < *-is, u-stem -ъ < *-us, GEN.SG o-stem -a < ABL.SG *-ōd), including the loss of a final nasal after ĭ, ŭ (e.g. ACC.SG istem -ь < *-im, ACC.SG u-stem -ъ < *-um), and the monophthongization of diphthongs (e.g. LOC.SG o-stem -ě < *-oi̯ , *-or˙̯; jo-stem -i < *-(i̯ )ei̯ < *-(i̯ )oi̯ ; G sg. u-stem -u < *-ou̯s). These correspondences can be found in all standard handbooks and require no further discussion here. Note that the NOM.SG ending -i found with some soft-stem feminine nouns is from the original -ih2/-i̯ eh2 type; the rest of the inflection is identical to the ordinary (j)a-stems, apart from the VOC.SG, which was identical to the NOM.SG.

2.2.2. Endings that may reflect special sound changes in final position The vowels *a, *ā, *o, *ō merged in Slavic as *a˘̄ , with a subsequent change of short *a to *o in late PSl. The majority of scholars assume that PSl. *a was raised before a nasal consonant in final position, with subsequent loss of the nasal: *-aN# > *-uN# > -ъ. This development would account for the o-stem ACC.SG ending -ъ and the GEN.PL -ъ, -ov-ъ of the consonantal and u-stem declensions. It has been argued that Slavic, Umbrian, and Old Irish point to short *-om in part of IE for the o-stem GEN.PL, rather than the expected *-ōm (e.g. Kortlandt 1978). However, the o-stem GEN.PL in Slavic could also reflect a later shortening of the inherited ending, as is generally assumed for the GEN.PL ending of a-stems, *-oHom, *-eh2om > *-ōm > *-om, resulting in the attested form -ъ in both of these declensions. The jo- and ja-stems show the expected fronting to -ь. The neuter o-stem NOM.SG ending -o then poses a problem, since IE *-om would also be expected to yield -ъ here. Some linguists suggest that this may reflect an original endingless NOM.SG neuter form (see Halla-aho 2006: 117−118; Arumaa 1985: 131−132 for a discussion and references), but the -o is more often explained as a borrowing from the pronominal declension (*tod > to) and/or analogy to the s-stem neuters. In either case, it appears that barytone neuters kept the nasal ending and merged with masculine nouns in Slavic (e.g. darъ ‘gift’, Gk δῶρον; dvorъ ‘court, courtyard’, if this form constitutes an exact match for Skt. dvā´ram, which is first attested in late Vedic. See Hirt 1893: 348−349; Illič-Svityč 1963: 131; and Kortlandt 1975: 45).

82. The morphology of Slavic

1543

A parallel development of long *-āN# > *-ūN# > -y has been posited to explain the of the masculine n-stems in -y (kamy ‘stone’, plamy ‘flame’), although this is incompatible with the development commonly posited for the 1SG present tense *-ōm > *-āN > -ǫ. To avoid this problem, other scholars suggest that -y here reflects *-ons (Halla-aho 2006: 166−172), *-ōns (Matasović 2008: 124), or a circumflex *-ō˜ (Jasanoff 1983; cf. also the proposed derivation of smoky < *smakkō˜ cited above). Other masculine n-stems are attested with final -ę in the NOM.SG, probably reflecting the lengthened grade suffix *-ēn. In OCS the NOM.SG is already being replaced by the ACC.SG form in -en-ь; e.g. NOM.SG korę/korenь ‘root’, kamy/kamenь. The masculine o-stem ACC.PL ending may reflect *-ōns > *-āns > *-ūns > *-ūs > -y (Arumaa 1985: 141), although it is not necessary to reconstruct an original long vowel here. One could also posit *-ons > *-ans > *-uns > *-ūs > -y, with lengthening in compensation for the loss of the nasal consonant, parallel with the i- and u-stem ACC.PL endings: *-ins > *-īs > -i, *-uns > *-ūs > -y. Most scholars derive the a-stem ACC.PL ending in the same manner from an original *-āns or *-ans. The development of vowel + nasal sequences in grammatical endings is obviously a complex problem. There is a wide range of opinions about the relative chronology and outcomes, and any coherent analysis of the phonological developments will entail different assumptions about the original forms of some of the endings. The raising of original o to u could arguably be seen as phonetically more likely before the Slavic merger of o and a, and the reflexes of vowel + nasal sequences in other endings would also seem to require a distinction between the treatment of *ăN/āN and *ŏN/ōN; e.g. a-stem ACC.SG *-ām (> *-am) > -ǫ. Kortlandt (1979a) dates the raising of *oN# to the early BaltoSlavic period, but treats the raising before *-Ns# as a separate process that occurred after the merger of o and a. Matasović (2008: 123−126), on the other hand, dates the raising after the merger of o and a, with outcomes determined by length and the presence or absence of a following consonant: *-an > *-un > -ъ; *-ān > *-ūn > *-ą; *-āns > *-ūns > -y. The soft declension endings also raise questions. South Slavic (including OCS) has jo- and ja-stem ACC.PL -ę, which could be explained as the fronting of *-jūns > *-jīns, but inexplicably without the subsequent loss of the nasal element that occurred in original *-ūns, *-uns, and *-ins. North Slavic has -ě, which does indicate some type of denasalization, but the sequence of developments resulting in this ending is unclear. Although some of the nominal endings explained by the raising of vowels before a final nasal could possibly be attributed to analogy to the u-stem declension, the development of *-om > *-un > -ъ in isolated forms, such as *h1eg̑Hom > azъ ‘I’, root aorist 1SG -ъ < *-om, and possibly the prepositions kъ(n), sъ(n), vъ(n), suggests a regular phonological process. Less widely accepted in the literature is the hypothesis that o was also raised to u before s in final position, which has been proposed to account for the masculine o-stem NOM.SG, *-os# > *-us# > -ъ. This ending has often been explained instead as the result of analogy to the u-stem declension, where -ъ is the regularly expected outcome in both the NOM.SG and ACC.SG. Traces of an earlier masculine NOM.SG ending *-o may be seen in names such as OPol. Boglo, Cr. Ivo, etc. Vermeer (1991) assumes a regular development of *-os > *-o as part of his explanation of the old North Russian NOM.SG ending -e and the Common Slavic adoption of the u-stem VOC.SG ending -u by the jo-stems, for which it is otherwise difficult to provide a plausible motivation. Raising of *-ōi̯ s to *-u̯oi̯ s or *-ūi̯ s > -y would still seem to be the most plausible explanation for the o-stem NOM.SG

1544

XIII. Slavic

INS.PL ending -y. However, Mareš (1969: 116) reconstructs INS.PL *-oi̯ ns, with the nasal reflecting a contamination of the nominal ending *-oi̯ s with the pronominal *-oi̯ mī(s). Hujer (1910: 160−164) sees this instead as a generalization of the regularly fronted ending of the jo-stems: *-ēi̯ s > -i, but using the corresponding back vowel -y after a hard consonant. Olander (2012) offers a convincing reappraisal of the idea that the masculine o-stem NOM.SG ending -ъ represents a phonologically regular outcome of *-os#. Drawing on several individual proposals that have been made by different scholars, he posits a general phonological rule *a˘̄ > *ə˘̄ /__ (R)s# (2012: 337), with *ə, *ǝ̄ > e, ě in the Old Novgorod dialect and ъ, y in the rest of Slavic. The corresponding development for soft stems would be *i̯ ə, *i̯ ǝ̄ > *jь, *jě (probably in all of Slavic; see Olander 2012: 333− 334). This rule allows us to account for a number of otherwise problematic endings; see Olander (2012) for details.

2.2.3. Analogical replacements and innovations If one assumes that the normal phonological outcome of *-eh2(e)s in Slavic is -a, then the most likely explanation for the a-stem NOM.PL ending -y/ę is that it was taken from the ACC.PL, by analogy to the syncretism of the NOM/ACC.PL for the u-stems and feminine i-stems. Some scholars derive the a-stem GEN.SG -y/ę from an earlier *-āns, with -n added to the inherited ending by analogy to feminine n-stems, but the fact that no feminine n-stems are attested in Slavic makes this proposal unconvincing. A borrowing of the NOM/ACC.PL ending to avoid the overlap with the NOM.SG, again by analogy to the syncretism of these cases in the i-stems, would perhaps be a more likely explanation. However, the idea that *-ās in these endings regularly became -y in Slavic, first proposed by Hirt (1893: 353−355), has been accepted by a number of scholars (see Olander 2012: 331−332), and these endings would be phonologically regular according to Olander’s rule cited above. The origin of the o-stem DAT.SG ending -u is unclear. Proposals to account for this include special phonological developments, *-ōi̯ > *-u̯ōi̯ > -u (Vaillant 1958: 31) or *-ōi̯ > *-ōu̯ > -u (Kortlandt 1983: 175; Matasović 2008: 181), or the extension of a hypothetical u-stem DAT.SG ending *-u to the o-stems (Halla-aho 2006: 208−209). The u-stem LOC.SG -u reflects an endingless LOC.SG form *-ōu̯, with lengthened grade of the affix (Vaillant 1958: 109; Arumaa 1985: 126). Slavic, like Baltic and Germanic, has -m- endings in DAT and INS forms (see Darden, this handbook, 2.2): DAT.PL endings -omъ, -аmъ, -ьmъ, -ъmъ < *-V-mus or possibly *-V-mos; INS.PL -ami, -ьmi, -ъmi < *-V-mīs; INS.SG -omь, -ьmь, -ъmь < *-V-mi, DAT/ INS.DU -oma, -ama, -ьma, -ъma < *-V-mā. The Slavic GEN.DU could theoretically reflect *-ou̯s > -u (-ьj-u, -ov-u in the i- and ustems), but Balto-Slavic more likely had a syncretic GEN/LOC.DU *-au, based on the very limited evidence from Baltic and comparison with other IE languages (Vaillant 1958: 38−39). It is not possible to reconstruct PIE oblique dual forms because of the limited evidence. A few endings (in addition to the neuter o-stem NOM.SG discussed above) have been adopted from the pronominal declension. The masculine o-stem NOM.PL ending -i reflects

82. The morphology of Slavic

1545

pronominal *-oi, apparently with generalization of the expected reflex after palatals in the jo-stems (but see Olander 2012: 332 for another explanation). The a-stem INS.SG -ojǫ is also taken from the pronominal declension (with a nasal vowel from the characteristic -m-), and the i-stem feminine INS.SG -ьjǫ is modeled on this. Slavic developed a new gender distinction within o-stem masculine nouns, marked by the replacement of the inherited ACC.SG ending by the GEN.SG -a in nouns denoting persons. This personal/non-personal distinction was already well established by the time of OCS, and was gradually expanded to include animals and extended to the plural and dual in some areas. The other Slavic languages all have the animate/inanimate gender distinction in nouns, with additional personal/non-personal distinctions in some instances.

3. Adjectives 3.1. Adjective derivation Adjectives in Slavic are almost exclusively (j)o-stems (M, N) and (j)a-stems (F). Traces of i-stem adjectives can be seen in a few indeclinable forms in OCS (e.g. isplьnь ‘full, fulfilled’). Original u-stem adjectives were regularly adapted to the o- and a-stem declensions by the addition of the suffix *-k; e.g. lьgъkъ ‘light, easy’, cf. Skt laghú-, Gk ἐλαχύς; tьnъkъ ‘thin’, cf. Skt tanú-, Lat. tenuis. The most productive suffixed types are relational adjectives in *-in- and *-isk- and possessive adjectives in *-j- and *-ov-. OCS has a large number of compound adjectives, not all of which are calques from Greek; e.g. maločismenьnъ ‘small in number’. Compound adjectives, particularly of the possessive type, are also common in the other Slavic languages, e.g. S./Cr. gologlav ‘bareheaded’.

3.2. Adjective inflection Adjective forms were originally declined like nouns, and this pattern is preserved in Slavic. The absence of any original sharp distinction between these two classes can still be seen in a number of stems that function as either noun or adjective; e.g. zъl-ъ, -o, -a ‘evil, bad, wicked’ and zъlo ‘evil, harm, wickedness’. Slavic and Baltic developed new definite adjective forms by adding the pronoun j- to the basic (indefinite) adjective form. In Slavic this developed very early into a distinct declension, with a fusion of the enclitic pronoun and the original grammatical ending into a single desinence in several of the more complex forms, by replacing the original adjective ending with -y-/-i-; compare masculine GEN.SG.DEF nov-a-jego ‘new’, where the two components are still transparent in OCS, with INS.SG.DEF nov-yimь. Already in OCS we also see a tendency to contract or further simplify these endings; e.g. novaago, novago, novymь.

1546

XIII. Slavic

3.3. Comparative and superlative For the origin of the comparative forms, see Darden, this handbook, 3.4. By the time of OCS, all but a small number of adjectives formed their comparative with the productive suffix -ěiš-, which is a Slavic innovation. The *-ē- used to extend the inherited comparative suffix is generally thought to be adverbial in origin (see Arumaa 1985: 98−99). We cannot reconstruct a synthetic superlative form for Proto-Slavic. OCS texts typically use just the comparative form, with the comparative or superlative reading determined by the context. However, there are a few instances of comparative forms with the prefix nai- < na ‘on’ + the particle i, and practically all of the modern Slavic languages form superlatives regularly in this manner (e.g. OCS naivęšte ‘the most’, S./Cr. najveći ‘biggest’, Cz. největší, Pol. największy). The exception is Russian, where the few prefixed forms in nai- are borrowings from OCS. The regular Russian superlative formation is samyj ‘the very, itself’ + the positive degree of the adjective (Vaillant 1958: 593−595).

4. Numerals 4.1. Cardinal numerals Slavic *(j)edin- ‘one’ can be most easily explained as representing an ablaut variant *ei̯ no- ‘one’ augmented by a prefix *ed- of uncertain origin; cf. (j)edъva ‘scarcely’. It is inflected according to the pronominal declension pattern. The unprefixed form of this numeral survives as the pronoun inъ ‘other’, but in its original meaning appears only as the initial member of a few compounds; e.g. inorogъ ‘unicorn’. The other IE root with the meaning ‘one’, *sem-, is the basis for the pronoun samъ ‘oneself’. Slavic dъva (M), dъvě (N, F) derive straightforwardly from IE *duu̯oh1, *duu̯oi̯ h1, originally with oblique pronominal dual forms: GEN/LOC dъvoju, DAT/INS dъvěma. IE *trei̯ es ‘three’ was originally inflected as a plural i-stem, and this pattern is preserved in OCS. Masculine *trьje, OCS trije may represent the normal phonological development of heterosyllabic *ei̯ , of which there are few examples, or analogy with the zero grade of other forms. Feminine tri is presumably the extension of ACC.PL *trins > tri to the nominative, as seen in other feminine i-stems, and neuter tri reflects original *tri-h2. The numeral ‘four’, originally a consonantal stem, shows a similar opposition of četyre (M) vs. četyri (N, F) in OCS. The Slavic forms point to an original *ū, which must be a substitution for the vowel alternations *kwetu̯ōr-/*kwetu̯or-/*kwetur- in different cases that are reconstructed on the basis of other languages. The numerals from ‘five’ to ‘nine’ are feminine i-declension nouns with the same stem as the corresponding ordinals, which replaced the indeclinable forms of these numerals reconstructed for PIE: OCS pętь, šestь, sedmь, osmь, devętь. The form for ‘eight’ has final -m by analogy to the form for ‘seven’. In sedmь the cluster -dm- would not be expected to survive in Proto-Slavic, and may represent a contamination of a possible cardinal form *setь < *septm̥ and ordinal *semъ; cf. ORuss. semь ‘seven’, semъ ‘seventh’ (Comrie 1992: 756−757). For ‘six’ and ‘nine’, see Darden, this handbook, 4.1.3− 4.1.4. Unlike ‘one’ through ‘four’, which were treated like modifiers, judging by the evidence of OCS, the numerals ‘five’ through ‘nine’ were quantifiers with a following noun in the GEN.PL.

82. The morphology of Slavic

1547

The numeral ‘ten’ was a consonantal stem in -t in Balto-Slavic, probably masculine (see Darden, this handbook, 4.1.2.). The original declensional pattern is seen most clearly in OCS in the forms for the teens, which are formed on the pattern X-on-ten.LOC.SG (e.g. dъva na desęte ‘12’), and in the tens, which are formed on the pattern X tens.GEN.PL (e.g. pętь desętъ ‘50’). Already in OCS, desętь was shifting to the feminine i-stem declension, like the numerals ‘five’ through ‘nine’. The numeral sъto ‘100’ is a neuter noun, as in PIE, but the initial vowel of the stem is not the expected reflex of the syllabic nasal in *k̑m̥tóm. It may represent the reflex of an allegro form *sutom from a variant *sumtom, beside expected *simtom (see Comrie 1992: 784). For ‘1000’, see Darden, this handbook, 4.1.1.

4.2 Ordinal numerals For the formation of the ordinal numerals ‘first’ through ‘tenth’ and ‘hundredth’, see Darden, this handbook, 4.2. The ordinal forms of complex numbers are rarely attested in OCS, and the modern Slavic languages have created new ordinal forms based on the corresponding cardinals. The earliest pattern for the teens was presumably with the ordinal form of the first component (e.g. pętoje na desęte ‘15 th’), and for the tens with the ordinal form of both components (e.g. Cr. ChSl. sedmoe desetoe ‘70 th’; Vaillant 1958: 658). For ‘11 th’ OCS has jedinyi na desęte, with a definite form of jedinъ ‘one’ instead of prъvyi ‘first’. OCS also has compound forms, either with the linking vowel o or with an invariable NOM.SG form of the first component, and typically with the addition of the adjectival suffix -ьn-; e.g. osmonadesęt- ‘18 th’, devętьnadesętьn- ‘19 th’, dъvadesętьn‘20 th’ (see Vaillant 1958: 657−659; Comrie 1992: 771−772).

4.3. Collective numerals and other forms The Slavic collective numerals for groups of two, three, or four reflect thematic IE formations with o-grade of the root in dъvoje, troje, and both e- and o-grade in četvero/ četvoro (in OCS proper only o-grade forms are attested, according to Comrie 1992: 809). The higher collective numerals in Slavic are formed in analogy to the latter; e.g. pętero/ pętoro, etc. Slavic also formed derivatives of collective numerals in -ica; e.g. OCS troica ‘group of three, the Trinity’. In addition to the numerals proper, we can also mention oba ‘both’, which has forms parallel to those of dъva ‘two’; the second component is identical to that of Gk ἄμφω, Lat ambō, etc. < *-bhō. The word for ‘half’ is the u-stem noun polъ, which is a Slavic innovation.

5. Non-personal pronouns 5.1. Demonstrative pronouns Slavic originally had a three-way system of deixis, which is preserved in OCS: proximal sь < *k̑i-, medial tъ < *to-, and distal onъ < *h2en-o-. The inherited distinction between

1548

XIII. Slavic

o- and i-inflection is preserved, but there are a number of innovations in individual forms. Tab. 82.2: Demonstrative pronouns SG

PL

DU

M

N

F

M

N

F

NOM

tъ

to

ta

ti

ta

ty

ACC

tъ

to

tǫ

ty

ta

ty

GEN

togo

toję

těxъ

LOC

tomь

to(j)i

těxъ

DAT

tomu

to(j)i

těmъ

INS

těmь

tojǫ

těmi

SG

M

N

F

ta

tě

tě

toju

těma

PL

DU

M

N

F

M

N

F

NOM

sь

se

si

si(j)i

si

siję

ACC

sь

se

sijǫ

siję

si

siję

GEN

sego

seję

sixъ

LOC

semь

se(j)i

sixъ

DAT

semu

se(j)i

simъ

INS

simь

sejǫ

simi

M

N

F

sija

si

si

seju

sima

In the NOM.SG of the medial demonstrative, Slavic does not exhibit the s- (M, F), t- (N) suppletion seen in other IE languages. The masculine NOM.SG form has the same ending as o-stem nouns. The masculine/neuter LOC.SG and DAT.SG forms have -m- instead of *-sm-, and the final -u of the DAT.SG presents the same problems as the ending of the ostem nouns. The masculine/neuter GEN.SG is a Slavic innovation, a remaking of an earlier GEN or ABL form reinforced with the particle -go (Vaillant 1958: 369; Arumaa 1985: 175). The masculine/neuter INS.SG is based on the plural stem *toi-. The oblique feminine singular forms are based on a stem toj-, which has also been interpreted as an extension of the plural stem to the singular (Arumaa 1985: 176−177), but it could also reflect a change of *-sj- > j, like *-sm- > -m- (Darden, this handbook, 5.4). Slavic has eliminated gender distinctions in the oblique plural forms. The GEN.PL těxъ could reflect either *toisōm or *toisom (see the discussion of the o-stem GEN.PL above), and the DAT.PL and INS.PL have the characteristic -m-, as in the noun. The proximal demonstrative generally exhibits the historically expected forms, apart from the innovations seen also in the o-stem pronominal declension. The neuter NOM.SG has se rather than historically expected *sь. The masculine NOM.PL reflects a remade *sьji in place of expected *sьje, and the ACC.PL is based on the NOM.PL. The feminine forms are secondary, following the same pattern as feminine nouns in -ī/-ii.

82. The morphology of Slavic

1549

5.2. The anaphoric and relative pronouns Because of the fronting of back vowels after j and the development of prothetic j before front vowels, in Slavic the forms of the anaphoric (3 rd person) pronoun *i- and the relative *i̯ o- fell together. The relative is distinguished from the anaphor in OCS by the addition of the particle že. The nominative forms of the anaphoric pronoun (SG *i, *je, *ja, PL *i, *ja, *ję, DU *ja, *i, *i) are replaced by the demonstratives tъ or onъ, with the historically expected forms attested only as a component of the relative pronoun (e.g. M.NOM.SG i-že ‘who, which’). The corresponding accusative forms (SG i, je, jǫ, PL ję, ja, ję, DU ja, i, i) were enclitic. After a preposition the anaphoric/relative pronoun has a prefixed n-; this represents the final n of the prepositions *vъn, *kъn, *sъn, which was reanalyzed as part of the pronoun and generalized to occur after all prepositions. Otherwise, the anaphoric/relative pronoun forms follow the same pattern as sь above.

5.3. Interrogative pronouns Slavic also distinguishes an o- and i-stem declension for the pronominal stem *kw-, the former used for animates and the latter for inanimates. The interrogative pronouns in Slavic have only singular forms, with no gender distinctions. The interrogative ‘who?’ has adopted the GEN form for the ACC, like animate masculine nouns. The NOM of ‘who?’ was reinforced by the addition of -to already in Proto-Slavic, while for the interrogative ‘what?’ this does not appear to have been a common Slavic development, since a number of languages have reflexes of the shorter form *čь; e.g. OPol. we-cz ‘in what?’, Cr. čakavian dialects ča ‘what?’. The oblique forms of ‘what?’ are the only pronominal forms in Slavic that retain the original GEN ending and the *-sm- of the DAT and LOC forms, although the latter have been reshaped by analogy to the GEN česo as well as other pronominal forms. Tab. 82.3: Interrogative pronouns ‘who’ NOM

kъ-to

‘what’ čь-to

ACC

kogo GEN

česo

LOC

komь

česomь

DAT

komu

česomu

INS

cěmь

čimь

6. Personal pronouns Forms attested in early Slavic texts are given in Table 82.4; clitic forms are listed after the comma. Those with cognates in other IE languages and for which a Balto-Slavic form can be reasonably reconstructed are discussed in Darden, this handbook, 6.

1550

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 82.4: Personal pronouns ‘I’

‘you.SG’

‘oneself’

NOM

(j)azъ (ja)

ty

−

ACC

mene, mę

tebe, tę

sebe, sę

GEN

mene

tebe

sebe

LOC

mьně/mъně

tebě/tobě

sebě/sobě

DAT

mьně/mъně, mi

tebě/tobě, ti

sebě/sobě, si

INS

mъnojǫ

tobojǫ

sobojǫ

‘we’

‘you.PL’

‘we two’

NOM

my

vy

vě

ACC

nasъ, ny

vasъ, vy

na/ny

GEN

nasъ

vasъ

LOC

nasъ

vasъ

DAT

namъ, ny

vamъ, vy

INS

nami

vami

‘you two’ va/vy

naju

vaju

nama, na

vama, va

1SG ja is attested in ORuss. and is the form used in most of the modern Slavic languages and dialects, so it is likely that this shorter form already existed as a variant in ProtoSlavic. The forms of the genitive for the various pronouns were adopted as stressed forms for the accusative, parallel to the development of the animate accusative forms in nouns, while the inherited (originally tonic) accusative forms became clitics. The inherited GEN.PL and LOC.PL forms were apparently reanalyzed as na-sъ, va-sъ and these stems were combined with the nominal endings for the DAT.PL and INS.PL. Since the latter forms look like a-stem nouns, this may explain the final -ě, -ojǫ in the DAT.SG and INS.SG forms (Vaillant 1958: 450). The oblique dual forms also follow the same patterns as nouns and demonstrative pronouns, using the stems na-, va- of the plural. The possessive pronouns 1SG *mojь, 2SG *tvojь, REFL *svojь reflect IE *mo-, *tu̯o-, *su̯o- with the addition of a suffix *-i̯ o. The plural possessives našь, vašь are more recent formations, built on the genitive forms with the addition of the *-jь (< *-i̯ o) suffix used to form possessive adjectives (Vaillant 1958: 465). There were no possessive forms for the dual 1 st/2 nd persons or for the 3 rd person pronoun; possession was indicated by using the genitive case.

7. Verbs 7.1. Verb derivation The inflectional system of the Slavic verb is based on the relationship between a present stem and an infinitive/aorist stem. Only four old athematic present tense formations are

82. The morphology of Slavic

1551

attested in OCS, and the corresponding INF/AOR stems are built in different ways. For the copula jesmь (1SG) < *h1es-, the INF/AOR stem is suppletive: by-ti (INF) < *bhuH-. The verb věmь ‘know’ < *u̯oi̯ d- has an INF/AOR in *-ē-, věd-ě-ti. Both damь ‘give’ and ěmь/jamь ‘eat’ use the bare root for the INF/AOR: da-ti < *deh3-, ěs-ti/jas-ti < PSl. *ēd-. There are only traces of reduplicated forms. Apart from a few verbs with expressive reduplication of the entire root, we have only (1SG) deždǫ (thematic, with the suffix -je), dě-ti ‘do, say, put’ < *dheh1-, and probably damь, 3PL dadętъ ‘give’ (see Arumaa 1985: 210−211). There are a number of thematic presents based on a bare root, which use either the root or root + *-ā- for the INF/AOR; e.g. nes-e-, nes-ti ‘carry’ < *h1nek̑- and ber-e-, bьra-ti ‘take’ < *bher-. Other primary verbs derived with unproductive suffixes and the few verbs with a nasal infix also have the bare stem for the INF/AOR; e.g. ži-ve-, ži-ti < *gwih3- and sęd-e-, sěs-ti < *sed-. Slavic has a productive type of present with the suffix -ne, which is used to form inchoatives, verbs which indicate the gradual acquisition of a certain quality (derived from adjectives), or semelfactives, and which can be related to several different nasal suffix formations in IE (see Birnbaum and Schaeken 1997: 87− 88). These verbs typically have infinitive stems with the suffix -nǫ, the origin of which is not entirely clear (see Arumaa 1985: 225−226), but lack the nasal suffix in the aorist; e.g. dvig-ne-, INF dvig-nǫ-ti, AOR.1SG dvig-ъ/dvig-oxъ ‘move’. Roots ending in a vowel have the -nǫ in the aorist as well; e.g. mi-ne-, mi-nǫ-ti, mi-nǫ-xъ ‘pass’. The most widespread present suffix is -je, which is used to form a number of different types of verbs, with different corresponding INF/AOR stems. The oldest group is based on (mainly) egrade roots, like the primary thematic present forms above, and also have either the root or root + *-ā- for the INF/AOR stem; e.g. zna-je-, zna-ti ‘know’ < *g̑neh3- and češ-e- < *kes-je, čеs-a-ti ‘scratch, comb’. The INF/AOR in -a- corresponding to a present in -jeis also characteristic of denominal verbs and various expressive forms; e.g. glagol-je-, glagol-a-ti ‘speak’ < glagolъ ‘speech, word’. There are also productive types in -a-je (deverbal imperfectives, usually iterative), -ě-je (denominal/deadjectival intransitives), and u-je (denominal/deadjectival), with corresponding INF/AOR stems in -a-, -ě-, and -ova, respectively; e.g. pad-a-je-, pad-a-ti ‘fall’ < pad- ‘fall’; um-ě-je-, um-ě-ti ‘know (how to do something)’ < umъ ‘mind’; věr-u-je-, věr-ov-a-ti ‘believe’ < věra ‘faith, belief’. The -a-je- and -u-je- types were also used to adapt many borrowings. In addition to the thematic present tense forms, Slavic has a present formation with 1SG -jǫ and a suffix -ī in the other forms, which is sometimes referred to as “halfthematic” in the literature. The corresponding INF/AOR stems are built either with the suffix -ī or -ě. For the origin of these types, see Darden, this handbook, 7.4.2 and 7.5.2. Derivational morphology is used to express aspectual relationships, as already mentioned for certain suffixes above. Slavic has a rich system of verbal prefixes, which in addition to modifying the lexical meaning also typically change an imperfective verbal stem to perfective. Corresponding imperfectives with the same meaning are then derived by suffixation; e.g. perfective otъ-vratiti ‘to turn away’, imperfective otъ-vraštati.

7.2. Verb inflection The verbal system of Slavic is considerably simpler than that reconstructed for PIE. There is no middle voice or synthetic perfect conjugation. Of the modal forms, only the

1552

XIII. Slavic

optative survives (as the imperative). The aorist became a simple past tense and the original imperfect was replaced by a new formation. Slavic developed new periphrastic forms for some categories, as well as a new system of grammatical aspect, in which every action is characterized as perfective or imperfective, using two derivationally related verbs.

7.2.1. Present tense The present tense endings follow the general pattern reconstructed for the primary endings in PIE, although a few forms do not correspond exactly to the traditional reconstructions of these endings. The latter can be more easily explained with the revised picture of the thematic declension developed by some linguists since the 1960s (see Beekes 1995: 252 for a summary of this newer reconstruction in tabular form), but not all scholars accept this view (e.g. Cowgill 1985, 2006). In most instances a single desinence has been generalized for both athematic and thematic verbs, the only difference being the presence or absence of the original thematic vowel. Where distinct forms do exist, the verbs with present tense stems in -ī behave like thematic verbs. For the first person singular, Slavic has athematic -mь < *-mi and thematic -ǫ, which most likely reflects *-oH plus a nasal consonant, either from the primary or secondary athematic 1SG (for a different view, see Kortlandt 1979b: 56−57). For the verb věděti ‘know’, there is also a unique 1SG form vědě, representing an original perfect *u̯oi̯ da + i. OCS has athematic 2SG -si, thematic -ši, which cannot come from *-si. Some scholars have explained these as reflexes of the mediopassive ending *-soi̯ (see Cowgill 2006: 553−554), but this seems unlikely. Based on the newer reconstruction of the thematic endings, the OCS endings could be interpreted as a contamination of athematic *-si with the thematic ending *-eh1i. In either case, the thematic ending must reflect a generalization of the “ruki” reflex -š (cf. Collins, this handbook, 2.5) after all stems ending in a vowel (including athematic imamь, imaši ‘have’). There is a single instance of athematic -sь < *-si in the Kiev Fragments (podasь ‘give’). Тhe Freising Fragments appear to have some instances of thematic -š(ь) and there is fairly early attestation of 2SG -šь in ORuss. Given that all of the modern Slavic languages also have thematic 2SG -š < -šь, it is reasonable to posit a variant form *-šĭ for Proto-Slavic. For the 3SG and 3PL, OCS has forms ending in -tъ for both athematic and thematic verbs (e.g. dastъ, dadętъ ‘give’; beretъ, berǫtъ ‘take’). ORuss. has -tь < *-ti for both types, while 3 rd person endings with no final consonant are also attested for thematic verbs in OCS and in many other Slavic languages (e.g. Marianus bǫde ‘be.FUT.3SG’, Suprasliensis xъšte ‘want.PRS.3SG’; Vaillant 1966: 227). In the traditional reconstruction, the ORuss. form would represent the inherited ending, with -tъ and -Ø as secondary developments within Slavic. If one accepts the newer reconstruction, the 3SG forms without a final consonant could reflect the original endingless thematic form, with the addition of pronominal -tъ in OCS and extension of athematic *-ti in ORuss. The nasal vowel in the 3PL points to original *-nti or *-nt in Slavic, with the various attested forms remade by analogy to the 3SG. Slavic has a variety of 1PL forms, which are the same for both athematic and thematic verbs. OCS normally has -mъ, with a newer ending -my that began to appear first in

82. The morphology of Slavic

1553

athematic verbs, then spread to other types. The other Slavic languages have -m < -mъ, as well as -my, -me, and -mo. The form -mъ can be interpreted as a reflex of *-mos, with the same special phonological development of *-os# posited for the o-stem NOM.SG by some scholars, but a development from the more recent reconstruction of a thematic 1PL *-mom would also be phonologically plausible. 1PL -me and -mo could also reflect *-mes/-mos or possibly the secondary ending without the final consonant, while -my is undoubtedly a Slavic innovation, by analogy to the 1PL pronoun my. Note that Slavic generalized the thematic vowel -e- for the 1PL (and 1DU) present tense in place of -o-; e.g. 1PL beremъ. The 2PL ending is -te < *-th1e. The dual forms are similar to those attested for other IE languages: OCS 1DU -vě , 2DU -ta, 3DU -te, -ta. The 1DU ending seems to have been modeled on the corresponding pronoun vě. Other old Slavic languages also have -va, which corresponds with Lith. -va and Skt -vas.

7.2.2. Aorist OCS has three types of aorist forms: a (thematic) root aorist, which is attested for only a small number of verbs, a sigmatic aorist, and a newer productive aorist based on the sigmatic type. There is no evidence for an augment vowel in any of these forms. The personal endings reflect the PIE secondary endings, with some mixing of the athematic and thematic types, as seen above for the present tense. The root aorist is the most archaic type and represents a continuation of either the IE thematic aorist or imperfect (Arumaa 1985: 297). The endings are mostly a straightforward continuation of the secondary thematic verbal endings; e.g., 1SG pad-ъ < *-om ‘fall’, 2/3SG pad-e < *-es, *-et, 2PL pad-ete < *-ete, 3PL pad-ǫ < *-ont. 1PL pad-omъ and 1DU pad-ově have the same ending as the present tense, but with the original ograde of the theme vowel. The other dual forms also have the same endings as the present tense. Stems ending in a vowel have athematic 2/3SG forms; e.g. 2/3SG da ‘give’. Verbs with alternating stress patterns appear fairly regularly with final -tъ in the 2/3SG, as in the 3SG present tense (e.g. 2/3SG umьrě-tъ ‘die’). Athematic verbs have -stъ, which can be explained as the regular change of the stem final -d > s before t or as a continuation of an athematic sigmatic aorist form (Vaillant 1966: 56). The original formation of the sigmatic aorist, with lengthened grade of the root + s + athematic endings, is still discernible in OCS, and there are direct correspondences with Indo-Iranian; e.g. Skt a-vākṣ-am, OCS věs-ъ ‘carry, transport’ < *(h1e-)u̯ēg̑ h-s-. The first person forms in Slavic are thematic, and we see the regular development of s > x/ š after r, u, k, i and before a vowel; e.g. rek- ‘say’, 1sg rěxъ, 1PL rěxomъ, 2PL rěste, 3PL rěšę < *rēk-s-n̥t. The 2/3SG is based on the root aorist, with no lengthening; e.g. rečе. Slavic created a new productive aorist formation on the basis of the “ruki” variants of the s-aorist, but without any ablaut in the stem; e.g. děla- ‘make, do’, děla-xъ, děla, děla-xomъ, děla-ste, děla-šę. Stems ending in a consonant insert a theme vowel: rekoxъ, reče, rek-oxomъ, rek-oste, rek-ošę. Some of the other Slavic languages have different endings for the 1PL, as in the present tense, and may exhibit an athematic formation; e.g. OCz. vedechme ‘we led’.

1554

XIII. Slavic

7.2.3. Imperfect Slavic replaced the PIE imperfect with a new formation, based on a suffix -ax- added to a stem in -ě or -a, with secondary thematic endings (see Darden, this handbook, 7.7 for a discussion of the origin of these forms); e.g. nes- ‘carry’, nesěaxъ, nesěaše, nesěaxomъ, nesěašete, nesěaxǫ. The verb ‘to be’ has aorist-like forms with a stem bě- (1SG běxъ, 3PL běšę) for the imperfect, as well as the pattern seen in other verbs (1SG běaxъ, 3PL běaxǫ).

7.2.4. Imperative The Slavic imperative continues the PIE optative in *-i̯ eh1/-ih1, although there are a number of unresolved questions about the development of certain forms. As an example of the thematic declension, we may cite 2SG beri ‘take’ < *bheroi̯ h1s, 3SG beri < bheroi̯ h1t, 1PL berěmъ < *bheroi̯ h1me (with -mъ as in other forms with original secondary endings), 2PL berěte < *bheroi̯ h1te. As in the NOM.PL of o-stem nouns and pronouns, we seem to have an irregular development of *-ōi̯ (< *-oi̯ h1) to -i in the 2/3SG, as indicated by the reflexes of the second palatalization of velars; e.g. rьci ‘say’ (but cf. also Olander 2012: 332). Verbs with a present in -je regularly have *-ōi̯ > *-ēi̯ > -i because of the palatal consonant, and the verbs with a present in -ī and the athematic verbs reflect the zero grade *-ih1. The athematic singular forms daždь ‘give’, jaždь ‘eat’, věždь ‘know’ must reflect a final sequence of *-djĭ, but athematic verbs in other IE languages had the full grade of the optative suffix in the singular, and the development of these forms remains unclear (see Vaillant 1966: 34; Arumaa 1985: 311). The only 3PL imperative form attested in OCS, bǫdǫ ‘be’, is unlikely to reflect the original optative ending *-oi̯ h1nt and may instead continue an injunctive *bhundont (Arumaa 1985: 311). Apart from the imperative, the original optative is the most likely origin for the conditional paradigm of ‘be’: bimь, bi, bi, bimъ, biste, bišę/bǫ (the latter again perhaps an original injunctive), rather than reflecting an original preterite as proposed by some scholars; but the ablaut of the singular and the 1SG ending cannot be original (Vaillant 1966: 34; Arumaa 1985: 318). Other 1SG forms attested in OCS (e.g. bǫděmь ‘may I be’, priměmь ‘may I receive’) are likewise newer formations.

7.2.5. Periphrastic forms Slavic developed a new periphrastic perfect and pluperfect, using the auxiliary verb ‘be’ plus the l-participle (see below); e.g. (j)esi vъzęlъ ‘(you) have taken’, běaxǫ prišьli ‘(they) had come’. A future perfect formed with the future of ‘be’ plus the l-participle is also attested rarely in OCS. The conditional mood is expressed by the conditional (later aorist) forms of ‘be’ plus the l-participle. No distinct future tense can be reconstructed for Proto-Slavic. OCS texts use present tense verb forms with future meaning, or form periphrastic futures with načęti/vъčęti ‘begin’ or, more commonly, iměti ‘have’. Constructions with xotěti ‘want’ also occur, but not with a purely future meaning according to Vaillant (1966: 107). Some modern Slavic languages regularly use the present

82. The morphology of Slavic

1555

tense forms of perfective verbs for the perfective future. Otherwise, the modern Slavic languages form the future with the auxiliaries ‘want’, ‘have’, or the future of ‘be’.

7.3. Nominal forms Slavic has a number of participial and other non-finite forms with cognates in other IE languages. The present active participle is formed with the suffix *-nt-, *-nt-i̯ - and has a mixture of athematic and thematic endings; e.g. NOM.SG M/N nesy ‘carrying’, F nesǫšti. The NOM.SG -y reflects a special phonological development of original *-onts, possibly different from final *-ons, judging by the occurrence of NOM.SG -a in North Slavic (e.g. ORuss., OCz. bera ‘taking’). A variety of different explanations have been proposed for these forms; see, for example, Kortlandt (1979a, 1983: 179−180); Holzer (1980); Orr (2000: 174−184); Halla-aho (2006: 172−173); and Olander (2012: 333). The je- and ipresents regularly have -ę from *-i̯ ents < *-i̯ onts and *-īnts. The past active participle continues the perfect active participle in *-u̯es-. Slavic has zero grade *-us-, *-us-i̯ - and the same declension as for the present active participle; e.g. nesъ, nesъši. The past passive participles reflect verbal adjectives with the suffixes *-to-, *-no-; e.g., prostrъtъ ‘stretched’, viděnъ ‘seen’, and neuter verbal substantives are formed from the same stems with the addition of -ьj-e. Slavic also has a present passive participle formed with the suffix *-mo-, as in Baltic (e.g. nesomъ ‘being carried’) and a participle in *-lo- used to form the perfect (e.g. neslъ). Apart from Slavic, forms in *-lo- became part of the verbal system only in Armenian and Tocharian, and purely adjectival forms also exist in Slavic; e.g. teplъ ‘warm’, obilъ ‘abundant’. The infinitive ending -ti reflects the LOC.SG of an abstract verbal noun in *-ti, and the supine -tъ reflects the ACC.SG of an abstract verbal noun in *-tu.

8. References Arumaa, Peeter 1985 Urslavische Grammatik. Einführung in das vergleichende Studium der slavischen Sprachen. III. Band. Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Winter. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1995 Comparative Indo-European linguistics. An introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Birnbaum, Henrik 1972 Indo-European nominal formations submerged in Slavic. In: Dean Worth (ed.), The Slavic word: Proceedings of the International Slavistic Colloquium at UCLA, September 11−16, 1970. The Hague: Mouton, 142−163. Birnbaum, Henrik and Jos Schaeken 1997 Das altkirchenslavische Wort. Bildung-Bedeutung-Herleitung. Munich: Sagner. Comrie, Bernard 1992 Balto-Slavonic. In: Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European numerals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 717−833. Cowgill, Warren 1985 The personal endings of thematic verbs in Indo-European. In: Bernfried Schlerath (ed.), Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der

1556

XIII. Slavic

Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 20.−25. Februar 1983. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 109−118. Cowgill, Warren 2006 The personal endings of thematic verbs in Indo-European (longer version of Cowgill 1985). In: Jared S. Klein (ed.), The Collected writings of Warren Cowgill. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave, 535−567. Derksen, Rick 2008 Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Diehls, Paul 1963 Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Halla-aho, Jussi 2006 Problems of Proto-Slavic historical nominal morphology. Helsinki: Dept. of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures, University of Helsinki. Hirt, Hermann 1893 Zu den slavischen Auslautsgesetzen. Indogermanische Forschungen 2: 337−364. Holzer, Georg 1980 Die urslavischen Auslautgesetze. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 26: 7−27. Hujer, Oldřich 1910 Slovanská deklinace jmenná [Slavic nominal declension]. Prague: Náklad České akademie. Illič-Svityč, Vladislav M. 1963 Imennaja akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom [Nominal accentuation in Baltic and Slavic]. Moscow: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Jasanoff, Jay 1983 A rule of final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 139−149. Kortlandt, Frederik 1975 Slavic accentuation. A study in relative chronology. Lisse: de Ridder. Kortlandt, Frederik 1978 On the history of the genitive plural in Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and Indo-European. Lingua 45: 281−300. Kortlandt, Frederik 1979a On the history of the Slavic nasal vowels. Indogermanische Forschungen 84: 259−272. Kortlandt, Frederik 1979b Toward a reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic verbal system. Lingua 49: 51−70. Kortlandt, Frederik 1982 IE *pt in Slavic. Folia linguistica historica 3: 25−28. Kortlandt, Frederik 1983 On final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11: 167−185. Mareš, František 1969 Diachronische Phonologie des Ur- und Frühslavischen. Munich: Sagner. Matasović, Ranko 2008 Poredbenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika [A comparative historical grammar of the Croatian language]. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. Matasović, Ranko 2014 Slavic nominal word-formation: Proto-Indo-European origins and historical development. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. Olander, Thomas 2012 Proto-Indo-European *-os in Slavic. Russian linguistics 36: 319−341. Olander, Thomas 2015 Proto-Slavic inflectional morphology: A comparative handbook. Leiden-Boston: Brill Orr, Robert 2000 Common Slavic nominal morphology. A new synthesis. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.

83. The syntax of Slavic

1557

Pohl, Heinz Dieter 1977 Die nominalkomposition im Alt- und Gemeinslavischen. Ein Beitrag zur slavischen, indogermanischen und allgemeinen Wortbildung. Klagenfurt: Klagenfurter Sprachwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft. Vaillant, André 1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome II. Morphologie (Flexion nominale, Flexion pronominale). Lyon: IAC. Vaillant, André 1966 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome III. Le verbe. Paris: Klincksieck. Vaillant, André 1974 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome IV. La formation des noms. Paris: Klincksieck. Vermeer, Willem 1991 The mysterious North Russian nominative singular ending -e and the problem of the reflex of Proto-Indo-European *-os in Slavic. Die Welt der Slaven 36: 271−293. Witczak, Krzysztof 2002 Indo-European abstracta ending with -osti. The Ossetic evidence. Lingua Posnaniensis 44: 175−179.

Keith Langston, Athens, GA (USA)

83. The syntax of Slavic 1. Introduction 2. Word classes 3. Nominal morphosyntax and adpositional phrases 4. Verbal morphosyntax and periphrastic formations

5. Word order 6. Sentence syntax 7. References

1. Introduction This chapter will analyze the syntax of Slavic languages, taking into account their diachronic development from Proto-Slavic to the current stages. Proto-Slavic was not recorded; therefore all forms coming from this language are reconstructed. Since syntactic patterns are much more difficult to reconstruct than morphological forms, the empirical basis for the investigation pursued in this chapter will be Old Church Slavonic (OCS), which is the first literary and liturgical Slavic language. The manuscripts written in Old Church Slavonic come from the end of the 10 th century; they are translations of Greek ecclesiastical texts made by two monks from Salonika, Constantine (Cyril) and Methodius. The monks’ native dialect was presumably South-Eastern Macedonian, but since they had been delegated by the Byzantine Emperor Michael III to go to Moravia, the texts may have been influenced by local Moravian varieties as well. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-004

1558

XIII. Slavic

Slavic languages show remarkably lax word order patterns, which often reflect the ordering of information presented in a clause: constituents representing old information come first, whereas those carrying new information come last. However, the unmarked order is consistently Subject-Verb-Object. Traditionally, Slavic languages are divided into three subgroups: East, West, and South Slavic. West and South Slavic languages are pro-drop languages, which means that they allow subject omission, unless the subject is focused or topicalized. East Slavic languages are not pro-drop, and the subject cannot be normally omitted, unless it is a topic. In subject-less structures the clause-initial position is usually occupied by the verb (a participle in periphrastic tense constructions) or an adverbial. South Slavic languages have pronominal and auxiliary clitics, which are either adjacent to the verb (as in Bulgarian and Macedonian) or always occur in a uniform order after the first syntactic constituent in a sentence (as in Serbian, Croatian, Slovene, as well as in Czech and Slovak, which belong to the West Slavic group). Contemporary East Slavic languages do not have pronominal or auxiliary clitics. Given space limitations, the focus of this chapter is placed on those elements of Slavic syntax that are not commonly found in other Indo-European languages and therefore deserve special mention. Consequently, it examines at some length the properties of the Slavic periphrastic tense, which is formed with the auxiliary ‘be’ as the unique auxiliary in all contexts, as well as multiple wh-movement, which involves fronting all the wh-elements (that is, question words such as what and who in English) to clauseinitial position. Moreover, this chapter will also concentrate on those properties of syntax that are assumed to be typical of Proto-Indo-European, but which were lost in most languages that subsequently evolved with the notable exception of Slavic. Hence, it contains a detailed discussion of the development of second position cliticization, which according to Wackernagel (1892) was a basic syntactic pattern of Proto-Indo-European, and which is currently found in some South and West Slavic languages.

2. Word classes Word classes in Slavic include nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, pronouns, adpositions, conjunctions, and interjections. Old Church Slavonic had a rich system of participles; they were all specified for voice (active or passive) and tense (present or past). This system has been preserved to various degrees in contemporary Slavic languages. All Slavic languages except Bulgarian and Macedonian lack articles.

3. Nominal morphosyntax and adpositional phrases Nominal categories in Slavic are specified for number, gender, and in some instances, also for definiteness. Most Slavic languages have seven morphological cases including vocative. The only exceptions are Bulgarian and Macedonian, which have lost case on nouns and currently only show some case distinctions on pronouns. The case system in Proto-Slavic was inherited from Late Proto-Indo-European with slight modifications: the forms covered by ablative syncretized with the genitive (Stieber 1971: 9; Schenker 2002: 85). There were three numbers (singular, dual, and plural) in Old Church Slavonic, on

83. The syntax of Slavic

1559

a par with other Indo-European languages, but the dual form fell out of regular use in all contemporary Slavic languages apart from Slovene and Upper and Lower Sorbian.

3.1. Articles Bulgarian and Macedonian, the only two Slavic languages that have lost morphological case are also the only ones that have the definite article. The article occurs as an enclitic after the first element in a noun phrase. Thus, if the noun is the only element in an NP, the article cliticizes on it; if there are more elements in the NP, the article follows the first one, such as the adjective in (1b). (1)

a. momce-to boy-the b. goljamo-to momce big-the boy (Bulgarian, Giusti 2002)

There were no articles in Old Church Slavonic per se, but the demonstratives j- and tъ were used as pronouns and formed part of the adjectival declension. These demonstratives declined for gender, number, and case, and tъ was the source of the article in Bulgarian and Macedonian. It is difficult to establish when the demonstrative tъ grammaticalized into the article, and the topic is a matter of some controversy. DimitrovaVulchanova and Vulchanov (2012) observe that the Codex Suprasliensis, an Old Church Slavonic manuscript from the 11 th century, contains a homophonous element which may function either as a demonstrative or an enclitic article. When used as an article, this element lacks the deictic function of the demonstrative and may cliticize on different categories within the nominal expression. Moreover, in relics from the 10 th−12 th century the article and the demonstrative occur in complementary distribution. The article may also appear in contexts in which it is absent in the Greek texts that were the source for the Slavic translation, so it seems it may have emerged as an independent category already at that stage. There are a number of syntactic differences between those Slavic languages with articles and those which lack the article. For example, only the latter permit Left-Branch Extraction, exemplified in (2). See Bošković (2005) for a discussion of more syntactic contrasts between the two types of languages. (2)

a. *Kakvai prodade Petko [ti kola]? what-kind-of sold Petko car ‘What kind of a car did Petko sell?’ a’. Kakva kolai prodade Petko ti? (Bulgarian) si kupio [ti kola]? b. Kakvai what-kind-of beAUX.2SG buyPART.M.SG car ‘What kind of a car did you buy?’ (Serbian, Bošković 2005: 2−3)

1560

XIII. Slavic

3.2. Pronominal forms Pronouns appeared in six morphological cases in Old Church Slavonic. The dative and the accusative also had clitic variants. The chart in (3) gives a paradigm for the 1st and 2 nd person forms with clitic forms to the right of their corresponding full forms. As was noted in the preceding section, for the 3 rd person, suppletive variants of the demonstrative j- and tъ were used (cf. Lunt 1974: 65; Schmalstieg 1983: 62−65). Contemporary South Slavic languages have full and clitic forms of the dative and the accusative pronouns, on a par with Old Church Slavonic (the clitic forms usually need to appear in a special syntactic configuration, either verb-adjacent or in the second position, the full forms have a freer distribution). Polish has weak pronouns instead of clitics, which may not appear clause-initially and avoid clause-final position. East Slavic languages have only full pronouns, whose distribution in the clause largely parallels the distribution of other nominals. (3)

Pronominal clitics in Old Church Slavonic (Huntley 2002: 144) 1SG

2SG

1DUAL

2DUAL

1PL

2PL

REFL

ACC

mene/mę

tebe/tę

na/ny

va/vy

nasъ/ny

vasъ/vy

sebe/sę

DAT

mьně/mi

tebě/ti

nama/-

vama/-

namъ/ny

vamъ/vy

sebě/si

3.3. Adjectives There were two declensions of adjectives and passive participles in Old Church Slavonic: the nominal declension (which produced the so-called “short forms”) and the pronominal declension (which had the so-called “long forms”). The pronominal declension contained the demonstrative pronoun j, which functioned like a postpositional definite article (Klemensiewicz, Lehr-Spławiński, and Urbańczyk 1965: 323−326; Stieber 1971: 76 ff.). The division between the two declension classes of adjectives is reflected in their syntax in contemporary West and East Slavic languages. Adjectives and participles of the “short” declension (such as zdrów in [4]) are restricted to predicative contexts, whereas “long” declension adjectives (such as zdrowy in [4]) occur in the attributive or the predicative position. (4)

a. Jestem zdrów/zdrowy. be1SG.PRES healthyM.SG ‘I am healthy’ b. Zdrowy/*zdrów chłopiec. healthyM.SG boy ‘A healthy boy’ (Polish)

83. The syntax of Slavic

1561

In South Slavic (e.g. in Serbian and Croatian) the two declensions may appear in either position. In general, adjectives in Slavic appear prenominally, but the occurrence of some forms in postnominal position may give rise to a classifying interpretation, in which the adjective specifies a category or a type that the modified noun belongs to (e.g. in Polish, Serbian, and Croatian, cf. Rutkowski 2006); in languages such as Russian, adjectives optionally occur postnominally in scientific terminology (cf. Trugman 2007).

4. Verbal morphosyntax and periphrastic formations. Verbal formations deserve a more detailed treatment, because they display properties not found in many other Indo-European languages. These properties include rich aspectual distinctions and a special set of periphrastic tenses, which consist of the verb ‘be’ as the exclusive auxiliary and the so-called l-participle, which always agrees with the subject in φ-features.

4.1. Aspectual oppositions Aspectual oppositions are morphologically marked on virtually all verbs in Slavic, as well as on nominalizations. Almost all verbs form aspectual pairs, in which each member describes the same kind of event, but one of them appears in the non-perfective aspect (such as czytać ‘to read’; kupować ‘to buy’ in Polish), whereas the other member occurs in perfective aspect (such as przeczytać ‘to have read’; kupić ‘to have bought’ in Polish). The origin of the aspectual oppositions is related to the presence of aspectual tenses and morphological changes in aspect marking in Proto-Indo-European. Old Church Slavonic inherited two aspectual tenses from Proto-Indo-European: aorist and imperfect. Inflected verbs in Proto-Indo-European had a three-element structure: the stem was formed by a root followed optionally by a suffix and obligatorily by an inflectional ending. The suffix assigned a stem to an inflectional paradigm and expressed aspectual information, often associated as well with action type (Aktionsart). The inflectional endings specified the inflectional categories, such as φ-features; and in the case of nominal forms of the verb, they specified such grammatical categories as supine or infinitive (Schenker 2002: 83). In the prehistoric stages of most Indo-European dialects a particular suffix type, involving a simple vowel alternation *e/o often preceded by *-i̯ -, termed “thematic”, tended to become productive; and in this type the vocalic suffix in certain persons, notably 1st sg. and 3 rd pl., blended with the inflectional endings. As a result, verbs acquired a two-element structure. The modification is exemplified in (5), showing the Proto-Slavic paradigm of the verb *nesti ‘to carry’, with modifications of the forms of the 1st person singular and the 3 rd person plural that have acquired a two-element structure.

1562

XIII. Slavic

(5)

The modification of the paradigm of *nesti ‘to carry’ in the present tense in ProtoSlavic SINGULAR

DUAL

PLURAL

1

nes-ō-mь > nes-ǫ

nes-e-vě

nes-e-mъ

2

nes-e-šь

nes-e-ta

nes-e-te

3

nes-e-tь

nes-e-te

nes-o-nti > nes-ǫtъ

(Proto-Slavic, Długosz-Kurczabowa and Dubisz 2001: 265) The fusion of the two verb-final morphemes in late-Proto-Indo-European had semantic consequences. Due to the weakening of the distinction between the aspect-marking thematic suffix and the inflectional endings, it was becoming increasingly difficult to mark aspectual oppositions. The change was taking place slowly, but the aspectual system of Late-Proto-Indo-European started to show gaps. In most Indo-European languages the inconsistencies were remedied through the development of new aspectual tenses, such as the Imparfait and Passé Simple in French. However, Proto-Slavic was in this respect the most conservative language in the Indo-European family, because it retained the original ways of marking aspect. Still, the aspectual system it had inherited from ProtoIndo-European was irregular, because sometimes there were no systematic aspectual pairs of verbs. Therefore, Proto-Slavic had to reconstruct and regularize the whole verbal system. At the same time, it further developed the aspectual tenses, the aorist and the imperfect, inherited from Proto-Indo-European. In this way aspect was doubly marked in Slavic: through the aspectual tenses and through the perfective/imperfective morphemes on aspectual pairs, as shown in (6), which presents four different tenses and independent perfective/imperfective distinctions. (6)

Tense and aspect distinctions in Old Church Slavonic as exemplified by (po)nesti ‘to carry’

TENSE/ASPECT

Imperfective

Perfective

3sg present

nesetъ

ponesetъ

3sg aorist

nese

ponese

3sg imperfect

nesěaše

ponesěaše

3sg perfect

neslъ jestъ

poneslъ jestъ

(OCS, cf. Schooneveld 1951: 97) The coexistence of the aspectual tenses and the perfective and imperfective aspectual forms was a weak point of the Slavic tense system. It led to the decline of the aorist and the imperfect in all Slavic languages except for Bulgarian and Macedonian. The present perfect tense, which is discussed in the next section, was adopted as the default past tense.

83. The syntax of Slavic

1563

4.2. Periphrastic formations Slavic languages have developed a compound tense which is formed with the verb ‘be’ as the exclusive auxiliary in all contexts, irrespective of the transitivity of the main verb. This is a very uncommon pattern outside Slavic. In Germanic and Romance languages, it is found only in the dialect of Terracina (Italo-Romance) and Shetlandic (a variety of Scots English, cf. Bentley and Eythórsson 2004). In other Germanic and Romance languages, the verb ‘be’ is selected as the auxiliary only in unaccusative and passive structures. The auxiliary ‘be’ is accompanied by the so-called “l-participle”, which is used as the main verb (cf. 7). In contrast to the Germanic and Romance languages, the participle in the compound tense is morphologically different from that in the passive construction. (7)

Ivan e čel knigata. Ivan bePRES.3SG readPART.M.SG book-the ‘Ivan has read/been reading the book.’ (Bulgarian)

The l-participle is not a past participle, because in some Slavic languages it is used to express future meanings, as shown in (8a) for Polish and in (8b) for Serbian. Example (8b) represents the so-called Future II construction, which existed also in Old Church Slavonic, and is used to denote future events that in turn precede some other future events. (8)

a. Jan będzie pisał list. Jan bePRF.1SG writePART.M.SG letterACC ‘Jan will be writing a letter.’ (Polish) b. Kad budemo govorili s Marijom… when bePRF.1PL speakPART.PL with Marija ‘When/if we speak with Marija …’ (Serbian)

In both Old and Modern Slavic, the auxiliary ‘be’ shows aspectual distinctions, which determine the temporal interpretation of the whole construction. For instance, when ‘be’ is used in the imperfective aspect in Old Church Slavonic (cf. běaxǫ in 9a), the complex tense is interpreted as the pluperfect. When the verb ‘be’ occurs in the perfective (cf. bǫdemъ in 9b), it gives rise to the future perfect interpretation. The l-participle usually appears in the perfective form in Old Church Slavonic, but imperfective forms are also frequently found. (9)

a. i mъnoзi že otъ ijudei běaxǫ prišьli kъ Martě i and many FOC from Jews beIMP.3PL comePART.PL to Martha and Marii. Mary ‘And many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary.’ (OCS, J 11.19)

1564

XIII. Slavic b. … vъskǫjǫ sę i rodili bǫdemъ. why REFL even bearPART.PL bePRF.1PL ‘Why will we even have been born?’ (OCS, Schmalstieg 1983: 159)

Diachronically, the l-participle is a Slavic innovation. It derives from a class of IndoEuropean adjectives ending in *-lo, which signified someone’s likelihood to perform a certain action or referred to a characteristic feature of the person involved. The *-lo forms also served as nomina agentis (agent participles) and proper names in many IndoEuropean languages. Examples of such forms include discipulus ‘student’ or legulus ‘gatherer of fallen olives’ in Latin, tuphlós ‘blind’ in Ancient Greek (cf. Damborský 1967), and slaha/uls ‘brawler’ in Gothic. At some point some of the *-lo adjectives were reanalyzed as participles in compound tenses in three Indo-European subgroups: Armenian, Slavic, and Tocharian, and to a lesser extent in Umbrian (only in future perfect forms) and Indic (Middle Indo-Aryan in active perfective participles; cf. Hewson and Bubenik 1997: 74). It is remarkable that the forms found in Armenian and Tocharian are not only morphologically similar to the Slavic l-participle, but that they may occur in compound tenses with the copula ‘be’ as well. The l-participle in Slavic has adjectival morphology, and agrees with the subject of a clause in gender and number, but is virtually not found outside the compound tenses. In this respect, it differs from the corresponding categories in many other Indo-European languages, which can be used as adjectives outside the compound tense paradigm. As was noted in the previous subsection, due to the abundant aspect marking on verbal forms the aspectual system of Old Slavic and Old Church Slavonic was unstable and prone to modifications. The modifications are reflected in the decline of the aspectual tenses in all Slavic languages apart from Bulgarian and (in part) Macedonian and in the selection of the present perfect formed with the l-participle as the default past tense. The semantic modification was accompanied by the morphophonological weakening of the auxiliary ‘be’. As shown in chart (10) for Old Church Slavonic, initially only the 3 rd person variants had clitic counterparts, je and sǫ. (10) The paradigm of byti ‘to be’ in the present tense (OCS, cf. Schmalstieg 1983: 138) Singular

Dual

Plural

1

jesmь

jesvě

jesmъ

2

jesi

jesta

jeste

3

jestъ (je)

jeste

sǫtъ (sǫ)

In contemporary South Slavic languages (exemplified by Serbian in 11a), all the present perfect auxiliaries are clitics. In Czech and Macedonian, the 3 rd person auxiliary is null. In Polish, the auxiliary has been reduced to an affix, especially in the singular paradigm (cf. 11b). East Slavic languages had lost the perfect auxiliaries by the 16 th−17 th century.

