Slavic Nominal Word-Formation: Proto-Indo-European Origins and Historical Development 382536335X, 9783825363352

Citation preview

EMPIRIE UND THEORIE DER S PR AC HW IS S EN SC HA FT

Band 3 H erausgegeben von Jadranka G vozdanovič E ditorial B oard P eter A uer Jam es P. Blevins

RANKO

M ATASOVIĆ

Slavic Nominal Word-Formation Proto-Indo-European Origins and Historical D evelopm ent

U niversitätsverlag WINTER

H eidelberg

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet Uber http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

I SBN

978-3-8253-6335-2

Dieses Werk einschlieUlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschutzt. Jede Verwertung aufierhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulãssig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere fur Vervielfāltigungen. Ūbersetzungen. Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. © 2014 Universitatsverlag Winter GmbH Heidelberg Imprimé en Allemagne • Printed in Germany Druck: Memminger MedienCentrum, 87700 Memmingen Gedruckt auf umweltfreundlichem, chlorfrei gebleichtem und alterungsbestándigem Papier Den Verlag erreichen Sie im Internet unter: www.winter-verlag.de

Contents Table of contents........................................................................................5 Abbreviations and symbols......................................................................11 Foreword.................................................................................................. 13 1 Introduction........................................................................................... 15 1.1 Why another book on Slavic nominal word-formation?.................. 15 1.2 On the Proto-Slavic reconstructions and accentuation......................17 2 Derivation by suffixation.....................................................................21 2.1 Root nouns........................................................................................ 21 2.2 Stems in a resonant........................................................................... 24 2.2.1 *-ẽ < *-ẽn-...................................................................................... 24 2.2.2 *-mę < *-men- (or *-mēn-)............................................................25 2.2.3 *-my < *-mān-............................................................................... 27 2.2.4 *-tel(jь) < *-tel(ja)-........................................................................28 2.2.5 *-ter< *-ter-................................................................................... 30 2.2.6 *-ver- < *-wer-............................................................................... 31 2.2.7 *-ę < *-ent-..................................................................................... 31 2.2.8 *-jēn < *-jān-, *-jēn-......................................................................33 2.3 S-stems.............................................................................................. 33 2.3.1 *-o < *-os-...................................................................................... 34 2.4 I-stems............................................................................................... 36 2.4.1 *-ь< *-i-........................................................................................ 36 2.4.2 *-čь < *-či-..................................................................................... 40 2.4.3 *-ẽdь < *-ēdi-.................................................................................40 2.4.4 *-ẽlь < *-ẽli- (and *-eli-?)............................................................. 40 2.4.5 ?*-etь < *-eti-.................................................................................41 2.4.6 *-nь < *-ni-....................................................................................42 2.4.7 *-slь < *-sli-................................................................................... 44 2.4.8 *-snь < *-sni-.................................................................................45 2.4.9 *-tь < *-ti-......................................................................................46 5

2.4.10 *-znь < *-zni-............................................................................. 49 2.5 Disyllabic suffixes............................................................................50 2.5.1 *-ostь < *-asti-................................................................................ 50 2.5.2 *-ošь < *-aši-.................................................................................. 52 2.5.3 *-ъt(ь) < *-ut(i)-.............................................................................. 53 2.61-stems................................................................................................ 53 2.6.1 *-ьčьji.............................................................................................. 54 2.6.2 *-ni-, *-yni-..................................................................................... 55 2.7 U-stems.............................................................................................. 56 2.7.1 *-ъ < *-u-........................................................................................ 56 2.8 *Ū-stems............................................................................................ 58 2.8.1 *-y < *-ū-........................................................................................ 58 2.9 Thematic stems (and ā-stems)........................................................... 60 2.10 Thematic stems with monosyllabic suffixes..................................62 2.10.1 *-o, *-ъ < *-a-...............................................................................63 2.10.2 *-a < *-ā-.......................................................................................73 2.10.3 Reduplicated thematic nouns.......................................................79 2.10.4 *-čь < *-kja-..................................................................................80 2.10.5 *-dъ, *-do < *-da-.........................................................................80 2.10.6 *-dlo < *-dla-................................................................................82 2.10.7 *-gъ< *-ga- (?).............................................................................85 2.10.8 *-xъ < *-xa-, *-xa < *-xā-............................................................ 85 2.10.9 *-e, *-ь < *-ja, *-ja < *-jā-........................................................... 86 2.10.10 *-kъ, *-ko < *-ka-, *-ka (-ca) < *-kā-.......................................92 2.10.11 *-lъ, *-lo < *-la-, *-la < *-lā-.....................................................94 2.10.12 *-ljь< *-lja-............................................................................... 95 2.10.13 *-manъ........................................................................................96 2.10.14 *-mъ, *-mo < *-ma-, *-ma < *-m ā........................................... 96 2.10.15 *-nъ, *-no < *-na-, *-na < *-nā................................................. 98 2.10.16 *-rъ, *-ro < *-ra-, *-ra < *-rā-.................................................. 103 2.10.17 *-skъ < *-ska-........................................................................... 106 2.10.18 *-slo < *-sla, *-sla < *-slā-....................................................... 106 2.10.19 *-sna < *-snā.............................................................................108 2.10.20 *-sъ < *-sa-, *-sa < *-sā-.......................................................... 109 2.10.21 *-tja < *-tjā................................................................................ 111 2.10.22 *-tje < *-tja-.............................................................................. 111 2.10.23 *-tъ, *-to < *-ta-, *-ta < *-tā-................................................... 111 2.10.24 *-tva < *-twā.............................................................................115 2.10.25 *-vъ, *-vo < *-wa-, *-va < *-wā-.............................................117 2.11 Disyllabic thematic suffixes......................................................... 119 6

2.11.1 *-ačь < *-akja-............................................................................119 2.11.2 *-akъ < *-āka-............................................................................ 120 2.11.3 *-aljь < *-ālja-............................................................................ 121 2.11.4 *-anъ < *-āna-............................................................................ 122 2.11.5 *-arjь < *-ārja-........................................................................... 123 2.11.6 *-avъ *-āwa-, *-ava < *-āwā-.................................................. 123 2.11.7 *-ąga < *-angā- (or *-ungā-).....................................................124 2.11.8 *-ela< *-elā-.............................................................................. 125 2.11.9 *-enъ, *-eno < *-ena-, *-ena *a, *a > *o, *i > *ь, *u > 17

*ъ, *ū > *y), that it already had nasal vowels (*ę, *ą), and that the Auslaut of the forms was more or less as in Old Church Slavonic, attested more than two centuries later. Although we can be quite sure that this was not the case, I followed the tradition in order not to confuse the reader who is used to it. A detailed discussion of the absolute chronology of Common Slavic sound changes and the correct way to reconstruct Proto-Slavic can be found in my “Historical Grammar of Croatian” (Matasović 2008) and in a series of publications by Georg Holzer (e.g. 1995, 2007), with whom 1 mostly agree. Thus, while it is very likely that the actual pronunciation of the words for ‘god’, ‘horse’, ‘smoke’ and ‘mother’ in Proto-Slavic was close to /bagu/, /kanju/, /dūmu/ and /mātī/, respectively, I reconstruct these words as *bogъ, *konjь, *dymъ and *mati, as in traditional handbooks on comparative Slavic linguistics. The prosthetic consonants (*j- and *v-) were omitted in Proto-Slavic reconstructions, although it is not completely clear that they had not yet developed by the Proto-Slavic period. Still, we reconstruct the relevant forms consistently as *ьmę ‘name’, *ablo ‘apple’, *ydra ‘otter’ rather than as *jьmę (or *imę), *jablo, *vydra. Concerning the developments of final syllables in Slavic, it is notoriously difficult to establish their exact relative chronology, and to determine which stages of that chronology were reached by the Proto-Slavic period around 600 A.D. Throughout this book, the traditional reconstructions of the final syllables were adopted, generally representing Proto-Slavic Auslaut as in Old Church Slavonic. However, the final syllables of the jo-stems were consistently represented with *-jь (except after palatals *č, *ž and *š), while the i-stems were reconstructed without *-j- in the Auslaut. PSl. *j is generally represented as a phoneme in Proto-Slavic in all positions, including after all consonants, hence the reconstructions such as *noktь ‘night’ (i-stem), but *konjь ‘horse’ (jo-stem). The reconstructed forms are accented whenever it was possible to determine unambiguously the position and type of the accent in the Nominative singular in Proto-Slavic, and they are attributed to the accentual paradigms discovered by Christian Stang (1957). Nouns belonging to the accentual paradigm a) had the acute on the same syllable throughout the paradigm, e.g. PSI. Nom. sg. *vóma ‘crow’, Gen. sg. *vómy, Acc. sg. *vómą, etc. (cf. Russ, vorórta, voróny, voróm, Croat, vrána, vráně, vránn, etc.). The accentual paradigm b) was non18

acuted; nouns belonging to it were initially stressed on the same non­ final syllable throughout the paradigm, but subsequently the accent was shifted to the following (often final) syllable by Dybo’s law (on which see below), e.g. PSl. Norn. sg. *juxá ‘soup’, Gen. sg. *juxy̑, Acc. sg. *juxą́, (Russ, uxá, uxý, uxú, Croat, júha, júhē,júhu, etc.). Finally, nouns belonging to accentual paradigm c) had mobile accentuation, which means that in some case-forms the root was accented, while in others the accent was on the ending, e.g. PSI. Nom. sg. *golvá ‘head’, Gen. sg. *golvy̑, Acc. sg. *gȏlvą (Russ, golová, golový, gólovu, Croat, gláva, glȃve, glȃvu, etc.).2 While the attribution of nouns to paradigms is often straightforward, as it is clear that every Slavic noun could belong to only one of the three accentual paradigms, the accentological notation is a difficult matter, as one has to decide at which point in the historical development of Slavic accentuation one wants to note the position and type of the accent. It is difficult to be consistent in this matter, as there were many accentological changes during the Proto-Slavic period, and their relative chronology (not to speak of the absolute chronology!) is still somewhat disputed. However, I tried to follow these general principles: Proto-Slavic had three different accents: short (') on short vowels, and circumflex (") and acute ( ) on long vowels and diphthongs. This means that the Proto-Slavic forms are captured in the period before Ivšić’s retraction brought about the fourth type of accent, the neo-acute, which I did not note in my reconstructions.3 Moreover, the opposition between the three types of accents is difficult to ascertain in the final syllables, on which only one diacritic sign is used ('). It denotes the position of the accent, but not the intonation. Hence the reconstructions such as *golvá ‘head’, *tьló ‘floor’, *vьrxъ ‘top, summit’. Finally, the Proto-Slavic forms are captured after the operation of Dybo’s law, by which the accent was shifted from non-acuted syllables to the following syllable, e.g. in *tràva ‘grass’ > *travá (Russ, travá, Croat, tráva, etc.), 2 Some scholars assume the existence of the fourth AP in Proto-Slavic (“Accentual Paradigm d”). However, the evidence for this paradigm is found chiefly in Čakavian dialects o f Croatian, and it has been persuasively challenged by Langston 2007. 3 The neo-acute is found, e.g., in Common Slavic *kõrljь 'king 1 (Croat, dial. (Čak.) krãíj, Standard Croat, krãlj, Russ, korȏl', etc.) from earlier *korl(j)ь, originally from the name o f the emperor Charlemagne, Carolus (Magnus).

19

or in *pèro ‘feather’ > *perȏ (Russ, perȏ, Croat, péro, etc.), see Matasović 2008: 168, Holzer 2005.4 Contrary to the reconstruction of the Leiden’ school, whose accentological views I accept more often than not, I assume that the operation of Dybo’s law was general, in that the short accent was also shifted to yers. Consequently, I write *somъ ‘catfish’, *dvorъ ‘courtyard’, *brodъ ‘ford’, rather than *sȏmъ, *dvòrъ, *bròdъ, etc. (for a similar approach to PSl. accentological reconstruction, see Lehfeldt 2001, Holzer 2005).

4 O f course, the non-final accentuation in Standard Croatian tráva péro is the result o f (very late) Štokavian retraction, see Matasović 2008: 169, Holzer 2007: 86. Standard Croatian does not have end-stressed words.

20

2

Derivation by suffixation

2.1

Root nouns

Root-nouns are nouns in which case-endings were added directly to the root. There were several patterns of accent and Ablaut in PIE root-nouns (Schindler 1972), and they could be both nomina agentis and nomina actionis. For example, Skr. bhuj- means both ‘joy’ and ‘the one who feels joy’. However, many old PIE root-nouns denote concrete objects and cannot be derived from verbal roots, e.g. *pōd-s ‘foot’ (Lat. pēs, pedis, Gr. poús, podós, OHG fuoz, etc.), *kērd- ‘heart’ (Lat. cor, cordis, Skr. hfd-y etc.). These were obviously neither agent nouns nor action nouns in PIE. Root-nouns could belong to any of the three PIE genders, so we find masculines (*pōds ‘foot’), neuters (*kẽrd- ‘heart’), and feminines (*bhorg’h- ‘hill’ > Goth, baurgs, Olr. brí, Gen. sg. breg). It is likely that root nouns derived from verbal roots were feminine by default, while those derived from nominal roots were masculine or (less often) neuter (Matasović 2004: 136-137), In many individual IE languages, the number of root-nouns has been reduced, but they remain somewhat productive in Indo-Iranian and Italic (cf. Lat. lēx ‘law’, diix ‘leader’, pāx ‘peace’, etc., where there is little evidence for root-nouns outside Italic). Proto-Indo-European root nouns are not preserved in Slavic, but there are reasons to believe that they were still quite numerous in ProtoBalto-Slavic (Matasović 2008: 179). In some cases, the lengthened grade of nouns attested as Slavic istems, o-stems, or ā-stems points to PIE root-nouns in which the lengthened grade of the nominative was generalized throughout the paradigm. The following two examples illustrate this pattern: PSl. *čarъ, *čara, *čarь ‘magic’ (ORuss. cara, Slov. čára, OCS čary [Acc. pl.], Pol. czar, Croat, čár [i], ESSJa IV: 22, 26); here we have the unusual lengthened grade in Slavic, while Lith. kerm [Norn, pl.] ‘sorcery’ shows full grade. The PIE root is *kwer- ‘do, make’ (Skr. kīnóti, etc., IEW 642). 21

PSI. *granь ‘edge, boundary’ (Russ, gran', Pol. grań, Vasmer I: 304) and *grana ‘branch’ (Croat, grȃna ‘branch’, ULus. hrana ‘edge’, ESSJa VII: 106-107); the lengthened grade points to the vocalism of the Nom. sg. (PIE *grōn-); the o-grade is preserved in OHG grana ‘beard’, and the e-grade in OIr. grend ‘beard’. The original meaning was probably ‘sharp point, tip’ from which we can derive the meanings ‘edge’, ‘beard’ and ‘branch’.5 Several PIE root nouns became i-stems in Balto-Slavic. The trigger of this development may have been the accusative singular ending in which PIE *-m > BSl. *-in (after consonants), where *-i- was reinterpreted as part of the stem. A similar reinterpretation also occurred in the Acc. pl. (*-ns > *-ins). Examples include the following etyma: PSl. *sȏlь (c) ‘salt’ (OCS solь, Russ, sol', Pol. sól, Croat, sol, Derksen 461), inherited from BSl., cf. Latv. sāls (i), from an original root noun (Gr. háis, Lat. sāl < *seh2l- / Gen. sg. *sh2l-os, IEW 878f., EIEC 498, NHL 586-587). The different Ablaut grades in Latvian and Slavic imply that different stems were generalized, whereby Slavic probably generalized the stem of the oblique cases (*sh2l-) and Baltic the stem of the nominative (*seh2l-). The non-acuted root in Latvian is puzzling: positing *sēh2l- and assuming that the laryngeal was lost after a long vowel (Kortlandt 2011) is quite ad hoc. PSl. *nòktь (c) ‘night’ (OCS noštь, Russ, noč’, Pol. noc, Croat, nõć, ESSJa XXV: 175-7), inherited from BSl. cf. Lith. naktis, Latv. nakts, OPr. naktin Acc. sg. That this word was a root noun in BSl. is implied by the Lith. Gen. pl. naktą (rather than **nakčiq, which would be expected in an i-stem). PIE root noun *nokwt- (Skr. nákt-, Hitt, nekuz Gen. sg., Gr. nýks, Lat. nox, Goth, nahts, LIV 449, IEW 762f., NHL 504-505). This word is usually reconstructed with static inflection in PIE (Nom. sg. *nokwt-s, Gen. sg. *nekwt-s) on the strength of Hitt, nekuz ‘in the evening’6, which is interpreted as the old Gen. sg. Note, however, that the Hittite vocalism might be based on the analogy with the verb, which is attested only in Hitt, nekuzi ‘it becomes night’.

5 For PSI. *bẽda, which could also be from a PIE root-noun, see 2.10.2. 6 Hitt, nekuz occurs only in the syntagm nekuz mēhur, where mēhur means ‘time’.

22

PSI. *gą́sь (c) ‘goose’ (Russ, gus’, Pol. gęś, Slov. gõs, ESSJa VII: 88-9), cf. Lith. žąsìs, Latv. zùoss, OPr. sansy. The depalatalization in Slavic is unclear. Perhaps *g’h > BSl. *g’ > *ź was depalatalized in the oblique cases before the resonant, if the paradigm still had Ablaut in the BSl. period, but depalatalization would have been regular only if the resonant were followed by a back vowel (Matasović 2006). It is also possible that the Slavic word (unlike the Baltic nouns) was borrowed from some Centum languages. Germanic is sometimes claimed to be the source, because of the parallelism between PSl. *gąsь ‘goose’ and *gąserь ‘gander’ (> Pol. gąsior), which is also reflected in Germanic, cf. MHG garner. However, it is not clear that the Germanic word for ‘gander’ is inherited, and a better parallel to PSl. *gąserь might be sought in Lat. ānser ‘goose’ (< *hānser). PIE had a root noun (*g’heh2n-s) as shown by Gr. khēn, cf. also OHG gans, OIr. géiss ‘swan’, etc. (IEW 412). PSl. *mýšь (a) ‘mouse’ (OCS myšь, Russ, m yš’, Pol. mysz, Croat. rnȉš (o) m., ESSJa XXI: 64-7); the PIE root-noun is attested in Gr. mỹs, Lat. mūs, Skr. mūs-, cf. also OHG mūs (IEW 752f.). PSl. *vьsь ‘village’ (OCS vьsь, Russ. arch, ves ’, Pol. wieś, Slov. vás, Derksen 539), from PIE *woyk’-s / *wik’-os, cf. also Lith. viẽšpats ‘lord’, Skr. víš- ‘settlement’, Lat. vīcus ‘village’, Gr. oīkos ‘house’, IEW 1131. PSl. *zvě̑rь (c) ‘wild animal’ (OCS zvěrь, Russ, zvěr’ (jo), Pol. zwierz (jo), Croat, zvijȇr, Derksen 550), inherited from BSl. (Lith. žvėrìs, probably also OPr. Acc. pl. swīrirts), from a PIE root-noun *g’hweh1r or *g’hwẽr ‘wild animal’ (Gr. thēr, IEW 493). The lack of acute in Slavic, and the short vowel in Lat.ferus ‘wild’ would point to the reconstruction without a laryngeal (PIE Nom. sg. *g’hwẽr, Acc. sg. *g’hwer-m, Gen. sg. *g’hwer-s or *g’hwer-os), but we have the acute in Lith. Acc. sg. žvėrj and in Latv. zvērs. In Slavic, the acute could have been eliminated by Meillet’s law, since *zvẽrь belonged to a mobile accentual paradigm. Finally, in certain cases we find that a PIE root noun is reflected with different suffixes and Ablaut grades in Baltic and Slavic, which points to the conclusion that a root noun must be posited for BS1: PIE *gwōrH-s, Gen. sg. *gwrH-os ‘mountain’ (Skr. girl- ‘mountain’, Alb. gur ‘stone’, IEW 478) yielded Lith. girià ‘wood’ and PSI. *gora (c) ‘mountain’ (OCS gora, Russ, gorȃ, Pol. góra, Croat, gȏra, gȍra ESSJa VII: 29-31). Slavic generalized the full grade of the root (probably from the Acc. sg. *gworH-m) and Lithuanian generalized the zero-grade from 23

the oblique cases. In Slavic, this root noun became an ā-stem, probably from the old collective. The accentuation of Slavic i-stems from PIE root-nouns is mostly mobile, i.e. they usually belong to AP c) (*noktь, *zvẽrь, *solь), but in roots with a laryngeal the fixed acute on the root (AP a) is also found (PSl. *myšь).

2.2

Stems in a resonant

2.2.1

*-ẽ < *-ẽn-

PIE stems in *-en- were not preserved in Slavic, except residually, as in the word for ‘root’ below. PSl. *korẽ, *korę ‘root’ (OCS korenъ, korę, Russ, kóren’, Pol. korzeń Croat, kȍrijen, dial, kȍren, Vasmer 1: 625). In Baltic, we find an o-stem, which is likely to be an innovation, cf. Lith. kẽras (4) ‘treestump’, Latv. cęrs ‘bush’. The original PIE n-stems became i-stems, generalizing the *-i- from the Acc. sg. (*-m > *-im), e.g. PSl. *pečenь ‘roast, roasted liver’ (ORuss. pečenъ, Russ, péčen' ‘liver’, Pol. pieczeń ‘roast’, Vasmer 11: 352), from the root *pekti ‘bake’ (OCS peští, Russ, p e č ’, Croat, pèći), cf. Lith. kẽpenos [pl.] ‘liver’ (as a deverbative formation, the Slavic word is presumably an innovation). The comparison with Gr. pépōn ‘ripe’ perhaps points to PIE *pekwōn- / *pekwen- (NHL 548-549). PSl. *golẽnь ‘shin’ (OCS golěnь, Russ, gólen', Pol. goleń, Croat. gȍlijen, ESSJa VI: 201-202) is usually derived from the same root as the adjective *golъ ‘naked’ (OCS golь, Croat, gól, Pol. goiy, etc.), although the semantic connection is not obvious (‘the naked part of the leg’ > ‘shin’?). A possible cognate is ToA kolye ‘lower part of the leg (in animals)’, Poetto 1991. The derivation of an n-stem from a thematic adjective would be parallel to the one in Lat. tīmen ‘threshold, beam’ from Lat. limus ‘transverse, opaque’. Some original n-stems were probably simply thematicized and became stems in *-enъ, *-eno (see 2.11.9), and in the case of the word for ‘deer’ the reflexes in Slavic point to a jo-stem: PIE *h|elH-ēn/*h|elHn-os ‘deer’ > PSl. *elenjь, *elenъ (OCSjelenъ, ORuss. 24

olenь, Croat, jelen, Pol. jeleń, ESSJa VI: 20), cf. Lith. élnis ‘deer’, Gr. ellȏs ‘deer’, Arm. eln, from the same root as PSl. *olni ‘doe’ (see 2.6.2 below). [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 124-125]

2.2.2

*-mę < *-men- (or *-mẽn-)

As a class, words with this suffix are neuters derived from verbal roots. Some have abstract meaning (*vermę ‘time’, *znamę ‘sign’), but equally often the meaning is concrete (*bermę ‘burden’, *tẽmę ‘sinciput’). PSl. *bérmę (a) ‘load, burden’ (OCS brẽmę, Russ. dial, berémja, Pol. brzemię, Croat, brȅmé). Inherited, either identical to Skr. bhárīman‘maintenance’ < *bher-H-men-, or to Skr. (Loc. sg.) bhārman ‘by bringing’, RV 8,2,8 < *bhērmen- (NHL 16). PSl. *ьmę ‘name’ (OCS imę, Russ, imja, Croat, ime, Pol. miano) < *h3nomn (Gr. ónoma, Lat. nōmen, OIr. ainm, etc., IEW 321). In PIE this was an n-stem rather than a derivative in *-men-, unless one accepts the reconstruction *h3neh3men- (advocated, for example, by Beekes 1995). Slavic generalized the stem of the oblique cases, PIE *h3nmen- yielding regularly *inmen- > *ьmę. PSI. *plemę ‘tribe’ (OCS plemę, Russ, plémja, Croat, plȅme, Pol. plemię, Vasmer II: 368-9) < *pled-men-, from the same root as *plodъ ‘fruit’ (Russ, plod, Croat, piȏd, etc.). PSl. *sě̑mę (a) ‘seed’ (OCS sěmę, Russ, sémja, Pol. siemię, Croat. sjȅme, Derksen 446). Inherited in the light of Lith. sěmenys ‘flaxseed’ (OLith. sėmuõ), OPr. semen and Lat. sēmen < PIE *seh|men- (IEW 890), from the root *sehr ‘sow’ (Lat sēro, Lith. sēti, etc.). PSI. *stremę ‘stirrup’ (Russ, strémja, Pol. strzemię, Croat, strȅmën, Vasmer III: 26), perhaps from *strebh-men- (cf. Gr. strémma ‘that which is twisted, thread’, stréphō ‘tum, twist’, IEW 1025). PSl. *tẽmę (a) ‘sinciput’ (Russ, témja, Pol. ciemię, Croat, tjȅme, Derksen 492), derived from the root *teg- ‘cover’ (Lat. tegō, Gr. stégō, etc., LIV 589, IEW 1013L, NHL 634-635), cf. Lat. tegmen ‘a covering’ (Matasović 2010). PSI. *vermę ‘time’ (OCS vrěmę, ORuss. veremja, Croat, vrijème, Derksen 516), inherited from PIE in light of Skr. vȃrtman- ‘track, 25

course’, from the same root as *vьrtẽti ‘turn’ (OCS vrъtěti, Skr. vártati, etc.). PSl. *y̑mę (a) ‘udder’ (Russ, výmja, Pol. wymię, Croat. Víme, Derksen 534-5), from PIE *HuHdh-r/n- (Lat. uber, OE uder, Skr. ūdhar-, Gen. sg. udhnas, IEW 347). PSl. *známę (a) ‘sign’ (CSl. znamę, Russ, známja ‘banner’, Pol. znamię, Croat, znȁmēn (o), Derksen 546), parallel to Gr. gnoma ‘sign, symptom’, Lat. co-gnȏmen ‘nickname’, from the root *g’neh3- ‘know’ (Lat. co-gnōsco, OCS znali, Lith. žinóti, etc., L1V 168ff., IEW 376ff., NHL 154-156). In PSl. *čismę ‘number’ (OCS ěismę, Croat, arch, čišme, ORuss. čismę, ESSJa IV: 118-119), we can assume a secondary form *čit-s-men-, where *-s- is due to the analogy with the infinitive *čisti ‘count, read’ (OCS čisti, pres, čьtą, Cz. čísli), from which this noun is derived. The stem in *-men- is inherited in light of Lith. skaitmuō ‘numeral, digit’. Words derived with the suffix *-men belong to all three accentual types (Snoj 1993, Pronk 2010), but the type (a) is the most common among the reconstructable items. The word for ‘name’ (which was probably not a men-stem originally) seems to have been mobile (Croat. Čak. me, Gen. sg. mena, Nom. pl. imenȁ, imenã (Jurišić 70), Russ. ímja, Gen. sg. ítneni, Nom. pl. imená, Slov. imę́, Gen. sg. intend)) In PIE, the suffix *-men- was used to derive abstract neuter nouns, usually from verbal roots. It is the neuter counterpart to the masculine suffix *-mon > PSl. *-my discussed below. Many of the words belonging to this class are inherited from PIE (*sẽmę ‘seed’, *vermę ‘time’, perhaps also *tẽmę ‘sinciput’, *znamę ‘sign’), but the suffix remained at least marginally productive in PSL, as we find it in words that belonged to different classes in PIE, e.g. *ymę ‘udder’. In Baltic, we find only a few traces of this suffix, e.g. OPr. emmens ‘name’ < *h3nomn (PSl. *ьmę). Since the neuter was lost in East Baltic, it seems probable that original stems in *-men became masculines in *-muo, e.g. Lith. sěmuō ‘sowing’ vs. OCS sěmę ‘seed’; however, many such nouns

1 The end-stress in the Nom.-Acc. pl. of neuters in *-mę is mostly generalized in Croatian and Russian, cf. Croat. (Posavina) plemena ‘tribes’ (Jurišić 155), simená (Novi) besides smena) ‘seeds’ (Jurišić 189). 26

do not have a PIE etymology, e.g. Lith. gntndmuõ ‘goosefoot’, maumuõ ‘top of the head, sinciput’, liemuõ ‘stem’. In Slavic, the original suffix *-men- was either lengthened to *-mēn (as original *-men would have yielded PSl. *-me), or the ending *-ę is analogical (Matasović 2008: 126): *-men yielded *-me, and then final *-n was re-introduced by analogy with the oblique cases.

2.2.3

*-my < *-mān-

Parallel to the neuters in *-men- > *-mę, this suffix was used to build masculines. Only a few of them can be easily derived from some PIE root (*kamy ‘stone’ < *h2ek’mōn). PSI. *ęčьmy (b?) ‘barley’ (Russ, jačm én’, ?o\. jęczmień, Croat, dial. jȅčmëri, ESSJa VI: 63-64), perhaps from PIE *h2nk-, *h2onk- ‘bend’ (Lat. uncus ‘hook’, Gr. ȏgkos ‘id.’, Derksen 156). It appears that this word belonged to accentual paradigm (b) in light of the fixed accentuation on the suffix in Russian, and Croatian dialectal forms such as Kajkavianjāěmȁrt (Pronk 2010: 108). PSI. *kámy (a) ‘stone’ (OCS kamy, Russ, kámen’, Pol. kamień, Croat, kȁmēn, ESSJa IX: 137-40); inherited from BSl. *Hakmōn > Lith. akrnuo, Latv. akmens, PIE *h2ek’mōn ‘stone’ (Skr. áśman-, Gr. ákmōrt ‘anvil’). The PIE root is *h2ek’- ‘sharp’ (OCS ostrъ, Lith. aštrìis, etc., L1V 261, IEW 18ffi, NIIL 287-290). In Slavic, we must posit an early metathesis (*Hak-mān > *kaH-mān), which preceded the loss of laryngeals, as evidenced by the fixed acute on the root. PSI. *kremy ‘flint’ (CSl. kremy, Russ, kremén’, Pol. krzemień, Croat. krȅmẽn, ESSJa XII: 118-123); Latv. kręms, krams; in Slavic, the stem in -men- probably arose on the analogy with *kamy ‘stone’. The PIE root is unknown, so this may be a loanword from some pre-IE language in BSl. PSI. *pȏlmy (a or c) ‘flame’ (OCS plamy, Russ, plámja, Pol. plomien, Croat, plȁmën (o), Derksen 411), from the same root as *polẽti (OCS polěti) ‘burn’.8 8 The mobile accentual paradigm (c) may be implied by Slov. dial, plamę́n, Croat, dial. (Kali) pluȁmen (I owe this remark to Tijmen Pronk).