83. The syntax of Slavic (11)

1565

a. Čitao sam knjigu. readPART.M.SG beAUX.PRES.1SG book (Serbian) b. Czytał-em książkę. readPART.M.SG+AUX.PRES.1SG book ‘I have read the book.’ (Polish)

Kashubian and Macedonian are two Slavic languages that in addition to the compound tense constructed with the auxiliary ‘be’ and the l-participle have fully grammaticalized a periphrastic tense formed with the auxiliary ‘have’ and a form of the passive participle used as the main verb. (12) a. Imame kupeno knigi. have1PL buyPASS.N books ‘We have bought books.’ (Macedonian, cf. Tomić 1996: 856) The morphological form of the passive participle does not depend on the feature specification of the subject of the clause and always appears in the singular neuter form (the masculine form is also an option in Kashubian). In this way the ‘have’-perfect differs from the ‘be’-perfect, in which the l-participle obligatorily agrees with the subject in φfeatures. In Kashubian unaccusative participles (such as jidzenô in 13a) agree with the subject and occur with the auxiliary ‘be’. The auxiliary ‘have’ selects transitive and unergative participles (cf. 13b), which do not agree with the subject or the object in φ-features. (13) a. Ta białka je precz jidzenô this womanF.SG beAUX.3.SG away goPTP.F.SG ‘This woman has gone away.’ (Kashubian, Stone 2002: 777) b. Të măš to wszétko zrob’iõné/zrob’iõny doPTP.N.SG/doPTP.M.SG you havePRES.2SG this all ‘You have made all of this.’ (Kashubian, Migdalski 2006: 130) The periphrastic tense formed with the auxiliary ‘have’ is a recent innovation, not found in Old Church Slavonic. It was first attested in written Macedonian in 1706, and is assumed to have emerged under the influence of neighbouring languages, such as Arumanian and Greek, or, in the case of Kashubian, under the influence of German. A number of Slavic languages, such as Polish (cf. 14), Czech, Bulgarian, Serbian, and Croatian, display structures that resemble the periphrastic tense formed with the auxiliary ‘have’. However, these languages never use ‘have’ as a true auxiliary, as the construction is not possible in all contexts and the passive participle agrees with the object (see Migdalski 2007 for a detailed discussion).

1566

XIII. Slavic

(14) Mam już upieczone ciasto havePRES.1SG already bakePASS.N.SG cakeACC.N.SG ‘My cake is already baked.’ (Polish, Migdalski 2006: 58)

5. Word Order As was noted in the introduction, word order in Slavic languages is relatively free and is often dictated by discourse requirements rather than by a need to mark grammatical relations. Clitics, which occur in the Wackernagel position after the clause-initial constituent in languages like Czech, Serbian, Croatian, and Slovene, are an exception to this freedom of word order (Bulgarian and Macedonian have clitics as well, but they are verb-adjacent and they do not need to appear in the second position). Moreover, the clitics cluster with each other and observe the rigid sequence presented in (15). The cluster opens with the particle li, which is often termed the “interrogative complementizer”. It occurs in questions and/or focus constructions. Li can be followed by a clitic expressing modality. The dative clitic precedes the accusative clitic, while the auxiliary clitics show an intriguing split concerning the positions of the 3 rd person singular form, which in most South Slavic languages appears as the last member in the cluster. (15) li > Modal > AUX (except 3 rd SG) > REFL > DAT > ACC > 3 rd SG AUX (Tomić 1996; Franks and King 2000: 45) Placement of the clitics in any other position than the second or splitting them from each other results in ungrammaticality. (16) a. Mi smo ga dali Marijinoj prijateljici. we beAUX.1PL itCL.ACC givePART.M.SG Marija’s friend ‘We gave it to Mary’s friend.’ b. *Mi smo Marijinoj prijateljici ga dali. c. *Mi Marijinoj prijateljici smo ga dali. (Serbian, Stjepanović 1998: 528) Importantly, even though clitics are phonologically deficient and their placement in this position was sometimes attributed to the requirement of a host that provides phonological support to them, their host must be a syntactic constituent, that is an element that is syntactically mobile. For example, since the first conjunct in coordinate structures is not syntactically mobile in Serbian and Croatian, clitics may not appear after it, in spite of the fact that it is a legitimate phonological host, as it is stressed. (17) a. Sestra i njen muž će mi ga pokloniti sister and her husband will meDAT itACC give ‘My sister and her husband will give it to me.’ b. *Sestra će mi ga i njen muž pokloniti (Serbian, Progovac 1996: 419)

83. The syntax of Slavic

1567

It is commonly assumed that the placement of clitics reflects the pattern of cliticization in early Indo-European languages described by Wackernagel (1892) and now generally known as Wackernagel’s Law. However, the generalized cliticization involving all types of clitics occurring in second position is a relatively recent development. Only three clitics uniformly appeared in second position in Old Church Slavonic: the question/focus particle li, the complementizer clitic bo ‘because’, and the focus particle že (note that these clitics form a natural class, as they all express Illocutionary Force of a clause, see Radanović-Kocić 1988 and Migdalski 2013). As shown in (18), they did not need to cluster with pronominal clitics. (18) Elisaveti že isplъni sę vrěmę roditi ei… Elizabeth.DAT FOC fulfillPAST REFL.ACC time give-birthINF herDAT ‘When it was time for Elizabeth to have her baby …’ (OCS, Pancheva et al. 2007) As a rule, pronominal clitics in Old Church Slavonic were postverbal. On the basis of the history of Serbian, we can conclude that the shift of the pronominal clitics to second position was a gradual process: around the 14 th century they appeared in second position when they were accompanied by the regular Wackernagel clitics li and že mentioned above; subsequently, they came to occupy second position in the absence of these particles, but it took several centuries before the rule was generalized to all contexts, as examples of sentences with non-clustering clitics occurring in different positions are still found in 19 th century Serbian texts (Radanović-Kocić 1988: 174). Bulgarian and Macedonian clitics are verb-adjacent (these two languages differ in the direction of cliticization, see Bošković 2001 for details), on a par with contemporary Romance languages. Thus, they largely preserve the pattern of pronominal cliticization in Old Church Slavonic, although Pancheva (2005) observes that at least some clitics targeted second position in Bulgarian between the 9 th and the 14 th−15 th centuries.

6. Sentence Syntax One of the recurring observations of this chapter is that Slavic syntax is often determined by information structure requirements; thus, sentence word-order frequently depends on a need to focus or topicalize a certain constituent, which is then moved to the left periphery of a clause. Let us consider some word order permutations and the interpretations that they trigger on the basis of Serbian and Croatian. The basic word order is SVO, so the sentence in (19b) represents the most neutral pattern and is the most natural answer to the question in (19a). (19) a. Šta se desilo? what REFL happenPART.N.SG ‘What happened?’ b. Mačka je uhvatila miša cat beAUX.3SG catchPART.F.SG mouse ‘A cat caught a mouse.’ (Serbian, Migdalski 2006:89)

1568

XIII. Slavic

The subject mačka can be dropped if it has been previously mentioned and its referent is presupposed. In such a scenario the most unmarked word order involves the clauseinitial placement of the l-participle. (20) Uhvatila je miša catchPART.F.SG beAUX.3SG mouse ‘[The cat] caught a mouse.’ (Serbian) OVS order is possible, but it always occurs in semantically marked contexts. According to Stjepanović (1999: 92, 97), it may arise when both the verb and the object are presupposed, while the subject receives the main sentence stress and constitutes new information focus. (21) a. Ko je udario Petra? who beAUX.3SG hitPART.M.SG PeterACC ‘Who hit Peter?’ b. Petra je udario MARKO. PeterACC beAUX.3SG hitPART.M.SG Marko ‘Marko hit Peter.’ (Serbian, Stjepanović 1999: 97) Like other elements placed at the beginning of a sentence, initial adverbs represent old information. Thus, the sentence in (22b) is a felicitous reply to the question What happened yesterday? (22) a. Šta se desilo juče? what REFL happenPART.N.SG yesterday ‘What happened yesterday?’ b. Juče JE PETAR KUPIO KNJIGU. yesterday beAUX.3SG Peter buyPART.M.SG book ‘Yesterday Peter bought a book.’ (Serbian, Migdalski 2006: 90) The event time of the predicate in (22b) is presupposed, so the temporal adverb juče ‘yesterday’ appears at the beginning of the clause. However, the string that follows it constitutes “new information” and correspondingly receives new information focus. Summarizing, it has been shown that constituents whose referents are presupposed are placed at the beginning of a clause, while new information foci are located in the right periphery. However, it is not correct to attribute all the properties of Slavic syntax to discourse considerations. This chapter will conclude with a presentation of a feature of Slavic sentence syntax which is completely independent of information structure requirements and which has attracted considerable attention since Rudin (1988). This feature involves the so-called multiple wh-movement. As exemplified in (23), Slavic, unlike many other Indo-European languages, permits fronting of all wh-words in questions.

83. The syntax of Slavic

1569

(23) a. Koj kogo vižda? (Bulgarian) b. Ko koga vidi? who whom see3SG ‘Who saw whom?’ (Serbian, Franks 2005) It has been observed that there are typological differences concerning this movement. For instance, whereas the ordering of the wh-elements with respect to each other is free in most Slavic languages, in Bulgarian and Macedonian they form a unit and move as a constituent. This typological division corresponds to a number of other properties of whmovement, such as the superiority effect (that is, the ordering restriction that specifies that the wh-element referring to the subject must precede the wh-element referring to the object in multiple wh-questions), the impossibility of splitting the wh-sequence with any lexical material, and the availability of island extraction, which largely hold for Bulgarian, but which are not observed in the other languages (see Bošković 1999 for details and challenges to these generalizations). Summarizing, this chapter has presented some properties of Slavic syntax and examined the way it has changed over time. For recent crosslinguistic overviews of the topic the reader is referred to Franks (1995, 2005), Franks and King (2000), Bošković (2001), Migdalski (2006), as well as to the volumes published in the Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics and Formal Description of Slavic Languages series.

7. References Bentley, Delia and Thórhallur Eythórsson 2004 Auxiliary Selection and the Semantics of Unaccusativity. Lingua 114: 447−471. Bošković, Željko 1999 On multiple feature checking: multiple Wh-fronting and multiple head-movement. In: Sam Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 159−187. Bošković, Željko 2001 On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface. Cliticization and Related Phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bošković, Željko 2005 Left Branch Extraction, Structure of NP, and Scrambling. Studia Linguistica 59: 1−45. Compton, Richard, Magdalena Golędzinowska, and Ulyana Savchenko (eds.) 2007 Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15: The Toronto Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Comrie, Bernard and Greville G. Corbett (eds.) 2002 The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. Damborský, Jiri 1967 Participium l-ove ve slovanštine [The l-participle in Slavic]. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Dimitrova, Mila Vulchanova and Valentin Vulchanov 2012 An article evolving: The case of Old Bulgarian. In: Dianne Jonas, John Whitman, and Andrew Garrett (eds.), Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 160−178.

1570

XIII. Slavic

Długosz-Kurczabowa, Krystyna and Stanisław Dubisz 2001 Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego [Historical grammar of the Polish language]. Warsaw: University of Warsaw Press. Franks, Steven 1995 Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Franks, Steven 2005 Slavic Languages. In: Guglielmo Cinque and Richard Kayne (eds.), Handbook of Comparative Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press, 373−419. Franks, Steven and Tracy Holloway King 2000 A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. New York: Oxford University Press. Giusti, Giuliana 2002 The Functional Structure of Noun Phrases: A Bare Phrase Structure Approach. In: Guglielmo Cinque (ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP. New York: Oxford University Press, 54−90. Hewson, John and Vit Bubenik 1997 Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Huntley, David 2002 Old Church Slavonic. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 125−187. Klemensiewicz, Zenon, Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński, and Stanisław Urbańczyk 1965 Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego [Historical grammar of the Polish language]. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Lunt, Horace G. 1974 Old Church Slavonic Grammar. The Hague: Mouton. Migdalski, Krzysztof 2006 The Syntax of Compound Tenses in Slavic. Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University. Utrecht: LOT Publications. Migdalski, Krzysztof 2007 On the Grammaticalization of the ‘have’-perfect in Slavic. In: Compton, Golędzinowska and Savchenko (eds.), 228−244. Migdalski, Krzysztof 2013 Diachronic Source of Two Cliticization Patterns in Slavic. In: Christine M. Salvesen and Hans P. Helland (eds.). Challenging Clitics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 135−158. Pancheva, Roumyana 2005 The Rise and Fall of Second-Position Clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 103−167. Pancheva, Roumyana, Agnieszka Łazorczyk, Jelena Krivokapić, and Yulia Minkova 2007 Codex Marianus. In: U(niversity of) S(outhern) C(alifornia) Parsed Corpus of Old South Slavic. Progovac, Ljiljana 1996 Clitics in Serbian/Croatian: Comp as the Second Position. In: Aaron Halpern and Arnold Zwicky (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 411−428. Radanović-Kocić, Vesna 1988 The Grammar of Serbo-Croatian Clitics: A Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana. Rudin, Catherine 1988 On Multiple Questions and Multiple Wh-Fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 445−501. Rutkowski, Pawel 2007 The syntactic properties and diachronic development of postnominal adjectives in Polish. In: Compton, Golędzinowska, and Savchenko (eds.), 326−345.

84. The lexicon of Slavic

1571

Schenker, Alexander M. 2002 Proto-Slavonic. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 60−124. Schmalstieg, William R. 1983 An Introduction to Old Church Slavic. Columbus: Slavica. van Schooneveld, Cornelius H. 1951 The Aspectual System of the Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian verbum finitum byti. Word 7: 93−103. Stieber, Zdzisław 1971 Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich. Fleksja imienna [An outline of the comparative grammar of the Slavic languages. Nominal inflection]. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Stjepanović, Sandra 1998 On the Placement of Serbo-Croatian Clitics: Evidence from VP Ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 527−537. Stjepanović, Sandra 1999 What do Second Position Cliticization, Scrambling, and Multiple wh-fronting have in Common? Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. Stone, Gerald 2002 Cassubian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 759−794. Tomić, Olga 1996 The Balkan Slavic Clausal Clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 811− 872. Trugman, Helen 2007 Rudiments of Romance N-to-D movement in Russian. In: Peter Kosta, Gerda Hassler, Lilia Schürcks, and Nadine Thielemann (eds.), Linguistic Investigations into Formal Description of Slavic Languages. Potsdam Linguistic Investigations, volume 1. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 411−426. Wackernagel, Jakob 1892 Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333−436.

Krzysztof Migdalski, Wrocław (Poland)

84. The lexicon of Slavic 1. Inherited vocabulary 2. Loan-words 3. Specific vocabulary

4. Word formation 5. Abbreviations 6. References

Many Slavic words of widespread occurrence related to fundamental natural and human concepts have reliable PIE etymologies and may, therefore, be considered as PIE inheritance. Others are particular to Balto-Slavic or Proto-Slavic (PSl), representing local innovations or borrowings from the languages with which the Slavs came into contact. Slavic reconstructions are given below in their late Proto-Slavic (also called Common Slavic) form, mainly according to Trubačev (1974−2013). In the following discussion, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-005

1572

XIII. Slavic

Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian adjectives are quoted in their long (attributive) forms.

1. Inherited vocabulary In relation to the common PIE lexical stock, Slavic appears both conservative and innovative (Meillet 1934). On the one hand, many important PIE stems and roots are well preserved in their form and meaning. On the other hand, a PSl term of PIE origin may present significant modifications (e.g. enlargements by suffixation, cf. the word for ‘sun’, 1.2) and semantic peculiarities (cf. PSl *moldŭ, 1.2). Moreover, while the lexicon of the modern Slavic languages is rightfully reputed to be remarkably homogeneous in denoting core concepts, Slavic languages and dialects use, in several instances, particular words of PIE origin which differ from the primary signifier of such concepts or are borrowed from non-IE languages. Sometimes a word in a Slavic language may be quite different from the word having the corresponding sense in another Slavic language, cf. R gorod and Cz město ‘city, town’; but these items are actually based on two common Slavic roots both existing in Russian and Czech, cf. R mesto ‘place, position’ and Cz hrad ‘castle, citadel’. The semantic relations are generally clear in such cases: the latter is PSl *gordъ, from PIE *ghordhos ‘hedge; enclosure’ showing the semantic development ‘enclosed place’ > ‘citadel’ and ‘town’ (cf. G Zaun ‘fence’ cognate with E town); the former is PSl *mēsto ‘place’ < *mēt-t-o from the PIE root *mei- ‘support, sustain’ (Černyx 1993: 1. 526) showing the semantic change ‘place’ > ‘town’ (cf. E place in sense of ‘village, settlement, town’).

1.1. Kinship terms Most Slavic kinship terms are clearly IE: PSl *dŭkt’i, gen. -ere (feminine) ‘daughter’; PIE *dhug(h2)tēr, gen. *dhug(h2)tros; cf. G Tochter, E daughter, etc. Slavic forms descended from this item include OCS dŭšti gen. dŭštere; OR doči, gen. dočere; R doč’, gen. dočeri; Ukr doč; Bulg dăšterja; Slovn hči, SCr kći; Cz dcera; Pol cora. PSl. *žena ‘woman, wife’; Balto-Slavic *genā < PIE *gwenh2, gen. gwneh2s ‘woman’. Cognates of this item are seen in Gr gunḗ ‘woman, wife’, E queen, etc. Cf. OCS žena ‘woman, wife’; R žena ‘wife’, ženščina ‘woman’ (derived by suffixation); Bulg žena ‘woman, wife’, Sorb žona; Pol żona ‘wife’, but ‘woman’ is niewiasta, also (archaic) ‘wife’ (see below *nevesta, 4) or kobieta, from a different root: perhaps from a phrase such as *kobita žena ‘ill-tempered, irritable, stubborn woman’, from *kobĭ ‘divination; fate; wickedness, evil; stubbornness’ (Trubačev 1974−2013: 10. 88−91). For ‘wife’, Ukrainian uses žinka (derived by suffixation) and družyna ‘spouse’ − female or male (сf. druh ‘friend’); Slovene, beside žena, uses soproga ‘spouse’, while Czech and Slovak use, beside žena, a derivative of manžel (see below): manželka + specific words for ‘spouse’: Cz chot’ ‘spouse, husband or wife’, OCS chotĭ ‘lover, beloved’, chotěti ‘wish’.

84. The lexicon of Slavic

1573

PSl. *mǫžĭ ‘man, husband’ from *man-g-i-os (Schenker 1993: 114), which seems to be closely related to PIE *mVnus ‘man’ (often derived from *men- ‘think’), with the addition of a suffixal element *g. But *man-g-i-os is perhaps from a different root signifying virility, which is also seen in Alb mëz ‘colt’, PIE Transponat *men-d-ios ‘horse’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 274) and may be the basis of Gr amazṓn (if from *n̥-mn̥g(w)-iōn ‘man-less, without husbands’, Mallory and Adams 1997: 367). Cf. also Rom mînz ‘foal, colt’, L dial. mannus ‘small horse’ (borrowed from an unidentifiable source), perhaps Slovn mánih ‘gelding’ (Trubačev 1960: 56). Cf. Ukr muž ‘man’, Maced maž, SCr muž, Pol mąż, Cz and Slovk muž ‘man’, but ‘husband’ is usually manžel (< PSl *malŭžena ‘spouse, wife’, OCS mal[ŭ]žena dual ‘husband and wife’, R dial. malžonki ‘spouses’, probably partially calqued on OHG *mâlkona ‘spouse, wife’, cf. mahal ‘contract’, gimahala ‘bride, wife’, G Gemahlin ‘wife, spouse’, or from malŭ ‘little’, as a prefix of affection, or even from *mǫžĭžena ‘husband + wife’ with dissimilation (Vasmer 1987: 2. 562); but cf. also R molodožëny (plural) ‘couple just married’, from *moldŭ ‘young’ + *žena ‘wife’). Modern Russian uses muž mostly in the sense ‘husband’ (although the meaning ‘man’ is retained in high style), and mužčina ‘man’ was built later by suffixation. Some Slavic languages use other words for ‘husband’: Slovene has mož and soprog ‘spouse’ and Ukrainian čolovik (cf. R čelovek ‘man, human being’), Bulgarian uses suprug (and other Slavic languages use a similar word in the sense ‘spouse’, cf. R suprug). The Slavic word for ‘father’ goes back to PIE *at- ‘father’, an informal and probably affective word derived from the language of children (cf. L atta, Gr átta, Goth atta), which may have signified ‘foster-father’, the meaning found in Old Irish (Mallory and Adams 1997: 195). It may explain L atavus ‘great-great-great-grandfather’ if one supposes a compound atta ‘father’+ avus ‘grandfather’. Alternatively, at-avus would represent avus together with a prefix at- (*h2et-) ‘beyond, further’, almost certainly related to the at- of atque, which no doubt means literally ‘and further’ (cf. Mallory and Adams 1997: 156). Turkic languages have a similar term ata ‘father’. Moreover, PSl *otĭcĭ (< *ot-ĭk-os) was built with a suffix -ĭk- probably having a diminutive sense (‘little father, daddy’); or -ĭk- is rather an adjectivizing suffix (‘one of the father, paternal’, cf. French colloquial mon paternel ‘my father’). According to Trubačev (1974−2013: 39. 168− 173), PSl *otĭcĭ may be compared with the Gr ethnic name Attikos. Cf. R otec, Pol ojciec, Cz otec, Slovk otec, SCr otac, Slovn oče, Upper Sorb wótc ‘father (rare); ancestor’. The other PSl word for ‘father’ is *tata, from a PIE Transponat *t-at-, with sound repetition seen in other nursery terms. Cf. R (old and rural) tjatja, (dial. only) tata ‘daddy’; Ukr tato, tatko; Pol tata, tatko; Cz and Slovk táta; Bulg tato, tatko, tate; Maced tatko. Besides, ‘father, daddy’ can be denoted by a different lexical item, PSl *bata / *bat’a / *batja (perhaps from *brat[r]ŭ ‘brother’, which is semantically somewhat symmetrical to *strŭjĭ ‘paternal uncle’ = ‘father’s brother’): R (colloquial and affective) batja, bat’ko, dial. also ‘(eldest) brother, uncle, father-in-law, wife’s father’; Ukr bat’ko; Bulg bašta ‘father’. But Cz bát’a means ‘brother, relative, friend’, Bulg bate, SCr bata ‘(eldest) brother’, R. dial. bat ‘brother’. According to Trubačev (1974−2013: 1. 163−164), PSl *bata ‘father, daddy, uncle, elder man’ is a very archaic form similar to reduplicated formations such as *baba, *mama (cf. It babbo ‘daddy’ related to padre ‘father’, with voicing of p to b), and the association with *brat[r]ŭ ‘brother’ is only secondary. Cf. semantically Bengali stri ‘wife’ from PIE *swesōr ‘sister’.

1574

XIII. Slavic

In Upper Sorbian, the usual word for ‘father’ is nan, also a nursery term, cf. SCr nana ‘mother’; Slovk ňaňo, ňaňa ‘aunt’; R njanja ‘nurse’ (cf. Gr nénnos [variant nónnos beside nánnas (Hesych.)] ‘uncle’; L nonnus ‘father > monk’; It nonna ‘grandmother’; E nan ‘grandmother’, nanny ‘nurse who cares for a baby’, etc.). Apart from the Slavic divine name *Stribogŭ = Stri-bogŭ, taken to be ‘father-god’, PIE *ph2tēr, gen. *ph2tros ‘father’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 195), seems to be represented only in PSl *strŭjĭ, *stryjĭ ‘paternal uncle’. Cf. OLith strūjus ‘old man, grandfather’, Lith strujus ‘father’s brother, mother’s sister’s husband’, L patruus ‘paternal uncle’. PIE *ph2trōus ‘male paternal relative; father’s brother’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 609). Cf. OR stryj, R dial. stroj, Pol stryj, Cz strýc, Slovk strýc, SCr stric, Slovn stric ‘paternal uncle’. However, according to Gippert (2002), this form is derived from a different etymon having the original meaning ‘old man’ and not related to R staryj ‘old’ (see 3). Other kinship terms of wide occurrence are the following: PSl *bratrъ ‘brother’, PIE *bhreh2tēr; cf. OCS bratrŭ, R Ukr BelR Bulg Slovk Pol brat, Cz Upper Sorb bratr, Lower Sorb bratš, etc. PSl *mati, gen. *matere ‘mother’, PIE *meh2tēr. Cf. OCS mati, gen. matere; R mat’, gen. materi; Ukr mati, gen. materi; BelR maci, matka; Bulg majka; Slovn mati, gen. matere; Pol matka; Cz máti; etc. PSl *sestra ‘sister’, PIE *su̯esōr; cf. R Ukr Bulg sestra, BelR sjastra, OCS Cz Slovk Polab sestra, SCr sèstra, Slovn séstra, Pol siostra, Upper Sorb sotra, Lower Sorb sotša. PSl *synŭ ‘son’, PIE *suhxnus; cf. OCS synŭ, R Ukr BelR Cz Slovk Pol Sorb syn, Bulg Slovn sin, SCr sîn, etc. PSl *svekry ‘husband’s mother’, gen. *svekrŭve, PIE *su̯ek̑ruh2s. Cf. OCS svekry, gen. svekrŭve; R svekrov’, gen. svekrovi; Ukr svekruxa; BelR svjakrou; Bulg svekărva; Pol świekra; etc.

1.2. Terms denoting fundamental natural and human concepts ‘Sun’ is PSl *sŭlnĭcе (neut.), from *sulnĭko- / *sulniko-, a stem based on PIE *seh2u̯l̥ , gen. *sh2ṷ-en-s (Mallory and Adams 1997: 556) ‘sun’, extended by diminutive suffix -ĭk- / -ik- (hypocoristic sense: ‘little sun’), which is analogous to the origin of Fr soleil ‘sun’. As is well known, the latter is derived not from L sōl ‘sun’ but from a Vulgar Latin diminutive form of the latter: soliculus. Cf. OCS slŭnĭce, R solnce, Ukr sonce, Pol słońce, Cz slunce, Bulg slănce, SCr sûnce, Slovn sonce, Slovk slnce, Sorb słyńco, etc. Among its IE cognates, cf. Lith sáulė ‘sun’, Goth sauil (beside sunno) ‘id.’, etc. ‘Moon’ is PSl *luna (Trubačev 1974−2013: 16. 173), from *louksnā, PIE *louksneh2‘moon’ (cf. L lūna etc.), from the root *leuk- ‘light’, and PSl *mēsęcĭ (masc.) ‘moon; month’, from *mēs-n̥-ko- (with extension by a suffix *k), PIE *meh1-nōt- / *meh1-n(e)s‘moon’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 385) (cf. L mēnsis ‘month’, E moon, month, etc.), from the root *meh1- ‘measure’. Attested Slavic forms for ‘moon’ include OCS R Bulg Slovn Cz (poet.) Slovk (poet.) luna ‘moon’, while forms meaning both ‘moon’ and ‘month’ include OCS měsęcĭ, R mesjac, Ukr misac, Bulg mesec, SCr mjesec, Cz měsíc, Slovk mesiac, Pol miesiąc, Sorb mjasec. But OCS luna ‘moon’ may be a Lat loan, whereas Slavic *louksnā could mean ‘any light (in the sky)’ (Černyx 1993: 1. 495), cf.

84. The lexicon of Slavic

1575

Pol łuna ‘glint, light’, Cz luna ‘light, glow’, R dial. ‘light (in the sky), glow’, Ukr luna ‘echo’ (< ‘light reflection’). The term for ‘house; household’ is PSl. *domŭ, PIE *dóm(h2)os (Mallory and Adams 1997: 281). External comparanda are L domus ‘house; family’ and Gr dómos ‘house, household, family’. Within Slavic cf. OCS domŭ, R dom ‘house, household’, Pol dom, Cz dům, Bulg dom ‘house; household, family’. But Bulg ‘house’ is usually kăšta, cf. OCS kǫšta, probably related to Bulg kătam, R kutat’ ‘to hide’, or to OCS kǫtŭ, Bulg kăt, R kut ‘angle, corner’; the latter is in turn related to Gr kanthós ‘(corner of the) eye’. Also SCr kuća, Slovn koča, but Slovn hiša ‘house’ (an old Germanic loan < *hūs, cf. R xižina ‘hut’). PSl *moldŭ ‘soft’ and ‘young’, from PIE *melh1- ‘soft’, with extension by a suffix *-d(h)-, is seen in OCS mladŭ ‘soft, new, fresh; young, babyish, childish, juvenile’, R molodoj ‘young’, Ukr molodyj, BelR malady, Bulg mlad, Cz mladý, etc.; cf. OPr maldai ‘young’, L mollis ‘soft’, E melt, G E mild, etc. The semantic shift to ‘young’ is peculiar to Balto-Slavic. The meaning ‘soft’ is still partly maintained in phrases such as OCS iz mladŭ nogtii ‘new, freshly made’ and ‘since earliest age, since childhood’, R ot / s molodyx nogtej ‘since soft nails’ > ‘since early youth’. Cf. R mladenec ‘baby’, OPr maldenikis ‘child’. Nevertheless, the older etymon in this value, PIE *h2i̯ eu- ‘young’ is well preserved: PSl *(j)unŭ ‘young’, OR unŭ / unyi, R junyj, Ukr junyj, BelR juny ‘young’; but in Southern Slavic this item appears mostly with derivative suffixes, cf. Slovn junec ‘young calf’; also in Western Slavic, Pol junak ‘young brave man’. Some additional terms of wide currency within Slavic are the following: PSl *dŭva ‘two’: OСS dŭva, R Ukr Bulg Cz Slovk dva, SCr Slovn dvâ, Pol Sorb dwa; PSl *jĭmę ‘name’: OCS imę, R imja, Ukr im’ja, BelR imja, Bulg ime, SCr imē, Slovn imê, Cz jméno, Slovk meno, Pol imię, Sorb mě, Polab jeima; PSl *voda ‘water’: OCS voda, R Ukr BR Bulg voda, SCr vòda, Slovn vóda, Cz Slovk voda, Pol Sorb woda; PSl *vētrŭ ‘wind’: OСS větrŭ, R veter, Ukr viter, Bulg vetăr, SCr vjetar, Slovn vêter, Cz vítr, Slovk vietor, Pol wiatr, Sorb wjetš; PSl *sēdēti ‘sit’: OCS sěděti, R sidet’, Ukr sydaty, BelR sidzec’, Bulg sedja, SCr dial. sjèditi, Slovn sedéti, Cz seděti, Slovk sediet’, Pol siedzieć, Sorb sejźeś; PSl *stojati ‘stay’: OCS stojati, R stojat’, Ukr stojaty, Bulg stajati, Slovn Cz státi, Slovk stát’, Pol stać, Sorb stojaś; PSl *šiti ‘sew’: R šit’, Ukr šyty, BelR šyc’, Bulg šija, SCr šiti, Slovn Cz Slovk šit’, Pol szyć, Sorb šyś, Polab. sait; PSl *živŭ ‘alive’: OCS živŭ, R živoj, Ukr žyvyj, Bulg Cz Slovk živ, SCr Slov. žîv, Pol żywy, Sorb žywy; PSl *novŭ ‘new’: OCS novŭ, R Ukr novyj, Bulg nov, SCr nôv, Slovn nòv, Cz nový, Pol Sorb nowy.

1.3. Lexical isoglosses with other IE subgroups A huge number of terms are common to Slavic and Baltic, some of which have no direct matches or only remote etymological links with the assumed cognates in other IE

1576

XIII. Slavic

languages. Cf. PSl *rǫka ‘hand’, OCS rǫka and Lith rankà ‘hand’, Latv rùoka, OPr rancko. This term is probably a deverbative from a Balto-Slavic verb similar to Lith riñkti ‘to gather, pick, collect’. R ruka, Bulg răka, Pol ręka, Cz ruka, etc. For more see Dini, this handbook.

1.3.1. Slavic-Germanic lexical isoglosses PSl *voldēti ‘to rule, possess’. Cf. OR voloděti ‘id.’, R vladet’ ‘to possess’, Lith valdýti ‘to rule, possess’, Goth waldan, OE wealdan ‘to rule’ > E wield, from a PIE root *u̯al‘rule, be strong’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 490) related to L valēre ‘be healthy’, Toch A wäl, B walo ‘king’. Slavic (+ Balt) and German present the same extension in *-d(h)-. PSl *tysętja / *tysǫtja ‘thousand’. Cf. OCS tysęšta; R tysjača; Pol tysjąc, tysiąc; Cz tisíc; SCr tisuća; Slovn tisoč; etc.; Lith tū́kstantis, OIcel þúsund, OHG thūsund, Goth þusundi (þū-) < Gmc *thūs-hundī ← < PIE *tuh2s-k̑m̥to- ‘fat hundred, strong hundred’, cf. G Tausend, E thousand. This term is generally considered to be a Germanic loan in Balto-Slavic. The first part of the compound is from PIE *teuh2- ‘swell, grow fat’, cf. R tučnyj ‘fat, obese’. But Bulg and SCr employ usually xiljada (tisešta is archaic or dialectal). Tocharian has a similar term: A tmaṃ, B tumane ‘ten thousand’. PSl *čĭmeljĭ / *čĭmela ‘bumble-bee’. Cf. OHG humbal, MHG hummen, Swed humla, E hum etc.; R šmel’ ‘bumble-bee’, Lith kimstu ‘become hoarse’, Latv kamines ‘bee, bumble-bee’, OPr camus, Slovn čmelj, Pol czmiel ‘bumble-bee’ < PIE *kem/*kom ‘hum’ (possibly of onomatopoeic origin). Cognate with R komar ‘mosquito’(cf. *komonĭ below, 3). PSl *gre(s)ti < *grebti ‘dig’, PIE *ghrebh- ‘dig’. Cf. R pogrebat’ ‘bury’, grob ‘coffin’ (< ‘grave’); OHG, Goth graban, OE grafan (> E grave), G graben ‘dig’, Grab ‘grave’; Latv grebt, OCS pogresti ‘bury’, SCr grèpsti, Pol grzebać ‘dig, excavate’. Although R gresti, grebu ‘paddle, rake; row’ is sometimes said to be linked to a different, homophonous PIE root *ghrebh- ‘seize forcibly, grasp, take, enclose’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 159), both can be related via a chain of semantic shifts such as ‘rake together’ > ‘plunder, seize’. Cf. OCS grabiti ‘snatch up’, R grabit’ ‘plunder’, MHG grabben ‘seize’, E (borrowed) grab.

1.3.2. Slavic-Italic lexical isoglosses PSl *gospodĭ / *gospodinŭ ‘master, lord’, from *gostĭpodĭ. Cf. R gospod’ ‘Lord’, gospodin ‘master’; Bulg gospod, gospodin; Cz hospodín; and L hospes, hospitis < PIE *ghostpot- (Trubačev 1974−2013: 7. 60−63). However, this term may be an Iranian loanword, cf. OIran *wispati ‘master of the clan’ < PIE *u̯ik̑potis ‘master of the clan’, cf. Avest vīspaitiš ‘master of the clan’, OInd viśpáti- ‘head of the household’, Lith viẽšpatis ‘master’, with a change of *wis- to *gus-, then to *gas- pronounced *γas-. Russian has a variant without initial [γ] : Ospodi ! ‘My Lord!’ (perhaps from *wispati > *spati > *aspati > *aspadi). A closely related term is R (g)ospodar’, Pol gospodarz ‘prince’, etc., perhaps from OIran *wispuθra- ‘son of the clan or of the king’s family, prince’ > MIran *guspuθra, later *gaspadar in Middle Western Scytho-Sacian (Cornillot 1994:

84. The lexicon of Slavic

1577

85). Otherwise, a Germanic (Scandinavian) influence is not excluded, according to Le Feuvre (2002−2003): ORus (Novgorodian dialect) ospodinŭ ‘master’ may be explained by OSwed husponde < husbonde ‘master of the house’, cf. E husband. PSl *pola voda ‘flood (of a river)’. Cf. R polovod’e or (inverted, rarely) vodopol’e ‘flood’ and L palūs, palūdis ‘marsh, swamp’; (Trubačev 1985: 216). PSl *polŭ ‘open (space)’ related to *polje ‘field’, PIE *pleth2- ‘broad and flat, wide, open, plane’. Cf. L palam ‘openly’, Gr pélagos ‘sea’. Many parallels can be observed between Slavic and Latin in the meanings of prepositions such as L ob, prō / PSl *ob, *pro and in derivational models involving corresponding prefixes L ob-, pro- / PSl *ob-, *pro-, cf. L ob-sidēre ‘sit near, haunt, frequent, besiege’/ob-sīdere ‘blockade, besiege’ (> E obsess, Fr obséder) and R o-saždat’/о-sadit’ ‘besiege’ from < PSl *ob-saditi ‘set about’, L prō-movēre ‘move forward, promote’, R pro-dvigat’ (from dvigat’ ‘move’) in the same sense. Cf. also the L prefix po- (in positus ‘placed, put’) and Slavic po- (cf. R po-stavit’ ‘put, set’ [more in Toporov 1974; Sakhno 2002]). Another matching pair is L com-edere, a “perfective” of edere ‘eat’ (> Sp comer ‘eat’, E comestible) and R sŭ-est’, perfective of est’ ‘eat’ (< PSl *jēdti), the prefixes L com- and R s(ŭ)- (< PSl *sŭn-) having the same basic sense (‘with’). See *obvlako below, 4.

1.3.3. Slavic-Indo-Iranian lexical isoglosses Among many examples two may be cited here: PSl *griva ‘mane (of animals)’. Cf. OInd, Avest grīvā ‘neck’, Latv grīva ‘river mouth’, PIE *gwrihxu̯-eh2 ‘neck’. PSl *črĭnŭ ‘black’. Cf. OCS črĭrnŭ, R čërnyj, OPr kirsnan ‘black’, OInd kṛṣṇá‘black’. PIE *kwr̥ snos ‘black’.

2. Loan-words 2.1. Iranian loans The earliest borrowings were from the North Iranian languages of the Scythian, Sarmatian, and Alanic tribes. It has also been suggested that the Slavs derived their Iranian vocabulary from the Avars whose ruling family is identified as Turkic but, it has been speculated, was primarily composed of Iranian-speakers (Mallory and Adams 1997: 525). Many of the Iranian loans are linked to religious and social concepts. PSl *bogŭ ‘god’. Cf. Avest baga- ‘god’ and bag- ‘apportion; lot, luck, fortune’, OCS bogŭ, R bog (Trubačev 1974−2013: 2. 161), PIE *bhag- ‘divide, distribute; receive, enjoy’, Gr phágein ‘eat’ < *‘enjoy, share’. An important derivative is PSl *bogatŭ ‘rich’ (< ‘well imparted’). The often assumed Slavic descendant from PIE *deiu̯os ‘god’ is *divŭ ‘demon’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 230), but according to Trubačev (1974−2013: 5. 29, 35) the etymology of *divŭ / *divo ‘miracle’ (hence ‘demon’), related to PSl *divŭ(jĭ) / *dikŭ(jĭ) ‘wild’, is different, and is to be compared with OInd dhī- ‘observe,

1578

XIII. Slavic

contemplate’. Cf. R divo ‘miracle’, divnyj ‘astonishing, wonderful, splendid’, udivljat’sja ‘be surprised, to wonder’, etc. PSl *rajĭ ‘paradise’. Cf. Avest rāy- ‘wealth’. The Slavic borrowing here is analogous to the borrowing of Gr ‘paradise’ from OIran pairidaēza- ‘enclosure, garden’. PSl *svętŭ ‘holy, sacred’. Cf. Avest spənta ‘holy’ < PIE *k̑wen(to)- ‘holy’, originally *‘swollen (with force)’, from *k̑eu(h1)- ‘swell’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 493); but a PIE origin without Iranian mediation is possible if one brings into the picture Goth hunsl ‘sacrifice’, Toch B känts ‘right, correct, firm’. Attested Slavic forms of this lexical item include OCS svętŭ, svętyi, R svjatoj, Bulg sveti, svet, Cz svatý, and Pol święty ‘holy’, etc. PSl *gospodĭ ‘master, lord’ (unless properly Slavic, see 1.3.2). However, some Iranian terms do not belong to the religious sphere: PSl *sobaka ‘dog’ < MIran sabāka-, cf. Avest spā ‘dog’, spaka- ‘of a dog, doggish’; only R, Ukr sobaka, BelR sabaka (probably an Eastern Slavic loan from Iranian, not known in other Slavic languages, except for Pol dial and Kashub sobaka). According to Trubačev (1960: 29), this term may be a loan from Turkic köbäk ‘dog’. But PSl *suka ‘bitch’ (less likely *sǫka) may go back to PIE *k̑(u)won- ‘dog’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 168) without Iranian mediation. Note that Slavic developed a specific term for ‘dog’: PSl *pĭsŭ < *‘spotted’, probably related to *pĭstrŭ ‘variegated’, from *pĭsati ‘paint’ and (later) ‘write’ < PIE *peik̑- ‘paint, mark’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 414), cf. L pingere ‘paint, color’, etc., R pës, Pol pies ‘dog’, etc.

2.2. Celtic loans A few words may have originated in Celtic: PSl *sluga ‘servant’. Cf. OIr slōg, slūag ‘army, host; crowd, company’ < PIE *slougos ‘servant, one performing service’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 506). The Proto-Slavic form is manifested in R sluga ‘servant’, but Lith slaugà ‘service’ indicates that the borrowing most likely reaches back into the period of Proto-Balto-Slavic, with a semantic shift from a military context to one of service. Mallory and Adams (1997: 285) suggest that Balto-Slavic may have derived the term independently of Celtic, from PIE *sel- ‘move quickly’, cf. OE sellan ‘deliver, sell’ (> E sell), OCS sŭlŭ ‘messenger’, R posol ‘messenger, ambassador’ (for a semantic analogy cf. E. ambassador < Fr < L < Celtic *ambaktos, see jabeda below, 2.3), slat’ ‘send’; however, the morphological complexities required by this assumption make it a far less attractive scenario. PSl *jama / *ama ‘cave’. Cf. OIr huam ‘cavern, specus’ (Trubačev 1974−2013: 1. 70−71); but one may also compare this form to Gr ámē ‘shovel, spade’ (< PIE *sem‘gather’).

2.3. Germanic loans Slavic possesses numerous loans from Germanic, mostly related to everyday life, handcraft, power, etc.:

84. The lexicon of Slavic

1579

PSl *buky ‘writing’, gen. *bukŭve < Goth bōka ‘written document’, cf. R bukva ‘letter’. Gmc *bōks is related to *bōkō ‘beech’ (< PIE *bheh2g̑os ‘beech’, cf. R buzina, buz ‘elder, Sambucus’), cf. G. Buch, Buche, E book, beech. The PSl name of the beech tree, *bukŭ, is also Gmc, cf. R buk ‘beech’. But it has been suggested that Gmc *bōks may be linked to the family of PIE *bhag- ‘allot, deal, distribute’ (Pfeifer 2004: 179), see *bogŭ above in 2.2. PSl *bl’udo ‘dish’ < Goth biuþs, biud- ‘table’, cf. R bljudo ‘dish’. PSl *korl’ĭ ‘king’ < OHG Kar(a)l, name of Charlemagne, R korol’, etc. Surprisingly, this explains the Polish name for ‘rabbit’: królik (whence R krolik, Ukr krilyk), which is a recent folk-etymological calque (‘little king’) after G dial. Küningl and Königshase ‘king-hare’ < MHG küniklīn / künglīn, from L cunīculus ‘rabbit’, due to confusion between küniklīn and MHG künig, MLG Könink ‘king’. PSl *myto ‘tax’ < OHG mûte ‘tax’, OR myto ‘tax’. But G Miete < OHG mieta ‘loan, gift’ is different, related to Gmc *mizdō, Goth mizdō, cf. OCS mĭzda R mzda ‘recompense, reward’. PSl *kusiti ‘try’ < Goth kausjan, E choose, Fr choisir, akin to L gustus ‘taste’. Cf. Ukr kusyty ‘tempt’ Bulg. kusja ‘try (a food)’, Pol kusić ‘tempt’; in modern Slavic languages this form is usually prefixed: R iskušat’ ‘tempt’, iskusstvo ‘art’, vkus ‘taste’ (Trubačev 1974−2013: 13. 135). PSl *kŭnędzĭ < *kŭnęg’ĭ ‘prince’ < Goth kuningaz, cf. R knjaz’ ‘prince’, etc. PSl *pŭlkŭ ‘host’ < Gmc *fulkaz, OHG folk ‘host’, G Volk ‘people, nation’, R polk ‘troop, regiment’, akin to L plēbēs ‘the common people’, Gr plēthús ’throng, crowd, (common) people’, PIE root *pleh1- ‘fill’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 417). PSl *t’ud’ĭ / *tjudjĭ ‘foreign’; cf. OCS tuždĭ, štuždĭ; OR čudĭ, čužĭ ‘foreign’; R čužoj, čuždyj < Goth þiuda ‘folk’, OHG diot ‘people, heathen’ (> G deutsch, E Dutch). PIE *teuteh2 ‘the people’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 417). This term bears no relationship to OCS OR R čudo ‘miracle’. PSl *xǫdogŭ ‘wise, skillful’ < Goth handugs ‘handy, dexterous’ (E handy), cf. OCS xǫdožĭnikŭ ‘creator, maker’, xǫdožĭstvo ‘wiseness, sagacity; ruse, perfidy’, R xudožnik ‘artist, painter’. PSl *xlēbŭ ‘bread’ < Goth hlaifs, cf. G Laib, E loaf. Attested Slavic forms include OCS xlěbŭ, R xleb, Ukr xlib, Bulg xljab, etc. But a properly Slavic origin (akin to Germanic) is possible, if PIE *kloibo- ‘a mold of pottery used to bake bread’ > ‘bread baked in a pottery mold’, cf. Gr klíbanos / kríbanos ‘baker’s oven’ (Trubačev 1974− 2013: 8. 27−29). There are debatable cases: PSl *čędo / *čęda / *čędŭ ‘child’, cf. R čado, etc., may be an early Germanic loan (k > č, 1st palatalization), from OHG kind. But a Slavic origin may be admitted (Trubačev 1974−2013: 4. 102−104), from PSl *čęti ‘begin’ < PIE *ken- ‘beginning; end’, cf. R načalo < PSl *na-čęlo < *na-ken-lo, L recēns ‘recent, young’, etc. Germanic also served as an intermediary: some loans from Germanic are actually of Latin, occasionally Greek, origin. PSl *dŭska ‘board’ < OHG tisc (cf. G Tisch ‘table’, E dish) < L discus < Gr dískos, cf. R doska ‘board’. This may explain R stakan ‘(drinking) glass’, from *dŭstŭkanŭ ‘wooden holder (of drink)’. PSl *kupiti ‘buy’ < Goth kaupōn (the Germanic word was itself borrowed from L caupō, caupōnis ‘petty tradesman, huckster, innkeeper’). This word is not to be con-

1580

XIII. Slavic

founded with its PSl homonym *kupiti ‘gather’, from PSl *kupa ‘mound, heap’, cf. R sovokupnyj ‘gathered, summarized’ < PIE *koupo- ‘heap’, cf. OHG houf ‘heap’, E heap. PSl *kotĭlŭ ‘kettle’ < Goth *katils / *katilus, from L catillus ‘kettle’ (Trubačev 1974− 2013: 11. 217−218), R kotël ‘kettle’, etc. PSl *cĭrky / *cĭrĭky ‘church’ < Gmc *kiriko < Gr (do˜ma) kūriakón ‘(house) of the ̄ Lord’. OCS crĭky, R cerkov’ ‘church’, etc. A different but very unconvincing etymology (Gunnarsson 1937): from Romanian beserică, biserică < L basilica < Gr. basileús. According to Le Feuvre (2002−2003), in ORus (Novgorodian dialect) kĭrku, the initial (unpalatalized) k is due to OSwed kirkio / kirko. Some loans are limited to a particular Slavic subgroup. These include especially some North Germanic (Scandinavian) terms borrowed only by Eastern Slavic: OR jabednikŭ ‘official, administrator, judge’ < *ębeda < ON embætti ‘office’, cf. OHG ambahti ‘id.’, G Amt, from Celt *ambaktos ‘highly ranked servant’ (with a different suffix) < *h2entbhi ‘around’ + the participle of the verbal root *h2eg̑- ‘be active’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 506). With semantic pejoration cf. R Ukr jabeda, jabednik ‘libeller, slanderer; sneak, telltale’ (for a similar debasement, cf. R fiskal ‘sneak’, from Pol fiscał ‘lawyer, procurator’ < L fiscālis ‘fiscal’, cf. Scots E Procurator Fiscal). Many Germanic loans are more recent, as Pol rynek ‘market’, Cz rynk ‘ring, town square’ (whence R rynok ‘market’), from MHG rinc ‘ring, circle, town square’, cf. G Ring, E ring. Inversely (and much earlier), PSl *tŭrgŭ ‘market’ (of unclear etymology), seen in R torg ‘market, bargaining’, Cz trh, etc., was borrowed by Scandinavian, cf. Swed Norw Icel torg, Dan torv ‘market’.

2.4. Loans from non-PIE languages Most of these are from Asian languages (Altaic, Chinese, etc.) PSl *kapĭ ‘appearance, figure, idol’, OCS kapĭ ‘id.’, kapište ‘pagan temple’ < ProtoBulgarian (Turkic) *käp, cf. Uigur kep ‘shape, form, figure, picture’. PSl *kŭniga ‘written document, book’ < OTurkic *küinig < Chinese küen ‘roll, volume’, the same source as for Hung könyv ‘book’. Cf. R kniga ‘book’, etc. Other etymologies have also been suggested for this term, e.g., from Akkadian kunukkum ‘(cylindrical) seal, stamp, document’. Some Slavic terms for ‘horse’ are of Altaic (Turkic, Mongol) origin: cf. OR *loša, R lošad’ (fem.), now the usual word for ‘horse’ (cf. kon’ : ‘charger, steed’, 3), Ukr loša ‘colt’, Pol łoszę ‘id.’, a loan from Turkic (a)laša ‘horse, gelding’. More recent is R Ukr merin (attested since 1500) ‘gelding’, borrowed from Mong mörin, morin (Trubačev 1960: 58) and therefore having no direct link with ON merr ‘mare’. But the Mongol term is probably related to PIE *markos ‘horse’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 274) seen in Ir marc, Bret marc’h, ON marr ‘horse’, merr ‘mare’, OHG meriha ‘mare’, E mare, etc.; Chinese mǎ, Korean mal (opinion is divided on whether the PIE word is a borrowing from pre-Mongol, which would also be the source of the Chinese word and that in turn the source of the Korean, or the Mongol, Chinese, etc., words are ultimately borrowed from PIE). See other terms for ‘horse’ below, 3.

84. The lexicon of Slavic

1581

3. Specific vocabulary Many Slavic word can be related to PIE terms having a different meaning, although the link is semantically justifiable. PSl *dobrŭ ‘good, kind’ is related to PIE *dhabros ‘craftsman’, L faber, etc., from PIE *dhabh- ‘put together’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 139). Cf. OCS dobrŭ ‘good, kind, well-famed, beautiful’, R dobryj ‘good, kind’, etc. The meaning in Slavic may be explained as coming from ‘fitting, becoming’, cf. G tapfer ‘bold, solid, brave’, OE gedæfte ‘mild, gentle’ > E daft, from the same PIE root, which also explains PSl *doba ‘time period, season’, cf. Ukr doba ‘time’, Cz ‘time, period, epoch’, Pol ‘period of 24 hours’. For the meaning ‘fitting’ cf. R udobnyj ‘fitting, convenient’, from the same root. Semantically, the latter PSl term is analogous to PSl *godŭ (see next item). PSl *godŭ ‘fitting / convenient / favorable time’, from PIE *ghedh- ‘join, fit together’ (whence E together) (Mallory and Adams 1997: 64). Cf. OCS godŭ ‘appointed time, period; year’, godina ‘hour’, R god ‘year’, pogoda ‘weather’ (< ‘fine, favourable weather’), from which is derived R godnyj ‘fitting’, Pol gody ‘feast’, godzina ‘hour’, Cz hod ‘time; feast’, hodina ‘hour’, Slovk god ‘fitting / favourable time / moment’, related to Lith guõdas ‘honour, respect’, OHG gi-gat ‘fitting’, G gättlich ‘fitting’, Gatte ‘spouse, husband’, gut ‘good’, E good, etc. PSl *starŭ ‘old’ (Slavic has no word derived from PIE *senos, unlike Lith sẽnas ‘old’), hypothetically from PIE *(s)terh1- ‘stiff’ ON starr ‘stiff’, OE starian ‘look at, stare’ > E stare or, more plausibly, from PIE *sth2ei- ‘become hard, fixed’ (an extension of *steh2- ‘stand’) (Černyx 1993: 2. 199; Vasmer 1987: 3. 747), cf. Lith. stóras ‘thick, wide, large’, L stīria ‘icicle’ ON stórr ‘big, strong, important’. Other Slavic words have more questionable Indo-European etymologies. The PSl term for ‘oak’ is *dǫbŭ / *dǫbrŭ, R dub, etc., of unclear etymology, hypothetically from *dheubh- (with inclusion of a nasal infix *n, cf. E dump ‘deep hole in a pond’) ‘deep, hole’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 154). The sense would originally have been ‘tree growing in a valley, a low / deep place’ (Trubačev 1974−2013: 5. 95−97), cf. OCS dŭno, R dno ‘ground, floor’ < PIE *dubno as well as OCS dŭbrŭ ‘ravine, valley’ and R dubrava ‘oak wood’, R duplo ‘tree hole’, Pol dub, dziub ‘tree hole’. However, other etymologies have been suggested, including *dem-bh-os / *dom-bh-os ‘timber, building wood used to build houses’ or *dheubh- / *dhoubh- ‘dark’ (oak timber / wood becomes dark if it remains in water). If one supposes *dhan-bh-os (Černyx 1993: 1. 272), then a link would be possible between PSl *dǫbŭ and Gmc *danwō, cf. G Tanne ‘pine’ (if so derived). In any event, the Slavic word differs from such Germanic words as ON fura ‘pine’, OHG for(a)ha ‘pine’, E fir, which seem to derive from a dialectal PIE *pr̥ kweh2 cognate with *perkwus ‘oak’. The latter word was not preserved in Slavic, except for the divinity name *Perunŭ ‘thunder god’, from *perkwu-hxn- ‘the oaken one’ (cf. the mythological link between oak and thunder). PSl *konĭ, *komonĭ ‘horse’, R kon’, Ukr kin’ < *komni̯ o-, OR komonĭ < *komon‘hornless one’ (as opposed to cattle); cf. R komolyj ‘hornless’, from PIE *k̑em- / *kem‘hornless’; cf. OInd śáma- ‘id.’, Lith šmùlas ‘id.’, ON hind ‘hind’, OE hind ‘id.’ > E hind, OPr camstian ‘sheep’, camnet ‘horse, hornless’, Lith kumė̑lė ‘mare’, kumelỹs, Latv kumeļš ‘colt’, Gr kemás ’young deer’(Mallory and Adams, 273). Cf. SCr konj ‘horse; castrated horse’, Cz kůň, Pol koń ‘horse’. Trubačev (1960: 51) suggests for *konĭ a derivation from *kopni̯ o- ‘male animal’, from *kap-n- < PIE *kapro- ‘male’, cf. L caper;

1582

XIII. Slavic

but later (1974−2013: 10. 197) he claims that *komonĭ may have a different, onomatopoetic etymology: ‘the neighing one’, cf. ON humre ‘neigh’ < *kom- / *kim-, and PSl *čĭmelĭ ‘hum’ (see above, 1.3.1.). He proposes (1974−2013: 10. 197) that *konĭ is from *konikŭ / *konĭkŭ borrowed from Celt *konko / *kanko ‘horse’ (akin to G Hengst ‘stallion’, etc.). Note that PSl *kobyla ‘mare’, probably related to L (< Celt) caballus, perhaps originated in an Asian language, cf. Turkish käväl(at) ‘swift (horse)’, Persian kaval, or from “Pelasgian” *kabullēs < PIE *ghabheli- < *ghabh(o)lo- ‘fork’, ‘Gabelpferd’, cf. G Gabel ‘fork’ (Trubačev 1960: 52, 1974−2013: 10. 93). PSl *skotŭ ‘livestock’ is specific to Slavic, unlike such Baltic forms as Lith pekus, (PIE peḱu- ‘livestock’) borrowed from some western IE group (Mallory and Adams 1997: 23), and gyvulỹs ‘beast’ < PIE *gwih3-w- ‘live’. It is often considered to be a Germanic loan (Goth skatts ‘wealth, treasure’, G Schatz; ON skatts ‘tribute, treasure’ is a loan from West Germanic), see discussion in Trubačev (1960: 99−105). However, Martynov (apud Trubačev 1960: 101) has etymologized this word as PSl *sŭkotŭ ‘young animals, brood, offspring, progeny’ from *kotiti sę ‘procreate, give birth, drop’.

4. Word Formation Slavic is rich in various compounds and derivatives by prefixation and suffixation. PSl *nevēsta ‘bride’ < *neu̯-u̯edh-t-a, from PIE *neu̯- ‘new’ and *u̯edh- ‘lead’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 369): ‘the one who has been newly led’, i. e. the newcomer in the husband’s family, R nevesta ‘bride’, etc. Cf. L dūcere uxōrem ‘lead a wife’, E wed, wedding (< *u̯edh-). Different, because of its *d, is PIE *u̯edmo- ‘bride-price’, whence PSl *vēdnom, OCS věno ‘bride-price’ (Mallory and Adams 1997: 82), although the PIE term has often been taken as derived from *u̯edh- ‘lead’, a root frequently used in connection with marriage. But a common PIE form *hxu̯ed- has been suggested by Szemerényi (apud Mallory and Adams 1997: 82). PSl *nevēsta has also been explained as *ne-vēst-a ‘the unknown’ to věstŭ ‘known’. PSl *medvēdĭ ‘bear’ is a bahuvrīhi ‘whose food is honey’ from *medv- ‘honey’ (cf. *medŭ ‘honey’, adj. *medvĭnŭ) and *ēdĭ ‘food’ (from the root *ēd- ‘eat’), hence ‘honeyeater’ (Černyx 1993: 1. 519). OCS medvědĭ, R medved’, Ukr medvid’, vedmid’ (with inversion of members), Cz medvěd, etc. This form, together with its Germanic counterpart G Bär, E bear, originally ‘brown one’, is a tabu substitution for PIE *h2r̥ tk̑os ‘bear’ in an area (Northern Europe) where bears have been hunted since antiquity. PSl *obvolko / *obvolka / *obvolkŭ ‘cloud’ (R oblako [< OCS], BelR voblak Bulg Maced oblak, SCr Slovn voblak) is from *obvelkt’i ‘envelop’ < *ob- ‘about, around’ + *velkt’i ‘pull, draw’ > ‘veil, cover’. The same combination of root and prefix had the meaning ‘garment, clothing’ (the Slavic k precludes any connection to G Wolke, which is rather related to PSl *volga > OCS vlaga ‘moisture’). The Slavic term is semantically analogous to ON Swed sky ‘cloud’ (borrowed as E sky), L ob-scūrus, both presumably from a root *skeu- ‘cover’. For the semantics, cf. also Fr nuage < L nūbes ‘cloud; veil, shroud, covering’ and for the prefix (on which see also 1.3.2 above) cf. L ob-nubilāre ‘cover with clouds’. Other Slavic languages form their word for ‘cloud’ from different etyma: Ukr xmara, Pol Cz Slovk chmura presuppose a *xmur- ‘gloomy’, while Cz Slovk mrak ‘cloud’ is from *morkŭ ‘darkness’, related to G Morgen ‘dawn’ < ‘dusk’.

84. The lexicon of Slavic

1583

An identical notion can be denoted in Slavic languages by derivatives involving a common prefix but different roots. Thus, *otŭ- ‘away’ appears in the following Slavic verbs meaning ‘to answer’ (cf. also E reply, respond, rejoin, all of Latinate origin): OCS otŭvěštati, R otvečat’, root *vět- ‘tell, say (solemnly)’; cf. PIE *u̯ōt- ‘seer, poet’; OCS otŭrěšti, root *rěk- ‘say’ < *‘lead, arrange, indicate’; cf. PIE *rek- ‘speak’; Bulg otgovorjam, Maced odgovori, SC Slovn odgovoriti, root *govor- ‘speak’; BelR adkazvac’, root *kaz- ‘say’ < ‘show, indicate’; Ukr vidpovidati, Pol odpowiedać, Cz odpověděti, from *pověd- ‘tell’, prefix *po- + *věd- ‘know’; cf. PIE *u̯eid- ‘see, know as a fact’.

5. Abbreviations Alb − Albanian, Avest − Avestan, BelR − Belorussian, Bret − Breton, Bulg − Bulgarian, Celt − Celtic. Cz − Czech, Dan − Danish, E − (New) English, Fr − French. G − German, Gmc − Germanic, Goth − Gothic, Gr − Greek, Hung − Hungarian, Ir − Irish, Iran − Iranian, It − Italian, Kashub − Kashubian, L − Latin, Latv − Latvian, Lith − Lithuanian, Maced − Macedonian, MHG − Middle High German, Mong − Mongol, Norw − Norwegian, OCS − Old Church Slavonic, OHG − Old High German, OIcel − Old Icelandic, OInd − Old Indic, ON − Old Norse, OPr − Old Prussian, PIE − Proto-Indo-European, Pol − Polish, Polab − Polabian, PSl − Proto-Slavic, R − Russian, Rom − Romanian, SCr − Serbian-Croatian, Slovk − Slovakian, Slovn − Slovene, Sorb − Sorbian, Sp − Spanish, Swed − Swedish, Toch − Tocharian, Ukr − Ukrainian. In general, O before any of the above designates ‘Old’ and M denotes ‘Middle’. Also, it should be noted that the rubric SCr is employed in its “traditional” value. The items in question are, at least diachronically, inherent to both Serbian and Croatian, as well as to Bosnian and Montenegrin (BCMS).