27

PSI. *remy ‘strap, belt’ (OCS remenь ‘latcheť, Russ, remén ’ (jo), Pol. rzemień (jo), Croat, rȅmẽn (o), dial, rȅmik, Derksen 433). Perhaps borrowed from, or related to MHG rieme ‘strap, belt’ < *(H)regwh-men-. PSl. *strumy ‘stream’ (Russ, stnimen ’, OCz. stntmen, Pol. strumień Slov. stntmen, Vasmer III: 31), parallel to Lith. dial, straumuo (BSl. *strawmōn). In Greek, we find a neuter in -men ( rheūma), pointing to the conclusion that the BSl. word is originally a collective thereof (PIE *srowmonh2 > *srowmōn). The root is PIE *srew- ‘flow’ (Skr. srȃvati, Gr. rhéō), as in *struja ‘stream’. For the accentuation of nouns derived with this suffix, see Pronk 2010. ’ kámy belongs to the accentual paradigm (a) because of the laryngeal in the root (after the Slavic metathesis *Hak- > *kaH-). In PIE, the suffix *-mōn was the masculine counterpart to neuter *-men, and we often find it in doublets such as Gr. térmōn and térma ‘end’, Lat. termo and termen ‘id.’, cf. also Lith. stomuō ‘stature’ besides Lat. stāmen ‘warp (in the upward loom)’ < PIE *steh2men-, *steh2-mōn (cf. Lat. sto, stare ‘stand’, OCS stojatí, 1EW 1005). [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 125-126]

2.2.4 -telfjь) < *-tel(ja)This suffix was used to derive masculine nomina agentis from verbal roots. It was originally an athematic suffix (an 1-stem), subsequently re­ interpreted as an i-stem (via the Acc. sg. *-tel-m > *-tel-in > *-tel-ь). Like most masculine i-stems, words with this suffix became jo-stems in individual Slavic languages (a process which certainly began already in Proto-Slavic). PSl. *dateljь ‘giver, donor’ (OCS datel’ь, Russ. dial, dȃtel’, Cz. datel, ESSJa IV: 193-4) ← *dati ‘give’ (OCS dati, Croat, dati, Russ. dat’, etc.), see *danь ‘tax’, *darъ ‘gift’. PSl. *prijateljь ‘friend’ (OCS prijatelь, Pol. przyjaciel, Croat. pr̀ìjateíj, Derksen 420), from the root *priH- (Skr. priyā- ‘dear, wife’, Lat. pro-prius ‘one’s own, peculiar’, OHG fr ī ‘free’, MW rhydd ‘free’, IEW 829). In Slavic the word is deverbal to *prijati ‘please’ (OCS přijati, Croat, přijati). In Proto-Slavic, this suffix was very productive. We have it in the following nouns in OCS: blagodětel’ь ‘benefactor’ ← blago + děti ‘to 28

do well’, vlastel’ь ‘ruler, lord’ ← vlasti ‘to rule’, žętel’ь ‘reaper’ ← žęti ‘to reap’, zьdatel'ъ ‘builder’ ← zъdati ‘builà'žitel'ь ‘inhabitant’ ← žiti ‘to live’ (cf. Russ, žítel'), slyšatel’ь ‘listener’ ← slyšati ‘to listen’ (Russ. slyšátel ’), gubitei’ь ‘destroyer’ ← gubiti ‘to destroy’, izbavitei’ь ‘redeemer’ ← izbaviti ‘to redeem’, roditel ’ь ‘parent’ ← roditi ‘to beget’ (Croat, rȏditelj, Russ, roditel), učitel’ь ‘teacher’ ← učiti ‘teach’ (Croat. ùčitelj, Russ, učitel’, Pol. na-uczycief). The examples show that *-teljь was often added to causative and factitive verbs in *-iti (WojtylaSwiezowska 1974: 52-56), cf. also Croat, iscijèlitelj ‘healer’ ← iscijèliti ‘heal’, krȏtitelj ‘tamer’ ← krȏtití ‘tame’, etc. (on the history o f this suffix see especially Bemštejn 1972). The suffix *-tel(jь) is never accented in Slavic. The accent is generally on the vowel preceding the suffix (the vowel of the infinitive stem, e.g. dátelь ‘giver’, *slyšátelь ‘listener’, *rodítelь ‘parent’). This suffix is parallel to the PIE suffix *-tēr/-tōr (e.g. Lat. amātor ‘lover’ ← amāre ‘love’), which was all but lost in Balto-Slavic. That the suffix should be reconstructed as *-tel rather than *-teli- is shown by the fact that nouns derived with it often have Nom. pl. in -e and Gen. pl. in -ъ in OCS, e.g. žitele, žitelъ ‘inhabitants’, prijatele ‘friends’, roditele ‘parents’. In Croatian, the ending -tele typical of consonant stems is still found in Ragusan poetry of the 16th century (Rešetar 1936: 136). Vaillant (1974: 315) denies the direct connection of PSl. *-tel(jь) with PIE *-ter- and compares it to Lith. -ėlis, Latv. -eiis, which are also used to derive nomina agentis and terms for close relatives, e.g. Lith. broterělis ‘brother’ (vs. Lat. frāter < PIE *bhreh2tēr), Skardžius 1941: 178-180. Nomina agentis derived with *-elo- are also common in Germanic (Meid 1967: 86-87), cf. OHG wahtii ‘guard’ ← wahten ‘to guard’, OHG bird ‘porter’ ← beran ‘carry’, etc. Vaillant further states that Balto-Slavic *-el- was changed to *-tel- in Slavic by analogy with the stems in *-ter- which had still existed at the time, but were subsequently lost. 1 find this complex scenario rather unlikely, especially since we know that the variant *-tel- of the suffix *-ter, found in Arm. asti ‘star’, points to PIE *h2stel- besides *h2ster- (Gr. astēr), and OHG friudii ‘friend’ likewise points to the variant *-tel (Meid 1967: 180-181). Meillet 1905: 311 compares also the Armenian agent-noun suffix -wi, e.g. in cnawi-lč ‘parents’, sermanwi ‘sower’, which may have developed from ’"-tel.

29

Hittite also has the suffix -at(t)aila-, e.g. Hitt, maniyahhatalla- ‘ruler’ ← maniyahh- ‘rule’. Although this suffix is often connected with Slavic *-tel(jь), it seems to be unrelated (Rieken 1999: 119-121), having rather developed by adding the possessive suffix -alia- to abstract nouns in att. The variants for nomina agentis in *-tel- and *-ter- in PIE are parallel to the variants *-dhro- and *-dhlo- for nomina actionis, whereby Slavic in both cases generalized the variant with *-l- (see *-dlo). [Sławski 1974-1979, II: 5-153]

2.2.5

*-ter- < *-ter-

This suffix, found in nouns for close relatives, was partly preserved in Slavic (with the change of *-ēr > *-i in *mati ‘mother’, *dъkti ‘daughter’), but in at least one instance it was thematicized (*bratn> ‘brother’). PSl. *brátrь (a) ‘brother’ (OCS bratrъ, Russ, brat, Pol. brat, Croat. brȁt, ESSJa II: 238, III: 8-9). Thematicized in Slavic. Baltic preserves the original PIE r-stem, PIE *bhreh2tēr > Lith. (originally diminutive) broterėlis ‘brother’, OPr. brāli. Lat. frāter, Skr. bhrātar-, IEW 163f, EIEC 84, NIIL 38-39. PSl. *dъkti ‘daughter’ (OCS dъšti, Russ. doč', doceń, Croat, kėǹ Vasmer I: 366) < PIE *dhugh2tēr (Lith. duktě, Gr. thygȃtẽr, Arm. dustr, etc.), IEW 277, EIEC 147f., NIIL 126. PSl. *máti (a) ‘mother’ (OCS mati, Russ, mat’, Gen. sg. máteri. Croat, māti, Vasmer II: 106) < PIE *meh2tēr (Latv. mātē, Lat. māter, Gr. mētēr, etc., IEW 700f., EIEC 385f„ NIIL 457-458). PSl. *nestera ‘niece’ (ORuss. nestera, OPol. niešciora, Croat, obs. nèstera, ESSJa XXV: 18-9) was built on a r-stem (cf. Ved. náptar‘nephew’, YAv. naptar- ‘id.’), which is in turn analogically extended from a t-stem (OLith. nepuotis ‘grandson, granddaughter’, Skr. napit‘daughter, granddaughter’, OIr. necht ‘niece’, Gr. anepsiós ‘cousin’, OHG nifta ‘niece’) < PIE *nepōt- ‘nephew, descendant’, *neptih2 ‘niece, granddaughter’ (IEW 764, EIEC 239f., NIIL 520-521). Besides nouns denoting relatives in *-(h2)tēr, PIE also had nomina agentis in *-tōr (Lat. amātor ‘lover’ ← amo, amāre ‘love’, Gr. genétōr ‘parent’, Lat. genìtor < *g’enh!tōr ← *g’enh!- ‘give birth to’, cf. Lat. gigno). The variant *-tōr did not leave any trace in Balto-Slavic. 30

[Sławski 1974-1979, II: 16-17]

2.2.6

*-ver- < *-wer-

This suffix is attested only in the word for ‘husband's brother’, where the old consonant stem was re-interpreted as a masculine i-stem (later jo-stem), just as was the case with many original root nouns and consonant stems (see 2.1 and Eckert 1983: 109f.). PSl. *děver(j)ь (a or c) ‘husband’s brother’ (Russ, déver’, OPol. dzieuierz, Croat, djȅvēr, ESSJa V: 19, Trubačev 1959: 133E); inherited from PIE, cf. Lith. dieveris (1), Latv. dieveris, Skr. devár-, Gr. Hom. daēr < *deh:iwer- (IEW 179, EIEC 84, NIIL 58).

2.2.7

*-ę < *-ent-

This suffix is used primarily for deriving names of domestic animals. It may have been a diminutive suffix originally, or, less likely, a possessive suffix (Aitzetmūller 1953). All nouns derived with this suffix are neuters. PSl. *ágnę (a) ‘lamb’ (OCS agnę, ORuss. jagnja, Pol .jagnię, Croat. jȁnje, ESSJa I: 54-5); derived from PIE *h2eg*en-, attested only as a thematicized *h2eg*nos (Lat. agmts, Gr. amnós, IEW 9). PSl. *èrę ‘lamb, kid’ (ORuss, farę, Cz. jeřátko ‘one and a half yearold sheep’, Croat jȁre ‘kid’, ESSJa VIII: 175-6), from the same root as Lith. ěras ‘lamb’, Latv. jēre ‘mother lamb’, OPr. eristian ‘lamb’, Ukr. jar ‘spring’, Germ. Jahr ‘year’, PSl. *pȏrsę (b) ‘piglet’ (CSl. prasę, Russ, porosēnok (o), Pol. prosię, Croat prȃse, Derksen 414). This word is derived from the same root as Lith. paršẽlis, OPr. prastiem (perhaps a Slavic loanword). Lat porem. OWG farah. etc. (PIE *pork’o-, IEW 841). PSl. *ščenę ‘young animal, cub’ (CS štenę, Russ. dial, ščenjá, Pol. szczenię, Croat, štène, Derksen 486), from PIE *(s)ken- ‘new’ (Gr. kainós, Skr. itauvā- ‘girl’, etc., IEW 536f.). In OCS, we also find the following words belonging to this type: kì'usę ‘beast of burden’ (from the same root as Lith. klupti ‘to stumble’), kozьlę ‘young goat’ ← kozьlъ ‘goat’, osьię ‘young ass’ ← osьlъ ‘ass’, 31

otročę ‘child’ ← otrokь ‘id.’, ovьčę ‘sheep’ ← ovьca ‘id.’, žrěbę ‘foal’ (cf. Gr. bréphos ‘young infant’ < PIE *gwerbh-). In individual Slavic languages, the suffix remained somewhat productive, cf. Croat, pīle ‘chicken’, which is probably derived from onomatopoetic pȉ and parallel to Latv. pīlēns ‘young duck’, Pol. bliźnię ‘twins’, Croat, dial, bliznę ‘id.’, Bulg. dial, biizné < *blizъ ‘close’ (Croat, blȋz, OCS bìizъ, etc.). The nouns derived with the suffix *-ent- > *-ę- were mobile in Proto-Slavic if the suffix was added to non-acuted roots (*põrsę ‘piglet’). Otherwise, the root was accented, and the noun belonged to AP a (ágnę ‘lamb’, where the acute is due to Winter’s law). The relationship of *govędo ‘head of cattle’ (Russ, govjádo, Cz. hovado, Croat, gȏvedo, ESSJa VII: 74-5) to words with this suffix is unclear. In Baltic, we find Latv. gùovs ‘cow’, which is an i-stem. PIE had a root noun *gwōws > Gr. boús, Skr. gau- (IEW 482E, EIEC 134135, NIIL 189-190). The origin of this suffix is disputed. The only parallel in Baltic is OPr. smm-ents ‘man’, cf. also smūni (f.) ‘person’ and Lith. žmónės without *-t-. It is possible that Slavic *-ent- developed by adding a secondary *-t- to original n-stems (Brauer 1969, III: 80-82), since Slavic stems in *-nt- sometimes correspond to Latvian nouns with the suffix *-ēn-, cf. Latv. telēns ‘calf corresponding to PSI. *telę ‘calf (Croat. tèie, Pol. cielę, ORuss. telja, Vasmer III: 90; note, however, that it is possible that the Latvian word is a borrowing from Slavic). The element *-t- was added to a number of neuter consonant stems in in Greek, cf. Gr. ónoma, ȏnomatos ‘name’ < *h3nomn-t-, or the heteroclyte hýdōr hýdatos ‘water’ < *udn-t-. The suffix *-t- is also missing in Slavic derivatives from stems in *-ent- such as *telen-ъkъ ‘calf > Russ. telēnok (singulative, with pl. teljáta), *dẽten-ьcь ‘little child’ > Croat, dial, djètenac (vs. dijěíe, Gen. sg. djèteta ‘child’). Another possibility is that this suffix is an archaism, comparable to Hitt. *-nt- > -nz-, which is used to derive agentive common gender nouns from neuters when they were subjects of transitive verbs, e.g. Hitt, pahunanza ‘fire’ from pahhur ‘id.’. For more speculative theories about the origin of PSI. *-ę see Sławski 1980, Arumaa 1985: 33-36. [Sławski 1974-1979,111: 11-19]

32

2.2.8

*-jěn- < -yān-, *-yēn-

This suffix was used to build ethnic names. From the earliest documents names derived with this suffix are attested only in the plural in *-jẽn-e, to which the singulative suffix *-im> may be added to derive the singular e.g. OCS izdrailitěmnъ ‘Israelite’, pl. izdrailitěne, ORuss. poljaninъ ‘a member of the Pol’any tribe’, pl. poljane. The suffix is also found in nouns for inhabitants of certain places or areas, e.g. *seljẽninъ ‘inhabitant of a village, villager’ (Croat, sèljanin, Russ. arch, seljaniri) ← *selo ‘village’ (Croat, selo, OCS selo, Russ, seló, Pol. siolo). In Baltic, we find the Lith. suffixes -ėnas, -ionis which has similar function, cf. kalněnas ‘mountaineer’ ← kalnas ‘hill’, girėnas ‘inhabitant of woods’ ← gìrě ‘wood’, Lith. dial, kiemionis ‘villager’ ← kiẽmas ‘village’. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 119-120]

2.3

S-stems

In Proto-Indo-European, there were nouns of all three genders derived with a suffix *-es- (Stūber 2002, Matasović 2004). In neuters, this suffix had the full o-grade in the Nom.-Acc. sg., and the e-grade elsewhere, i.e. the inflectional pattern was Nom.-Acc. sg. *nebhos ‘cloudy sky’ > Gr. néphos, OCS nebo, Gen. sg. *nebhes-os > Gr. Horn, népheos, OCS nebese (Schindler 1975a, Stūber 2002). The masculines and feminines had the lengthened grade in the Nom. sg., e.g. PIE *h2ewsōs ‘dawn’ > Skr. ūsās, Gr. Hom. ēṓs. In Slavic, the masculines and feminines completely dissapeared, or were transferred to other inflectional classes, cf. PSl. *u(s)tro ‘morning’ (OCS utro, ustro (hapax), Russ, útro, with *str- regularly developing from *-sr-) < *h2ewsōs ‘dawn’ (NIIL 358). In Baltic, a trace of this type is represented by Lith. měnuo, Gen. sg. mėmsio < *mehļn0s, *meh1nes-os, perhaps by analogy with *h2ewsōs ‘dawn’. On the other hand, the neuter class is well represented in Slavic, though not in Baltic (but the suffix *-es- is preserved in Lith. debesis ‘sky’ < *nebhos-, *nebhes-, with the assimilation of initial *d- < *n-). As in PIE, the neuter stems in *-o < *-os are abstract nouns. Some are clearly derivable from verbal roots (e.g. *k’lewos ‘fame’ > PSl. *slovo ‘word’ ← *k’lew- ‘hear’, from the root of PSl. *sluti ‘hear’, *wekwos 33

‘sound, word’ > Gr. épos, Skr. vȃcas- ← *wekw- ‘utter’, from the root of Skr. vac- ‘speak’), but in some cases the connection is not so clear, e.g. PIE *h2eyos ‘ore. copper’ (Skr. áyas-. Lat. aes, OHG ēr) is not obviously derivable from any verbal root.

2.3.1

*-o< ^ o s­

in Slavic, we find this sufifix in a number of archaic neuter nouns (*čudo ‘miracle’, *nebo ‘sky’, *slovo ‘word’), but it seems to have spread analogically to a number of new formations (*divo ‘miracle’, *kolo ‘wheel’). PSI. *čúdo (a) ‘miracle’ (OCS čudo, čudese, Russ, čiido, OPol. czudo, cudo, Croat, čììdo, Bulg. čúdo, čudesá [pl.], ESSJa IV: 128-9); the same formation in Gr. kūdos ‘fame’ < *kewdos- (1EW 587). PSl. *divo (c) ‘miracle’ (OCS divesa [pl.], Russ, divo, OPol. dziwo, Croat, dim, ESSJa V: 33-4); except for the OCS form, all other reflexes point to an o-stem. Perhaps the s-stem is analogical to *čewdas- > *čudo ‘miracle’. PSI. *kòlo (c) ‘wheel’ (OCS kolo, Russ, kolesm̀ Pol. kolo, Croat kȍlo, arch. pl. kolèsa. ESSJa X: 141-5); there is no evidence for an sstem outside Slavic: in other IE languages, the word for ‘wheel’ is a thematic stem. cf. Lith. kākias ‘neck’, Latv. kakls, OPr. kelan ‘wheel’, Skr, cakrá-, Gr. biklos. In Slavic, this word was originally a reduplicated thematic stem, as in Lith. kȁklas ‘neck’. It might have become an s-stem by analogy with words for other parts o f the cart e.g. *oje 'thill', which is an inherited s-stem. PSI. *nèbo (c) ‘sky’ (OCS nebo. Gen. sg. nebese, Russ, nébo. Nom. pl. nebesa, Cz. nebe, Pol. niebo (o), Croat, nebo, pl. nebesa, ESSJa XXIV: 101-104), inherited from PIE. cf. Lith. debesis ‘cloud’, Latv. debess < PIE *nebhos- ‘cloudy sky' (Skr. nábhas ‘fog’, Gr. nephos ‘cloud’. Hitt, nēpiš- ‘sky', IEW 315f„ E1EC 110,477, NIIL 499-500). PSI. *òje (c) ‘thill’ (Russ. dial, voē, Cz. dial. oje. Pol. dial. oje. Croat. óje (jo). Slov. o j l ojēsa. ESSJa XXXII: 35-7) < PIE *h2eyH-os- (Hitt. išša' ‘thill’, Gr. oiaks ‘tiller, handle of rudder', IEW 298). PIE *slòvo (c) ‘word’ (OCS slow , Russ, slovo, Pol. slowo, Croat slow, Derksen 454). Inherited from PIE in light o f the s-stem in Gr. kiéos ‘fame’. Skr. iravas < PIE *k'!euos- (IEW 505ff., NIIL 425-427). 34

PSI. *ùxo (c) ‘ear’ (OCS uxo, Gen. sg. ušese, Russ, úxo, Croat, 'ȗxo, Nom. pl. arch, ušésa, Vasmer 111: 197) < *h2ewsos- (Gr. oūs, Gen. sg. ōtós, OIr. an, ȏ, Gen.sg. aue, perhaps also Alb. vesh, IEW 785, EIEC 173, NHL 339-340); in other languages we find an i-stem, which may be secondary (abstracted from the dual *h2us-s-ih1( cf. NHL 339), cf. Lith. ausis, Lat. aurìs. Those Proto-Slavic s-stems for which we can reconstruct the accentual paradigm belong to AP c, i.e. they have mobile accentuation, except for *čudo ‘miracle’, where the acute on the initial syllable may be due to Winter’s law, hence this word belongs to AP a. A few nouns are attested both as o-stems and s-stems, e.g. *aka- and *akas- > *oko ‘eye’ (OCS oko (s and o), Pol. oko, Croat, ȍko (o-stem, in dialects s-stem). Slov. oko (s). The s-stem forms may be analogically based on *uxo ‘ear’, which is an inherited s-stem (Stūber 2002: 62, NHL 376), while PIE had a root-noun *h3okw- (Lith. akis [i f], YAv aši [Nom. Acc. du.], Gr. ṓps ‘eye, face’, Lat. oculus, etc., IEW 775-777). Finally, there is PSl. *juga- > *jьgo ‘yoke’, which inflects like an s-stem in Slov. igó, ižę́sa, probably by analogy with *oje ‘thill’ and *kolo ‘wheel’, although there is some evidence for an s-stem in PIE, cf. Gr. zeūgos ‘pair or team of mules’, Lat. iūgerum ‘an acre, a measure of land’ < *yewges- (Stūber 2002:113). In OCS we also find isto ‘kidney’ (originally an o-stem, cf. Lith. inkstas ‘kidney’, ON eista ‘core’), drěvo ‘tree’ (Gen. drěvese besides drěva) ← *dervo (an o-stem, cf. Russ, dérevo, Lith. coll, dervá), tělo ‘body’, dělo ‘deed’ ← *dẽti ‘do’ (OCS děti, originally a stem in *-lo-; the s-stem is due to analogy with *slovo ‘word’) and ijuto ‘rage’ ← ♦ljutъ ‘angry’. For other possible traces of PIE s-stems in Slavic see Bemštejn 1970.9 [Sławski 1974-1979, II: 29-30]

9 PSI. *lososjь ‘salmon’ (Russ, losós’ (jo), Pol. łosoś (jo), ESSJa XVI: 88-90) seems to contain a composite suffix *-os-yo- when compared to PIE *lok’s- > Latv. lasīs, OHG lahs, ToB laks ‘fish’. However, the suffix *-os- is unexpected in a masculine noun.

35

2.4

I-stems

I-stems were a large class in PIE. These words could belong to all three genders and to two different inflexional types: there were hysterodynamic nouns like PIE *h2ewis / Gen. sg. *h2(e)wy-os (Skr. avȋh, avyȃh) and proterodynamic nouns like PIE *mntis / Gen. sg. *mntey-s (Skr. matíh, matéh). Originally, it is probable that the root had Ablaut, just like the suffix, i.e. that the inflexion was *h2ewis / Gen. sg. *h2wy-os and *mentis / Gen. sg. *mntey-s, but the form of the root tended to be generalized throughout the paradigm already in PIE. Thus, we find i-stems with the zero-grade of the root (the commonest type), e.g. OHG lug ‘lie’, OCS lьžь < PIE *lugi- and with the o-grade (Gr. trópis ‘ship’s keel’ ← trépȏ ‘tum ’, Gr. pósis ‘husband’, Skr. pati‘master’ < PIE *poti-, Lat. mare ‘sea’, OIr. muir ‘id.’ < PIE *mori-). The type with the e-grade of the root seems to have been rather rare, but cf. OIr. daig ‘fire’ < *dhegwhi-. In Balto-Slavic, only the proterodynamic type remained. The hysterodynamic nouns were either transferred to the proterodynamic type, or to other stem-classes. Although PSI. and BSI. had several masculine i-stems, only a few remained in the attested languages. Others either became jo-stems, or changed gender and became feminine i-stems in individual Slavic languages.

2.4.1

*-ь Croat, lópata etc.). It appears that in these words we have the suffixes *-ačь and *-očь respectively, cf. also Croat, gìàvoč ‘a kind of fish (Gobius)’ ← glȃva ‘head’, bùkoě ‘a kind of owl, noctuar’ ← bȕka ‘noise’. In the Russian collective méloě’ ‘trifle, small things’, from the same root as méikij ‘small’ (ORuss. měiъkь, Vasmer II: 115) we have the suffixal *-ь added to the stem *mẽlъk-. A collective suffix *-ahja- exists in Germanic (Meid 1967: 194), where it was formed by adding the suffix -ja- to adjectives in -aha-, cf. OHG steinahi ‘stony ground’ from the root of Goth. stainahs ‘stony’, OHG ascahi ‘ash-wood’ ← asc ‘ash-tree’. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 102-103]

2.4.3

*-ědь- < *-edi-

This collective suffix is found only in the following item: PSl. *čeljadь ‘servants’ (collective) (OCS čeiědijq [Ins. sg.], Russ. čéljadь, Pol. czeladź, Croat, čȅljād, ESSJa IV: 40-2); for the etymology see *kolěno ‘knee’. 2.4.4

*-ělь < *-ēli- (and *-elь < *-eli- ?)

A deverbative suffix, still somewhat productive in PSl. The following examples should be noted:

40

PSI. *kąpẽlь ‘bath’ (OCS kąpēlь, Russ, kupél’ ‘baptistry’, Croat, kȗpelj ‘bath’, Cz. koupel, ESSJa XII: 62-3) ← PSI. *kąpati sę ‘bathe’ (Croat. kúpati se), which is of uncertain etymology. PSl. *kądẽlь ‘tow, oakum’ (CSl. kądělь, Croat, kùdjelja, Russ. kudél', Pol. kqdziel, ESSJa XIII: 48-50), probably from the same root as *kądrь ‘lock of hair’ (Russ, kudér ’). In OCS we also find gybēlь ‘loss, disaster’ ← gybnqti ‘perish’ (Russ. gȋbel’, Croat, po-gibelj ‘danger’), OCS peěalь ‘grief ← peští ‘bum, bake’ (cf. Russ, pečál’), OCS svirēlь ‘flute’ ← svirati ‘play (a flute)’. Cf. also Russ, metél’ ‘snow-storm’ ← mesti ‘throw’. Croat, grédeij [o] ‘plough-beam’ (probably originally an i-stem), as well as Pol. grzqdziel, Russ. grjadíV (Vasmer I: 315) may point to *grędelь, but this is probably a Germanic loanword, cf. OHG grintil ‘stick, shaft’. Croat, dial, kr̀peij ‘stick’ and Cz. dial, karpei’ ‘stick’, may be from *kъrpelь cer(Kurkina 1992: 32), from the root found in Lith. kir̃pti ‘cut’, cf. also Lith. kerpiė ‘tree trunk’. In origin, this suffix is probably an agglutination of *-ẽ- > *-ẽ- (from the stem of the Slavic imperfect, as in *-ẽ-jь) and *-li- > *-lь. Baltic has a similar suffix in Lith. -ėlis, but it has a very different function, as it is mostly used to derive nouns denoting persons from verbal roots, e.g. negývěíis ‘dead person’ ← ne- + gyveti ‘live’, smírděiis ‘stinky person’ ← smirdēti ‘stink’, (Skardžius 1941: 178-9). Lithuanian also has a suffix -ěíě, which often has deminutive meaning, e.g. in skruzdėlě ‘ant’. Outside Balto-Slavic, a rare suffix *-ēl- (or *-eh1l-) is found in Latin abstract nouns in -ëla-, e.g. ąuerēla ‘complaint’ ← queror ‘complain’, loquěla ‘expression’ ← loquor ‘talk’, candēla ‘candle’ ← candor ‘glow’ (Balles 2008: 9). Its similarity to the Slavic suffix may be accidental. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 107]

2.4.5

?*-etь- < *-eti-

This suffix may be attested in the following item, but the exact formation is uncertain: PSl. *esetь ‘rack for drying grain’ (Russ, osět’, Pol. dial, jesieć, Derksen 145), Lith. dial, ekėčios [pl.], OPr. aketes, OHG egida ‘harrow’, W oged ‘harrow’, Lat. occa ‘id.’, IEW 18-22. The root is probably PIE *h2ek’- ‘sharp’ (Lat. ācer, OCS ostrь, etc.), and the suffix 41

*-et- is attested in Celtic, Germanic and in Italic (if occa is derivable from *oketā, see de Vaan 423).10

2.4.6

*-nь- < *-ni-

This rare suffix is attested in a few Proto-Slavic nouns. Words containing it have both abstract and concrete meanings. PSl. *ábolnь (a) ‘apple-tree’ (Russ, já blon’, Pol. jabloň, Slov. jáblan, ESSJa I: 42-3, 47-8), a derivative of *ābl-a- ‘apple’ (OCS ablьko, Croat, jȁbuka, etc.). Cf. OPr. wobalne ‘apple-tree’, also with a suffix containing *-n- (NHL 236). PSl. *bolnь ‘membrane, skin’ (Russ. dial, bolȏn', LLus. błoń ‘meadow, clearing’, Croat, blȁnja, ESSja II: 178); probably inherited, cf. Lith. bȃlnis ‘peeled tree-trunk’. This noun is from the same root as *bolna ‘membrane’, *bolto ‘mud’ (see 2.10.23). PSl. *bȏmь (c) ‘war, fight’ (OCS branь, ORuss. horom, Pol. broń ‘weapon’, Croat, dial, brán, ESSJa II: 208-9), from the root of *borti (sę) ‘fight’ (OCS brati sę, ORuss. boroti, etc., ESSJa II: 213f.). PSl. *dȃnь (c) ‘tribute, tax’ (OCS danь, Russ, dan Pol. dań, Croat, arch, dan, ESSJa IV: 194-5); inherited from BSL, cf. Lith. dānis ‘tribute’, from the root *deh3- ‘give’ (Croat. dati, Lith. dúoti, Lat. do, dare). It is possible that BSI. *dāni- goes back to a secondary root noun. This would explain the circumflex intonation in Lithuanian. Together with PSl. *dāra- > *darъ ‘gift’ it is from a PIE heterocliton *deh3r / *dh3nos, cf. Gr. dōron ‘gift’ vs. Lat. dōnum ‘id.’. PSl. *dьnь ‘day’ (OCS dьrtь, Russ, den’, Pol. dzień, Croat, dart, ESSJa V: 213-4), Lith. dienà, Latv. diena, OPr. deinan [Acc. sg.]. The comparison with Lat. dìēs, OIr. die shows that the n-stem in BaltoSlavic is probably an innovation, but cf. OIr. denus ‘day’. We should probably posit BSI. *dēyn- / *din-es, which functioned as a secondary root-noun in Balto-Slavic. It is less probable that the word for ‘day’ had the suffix *-ni- > PSl. *-nь in Balto-Slavic, and that the ā-stem in Baltic is secondary (see also the discussion in NHL 70). The n-stem is assured for Slavic by the (archaic) genitive singular dnȅ < *dьne in Croatian.

42

PSI. *kaznь ‘punishment’ (OCS kaznь, Russ, kazn', Pol. kaźr̀t, ESSJa IX: 172-3). Derksen (222) considers this word to be derived from *kazati ‘show’ (OCS lcazati, Russ, kazát’, etc.). PSI. *sě̑nь (a) ‘shadow’ (OCS sěnь, Russ. arch, sen ’ ‘canopy’, Pol. sień ‘entrance hall’, Croat, sjȅn (o), Derksen 447). This word is related to Latv. seja ‘face’, Gr. skiā ‘shadow’, Skr. chāyā- ‘shadow’ < *(s)k’oyH-. In OCS we also find blaznь ‘error’ (Slov. blázen)," *prẽstanь ‘interruption’ (← prěstati ‘stop’), dlcmъ ‘palm of the hand’ (Slov. dlàn, Russ, ladón ’) < PSI. *dolnь vs. Lith. dělná, Latv. delna < *delnā (the ultimate origin of these words is unclear, but *delH-n- is the straightforward BSl. reconstruction). For Russ, péčen’ (f.) ‘liver’, Pol. pieczeń ‘roast’ (Vasmer II: 352) see 2.2.1 under n-stems. A dialectal PSI. *žinja ‘thread’ (Slov. žírtja ‘thread (of a horse’s mane)’, Cz. žíně ‘id.’, Kurkina 1992: 151) may have been derived from earlier *ži-nьparallel to Lith. geīnis ‘chain’, Lat. funis ‘rope, cable’ < *gwhoy(H)ni-, perhaps from the root of PSI. *žila ‘vein’ (Lat. jtlum ‘thread’, etc.), see 2.10.18 (the circumflex accentuation of Lith. geīnis points to a root without a laryngeal, but in PSI. *žíla, Lith. gýsla the acute implies that the root was *gwheyH-). PSI. *grą́dь (c) ‘bosom’ (Russ, grud’, Pol. [pl.] grędzi, Croat, [pl.] grūdi, ESSJa VII: 148-9, Derksen 193), has a disputed etymology, but it might represent a derivative in *-ni- with the methatesis of *-dn- > *-nd-, which is common in PIE. It would be derivable from *grundi- < *ghrudh-ni-, from the root *ghrewdh- from which we have OIr. gniad ‘cheek’ (< *ghrowdhos, EDPC 168) and OE grēada ‘breast’, JEW 462. The etymological connection with Lat. grandis ‘big, grown up’ found in dictionaries (de Vaan 270) is dubious. PSI. *esenь, *osenь ‘autumn’ (Russ, ósen’, CS1 .jesenь, Croat.jȅsēn, Pol. jesień, Vasmer II: 281) is parallel to OPr. assanis ‘id.’ and Goth. asans ‘harvest-time’. In origin, it is a PIE heterocliton, *h)OS-r / *h|esnos, as shown by Gr. op-ṓrā ‘end of summer, harvest-time’ (Schindler 1975, Matasović 1998). Its suffix *-enь implies that the BSl. inflection1 11 Pol. błazen ‘madman’ and OCS bìaznъ ‘mistake’ point to a variant *blaznъ (Vasmer I: 90, Snoj 45). An alternative would be to assume an onomatopoetic root *bla- and the suffix *-znь (see 2.4.10). The original meaning o f *blaznь would be ‘nonsense, babble’.

43

was probably *asan / *asen-s or *esen / *esen-s (with transfer to i-stems which is common in old athematic nouns). A similar transfer from a heterocliton to a stem in *-ni is found, perhaps, in Russ závon’ ‘flachę Bucht eines Flusses’ < *za-vod-nь, from the root o f *voda ‘water’ < PIE *wodr, cf. also OCz. vodné ‘water, wave’. The suffix *-ni- is common in Baltic and Germanic (Vaillant 1974: 599), cf. Lith. vilnis ‘wave’ ← vélti ‘roll’, Lith. šlaurtìs ‘hip’ < *k’lowni- (Lat. clūnìs, Av. sraoni-), Goth, taikns ‘sign’ ← ga-teihan ‘show’, Goth, hrains ‘clear’ ← *krey-ni- ‘sieved’ (from the root of Lat. crībrum ‘sieve’ < *krey-sro-), OE bẽn ‘bid’ < (Vaillant 1974: 599). In other IE languages, it is more common in adjectives, e.g. Skr. vȃhni- ‘driving’ ← vah- ‘drive’, Lat. commūnis ‘common’ (and Goth, gamains ‘id.’), cf. OCS měna ‘change’. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 117-118]

2.4.7

*-slь < *-sli-

This is a rare suffix, (somewhat doubtfully) attested only in the following items: PSl. *gą́sli pl. (a) ‘a stringed instrument, fiddle’ (OCS gąsli, Russ. gúsli, Pol. gęśle, Croat, gȕsle, Vasmer II: 323) ← *gądẽti, *gąsti ‘play (a stringed instrument)’, Russ, gudét Croat, gȗdjeti, arch, gȗsti, etc., cf. Boryś 2007a: 158. In principle, PSI. *gąsli could also be derived from *gąd-dl-i with the suffix *-dlo common in nomina instrumenti. PSI. *my̑slь (c) ‘thought’ (OCS myslь, Russ, mysg, Pol. myśl, Croat. mȋsao, ESSJa XXI: 47-50), probably from PIE *muHdh- (Gr. mỹthos ‘word’, JEW 743), with the development *muHdh-sli > *mūssli- > *myslь. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 106]

44

2.4.8

*-snь < *-sni-

Parallel, and somehow related, to PSI. *-znь.12 This suffix is found only in a few examples, all apparently derived to verbal roots of speaking or singing). PSl. *basnь ‘tale’ (CSl. basnъ, Pol. baśń, Croat, bȁsart, ESSJa I: 138-9, 161-2). Derived from the root *bheh2- ‘sing, tell’ (RussCSl. bajati ‘tell tales’, Gr. phẽmí ‘say’). Cf. also Croat, bȁsna (ā-stem). PSI. *pẽsnь ‘song’ (OCSpěsrtь, ORuss. pěsnь, Pol. pieśń, Vasmer II: 347) ← *pěti ‘sing’ (OCS pěti, Russ, pět ’). PSI. *vasnь ‘passion, bravery, quarrel’ (Russ, vasn ’, Pol. waśń Vasmer I: 172) probably from *vad-snь ← *vaditi ‘quarrel’ (Slov. váditi). A possible example (not derived from a verbal root) is PSl. *brosnь ‘mould, fustiness’ (Pol. dial, brośń, Russ, brosn ’), if this should be analysed as *brod-snь (ESSJa III: 42), from PIE *bhrodh- (Skr. bradhná‘yellowish’). However, this etymology is highly speculative. The relationship of *-sni- to *-ni- is parallel to the relationship of the suffix *-sno- to *-no-. A cognate suffix *-sni- is found in Baltic, cf. Lith. deksrtis ‘place of fire’ ← dègti ‘bum’, and in Germanic, cf. Goth, anabũsns ‘command’ ← ana-biudan ‘to command’. Since this suffix is mostly deverbal, in principle, we could speculate that *-sni- originated in adding the suffix *-ni- to stems of the s-aorist. An alternative explanation is that by Kortlandt (2009: 137-138) who connects Slavic *-snь and *-znь to OPr. -snā (e.g. crixtisnā ‘baptism’, ispresnā ‘mind’), Lith. -s(e)na (e.g. liepsnà ‘flame’), positing an original proterodynamic suffix *-senH / *-sneH-s. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 118]

12 Kortlandt (2009: 137-138) counts with a regular change o f *sn > *zn and with original Ablaut in stems with this suffix (Norn. sg. *-sin, Acc. sg. *-senin, Gen. sg. *-snãs > *-znā). 45

2.4.9

*-tь- < *-ti-

This abstract-building suffix is as common in Slavic as it was in PIE. The root of *ti-stems is commonly in the zero-grade (*čьstь ‘honour’, *trьstь ‘reed’) but it may also be in the full grade, especially if the zerograde would result in morphonologically forbidden clusters (*pektь ‘oven’ rather than *pktь- ), or where the vocalism is analogical to the verb (*volstь ‘rule’ by analogy with *voldati ‘rule’). Abstracts in *-tь are feminine, but we also find a number of masculine nouns (which do not have abstract meaning), such as *tatь ‘thief, *tьstь ‘father-in-law’ and *gostь ‘host’. These presumably developed through personification of action nomināls. Masculines: PSl. *gòstь (c) ‘guest’ (OCS gostь, Russ, gost Pol. gość (jo), Croat. gȏst (o), ESSJa VII: 67-8). I-stem is also found in Lat. hostis ‘enemy’ and Goth, gasts ‘guest’, OE giest < PGerm. *gasti-. If PIE *ghosti- was a stem in *-ti-, this would imply the existence of a root *ghes-, from which it is derived, but this is problematic: Ved. ghas- means ‘to devour, to eat’ (IEW 452, LIV *ghes- 1) and the semantic connection is difficult; the derivation of Gr. ksénos ‘guest, foreigner’ from the zero-grade *gVen-wo- is formally improbable. IEW 453, E1EC 249, NHL 173. PSl. *tatь ‘thief (OCS taíь, Russ, tat' (jo), Croat, tát (o), Derksen 489), related to, but not identical with OIr. táid ‘thief (-nt-). Both come from PIE *teh2- ‘hide, steal’ (OCS taitU Hitt, tai- ‘steal’, IEW 1010). The development in Slavic could have been from a nomen actionis ‘stealing’ to a personification (nomen agentis) ‘stealer, thief, as, e.g. in 0\r.jlaith ‘ruler’ < PCelt. *wlati- ‘rule, sovereignty’ (EDPC 426). PSl. *tьstь ‘father-in-law’ (ORuss. tьstь, Gen. sg. tьstì, Croat, tȁst (o), Pol. teše, Russ, test’ (jo), Vasmer III: 100, cf. Trubačev 1959: 125f.), identical to OPr. tisties ‘father-in-law’ (which may be an early Slavic loanword). PSl. *zę́tь (a) ‘son-in-law’ (OCS zętь ‘bridegroom’, Russ, zjat’ (jo), Pol. zięć (jo), Croat, zȅt (o), Derksen 543, Trubačev 1959: 128f.). In Baltic, we find o-stems with varying vocalism (Lith. žéntas, Latv. znuõts). A parallel formation is Skr.jñātí- ‘relative’. The PIE etymology is uncertain. The BSl. word for ‘son-in-law’ may be derived from PIE *g’enhr ‘beget’ (Lat. gens ‘kin’, OHG kind ‘child’, OIr. gein ‘birth’), *g’neh3- ‘know’ (OCS znali, Lith. žinóti, etc.), and *g’emH- ‘to marry’ 46

(Gr. gaméō, gámos ‘marriage’, Lat. gerter ‘son-in-law’, perhaps also Hitt, kaena- son-in-law’, NIIL 136). Feminines: PSI. *bъrtь ‘hive of wild bees’ (Russ, bort’, Pol. barć, Slov. brt (from Cz), ESSJa III: 132-3); from the same root as in *bъma ‘snout’ (see 2.10.15), cf. Lat.forāmen ‘opening’,feriō ‘wound’. PSl. *čę̑stь (c) ‘part’ (OCS čęstь, Russ, cast ’, Pol. część, Croat, dial. čȇst, ESSJa IV: 107-8). From *kind-ti-, cf. Lith. kañdis (4) ‘a bite’, from the same root as in OCS kqsati ‘bite’. PSl. *čьstь (c) ‘honour’ (OCS ěьstь, Russ, čest’, Pol. cześć, Croat. část, ESSJa IV: 175-6). The comparison with Av. čisti- ‘consciousness’ shows that the formation is inherited. The root is *kweyt- (Skr. cétati ‘perceives’, IEW 637). PSl. *gatь ‘weir’ (Russ. dial, g a t’, Pol. gać, Croat, gat, ESSJa VI: 108-9). In some languages there is also evidence for a thematic stem *gatъ (OPol. gat ‘belt, girdle’). Derived from *gweh2- ‘go’ (Skr. gātú‘way, course’). PSl. *mȃstь (c) ‘grease, ointment’ (OCS mastь, Russs. mast’ ‘colur of wool’, Pol. maść, Croat, mast, ESSJa XVII: 30-1). Derived from *mazati ‘grease, smear’, see *maslo. PSl. *mȏktь (c) ‘power’ (OCS moštь, Croat, mȏć, Russ, moč', Pol. moc), derived from the root of *mokti ‘be able’ (Croat, mòci, mogu, Russ, moě’, mogú), cf. Goth, mahts ‘power’ (IEW 695). PSl. *ostь ‘tip’ (Russ, ost’, Slov. óst, Pol. ość, Vasmer II: 288), parallel to Lith. akštìs ‘spit’ < *h2ek’s-ti- (NIIL 289). PSl. *pèktь (c) ‘oven’ (OCS peštь, Russ, peč’, Pol. piec, Croat, pèć, Vasmer 11: 352-353). Perhaps inherited from PIE, cf. Skr. pakti‘cooking, cooked food’, from the root *pekw- ‘cook’ (Croat, pèći, OCS peští, etc., cf. Derksen 393). The PIE root is *pekw- ‘cook’ (Lat. coquo, Gr.péssō, Skr. pȃcaíi, LIV 468, IEW 798, NIIL 548-550). PSl. *pę̑stь (c) ‘fist’ (SerbCSl. pęstь, Russ, pjast’ ‘metacarpus’, Pol. pięść, Croat, pȅst, Derksen 399), from PIE *pnkwsti- (OHG just ‘fist’). Here *-sti- apparently developed from *-t-ti-, if (as is probable), the root is the same as in *penkwe ‘five’, *penkw-ti- > OCS pętь, etc., IEW 839, EIEC 255, NHL 566-567. Another possibility is that *pęstь is related to Gr.pýks ‘with clenched fist’, but this is formally more difficult. PSl. *pьŕstь (c) ‘dust, earth’ (OCS prьstь, Russ. arch, perst', OPol. pierść, Slov. pȓst, Derksen 429). The same form is found in Latv. 47

pirkstis ‘spark in ashes, heat’. The root is found in *porxъ ‘dust’ (Croat. práh, Russ, pórox) and *pirxa- > *pьrxъ ‘dusť (Russ. dial, perx ‘dandruff). PSl. *strástь (c) ‘passion’ (OCS strastь. Russ, strast’, Croat, střást, Cz. strast ‘sorrow’, Vasmer III: 22) < *strad-tь, from the same root as *stradati ‘suffer’ (OCS strādāti, Russ, strādāt', Croat, strádali), like *mastь ‘grease’ from *mazati ‘grease, smear’. The PIE etymology is uncertain. PSl. *trъstь (c) ‘reed’ (OCS trьstь, Russ, trost' ‘cane’, Pol. treść, Croat, trst, Derksen 499), apparently derived from the root *trews(Lith. triusis ‘reed’, Latv. trusis ‘id.’, Trautmann 330, Vasmer III: 141). The connection with Gr. thrýon ‘reed, rush’ (IEW 1097, DELG 443) is possible only if one assumes the development *truso- > *truho- > •thruso- in Greek, which is dubious. The unusual Anlaut in Greek could also be used as an argument for borrowing from some non-IE language. PSl. *věstь ‘news’ (Russ, vést’, Croat, vijȇst, Pol. wieść, Vasmer I: 192) ← *vẽsti, *vẽmь ‘know’ (OCS věmь, Russ, védat), cf. Skr. vitti‘knowledge’, which is a parallel formation formed with the zero-grade of the root *woyd-/*wid- ‘know’ (IEW 1127). PSl. *võlstь (c) ‘rule’ (OCS vlastь. Russ, vólost' ‘small administrative unit in Tsarist Russia’, Pol. włość ‘village’, Croat, vlȃst ‘rule’, Derksen 526), identical to Latv. valsts (i) ‘state, realm’. This noun is derived from the same root as *voldati ‘rule’ > Croat, vládali. PSI. *(v)ъšь (c) ‘louse’ (Russ, voš', Pol. wesz, Croat ȗš, Croat, dial, váš, Derksen 533). The PIE etymology is uncertain, as well as the possible relationship to Lith. dial, utis ‘louse’, OE /us ‘id.’, Skr. yūkā‘id.’. Note also the following examples from OCS: OCS blago-dētь ‘blessing’, ratь ‘war’ (Croat, rȁt (o), Russ, ra t' (i), Vasmer II: 496), veštь ‘thing, subject’, žitь ‘life’ (from žiti ‘live’) and also the compounds sъmrьtь, where the second element -m rьtь is an old i-stem (Lith. mirtis ‘death’, Lat. mors, mortis < PIE *mrti-) and rqkojętь ‘handful’, with -jętь < *im-ti, from the root o fję ti ‘take’, cf. Lith. iš-imtìs ‘exception’. Examples from individual Slavic languages include Croat, vr̃st ‘kind’ < *vrt-ti- ← *vьrtèti ‘tum’ (Croat, vr̀tjeti), cf. Skr. vptti- ‘a turn’ ← vártate ‘tum’, Croat, siȃst ‘pleasure’ < *sold-ti- ← *soldъ-(kъ) ‘sweet’ (Croat, slȁdak), cf. Lith. salsti, saista ‘sweeten’, Russ. dial, sta ť 48

‘stature, reason’ (and OCz. p o d sta t’ ‘substance’, Vasmer III, 6) ← ♦stati ‘stand’ (Russ, stat ’, Croat, stati), cf. Latv. stāíis ‘position’, Av. stāiti- ‘position’, ON stȏd ‘place’, Russ, znat' ‘nobility’ (Vasmer 1: 458) ← *znati ‘know’ (Russ, znat", OCS znati), cf. Gr. gnSsis ‘knowledge’. Some abstracts in *-tь may have been changed into collective stems in *-ja, e.g. *datja ‘gift’ (ORuss. dača, Croat, arch, dȁća), cf. Lith. duotis ‘gift’, Skr. dáli- ‘gift’, *o-butja ‘shoes’ (OCS obušta, Croat. òbučá). The suffix *-ti- > *-tь- did not attract the stress in Proto-Slavic; more often than not, words derived with it have mobile accentuation, e.g. *gȏstь ‘guest’ (c), *pektь ‘oven’ (c), *trьstь ‘reed’ (c). In PIE, this suffix was extremely productive in the derivation of abstract nomina actionis from verbal roots, e.g. *mnti- ‘thought, memory’ (Lat. mens, mentis, Lith. minds, OCS pa-mętь) from *men‘think’ (Skr. mánycite, OCS mьniti, etc.), *bhrti- ‘carrying’ > Skr. bhrtí-. Lat. fors ‘destiny’, OHG gi-burt ‘birth’ from *bher- ‘carry’ (Lat. fern, Gr. phérō, etc.). Besides the abstract nouns, PIE also seems to have had a number of ti-stem adjectives. We find their reflexes especially in Italic (Lat.fortis ‘strong’ < *bhrti-, Skr. bhrti- ‘carrying’) and Celtic (OIr. maith ‘good’ < *mh2ti-, cf. Lat. matūrus ‘ripe’). The suffix *-ti- remained productive in formation of abstract nouns in Balto-Slavic (Hàusler 2003), but in Slavic we also find it in words with (secondary) concrete meaning (*gatь ‘weir’ < ‘obstruction’, *mastь ‘grease’ < ‘greasing’, etc.). It also remains in the form of cardinal numerals, which are derived from PIE abstract nouns, e.g. *pętь ‘five’ (OCS pętъ, Russ, pjat \ Croat .pět, etc.) < *penkw-ti- (cf. also ON fimt, vs. Gr. pěňte, Skr. pȃñca, Lat. quinque < PIE *penkwe. [Sławski 1974-1979, II: 43-46]

2.4.10

*-znь < *-zni-

This is a rare suffix attested only in the following items, all deverbal: PSl. *bojaznь ‘fear’ (OCS bojaznь, Russ, bojázn', Pol. bojaźń, Croat, bȍjāzan, ESSJa II: 165), cf. OPr. biāsncm ‘fear’ deverbal, derived from the root of OCS bojāti sę ‘fear’. PSI. *bolẽznь ‘sickness’ (OCS bolěznь) derived from *bolẽti ‘be sick’ (OCS bolěti, Croat, bòljeti ‘to hurt’). 49

PSI. *prijaznь ‘friendship’ (OCS prijaznь, Russ, prijázn ’, Pol .przyjaźń, Vasmer II: 436), derived from the root of *prijati ‘be friendly, like’ (OCSpřijati, Russ.priját’, Croat.přijati, etc.). A derivative from this suffix is *-izna in OCS glavizna ‘capital point’ ← glava ‘head’, OCS ukorizna ‘blame’ ← ukoriti ‘blame, reproach’. It is very common in some Slavic languages, such as Polish (e.g. bielizna ‘whiteness’, polszczyzna ‘Polish language’), but rare in others (however, cf. Cz. divizna ‘a plant’, Croat, divizma ‘plant Verbascum thapsus V ← *divъ ‘miracle’, OCS divь, ESSJa V: 33, 35). Note also the following words: OCS kajazrtъ ‘remorse’ ← kajati sę ‘regret’, OCS prijazm ‘friendship’ ← přijati ‘sympathize, like’, OCS žiznь ‘life’ ← žiti ‘live’ (Russ, žizn ). The origin of *-znь is unclear, but a connection is possible with Lat. -got-ginis (e.g. orīgo ‘origin’, imāgo ‘picture’, Balles 2008: 13). See also 2.4.8 on the suffix *-sm>, which may also be related. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 117-118, 123-124]

2.5

Disyllabic suffixes

2.5.1

*-ostь < *-asti-

This suffix derives abstract nouns from adjectives. We find it, for example, in the following items: PSl. *ẽrostь ‘fury’ (OCS jarostь, Russ, járost ’, Cz. jarost ‘unruly conduct’, Croat, jȃrōst, ESSJa VIII: 177), from the root of *ẽrę ‘lamb’ and *ěrъ ‘furious’. PSl. *krěpostь ‘strength’ (OCS krěpostь, Croat, krepost, Russ. krépost' ‘fort, strength’, Cz. kŕepost’, ESSJa XII: 133-134) ← *krẽpъkъ ‘strong’ (Russ, krépkij, Pol. krzepki, etc.). PSl. *mądrostь ‘wisdom’ (OCS mądrostъ ‘wisdom’, Croat, múdrost, Russ, múdrost, Pol. mądrość, ESSJa XX: 128) ← mądrъ ‘wise’ (Croat. múdar, Russ, múdtyj, etc.). This is a very productive suffix in individual Slavic languages, cf. OCS bělostь ‘whiteness’ ← bělъ ‘white’ (cf. Pol. białość), OCS drьzostь ‘impudence’ ← drьzъ ‘brave, impudent’ (cf. Russ, dérzost’), OCS junostъ ‘youth’ ← junъ ‘young’ (cf. Russ, júnost'), OCS milostь ‘mercifulness’ ← m ih ‘merciful’ (cf. Croat, mȋlōst, Russ, milost', Pol. 50

miłość Move’), OCS nagostь ‘nudity’ ← nagъ ‘nude’ (Croat, nágōst, Pol. nagość), OCS radostь ‘joy’ ← radь ‘joyful’ (cf. Croat, rȁdōst, Russ, rádost’, Pol. radość), OCS skorostь ‘speed’ ← skorь ‘fast’ (cf. Russ. skó ro st\ OCS slabostь ‘weakness’ ← slabъ ‘weak’ (Croat. slȁbōst, Russ, slábost', Pol. słabość), OCS světьlostь Might’ ← *svẽtьlъ Might’ (cf. Croat, svjȅtiōst), OCS xytrostь ‘skill, wisdom’ ← xytrь ‘cunning, wise’ (Russ, xitrost’), etc. PSl. *bol(j)estь ‘sickness’ (Bulg. bȏlest, Russ. dial, bolést', Pol. boleść, Croat, bȍlēst, ESSJa 11: 186-7) was formed from the i-stem *bolь ‘pain’ with regular change of *o > *e after palatalized consonantsVariants with *-ẽ- (ORuss. boiěstь, Croat, dial, bȍiijẽst) are analogical to the verb *bolẽti ‘feel pain, be ill’.13 The suffix *-ostь served as a base for derivatives such as *-ostynji (OCS myhstyn 7 ‘charity’, Croat, miióstinja ← *milostь). PSI. *starosta ‘elderly man, village chief (ORuss. starosta, Cz. starosta, Pol. starosta, perhaps Croat stȁrosta (if not a Russian loanword), Vasmer III: 5) was built by secondary transfer of PSl. *starostь ‘old age’ (Russ, stȃrost Croat, stȁrost, etc.) to ā-stems on analogy with *sluga ‘servant’, *voevoda ‘duke’, etc. On the first sight, this suffix appears to have been formed by agglutination of the abstract-building suffix *-ti- > *-tь to a stem ending in *-os, which seems identical to the ending of the abstract nominal sstems in (e.g. *čudo < *kewdos-). A similar process is attested in the prehistory of Latin, where we find adjectives in -estus built to stems in -es, e.g. funestus ‘funerary’ ← funus ‘funeral rites, burial’. However, there is not a single example of a s-stem in Slavic, from which a stem in *-ostь would have been derived (though cf. OCS ązostь ‘narrowness’ and OHG angust (i) ‘fear’, which both seem to be built to the s-stem *h2emg’hos > YAv. qzah- ‘narrowness’, Lat. angus-tus ‘narrow’, NHL 303). In Hittite, we find the abstract suffix -asti- which is probably parallel to Slavic *-ostь, cf. Hitt, daiugašti- ‘length’ ← daluga- ‘long’ (not directly superimposable to OCS diъgostь ‘length’ (Rieken 1999: 223)). I find it more probable that Slavic *-ostь has a different origin. Nouns originally formed with this suffix may have been compounds, the 13 Croat, drȁžēst ‘grace’ (cf. dráž ‘grace’, drag ‘dear’) is a new analogical formation, unattested before the 20th century. 51

second element of which was PIE *h1osti- /*h(Sti- ‘being’ (cf. Skr. suasti- ‘well-being’ < *h1su-h1osti-, despite doubts by EWa II: 796f. and NIL 236, cf. also YAv. pam-asti ‘otherworld existence’ and YAv. sti‘possessions’, which may be from *h1sti-). Thus, PSl. *dьlgostь ‘length’ would have been reducible to *dlHgh-h1osti- ‘being long’, or from *dlHgho-h!Sti-, with the loss of laryngeal in compounds.1415At a later stage, *-ostь was reduced to the suffix and all associations with the verb *b!es- ‘to be’ (OCS jestь. Lat. est, Skr. ústi, etc.) were lost. Alternatively, it is possible that the suffix *-ostь developed by agglutination of *-ot- (found in abstracts in *-ota, on which see 2.11.41) and the abstract suffix *-ti- (> PSI. *-tь), since *-ot-ti- would regularly give *-ostь (I owe this suggestion to Tijmen Pronk).

2.5.2

*-ošь < *-aši-

This rare suffix is found in the following items: PSI. *kokošь ‘hen’ (OCS kokošь, Pol. kokosz, Croat, kȍkōš, ESSJa X: 115-6), from a reduplicated, onomatopoetic root found also in OCS kokotъ ‘cock’. PSI. *pustošь ‘desert’ (OCS pustošь, Russ, pústoš, Croat, pȕstōš) ← *pustъ ‘deserted, empty’ (OCS pustъ, Russ, pustój, Croat. pȗst))S This suffix often builds bypocoristica and is quite productive in individual Slavic languages, cf. Pol. dlugosz ‘tall man’, Cz. běloš ‘white horse’ (cf. Croat, arch. Bjèloš ‘man’s name’, Pol. bialosz ‘white stone’, ESSJa II: 74-5, etc.). The suffix *-oša in OCS junoša ‘youth’ ← junъ

14 Admittedly, stems in *-ti- usually had the e-grade (rather than the o-grade) alternating with the zero-grade in PIE (e.g. Norn. sg. *menti-s / Gen. sg. *mnt-ey-s), so positing the stem *hjsti- makes more sense. 15 Croatian has a number o f nouns derived with the suffix —íš which denote types o f terrain, e.g. bjèlĩš ‘white earth’ ← bijett ‘white’, čìstīš ‘clear area’ ← čìstī ‘clear’, òkolīš ‘environment’ ← 'òkolo ‘around’, gùstīš ‘thicket’ ← gȗstĩ ‘thick’; it also occurs in a few nouns with different meanings, e.g. slàtkīš ‘candy’ ← slȁdak, slȁtkī ‘sweet’ (Babic 1986: 316). It appears that this suffix was originally analogical to *-ošь in *pustošь. The starting point o f its spread may have been the definite form o f the adjective, from which almost all such nouns are derived. 52

‘young’ was built by analogy with masculines in *-a such as *voevoda ‘duke’, *sluga ‘servant’. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 78-79]

2.5.3

-ъt(ь) < *-ut(i)-

We find this suffix in the following three etymons, two of which refer to body parts: PSl. *ȃlkъtь (c) ‘elbow’ (OCS iakъtь (i), Russ, lókot’ (i), Pol. łokieć, Croat, lákat (o), Slov. ìskȃt (i), ESSJa XXXII: 65-67), cf. Lith. aikūně, OPr. aikunis (EV), Lat. ulna, OIr. uilen, Gr. ȏlénē, ōlēn, OHG elina ‘ell’, IEW 307-309. It was originally an athematic stem in *-t-, as shown by the fact that the Gen. pl. form in OCS is lakьtъ (rather than *lakъti). The PIE root is difficult to reconstruct, but one possibility is *Heh3l-, extended by the suffix *-en- in most branches, but with *-k- in BaltoSlavic. The suffix *-ut- > *-ъt- then appears to have been added to BSI. *ālk-/*alk-, while in Baltic, the stems with *-k- and *-n- seem to have been confused. PSl. *degъtь ‘tar’ (Russ, dëgot’, OCz. dehet, Pol. dziegieć, ESSJa IV: 204), like Lith. degùtas ‘tar’, both from PIE *dhegwh- ‘bum’ (Skr. dah-, OIr. daig ‘fire’, IEW 240f.). The opinion that the Slavic words were borrowed from Baltic is unfounded. Rather, the Balto-Slavic forms may point to a t-stem *dhegwh-ut- (Bemštejn 1980). PSI. *nògъtь (c) ‘nail, claw’ (OCS nogъtь, Russ, nógot’, Cz. nehet, Pol. nogieć, Croat, nȍkat, ESSJa XXV: 170-3); preserved from BSI., cf. Lith. nagùtis, OPr. nagutis. The Gen. pl. in OCS is nogьtъ, which shows that this was originally a consonant stem. For the root see *nagā > *noga ‘foot’.

2.6

l-stems

In PIE, masculine nouns in *-os built the corresponding feminines in *-ih2, e.g. Skr. vļ-kī- ‘she-wolf ← \fka- ‘wolf, dūti- ‘female messenger’ ← dūtá- ‘messenger’. This suffix was probably originally used to build collectives, but we find it also in masculines like Skr. ratht- ‘charioteer’ ← rathá- ‘chariot’. The original meaning could have been ‘a collection 53

of things belonging to the chariot, chariot-gear’, subsequently personified as ‘charioteer’. Most original stems in PIE *-ih2 > PSl. *-T were extended by the suffix *-kā and thus became PSl. stems in *-ica, e.g. OCS vlъčica ‘shewolf vs. Skr. vfkt- < PIE *wlkwih2. In Baltic, it seems that these nouns became stems in *-ẽ and were confounded with stems in *-yā (cf. Lith. vìlkě ‘she-wolf). A few examples of *ī-stems that might be inherited are the following: PSl. *oldi ‘boat’ (OCS alьdìì, Russ, lad'ja, Pol. łódź, OCz. lodí, Croat, iȃda, ESSJa XXXII: 53-54), cf. Lith. eldíjà, aldijà ‘trough, canoe’, OE aldaht ‘trough, vessel’. PSl. *korbi ‘basket’ (OCS krabii, Russ. dial, kórobja, Pol. krobia, ESSJa XI: 52-6). Lith. has an o-stem (kar̃bas), paralleled by Russ, kórob ‘box, basket’, Slov. kraba ‘box’, cf. Lat. corbis ‘basket’, OHG korb (probably from Latin). PSI. *morvi ‘ant’ (CSl. mravu, Russ, muravéj, Pol. mrówka, Croat. mrȃv (o), Slov. mrávlja, ESSJa XIX: 246-249) < PIE collective *morwiH (Av. maoìr̃ī, Olr. moìrb, 1EW 749). Original feminine abstract noun (‘judgement’) reinterpreted as a masculine nomen agentis is *sądi (b) ‘judge’ (OCS sądu, Russ, sud’jȃ, Pol. sędzia, Serb, sùdija, Derksen 463), from the same root as *sanda- > *sądъ ‘judgment’. OCS balii ‘leech’ is probably derived from the root of OCS bajali ‘enchant’ < PIE *bheh2- ‘speak’ (Skr. bhā-, Lat. fāma ‘fame’, etc.). The ī-stem appears to have been built to the original verbal adjective in In Baltic, the original T-stem masculines seem to have become stems in -ija-, e.g. OLith. medijos ‘hunter’ (vs. Lith. mẽdis ‘wood’), Lith. žuklìjcis, žuklỹs ‘fisherman’ (vs. žuklě ‘fishing’). In ORuss. we also find two masculine bird-names belonging to īstems: vorobьjь ‘sparrow’ (RussCSl. vrabii), and soiovii ‘nightingale’ (RussCSl. slavii). [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 83-84]

2.6.1

*-ьčьji

This suffix is found in a number of Turkic loanwords, whence it spread to some inherited roots, cf. OCS krьmьčъji ‘tax collector’, OCS kъnjigьčьjì ‘writer’, sokaěьji ‘cook’ (with roots borrowed from Turkic), 54

and CSl. lovьčьiji ‘hunter’ paralleled by Russ, lóvčij, Cz. iovčí, Pol. łowczy (from *lovъ ‘hunt’ > OCS lovь).

2.6.2

*-ni-, *-yni-

This suffix is used for deriving feminines, mostly with concrete meaning. Slavic examples include the following: PSl. *olni ‘doe’ (OCS alъnii, Russ, lan’, OPol. lani, Croat, láne (nt), ESSJa XXXII: 70-71), cf. Lith. élnis, dial, álnis ‘deer’, Arm. eln ‘deer’, MIr. ailit ‘doe’ (1EW 304), probably from an old n-stem (cf. Gr. élaphos ‘deer’ < *h1el-n-bho-). PSl. *mъldni ‘lightning’ (OCS mlъni, Russ, mólnija, Pol. dial. melnia, Croat, múnja, ESSJa XXI: 220-222), from the same root as Latv. milna ‘hammer of the thunderer’, OPr. mealde ‘lightning’ < *mldh-n-, OIc. mjgllnir ‘Thor’s hammer’(lEW 722). A derivative of this suffix is *-yni-, attested in a few denominatives and deadjectives: PSl. *bogyni ‘goddess’ (OCS bogyn'i, Croat, bóginja, Pol. bogini, Vasmer 1: 98) ← *bogъ ‘god’ (OCS bogъ, Croat, bȏgъ, Pol. bóg). PSI. *pustyni ‘desert’ (OCS pustyn’i, Croat. pústinja, Pol. pustynia) ← *pustъ ‘desert, empty’ (Croat, pūst, Pol. pusty). This suffix was still productive in OCS, cf. OCS gospodyni ‘lady’ ← gospodь ‘lord’, milostyn’i ‘mercy, charity’ ← milostь ‘mercifulness (cf. Croat, milóstinja), rnbyn’i ‘female slave’ ← rabъ ‘slave’ (cf. Croat. mbinja), elinyn’i ‘Greek woman’ ← elìnь ‘Greek’, etc. In individual Slavic languages, we find this suffix in nouns denoting fruits derived from plant names, e.g. Croat, glòginja ← glȍg ‘juniper’, OCS drěnyn 7 ← drěnъ ‘cornel’, etc. In Russian folklore, the suffix occurs in a number of masculine names of heroes, e.g. Dobiynja, Gotynja, and it is also found in place-names (Rospond 1978). Except in OCS, the reflexes of words derived with *-yni mostly became ja-stems (but cf. Pol. bogini ‘goddess’). PSl. *pely̑nь (? and *pely̑nъ) ‘wormwood’ (Croat, pělin, Russ, polýn’, Cz. dial, pelyň, Snoj 504) seems to contain the suffix variant *-ynь < *-ūni- added to the root *pel- ‘bum’ (cf. *polmy ‘flame’). The suffix *-ni- < *-nī- arose through the generalization of feminines built to original n-stems (cf. Skr. tȃkąan- ‘carpenter’ vs. taksnf and Gr. 55

téktōn, téktaina), Skr. páti- ‘lord’ vs. pátriī- ‘mistress’, or OLith. viešpatni ‘mistress’ vs. viešpatis ‘lord, master’). The form *-yni- is more difficult to account for. Vaillant 1974: (388) thinks that it was borrowed from Germanic, as we find it in OCS opyn ’i ‘monkey’ (cf. OHG affo m. affm fi), and kъnęgyn’i ‘duchess’ besides kъnędzь ‘duke’ (cf. OHG kuning, f. kuningin), but I find this improbable. Rather, one is tempted to think that the suffix *-yni arose by adding *-nĩ- > *-ni to ū-stems, but admittedly we do not find any model for this development in Slavic (i.e. no original ū-stems from which stems in *-yni have been derived). In historical period, this suffix became confounded with the reflexes of *-ьnja < *-injā (Dickenmann 1978). [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 138-139]

2.7

U-stems

In PIE, u-stems could belong to any o f the three genders, so we find masculines (PIE *suHnus ‘son’ > Skr. sūnú-, Lith. sȗnȗs, OCS synъ, PIE *bheh2g’hus ‘arm’ > Gr. pēkhys, Skr. bāhú-, OHG buogh feminines (*g’enus ‘jaw’ > Skr. hȃrtu-, with analogical h-, Gr. génys), and neuters such as *medhu- ‘mead’ (Skr. mádhu, Gr. méthy ‘wine’, OIr. mid), *h2oyu ‘life’ (Skr. ayu-). They were inflected mostly according to the proterodynamic pattern, cf. Lith. Nom. sg. sūnùs, Gen. sg. sūnaūs, Skr. Nom. sg. sūnus, Gen. sg. sūnos, Goth. Nom. sg. sunus, Gen. sg. sunaus. This pattern is preserved in Slavic, cf. OCS synъ ‘son’ < *suHnus, Gen. sg. synu < *suh2now-s.