6. References Avanesov, Ruben Ivanovič (ed.) 1988−1991 Slovar’ drevne-russkogo jazyka XI−XIV vekov [Dictionary of the Old Russian language of the XI−XIV centuries]. Vol. 1−4. Моscow: Nauka. Birnbaum, Henrik 1975 Common Slavic: Progress and problems in its reconstruction. Cambridge, MA: Slavica. Cejtlin, Ralâ Mihajlovna, Radoslav Večerka, and Emilie Bláhová 1994 Staroslavjanskij slovar’ (po rukopisjam X−XI vekov) [Old Slavic dictionary (based on manuscripts of the X−XI centuries)]. Moscow: Russkij Jazyk. Černyx, Pavel Jakovlevic 1993 Istoriko-etymologičeskij slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo jazyka [Historical and etymological dictionary of the modern Russian language]. Vol. 1−2. Moscow: Russkij Jazyk. Cornillot, François 1994 L’aube scythique du monde slave. Slovo 14: 77−259. Derksen, Rick 2008 Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Web database Dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon: http://dictionaries.brillonline.com/slavic [Last accessed 28 June 2017].

1584

XIII. Slavic

Feuillet, Jack 1999 Grammaire historique du bulgare (ch. 12: Formation du lexique). Paris: Institut d’études slaves. Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V. and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov 1984 Indoevropejskij jazyk i Indoevropejcy. Vol. 1, 2. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo Tbilisskogo Universiteta. [Translated as Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture. 2 vols. 1995. Berlin: De Gruyter.] Gippert, Jost 2002 Neues zu ‘Slavisch st aus älterem pt’? In: Peter Anreiter, Peter Ernst, and Isolde Hausner (eds.), Namen, Sprachen und Kulturen. Vienna: Praesens, 239−256. Gunnarsson, Gunnar 1937 Das slavische Wort für Kirche. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell. Herman, Louis J. 1975 A Dictionary of Slavic word families. New York: Columbia University Press. Le Feuvre, Claire 2002−2003 Deux exemples d’interférences linguistiques dans les textes novgorodiens anciens: l’église et le maître. Revue des études slaves 74: 431−440. Le Feuvre, Claire 2009 Le vieux slave. Leuven: Peeters. Lehmann, Volkmar 1995 Die Rekonstruktion von Bedeutungsentwicklung und -motiviertheit mit funktionalen Operationen. Slavistische Linguistik 21: 255−289. Mallory, James P. and Douglas Q. Adams 1997 Encyclopaedia of Indo-European culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn. Meillet, Antoine 1934 Le slave commun. Paris: Champion. Schenker, Alexander 1993 Proto-Slavonic. In: Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages. London: Routledge, 60−124. Patrick, George Z. 1989 Roots of the Russian language: An Elementary Guide to Wordbuilding. Lincolnwood (Chicago): Passport Books. Pfeifer, Wolfgang 2004 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. 7th edn. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Sakhno, Serguei 2001 Dictionnaire russe-français d’étymologie comparée: Correspondances lexicales historiques. Paris: L’Harmattan. Sakhno, Serguei 2002 Autour des prépositions russes O(B) et PRO: Problème des parallèles lexico-sémantiques slavo − latins. Slavica Occitania 15: 157−178. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1974 Neskol’ko drevnix latinsko-slavjanskix parallelej [Several ancient Latin-Slavic parallels]. In: Oleg N. Trubačev (ed.), Etimologija 1972. Moscow: Nauka, 3−19. Trubačev, Oleg N. 1960 Proisxoždenie nazvanij domašnix životnyx v slavjanskix jazykax [The origin of the names of domestic animals in the Slavic languages]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Trubačev, Oleg N. (ed.) 1974−2013 Ètimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskix jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond [Etymological dictionary of the slavic languages. The Proto-Slavic lexical stock]. Vol. 1− 39. since 2002 ed. by O. Trubačev and A. Žuravlev. Moscow: Nauka.

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1585

Trubačev, Oleg N. 1985 Linguistics and Ethnogenesis of the Slavs: The Ancient Slavs as Evidenced by Etymology and Onomastics. Journal of Indo-European Studies 13: 203−256. Vaillant André 1974 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. 4: La formation des noms. Paris: Klincksieck. Vasmer, Max 1987 Etimologičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka [Etymological dictionary of the Russian language]. Vol. 1−4. Moscow: Progress.

Serguei Sakhno, Rueil-Malmaison (France)

85. The dialectology of Slavic 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Introduction Early Proto-Slavic Late Proto-Slavic The dialectal disintegration of Proto-Slavic South Slavic

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

West Slavic East Slavic Morphology Lexical differences References

1. Introduction All Slavic languages have been derived from their common ancestor, Proto-Slavic. The majority of scholars consider Proto-Slavic to have developed from yet an earlier intermediate proto-language, Proto-Balto-Slavic. This larger entity belonged in turn to the satem group of Indo-European languages. Both Slavic and Baltic harbor some irregular traces of features found in centum dialects, e.g. OCS kamy, Russ. kamenĭ ‘stone’, Lith. akmuõ ‘id.’ : ašmuõ ‘blade’, cf. Gk. ákmōn ‘anvil’, ON hamarr ‘hammer, crag, precipice’ : Skt. áśman- ‘stone’; OCS slušati ‘hear’, Skt. (Vedic) śroṣantu ‘let them hear’ : Lith. klausýti ‘hear’, OIr. -cloathar (subj.) ‘would hear’, Toch. A klyoṣ- ‘heard (3sg.)’, OHG hlosên ‘hear’; OCS svekrŭ ‘father-in-law’, Gk. hékuros, Lat. socer, OHG swêhur : Lith. šẽšuras, Skt. çváçuras, Av. xvasura- ‘id.’, etc. Some irregular correspondences reflect probably dialectal differences within Proto-Balto-Slavic. These are usually neglected in comparative grammars but are presented in etymological dictionaries, e.g. OCS večerŭ ‘evening’ : Lith. vãkaras, Latv. vakars ‘id.’; OCS redŭkŭ ‘seldom’ : Lith. rẽtas ‘id.’; OCS devętĭ, Lith. devynì, Latv. deviņi ‘9’ : Pr. newīnts ‘9 th’, cf. Gk. ennéa, Lat. novem, Skt. náva, Goth. niun ‘9’; OCS domŭ ‘house’ : Lith. nãmas ‘id.’ but dimstis ‘yard, domain’, cf. Skt. dámas, Gk. dómos, Lat. domus ‘house’; OCS dlŭgŭ ‘long’ : Lith. ìlgas, Latv. il˜gs ‘id.’ but Dùlgas, Dulgẽlė (place-names in Lithuania of Yotvingian origin), cf. Hitt. daluga-, Gk. dolikhós, Skt. dīrghás, etc. In the development of Proto-Slavic, there were two stages: Early Proto-Slavic (Germ. Frühurslavisch) and Late Proto-Slavic (Germ. Späturslavisch). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-006

1586

XIII. Slavic

2. Early Proto-Slavic Since for every prehistoric language writings are absent, Proto-Slavic has been reconstructed via the comparative method. Early Proto-Slavic had split off from Proto-BaltoSlavic and initially differed little from the latter. Its main structure was in general the same as that of Proto-Baltic, as reflected best in Lithuanian and to some extent Old Prussian and Latvian. Lithuanian in many cases preserves structures and forms that Proto-Slavic once possessed. Syllables in Early Proto-Slavic possessed consonant clusters inherited from Proto-Indo-European and could be open or closed. There was a phonological opposition of long and short vowels inherited from Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Balto-Slavic. It had a simple tone system, often called pitch accent, as evidenced by paradigmatic stress mobility in East Slavic languages, e.g. nom. : acc. sg. ruká : rúku ‘hand’, golová : gólovu ‘head’, zimá : zímu ‘winter’. Such mobility can be explained only by the former existence of a tonic system of the sort seen also in the corresponding Lithuanian items rankà (< *rañkā´ < *rañ´kā ) : rañką, galvà : gálvą, žiemà : žiẽmą. Cases like Lith. rankà : rañką, Russ. ruká : rúku attest also the Law of Fortunatov/de Saussure. The Lithuanian accent paradigm with fixed high intonation on the first syllable (immobile) finds many correspondences in the East Slavonic languages in words with fixed stress on the first syllable, e.g. Lith. líepa : Russ. lípa ‘lime tree’, Lith. kriáušė : Russ. grúša ‘pear’, Lith. šiáurė : Russ. séver ‘north’, etc.

3. Late Proto-Slavic By this stage of its development, the whole system of Proto-Slavic had undergone extensive modifications. The main accelerant of structural changes was the tendency for increasing sonority within all syllables, which affected both inherited Indo-European vocabulary and loan words. One manifestation of this tendency was the law of open syllables, which caused fundamental changes in the structure of words: 1. All consonant clusters were changed or simplified, e.g. *ss, *zs (> *ss), *ts (> *ss), *ds (> *ts > *ss) > s: aor. *nēssŭ > OCS něsŭ ‘I carried’; *izsouxiti > OCS isušiti ‘dry out’; aor. *čĭtsŭ > *čīsŭ, OCS čisŭ ‘I read’; aor. *vĕdsŭ > *vĕtsŭ > *vēsŭ, OCS věsŭ ‘I led’; *ps > s: *opsa > OCS osa ‘wasp’ : Lith. (dial.) vapsà. 2. The combination of vowel + nasal changed into a nasalized vowel, e.g. *ronka > OCS rǫka ‘hand, arm’ : Lith. rankà, *imti > OCS (vŭz)ęti ‘take’ : Lith. im ˜ ti. 3. The combination of vowel + liquid became syllabic sonorants [r̥ ], [l̥ ], written , , respectively, e.g. *virs- > OCS vrĭxŭ ‘above, up’ : Lith. viršùs, *vilkos > OCS vlĭkŭ ‘wolf’ : Lith. vil˜kas or underwent liquid metathesis to RV; *korvā ‘cow’ > Blg. kráva, S.-Cr. krȁva, Cz. kráva, Slvk. krava, Pol. krowa (on Russ., Ukr. koróva, see 7) : Lith. kárvė; *bolto > OCS blato ‘swamp’ : Lith. báltas ‘white’. 4. Consonants at the end of closed syllables were dropped, e.g. *tos, *tod > OCS tŭ, to ‘that, this’, *stolos > OCS stolŭ ‘table’ : Lith. stãlas, *ognis > OCS ogn̑ĭ ‘fire’ : Lith. ugnìs; *sūnus > OCS synŭ ‘son’ : Lith. sūnùs, etc. In some cases, a change of syllabic boundaries took place or anaptyctic vowels could appear, e.g. Gk. psalmós > OCS pŭsalŭmŭ ‘Psalm’, Gk. Aíguptos > OCS egüpĭtŭ ‘Egypt’, Gk. Paũlos > OCS pavŭlŭ ‘Paul’, etc.

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1587

Fig. 85.1

The new phonemic arrangement of syllables could have the sequence (1) fricative + (2) occlusive(/affricate) + (3) sonorant (nasal, liquid) or v + (4) vowel. (In a reduced variant one or more members of the chain could be absent, e.g. 1 + 4, 2 + 4, 3 + 4, etc.) The previous phonological opposition of long and short vowels was modified into a new qualitative opposition (see Fig. 85.1). The disappearance of the phonological opposition of long and short vowels automatically caused the loss of the relevant pitch accent. The reduced vowels ĭ and ŭ (‘jers’)

1588

XIII. Slavic

could be in a strong or weak position. The strong position of jers was in stressed syllables (e.g. OCS sŭnŭ ‘dream’, tŭ ‘this, that’, dĭnĭ ‘day’, vĭsĭ ‘all’) and in syllables followed by other syllables with jers (e.g. šĭpŭtati ‘to whisper’, kŭ mŭně, Russ. ko mne ‘to me’). The weak position of jers was in unstressed endings and in unstressed syllables before normal vowels, e.g. OCS synŭ ‘son’, dĭnĭ ‘day’; dŭva ‘two’; sŭborŭ ‘council’, dĭni ‘days’. Later on in Slavic dialects, all jers in weak position disappeared and in strong position changed into normal vowels. The modification of the vowel system took place separately in early Slavic dialects that later gave rise to modern Slavic languages. The system of consonants was immensely modified after palatalizations of velars. There were three Slavic palatalizations − two regressive before the front vowels i and e and one progressive that took place after these vowels. After the first Slavic palatalization k’ > č’, g’ > ž’, x’ > š’, e.g. OCS živŭ ‘alive, lively’ : Lith. gývas, Skt. jīvás, Lat. vīvus; OCS četyre (m.), četyri (f.) ‘four’ : Lith. keturì, OIr. ceth(a)ir; OCS tixŭ ‘still’, tišina ‘stillness’. This process took place prior to the monophthongization of diphthongs. The appearance of new front monophthongs from former diphthongs gave rise to the second palatalization: k’ > c’, g’ > dz’ > z’, x’ > s’, e. g. OCS cěna ‘price, value’ : Lith. káina, Gk. poinḗ ‘price, penalty’, Av. kaēnā- ‘punishment’, Ir. cin ‘guilt, debt’; OCS vlĭkŭ ‘wolf’ (: Lith. vil˜kas), nom. pl. vlĭci (: Lith. vilkaĩ); OCS dzělo ‘very, much’ : Lith. gailùs ‘sharp, harsh, revengeful’, Goth. gailjan ‘make glad, happy’; OCS f. naga ‘nude’, dat. sg. nadzě : Lith. núogai ; OCS suxŭ ‘dry’ (: Lith. saũsas), dat., loc. sg. susě (: Lith. sausaĩ), suša (< *suxii̯ a) ‘land’. The third palatalization had the same results but took place only after the vowels ĭ, i, and ę. The appearance of open syllables exercised a profound influence upon the whole morphological system of Proto-Slavic, causing the deletion of all final consonants, reduction of vowels in endings, and the appearance there of the reduced jer vowels (ŭ and ĭ). As a result, the differences between many forms in distinct paradigms of nouns and verbs were lost, many endings coming to coincide with each other and thereby causing a mixture and simplification of paradigms. In the system of declension, e.g., nom. and acc. sg. of *o- and *u- stems as well as of *i̯ o- and *i- stems became identical, cf. nom. and acc. sg. (*o-stems) OCS vlĭkŭ ‘wolf’ (: Lith. vil˜kas [nom.], vil˜ką [acc.] < *-os, *-om) and (*u-stems) OCS synŭ ‘son’ (: Lith. sūnùs [nom.], sū́nų [acc.] < *-us, *-um); and nom. and acc. sg. (*i̯ o-stems) OCS nožĭ ‘knife’ (cf. Lith. kẽlias [nom.], kẽlią [acc.] < *-i̯ os, *-i̯ om, ‘road’) and (*i-stems) OCS noštĭ ‘night’ (: Lith. naktìs [nom.], nãktį [acc.] < *-is, *-im,), etc. In spite of the loss of IE verbal endings in Late Proto-Slavic, its complicated temporal system continued to exist.

4. The dialectal disintegration of Proto-Slavic The 7 th century marks the beginning of the gradual breakup of Proto-Slavic, leading to the appearance of huge dialectal zones. These at first presented a common dialectal continuity until it was broken by the movement of Hungarians into Pannonia in the 10 th century. As a result, West Slavs were separated from South Slavs rendering direct contact between them impossible. The break-up of the Slavic dialectal continuity produced three dialectal groups: East Slavic, West Slavic, and South Slavic, which were, however, connected by numerous common isoglosses, many of which are still preserved in modern

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1589

Slavic languages and their dialects. It is supposed that South Slavs came to the Balkans in two streams and that between them there was a large non-Slavic population of Vlachs. Although East and South Slavic have been separated by vast territories for many centuries, they share slightly more isoglosses in common than they do with West Slavic. We regard only the main dialectal features that are common to all groups of Slavic languages. For the appearance of the three Slavic dialect groups, the most important developments were the following modifications of the Common Slavic language system. The jer vowels ĭ and ŭ in strong position changed into different vowels. The nasal vowels ǫ and ę underwent variant developments, as did ě and y, jery, and the vowels ĭ and ŭ in weak position disappeared. In separate South and West Slavic dialects new oppositions of long and short vowels appeared, as did changes in the place of stress as well as the development of pitch accent. For the consonant system the most important changes were: modification of oppositions of hard and soft consonants; changes of rĭ [r̥ ], lĭ [l̥ ]; of clusters *kv-, *gv-; *tj, *kt’, *gt’, and *dj; *(T)orT, *(T)olT, and *(T)erT, *(T)elT (T = any obstruent); and labial consonant + [j].

5. South Slavic It is supposed that Slavs migrated to the South of Europe in two waves which took place at different times and via different routes. As a result, Slavs came to inhabit almost the entire Balkan region as well as some adjacent territories. Earlier these territories had been occupied by various tribes who spoke different languages. Their assimilation exercised a significant influence upon the ethnogenesis of the South Slavs and the formation of ancient dialects. These facts explain why the South Slavs had been split into two groups − Eastern and Western. The latter group gave rise to Slovenian, Serbian, and Croatian and the former to Bulgarian and Macedonian. Serbian and Croatian were further subdivided into three dialect groups: Štokavian, Čakavian, and Kajkavian based on the form of the interrogative pronoun ‘what?’, which is pronounced što in the first, ča in the second and kaj in the third group. In historical times the South Slavs were subjugated by different conquerors, and their states were split. Slovenian, Croatian, and parts of Serbian lands were for a long time incorporated into Austria, Hungary, and their common state Austro-Hungary, whereas Serbia, Bulgaria, and Macedonia became part of the Ottoman Empire. These historical events, with the attendant linguistic contacts which they produced, have influenced all South Slavic dialects. We first examine the features that were inherited from the time of the split of Proto-Slavic and are common to all South Slavic dialects.

5.1. Stress and vowels The development of the vowel systems in eastern and western areas of South Slavic was different. In Bulgarian and Macedonian the vowel system lacks an opposition of short and long vowels. In Eastern Bulgarian dialects (the basis of the literary language), there are six vowel phonemes (i, u, ŭ, e, o, a). Western Bulgarian and its neighbor Macedonian have a five-vowel system, lacking ŭ. (The Bulgarian vowel transcribed ŭ in this article

1590

XIII. Slavic

is the historical back jer ŭ; however, in modern synchronic treatments of Bulgarian it is usually transliterated as ă, better reflecting its pronunciation in the modern language.) In addition, eastern and western dialects differ principally in two aspects. First, in the former the accent is free and vowels are reduced in unstressed position. In the latter, the stress in words of three or more syllables is fixed on the third syllable from the end and in words of two syllables it is fixed on the first syllable, and unstressed syllables do not show vowel reduction. In Eastern Bulgarian dialects these restrictions on the position of the accent do not apply, and the place of stress is phonologically relevant: Bulg. vŭ̀ lna ‘wool’ : vŭlnà ‘wave’, pàrа ‘vapor’ : pаrà ‘coin’, ìmа ‘has’ : (аоr.) imà ‘had’. A new phonological opposition of long and short vowels has developed in western areas of South Slavic. Besides that, in Slovenian there is in addition an opposition of long close ó, é and open ȏ, ȇ that is also relevant for lexical and grammatical differentiation (Slvn. kùp ‘haystack, crowd’ : kúp ‘buy’; bràt ‘brother’ : brát ‘to read’; vèč ‘more’ : g. pl. véč [< véčа] ‘assembly, gathering’; péti ‘to sing’ : dat.-loc. sg. pȇti [< pȇtа ‘heel’]; téle ‘these’ : tȇle ‘calf’; 3. sg. vódi : 2. sg. imper. vȏdi [< voditi] ‘conduct’; vòd ‘wire’ : g. pl. vȏd [< vȏdа] ‘water’). The accent in Slovenian is free and mobile and can be dynamic or tonal. Most of the tonal dialects have the following intonations: (1) an irrelevant short (marked with the grave `): bòb ‘bean’, ràk ‘cancer’; (1a) short and rising ( `) and (1b) short and falling (marked with the double grave ˋˋ): brȁt ‘brother’, krȕh ‘round’, sȉr ‘cheese’. (2) long and falling (marked with the inverted breve ̑ or the circumflex ͡ ; close o and e have a dot below): dȃn ‘day’, dȗh ‘spirit, breath’, sȋn ‘son’ and (3) long and rising (marked with the acute ´): žéna ‘wife’, člóvek ‘man, human being’, zíma ‘winter’. The intonations are phonologically relevant: gràd ‘hail’ : grȃd ‘castle’ (: g. sg. gráda), pót ‘way, road’ : pȏt ‘sweat’; g. sg. goré : nom. pl. gorȇ (< góra) ‘hill’; 2. pl. ind. kosíte ‘you eat’ : 2. pl. imper. kosȋte, etc. The place of stress in many instances has been changed. In some circumstances it could be retracted onto the previous syllable (similar to Serbian and Croatian): Slvn. (tonic stress) róka / (dynamic stress) rȏka : Srb.Cr. rúka : Russ. ruká ‘hand, arm’; Slvn. gláva : Srb.-Cr. gláva : Russ. golová ‘head’; Slvn. žéna / žȇna : Srb.-Cr. žéna : Russ. žená ‘wife’. In other instances it was shifted onto the following syllable: Slvn. nebȏ / nebó : Srb.-Cr. nȅbo : Russ. nébo ‘sky’; Slvn. zlatȏ / zlató : Srb.-Cr. zlȃto : Russ. zóloto ‘gold’; Slvn. srcȇ / srcé : Srb.-Cr. sȑce : Russ. sérdce ‘heart’. In some forms of paradigms, the shift can be absent: g. sg. Slvn. žené − Russ. žеný : Srb.-Cr. žènē; loc. sg. Slvn. sŕcu − Srb.-Cr. sȑcu, Russ. sérdce. Short vowels in syllables with retracted stress could become long: Slvn. ókno / ȏkno : Srb.-Cr. òkno : Russ. оknó ‘window’; Slvn. vóda / vȏda : Srb.-Cr. vòda : Russ. vodá ‘water’, but Slvn. gràd : Srb.-Cr. grȁd : Russ. grad ‘hail’; Slvn. lùk : Srb.-Cr. lȕk : Russ. luk ‘onion’, etc. In Serbian and Croatian, pretonic vowels are usually short, and reduction of unstressed vowels is absent. The stressed syllabic r̥ also has an intonation. As in Slovenian, four intonations are marked: 1. 2. 3. 4.

short falling: Srb.-Cr. pȁs ‘dog’, lȉpa ‘lime tree’; short rising: žèna, ìgra ‘play’; long falling: dȃn ‘day’, mȇd ‘honey’; long rising: rúka, gláva.

The intonations are also phonologically relevant: Srb.-Cr. grȁd ‘hail’ : grȃd ‘castle’, pȁs ‘dog’ : pȃs ‘belt’, lȕk ‘onion’ : lȗk ‘bow’; Srb.-Cr. mláda : Russ. molodá ‘young’ [pred. adj.], Srb.-Cr. f. mlȃdā : Russ. molodája [attrib. adj.] f. Accent in Serbian and Croatian

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1591

is free and mobile, but there are some restrictions on its place and usage of intonations. As a rule, a final syllable is unstressed. Monosyllabic words have only one of two falling intonations: Srb.-Cr. grȁd ‘hail’, grȃd ‘castle’, lȕk ‘onion’, lȗk ‘bow’, pȁs ‘dog’, dȃn ‘day’. In disyllabic and polysyllabic words intonation of the first syllable can vary: Srb.Cr. zlȃto ‘gold’, vȏjna ‘war’, acc. sg. glȃvu ‘head’ : gláva ‘head’, rúka ‘hand’, ȉstina ‘truth’, 1. pl. pȋšemo ‘we write’, nòsiti ‘carry’, písati ‘write’. In words having more than two syllables, accented internal syllables can have only one of two rising intonations: dovèsti ‘carry’, nogári ‘easel’. The place of intonation has often been changed. In most cases it has been retracted onto the previous syllable: Srb.-Cr. rúka, Slvn. róka : Russ. ruká; Srb.-Cr. gláva, Slvn. gláva : Russ. golová; Srb.-Cr. žèna, Slvn. žéna : Russ. žená ‘woman’; Srb.-Cr. vòda, Slvn. vóda : Russ. vodá ‘water’. We must pay attention to the fact that the appearance of the new opposition of long and short vowels has developed independently not only in West Slavic and South Slavic, but also in various South Slavic dialects, cf. Slvn., Srb.-Cr. grȃd : Cz. hrad : Pol. gród, LSorb. hród, ‘castle’; Slovn., Srb.-Cr. mláda (mlȃd) : Cz. mladá ‘young’; Slvn. lȏk, Srb.-Cr. lȗk : Cz. luk ‘bow’; Slvn. ókno / ȏkno : Srb.-Cr. òknо ‘window’; Slvn. zlatȏ / zlató : Srb.-Cr. zlȃto ‘gold’; Slvn. nebȏ / nebó : Srb.-Cr. nȅbo ‘sky’. The jers in a strong position have often merged in South Slavic. In Slovenian ĭ and ŭ become ə/e [ə] and in some cases a (ĭ : Slvn. pɘ̀s / pès ‘dog’, vès ‘village’, but dȃn / dán ‘day’; ŭ: sɘ̀n (sàn) / sèn ‘dream’, lèž ‘lie’, but mȃh / máh ‘moss’). The latter development was usual for Serbian and Croatian (Srb.-Cr. pȁs ‘dog’, òvas ‘oat’; sȁn, lȃž). The vowel ĭ becomes e and in some cases ŭ (ă) in some western dialects of Bulgarian, e in Macedonian (Bulg. pŭs / pes, Macd. pes, den; Bulg. tŭ̀ men − Macd. temen ‘dark’. The vowel ŭ remains as such orthographically in Bulgarian and becomes o in Macedonian (Bulg. sŭn − Macd. son ‘sleep’, Bulg. mŭ̀ x − Macd. mov ‘moss’). In Slovenian the difference between e and ě has been lost and a new long ē has appeared from both vowels (e: rébro / rȇbro ‘rib’, mȇd ‘honey’; ē: réka ‘river’, lȇs ‘wood’). The same is true of Macedonian, where, however, only short e is possible (Macd. med, reka). In Bulgarian this process involved some peculiarities. ě becomes e, merging with the latter, when stressed before a soft consonant or in unstressed position (OBulg. běl- ‘white’ > Bulg. bèlene ‘whitening’, rekà ‘river’ beside med ‘honey’, vèčer ‘evening’, both with original e). However, stressed ě becomes ja if it was followed by a hard consonant (Bulg. bjal, djado ‘grandfather’). The development of e and ě was very complicated in Serbian and Croatian. In particular instances e could become long (Srb.-Cr. mȇd but g. sg. mȅda, Srb.-Cr. jéla ‘fir’ but ChSl. jela, cf. Latv. egle, Lith. ẽglė; Srb-Cr. jȇž ‘hedgehog’, g. sg. jéža, but ChSl. ježĭ, cf. Lith. ežỹs). The vowel ě underwent various changes which have become very important for the classification of Serbian and Croatian dialects, splitting them into three groups: Ekavian (ě > e), Ikavian (ě > i ), and Ijekavian (ě > ije / je): Srb.-Cr. delo, dilo, djelo ‘work’; telo, tilo and tijelo ‘body’. Literary Croatian is based on the Ijekavian norms, whereas literary Serbian allows Ekavian and Ijekavian ones. The nasalized ę has undergone denasalization to e in Slovenian, Serbian, and Croatian (Slvn. svȇt / svét ‘holy’, Srb.-Cr. svȇt; Slvn. desȇt / desét, Srb.-Cr. dȅset ‘ten’). The nasalized ǫ has undergone a parallel denasalization to o in Slovenian and to u in Serbian and Croatian (Slvn. mȏž / móž − Srb.-Cr. mȗž ‘husband’; Slvn. róka / rȏka − Srb.-Cr. rúka ‘hand, arm’). The development of the nasalized vowels in the Eastern dialects of South Slavic was complicated. In Macedonian ę becomes e and (in rare cases) а (Macd.

1592

XIII. Slavic

svet, deset, but jazik ‘tongue’). Nasalized ǫ becomes a and (as in Serbian and Croatian, but in rare cases) u (Macd. maž, raka, kuḱa ‘house’. In Middle Bulgarian ǫ and ę have merged to ǫ, which becomes ŭ (ă), falling together with the old ŭ. In some Bulgarian dialects ę becomes е, resulting in ŭ / e variation: Bulg. žŭ̀ tva and žètva ‘reaping’, ezìk, svet / svjat, dècet.

5.2. Consonants and clusters In general the Proto-Slavic system of consonants does not undergo much modification in South Slavic. All dialects have maintained the former opposition of voiceless and voiced consonants. Voiced consonants usually become voiceless before voiceless consonants and in final position; and vice versa, voiceless consonants become voiced before voiced consonants. Similar phenomena are seen in Serbian and Croatian dialects: Srb.Cr. bȇg / bijȇg ‘flight’ but bèkstvo / bjèkstvo ‘running’; Srb.-Cr. rédak / rijédak ‘seldom, fluid’ but rétkost / rijétkost ‘rarity’; Srb.-Cr. svȁt ‘marriage broker’ but svȁdba ‘marriage’. However, as is the case in Ukrainian, voiced consonants have not undergone devoicing in final position, and therefore stand in phonological opposition to corresponding voiceless consonants: Srb.-Cr. rȃd ‘work, labour’ : rȁt ‘war’, sȃd ‘planting, implantation’ / sȁd(а) ‘now’ : sȁt ‘clock, hours’. The opposition of hard and soft consonants is manifested strongly in Bulgarian, where it is reflected by 16 pairs before non-front vowels: b − b’‚ p − p’ ‚ v − v’‚ f − f’‚ d − d’‚ t − t’‚ z − z’, s − s’‚ c − c’, g − g’, k − k’‚ h − h’‚ m − m’‚ n − n’‚ l − l’, r − r’. In other South Slavic areas this opposition has been severely reduced or even lost. In Bulgarian, soft consonants in final position have been depalatalized: bojàzŭn ‘fear’, zvjar ‘animal, beast’, vòpŭl ‘cry’, pet ‘five’, kon ‘horse’. In other South Slavic areas in final position, one finds n’ (< *nj) and less frequently l’ (< *lj): Slvn. kònj, Srb.-Cr. kȍnj, Macd. konj ‘horse’; Srb.-Cr. vȍnj, ‘smell’; Slvn. prijátelj : Bulg. prijàtel, Srb.-Cr. prȉjatel ‘friend’; Srb.-Cr. gòmolj ‘bulb’. Before consonants and in final position, l becomes [u̯] in Slovenian and o in Serbian and Croatian: Slvn. délal [-u̯] sem ‘I made’, ozŕl [-u̯] sem se ‘I looked around’, vól[-u̯]k ‘wolf; Srb.-Cr. m. nòsio ‘carried’ but f. nòsila; m. spásio ‘saved’ but f. spásila; Bèograd ‘Belgrade’ but Srb. bȇli grȃd / Cr. bijȇli grȃd ‘white city or town’. The exclusive South Slavic isoglosses were changes of *(T)orT and *(T)olT (T = any obstruent) to (T)rаT/(T)laT, contrasting with the outcomes of these sequences in most other Slavic dialects (a notable exception is Czech, where the innovation is likely to be independent). In this regard, as generally in others, OCS shows South Slavic features: Slvn. grȃd / grád, Srb.-Cr. grȃd, OCS gradŭ ‘town’ : Cz. hrad : Pol. gród (< *grod) ‘town, castle’ : Russ. gorod ‘town’; Slvn. bráda, Srb.-Cr. bráda, Bulg. bradà, Macd. brada, OCS brada : Cz. brada : Pol. broda : Russ. borodá ‘beard’; Slvn. glȃs / glás, Srb.-Cr. glȃs, Bulg., Macd. glas, OCS glasŭ : Cz. hlas : Pol. głos : Russ. gólos ‘voice’. For raT-, laT- cf. Slvn. rabȏta / rabóta, Srb.-Cr. ràbota ‘work’ : German Arbeit ‘id.’; Slvn. rаtȃj / ratáj, Srb.-Cr. rȁtār ‘ploughman’, Bulg. ràtaj ‘field-hand’, Macd. orač : Lith. artójas ‘ploughman’; Slvn. ládjа, Srb.-Cr. lȃđa, Bulg. làdija, Macd. laǵa ‘boat’ : Lith. (dial.) aldijà ‘id.’. The Proto-Slavic clusters *(T)erT and *(T)elT changed in South Slavic to (T)reT, (T)lеT, respectively, here in part agreeing with their outcomes in West

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1593

Slavic but differing from those of East Slavic: Slvn. brȇg / brég, Srb. brȇg / Cr. brijȇg, Bulg. bregŭ̀ t, Macd. breg, OCS brěgŭ : Cz. břeh, Pol. brzeg, USorb. brjóh : Russ. béreg ‘shore’; Slvn. bréza, Srb.-Cr. brȅza, Bulg. brezà, Macd. breza : Cz. bříza, Pol. brzoza : Russ. berjoza ‘birch’ : Lith. béržas ‘id.’; Slvn. mléko, Srb. mléko / Cr. mlijèko, Macd. mleko, Bulg. mljàko (but mlèkomer ‘lactometer’), OCS mlěko : Cz. mléko, Pol. mleko : Russ. molokó ‘milk’ : Lith. mélžti ‘to milk’; Slvn. pljéva, Srb. plȅva / Cr. pljȅva, Macd. pleva, Bulg. pljàva (but plevrìt ‘pleurisy’), OCS plěva : Cz. pleva / plíva, Pol. plewa : Russ. polová ‘chaff’ : OPruss. pelwo ‘id.’. A commonly shared isogloss of South and East Slavic is the modification of the clusters *kv-, *gv- to cv-, zv- (Slvn. cvȇt / cvét, Srb-Cr. cvȉjet, Bulg. cvjat, Macd. cvet : Russ. cvet : Pol. kwiat ‘flower’; Slvn. zvézda, Srb.- Cr. zvijèzda, Bulg. zvezdà, Macd. dzvezda : Russ. zvezdá : Pol. gwiazda ‘star’) and *dl‚ *tl to l (Slvn. jélka, Srb.-Cr. jéla, Bulg. elà, Macd. ela : Russ. elĭ : Cz. jedle ‘fir’; Slvn. plèl, Srb.-Cr. f. plȅla, Bulg. plel, Macd. plel : Russ. plel ‘knitted’ : OCS pletǫ ‘I knit’). Palatalized labial consonants in non-initial syllables develop a following epenthetic l’, as in East Slavic, whereas in West Slavic this change was absent; (later l’ > j in Bulgarian and Macedonian): Slvn. zémlja / zȇmlja, Srb.-Cr. zèmlja, OCS zemlja, Bulg., Macd. zemja : Russ. zemljá : Cz. země, Pol. ziemia ‘earth, ground’; Slvn. káplja, Srb.-Cr. kȁplja, OCS kaplja : Russ. káplja : Cz. kápě, Pol. kapia ‘drop’; Slvn. grȃblje / gráblje, Srb.-Cr. grȁblje : Russ. grábli : Cz. hrábě, Pol. grabie ‘rake’. The Proto-Slavic syllabic *rĭ [r̥ ] has been maintained in Serbian, Croatian, and Macedonian, whereas in Slovenian and Bulgarian it has been changed into sequences consisting of either a preceding (Slvn.) or a following (Bulg.) vocal (Srb.-Cr. gȓd, Macd. grd : Slvn. gȓd / gŕd [gərd], Bulg. (dial) grŭ̀ d (gord is from Russian) : OCS grŭdŭ ‘proud’; Srb.-Cr. vȓh, Macd. vrv : Slvn. vȓh / vŕh [vərh], Bulg. vrŭ̀ x : OCS vrĭxŭ ‘summit’. The Proto-Slavic syllabic *lĭ [l̥ ] has been subject to prevocalization with o or u: Slvn. (l̥ > [ou̯]) vȏlk / vólk, Srb.-Cr. vȗk, Bulg. vŭlk, Macd. volk : OCS vlĭkŭ ‘wolf’; Slvn. pȏln / póln, Srb.-Cr. pȕn, Bulg. pŭ̀ len, Macd. poln : OCS plĭnŭ ‘full’). The clusters *tj, *kt’, *gt’ on the one hand and *dj on the other underwent different changes: in Slovenian they yielded č and j, in Serbian and Croatian ć and đ, in Bulgarian št and žd, and in Macedonian ḱ and ǵ, respectively (Slvn. svéča, Srb. svéća / Cr. svijèća, Bulg. svešt, Macd. sveḱa ‘candle’ : cf. Vedic śvetyá- ‘white’; Slvn. nȏč / nóč, Srb.-Cr. nȏć, Bulg. nošt, Macd. noḱ ‘night’, cf. Lith. naktìs; Slvn. mȇja / méja, Srb-Cr. mèđa, Bulg. meždà, Macd. meǵa ‘border’, cf. Lat. medius ‘middle’).

6. West Slavic The classification of the historical dialects of West Slavic is somewhat problematic. They are traditionally divided into three large groups: Lechitic, Sorbian (Upper and Lower), and Czech together with Slovak. Lechitic consists of Polish, Pomeranian (Kashubian and Slovincian) and Polabian. Slovincian and Polabian are extinct and not well known. The status of Kashubian is disputable. Lower Sorbian is a dying language, and Upper Sorbian is spoken only in a small area of Saxony near Bautzen.

1594

XIII. Slavic

6.1. Stress and vowels In West-Slavic the old mobile stress was lost and became fixed, but its fixation developed differently depending on dialect. In Czech, Slovak, and Sorbian, the stress was fixed on the first syllable, whereas in Polish it was fixed mainly on the penultimate syllable. Common to West Slavic was the appearance of a new opposition of short and long vowels, lost in Polish and Sorbian dialects (with some traces of former long vowels still observable). In Czech and Slovak the quantitative opposition of vowels is phonologically distinct (except in some E. Slovak dialects under the influence of Polish and Ukrainian dialects): Cz. žila ‘she lived’ − žíla ‘vein’, nesu ‘I carry’ − inf. nést, drahá ‘dear’ − dráha ‘road’; Slvk. sud ‘barrel’ − súd ‘trial‘, delo ‘cannon’ − dielo ‘affair, work’, dom ‘house‘ − dóm ‘Cathedral‘. In Czech and Polish ĭ and ŭ become e (but consonants before the old ĭ are soft in Polish): Cz. den, Pol. dzień ‘day’, Cz. pes, Pol. pies ‘dog’, but Cz., Pol. mech ‘moss’, Cz., Pol. sen ‘dream’. In Slovak ĭ becomes e, ’a, o (deň, l’ahký ‘light’, orol ‘eagle’ : OCS dĭnĭ, lĭgŭkŭ, orĭlŭ); ŭ becomes e, o, a (sen, zámok ‘castle’, mach). In Sorbian the jers have merged and changed into e, o, or were lost (USorb. dźeń, LSorb. źeń; USorb. worjoł, LSorb. jer’eł ‘eagle’; USorb. rožka − LSorb. rež ‘rye’ : ORuss. rŭžĭ; USorb. wótc − LSorb. wóśc ‘father’ : OCS otĭcĭ). In Polish e before consonants (t, d, s, z, n, r, v, ł) becomes ’о (> ’ó) and ě yields ’а: (siostra ‘sister’ miód ‘honey’, wiatr ‘wind’ : OCS sestra, medŭ, větrŭ, respectively); in other cases е and ě merge to (’)е (niebo ‘sky’, chleb ‘bread’ : OCS nebo, xlěbŭ, respectively). In Czech and Slovak е remains as such (Cz. nebe, Slvk. nebo ‘sky’; Cz. řebro, Slvk. rebro ‘rib’ : OCS rebro); In Czech ě becomes í in a new long syllable (dílo ‘case’, víra ‘faith’ : OCS dělo, věra, respectively), e/ě/é in a new short syllable (les ‘forest’, měřit ‘measure’, témě ‘bregma’ : OCS lěsŭ, měriti, ORuss. těmja, respectively); in Slovak ě becomes ie / ia in a new long syllable or е in a new short syllable (Slvk. viera ‘faith’, biely : Cz. bílý ‘white’ : OCS bělŭ, lěsŭ ‘forest’). In Sorbian dialects the changes of e and ě fluctuate between those seen in Polish and Czech. The former quantitative opposition of e : ē has been transformed into the qualitative opposition of е (open): ě (close) (USorb. lesny ‘nice’ : lěsny ‘forest’, jednica ‘unit’ : jědnica ‘throat’). Slavic ǫ and ę in Old Polish dialects merged to ą, and later in historically new short syllables (usually open) ą becomes ę, whereas in historically new long syllables (usually closed) ą remained without changes. This is reflected in alternations such as dąb ‘oak’ − pl. dęby : OCS dǫbije ‘trees’; ząb ‘tooth’ − pl. zęby : OCS zǫbŭ ‘id.’. In Czech and Slovak in a new short syllable and in Sorbian generally, ǫ becomes u (Cz., Slvk., USorb., LSorb. dub ‘oak’, ruka ‘hand, arm’); in a new long syllable ǫ becomes ou in Czech and ú in Slovak (Cz. mouka, Slvk. múka : OCS mǫka ‘flour’; Cz. louka, Slvk. lúka ‘meadow’ : OCS lǫgŭ ‘grove’ − Cf. Lith. lankà ‘water-meadow’. For the voicing alternation between the Lith. and OCS forms, cf. OCS redŭkŭ ‘seldom’ : Lith. rẽtas ‘id.’ [1. above]. In the current instance it is found even within Slavic itself.). The nasal ę becomes Czech e, í, á, and a depending upon the syllabic quantity and quality of the following consonants (devět ‘nine’ [ě here is a representation of e with a preceding palatalized v’ ]/ devíti / devátý ‘ninth’/devadesát ‘ninety’: OCS devętĭ ‘nine’); in Slovak ę becomes ä (Slvk. mäso ‘meat’, svätý ‘holy’ : OCS męso, svętŭ, respectively), in Sorbian (’)a, (’)е /ě (USorb. swjaty − LSorb. swěty ‘holy’, USorb. dźesać − LSorb. źaseś : OCS desętĭ ‘ten’). In the older stages of West Slavic dialects, o could become long in a new closed syllable and later be changed into ū (Czech , Slovak [uo]). This change shows some peculiarities depending on dialect. In Polish

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1595

and Sorbian the length of such a vowel was later lost, and as a rule it often alternates with o in an open syllable: Cz. stůl − (g. sg.) stolu ‘table’, Slvk. stôl − stolu, Pol. stół − stołu : USorb., LSorb. stoł − stola; Pol. dwór ‘yard’ − dworu, Cz. dvůr − dvora, USorb., LSorb. dwór − dwora, Slvk. dvor − dvora). A new feature in West Slavic dialects was the appearance of new diphthongs ou, au, and eu in Czech and ô [uo], ie, ia, and iu in Slovak. A peculiarity of West Slovak dialects that is present in the literary language is the law of three moras. In a sequence of two long syllables, the second syllable loses one mora and becomes short: Cz. krásný ‘beautiful’, chválíš ‘you praise’ : Slvk. krásny (but pekný ‘baked’), chváliš (but vidíš ‘you see’).

6.2. Consonants and clusters Opposition of soft and hard consonants is reflected best of all in Polish: p − p’, b − b’, f − f’, v −v’, k − k’, g − g’, m − m’‚ n − n’‚ l − l’ (final b’‚ p’‚ f’‚ v’ and m’ have become hard). In Sorbian it is reduced to p − p’, b − b’, c − c’‚ m − m’, n − n’, r − r’‚ ł [u̯] − ł’ [u̯’] and in Slovak to t − t’, d − d’, n − n’, l − l’. In Czech it is maintained before i (j) and ě, but has disappeared before e, é; furthermore, the opposition l − l’ has been lost. The Slavic sound g is a velar occlusive [g] in Polish and Lower Sorbian and fricative [γ] in Czech, Slovak, and Upper Sorbian. The lateral l is velarized to ł and realized as a bilabial glide [u̯] under specific conditions mainly in Polish and Sorbian (thereby paralleling developments in Belorussian and Ukrainian): Pol. głodny ‘hungry’, czytał ‘read’; USorb., LSorb. mydło ‘soap’, małki ‘little’, perf. mjetł ‘swept’. In many West Slavic dialects (a general exception is Slovak), r’ is realized as an affricate ř that can be either voiced or voiceless, depending on position. It is present as such in Czech and was simplified to [ž] / [š] in Polish and to [š] (in př, kř, tř) in Upper Sorbian and [ś] in Low Sorbian (Cz. řeka, Pol. rzeka : Slvk. rieka, USorb., LSorb. rěka ‘river’; Cz. tři, Pol. trzy, USorb. tři, LSorb. tśi : Slvk. tri ‘three’). The West Slavic dialects retain some Proto−Slavic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects. They maintain Proto-Slavic *kv-, *gv- (Pol. kwiat, Cz. květ, Slvk. kvеt, USorb., LSorb. kwět : Russ. cvet : Bulg. cvjat, etc. ‘flower’; Pol. gwiazda, Cz. hvězda, Slvk. hviezda, USorb. hwězda, LSorb. gwězda : Russ. zvezdá : Macd. dvezda. etc. ‘star’) and *dl‚ *tl (Pol. radło, Cz. rádlo, Slvk. radlo, USorb. radło, LSorb. radlica : Russ. rálo : Srb.-Cr. rȁlo, etc. ‘ploughshare’; Pol. plótł, Cz. pletl, Slvk. pletоl, USorb., LSorb. pletł : Russ. plel, etc. ‘knitted’). Czech and Slovak have maintained the Proto-Slavic syllabic *rĭ [r̥ ], *lĭ [l̥ ] (Cz., Slvk. trh ‘market’; vlna ‘wool, wave’). In Slovak dialects syllabic [r̥ ] and [l̥ ] can become long in particular positions (vlna ‘wave’ − [gen. pl.] vĺn, zrno ‘grain’ − [gen. pl.] zŕn); vrch ‘hill’ − vŕšit’ ‘pile up’. In Polish and Sorbian dialects they have changed into sequences of vowel + consonant (Pol. targ, USorb. torhośćo ‘market’; Pol. wełna, USorb. wołma, LSorb. wałma : ORuss. vŭlna ‘wool’). West Slavic is characterized by the absence of the change j > l’ following labials in non-initial syllables that took place in other Slavic dialects (Pol. ziemia, Cz. země, Slvk. zem, USorb., LSorb. zemja : Russ. zemljá : Srb.-Cr. zèmlja, etc. ‘earth, ground’; Pol. kapia, Cz. kápě : Russ. káplja : Srb.-Cr. kȁplja, etc. ‘drop’; Pol. grabie, Cz. hrábě, USorb. hrabje, LSorb. grabje : Russ. grábli : Srb.-Cr. grȁblje, etc. ‘rake’). The clusters *tj, *kt’,

1596

XIII. Slavic

*gt’ on the one hand and *dj on the other become c and dz in Polish and Slovak dialects, respectively, whereas in other West Slavic dialects dz was simplified to z (Pol. świeca, Cz. svíce, Slvk. svieca, USorb, LSorb. swěca ‘candle’; Pol. noc, Cz. noc, USorb, LSorb. nóc ‘night’; miedza, Cz. mez, Slvk. medza, USorb. mjeza, LSorb. mjaza ‘boundary’). The clusters *TorT and *TolT become TroT (TróT) and TłoT (TłóT) in Polish and Sorbian (Pol. broda, USorb., LSorb. broda ‘beard’; Pol. głos, USorb. hłos, LSorb. głos ‘voice’) but TrаT/TlaT in Czech and Slovak (Cz., Slvk. brada, hlas). The clusters *TerT and *TelT become TrzeT and TleT in Polish (brzeg ‘shore’, mleko ‘milk’, plewa ‘chaff’) but TrěT/TrjaT (TrjóT/TrjoT) and TloT/TluT in Sorbian (USorb. brjoh, LSorb. brjog; USorb., LSorb. mloko; OSorb pluwizna, LSorb. plowa) and TřeT/TréT/TříT and TleT/ TlieT in Czech and Slovak (Cz. břeh, Slvk. breh; Cz. mléko, Slvk. mlieko; Cz. pleva / plíva, Slvk. pleva). Initial *orT-‚ *olT- become raT/roT, laT/loT in West Slavic, depending on their presumed former intonations (Pol. rataj, Cz. rataj, USorb. ratar, LSorb. rataj ‘ploughman’, but Pol.‚ Cz., Slvk, USorb., LSorb. robota ‘work’; Pol. łakomy, Cz., Slvk. lakomý, USorb. łakomny ‘delicious’, but Pol. łodź, Cz. lod’, Slvk. lodka, USorb. łodź, LSorb. łоź ‘boat’) (cf. Collins, this handbook, 5.5). A common West Slavic and South Slavic feature is the initial jе that corresponds to o in East Slavic (Pol. jezioro, Cz. jezero, Slvk. jazero, USorb. jezor, LSorb. jazor : Russ. ózero ‘lake’; Pol. jeden, Cz., Slvk. jeden, USorb. jedyn, LSorb. jaden : Russ. odín ‘one’).

7. East Slavic The modern East Slavic dialects are outgrowths of a single Old Russian language, which existed until at least the 12 th century. The emergence of these dialects is the direct result of colonization of new territories by East Slavs, who subsequently became separated from each other. The discovery of birchbark manuscripts in and around Novgorod in recent years has led to the postulation of an Old Novgorod dialect with some surprising features (Birchbark writing was also used for a Finnic dialect of Old Novgorod. For example, the birchbark letter no. 292 is regarded to be the oldest known document in any Finnic language, dated from the beginning of the 13 th century.). These have often been taken to constitute archaisms but are more likely to reflect a Finnic substratum; however, the apparent absence of Old Church Slavic influence may well be an archaic feature. A characteristic phonological feature of Baltic-Finnic languages is an abundance of occlusives and a restriction in the number of fricatives (in Finnish and Estonian there are only two native fricatives − s and h). Forms seeming to show the absence of the second palatalization in birchbark writing of Novgorod can be regarded as rather involving a substitution of occlusives for affricates, a phenomenon which is very common in Estonian and Finnish speech. One can find such substitution even in the modern Pskov dialects. Another characteristic feature of the Old Novgorod dialect (and some other dialects) was the lack of a distinction of the sounds [č] and [c] (Russian tsokanĭe). Most scholars recognize this as reflecting a Finnic substratum. In some writings of Pskov and Novgorod of the 14 th−16 th centuries, we find clusters kl, gl (< *tl, *dl), e. g. čĭkli < [č’tli] ‘they read’, povegli < [povedli] ‘they led’; and these are thought to reflect an East-Baltic substratum. Old Russian has given rise to modern Russian, Belorussian, and Ukrainian.

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1597

Common to all East Slavic dialects is free and mobile stress that has been inherited from Proto-Slavic. The nasalized vowels ǫ and ę were changed into u and ja, respectively (ORuss. ruka ‘hand, arm’, pjatĭ ‘five’ : OCS rǫka, pętĭ). The reduced sounds ĭ and ŭ in a strong position become e and o, respectively (ORuss. denĭ ‘day’, sonŭ ‘dream’). A purely East Slavic phenomenon was the appearance of “polnoglasie” − the change of the sequences *er, *or, *el, *ol to ere, oro, ele, olo, respectively (ORuss. beremja ‘load’, voronŭ ‘crow’, želesti ‘pay for’, golova ‘head’). The clusters *kv-, *gv become cv, zv, respectively (ORuss. cvětŭ ‘flower’, zvězda ‘star’); *tj, *kt’, *gt’ > č and *dj > ž; *dl‚ *tl > l (Russ. elĭ ‘fir’, ORuss. plelŭ ‘knitted’). Labial consonants develop following epenthetic l’ before [j] (ORuss. bljudo ‘dish’, kaplja ‘drop’, zemlja ‘earth, ground’). Initial jе of West and South Slavic corresponds in East Slavic to o (ORuss. ozero ‘lake’, odinŭ ‘one’). Among the important phonological features of East Slavic dialects was “akanje”, a weakening of unstressed a and o to [ʌ] or [ə] which appears in Belorussian and South Russian dialects but is absent in Ukranian and North Russian dialects. In Belorussian dialects there is a variant with e becoming a after soft consonants in pretonic syllables: bjadá ‘harm’, njasú ‘I carry’, pjasnjár ‘singer’. It is absent in other unstressed syllables: vesnavý ‘spring (adj.)’ − vyasná ‘spring (noun)’, velikán ‘giant’ − vjalíki ‘great’, vósenĭ ‘autumn’. Slavic ě was in Old Russian dialects close and prolonged, whereas e was shorter and open. In Russian and Belorussian dialects the two have merged to e. In Ukrainian ě > i: ORuss. lěto > Ukr. lito (Russ. leto) ‘summer’, ORuss. na stolě > Ukr. na stoli (Russ. na stole) ‘on the table’. In Ukrainian o and e from late Common Slavic *o and *e become i in new closed syllables, especially when the following syllable originally contained a front jer: kin’ ‘horse’ − gen. sg. konja, nič ‘night’ − gen. sg. noči, pič ‘oven’ − gen. sg. peči, osin’ ‘autumn’ − gen. sg. oseni. In all syllables Ukrainian consonants have become hard before e (which must therefore have undergone lowering), whether of late Common Slavic origin, resulting from a strong jer, or pleophonic: temnij ‘dark’ (< *tĭmĭnĭjŭ), bereza ‘birch’ (< *berza). In Ukrainian, East-Slavic y (the vowel written in Russian) and i have merged to i , often transliterated as y, a vowel very close in place of articulation to e. All consonants before this i are hard, e.g. Ukr. biti = Russ. bytĭ ‘be’ and bitĭ ‘strike’, Ukr. milo = Russ. mylo ‘soap’ and milo ‘dear’. In Ukrainian dialects initial i and o could vanish: grati < igrati ‘play’, goród < ogoród ‘vegetable garden’, whereas i could materialize before sonants: iržati < rŭzati ‘neigh’, imla < mgla ‘mist’. In Russian dialects there was a change of e > o (written when stressed) after soft consonants and before hard consonants: Russ. berëza ‘birch’, nës ‘carried’, vesëlyj ‘merry’. In Ukrainian dialects this change has taken place after sibilants, where the resultant vowel is written : Russ. žëltyj ‘yellow’ − Ukr. žóvtij, Russ. čërnyj ‘black’ − Ukr. čórnij (both of these words with Russian despite the fact that ž is synchronically hard in Russian), Russ. šestój ‘the sixth’ − Ukr. šóstij, Russ. ščeká − Ukr. ščoká ‘cheek’ (š is synchronically hard in Russian, and the status of šč is unclear). East Slavic dialects show an opposition of soft and hard consonants. As is the case in Polish, soft final labials have become hard in Belorussian and Ukrainian: Russ. golubĭ ‘pigeon’ − Blr. golub, Ukr., holub; Russ. semĭ ‘seven’ − Blr. sem, Ukr. sim; Russ. sypĭ ‘spot’ − Blr. syp, Ukr. visip. Voiced consonants in final position and before voiceless consonants are devoiced except in Ukrainian dialects: dub [-b] ‘oak’, rid [-d] ‘kin’‚ ridkij [-dk-] ‘seldom’, etc. The letter g is pronounced as a voiced velar fricative in Belorussian

1598

XIII. Slavic

and South Russian, as a voiced glottal fricative (normally transliterated h) in Ukrainian, and as a voiced velar occlusive in North Russian dialects and standard Russian. The peculiar features of Belorussian dialects are: 1. the change of the soft [t’] and [d’] to affricates ts’ and dz’, respectively: tsjapér < tepérĭ ‘now’, batsĭka ‘father’, dzitsjá ‘child, kid’, dzíki ‘wild’; 2. the soft labial [r’] has merged with the hard one: Blr. rad − Russ. rjad ‘row’ and rad ‘charmed’. In Belorussian and Ukrainian prothetic v or g can appear before an initial vowel: Russ. už ‘grass snake’ − Blr., Ukr. vuž, Russ. us ‘moustache’ − Blr., Ukr. vus; Russ. ostryj ‘sharp’ − Blr. vostry, Ukr. ostrij, gostrij; Russ. etot ‘this’ − Blr. gety. A common feature of these dialectal zones was the change of l to ў [u̯] before a consonant or in final position in Belorussian and to v [u̯] in Ukrainian: Russ. dolg ‘duty’ − Blr. daўg, Ukr. dovg; Russ. dal ‘gave’ − Blr. daў, Ukr. dav. In both dialectal zones clusters of the consonants t, d, n, l, s, z, ts, č + [j] have changed into soft geminates: Russ. platĭe ‘clothes’ − Blr. platstse, Ukr. plattja; Russ. sudĭja ‘judge’ − Blr. suddzja, Ukr. suddja, etc. Numerous phonetic changes took place independently later in individual Slavic languages, leading to the appearance of new Slavic dialects. Their number varies from several in Russian, Ukrainian, and Slovak to about fifty in Slovenian. Modern Slavic languages have a complicated system of dialects that needs to be treated separately.

8. Morphology The morphological system of Slavic had seven cases (nominative, vocative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, and locative), three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter), and old declensional stems and complicated past tenses (imperfect, aorist, present perfect, past perfect). After the disappearance of reduced vowels, many declensional stems merged and have given rise to three main declensional paradigms in the individual Slavic dialects. Many cases have lost their formal differences, producing grammatical homonymy. The seven-case system has been maintained in Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, Serbian, and Croatian. Bulgarian and Macedonian have become analytical languages and have lost the old case system except for some relics of the vocative. In other Slavic dialects the category of vocative has been lost and the number of cases has been reduced from seven to six. In Belorussian and Slovak the vocative exists only for individual words for god, kin, and close friends. In Russian and Slovenian, too, only a few forms of the vocative survive. The category of dual has been maintained only in Slovenian and Sorbian. In most Slavic areas the complicated I.E. system of past tenses has been simplified and the old present perfect tense has become the principal past tense. The old system of past tenses is best retained in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian, and Sorbian. The past perfect as a relic tense is present also in Slovak. Grammatical differences between individual Slavic dialects are generally very small but numerous. Nevertheless, they are often intelligible to speakers of other dialects.

85. The dialectology of Slavic

1599

9. Lexical differences Lexical differences among the Slavic dialects are also numerous but less intelligible. They have appeared during the individual developments of the dialects and can be explained by the influence of different neighboring languages and dialects. Despite the changes we have described, the differences between various Slavic languages are often less distinct than what one frequently finds between dialects of some other Indo-European languages, e.g. those of Lithuanian or German. For this reason communication is often possible between speakers of the different Slavic dialectal groups.

10. References Andersen, Henning 1998 Slavic. In: Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat (eds.), The Indo-European Languages. London: Routledge, 415−453. Arumaa, Peeter 1964−1985 Urslavische Grammatik. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter. Bidwell, Charles E. 1963 Slavic Historical Phonology in Tabular Form. The Hague: Mouton. Birnbaum, Henrik 1966 The Dialects of Common Slavic. In: Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel (eds.), Ancient Indo-European Dialects. Proceedings of the Conference on Indo-European Linguistics Held at the University of California, Los Angeles April 25−27, 1963. Berkeley: Univerity of California Press, 153−197. Browne, Wales 1993 Serbo-Croat. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 306−387. Comrie, Bernard and Greville G. Corbett (eds.) 1993 The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. Entwhistle, William. J. and Walter A. Morison 1964 Russian and the Slavonic Languages. 2nd edn. London: Faber and Faber. Friedman, Victor A. 1993 Macedonian In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 249−305. Mayo, Peter 1993 Belorussian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 887−946. Meillet, Antoine 1934 Le slave commun. 2nd edn. Revised by André Vaillant. Paris: Champion. Priestly, Tom M. S. 1993 Slovene. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 388−451. Rothstein, Robert A. 1993 Polish. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 686−758. Scatton, Ernest A. 1993 Bulgarian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 188−248. Schenker, Alexander M. 1995 The Dawn of Slavic Philology. An Introduction to Slavic Philology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Shevelov, George Y. 1965 A Prehistory of Slavic: the Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. New York: Columbia University Press.

1600

XIII. Slavic

Shevelov, George Y. 1993 Ukrainian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 947−998. Short, David 1993a Czech. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 455−532. Short, David 1993b Slovak. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 533−592. Stone, Gerald 1993 Sorbian (Upper and Lower). In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 593−685. Timberlake, Alan 1993. Russian In: Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 827−886. London: Routledge.. Vaillant, André 1950−1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vols. I−II. Paris: IAC. Vaillant, André 1966−1977 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vols. III−V. Paris: Klincksieck. Vasmer, Max 1953−1958 Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Winter.

Oleg Poljakov, Vilnius (Lithuania)

86. The evolution of Slavic 1. Introduction 2. Medieval Slavic sound changes 3. Morphology and morphosyntax

4. Balkan developments 5. Conclusion and prospects 6. References

1. Introduction Over the four to five millennia from the Indo-European disintegration to the beginnings of Slavic written history in the ninth century, the Slavic languages underwent notably few phonological and morphological changes relative to the other branches, so that medieval Slavic languages are distinctly more conservative than their contemporaries. The rate of changes has picked up since the Slavic dispersal in the mid-first millennium CE, but even so the modern non-Balkan Slavic languages are (with Baltic) morphologically the most conservative of the contemporary Indo-European languages. Especially conservative is noun and adjective declension. The inherited verb morphology is also fairly conservative in form, though innovative in functions and paradigmatic organization, and much IE verb morphology has been lost. As of the late centuries BCE Proto-Slavic was probably not a discrete language but a segment of the southwestern part of the sizable Proto-Balto-Slavic range that extended from the middle Dnieper to the Baltic Sea and west probably to at least the Vistula. The ancestral Slavic (i.e. southwestern ancestral Balto-Slavic) presence in this area had probably been continuous since the initial Indo-European expansion or shortly thereafter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-007

86. The evolution of Slavic

1601

Tab. 86.1: The consonant system of the late Proto-Slavic period Labial Stops

Palatal

t d

tˊ dˊ

Affricates

c dz ?

č dž ?