2.7.1

*-ъ < *-u-

Rather few primary PIE u-stems were preserved as such in Slavic.16 They are all masculine, including original neuters which became masculine (*medъ ‘honey, mead’); they mostly denote inanimates (except for *sym> ‘son’ and *volъ ‘ox’; particularly common seem to be 16 For an overview o f the reconstructable u-stems in Proto-Slavic, see Janda 1996: 227-228 (with references) and Orr 1996.

56

nouns denoting liquids and substances (*medъ ‘honey, mead’, *olъ ‘beer’, *ledъ ‘ice’: PSl. *dòmъ (c) ‘house’ (Russ, dom, Pol. dom, Croat, dȏm, ESSJa V: 72-72). For the reconstruction of the original u-stem cf. Russ. Loc. sg. na domú ‘at home’ and derivatives like Croat, domovina ‘home country’. In Lith. we have the o-stem nātnas, but an u-stem is inherited from PIE, cf. Lat. domus, domūs [Gen. sg.] < PIE *domHu- (1EW 199). PSl. *mèdъ (c) ‘honey, mead’ (OCS medъ, Russ, mëd, Pol. miód, Croat, mȇd, ESSJa XIII: 68-72). Inherited from a PIE neuter u-stem, cf. Lith. medùs (4) ‘honey’, Latv. mędus ‘honey’, OPr. meddo ‘honney’, OHG metu ‘mead’, OIr. mid ‘mead’, Skr. mȃdhu- ‘mead’ < PIE *medhu(IEW 707, EIEC 271, NHL 467). PSl. *òlъ (c) ‘beer’ (ORuss. olъ ‘fermented liquor’, Slov. ól, Gen. olȗ, ESSJa XXX11: 80-81), identical to Lith. alus ‘beer’, OPr. alu (EV) ‘id ’. PSl. *sy̑nъ (c) ‘son’ (OCS synъ, Russ, syn, Pol. syn, Croat, sin, Derksen 483), inherited from PIE *suH-nu-, cf. Lith. sum s, Skr. sūnú-, Goth, sunus, etc. (IEW 913f., EIEC 533, NHL 686-687). A few u-stems seem to be Slavic, or Balto-Slavic innovations: PSl. *borъ ‘pine forest’ (Russ, bor, Pol. bór ‘forest’, Croat, bór ‘pine-tree’, ESSJa II: 216-7); for the original u-stem cf. Pol. w bom ‘in the forest’ and the adjective *borovъ (Croat, bórov). Derived from the verbal root *bor- ‘fight’ < ‘prick, punch’, see *bordlo. PSl. *vьrxъ (b) ‘top, upper part’ (OCS vrьxъ, Russ, verx, Loc. sg. verxú, Pol. wierzch, Derksen 538), identical to Lith. viršùs ‘top, cover’, Latv. virsus ‘top’, from PIE *wers- ‘rise’ (Ved. vársman- ‘top’, Olr.ferr ‘better’, L1V 691, IEW 115f., NHL 724-725). A few u-stems do not have generally accepted etymologies, and they generally inflect as o-stems except in OCS, cf. e.g. OCS poiь ‘half (OCS polu nošti ‘midnight’, Russ, pól, Croat, pȏl and Pol. pȏi are ostems, but cf. the RussCSl. derivative polovina ‘a half), OCS voiь ‘ox’ (Croat, vȏí, Russ, vo/, Pol. wól are o-stems, but cf. ORuss. adjectives volovb, volui pointing to an u-stem), OCS ledъ ‘ice’ (Russ, led, Croat, /ér/, Pol. lód, Gen. sg. lodu, an u-stem is found also in Latv. ledus ‘ice’, Vasmer II: 25). The reflex of PSl. *plodъ ‘fruit’ is an o-stem in OCS, but cf. Pol. płód, Gen. sg. płodu and the OCS adjective plodovitъ ‘fruitful’, pointing to an original u-stem.

57

Like the o-stems to be discussed below, with which they were partially confused already in Proto-Slavic, the u-stems were probably affected by Illič-Svityč’s law, by which accentual mobility was generalized. Thus, the large majority of inherited u-stems belong to accentual paradigm c), e.g. *olъ ‘beer’, *medъ ‘mead, honey’, *synъ ‘son’, etc. A very productive class of u-stems in PIE were nomina actionis derived with the suffix *-tu-, which were parallel to stems in *-ti- (> PSl. *-tь). Unlike the feminine *-ti- stems, which denoted actions conceived objectively, nouns in *-tu- were mostly masculine and expressed the “subjective” aspect of the action (Meid 1967: 151), cf. Gr. brōtýs ‘eating’ < *gwreh3-tu- vs. brōsis ‘meat, pasture’ < *gwrh3-ti-. They included many nouns denoting bodily functions, e.g. Lat. vīsus ‘sight’ < *wid-tu- (cf. Lat. video ‘see’), gustus ‘taste’ < *gus-tu- (Gr. geúomai ‘taste’), Goth, lustus ‘lust’ (with uncertain etymology). They were mostly built with the full grade of the root (cf. Skr. mántu- ‘advice’ < *men-tu- vs. mati- ‘thought, memory’ < *mn-ti-). In Slavic, this suffix was not preserved, except in the (uninflected) supine form of the verb, e.t. OCS nosi-tъ ‘to carry, for carrying’, zna-tъ ‘to know, for knowing’. [See also the stems in *-tva]

2.8

O-stems

In PIE, stems in *-uh2 were feminine nouns, often built as abstract nouns from adjective stems in *-u, e.g. Gr. ithýs ‘direct’ vs. ithỹs ‘direction’. Often they represent feminine counterparts to masculines in *-u, since *-h2 was a suffix of feminine motion, cf. Skr. rtftú- m. ‘dancer’, nrtū- f. ‘(female) dancer’. They seem to have inflected according to the hysterodynamic pattern, cf. Skr. tanuh ‘body’ < *tenuh2-s, Gen. sg. tanȗas < *tenuh2-os. This type of inflexion is preserved in Slavic, cf. OCS svekry ‘mother-in-law’ < *swek’ruh2-s, Gen. sg. svekrъve < *swek’ruh2-os. The suffix *-uh2 is regularly reflected as PSl. *-y.

2.8.1

*-y < *-u-

In Slavic, this class comprises feminine nouns. They seem to be of various origins. A few are inherited from PIE: 58

PSI. *bry ‘eyebrow’ (OCS brъvьmi [Inst, pl.], Russ, brov’, OCz brew, ESSJa III: 63); Lith. dial, bruvìs is an i-stem, but the Slavic form is original. Inherited from PIE *(h3)bhruh2 > Gr. ophtỹs, Skr. bhríī, OE bm, IEW 172f., El EC 188, NHL 41-42. PSl. *kry̑ (c) ‘blood’ (OCS kry, Russ, krov' (i), Pol. krew (i), Slov. krȋ, ESSJa XIII: 67-70) < PIE *kruH- (Lith. kraũjas, OPr. crauyo (EV), Skr. krāvis- ‘raw meat’, Gr. kréas ‘meat’, IEW 62If., EIEC 71, NHL 444). In Baltic, only the derivative with the suffix *-yo- is preserved, while Slavic preserves the original root-noun, PIE *krowH-s, Gen. sg. *kruH-os. PSI. *žely ‘tortoise’ (RussCSl. žely, Russ, žolv’ (i), Pol. żółw (jo), Croat, žȅlva (a), Derksen 557), inherited from PIE and identical to Gr. khélỹs ‘tortoise’ < *gheluH, IEW 435. PSl. *svekry ‘mother-in-law’ (OCS svekry, Russ, svekrȏv' (i), OCz. svekrev (i), Croat, svȅkrva, Derksen 475), inherited from PIE *swek’ruh2 (Skr. śvaśríī-, Lat. socrus, etc., IEW 1044). PSI. *jętry ‘husband’s brother’s wife’ (Russ. dial, játrov, ORuss. jatry, Pol. obs. jqtrexv, Croat, jȇtrva, ESSJa VIII: 188-190, Trubačev 1959: 118f); this word is derived from an original r-stem in BSI. and PIE, cf. Lith. jentė, Skr. yātar-, Lat. icmitrīcēs ‘brother’s wives’ < PIE *yenh2tẽr (IEW 505f., EIEC 522, NHL 204). In Slavic, the model for the change from an r-stem to the attested ū-stem was probably *svekry ‘mother-in-law’, which is an original ū-stem. PSI. *zъly ‘sister-in-law’ (CS zlъva, Russ. dial, zólvct, zolóv' (i), OPol. zlew (i), Croat, zȁova (ā), Derksen 551), from PIE *g’lh2-ōw- (Gr. gálōs ‘husband’s sister’, Lat. gíȏs, IEW 368). PSl.*kury ‘whore’ (Croat, kȗrvct, Russ, kúrva, Pol. kurwa, ESSJa XIII: 132-133), probably derived from *kurъ ‘cock’ > ‘penis’ (OCS kurъ, Russ. dial, kur, Pol. kur). PSl. *žьly ‘bulge, lump, gland’ (Russ. dial, žolv’ (i), Croat, dial. želva (a), žolva (Boryś 2007: 113-114), Cz. žluva (a) ‘a horse illness, Schlauchgeschwulsť), probably from the same root as *žely ‘tortoise’. The two nouns may have generalized different Ablaut grades of the root from a single original paradigm (*g’heluH- / *g’hluH-). In PIE, feminines were formed from masculine u-stems by adding *-ih2 rather than *-h2, but in some cases it appears that Slavic has an ūstem derived from a PIE u-stem:

59

*loky ‘puddle’ (OCS [Gen. sg.] lokъvi, Croat, lȍkva, Bulg. lȏkva, ESSJa XVI: 10), from PIE proterodynamic *loku-/*lkew- (Lat. lacus ‘lake’, OE lagu ‘lake’, OIr. loch ‘lake’, Gr. lákkos ‘pond’, IEW 653). It may be that the Slavic form is actually an old collective in *-uh2 built to the original u-stem (Matasović 2004: 104). In a few cases, it is unclear why we find ū-stems in Slavic, as there are no exact cognates in other IE languages (including Baltic): *ą́ty ‘duck’ (CSI. qty, Russ, útka (a), Croat, ȕtva (a), Derksen 387), cf. Lith. ántis ‘duck’, OPr. antis (EV), from an original t-stem, PIE *h2enh2t- (Lat. anas, anatis, Gr. nẽssa, OHG anut, IEW 42). ♦pą́gy (a) ‘knob, button’ (CSI. pągy, ORuss. pugy, Pol. pqgwica, Croat, dial. (Čak.) pȕgva, Derksen 417). Probably from the same root as *panka- > *pąkъ ‘bud’ (Russ, puk ‘bunch’, Cz. puk ‘sprout, bud’), with unexplained -g-, cf. Lat. pānus ‘tumour’. *žьmy ‘millstone’ (OCS žrьny, Russ, žërnov (o), Pol. żarna (a) ‘handmiU’, Slov. žȓrtav ‘handmill’, Derksen 566). Cf. Latv. dzir̃nus ‘millstone’, Lith. girna ‘millstone’, OPr. girnoywis (EV) ‘handmill’, from PIE *gwrHn-, cf. Goth, asilu-qaimus ‘donkey-mill’, Skr. gravan‘pressing-stone’ (IEW 477). If the PIE root is *gwerH- ‘to grind’, the BSl. forms must have the nasal from the present stem. Very few general rules about the accentuation of the ū-stems in Slavic can be established, except that in roots in a laryngeal we often find AP a (e.g. *ą́ty ‘duck’). For an accentological overview of the material see Snoj 1994. The suffix *-y was still productive in Proto-Slavic, especially in the formation of abstract nouns (Arumaa 1985: 63-68), e.g. OCS ljuby ‘love’ (from the verbal root of ljubiti ‘love’, cf. OCz. luby, Gen. sg. lubve ‘love’), OCS cely ‘healing’ (cf. cěiiíi ‘heal’), etc. Several loanwords from Germanic were included in this class, e.g. OCS buky ‘beech’ (Goth, bōká), CS crъky ‘church’ (OHG chirihha), OCS smoky ‘fig’ (Goth, smakka), brady ‘axe’ (Germ. Barte), etc. (See PronkTiethoff 2012).

2.9

Thematic stems (and ā-stems)

In PIE, the thematic stems were of several types. PIE primary thematic nouns could have either zero-grade of the root (*wlkwos ‘wolf > Skr. 60

vfka-, Lith. vilkās, OCS vlьkъ), or the full grade of the root (PIE *h1orbhos ‘orphan’ > Lat. orbus, OCS rabъ ‘slave’). The type with the full o-grade of the root is by far the more common. There were two subtypes in PIE: the barytona, which were nomina actionis (the Greek tómos-type) and the oxytona, which were nomina agentis (the Greek tomós-type), cf. the opposition between Gr. gȏnos ‘birth, child’ and -gonós ‘begetting’, orphóros ‘contribution’ and phorȏs ‘carrying’. Although the o-stem nomina agentis are usually masculine, since by default they denote human beings, they may also be neuter, in which case they are usually nomina instrumenti, e.g. PIE *(H)yugóm ‘yoke’ < ‘the hamesser’ (Gr. zygón, Skr. yugám, OCS igo, etc.), from the root *(H)yewg- > Gr. zeúgrtymi ‘harness’, Lat. iungo, etc., or OHG dach ‘roof < ‘the coverer’, from the root *teg- ‘to cover’ (Lat. tego, Gr. stȇgō, etc.). O-stems with the e-grade of the root were rarer than those with the ograde, but they are also attested, cf. e.g. OHG Hut ‘people’, OCS Ijudъ < *h!lewdhos (from the same root as Gr. eleútheros ‘free’), OE weorc ‘work’, Gr. érgon < *wergom (from the verbal root of YAv. varzziieiti ‘does, makes’). Often we can assume that the e-vocalism is due to the analogy with the present stem of the verb, e.g. OHG weg ‘way’ < *weg’hos by analogy with *weg’hoh2 ‘I drive’ (Goth, ga-wigan), and this analogy probably often operated already in PIE. However, we also find cases in which the e-grade o-stems were derived directly from roots to build exocentric derivatives, e.g. PIE *dyew- ‘clear sky’ (Skr. dyau-, Gr. Zeús ‘Zeus’) -> *deywȏ- ‘god of the clear sky, caelestial god’ (Lat. deus, Lith. diẽvas, probably also ORuss. divь ‘a supernatural being’), or PIE *doru ‘tree’ (Skr. dāni-, Gr. dóm ‘spear’) -> *derwo- ‘wooden material, wood’ (OCS drěvo). In PIE the feminine forms of adjectives were derived from masculine and neuter thematic stems by adding *-eh2 to the root, e.g. *newos ‘new’ (m.) > Skr. nȃvas, Gr. něos, Lat. novus, OCS novъ vs. *neweh2 ‘new’ (f.) > Skr. nȃvā, Gr. néa, Lat. nova, OCS nova. The “feminine motion” of nouns denoting females is not of PIE origin: it developed only in the history or prehistory of individual IE languages (Matasović 2004: MO­ HS). Thus, in Homeric Greek, we still have ho hippos ‘horse’ vs. hē hippos ‘mare’, corresponding to Classical Greek hippos and híppē. Likewise, Gr. theȏs was originally both ‘god’ and ‘goddess’, and the form theá for ‘goddess’ developed later. In Germanic, the feminine 61

nouns in *-eh2 corresponding to masculines in *-os never developed as a productive pattern of derivation. The steins in *-eh2 usually had the o-grade in the root (e.g. Gr. phorá ‘carrying ‘ ← phérō ‘carry’, Lat. toga ‘toga, a garment’ ← tego ‘cover’), but the zero-grade also occurs, especially in cases where a an original root-noun can be posited, cf. Gr. dȋkẽ ‘right, justice’, Skr. díśā‘direction’ which may be the collective o f an original root-noun formed from the root *deyk’- ‘show’ (> Gr. deiknymi). In other instances, the zero-grade of the root can be due to the analogy with the verbal stem which had zero-grade in the athematic present plural, as well as in the plural of the perfect and the root aorist, OE notu ‘use’ ← nẽotan ‘to use’, Lat. fuga ‘escape, running away’, Gr. phygë ‘id.’ ← *bhug- ‘run away’ (Lat. fiigio, Gr. aor. éphygon). We also find the e-grade, which may be due to the influence of the thematic present stem of the verb, e.g. OHG geba ‘gift’ ← geban ‘give’, Lat. terra ‘dry land, earth’ ← *ters‘dry’ (Skr. tr?-).

2.10 Thematic stems with monosyllabic suffixes In Slavic, o-stems are only masculine (e.g. *vьlkъ ‘w olf) or neuter (e.g. *selo ‘village’). There were probably some feminine o-stems in PIE, e.g. *snuso- ‘daughter in law’ (Gr. nyós, Arm. nu, Gen. sg. nuoy), but these were lost in Slavic, cf. the PSl. ā-stem *snъxa ‘daughter in law’ (OCS snъxa, Croat, snàha, Russ, snoxá, etc., cf. Vasmer II: 682, Trubačev 1959: 131). Similarly, Slavic does not have feminine thematic nouns denoting trees, such as Lat. jāgus ‘beech’, Gr. phëgós ‘a kind of oak’ < PIE *bheh2g’o-. The difference bewteen the old o-stem neuters and masculines is preserved in their accentuation. The accentuation of the primary o-stems in Slavic does not depend on the Ablaut grade of the root, but it depends on the position of the accent in PIE, where it was fixed either on the last syllable (the tomós-type), or on the first syllable (the tȏmos-type). In Slavic, the original oxytona developed mobile accentuation, and then this type was generalized in masculines by Illič-Svityč’s rule. The neuter barytona became masculines (PIE *dhwórom ‘gate’ > Skr. dvaram, Croat, dvȏrh while the neuter oxytona were preserved as neuters with mobile accentuation (*yugóm > Skr. yugám, OCS igo). Hence, Slavic 62

masculine o-stem barytona (which belong to AP b by Dybo’s law) are generally from PIE barytone neuters.

2.10.1

*-o, *-ъ < *-a-

We shall first discuss the Proto-Slavic masculine underived o-stems. These could have different Ablaut grades of the root. With the o-grade of the root we have the following masculine nouns (among others): PSl. *orbъ ‘slave’ (OCS rabъ, robъ, Russ, rab, Cz. rob, Croat, rȍb, ESSJa XXXII: 131-133), parallel to Lat. orbus ‘orphan’ < PIE *h!orbho. The root ^ e r b 11- (rather than *h3erbh-) is reconstructed on the basis of OIr. erbaid ‘bestows’. PSl. *órkъ (a) ‘crab’ (Russ, rak, Pol. rak, Croat, rȁk ESSJa XXXII: 169-171), probably related to Lith. érkė ‘tick’, Latv. ẽrce ‘id.’. PSl. *bògь (c) ‘god’ (OCS bogь, Russ, bog, Pol. bóg, Croat, bóg, ESSJa II: 161-63); probably inherited, rather than borrowed from Iranian *baga-, as is often assumed (cf. the adjectives *ubogъ ‘poor’ > OCS ubogъ, *bogatъ ‘rich’ > OCS bogatъ, which preserve the original meaning of the root). The comparison with Skr. bhága- ‘prosperity’ points to PIE *bhago-. PSl. *bojь ‘fight, battle’ (OCS u-boi ‘murder’, Russ, boj, Cz. boj, Croat, bój, ESSJa II: 167-8), deverbal, from the verbal root of OCS biti ‘fight’. PSl. *běgъ ‘running, escape’ (Russ, beg, Croat, bijȇg); deverbal from *bẽgati, *bẽžati ‘run’ (ESSJa III: 92), from PIE *bhegw- (Lith. bėgti ‘run’, Gr. phébomai ‘fear’, IEW 116). PSl. *blą́dъ (c) ‘delusion’, OCS blądъ ‘depravity’, Russ, blud ‘fornication’, Pol. błąd, Croat, blȗd, Vasmer I: 95); inherited from BSl., cf. Lith. blañdas ‘cloudiness, drowsiness’, biandà ‘fog’, which is a deverbative from the verbal root of PSI. *bląditi ‘err’ (OCS blqditi) cf. also Lith. bìandýtis ‘clear up, roam’, OIc. biurtdr ‘slumber’. PSl. *brodъ (b) ‘ford’ (Russ, brod, Pol. bród, Croat, bród, ESSJa III: 36-7); inherited from BSl., cf. Lith. brādas ‘ford, fishindg net’, Latv. brads ‘ford’; the verbal root is attested as PSl. *broditi ‘wade’ (Pol. brodzić, Croat, bròditi), corresponding to Lith. bradyti.

63

PSI. *dòlъ (c) ‘valley’ (OCS dolu ‘below’, PI. dȏi ‘pit’, Croat, dõl ‘valley’, ESSJa V: 64-5). This item is probably inherited: OIc. dale ‘valley’, W dol ‘valley’ < *dholo-, IEW 246. PSl. *drozdъ ‘thrush’ (Russ, drozd, Pol. drozd, Croat, drȏzd, ESSJa V: 126-7), inherited, cf. Lith. strāzdas, Latv. strazds, Lat turdus, OIr. tmit. The voiced initial in Slavic may be original, if this word contained an s-mobile, PIE *drosdo- / *strosdo-; however, borrowing from some non-IE source is also possible, as no verbal root is at hand. PSl. *drùgъ (c) ‘comrade, friend’ (OCS dmgъ, Russ, drug, Cz. druh, Croat, drítg, ESSJa V: 131-2), parallel to Lith. draũgas, Latv. dràugs, Goth, ga-drauhts ‘warrior’ (IEW 255). PSl. *dũxъ (c) ‘breath, spirit’ (OCS duxъ, Russ, dux, Pol. duch, Croat, dȗh, ESSJa V: 153-4). Inherited from BSl., cf. Lith. daūsos [pl.] ‘air, breath’, Goth, dius ‘wild animal’ (IEW 270). PSl. *gádъ (a) ‘vermin, reptile’ (OCS gadъ ‘creeping animal’, Russ. gad, Pol. obs. gad, Croat, gȁd, ESSJa VI: 81-2); cf. with Ablaut Lith. gěda ‘shame’, OPr. gīdan ‘id.’ < PIE *geh]dh- / *goh!dh- (Germ. Kot ‘filth’). The Slavic form must be from *gohldho- (IEW484). PSl. *godъ ‘right time’ (OCS godъ, Russ, god ‘year’, Pol. gody [pl.] ‘feast’, Croat, gȏd, ESSJa VI: 191-192). Baltic shows the lengthened grade (Lith. guddas ‘honour, worship’, Latv. gùods ‘honour, banquet’), which probably implies that the word was a root-noun in BSl. Cf. also OHG guot ‘good’. PSl. *gojь ‘peace’ (ORuss. goi, OCz. hoj ‘abundance’, Croat, gój, ESSJa VI: 197), Lith. gajùs ‘vigorous’. Inherited, cf. Skr. gáyct- ‘house, family’ < *gwoyh3o- (from the same root as OCS živь < *gwih3wo-, Lat. vīvus, etc., IEW 468). PSI. *gȏrdъ (c) ‘enclosed settlement’ (OCS gradъ ‘town’, Russ. górod ‘id.’, Pol. grȏd ‘id.’, Croat, grád, Vasmer I: 297), identical to Lith. gar̃das ‘enclosure’. In origin probably a PIE root noun, and different ablaut grades were generalized. The original noun had Norn, sg. *ghōrdh-s, Acc. sg. *ghordh-m, Gen. sg. *ghrdh-os (Skr. grha‘house’). In most IE languages this form was thematicized, but those languages in which the root-final stop is *-t- generalized the unvoiced stop from the Nom. sg., e.g. Goth, garp̀s ‘house’, Lat. hortus ‘garden’, Gr. khȏrtos ‘feeding-place’ (Matasović 2004: 99). PSI. *gȏrxъ (a) ‘pea’ (Russ, gorȏx, Pol. groch, Croat, grȁh ‘beans’, ESSJa VII: 45). Inherited from BSl. *garša-, cf. Lith. garšas 64

lAegopodium podagraria’. Perhaps derived with the suffix *-so- > *-xъ, but the root is unknown. PSl. *glogъ (b) ‘hawthorn’ (Russ, glog ‘cornel’, Pol. glóg, Croat. glȍg, ESSJa VI: 136-7); possibly from a PIE root noun *giōgh-, cf. Gr. glokhes [pl.] ‘beard of com’. PSl. *gnòjь (c) ‘pus, manure’ (OCS gnoi ‘manure’, Russ, gnoj, Pol. gnój, Croat, gnój, ESSJa VI: 175-6), from *gnoyHo-, cf. OE gnidan ‘grind’ and the Slavic root *gniti ‘rot’ > Croat, gnj'iti, Russ, gnili. PSI. *xòdъ (c) ‘path, way’ (OCS xodъ, Russ, xod, Croat, hod, Derksen 203), identical to Gr. hodȏs ‘path, way’ < *sodo-, from the root of *sěsti ‘sit’ (OCS sěstì, Lat. sedeo, Skr. sad-, LIV 513f., IEW 785f., NHL 592). PSI. *kolъ (b) ‘stake’ (OCS koiъ, Russ, kol, Pol. kót, Bulg. koi, ESSJa X: 160-1). Originally neuter, as shown by AP (b). In Baltic, we have unexpected lenghtened grade in Lith. kuõias ‘stake’, with a circumflex. Was this a root-noun in BS1? The root is *kelH- ‘stab, pierce’ (cf. Croat, klátí). PSI. *kortъ ‘time’ (OCS kratь, Cz. krát, Croat, obs. krát, ESSJa XI: 99-100), inherited from BSl. *karta- (Lith. kar̃tas ‘time, once’. Cf. Skr. sakr̀t ‘once’). PSI. *kúpъ (a) ‘heap, mound’ (OCS kupъ, Croa. kȕp, ESSJa XIII: 114-5); the same formation in Lith. kaūpas (4) ‘heap’, dial, káupas, cf. also OHG hubil ‘hill’. PSI. *lòjь (c) ‘fat, tallow’ (CSl. loi, Pol. łój, Croat. lój)\ derived from •Uti ‘pour’ (ESSJa XV: 259-60). PSI. *lą́gъ (c) ‘depression’ (OCS iqgъ ‘wood’, Russ, lug ‘meadow’, Pol. ląg ‘damp or flooded wood’, Croat, lȗg ‘shrub’. Cf. OPr. Langa ‘name of a brook’. PSI. *lũbъ (c) ‘bast’ (Russ, lub, Pol. tub, Slov. lȗb) < PIE *lowbh‘bark’ (Lat. liber ‘bark, book’). PSI. *mẽxъ (c) ‘bag (made of skin)’ (OCS měxъ, Russ, mex, Pol. miech, Croat, rrříjeh, ESSJa XVIII: 156-9), Lith. maīšas ‘bag’, Latv. màiss ‘bag’, OPr. moasis ‘bellows’ < *moyso-, cf. OHG meisa ‘pannier’, Skr. mesm̀ ‘ram’ (IEW 747, EIEC 511, NIIL 496-497). PSI. *morъ ‘plague’ (OCS morъ, Russ, mor, Pol. mór, Croat, mór, ESSJa XIX: 250-2), like Lith. mãras ‘plague’ and Skr. pramará- ‘death’ (note the absence of the operation of Brugmann’s law, so this Skr. noun perhaps contains the e-grade) < PIE *moro-. Slavic *mon> is a nomen 65

actionis from *merti ‘die’ (Croat, mrijȇti). The PIE root is *mer- ‘die’ (Lat. morior, Skr. máváte, etc., LIV 439f„ IEW 735, NHL 488-490). PSI. *mȏrzъ (a) ‘frost’ (OCS mrozь, Russ, ntoróz, Pol. mróz, Croat. mm:), deverbal noun to *mьrzẽti ‘hate’ (OCS mrьzěti ‘be loathsome’, Pol. mierzieć) and *mьrznąti ‘freeze’ (Cz. mnnoutU Russ, mërznut), cf. Alb. mctrdhë ‘frost’. PSI. *nòsъ (c) ‘nose’ (Russ, nos, Pol. nos, Croat, nós, ESSJa XXV: 212-6). A thematicization of a BSl. root-noun (?) Lith. nósis, Latv. nāss ‘nostril’, OPr. nozy ‘nose’ < PIE *neh2s- /*nh2s- ‘nose’ (Lat. nāsum, OHG nasa Skr. nás-, IEW 755). PSI. *pórgъ (a) ‘threshold’ (OCS pragъ ‘door-post’, Russ, porog, Pol. próg, Croat, prȁg. Derksen 413), from the same root as Lith. pergas ‘fishing canoe’ (with the e-grade) and OIc. forkr ‘bar, stick’. PSI. *rȏdъ (c) ‘birth, family’ (OCS rodъ, Russ, rod, Pol. ród Croat. ród, Derksen 437). The same form is found in Latv. rads ‘birth, origin, kin’. PSI. *rògъ (c) ‘horn’ (OCS rogъ, Russ, rog, Pol. róg, Croat, nig, Derksen 438). The same form is found in Baltic (Lith. rãgas, Latv. rags. OPr. ragis (EV)). I find the connection with Lith. regěti ‘watch’ doubtful on semantic grounds. PSI. *rokъ ‘time’ (OCS rokъ, Russ, rok, Pol. rok ‘year’, Croat, rok ‘period’, Derksen 438), inherited from BSl., cf. Lith. rãkas ‘time, end', Latv. raks ‘goal, limit'. From the same root as *rekti ‘say’ (OCS reští Croat, rèči, etc.). PSI. *slùxъ (c) ‘hearing’ (OCS sluxь, Russ, slaw Cz. sluch. Croat. slȗh, Derksen 455), from a thematized s-stem (see *slawa- > *slovo ‘word’), NHL 432. PSI. *smȏrdъ (c) ‘stench, bad smell’ (OCS smradъ, Russ. dial. smórod, Pol. smród, Croat, smrȃd. Derksen 456), from the same root as *smьrděti ‘stink’ (OCS smrьděti, Croat, smrdjeti, etc.). Identical formation is found in OLith. sntardas, Latv. smȃrds. PSI. *sně̑gъ (c) ‘snow’ (OCS sněgъ, Russ, sneg, Pol. śnieg, Croat. snijȇg, Derksen 457), inherited from BS1, cf. Lith. sniẽgas, Lan . sniegs < PIE *snoygwho- (Goth, snahts). The PIE root is *sneyg*t - ‘to snow', perhaps originally 'to stick' (Ved. sníh- ‘to stick’, Lat. nit. Gen. sg. nivis ‘snow’, Olr. snige ‘snow’, etc., cf. LIV 573, IEW 974, NHL 622-623).