Fricatives

s z

š ž

n

nˊ

r l

rˊ lˊ

Nasals

p b

Dental/ alveolar

m

Other resonants Glides

v [w]

Velar k g

x

j

Proto-Slavic had never been in contact with any but Indo-European languages. The beginning of the Great Migrations brought major ethnolinguistic changes: intensification on the steppe and westward expansions of steppe kingdoms to the Danube plain; formation of the syncretic steppe/trading/farming Gothic state, partly on Slavic territory; extension of the Roman Empire to Dacia and the genocide and cultural destruction of the Dacians; incursions of the Huns, who spoke the first non-Indo-European language to be heard in central Europe for several millennia; the shift of the major intake for the southern European slave market to eastern Europe; formation of the Avar state, whose elite were probably speakers of Alanic (East Iranian) but soon shifted to Slavic. The formation and expansion of the Gothic and Avar states, the considerable depopulation of the Balkan peninsula in the Plague of Justinian (542 CE and later episodes), and the westward retreat of Germanic speakers provided the background for the remarkably rapid spread of late Proto-Slavic across much of eastern Europe. Whatever its exact mechanism (see e.g. Timberlake 2013), this spread shuffled and largely effaced previous dialect developments (Andersen 1996, 1999) and absorbed much of the former Balto-Slavic continuum, so that surviving Baltic is now phylogenetically discrete from Slavic. The last sound changes to affect all of Proto-Slavic were the palatalization of velars before front vowels, palatalizations resulting from resolutions of *Cj sequences, fronting of vowels after palatal consonants, and monophthongization of diphthongs (see Collins, this handbook). Proto-Slavic at this stage (the early centuries CE) had a consonant system with a four-way distinction in places of articulation (much like that of modern Czech or Hungarian), shown in Table 86.1. The above is presented in conventional Slavistic transcription (except that *tˊ, *dˊ have no single standard transcription). The voiced affricates *dz, *dž may or may not have existed (see Andersen 1969). Note that, here and below, tˊ, dˊ, nˊ, etc. (acute accent following consonant letter) render Proto-Slavic palatals; ć, ś, ń (acute accent over the consonant) are orthographic in some languages using the Latin alphabet; and t’, p’, n’, r’, etc. (consonant followed by apostrophe) transcribe phonemic (or sometimes only phonetic) palatalization, found chiefly in East Slavic languages.

1602

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 86.2: The vowel system of the late Proto-Slavic period (conventional Slavistic transcriptions with phonetic clarifications) i e [æ]

iː ę [ɛːn] ě [ɛː] or [æː]

u o [ᴐ]

uː / y ǫ [ᴐːn] aː

The language of the period from the early centuries CE to about the ninth century is usually called Common Slavic or Late Proto-Slavic. The present chapter deals with changes several of which had their root conditions in Common Slavic but which played out in the subsequent centuries. I will call this later period, from about the ninth century to about the thirteenth or fourteenth, the “Medieval Slavic” period. It is reflected in documents and inscriptions dated from about the eleventh to fourteenth or fifteenth centuries, and is reconstructed in some detail by the comparative method. The family tree of the Slavic languages is shown in Table 86.3. The earliest written Slavic language, Old Church Slavic (OCS), does not fit into any one branch but is a written tradition comprising early West and South Slavic documents. (Most of the documents reflect Old Bulgarian phonology, and this is the conventional normalization in reference works. But the spelling system shows a predominance of West Slavic and specifically Moravian pronunciation in some diagnostic respects: Shevelov [1957] 1971.) Russian, uniquely, has much admixture (lexical, morphological, syntactic) from Russian Church Slavic, the phonologically Bulgarian-influenced sacral language of Orthodox Slavs and the high language in a diglossic situation that persisted into late medieval times (Uspenskij 2002). Russian Church Slavic has been naturally transmitted only among some Old Believer communities, where as of the mid-20 th century it retained an extremely archaic pronunciation (Uspenskij 1968). In the above display, listing within branches is from east to west and from north to south. * = pairs of very closely related sister languages, with good mutual intelligibility. Rusyn is not usually classified as a separate language by linguists, but there is a distinct national consciousness especially among western Rusyns (see e.g. Magocsi 2004; Vaňko

Tab. 86.3: The Slavic languages East Slavic

(Northern) (Southern)

West Slavic

Lechitic

Sorbian Czechoslovak South Slavic

Eastern Western

Russian* Belarusian* Ukrainian/Rusyn (Ruthenian) Polish* Cashubian, † Slovincian* † Polabian Lower Sorbian* Upper Sorbian* Czech* Slovak* Bulgarian Macedonian Slovene Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS)

86. The evolution of Slavic

1603

2000). Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are a single language in linguistic terms but with separate national identities and status. The branches are formed as much by subsequent accommodation to cultural and political norms as to divergence, and few early sound changes coincide neatly with the major branches.

2. Medieval Slavic sound changes Conventionally, the jer shift (discussed just below) marks the end of Common Slavic (though it eventually spread across the entire Slavic territory). The Magyars entered the Carpathian region in 896 and severed Slavic geolinguistic unity, marking the beginning of the end of Slavic linguistic unity. The Life of Constantine/Cyril indicates that in the mid-9 th century the Slavic dialects of today’s Greece and Moravia were mutually intelligible while that of northern Rus' was not intelligible in the south (Nichols 1993a). At this point the branches and individual languages (in their ancestral stages) began developing separately. Lechitic became relatively isolated early (Vermeer 2000: 21−22 with further references; Andersen 1969). The jer shift or fall of jers. Proto-Slavic short *i and *u had, by later Common Slavic times, become schwa-like vowels susceptible to positional weakening, compensatory lengthening, and vowel-zero alternations. In historical Slavistics, these vowels and the Cyrillic letters for them are known as jers (a term based on their spelling names). The mechanism is the following (Timberlake 1983a, 1983b, 1988, 1993): the universal tendency of high vowels to be phonetically shorter than non-high vowels began to be exaggerated in late Common Slavic, with each short high vowel ceding a small increment of its length to the preceding syllable. That tendency increased over time. The eventual outcome was that (with somewhat different conditions in different dialects) a preceding short vowel gained enough length to cross a perceptual boundary and be reanalyzed as long; the jer itself lost all of its audible duration and was reanalyzed as zero; a jer before this lost jer was lengthened enough to be reanalyzed as a mid vowel. As a result, to this day all Slavic languages have vowel-zero alternations in some of their most basic vocabulary and most frequent derivational affixes, and many have length and/or quality alternations of vowels in inflectional paradigms. Examples are provided in Table 86.4. In this table differences in genitive endings (-a, -e, -u) are morphological, not phonological. Plural or adverb is given when a genitive is not attested or does not exist. Words are written in standard transliteration (OCS, Russian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Macedonian) or orthography (Croatian orthography represents BCS), except that Cyrillic ё, я are written ’o and ’a. Diacritics over vowels mark length in Czech (orthographic), tone and length in BCS and Slovene (non-orthographic), and quality elsewhere (orthographic). Subsequent changes in the vowel system, such as loss of length distinctions, raising of some long vowels, etc. have turned what were originally simple length alternations in pre-jer vowels into less transparent alternations. The Cashubian forms in Table 86.5 (Stone 1993: 768) illustrate vowel alternations caused by lengthening in the nominative singular (whose ending was a jer in Common Slavic). Length was subsequently lost, so the distinctions are now purely qualitative. These alternations are extensive in Cashubian, where vowels of all heights were lengthened before voiced consonants; Polish has them in fewer vowels and fewer con-

1604

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 86.4: Nominative and genitive cases of selected words illustrating jers, compensatory lengthening, and vowel-zero alternations ‘dog’

‘day’

‘sleep’

‘house’

LPS

pĭsŭ

pĭsa

dĭnĭ

dĭne

sŭnŭ

sŭna

domŭ

domū

OCS

pьsъ

pьsa

dьnь

dьne

sъnъ

sъna

domъ

domu

Russian

p’os

psa

d’en’

dn'a

son

sna

dom

doma

Belarusian

p’os

psa

dz’en’

dn’a

son

snu

dom

doma/-u

Ukrainian

pes

psa

den’

dn’a

son

snu

dim

domu

Polish

pies

psa

dzień

dnia

sen

sna

dóm

domu

Cashubian

p'es

psa

dzėń

dnia

sen

snu

dóm

domu

Polabian

p’ås

p’åsĕ

dan

dańo

L. Sorbian

pjas

psa

źeń

dńa

soń

sni

dom

doma

U. Sorbian

pos

psa

dźeń

dnja

són

sona

dom

doma/-u

Slovak

pes

psa

deň

dňa

sen

sna

dom

domu

Czech

pes

psa

den

dne

sen

sna

dům

domu

Slovene

pə̏ s

psȁ

dân

dnệ

sə̏ n

snȁ

dóm

dóma

BCS

pas

psa

dān

dne

san

sna

dōm

doma

Bulgarian

păs

den

adv. denem

săn

dom adv. doma

Macedonian

pes

den

pl. denovi/ dni

son

dom adv. doma

pl. pci/ pesovi

düm adv. dümo

texts, so they are found only in the last two words of this list: dóm : domu; ksiądz : księdza. In synchronic morphophonology, the vowel-zero alternations and the vowel quality/ quantity alternations before a lost jer, when the jer was word-final (as in Tables 86.4, 86.5), can be described as alterations of the basic or underlying form that occur before a zero ending. Word-internally, they can be described variously as conditioned by certain consonant sequences or as morphologically conditioned. Abstract underlying representations of modern languages have often represented the former jers as segments. Especially in the more northerly parts of the Slavic range, front vowels, including the front jer, phonetically palatalized a preceding consonant. In the most extreme outcome, when weak jers were lost the palatalization was isolated, unconditioned, and therefore became phonemic. This effect is the most far-reaching in Russian, where most of the consonants participate in phonemic oppositions of plain vs. palatalized; it is nonexistent or nearly nonexistent in South Slavic. In East Slavic the two jers remained distinct (and the front jer remained capable of palatalizing a consonant) until the weak jers were lost. At the same time the mid vowels *e and *o (with which the strong jers had merged) merged into a single vowel phoneme, their phonetic [e] vs. [o] quality entirely conditioned by the preceding and following consonants (Andersen 1978). Only some centuries

86. The evolution of Slavic

1605

Tab. 86.5: Cashubian vowel alternations Nom.

Gen.

brzôd

brzadu

‘fruit’

pón

pana

‘master’

chléb

chleba

‘bread’

syn

sëna

‘son’

lud

lëdu

‘people’

dóm

domu

‘house’

ksądz

ksędza

‘priest’

later, when length was lost and *ě merged with the [e] allophone of the mid vowel, did front vs. back mid vowels become phonemically distinct again. Developments were similar in Belarusian; in standard Ukrainian, *e shifted to /o/ in more limited contexts (with irregularities). In West Slavic languages, the strong jers have merged as /e/ (falling in with inherited *e). Prior to the merger, in all Lechitic languages to different degrees, mid vowels were backed before hard (i.e. non-palatalized) dentals: *e > o, *ě > a, * ę > ǫ. (Andersen 1978 shows that these and the East Slavic mergers of *e and *o were a single pan-Slavic phonetic innovation whose local phonemic realization depended on the progress of prosodic changes that were spreading from the Slavic center.) Prior to the merger, consonants were palatalized before front vowels. Polish has retained the palatalization, but most consonants have depalatalized in Czech, leaving palatalization only in *t, *d, *n and only before *ě and *i. In both Polish and Czech, some or all of palatalized *t *d *s *z *n are not (as in East Slavic) palatalized counterparts to plain dentals and alveolars but now make up a separate palatal place of articulation: Polish ć dź ś ź ń (spelling before vowel: cia dzia sia zia nia) are palatalized palatals contrasting with retroflex, non-palatalized palatals cz dż sz ż (no change in spelling before vowels) which reflect LPS *č (d)ž š ž; Czech t’ d’ ň (spelling before *ě reflex: tě dě ně) are palatal (all palatalized). Thus the Czech consonant system is similar to that of Table 86.1, but Polish is quite different. In South Slavic the two jers tended to merge before the weak ones were lost. This has been total in BCS, where all strong jers are /a/ and there are no oppositions in palatalization. BCS also has a palatal series, with stops spelled ć đ and sonorants nj, lj, but it originated not in palatalization before front vowels but from Proto-Slavic *tj, *dj, *nj, *lj sequences. In Bulgarian the two jers are reflected differently: the front jer as /e/ and the back jer as /ǝ/ (Cyrillic ъ, transliteration ă or ŭ). There is palatalization of consonants before the reflex of *ě under stress (the reflex is /a/; spelling я after palatalized consonant) but not before the reflex of the front jer. Havlík’s law. Compensatory lengthening entailed that, in a sequence of syllables each containing a jer, every other jer was weak and eventually lost: a final jer was weak, the one before it strong, the one before that weak, and so on. This meant that in medieval Slavic the stem shapes of such words varied greatly depending on whether the inflectional ending contained a jer or not (and most paradigms had at least one ending with a jer).

1606

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 86.6: Effects of the jer shift on three-jer sequences ‘shoemaker’ nom.

gen.

‘day’

‘today’ (day=this)

Common Slavic

šьv-ьc-ь

šьv-ьc-a

dьn-ь

dьn-ь=sь

Medieval Slavic

švec-Ø

ševc-a

den’

dnes’

Russian

švec

švec-aa

den’

dnes’ (RChSl)

Belarusian

šavec

šawc-ab

dzen’

Ukrainian

švec’

švec’-aa

den’

dnes

Polish

szewc

szewc-ab

dzień

dziś < dzińś

Cashubian

ševc

ševc-ab

dzėń

dzis < *dzins

dan

dans

Polabian L Sorbian

šejc

šejc-ab

źeń

źins

U Sorbian

šewc

šewc-ab

dźeń

dźens

Czech

švec

ševc-e

den

dnes

Slovak

švec

ševc-a

deň

dnes

Slovene

dan

dánəs

BCS

dân

dànas

Bulgarian

den

dnes

Macedonian

den

denes

Medieval forms are shown with the /e/ reflex of a strong front jer, as this is its most common spelling. ‘Shoemaker’ has a derivational suffix -ьc- and an inflectional ending. ‘Today’ has a clitic. RChSl = Russian Church Slavic. No entry = no attested cognate in this language. a = oblique stem has been generalized to nominative; b = nominative stem has been generalized to oblique.

Modern languages have generally leveled out such alternations in different ways, leaving vowel-zero alternations mostly near the right edges of stems or words (Table 86.6) (a detailed survey for Russian is Isačenko 1970). A jer adjacent to r or l is strong in East Slavic, often strong in Lechitic, and often weak in South Slavic and Czechoslovak − regardless of the following syllable, i.e. independent of compensatory lengthening. A weak jer adjacent to a sonorant yields a modern syllabic sonorant. These are now found in Czech, Slovak, and BCS. Status of *i and *y. Several Slavic languages have a high, back or at least nonfront, unrounded vowel spelled or transliterated ‘y’. CS *y descends from IE *ū. It was a high, nonfront, long vowel, likely an [ui]-like diphthong in CS (Mošinskij 1972). Now in East Slavic *i and *y are phonemically merged but phonetically distinct since [i] follows a palatalized consonant while [y] follows a non-palatalized consonant. In Ukrainian palatalization was lost before *i, so the two have also merged phonetically as [y]. A new /i/ arose from *ě and from *o, *e under compensatory lengthening (see ‘house’ in Table 86.4).

86. The evolution of Slavic

1607

In Lechitic *i and *y are phonemically merged but phonetically distinct due to palatalization, much as in East Slavic. In Czech and Slovak they are completely merged though distinguished in the orthography; Czech bil ‘(he) beat’ and byl ‘(he) was’ are entirely homophonous. (In colloquial Common Czech /y/ is usually pronounced /ej/, a sound change that began before the merger and shows that /y/ and /i/ were distinct at the time.) In South Slavic, *y and *i merged early, leaving no evidence of a distinction. West Slavic *ř. In West Slavic, *r' (before front vowel) and *rj merge to yield a very rare and perhaps unique sound. In Czech /ř / is a “post-alveolar [trill] with considerable friction” (Short 1993: 457), “typically made with the laminal surface of the tongue against the alveolar ridge” and often involving a sequence of trill followed by frication (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 228). It is absent in Slovak. In Sorbian, where /r/ is uvular, /ř/ is uvular and palatalized. In Polish, *ř (spelled rz) has merged with /ž/ (spelled ż). Cashubian preserves /ř/ to some extent, but is shifting to the Polish pronunciation. Lenition of *g. In a contiguous set of central Slavic languages, CS *g underwent lenition, eventually turning into [h] or [ɦ] in most of the languages but with a narrow band along the edge of the inner isogloss where the pronunciation is [γ]. This dialect geography shows that the change proceeded [g > γ > h / ɦ]. Further evidence is the fact that, in languages with /h/ and word-final devoicing, final h is pronounced /x/. The [ɦ] reflex, in languages that have it, has a certain amount of murmur and is sometimes described as voiced. Languages exhibiting lenition of *g are Ukrainian, southern Russian, Belarusian, Slovak, Czech, Upper Sorbian, northwestern dialectal Slovene, and northwestern dialectal Croatian. Languages in the central part of this area preserve original [g] in -zg- clusters: Ukrainian, Belarusian, Slovak. Those closer to the periphery have [h] even in these clusters. Andersen (1969) shows that this can be explained by the chronology of lenition relative to the jer shift. Prior to the jer shift Common Slavic had a very simple syllable structure with few permissible consonant sequences, among them fricative + stop clusters. Where lenition began before the jer shift, *g in these clusters was not changed because the syllable canon required that the sequence be fricative + stop (where *g filled the stop slot). Where lenition began after the jer shift, many more clusters were possible and *g in *-zg- sequences was free to change into a fricative without violating the (new) syllable canon. Thus, e.g., Ukr. mizka, Slovak miazga vs. Upper Sorbian mjezha ‘sap, pulp’ (Andersen 1969: 559). On this evidence lenition began probably in western Ukraine to eastern Slovakia, not long before the jer shift and thus probably in about the ninth century; its isogloss spread outward slowly and was overtaken by the more rapidly spreading isogloss for the jer shift. Lenition halted along an eastwest line in southern Russia, along the southern border of Polish, and largely along the northern boundary of South Slavic with small extensions into northwestern Slovene and Croatian dialects. For lenition, see Andersen (1969). Prosody. Proto-Slavic inherited from Proto-Balto-Slavic a prosodic system involving a contrast of what is reconstructed as circumflex vs. acute accent on long vowels (probably circumflex = stress or tone peak on first mora, acute = on second mora) and mobile vs. fixed root or stem vs. fixed word-final (desinential) stress paradigms. In words with long vowels, circumflex was associated with mobile stress and acute with fixed stress. Words with short vowels exhibited all three kinds of stress paradigms. A tone opposition, basically of high (or high fall) vs. low (or low rise) on long vowels, is preserved in dialects of Slovene and dialects of BCS. Standard Slovene has lost tones entirely. Standard BCS (and its dialect base) has lost the original tone opposi-

1608

XIII. Slavic

Tab. 86.7: Differing degrees of *j loss in the Slavic languages CS Russian Belarusian Ukrainian Polish Cashubian Polabian L Sorbian U Sorbian Czech Slovak Slovene BCS Bulgarian Macedonian

*pojasъ ‘belt’ pojas pojas pojas pas pas pas pas pás pás pás pâs pojas pojas

*stojati ‘stand’ stojat' stajac' stojaty stać stojec stüje-nĕ VN staś stać stát stat' stati stajati stoja (Pres.) stoel (Past ppl.)

*zajęcь ‘hare’ zajac zajac zajec' zając zajc zojąc zajec zajac zajíc zajac zájec zêc zaek zajak

tion but created a new one as the result of a stress shift: all stresses shift forward one syllable toward the beginning of the word, and original initial stress remains initial; original (initial) stress is now falling tone (long or short) and moved stress has rising tone (long or short). Most languages without tones nonetheless preserve stress, quantity, and/or quality phenomena that reflect the former tones. The opposition of fixed to mobile stress, and the specific stress paradigms of many individual words, are preserved in most of South and East Slavic and in dialects of Cashubian. Fixed stress systems have developed in most of West Slavic and dialectally in Ukrainian, BCS, and Macedonian. Baerman (1999) shows that fixation of stress is not a contact phenomenon but an internal Slavic development and evolves as a result of constraints against final stress and regularization of stress patterns within word classes. For much of its history Proto-Slavic had an opposition of pure length in vowels, but by late Proto-Slavic to early medieval Slavic times quality distinctions had come to accompany quantity distinctions, and the subsequent history is one of loss of length − in individual words, in phonological or morphological contexts, or across the entire vowel system. Length was lost word-finally (i.e. in desinences) in all languages; in initial syllables of trisyllabic or longer words but not immediate pretonic syllables; and in acute syllables (BCS) or circumflex syllables (Czech, Slovak). The peripherally located languages no longer have length: Lechitic, Sorbian, East Slavic, Macedonian, Bulgarian. Those that have it (Czech, Slovak, Slovene, BCS) have gone farthest in the loss of intervocalic *j, which resulted in contraction of the two newly adjacent vowels into one long vowel. This provided new long vowels that kept phonemic length alive. Loss of intervocalic *j is a tendency that is stronger in some languages than others and in some words than others. Marvan (1979: 19) gives a table of frequencies for selected words. Table 86.7 shows a word highly susceptible to *j loss (‘belt’), one resistant to it (‘hare’), and one intermediate (‘stand’). VN = verbal noun. Loss of nasalization. CS had two nasal vowels, *ę and *ǫ, from sequences of vowel + nasal + consonant or word boundary. These survived in Old Church Slavic, but in modern Slavic languages they survive only in Cashubian and Polish (also in Polabian until its death). In Polish the main allophones are vowel plus nasalized rounded offglide

86. The evolution of Slavic

1609

0.1

Polish LSorbian

USorbian

Ukrainian Belarusian Czech

Russian

Slovak

Bulgarian Macedonian

Slovene

BCS

Fig. 86.1: Splitstree (Huson and Bryant 2006) neighbor net diagram of the Slavic languages after the application of 12 post-Proto-Slavic sound changes that spread easily between branches: Reflex of *x in the second velar palatalization *tl, *dl reflexes *tˊ reflex *ORT resolution *TORT resolution Reflexes of strong jers (e/o, e, a, etc.) *TuRT resolution *TRuT resolution Lenition of *g Retention/loss of tones Retention/loss of vowel length Retention/loss of free stress

[ᴐwn], [ɛwn] or sequence of oral vowel plus homorganic nasal plus stop. Nasalization survived for at least a century or two after the CS dispersal in East Slavic, as shown by Slavic loanwords into Finnic, first contacted in about the sixth century (Kiparsky 1979: 82−84). Positional vowel neutralizations. Several languages have some neutralization of unstressed vowels. In Bulgarian, unstressed high and mid vowels tend to merge. In Polabian there is a final two-syllable window for stress and a three-syllable non-reduction window: a stressed vowel and the first pretonic vowel are unreduced, and more distant pretonic and all post-tonic vowels are reduced to a minimal opposition of ĕ and ă.

1610

XIII. Slavic

In south and central Russian and in Belarusian, there is far-reaching neutralization and reduction of unstressed vowels. All vowels but /u/ neutralize entirely or considerably in unstressed syllables, the phonetic output being either [i/i] or [ǝ/ʌ] depending on such factors as the palatalization or non-palatalization of the preceding consonant and the height of the following vowel. In standard Russian the neutralized vowels preserve a phonemic distinction of /i/ vs. what might be phonemicized as either /e/ or /a/. In Belorusian and some of central Russian including the younger generations of Muscovites, a first pretonic [a] is not reduced and remains a clear /a/. In younger Moscow speech (and some nearby dialects: Čekmonas 1987), this first pretonic /a/ is undergoing a latter-day round of compensatory lengthening, appropriating an increment of length from an adjacent following higher vowel and/or preceding phonetic schwa. Figure 86.1 is a neighbor net diagram showing an unrooted tree of the Slavic languages as of the high middle ages, the end of the time when sound changes could still spread readily between branches and across most of the Slavic speech community. The webbing between languages and branches shows indeterminacy of subgrouping, due to inter-branch sharings. Despite the considerable indeterminacy, the modern Slavic family tree has clearly begun to take shape: West Slavic, separated by several unique reflexes, is coherent and at some distance from the rest, and East and South Slavic are both discernible though less discrete.

3. Morphology and morphosyntax In several areas of grammar, morpheme forms inherited from Indo-European were assembled into entirely new inflectional, derivational, and morphosyntactic paradigms. Two-stem verb inflectional system. Proto-Slavic lost the IE perfect stem and perfect tense, but inherited present and past stems. The present stem forms the nonpast tense, present and future participles, and the imperfect where that exists (OCS, modern South Slavic). The past stem forms the aorist, infinitive, and -l participle (a perfect participle in OCS, used to form a periphrastic perfect tense; now used with an auxiliary to form a past tense or even functioning alone as a finite past tense verb form). In CS and OCS the present and past stems often had different ablaut grades. Often one or both were suffixed, and certain pairings of present and past stem morphology became common. Table 86.8 shows the traditional classification of OCS verbs based on the two stems (Leskien [1871] 1962: 121−122). Tab. 86.8: Leskien’s verb classes for OCS (subtypes not shown) Class

Present

Past stem

Example (3sg present, infinitive)

I

-e- / -o-

none or-a-

nes-e-tъ

nes-ti

‘carry’

II

-n-e- / -n-o-

-nǫ-

dvig-ne-tъ

dvig-nǫ-ti

‘move’

III

-je-

none or-a-

zna-je-tъ

zna-ti

‘know’

IV

-i-

-i-

xval-i-tъ

xval-i-ti

‘praise’

V

athematic

athematic

das-tъ < *dad-t-

da-ti

‘give’

86. The evolution of Slavic

1611

There has been some regularization in all languages (especially Macedonian), but the two-stem principle is evident everywhere. Switch in valence derivation type from transitivizing to detransitivizing. Proto-Slavic used causative or factitive suffixes extensively to produce many regular pairs consisting of an intransitive and a (derived) transitive verb. In CS, probably late CS, the clitic accusative form of the reflexive pronoun came to be used as a detransitivizing device and rapidly became a regular part of CS derivational morphology. Hence OCS has a number of sets like the following (Gołąb 1968; Nichols 1993): (1)

vyknǫti učiti učiti sę

‘learn’ (PS *u:k-noN-; intransitive inchoative) ‘teach’ (*ouk-ei-; causative; transitive or ditransitive) ‘learn’ (reflexive; intransitive or oblique object)

In the daughter languages the relationships between original intransitives and original causatives (like vyknǫti: učiti) have become more etymological than derivational, and they have drifted apart semantically. Reflexivization is the productive means of deriving intransitives, so that now it is the transitives that are basic in transitive-intransitive pairs. This is the case in most continental European languages, and it came to affect Common Slavic as it entered the European cultural sphere. In Macedonian and Bulgarian many intransitive verbs can be used transitively as well (in Macedonian, if the object is definite) (Macedonian: go=zaspav him=sleep-1sg ‘I put him to sleep’, Friedman 2002: 34). This too has the effect of making transitives formally basic in such verbs (although it does not make intransitives derived). In the medieval and modern languages, reflexivization of verbs can be both syntactic (in passives and a special diathesis with dative subject) and lexical (derived intransitives). Reflexive passives coexist with participial passives. In Russian they are neatly complementary: participial passives are perfective and reflexive passives imperfective. (2)

Èto pis’mo bylo napisano dekanom. this letter was written.PF dean-INSTR ‘This letter was written by the dean.’

(3)

Takoe pis’mo obyčno pišetsja dekanom such letter usually write.IMPF-REFL dean-INSTR ‘This kind of letter is usually written by the dean.’

Dative-subject reflexives usually have a modal force: ‘is inclined to’, ‘feels like’, ‘can’. (4)

Russian Segodnja mne ne čitaetsja today me.DAT not read-3sg-REFL ‘Today I just don’t feel like / can’t get down to reading.’

(5)

Slovene (Marušič and Zˇaucer 2006: 1098) Včeraj se= mi= ni= šlo jutri domov yesterday REFL me.DAT NEG go-PAST-NEUT tomorrow home ‘Yesterday I didn’t feel like going home tomorrow.’

1612

XIII. Slavic

In Russian (and probably most Slavic languages), these constructions are monoclausal, but Marušič and Zˇaucer (2006) analyze the Slovene example as having a null modal predicate which včeraj applies to while jutri applies to ‘go’. Some lexical reflexives are plausibly semantic developments of literal reflexives, where the reflexive clitic was originally a literal direct object; but some are not. Table 86.9 shows three verb glosses that are almost always reflexive in modern Slavic languages. ‘Laugh’ is from an IE root *smei- with cognates including Engl. smile. The cognates (including the Lithuanian one) are basically intransitive, making it unlikely that PS ever had a transitive *sm(e)i- ‘laugh at, mock; make laugh’. No unprefixed nonreflexive is attested in any Slavic language. (Russian has transitive o-smeivat’ ‘mock, ridicule, laugh at’ and vy-smeivat’ ‘id.’, but these have applicative prefixes and the transitive valence is their derivational effect rather than an inherited property of the root.) Thus the most parsimonious reconstruction is an intransitive nonreflexive *sm(e)i‘laugh, smile’ to which existing middle morphology was extended (this is an emotion speech verb in the middle voice typology of Kemmer 1993), rather than detransitivization of a transitive. This implies that *sę was already well installed in the derivational morphology of the verb and associated with intransitivity by the time this clearly CS verb was formed. *bojati sę, 3sg pres.*bojitъ sę has the suffix paradigm of intransitive and generally non-agentive verbs such as OCS bъděti, 3sg pres. bъditъ ‘be awake’ (Birnbaum and Schaeken 1997: 91) and is therefore very unlikely to result from detransitivization of an earlier transitive. It must result from extension of middle morphology as *smejati sę did (it is an emotion verb in the typology of Kemmer 1993). The onomasiological slot ‘seem’ is diachronically less stable. It is filled by several different verbs, most of them reflexive and all of those arguably literal reflexives: *kazati sę, lit. ‘show oneself’, a literal reflexive. (OCS, East Slavic) *jьz-da(ja)ti sę ‘give oneself off (as), present oneself (as)’, a literal reflexive (West Slavic, Slovene, western East Slavic) *učiniti sę (South Slavic including OCS): ‘position oneself’, a literal reflexive as well as nonreflexive *jьz-ględěti ‘out + look’, i.e. ‘appear, look like’ (South Slavic). That is, the most common source of fillers for this onomasiological slot is a metaphor like ‘show/present oneself (as ...)’ using literal reflexivization. Of these only *jьz-da(ja)ti sę is attested in all three branches and can plausibly be reconstructed for CS (however, only nonreflexive izda[ja]ti ‘give out’ is attested in the OCS canon). Note that the reflexive element *sę is a clitic in South and West Slavic and an affix in East Slavic. The citation form of the Polabian verb for ‘fear’ (from Polański 1993: 803) does not have the reflexive clitic, but this does not mean that the verb was not reflexive. Other valence issues. CS and the modern languages have a number of valence patterns: intransitive (nominative subject), transitive (nominative subject, accusative direct object), ditransitive (nominative, accusative, dative indirect object), dative subject with one or two arguments (dative only; dative + nominative object), oblique object (nominative subject, one or another oblique case or preposition on the object). Canonical transitives and intransitives are lexically the most frequent. The set of patterns has been quite

86. The evolution of Slavic

1613

Tab. 86.9: Reflexive verbs ‘laugh’

‘fear’

‘seem’

CS

*smijati sę

*bojati sę

? *jьz-da(ja)ti sę ‘present oneself’, ? *kazati sę ‘appear’

OCS

smьjati sę

bojati sę

? kazati sę ? *izda(ja)ti sę

Russian

smejat’-sja

bojat’-sja

kazat’-sja

Belarusian

smejac-ca

bajac-ca

zdavac-ca

Ukrainian

smijaty-sja

bojaty-sja

zdavaty-sja

Polish

śmiać się

bać się

wydawać się, zdawać się

Cashubian

smiôc sę

bojec sę, miec strach ‘have fear’

zdôwac sę

Polabian

bet [să]

L Sorbian

smjaś se

bojaś se

zdaś se

U Sorbian

smjeć so

bojeć so

zdać so

Czech

smát se

strachovat se, bát se

zdát se

Slovak

smiat’ sa

bát’ sa

zdat' sa

Slovene

smejati se

bati se

zdeti se; meniti

BCS

smejati se

plašiti se, bojati se

učiniti se, izgledati

Bulgarian

smeja se

straxuvam se, boja se, opasjavam se

izgleždam; struva mi se

Macedonian

se smee

se plaši

izgleda, se čini

stable, and the valence types of individual verbs and semantic classes of verbs are also fairly stable. In the Balkan languages, prepositions have replaced cases entirely, and in the other languages (especially West Slavic) there has been some diachronic tendency to expand prepositions at the expense of bare cases on objects. Verb derivational pairings. CS preserved many inherited suffixal forms of verb stems but reassembled them into new derivational sets. Most salient and thoroughgoing was the pairing of plain verbs with iteratives, which in earliest medieval Slavic was turning into the systematic pairing of perfective and imperfective verbs that distinguishes modern Slavic languages. Iteratives were mostly suffixed with *-a-jand often had lengthened root vowels. Verb prefixes often added a sense of telicity that was grammaticalized as perfective. Other lexical and morphological forms were also recruited to provide perfective or imperfective partners, with the result that modern Slavic aspectual pairings are formally disparate but grammatically and functionally equivalent within languages. Examples of pairings from Russian (only aspectrelevant morphemes are segmented):

1614 (6)

XIII. Slavic Imperfective pisat’ pere-pis-yv-at’ po-kupat’ govorit’ pryg-at’

Perfective na-pisat’ pere-pisat’ kupit’ skazat’ pryg-nut’

‘write’ (prefixed perfective) ‘rewrite’ (suffixed imperfective) ‘buy’ (prefix and suffix) ‘say’ (suppletion) ‘jump’ (both forms suffixed)

The meaning of aspect depends on the Aktionsart of the verb (Maslov 1948): most commonly, a verb of activity or ongoing potentially telic action, when perfectivized, becomes telic; a perfective that is punctual (e.g. ‘sneeze’, ‘jump’) becomes pluractional when imperfective. In addition, an overarching distinction in the fundamental meaning of aspect divides the more eastern languages (East Slavic, Bulgarian, to some extent Polish and BCS) from the western ones (other West and South Slavic): in the east, perfective means temporal definiteness while in the west it means totality (Dickey 2000). Medieval Slavic began to develop, and most modern languages have developed, a set of about a dozen paired verbs of motion, where the members of the pair are determinate (motion in a particular direction or toward a goal) and indeterminate (iterative, undirected, or multidirectional motion). In early medieval Slavic the indeterminates were goalless manner verbs and/or iteratives. For the history, see Dickey (2010) and Greenberg (2010). Slovene examples (Herrity 2000: 226): (7)

Det. nêsti peljáti jáhati gnáti têči letéti bežáti lésti íti vléči brêsti vêsti

Indet. nosíti vozíti jézditi goníti tékati létati bégati lazíti hodíti vlačíti brodíti vodíti

Gloss ‘carry’ ‘lead, drive’ ‘ride’ ‘drive, chase’ ‘run’ ‘fly’ ‘run’ ‘climb’ ‘go (on foot)’ ‘drag’ ‘wade’ ‘lead’

Second-position clitic strings. Medieval Slavic varieties have a second-position clitic string whose elements follow a template with dative preceding accusative, reflexive sometimes specially positioned, and any clitic having scope over only one word immediately following that word (which was usually clause-initial) and preceding the rest of the string. Clitic strings are preserved in South and West Slavic, and are present in Old Russian (Zaliznjak 2008) but lost in modern East Slavic except for Rusyn. In Macedonian and Bulgarian the strings have migrated headward to become ad-verbal (mostly preverbal). Clitic strings are found in other European languages, chiefly Romance, but second-position clitic strings are unique in Europe to Slavic and Ossetic (Iranian, north central Caucasus), which also has the dative-accusative order. Clitics are italicized in (8−10).

86. The evolution of Slavic (8)

1615

Czech (Franks and King 2000: 110 citing Fried 1994: 173) On ti se mi ani neomluvil he 2s.DAT REFL 1sg.DAT not.even apologized ‘(I’m telling) you, he didn’t even apologize to me.’

Here the first clitic ti is an ethical dative, a pragmatic function captured in the gloss ‘(I’m telling) you’. (9)

Macedonian (Friedman 1993: 285) da ne kˊe sum si mu go dal SUB NEG EXP NONCONF.2 RFL.DAT 3s.DAT 3s.ACC give ‘(They didn’t say) that I won’t have given it to him (did they)?’

Here the gloss EXP stands for ‘Expectative’, and NONCONF stands for ‘Non-confirmative’. (10) OCS (Mt. 17:17, cited in Vaillant 1963−1964: 378) priveděte mi i bring-IMPV.2p me.DAT him.ACC ‘Bring him to me.’ Simplification of tense system. CS and medieval Slavic distinguished present, aorist, imperfect, and perfect tenses. Future meaning could be expressed with the present tense or modal auxiliaries. Most modern languages have added a future but otherwise simplified the tense system to a single past tense, letting aspect take over the work of the aorist/imperfect distinction and losing the perfect entirely. In East Slavic, Polish, Czech, Slovak, and Slovene, the past tense is formed from the old perfect. Cashubian has innovated a new perfect using ‘have’ plus past passive participle, doubtless under German influence. Sorbian preserves all three medieval tense forms, but aorist and imperfect are now in complementary distribution based on aspect. BCS preserves all three in the written language but for the most part replaces the aorist and imperfect with the old perfect; aorist and imperfect are in almost entirely complementary distribution by aspect. Polabian preserved all three. Bulgarian and Macedonian, in somewhat different ways, have recruited and expanded the old perfect morphology to make an evidentiality distinction, often called renarrated mood, opposing indicative to a form indicating that the speaker does not vouch for or has not witnessed the event. Dual. CS had a dual number separate from singular and plural. The case paradigm of the dual was more syncretized than those of the singular and plural. The dual is used regularly in OCS and medieval Slavic but gradually drops out of use, supplanted by the plural, in all but Slovene, Sorbian, the recently extinct Slovincian dialect of Cashubian, and Polabian. Traces of the dual remain in most languages: e.g., in Russian the usual masculine nominative plural is -y/-i, but in some words referring to natural pairs the ending is -á: beregá ‘riverbanks’, rukavá ‘sleeves’, glazá ‘eyes’. The old dual endings are frozen on the word for ‘two’ in all the languages. Gender and animacy. Slavic preserves the three IE genders. Genitive-accusative syncretism, replacing an inherited accusative ending with one identical to the genitive, spreads through masculine nominal declension and agreement paradigms following the

1616

XIII. Slavic

referential (animacy) hierarchy. In CS the genitive form replaced the accusative in tonic personal pronouns. In OCS masculine singular nouns referring to adult human males also took this ending. The category expands to include human and most higher animate masculine nouns in the modern languages (except Bulgarian and Macedonian, which have no noun cases). West Slavic languages distinguish human from non-human in plural masculines; East Slavic (which makes no formal gender distinctions in the plural) extends animacy to human and higher animate referents of all genders. Corbett (1991: 161−168) considers Slavic animacy a subgender since animate paradigms differ from inanimate ones in only one or two endings. Morphosyntax of numerals. The morphosyntax of phrases containing numerals is famously complex for modern Russian and several other languages (Mel’čuk 1985; Corbett 1993; Franks 1995: 93−129). In CS and OCS, ‘one’ was an adjective of the regular and open o/a-stem declension, agreeing in gender, number, and case with the quantified noun, which was singular and in the case required by its own syntax. ‘Two’ was a similarly regular adjective in the dual form and taking a noun in the dual. ‘Three’ and ‘four’ were adjectives of irregular or minor declensions, agreeing with a noun that was plural. ‘Five’ and above governed the genitive plural of the quantified noun, since they were morphologically i-stem nouns and nominalized forms of old ordinals. (Most of them end in *-t- cognate to the regular IE ordinal suffix: OCS pętь ‘five’, desętь ‘ten’.) In numeral expressions it is the last digit of the numeral (i.e. the last word in the numeral) that agrees and/or determines case and number. The loss of the dual number led to changes in this system. In East Slavic the old dual was mostly identified with the genitive singular and this case was extended from 2 to 3 and 4. In BCS the old dual survives as a special counting form, also used with 2−4. In West Slavic plural endings were extended from 3−4 to 2. In Macedonian and Bulgarian the system has been simplified: ‘one’ is an agreeing adjective; all others take the plural (except that for masculine nouns there is a choice between plural and a counting form that continues old dual morphology, used with some of the numerals).

4. Balkan developments Macedonian and Bulgarian are the two Slavic languages included in the Balkan Sprachbund (together with Albanian, Romanian, Greek, and Romani). Of the standardly recognized Balkan areal features − postposed definite article, variant preposed future tense marker derived from verb of volition, clitic doubling for objects, noun case mergers and losses, mid central vowel, lack of an infinitive (finite subordinate clauses where most European languages use infinitives) − the most distinctive relative to the typical Slavic grammar are the presence of a definite article (postposed or otherwise), lack of cases, and use of clitics in verb agreement. Those standardly recognized Balkan areal features are categorical, i.e. present in all the Sprachbund members and no other nearby languages, but on a less categorical approach what is striking in the Balkan profile as it affects Slavic is the development of analytic or at least non-affixal morphology and the development of a head-marking clause (no cases, verb agreement with three arguments, an ad-verbal and chiefly preposed clitic string instead of a second-position one) and the beginnings of head-marked possession (adnominal clitics with kin terms, e.g. Bulgarian,

86. The evolution of Slavic

1617

Macedonian brat=mi ‘my brother’). The literature on the Balkan area is vast (see e.g. Sandfeld 1930; Joseph 1983; Lindstedt 2000; Alexander 2000; Rivero and Ralli 2001; Vermeer 2005; Tomić 2006).

5. Conclusion and prospects Some of the grammatical properties that are most distinctive in Slavic − regular reflexivizing detransitivization, second-position clitic strings, new verb derivational connections including aspect pairings − arose late in the Common Slavic period and probably marked the entry of Common Slavic into the European cultural sphere. Polabian, the westernmost Slavic language, went extinct in the 18 th century, its speakers gradually shifting to German after the German Drang nach Osten. Cashubian has the sociolinguistic status, in Poland, of one more dialect of Polish. Cashubia is a major tourist destination in Poland, but though this brings much contact the language appears to be stable. Sorbian has been a linguistically conservative island surrounded by German, but is now rapidly losing ground to German (Comrie and Jaenecke 2006). Belarusian should probably be regarded as endangered, its speakers shifting to Russian (Zaprudski 2007). Ukrainian was threatened as of 1991, with most of the urban population and many others predominantly or exclusively Russian-speaking, but a combination of policy and national consensus have strengthened its position. Rusyn is losing ground in Slovakia but apparently not in Ukraine. Apart from Belarusian and perhaps Ukrainian, the national languages are all in strong sociolinguistic positions and not threatened. Recent overviews of synchronic grammar include Comrie and Corbett (1993) and Sussex and Cubberley (2006). The series Historical Phonology of the Slavic Languages (Universitätsverlag Winter Heidelberg) has produced a number of monographs on the histories of individual languages.

6. References Alexander, Ronelle 2000 Tracking Sprachbund boundaries: Word order in the Balkans. In: Gilbers, Nerbonne, and Schaeken (eds.), 9−27. Andersen, Henning 1969 Lenition in Common Slavic. Language 45: 554−574. Andersen, Henning 1978 Perceptual and conceptual factors in abductive innovations. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Recent developments in historical phonology. The Hague: Mouton, 1−22. Andersen, Henning 1996 Reconstructing Prehistorical Dialects: Initial Vowels in Slavic and Baltic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Andersen, Henning 1999 The western South Slavic contrast Sn. sah-ni-ti / SC sah-nu-ti. Slovenski jezik / Slovene Linguistic Studies 2: 47−62. Baerman, Matthew 1999 The Evolution of Fixed Stress in Slavic. Munich: Lincom Europa.

1618

XIII. Slavic

Birnbaum, Henrik and Jos Schaeken 1997 Das altkirchenslavische Wort: Bildung-Bedeutung-Herleitung. Munich: Sagner. Čekmonas, Valery 1987 Territorija zaroždenija i ètapy razvitija vostočnoslavjanskogo akan’ja v svete dannyx lingvogeografii [The area of origin and stages of development of East Slavic akanje in the light of the data from linguistic geography]. Russian Linguistics 11: 335−349. Comrie, Bernard and Greville G. Corbett 1993 The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge. Comrie, Bernard and Paulina Jaenecke 2006 Idiosyncratic factors in language endangerment: The case of Upper Sorbian. Linguistic Discovery 4(1) (online journal without pagination published by Dartmouth College). Corbett, Greville G. 1993 The head of Russian numeral constructions. In: Greville G. Corbett, Norman M. Fraser, and Scott McGlashan (eds.), Heads in Grammatical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11−35. Corbett, Greville G. 1991 Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dickey, Stephen M. 2000 Parameters of Slavic Aspect: A cognitive approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Dickey, Stephen M. 2010 Common Slavic ‘indeterminate’ verbs of motion were really manner-of-motion verbs. In: Driagina-Hasko and Perelmutter (eds.), 67−109. Driagina-Hasko, Viktoria and Renee Perelmutter (eds.) 2010 New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Franks, Steven 1995 Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Franks, Steven and Tracy Holloway King 2000 A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fried, Mirjam 1994 Second-position clitics in Czech: Syntactic or phonological? Lingua 94: 155−175. Friedman, Victor A. 1993 Macedonian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 249−305. Friedman, Victor A. 2002 Macedonian. Munich: Lincom Europa. Georgiev, Vladimir I. (ed.) 1971 Bŭlgarski etimologičen rečnik [Bulgarian etymological dictionary]. Sofia: Bŭlgarska akademia na naukite. Gilbers, Dicky G., John Nerbonne, and Jos Schaeken (eds.) 2000 Languages in Contact. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 28). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Gołab, Zbigniew 1968 The grammar of Slavic causatives. In: Henry Kučera (ed.), American Contributions to the Sixth International Congress of Slavists. The Hague: Mouton, 71−94. Greenberg, Marc L. 2010 PIE Inheritance and Word-Formational Innovation in Slavic Motion Verbs in -i-. In: Driagina-Hasko and Perelmutter (eds.), 111−121. Herrity, Peter 2000 Slovene: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. Huson, Daniel H. and David Bryant 2006 Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 34: 254−267.

86. The evolution of Slavic

1619

Isačenko, Alexander V. 1970 East Slavic morphophonemics and the treatment of the jers in Russian: A revision of Havlík’s law. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 13: 73−124. Joseph, Brian 1983 The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kemmer, Suzanne 1993 The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kiparsky, Valentin 1979 Russian Historical Grammar, Volume 1: The development of the sound system. Ann Arbor: Ardis. Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Maddieson 1996 The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell. Leskien, August 1962 [1871] Handbuch der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen) Sprache. Heidelberg: Winter [Weimar: Böhlau]. Lindstedt, Jouko 2000 Linguistic Balkanization: Contact-induced change by mutual reinforcement. In: Gilbers, Nerbonne, and Schaeken (eds.), 231−246. Magocsi, Paul Robert (ed.) 2004 Rusin'skyj Jazyk [The Rusyn language]. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski. Maguire, Robert and Alan Timberlake (eds.) 1993 American Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists. Columbus, OH: Slavica. Marušič, Franc and Rok Žaucer 2006 On the intensional FEEL-LIKE construction in Slovenian: A case for a phonologically null verb. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 1093−1159. Marvan, Jiri 1979 Prehistoric Slavic Contraction. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Maslov, Jurij S. 1948 Vid i leksičeskoe značenie glagola v sovremennom russkom literaturnom jazyke [Aspect and the lexical meaning of the verb in the modern Russian literary language]. Izvestija AN SSSR, Otdelenie literatury i jazyka 7: 303−316. Mel'čuk, Igor' 1985 Poverxnostnyj sintaksis russkix čislovyx vyraženij [The surface syntax of Russian numerical expressions]. Vienna: Gesellschaft zur Forderung Slawistischer Studien. Mošinskij, Leszek 1972 O vremeni monoftongizacii praslavjanskix diftongov [On the time of monophthongization of Proto-Slavic diphthongs]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1972: 53−67. Nichols, Johanna 1993a The linguistic geography of the Slavic expansion. In: Maguire and Timberlake (eds.), 377−391. Nichols, Johanna 1993b Transitive and causative in the Slavic lexicon: Evidence from Russian. In: Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and Transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 69− 86. Polański, Kazimierz and James Allen Sehnert 1967 Polabian-English Dictionary. (Slavistic Printings and Reprintings 61). The Hague: Mouton. Rivero, Maria Luisa, and Angela Ralli (eds.) 2001 Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

1620

XIII. Slavic

Sadnik, Linda and Rudolf Aitzetmüller 1955 Handwörterbuch zu den altkirchenslavischen Texten. The Hague: Mouton. Sandfeld, Kristian 1930 Linguistique balkanique: Problèmes et résultats. Paris: Klincksieck. Shevelov, George Y. 1957 Trъt-type Groups and the Problem of Moravian Components in Old Church Slavonic. Slavonic and East European Review 35 (No. 85, June): 379−398. [Reprinted 1971 in Teasers and Appeasers. (Forum Slavicum 32). Munich: Fink, 94−112.] Short, David 1993 Czech. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 455−532. Stone, Gerald 1993 Cassubian. In: Comrie and Corbett (eds.), 593−685. Sussex, Roland and Paul Cubberley 2006 The Slavic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Timberlake, Alan 1983a Compensatory lengthening in Slavic, 1: Conditions and dialect geography. In: Vladimir Markov and Dean S. Worth (eds.), From LA to Kiev: Papers on the Occasion of the Ninth International Congress of Slavists, Kiev, September 1983. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 207−235. Timberlake, Alan 1983b Compensatory lengthening in Slavic, 2: Phonetic reconstruction. In: Michael S. Flier (ed.), American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists, 1: Linguistics. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 293−319. Timberlake, Alan 1988 The fall of the jers in West Slavic (Kashubian and Upper Sorbian). Welt der Slaven 33: 225−247. Timberlake, Alan 1993 Isochrony in Late Common Slavic. In: Maguire and Timberlake (eds.), 425−439. Timberlake, Alan 2013 Culture and the spread of Slavic. In: Balthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson, and Alan Timberlake (eds.), Language Typology and Historical Contingency. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 331−356. Tomić, Olga M. 2006 Balkan Sprachbund morphosyntactic features. Dordrecht: Springer. Uspenskij, Boris A. 1968 Arxaičeskaja sistema cerkovnoslavjanskogo proiznošenija. (Iz istorii liturgičeskogo proiznošenija v Rossii) [The archaic system of Church Slavic pronunciation. (From the history of liturgical pronunciation in Russia)]. Moscow: Moscow University Press. Uspenskij, Boris A. 2002 Istorija russkogo literaturnogo jazyka (X−XVII vv.) [The History of Russian literary language (X‒XVII c.)]. Moscow: Aspekt. Vaillant, André 1964 Manuel du vieux slave. Paris: Institut d'études slaves. Vaňko, Juraj 2000 The Language of Slovakia’s Rusyns. New York: Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center. Vermeer, Willem 2000 On the status of the earliest Russian isogloss: Four untenable and three questionable reasons for separating the progressive and the second regressive palatalization of Common Slavic. Russian Linguistics 24(5): 5−29. Vermeer, Willem 2005 The rise of the Balkan linguistic type: Preliminary considerations for private consumption only. MS, University of Leiden.

86. The evolution of Slavic

1621

Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 2004 Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt [The Old Novgorod dialect]. Moscow: Škola “Jazyki russkoj kul’tury”. Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 2008 Drevnerusskie ènklitiki [Old Russian enclitics]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur. Zaprudski, Siarhiej 2007 In the grip of replacive bilingualism: The Belarusian language in contact with Russian. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 183: 97−118.

Johanna Nichols, Berkeley, CA (USA)

XIV. Baltic 87. The documentation of Baltic 1. Introduction 2. Old Prussian 3. Lithuanian

4. Latvian 5. References

1. Introduction The Baltic languages have a relatively short written tradition that is intimately connected to the Christianization of the Baltic region. Besides the well attested Old Prussian, Lithuanian, and Latvian, there is evidence of a number of extinct Baltic languages or dialects. For Galindian, Selonian, and Semigallian, our linguistic knowledge is based exclusively on onomastic material and on certain features of modern dialects spoken in the regions of their historical extension. For Curonian and Yatvingian, however, there are some additional attestations. In the case of Curonian, it should be noted that Simon Grunau’s Preussische Chronik (1526) contains a version of the Lord’s Prayer which has been demonstrated by Schmid (1962) to be not Old Prussian as previously thought, but Old Latvian, with possible traces of Curonian. Concerning Yatvingian, the glossary Pagańske gwary z Narewu must be mentioned. The glossary was acquired in 1978 by V. Zinov, who made a personal copy of it in his notebook. The original version of the glossary was later destroyed, before it was ever made public, for which reason the authenticity of the glossary unfortunately cannot be verified. The glossary contains about 200 Polish words with correspondences in a presumed peripheral Baltic language or dialect. Some scholars consider it to be Yatvingian (Zinkevičius 1985a, 1985b; Chelimskij 1985; Orël 1986; Orël and Chelimskij 1987), but it has also been suggested that it might be Lithuanian with a strong Yiddish influence (Schmid 1986). In this chapter, we will present an overview of the texts written in Old Prussian, Lithuanian, and Latvian, starting from the earliest attestations up until the end of the 17 th century. The list of early Lithuanian and Latvian texts will not be exhaustive, but will include the most interesting documents from a linguistic point of view. Most of the texts have been edited and published several times, but due to limitations of space only a small selection of the available editions will be included here. We also wish to make the reader aware of the fact that most of the early Baltic texts have now been made available in online databases and corpora, such as the sites Senieji raštai provided by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, SENIE (Latviešu valodas seno tekstu korpuss) created by the University of Latvia, and a database Prūsų kalbos paveldo duomenų bazė containing Old Prussian texts prepared by Vilnius University.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-008

87. The documentation of Baltic

1623

2. Old Prussian The Old Prussian corpus is not very voluminous, the major documents being the Elbing vocabulary, Simon Grunau’s vocabulary, and the 1st, 2 nd, and 3 rd Catechisms. The 3 rd Catechism is also referred to as the Enchiridion and this text is unique in that it includes accent marks. In addition to these documents there are also some fragments, cf. Mažiulis (1981: 62−64), Schaeken (2002−2003), Kessler and Mossman (2013a). The Old Prussian personal names have been analyzed by Trautmann (1925), and an annotated collection of the Old Prussian place names was published by Gerullis (1922a). The Old Prussian place names have recently been treated by Blažienė in two monographs (2000, 2005). Mažiulis has published annotated editions of the Old Prussian texts, along with facsimiles of the texts (1966, 1981). An edition with facsimiles has also been published by Palmaitis (2007). Older editions of the texts include Berneker (1896) and Trautmann (1910). These editions do not include facsimiles, but are merely transcriptions of the texts. Note that Trautmann uses his own page and line numbers when referring to a given line in the texts and that these numbers differ from the original pagination. A complete etymological dictionary of Old Prussian has been published by Mažiulis (1988 ff./2013), and parts of the Old Prussian vocabulary have also been treated by Toporov (1975 ff.).

2.1. Elbing Vocabulary The Elbing Vocabulary is part of the so-called Codex Neumannianus, which dates from around 1400. It has long been recognized that the extant copy of the vocabulary is most likely to be a copy of another copy or a misrepresentative copy of the original, due to many inconsistencies and obvious mistakes, cf. Trautmann (1910: XXII−XXV). Based on the fact that the Elbing Vocabulary must be a copy, Trautmann (1910: XXIV) makes the following assumption: “Wir haben demnach die Entstehungszeit um einige Generationen heraufzurücken und kommen etwa bis zum Anfang des 14. oder sogar 13. Jh. [We have therefore pushed back the time of origin by a few generations and arrive at about the beginning of the 14 th or even the 13 th c.]”. This conclusion is often quoted in the secondary literature; cf. Eckert et al. (1994: 47) and Forssman (1995: 8). There is, however, no absolute time that must pass between the making of one copy of a text and the next one, and the question of when the vocabulary was compiled therefore remains open. In fact, it is difficult to date the text more precisely than somewhere between 1230 (when the German orders arrived in Prussia) and 1400 (Codex Neumannianus). The vocabulary consists of 802 entries in German and their Old Prussian translations. The lexical items are arranged in semantic groupings, e.g. cosmology, body parts, plants, animals, etc. The material is not significantly influenced by German, and it is likely that it was provided by native Old Prussian speakers (or skilled Prussian-speaking Germans). It is possible that different informants were used during the compilation of the vocabulary, and some variation within the document may hence be explained as reflecting different dialectal traits within the Pomesanian dialect area. The place of the stress is not marked in the vocabulary, but it is sometimes possible to draw some conclusions concerning the accent when indirect evidence is included, cf. Endzelin (1944: 44 ff.),

1624

XIV. Baltic

Larsson (2005, 2010: 17−24). The Elbing Vocabulary is a handwritten document and the extant copy contains numerous copyist’s errors. The phonological significance of the orthography used in the Elbing Vocabulary has been questioned by many scholars, e.g. Burwell (1970), Schmalstieg (1976), but, as pointed out by Levin (1974: 2), the criticism is based on the premise that there is no phonemic reliability in the spelling system used. Levin points out that although the mistakes are plenty, they can generally be understood as textual errors and argues (1976: 11) that the Elbing Vocabulary in fact incorporates a good orthography − but that it was poorly copied.

2.2. Simon Grunau’s vocabulary Simon Grunau’s vocabulary comprises about 100 Old Prussian and German words, and it is a part of Grunau’s Preussische Chronik that was written between 1517 and 1526. Unfortunately, the original manuscript of Grunau’s vocabulary has not been preserved, but several copies of the original have been found, i.e. GrA, GrC, GrF, GrG, GrH. The GrG text differs from the rest since it is a German-Old Prussian vocabulary, whereas the others are copies of an Old Prussian-German vocabulary.

2.3. The Old Prussian Catechisms The three Catechisms from the mid-16 th century are from the Samlandian area of Prussia. The language of these documents differs quite a bit from the language of the Elbing Vocabulary. It is often assumed that the differences are due to the fact that the Catechisms are written in the Samlandian dialect, although it is difficult to distinguish dialect traits from phonological changes due to language development. The 1st Catechism was published in 1545 in Königsberg. The 2 nd Catechism was published later in the same year (also in Königsberg) and in the introduction to the 2 nd Catechism, it is stated that this is a corrected version (presumably of the 1st Catechism). The 3 rd Catechism (the Enchiridion) was published in 1561. It is a translation of Martin Luther’s Small Catechism, prepared by Abel Will (and his translator Paul Megott). A detailed survey of the differences between the three Catechisms is presented by Kortlandt (1998), who also argues that the language of the Enchiridion is a further development of the language of the earlier Catechisms. The Enchiridion is the only Old Prussian document where the accent is denoted explicitly. In this text, long stressed vowels are indicated by a macron. There seems to be no difference in notation between acute and circumflex accentuation on monophthongs, but in diphthongs the macron can be placed either on the first or the second element, marking the prominent part of the stressed diphthong. In such cases, it is therefore possible to distinguish between falling and rising accentuation, e.g. ēit ‘to go’ (Lith. eĩti), aīnan Asg. ‘one’ (Lith. víeną Asg.). It has furthermore been suggested that the double consonants in the Enchiridion may also denote stress, although opinions on the matter differ, e.g. Trautmann (1910: 185), Endzelin (1944: 27 ff.), Kortlandt (1974).

87. The documentation of Baltic

1625

3. Lithuanian The oldest known texts in Lithuanian are the handwritten prayers inscribed at the end of the book of Tractatus Sacerdotalis (1503), cf. Lebedys and Palionis (1963, 1972), Zinkevičius (2000). In 2006, 20 anonymous Lithuanian glosses (~1520−1530) were discovered in a rare incunabulum at the National Museum of Poland in Kraków, cf. Subačius, Leńczuk, and Wydra (2010). It has been argued that the prayers and the glosses share specific orthographic features, although they were written in different dialects, cf. Subačius, Leńczuk, and Wydra (2010: 36 ff.). The prayers show dialectal traits characteristic of the East Aukštaitian dialect with features of dzūkai (cf. Lebedys and Palionis 1972: 45−48), while the glosses have traits belonging to the West Aukštaitian dialect. The printed texts originate from three different areas, in which three variants of written Lithuanian emerged. In the printings issued in Prussian Lithuania, the western variant close to the modern West Aukštaitian dialect was used. Two variants of the written language were formed in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, one in the central area and another in the eastern area around Vilnius.

3.1. Documents from Prussian Lithuania The first book printed in the Lithuanian language was Catechismvsa Prasty Szadei published by Martynas Mažvydas (†1563) in Königsberg in 1547. The text is a translation of a Polish catechism by Jan Seklucjan from 1545, but the book also contains a short primer, a small hymnal and prefaces written in Latin and Lithuanian. The rhymed Lithuanian preface is considered to be the first original text written in the Lithuanian language. Although the author’s name is not written on the title page of the catechism, it is revealed in an acrostic, i.e. the first letters of lines 3−19 in the Lithuanian preface. A few years later, in 1549, Mažvydas also issued the hymn Giesme S. Ambraszeijaus bey S. Augustina and the Forma Chrikstima (1559). He also prepared two collections of hymns, Gesmes Chriksczoniskas, that were published only after his death by his cousin Baltramiejus Vilentas (1566 and 1570). The language of these texts reflects Mažvydas’ own native Žemaitian dialect, but it has been somewhat adapted to the West Aukštaitian dialect of Prussian Lithuania. The language of Mažvydas’ texts was first investigated in detail by Stang (1929), and has subsequently been further studied by several other scholars, for example, Grinaveckis (1963, 1975), Zinkevičius (1977, 1978a, 1978b, 1979, 1998: 103 ff.), and others. A useful recent edition of Mažvydas’ works containing facsimiles as well as texts of the Polish, Latin, and German originals is Michelini (2000). Other editions and dictionaries: Bezzenberger (1874), Gerullis (1922b, 1923), Ročka (1974), Subačius (1993), Dini (1994), Urbas (1998). A few more religious books in Lithuanian were prepared by Baltramiejus Vilentas (†1587). In 1575 he translated Martin Luther’s Small Catechism (Enchiridion), although only the 2 nd edition from 1579 has been preserved. He also translated pericopes (Euangelias bei Epistolas). Editions: Bechtel (1882), Ford (1965, 1969). Another important document from Prussian Lithuania is the anonymous book of sermons, the Wolfenbütteler Postille, for which the extant copy of the original manuscript dates from 1573. This is the oldest known collection of sermons in Lithuanian. For editions, cf. Karaciejus (1995), Gelumbeckaitė (2008).