66

PSI. *sòkъ (c) ‘juice’ (OCS sokъ, Russ, sok, Pol. sok, Croat, sȏlc, Derksen 459), identical formation in Baltic, cf. Lith. sakát [Nom. pl.] ‘resin, tar’. PSl. *solpъ ‘waterfall’ (Cz. slap, Croat síȃp, Derksen 460), inherited from BSl., cf. Lith. salpas ‘creek, backwater’, from the root of RussCSl. siьpati ‘flow, spout’. PSl. *somъ (b) ‘sheat-fish’ (Russ. som. Pol. sum, Croat, sȍm, Derksen 461). There is an identical formation in Baltic, cf. Lith. šãmas 'sheat-fish’, Latv. sams. The accentual paradigm (b) points to an original neuter, which would be unexpected in a fish name. PSl. *sądъ (b) ‘judgment, verdict, trial’ (OCS sąàъ, Russ, sud. Pol. sqd. Croat, sud). Perhaps an old compound *k’om-dhhļO-, from the root of OCS děti ‘do’. The accentual paradigm (b) points to an original neuter. PSl. *stogъ ‘stack’ (OCS stogь, Russ, stóg, Pol. stóg. Croat, stóg, Derksen 468), perhaps inherited from PIE *stogho- (Gr. stókhos ‘brick pillar’, Lith. stagaros ‘stick’), or *stogo- cf. Lat. toga ’toga’, W to ‘roof (NHL 635). If the correct proto-form is *stogo-, Winter’s law would not have operated since the first syllable was open (Matasović 1995). PSI. *tòkъ (c) ‘stream, current' (OCS tokь, Russ, tok, Pol. tok, Croat. tók Derksen 494-5), originally a nomen actionis. identical to Lith. tãkas ‘foot-path’ and Latv. taks ‘foot-path’ < PIE *tȏk*-o- (from the root *tek*- ‘flow, run’, cf. OCS testi. Olr. techid ‘runs’, IEW 1059f.). PSl. *trudъ (b) ‘labour, trouble’ (OCS ttrudъ. RUss. trud. Pol. trud. Croat, tm ď Derksen 498), from PIE *trowdo- (MHG drō: ‘distress, burden'; a thematic verb from the same root is represented by Lat. trūdo ’thrust, push’, W cy-thrudd ‘to vex’, IEW 1095fT.). The absence of the acute in Slavic is regular, since Winter's law did not operate in open syllables (Matasović 1995). and the accentual paradigm (b) points to an original neuter (*trowdom). PSl. *tùrь (c) ‘aurochs’ (OCS turь. Russ, tur, Pol. tur, Croat, tůr. Derksen 500), cf. Lith. taùras, Gr. taůros. Lat. taurus < *tawro-, perhaps originally a Semitic loanword (cf. Proto-Semitic *jw t ‘aurochs’). PSl. *tvòrъ (c) “creation, creature' (OCS tvorъ. ORuss. tvorь 'appearance', Pol. /wtir, Derksen 501). cf. Gr. sorós 'um ’ and Lith. ãptvaras 'fence'.

67

PSI. *vȏrgъ (c) ‘foe’ (OCS vragъ, Russ. dial, vórog, Pol. wróg, Croat. vrȃg ‘devil’, Derksen 527), identical to Lith. var̃gas ‘hardship, misery’, OPr. wargan Acc. sg. ‘misery’. PSl. *voskъ ‘wax’ (OCS voskъ, Croat, vȏsak, Russ, vosk, Pol. wosk Vasmer I: 231). This is the exact cognate of Lith. vāšlcas ‘wax’, OHG wahs ‘id.’. The word for ‘wax’ does not have any verbal root from which it could be easily derived. It is probably an old loanword from some unknown source. PSl. *vȏzъ (c) ‘cart’ (OCS vozъ, Russ, voz, Pol. wóz, Croat, váz, Derksen 530), inherited from PIE *wog’ho- (Gr. ȏkhos ‘cart’, IEW 1119f.). PSl. *zvȏnъ (c) ‘sound’ (OCS zvonъ, Russ, zvon, Pol. dzwon, Slov. zvórt, Derksen 550), from the root of OCS zvьnėtì, Russ, zvenét' ‘ring, clank’. Most of these nouns are derived from verbal roots, but there are also those for which no verbal root is attested, e.g. *drugъ ‘friend, comrade’, *nosъ ‘nose’, *rogъ ‘horn’. Some might be early loanwords from non-IE sources, e.g. *turъ ‘aurochs’, *gorxъ ‘pea’, *somъ ‘sheat-fish’ and *drozdъ ‘thrush’ (Matasović 2013). Masculines with the e-grade of the root: PSl. *čásъ (a) ‘time’ (OCS časъ, Russ, čas, Pol. czas, Croat, čȁs ‘moment’, ESSJa IV: 27-30). OPr. kīsman ‘time’ [Acc. sg.], Alb. kohë ‘time’ < *keh1s(k)o-. PSl. *čȇrpъ (c) ‘potsherd’ (Russ, čérep ‘skull’, Pol. obs. trzop, Croat. cr̃íjep ‘tile’, ESSJa IV: 72), OHG scirbi ‘potsherd’ < *(s)kerp-. PSl. *česnъ (*česnъkъ) ‘garlic’ (ORuss. česnъkь, Pol. czosnek, Croat, čěsan, Slov. čésen, cf. also Slk. česen ‘comb’, Kurkina 1992: 31); the comparison with OIr. cainnenn ‘leek’ < *kasnino- points to the alternation *kesn-/*kasn-, which indicates that the root is non-IE. PSl. *dě̑dъ (a) ‘grandfather’ (OCS dědъ, Russ, ded, Pol. dziad, Croat, djȅd, ESSJa IV: 227). Inherited, cf. Lith. dėdis ‘uncle’, Gr. íëthē ‘grandmother’, IEW 235. PSl. *kvȃsъ (c) ‘sour dough, fermented drink’ (OCS lcvasъ, Russ. kvas, Croat, lcvás, Pol. arch, kwas, Derksen 258) ← *kysnąti ‘ferment, get sour’ (Croat, kisnuti), cf. also *kyslъ ‘sour’ (Russ, kýslyj, Croat, lciseo), perhaps related to Lat. cāseus ‘cheese’, Latv. kūsāt ‘to boil’, IEW 627. The Slavic forms point to Ablaut *kweh2s- (> *kvasъ) / *kuh2s- (> *kys-). 68

PSI. *migъ ‘wink’ (Russ, mig, Croat, mȋg, Pol. mig, Vasmer II: 132) ← *migati ‘blink’ (ORuss. migati, Croat, rnigati, etc.), from the root of Lith. miegóti ‘sleep’. PSl. *svekrъ ‘father-in-law’ (CSl. svekrъ, Russ, svëkor, Pol. świekr, Croat, svȅkar, Derksen 475), inherited from BSl., cf. Lith. šẽšuras < *swek’uro- (Skr. śvȃśura-, Lat. socer, etc., IEW 1043f., EIEC 85, 195f., NHL 672-673). PSl. *vȋdъ (c) ‘sight, view, appearance’ (OCS vidъ, Russ, vid, Cz. vid, Croat, vid Derksen 521-2), parallel to Lith. véidas ‘face’, Latv. veids ‘form’, cf. also Gr. eȋdos ‘appearance’ < *weyd- ‘see’ (OCS viděli, Lat. video, Skr. véda ‘I know’, etc., cf. LIV 665ff., IEW 1125ff., NIIL 717-719). In these nouns the e-grade is sometimes analogical to the present stem of the verb (*vidъ ‘sight’ vs. pres. *vidją ‘I see’ > OCS viždą, Croat, vȉdim, etc., *migъ ‘blink’ vs. *migati ‘blink’, etc.). PSl. *svekn> ‘father-in-law’ is from an old compound, the elements of which had become obscure already in PIE. The element *swe- is presumably not part of the root, but the old prefix *swe- ‘own’, which also occurs in *swesōr ‘sister’ (OCS sestra, Lat. soror, etc.) and in the reflexive pronoun *swe- (Skr. svayam, Lat. sē, etc.). The PIE Vfddhi thematic nouns with the e-grade may be represented by PSl. *divъ ‘a demon’ (ORuss. divь, Croat, div) < PIE *deywo- ‘caelestial god’ (Lat. deus, Lith. diẽvas, Skr. devā-, NIIL 72) ← *dyēws ‘sky’ (Gr. Zeús, Skr. dyáu-), unless this word is borrowed from Iranian (Av. daēva- ‘demon’). Masculines with the zero-grade of the root are rather rare: PSl. *lьnъ (c) ‘linen’ (CSl. Iьnъ, Russ, len, Pol. ten, Croat, lȁn, Croat, dial. (Čak.) lȃn, Derksen 298), from the root *leyn-/*lin- ‘linen’ (Gr. iinon, Lat. iīnum, etc.). This word was probably a root-noun with Ablaut in PIE, with Slavic generalizing the zero-grade of the root, the full grade of which is preserved in Lat. iīnum (OIr. lín ‘linen’ was borrowed from Latin). Hence, the PIE inflexion would have been Nom. sg. *leyn / Gen. sg. *lin-os. PSl. *lъbъ ‘skull’ (CSl. lъbъ, Russ, lob ‘forehead’, Pol. ieb ‘head of an animal’, Slov. ièb ‘skull’, ESSJa XVI: 225-8). Derived from the same root as *lubъ ‘bast’, with the zero-grade. PSl. *sъlъ ‘messenger’ (OCS sъiь, ORuss. sъiъ, Slov. sèl, Derksen 480), from the root of *sъlati ‘send’ (OCS sъlati, Russ, slat’, Croat. sìȁti, etc.). 69

PSI. *vьĩkъ (c) ‘w olf (OCS vlьlcь, Russ, volk, Pol. wilk, Croat, vȗk, Derksen 537), identical to Lith. vilkās, Latv. vilks, OPr. wilkis and Skr. vfka- ‘w olf < PIE *wlkwo-, IEW 1178. There also appear to be a handful of masculines with the lengthened grade (Vyddhi). Some of these are probably thematicized PIE root nouns: PSl. *krájь (a) ‘end’ (OCS krai, Croat, krȃj, Russ, kraj, Pol. kraj, Derksen 244-245) ← *krojiti ‘cut, tailor’ (Croat, krójiti, etc.). PSl. *sȃdъ (c) ‘plant, garden’ (OCS sadь, Russ, sad, Cz. sad, Croat. sád ‘new planting’, Derksen 442-3). Derived (by Vrddhi) from the root *sed- ‘siť (OCS sēsti etc.). PSl. *žarь ‘glow, heat’ (Russ, žar, Pol. žar, Croat, žȃr, Derksen 554), probably from an original root-noun (*gwhēr / *gwhor-m / *gwhr-os). The root is PIE *gwher- ‘bum’ > Gr. thermȏs ‘warm’, also attested in OCS gorěíi ‘bum’, etc. The accentuation of the Slavic thematic nouns was established in principle by Illič-Svityč (1963). Those with the laryngeal in the syllable coda belong to AP a, with fixed acute on the first syllable (e.g. *čásъ ‘time’ < *keh]So-). This is irrespective of the position of accent in PIE, since the accent was retracted to the initial syllables closed by laryngeals by Hirt’s law, e.g. *dymъ ‘smoke’ < BSl. *dūma- (Lith. pl. dumai) < PIE *dhuh2mȏ- (Skr. dhūmȃ-). Nouns in which the initial syllable had a PIE voiced stop in the coda received the acute by Winter’s law, so they also belong to AP a (e.g. *mórzъ ‘frost’, *pórgь ‘threshold’). In other masculine o-stems accentual mobility was generalized, and they mostly belong to AP c, irrespective of the position of accent in PIE, cf. PSl. *vьlkъ ‘wolf < *wlkwo- (Skr. vrka-), *vozъ ‘cart’ < *wóg’ho- (Gr. ókhos), *mẽxъ ‘bellows’ < *moysó- (Skr. mesa- ‘ram’), *xodъ ‘path, way’ < *sodó- (Gr. hodȏs). Some such nouns may actually be ancient ustems (where accentual mobility is the rule), which became thematicized early. Nouns belonging to AP b are old barytone neuters, e.g. *dvonь' ‘courtyard’ < *dhwórom (Skr. dvaram, with irregular d-). Nouns with the lengthened grade of the root seem to be mobile (*sȃdъ ‘plant, garden’), probably by analogy with the other o-stem original masculines (i.e. those not derived from barytone neuters). Neuters: These are the Slavic thematic neuters with full grade of the root:

70

PSI. *áblo (a) ‘apple’ (Cz Jablo, Bulg.jȃblo, ESSJa I: 44-47). This noun probably represents a thematicization of a PIE 1-stem *h2ebȏl, gen. *h2eblos ‘apple’ (Lith. óbuoias, OHG apful, Olr. ubull), IEW 2f., EIEC 25f., NIIL 262-263. The acute and the long initial vowel are due to Winter’s law. PSl. *brjuxo ‘belly’ (Russ, brjúxo, Pol. arch, brzucho, ESSJa III: 334) < PIE *bhrews-o- (Olr. brii ‘abdomen, belly’). PSI. *čeló (b) ‘forehead’ (OCS čelo, Pol. czolo, Croat, čèló). For the etymology, see 2.11.9 on *kolěno ‘knee’. *mę̑so (c) ‘meat, flesh’ (OCS męso, Russ, ntjȃso, Pol. mięso, Croat. mȇso, ESSJa XIX: 7-11). Inherited from PIE (*mēmso-), cf. Lith. dial. mensà, Latv. miesa, OPr. menso, Skr. mām̀sȃ-, Goth, mimz (IEW 725, EIEC 374, NIIL 486-487). PSl. *uxo (c) ‘ear’ (OCS uxo, Russ, úxo, Pol. ucho, Croat, ȕho, Derksen 507). There is some oscillation between an o-stem and an sstem inflection (OCS uxo also inflects as an s-stem, and Slov. uhõ is an s-stem). In Lith. we find an i-stem (Lith. ausìs, Latv. àussh but the noun was an s-stem in PIE (cf. Lat. cturis, Olr. áu, etc.from PIE *h2ews-, IEW 785). PSI. *peró (b) ‘feather’ (CSl. pern, Russ, peró, Pol. pióro, Croat. pèro, Derksen 446). Cf. OE fearn ‘fern’, Gr. pterón ‘feather, wing’. PSI. *sẽno (c) ‘hay’ (OCS sēņo, Russ, séno, Pol. siano, Croat, sijēno, Vasmer II: 609-610). Inherited, cf. Lith. šiẽnas, Latv. stem, perhaps also Gr. koiná ‘hay’ (Hesych) < PIE *k’oyno- (with unexpected o-grade, which is rare in thematic neuters in BSl.), IEW 610. PSI. *vẽno ‘bride-price’ (Russ, véno, ORuss. věno, Pol. wiano), probably from *wedno- (with Winter’s lengthening), cf. Gr. édnort ‘bride-price’, OHG widomo. PSl. *vorta [Nom.-Acc. pl.] ‘door’ (OCS vrata, Russ, voróta, Pol. wrota, Croat, vrȃta, Derksen 529), identical to Lith. var̃tai ‘gate’, Latv. vārti ‘id.’, OPr. warto (EV) ‘id.’. From the root *wert- ‘turn’ (Croat. vr̀tjeti etc.). The following two words are somewhat obscure: PSI. *gnẽzdo (OCS gnẽzdo ‘nest’, Russ, gnezdó, Pol. gniazdo, Croat. gnijèzdo, Vasmer 1: 279) is probably an inherited neuter (cf. Skr. rtīdám besides nīdās. Lat. nīdus)\ the initial cluster *gn- and the o-grade (*gnoydo-) are unexplained; Lithuanian has the zero-grade in lizdas, also with irregular PSI. *vẽko ‘eye-lid’ (Russ, véko, Pol. wieko, Slov. 71

veka ‘lid, eye-liď, Vasmer I: 179) is probably also an inherited neuter ostem (cf. the alternation between Lith. vȏkas ‘eye-lid’ and vóka ‘covering’), but the PIE etymology is unknown. There are also some neuters with the zero-grade o f the root: PSl. *juga- > *jьgo (c) ‘yoke’ (OCS igo, Russ, /go, Cz. jho, Croat, arch, igo, ESSJa VIH: 206-7); inherited from PIE, cf. Lith. jungas (with -n- from the present stem of the verb), Skr. yugá-, Lat. iugum, etc. (LIV 316, IEW 508fT, NHL 397-399). PSI. *dn>vo ‘tree* (OCS drьva [pl.] ‘wood’, Russ, drová [pl.] ‘wood’, Slk. drvo, Croat, drvo, ESSJa V: 141-2); see *dervo, PIE *doru / *drew-; it would seem that both *dervo- and *drъvo go back to a single u-stem with Ablaut (*deru-). PSI. *drъvo would be derivable from a secondary singulative *dru-h2-o- built to the collective (*druh2). PSI. *ly̑ko (a) ‘bast’ (Russ, lýko, Pol. łyko, Croat, tiko, ESSJa XVII: 28-31), probably inherited from BSl. in light of Lith. lùnkos ‘bast’, Latv. lūks, OPr. lunkan. The verbal root is found in Skr. lunāti ‘peel’ < PIE *lewH-, and BSl. generalized the zero-grade o f the root with the nasal infix. PSI. *tьló (b) ‘ground’ (CS tьlo, Russ. arch, tio ‘bottom’, Pol. tło, Croat, ilò, Derksen 504). From PIE *telh2- (Lith. tìíės ‘bottom of a barge, flooring’, OPr. talus ‘floor’, Skr. tala- ‘surface, bottom’, OIr. ialam ‘earth’, Lat. tellūs, -ūris ‘ground, earth’, IEW 1061). The different formations in various languages probably point to the conclusion that a root-noun should be reconstructed in PIE (*telh2-(s) / *tlh2-os). Slavic generalized the zero-grade of the oblique cases. The majority of underived neuter o-stems have mobile accentuation (*uxo ‘ear’, *sẽno ‘hay’, *jьgo ‘yoke’) and come from PIE oxytona (cf. PIE *yugóm ‘yoke’ > Gr. zygón). The PIE barytone neuters became masculines in Slavic (e.g. PIE *dhwórom > OCS dvorь ‘courtyard’, see above). Neuters with roots in a laryngeal (*ly̑ko ‘bast’), or voiced stop in the coda (*áblo ‘apple’) have fixed acute on the root (AP a). The origin of neuters that belong to AP b) (*tьlo ‘ground’, *čelo ‘forehead’, *pero ‘feather’) is less clear.17 17 What the three examples in our sample have in common is that they all have the structure *CVRHo-, i.e. *tьlo < *tilHo- > *tlh2o-, *čelo < *kelHo-, *pero < •perHo- (if this word is from the same root as Lith. papártis ’fem’, Derksen 396). Apparently, the cluster created by the laryngeal and the preceding

72

Many Proto-Slavic o-stems have exact correspondences in Baltic, or in other IE languages. However, in many cases (especially when the formations are deverbal) this can be due to parallel development, rather than to common inheritance, cf. PSl. *brodъ ‘ford’ (Croat, bwd, Russ. brod, Pol. bród, Vasmer 1: 124) ← PSI. *bredą ‘wade’ (Russ, bredú, brestí, etc.) vs. Lith. brādas ‘id.’ ← brendù, brìsti ‘wade’. Moreover, in many cases Slavic o-stem nomina actionis (from PIE barytona) correspond to nomina agentis (from PIE oxytona) in other languages, cf. PSl. *gonъ ‘hunt, a driving (of oxen)’ (Russ. dial, gon, Croat, gȍn, Pol. gon, Vasmer I: 202) vs. Skr. ghaná- ‘club’, Gr. phónos ‘murder’ < PIE *gwhóno-, but Lith. gānas ‘shepherd’< *gwhonó-, both from PIE *gwhen‘strike, slay’ (Skr. han-, Gr. theínō, etc.). [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 58-59]

2.10.2

-a < *-ā-

Nouns belonging to this class were mostly feminine in PIE, but in many IE languages we find exceptions that are masculine, e.g. Lat. nauta ‘sailor’, vema ‘slave (bom in the household)’, Gr. neanȋās ‘youth’, Lith. elgeta ‘a poor person’, Lith. kváila ‘idiot’ (Matasović 2004: 140-1). Slavic also has a number of masculine ā-stems, e.g. OCS sluga ‘servant’, voevoda ‘warlord’, etc. The ā-stems with the o-grade of the root are the most numerous. Those with the e-grade mostly got their vocalism by analogy with the verbs from the same roots, but there are also a few archaic-looking formations with the zero grade of the root.

consonant is responsible for the non-operation of Ulič-Svityč's rule, by which barytone PIE o-stem neuters became masculine in Slavic. As argued by Derksen (2011), following Kortlandt (2011: 7-16), consonant clusters prevented the accent retraction from final *o (also referred to as ‘Ebeling’s law’, e.g. in the neuter participle *pilo ‘drunk’ vs. the feminine *pilá). This means that, when the crucial development o f unaccented *-om to *-um (> *-ъ) took place, these words were still oxytona, and consequently their neuter ending *-o was preserved. The generalization o f mobility in original oxytona (e.g. PIE *yugóm > PSI. *jъgo ‘yoke’ (c)) must have predated this development, or else they would also belong to AP b.

73

We note the following nouns with the o-grade: PSI. *bẽdá (b) ‘need, misery’ (OCS běda, Russ, bedďOPol. biada, Croat. bijéda)\ either inherited from PIE *bhoydheh2, or a deverbal abstract noun derived from *bẽditi ‘force’, which is, according to Vaillant IV: 96 borrowed from Germanic (cf. Goth, baidjan ‘force’, Gr. peíthō ‘persuade’, LIV 71f., IEW 117, NHL 12-13).18 PSI. *bordá (c) ‘beard’ (Russ, borodá, Pol. broda, Croat, brada, ESSJa II: 197-8). Inherited, cf. Lith. barzdà (4), Lat. barba, OHG bart < PIE *bV dheh2 (IEW 110, EIEC 251, NHL 4). PSl. *doba ‘time’ (Russ, dóba, Pol. doba, Croat, dȍba, ESSJa V: 389). Inherited, cf. Lith. dahà ‘nature’, Latv. daba ‘manner’, Goth. gadaban ‘happen’. PSl. *dupa ‘hole’ (Russ. dial, dúpa ‘buttocks’, Cz. doupa ‘hollow’, Slov. dúpa ‘hole, burrow’, ESSJa V: 157-158). Related to Lith. daubà (4) ‘ravine, hole’, Goth, diups ‘deep’ (the final *-p- in Slavic is unexplained). PSI. *kȏlda (a) block, log’ (Russ, koiódct, Pol. kloda, Croat, kiȁda, ESSJa X: 122-3). Related to Gr. kládos ‘branch’, OHG holz ‘wood’ < *kold-. PSI. *korá (b) ‘bark’ (CSl. kora, Russ, korá, Pol. kora, Croat, kora, ESSJa XI: 44-5). From the root *(s)ker- ‘shear’ (Gr. keírō, etc., IEW 940). PSl. *korda ‘pile of logs’ (OCS krada ‘bonfire’, Ukr. kȏroda, OCz. krada, Slov. kráda, ESSJa XI: 58-60), cf. Goth, hrot ‘roof. PSI. *nogá (c) ‘foot’ (OCS noga, Russ, noga, Pol. noga, Croat, rtȏga, ESSJa XXV: 161-164); the original BSl. meaning ‘hoof is preserved in Baltic (Lith. nagà, cf. nāgas ‘naif and OPr. nage ‘foot’). From PIE *h3nogwh- ‘nail, claw’ (Gr. ónyks, Gen. sg. ónykhos, Lat. unguis, OIr. ingen, IEW 780). PSl. *rąká (c) ‘hand’ (OCS rqka, Russ, ruled, Pol. ręka, Croat, nīka, Derksen 440). Inherited from BSL, cf. Lith. ranka, Latv. moka. The 18 Alternatively, if PSI. *bẽda is cognate with Lith. bēda (4) ‘distress’, both words could be derived from a root-noun *bhēdh- preserved in Skr. badh‘distress’, from the same root as Lith. bãdas ‘hunger’. However, Lith. bēda could also be a Slavic loanword, and it must also be noted that old root-nouns usually have mobile accentuation in Balto-Slavic, while both *bẽdá (b) and Lith. bèdà point to an oxytone noun.

74

BSl. words are derived from the verbal root *wrenk- ‘to grab, gather’ (Lith. riñkti ‘gather’). PSI. *rosá (c) ‘dew’ (OCS rosa, Russ, rosȃ, Pol. rosa, Croat, ròsa, Derksen 438-9), inherited from BSl., cf. Lith. rasà ‘dew’, Latv. rasa. Probably from the same root as Lat. rōs ‘dew’, Skr. řása- ‘sap’ < PIE root noun *(H)r5s / *(H)ros-os, 1EW 336, EIEC 158f„ NHL 574-575. PSI. *soxá (c) ‘forked stick’ (Russ, soxá ‘wooden plough’, Pol. socha, Croat, sȏha, Derksen 458), inherited from BSl. (cf. Lith. šakà ‘branch’), from PIE *k’okH- (Skr. šākhā-, Goth, hoha ‘plough’, 1EW 523. PSI. *sȏlma (a) ‘straw’ (CS slama, Russ, soióma, Pol. sloma, Croat. sláma, Derksen 459), inherited from PIE *k’olh2meh2 (Latv. salms, Gr. kaìámē ‘stubble’, OHG halm ‘stalk’, 1EW 612). PSI. *vodá (c) ‘water’ (OCS voda, Russ, vodá, Pol. woda, Croat. váda, Derksen 523). An old heterocliton, perhaps derivable directly from a PIE collective *wodōr (Matasović 1998). Traces of the stem of the oblique cases (*wedn-) are preserved in Baltic, cf. Lith. vanduõ, Latv. Mens, OPr. wundan, unds (cf. also Hitt, wātar, Gen. wetenaš, Lat. unda, ‘wave’, Goth, wato, etc., IEW 79-80). *vólga (a) ‘moisture’ (OCS vlaga, Russ. dial, vológa, Cz. vláha, Croat, vlȁga, Derksen 524-5). Identical formation is found in Baltic, cf. Lith. dial, valgā ‘food, victuals’. From the same root as OHG woichan ‘cloud’, IEW 1146. With the e-grade we have the following items: PSI. *bába (a) ‘old woman’ (OCS baba ‘nurse’, Russ, bába, Pol. baba ‘gradmother’, Croat, bába, ESSJa 1: 105-108). Inherited, cf. Lith. bȏba ‘old woman’, cf. also MHG babe ‘old woman’ < *bheh2bheh2, IEW 91. Here a derivation from *bhoh2bheh2 (with the o-grade) would also be possible. PSI. *bérza (a) ‘birch’ (Russ, berëza, Pol. brzoza, Croat, brȅza). Inherited from BSl., cf. Lith. béržas ‘birch’, OHG birihha ‘id.’ < PIE *bherHg’o-/-eh2; probably a thematicization of a root-noun in PIE, cf. Skr. bhūrjá- ‘birch’ < *bhrHg’- (with the zero-grade), IEW 139. PSI. *čerdá (b) ‘file, herd’ (OCS ěrěda, Russ, ceredá, Pol. trzoda, Croat, dial, čréda, ESSJa IV: 60-63), Lith. sker̃džius ‘herdsman’, OPr. kērdan ‘time’, Goth, hairda ‘herd’, IEW 579.

75

PSI. *gnída (a) ‘niť (Russ, gnida, Pol. gnida, Croat, gnjȉda, ESSJa VI: 173-4), apparently inherited from BSl. cf. Lith. glinda, Latv. gnīda, cf. OE hnitu and Gr. konís, 1EW 437. PSl. *ędzá (c) ‘disease, terror’ (OCS jędza, Pol .jędza ‘witch’, Croat. jéza ‘horror’, ESSJa VI: 68-9). Derived from the root found in Lith. éngti ‘press, strangle’, OE inca ‘pain’ < *Hng-, IEW 13. PSl. *iva (a) ‘willow’ (Russ. íva, PI. iwa, Croat, iva, ESSJa VIII: 248-9), inherited from BSl. *HeyHwaH, Lith. ievā (2/4) ‘bird-cherry’, Latv. iẽva ‘id.’. PIE *h!oyHweh2 (Gr. óa, oíẽ ‘service-tree’, Lat. ūva ‘grapes’. Arm. aygi ‘vine’, IEW 297f.). PSI. *kljúka (a) ‘hook’ (ORuss. kljuka ‘poker’, OPol. kluka, Croat. kljȕka, ESSJa X: 55-6), from the root *kleh2u- ‘obstruct, hook’ (Lith. kliuti, Lat. clāvis ‘key’). PSl. *lipa (a) ‘lime-tree’ (Russ, lipa, Pol. lipa, Croat, lípa, ESSJa XV: 114-16); inherited from BSL, cf. Lith. liepa, Latv. liepa. Presumably (despite Derksen’s doubts, p. 279) from the root *leyp‘smear’ (Lith. lipti, etc.). The acute in Balto-Slavic is probably due to “Balto-Slavic Vfddhi”. PSI. *zimá (c) ‘winter’ (OCS zima, Russ, zimá, Pol. zima, Croat. zima, Derksen 545), identical to Lith. žíemà, Latv. ziema, from a PIE mstem *g,heyōm / *g’hyem- / *g’him- (Lat. hiems, Gr. khíȏn ‘snow’, OW gaem, Hitt, gimrn-, IEW 425f., E1EC 504, NIIL 162-163). It is possible that the BSl. words are actually from PIE *g’heymneh2 (cf. the n-stem in Ved. Loc. sg. hémart ‘in winter’, Gr. kheimṓn ‘winter, storm’), with the assimilation of *-mn- > *-m-. PSI. *žená (b) ‘woman, wife’ (OCS žena, Russ, ženȃ ‘wife’, Pol. zona ‘wife’, Croat, žèna, Derksen 558), identical to OPr. gemo < PIE *gweneh2 (Gr. gyrtē, OIr. ben, Goth. qino). In PIE, this was a stem in *h2 (Nom. sg. *gwenh2, Gen. sg. *gwneh2-s, cf. OIr. ben. Gen. sg. mná), which was reinterpreted as an ā-stem with e-vocalism in Balto-Slavic, IEW 473f.,EIEC 648, NIIL 177-178. We also find a number of nouns with the zero-grade of the root. These seem archaic, as they often have exact cognates in other IE languages: PSl. *blъxá (b) ‘flea’ (Russ, bioxá, Cz. blecha, Croat, bùha, ESSja II: 129-30.); inherited from BSL, cf. Lith. blusà (2), Latv. blusa < PIE *plus- (Lat. pūlex, OHGjĩōh, Arm. lu, IEW 102).

76

PSI. *čьrtá (b) ‘line’ (OCS črъta, Russ, čertů, Cz. črta, Slov. čŕta, ESSJa IV: 161); from the root *kert- ‘cut’, see *čerslo. PSI. *mьzdá (b) ‘payment’ (OCS mьzda, Russ. arch, mzda, Cz. mzda, Croat, arch, màzda, ESSJa XXI: 176-8); like Goth, mizdo ‘payment’, originally a collective of a substantivized adjective, PIE *misdho- (Gr. misthȏs ‘reward’, Skr. mīdhá- ‘booty, prize’, Goth, mizdo ‘reward’, IEW 746, EIEC 484, NHL 492-493). It is very probable that PIE *misdho- developed from an old compound, *mis-dhh1o-, where the first element is the zero-grade of an old s-stem *meyos- ‘change’ (from the root *mey- ‘exchange’, Skr. may-), and the second element is the root of the verb *dhehr ‘do’ (Lat. facio, Skr. dhā-, etc.), see Sttìber 2002: 127. PSI. *snъxá ‘daughter-in-law’ (CSl. snъxct, Russ, snoxá, Cz. snacha, Croat, snàha, Derksen 458.), inherited in light of Skr. snusa- ‘daughterin-law’ < PIE *snuseh2, besides *snuso- > Gr. nyós ‘id.’, Arm. nu ‘id.’, IEW 978, EIEC 148, NHL 625. PSl. *stьdza ‘path’ (OCS stьdza, Russ. dial, stegá, OPol. śćdza, Croat, stàza, Derksen 472), inherited from BSl. (Latv. stiga ‘path’), from the root *steygh- > Gr. steíkhō ‘walk’, Olr. téit ‘goes’. PSl. *tьma ‘darkness’ (OCS tьma, Russ, t ’ma, Poo. ćma, Croat. táma, Derksen 504), identical to Latv. lima, cf. also Skr. támas‘darkness’. In some items, we find the lengthened grade of the root: PSI. *dẽrá (b) ‘crack, hole’ (ORuss. děrct ‘opening’, Cz. díra ‘hole’ ESSJa V: 12), from the root *der- ‘flay’ (OCS dъraū,Lith. dirti, Gr. dérō). The lengthened grade may point to an old root-noun; see the next item. PSl. *dira ‘crack, hole’ (OCS díra, Russ, dirá, Croat, dial, díra); from the root *der- ‘flay’, see *děra. PSI. *kara ‘punishment’ (Russ, kára, Pol. kara, Croat, kára, ESSJa IX 151); derived from *karati ‘punish’ (Russ, karát', Pol. karać, Croat. kárati), which is (by Slavic Vjddhi) from *koriti (Croat, koriti ‘reproach’). PSI. *sláva (a) ‘glory, fame’ (OCS slava, Russ, sláva, Pol. sława, Croat, sláva, Derksen 453), cf. Lith. dial, šiȏvė. Since there is no evidence for a laryngeal in this root (cf. Gr. kléos, Srk. šrávas, etc. < PIE *k’lewos), this etymon must have had the lengthened grade in BSl. (NHL 426). 77

PSI. *travá (b) ‘grass’ (OCS trava, Russ, travá, Pol. trawa, Croat, tráva Derksen 496), derived from the same root as *traviti ‘feed (with grass)’ (Croat, trávili, Russ, trávit ’ ‘poison’) and *truti ‘feed’ (OCS natruti, Pol. truć ‘poison’). The vocalism o f *travá is analogically based on that of the verb, while the original vocalism is preserved in OCS trěva ‘grass, hay’ and Bulg. trevá ‘id.’. PSl. *mъxa ‘an insect’ (Russ. dial, mȏxa ‘midge’, Croat, dial, móha ‘mosquito’, ESSJa XX: 211) and *múxa (a) ‘fly’ (OCS muxa, Russ. múxa, Croat. Čak. mȕha, Pol. mucha, ESSJa XX: 170-172) point to zero-grade (*musā) and o-grade (*mowsā) respectively. In Baltic and in other IE languages we find cognates with the zero-grade (Lith. mùsė ‘fly’, OPr. muso ‘id.’, OHG mucka ‘id.’, Gr. myĩa ‘id.’, Lat. musea, IEW 752). It is possible that these words go back to a single ablauting paradigm *mows- / *mus-, in which case we would probably have to reconstruct a root-noun in PIE, or a secondary root-noun in Balto-Slavic. PSl. ā-stems are accentuated according to principles discovered by lllič-Svityč (1963) and modified by Kortlandt (2011a). Those PIE nouns that had laryngeals in the coda of the first syllable were acuted in BSl. and belonged to AP a) in Proto-Slavic, e.g. *sólma ‘hay’ < *k’olh2meh2 (Gr. kaiámē), *bába ‘old woman’, etc. This also applies to ā-stems with a voiced stop in the coda, which were acuted by Winter’s law, e.g. *vólga ‘moisture’, and probably also to nouns with Balto-Slavic Vrddhi (in contradistinction to nouns with PIE lengthened grade, which were not acuted), e.g. *lipa ‘lime-tree’, *sláva ‘glory’. PIE barytona remained (non-acuted) barytona in Balto-Slavic, and then became oxytona by Dybo’s law, e.g. *mьzdá ‘payment’, *žená ‘woman’. Deverbal ā-stems are almost exclusively of this type (Kortlandt 2011a: 69), with a few exceptions (e.g. *rąka ‘hand’, which belongs to AP c, and is derived from the verbal root of Lith. riñkti ‘gather’; its accentuation may be analogical after *nogá ‘foot’). Finally, PIE oxytona developed mobile accentuation in Balto-Slavic, and ended up as nouns belonging to AP c) in Proto-Slavic, e.g. *nogá ‘foot’, *rosá ‘dew’. These nouns may have been original consonant stems with accentual mobility (Kortlandt 2011a: 69), cf. Gr. ónyks, ȏnykhos ‘nail’ < *h3nogwhs-, Lat. rȏs ‘dew’ < *(H)rōs. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 59-61]

78

2.10.3

Reduplicated thematic nouns

Reduplicated thematic nouns are rare, and only few of them can be posited for PIE, e.g. *kwekwlo- ‘wheel’ (Skr. cakrá-, Gr. kýldos, OE hwẽol, Lith. kòklos ‘neck’, IEW 640) > PSl. *kolo (OCS kolo, Croat. kòlo, Russ. arch, kálo, Cz. kolo), which became an s-stem in PSl. (OCS Gen. sg. kolese, Russ, koleso). The word for ‘beaver’ seems to be inherited from PIE: PSl. *bebrъ, *bobrъ, *bьbrъ (b) ‘beaver’ (CSl. bebrь, Russ, bobr, bobër, Pol. bébrъ, Croat, dȁbar, dissimilated from *babar, ESSJa I: 1745, II: 145-6), cf. Lith. bẽbras (2), bebrùs (4), OPr. bebrus (EV). The Baltic evidence, together with Skr. babhnt- ‘beaver’ and OE beofor ‘id.’ perhaps points to the conclusion that an u-stem is original (*bhebhru-), but cf. also Lat. fiber [o m], IEW 136. It appears that this type of formation was partly productive in PSl., especially for nouns denoting various kinds of sound, or having “expressive” meaning: PSl. *golgolъ ‘speech, word’ (OCS glagolъ, Cz. arch, hlahol ‘noise’, Croat, glȁgol ‘verb’, ESSJa VI: 205). From the same root as *golsъ ‘voice’, cf. W galw ‘call’, Eng. call. PSl. *kolkolъ ‘bell’ (CSl. klakolъ, Russ, kȏiokol, Plb. klãt’õì, ESSJa X: 137-8), from the root of Gr. kaiéō, Lat. caiāre ‘call’. PSI. *pepelъ (c) ‘ashes’ (Russ, pépei, Pol. popiȏi, Croat, pȅpeo, Derksen 395). We have the same root without reduplication in Lith. pelendt ‘ashes’, OPr. pelanne. From the same root *pel- ‘bum’ as in PSl. *polmy ‘flame’ (see 2.2.3). Other possible instances include PSl. *bolbolъ ‘babble’ (Cz. blábol, blábol, Russ. dial, baictbón, ESSJa II: 171) and *gogoljь ‘a kind of duck’ (Russ, gógoi’ ‘Anas clanguia, Pol. gogol ‘Cianguala giaucion’, Croat, dial, gogolj ‘bird Branta ruftna Boie, ESSJa VI: 193, Kurkina 1992: 30), which is parallel to Latv. gegals ‘a water-bird’, ON gagl, probably of onomatopoetic origin. In PSl. *čečetъ ‘bird FringiUa linaria’ (Russ, čéčet, Cz. čečetka. Slov. Čekẽt ‘twitter’, Vasmer III: 334) we have an onomatopoetic noun parallel to Lith. kekùtis ‘aberdevine’. Finally, PSl.*lalokъ, *laloka ‘mouth, chin’ (Slov. íáioka ‘chin’, Croat, dial. íàíoka ‘chin’, Cz. ìaìok, ORuss. lalokъ, laloka ‘palate’, ESSJa XIV: 23-24), which is derived from the root of *lokati ‘drink, lap’ (Croat. lòkati, Russ, lokȃt ’), probably begins with a reduplicated syllable rather 79

than with the “expressive” prefix *la- (Němec 1979). However, the vowel *-a- (rather than *-o-) in the reduplicated syllable is unclear.

2.10.4

*-čь < *-kja-

This suffix is attested in only two nouns, both deverbal: PSl. *bičь (a) ‘whip’ (OCS bičь, Russ, bič’, Pol. bicz, Croat, bid), derived from the root of the verb *biti ‘strike’ (Russ, bit', Croat, hiti) < *bheyH- ‘strike’ (OIr. benaid, IEW 118). PSI. *bričь ‘razor’ (RussCSl. brìěь, Bulg. brie, ESSJa 111: 25); derived from ’•‘briti ‘shave’ (Croat, briti, Russ, brit ’); cf. *bridъ ‘sharp edge’. Croat, (arch.) grič ‘hill, hilltop’ and Slov. gríč point to a pre-form *gričь, which may be from the same root as *gora ‘mountain’ (Croat. góra, Russ, gorȃ, etc.), see Kurkina 1992: 135. It is uncertain whether this suffix is related to *-čь in the i-stem *zьlčь ‘bile’ (see 2.4.2).

2.10.5

*-dъ, -do < *-da-

A rare suffix. The nouns adduced in this section are rather heterogenous. In some cases, the suffix *-do- may have been generalized on the basis of the verbal stem *-dhh| 0- (from *dhehr ‘to do’ > OCS děd, Lith. děli) found in compounds (on which see 3.1). Masculines: PSI. *bridъ ‘sharp edge’ (Russ. dial, bryd ‘sharpness’, Croat, brid, ESSJa 111: 27-9); the adjective *bridъkъ ‘sharp’ (OCS bridъkъ) is derived from this noun. For the root, cf. *britva ‘razor’. Feminines: PSI. *borzdá (b) ‘furrow’ (OCS brazda, Russ, borozdȃ, Pol. bruzda Croat, brázda, ESSJa II: 220). Etymology is unclear, but the root may have been *bhers- (cf. OIr. barr ‘top’) or *bherg’h- (Skr. bfhánt- ‘high, exalted’); if the word is cognate with Lith. bir̃žė ‘furrow’, the latter etymology is correct. PSI. *jězda ‘ride’ (Russ.jezdó, Pol. jazda, Bulg. Jazdá, ESSJa VIII: 184-5); derived from the root of *jẽxati ‘ride’ (Russ, éxat', Cz. jechati, Croat, jȁhati), probably by adding the suffix to the present stem *jād80

(Russ, edà Cz.jedu). The PIE root is *yeh2- ‘drive, ride’ (Lith.y'ó//, Skr. yāti ‘drive, travel’, IEW 296). Alternatively, *jězda may be an old compound, consisting of a s-stem *jās- < *yeh2os- ‘riding’ and the verbal stem *dhhļO- ‘do’ (see 3.1). PSI. *pizdá ‘vulva’ (Russ, pizdá, Pol. pizda, Croat, pizda, Vasmer II: 355), related to OPr. peisda ‘arse’ and, probably, to Alb. pith, pidh ‘vulva’ (Lith. pyzdà ‘vulva’ is a Slavic loandword). The PIE etymology is uncertain, but I find the derivation from *hļpi-sdo- (with the prefix attested in Gr. epi- and the root *sed- ‘sit’, as in OCS sēsti) rather improbable (pace Demiraj 1997: 320 and Snoj s.v. pizda). Slightly more plausible is the derivation from the root of Croat, pìšati ‘piss’, Lith. písù, pisti ‘have sex with’ and the suffixal *-da (or the verbal root *-dhhļO-.19 PSI. *gvězda ‘star’ (OCS zvězda, Russ, zvezdȃ, Pol. gwiazda, Croat. zvijèzda, Vasmer I: 447), parallel to Lith. žvaigzdě ‘star’, Latv. zvaigzne ‘id.’ (with Slavic g- by regular depalatalization before *w followed by a back vowel, Matasović 2006). A connection would be possible with Gr. phoībos ‘bright, clear’, if the Balto-Slavic words are from a compound *gwhoygw-s-dhh1-eh2, but this is very uncertain. Beekes (II: 1582-3) considers the etymology of phoībos “unexplained”. Neuters: PSI. *stádo (a) ‘herd’ (OCS stado, Russ, stádo, Pol. stado, Croat. stádo, Derksen 465). Parallel to OE stōd ‘stud-farm, herd’ < *steh2dh(h,)o-. PSl. *čędo ‘kid, infant’ (OCS čędo, Croat, čȅdo, ORuss. Čado, OPol. czędo, Vasmer III: 299). It is unclear whether this word was borrowed from Germanic (OHG kind ‘infant’), which I think is likely (but see Pronk-Tiethoff 2013: 189). However, it is also possible that it is derived from the root *ken- ‘young, new’ (Lat. recẽns, Gr. kainȏs) with the suffix *-do. It is unclear whether PS. *govędo ‘head of cattle’ (OCS adjective govęždь, Russ, govjádo, Cz. hovado, Croat, gòvedo, Vasmer I: 283) is 19 Similarly unclear is PSl. *gyzda, *gyzdъ ‘mud’ (?) (Pol. dial, gizd ‘mud’, Cz. hyzd ‘dirt’, Croat, gizda ‘elegance, ornaments’, (ESSJa VI: 223). The Croatian meaning would be derivable from the meaning o f the denominative verb ♦gyzdati (sę) ‘to smear (oneself) with mud’ (Croat, gizdati se), and the root could be the same as in *govędo ‘head o f cattle’, PIE *gwow-. However, the Slavic form would presuppose *gūsdo- (?) < *gwuHs-dhh 1o-.

81

derived with a suffix somehow related to this one. In principle, it would be possible to assume that a nt-stem parallel to, e.g., *agnę ‘lamb’ (OCS agnę, Croat, jȁnje, etc.) was extended with a suffix *-do, perhaps analogically influenced by *stado ‘herd’, i.e. that the development was from *govę to *govędo. In Baltic, the original PIE root-noun is preserved in Latv. góvs ‘cow’ < PIE *gwōws (Gr. boȗs, Skr. gāu-, OIr. bȏ, etc.). In PSl. *agnędъ ‘catkin, Populus nigm' (RussCSl. agnędъ, Croat, dial, jàgnẽd, OCz. jějněd, ESSJa I: 55) we find a similar extension in *-d- of a nt-stem (PS. *agnę ‘lamb’), and in PSl. *želądь ‘acorn’ (Russ, žēlud’, Pol. žoiqdí, Croat, arch, žȅlūd, Vasmer 1: 417) the suffix *-dь- appears to be added to an original n-stem (cf. Gr. bálanos ‘acorn’, Arm. kalin < *gwelh2-n-, 1EW 472-3); however, Lat. glāns, glandis ‘acorn’ also points to a stem in *-dhi-, and Lith. gìlě ‘acorn’ does not show any trace of *-n-, so the formation of *želądь remains unclear20 (see also Boryś 2007a: 108-113). [Sławski 1974-1979,1:62-63]

2.10.6

*-dlo < *-dla-

Suffix used for deriving nomina instrumenti from verbal roots. Because of the change *dl > *1 in East Slavic and most o f South Slavic (exept in some peripheral Slovene dialects), this suffix is difficult to distinguish from the suffix *-lo-. All the examples are neuter, with one possible exception (*tesla ‘adze’). PSI. *órdlo (a) ‘plough’ (OCS ralo, Russ, ra/o, Pol. radlo, Croat. rȁlo, ESSJa XXXII: 141-145); the same form is found in Lith. árklas< *h2erh3-tlo- and in Gr. árotron < *h2erh3-tro-, all derived from the root *h2erh3- ‘plow’ (Gr. arȏō, OCS orati), LIV 272f., 1EW 62f., NHL 322324.

20 It is worth also to note the formation o f Croat, pëlūd ‘pollen’, Slov. peiod, which point to *pelądъ (Kurkina 1992: 114), from the root *pelH- found in OCS plévy [pl.] ‘chaff, Croat, pljeva ‘id.’, Russ, polȏva ‘id.’, Lith. p̀elūs [pl.] ‘id.’; a similar suffix containing a nasal is found in Lat. pollen ‘flour, powder’, cf. also Gr. pȁlē < *pelH- (IEW 802).

82

I

PSI. *bidlo (a) ‘pestle, hammer’ (Russ, bílo’, Cz. bidlo ‘pole’, Croat. bílo ‘mountain ridge with spurs’), derived from the root *biti ‘strike’, see *bičь-, *bojь. PSI. *bordlo ‘crag’ (Ukr. dial, borólo ‘cleft in a crag’, Pol. dial. brodlo ‘hay-stack’, Bulg. brálo\ from the root of *bȏrti ‘fight’ (OCS brati sę, Russ, borót’ ‘overpower’, Pol. bróě się), ESSJa II: 200-201. PSI. *dojidlo ‘milking’ (Russ, dójlo ‘worthless milk’, Cz. dojidlo ‘milking machine’, Bulg. dȏilo ‘milking’, ESSJa V: 52-3), derived from ♦dojiti ‘breast-feed, milk’ (OCS doiti, Russ, doit ’). PSl. *kadidlo (a) ‘incense’ (OCS kadilo, Russ, kadilo ‘thurible’, Pol. kadzidło ‘fragrance’, Croat, kàdiío, ESSJa IX: 109). Derived from *kaditi ‘burn incense’ (OCS kaditi, Croat, kȃditi, etc.). PSl. *my̑dlo (a) ‘soap’ (CS mylo, Russ, mylo, Pol. mydio, Croat, arch, tnilo, ESSJa XXI: 27-8), from the root of *myti ‘wash’ (Croat. tníti, OCS myti, Russ, myt ’, Pol. myć). PSI. *ry̑dlo (a) ‘spade’ (OCS rylo, Russ, rylo ‘snout’, Cz. rydlo ‘cutter’, Croat, nlo, Derksen 441). From the root of the verb *ryti ‘dig’ (OCS ryti, Croat, riti, etc.). PSl. *sidlȏ (b) ‘noose, snare’ (OCS silo, Russ, siíȏ, Pol. sidio, Derksen 450), related to Lith. ãtsailě ‘cross-bar’, OHG seil ‘rope, snare’ < PIE *seyH- ‘bind’. PSl. *žę́dlo (a) ‘spike’ (OCS žęlo, Russ, žálo, Pol. žqdío, Bulg. žēlo, Vasmer I: 409-410), dissimilated from *žel-dlo, from the same root as Lith. géìti ‘stick, pierce’, Latv. dzēli. PSI. *žerdló (b) ‘gorge’ (Russ. dial, žereió, Pol. žrádlo ‘source’, Croat, ždrijèlo, Derksen 559), attested in Baltic with the suffix *-tlo(Lith. gerklě ‘throat’) < *gwerh3- (Gr. bibrṓskō ‘devour’, OCS žьrati, etc., IEW 474ff.). From the same root we also have PSl. *gъrdlo (a) ‘throat’ (Russ, górlo, Croat, gȑlo, Pol. gardło, Vasmer I: 296), which is parallel to Lith. gurklỹs ‘throat’ < PIE *gwrh3-tlo-/-dhlo-. The only feminine noun in this class might be: PSl. *tesla ‘adze’ (Russ, teslá, Cz. tesla, Croat, tȅsla, Derksen 491), from PIE *tek’t- ‘hew’ (OCS tesati), with the development *t-dhl- > *-sl-. A parallel formation is OHG dehsala ‘adze’. In principle, the Slavic form is also derivable from *tek’-slo- and from *tek’-lo-. The suffix was very productive in OCS and in the other Slavic languages. It was also extended to *-adlo- and *-idlo- after the verbs in *-ati and *-iti. Here are some examples from OCS: pravilo ‘rule’ ← 83

proviti ‘to rule’ (Pol. prawidło, Croat, prȁvilo), kadilo ‘censer’ ← kaditi ‘cense’ (Croat, kádilo, Russ, kadilo, Pol. kadzidło), měřilo ‘balance’ ← mēriti ‘to weigh’ (Croat, mjȅrílo), světilo ‘lamp’ ← svẽtiH, sušilo ‘brushwood’ ← ‘sušiti’ ‘to dry’, zrъcalo ‘mirror’ ← *zrьcati ← zьrěti ‘look’ (Croat, zrcalo, Russ, zérkalo, Cz. zrcadlo, Vasmer I: 464). Reconstructable nouns of this class are mostly derived from the acute roots, and they belong to AP a (*mydlo ‘soap’, *ordlo ‘plough’, *rydlo ‘spade’). Our examples *sidlo ‘noose, snare’ and *žerdlo ‘gorge’ belong to AP b although they are also from acute roots, because the suffix was apparently accented in these words before the operation of Dybo’s law (i.e. the development was *gwerh3-dhló- > *žerdlá- > *žerló, with consequent oxytonesis).21 It appears that in nouns formed from nonacuted roots the suffix *-dlo was extended to *-adlo and *-idlo (after the infinitive stem) already in Proto-Slavic; in such formations the accentuation of the infinitive is retained (cf. Croat, vòzilo ‘vehicle’ ← vóziti ‘drive’, sùšiìo ‘dryer’ ← súšiti ‘dry’, plȏvilo ‘vessel’ ← plòviti ‘sail’, etc.). In PIE there were several variants of this suffix (Risch 1974: 41f., Olsen 1988), and their distribution was perhaps conditioned phonologically. Besides *-dhlo- > PSl. *-dlo- we find *-tlo- > -kla- in Baltic (Lith. árklas ‘plough’ ← árii ‘plow’), *-tro- > Gr. -tro- (Gr. árotron ‘plough’ < *h2erh3trom, cf. also ON ardr), and *-dhro- > Lat. -bmm (Lat. crībntm ‘sieve’ < *kreydhro-, cf. Olr. criathar < *kreytro-, while OE hrider can have both forms o f the suffix). The variant *-dhlo- is also found in Germanic, Greek, and Italic, cf. OHG stadal ‘stand’ < *sth2-dhlo- (from the root of Lat. sto, stare ‘stand’), Lat. fibula ‘story’ < *bheh2-dhlo- (from the root of fa n ‘say’), Gr. génethíon ‘race, descent’ (from the root of Lat. gens ‘race, kin’). Originally, this suffix was probably formed by thematicization of the suffix *-tēr/*-tōr which was used to derive nomina ageniis (Lat. amāior ‘lover’) and terms for relatives (*meh2tēr > Lat. māter ‘mother’, OCS mati). In Slavic, this suffix is also found with some nomina actionis (e.g. dojidlo

21 The accent was not retracted by Hirt's law, because the laryngeal was not in the coda of the first syllable (i.e. the first syllable was not closed by a laryngeal, as, e.g., in *dhuHmós ‘smoke’ > BSl. *dūma- (Lith. dumai, Croat, dim, etc.).

84

‘milking’), which is a secondary development. With one possible exception noted above (*tesla), these nouns are always neuter. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 113-114]

2.10.7

*-gъ < *-ga- (?)

A dubious suffix, which seems to be attested only in the following item: PSl. *brẽzgъ ‘dawn’ (Russ. dial, brezg, OPol. brzazg, ESSJa III: 1719) < *bhreh1g’- (Skr. bhrajate ‘shine’). It is unclear whether Lith. brěkšti ‘dawn’ points to a different suffix *-sk’- (Derksen 61). [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 65]

2.10.8

*-xъ < *-xa-, *-xa < *-xā-

A rare suffix, attested in a few masculines denoting abstract notions, and a few feminines denoting contrete things. Words derived with this suffix are mostly deverbal. Masculines: PSl. *grẽxъ ‘sin, fault’ (OCS grěxъ, Russ, grex, Croat, gr̃ȋjeh, Pol. grzech, Vasmer I: 307); either derived from *grẽti ‘to warm’ (Russ. gret', Croat, gńjati, etc.), or from the PIE root *ghrey- ‘smear’ (Gr. khriō, Lith. griẽtì ‘separate cream from milk’). PSl. *smẽxъ ‘laughter’ (OCS směxъ, Russ, smex, Croat, stnȉjeh, Pol. śmiech, Vasmer II: 673) ← *smẽjati sę ‘laugh’ (OCS smijati sę, Croat. smìjatise, Russ, smejȃt'sja etc.). PSI. *spẽxъ ‘hurry’ (OCS spěxъ, Russ, spėx, Pol. śpiech, Croat, ùspijeh ‘success’, Vasmer II: 706) ← *spěti ‘succeed’ (OCS spěti, Russ. spet’, etc.). PSl. *strȃxъ (c) ‘fear’ (OCS straxъ, Croat, strȃh, Russ, strax, Pol. strach, Vasmer III: 23); probably from the root of Lith. stregti, stregiu ‘freeze’, OHG stracken ‘be extended’. Alternatively, it would be possible to derive *straxъ from *strāg-s- < *(s)treh3g- (Gr. írṓgō ‘gnaw’, ToB trāsk- ‘chew’, IEW 1073), if s-mobile is assumed. Feminines:

85

PSI. *strěxa ‘roof (OCS strēxa, Russ. dial, strexá, Croat, strȅha, Pol. strzecha, Vasmer 111: 26), probably related to Lith. striegti ‘cover the roof (Vaillant 1974: 663). PSI. *juxá (b) ‘soup’ (OCS juxa, Russ, uxá, Croat, júha, Pol. jucha, Vasmer 111: 195-196), built by adding *-eh2 to an old root noun, cf. Skr. yu?- ‘soup’, Lat. iūs < PIE *(H)yuHs- (IEW 507, EIEC 84, NHL 405). It is possible that *juxa is originally a collective formation. A possible neuter in this group is PSl. *ruxo ‘garment’ (CSl. ruxo, Russ, ritxo, Croat, mho, Pol. rucho, Vasmer II: 553), which seems to be derived from the same root as *runo ‘fleece’, perhaps also the verb *rušiti ‘destroy’ (Russ, rítšit' ‘move violently’, Croat, rȕšiti, Pol. ntszyć\ the semantic connection is difficult, but cf. Lith. raũsti, rausiù ‘scratch’). A secondary suffix *-axa (with *-xa added to an ā-stem) may be implied by the comparison of Slov. črepáha ‘turtle’ with Russ. čerepaxa, which may go back to *čerpaxa ← *čerpъ ‘tile’ (Russ, čérep, Croat, crijȇp, etc., ESSJa IV: 70-71, Kurkina 1992: 123f.). In origin, this is the suffix *-sa- > *-sъ in which *s became *x by RUKl-rule. It was extended analogically to words such as *spẽxъ ‘hurry’, which is probably derived from the root *spehr (cf. Lat. spēs ‘hope’). In a number of cases, this suffix builds hypocoristica, e.g. in CSl. braxъ ‘brother’ ← *bratrь (OCS bratrь), PSI. *ženixъ ‘bridegroom’ (OCS ženixъ, Russ, ženíx, Pol. ženich, Vasmer I: 419, Trubačev 1959: 95) ← Żenili sę ‘to marry’ (Croat, ženili se, Russ. ženit 'sja)72 The origin of this type is unclear. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 70-71]

2.10.9

*-e, *-ь < *-ja-, *-ja < *-jā-

ln PIE, the suffix *-yo- was common in the derivation of adjectives, e.g. PIE *yh2g-yo- (Skr. yájya- ‘venerable’, Gr. hágios ‘holy’) ← *yeh2g’11 In Russian, the feminine -ixa is sometimes found as a motion suffix, e.g. in kupčixa ‘merchant’s wife’ ← kupéc ‘merchant’. The suffix -oxa builds pejorative nouns in Russian (Russ. dial, zapivȏxa ‘drunkard’ ← zapivȁt’) and Czech (lenoch ‘lazy person, idler’, from the root o f lenivý ‘lazy’). These are probably parallel developments, not projectable to Proto-Slavic.

86

‘worship’ (Gr. házomai). It was also often used to build masculine nomina agentis from verbal roots, e.g. PIE *sokwyo- ‘follower, companion’ (Lat. sodus, OE secg) ← *sekw- ‘follow’ (Lat. sequor, Gr. hépomaǹ Skr. sácate, etc.). This suffix was also used to build abstract nouns, which are neuters (in *-yom > PSl. *-e), or feminines (in *-yeh2 > PSI. -ja), e.g. PIE *sodyom ‘seat’ (Lat. solium, with -/- < *-d-, Olr. suide), Skr. vidyam ‘discovery’ ← vid- ‘know, find’, Lat. studium ‘study, effort’ ← studeo ‘try, study’. As with the ā-stems, jā-stems are mostly feminine, but there are also some masculines denoting male humans, e.g. OCS velmoža ‘a noble’, Russ, júnoša ‘youth’, etc. Masculines: *PSl. ąžь (b) ‘snake’ (Russ, už, Pol. wąż, Croat, ȗž, Derksen 388), parallel to Lith. artgis ‘snake’, OPr. angis ‘id.’ < PIE *h2engwhi- (Lat. anguis ‘snake’, OHG unc ‘id.’ < *h2ngwh-, 1EW 43). PSl. *ežь (b) ‘hedgehog’ (Russ, ëž, Gen. sg. ežá, Pol.y̑eź, Croat.jȇ ž ́ ESSJa VI: 36), identical to Lith. ežỹs 4, Latv. ezis, from PIE *h(eg’h(OHG igil, Gr. ekhīnos, Arm. ozni). PSl. *glьjь ‘clay, loam’ (Russ. dial, glej, Pol. glej, Croat, glȇj, ESSJa XI: 162), cf. MLG klei ‘clay’. PSl. *kášljь (a) ‘cough’ (Russ, kášeij, Pol. kaszel, Croat, kȁšaìj, ESSJa IX: 160-1), derived from *kašljati ‘cough’ (Russ, kášìjat’, Pol. kaszlać), cf. Lith. kosulỹs ‘cough’, Latv. kāsuìis ‘id.’, PIE *kweh2s(OHG huosto). PSl. *kyjь ‘hammer’ (CSl. kyjь, Croat, arch, kij, OCz. kyj ‘stick, club’, ESSJa 257-258), identical to Lith. kujis ‘smith’s hammer’, from the root of *kovati (Croat, kȏvati, Pol. kować, etc.) ‘forge’. PSl. *ključь (b) ‘key’ (OCS ključь, Russ, ključ, Pol. klucz, Croat. kìjȗě, ESSJa X: 50-52), derived from the same root as in *kljuka ‘hook’. *nožь (b) ‘knife’ (OCS nožь, Russ, nož, Pol. nóż, Croat, nȏž, ESSJa XXVI: 23-4), derived from the root of Russ, vonzíť ‘pierce’, OCS vьnьzit' ‘pierce’ < *nьz- ‘cut, pierce’ (Vasmer 1: 225). The PIE source of this word is not completely clear, but Derksen (358) compares Gr. égkhos ’spear’, which would imply that the Slavic form is from *h!noghyo-, cf. also Av. naëza- ‘tip (of a needle)’. PSl. *pryščь (b) ‘pimple, pustule’ (Croat, prìšt, Russ, pryšč, Pol. pryszcz, Vasmer 11: 453) < *prysk-jь, a deverbal formation from the root of *pryskati ‘sprinkle’ (Russ, prýskat’, Pol. pryskać). The comparison with Lith. praũstí ‘wash (one’s face)’, ON frỹsa ‘snort’ shows that the 87

root can be reconstructed as *prews-, which means that *pryskati contains the present-stem suffix *-sk- < *-sk’- (as in *blěskъ ‘brightness, glow’, see 2.10.17).23 PSI. *stȏržь (c) ‘guard’ (OCS stražь, Russ, stórož, Pol. stráž, Bulg. straž, Derksen 469). A cognate o-stemis found in Lith. sárgas ‘guard’. PSI. *u!ьjь ‘beehive’ (Russ, úlej, Pol. ul, Croat, dial, ũlj (Orbanići), Derksen 508). Probably built by adding *-yo- to an original i-stem *h2ewli-, cf. Lith. aulỹs (ijo) and Latv. aũlis ‘beehive’, cf. also Gr. aulós ‘pipe, flute’. PSI. *ujь ‘uncle on mother’s side’ (Russ, uj, Pol. wuj, Derksen 5078), probably identical to OPr. awis ‘uncle’. In PIE, we can reconstruct a simple thematic stem, cf. Hitt, huhha- ‘grandfather’, Lat. avus ‘grandfather’, Arm. haw ‘grandfather’ < *h2ewHo-, IEW 89. The jostem in Slavic has a parallel in OIr. aue ‘grandson’ < PCelt. *awyo-. PSI. *veprjь ‘wild boar’ (OCS veprь, Russ, vepr’, Pol. wiepn, Derksen 515), parallel to Latv. vepris (jo) ‘castrated boar’. Further connection to Lat. aper ‘wild boar’ and OE eofor ‘id.’ is unclear. PSI. *žeravjь ‘crane’ (Russ, žurȃvl’, Pol. żuraw, Croat, dial, žȅrāv, Derksen 558), probably from an original ū-stem, PIE *gerHow-s / *grHw-os, cf. Lith. gérvě, Latv. dzērve, OPr. gerwe, Lat. grūs; in several IE languages, we find this word derived with the suffix *-n-, cf. W garan ‘crane’, Gr. géranos ‘id.’, OE cran ‘id.’, IEW 383f. In OCS we find also the following examples (among others): voždь ‘leader’ ← voditi, vesti ‘lead’, plъžь ‘snail’ (Croat, pȗž) ← *pьlzati ‘crawl, slide’ (Croat, púzatr̀ Russ, polzát'), sěčъ ‘slaughter, combat’ (Russ, seč’ ‘a stronghold of the Cossacks’) ← sěšti ‘cut’ (Croat, sjȅći, Russ, seč’, etc.). Feminines: PSI. *búrja (a) ‘storm’ (OCS burja, Russ, búrja, Pol. burza, Croat. bȕra ‘strong wind’, ESSJa III: 97-8), probably from the root *bhowHrfound in Latv. baūņedt ‘bellow (said of oxen)’, Norwegian būra ‘id.’.

23 PSI. *bljuščь ‘ivy’ (Russ. obs. bljušč, Pol. bluszcz, Croat, bljȗšt, Vasmer I: 96) might also be from *bljusk-jь, where *blju-sk- is the verbal stem from the same root as in PSI. *bljьvati ‘vomit’ (Russ, blevát’, Croat, bijùvati, Pol. blue, etc.) < *bhlewH- (Lith. bliáuti ‘bleat, sob’, Lat. fluo ‘flow’), cf. Croat, obs. bljúštiti ‘feel nauseated’ with -št- < *-skj-.