1626

XIV. Baltic

One of the most significant writers of Lithuanian religious works from Prussian Lithuania was Jonas Bretkūnas (†1602). In 1589 he published a hymnal Giesmes Duchaunas together with another hymnal Kancionalas and the first separate prayer book in Lithuanian Kollectas, where he also added Mažvydas’ Paraphrasis (edition: Michelini 2001). Bretkūnas also prepared and issued an extensive two-volume book of sermons (1591), which was not merely a translation, but included original sermons written in the Lithuanian language (edition: Aleknavičienė 2005). Bretkūnas wrote in the West Aukštaitian dialect of Prussian Lithuania, but his language has many elements from other dialects, including Žemaitian (Zinkevičius 1996: 238). His most important work was the preparation of the translation of the entire Bible into Lithuanian: Biblia tatai esti Wissas Schwentas Raschtas (1579−1590). The surviving manuscript of his Bible translation has recently been published, cf. Range and Scholz (1991a, 1991b), Scholz (1996, 2002a), Scholz and Range (2002b), Kessler (2013b). The only part of Bretkūnas’ Bible which was printed at that time was edited by Jonas Rėza (†1629); in 1625 he published the psalms of David (Psalteras Dowido). Edition: Scholz (2002a). Simonas Vaišnoras (†1600), another writer from this area, was a protestant reformer who came to Prussian Lithuania from the Grand Duchy. His Zemczuga Theologischka (1600) was a translation of the tract Margarita Theologica (edition: Michelini 1997). Although Vaišnoras was Žemaitian, his written language is Aukštaitian, with only a few traces of the Žemaitian dialect, cf. Witte (1931), Zinkevičius (1988: 79 ff.). The first Lithuanian grammars also appeared in Prussian Lithuania; in 1653 Danielius Kleinas (†1666) published Grammatica Litvanica, written in Latin. The next year he issued a shorter grammar which was written in German: Compendium LitvanicoGermanicum (1654). Kleinas applied his linguistic principles to his publication Naujos giesmju knygos (1666), which was a collection of hymns and prayers, written by different authors, including Kleinas himself. Editions: Kruopas (1957), Michelini (2009). Another grammar, also written in Latin, was prepared by Kristupas Sapūnas (†1659): Compendium grammaticae Lithvanicae (edition: Eigminas and Stundžia 1997). It was issued in 1673 by Teofilis Šulcas (†1673). Two handwritten dictionaries were also compiled in this area during the 17 th century; the German-Lithuanian dictionary Lexicon Lithuanicum (edition: Drotvinas 1987) and the more extensive Clavis Germanico-Lithvana, which also contains a list of Lithuanian proverbs (edition: Drotvinas, Marcinkevičius, and Ivaškevičius 1995−1997). The now extinct conservative dialect spoken in the former Prussian Lithuania was later also described by Friedrich Kurschat (1870, 1876, 1883).

3.2. Documents from the central area of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania The linguistically most valuable documents from the central area of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are the texts written by Mikalojus Daukša (†1613). He published a translation of the Polish version of Jacob Ledesma’s catechism (Kathechismas, 1595) and a book of sermons (Postilla Catholicka, 1599). These publications are unique among the Old Lithuanian texts in having complete and systematic accent marks, and although only the place of the stress is marked, the extent of the material often makes it possible to determine the original accentual paradigm of a word, cf. Skardžius (1935), Kudzinowski

87. The documentation of Baltic

1627

(1977), Larsson (2002). The language in Daukša’s translations is influenced by the fact that Daukša came from a Central Aukštaitian area, but lived and worked in the South Žemaitian dialectal area (Varniai) during the latter half of his life. His accentuation often reflects the archaic accentuation of the dialect of Prussian Lithuania, but accentual variation does occur within the documents, cf. Skardžius (1935: 182). Editions: Biržiška (1926), Sittig (1929), Jakštienė and Palionis (1995), Palionis (2000). Other Old Lithuanian texts from this area are Merkelis Petkevičius’ (†1608) Reformist catechism from 1598 (edition: Balčikonis 1939), and the Book of Sermons published by Jokūbas Morkūnas (†~1611) in 1600, as well as the Catholic hymnal book issued in 1646 by Saliamonas Mozerka Slavočinskis (†~1660) (edition: Lebedys 1958). One of the most significant and extensive publications of the Reformists’ literature was Kniga Nobaznistes issued in Kėdainiai in 1653. The book consists of 3 parts: the collection of hymns, sermons, and prayers together with the catechism (edition: Pociūtė 2004). Finally, the translation of the Bible by Samuelis Boguslavas Chilinskis (†1668) must be mentioned here. The printing of this Bible began in 1660 in London, but publication was stopped and only a few pages of the printed edition have survived along with the manuscript of the New Testament. Editions of the text (and a word index) have been published by Kudzinowski and Otrębski (1958), Kudzinowski (1964, 1984), Kavaliūnaitė (2008).

3.3. Documents from the eastern area of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania The first book published in the eastern variant was an anonymous catechism of 1605 which was translated from the Polish version of Jacob Ledesma’s catechism. The translation was likely influenced by Daukša’s translation of the same text; for example, the place of the stress is marked with the same symbols ˊ and ^ as used by Daukša, cf. Zinkevičius (1975: 6 ff.). Edition: Sittig (1929). The most important author from this area is Konstantinas Sirvydas (†1631), who set the norms of the eastern variant of the written language. His book of sermons published in 1629 (Vol. I) and 1644 (Vol. II) was the first substantial original text in Lithuanian, later translated into Polish. Sirvydas also prepared a trilingual Latin-Polish-Lithuanian dictionary (Dictionarium trium lingvarum). The title page is missing from the oldest surviving copy, but it is likely to have appeared around 1620, cf. Pakalka (1973), Balašaitis and Pakalka (1976). Later he prepared a new and more voluminous edition of the dictionary which was first published in 1631, but unfortunately no copies of this edition have survived. Three successive later editions appeared in 1642, 1677, and 1713. Editions: Specht (1929), Lyberis (1979), Pakalka (1997). Jonas Jaknavičius (†1668), another writer from this area, edited and prepared some editions of Sirvydas’ works. His most important work was the translation of pericopes into Lithuanian: Ewangelie Polskie y Litewskie. The oldest known edition is the one from 1647 and the book was re-issued many times, e.g. 1674, 1679 and 1690. Edition: Lučinskienė (2005).

1628

XIV. Baltic

4. Latvian The oldest surviving published book in the Latvian language dates back to the late 16 th century, although there are indications of a much earlier book (from 1525) with Latvian text which unfortunately has not been found, cf. e.g. Vanags (2008: 174). One can also mention several early inscriptions in Latvian, such as a few Latvian words and personal names inscribed into handwritten documents in German dated from the 15 th century onwards, cf. e.g. Arbusow (1921), Blese (1929). Moreover, a few variants of the Lord’s Prayer from this early period have survived, cf. Draviņš (1965: 19−43), Ozols (1965: 57−62). In the beginning of the 16 th century, Latvian started to be used for church services and the earliest writings were hence religious texts, mostly translations from German. The first books were written in the Latvian language spoken in Riga, and they were notably influenced by the German language, since the writers of these texts were mainly of German origin seeking to keep their translations close to the original texts, cf. Vanags (2008: 193−196). In this context, the Latvian theologian and pastor Johannes Eck (†1552?) must be mentioned; it is believed that he translated the Lutheran Church handbook into Latvian already in the 1520s or 1530s, and that it was, at that time, circulating in manuscript form, cf. Vanags (2000: 21 ff.). The handbook was published only in 1586−1587 in Königsberg and consists of three parts: Martin Luther’s small catechism Enchiridion. Der kleine Catechismus, the pericopes Evangelia vnd Episteln, and the hymnal Vndeudsche Psalmen vnd geistliche Lieder oder Gesenge. Editions: Bezzenberger (1875), Bezzenberger and Bielenstein (1886). Alongside the Lutheran works translated into Latvian during this early period, a number of Catholic works were also prepared as a result of the Counter-Reformation movement. In fact, the oldest surviving published book in Latvian is the translation of Petrus Canisius’ Catechismus Catholicorum issued in Vilnius in 1585. Judging from the language in the book, it seems that the translator did not know Latvian well; it has been suggested that the translation might have been prepared by the Catholic priest Ertmann Tolgsdorf (†1620), cf. Kučinskis (1983: 65−83). Edition: Günther (1929). Another Catholic writer was the Jesuit Georg Elger (†1672) from Valmiera/Wolmar. He compiled a hymnal, Geistliche Catholische Gesänge, which was printed in Braunsberg (now Branevo, Poland) in 1621. It is also probable that Elger prepared and published a Catholic catechism and pericopes around this time, cf. Kučinskis (1986: 149). Only the pericopes in manuscript form have been preserved: Evangelien und Episteln, dated 1640. In 1672, a few more books appeared: Catechismus sev Brevis Institutio doctrinae Christianae and Evangelia toto anno singulis Dominicis. A new edition of the hymnal Cantiones spirituales was published in 1673, one year after his death. For editions and a word index, cf. Günther (1929), Draviņš (1961), Draviņš and Ozola (1976). Moreover, Elger prepared a three-language dictionary, Dictionarium Polono-Latino-Lottavicum, which was issued in Vilnius in 1683. The dictionary was based on the LatinPolish section of the Lithuanian author Konstantinas Sirvydas’ Dictionarium trium lingvarum (editions from 1642, 1677), to which the Latvian vocabulary was added, cf. Zemzare (1961: 64), Judžentytė and Zubaitienė (2015, 2016). It has been suggested that in the hymnal of 1621, the Latvian tones were marked orthographically, albeit inconsistently (Karulis 1984, 1986a), but this idea has been criticized, cf. Grabis (1985).

87. The documentation of Baltic

1629

The most significant scholar from this early period was Georg Mancelius (†1654) who was born in Semgallen. He started a new period of written Latvian by creating a new systematic orthography and choosing Latvian spoken in Semgallen and Livland as the basis for the written language, cf. Vanags (2008: 188 ff.). Mancelius revised and improved the earlier Lutheran Church handbook and added new texts to it, i.e. the Book of Sirach from the Old Testament and Johannes Bugenhagen’s tale on the destruction of Jerusalem. The handbook Lettisch Vade mecum was printed in Riga in 1631 (re-issued in 1643−1644, 1671−1673, 1685, etc.). As a separate edition Mancelius also issued the Book of Proverbs: Die Sprüche Salomonis (1637). His most important work was, however, the 3-volume book of sermons Lang = gewünschte Lettische Postill (1654), since it was the first substantial original text written in the Latvian language. Mancelius also compiled the first German-Latvian dictionary: Lettus, Das ist Wortbuch (1638), which also included a thematically organized collection of sentences and expressions alongside their German translation (Phraseologia Lettica) and 10 parallel conversations. For editions and a word index, cf. Günther (1929), Mancelius (1954), Fennell (1988, 1989). During the second half of the 17 th century, a few more dictionaries and the first grammars of Latvian appeared. A student of Georg Mancelius, Christophor Fürecker (†~1685), a local-born German from Courland, wrote a manuscript of the Latvian grammar (Draviņš 1943: 58−59) and compiled a Latvian-German dictionary (Lettisches und Teutsches Wörterbuch), surviving in two copied manuscripts, which was later included in dictionaries compiled by other authors. For editions and a word index, cf. Fennell (1997, 1998, 2000). He also authored around 180 hymns printed in several hymnals published from 1671 onwards (Bērziņš 1928) and translated some fragments of the New Testament (1685). Another pastor from Courland, Johann Langius (†1690), prepared a manuscript of a Lettisch−Deutsches Lexicon (1685), which also included a handwritten Latvian grammar eine kurtze Lettische Grammatica (1685). Editions: Blese (1936), Fennell (1987, 1991). Other dictionaries from this period are an anonymous multilingual four-language dictionary Vocabularium Wie Etzliche gebräuchliche Sachen Auff Teutsch/ Lateinisch/ Polnisch Und Lettisch Auszusprechen Seynd, issued in Riga in 1688, and an anonymous manuscript Manuale Lettico−Germanicum. Edition: Fennell (2001). The first grammar of Latvian, Manuductio ad linguam lettonicam facilis et certa, was published by Johann Georg Rehehusen (†before 1650) in Riga in 1644 (edition: Fennell 1982a) but was heavily criticized for its simplicity and imprecision by the superintendent of Courland Paul Einhorn (edition: Fennell 1982b: 1−45). It seems this grammar never gained much popularity and could in fact have been forgotten or ignored, because the next Latvian grammar (1685, Jelgava/Mitau), published by the superintendent of Courland Heinrich Adolphi (†1686), was titled as the first Latvian grammar: Erster Versuch einer kurtz verfasseten Anleitung zur Lettischen Sprache (editions: Haarmann 1978; Fennell 1993). This grammar proved to be very influential and was the basis for most Latvian grammars up until the second half of the 18 th century, cf. Vanags (2008: 181). In the same year, another grammar was also published: Gantz kurtze Anleitung zur Lettischen Sprache by the pastor Georg Dressel (†1698) (edition: Fennell 1984). The source of these two grammars was the aforementioned Fürecker’s manuscript (Draviņš 1965: 83−114), which was also the basis for fragments of a grammar written in an album by Martin Büchner. Edition: Fennell (1982b: 81−233).

1630

XIV. Baltic

The entire Bible was translated into Latvian during the second half of the 17 th century. First attempts to translate some parts were in fact made as early as the 16 th century, when the first Latvian books were written and published. In 1664, the Livland sinod issued a resolution stating that ten pastors would translate the Book of Psalms as a model for a translation, although no one had actually submitted a proposal, cf. Vanags (2008: 179 ff.). A Livland pastor, Jānis Reiters (Johannes Reuter, †1695 or 1697), an ethnic Latvian, had however translated a few parts of the Bible on his own initiative: Eine Übersetzungs Probe, which was published in 1675. It is furthermore known that Reiters translated the Gospel of Matthew and that this translation was published in Riga in 1664, but unfortunately, this publication has not survived. He also published a collection of the Lord’s Prayer in a number of languages, including Latvian: Oratio Dominica XL Linguarum (1675). Perhaps due to his controversial personality and conflicts with the church leadership, he was never assigned to translate the whole Bible. Editions: Jēgers (1954, 1975), Karulis (1986b). In 1681, Sweden’s King Carl XI approved a resolution to support the translation of the entire Bible into Latvian, and Ernst Glück (†1705) was subsequently appointed for the task. He was not a native speaker of Latvian, but had come to Latvia from Germany. In 1681−1682, Glück translated the New Testament and worked on the Old Testament until 1690. It took nearly 10 years for the entire Bible to be issued (1685−1694). Edition: Bībele (1974). The translation of the Bible was approved by the commissioned reviewers from both Courland and Livonia (1682−1683) and it became the most influential work of the entire period, setting the norms for the standardization of the written language.

Acknowledgment The authors would like to express their thanks to Professor Pēteris Vanags for his kind advice and valuable comments on the manuscript.

5. References 5.1. Editions of Old Prussian texts Berneker, Erich Karl 1896 Die preussische Sprache. Texte, Grammatik, etymologisches Wörterbuch. Strassburg: Trübner. Kessler, Stephan and Stephen Mossman 2013a Ein Fund aus dem Jahre 1440: Ein bisher unbekannter Text in einer baltischen Sprache. Archivum Lithuanicum 15: 511−534. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1966 Prūsų kalbos paminklai [Literary documents of the Prussian language], Band 1. Vilnius: Mokslas. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1981 Prūsų kalbos paminklai [Literary documents of the Prussian language], Band 2. Vilnius: Mokslas.

87. The documentation of Baltic

1631

Palmaitis, Letas 2007 Old Prussian written monuments: Text and comments. Kaunas: Lithuanians’ World Center for Advancement of Culture, Science and Education. Schaeken, Jos 2002−2003 Observations on the Old Prussian Basel Epigram of Basilea. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 44−45: 331−342. Trautmann, Reinhold 1910 Die altpreußischen Sprachdenkmäler. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

5.2. Editions of Old Lithuanian texts Aleknavičienė, Ona 2005 Jono Bretkūno Postilė. Studija, faksimilė ir kompaktinė plokštelė [Jonas Bretkūnas’ Book of Sermons. Study, facsimile, and compact disc]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Balčikonis, Juozas 1939 1598 metų Merkelio Petkevičiaus katekizmas [Merkelis Petkevičius’ Catechism of the year 1598]. Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos Knygų leidimo komisija. Bechtel, Fritz 1882 Bartholomäus Willent’s litauische Übersetzung des Luther’schen Enchiridions und der Episteln und Evangelien, nebst den Varianten der von Lazarus Sengstock besorgten Ausgabe dieser Schriften. Göttingen: Robert Peppmüller. Bezzenberger, Adalbert 1874 Litauische und Lettische Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts. Heft I. Der litauische Katechismus vom Jahre 1547. Göttingen: Robert Peppmüller. Biržiška, Mykolas 1926 Daukšos Postilė [Daukša’s Book of Sermons]. Kaunas: Lietuvos universiteto leidinys. Dini, Pietro Umberto 1994 L’inno di S. Ambrogio di Martynas Mažvydas. Studio filologico − linguistico del testo antico lituano (1549) e delle sue fonti latine e polacche. Rome: La Fenice Edizioni. Drotvinas, Vincentas 1987 Lexicon Lithuanicum. Rankraštinis XVII a. vokiečių-lietuvių kalbų žodynas [Lexicon Lithuanicum. A handwritten German-Lithuanian dictionary of the 17 th century]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Drotvinas, Vincentas, Juozas Marcinkevičius, and Adolfas Ivaškevičius 1995−1997 Clavis Germanico-Lithvana. Rankraštinis XVII amžiaus vokiečių-lietuvių kalbų žodynas [Clavis Germanico-Lithvana. A handwritten German-Lithuanian dictionary of the 17 th century], vols. 1−4. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Eigminas, Kazimieras and Bonifacas Stundžia 1997 Sapūno ir Šulco gramatika [The grammar of Sapūnas and Šulcas]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Ford, Gordon B., Jr. 1965 The Lithuanian catechism of Baltramiejus Vilentas, 1579. Louisville, Kentucky: Pyramid Press. Ford, Gordon B., Jr. 1969 The old Lithuanian catechism of Baltramiejus Vilentas (1579). A phonological, morphological and syntactical investigation. The Hague: Mouton. Gelumbeckaitė, Jolanta 2008 Die litauische Wolfenbütteler Postille von 1573, vols. 1−2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

1632

XIV. Baltic

Gerullis, Jurgis 1922b Mažvydas. Seniausieji lietuvių kalbos paminklai iki 1570 metams [Mažvydas. The oldest Lithuanian literary documents up to the year 1570]. Kaunas: Švietimo ministerijos leidinys. Gerullis, Georg 1923 Mosvid: die ältesten litauischen Sprachdenkmäler bis zum Jahre 1570/ Catechismusa prasty szadei, makslas skaitima raschta yr giesmes del kriksczianistes bei del berneliu iaunu nauiey sugulditas. Heidelberg: Winter. Jakštienė, Vida and Jonas Palionis 1995 Mikalojaus Daukšos 1595 m. Katekizmas [Mikalojus Daukša’s Catechism of the year 1595]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Karaciejus, Juozas 1995 Wolfenbüttelio Postilė, 1573 [Wolfenbüttel Book of Sermons, 1573]. Vilnius: Žara. Kavaliūnaitė, Gina 2008 Samuelio Boguslavo Chylinskio Biblija. Senasis Testamentas, I tomas. Lietuviško vertimo ir olandiško originalo faksimilės [Samuelis Boguslavas Chylinskis’ Bible. The Old Testament, Vol. 1. Facsimiles of the Lithuanian translation and the Dutch Original]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Kessler, Stephan 2013b Die Bibel, das ist die ganze Heilige Schrift Litauisch übersetzt von Johannes Bretke, Litauischer Pastor zu Königsberg 1590. Faksimile der Handschrift, Band 4 und 5. Unter Mitarbeit von Bettina Bergmann, Anastasija Kostiučenko, and Katja Racevičius. Paderborn: Schöningh. Kruopas, Jonas 1957 Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 1653 metai [The first grammar of Lithuanian, from the year 1653]. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Kudzinowski, Czesław and Jan Otrębski 1958 Biblia Litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament 2. Tekst [The Lithuanian Bible of Chylinskis. New Testament 2. Text]. Poznań: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich we Wrocławiu. Kudzinowski, Czesław 1964 Biblia Litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament 3. Indeks [The Lithuanian Bible of Chylinskis. New Testament 3. Index]. Poznań: Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe. Kudzinowski, Czesław 1977 Indeks-słownik do “Daukšos Postilė”, vol. 1−2. [Index-Dictionary to “Daukša’s Book of Sermons”, vols. 1−2]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. Kudzinowski, Czesław 1984 Biblia Litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy Testament 1. Fotokopie. [The Lithuanian Bible of Chylinskis. New Testament 1. Photocopy]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. Lebedys, Jurgis 1958 Giesmės tikėjimui katalickam priderančios, 1646 [Songs appropriate to the Catholic faith, 1646]. Vilnius: Valstybine˙ politine˙s ir moksline˙s literatūros leidykla. Lučinskienė, Milda 2005 Jono Jaknavičiaus 1647 metų “Ewangelie polskie y litewskie” [Jonas Jaknavičius’ “Polish and Lithuanian Gospel” of 1647]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Lyberis, Antanas 1979 Pirmasis lietuvių kalbos žodynas [The first dictionary of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Michelini, Guido 1997 Simono Vaišnoro 1600 metų Żemczuga Theologischka ir jos šaltiniai. [Simonas Vaišnoras’ Żemczuga Theologischka of 1600 and its sources]. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.

87. The documentation of Baltic

1633

Michelini, Guido 2000 Martyno Mažvydo raštai ir jų šaltiniai [The works of Martynas Mažvydas and their sources]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Michelini, Guido 2001 Giesmes Duchaunas ir kitos 1589 metų liturginės knygos. Tekstai ir jų šaltiniai / Jonas Bretkūnas [Giesmes Duchaunas and other liturgical books of the year 1589. Texts and their sources / Jonas Bretkūnas] Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Michelini, Guido 2009 D. Kleino “Naujos giesmju knygos”. Tekstai ir jų šaltiniai / D. Kleins “Naujos giesmju knygos”. Die Texte und ihre Quellen. Vilnius: Versus Aureus. Pakalka, Kazys 1997 Senasis Konstantino Sirvydo Žodynas [The old dictionary of Konstantinas Sirvydas]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Palionis, Jonas 2000 Mikalojaus Daukšos 1599 metų Postilė ir jos šaltiniai [Mikalojus Daukša’s Book of Sermons of 1599 and its sources]. Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Pociūtė, Dainora 2004 Knyga nobažnystės krikščioniškos, 1653. Faksimilinis leidinys [The Knyga Nobažnystės krikščioniškos of 1653. Facsimile edition]. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas. Range, Jochen Dieter and Friedrich Scholz 1991a Psalter in die litauische Sprache übersetzt von Johannes Bretke, Pastor zu Labiau im Jahre Christi 1580. Faksimile der Handschrift, Band 6. Paderborn: Schöningh. Range, Jochen Dieter and Friedrich Scholz 1991b Das Neue Testament in die litauische Sprache übersetzt von Johannes Bretke, Pastor zu Labiau 1580. Faksimile der Handschrift, Band 7 und 8. Paderborn: Schöningh. Ročka, Marcelinas 1974 Pirmoji lietuviška knyga / Martynas Mažvydas [The first Lithuanian book / Martynas Mažvydas]. Vilnius: Vaga. Scholz, Friedrich 1996 Die Bibel, das ist die ganze Heilige Schrift, Litauisch übersetzt von Johannes Bretke, Litauischer Pastor zu Königsberg i. Pr. 1590. Faksimile der Handschrift, Band 1. Paderborn: Schöningh. Scholz, Friedrich 2002a Textkritische Edition der Übersetzung des Psalters in die litauische Sprache von Johannes Bretke, Pastor zu Labiau und Königsberg i. Pr., nach der Handschrift aus dem Jahre 1580 und der u¨berarbeiteten Fassung dieses Psalters von Johannes Rehsa, Pastor zu Königsberg i. Pr., nach dem Druck aus dem Jahre 1625. Unter Mitarbeit von Friedemann Kluge. Paderborn: Schöningh. Scholz, Friedrich and Jochen Dieter Range 2002b Die Bibel, das ist die ganze Heilige Schrift, Litauisch übersetzt von Johannes Bretke, Litauischer Pastor zu Königsberg 1590, Faksimile der Handschrift. Band 2 und 3. Paderborn: Schöningh. Sittig, Ernst 1929 Der polnische Katechismus des Ledesma und die litauischen Katechismen des Daugßa und des Anonymus vom Jahre 1605 nach den Krakauer Originalen und Wolters Neudruck interlinear herausgegeben. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Specht, Franz 1929 Šyrwids Punktay sakimų (Punkty kazań), Teil I: 1629; Teil II: 1644; litauisch und polnisch: mit kurzer grammatischer Einleitung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

1634

XIV. Baltic

Subačius, Giedrius 1993 Katekizmas ir kiti raštai / Martynas Mažvydas [Catechism and other works / Martynas Mažvydas]. Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Urbas, Dominykas 1998 Martyno Mažvydo raštų žodynas [A dictionary of the works of Martynas Mažvydas]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

5.3. Editions of Old Latvian texts Bezzenberger, Adalbert 1875 Litauische und Lettische Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts II. Göttingen: Robert Peppmüller. Bezzenberger, Adalbert and August Bielenstein 1886 Undeutsche Psalmen und geistliche Lieder oder Gesenge: welche in den Kirchen des Fu¨rstenthums Churland und Semigallien in Liefflande gesungen werden. Mitau-Hamburg: Behre. Bībele 1974 = Bībele. Vecās un Jaunās Derības Svētie Raksti. Pirmās latviešu Bībeles jauns iespiedums [The Bible. The Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament. The new edition of the first Latvian Bible]. Minneapolis: Latviesˇu Evaņģeliski-Luterisko Draudzˇu Apvienība. Blese, Ernsts 1936 Nīcas un Bārtas mācītāja Jāņa Langija 1685. gada latviski-vāciskā vārdnīca ar īsu latviešu gramatiku [A Latvian-German dictionary with a short grammar from the year 1685 by Johannes Langius, pastor of Nīca and Bārta]. Riga: Latvijas universitāte. Draviņš, Kārlis 1961 Evangelien und Episteln. Ins Lettische übersetzt von Georg Elger. Nebst einem Register seiner geistlichen Lieder aus der Zeit um 1640. Band 1. Texte. Lund: Slaviska institutionen vid Lunds universitet. Draviņš, Kārlis and Mirdza Ozola 1976 Evangelien und Episteln. Ins Lettische übersetzt von Georg Elger. Band 2. Wortregister. Lund: Slaviska institutionen vid Lunds universitet. Fennell, Trevor G. 1982a The First Latvian Grammar. J. G. Rehehusen’s “Manuductio ad linguam lettonicam …”. A facsimile text with annotated translation & commentary. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee. Fennell, Trevor G. 1982b Seventeenth century Latvian grammatical fragments. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee. Fennell, Trevor G. 1984 Georg Dreszell’s Gantz kurtze Anleitung zur Lettischen Sprache. Text. Translation. Commentary. Concordance. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee. Fennell, Trevor G. 1987 The Grammatical Appendix to Johannes Langius’ Latvian-German Lexicon. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee. Fennell, Trevor G. 1988 A Latvian-German Revision of G. Mancelius’ Lettus (1638). Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary committee. Fennell, Trevor G. 1989 A Latvian-German Revision of G. Mancelius’ Phraseologia Lettica (1638). Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary committee.

87. The documentation of Baltic

1635

Fennell, Trevor G. 1991 An Alphabetical Re-organization of Johannes Langius’ “Lettisch-deutsches Lexicon” (1685). Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee. Fennell, Trevor G. 1993 Adolphi’s Latvian Grammar. Melbourne: Latvian Tertiary Committee. Fennell, Trevor G. 1997 Fürecker’s dictionary: the first manuscript. Riga: Latvijas Akadēmiskā bibliotēka. Fennell, Trevor G. 1998 Fürecker’s dictionary: the second manuscript. Riga: Latvijas Akadēmiskā bibliotēka. Fennell, Trevor G. 2000 Fürecker’s dictionary: a Concordance. I (A−M), II (N−Ž). Riga: Latvijas Akadēmiskā bibliotēka. Fennell, Trevor G. 2001 Manuale Lettico-Germanicum. I (A−O), II (P−Ž). Riga: Latvijas Akadēmiskā bibliotēka. Günther, August 1929 Altlettische Sprachdenkmäler in Faksimiledrucken, Band 1−2. Heidelberg: Winter. Haarmann, Harald 1978 Erster Versuch einer kurtz-verfasseten Anleitung zur lettischen Sprache. Hamburg: Buske. Jēgers, Benjamiņš 1954 Tēvreižu krājums. 1675. gada Rostokas izdevuma faksimiliespiedums [A collection of the Lord’s Prayers. A facsimile printing of Rostock’s edition from the year 1675]. Copenhagen: Imanta. Jēgers, Benjamiņš 1975 Jānis Reiters. Tulkojuma paraugs. 1675. gadā Rīgā iznākušo latviešu bībeles tekstu faksimiliespiedums [Jānis Reiters. A model for a translation. A facsimile printing of texts of the Latvian Bible printed in Rīga in 1675]. Stockholm: Daugava. Karulis, Konstantīns 1986b Jānis Reiters un viņa tulkojums [Jānis Reiters and his Translation]. Riga: Liesma. Mancelius, Georgius 1954 Sprediķu izlase [Selected sermons]. Copenhagen: Imanta.

5.4. Online text editions Old Prussian: http://www.prusistika.flf.vu.lt/paieska/paieska/ [Last accessed 13 February 2017]. Lithuanian: http://www.lki.lt/seniejirastai/home.php [Last accessed 13 February 2017]. Latvian: http://www.korpuss.lv/senie/ [Last accessed 13 February 2017].

5.5. General references Arbusow, Leonid 1921 Studien zur Geschichte der lettischen Bevölkerung Rigas im Mittelalter und 16. Jahrhundert. Latvijas augstskolas raksti I: 76−100. Balašaitis, Antanas and Kazys Pakalka 1976 Dar dėl K. Sirvydo defektinio žodyno leidimo datos [More on the date of the edition of the defective dictionary of K. Sirvydas]. Baltistica 12(2): 171−175. Bērziņš, Ludis 1928 Kristofors Fürekers un viņa nozīme latviešu literatūrā [Kristofor Fürecker and his significance to Latvian literature]. Filologu Biedrības Raksti 8: 145−224.

1636

XIV. Baltic

Blažienė, Grasilda 2000 Die baltischen Ortsnamen im Samland. Stuttgart: Steiner. Blažienė, Grasilda 2005 Baltische Ortsnamen in Ostpreußen. Stuttgart: Steiner. Blese, Ernests 1929 Latviešu personu vārdu un uzvārdu studijas I. Vecākie personu vārdi un uzvārdi (XIII− XVI g.s.) [Studies in Latvian personal names and surnames I. The oldest personal names and surnames (XIII−XVI centuries)]. Riga: A. Gulbis. Burwell, Michael L. 1970 The vocalic phonemes of the Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary. In: Thomas F. Magner and William R. Schmalstieg (eds.), Baltic Linguistics. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 11−21. Chelimskij, Evgenij Arnoldovič 1985 Fenno−Ugrica в ятвяжском словарике? [Finno-Ugric elements in the Yatvingian lexicon?]. In: Zigmas Zinkevičius (ed.), Tarptautinė baltistų konferencija [International Conference of Baltists]. Vilnius: Vilniaus valstybinis universitetas, 234−235. Draviņš, Kārlis 1943 Fīrekeru grāmata Tartu Universitātes bibliotēkā [The grammar of Fürecker at the library of Tartu University]. Izglītības Mēnešraksts 3 (marts): 58−59. Draviņš, Kārlis 1965 Altlettische Schriften und Verfasser. I. Lund: Håkan Ohlssons boktryckeri. Eckert, Rainer, Elvira-Julia Bukevičiūtė, and Friedhelm Hinze 1994 Die baltischen Sprachen. Eine Einführung. Leipzig: Langenscheidt. Endzelin, Jan 1944 Altpreussische Grammatik. Riga: Latvju grāmata. Forssman, Bernhard 1995 Die baltischen Sprachen im Überblick. In: Gertrud Bense, Maria Kozianka, and Gottfried Meinhold (eds.), Deutsch-litauische Kulturbeziehungen. Kolloquium zu Ehren von August Schleicher. Jena: Universitätsverlag Druckhaus Mayer, 7−20. Gerullis, Georg 1922a Die altpreussischen Ortsnamen gesammelt und sprachlich behandelt. Berlin: De Gruyter. Grabis, Rūdolfs 1985 Vai tiešām viss ir tik drošs? [Is everything really so trustworthy?]. Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 21: 72−77. Grinaveckis, Vladas 1963 Dėl Mažvydo katekizmo tarmės lokalizacijos [On the localization of the dialect of Mažvydas’ catechism]. Kalbotyra VI: 65−71. Grinaveckis, Vladas 1975 Kuria tarme parašyta pirmoji lietuviška knyga [In what dialect is the first Lithuanian book written?]. Mokslas ir gyvenimas 11: 35−36, 59. Judžentytė, Gintarė and Vilma Zubaitienė 2015 Konstantino Sirvydo “Dictionarum trium linguarum” (1642) ir Georgo Elderio “Dictionarium Polono-Latino-Lottaucium” (1683) jų santykis ir leksikografinų metodų skirtybės [Konstantinas Sirvydas’ “Dictionarum Polono-Latino-Lottaucium” (1683): Connections and Differences between Lexicographical Methods]. Baltu filoloģija XXIV (1): 82–141. Judžentytė, Gintarė and Vilma Zubaitienė 2016 Dar dėl Georgo Elderio “Dictionarium Polono-Latino-Lottaucium” (1683) registro šaltinio [On the Source of Georg Elger’s “Dictionarum Polono-Latino-Lottaucium” (1683) Register]. Baltu filoloģija XXV (1): 37–58. Karulis, Konstantīns 1984 Pirmo latviešu valodnieku pieminot. Georga Elgera 400. dzimšanas gadā [Commemorating the first Latvian linguist. On the occasion of the 400 th anniversary of Georg Elger’s birthday]. Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 20: 48−52.

87. The documentation of Baltic

1637

Karulis, Konstantīns 1986a Vēl par G. Elgera valodu 1621. gada dziesmu grāmatā [More about the language of G. Elger’s hymnal book from the year 1621]. Latviešu valodas kultūras jautājumi 22: 20− 23. Kortlandt, Frederik 1974 Old Prussian accentuation. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 88: 299−306. Kortlandt, Frederik 1998 The development of the Prussian language in the 16 th Century. In: Alfred Bammesberger (ed.), Baltistik: Aufgaben und Methoden. Heidelberg: Winter, 55−76. Kučinskis, Staņislavs 1983 Sirmais kungs, Latvijas tēvs Ertmanis Tolgsdorfs 1550−1620 [The grey-haired man, the father of Latvia Erdmann Tolgsdorf 1550−1620]. In: Kazimirs Vilnis (ed.), Dzimtenes kalendārs 1984. gadam. Västerås: Trīs zvaigznes, 45−86. Kučinskis, Staņislavs 1986 Juris Elgers, latvis [Juris Elgers, the Latvian]. In: Kazimirs Vilnis (ed.), Dzimtenes kalendārs 1987. gadam. Västerås: Trīs zvaigznes, 130−156. Kurschat, Friedrich 1870 Wörterbuch der Littauischen Sprache, Erster Theil, Deutsch-littauisches Wörterbuch. Halle: Waisenhaus. Kurschat, Friedrich 1876 Grammatik der Littauischen Sprache. Halle: Waisenhaus. Kurschat, Friedrich 1883 Wörterbuch der Littauischen Sprache, Zweiter Theil, Littauisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. Halle: Waisenhaus. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2002 Nominal Compounds in Old Lithuanian Texts: the Original Distribution of the Composition Vowel. Linguistica Baltica 10: 105−122. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2005 The Orthographic Variants and − Traces of Accent in the Elbing Vocabulary. In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica. Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag. Taimering: VWT, 359−376. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2010 Nominal compounds in Old Prussian. Stockholm: Memento. Lebedys, Jurgis and Jonas Palionis 1963 Seniausias lietuviškas rankraštinis tekstas [The oldest Lithuanian handwritten text]. Bibliotekininkystės ir bibliografijos klausimai 3: 109−135. Lebedys, Jurgis and Jonas Palionis 1972 Seniausias lietuviškas rankraštinis tekstas [The oldest Lithuanian handwritten text]. In: Jurgis Lebedys, Lituanistikos baruose 1. Studijos ir straipsniai. Vilnius: Vaga, 21−54. Levin, Jules F. 1974 The Slavic Element in the Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary. Berkeley: University of California Press. Levin, Jules F. 1976 Toward a graphology of Old Prussian monuments: the Enchiridion. Baltistica 12(1): 9− 24. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1988 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas A−H [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian language, A−H]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1993 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas I−K [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian language, I−K]. Vilnius: Mokslas.

1638

XIV. Baltic

Mažiulis, Vytautas 1996 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas L−P [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian language, L−P]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1997 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas R−Z [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian language, R−Z]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Mažiulis, Vytautas 2013 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas [Etymological dictionary of the Prussian language], 2 nd edn. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras. Orël, Vladimir E. 1986 Marginalia to the Polish-‘Jatvingian’ Glossary. Indogermanische Forschungen 91: 269− 272. Orël, Vladimir E. and Evgenij Arnoldovič Chelimskij 1987 Наблюдения над балтийским языком польско-‘ятвяжского’ словарика [Observations on the Baltic language of the Polish-‘Yatvingian’ glossary]. Балто-славянские исследования 1985: 121−134. Ozols, Arturs 1965 Veclatviešu rakstu valoda [The language of the Old Latvian writings]. Riga: Liesma. Pakalka, Kazys 1973 Apie defektinį trikalbį K. Širvydo žodyną [On the defective trilingual dictionary of K. Sirvydo]. LTSR MA darbai, A serija 4 (45): 131−142. Schmalstieg, William R. 1976 Studies in Old Prussian. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1962 Zu Simon Grunaus Vaterunser. Indogermanische Forschungen 67: 261−273. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1986 Die ‘Germanismen’ im sog. Polnisch-Jatvingischen Glossar. Indogermanische Forschungen 91: 273−286. Skardžius, Pranas 1935 Daukšos akcentologija [The accentology of Daukša]. Kaunas: Spindulio sp. Stang, Christian S. 1929 Die Sprache des litauischen Katechismus von Mažvydas. Oslo: Dybwad. Subačius, Giedrius, Mariusz Leńczuk, and Wiesław Wydra 2010 The Earliest Known Lithuanian Glosses (~1520–1530). Archivum Lithuanicum 12: 31− 70. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1975 Prusskij jazyk, A−D [The Prussian Language, A−D]. Moscow: Nauka. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1979 Prusskij jazyk, E−H [The Prussian Language, E−H]. Moscow: Nauka. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1980 Prusskij jazyk, I−K [The Prussian Language, I−K]. Moscow: Nauka. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1984 Prusskij jazyk, K−L [The Prussian Language, K−L]. Moscow: Nauka. Toporov, Vladimir N. 1990 Prusskij jazyk, L [The Prussian Language, L]. Moscow: Nauka. Trautmann, Reinhold 1925 Die altpreußischen Personennamen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Vanags, Pēteris 2000 Luterāņu rokasgrāmatas avoti. Vecākā perioda (16. gs.−17. gs. sākuma) latviešu teksti [Sources of the Lutheran Church handbook. Latvian texts of the oldest period (16 th c.− beginning of the 17 th c.)]. Stockholm: Memento.

87. The documentation of Baltic

1639

Vanags, Pēteris 2008 Latvian texts in the 16 th and 17 th centuries: beginnings and development. In: Kristiina Ross and Pēteris Vanags (eds.), Common Roots of the Latvian and Estonian Literary Languages. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 173−197. Witte, Wilhelm 1931 Der Übersetzer Simon Waischnoras d. Ae. Inaugural Dissertation. Braunschweig. Zemzare, Daina 1961 Latviešu vārdnīcas (līdz 1900. gadam) [Latvian dictionaries (up to the year 1900)]. Riga: Latvijas PSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1975 Iš lietuvių istorinės akcentologijos. 1605 m. katekizmo kirčiavimas. [Of the historical accentology of Lithuanian. The stress of the 1605 catechism].Vilnius: Vilniaus V. Kapsuko universiteto Leidybinis skyrius. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1977 M. Mažvydo raštų kalba [The language of the works of M. Mažvydas]. Baltistica 13(2): 358−371. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1978a M. Mažvydo raštų kalba [The language of the works of M. Mažvydas]. Baltistica 14(1): 38−44. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1978b M. Mažvydo raštų kalba [The language of the works of M. Mažvydas]. Baltistica 14(2): 139−146. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1979 M. Mažvydo raštų kalba [The language of the works of M. Mažvydas]. Baltistica 15(1): 16−22. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1985a Lenkų-jotvingių žodynėlis? [A Polish-Yatvingian glossary?]. Baltistica 21(1): 61−82. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1985b Lenkų-jotvingių žodynėlis? [A Polish-Yatvingian glossary?]. Baltistica 21(2): 184−194. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1988 Lietuvių kalbos istorija. III. Senųjų raštų kalba [A history of the Lithuanian language. III. The language of the old writings]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1996 The History of the Lithuanian Language. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1998 Linguistic sources of Martynas Mažvydas’ writings, and manuscript texts before Mažvydas. In: Domas Kaunas and Regina Koženiauskienė (eds.), Martynas Mažvydas and old Lithuania. Vilnius: Pradai, 101−123. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 2000 Lietuvių poteriai. Kalbos mokslo studija [Lithuanian prayers. A linguistic study]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas.

Jenny Helena Larsson, Stockholm (Sweden) Kristina Bukelskytė-Čepelė, Stockholm (Sweden)

1640

XIV. Baltic

88. The phonology of Baltic 1. Introduction 2. Vowels 3. Resonants and diphthongs

4. Accent 5. Consonants 6. References

1. Introduction 1.1. In order to describe the phonological system of the Baltic languages, it is worth proceeding, as in the case of reconstructed Proto-Indo-European (PIE), with three types of phonemes: vowels, resonants, and consonants, the reflexes of which present different phonetic behaviors. Unlike PIE, however, beside vowels and consonants, defined by their ability and inability, respectively, to form a syllable, resonants may be defined, in Baltic, mainly by the criterion of intonability, which they in some contexts share with vowels. As a result, the Proto-Baltic sound system must be reconstructed, according to the intrasyllabic arrangement of phonemes, as follows: the phonemes with the lowest sonority are consonants, then follow the resonants, and finally the phonemes with the highest sonority are vowels.

2. Vowels 2.1. Vowel quantity is phonemic and independent of stress in East Baltic, e.g. Lith. pùsti ‘to swell’ / pū˜sti ‘to blow’, Latv. sveru ‘I weigh’ / svēru ‘I weighed’, in both cases with initial stress. But, in West Baltic, at least in the Old Prussian Enchiridion (1561), it is possible that unstressed vowels were short (or shortened); this could explain why OPr. has saddinna ‘puts (vb.)’ with a geminate pointing to *sădìna, while Lith. has sodìna ‘seats’ with o from long *ā (< *sādìna). This does not imply, however, that in Old Prussian every stressed vowel was, in turn, long (or lengthened). 2.2. The Proto-Baltic vowel system might be reconstructed in two different ways. Traditionally (e.g. Stang 1966), one ascribes to Proto-Baltic an unbalanced triangular system with four short vowels (*i, *u, *e, *a) and five long vowels (*ī, *ū, *ē, *ō, *ā), this in accordance with Latvian (the only innovation there being the further change of *ō to uo) or Lithuanian (with *ō > uo and *ā > o in the standard language). The most striking feature of Proto-Baltic in comparison with Slavic and Germanic thus seems to have been the preservation of the inherited distinction between *ō and *ā (> Latv. uo / ā, Lith. uo / o), as opposed to the merger of PIE *ŏ and *ă to *ă (> Latv. a, Lith. a). Examples: − Lith. uo, Latv. uo < Proto-Baltic *ō < PIE *ō : Lith. dúoti, Latv. duôt (written dot in the standard language) ‘to give’ (< Proto-Baltic *dō- < PIE *deh3 -, Gr. δίδωμι ‘I give’). − Lith. o, Latv. ā < Proto-Baltic *ā < PIE *ā : Lith. stóti, Latv. stât ‘to stand up’ (< Proto-Baltic *stā- < PIE *steh2 -, Gr. ἵστημι ‘I set up’). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-009

88. The phonology of Baltic

1641

− Lith. a, Latv. a < Proto-Baltic *ă < PIE *ă : Lith. ašìs, Latv. ass ‘axle’ (< ProtoBaltic *aś- < PIE *ak̑s- < *h2 ek̑s-, Lat. axis). − Lith. a, Latv. a < Proto-Baltic *ă < PIE *ŏ : Lith. akìs, Latv. acs ‘eye’ (< Proto-Baltic *ak- < PIE *ok u̯- < *h3 ek u̯-, Lat. oculus). 2.3. Proto-Baltic *ă may also come from PIE *ə (i.e. *H in a vocalization context), but only in a word-initial syllable (e.g. Lith. stãtas ‘millstone’, Latv. stats ‘stake, post’ < PIE *sth2 -tom); elsewhere, it disappears either completely after a consonant (e.g. Lith. duktė˜ ‘daughter’ < *dug-tē < PIE *d hug̑h2 -tēr) or with compensatory lengthening and acute tone after a resonant (e.g. Lith. árklas, Latv. arˆkls ‘plough’ ← < *ārtlan < PIE *arHtlom < *h2 erh3 -tlom; note the later shortening of *ār to ar by Osthoff’s law). 2.4. The other vowels reflect more directly PIE prototypes: − Lith. i, Latv. i < PBaltic *ĭ < PIE *ĭ : Lith. lìkti ‘to leave’, Latv. likt ‘to put’ (< ProtoBaltic *lik- < PIE *lik u̯-, Lat. relictus ‘left’). − Lith. y, Latv. ī < PBaltic *ī < PIE *ī : Lith. gývas, Latv. dzîvs ‘alive’ (< Proto-Baltic *gīva- < PIE *g u̯ih3 -u̯o-, Lat. uīuus). − Lith. u, Latv. u < PBaltic *ŭ < PIE *ŭ : Lith. GSg. šuñs, Latv. NSg. suns ‘dog’ (< Proto-Baltic *śun- < PIE *k̑un-, Gr. GSg. κυνός). − Lith. ū, Latv. ū < PBaltic *ū < PIE *ū : Lith. bū´ti, Latv. bût ‘to be’ (< Proto-Baltic *bū- < PIE *b huH-, Gr. ἔφῡν ‘I was’). − Lith. e, Latv. e < PBaltic *ĕ < PIE *ĕ : Lith. medùs ‘honey’, Latv. medus (< ProtoBaltic *medu < PIE *med hu, Gr. μέθυ ‘wine’). − Lith. ė, Latv. ē < PBaltic *ē < PIE *ē : Lith. dė́ ti ‘to put’, Latv. dêt ‘to lay (eggs)’ (< Proto-Baltic *dē- < PIE *d heh1 -, Gr. τίθημι ‘I place’). 2.5. This traditional reconstruction, however, does not fit particularly well for West Baltic. In Old Prussian, judging both from the Elbing Vocabulary (EV) and the Catechisms (C), it seems that PIE *ā and *ō had fallen together as *ā. The Enchiridion presents for both inputs, e.g. brāti ‘brother’ (< *brātē) and dāt ‘to give’ (< *dō-t-). After a labial, this *ā gave *ū, e.g. mūti ‘mother’ (< *mātē) and pūton ‘to drink’ (< *pā-t- < PIE *pō-t-). In the EV, the same undifferentiated vowel *ā secondarily yielded *ō, written , e.g. in brote ‘brother’ (< *brātē), mothe ‘mother’ (< *mātē) or podalis ‘pot’ (< *pōd-elis). For PIE *ă and *ŏ, Old Prussian generally has (e.g. assis ‘axle’ < PIE *ak̑s- or ackis ‘eyes’ < PIE *ok u̯-), but in some instances this may appear as (e.g. enkopts ‘buried’ < *kap- < PIE *kop-). Further features of the Old Prussian vowel system are the following: 1. Proto-Baltic *ē was probably pronounced as an open vowel */e:/ in the EV and therefore written (e.g. semen ‘seed’ < *sēmen-) or (e.g. geasnis ‘woodcock’ < *gēsnis), while in the Catechisms it was probably a closed vowel */e:/, which gave */i:/, written , in the Enchiridion (e.g. turrītwey ‘to have’ < *turē-t-). 2. For Proto-Baltic *ī and *ū, the Enchiridion shows a tendency for diphthongization, hence *ī > *ei (e.g. geīwan ‘life’ beside gijwan < *gīva-) and *ū > *ou (e.g. soūns ‘son’ < *sūnu-). As in East Baltic, PIE *ĭ, *ŭ, and *ĕ remained basically unchanged in Old Prussian. 2.6. The difference between West and East Baltic, combined with indirect evidence from the Baltic loanwords in the Finnic languages, has led some scholars (e.g. Kazlauskas

1642

XIV. Baltic

1962; Mažiulis 1963) to propose a different reconstruction of the Proto-Baltic vowel system, assuming a distinction between *ō1 (< PIE *ō) and *ō2 (< PIE *ā) and in East Baltic a secondary correlation of *ō1 (< PIE *ō) with *ē1 (< PIE *ei, *ai), the result of which was, in both cases, a diphthong (*ō1 > East Baltic uo, *ē1 > East Baltic ie). Under this view, *ō2 would have become a rounded *ā̊, which merged with *ō1 in West Baltic, but split to *ā in Latvian and to *ō in Lithuanian. This hypothesis remains, however, controversial. 2.7. A few contextual modifications of the vowel system described above are to be mentioned. The most important is the treatment of vowels in word-final position. In Lithuanian, final vowels are generally preserved, except for original long acute vowels, which are shortened by Leskien’s law (Leskien 1881), hence e.g. NSg. of ā-stems *źiemā´ (< PIE *-eh2 ) > žiemà ‘winter’, 1st Sg. *neśúo (< PIE *-oH) > nešù ‘I carry’, but without shortening Gsg. *źiemā˜s (< PIE *-eh2 es) > žiemõs, NSg. *akmuõ (< PIE *-ōn) > akmuõ ‘stone’. In Latvian, vowels in word-final position have undergone a systematic change, which can be basically defined as a one-mora shortening: bimoric (i.e. long) vowels became short, unimoric (i.e. short) vowels disappeared (except u), e.g. NSg. * źiemā´ > zìema, GSg. * źiemā˜s > zìemas (in both cases with short a), Nsg. *dievas > dìevs ‘God’ (cf. Lith. diẽvas), NSg. *medus > medus ‘honey’ (cf. Lith. medùs). In Old Prussian, final long vowels seem to have been preserved (e.g. menso, mensā ‘flesh’ with -o, -ā < *-ā), while final short vowels tend to disappear (e.g. deiws ‘god’ < *deivas, but note deywis in the EV).

3. Resonants and diphthongs 3.1. From a structural point of view, one may ascribe to Proto-Baltic six resonants: two nasals (*m and *n), two liquids (*l and *r) and two semi-vowels (*i̯ and *u̯). The main feature of resonants in Baltic as opposed to consonants is their intonability; in this respect, tautosyllabic sequences like /an/ or /ar/ have to be treated as diphthongs, in the same way as /ai̯ / or /au̯/, inasmuch as they may carry a syllable toneme, e.g. Lith. lañkas ‘handle’ or var˜gas ‘poor’ like laĩkas ‘time’ or laũkas ‘field’. 3.2. When they act as consonants, resonants are generally stable in Baltic; the only change worth mentioning is that of PIE *u̯ to the fricative v. Examples in word-initial position may suffice to illustrate this point: − Proto-Baltic *m < PIE *m: Lith. m, Latv. m, OPr. m, e.g. Lith. medùs, Latv. medus, OPr. meddo ‘honey’ (< Proto-Baltic *medu < PIE *med hu, Gr. μέθυ ‘wine’). − Proto-Baltic *n < PIE *n: Lith. n, Latv. n, OPr. n, e.g. Lith. nósis ‘nose’, Latv. nãss ‘nostril’, OPr. nozy ‘nose’ (< Proto-Baltic *nās- < PIE *nās-, Lat. nārēs ‘nostrils’). − Proto-Baltic *l < PIE *l: Lith. l, Latv. l, OPr. l, e.g. Lith. lãbas, Latv. labs, OPr. labs ‘good’ (< Proto-Baltic *lab- < PIE *lab h-, Gr. λάφυρον ‘spoils’). − Proto-Baltic *r < PIE *r: Lith. r, Latv. r, OPr. r, e.g. Lith. romùs, Latv. rãms, OPr. rāms ‘quiet’ (< Proto-Baltic *rā˘m- < PIE *rom-, Goth. rimis ‘rest’). − Proto-Baltic *j < PIE *i̯ : Lith. j, Latv. j, OPr. j, e.g. Lith. jáunas, Latv. jaûns ‘young’, OPr. anthroponym Jawne (< Proto-Baltic *jāunas < PIE *[h2 ]i̯ eu̯-h3 n-o-, Lat. iuuenis).

88. The phonology of Baltic

1643

− Proto-Baltic *v < PIE *u̯ : Lith. v, Latv. v, OPr. w [v], e.g. Lith. vė́ tra, Latv. vẽtra, OPr. wetro ‘wind’ (< Proto-Baltic *vētrā < PIE *[h2 ]u̯eh1 -, Gr. ἄησι ‘blows’). One should note, however, that the Proto-Baltic resonant *j (< PIE *i̯ ) usually disappears in non-initial position before front vowels (*e or *i), e.g. in the Lith. comparatives like ger-èsnis ‘better’ (with -es- < PIE *-i̯ es-). This change did not occur in word-initial position, where the resonant was preserved, as shown e.g. by Lith. jėgà ‘strength’ (< PIE *[H]i̯ ēg u̯-ā, Gr. ἥβη ‘youthful strength’). Analogy may obscure the issue, and one actually finds e.g. OLith. ASg. enti ‘going’ (participle *[h1 ]i̯ -ónt-) with loss of initial *j- by analogy with instances where the verb was preceded by a preverb, such as iš-enti ‘going out’, or conversely the OPr. imperative form pergeis /per-jeis/ ‘may he come!’ (originally an optative *-[h1 ]i̯ -oi̯ [h1 ]-) with restoration of internal *-j- before *-e- due to analogy with the simple ieis ‘go!’ (optative *[h1 ]i̯ -oi̯ [h1 ]-). 3.3. Another change to be mentioned is the fact that PIE *-m in word-final position became *-n in Proto-Baltic (as e.g. in Greek), as shown by OPr. ASg. deiwan ‘God’ (< PIE *-om). 3.4. When they act as second elements of diphthongs, resonants may undergo significant changes in Baltic. One must distinguish between 1. liquid diphthongs (e.g. /al/, /ar/, or the like), 2. nasal diphthongs (e.g. /am/ or /an/) and 3. semi-vowel diphthongs (e.g. /ai̯ / or /au̯/). Liquid diphthongs are stable in Baltic (e.g. Lith. pìrmas, Latv. pìrmais, OPr. pirmois ‘first’ or Lith. vil˜kas, Latv. vìlks, OPr. wilks ‘wolf’). Nasal diphthongs remain unchanged in Old Prussian (e.g. penckts ‘fifth’, sansy ‘goose’, naktin ASg. ‘night’). In Lithuanian, they are usually preserved, unless they stand before a sibilant (s, z, š, ž) or in word-final position; in these cases, the nasal disappeared and produced nasalization of the preceding vowel, written with the cedilla (e.g. *an-S- > ą-S-). After the 18 th century, nasal vowels became long oral vowels, which they still are in the standard Lithuanian language. Examples: penkì ‘five’, but žąsìs ‘goose’ /ža:sis/ (< *žans-i-), nãktį ASg. ‘night’ /na:kti:/ (< *-in). In Latvian, nasal diphthongs usually became in all contexts long oral vowels or diphthongs: *am, *an > uo written in the standard language (e.g. rùoka / roka ‘hand’ < *rankā, cf. Lith. rankà), *em, *en > ie (e.g. pìeci ‘five’ < *penkíe, cf. Lith. penkì), *im, *in > ī (e.g. pît ‘to plait’ < *pinti, cf. Lith. pìnti), *um, *un > ū (e.g. jûgs ‘yoke’ < *jungas, cf. Lith. jùngas). 3.5. Semi-vowel diphthongs are well preserved in Old Prussian, e.g. snaygis ‘snow’ (< PIE *snoi̯ g u̯h-o-), deiws ‘God’ (< PIE *dei̯ u̯-o-), laucks ‘field’ (< PIE *lou̯k-o-), keuto ‘skin’ (< PIE *keu̯Ht-). In East Baltic, they underwent radical changes, which, as a result, considerably obscured ablaut contrasts. For the *-i̯ - series, one may suppose a confusion of *ei̯ and *ai̯ to a long vowel *ē1 , which at a later stage was diphthongized to ie in Lithuanian and Latvian: compare e.g. Lith. sniẽgas, Latv. snìegs ‘snow’ (< *snaigas) and Lith. diẽvas, Latv. dìevs ‘God’ (< *deivas) with OPr. snaygis and deiws. However, the issue is obscured by two facts. Sometimes, East Baltic unexpectedly preserves original *ei̯ , e.g. in Lith. deivė˜ ‘goddess’ (beside diẽvas); even within East Baltic, discrepancies are to be found, e.g. Lith. eĩti / Latv. iêt ‘to go’ (both from PIE *h1 ei̯ -). Based on such contrasts as eĩmu ‘I go’ / iêt ‘to go’ in some Latvian dialects, compared with Old Lith. eimì ‘I go’ / eĩti ‘to go’, Stang (1935) has convincingly argued that preservation of *ei̯ was regular in (originally) unstressed syllables.

1644

XIV. Baltic

3.6. The case of *ai̯ is different. One might assume that, in East Baltic, Proto-Baltic *ai̯ yielded *ē1 > ie in isolated forms, i.e. by a regular phonetic process (e.g. Lith. kiẽmas ‘courtyard’, Latv. cìems ‘village’ < *kaimas, cf. OPr. caymis), whereas its preservation (or restoration) as ai took place only in motivated forms, where an a-grade (< PIE *o) was required by an ablaut contrast (e.g. in causative-iterative verbs of the type Lith. maišýti, Latv. màisît ‘to stir, mix’ beside Lith. miẽšti). But there are many counterexamples that do not fit this view, e.g. isolated words with *ai such as Lith. maĩšas ‘bag’ (cf. Skt. meṣá- ‘ram’) or káimas ‘village’ (the relationship of which to kiẽmas ‘courtyard’ remains obscure), or motivated words with *ie such as Lith. sniẽgas, Latv. snìegs ‘snow’ (obviously derived from Lith. snìgti, Latv. snigt ‘to snow’). 3.7. For the *-u̯- series, West and East Baltic show divergent treatments. The opposition of Proto-Baltic *eu̯ (< PIE *eu̯) and *au̯ (< PIE *ou̯, *au̯) is usually preserved in Old Prussian, but East Baltic changed *eu̯ to *iau (hence Lith. kiáutas ‘shell’ compared with OPr. keuto ‘skin’), whereas *au remained unaltered (hence Lith. laũkas ‘field’ compared with OPr. laucks). The original vowel contrast (*eu̯, vs. *au̯) thus became in East Baltic a consonant contrast (palatalized *iau, vs. unpalatalized *au), which was, in most cases, eliminated: the variant iau is much more scantily preserved than au, generally only in semantically isolated words such as Lith. liaukà ‘gland’ (< PIE *leu̯k-) beside laũkas ‘with a white spot on the forehead’ (< PIE *leu̯k-o-, cf. Gr. λευκός ‘white’). 3.8. Vocalization of PIE resonants in Baltic usually produces a sequence /i + resonant/, e.g. Lith. mirtìs ‘death’ (< PIE *mr̥-ti-), vil˜kas ‘wolf’ (< PIE *u̯l̥ k u̯-o-), šim ˜ tas ‘hundred’ (< PIE *k̑m̥tom, note the preservation of *-m- before dental), mintìs ‘thought’ (< PIE *mn̥-ti-). But, in some words, it appears as /u + resonant/ (ur, ul, um, un). Some scholars have argued that u-vocalism is regular after velar (i.e. original labiovelar), e.g. Lith. gurklỹs ‘throat’ (< PIE *g u̯r̥h3 -tl-), but this is unlikely, cf. Lith. gìrtas ‘drunk’ (< PIE *g u̯r̥h3 -to-); compare also Lith. giñti and OPr. guntwei ‘to drive’, both from PIE *g u̯hn̥-. Interestingly, Stang (1966: 79−80) has drawn attention to the fact that u-vocalism is often to be encountered in expressive words denoting physical shortcomings (e.g. Lith. gurdùs ‘slow’, kum ˜ pas ‘bent’).

4. Accent 4.1. As an inherited feature, stress was free and mobile in Proto-Baltic. This is still well preserved in the Lithuanian standard language, where any syllable may carry the stress, e.g. lìkime ‘let us stay!’ (imperative 1st plural of lìkti ‘to stay’) / likìme ‘O fate!’ (vocative of likìmas ‘fate’) / likimè ‘in fate’ (locative of likìmas). Moreover, stress can move within a paradigm, e.g. NSg. galvà ‘head’, ASg. gálvą, GSg. galvõs, etc. The position of the stress depends on the accentual and tonal properties of syllables, which may be by nature accented or unaccented, acuted or not acuted. In nominal stems, for example, one has to distinguish four accentual patterns, which follow different accentual rules: − Accentual paradigm 1: stem accent + acuted stem (e.g. líepa, GSg. líepos, InstrSg. líepa ‘lime’) − Accentual paradigm 2: stem accent + non-acuted stem (e.g. rankà, GSg. rañkos, InstrSg. rankà ‘hand’)

88. The phonology of Baltic

1645

− Accentual paradigm 3: end accent + acuted stem (e.g. galvà, GSg. galvõs, InstrSg. gálva ‘head’) − Accentual paradigm 4: end accent + non-acuted stem (e.g. žiemà, GSg. žiemõs, InstrSg. žiemà ‘winter’) As can be seen from these examples, the stem syllable is accented in 1 and 2, but unaccented in 3 and 4 (the genitive being the decisive indicator), acuted in 1 and 3, but non-acuted in 2 and 4. The accentual patterns present the result of the combination of these two parameters − stem accent and stem intonation. 4.2. Stress freedom was probably also preserved in Old Prussian, as presupposed by alternations of the type gīwu ‘you are living’ (2 nd Sg. with stem accent) and giwīt ‘to live’ (infinitive with end accent); but this is a much debated issue. In Latvian, perhaps due to linguistic contact with Balto-Finnic languages, accentual mobility was lost: the stress usually falls on the word-initial syllable, except in some compound forms such as ikviens ‘everybody’ /ikˈviens/ or vislielākais ‘the greatest’ /visˈliela:kais/. However, the Latvian broken tone reflects an earlier stage with the same stress mobility as elsewhere in Baltic (e.g. Latv. pêda ‘sole’ < *pēˈdā, cf. Lith. pėdà). 4.3. Beside a pitch accent, the Baltic languages are characterized by the existence of tonal oppositions, which basically rest on underlying moraic structures: every long vowel (e.g. /ū/) or diphthong (e.g. /au/) may be defined as a bimoric sequence, in which each component may be emphasized, the first one (e.g. /ū/ = /Uu/, /au/ = /Au/), in which case one speaks of initial or falling intonation, or the second one (e.g. /ū/ = /uU/, /au/ = /aU/), in which case one speaks of final or rising intonation. For Proto-Baltic, one has to assume two intonations, acute (written < ˊ >) and circumflex (written < ~ >). Their realizations in the individual Baltic languages are as follows (figures indicate accentual paradigms): Tab. 88.1: Reflexes of Proto-Baltic acute and circumflex intonations Lithuanian acute intonation (1)

acute intonation (2)

circumflex intonation

initial or falling intonation

e.g. mótė ‘mother’ 1, káulas ‘bone’ 1 initial or falling intonation

e.g. plónas ‘thin’ 3, ráugas ‘leaven’ 3 gáuti ‘to get’ final or rising intonation

e.g. prõtas ‘mind’ 2, draũgas ‘friend’ 4 ausìs, ASg. aũsį ‘ear’ 4

Latvian

Old Prussian (Enchiridion 1561)

final or rising intonation

final or rising intonation

e.g. mãte ‘mother’, kaũls ‘bone’

(on 2 nd component) e.g. kaūlins ‘bones’ APl.

broken intonation

final or rising intonation

e.g. plâns ‘thin’, raûgs ‘leaven’ gaût ‘to get’

(on 2 nd component) e.g. pogaūt ‘to get’

initial or falling intonation

e.g. pràts ‘mind’, dràugs ‘friend’ àuss ‘ear’

initial or falling intonation

(on 1st component) e.g. āusins ‘ears’ APl.

1646

XIV. Baltic

4.4. As can be seen from the data given above, the Proto-Baltic acute and circumflex tonemes are realized almost conversely: what is a falling tone in Lithuanian is a rising tone in Latvian, and vice-versa; Old Prussian here agrees with Latvian. In addition, Latvian has a third intonation (written < ^ >), the so-called “broken tone”, a kind of glottalization (like the Danish stød), that arose from an acute tone in originally unstressed stem syllables (= Lith. accentual paradigm 3). It is generally assumed to be an innovation of Latvian, but some scholars (e.g. Kortlandt 1985) have argued that it could reflect the very nature of the Proto-Baltic acute intonation as an originally glottalized intonation. The origin of the tonal system of Proto-Baltic is in itself a much debated issue. The majority of scholars agree that acute intonation has to be connected with original PIE laryngeals in tautosyllabic position, at least in some contexts (e.g. Lith. draũgas ‘friend’ < PIE *d hrou̯g ho-, vs. Lith. gáuti ‘to get’ < PIE *gou̯H-ti-), but there is no broad consensus on the question of whether PIE morphological Dehnstufen are expected to present acute or circumflex intonation in Baltic: speaking for acute intonation is e.g. Lith. žvėrìs, ASg. žvė́ rį, Latv. zvȩˆrs ‘wild beast’ (< PIE *g̑ hu̯ēr-, compared with Lat. fĕrus), but a circumflex has been presupposed by some scholars, e.g. in Latv. dùore ‘hole in a tree for bees’ (< PIE *dōr-ii̯ ā ‘wooden’, if it is a vr̥ ddhi-formation to PIE *dŏr-u ‘wood’, cf. Gr. δόρυ). 4.5. In Lithuanian, stress and intonation are combined together insofar as only stressed syllables present tonemes; this was perhaps also the case in Old Prussian. Latvian has preserved an earlier stage, in which there was no interdependence between suprasegmental and prosodic features: every syllable, stressed or unstressed, is intrinsically provided with a toneme. Even in Lithuanian, there is some evidence that unstressed syllables originally possessed tonemes, especially Saussure’s Law (Saussure 1894), which may be defined as an attraction of the stress from a circumflex to a following acute syllable (e.g. *ˈsam ˜ dýti > *sam ˜ ˈdýti > Lith. samdýti ‘to hire, to employ’ with attraction, compared with *ˈlámdýti > Lith. lámdyti ‘to rumple, crumple’) and therefore implies intonability of unstressed syllables. 4.6. In some cases, individual forms of the same stem may display different intonations, e.g. Lith. šókti ‘to dance’ / šõkis ‘dance’. Such prosodic variation, generally connected with derivational processes, is called “metatony”. One may distinguish, since de Saussure (1896), a métatonie douce (acute → circumflex, e.g. Lith. verb šókti → derivative šõkis) and a métatonie rude (circumflex → acute, e.g. Lith. adjective sveĩkas ‘healthy’ → derivative svéikinti ‘to greet’); see Derksen (1996) for a full treatment.

5. Consonants 5.1. The consonant inventory of Proto-Baltic may be reconstructed as follows: − 6 stops: 2 labials (voiceless /p/ and voiced /b/), 2 dentals (voiceless /t/ and voiced /d/), 2 dorsals (voiceless /k/ and voiced /g/). − 5 spirants: 1 labial (voiced /v/), 2 dental sibilants (voiceless /s/ and voiced /z/), 2 palatal sibilants (voiceless /ś/ and voiced /ź/).

88. The phonology of Baltic

1647

5.2. The Proto-Baltic stop system underwent two major changes. Within the Indo-European family, the Baltic languages belong to the satǝm group, characterized by 1. the fusion of PIE velars (*k, *g, *g h) and labiovelars (*k u̯, *g u̯, *g u̯h) to velars stops (> *k, *g) and 2. the development of PIE palatals (*k̑, *g̑, *g̑ h) to spirants (> palatals *ś, *ź). In Latvian and Old Prussian (as in Slavic), the Proto-Baltic palatal sibilants *ś and *ź (< PIE *k̑, *g̑, *g̑ h) merged with original dental sibilants to s and z; in standard Lithuanian, they remained distinct as š and ž (but some Lithuanian dialects have s and z). Examples: − PIE velars: − Lith. k, Latv. k, OPr. k < Proto-Baltic *k < PIE *k: Lith. kraũjas ‘blood’, Latv. kreve ‘bloody scab’, OPr. crauyo ‘blood’ (< Proto-Baltic *kreu̯(H)- < PIE *kreu̯h2 -, Gr. κρέας ‘flesh’). − Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g : Lith. ger˜bti ‘to honour’, Latv. gārbât ‘to care for’, OPr. girbin ‘number’ (< Proto-Baltic *gerb- ‘to count’ < PIE *gerb h- ‘to gash’, Gr. γράφω ‘I write’). − PIE labiovelars: − Lith. k, Latv. k, OPr. k < Proto-Baltic *k < PIE *k u̯ : Lith. kàs, Latv. kas, OPr. kas ‘who, which’ (< Proto-Baltic *kas < PIE *k u̯os, Skr. káḥ). − Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g u̯ : Lith. gãlas, Latv. gals ‘end’, OPr. gallan ‘death’ (< Proto-Baltic *galas ‘end, top’ < PIE *g u̯olH-o- ‘tip, prick’, OHG quëlan ‘to hurt’). − PIE palatals: − Lith. š, Latv. s, OPr. s < Proto-Baltic *ś < PIE *k̑: Lith. širdìs, Latv. sirˆds, OPr. seyr ‘heart’ (< Proto-Baltic *śēr /*śīrd- [length guaranteed by the intonation of Lith. A Sg šìrdį] ← PIE *k̑ēr /*k̑r̥d-, Gr. κῆρ, καρδία). − Lith. ž, Latv. z, OPr. z (often written s) < Proto-Baltic *ź < PIE *g̑: Lith. žinóti, Latv. zinât ‘to know’, OPr. posinnat ‘to recognize’ (< Proto-Baltic *źin- < PIE *g̑n̥h3 -, Gr. ἔγνων ‘I perceived’). There is, however, a large set of examples that present a centum-like treatment, i.e. Baltic *k, *g from PIE palatal stops *k̑, *g̑, *g̑ h, e.g. Lith. klausýti, Latv. klàusît, OPr. klausiton ‘to listen’ (< PIE *k̑leu̯s-, OCS slyšati ‘to hear’). Variations between cognate forms are not infrequent, as shown by such doublets as Lith. akmuõ ‘stone’ / ašmuõ ‘cutting edge’ (both from PIE *h2 ek̑-mōn, Skr. áśmā ‘stone’) or Lith. kleĩvas / šleĩvas ‘bow-legged’ (both from PIE *k̑lei̯ - ‘to lean, bend oneself’). An explanation for this phenomenon, known in the scholarly literature as “Gutturalwechsel”, is still lacking. One might assume that such centum forms in Baltic belong to a different dialectal layer (anterior to the satemization?). Or, more convincingly, one might remember that Baltic lies precisely on the border between centum and satem languages; it is well known that border languages sometimes take part only to a small extent in linguistic innovations more consistently represented in central languages. 5.3. The second major change characteristic for Proto-Baltic (as well as for Proto-Slavic) is the merger of voiced (PIE *b, *d, *g̑, *g, and *g u̯) and voiced aspirated stops (PIE *b h, *d h, *g̑ h, *g h, and *g u̯h) to a single series of voiced stops (Proto-Baltic *b, *d, *ź, *g). Examples:

1648

XIV. Baltic

− PIE labials: − Lith. b, Latv. b, OPr. b < Proto-Baltic *b < PIE *b: Lith. dubùs ‘hollow’, Latv. dubt ‘to become hollow’ (< Proto-Baltic *dub- < PIE *d hub-, Goth. diups ‘deep’). − Lith. b, Latv. b, OPr. b < Proto-Baltic *b < PIE *b h: Lith. bū´ti, Latv. bût, OPr. būton ‘to be’ (< Proto-Baltic *bū- < PIE *b huH-, Skr. ábhūt ‘came into existence’). − PIE dentals: − Lith. d, Latv. d, OPr. d < Proto-Baltic *d < PIE *d: Lith. dẽšimt, Latv. desmit ‘ten’, OPr. dessimts ‘tenth’ (< Proto-Baltic *deśimt- < PIE *dek̑m̥-t-, Gr. δέκα). − Lith. d, Latv. d, OPr. d < Proto-Baltic *d < PIE *d h: Lith. dė́ ti ‘to put’, Latv. dêt ‘to lay (eggs)’ (< Proto-Baltic *dē- < PIE *d heh1 -, Gr. τίθημι ‘I place’). − PIE palatals: − Lith. ž, Latv. z, OPr. z (often written s) < Proto-Baltic *ź < PIE *g̑: Lith. žinóti, Latv. zinât ‘to know’, OPr. posinnat ‘to recognize’ (< Proto-Baltic *źin- < PIE *g̑n̥h3 -, Gr. ἔγνων ‘I perceived’). − Lith. ž, Latv. z, OPr. z (often written s) < Proto-Baltic *ź < PIE *g̑ h: Lith. žiemà, Latv. zìema, OPr. semo ‘winter’ (< Proto-Baltic *źeimā- < PIE *g̑ hei̯ m-, Gr. χεῖμα). − PIE velars: − Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g: Lith. ger˜bti ‘to honour’, Latv. gārbât ‘to care for’, OPr. girbin ‘number’ (< Proto-Baltic *gerb- ‘to count’ < PIE *gerb h- ‘to gash’, Gr. γράφω ‘I write’). − Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g h: Lith. miglà, Latv. migla ‘mist, fog’ (< Proto-Baltic *miglā < PIE *h3 mig hleh2 , Gr. ὀμίχλη). − PIE labiovelars: − Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g u̯: Lith. gãlas, Latv. gals ‘end’, OPr. gallan ‘death’ (< Proto-Baltic *galas ‘end, top’ < PIE *g u̯olH-o- ‘tip, prick’, OHG quëlan ‘to hurt’). − Lith. g, Latv. g, OPr. g < Proto-Baltic *g < PIE *g u̯h: Lith. gãras, Latv. gars ‘steam, vapor’, OPr. gorme ‘heat’ (< Proto-Baltic *gar- < PIE *g u̯hor-, Skr. gharmá‘heat’). This merger is usually considered to have taken place in an early stage of Proto-BaltoSlavic. But it has been proposed by Winter (1978) that, in Baltic and Slavic, vowels were lengthened (with the acute tone) before a PIE voiced stop, but not before a PIE voiced aspirated stop, which implies their merger to be a recent process. Examples of Winter’s Law: − Lith. ė́ sti ‘to eat, to devour’, Latv. êst, OPr. īst ‘to eat’ (< Proto-Baltic *ēd-ti- < PIE *h1 ĕd-, Skr. ádmi ‘I eat’). − Lith. ū´dra, Latv. ûdrs, OPr. udro ‘otter’ (< Proto-Baltic *ūd-rā < PIE *ŭd-reh2 , Gr. ὕδρα ‘water serpent’). Admittedly, the evidence for Winter’s Law still remains controversial, since there is a large number of counter-examples (e.g. Lith. dubùs ‘hollow’, Latv. dubt ‘to become hollow’ < Proto-Baltic *dub- < PIE *d hub-, cf. Goth. diups ‘deep’). This is still a much debated issue; recent attempts at reformulating the law have been proposed by Shintani (1985) and Matasović (1995).

88. The phonology of Baltic

1649

5.4. Except for *s, spirants are, for the most part, recent developments in Baltic. We have to ascribe to Proto-Baltic a voiced labial spirant /v/, going back to the PIE resonant *u̯, but no voiceless counterpart */f/, which does not exist in early stages of any of the three major Baltic languages. In ancient borrowings, /f/ was systematically replaced by /p/, e.g. Lith. ar˜pas ‘winnowing-machine’ (< German Harfe), OPr. pastauton ‘to fast’ (< German fasten). Only recent loans have introduced a phoneme /f/ in the Baltic languages, e.g. Lith. fìlmas, Latv. fil˜ma ‘film’. 5.5. Proto-Baltic preserved the unique PIE dental spirant *s, which remained unchanged in most contexts, e.g. Lith. sėdė́ ti, Latv. sêdêt ‘to sit down’, OPr. sīdons ‘sitting’ (< PIE *sed-). A voiced counterpart exists only as an allophone, e.g. Lith. lìzdas ‘nest’ (< *nizdo- < PIE *ni-sd-o-). 5.6. The Baltic languages have developed a secondary series of palatal spirants, with at least 2 sibilants (š, ž) and in some languages 2 affricates (č, dž). In chronological order, one might first mention the so-called “ruki-rule”, according to which a PIE sibilant *s after r, u, k, or i, yielded in Proto-Baltic a palatal spirant *ś that merged with the outcome of PIE *k̑, the result of which therefore was /š/ in Lithuanian, /s/ in Latvian and Old Prussian. Examples are quite limited in number: − after r: Lith. viršùs, Latv. vìrsus ‘top’ (< PIE *u̯r̥s-) ; cf. OCS vrŭchŭ, Skr. varṣmán‘height’. − after u: Lith. jū´šė, OPr. iuse ‘fish soup’ (< PIE *i̯ ūs-) ; cf. Pol. jucha, Lat. iūs ‘soup’. − after i: Lith. maĩšas, Latv. màiss ‘bag’, OPr. moasis ‘bellows’ (< PIE *moi̯ so-); cf. Skr. meṣá- ‘ram’. (We do not have any reliable example after k). It should be noted that the “ruki-rule” is less regular in Baltic than it is in Slavic or Indo-Iranian. There is a large number of counter-examples, e.g. Lith. ausìs ‘ear’ (< PIE *h2 eu̯s-), vìsas ‘all’ (< PIE *u̯is-o-), some of which might be due to analogy, e.g. Lith. akysè ‘in the eyes’ (Loc.Pl.), instead of *akyše, with the same ending as rañkose ‘in the hands’. 5.7. In Lithuanian, the palatal sibilants (š, ž) thus have two sources (PIE palatal stops or − in the case of š − PIE *s in ruki-contexts). In addition, there exists a series of affricates that appears to be a recent innovation resulting from the palatalization of PIE dental stops before the resonant *i̯ : Proto-Baltic *tj (< PIE *ti̯ ) and Proto-Baltic *dj (< PIE *d [h]i̯ ) yielded respectively či /tš’/ and dži /dž’/ (i marking here merely the softness of the affricate), e.g. Lith. svẽčias ‘guest’ (< *svetja- ‘stranger’ < PIE *su̯eti̯ o-), Lith.dial. mẽdžias ‘forest’ (< *medja- ‘standing in the middle’ < PIE *med hi̯ o-). Hard affricates (č or dž) are rare and always secondary (e.g. Lith. giñčas ‘quarrel’ < *gint-šas). In Old Prussian, Proto-Baltic *tj and *dj remained unchanged (e.g. OPr. median ‘tree’ < *medja-). 5.8. In Latvian, palatalizations are a relatively complex issue. One has to distinguish two different processes. First, in an early stage of the language, Proto-Baltic velar stops *k and *g became affricates *c /ts/ and *dz /dz/ before front vowels (e or i), e.g. *kēlti ‘to raise’ (cf. Lith. kélti) > Latv. celˆt, *gērti ‘to drink’ (cf. Lith. gérti) > Latv. dzerˆt. As a result, a large number of consonant alternations appeared, e.g. Latv. sâku ‘I begin’ (1st

1650

XIV. Baltic

Sg.), but sâc ‘you begin’ (2 nd Sg. < *sâk-i). Secondly, we have to deal with various palatalizations of consonants before the original resonant *i̯ (> Baltic *j). They can be summarized by the following (simplified) alternation rules: Tab. 88.2: Latvian palatalization before *j Consonant

Consonant + *j

Examples

p, b

pļ /pl’/, bļ /bl’/ (word initially) pj, bj (otherwise)

pļaũt ‘to mow’ (< *pjauti, cf. Lith. pjáuti) bļaũrs ‘nasty’ (< *bjauras, cf. Lith. bjaurùs) upju, GPl. of upe ‘river’ (cf. Lith. ùpjų) gùlbju, GPl. of gùlbis ‘swan’ (cf. Lith. gul˜bjų)

t, d

š, ž

svešs ‘stranger’ (< *svetja-, cf. Lith. svẽčias) mežs ‘forest’ (< *medja-, cf. Lith.dial. mẽdžias)

k, g

c, dz

sàucu ‘I shout’ (< *sàukju, cf. Inf. sàukt) lùdzu ‘I beg’ (< *lùdju, cf. Inf. lùgt)

s, z

š, ž

plêšu ‘I tear’ (< *plês-ju, cf. Inf. plêst) laûžu ‘I break’ (< *laûz-ju, cf. Inf. laûzt)

n

ņ

zir˜ņu, GPl. of zir˜nis ‘pea’ (< *zir˜nju)

l

ļ

meļu, GPl. of melis ‘liar’ (< *melju)

5.9. A few combinatory changes are worth mentioning. First, a sequence of /dental+dental/ as a rule yields /s+dental/ in Baltic, e.g. Lith. ė́ sti ‘to eat, devour’, Latv. êst, OPr. īst ‘to eat’ (< Proto-Baltic *ēd-ti-). 5.10. Finally, according to a tendency variously attested in the Baltic languages, a velar stop *k sometimes appears before sibilants, e.g. Lith. tū´kstantis, Latv. tũkstuôtis ‘thousand’ (< *tūstant-), Lith. bókstas ‘tower’ (< Pol. baszta). This so-called “epenthetic *k” is by no means a phonetic rule, as many counter-examples exist, e.g. Lith. pir˜štas ‘finger’ (but Latv. pìrksts), Lith. áuksas ‘gold’ (but OPr. ausis); there are also some doublets, e.g. Lith. plúokštas / plúoštas ‘handful’, Latv. sviêksts / sviêsts ‘butter’. Whatever may be its origin, this tendency must be connected, at least partially, with the fact that a sequence *sk (or *šk) is not tolerated in Baltic before a consonant, where it yields *ks (or *kš), e.g. Lith. tróško ‘feels thirsty’, but Inf. trókšti.

6. References Derksen, Rick 1996 Metatony in Baltic. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kazlauskas, Jonas 1962 K razvitiju obščebaltijskoj sistemy glasnyx [On the development of the Common Baltic vowel system]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 4: 20−24. Kortlandt, Frederik 1985 Long vowels in Balto-slavic. Baltistica 21: 112−124.

89. The morphology of Baltic

1651

Leskien, August 1881 Die Quantitätsverhältnisse im Auslaut des Litauischen. Archiv für slavische Philologie 5: 188−190. Matasović, Ranko 1995 A Re-examination of Winter’s Law in Baltic and Slavic. Lingua Posnaniensis 37: 57−70. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1963 Zametki po prusskomu vokalismu [Notes on Prussian vocalism]. Voprosy teorii i istorii jazyka. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press, 191−197. de Saussure, Ferdinand 1894 À propos de l’accentuation lituanienne. Mémoires de la société de linguistique de Paris 8: 425−466 = 1970 [1922]: 490−512. de Saussure, Ferdinand 1896 Accentuation lituanienne. Indogermanische Forschungen VI. Anzeiger: 157−166 = 1970 [1922]: 526−538. de Saussure, Ferdinand 1970 [1922] Recueil des publications scientifiques. Geneva: Slatkine [Geneva: Société anonyme des éditions Sonor]. Shintani, Toshihiro 1985 On Winter’s Law in Balto-Slavic. Arbejdspapirer udsendt af Institut for Lingvistik, Københavns Universitet 5: 273−296. Stang, Christian S. 1935 Die Flexion des Verbs iet im Lettischen und das Problem vom Ursprung des Diphthongs ie. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 8: 257−262. Stang, Christian S. 1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: University Press. Winter, Werner 1978 The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith. ė́ sti : vèsti : mèsti and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic Languages. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton, 431−446.

Daniel Petit, Paris (France)

89. The morphology of Baltic 1. 2. 3. 4.

Noun formation Adjective formation Numerals Pronouns

5. 6. 7. 8.

Personal pronouns Verb formation Abbreviations References

1. Noun formation In the Baltic languages, there are relatively few compound words (Skardžius 1943: 393 ff.; Urbutis 1965: 252, 437 f.). Particularly old is Li. viešpatìs ‘lord’ (cf. OInd. viśpátiḥ ‘chief of a settlement or tribe’). The absolute majority of derived nouns and adjechttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-010

1652

XIV. Baltic

tives in Baltic are suffixal and ending derivatives. Various derivational affixes have been studied for a long time (cf. particularly Leskien 1891; Endzelīns 1943, 1948, 1951; Skardžius 1943; Otrębski 1965). Vincas Urbutis (1965, 1978) began to apply modern methods to the study of noun formation and, relying on these, exhaustively described the system of noun formation in contemporary Lithuanian, distinguishing thereby the various semantic derivational categories. A derivational category is a class of derivatives which have a common derivational meaning and special derivational affixes. Recent research shows that Baltic distinguishes three old categories of nouns derived from verbs [1.1−1.3] (Ambrazas 1993) and five old categories derived from nouns [1.4−1.8] (Ambrazas 2000a).

1.1. Nomina actionis Originally in the Baltic languages (just as in PIE; cf. Benveniste 1948), in this derivational category, derivatives with *-ti- and *-tu- predominated (cf. Li. būtìs and Sl. *bytĭ, OInd. bhūtís ‘existence, being’; Li. lietùs, Latv. liêtus ‘rain’). Forms of the infinitive and supine developed from these. Later in the Baltic languages, derivational endings became more widespread, particularly with *-o- (cf. Li. miẽgas, Latv. mìegs ‘sleep’) and *-ā (cf. Li. snaudà, Latv. snaũda ‘somnolence’). During the independent development of Lithuanian, derivatives with the suffix -imas/ -ymas (< *-ī˘-mo-), e.g. piešìmas ‘drawing’, and in Latvian derivatives with the suffix -šana (< -sjo-nā), e.g. bûšana ‘existence’, which came from another adjective suffix *-no-/-nā, were created. Close to the latter are derivatives in -s-na, which are productive in Old Prussian, e.g. billīsna ‘sayings’ (see further Bammesberger 1973: 87 ff.; Schmalstieg 1974: 64 ff.; Parenti 1998). Derivatives of similar origin in Lithuanian with -s-e-na are productive only in the Lower Lithuanian dialect (Urbutis 1965: 295), spoken in an area where at one time the Curonians lived; cf. Low. Li. eĩsena ‘going, walking’.

1.2. Nomina agentis In the Baltic languages, derivatives of adjectival character with the suffixes *-tā-jo-, *-ējo-, e.g. Li. artójas, Latv. arājs (< *artājs), OP artoys ‘plowman’; Li. siuvė́ jas, Latv. šuvējs ‘tailor’ play the most important role in this derivational category. Here they have completely ousted the names of actors with the old suffixes *-tel-/-ter-/-tor-, cf. Sl. *datel’ĭ and OInd. dā´tar-, dātár-, Gk. dṓtōr, dōtḗr beside Li. davė́ jas ‘giver, donor’ (Sɫawski 1976: 50).

1.3. Nomina instrumenti The basis of this derivational category consists of derivatives with *-tlo- which have cognates in many related languages; cf. Li. árklas, Latv. arˆkls, Gk. árotron, etc. ‘plough’. However, in the Baltic languages, they began to use suffixes derived from the nomen

89. The morphology of Baltic

1653

actionis suffix *-tu- very widely to form the names of tools or instruments. These include the suffixes *-tuv-/*-tov-/*-tev-; cf. Li. sėtùvas, sėtuvė˜ and Latv. sȩ̄tuvs, sȩ̄tuve, sȩ̄tuva, sȩ̄tuvis, sȩ̄tava, sȩ̄tave, sȩ̄teve ‘bast basket’; káištuvė/kaištùvė ‘scraper, shaving knife’, kaištùvas ‘scraper, knife for scraping hides or skin’, and OP coestue ‘brush’, etc.

1.4. Nomina qualitatis At one time, the nomina qualitatis were formed essentially with the same derivational suffixes as the nomina actionis (Ambrazas 1994). These categories were better distinguished in the Baltic languages when derivatives with the suffix *-ībā became more widespread; cf. Li. dial. lýgyba, Latv. līdzība ‘equality’.

1.5. Nomina collectiva In OP, there is a whole group of collective derivatives with the old derivational ending in *-ā; cf. slayo ‘sled’ (cf. Li. šlãjos ‘sled’) : slayan ‘sled runner’ (for more about these see Mažiulis 1981; Degtjarev 1994). In Lithuanian and Latvian, these are very rare; cf. Li. álksna/alksnà ‘alder grove’, Latv. álksna ‘swampy place’. Nevertheless, the derivational ending *-ā most likely serves as the basis for the collective plural ending -ai (cf. Li. dial. liepaĩ ‘lime grove’, siuvėjaĩ ‘tailor’s family’; see Stundžia 1981, 1992). The rather old affix *-ij-ā appears in Li. brolijà ‘brothers and sisters’ and Sl. bratrĭja ‘brothers’, Attic Gk. phratría vs. Homeric phrḗtrē ‘clan, tribe’, and there are also some newer suffixes (Ambrazas 1992a, 2004a: 50−51). The Balts also use collective nouns with the adjective suffix *-ī-no- (cf. Li. šeimýna, OP seimīns ‘domestic servants’ as well as Li. beržýnas and Sl. *berzina ‘birch grove’) (Sɫawski 1974: 121, 123), which is also encountered partially in the Italic languages and perhaps also in German and Albanian (Jokl 1963: 133−134; Butler 1971: 27−28) and Thracian (Duridanov 1969: 57).

1.6. Nomina feminina Particularly old are the nomina feminina with the derivational ending *-ā (which earlier had been characteristic of nomina collectiva); cf. OLi. ašva, OInd. áśvā, Av. aspā, Lat. equa ‘mare’. In the Baltic languages, these were ousted by derivatives with *-(j)ē; cf. Li. draugà ‘company, circle, society’ → draũgė (for more see Ambrazas 2000a: 71 ff., 79 ff.). Differently from Indo-Iranian (but similarly to the Italic and Celtic languages), in the Baltic languages, the corresponding nomina feminina with *-ī /-(i)jā- are rare (for more see Ambrazas 2000a: 74 ff., 2004a: 67 ff.).

1654

XIV. Baltic

1.7. Diminutives In the Baltic languages (as in other related languages; cf. Jurafsky 1996: 565 ff. and lit.), the suffix *-ko- played an important role in the creation of diminutives. Old Prussian nominal derivatives with the suffix *-iko- were productive (e.g., malnijkix ‘small child’). Diminutives are formed in Lithuanian with the suffix *-u-ko- (e.g. berniùkas ‘boy, lad’), in East High Lithuanian dialects also with *-ā-ko- (e.g. berniõkas ‘boy, lad’) and in some Latvian dialects with *-ē-ko- (e.g. sunȩ̄ks ‘small dog’). It is true that in the course of time Lithuanian diminutives with -elis- became common (e.g. vaikẽlis ‘small child’), and Latvian derivatives with -iņš (-iņa) and -ītis (-e) appeared. The latter two suffixes are connected with a special kind of complementary distribution; cf. brālītis ‘little brother’, saulīte ‘little sun’, but dēliņš ‘little son’ (for more see Rūķe-Draviņa 1959: 22 ff., 168 ff.)

1.8. Nomina attributiva Diminutives with *-ko- and nominalizing adjectives with *-(i)-jo-, *-no-, *-en-, *-ro-, *-uo-, *-isko-, and *-mo- furnish the basis for this derivational category (Ambrazas 2000a: 113 ff., 2000b). In the Baltic languages, the nomina attributiva compound suffix with *-in-īko-/*-in-eiko- is especially productive (cf. Li. laukinỹkas ‘farmer’, OP laukinikis ‘landholder’, Latv. laũcinieks ‘farmer’), perhaps in the distant past borrowed from Proto-Slavic (cf. Ambrazas 2000a: 118 ff., 2004a: 57).

1.9. Noun declension The inherited case system of Baltic is comparable to that of Slavic, retaining seven of the eight cases reconstructed for PIE − all but the ablative, which has merged with the genitive, as in Greek, except that the syncretic form is the inherited ablative rather than the genitive. This system is manifest in East Baltic, but the limited corpus of Old Prussian renders its case system uncertain. East Baltic languages have lost the neuter gender in nouns, although Lithuanian retains it in predicate adjectives in clauses without nominal subjects (cf. Holvoet, this handbook, 1.2) as well as in substantive use: gẽra ‘the good’. Generally, neuter nouns are transferred to masculine gender, most famously in the word for ‘100’, šim ˜ tas. Old Prussian does retain a few neuter forms, notably assaran ‘lake’ (< PIE *-om); cf. OCS jezero (which, however, has the old pronominal ending *-od). The dual is retained only in Lithuanian, and even there it is in retreat, having been lost in many dialects. Baltic descendants of the PIE *-(j)o- (= Baltic *-[j]a-) and *-(j)ā-stem declensions are still productive, whereas the Baltic descendants of the PIE *-i-, *-u-, and especially the consonant stem declensions are not. Nouns of these unproductive categories are gradually shifting to the productive categories. In Lithuanian, old adjectives of the Baltic *-u-stem declension and old nouns of the Baltic *-ju-stem declension are passing into the *-ja-stem declension, whereas new words are appearing in the Baltic *-u-stem and *-ju-stem declensions. One encounters also perhaps a few remnants of the *-ī- and *-ū-stem declensions in specific forms of other stems.

89. The morphology of Baltic

1655

1.9.1. The PIE *-(j)o-stem = Baltic *-(j)a-stem: SgN Li. (tė́ v)-as, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-s ‘father’, OP (Deiw)-as, (Deiw)-s, and (Deiw)-is ‘God’ (< *-os); G Li. (tė́ v)-o, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-a < *-ād (Abl), OP (Deiw)-as < *-os (Gen: cf. Hitt. N G antuḫšaš ‘man’ and ON dagr ‘day’, G dags, probably with secondary differentiation of the same original form); D Li. (tė́ v)-ui, OP (wird)-ai ‘word’, (grīk)-u ‘sin’ < *-ōi (the last of these perhaps with a special development following velars), Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-am is of pronominal origin; A Li. (tė́ v)- ą, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-u, OP (Deiw)-an < *-oN; I Li. (tė́ v)-u, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-u < *-ṓ; L Li. (tė́ v)-e < *-en (postposition) (the original locative ending *-ei is seen in the adverb namiẽ ‘at home’), OP bītai ‘in the evening’ < *-oi (Latv. [tȩ˜̄ v]-ā is taken from the -ā-stems); V Li. (tė́ v)-e, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-Ø , OP deiwe < *-e; PlN Li. (tė́ v)-ai, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-i, OP (grīk)-ai < *-oi; G Li. (tė́ v)-ų, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-u , OP (grec)-on < *-ōN [all Baltic nouns regardless of stem have the same GPl ending, so this ending will not be analyzed again]; D Li. (tė́ v)-am(u)s (< *-om[u]s [the long form is OLith.]), Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-iem(s) (< adjective or pronoun [the longer form is OLatv. and dial.]), OP (waika)-mmans ‘children’ (contamination with PlA -ans); A Li. (tė́ v)-us, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-us; OP (deiw)-ans (< *-ō˘[n]s); I Li. (tė́ v)-ais, Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)is [dial. and in adverbs; the modern language uses the PlD for this case](< *-ōis); L Li. (tė́ v)-uose (OLith. -uosu), Latv. (tȩ˜̄ v)-uôs (< *-ōs-u with subsequent replacement in Lithuanian of -u by -e from the SgL); Li. Du NAV (tė́ v)-u (< *-ṓ); GL (pusi)-aũ ‘in half’ (*-ou). Otherwise, Lithuanian uses (tė́ v)-am (< *-omV) for both DuD and I. The -ja-stem endings are the same as the above but may have the Sg N Li. (bról)-is, Latv. (brāl)-is, ASg Li. (bról)-į, Latv. (brāl)-i ‘brother’. In Lithuanian nouns of accent classes 3 and 4, the SgN is -ỹs, as in (dag)-ỹs ‘thistle’. In addition to the inherited cases noted above, Lithuanian and most likely OLatvian created three more cases (illative, allative, and adessive) through the addition of certain postpositions to the inherited PIE endings. Thus the Li. Il derives from the addition of the postposition *-nā to the original A ending: Sg *-an+nā > -añ (Rosinas 2005: 164), Pl *-ṍs + *-nā > -úosna; the OLi. Ad ending derives from the addition of the postposition *-pi < *-p(r)ē ̣ to the old L ending: Sg *-ie (< *-ē ̣ < *-oi [Rosinas 2005: 165]) + *-pi > -íep(i), Pl *-ṍsen + *-pi > -uosemp(i); and the OLi. Al derives from the addition of the same postposition to the G ending: Sg -óp(i), Pl -ump(i). Similar forms were created for other stems. But in the modern language it is only the illative which can be said to be a living case, functioning as a directive. 1.9.2. The IE *-(j)ā-stem declension = Baltic *-(j)ā-stem: SgN Li. (líep)-a, (definite Adj -ó-ji), Latv. (liẽp)-a ‘linden tree’, OP (mens)-ā ‘flesh’ (< *-ā´ ) (exceptionally SgN < *-ī́, e.g. Li. patn-ì ‘wife’); G Li. (líep)-os, Latv. (liẽp)-as (< *-ā˜s); D Li. (líep)-ai, Latv. (liẽp)-ai (from monosyllabic pronouns; OLatv. -i is original), OP (alkīnisqu)-ai ‘hungry’ (< *-ā˜i); A Li. (líep)-ą, Latv. (liẽp)-u, OP gennan ‘woman’ < *-ā˜n (analogical replacement of the original acute of the ASg by the circumflex in order to distinguish it from the ISg *-ā´n, see Rosinas [2005: 175]); I WLi. (líep)-a, ELi. (liẽp)-u; Latv. (liẽp)-u (< *-ā´n; cf. Li. def. adj. -ą́-ja); L Li. (líep)-oje, Latv. (liẽp)-ā (< *-āj + en [postposition]); V Li. (líep)-a, Latv. (liẽp)-Ø (< *-ă); PlN Li. (líep)-os, Latv. (liẽp)-as < *-ā˜s; G Li. (líep)-ų, Latv. (liẽp)-u; D Li. (líep)-oms, OLi. (líep)-omus, Latv. (liẽp)-ām, OLatv. -āms (< *-āmōs), OP (genn)-āmans ‘wives’ (< *-āmans); A Li. (líep)-as, Latv. (liẽp)-as, OP (genn)-ans ‘wives’ < *-ā´(N)s, but see Rosinas (2005: 177); I Li. (líep)-omis, Latv. dial. -āmis (< *-āmī́s); L Li. (líep)-ose (OLi. -asu), Latv. (liẽp)-âs (< *-āsu; for the replacement of -u by -e, cf. discussion of -[j]a-stems above), but see Rosinas (2005: 175−177);

1656

XIV. Baltic

Du NAV Li. (líep)-i (< *-íe [cf. def. adj. -íe-ji] < *-ai [PIE *-eh2 -ih1 ]); D Li. (líep)-om < *-āmō; I (líep)-om < *-āmī (Rosinas 2005: 175−178; Mažiulis 1970: 160−162; Schmalstieg 2004). 1.9.3. The Baltic *-ē-stem declension, which appears for the most part to result from the contraction of *-ijā-, is completely parallel to the Baltic *-ā-stem declension. Thus SgN Li. (gérv)-ė, Latv. (dzērv)-e, OP (gerw)-e ‘crane’, (semm)-ē ‘land’ (also [kurp]-i ‘shoe’), < *-ē; G Li. -ės, Latv. -es, OP -is < *-ēs; D Li. -ei, Latv. -i, OP -ey < *-ei < *-ēi; A Li. -ę, Latv. -i, OP -ien < *-en < *-ē˜n; I Li. -e, Latv. -i < *-én < *-ḗn; L Li. -ėje, Latv. -ē < *-ējén; V Li. -e < *-e; PlN Li. -ės, Latv. -es, OP -es < *-ē˜s; the G ending -ų is always preceded by a palatalized stem consonant; cf. G Li. (gérvi)-ų˜, Latv. (dzērvj)u; D Li. -ėms, (OLith. -ēmus) Latv. -ēms < *-ḗmōs; The APl originally = the NPl (Latv. -es) but under acute stress Li. APl kat-ès vs. NPl kãt-ės ‘cats’; I Li. -ėmis, Latv. dial. -emis < *-ēmīs (Rosinas 2005: 180); L Li. -ėse (OLi. -esu), Latv. -ês < *-ēsu; Du NAV Li. -i < *-íe < *-ei < *-ēi; D Li. -ė́ m < *-ēmō; I -ė˜m < *-ēmī, with an intonational difference in accent classes 3 and 4; but see Mažiulis (1970: 160−162). 1.9.4. The Baltic *-i-stem declension contains nouns, overwhelmingly feminine, inherited as such from CB or PIE, and words which have been transferred to this class from consonant stems: SgN Li. (av)-ìs, Latv. (av)-(i)s ‘sheep’, OP -is (< *-is); G Li. (av)-iẽs, Latv. (av)-(i)s (< *-eis); D Li. dial. -ie, Latv. -i(j), OP -ei < PIE *-ēi (FD Li. -iai < *-jāstem declension and MD -iui < *-ja-stem declension); A Li. (ãv)-į, Latv. (av)-i, OP -in (< *-in); I Li. (av)-imì (< *-imī́ ), Latv. (av)-i, L Li. (av)-yjè, Latv. (av)-ī with vowel *-ī by analogy with the LPl (see below) (Lith. dial. -ie and OLith. -eie [-ė-] are older and presuppose *-ēi + en); V Li. (av)-iẽ (< *-ei); PlN Li. (ãv)-ys, Latv. (av)-is. OP -is (< *-ijes < *-ejes [Kazlauskas 1968: 198; Schmalstieg 1973: 199−200]); G Li. (avi)-ų˜, Latv. (avj)-u with preceding palatalized stem consonant); D Li. (av)-ìms, OLi. -imus, Latv. (av)-ī˘ms (< *-īmṓs); APl Li. -is, Latv. -is < CEB *-īs, but OP -ins < *-ins. IPl Li. (av)-imìs, Latv. dial. -imis < CEB *-imī́s; LPl Li. (av)-ysè, but dial. -isu < *-isu is more original (Rosinas 2005: 189). The Li. NAVDu -ì suggests a reconstruction *-ī́. Possibly the DDu Li. -ìm < *-īmṓ and the IDu Li. -im ˜ < *-īmí, but see Mažiulis (1970: 160−162). 1.9.5. The Baltic *-u-stem declension is overwhelmingly masculine, although Old Prussian retains some old neuters, notably meddo ‘honey’, pecku ‘cattle’. In Latvian, a few feminine pluralia tantum exist, and it is only these which retain the original *-u-stem inflection. In all other instances, Latvian u-stems are inflected in the plural as *-o-stems: SgN Li. (tur˜g)-us, Latv. (tìrg)-us ‘market’, OP (dang)-us ‘heaven’ (< *-us); G Li. (tur˜g)aus, Latv. (tìrg)-us (< *-aus, PIE *-ous); D Li. -ui (< -u + -i from other stems [Mažiulis 1970: 272]), Latv. (tìrg)-um (with stem vowel -u- + pronominal DSg ending -m); A Li. (tur˜g)-ų, Latv. (tìrg)-u, OP -un (< *-un); I Li. (tur˜g)-umi (< *-umī́ ), Latv. (tìrg)-u (like A); L Li. (tur˜g)-uje, Latv. -ū (< *-ōjen or *-ujen [Rosinas 2005: 192]), Lith. dial. -uo recovers an older form in *-ōu; V Li. (tur˜g)-au, Latv. Mik-u ‘O Michael’ (< *-ou); PlN Li. (tur˜g)-ūs, Latv. (pęl)-us ‘chaff’ (< *-uwes or by analogy with other stems with identical NPl and APl [Rosinas 2005: 193] or by the addition of *-s to the NDu *-ū?) (Schmalstieg 1973: 199−200), but Lith. dial. -aus shows a more original form of the ending (< *-au̯es, earlier *-ou̯es ← *-eu̯es?); D Li. (tur˜g)-ums, OLi. -umus (< *-umṓs), Latv. D and I (pęl)-ūm are old dual forms, but the -ū- is peculiar (< *-ū-stem form or by analogy

89. The morphology of Baltic

1657

with other stems?); A Li. (turg)-ùs, Latv. -us (< *-ūs or *-uns); I Li. (tur˜g)-umis (< *-umī́s [Rosinas 2005: 194]); L OLi. (dang)-usu ‘in heaven’ < *-usu or may have been pronounced -ūsu (< *-ū-stems) (-ūse, -uose, and -use are all secondary, based on -i-stems, *-o-stems, and a contamination of -use and -usu, respectively); Du Li. NA (dang)-ù ‘two skies’ (< *-ū´); D Li. (dang)-ùm < *-umṓ; I Li. (dang)-um ˜ < *-umī́ (Rosinas 2005: 195). 1.9.6. The Baltic consonant stem declension is nowhere represented intact throughout an entire paradigm. The original SgN is seen in the n-stem Li. (akm)-uõ ‘stone’ (< *-ōn) and the r-stems Li. (ses)-uõ ‘sister’ (< *-ōr) and Li. (dukt)-ė˜ ‘daughter’ (< *-ēr) (but for a different view see Schmalstieg 1980: 59−60). The Lithuanian stem of these nouns for all cases other than the SgN is akmen-, dukter-, seser-. Latvian has for the most part reshaped the NSg according to the rest of the paradigm, thus, e.g. N (akmen)-s ‘stone’; G Li. (akmeñ)-s, OLi. (ákmen)-es, Latv. (akmen)-s (< *-es); D OLi. (ãkmen)-ie (< *-ei), (ãkmen)-iui (borrowed from *-ja-stems), Latv. (akmen)-im (borrowed from *-i-stems); A Li. (ãkmen)-į, Latv. (akmen)-i (< *-in < PIE vocalic *-m̥. The phonological merger of *-in < PIE vocalic *-m̥ with *-in < PIE *-im set the stage for large scale adoption of other -i-stem endings by the etymological consonant stems); I OLi. (akme)-mi (< *akmen-mi), suggesting that the ending -mi (< *-mī) was originally added directly to the nominal stem (Rosinas 2005: 197), but cf. contemporary Li. (akmen)-imì (-i-stem); L Li. (akmen)yjè, -ije, -iy, Latv. -ī < *-ījen (Rosinas 2005: 198); PlN Li. (ãkmen)-s, dial. (ãkmen)-es, (< *-es), Latv. (akmen)-is (i-stem), (akmeņ)-i (-ja-stem) (Endzelīns 1971: 164); G Li. (akmen)-ų˜, Latv. (akmeņ)-u (-ja-stem); D contemporary Li. (akmen)-ìms, OLi. -imus (-istem), Latv. (akmeņ)-iem (< pronoun or adjective declension); A Li. (ãkmen)-is, OLatv. -is < *-n̥s (which merged with the APl -i-stem ending); I OLi. (akme)-mis (< *akmenmis [Rosinas 2005: 199; Kazlauskas 1968: 248]), contemporary Li. (akmen)-imìs (-istem), Latv. (like D); L Li. (akmen)-ysè, -isu (-i- stem with the lengthened variant -īsu), Latv. (akmeņ)-uôs (-ja-stem). OLi. NDu du (žmûn)-e ‘two men’. Li. Sg N mė́ nuo ‘moon, month’ is the only -s-stem retaining an apparent etymological form, although the -i-stem mė́ nesis or the *-ja-stem mėnesỹs also occur. The stem mėnes- occurs in all other cases.

2. Adjective formation In the Baltic languages adjective formation has been investigated less than the formation of nouns. Still, it seems that here it makes sense to distinguish three old, but closely related derivational categories (for more see Ambrazas 2005a, 2007).

2.1. Adjectives of action or result In the Baltic languages, there are old verbal Adjs with the suffixes *-lo-, *-no-, *-ro-, *-uo-, *-u-, *-o-. Of these, the last two show an interesting relationship: in general, -ustem adjectives in the Baltic languages partially replace old oxytone *-o-stem adjectives (the type seen in Gk. phorós ‘carrying’ [cf. Hamp 1984, 1994]); and in Lithuanian -u-

1658

XIV. Baltic

stems adjectives ousted *-o-stems from use (Skardžius 1943: 33 ff.; Zinkevičius 1981: 20 ff.; Vanags 1989, 1990).

2.2. Attributive adjectives Adjectives inherited from late PIE with the suffix *-(i)jo- have almost disappeared in the Baltic languages, often becoming nouns, e.g. Li. vasãris ‘summer, spring’, Latv. galējs, galījs ‘ultimate extreme, last’ (for more see Skardžius 1998b: 433 ff.; Ambrazas 2005b: 131 ff.). The nominalization of this type of derivative (e.g. the aforementioned nomina agentis with *-tā-jo-, *-ē-jo-) created the conditions for the spread of the (i)jostems in the Baltic languages (cf. Ambrazas 1992b). On the other hand the derivational suffixes *-i-no-/-in-jo- (also *-īn-go-, which developed from -īno- on Baltic soil; see Skardžius 1998a: 100 ff.; Ambrazas 2003; Kaukienė 2004: 90 ff.), *-is-ko-, *-ā-to-, *-ō-to-, *-ē-to-, *-ī-to- are widely used to create nominal Adjs.

2.3. Diminutives Adjective diminutives with the suffix *-ā-ko- are very productive in Lithuanian. In Latvian, the comparative degree of adjectives has developed from them; cf. Li. mažókas ‘rather small’ and Latv. mazâks ‘smaller’. Lithuanian diminutives of archaic formation with -int-elis(-e) have developed from ancient nouns with *-nt- (for more see Ambrazas 2004b). 2.4. Originally the adjective declension did not differ from the noun declension. The *-o-stem (= Baltic *-a-stem) pairs with the IE *-ā-stem declension (= Baltic *-ā-stem) to furnish M and F adjectives, respectively; thus, Sg N M Li. gẽr-as ‘good’, F ger-à. Baltic *-ja-stem adjectives with the Sg N M -is pair with F *-ē, thus Sg N M Li. dìdelis ‘big’, F dìdel-ė. The Lithuanian and Latvian M adjective declension has adopted some endings of the demonstrative pronouns; thus Sg D Li. ger-ám, L ger-amè, PlN ger-ì D ger-íem(us), Du D ger-íem, I ger-iẽm (Endzelīns 1971: 167). Baltic *-u-stem adjectives with the NSg -us pair with *-ī-/-jā-stems to furnish M and F adjectives, respectively; thus Li. Sg N M plat-ùs, G plat-aũs, ‘wide’, etc., N F plat-ì, G plačiõs, etc. The definite adjective is formed in principle (with various phonetic adjustments) by the addition of the corresponding case and number form of the 3 rd person pronoun to the inflected adjective, thus Li. Sg N M mažàs-is ‘the small’ < -as + jìs ‘he’, G mãžo-jo < -o + jõ, etc. Latv. Sg N M mazaĩs < -a + -ìs, G mazã, etc.

3. Numerals The cardinal numerals are usually declined. Sg N M/F pairs Li. víenas / vienà, Latv. viens / viena, OP ains / aina ‘one’, etc. are all declined like -a-/-ā-stem adjectives. The Du M/F NA Li. dù / dvì ‘two’ share the same G dvejų˜, D dvíem, and I dviẽm, but the

89. The morphology of Baltic

1659

Li. L M is dviejuosè and the F is dviejosè. Latv. divi ‘two’ is uncharacterized as to gender and case and the only occurring Old Prussian form is dwai. The other numerals from ‘3’−‘10’ are: ‘3’ Li. trỹs, Latv. trîs (-i-stem); ‘4’ Li. keturì, Latv. četri (with č from the influence of Ru. četyre); ‘5’ Li. penkì, Latv. pièci; ‘6’ Li. šešì, Latv. seši; ‘7’ Li. septynì, Latv. septiņi; ‘8’ Li. aštuonì, Latv. astuôņi; ‘9’ Lith. devynì, Latv. deviņi; ‘10’ Li. dešimtìs, dẽšimt (indecl.), Latv. desmit, dial. desimt. The numerals ‘4’−‘9’ have corresponding F’s in -ios. ‘10’− ‘20’ are all built with the suffix -lika (cf. Goth. ainlif ‘11’, twalif ‘12’) to a base which represents, in the case of ‘13’−‘19’, an original Neut. Pl (as is -lika itself) in -ió- (keturiuólika ‘14’, etc.). Similarly neuter is trý- (trýlika ‘13’). But vienúolika ‘11’ and dvýlika ‘12’ must be analogical. All these forms are inflected as *-āstems, but with accusative in -a, reflecting the original neuter status of -lika. The collocation would originally have meant ‘X left over (after 10)’. In Latvian, the corresponding forms viênpadsmit, divpadsmit, trîspadsmit, etc. mean literally ‘X after 10’. The decads are formed either by prefixing the unit digit to the indeclinable -dešimt (dvìdešimt ‘20’, trìsdešimt ‘30’, etc.) or by syntagms consisting of two congruent words (trỹs dẽšimtys, kẽturios dẽšimtys ‘three, four tens’, etc.). Latvian utilizes a compound with desmit (četrdesmit ‘40’, pìecdesmit ‘50’, etc.). Li. šim ˜ tas, Latv. sìmts ‘hundred’ is an -a-stem noun, whereas Li. tū´kstantis ‘thousand’ and Latv. tũkstuotis ‘thousand’ are both -jastems (although the former was earlier declined like a F -i-stem). Old Prussian attests only the APl tūsimtons.

3.1. Ordinal numerals These are ordinary -a-/-ā- adjectives: Sg M N Li. pìrmas, OP pirmas ‘first’ (however, Latv. pìrmais is a definite adjective, and Old Prussian as well shows the definite declension outside the Sg M N, e.g. Sg A pirmannien); Li. añtras, Latv. ùotrs ‘second’ (most likely also OP antars; cf. ASg āntran); Li. trẽčias, Latv. treš(ai)s ‘third’; ketvir˜-t-as, ‘fourth’ (this and subsequent ordinals, with the original exception of ‘seventh’ [Li. arch. sẽkmas] and ‘eighth’ [Lith. arch. ãšmas], with t-suffix, including the teens in -liktas and the decads in -dešimtas, both with the same first member as the cardinal). Latvian uses the cardinal + -padsmitais for the teens and + -desmitais for the decads.

4. Pronouns 4.1. The pronominal system of Baltic includes demonstrative pronouns with both proximal and neutral reference as well as, archaically, a distal deictic demonstrative. As elsewhere in IE, pronominal inflection differs in part from that of nouns, especially in the Sg D L and in the dual. As noted in 2.4, these differences have been adopted as well in adjectival inflection. As a proximal deictic, Baltic utilizes a heteroclitic stem in *ši-/ *šja-, the first of these variants appearing in the Sg N A and the second elsewhere: Sg M N Li. šìs, Latv. šis, OP schis ‘this’ (generalization of the stem *šja- in the latter two languages); G Li. šiõ, Latv. šà; D Li. šiãm(ui), Latv. šam, šim, OP schism; A Li. šĩ˛, Latv. šùo, OP sch(i)an, schien; I Li. šiuõ, earlier šiúo, Latv. šùo (= A) or, with instrumental intonation, šuõ; L Li. ši(a)mè, Latv. šamī, šimī; PlN Li., Latv. šiẽ, OP schai, G Li. šių˜,

1660

XIV. Baltic

Latv. šùo (both nominal forms), OP schiēison; D Li. šíems, older šíemus, Latv. šiẽm(s), A Li. šiuõs, Latv. šuõs, OP schans, schins; I Lith. šiaĩs, Latv. dial. šiẽs with vocalism of the D; L Li. šiuosè, Latv. šuõs. The Lithuanian dual of pronouns is rather fuller than that of nouns, adding a G and L to the usual NA, D, I via both internal inflection as well as suffixation of the relevant forms of the numeral ‘2’: NA šiẽdu, šiuõdu, G šių˜dviejų˜, D šíemdviem, I šiẽmdviem (or, with generalization of the stem form of the NA, šiẽdviem in both D and I), L šiuõdviese. To these were paired a F in *-ī/-jā-, e.g. Li. šì, G šiõs. In addition, Baltic shows the form Li. tàs/tà, Latv. tas/tã, OP stas/sta (but more frequently F stai)/Neut. sta (< *-at, PIE *-od, and contrast asseran ‘lake’ < PIE *-om, the old nominal neuter ending), SgG M stesse(i) in the neutral deictic value ‘that’; and in many Lithuanian dialects, a third degree of (distal) deixis is distinguished by the form anàs/anà ‘yon’. Moreover, Old Prussian shows an enclitic anaphoric pronoun *di-, *djawhich finds its closest match in Iranian. 4.2. The Lithuanian interrogative, relative pronoun N kàs ‘who, what’ is declined: G kõ (with possessive meaning kienõ ‘whose’), D kám, A ką˜, I kuõ, L kamè, Latv. N kàs, G kà, D kam, A kùo, I kùo. The Latvian L does not exist, but the Adverb kur ‘where’ or the L kurā of kurš ‘which, who’ may be used in this value. Old Prussian has Sg N kas, D kasmu, PlN quai = /kai/, A kans. Li. Sg N M kurìs, F kurì ‘which, who’ < kur ‘where’ + jìs ‘he’, jì ‘she’ is declined like the corresponding pronouns. The Latvian cognate NSg kuŗš ‘which, who’ is declined like a regular soft stem adjective.

5. Personal pronouns The stem of the nominative in the 1st and 2 nd Sg. and 1st Pl differs from that of the other cases, thus: 1st Sg

1st Pl

N Li. aš, Latv. es, OP as ‘I’

Li., Latv. mẽs, OP mes

G Li. manę˜s, Latv. manis, mani

Li. mū´sų, Latv. mūsu, OP noūson

2 nd Sg

2 nd Pl

N Li., Latv. tu, OP tu (also toū)

Li., Latv. jũs, OP ioūs

G Li. tavę˜s, Latv. tevis (dial. tavi), etc.

Li. jū´sų, Latv. jūsu, OP iouson, etc.

Other cases include 1st Sg D Li. mán, Latv. man, OP mennei; A Li. manè, Latv. mani, OP mien; I Li. manimì, Latv. manim, OP mā˘im; L Li. manyjè, Latv. manĩ; 1st pl. D Li. mùms, Latv. mums, OP noūma(n)s; A Li. mùs, Latv. mũs, OP mans; I Li., Latv. = D; L Li. (with various analogies operative) mūsuosè, mūsyjè, mumysè, Latv. mūsuôs. 2 nd Sg. D Li. táu, Latv. tev, OP tebbei; A Li. tavè, Latv. tevi, OP tien; I Li. tavimì, Latv. tevim; L Li. tavyjè, Latv. tevĩ; 2 nd pl. D. Li. jùms, OLi. jùmus, Latv. jums, OP ioūmans; A Li. jùs, Latv. jũs, OP wans; I Li. jumìs, Latv. = D; L (with various analogies operative) jūsuosè, jūsyjè, jumysè, Latv. jūsuôs. In addition, Baltic possesses dual forms 1st pers. NA Lith. mùdu (m), mùdvi (f.), etc. 2 nd pers. NA jùdu (m), jùdvi (f.), etc. A more

89. The morphology of Baltic

1661

original form of the 1st dual is preserved in the dialectal form vèdu (cf. Gothic wit). The unusual (for personal pronouns) gender distinction is a product of the addition of the relevant gender forms of the numeral ‘two’ to the pronominal bases. In the first person plural and dual, the u-vocalism of the corresponding second person forms has manifestly exercised a great influence. The reflexive pronoun Sg G Li. savę˜s, Latv. sevis are declined like the corresponding 2 nd Sg pronouns Li tavę˜s, Latv tevis, respectively. The Li. G forms màno ‘my’, tàvo ‘your (sg)’, (reflexive) sàvo ‘one’s own’ are used as possessive pronouns and in agentive function. The Li. 3 rd person pronoun Sg M N jìs ‘he’ is declined much like the corresponding *-ja-stem Adj: G jõ, D jám(ui), A jį, etc., F N jì, G jõs, etc. Latvian has the 3 rd person pronoun Sg M N viņš ‘he’ (F viņa ‘she’) declined as a *-ja-/*-jā- stem adjective. The OP 3 rd person pronoun is Sg M N tāns, G tennessei, D tennesmu, A tennan, etc.

6. Verb formation In the Baltic languages, the formation of verbs, which is intertwined with inflectional and syntactic characteristics, has not yet been systematically investigated. From the synchronic point of view, there are only the first attempts to classify the Lithuanian verbs into certain semantic groups or derivational categories (cf. Jakaitienė 1994; J. Pakerys 2005). Still, historical investigations lead one to suspect that a large number of these may be of nominal origin; cf. Li -inti, -auti, -uoti, -yti, -oti (Fraenkel 1938; Stang 1942; Endzelīns 1951: 803 ff.; Schmid 1963; Otkupščikov 1967: 78 ff.; Georgiev 1960, 1982; Karaliūnas 1980; Zinkevičius 1981: 91 f. and literature).