88

PSI. *doljá (b) ‘share, fate’ (Russ, dólja, Pol. dola, ESSJa V: 62-3); inherited from BSl., cf. Lith. dalià (4) ‘fate’, from the root *delhr ‘shape, carve, fashion’ (Lat. dolȏ). PSI. *dẽžá (b) ‘vat’ (Russ, dežá, Pol. dzieża, Croat, dial, diža, ESSJa V: 23-4); derived from the root *dheyg’h- ‘knead’ (OCS zidъ ‘wall’, Gr. toīkhos ‘wall’, Germ. Teig ‘dough’). PSI. *dušá (c) ‘soul’ (Russ, dušá, Croat, dūša, Pol. dusza, ESSJa V: 153-154), parallel to Lith. pl. dausiõs ‘air’, from the same root as PSl. *duxъ ‘spirit’ (OCS duxъ, Russ, dux, Croat, dȕh, etc., IEW 270). PSI. *ẽdja ‘food, meal’ (Russ, ježá, OPol. jedz a, Slov. ję́ja, ESSJa VI: 40-41), parallel to Lith. ědžia ‘pig-trough’ < *h!edyeh2 (from the root *h|ed- ‘eat’ > OCS jasti, Lat. edo, etc., NHL 211). PSI. *kožá (b) ‘skin’ (Russ, kóža, Cz. kůže, Croat, lcȍža, Vasmer I: 589), originally ‘goat’s skin’ ← *koza ‘goat’ (OCS koza, Russ, kȏza, Croat, kóza, Pol. koza). PSI. *krádja (a) ‘theft’ (CSl. kražda, Russ, krȃža, Croat, krȁda, ESSJa XII: 84) ← *krasti, *kradą ‘steal’ (Croat, krȁsti). PSI. *lučá (b) ‘ray’ (OCS luěa, Cz. louče, ESSJa XVI: 160). Derived from the same root as *lučь ‘light’. PSI. *medjá (b) ‘border’ (OCS mežda, Russ, mežá, Pol. miedza, Croat, mèda, ESSJa XVIII: 45-7). Inherited from PIE, cf. Lith. mẽdžias ‘forest’, Latv. mežs ‘wood’, OPr. median ‘wood’, Skr. mádhya‘middle’, Goth, midjis ‘middle’ < PIE *medhyo- (IEW 706ff., EIEC 380, LIV 465-466). Originally, the Slavic word is a Nom. pl. form of the neuter adjective. PSl. *pitja (a) ‘food’ (OCS pišta, Russ, píšta, OPol. pica ‘fodder’, Cr. dial, pȉća ‘fodder’, Derksen 401) ← *pitati ‘feed’ (Croat, pitati, Russ, pilat ’, etc.). The same root is attested in Lith. piẽtūs ‘dinner’. Cf. also Skr. pitú- ‘nourishment’ and OIr. ithid ‘eats’, which point to the root *peyt-. The accentuation is expected if we assume a Vyddhi formation in Slavic. PSl. *rъdja ‘rust’ (OCS rьžda, Russ, rža, Slov. rjà, Pol. rdza, Vasmer II: 520); the same formation is found in Lat. rubia ‘red dye, Rubia tinctorum’, cf. also Lith. ritdis, rìtdė ‘red-haired’, ON rydr ‘rust’ < PGerm. *rudja-. The PIE root is *h]rewdh- ‘red’ (Lat. ruber, Gr. erythrȏs, Skr. rudhim-, etc., cf. LIV 508f., IEW 872ff, NHL 580-582). PSl. *struja ‘stream’ (OCS stmja, Russ, strujá, Croat, stritja, Derksen 470), inherited from BSL, cf. Lith. sraujà, Latv. strauja. From 89

the PIE root *srew- ‘flow’ (Gr. rhéo, Skr. srávati, etc., LIV 588, IEW 1003, NIIL 630-631). PSI. *storžá (b) ‘guard’ (OCS straža, Croat, strȃža, Russ, storóža, Vasmer III: 20) ← *stergti ‘to guard’ (Russ, steregú etc.). PSI. *svẽtjá (b) ‘candle’ (OCS svěšta, Russ, svečá, Pol. Świeca, Croat, svijèća, Derksen 475-6), derived from the root of *svẽtъ ‘light, world’ (OCS svět, Russ, svet, etc.) < PIE *k’woyt- (Lith. śviẽsti ‘shine’, Skr. śvetá- ‘bright’, etc.). PSI. *tą́ča (a) ‘(snow-)storm’ (Russ, túča ‘dark cloud’, OCS tqča ‘snow-storm’, Croat, tȕča ‘hail’, Vasmer III: 158-159), derived from the same root as Lith. tánkus ‘thick’, Skr. tone- ‘be solid’, MHG dīhte ‘thick’. The acute in Balto-Slavic seems to point to Vrddhi (*tānk-jā> PSI. *tą́ča). LIV reconstructs the root as *temk- because of Hitt, tamekzi ‘fixes’. PSI. *vědja (a) ‘eyelid’ (OCS věžda, Russ, véžda, Croat, vjȅda), derived from the root *weyd- ‘to see’ > PSI. *viděti (OCS viděti, etc.). PSI. *vẽja ‘branch’ (OCS věja. Slov. vēja, Derksen 519), parallel to Skr. vayā- ‘branch, twig’ < *woyH-eh2, from the root *weyH- > OCS viti ‘twist, wind’, Lith. vyti ‘id.’, Lat. vieo ‘plait, veawe’, Skr. vyáyati ‘wind wrap’, IEW 1120-22. PSI. *voljá (b) ‘will, wish’ (OCS volja, Russ, vólja, Pol. wola, Croat. volja, Derksen 525), from the root of *voliti ‘want, wish’ (OCS voliti ‘want, wish’, Cz. voliti ‘choose’), *velti ‘to wish, command’ (Russ. v e l e t etc.), cf. also OHG wala ‘choice’. PSI. *želja ‘wish’ (RussCSl. žeija, Croat. Žèija, Derksen 556.) ← PSI. *želẽti ‘wish’ (Croat, žèijeti). PSI. *zemja ‘earth, land’ (OCS zemlja, Russ, zemljȃ, Croat, zèmìja, Pol. ziemia, Derksen 542), parallel to Lith. žēmė ‘earth’, Latv. zeme, OPr. semme < *dhg’hem-, originally an m-stem *dhg’hōm/*dhg’hem(Hitt. těkán, Lat. humus, Gr. kththṓn, Alb. dhe), NUL 88, IEW 414f. The stems in *-jā > *-ja have the acute on the initial syllable if that syllable was originally closed by a laryngeal or a voiced stop (e.g. *burja ‘storm’). Non-acuted jā-stems in Slavic originally mostly belonged to AP b), which means they developed from PIE barytona (*koža ‘skin’, *volja ‘will’, *dolja ‘share, fate’, etc.). However, the final accent was retracted to the preceding syllable, which received the neo­ acute by Ivšić’s law (Stang 1957, Vermeer 1992, Kapović 2008). The accentuation of *zemja ‘earth, land’ is uncertain, as there is evidence 90

both for AP b (Croat, dial. (Bednja) zāmljȍ, Acc. sg. zāmljȕ) and for AP c (Russ, zemljá, Acc. sg. zémlju). In any case, for some reason Ivšić’s retraction did not affect *zemja, as well as *medja ‘border’ and *duša ‘soul’, which belong to AP c. The reason why these nouns (and a few others) failed to undergo Ivšić’s retraction is disputed. Neuters: PSl. *gorje ‘woe’ (OCS gorje, Russ, górę, Pol. arch, gorze, Slov. gorję́, ESSJa VII: 40-1), derived from the root *gorẽti ‘bum’ (OCS gorěti, Russ, gorét’, etc.). PSl. *aje ‘egg’ (Pol. jajo, ULus. jejo, Croat. jáje, ESSJa I: 61-2). Inherited from PIE *h2ōwyo- (Gr. ōión, Lat. ovum, OHG el, W wy, IEW 784). This word is usually interpreted as a derivative of *h2ewi- ‘bird’ (Lat. avis, etc.), but the actual history of this word may have been more complex. It is possible that both *h2ewi- ‘bird’ and *h2ōw(y)o- ‘egg’ represent independent derivatives from a PIE root *h2ew- ‘to hatch’ (perhaps originally ‘to appear’, cf. OCS avě ‘manifestly’). The word for ‘egg’ would have developed from a root noun (‘a hatching’). PSI. *lože ‘bed’ (OCS lože, Russ, lóže, Pol. lože, Croat, arch, lóže, ESSJa XVI: 125-6), from the root of *legti ‘lie’ (see *lažesna > *ložesno). PSI. *pletjé (b) ‘shoulder’ (OCS plešte, Russ. plečó, Pol. plecy [Nom. pl.] ‘back’, Croat, plèče, Derksen 404). There is also evicence for an i-stem in Cz. plec ‘shoulder’. The root is *pleth2- ‘broad’ (Gr. platýs, Skr. pĩfhú- < *plth2u-, LIV 486f., IEW 833, NHL 564-565), cf. also MIr. leithe ‘shoulder, side’ < PCelt. *fletyo- (EDPC 134). At least two neuter stems in *-je are derived from PIE neuter istems: PSl. *morje ‘sea’ (Russ, mór’e, Pol. morze, Croat, móre, ESSJa XIX: 227-30) < PIE *mori (OIr. muir, Lat. mare, Lith. mãrios ‘sea, isthmus’, IEW 748) and PSl. *pòlje (c) ‘field’ (Russ, pȏi'e, Pol. pole, Croat, pȍlje, Derksen 411) < PIE *polh2i- (Hitt, palhi- ‘broad’, Lat. palam ‘openly’, plānus ‘flat, plain’, IEW 805, EIEC 205f., NHL 562563), cf. also OHG feld ‘field’, with a similar semantic development as in Slavic. Other examples of this development could be PSl. *gorje ‘woe’ and PSI. *lože ‘bed’ discussed above’ (Vaillant 1974: 512). For stems in *-ja < *-jā and their Baltic parallels see especially Kortlandt 2009: 129-136. [Sławski 1974-1979,1:80-82]

91

2.10.10 *-kъ, *-ko < *-ka-, *-ka (-ca) < *-kāThere are few words built with this suffix, since the original PIE suffix *-ko- was mostly extended, in Slavic, by innovative formations beginning with vowels, *-iko- > *-ьcь, *-ikā- > *-ьca, *-uko- > *ъkъ, etc. Masculines: PSI. *ęzy̑kъ (a) ‘tongue’ (OCS języlcъ, Russ, jazýk, Pol .język, Croat. jèzik, ESSJa VI: 74-5); originally an ū-stem: Lith. liežùvis (with /- by analogy with liẽžti ‘lick’), OPr. insuwis point to BSl. *inźū- (cf. Lat. lingua, Goth. íuggō, Skr.jihva-) < PIE *dng’huh2. PSl. *túkъ (a) ‘fat’ (OCS tukь ‘fat’, Russ, tuk, Vasmer III: 149), which is identical to Lith. tȃukas ‘fat’ < *towH-ko-, from the root of *tyti ‘get fat’ (OCS tyti, Russ, tyt', Lith. tùktí). PSI. *zorkъ ‘face, appearance’ (OCS zrakь, Cz. zrak ‘face’, Russ. zórolc, Croat, zrãk ‘air’, Vasmer 1: 461), from the root of *zьrěti ‘watch, see’ (OCS zьrěti, irją, Russ, zret ’, Pol. žrzeć, etc.). PSl. *znakъ ‘sign’ (OCS znakь ‘acquaintance’, Russ, znak ‘sign’, Croat, znȃk, Vasmer 1: 458) ← *znati ‘know’ (OCS znati, Russ, znat ’, Croat, znȁti, etc.). PSl. *zvąkъ ‘sound’ (OCS zvąkь, Russ, zvuk, Croat, zvák, Cz. zvuk, Vasmer I: 449), derived from the same root as *zvonъ (OCS zvonъ, Russ, zvon, Pol. dzwon) and OCS zvьnẽti ‘sound’, Croat zvȏniti, etc. This suffix is also found in *kamykъ ‘stone’ (OCS kamykъ, Croat, dial, kȁmīk), which is a late derivative of *kamy ‘stone’ (OCS kamy, etc.), in *ęčьmykъ ‘barley’ (Cz. dial, jačmyk, Croat. Čak. jàčmyk, Russ. CSl. jačьmykъ, Bulg. ečmíic, from the root of *ęčьmy ‘barley’, Vasmer 111: 501), and probably in *zlakъ ‘garden plant’ (Russ, zlak, Bulg. zlak, Vasmer I: 457), if derived from the root of *zelenъ ‘green’. This suffix may also be attested in PSl. *bykъ ‘bull’ (OCS bykъ, Croat, bykъ, Russ. byk, Pol. byli, Vasmer I: 158), from an onomatopoetic root *bũ- (cf. Lith. bukti ‘roar’; alternatively, it is possible that PSl. *bykъ is derived from the root of *byti ‘be’, cf. Pol. bydlo ‘cattle’, which is also from that root).24 24 Croatian forms hypocoristica by adding the suffix ko (m.), -ka (f.) to the first open syllable o f nouns, e.g. striko ‘uncle’ ← stric ‘id.’, zèko ‘bunny’ ← zee

92

Feminines: PSI. *rěka ‘river’ (OCS rěka, Russ, reká, Pol. neka, Croat, rijèka, Derksen 435). This noun is derived from the root *h3reyH- ‘flow’ (Lat. rȋvus ‘brook’, Gr. orīnō ‘stir’, Olr. riathor ‘torrent’). PSI. *žíca (a) ‘wire’ (Russ. dial, žíca ‘coloured wooden yam’, Croat. £ica, Derksen 562), from the same root as in Lith. gijà ‘thread’, Latv. dzija, Lat. jīlum ‘thread’. The change *k > c is due to the third palatalization (after *i). One wonders if PSl. *tyky ‘pumpkin’ (ORuss. tyky, Russ, týkva, Croat, tȉkva, Pol. tykwa, Vasmer 111: 160) represents a derivative in *-kto which *-y from the ū-stems was added. In that case, it would be derivable from the root of PSl. *tukъ ‘fat’ (Russ, tuk), Lith. tùkti, tùnku ‘fatten, get fat’. An original *tyka could have been replaced by *tyky on the analogy with other numerous plant and vegetable names in *-y, such as *mъrky ‘carrot’ (Croat, mȑkva, etc., possibly from Germanic, cf. OHG moraha).25 In OCS vladyka ‘ruler’ we may have the suffix *-ka added to an abstract noun *voldy ‘rule’, from the root *vold- (as in Croat, vládati ‘to rule’), rather than a variant *-yka (parallel to Lat. -ūcus, -ūcō, e.g. in mandūcō ‘glutton’ ← mando ‘chew, bite’). On the other hand, PSl. *motyka ‘hoe’ (OCS motyka, Croat, mótika, Russ. motyka, Pol. motyka, Vasmer II: 162) appears to be derived from the root *mot- with just this form of the suffix (cf. Lat. mateola ‘wooden hammer’, Skr. matyà- ‘club, harrow’, OHG medeia ‘plough’). In PIE, this suffix was mostly used in denominal and de-adjectival derivation. It is found in exocentric derivatives, e.g. Skr. madhūka- ‘bee’ (and madhuka- ‘bassia latifoUa') ← mȃdhu- ‘honey’, in collectives (Skr. rajakam ‘group of kings’ ← rāja- ‘king’), and other formations of nouns and adjectives (Skr. arbhakȃ- ‘smallish’ ← árbha- ‘id.’, babhrukȃ‘brownish’ ← babhni- ‘brown’). ‘rabbit’, báká ‘granny’ ŕr bȁba ‘grandmother’ (Jurišić 1993: 55). This must be an innovation; Russ, formations such as guljáka ‘hobo’ ← gulját’ ‘walk, have fun’, ecláka ‘glutton’ ← e s /’, edú ‘eat’ are similar, parallel developments. 25 The problem with the assumption that *mъrky is a Germanic loanword lies in the fact that Germanic *x is usually replaced by Slavic *x in loanwords, e.g. in PSl. *xъlmъ ‘hill’ (Russ, xolm, Croat, hȗm, etc.) from Germanic *xulma- (OE holm). However, we find Slavic *-k- in PSl. *cьrky ‘church’ < OHG kirihha (< Gr. kyriyakẽ).

93

[Sławski 1974-1979,1: 89]

2.10.11 *-lъ, -lo < *-la-, *-la < *-lāThis suffix is found in some inherited nouns (*mьgla ‘fog’), but aslo in some deverbal formations restricted to Slavic (*stolъ ‘table’, *dẽlo ‘work, deed’). Masculines: PSl. *ą́zlъ (a) ‘knot’ (SerbCSl. ązlъ, Russ, uzel, Pol. węzeł, Croat. ȕzao, Derksen 388), cf. Lith. ą́žuolas ‘oak’, Latv. uȏzuõls ‘id.’, from the root *h2emg’h- ‘tighten’ (OIr. cum-ung ‘tight, narrow’, Lat. ango ‘strangle’, Gr. ánkhō ‘id.’, LIV 264, IEW 42f„ NHL 301). PSl. *dẽlъ (b) ‘part’ (Russ, del, Pol. dziai, Croat, dìo, ESSJa IV: 2334); inherited, cf. Goth, dails ‘part’, from the root *deh2(i)- ‘divide’ (Gr. daiomai, etc.). PSl. *stolъ (b) ‘table’ (OCS stoi ‘throne’, Russ, stoi, Pol. stȏi, Croat. stál, Derksen 468), inherited from BSl., cf. Lith. stãias, OPr. staiis, Acc. sg. stalian, probably from the root *steh2- ‘stand’ (OCS stojatí, Russ. stojȃt’, etc.). Another possibility (NHL 662) is to derive both *stolъ and the Baltic cognates from the root *stel- ‘make ready, construct’ (Gr. stéllō, OCS po-stelją, etc., LIV 594, IEW 1019), in which case *-lbelongs to the root rather than to the suffix. Neuters: PSI. *dẽlo (a) ‘work, deed’ (OCS dělo, Russ, dělo, Pol. dzieło, Croat. djȅlo, ESSJa V: 5-8), from the root *dheh!- ‘do’ (OCS děti, Lith. děti, Lzt.jēcī ‘I made’, etc., IEW 237ff.). PSI. *duplȏ (b) ‘hole’ (Russ, dupló, Pol. dziuplo, Croat, dúplo, ESSJa V: 159), derived from the same root as *dupa ‘hole’. There is also a secondary derivative *duplja (Russ, dupljá ‘hollow of a tree’ = Croat, dúpija, Pol. dziupla, ESSJa V: 159). PSI. *ẽdlo (a) ‘food, meal’ (Pol. jadło, Croat, jȅló) ← *ẽsti ‘eat’ (OCS jasti, Croat.jȅsti, etc.). PSl. *leglo ‘den’ (Croat, iéglo, Bulg. leglȏ, Pol. dial, legio, ESSJa XIV: 96) ← *legti ‘lie’ (OCS lešti) < *legh- ‘lie’ (Gr. lékhomai, Goth. ligan, etc., IEW 659). In principle, it is possible that the correct reconstruction is *legъlo, with the suffix *-ъlo.

94

PSI. *stьbló (b) ‘stem, trunk’ (CSl. stьblo, Russ. dial, stebló, Cz. stéblo, Croat, stáhlo, Derksen 472). The formation in *-la- > *-lo- is proved by comparison with Lith. stibýna ‘shin, calf and Latv. stiba ‘staff < PIE *stibh-. Feminines: PSl. *agla ‘grain’ (Pol.jagla ‘a grain of millet’, Croat, jágla ‘a grain of maize’), derived from the same root as *agoda ‘berry’ (Croat. jagoda). PSI. *edla ‘fir’ (Croat, jé la, Pol. j odla, ESSJa VI: 14-15) from the same root as Lith. ẽglé ‘spruce, fir’ and Lat. ebulus ‘dwarf elder’ < *h,edhlo-. PSl. *mьglá (b) ‘mist’ (OCS mьgla, Russ, mgla, Pol. mgla, Croat. màgla, ESSJa XXI: 92-4); inherited from PIE, cf. Lith. miglà (2/4), Latv. migla, Gr. omȋkhlẽ ‘mist’. The root is found in OPr. maiggurt [Acc. sg.] ‘sleep’, Skr. meghá- ‘cloud’, Arm. mëg ‘mist’, IEW 712. PSl. *osla ‘whetstone’ (OCS osla, Pol. osla, Slov. óslá), from the root *h2ek’- found in *ostn> ‘sharp’ (OCS ostrь, etc.), NHL 289. Nouns derived with this suffix generally belong either to AP a) (if they are derived from roots in a laryngeal, or if Winter’s law operated on them, cf. *dělo ‘work, deed’, *ědlo ‘food’), or to AP b) (if the root contained a short vowel, cf. *mьglá ‘mist’, *stьbló ‘trunk’). This means that the suffix was unaccented before the operation of Dybo’s law. In PIE, the suffix *-lo- was part of the “Caland-system” for deriving adjectives, but it is also found in nouns (cf. the item *mьgla ‘fog’, with equivalents in several IE languages). In Baltic, it is common both in nouns and in adjectives (Skerdžius 1941: 162-163), cf. e.g. Lith. siulas ‘thread’ ← siuti ‘sew’. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 103-104]

2.10.12 *-ljь < *-ljaA derivative of the suffix *-lъ < *-la-, formed with *-yo- instead of the simple thematic *-o-. It is found in very few examples that can be projected to Proto-Slavic. PSl. *česljь ‘comb’ (Croat, čȅšalj, Macedonian Češek ULus. česek ESSJa IV: 87, Kurkina 1992: 40), derived from PSI. *česati ‘comb’

95

(OCS česali, Croat, čèsati, ćèścai, etc.). Parallel to L a n . kaslis ‘comb, brush’. PSI. *kaśljь ‘cou gh ’ (Croat, kãšalj, P ol. kaszel, Russ, kášel', Vasmer I: 544), derived from the root o f Lith. kósėti, kòsiu 'to cough’, Skr. kā.sate ‘coughs’. A parallel formation is found in Lith. kosuiỹs ‘cough’ with the suffix *-ulyo- corresponding to Slav. *-lyo-.

2.10.13 *-manъ For this suffix, see *-anъ above.

2.10.14 *-mъ, *-mo < *-ma-, -ma < *-māThis suffix is found in a number o f inherited words (*dymъ ‘smoke’), but also in several Slavic formations without parallels in other IE languages. All three genders are represented: Masculines: PSI. *dýmъ (a) ‘smoke’ (OCS dymъ, Russ, dyrn, Pol. dym, Croat. dim, ESSJa V: 203), identical to Lith. dūmai [pl.]. Inherited from PIE, cf. Skr. dhūmá- ‘smoke’, Lat. jūmus ‘id.’ < PIE *dhuh2mó- (IEW 261), but cf. Hitt, tuhhui- ‘smoke’ without the nasal suffix. PSI. *glumъ ‘joke’ (OCS glumъ, Russ. dial, glumъ, Pol. gium ‘mockery, torture’, Croat, glúma ‘joke, gaiety’, ESSJa VI: 147-8). A parallel Germanic formation is attested by OIc. giaumr ‘jubilation’; the assumption is that the root is the same as in *glupъ ‘foolish’ > OCS glupъ, Croat, giȗp. PSI. *kosmъ ‘lock of hair’ (RussCS kosmъ, Pol. kosm, Croat, kòsmat ‘hairy’, ESSJa XI: 145-7), derived from *kosa ‘hair’ (OPol. kosa, Croat. kòsa, etc.). PSI. *sȏrmъ ‘shame’ (OCS sramъ, Russ. dial, sȏrom, Croat, šrám, LLus. srom, Vasmer II: 700), inherited in light of OHG har(a)m ‘harm’, A\.fiarama- ‘shame’. PSI. *umъ (b) ‘mind’ (OCS umъ, Russ, um, Pol. um, Croat, ům, Derksen 508), from an old n-stem represented by Lith. aumuõ ‘mind’. In the light of its accentuation, the PSI. noun was a neuter. The root is probably PIE *h2ew- (cf. Skr. āvis ‘evidently’), IEW78. 96

A possible example is PSl. *čermъ ‘tent’ (ESSJa IV: 67) which can be assumed on the basis of RussCSl. črěmъ and its comparison with OHG scerm ‘protection’ and Skr. cȃrman- ‘hide’. The root is PIE *(s)ker‘cut’ (cf. also Lat. carō, carnis ‘meat’). Neuters: *órmo (a) ‘shoulder’ (OCS ramo, Russ. arch, ramená ‘shoulders’, Pol. ramię, Croat, rȁme, Bulg. rámo), cf. OPr. irmo ‘arm’, Lat. armus ‘arm’, Goth, arms ‘arm’, Skr. īrmá- ‘arm’, probably from the same root as in Lith. irti ‘row’, OIr. ráid, IEW 338. This word vacillates between a stem in *-mo- (OCS, Bulg.) and in *-men- (Russ., Croat.). Feminines: *áma (a) ‘pit, hole’ (OCS jama, Russ, jáma, Pol. jama, Croat, jáma, ESSJa 1:71-1). Perhaps from PIE *h!Og-mo- ‘lack’ (Lat. egeo ‘lack’, see Matasović 2010). *kъrma, *kъrmъ ‘food, fodder’ (OCS krъma, Russ, korm, Pol. dial. karm, Croat, kŕma, ESSJa XIII: 222-3); this word is probably from the same root as Lith. šérti ‘feed’ < PIE *k’erh3- ‘feed’ (Gr. korénnymi), with depalatalization of *k’ before a resonant followed by a back vowel. In origin, this suffix is cognate with Baltic *-ma- > Lith. -mas, e.g. jaūsmas ‘feeling’ ← jaūsti ‘feel’, and *-mā > Lith. -ma (OLith. tamta ‘speech’ ← íar̃ti ‘speak’). In PIE, there were numerous adjectives in *-mo-, which was a part of the Caland system, e.g. Gr. thermȏs ‘hot’ < *gwhermo-, Lat. formus ‘hot’, OHG warm ‘id.’ < *gwhormo-. Such adjectives were easily substantivized already in PIE, cf. Skr. gharmá‘heat’, which is exactly superimposable on LaX. formus, and Latv. garme ‘heat’ which presupposes BSl. *garmijā, a derivative of *gwhormo-. Similarly, Lat. animus ‘spirit’ and Gr. memos ‘wind’ point to a PIE noun *h2enhļmo- ‘blowing, wind’ from the root *h2enhr ‘blow’ (Skr. ániíi ‘blows’), and OHG strom ‘stream’ and Latv. strauma ‘id.’ point to *srow-mo- from the root *srew- ‘flow’ (Gr. rhéó, Skr. srávati). In many cases, it is impossible to say whether the adjective was substantivized in individual languages or already in PIE, especially when cognates have the (etymologically) same form, but different meanings. For example, Gr. thōmós ‘heap’ and OIc. dómr ‘judgement’ point to PIE *dhohtmo-, but it cannot be determined whether the PIE meaning was nominal or adjectival (or both). In Slavic, the suffix *-mo- is actually quite rare and not productive. In a few nouns we find derivations in *-mo- together with derivations in *-men- (e.g, *ormo ‘shoulder’ besides *ormę, PSI. 97

*umъ ‘mind’ besides Lith. aumuō), which is understandable in light of the probable Early Balto-Slavic change of *-mn- > *-m- (as in the present passive participle OCS beromъ ‘carried’ < *bheromno- < *bheromh!no-, cf. Gr. phemmenos). The suffix *-smo-/-smeh2, which is very common in Baltic (e.g. Lith. giesmě ‘song’ ← giedóti ‘sing’), is unattested in Slavic. [Sławski 1974-1979, II: 13-14]

2.10.15 *-nъ, *-no < *-na-, *-na < *-nāA very common suffix, attested in all three genders and in words inherited from PIE as well as in newer Slavic formations. Masculines: PSl. *čȇrnъ (c) ‘stem, stub’ (Russ. dial, čéren ‘molar’, Pol. trzon ‘trunk, stem of a mushroom’, ESSJa IV 69-70), Lith. kẽras ‘stub’, Olr. cern ‘angle, comer’, W cent ‘cheekbone’. Probably from the same root as in *korenъ ‘root’. PSl. *čȋnъ (c) rule, deed’ (OCS činъ ‘row, order, rule’, Russ, čin ‘rank, order’, Pol. czyn ‘affair, act’, Croat, čin ‘deed’, ESSJa IV: 113-5), from the root *kwey- (Skr. cinȏti ‘gather, arrange’, IEW 638). The adjective OCS činovьnъ ‘orderly’ perhaps points to the conclusion that the suffix is *-nu- > *-m> rather than *-na- > *-nъ (Vaillant 1974: 580). PSl. *demъ (b) ‘cornel, dogwood’ (Russ. dial, derën, Pol. dial. drzón, Croat, drtjen, ESSJa IV: 208-9); inherited from PIE, cf. Gr. térkhnos ‘young shoot, branch’, OHG dirrt-baum ‘cornel’ < *dherghno-. PSI. *gъmъ ‘oven, hearth’ (ORuss. gornъ > Russ, gorn, cf. also Pol. derivative gamek ‘poť, Vasmer I: 296), inherited in light of the perfect parallellism with Lat. furnus ‘oven’, Skr. ghīná- ‘heat’ (perhaps also Olr. gorn ‘fire’), from PIE *gwhr-no- (the root is *gwher- ‘bum’ found in OCS gorèti ‘id.’), LIV 219f„ IEW 493ff, NHL 196-197. PSI. *kljunъ ‘beak’ (Russ, kljun, Croat, kljȗn, Vasmer I: 575), from the root of *klьvati, *kljuvati ‘pick’ (Russ, klevȃt ’, Croat, kljȕvati, Pol. kłuć, kiwać). PSI. *semъ (b) ‘hoarfrost’ (Russ, serën, Pol. szron, Slov. srę́rt, Derksen 445). Inherited, cf. Lith. šerkšnas ‘hoarfrost’, OIc. hjarn ‘frozen snow’.