6.1. Verb inflection The apparent etymologically 3 rd person singular form of the Baltic verb functions with Sg, Pl, and Du subjects. Baltic retained, however, the PIE difference between athematic and thematic verbal endings. The etymological present tense archaic athematic endings of OLi. bū´ti ‘to be’ are: (3 person) es-ti, Sg 1 es-mi, 2 esi < *es-si, Pl 1 es-me, 2 es-te (Zinkevičius 1981: 99). The Latv. 1 Sg ęs-mu ‘I am’ (like Li. dial. esmù and probably OP asmu, etc.) shows a contamination of the etymological ending *-mi with the thematic 1 Sg ending -u (Endzelīns 1951: 704). OP shows the 3 person ast, æst, est, asti-ts, hest, asth, asch (this last surely a misprint), 1 Sg asmai, asmau, asmu, 2 essei, assai, asse, æsse, Pl 1 asmai, 2 astai, estei, asti (Trautmann 1910: 304; Smoczyński 2005: 17−28). In the contemporary Baltic languages, the Pres tense verb is completely thematic, e.g., 1 Sg Li. es-ù, etc., Latv. es-u ‘I am’, etc. The athematic endings differ from the thematic endings only in the 1 singular and the 3 rd person. The thematic 1 Sg ending Li., Latv. -uo retained in the reflexive -uo-s(i)-, < PIE *-ō is ordinarily shortened to -u. The Li. 2 Sg ending -i (in Latvian reconstructed as *-i) may derive from thematic *-ei > *-ie > -i or athematic *-i, in which case the diphthong observed in the reflexive -ie-s(i) is analogical to the diphthong in the 1 Sg, i.e., -u : -uo-s(i) :: -i : -ies(i), (Schmalstieg 2000:

1662

XIV. Baltic

47). The 1 Pl ending Li. -me, Latv -m < *-me, the 2 Pl ending Li. -te, Latv. -t < *-te, the Li., 1 Du ending -va < *-va, and the Li. 2 Du ending -ta < *-ta. The long vowels or diphthongs encountered in the various reflexive forms, e.g., Li. 1 Pl -mės, Latv. -mies, etc. are all probably analogical (Schmalstieg 2000: 49). The thematic 3 person ending Li. -a (< PIE *-o) shows only the thematic vowel, with no trace of the *-t(i) familiar from other IE languages. In the thematic paradigm the -a has been generalized to all persons (except 1, 2 Sg); cf., e.g. Sg 1 Li. ved-ù, Latv. vęd-u ‘I lead’, 2 Li. ved-ì, Latv. vęd, 3 person Li. vẽd-a, Latv vęd; Pl 1 Li. vẽd-ame, Latv. vęd-am, 2 Li. vẽd-ate, Latv. vęd-at; Li. Du 1 vẽd-ava, 2 vẽd-ata (Schmalstieg 2000: 45−46, 137). (It is a general principle of the indicative forms of the Lithuanian verb, outside of the future, that the Pl and Du can be formed by the addition of 1st Pl -me, 2 nd Pl -te, 1st Du -va, 2 nd Du -ta to the 3 rd person.) A sample “half-thematic” conjugation (i.e. with 1 Sg -u, other present forms without evidence of the etymological thematic vowel) is Li. žin-óti, Latv. zin-ât ‘to know’: Sg 1 Li. žin-aũ, Latv. zin-u < *-āu, 2 Li žin-aĩ, Latv zin-i < *-āi, 3 person Li. žìn-o, Latv. zin-a < *-ā, etc. A sample “half-thematic” verb with *-i-stem present and *-ē-stem infinitive is Li. gul-ė́ ti, Latv. dial. gul-êt ‘to lie’: Sg 1 Li. gul-iù, Latv. guļu < *-ju, 2 Li. gul-ì, Latv. gul-i < *-ie < *-ei(?), 3 person Li. gùl-i, Latv. gul < *-i, etc. (Endzelīns 1951: 792). The type may also be represented in OP turrettwey ‘to have’ = Li. turė́ ti, see Schmalstieg (1974: 201−202), Smoczyński (2005: 372−381). The Baltic preterit is formed with either the suffix *-ā- or *-ē- plus the personal endings. An example of the *-ā-preterit: Li. jùsti, Latv. just ‘to feel’: Sg 1 Li. jut-aũ, Latv. jut-u < *-āu, 2 Li. jut-aĩ, Latv. jut-i < *-āi, 3 person Li. jùt-o, Latv. jut-a < *-ā, etc. An example of the *-ē-preterit: Li. nèšti, Latv. dial. nest ‘to carry’: Sg 1 Li. neš-iaũ, Latv. neš-u < *-ēu, 2 Li. neš-eĩ, Latv. nes-i < *-ēi, 3 person Li. nẽš-ė, Latv. nes-e < *-ē (Endzelīns 1971: 234; Schmalstieg 2000: 288). The future tense is formed by adding -s- to the infinitive stem which in turn becomes a stem for the future conjugation, thus Li. tàpti, Latv. tapt ‘to become’: Sg 1 Li. tàp-siu, Latv. tapš-u < *-sju, 2 Li. tàp-si, Latv. tap-si < *-si, 3 person Li. tàp-s, Latv. tap-s < *-s, Pl 1 Li. tàp-sime, Latv. tapsim < *-sime, etc. (Endzelīns 1971: 231). Athematic forms such as Li. dial. Pl 1 eis-me ‘we shall go’, 2 eis-te are probably more original than standard eĩs-i-me, eĩs-i-te. There are various explanations for the connecting vowel -i-, see Kazlauskas (1968: 366−367) and Schmalstieg (2000: 262−276). Lithuanian has a frequentative past tense formed with the suffix -dav-, e.g. Sg 1 tàp-dav-au, 2 -dav-ai, 3 -dav-o ‘I/you/(s)he used to become’, etc. In Latvian, a special debitive mood is formed by prefixing the element jā- to the 3 rd person verb form, e.g., jā-mãca ‘must teach’. The Old Prussian morpheme -ai- < PIE optative *-oi- expresses the imperative; cf., e.g., 2 Pl id-ai-ti ‘eat!’. The old optative in -ai may also be attested in such Lithuanian dialect imperatives as rãš-ai ‘write’; see Zinkevičius (1966: 370−371); Schmalstieg (2000: 240−241). Similarly for the Li. 3 person optative (“permissive”) te-dirb-iẽ (< *-oi-) ‘may he/she work’, the same PIE optative morpheme may be posited. The Li. dialect imperative 2 Sg duõ ‘give!’ may reflect an old root imperative (Zinkevičius 1981: 131). The usual contemporary Lithuanian imperative is formed by adding the morpheme -k- to the infinitive stem, e.g. 2 Sg dúo-k(i), 2 Pl dúo-k-ite ‘give!’, 1 Pl dúo-k-ime ‘let us give’ (or perhaps to the old etymological root imperative, here with acute intonation according to the infinitive stem, see Zinkevičius 1981: 130). The Latvian imperative is usually identical with the 2 nd person of the indicative. With the exception of the 1 Sg, the Lithuanian conditional (“subjunctive”) was apparently originally formed by the addition of personal endings (etymologically from the 3 preterit bit[i]) to the etymological supine -tų ( *pùo̯ga, Est. poeg); vajag ‘is necessary’ (Liv. vajag, vajāg, Est. vaja); Latv. maksa ‘payment’ (Liv., Est. maks). Most of the loanwords, however, went in the opposite direction, from Baltic into Balto-Finnic. For further examples and discussion cf. Thomsen (1890); Kalima (1936); Nieminen (1957, 1959); Steinitz (1965); Suhonen (1988); Larsson (2001); and Kallio (2008). Liukkonen (1999) introduces a large number of possible loans from Baltic to Balto-Finnic, not all equally evident; cf. the negative review by Rédei (2000). The fact that many of the loanwords from Baltic have been affected by inner-BaltoFinnic sound changes shows that the words were borrowed at a fairly early point in the history of Balto-Finnic. For example, PBalt. *ti developed into BFen. si (Fin. silta < *tilta, cf. Lith. tìltas ‘bridge’), PBalt. *ln > BFen. ll (Fin. villa, Est. vill, cf. Lith. vìlna ‘wool’), and PBalt. *ś, *ź developed into BFen. h (Fin. halla, Est. hall, cf. Lith. šalnà ‘frost’). The oft-quoted development of PBalt. *ei̯ to PBFen. *ai̯ deserves special comment. The treatment of this problem has been unnecessarily complicated by the assumption that East Baltic ie cannot reflect PBalt. *ai̯ . Therefore, it must first and foremost be clarified that PBalt. *ai̯ can, indeed, yield East Baltic ie (e.g. Lith. dieverìs ‘brother-inlaw’ and ORu. deˇverĭ, Gk. δᾱήρ, Lat. laevir, Arm. taygr; cf. Mathiassen (1995) for a full discussion). Hence, an example like Fin. paimen ‘shepherd’ (Lith. piemuo˜ ‘id.’) is

91. The lexicon of Baltic

1687

not an instance of PBalt. *ei̯ being represented by PBFen. *ai̯ , but has simply preserved the Baltic diphthong *ai̯ (cf. Gr. ποιμήν). Another key example is Fin. taivas ‘heaven, sky’ which is generally said to be a borrowing from Balt. *dei̯ u̯as (Lith. die˜vas, Latv. dìevs, OPr. EV deiwis ‘god’); cf. the comprehensive survey by Suhonen (1988: 608): “taivas (< balt. *deivas)”. However, this example is better explained otherwise: Fin. taivas must reflect an early loan from Indo-Iranian, i.e. IIr. *dai̯ u̯as; cf. also Katz (2003: 81) for further discussion. In effect, the material in support of PBalt. *ei̯ being represented by PBFen. *ai̯ is extremely meager. (The fact that Fin. ei sometimes corresponds to ai in certain South Estonian dialects and Livonian is an inner-Balto-Finnic problem that must be treated separately; cf. Laanest [1982: 325] for discussion.)

3. Specifically Baltic vocabulary Presented below is a sample of specifically Baltic vocabulary; cf. Stang (1966a: 7−9); Lanszweert (1984: V−VI); Zinkevičius (1984: 229 f.); and Sabaliauskas (1990: 142−193) for further examples. Note, however, that the list of words presented by Sabaliauskas also includes lexical items that occur exclusively in East Baltic. The words listed below are attested in both East and West Baltic. Sometimes connections to PIE roots can be made, for example the Baltic word for ‘shoulder’ is probably connected to the root *peth2 - ‘fly, spread out (the wings)’, but in most cases the etymological connections are unclear. In a few cases, only the semantic development is specific to Baltic, for example the Baltic word for ‘forest’ continues PIE *méd hi̯ os ‘middle’. The Baltic languages furthermore share a range of unique lexical correspondences with Germanic and Slavic; cf. Trautmann (1923); Stang (1972) for examples and discussion. Terms for persons: Lith. mergà ‘girl, maiden’, Latv. dial. mȩ̄rga ‘girl of marriageable age’, OPr. EV mergo ‘maiden’; Lith. vaĩkas ‘child’, OPr. Cat. waix ‘farm servant’. Body parts: Lith. pety˜s ‘shoulder’, OPr. EV pettis ‘shoulder-blade, shovel’, pette ‘shoulder’. Flora and fauna: Lith. ą́žuolas, Latv. uôzuols, OPr. EV ansonis ‘oak’; Lith. bríedis, Latv. briêdis, OPr. EV braydis ‘elk’; Lith. žìrgas ‘horse, steed’, Latv. zirˆgs ‘horse’, OPr. EV sirgis ‘stallion’; Lith. slíekas, Latv. sliêks 2, sliêka, OPr. EV slayx ‘rainworm’; Lith. geny˜s, Latv. dzenis, OPr. EV genix ‘woodpecker’; Lith. lydekà, lydy˜s, Latv. lîdaka, -eka, OPr. EV liede ‘pike’; Lith. pémpė, OPr. EV peempe ‘peewit, lapwing’; Lith. vãnagas, Latv. vanags ‘hawk’, OPr. EV sperglawanag ‘sparrowhawk’, gertoanax ‘hawk’, lit. ‘henhawk’. Miscellaneous nouns: Lith. lángas, Latv. luôgs, OPr. EV lanxto ‘window’; Lith. me˜dis, dial. me˜džias ‘tree, wood’, Latv. mežs ‘forest’, OPr. EV median ‘forest’; Lith. rýkštė, Latv. rĩkšte, OPr. EV riste ‘rod’; Lith. plie˜nas, Latv. plie˜ns, OPr. EV playnis ‘steel’; Lith. vãris, dial. vãrias, Latv. varš, dial. vaŗš, OPr. EV wargien ‘copper’. Adjectives and adverbs: Lith. ˛ísas, Latv. îss, OPr. Cat. īnsan Asg. ‘short’; Lith. lãbas, Latv. labs, OPr. Cat. labs ‘good’; Lith. tolùs, Latv. tâls ‘far, distant, remote’, OPr. Cat. tālis, tāls comp. adv. ‘further’; Lith. dãžnas, Latv. dažs ‘common’, OPr. Cat. kudesnammi, kodesnimma ‘so often’. Verbs: Lith. globóti ‘to take care of, to protect’, glóbti ‘to embrace’, Latv. glabât ‘to keep’, glâbt ‘to save, to protect’, OPr. Cat. poglabū 3sg. past ‘caressed’; Lith. tráukti ‘pull, drag’, OPr. Cat. pertraūki 3sg. past ‘closed up’. Personal names: There are several compound names that are common to Prussian and Lithuanian;

1688

XIV. Baltic

cf. Trautmann (1925: 131−157); Stang (1966: 4): OPr. Algard − Lith. Algirdas; OPr. Arbute − Lith. Arbutas; OPr. Butigede − Lith. Butgeidas; OPr. Butrimas − Lith. Butrimas; OPr. Masebuth − Lith. Mažbutas; OPr. Wissebute − Lith. Visbutas; OPr. Barkint − Lith. Barkintas; OPr. Wissebar − Lith. Visbaras; OPr. Daukant − Lith. Daukantas, OPr. Eygayle − Lith. Eigaila; OPr. Eymant − Lith. Eimantas; OPr. Eytwyde − Lith. Eitvidas; OPr. Clawsigail − Lith. Klausigaila.

4. Word formation Among the most important works concerning Baltic noun formation, the following may be mentioned: Leskien (1884, 1891); Skardžius (1943); Otrębski (1965); Bammesberger (1973); Ambrazas (1993, 2000). The Baltic verb has been studied by Stang (1942); Schmid (1963); Schmalstieg (2000); and Smoczyński (2005). Below, some of the most archaic stems preserved in Baltic will be discussed, and a selection of specifically Baltic suffixes will be presented. In addition, the Baltic system of nominal composition will be briefly described.

4.1. Athematic stems The inherited vocabulary, as presented in 1. above, has to a large extent preserved the inherited stem class. For example, many of the inherited athematic verbs have preserved their inflection, e.g. OPr. 1sg. asmai, 2sg. assei, essei, 3sg. ast, OLith. 1sg. esmi, 2sg. essi, 3sg./pl. esti, Latv. 1sg. ęsmu, 2sg. esi (*h1 es- ‘be’) and OPr. 2sg. ēisei, 3sg. ēit, OLith. 1sg. eimi, 2sg. eisi, 3sg./pl. eiti, OLatv. 1sg. eῖmi, iêmu, Latv. 3sg. iêt (*h1 ei̯ ‘go’). The athematic stem formation became moderately productive in East Baltic, and hence verbs like álkti ‘to starve’, bárti ‘to scold’, snìgti ‘to snow’, čiáudėti ‘to sneeze’, giedóti ‘to sing’, mė́ gti ‘to like’ have athematic forms in Old Lithuanian, although there are no indications that these verbs continue inherited athematic verbs; cf. Specht (1935: 82 ff.); Stang (1966a: 310 f.). The continuants of root nouns in Baltic are generally based on the PIE accusative stem, both with respect to ablaut grade and stem marker. The small group of root nouns that can be reconstructed with certainty have, in most cases, partially preserved the consonantal inflection, e.g. Lith. naktìs (Gpl. naktų˜), Latv. nakts (Gpl. naktu), OPr. Cat. naktin Asg. ‘night’ (*nok wt-); Lith. žąsìs (Gpl. žąsų˜), Latv. zùoss (Gpl. dial zùosu), OPr. EV sansy ‘goose’ (*g̑ hans-); Lith. žvėrìs (Gpl. dial. žvėrų˜), Latv. zvȩˆrs (Gpl. zvȩˆru), OPr. Cat. swīrins Apl. ‘beast’ (*g̑ hu̯ēr-); Lith. žuvìs (Gpl. žuvų˜), Latv. zivs (Gpl. dial. zivu), dial. zuvs (Gpl. zuvu), OPr. EV suckis ‘fish’ (*d hg̑ huH-). The consonantal inflection must have enjoyed some degree of productivity at an early stage, as witnessed by, for example, the OLith. ti-stem išmintis ‘reason, intelligence’ with consonantal endings Gsg. išmintes and Gpl. išmintų beside ti-stem endings Gsg. išminties and Gpl. išminčių; cf. Kazlauskas (1957: 5 ff.). Therefore, the mere fact that a noun has consonantal endings in Baltic is not enough to warrant the reconstruction of a root noun in Proto-Indo-European. Among original s-stems with preserved consonantal endings, we find Lith. ausìs (Gpl. ausų˜), Latv. àuss (Gpl. ausu), OPr. EV ausins, Cat. āusins Apl. ‘ear’; Lith. debesìs (Gpl. de-

91. The lexicon of Baltic

1689

besų˜) ‘cloud’, Latv. debess (Gpl. debesu) ‘sky’. A few r-stems and ter-stems have preserved their consonantal character, e.g. Lith. sesuõ, Gsg. seser(e)s ‘sister’; Lith. duktė˜ (Gsg. dukter[e]s) ‘daughter’; Lith. mótė (Gsg. móter[e]s) ‘woman, mother’; OLith. jentė (Gsg. jenters), Latv. ietere (dial. ie˜taļa) ‘sister-in-law’ (PBalt. *i̯ ēnter- < PIE *[H]i̯ énh2 ter-). The consonantal character of the n-stem inflection is also maintained, e.g. Lith. augmuõ, -meñs ‘plant, swelling’; Lith. akmuõ, -meñs ‘stone’, Latv. akmens (OLatv. Nsg. akmuons); Lith. ašmuõ, -meñs, Latv. asmens ‘edge, blade’; Lith. piemuõ, -meñs ‘shepherd’; OPr. Cat. emmens (Asg. emnen) ‘name’; OPr. Cat. kērmens (Gsg. kermenes) ‘body’; OPr. EV semen ‘seed’ (< *seh1 -mn̥; cf. also OLith. sėmuo˜, -meñs ‘id.’). Consonant-stem inflection has generally not become productive, but n- and men-stems seem to have enjoyed a certain degree of productivity in Baltic, as they did in Slavic, e.g. Lith. ruduõ, -eñs, Latv. rudens ‘autumn’; Lith. tešmuõ, -meñs, Latv. tesmens ‘udder’; Lith. rėmuõ / rė́ muo, -mens Latv. re˜mens ‘heartburn’; Lith. kirmuõ, -meñs ‘worm’; Latv. zibens ‘lightning’. A few original heteroclitic stems have been preserved in variously remodelled forms, e.g. Lith. vanduõ, -eñs, Latv. ûdens, OPr. EV wundan n., Cat. unds m. ‘water’ (*u̯odr̥/n-). The extra nasal of the Baltic stem may be due to a metathesis in the weak cases, e.g. Gsg. *ud-n-és > *un-d-és (cf. Smoczyński 1997: 198), or, as suggested by Stang (1966: 160), to influence from a verb with nasal infix (cf. Ved. unátti). Another example is Latv. asins ‘blood’ (PIE *h1 ésh2 r̥/n-). The initial a- of the Baltic reflex may be explained by the well-attested phonetic interchange between initial e- and a-; cf. Stang (1966a: 31 f.); Andersen (1996). The word for ‘liver’ is another example. Here the Baltic languages display a range of dialectal forms; cf. Lith. dial. (j)e˜knos, (j)ãknos, Latv. aknas, dial. jęknas, OPr. EV iagno. However, a Proto-Baltic *i̯ ekna- may suffice to explain all of the dialectal variants; when the initial *i̯ was lost (Arumaa 1964: 109), it gave rise to the dialectal forms with initial ek-, and the variant ak- is the result of the aforementioned interchange of initial e- and a-. Finally, the variant *i̯ ak- reflects a contamination of *i̯ ek- and *ak-. For a different view, cf. Petit (2004: 100 ff.), who reconstructs two different ablaut grades for Proto-Baltic. PIE *u̯esr̥/n- (cf. OCS vesna ‘spring’, Gr. ἔαρ, Lat. vēr ‘id’, etc.), surfaces as a thematic stem in Baltic: Lith. vãsara, Latv. vasara ‘summer’. The unexpected vocalism of the root is probably to be explained by a kind of vocalic assimilation, as suggested by Skardžius (1938); cf. however Eckert (1969) and Petit (2004: 116), who consider reconstructing an original o-grade. The original l/n-stem *sah2 u̯l̥ /n- is preserved in the PBalt. ii̯ ā-stem *sāulē (Lith. sáulė, Latv. sau˜le, OPr. EV saule ‘sun’). Note that OCS slŭnĭce etc. < *suln- indicates that this noun still retained its ablaut and heteroclisis in Proto-Balto-Slavic.

4.2. Thematic stems and derivatives Thematic stems are common in Baltic, both in nouns and verbs. Some inherited thematic verbs are Lith. degù, Latv. dęgu ‘I burn’ (PIE *d heg wh-e/o-); Lith. vedù, Latv. vędu ‘I lead’ (PIE *u̯éd h-e/o-); Lith. vežù ‘I drive’ (*u̯eg̑ h-e/o-); Lith. sekù, Latv. sęku ‘I follow’ (PIE *sek w-e/o-). PIE thematic deverbal action nouns (and agent nouns) usually had ograde in the root, which, in its various modern reflexes, is still the most frequent rootstructure, e.g. Lith. dãgas ‘harvest, (summer) heat’, OPr. EV dagis ‘summer’ (Lith. dègti ‘to burn’); Lith. tãkas, Latv. taks ‘path’ (Lith. tekė́ ti ‘to flow, to run’); cf. Leskien (1891:

1690

XIV. Baltic

159–233). Deverbal nouns are also commonly formed with the suffix *-ii̯ o-/*-ii̯ ā- (OPr. -is / -e, Lith. -is, -ys / -ė, Latv. -is / -e), as in Lith. šókti ‘to jump’ → šõkis 2 (= accent paradigm [AP] 2; for details on Lithuanian accent paradigms, see Petit, The phonology of Baltic, this handbook, 4.1) ‘a jump’, Lith. mèsti ‘to throw’ → mė˜tis 2 ‘a throw’, Lith. gérti ‘to drink’ → gė˜ris 2 ‘drink’, Latv. dzerˆt ‘to drink’ → Latv. dial. dzìres ‘feast’ etc. Some examples from the Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary are OPr. loase ‘coverlet, blanket’ (Lith. lõžė 2 ‘place where corn or grain lies, lying grain’, Lith. iš-lèžti ‘to lodge’); OPr. soalis ‘grass’ (Lith. žolė˜ 4 ‘id.’, žélti ‘to become green’); OPr. toaris ‘mow, hayloft’ (Latv. tvāre, Lith. tvorà 4 ‘fence’, Lith. tvérti ‘to fence in’); OPr. boadis ‘a thrust’ (OPr. Cat. em-baddusisi ‘stuck in’, Lith. bèsti ‘stick [into], sting’). In Lithuanian, all derivatives belong to AP 2 (sometimes with secondary spread of mobility, i.e. AP 2 → 4), and the Latvian derivatives show the corresponding long falling tone. Whether the Old Prussian examples also reflect falling tone is a matter of debate; cf. Larsson (2005). When derived from a verb with underlying acute intonation the derivative has métatonie douce, and when the base verb has a short vowel in the root, the root-vowel of the derivative is lengthened to a long circumflex vowel. According to Stang (1966b) and Derksen (1996: 36 f., 44 ff., 59 ff.), these originally end-stressed disyllabic deverbatives have métatonie douce due to a rule by which a sequence *-ìi̯ - in medial stressed position lost its ictus to the preceding syllable, causing this syllable to change an original acute tone into a circumflex. As I have argued elsewhere, this rule should be extended to include lengthening of original short vowels in the same position; cf. Larsson (2004a), Villanueva Svensson (2011: 12). For a different explanation of the lengthening, cf. Kuryłowicz (1956: 293 f., 1968: 319). The suffix *-ii̯ o- is also used to derive nouns from adjectives, e.g. Lith. júodas ‘black’ → juõdis 2 ‘blackness’, júodis 1 ‘a black horse, a black animal’; Lith. bė́ ras, Latv. bȩ˜rs ‘bay, reddish brown’ → Lith. bė˜ris 2 ‘bayness, darkness’, bė́ ris 1, Latv. bẽris ‘bay horse’; Lith. sū´ras ‘salt’ → sū˜ris 2 ‘saltiness’, sū´ris 1 ‘cheese’; Lith. seklùs ‘shallow’ → sė˜klis 2 ‘shallowness’, sẽklis 2 ‘a shallow place’; Lith. žìlas ‘grey’ → žỹlis 2 ‘greyness’, žìlis 2 ‘grey-haired man’. Here we find a remarkable difference in both accentuation and ablaut. The accentual opposition between abstract and concrete deadjectival formations of the type Lith. gỹvis ‘liveliness’, as opposed to Lith. gývis ‘living things’ (both derived from the basic adjective Lith. gývas ‘alive’), reflects an original accentual opposition between root-stressed concrete nouns (e.g. Lith. gývis < *gī́vii̯ as) and the suffix-stressed abstract nouns (e.g. Lith. gỹvis < *gīvìi̯ an); cf. Stang (1966a: 146); Kuryłowicz (1958: 287, 295). In the latter case, the suffix lost the ictus to the preceding syllable in accordance with the rule described above. The same accentual opposition may also account for the difference in ablaut in derivatives from adjectives with short vowel in the root. In such derivatives we find that the short vowel is kept unchanged in the originally rootstressed concrete nouns, e.g. Lith. žìlis (< *źìlii̯ as) ‘grey-haired man’, whereas we find lengthening of the root vowel in the originally suffix-stressed abstract nouns, e.g. Lith. žỹlis 2 (< *źilìi̯ as) ‘greyness’; cf. Larsson (2004a: 311 ff.). The Baltic derivational system is unusually rich in ablaut variation, often accompanied by a difference in accentuation. In many cases, the unexpected ablaut can be explained by phonological developments, as argued above. Another example of a phonological development that has generated new lengthened-grade ablaut in Baltic is Winter’s law (Winter 1978). With the acceptance of Winter’s law, the amount of inexplicable “secondary” ablaut variation in Baltic is significantly reduced.

91. The lexicon of Baltic

1691

4.3. Derivational suffixes specific to the Baltic languages Some derivational suffixes are specific to the Baltic languages, and the following collection may with a high degree of certainty be projected back to a Common Baltic stage; cf. Stang (1966a: 3 f.). In both East and West Baltic, we find action noun suffixes containing the consonants -s- and -n-, *-s(i̯ )en-, *-s(i̯ )an-; cf. the productive Latvian action noun suffix -šana e.g. Latv. iêšana ‘walking’, lasîšana ‘reading’, skrìešana ‘running’ and the much less common Lithuanian suffix -sena, e.g. ė˜sena ‘eating; food’, jósena ‘riding’, kratýsena ‘shaking’. In Old Prussian, we have -senna / -sennis and more rarely -sanna and -sna; cf. Parenti (1998) for the suggestion of an original distribution related to accentuation, and Benveniste (1935: 101) for the further connection to the PIE suffix *-ser-/-sen-. Another noun suffix clearly of Common Baltic age is the noun-forming suffix *-ūna-, e.g. Lith. malū˜nas, OPr. EV malunis ‘mill’; Lith. gėrū˜nas ‘drinker, drunkard’, Latv. dial. mirūnis ‘corpse’, OPr. Cat. waldūns ‘heir’; cf. also the less transparent Lith. perkū´nas, Latv. dial. pȩ̄rkūns, OPr. EV percunis ‘thunder, Perkunas’. An adjectival suffix that can be traced back to Common Baltic is -inga- which primarily forms adjectives denoting ‘having a great quantity or degree of something’, e.g. Lith. laimìngas, Latv. laĩmîgs ‘happy’; Lith. píeningas ‘rich in milk’, Latv. pie˜nîgs ‘giving much milk’; Lith. gė́ dingas ‘modest, shameful’, OPr. Cat. nigīdings ‘shameless’, OPr. labbīngs ‘good’. Derivatives from verbs denote the inclination or ability to perform an action, e.g. Lith. baringas ‘inclined to quarrel’; Latv. tìepîgs ‘stubborn, OPr. Cat. aulāikings ‘abstinent’. In addition, the Baltic languages have a rich and productive tradition of forming diminutives. Some Common Baltic diminutive suffixes are *-ē˘lii̯ a-, e.g. Lith. tėve˜lis ‘dear father, daddy’, dukterė˜lė ‘dear little daughter’ (in Lithuanian, the variant with long vowel occurs in words where the nominative has four syllables or more), Latv. vĩrelis ‘insignificant man’, OPr. EV patowelis ‘step-father’, *-ulii̯ a-, e.g. Lith. mažiùlis ‘little fellow’, tėtùlis ‘daddy’, Latv. jȩ˜rulis ‘lambkin’, OPr. PN Mattulle, *-uź-, e.g. Lith. mergùžė ‘dear little girl’, OPr. Gr. merguss ‘maid’, *-ut-, e.g. Lith. mažùtis ‘tiny’, vilkùtis ‘small wolf, wolf-cub’, vaikùtas ‘kid, boy’, OPr. EV nagutis ‘nail’, PN Marute ‘Mary’, OPr. PN Geruthe, Waykutte, Masutte, *-ai̯ t-, e.g. Lith. langáitis ‘small window’, vilkáitis ‘small wolf, wolf-cub’, mergáitė ‘girl’, PN Valáitis, OPr. Place names Norrayte, Wangaiten.

4.4. Nominal compounds Nominal compounds are found in both East and West Baltic, and although many of them seem to be recent formations or calques, the underlying system clearly continues the inherited PIE system; cf. Larsson (2002) for discussion. Previous studies concerning Baltic nominal compounds include Aleksandrow (1888); Amato (1992, 1996); and Larsson (2010). For a recent treatment of the Old Latvian nominla compounds, cf. BukelskytėČepelė (2017). Examples of possessive compounds are abundant in East Baltic, e.g. Lith. didžianõsis/-ė ‘having a large nose’; Lith. juoda-bar˜zdis/-ė ‘having a black beard’; Lith. juodarañkis/-ė ‘having black hands’; Lith. tri-dañtis/-ė ‘three-toothed’; Latv. bal˜t-galvis/-e ‘blond’; Latv. mȩl˜n-ace ‘dark-eyed (girl)’; Latv. trij-zaris ‘three-pronged fork’, although

1692

XIV. Baltic

they are rare in the small Old Prussian corpus. These compounds are originally adjectives, sometimes with a substantivized meaning, and the compositional suffix *-ii̯ o-/*-ii̯ ā- (Lith. -is, -ys/-ė, Latv. -is/-e, OPr. -is/-e) is added to the second member (SM). Determinative compounds are common in both East and West Baltic, where we find dependent determinatives like Lith. šón-kaulis, Latv. sãn-kaũls ‘rib’, lit. ‘side bone’; OPr. EV daga-gaydis ‘summer wheat’; OPr. EV maluna-kelan ‘mill-wheel’; OPr. Cat. dijlapagaptin ‘tool’, lit. ‘work-spit’, where the first member is in a case relationship with the second member, and also attributive determinatives like Lith. júod-varnis ‘black raven’; Latv. gàiš-pęlęˆks ‘light-grey’; OPr. Cat. grēiwa-kaulin Asg. m. ‘rib’, lit. ‘curved bone’. There are also a few descriptive determinatives consisting of two nouns expressing a comparison, e.g. Lith. jáut-karvė ‘ox-cow, cow without a calf’. In most cases, the first member (FM) of determinative compounds consists of the bare stem, although juxtapositions where the FM is a case-form also occur. When the FM consists of the bare stem, the stem vowel is dropped as a rule in Latvian, whereas in Modern Lithuanian it is sometimes dropped, sometimes retained, producing doublets like bról-vaikis / broliã-vaikis nephew’ and šón-kauliai / dial. šonã-kauliai ‘rib’; cf. Otrębski (1965: 25). The original distribution of the stem vowel is still preserved in Old Lithuanian; cf. Larsson (2004b). The second member of determinative compounds may be enlarged with the compositional suffix *-ii̯ o-/*-ii̯ ā-, but variants without the suffix are common in older texts and in the dialects, e.g. Lith. dial. kir˜va-kotas ‘handle of an axe’ (next to Standard Lith. kir˜va-kotis); OLith. vor-tinklas ‘cobweb, spider’s web’ (next to Standard Lith. vór-tinklis); Latv. linsȩ˜kla ‘flaxseeds’ (next to Latv. lin-sēkles). A few of the Old Prussian determinatives have seemingly added the compositional suffix to the SM, e.g. grēiwa-kaulin Asg. m. ‘rib’ (caulan EV ‘bone’) and nage-pristis (recte: nage-pirstis) ‘toe’, lit. ‘foot-finger’ (pirsten N/Asg. n. EV ‘finger’), although most Old Prussian determinatives do not have this suffix. It is likely that the compositional suffix, which was originally restricted to adjectival compounds (i.e. possessives), was analogically extended to other types of compounds. This extension most probably dates back to the Common Baltic period. Governing compounds are also well-represented in both East and West Baltic. The verbal governing compounds often function as agent nouns, e.g. Lith. rank-pelnỹs, Latv. rùok-pelnis ‘manual worker’; Lith. avìn-vedis ‘shepherd’; Lith. akì-plėša ‘insolent person’, lit. ‘eye-tearer’; Lith. vasar-augis, OPr. EV dago-augis ‘shoot of a plant as it grows in one summer’; OPr. EV crauya-wirps ‘leech’; OPr. EV pele-maygis ‘kestrel’, lit. ‘mouse-grabber’; OPr. Gloss. kelle-wesze ‘wagon driver’. Some examples of prepositional governing compounds are Lith. añt-akiai, Latv. uz-ači ‘eyebrows’; Lith. pa-daubỹs ‘valley’, OPr. EV pa-daubis ‘id.’; OPr. EV po-corto ‘threshold’; OPr. EV no-lingo ‘rein’. In the governing compounds, the compositional suffix has also attained a certain productivity. Finally, there are a few copulative compounds, although this is not a particularly productive category, and the degree of univerbation varies, e.g. Lith. kója-galviai ‘dish of calves’ feet’, lit. ‘feet and head’; OLith. vyr-moterių Gpl. ‘married couple’; Latv. kùrlmȩ̄ms ‘deaf and dumb’. There is a basic opposition in the accentuation of nominal compounds in Lithuanian between determinative compounds (nouns) with accent on the FM, and possessive compounds (adjectives) with accent on the SM, e.g. vìšt-kiaušis ‘hen’s egg’ vs. višta-gal˜vis/-ė ‘hen-headed’; júod-strazdis ‘blackbird’ vs. juoda-rañkis/-ė ‘having black hands’; júodvarnis ‘black raven’ vs. juoda-bar˜zdis/-ė ‘having a black beard’. Additionally, the accent

91. The lexicon of Baltic

1693

paradigm of the individual members of the compound is a decisive factor in the accentuation; cf. Larsson (2002: 211 ff.). In Old Prussian, determinative compounds also have the accent on the FM; cf. grēiwa-kaulin ‘rib’, dijla-pagatin ‘instrument’. Although most Old Prussian compounds are calques from German, both East and West Baltic share some common traits and innovations in the compositional system: the compositional suffix *-ii̯ o-/*-ii̯ ā- has become productive in both branches, and the position of the accent seems to follow similar rules (cf. Larsson 2010: 99 f.).

5. References Ademollo Gagliano, Maria Teresa 1995 Arcaismi lessicali in lettone. In: Carlo Alberto Mastrelli, Alberto Nocentini, and Fiorenza Granucci (eds.), Studi linguistici per i 50 anni del circolo linguistico fiorentino e i secondi mille dibattiti 1970−1995. Florence: Olschki, 1−8. Aleksandrow, Alexander 1888 Litauische Studien I. Nominalzusammensetzungen. Dorpat: Hermann. Alminauskis, Kazimieras 1934 Die germanismen des Litauischen. Teil 1: Die deutschen Lehnwörter im Litauischen. Diss. Leipzig. Kaunas: Sv. Kazimiero D-jos Knygynas. Amato, Serafini Loredana 1992 Morfologia dei composti nominali del prussiano antico. Europa orientalis 11: 197−222. Amato, Serafini Loredana 1996 Contributo allo studio dei composti nominali nell’antico lettone. In: Rosanna Benacchio and Luigi Magarotto (eds.), Studi slavistici in onore di Natalino Radovich. Padova: Cooperative Libraria Editrice Universita di Padova, 285−305. Ambrazas, Saulius 1993 Daiktavardžių darybos raida. Lietuvių kalbos veiksmažodiniai vediniai [The evolution of noun formation. The deverbal derivatives of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Ambrazas, Saulius 2000 Daiktavardžių darybos raida II. Lietuvių kalbos vardažodiniai vediniai [The evolution of noun formation II. The deverbal derivatives of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Andersen, Henning 1996 Reconstructing Prehistorical Dialects. Initial vowels in Slavic and Baltic. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 91). Berlin: De Gruyter. Arumaa, Peeter 1964 Urslavische Grammatik, Band I. Heidelberg: Winter. Bammesberger, Alfred 1973 Abstraktbildungen in den baltischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Benveniste, Émile 1935 Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris: Maisonneuve. Brückner, Alexander 1877 Die slawischen Fremdwörter im Litauischen. Weimar: Böhlau. Būga, Kazimeras 1912 Lituanica. St. Petersburg: Tipografiâ Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk. [Reprinted in: Zinkevičius 1958. Vol. I, 339−383].

1694

XIV. Baltic

Būga, Kazimeras 1922 Visųsenieji lietuvių santykiai su germanais. Kalba ir senovė. I dalis [The oldest relationships of Lithuanian with Germanic. Language and antiquity. Part I]. Kaunas: Švietimo Ministerijos leidinys. [Reprinted in: Zinkevičius 1958. Vol. II, 80−98]. Būga, Kazimeras 1923/1924 Die Metatonie im Lettischen und Litauischen. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 51: 109−142; 52: 91−98, 250−302. Būga, Kazimeras 1924 Die litauisch-weissrussischen Beziehungen und ihr Alter. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 1: 26−55. Bukelskytė-Čepelė, Kristina 2017 Nominal Compounds in Old Latvian Texts in the 16 th and 17 th Centuries. (Stockholm studies in Baltic languages 11). Stockholm: Stockholm University Press. Čepienė, Nijolė 1992 Die deutschen Lehnwörter im Litauischen und ihre Erforschung. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 37: 452−457. Čepienė, Nijolė 1995 Lietuvių kalbos germanizmų fonetiniai variantai [Phonetic variants of Germanisms in Lithuanian]. Baltistica 30: 77−80. Čepienė, Nijolė 2006 Historische deutsch-litauische Kontakte in der Lexikographie. Annaberger Annalen über Litauen und Deutsch-Litauische Beziehungen 14: 178−188. Derksen, Rick 1996 Metatony in Baltic. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Eckert, Rainer 1969 Zu einigen Kontinuanten indoeuropäischer Heteroklita im Baltischen. Baltistica 5: 7−15. Endzelin, Janis 1923 Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Giriūnienė, Stasė 1975 Rytų prūsijos XVI−XVIII a. lietuviškų raštų leksikos germanizmų fonetinė adaptacija [Phonetic adaptation of East Prussian Germanisms of the lexicon of Lithuanian texts of the 16 th−18 th centuries]. Kalbotyra 26: 83−94. Guild, David G. 1978 Russian loanwords in Latvian. The Slavonic and East European Review 56: 427−430. Jordan, Sabine 1995 Niederdeutsches im Lettischen − Untersuchungen zu den mittelniederdeutschen Lehnwörtern im Lettischen. Bielefeld: Verlag für Regionalgeschichte. Kalima, Jalo 1936 Itämerensuomalaisten kielten balttilaiset lainasanat [Baltic loanwords in the Balto-Finnic languages]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seuran kirjapainon oy. Kallio, Petri 1995 Suomen kielen kivikautisista lainasanakerrostumista [Stone Age loanword strata in Finnish]. Virittäjä 99: 380−389. Kallio, Petri 2008 On the ‘Early Baltic’ Loanwords in Common Finnic. In: Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken, and Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and Counter-Evidence: Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt 1. Balto-Slavic and Indo-European Linguistics. (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 32). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 265−277. Karaliūnas, Simas 1993 Reflexes of IE *h2 r̥tk̑o- “bear” in Baltic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 21: 367−372.

91. The lexicon of Baltic

1695

Kardelis, Vytautas 2003 Rytų aukštaičių šnektų slavizmų [On Slavisms in eastern Aukštaitic dialects]. Vilnius: University Press. Katz, Hartmut 2003 Studien zu den älteren indoiranischen Lehnwörtern in den uralischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Winter. Kazlauskas, Jonas 1957 Lietuvių kalbos daiktavardžių priebalsinio linksniavimo tipo nykimas [The loss of consonant-stem inflection of nouns in Lithuanian]. In: Kai kurie lietuvių kalbos gramatikos klausimai. Vilna Universiteta. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 5−20. Kiparsky, Valentin 1948 Chronologie des relations slavobaltiques et slavofinnoises. Revue des Études slaves 24: 29−47. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1956 L’apophonie en indo-européen. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1958 L’accentuation des langues indo-européennes. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1968 Indogermanische Grammatik. Band II: Akzent. Ablaut. Heidelberg: Winter. Laanest, Arvo 1982 Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Buske. Lanszweert, René 1984 Die Rekonstruktion des baltischen Grundwortschatzes. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2002 Nominal Compounds in the Baltic Languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 100: 203−231. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2004a Metatony and Length in Baltic. In: Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Jenny Helena Larsson, and Thomas Olander (eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos, festschrift in honour of Jens E. Rasmussen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität, 305−322. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2004b Nominal Compounds in Old Lithuanian Texts: the Original Distribution of the Composition Vowel. Linguistica Baltica 10: 99−104. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2006 The Orthographic Variants and − Traces of Accent in the Elbing Vocabulary. In: Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica: Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechszigsten Geburtstag. Taimering: VWT, 359−376. Larsson, Jenny Helena 2010 Old Prussian Nominal Compounds. Stockholm: Memento. Larsson, Lars-Gunnar 2001 Baltic influence on Finnic languages. In: Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The Circum-Baltic Languages: Typology and Contacts. Volume 1: Past and Present. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 237−253. Leskien, August 1884 Der Ablaut der Wurzelsilben im Litauischen. Leipzig: Hirzel. Leskien, August 1891 Die Bildung der Nomina im Litauischen. Leipzig: Hirzel.

1696

XIV. Baltic

Levin, Jules F. 1974 The Slavic Element in the Old Prussian Elbing Vocabulary. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Liukkonen, Kari 1999 Baltisches im Finnischen. Helsinki. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 235). Helsinki: Finnisch-Ugrische Gesellschaft. LKŽ: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas [A Dictionary of the Lithuanian language] 1941−2002 Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos ir literatūros institutas (Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademija). Mathiassen, Terje 1995 Nochmals zum ie-Komplex im Ostbaltischen. Linguistica Baltica 4: 41−53. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1988−1997 Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas [Etymological dictionary of Old Prussian]. Vilnius: Mokslas. [2 nd edn. 2013. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos centras.] Mühlenbach, Karl and Jan Endzelin 1923−1932 Lettisch−deutsches Wörterbuch. Riga: Lettisches Bildungsministerium. Nieminen, Eino 1957 Über einige Eigenschaften der baltischen Sprache, die sich in den ältesten baltischen Lehnwörtern der ostseefinnischen Sprachen abspiegelt. Sitzungsberichte der finnischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1956. Helsinki: Verlag der finnischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 185−206. Nieminen, Eino 1959 Beiträge zu den baltisch-ostseefinnischen Berührungen. In: Ēvalds Sokols (ed.), Rakstu krājums, akadēmiķim veltījums profesoram Dr. Jānim Endzelīnam vin¸a 85 dzīves un 65 darba gadu atcerei. Riga: Latvijas PSR Zinātnų Akadēmijas izdevniecība, 201−210. Otrębski, Jan 1965 Gramatyka języka litewskiego, II [A grammar of the Lithuanian language, II]. Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Otrębski, Jan 1966 Die ältesten germanischen Lehnwörter im Baltischen und Slavischen. Die Sprache 12: 50−64. Palionis, Jonas 1967 Lietuvių literaturinė kalba XVa−XVIIa [The Lithuanian literary language of the 15 th− 17 th centuries]. Vilnius: Mintis. Parenti, Alessandro 1998 Old Prussian Abstract Nouns in -sna, -senna, -sennis. In: Alfred Bammesberger (ed.), Baltistik: Augaben und Methoden. Heidelberg: Winter, 129−142. Petit, Daniel 2004 Apophonie et catégories grammaticales dans les langues baltiques. Leuven: Peeters. Rédei, Károly 2000 Review of Liukkonen 1999. Linguistica Uralica 3: 223−229. Sabaliauskas, Algirdas 1966 Lietuvių kalbos leksikos raida [The evolution of the Lithuanian lexicon]. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 8: 5−141. Sabaliauskas, Algirdas 1990 Lietuvių kalbos leksika [The lexicon of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mosklas. Schmalstieg, William R. 2000 The Historical Morphology of the Baltic Verb. (Journal of Indo-European Studies, monograph 37). Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1963 Studien zum baltischen und indogermanischen Verbum. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

91. The lexicon of Baltic

1697

Sehwers, Johann 1936 Sprachlich-kulturhistorische Untersuchungen vornehmlich über den deutschen Einfluss im Lettischen. Leipzig: Harrassowitz. Senn, Alfred 1925 Germanische Lehnwortstudien. Heidelberg: Winter. Seržant, Ilja A. 2006 Die Vermittlungsrolle des Hochlettischen bei den altrussischen und litauischen Entlehnungen im Lettischen. Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 55: 89−106. Skardžius, Pranas 1931 Die slavischen Lehnwörter im Altlitauischen. Kaunas: Spindulio. Skardžius, Pranas 1938 Dėl balsių asimiliacijos [On vowel assimilation]. Archivum Philologicum 7: 40−44. Skardžius, Pranas 1943 Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba [Lithuanian word-formation]. Vilnius: Lietuvos mokslų akademija. Smoczyński, Wojciech 1997 Il ruolo della lingua lituana per la linguistica indoeuropea. Ponto-Baltica 7: 53−82. [Reprinted 2001. In: W. Smoczyński, Język litewski w perspektywie porównawczej. Cracow: University Press, 179−208.] Smoczyński, Wojciech 2000 Untersuchungen zum deutschen Lehngut im Altpreussischen. Cracow: Jagellonian University Press. Smoczyński, Wojciech 2005 Lexikon der Altpreussischen Verben. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität. Specht, Franz 1935 Zur Geschichte der Verbalklasse auf -ē. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 57: 276−296. Stang, Christian S. 1935 Die Westrussische Kanzlersprache des Grossfürstentums Litauen. Oslo: Dybwad. Stang, Christian S. 1942 Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Oslo: Dybwad. Stang, Christian S. 1966a Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: University Press. Stang, Christian S. 1966b “Métatonie douce” in Baltic. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 10: 111−119. Stang, Christian S. 1972 Lexikalische Sonderübereinstimmungen zwischen dem Slavischen, Baltischen und Germanischen. Oslo: University Press. Steinitz, Wolfgang 1965 Zur Periodisierung der alten Baltischen Lehnwörter im ostsee-finnischen. In: Adam Heinz, Mieczysław Karaś, Tadeusz Milewski, Jan Safarewicz, and Witold Taszycki (ed.), Symbolae Linguisticae in honorem Georgii. Kuryłowicz. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk, 297−303. Suhonen, Seppo 1988 Die Baltischen Lehnwörter der Finnish-ugrischen Sprachen. In: Denis Sinor (ed.), The Uralic Languages. Description, History and Foreign Influences. Leiden: Brill, 596−615. Thomsen, Vilhelm 1890 Beröringer mellem de finske og de baltiske (litauisk-lettiske) Sprog. En sproghistorisk Undersøgelse [Contacts between the Finnic and the Baltic (Lithuanian-Latvian) language. A historical linguistic study]. Copenhagen: Lunos.

1698

XIV. Baltic

Trautmann, Reinhold 1923 Baltisch-Slavisches Wörterbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Trautmann, Reinhold 1925 Die altpreußischen Personennamen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Urbutis, Vincas 1992 Senosios lietuvių kalbos slavizmai [Slavisms of the oldest Lithuanian language]. Baltistica 27: 4−14. Vaillant, André 1958 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, II. Morphologie. Paris: IAC. Villanueva Svensson, Miguel 2011 Indo-European long vowels in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica 46: 5−38. Winter, Werner 1978 The Distribution of Short and Long Vowels in Stems of the Type ė́ sti : vèsti : mèsti and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic Languages. In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton, 431−446. Young, Steven 2009 Tone in Latvian borrowings from Old Russian. In: Thomas Olander and Jenny Helena Larsson (eds.), Stressing the Past − Papers from the Second international Workshop on Balto-Slavic accentology, University of Copenhagen, 1−3 September 2006. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 177−192. Zemzare, Daina 1961 Latviešu vārdnīcas [Latvian dictionary]. Rīga: Latvijas PSR Zinātnų Akadēmijas izdevniecība. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1984 Lietuvių kalbos kilmė I [The origin of the Lithuanian language I]. Vilnius Mokslas. Zinkevičius, Zigmas (ed.) 1958 K. Būga. Rinktiniai raštai I, II [The collected writings of K. Būga I, II]. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.

Jenny Helena Larsson, Copenhagen (Denmark)

92. The dialectology of Baltic 1. Proto-Baltic and its disintegration 2. Lithuanian 3. Latvian

4. Abbreviations 5. References

1. Proto-Baltic and its disintegration The PBalt. area stretched from the Vistula River in the West, to the Pripet, Sejm, and Desna Rivers in the South and South-East, to the upper Oka River in the East, to the upper Volga in the North-East, and to the Daugava River up to the border of presentday Latvia and Estonia in the North-West. PBalt. began splitting into dialects around the 6 th−5 th c. BCE. No later than in the 5 th−4 th c. BCE, two main dialectal groups of PBalt. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-013

92. The dialectology of Baltic

1699

emerged: Proto-West-Baltic (from the peripheral PBalt. dialects), and Proto-East-Baltic (from the central PBalt. dialects) (Mažiulis 1987: 82 ff.; Girdenis and Mažiulis 1994: 11). The area east of the PBalt. region was Slavified during the period from the 5 th to the 14 th c. CE, when Slavonic tribes separated it from the western PBalt. area, i.e. from the ethnic lands of the later Prussians, Lithuanians, and Latvians (Zinkevičius 1996: 24). Thus the so-called Dnieper Baltic became a substratum to various phonetic and syntactic properties of East Slavic (Dini 2014: 84 f.). The final PBalt. dialectal differentiation can be dated to around the 7 th c. CE, when the East-Baltic languages emerged (see Table 92.1). The essential difference between West- and East-Baltic is the reflex of the PBalt. diphthong *ei (also of *ai/*oi). It was retained in WBalt., e.g. OPr. deiw(a)s, deywis ‘God’ (< PBalt. *deiv-a- < PIE *dei̯ u̯-o-, cf. OPr. snaygis ‘snow’ < PBalt. *snaig-a< PIE *snoi̯ g u̯h-o-). One of the earliest EBalt. innovations was its monophthongization into *ē ̣ in a stressed position and its secondary diphthongization into ie in Lith. and Latv. at a later stage, e.g. Lith. diẽvas, Latv. dìevs ‘God’ (cf. Lith. sniẽgas, Latv. snìegs ‘snow’). In Lith., however, one finds ei in unstressed syllables (e.g. deivė˜ ‘goddess, spirit’). Within paradigms, the alternation ei/ie was later levelled, cf. Lith. NPl. dievaĩ < *deivaĩ. Yet discrepancies are found both between Lith. and Latv., e.g. Lith. eĩti : Latv. iêt ‘to go’ and within Lith., e.g. šveĩsti ‘to polish’ : švie˜sti ‘to shine’, teisùs ‘right’ : tiesùs ‘upright’ (cf. Petit, “Phonology of Baltic”, this handbook, 3.5−3.6).

1.1. West-Baltic No WBalt. language has survived to the present. Yotvingian, sometimes treated as a dialect of OPr. (Schmid 1976: 16R), became extinct at the end of the 16 th c. North Curonian was finally absorbed by Latvian and South Curonian by the Žemaitian dialect of Lithuanian around the 17 th c. OPr., which died out completely in the 18 th c., is the Tab. 92.1: Dialectal differentiation of the Baltic languages Dialectal differentiation of Proto-Baltic (ca. 6 th−5 th c. BCE) peripheral dialects th

Proto-West-Baltic (ca. 5 c. BCE) South-West-Baltic Old Prussian Yotvingian (alias Sudovian or Dainavian)

central dialects Proto-East-Baltic (homogeneous until ca. 3 rd c. CE, differentiation ca. 5 th−7 th c. CE)

North-West-Baltic Curonian (easternized WBalt.) Lithuanian Latgalian Semigalian Selonian East-Baltic languages (ca. 7 th−8 th c. CE) South-East-Baltic Lithuanian

North-East-Baltic Latvian

1700

XIV. Baltic

only WBalt. language documented through written sources. The five known OPr. documents possibly attest some dialectal differences. The three Catechisms (I, II 1545, III 1561) are written in Sambian and the Elbing Vocabulary (E ca. 1400) testifies to the Pomesanian dialect (Gerullis 1922: 266−274). Considering the lack of linguistic data for OPr., its dialectal variation is exceedingly problematic.

1.2. East-Baltic The EBalt. tribes were probably split due to a Balto-Finnic substratum in the north and east of the EBalt. area, i.e. in the north Curonian territory up to the Abava River, at the Riga shore, and in the Latgalian territory north of the Daugava River. The disintegration of PEBalt. into dialectal groups of (later) Lithuanian, Latgalian, Semigalian, and Selonian is likely to have begun after the 3 rd c. CE. The fusion of the Latgalians with the north Semigalians, Selonians, and easternized Curonians gave rise to Latvian. The southern EBalt. region, where Lithuanian emerged, was for a long time surrounded by other Baltic tribes and therefore remained almost free from non-Baltic influences. Around the 7 th− 8 th c. two EBalt. languages − Lithuanian (south EBalt.) and Latvian (north EBalt.), which are spoken up to the present time, finally diverged. The foremost phonetic isoglosses which caused the division of EBalt. are as follows: − PBalt. *ś, *ź are preserved in Lith. and became s, z in Latv. (as in OPr.), e.g. Lith. NSg. šuõ, GSg. šuñs ‘dog’, žẽmė ‘earth’, Latv. NSg. suns, zeme (cf. OPr. sunis, semmē). − PBalt. *k, *g before front vowels developed to /ts/ , /dz/ in Latv., e.g. Latv. cits ‘(an)other’, dzẽrve ‘crane’, cf. Lith. kìtas, gérvė. − PBalt. *tj, *dj developed to /tʃ’/ , /dʒ’/ in Lith. and became /ʃ/ , /ʒ/ in Latv., e.g. Lith. NSg. mẽdžias (dial.), NPl. mẽdžiai ‘forest, tree’, GPl. f. bìčių ‘bee’, GPl. m. bríedžių ‘moose’, Latv. NSg. mežs, GPl. bišu, briêžu ‘elk’ (< PBalt. *medjas, *bit-jōn, *breid-jōn). − PBalt. *sj is preserved in Lith. and developed to /ʃ/ in Latv. (as in OPr.), e.g. Lith. siū´ti ‘sew’, Latv. šũt ‘sew, tailor’ (< PBalt. *sjū-, cf. OPr. schuwikis ‘shoemaker’). − PBalt. *an, *en, *un, *in are usually preserved in word-internal position in Lith. (except before sibilants) and were changed into the diphthongs or long vowels uo , ie, ū, ī in all positions in Latv. (except the Cur. subdialects), e.g. Lith. NSg. rankà, ASg. rañką ‘hand, arm’, penkì ‘five’, Pres. 3 siuñčia ‘send’ (cf. Inf. sių˜sti), giñti ‘chase’, Latv. NSg. rùoka, pìeci, Inf. sùtīt, dzìt.

2. The Lithuanian language The dialectal split of the Lith. language area into western (later Žemaitian) and eastern (later Aukštaitian) dialects began around the 9 th−10 th c. The oldest phonetic isoglosses which set the Lith. dialects apart are as follows: − the long nasal vowels /a·/ , /æ·/ were narrowed to /u·/ , /i·/ and the nasal diphthongs /am/, /an/, /em/, /en/ to /um/, /un/, /im/, /in/ in the east.

92. The dialectology of Baltic

1701

Map 92.1: Lithuanian dialects (compiled by the working group on the Atlas of Baltic languages of the Latvian Language Institute at the University of Latvia).

− palatalization and affrication of dental stops /t/, /d/: the EBalt. clusters *-tja-, *-djadeveloped to te, de in the west and to /tʃ’a/ , /dʒ’a/ in the east. − /l/ was not palatalized before the mid and low front vowels /æ/, /ei/, /æ·/, /e·/, and /en/ in the east. The modern structural classification of Lith., which assumes two main dialects, Aukštaitian and Žemaitian, as well as various subdialects, based on the previous atomistic descriptive grouping of Antanas Baranauskas and Kazimieras Jaunius, was proposed by Aleksas Girdenis and Zigmas Zinkevičius (1966). The major criterion in setting Žem. apart from Aukš. is the pronunciation of the diphthongs /ie/ and /uo/ in stressed position. They are preserved in Aukš. but are treated differently in Žem. (see Table 92.4). The classification of the Lith. dialects according to their geographical distribution and of subdialects according to town names is as follows (see Map 92.1): 1. The Aukštaitian dialect (aukštaĩčiai, High Lithuanian): − West Aukštaitian (WA) subdialects (vakarų˜ aukštaĩčiai):

1702

XIV. Baltic

− Kaũnas region and Klaĩpėda region (kaunìškiai, southern subgroup), − Šiauliaĩ region (šiaulìškiai, northern subgroup); − South Aukštaitian (SA) subdialect (pietų˜ aukštaĩčiai), alias Dzūkian (dzū˜kai); − East Aukštaitian (EA) subdialects (rytų˜ aukštaĩčiai): − Panevėžỹs region (panevėžìškiai), − Šìrvintos region (širvintìškiai), − Anykščiaĩ region (anykštė́ nai), − Kùpiškis region (kupiškė́ nai), − Utenà region (utenìškiai), − Vìlnius region (vilnìškiai); 2. the Žemaitian dialect (žemaĩčiai, Low Lithuanian): − South Žemaitian (SŽ) subdialects (pietų˜ žemaĩčiai): − Raséiniai region (raseinìškiai), − Var˜niai region (varnìškiai); − North Žemaitian (NŽ) subdialects (šiáurės žemaĩčiai): − Telšiaĩ region (telšìškiai), − Kretingà region (kretingìškiai); − West Žemaitian (WŽ) subdialect (vakarų˜ žemaĩčiai).

2.1. The Aukštaitian dialect The main criterion for the subdivision into WA, SA, and EA is the pronunciation of /am/, /an/, /em/, /en/, and of /a·/, /æ·/ (see Table 92.2). Common features of Aukštaitian: − /l/ remains non-palatalized before the mid and low front vowels /æ/, /ei/, /æ·/, and /e·/ , except for the major part of the Kaunas region and the west of the Šiauliai region, e.g. NSg. la̾.das ‘ice’ (SL lẽdas). − initial /æ/ and circumflexed /eĩ/ are changed into /a/, /aĩ/ in SA, EA (/æ/ > /a/ only in the east), and partly in WA, e.g. EA, WA Inf. aĩt ‘go’ (SL eĩti), SA ažỹs ‘hedgehog’ (SL ežỹs). − the prothesis of initial before back vowels and /uo/, and of /j/ before front vowels is distinctive for WA and SA, e.g. NSg. vùpė ‘river’ (SL ùpė), Pret. 3 jė˜mė ‘take’ (SL ė˜mė). − the conditional stress retraction from a short final syllable to: a) a long vowel or the diphthongs /ie/, /uo/ in the penultima (in the south of the Šiauliai region and in the Širvintos region), e.g. NSg. žmo̾·na (SL žmonà), but APl. laukùs ‘field’ (= SL); b) any long penultima (in the middle south of the Šiauliai region and EA), e.g. APl. lau̾kus, but PresSg. 1 nešù ‘carry’ (= SL); c) any long or short penultima (in the middle north of the Šiauliai region and the north-east of the Panevėžys region), e.g. APl. vaı̾kus (WA) / vaı̾k ъs (EA) ‘child’ (SL vaikùs), PresSg. 1 nèšu (WA) / nèš ъ (EA). − the Aukš. universal stress retraction law which implies stress retraction from a short or circumflexed final syllable to any penultima (in the north of the Šiauliai region and the north-west of the Panevėžys region), e.g. NSg. šàka (WA) / šàk ъ (EA) ‘branch’ (SL šakà), gèrαi ‘well’ (SL geraĩ).

92. The dialectology of Baltic

1703

Tab. 92.2: Aukštaitian dialectal outcomes of nasal vowels and diphthongs Nasal diphthongs and nasal vowels /am/, /an/, /em/, /en/

WA

SA

EA

/am/, /an/, /em/, /en/

/um/, /un/, /im/, /in/

ram ˜ stis ‘buttress’, Pres. 3 kánda ‘bite’, pémpė ‘peewit’, šveñtė ‘feast’

rum ˜ stis, kúnda, pímpė, šviñtė majority of the Panevėžỹs region /ọm/, /ọn/, /ẹm/, /ẹn/ rọ´m ˜ ˈ.st ьsˈ, kọ´nd ъ, pẹ´mˈpe, šˈvẹñ.te

/a·/ , /æ·/

/a·/, /æ·/ ką́snis ‘bit’, Pres. 3 tę˜sia ‘distend’

/u·/, /i·/ kų´snis, tĩ˛sia north of the Panevėžỹs region /ọ·/, /ẹ·/ kọ̾·sˈnis, tˈẹ˜·sia

2.1.1. West Aukštaitian is closest to SL, which is based on the Kaunas region (alias suvalkiẽčiai) subdialect. Such innovations of the Šiauliai region subdialect as stress retraction, vowel reduction, and apocope of unstressed final vowels originated due to Curonian and Semigalian substratum influence. 2.1.2. South Aukštaitian (Dzūkian). Word-final narrowed nasal vowels of (j)ā-, ē- and o-stems (< PBalt. *-ā´n, *-ḗn) were shortened to /u/, /i/, e.g. ISg. rankù ‘hand, arm’ (SL rankà), ISg. katì ‘cat’ (SL katè), LSg. laukì ‘field’ (SL laukè). Peculiar to SA is the high frequency of the affricates /ts/ , /dz/ (the so-called dzūkãvimas) which occur under two conditions with one exception: − /ts(’)/, /dz(’)/ are used instead of /tʃ’/ , /dʒ’/ (< PBalt. *tj, *dj), e.g. NPl. jáuciai ‘ox’ (SL jáučiai), NPl. me̾dziai ‘tree’ (SL mẽdžiai), GPl. me̾dzių (SL mẽdžių). Perhaps due to paradigmatic analogy, there is no affrication in the GPl. and in the PretSg. 1 of the ē-stems, e.g. NSg. bìtė ‘bee’, GPl. bìt’ų (SL bìčių), Pret. 3 mãtė, PretSg. 1 mat’aũ ‘see’ (SL mačiaũ). − /t/, /d/ as well as /tv/, /dv/ are changed into the affricates /ts(v)/ , /dz(v)/ before the high front vowels /i/, /i·/ , and /ie/, e.g. Inf. aĩc(’) ‘go’ (SL eĩti), NSg. kecvir˜tas ‘fourth’ (SL ketvir˜tas), NSg. dziẽvas ‘God’ (SL diẽvas). No affrication occurs before /i/ or /i·/ < *ę < *en (see Table 92.2), e.g. ASg. ka̾t’i. ‘cat’ (SL kãtę), LSg. púod’i ‘pot’ (SL púode). − /ts(’)/, /dz(’)/ become assimilated into /tʃ(’)/, /dʒ(’)/ due to adjacent š, ž, e.g. NSg. pir˜ščinė ‘glove’ (SL pir˜štinė), Inf. vèšč’ ‘convey’ (SL vèžti).

1704

XIV. Baltic

Tab. 92.3: Outcomes of unstressed ė, ie, o, uo in East Aukštaitian East Aukštaitian Panevėžys region

/e·/

/ie/

/ı/ (south) tıve̾.lıs

/æ/ (/ı/) (south) pæne̾.lıs (pıne̾.lıs)

/ẹ/ (north) tẹve̾.l ьs, pẹne̾.l ьs

/o·/

/uo/

/υ/ (south) žmυge̾.lıs, pυde̾.lıs /ọ/ (north) žmọge̾.l ьs, pọde̾.l ьs /a/ (easternmost) žmage̾li.s, pade̾li.s

Širvintos region

/æ/ tæve̾.lis, pæne̾.lis

/a/ žmage̾.lis, pade̾.lis

Anykščiai region

/æ(.)/ tæ( .)vẹ̾.li.s, pæ(.)nẹ̾.li.s

/a(.)/ žma(.)gẹ̾.li.s, pa(.)dẹ̾.li.s

Kupiškis region

/ẹ./ tẹ.vẹ̾.li.s, pẹ.nẹ̾.li.s

/ɔ./ žmɔ.gẹ̾.li.s, pɔ.dẹ̾.li.s

Utena region

/æ./ tæ.ve̾.li.s, pæ.ne̾.li.s

/a./ žma.ge̾.li.s, pa.de̾.li.s

Vilnius region

/æ./ (north) tæ.ve̾.li.s, pæ.ne̾.li.s /ẹ./, /ie/ tẹ.ve̾.li.s / tieve̾.li.s, pẹ.ne̾.li.s, piene̾.li.s

/ie/ piene̾.li(.)s

/a./, /å./ (north) žma.ge̾.li.s, žmå.ge̾.li.s /ɔ./ (south) žmɔ.ge̾.li.s

/uo/ puode̾.li(.)s

2.1.3. East Aukštaitian differs most of all Aukš. dialects from SL (see Table 92.2). Three grades of vowel length − short, half-long (= V.) and long (= V·) − are distinctive for the Anykščiai, Kupiškis, and Utena regions. The reflexes of unstressed ė, ie, o, uo in EA can be shown by the examples of NSg. tėvẽlis ‘little father’, pienẽlis ‘little milk’, žmogẽlis ‘little human being’, and puodẽlis ‘little pot’ (see Table 92.3). Panevėžys region: the largest and most complicated subdialect of EA (also see Table 92.2). The reduction of short final syllables becomes more thorough from South to North. Due to a Semigalian substratum, short final vowels developed into murmured / ъ/ and / ь/ in the north, e.g. ASg. píevυs / píev ъs ‘meadow’ (SL píevas), APl. katìs / kàt ьs ‘cat’ (SL katès). The Kupiškis region subdialect perhaps originated due to a Selonian substratum. The vowels /æ/ and /e·/ are changed into /a/ (lengthened in stressed position) wordfinally and before non-palatalized consonants, e.g. PresSg. 1 našù ‘carry’ (SL nešù). The Utena and Vilnius region subdialects display no stress retraction; they have maintained long open /a·/ (< PBalt. *ā), e.g. NSg. žã·di.s / žɔ˜·di.s (Utena), žã·d(z)i.s / žɔ˜·d(z)i.s (Vilnius) ‘word’ (SL žõdis).

92. The dialectology of Baltic

1705

Tab. 92.4: Žemaitian reflexes of /ie/ and /uo/ Standard Lithuanian

WŽ

NŽ

SŽ

/ie/ píenas ‘milk’

/e·/ pê̤·ns

/ẹi/ pệins

/i· i̯ / pí· i̯ ns

/uo/ dúona ‘bread’

/o·/ dô·n (a)

/ọu/ dôuna

/u· u̯/ dú· u̯na

2.2. The Žemaitian dialect perhaps originated due to a Curonian substratum. According to the reflexes of the diphthongs /ie/ and /uo/, Žem. is divided into three subdialects (see Table 92.4). The WŽ subdialect of the Klaipėda region is almost extinct. Common features of Žemaitian: − stressed /o·/, /e·/ are changed into /uo/, /ie/, e.g. NSg. kûoj ẹ ‘leg, foot’ (SL kója), Inf. dîet (ẹ) ‘put’ (SL dė́ ti). − originally short unstressed vowels in final syllables are apocopated, e.g. NSg. vî·rs ‘man’ (SL výras). Final long unstressed vowels are shortened. − short /i/, /u/ (also /il/, /ir/, /ul/, /ur/) and /ui/ are broadened into /ẹ/, /ọ/, e.g. Inf. lẹ̾.kt ẹ ‘remain’ (SL lìkti), Pret. 3 bọ̾.v a ‘be’ (SL bùvo). − the final diphthongs /ai/, /ei/ are monophthongized to /a·/, /e·/, e.g. blò ̣gã·‘badly’ (SL blogaĩ), NPl. pã.ukštê· ‘bird’ (SL paũkščiai). − no affrication of /t/, /d/ before front vowels (te, de < PBalt. *tjă, *djă) in the east, e.g. NPl. já.utê·‘ox’ (SL jáučiai) (< *jaut-j-ai), NPl. mèdê·‘tree’ (SL mẽdžiai) (< *med-jai), but GSg. já.učẹ, me̾.džẹ (SL jáučio, mẽdžio). In NŽ and WŽ, no affrication occurs before back vowels either. − conditional stress retraction from a short final syllable to: (a) a long penultima (SŽ), e.g. NSg. plĩ·tà ‘brick’ (SL plytà), but NSg. šakà ‘branch’ (= SL); (b) any penultima (NŽ and SŽ partly), e.g. šàkà, but GSg. šakuõs (SL šakõs). − the Žem. universal stress retraction law: Stress retraction from a short or circumflexed final syllable to the first syllable, e.g. GSg. šàkũos (SL šakõs), NSg. pàvàžà ‘runner of a sledge’ (SL pavažà). − the character of the acute and circumflex tones differs from Aukš. The acute tone (falling in Aukš.) is broken (^) in Žem. The circumflex tone (even or rising in Aukš.) makes the first part of a vowel or diphthong more prominent in Žem. The Raseiniai region (SŽ) subdialect is transitional between Aukš. and Žem. Old nasal sequences /an/, /en/ (SL ą, ę) and nasal diphthongs /am/, /em/ are maintained, e.g. NSg. žansìs ‘goose’ (SL žąsìs). The diphthongs /ai/, /ei/ are maintained, except for the suffix -áit-, e.g. NSg. mergá·ti̱ ‘girl’ (SL mergáitė). Varniai region (SŽ): /am/, /an/, /em/, /en/ are narrowed to /ọm/, /ọn/, /ẹm/, /ẹn/, e.g. Pres. 3 kộ.nd ‘bite’ (SL kánda). Long vowels are changed into half-long in pretonic syllables in the Kretinga region (NŽ): e.g. Pres. 3 gi.vê.n ‘live’ (SL gyvẽna); and into short in pretonic syllables in the Telšiai region, e.g. Pres. 3 givê.n.

1706

XIV. Baltic

3. The Latvian language In the second half of the 16 th c., Latv. spread to its present-day territory. Possibly due to contact with Balto-Finnic languages (particularly Livonian), the mobile accent was lost and stress was retracted to the initial syllable in Latv. As a result, final syllables were reduced. Latv. today has a system of three tones: the drawn tone (~ stieptā intonācija), the falling tone (` krītošā intonācija), and the broken tone (^ lauztā intonācija). The classification of the Latv. dialects into 3 groups, based primarily on prosodic characteristics, vowel quantity and quality, as well as morphological innovations, was undertaken by August Bielenstein in the middle of the 19 th c. and is still used with small modifications (see Map 92.2). 1. The Central dialect (C, vidus dialekts): − the Central Livonian subdialects (CLiv., Vidzemes vidus izloksnes), − the Semigalian subdialects (Sem., zemgaliskās izloksnes), − the Curonian subdialects (Cur., kursiskās izloksnes): − deep Curonian, − non-deep Curonian; − the Semigalian-Curonian subdialects (SemCur., zemgaliski kursiskās izloksnes, alias kuršu valodas substrāts); 2. the Tamian or Livonian dialect (T, tāmnieku / lībiskais dialekts): − the Tamian subdialects of Courland (TCur., Kurzemes lībiskās izloksnes): − deep Tamian of Courland (dziļās Kurzemes izloksnes), − non-deep Tamian of Courland (nedziļās Kurzemes izloksnes); − the Tamian subdialects of Livonia (TLiv., Vidzemes lībiskās izloksnes): − deep Tamian of Livonia (dziļās Vidzemes izloksnes), − non-deep Tamian of Livonia (nedziļās Vidzemes izloksnes); 3. the High Latvian dialect (HL, augšzemnieku dialekts): − the Selonian subdialects of East Semigalia and South-East Livonia (Sel., sēliskās izloksnes): − deep or East Selonian (dziļās sēliskās izloksnes), − non-deep or West Selonian (nedziļās sēliskās izloksnes); − the Latgalian subdialects of Latgalia and North-East Livonia (Latg., latgaliskās izloksnes): − deep Latgalian or strong High Latvian (dziļās latgaliskās izloksnes), − non-deep Latgalian (nedziļās latgaliskās izloksnes). The C and T dialects are close to each other. Hence they are occasionally called Low Latvian (lejzemnieku izloksnes) as opposed to the HL dialect. An important factor in the development of the Latv. dialects was the territorial division of Latvia throughout its history. The incorporation of the Duchy of Livonia into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1629−1772 caused the separation of Latgalian from other Latv. dialects and contributed to the development of HL. Corresponding to the former limits of parishes or estates, the three Latv. dialects are subdivided into more than 500 local dialects. 3.1. The Central dialect has maintained the original phonetic system of Latv. SLa. is based on this dialect. Closest to SLa. are the Sem. subdialects around Jelgava (Mitau)

Map 92.2: Latvian dialects (compiled by the working group on the Atlas of Baltic languages of the Latvian Language Institute at the University of Latvia)

92. The dialectology of Baltic 1707

1708

XIV. Baltic

and Dobele. Some parts of the CLiv. (around Valmiera and Cēsis) and of the Sem. (around Blīdene and Jaunpils) subdialects have retained all three original tones, e.g. ASg. vĩli ‘file’, ASg. vìli ‘seam’, PretSg. 2 vîli ‘deceive’; and /ir/ and /ur/ before consonants, e.g. Inf. cìrst ‘fell’, kùrls ‘deaf’. The main morphological innovations of CLiv. and Sem. are the following: − preterite ē-stems are replaced by ā-stems, e.g. PretPl. 1 nesām ‘carry’ (= SLa., cf. Lith. nẽšėme). − /i·/ is inserted in the future tense of monosyllabic infinitive stems in /s/, /z/, /t/, /d/, e.g. Inf. mest ‘throw’, FutSg. 1 metîšu (= SLa.). This is also a distinctive feature of CLiv. − the reflexive verbal marker -s(i)- in prefixed verbs occurs according to the type PVR, e.g. Inf. piecelties ‘get up’ (= SLa.). The Semigalian subdialects are distinguished by anaptyxis between the liquid diphthongs /V+r/ (sometimes also /V+l/) and a following consonant, the vowel remaining short, e.g. NSg. star aks ‘stork’ (SLa. stārks). In the Curonian subdialects, the falling tone (`) and the broken tone (^) have merged into a broken tone (^ 2), e.g. PresSg. 1 lūˆdzu 2 ‘beg’ (cf. CLiv. lū̀dzu). The main characteristics of Cur. are: − /V+n/ were maintained, perhaps due to a Curonian substratum, e.g. NSg. bezdelinga ‘swallow’ (SLa. bezdelīga). /V+r/ are lengthened, whereas /ir/, /ur/ can be diphthongized into /ie/, /uo/. − /u/ was maintained before /v/ and /b/, e.g. NSg. dubȩns ‘bottom’ (SLa. dibens, cf. Lith. dùgnas), NSg. zuve ‘fish’ (SLa. zivs, cf. Lith. žuvìs). − /v/ was lost after /l/, e.g. NSg. pagālis ‘pillow’ (SLa. pagalvis). − no insertion of /i·/ in the future tense of monosyllabic infinitive stems in /s/, /z/, /t/, /d/, e.g. Inf. vest ‘lead’, Fut. 3 ves (SLa. vedīs). − the reflexive verbal marker -s(i)- (-s[a]-) in prefixed verbs occurs according to the type PRV, e.g. PresSg. 2 nuosaraudi ‘weep’ (SLa. nuoraudies). Also the type PRVR can occur, e.g. Pres. 3 atsamuôstas ‘wake up’ (SLa. atmuostas). − substantival i-stems merged with ē-stems, e.g. NSg. ugune ‘fire’ (SLa. uguns). 3.2. The Tamian or Livonian dialect developed due to a Livonian substratum. The vocabulary includes a great number of Livonian loanwords. The falling tone (`) and the broken tone (^) have merged into a broken tone (^ 2), e.g. NSg. kuôks 2 ‘tree’ (C kùoks). T presents mainly quantitative vowel changes. Short final vowels are regularly apocopated, which is often explained as a substratum feature. Thus homonymy is wide-spread in verbal inflection, and the 3 rd person forms are generalized for the 1st and the 2 nd person. Substantival i-stems partially merged with ē-stems as well as ē-stems with ā-stems. Ustems merged with (j)o-stems and were thus mostly lost. Other characteristics of T are the following: − unstressed non-initial long vowels and diphthongs are shortened, and in TCur. completely lost, e.g. Inf. sacit (TLiv.) / sać·t (TCur.) ‘say’ (SLa. sacīt); /ie/ and /uo/ are monophthongized to /e/ and /a/ (or /o/), e.g. Inf. sāktes ‘start oneself’ (SLa. sākties). − short vowels are often lengthened before voiced stops of apocopated syllables, e.g. NPl. gād’ ‘year’ (SLa. gadi), lāb’ ‘well’ (SLa. labi).

92. The dialectology of Baltic

1709

− /ir/, /ur/ are lengthened or diphthongized into /ie/, /uo/ in TCur., e.g. NSg. zîrks 2 ‘horse’ (SLa. zirˆgs). − /au/ is changed into /åu/ or /ou/ and /av/ into /åv/ or /ov/, e.g. Inf. roût 2 ‘tear up’ (SLa. raut), NSg. sovādaks ‘different’ (SLa. savādāks). − /u/ is preserved before /v/, /b/ in TCur., e.g. NSg. dubans ‘bottom’ (SLa. dibens). − the reflexive verbal marker -s(i)- (-s[a]-, -z[a]-) in prefixed verbs occurs according to the two types PVR and PRVR in TCur., e.g. Inf. sazrū̀ntȩs/sarū̀ntȩs ‘converse’ (SLa. sarunāties). Only the type PVR is known in TLiv., e.g. Inf. uscelˆtes 2 ‘get up’ (SLa. uzcelties). − no insertion of /i·/ in the future tense of monosyllabic infinitive stems in /s/, /z/, /t/, /d/, e.g. Inf. sist ‘beat’, FutSg./Pl. 1 (= 2,3) siz (SLa. sitīšu, sitīsi, sitīs, sitīsim, sitīsit [sitīsiet]). − the feminine gender has extensively merged with the masculine (also in pronouns and adjectives), probably also due to a Livonian substratum, e.g. NSg. m. mas siẽviš (< mazs sieviņš) ‘little wife’ (SLa. f. maza sieviņa). − the old substantival DPl. endings -Vms are preserved in TCur., e.g. siẽvams ‘wife’ (SLa. sievām). 3.3. The High Latvian dialect. Written HL (the so-called Latgalian language) is based on the dialects of south Latgalia. HL reveals mainly qualitative sound changes, but it has preserved a more archaic morphological and syntactic system. The drawn tone (~) and the falling tone (`) have merged into a falling tone (` 2), e.g. vìejš 2 ‘wind’ (cf. SLa. ve˜jš). The Sel. subdialects have maintained the rising tone (ˊ) which elsewhere has merged with the broken tone (^), e.g. NSg. naúda ‘money’ (SLa. naûda), NSg. luógs ‘window’ (SLa. luôgs). The main characteristics of HL are the following: − /æ/ and /e·/ are changed into /a/ and /a·/, e.g. NSg. vātra ‘storm’ (SLa. vētra). − /e·/ has developed into /æ·/ or was diphthongized into /ie/, e.g. Pres. 3 vȩ̄rp ‘spin’ (SLa. vērpj). − /a/ is changed into /o/ when the following syllable contains a low vowel (the so-called velar vowel shift), and sometimes also in stressed position (/a/ remains unchanged in final syllables), e.g. NSg. vosara/vosora ‘summer’ (SLa. vasara), but NSg. galˆvinieks ‘warranter’. − /i·/ and /u·/ are diphthongized into /ei/ and /ou/ (resp. /eu/, /yu/, /iu/ in deep HL), e.g. Rèiga 2 (SLa. Rīga), NSg. còuka 2/cèuka/cyuka ‘pig’ (SLa. cūka). − all consonants are palatalized before front vowels, e.g. NSg. ćèiruļś 2 ‘lark’ (SLa. cīrulis). − preterite ē-stems are partly maintained, e.g. PretPl. 1 aûd’è¸m 2 ‘weave’ (SLa. audām). − the reflexive verbal particle -s(i)- (-s[a]-, -z[a]-) in prefixed verbs occurs according to the type PRV, e.g. Inf. abzarauduôt’ ‘fall into tears’ (SLa. apraudāties). Also the type PRVR and PVR are known, e.g. Inf. pazaśḿìtîś 2 ‘deride’ (SLa. pasmieties), nùopirktiês 2 ‘purchase’ (SLa. nuopirkties). − no insertion of /i·/ in the future tense of monosyllabic infinitive stems in /s/, /z/, /t/, /d/, e.g. Inf. iêst ‘eat’, FutSg. 1 iêššu (SLa. ēst, ēdīšu), Inf. nest ‘bring’, FutSg. 1 neššu (SLa. nesīšu). − the old LSg. forms in -ie (for i-stems) and -uo (for u-stems) are maintained, e.g. LSg. àusié 2 ‘ear’ (SLa. ausī), maduó ‘honey’ (SLa. medū).

1710

XIV. Baltic

The main characteristics of the deep (or eastern) HL subdialects are the following: − /ie/ and /uo/ are monophthongized to /i·/ and /u·/, e.g. pìci ‘five’ (SLa. pieci), NSg. lûgs 2 ‘window’ (SLa. luôgs). − /i/ is velarized to /ы/ , e.g. NSg. myza ‘bark’ (SLa. miza). − the endings -as and -es can appear changed into -ys /ыs/ and -is, e.g. GSg./N/APl. mùosys 2 ‘sister’ (SLa. māsas), mùot’iś 2 ‘mother’ (SLa. mātes). − the personal pronoun forms of the 3 rd person are different from other Latv. dialects: NSg. m. jis/jys ‘he’, NPl. jì 2 (SLa. viņš, viņi); NSg. f. jèi 2 ‘she’, NPl. jùos 2 (joâs, jòs 2) (SLa. viņa, viņas). Cf. Lith. jìs, jiẽ; jì, jõs.

4. Abbreviations Language and dialect names: PBalt. PEBalt. WBalt. EBalt. SL OPr. Lith. Latv. Aukš. WA SA EA Žem. SŽ

Proto-Baltic Proto-East-Baltic West-Baltic East-Baltic Standard Lithuanian Old Prussian Lithuanian Latvian Aukštaitian West Aukštaitian South Aukštaitian East Aukštaitian Žemaitian South Žemaitian

NŽ WŽ SLa. C CLiv. Sem. Cur. SemCur. T TCur. TLiv. HL Sel. Latg.

North Žemaitian West Žemaitian Standard Latvian Central Central Livonian Semigalian Curonian Semigalian-Curonian Tamian (Livonian) Tamian of Courland Tamian of Livonia High Latvian Selonian Latgalian

V

Verb

Grammatical terminology: P R

Preverb Reflexive

5. References Bacevičiūtė, Rima, Audra Ivanauskienė, Asta Leskauskaitė, and Edmundas Trumpa (eds.) 2004 Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija [A chrestomathy of Lithuanian dialects]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla. Balode, Laimute and Axel Holvoet 2001 The Latvian language and its dialects, The Lithuanian language and its dialects. In: Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The Circum-Baltic Languages. Typology and Contact 1. Past and Present. (Studies in Language Companion Series [SLCS], 54). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–40, 41–79.

92. The dialectology of Baltic

1711

Būga, Kazimieras 1923 [1961] Upių vardų studijos ir aisčių bei slavėnų senovė [Studies of river names and the antiquity of the Balts and the Slavs]. Tauta ir žodis 1: 1–44. [Reprinted 1961 in K(azimieras) Būga, Rinktiniai raštai 3: 493−550. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.] Dini, Pietro U[mberto] 2014 Foundations of Baltic Languages. Translated by Milda B. Richardson, Robert E. Richardson. Vilnius: Vilnius University. Endzelin, Jan 1923 Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Gāters, Alfrēds 1977 Die lettische Sprache und ihre Dialekte. The Hague: Mouton. Gerullis, Georg 1922 Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen. Berlin: De Gruyter. Gerullis, Georg 1930 Litauische Dialektstudien. Leipzig: Markert and Petters. Girdenis, Aleksas and Vytautas Mažiulis 1994 Baltų kalbų divergencinė chronologija [The divergent chronology of the Baltic languages]. Baltistica 27: 4−12. Girdenis, Aleksas and Zigmas Zinkevičius 1966 Dėl lietuvių kalbos tarmių klasifikacijos [On the classification of Lithuanian dialects]. Kalbotyra 14: 139–148. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1987 III. Vakarų, rytų ir Dnepro baltai [West, East, and Dnieper Balts]. 1. Baltų prokalbės irimas [The disintegration of the Baltic proto-language]. In: R. Volkaitė-Kulikauskienė, J. Jurginis, V. Mažiulis, and A. Vanagas (eds.), Lietuvių etnogenezė [The ethnogenesis of the Lithuanians]. Vilnius: Mokslas, 82−85. Petit, Daniel 2010 Untersuchungen zu den baltischen Sprachen. (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics 4). Leiden: Brill. Rudzīte, Marta 1964 Latviešu dialektoloģija [Latvian dialectology]. Rīga: Latvijas Valsts izdevniecība. Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1976 Baltische Sprachen und Völker. In: Heinrich Beck, Dieter Geuenich, Herbert Jankuhn, Hans Kuhn, Kurt Ranke, Heiko Steuer, and Reinhard Wenskus (eds.), Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. 2 nd edn. Vol 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 14−20. Toporov, Vladimir N. and Oleg N. Trubachev 1962 Lingvisticheskij analiz gidronimov verkhnego podneprov’ja [Linguistic analysis of the hydronyms of the upper Dnieper area]. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Vanagas, Aleksandras 1981 Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas [Etymological dictionary of Lithuanian hydronyms]. Vilnius: Mokslas. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1996 The History of the Lithuanian Language. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 2006 Lietuvių tarmių kilmė [The origin of Lithuanian dialects]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Jolanta Gelumbeckaitė, Frankfurt am Main (Germany)

1712

XIV. Baltic

93. The evolution of Baltic 1. Proto-Baltic 2. Lithuanian 3. Latvian

4. Differences between Lithuanian and Latvian 5. Abbreviations 6. References

1. Proto-Baltic The study of hydronyms has shown that the Proto-Baltic area was about six times larger than the ethnic territory of the present-day Balts, i.e. Lithuanians and Latvians, who alone have maintained the continuity of PBalt. The Baltic languages are among the most recently attested written languages in Europe. The development of written Lithuanian and Latvian started only in the 16 th c. The sparse written tradition of Old Prussian ended in the second half of the 16 th c. Thus the reconstruction of the Baltic protolanguage is impeded by the late documentation of the Baltic languages (OPr., Lith., Latv.), the insufficiency of the West-Baltic (OPr.) linguistic data, and a rather large difference between West- and East-Baltic (Lith., Latv.). Yet, traditionally Proto-Baltic is defined as a northern dialect of PIE which underwent a specific peripheral satemization (Dini 2014: 120 f.; also Petit, “The Phonology of Baltic”, this handbook, 5.2). The foremost features which distinguish the Baltic languages from other IE language groups, are as follows (Stang 1966: 2−10; Dini 2014: 77 f.): − − − − − − − − − − −

free and mobile stress. merger of PIE *ă and *ŏ into PBalt. *ă. maintenance and extension of PIE ablaut. preservation of *-m- before dental stops, e.g.: Lith. šim ˜ tas, Latv. sìmts ‘hundred’. high frequency of substantival ē-stems (< *-[i]i̯ ā-), e.g. Lith. žẽmė (dial. žemė˜), Latv. zeme, OPr. same / semmē ‘earth’ (< PBalt. *źemē < *źemi̯ ā < PIE *dhg̑hem-). identical person endings in all verbal tenses and moods. absence of a numerical opposition in the 3 rd person forms of the verb. absence of any traces of the PIE perfect and aorist tenses. formation of the preterite tense with the suffixes *ē and *ā. a large variety of diminutive suffixes. specifically Baltic vocabulary (Stang 1966: 7 ff.; Zinkevičius 1984: 229−234; also Larsson, “The Lexicon of Baltic”, this handbook, 3).

The split of East-Baltic from the original PBaltic community was caused in large measure by contacts with Balto-Finnic and Slavic, which, particularly during the period from ca. the 7 th to the 10 th c., affected north East-Baltic (Latvian) much more than south EastBaltic (Lithuanian) and led to innovations in the former. On the other hand, the most important contacts of south East-Baltic in the early period were with Indo-European languages, notably East Slavic, which fostered the retention there of features of archaic Indo-European provenience. In phonetics, morphology, and syntax, Lithuanian remained considerably more conservative than Latvian. Lithuanian thus shows a closer proximity to common East-Baltic and even common Baltic and, at least in the morphological and phonological shape of its nouns (the classical example being Lith. diẽvas : Ved. devás https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-014

93. The evolution of Baltic

1713

vs. Lat. deus, OIr. día ‘god’, OE Tīw [name of deity]), may fairly be said to be the most conservative of the living IE languages.

2. Lithuanian The early Lithuanian language area bordered on the Curonians in the West, the Semigalians in the North-West, the Latgalians in the North, the Selonians in the North-East, and the Prussians as well as Yotvingians in the South-West. The eastern boundaries, where the Lithuanian tribes came into direct contact with East Slavic (Krivichians and Dregovichians), extended perhaps along the Minsk−Polock−Pskov line. With the formation of the Lithuanian state in the middle of the 13 th c. (the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, alias Lithuania Maior or Lithuania propria) the eastern and northern boundaries of Lithuanian were also extended. Prior to the 16 th c. the Curonians were Lithuanianized, and the Lithuanian language area expanded westwards to the Baltic sea. The Semigalians and the Selonians were Lithuanianized up to the present Latvian border in about the 15 th c. In the south and south-west, the Lithuanian language area grew into the lands of the Yotvingians and partly of the Prussians. The areas of former East Prussia which were Lithuanian-speaking up to World War II are known as Lithuania Minor or Prussian Lithuania. The written Lithuanian tradition and the process of standardization of Lithuanian started in the Duchy of Prussia in the 16 th c. under the influence of the Reformation with its promotion of vernaculars. There Lithuanian experienced several foreign stimuli, e.g. from Latin, (High) German, and Polish. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania existed from 1385 until 1569 in personal union (i.e. cemented by marriage ties) with the Kingdom of Poland, and the two became subsequently aligned in parliamentary union (the Polish− Lithuanian Commonwealth) until 1795 (the beginning of the occupation by the Russian Empire). The official language of state communication was the so-called ducal chancery style, which was Ruthenian compounded with Lithuanisms (in lexicon and phraseology) and with Polonisms (in technical terminology and abstract vocabulary). Thus Lithuanian was exposed to the strong influence of Ruthenian, Belorusian, Polish, and certainly Latin. The Lithuanian national revival movement secured the foundations of standard Lithuanian, purified of redundant Slavic loanwords, in the middle of the 19 th c. Lithuanian was codified on the basis of the southern subgroup (Kaunas region) of West Aukštaitian at the beginning of the 20 th c. In the period of Sovietization and the renewed Russification from 1944 to 1990, Lithuanian was again endangered. In 1990, the Commission on the Lithuanian Language (founded in 1961) became state approved. Since 1992, the status of Lithuanian as the state language of the Republic of Lithuania has been ensured constitutionally. Lithuanian is now spoken by approximately 3,000,000 people in Lithuania and 620,000 abroad.

3. Latvian The Latvian language arose as the fusion of the expanding Latgalians with the north Semigalians, Selonians, and easternized Curonians. The Latvian-speaking community also absorbed speakers of Livonian, a Balto-Finnic language spoken in western Vidzeme

1714

XIV. Baltic

and in north-western Kurzeme along the coast of the Gulf of Riga. Modern Standard Latvian is the result of this linguistic contact. By the second half of the 16 th c., Latvian had spread to its present-day territory, which consisted of four regions − Kurzeme (Courland proper, west of the former Duchy of Courland), Vidzeme (west Livonia, formerly Swedish Livonia), Latgale (Latgalia, east Livonia, formerly Polish Livonia, alias Inflanty Voivodeship), and Zemgale (Semigalia, east of the former Duchy of Courland). In the period from the 16 th to the 19 th c., a written Latvian based on the Central dialect was developed, mostly by German Lutherans. Starting with the 18 th c., Latgalian as well began to be written. The Latvian national revival (Latv. jaunlatvieši) movement purged written Latvian of superfluous Germanisms in the second half of the 19 th c. The High Latvian dialect (Latgalian) was historically influenced by Slavic (Polish, Belorusian, Russian). Through the occupation by the Russian Empire in the 18 th c., Latvian was exposed to Russification, which was repeated from 1940 to 1990. Since 1989, Latvian has been granted the status of the state language of the Republic of Latvia. Latvian is now spoken by approximately 1,300,000 people in Latvia and 350,000 abroad.

4. Differences between Lithuanian and Latvian As Lithuanian and Latvian evolved in their own separate ways, a number of changes occurred, leading to the following differences between standard Lithuanian and Latvian (for dialectal varieties, see Gelumbeckaitė, “The Dialectology of Baltic”, this handbook): − retention of the free and mobile stress in Lithuanian vs. the fixed initial stress in Latvian. − maintenance of final vowels in Lithuanian vs. the shortening and reduction of final syllables (except u) in Latvian. − palatalization of almost all consonants in Lithuanian before front vowels or j (innovation or influence of a Slavic adstratum) vs. a more restricted occurrence of this phenomenon in Latvian. − retention of neuter forms of adjectives, ordinal numerals, and partly of pronouns in Lithuanian vs. their loss in Latvian. − better retention of the inherited PIE declension classes in Lithuanian vs. simplification of nominal declension (loss of the heteroclita, change of u- and i-stems into o-stems) and the complete loss of distinctions among the adjectival declension classes in Latvian. − more widespread use of case forms (also of postpositional cases) in Lithuanian vs. the prevalence of prepositional phrases in Latvian. − the existence of three present stems (*a-, *ā-, *i-) and two preterite stems (*ā-, *ē-) in Lithuanian vs. simplification of verbal inflection in Latvian. − morphological innovations unique to Lithuanian are: 1. a special past frequentative tense with the suffix -dav-, 2. formation of an imperative with the suffix -k(i)- and of a permissive involving the prefix te-. − a morphological innovation unique to Latvian is a special verbal form expressing necessity with the particle jā- (the so-called debitive). − the preservation of an older syntactic system in Lithuanian.

93. The evolution of Baltic

1715

5. Abbreviations Balt. EBalt. IE Lat. Latv. Lith. OE

Baltic East-Baltic Indo-European Latin Latvian Lithuanian Old English

OIr. OPr. PBalt. PEBalt. PIE Ved. WBalt.

Old Irish Old Prussian Proto-Baltic Proto-East-Baltic Proto-Indo-European Vedic West-Baltic.

6. References Dini, Pietro U[mberto] 2014 Foundations of Baltic Languages. Translated by Milda B. Richardson and Robert E. Richardson. Vilnius: Vilnius University. Eckert, Rainer 2002 6. Baltische Sprachen. Altpreußisch. Lettisch. Litauisch. In: Milos Okuka (ed.), Lexikon der Sprachen des europäischen Ostens. (= Wieser Enzyklopädie des europäischen Ostens, 10). Klagenfurt: Wieser, 589−631. http://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at/eeo/Altpreuszisch.pdf, http://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at/eeo/Litauisch.pdf, http://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at/eeo/Lettisch.pdf [Last accessed 2 February 2017]. Morkūnas, Kazys 2008 Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija [Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian language]. 2 nd edn. revised by Vytautas Ambrazas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų institutas. Palionis, Jonas 1995 Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija [A history of the written Lithuanian language]. 2 nd edn. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Rūķe-Draviņa, Velta 1977 The Standardization Process in Latvian. 16 th Century to the Present. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Stang, Chr[istian] S. 1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: University Press. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1984 Lietuvių kalbos istorija [A history of Lithuanian] 1. Lietuvių kalbos kilmė [The origin of Lithuanian]. Vilnius: Mokslas.

Jolanta Gelumbeckaitė, Frankfurt am Main (Germany)

XV. Albanian 94. The documentation of Albanian 1. The earliest evidence of the Albanian language 2. Albanian writing traditions

3. The modern period 4. References

1. The earliest evidence of the Albanian language 1.1. Mere mentions of the existence of the language The first known mention of Albanian as a separate language is found in a legal document from a Raguza (Dubrovnik) archive dated 1285: Audivi unam vocem clamantem in monte in lingua Albanesca ‘I heard a voice in the mountain crying out in the Albanian language’ (Thallóczy, Jiricek, and Šufflay 1913: N527; Kastrati 2000: 39, 47; Elsie 1995a: 21). At the beginning of the 14 th century Albanian is mentioned in at least three texts as a distinct language spoken by a particular nation: 1) the 1308 testimony in Anonymi Descriptio Europae Orientalis (Górka 1916: 29; Elsie 1990; Demiraj 2013); 2) the notation in Symonis Semeonis ab Hybernia ad Terram Sanctam dated to 1322 (Esposito 1960: 36−37; Elsie 1991); 3) the Directorium ad passagium faciendum (1332) of Guillelmus Adam (or perhaps rather Raymond Etienne or Brocardus Monachus), where we read: licet Albanenses aliam omnino linguam a latina habeant et diversam, tamen litteram latinam habent in usu et in omnibus suis libris ‘Although Albanians have a language which is completely different from Latin, they nevertheless use Latin littera in all their books’ (Recueil 1906: 484). This passage can be interpreted in two different ways: as evidence of the existence at that time of “Albanian-language books written in Latin script” or simply “books written in Latin” (Elsie 1991b: 103). The latter reading is more plausible.

1.2. The earliest actual records of the Albanian language At least seven records of Albanian have reached us from the 15 th through the first half of the 16 th century (the text from the so-called Bellifortis manuscript, 1405, may hardly be interpreted as a genuine Albanian text; cf., however, Elsie 1986). Among these records are some short insertions (consisting of one to three words) in texts written in other languages (cf. Shuteriqi 1976: 33−42; Kastrati 2000: 39−56) Three texts of this period are of great linguistic and cultural interest. The first is the baptismal formula (Unte paghesont premenit Atit et birit et spertit senit ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost’) of 1462 included in the https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110542431-015

94. The documentation of Albanian

1717

Latin pastoral letter of the Archbishop of Durrës, Pal Engjëlli (Paulus Angelus), a close associate of the Albanian folk hero Scanderbeg (Iorga 1915: 194−197; for a detailed analysis see Matzinger 2010). The second text is a small vocabulary (26 single words, 8 phrases, and 12 numerals) compiled by the German traveler Arnold von Harff in the spring of 1497 in Durrës during his journey to the Holy Land (von Groote 1860; Roques 1932b; Ashta 1996: 51−66). This Albanian language material, in the Geg dialect, was recorded by Harff in a very amateurish way, but it contains some interesting details for the history of the Albanian language. The third text, the Easter Gospel (Lambros 1906: 481−482; Borgia 1930; cf. also Ashta 1996: 71−109) is a rather poor translation (with many Greek borrowings) of five Gospel verses (Matth 27, 62−66) and the beginning of the Easter hymn. This text, written in the South Tosk dialect with Greek letters, has been preserved as a separate sheet in a Greek manuscript from the 14 th century. However, the Albanian text is dated by the majority of researchers to the end of the 15 th or beginning of the 16 th century. The first records of Albanian are reproduced and analyzed in Roques (1932a); Ressuli ([1941] 2007); Ismajli (2000); Hysa (2000); a full bibliography of Albanian writings before 1850 can be found in Shuteriqi (1976); cf. also Elsie (1995).

2. Albanian writing traditions 2.1. Beginning with the time of the Schism, the territory of Albania was divided into Catholic (North) and Orthodox (South) zones. The first known substantial written texts in Albanian appeared after the Ottoman conquest. As a consequence, the earliest Albanian writing and literature developed in the framework of variant traditions, religious in their base but strongly correlated with other important features − dialectal, geographical, and cultural (Çabej 1938−1939 [2002]).

2.2. The Catholic tradition of North Albania 2.2.1. The “Meshari” (Missal) of Gjon Buzuku (1555). This most important early Albanian text was written by a catholic priest, about whose life we know almost nothing. The book is written in the Northwest Geg dialect and contains “the combination of Breviary, Cathechism, Ritual, and Missal” (Matzinger 2012: 287, translation mine [A.R.]) as well as a short original text − an Afterword in which the author explicitly characterizes his book as the first one written in Albanian. Buzuk used the Latin script with some additional Cyrillic letters borrowed, it seems, from bosančica (the kind of Cyrillic script which was widely used in Bosnia and on the Dalmatian coast). The book is printed in Blackletter (a kind of Italian rotunda). The single known copy of the “Meshari” was discovered in the Bibliotheca Vaticana in 1743 by the Albanian priest Gjon Kazazi (Demiraj 2006: 119−128), was promptly forgotten, and became the object of scientific investigation only at the beginning of the 20 th century. Buzuk’s book is never mentioned in the works of other authors belonging to the

1718

XV. Albanian

old Albanian Catholic tradition (with the exception, perhaps, of Bogdani). The existing copy of Buzuk’s work is incomplete: only 94 of the original 110 two-page sheets have been preserved. The title-page is absent, so we do not know where the book was printed (Venice seems a likely guess; the year is known from the Afterword). Despite some alphabetic inconsistencies and lapsus calami, Buzuk’s book is a good quality translation with an elaborated syntax and a rich lexicon (according to Ashta 1996: 231 the text contains 2,127 different words). There are two full scholarly editions of Buzuk’s work (Ressuli [1958] 2013: photo facsimile and transcription; Çabej [1968] 2013: photo facsimile, transliteration, transcription, and detailed scientific description; Buzuk’s lexicon is provided in Ashta 1996; for a concordance of verb forms cf. Fiedler 2004). A searchable text of the “Meshari” is available now on the Internet at http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/alban/Buzuku/ Buzuk.htm (data entry by W. Hock, TITUS version by J. Gippert). A photocopy of the “Meshari” is accessible on the website of the National Library of Albania (http:// www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.exe) and on the website of the Public Library “Marin Barleti”, Shkoder (http://www.bibliotekashkoder.com/digital/buzuku_meshari/).

2.2.2. The works of Pjetër Budi (1566–1622) Budi (at the end of his life a Catholic Bishop in North Albania) is the author of Dottrina Christiana (Rome [1618/1636/1664] 1868) and Rituale Romanum et Speculum Confessionis (Rome 1621), together more than one thousand printed pages. These books contain mainly translations of various Italian and Latin religious writings (Catechism of Robert Bellarmine, Specchio di Confessione by Emerio de Bonis, and others; see the thorough survey in Budi [1986] 2006) but also include original prose fragments (mostly commentaries on spiritual texts) and some 3,300 lines of spiritual poetry (partly translations from Italian amd Latin). Budi uses the Latin script (antiqua) with three Cyrillic letters (used already by Buzuk). His graphic conventions are like those of Buzuk but are more consistent. Budi wrote in a form of the Geg dialect which does not admit of any precise localization and used rather complicated “baroque” syntax. There are difficult-to-access mimeographed editions of Budi’s works with concordances (Svane 1985a, 1985b, 1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1986d) as well as a scientific edition of Budi’s verses by Rexhep Ismajli (Budi 2006: photo facsimile and transcription); for the vocabulary of Budi’s works, cf. Ashta (1998). A photocopies of Budi’s books are accessible on the website of the National Library of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/ library.exe). The text of the Dottrina Christiana (1664 and 1868 editions) is available as a Google Book as well as on the website of the Public Library “Marin Barleti”, Shkoder (1664 edition: http://www.bibliotekashkoder.com/digital/dott christiana/); also available on this website is a photocopy of the Speculum Confessionis (http://www. bibliotekashkoder.com/digital/budi_specvlvm_confessionis/). 2.2.3. The Dictionarium latino-epiroticum (Rome 1635) by Frang Bardhi (Franciscus Blanchus, 1606−1643) is the first Albanian dictionary. It contains 2,492 words (Ashta 2000: 91) and besides the main Latin-Albanian alphabetical part has also lists of numer-

94. The documentation of Albanian

1719

als, kinship terms, names of Albanian cities, adverbs, prepositions, interjections, a very valuable list of 113 proverbs, and some examples of dialogue. The level of Bardhi’s philological competence was rather low; nevertheless, his dictionary constitutes a unique source for the Geg dialect of Albanian in the 17 th century. Bardhi’s alphabet and spelling conventions are similar though not identical to those of Budi. There are several scientific editions of Bardhi’s dictionary (Roques 1932b: photo facsimile and scientific introduction; Bardhi 1983 by E. Sedaj: photo facsimile and Albanian index; Blanchus 2006: photo facsimile; Demiraj 2008: photo facsimile, transliteration, transcription, detailed scientific commentary, and concordance; see also Ashta 2000: Albanian index to Bardhi’s dictionary with commentaries). A searchable text of the Dictionarium is now available on the Internet at http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/ etcs/alban/blanchus/blanc.htm (data entry by M. de Vaan, TITUS version by J. Gippert). The original edition is also available as a Google Book and on the website of the National Library of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.exe). 2.2.4. The theological treatise Cuneus Prophetarum (Padua 1685, Venice 1691, 1702) by Pjetër Bogdani (Pietro Bogdano, ca. 1630−1689, archbishop of Skopje) “is considered to be the masterpiece of early Albanian literature and is the first work in Albanian of full artistic and literary quality” (Elsie 2005: 30). The book, written in the Geg dialect (with clear East Geg features) and using the script traditional for Geg catholic writers, has an accompanying Italian translation and contains, besides the main prose text, some verses written by the author (both originals and translations) and by two other North Albanian writers (Luca Bogdani and Luca Suma). Bogdani’s work is characterized by a very rich lexicon and flexible and developed syntax. Modern editions of Bogdani’s text include Bogdani (1940−1943): transcription of the first part of Bogdani’s book by Mark Harapi; Bogdani (1977): photo facsimile with a short commentary by G. Valentini and M. Camaj; Bogdani (1989, 1997): photo facsimile and translation into modern Albanian by E. Sedaj; Bogdani (2005): photo facsimile and transcription with commentary by A. Omari. For Bogdani’s vocabulary cf. Ashta (2002). Cuneus Prophetarum is also available as a searchable document on the Internet at http:// titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/alban/bogdani/bogda.htm (data entry by M. de Vaan, TITUS version by J. Gippert). The 1685 edition is also available as a Google Book and on the website of the National Library of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/ library.exe). For a full concordance of verb forms used in Budi’s and Bogdani’s works as well as in the works by Matranga and Variboba (discussed in 2.5. below), see Schumacher and Matzinger (2013). On some minor texts of the North Albanian Catholic tradition see Elsie (1995); Shuteriqi (1976: 55−92).

2.2.5. The North Albanian catholic tradition in the 18th century An important text written at the beginning of this period is Kuvendi i Arbenit (‘Albanian Council’, Rome 1706, 1868; translation from Latin into Albanian by E. Radoja 1872; reedited in 2003; scientific edition in Demiraj 2012: photo facsimile,

1720

XV. Albanian

transcription, concordance, commentary, and an additional CD containing the Albanian texts of the 1706, 1868, and 1872 editions, together with the original Latin text; word list in Ashta 2009), a collection of materials from the Albanian church council held in North Albania in 1703, edited in Latin and Albanian versions (in separate volumes). The following texts are usually treated as belonging to the North Albanian Catholic tradition: 1) Osservazioni Grammaticali Nella Lingua Albanese (Roma 1716) by the Franciscan missionary Francesco Maria da Lecce. This text represents the first published Albanian grammar (da Lecce is also the author of the unpublished ItalianAlbanian dictionary dated 1702; scientific edition by G. Gurga: da Lecce 2009). 2) the so-called Manuscript from Grottaferatta (1710, possibly by Diego da Desios) containing a short Italian-Albanian dictionary, a short grammatical description, and some translations from a Catechism (grammar by Ismajli 1982 and dictionary by Landi 1988). 3) This period of the development of the Catholic tradition ends with the Breve compendio della Dottrina Christiana (Rome 1743) by Gjon Nikollë Kazazi (scholarly edition by Demiraj 2006: photo facsimile, transliteration, transcription, concordance). Kazazi’s book is also available as a searchable document on the internet at http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/alban/casasi/casas.htm (data entry by B. Demiraj, TITUS version by J. Gippert) and on the website of the National Library of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.exe). A renewed flourishing of the North Albanian Catholic tradition is observed in the second half of the 19 th century in the context of the Albanian National Awakening.

2.3. The Orthodox tradition of Central and South Albania Whereas the Vatican encouraged in a limited way the development and the study of the Albanian language, the Orthodox Church considered the use of Albanian to be a threat to its influence. This circumstance conditioned the weak and relatively late development of the Albanian Orthodox writing tradition. Except for the Easter Gospel (1.2), all Orthodox texts belong to the period after the second third of the 18 th century. There were two main urban centers of this tradition: Elbasan (situated in the southern part of the Geg area) and Voskopoja (Moschopolis), a large city with a mixed Aroumanian-Greek-Albanian population, which experienced a short period of culture flourishing in the middle of the 18 th century. This included in Voskopoja a printing facility (Peyfuss 1996) and the “New Academy”, a kind of middle school. The Albanian Orthodox writing tradition used both Greek script and various original alphabets invented by educated Albanians for their particular language needs (seven such alphabets, showing Greek and Slavic, especially Glagolitic, influences are known [see Shuteriqi 1950, 1976; Elsie 1995b]). The main texts of this tradition are: 1) the so-called Elbasan Gospel Manuscript (Anonimi i Elbasanit mid-18 th cent.), attributed without certainty to Gregory of Durrës (other possible authors are Papa Totasi and Theodoros Bogomilos) and written using two different original alphabets in the South Geg dialect with Tosk elements, contains 59 pages of Bible translations as well as an original religious text. A transliteration of this text is published in Zamputi 1951 (cf. also Elsie 1995b); 2) the so-called Codex of Berat (1764−ca. 1800), written in the Tosk dialect using Greek script with some specimens of an original alphabet,

94. The documentation of Albanian

1721

contains 154 pages of various, mostly religious, texts in Albanian and Greek, among them two glossaries and the Albanian poem Zonja Shën Mëri përpara kryqësë, the author of which is possibly Konstantin Berati (see Hetzer 1981a, 1982); 3) various texts, mostly of a religious character, written by Theodor Haxhifilipi or Dhaskal Todhri from Elbasan (ca. 1730−1805) in the South Geg dialect with some Tosk elements using an original alphabet widely current in the Elbasan district until the 1930’s, partly published in Nosi (1918) and Shuteriqi (1949, 1954, 1959). Two multilingual dictionaries originated within the framework of the Voskopoja cultural tradition. These are the dictionary of Theodor Kavalioti (ca. 1718−1789), which is part of his Prôtopeiria (1770, Venice) and contains 1,170 Greek-Aroumanian-Albanian lexical parallels (reprinted in Thunmann 1774: 181−238; Meyer 1895; new critical edition by Hetzer 1981b) and the dictionary of Daniel of Voskopoja (1754−1825), which is part of his Eisagôgikê didaskalia (1802, most likely Venice) and contains 1,170 tokens in Greek, Aroumanian, Bulgarian, and Albanian (modern editions by Kristophson 1974; Stylos 2011). On other texts belonging to the Orthodox tradition see Shuteriqi (1976); Elsie (1991c); Kastrati (2000); Lloshi (2008). The Old Albanian tradition of Orthodox writing ends with the New Testament translation of Vangjel Meksi (died ca. 1823), published in 1827 by Grigor Gjirokastriti (see Lloshi 2012). The works of the great South-Albanian linguist and writer Kostandin Kristoforidhi (1827−1895), author of an Albanian grammar and dictionary and Bible translator, belong to the period of the Albanian National awakening (see Fiedler 2006: 79−81, 110−113).

2.4. Islamization and the Muslim tradition of Old Albanian Writings The process of islamization of the Albanian population began just after the Ottoman conquest and reached its peak in the 17 th century, at which point more than half of the Albanian population became Muslim. The main zones of the spread of Islamic culture in Albanian territory were the cities of Central Albania, first of all, Elbasan. One of the consequences of this process was the development of an Albanian literature, above all poetry, written in Arabic script. This poetry (which is to be viewed in the larger context of the so-called aljamiado literature) is referred to in the Albanian tradition as “the poetry of the bejtexhinjt” (cf. Albanian beytexhi ‘the author of beyts’, the latter word a borrowing from Arab. bajt, Turk. beyit ‘distich’). The poetry of the bejtexinjt (strongly influenced by the Middle Eastern literary tradition and filled with oriental lexical borrowings) was first composed at the beginning of the 18 th century (the first known text being the “Coffee-Prayer” by Muçi Zade, 1725), flourished from the middle of the 18 th until the first half of the 19 th century, and survived until the middle of the 20 th century (mainly in Kosovo). The best representatives of this poetic tradition are Nezim Frakulla (or Nezim Berati, ca. 1680−1760), Sulejman Naibi (died 1771), Hasan Zyko Kamberi (ca. 1740−1800), Muhamed Kyçyku (1784−1844), and Zenel Bastari (first half of the 19 th cent.). Despite the relatively high literary level of these poets, the bejtexinjt poetry was to a great extent rejected (because of its pronounced oriental character) by the mainstream of Albanian literary criticism. A consequence of this is the almost complete absence of critical editions of this material (the only exception is a critical edition of

1722

XV. Albanian

the Divan by Nezim Berati: Nezim Berati 2009; see also Hamiti 2008). The texts of bejtexinjt are known mainly thanks to some philological articles and anthologies (see Myderrizi 1951, 1954, 1955; Hysa 1997−2000, 2000; Salihu 1987; cf. also Shuteriqi 1976).

2.5. The Italo-Albanian (Arbëresh) writing tradition The fourth major tradition of old Albanian writing developed in Albanian settlements in Southern Italy. The influx of Albanians into the territory of the Kingdom of Naples began in the first half of the 15 th century, continued on a substantial scale until well after Skanderbegs death (1468). After the capture of Morea by Ottomans in the first half of the 18 th century, the new influx of an Albanian-speaking population from the Peloponnese into Southern Italy took place. Albanians founded villages in Sicily, Calabria, Apulia, Molise, and Basilicata. Albanians − mostly Tosk-speaking former inhabitants of the southern part of Albania and Greece (Epirus and Morea) − were partly converted to Catholicism, but some retained the Orthodox rite and formed the Italo-Albanian Catholic church (one of the Eastern Catholic churches). They firmly preserved their cultural traditions and their language − an amalgam of various Tosk dialects. The first Italo-Albanian written text (and the second Albanian printed book), E mbsuame e krështere (Christian Doctrine) by Luca Matranga (Lekë Matrënga, an Arbëresh from Hora e Arbëresheve, Sicily), is a translation from Italian of a very widely used short catechism by Jacob Ledesma. The book was published in 1592 in Rome. Two published copies are known (one of them is lost and is now available only as a photocopy), and three remaining manuscript variants are extant. The book, written using Latin script (with mostly Italian spelling conventions), represents a good example of an older stage of the Tosk dialect. It contains 28 pages and 479 different words (Ashta 1998: 44). In the beginning of one of the manuscripts, there is an eight-line rhyme translated from Latin − the first Albanian written poem. There are four scholarly editions of Matranga’s Work (La Piana 1912; Sciambra 1964; Sulejmani 1979; Mandalà 2004; for Matranga’s lexicon see Ashta 1998; see also Matzinger 2006). A searchable text is available on the Internet at http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/alban/matranga/matra.htm (data entry by M. de Vaan, TITUS version by J. Gippert). A photocopy of Matranga’s book is accessible on the website of the National Library of Albania (http://www.bksh.al/gsdl/cgi-bin/ library.exe). Subsequent important Italo-albanian texts belong to the 18 th century. Among these, the so-called Codex of Chieuti, dated from 1736, should be mentioned. This manuscript (210 pages), compiled by the Italo-Albanian poet and priest from Sicily, Nicolò Figlia (1682?−1769), contains Arbëresh folk songs, poems of Italo-Albanian poets (Figlia himself, Nilo Catalano, and Nicolò Brancato), as well as a short Albanian catechism (see the scholarly edition by Matteo Mandalà 1995). The greatest work of old Italo-Albanian literature is the Ghiella e S. Mëriis Virghiër (1762, Rome) by the Calabrian priest Giulio Variboba (1724−1788), a religious poem (or collection of poems) describing the life of the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ. Variboba’s rich and vivid language reflects the Albano-Calabrian dialect of this period. Two prefaces to the poem are good examples of Italo-Albanian prose (see the critical edition: Variboba 2005; see also Variboba 1984).

94. The documentation of Albanian

1723

The period from the 1830’s until the second decade of the 20 th century marks the zenith of the flourishing of Italo-Albanian written culture. The writers of this time (Girolamo De Rada, Gabriele Dara, Giuseppe Serembe, Francesco Santori, Giuseppe Schirò) raised Italo-Albanian literature to unprecedented heights. At the same time, scholars such as Demetrio Camarda and Vincenzo Dorsa made important contributions to the development of the nascent field of scientific Albanology (cf. Elsie 1995; Kastrati 2000: 543−622). In our time the Italo-Albanian written tradition has been reshaped as a regional literature with its writers using mostly modern standard Albanian. 2.6. Other parts of the large Albanian diaspora had no particular writing traditions. We know of only a few attempts on the part of patriotically oriented Albanians from the diaspora to educate their compatriots. Notable among these were the efforts of the Athenian Anastas Kullurioti (1822−1887), who published some educational school-books reflecting his own Greek-Albanian dialect (cf. Elsie 1995). The Cyrillic dictionaries by Gjorgji Pulevski (1875) and by the monk Arkádïi (manuscript, 1864) representing, respectively, the Albanian dialects of west Macedonia and of Eastern Thrace, should be considered attempts at language (dialect) description rather than the manifestations of any real written tradition (cf. Friedman 1994, 2003a, 2003b).

3. The modern period The period since the middle of the 19 th century is characterized by two important processes relevant to both the development of the Albanian language and the enrichment of its documentation. First, in this period Albanian becomes the subject of scientific linguistic study. Second, the ideological and cultural movement known in Albanian history as Rilindje kombëtare (National Renaissance) makes the development of a common standard Albanian language one of its main objectives. 3.1. Within this period the systematic work of gathering folklore texts, compiling Albanian dictionaries, and engaging in research on Albanian grammar and dialectology begins, thanks to the efforts of both foreign and Albanian scholars (on the history of Albanology cf. Jokl 1917; Hamp 1972; Gosturani 1999; Kastrati 2000; Fiedler 2006). 3.2. Two major goals which were to be achieved in the context of the creation of a standard Albanian language were the elaboration of a national alphabet and the choice of a dialect base (or bases). 3.2.1. The decisive step in the achievement of the first goal was made in 1908 after the success of the Young Turks’ revolution, when at the so-called Congress of Monastir the modern Albanian alphabet (created in the main on the basis of the North Albanian “Bashkimi”-alphabet) was adopted. In several years, this alphabet became the only Albanian alphabet in use; after the creation of the Albanian state (1912), it became the official alphabet of Albanian.

1724

XV. Albanian

3.2.2. The second task was more difficult. In the period from 1917 until the communist take-over in 1944, the official standard Albanian language was based on the South Geg (Elbasan) dialect. Besides this, many texts (literary, public, and scientific) were published in (more or less standardized dialect variants of) Tosk and North Geg. After the communist victory, a new standard language was created based on Tosk but with some Geg elements. After 1967−1968 (until the fall of communism), the publication of Geg texts ceased (cf. e.g. Lafe 2008). In 1968, Albanians of Yugoslavia (Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro) adopted Standard Albanian (from 1941 until 1968 the majority of Yugoslavian Albanians utilized the Geg variant). On the problems of standard language development cf. Byron (1976, 1979); Beci (2000); Fiedler (2006: 104−140); and Ismajli (2003). 3.3. The annotated Albanian language corpus, an ongoing project being carried out by linguists from Saint Petersburg and Moscow, is now available on the Internet at http:// web-corpora.net/AlbanianCorpus/search/?interface language=en. Regarding Albanian texts available in digital form, the following resources should be mentioned: Archivio Letterario (directed by Francesco Altimari, University of Calabria), a collection of ItaloAlbanian literary texts on CD-roms; old Albanian texts in digital form (mainly in the framework of the Titus-Projects, cf. above: 2.2; 2.4); some Albanian texts represented as lexical hypertexts in the IntraText Digital Library (http://www.intratext.com/SQI/), as well as the text of Ismail Kadare’s novel Koncert në fund të dimrës in the European Corpus Initiative Multilingual / Corpus I CD-rom (ECI/MCI) (Kabashi 2007: 141).

4. References Ashta, Kolë 1996 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe I: Tri dokumentet e para të gjuhës shqipe e leksiku përkatës (gjysma e dytë e shekullit XV). Gjon Buzuku e leksiku i plotë, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij “Meshari” (1555) [Albanian historical lexicon I. Three documents before the relevant lexicons of the Albanian language (second half of the XV century). John Buzuku, the full lexicon derived from his work “Missal” (1555)]. Shkodra: Shtëpia Botuese e Universitetit të Shkodrës “Luigj Gurakuqi”. Ashta, Kolë 1998 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe II: Lekë Matrënga dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1592); Pjetër Budi dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1618−1621) [Albanian historical lexicon II: Lekë Matrënga and vocabulary derived from his work (1592); Peter Budi and vocabulary derived from his work (1618−1621)]. Tirana: Toena. Ashta, Kolë 2000 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe III: Pjetër Mazrreku dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1633); Frang Bardhi dhe leksiku, nxjerrë nga vepra e tij (1635) [Albanian historical lexicon III: Peter Mazrreku and vocabulary derived from his work (1633); Frang Bardhi and vocabulary derived from his work (1635)]. Shkodra: Shtypshkronja “Volaj”. Ashta, Kolë 2002 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe IV: Pjetër Bogdani: Leksiku i plotë i shqipes, nxjerrë nga vepra “Cuneus Prophetarum”. [Albanian historical lexicon IV: Peter Bogdani: the full Albanian lexicon derived from the work “Cuneus Prophetarum”]. Shkodra: Camaj − Pipa.

94. The documentation of Albanian

1725

Ashta, Kolë 2009 Leksiku historik i gjuhës shqipe V: Kuvendi i Arbënit (1706), Da Lecce (1716) [Albanian historical lexicon V: Albanian Council (1706), Da Lecce (1716)]. Shkodra: Camaj-Pipa. Bardhi, Frang 1983 Fjalor Latinisht-Shqip 1635. Përgatiti Engjëll Sedaj [Latin-Albanian dictionary of 1635. Prepared by Engjëll Sedaj]. Prishtina: Rilindja. Beci, Bahri 2000 Probleme të politikës gjuhësore dhe të planifikimit gjuhësor në Shqipëri [Problems of language policy and language planning in Albania]. Pejë: Dukagjini. Blanchus, Franciscus 1635 Dictionarivm latino-epiroticvm, vna cum nonnulis vsitatioribus loquendi formilis. ... [A Latino-Albanian dictionary together with some more frequently used phrases]. Rome: Sac. Congr. de Propag. Fide. Blanchus, Franciscus 2006 Dictionarium Latino Epiroticum [A Latin-Albanian dictionary]. Tirana: Çabej. Bogdani Pjetër 1940−1943 Cuneus prophetarum, a se Çeta e profetëve. Pjesa 1. Qitë në alfabetin e soçem e kthiellue me vrojtime prej Át Mark Harapit S. J. [Cuneus Prophetarum, or The Band of Prophets. Part 1. Set in a clear modern alphabet with the observations of Fr. Mark Harapit S. J.]. Shkodra: Shtypshkronja “Zoja e paperlyeme”. Bogdani, Pjetër 1977 Cuneus Prophetarum a Pietro Bogdano. Patavii MDCLXXXV. Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas und des Nahen Orients. Vol. 24. Munich: Trofenik. Bogdani, Pjetër 1989 Çeta e Profeteve I (Cuneus Prophetarum).Transliterimi në gjuhën e sotme, përkthimet dhe parathënia nga dr. E. Sedaj [The Band of Prophets I (Cuneus Prophetarum). Transliteration in today’s language, translation, and preface by Dr. E. Sedaj]. Prishtina: Rilindja. Bogdani, Pjetër 1997 Çeta e Profeteve II (Jeta e Jezu Krishtit). Transliterimi në gjuhën e sotme, hyrja, përkthimet dhe shënimet nga dr. E. Sedaj [The Band of Prophets II (The Life of Jesus Christ). Transliteration in today’s language, introduction, translation, and notes by Dr. E. Sedaj]. Prishtina: Rilindja. Bogdani, Pjetër 2005 Cuneus Prophetarum (Çeta e profetëve). Botim kritik me një studim hyrës, faksimile të origjinalit, transkriptim e shënime përgatitur nga Anila Omari [Cuneus Prophetarum (The Band of Prophets). Critical edition with an introductory study, facsimile of the original, transcript , and notes prepared by Anila Omari]. Tirana: Akademia e shkencave të Shqipërisë. Instituti i Gjuhësisë dhe i Letërsisë. Bogdano, Pietro 1685 Cunevs Prophetarum de Christo Salvatore Mvndi et eivs evangelica veritate, italice et epirotice contexta... [The Band of Prophets of Christ the Savior of the World and his true gospel in Italian and Albanian]. Padua: Typographia Seminarii. [2nd edn.: L’infabilite verità della Cattolica Fede. Venice: Girolamo Albrizzi, 1691; 3rd edn.: 1702.] Borgia, Nilo 1930 Pericope Evangelica in lingua albanese del secolo XIV da un manoscritto greco della Biblioteca Ambrosiana. Grottoferrata: Tip. Italo-Orientale S. Nilo. Budi, Pjetro 1621 Ritvale Romanvm et Specvlum Confessionis... [The Roman rite and a mirror for confession]. Rome: Bartolomeo Zanetti. Budi, Pjetro 1868 Dottrina Christiana... 4th edn. Rome: Stamperia della S. C. di Propaganda Fide. [3rd edn. 1664. 2nd edn. 1636. First published 1618. Rome: Bartolomeo Zanetti.]

1726

XV. Albanian

B