98

PSI. *stȃnъ (c) ‘camp’ (OCS stanъ, Russ, stan, Pol. stan ‘state, condition’, Croat, stón’habitation’, Derksen 465), inherited from BSl. (Lith. stónas ‘state, condition’) and PIE *steh2-no- (Skr. sthāna- ‘abode, place’). PSl. *sъnъ (b) ‘sleep’ (OCS sъnъ, Russ, son, Poo. sen, Croat, sȁn, Derksen 481), inherited, cf. Lith. sãpnas, Olr. súan, Gr. hýpnos, from the root of *supātej > *sъpati ‘sleep’ (Skr. svȃpati, L1V 61 2 ,1EW 1048, NHL 675-677). In origin, this word was probably a heterocliton (Nom.-Acc. sg. *swopr / Gen. sg. *supnos, cf. the Hittite denominative verb suppariya- ‘sleep’, but the heteroclitic inflexion is not preserved anywhere (see the discussion in NHL 677-678). PSl. *tьmъ (b) ‘thorn’ (OCS Irьnъ, Russ, tern ‘sloe’, OPol. tarn, Croat, trn, Derksen 505), identical to Skr. tīņa-, cf. also Goth. Paúrnm ‘thom’, IEW 1031 (PIE *tmo-). In light o f AP b, the Slavic word is an original neuter, just like Skr. tjņa-. Among the few masculines in our sample, we find nouns belonging to AP b) and AP c). The former are derived from PIE barytona (*sъnъ ‘sleep’ < *súpnos, Gr. hýpnos, *tьrnъ ‘thorn’ < *trno-, Skr. trna-) and we would expect the latter to be from PIE oxytona, but *stanъ (c) ‘camp’ is problematic in light of Skr. sthana- ‘abode, place’ < *stéh2no-. Neuters: PSl. *bagno ‘marsh’ (Russ. dial, bagnó, Pol. bagno, ESSJa I: 125-7); not well attested in Slavic. Derksen (33) connects these words with Dutch bagger ‘mud’ and perhaps with OHG bah ‘brook’, in which case the PIE root would be *bhog-. However, it is also possible that this word was borrowed from some non-IE substratum of Central Europe (Matasović 2013). PSI. *dъno ‘bottom’ (Russ, dno, Croat, dnȍ, Pol. dno, Vasmer I: 355), inherited from BSl. in light of Lith. dùgnas ‘bottom’ < *dubno-, with parallels in Celtic (W dwfn ‘deep, world’ < PCelt. *dubno-), from the root of Goth, diups ‘deep’, ToB tapre ‘high’ < PIE *dhewb(h)- ‘deep’ (IEW 267f, EIEC 154, NHL 122-123). PSI. *ložesno ‘womb’ (OCS ložesno, ORuss. ložesno, Slov. Nom. pl. ložesna, ESSJa XVI: 126-8); derived from an s-stem (perhaps, according to Derksen 287 with the vocalism influenced by *lažja > *lože ‘bed’). The root is *legh- ‘lie’ (Olr. ligid, Gr. lékhos ‘bed’) > PSl. *legtej > *legti (OCS lešti, Russ, leč’, Croat, léčí). PSI. *lana > *lonò (b) ‘breast,

99

bosom’ (OCS lono, Russ. arch, láno, Pol. lono ‘lap’) may represent *loghs-no- according to Derksen 285. PSI. *runȏ (b) ‘fleece’ (OCS runo, Russ, runó, Pol. mno, Croat. nino, Derksen 440-1). The comparison with Skr. rómart- ‘body-hair’, OIr. niamnae ‘blanket’ shows that this was probably an original *-menstem (*Hrowmen-/ *Hrumnos) with *-mn- > *-n- in Slavic. PSI. *stegnó (b) ‘thigh’ (OCS stegno, Russ. dial, stegnȏ, Croat. stègno, Derksen 466). Further etymology is uncertain, but a connection is possible with *stogъ ‘stack’ (Russ, stog, Croat, stóg) and *stožerъ ‘staff (Croat, síóžer; CSl. stožerь). PSI. *vẽno ‘bride-price’ (Russ, véno, Pol. wiano, Croat, dial, vijèno, Derksen 519-20), inherited from PIE, cf. Gr. héedna, OE weotuma < *h|wed-no- ‘bride-price’, IEW 1116. PSI. *volknó (b) ‘fibre’ (Russ, voloknó, Pol. wlókno, Croat, vlákno, Derksen 526-7), according to Derksen from the same root as *volsъ ‘hair’ < *wolk’- (OCS vlasъ, Russ, vólos, Croat, vlȃs), with depalatalization before a resonant followed by a back vowel. PSl. *zьmo (a) ‘grain’ (OCS zrьno, Russ, zernó, Pol. ziarno, Croat. zrno, Derksen 553), cf. Lith. žìrnis (jo) ‘pea’, OPr. syrne ‘grain’. Slavic agrees with Lat. grānum and Goth, kaurn < PIE *g’rH-no-, IEW 391. Among the neuters, AP a) is represented by *zьmo ‘grain’, where the first syllable is acuted because it was closed by a laryngeal in PIE. The other reliably reconstructed nouns belong to AP b) (*stegno ‘thigh’, *runo ‘fleece’, *volkno ‘fibre’). They did not become masculines by IHič-Svityč’s rule because they were not barytone at the time of its operation: the accent was not retracted from final *-o if it was preceded by a consonant cluster26 (cf. Derksen 2011 and see 2.10.1). Feminines: PSI. *bȏlna (a) ‘membrane’ (ORuss. bolona, Cz. blána, Slov. blána, ESSJa II: 175-7). Inherited, cf. Lith. báinas (3) ‘white (of cattle). Probably from the same root as in the adjective *bēla- > *bělъ (Russ. bélyj) < *bhelH-. See *bolnь above. PSI. *bomá (c) 1. ‘harrow’ 2. ‘defence’ (Russ, boroná ‘harrow’, ORuss. borona ‘defence’, Cz. [pl.] brány, Croat, dial, brána, Bulg. dial.

26 In the case of *runo, the cluster was *-mn-, which later became *-n-. 100

braná ‘dam, weir’); derived from the root of *borti ‘fight’, see *bordlo and *bomь ‘war’. PSl. *bъma ‘snout’ (Slov. dial, bma, Croat, dial, bma, ESSJa III: 130); the formation is confirmed by Lith. burnà (3) ‘mouth’, cf. Latv. pȗrns ‘snout’. The root might be identical to that of Lat. forȁre ‘perforate’, OHG bomn ‘id.’, cf. also PSl. *bъrtь ‘hive of wild bees’. PSl. *glina (a) ‘clay’ (Russ, glina, Pol. glina, Croat, glina, ESSJa VI: 125-6), Lith. gléinė ‘moist clay’; perhaps inherited, cf. Gr. glínē ‘loam’ besides glia ‘loam’. The root is the same as in *glẽvъ ‘slime’, *gliva ‘fungus’ and *glьjь ‘clay’. Croat, glina may have been borrowed from Russian, but there is a toponym Glina which is inherited. PSI. *cěná (c) ‘price, value’ (OCS cěna, Russ, cená, Pol. cena, Croat, djèna, ESSJa III: 182); old and inherited, cf. Lith. káina Gr. poinē ‘penance, penalty’, Av. kaēna- ‘id.’ < PIE *kwoy-no-, IEW 637. PSI. *měna ‘change’ (OCS měna, Russ, rnéna, Pol. miana, Croat. mijèna, ESSJa XVIII: 171-172); inherited, cf. Lith. mamas ‘exchange’, Latv. mama ‘id.’ > PIE *moy-no- (Skr. ménā- ‘concubine’, OHG mein ‘false, deceitful’). PSI. *pẽna (a) ‘foam’ (OCS pěna [Nom. pl.], Russ, pěna, Pol .piana, Croat, pjȅna, Derksen 397); inherited from BSI., cf. Lith. spáinė and OPr. spoayno. In PIE, this word was probably a stem in *-men(*speHimōn / *speHimnos), and the cluster *-mn- was reflected as BSI. *-n-, cf. also Lat. spūma, OHG feim, etc., IEW1001. PSl. *solna ‘hoarfrost’ (OCS siana, Croat, slȃna, Derksen 460). Identical formation si found in Baltic, cf. Lith. šalnà Might frost’, from *k’elH- ‘cold, freeze’, OIc. héla ‘hoarfrost’ (LIV 323, IEW 551, NHL 416). PSI. *stomá (c) ‘side’ (OCS side, Russ, storoná, Cz. strana, Croat. strána, Derksen 469), from the root *sterh3- ‘strew’ (Gr. stȏrnymi etc.). PSl. *stьgna ‘path’ (OCS stьgna, Russ. arch, stógna, OPol. ścięgna ‘crossroads’, Derksen 473), from the same root as *stigā > *stьdza ‘path’. PSI. *sьrna ‘roe’ (RussCSl. srьna, Russ, sérna ‘chamois’, Pol. sama, Croat, srna, Derksen 485). Inherited from BSI., cf. Lith. stirna, Latv. stirna, from the root *k’erh2- ‘horn’ (as in *karwā > *korva ‘cow’, Croat, krȁva, Russ, korȏva, with unexplained *k- instead of *s-). PSl. *vesna ‘spring’ (OCS vesna, Russ, vesná, Pol. wiosna, Derksen 517), from an old heteroclitic noun (cf. Lat. vēr, Skr. vasantá-, Gr. ear. 101

IEW 86f., NIIL 357). The r-stem from the Nom.-Ace. sg. is preserved in Baltic, cf. Lith. vãsara, Latv. vasara ‘summer’. ORuss. vesna belongs to AP c). PSl. *vojьna ‘war’ (Russ, vojná, PI. wojna, Slov. vójna, Derksen 524). From the same root as the *voinъ ‘soldier’ (OCS voinъ). The noun *vojьna is probably an old collective. PSl. *vьlna (a) ‘wool’ (OCS vlьna, Russ, vólna, Pol. welna, Croat. vma, Derksen 537), identical to Lith. vilna, Latv. vìīna, from PIE *wlHneh2 (Lat. lāna, Goth, wulla, etc., 1EW 1139ff.). PSl. *žьlna ‘woodpecker’ (CSl. žlъna, Russ. dial, želná, Cz. žluna, Croat, žúna, Vasmer II: 43, Derksen 565), parallel to Lith. gìlnà and Latv. dzilna and probably derived from PIE *gwelH- ‘sting’ (Lith. gélti ‘sting, hurt’). Like the underived ā-stems, stems derived with the suffix *-nā belonged to AP a) if they had a laryngeal or a voiced stop in the coda of the first syllable, e.g. *vьlna ‘wool’ and *pẽna ‘foam’. PIE oxytona became mobile and belong to AP c) in Proto-Slavic (e.g. *cěna ‘price’ < *kwoyneh2, cf. Gr. poinē), while PIE barytona ended up as PSl. nouns belonging to AP b); a possible instance is PSI. *měna ‘change’ (cf. Čak. mīnȁ, Acc. mīnȕ, but ORuss. měna is AP b and c, Derksen 311). In origin, the PIE suffix *-no- served to derive adjectives, usually from verbal stems and, as such, it was a part of the “Caland-system”. This type of verbal adjectives is preserved in Slavic as the past passive participle of some verbs, e.g. OCS danь ‘given’ to the verb dati ‘give’. In Baltic, adjectives with the suffix *-na- < *-no- have not become wholly grammaticalized (as a part of the verbal paradigm), but there are plenty of them, e.g. glōdnas ‘smooth’ ← glȏdžiii, giósti ‘to smooth down, even’ (from the root of OCS gladъkъ ‘smooth’, Germ, glatt). However, in Germanic we find regular preterite participles of strong verbs derived with the suffixes *-eno- and *-ono-, cf. PGerm. *bundana-, *bundena- ‘bound* (Goth, bundám, OE bunden) ‘bound’ ← PGerm. *bindan ‘bind’ (Goth, bindan). Nouns with this suffix were much less common in PIE. Some such nouns are clearly derived from verbal roots as abstract nouns or nomina actionis, e.g. *supno- ‘sleep’ (OCS sъnь, Gr. hýpnos) from the root *swep- ‘to sleep’ (Skr. svap-, OE swefan), or *h2etno- ‘year’ (Lat. annus, Goth, ap̀nam [Dat. pl.]) ← *h2et- ‘go’ (Skr. átati), but there are also others that cannot be easily shown to be deverbal, e.g. *wlh2neh2 ‘wool’ (OCS vlъna, Lat. lāna etc.). 102

In a number of languages, *-no- is used in nouns denoting divinities and social functions, e.g. Goth, p̀iudans ‘king’ ← p̀iuda ‘people’, Gr. koiranos ‘military leader’ vs. OIr. cuire ‘troop’, Goth, harjis ‘army’, Lat. dominus ‘lord, master’ ← domus ‘house’. The suffix also occurs in numerous theonyms such as ON Ódinn, Lat. Neptūnus, Portūms, Sāturnus, etc. (Meid 1967: 109-110). The only trace of this formation in Slavic may be in PSl. *županъ ‘a dignitary in charge of župa (shire)’ (ORuss. županъ, Croat, žùpān, Cz. župan, Vasmer II: 432) ← *župa ‘a territorial unit, a shire’ (ORuss. župa, Croat, žúpa, Cz. župa, Vasmer II: 432). [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 114-116]

2.10.16 *-rъ, *-ro < *-ra-, *-ra < *-rā This suffix was very productive in PIE in adjectival derivation, e.g. *h)rudhró- ‘red’ > Lat. ruber, Gr. erythrós, OCS rьdrь, PIE *h1lngwhro‘quick’ > Gr. elaphrȏs, OHG lungar. In several cases, these adjectives were substantivized, either already in PIE, or in the daughter languages, e.g. PSI. *věra ‘faith’ < *weh!ro- ‘true’ (Lat. vëms). However, it is also found in nouns, where no PIE adjectival formations can be posited, cf. PIE *negwhro- ‘kidney’ > OHG nioro, Gr. nephrós, Praenestine pl. nefrōnes. A few such nouns inherited from PIE remain in Slavic, e.g. *ydra ‘otter’. Some of these nouns might be thematicized old heteroclita (*darъ ‘gift’, perhaps *bedro ‘thigh’ and *pyr(j)ь, *pyrъ, ‘glowing coal’), while others are thematicized r-stems (*sestra ‘sister’). Masculines: PSl. *dȃrъ (c) ‘gift’ (OCS darъ, Russ, dar, Pol. dar, Croat, dȃr, ESSJa IV: 191-192); inherited from PIE, cf. Gr. doron ‘gift’ < *deh3(Lat. do, dare, Gr. dȋdōmi, etc., IEW 225), ultimately with generalized *-r- from an old heteroclite noun, see also *danь ‘tax’. PSl. *mirъ ‘peace’ (OCS mirь, Russ, mir, Pol. mir, Croat, mír, Vasmer II: 137), parallel to OLith. rnieras and Latv. miers. PSI. *vě̑trъ (a) ‘wind’ (OCS větrь, Russ, véter, Pol. wiatr, Croat. vjȅtar, Derksen 520), parallel to Lith. větra ‘storm’, OPr. wetro ‘wind’. Probably derived from a t-stem, cf. Skr. vāta-, from the root *h2weh)‘blow’ (Skr. vāti, OCS vējoti, etc., IEW 84). Sławski (1974-1979, II: 20) analyzes the suffix as *-tro-, which is less likely. 103

PSI. *py̑rь (a) ‘spelt’ (RussCSl./jyro, C z.pýr ‘quitch’, Croat, pȉr ‘spelt’, Derksen 425), parallel to Lith. pūráī [pl.] ‘winter com’, Latv. pūrs ‘com measure’ < PIE *puh2-ro- (Gr. pỹrós ‘wheat’, a substantivized adjective from the root *peh2u- ‘purify’, cf. Lat. pūnes ‘clean, pure’, Skr. pávate ‘becomes clean’, IEW 827). PSl. *sy̑rь (a) ‘cheese’ (OCS syn,, Russ, syr, Cz. sýr, Croat, sȉr, Derksen 483). In Baltic, we find a yo-stem in Lith. suris ‘cheese’. These words are certainly related to OE sūr ‘sour’, which points to a PIE root *sewH-/*suH-, extended with a suffix *-ro-. Neuters: PSI. *bedró (b) ‘thigh’ (OCS bedra [f, originally collective], Russ. bedrȏ, Pol. biodro, Croat, bèdro, ESSJa I: 175-6, 179-80); the etymology of this word is disputed. If Lat. femur ‘thigh’ is from *febur (with dissimilation), we might posit a PIE heterocliton *bhedhr, in which case the Slavic form is a thematicization of the nominative-accusative stem. PSl. *rebrȏ (b) ‘rib’ (OCS rebro, Rus. rebró, Pol. żebro, Croat. rèbro, Derksen 433). From the same root as OHG rippi, ribbi ‘rib’. PSI. *ú(s)tro (a) ‘morning’ (OCS utro, Russ, útro, ?o\. jutro, Croat. jutro, Derksen 510), cf. Lith. aušrà ‘dawn’ < *h2ews-ro-, from the same root as in Lat. aurōrn ‘dawn’, Gr. Horn, ẽṓs, Skr. usṓs-, IEW 87. The acute in Slavic (and Latv. dial, aũstra) may point to a Vfddhi formation. PSI. *vědró (b) ‘bucket’ (OCS vědro, Russ, vedró, Pol. wiadro, Bulg. vedrȏ, Derksen 518). Related to Lith. vėdaras ‘sausage’, OPr. weders (EV) ‘belly’, from PIE *(H)ud-er-o- (Skr. udám- ‘belly, womb’, Gr. hýderos ‘dropsy’, IEW 1104f.). The BSl. accentuation pointing to an old barytone (before the operation of Dybo’s law) is unclear. PSl. *pyr(j)ь, ?*pyn> ‘glowing coal’ can perhaps be posited on the basis of Cz. pyř ‘glowing coal’, Russ. dial, pýrej ‘a hole for coals in the oven’ and the Croat, denominative verb pȉrjati ‘roast’ (Vasmer II: 474), but this is altogether uncertain. The origin would be a PIE heterocliton *peh2wr ‘fire’ (Hitt, pahhur, Gr. pỹr, OHG fair, etc.). PSl. *esetn> ‘sturgeon’ (Russ, osëtr, Pol. jesiotr, Croat, jesetra, Vasmer IT. 281) Looks like a derivative from *eset-, found in *esetь ‘rack for drying grain’ (see 2.4.5); this is possible semantically, as sturgeons have wedge-shaped snouts, with which they stir up the soft bottom of rivers, cf. also OLith. ašėtras ‘sturgeon’, OLith. ešketras ‘whale’, OPr. esketres ‘id.’. However, in light of the similarity o f the 104

Germanic word for ‘sturgeon’ (e.g. OHG sturio), these words might be loanwords from some non-IE substratum, in which case the similarity with *esetь is accidental. Feminines: PSl. *ikra ‘roe’ (Russ, ikrá, Croat, ȉlcra, Pol. ikra, Vasmer I: 477), parallel to Lith. Nom. pl. ikrai, Latv. ikri. Both are derived from a PIE heterocliton *yēkwr / *yekwn-s ‘liver’ (Lat. iecur, Skr. yákft, Gr. hēpar, IEW 504, EIEC 356, NHL 393-394, Matasović 1998). PSI. *iskra (a) ‘spark’ (Russ, iskra, Croat, iskra, Pol. iskra, skra, Cz. jiskra Vasmer I: 488), from the same root as Pol. jaskry ‘clear’, Russ. jásnyj ‘clear, bright’, Lith. áiškus ‘clear’, probably also Olr. éscae ‘moon’ (EDPC 118-119). PSl. *mě̑ra (a) ‘measure’ (OCS mēra, Russ, mera, Pol. miara, Croat. mjȅra, ESSJa XVIII: 183-5), derived from *mehr ‘measure’ (see *mẽsęcь ‘moon’). PSI. *sestrá (b) ‘sister’ (OCS sestra, Russ, sestrȃ, Pol. siostra, Croat. sèstra, Derksen 445). A thematization of an original r-stem. The original stem is preserved in Baltic, cf. Lith. sesuõ, Gen. sg. seser̃s, OPr. swestro, Skr. svásar- (IEW 1051, EIEC 521, NHL 680-681). In Slavic, *-t- was introduced regularly between *-s- and *-r- in the oblique cases of the rstem (*swesōr/ Gen. sg. *swesr-os). PSI. *sędra ‘plaster’ (RussCSl. sędra ‘fluid’, Croat, sȅdra, Cz. sádra ‘plaster’, Vasmer HI: 63); the same formation is found in Germanic, cf. OE sinder, OHG sintar (PIE *sendh-ro-), from the root *sendh- (Gr. ónthos ‘dirt, dung’, IEW 906, EIEC 639, NHL 615). PSI. *vẽra (a) ‘faith, belief (OCS vēra, Russ, vēra, Pol. wiara, Croat, vjȅra, Derksen 520). Inherited from PIE *wehr ro- (Lat. vērus ‘true’, OHG wāra ‘treaty, protection’). PSI. *ydra (a) ‘otter’ (Russ, výdra, Pol. wydra, Croat, ūȋdra, Derksen 534), identical to Lith. ūdra, OPr. wudro, Av. udra- ‘otter’ < PIE *udro-, from the root *wed-/*ud- ‘water’ (see *voda). Except for *darъ ‘gift’, which has mobile accentuation, words derived with the suffix *-ro- belong either to AP a) (if their roots end in a laryngeal or a voiced stop, e.g. *ydra ‘otter’, *vẽra ‘faith’), or to AP b) (if their roots contain a short vowel, e.g. *bedro ‘thigh’), which means that these words were barytone before the operation of Dybo’s law. The barytone neuters such as *bedro did not become masculines for reasons explained in 2.10.1. 105

In Baltic, this suffix is often found in deverbal abstract nouns, e.g. Lith. kaitrà ‘heat’ ← kaisti (sta, -to) ‘warm up, heat’. [Sławski 1974-1979, II: 17-18]

2.10.17 *-skъ < *-skaPSl. *blě̑skъ (c) ‘brightness, glow’ (RussCSl. blěskъ, Russ, blesk Pol. blask, Croat, bñjesak, Vasmer I: 92); a deverbal noun derived from *blьskati, *bliskati ‘flash’ (OCS bliskati) cf. also Lith. blyškėti ‘flash’, Latv. blaizgums ‘spot’ and see *bliskъ. PSI. *blȋskъ (c) ‘flash, lightning’ (OCS bliskъ, Cz. dial, blisk ‘marsh marigold’, Slov. blȋsk, ESSJa II: 114), from the same root as OHG blic ‘flash, lightning’. PSl. *blьskъ ‘splendour’ (CSl. blьskъ, OCz. blesk ESSJa II: 113-4), with the zero-grade of the root attested in *bliskъ ‘flash, lightning’ above. The suffix *-ska- alternates with *-zga- in *luzga ‘peel’ (Russ, luzgȃ ‘husks’, Croat, dial, iuzga ‘scales of a fish’, cf. Lith. lùzgana ‘scale of fish’, ESSJa XVI: 213) vs. *luskъ, *luska (Russ, lusk ‘peel, chaff, OPol. lush, Cz. lu.sk, Russ, luská ‘skin, peel’, Pol. łuska, Croat, ijȕska ‘shell, pod, scale’, ESSJa XVI: 188-29). Originally, the suffix *-skъ may have been abstracted from deverbal nouns built to the present stem in PIE *-sk’-, cf. Skr. pļ-cchā- ‘question’ ← prccháti ‘asks’ (Lat. poscit), OIr. nasc ‘ring’ ← nascid ‘binds’. It is found especially in roots ending in stops, cf. Lat. ēsca ‘food’ ← edo ‘eat’, Gr. diskos (< *dik-sko-) ‘disc’ ← dikein (aorist inf.) ‘throw’. This is quite certain for *bliskъ ‘lightning’, *blẽskъ ‘brightness, glow’ with respect to *bliskati, *blьskati ‘flash’.

2.10.18 *-slo < *-sla-, *-sla < *-slãThis suffix is found in some neuters and probably in the feminine *žila ‘vein, sinew’; it is often difficult to distinguish from original *-lobecause of the sound change *sl > *1 in many environments. Neuters:

106

PSI. *čersló (b) ‘loin’ (OCS črěsla [pl.], Russ, čeresló ‘ploughshare’, Pol. arch, trzosla ‘loins’, roat. dial, črijèslo ‘cortex, bark’, ESSJa IV: 745), Lith. ker̃slas ‘chisel’, OPr. kersle ‘axe with two blades’. Derived from the root *kert- ‘cut’ (Lith. ketrtù, kir̃sti ‘hew’, ORuss. ěьrsti ‘hew, slash’, OHG scrintan ‘split, burst’, 1EW 950). Derksen (84-5) assumes Balto-Slavic *kert-tla- > *kers-tla- > *kersla-, which is possible. PSI. *čisló (b) ‘number’ (OCS čislo, Russ, ěisló, Pol. czyslo, ESSJa IV: 117-118) ← *čьtati ‘read, count’ (Croat, citāti, Russ, čitát’, Pol. czytac, etc.). PSI. *krẽslo ‘chair’ (Russ, kréslo, Pol. krzesło, Bulg. kresló, ESSJa XII: 126-9); the same formation in Lith. krěslas ‘chair’, OPr. creslan, but it is unclear from which root these words are derived. PSI. *máslo (a) ‘oil, butter’ (OCS maslo, Russ, máslo, Croat, máslo, ESSJa XVII: 230-232); derived from the verb *mazati ‘smear, grease’ (OCS mazati ‘anoint’, Russ, mázat' ‘grease’, Pol. mazać ‘id.’, Croat. mȁzati ‘smear’). The root may be *meh2g’- (Arm. macanim ‘thicken’, OHG mahhon ‘make’). PSl. *veslo ‘oar’ (OCS veslo, Russ, vesló, Croat, vèslo) ← *vesti, *vezą ‘drive’ (OCS vezq, Croat, -veze). Feminines: PSI. *žíla (a) ‘vein, sinew’ (OCS žila, Russ, žila, Pol. żyła, Croat. fila, Derksen 652), identical to Lith. gýsia ‘vein’, Latv. dzīsla, probably from PIE *gwhiH-slo- (Lat. filum ‘thread’, Arm ./// ‘sinew, cord’, IEW 489). The underived root is attested in Skr. jya- ‘tendon, bow-string’, Gr. bìós ‘bow’. Nouns with this suffix have diverse origins. *žila ‘vein, sinew’ was probably built with inherited *-slo-, while in *čislo ‘number’ *-sdeveloped from *-td-, i.e. *čislo < *čit-dlo-, with the suffix for nomina instrumenti *-dlo- < *dhlo-. The origin of the suffix in *krěslo ‘chair’ is unclear (the word may have been borrowed from some substratum language). Words where the suffix *-slo is original appear to always have the egrade of the root (cf. *veslo ‘oar’, *čerslo ‘loin’). Hence, in OCz. heslo ‘password, saying’ and ULus. heslo the vocalism may be analogical, while the original vocalism is found in ULus. hasto (and Pol. hash), which may be derivable from PSl. *gad-slo-, where the root is *gad‘devine’ (Russ, gadáť, Slov. gádaíi, Pol. gadać ‘speak’, Vasmer I: 250).

107

Nouns with roots ending in a laryngeal have the acute in the first syllable and belong to AP a (*žíla ‘vein, sinew’), while in others AP b appears to predominate. The neuters belonging to AP b (*čisló, ‘number’, *ćersló ‘loin’) did not become masculines by Illič-Svityč’s rule (cf., e.g., PIE *dhworom ‘courtyard’ > PSl. *dvorъ) because they were oxytone at the time of its operation: the consonant cluster *-slprevented the accent retraction from final *-o (see 2.10.1 on the accentuation of neuter o-stems). In Baltic, *-sla- > Lith. -sla is quite common, cf. Lith. mókslas ‘science’ ← mȏkyti ‘teach’. We find it also in Latin (āia ‘wing’ < *akslā < *h2eg’-sleh2, cf. the diminutive axilla ‘arm-pit’) and Germanic (OHG dehsala ‘axe’ < *tek’-sleh2, which may be identical to PSl. *tesla (> ORuss. tesla) ‘id.’ [see under *-dlo]. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 103-104]

2.10.19 *-sna < *-snāA rare suffix in Slavic, found only in a few inherited formations: PSl. *dęsná (b) ‘gum’ (Russ, děsná, OCz. dásno, Croat, dȇsni [pl.], ESSJa V: 26-7) < *dent-sno-, cf. Lith. dcmtis ‘tooth’, Lat. dens, dentis (NHL 210). PSI. *luná (b) ‘moon’ (OCS luna, Russ, luna, Pol. luna, Croat, dial. luna, ESSJa XVI: 173-4). The stem in *-sna- can be reconstructed on the basis of OPr. lauxnos [Nom. pl.] ‘luminary’, Av. raoxšna- ‘shining’ and Lat. Im a ‘moon’ < *lowk-sno- (Praeneste iōsrta). PSI. *plesna ‘sole of the foot’ (OCS piesna, Russ, piesná, Slov. plésna. Cz. piesna, Vasmer II: 370), Lith. plãsnas ‘sole’, Latv. plesa, piesna < BSl. *plet-snã, from the root *pleth2- ‘broad’, Skr. práthas‘breadth’, IEW 833, NHL 564-565. Besides the feminine *plesna, the neuter *plesno is attested in Croat. Čak. plesnȍ and Ukr. plésno (Boryś 2007: 70-71). Another possible instance is PSI. *lonó (b) ‘bosom, lap’ (OCS lono, Russ, lȏno, Pol. lono ‘lap’, Bulg. lȏno ‘lap’, ESSJa XVI: 32-35), from the same root as *ložesno ‘womb’ (OCS ložesna [Nom. pl.]) < *legh‘lie’ (OCS legą, lešti, etc.). PSI. *lono would be derivable from *logh-sno-.

108

This suffix seems to have been abstracted from the cases where the suffix *-no- was added to s-stems, which means that, for example *lowksno- ‘shining’ was built on *lowkos- ‘light’ (Av. raocah-, Skr. rocas-), cfi also Skr. vadhasná- ‘hammer’ and vádhas- ‘id.’, OE ōxn ‘axle hole’ besides OHG ahsa ‘axle’, and PSl. *plesna ‘sole’ < *pleth2s-no-vs. Skr. práthas- ‘breadth’. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 116-117]

2.10.20 *-sъ < *-sa-, *-sa < *-sāThis suffix is found in a few masculine nouns, deadjectival (*bẽsъ ‘demon’) and deverbal (*kolsъ ‘ear, spike’). The only feminine is *(v)osa ‘wasp’, which is inherited from PIE. PSl. *ąsъ (b) ‘moustache’ (Russ, us, Pol. wqs, Cz. vous, Derksen 386), cf. Lith. uõstai, OPr. wanso. The suffix *-sa- is posited through comparison with MIr. fin d ‘hair’ < *wendo-, OHG wint-bmwa ‘eye­ lash’ (IEW 1148). However, the suffiy *-ta- would yield the same result. PSl. *bẽsъ (c) ‘demon’ (OCS bēsъ, Russ, bes, Pol. bies, Croat, byes, ESSJa II: 88-91); inherited, perhaps originally an u-stem adjective, cf. Lith. baisùs ‘terrible’ < *bhoyd(h,-s-o-, Lat. foedus ‘terrible, repulsive’ (IEW 162).27 PSl. *gȏlsъ (c) ‘voice’ (OCS glasъ, Russ, gólos, Pol. glos, Croat. glȃs ESSJa VI: 219-220); inherited from BSl., cf. Lit. gaĩsas ‘sound’ Cf. W galw ‘call’, Lat. gallus ‘cock’, OIc. kalis ‘demand’ (IEW 350). The same root is attested in *galgala- > *golgolъ ‘speech’ (see 2.10.3). PSl. *kȏlsъ (c) ‘ear, spike’ (OCS klasъ, Russ, kólos, Pol. kios, Croat. klās, ESSJa X: 152-3), from the root of *kaltej > *kolti ‘stab’ (Croat. klāti, Pol. kłać, etc.), as in *kalda- > *koldъ ‘club, log’. PSl. *kosъ ‘blackbird’ (OCS kosъ, Pol. kos, Croat, kȏs) is often derived from *kopso- in light of Gr. kópsikhos ‘id.’, but both words (if related) were probably borrowed from some non-IE source. Moreover, it 27 The accentuation of Latv. baiss ‘terrible’ perhaps points to the reconstruction of the root as *bhoyd-, since the broken tone implies an original acute in BaltoSlavic and the operation o f Winter’s law. On the other hand, a connection is possible with the root *bheyH- ‘to be afraid’ (OCS bojāti sę, Croat, bojāti se, etc.), in which case *-d(h)- must be suffixal.

109

is possible that *kosъ is just a derivative from *česati ‘comb, scratch' (OCS česati, etc.), as ‘the bird that scratches (the ground)’, as argued ir Matasović 2013. Thus, there is no indication that *-so- is a suffix. The same goes for PSl. *versъ ‘heather’ (Russ, vēres, Pol. wrzos, Croat. vr̃ȋjes), cf. Lith. pl. vìržiai with aberrant -i-. PSl. *ovьsъ ‘oats’ (Russ. ovës, Croat, óvas, Pool, ovies, Vasmer II: 248-249) might be derivable from BSl. *awiź-sa-, with the suffix *-sa- lacking in Baltic (cf. Lith. avižà ‘oats’, Latv. àuzas [Nom. pl.], OPr. wyse). Lat. avēnct ‘oats, stalk’ is certainly related, but does not have the same strange suffix *-ig’himplied by Balto-Slavic (de Vaan 64-65). This word is probably also borrowed from some non-IE substratum o f Central Europe. PSl. *(v)osa ‘wasp’ (Russ, osá, Croat, ósa, Pol. osa, ULus. wosa, Vasmer II: 280), identical to Lith. vapsà ‘wasp’, OPr. wobse, OHG wafsa (with the e-grade also in Lat. vespa), probably from the root of Germ. Wabe ‘honey-comb’ < PIE *wobh- (IEW 1179). A possible neuter in this class is PSl. *pleso ‘deep and broad place in a river’ (Russ, plëso, Cz. pleso, Croat, pleso (in toponyms), Vasmer II: 370), if it is derived from *plet-so-, where the root is *pleth2- ‘broad’ (Skr. prȃthas- ‘breadth’, Gr. platýs ‘broad’, etc., IEW 833), but there is also ORuss .plesъ ‘wide part of a river’, which is masculine. The (dialectal) augmentative suffix *-asъ, perhaps abstracted from original *-sъ after stems in *-a-, is found e.g. in Ukr. lóbas ‘man with a big forehead’ ← lob ‘forehead’, Cz. chudas ‘poor man’ ← chudý ‘poor’, Pol. grubas ‘fatty, fat man’ ← gruby ‘thick’.28 In a similar way, in individual languages we find rare suffixes such as *-usъ (Pol. dial lenius ‘lazy person’ ← OPol. ieny ‘lazy’, Russ. dial, bóitus ‘liar’ ← boitát’ ‘babble’), *-osъ (Pol. dial, wieikos ‘big man’ ← *-wielki ‘big’),29 etc. This Slavic suffix can be compared to Baltic nominal *-sa- > Lith. -so- as in gctīsas ‘clarity (of the sky)’ < *gaid-sa- (cf. Lith. giẽdras 28 It is unclear whether the same suffix is found in Croatian and Serbian surnames in -as, e.g. Lukas, Radas, Vukas (and, in an extended form, in Mȁtasović, Vukasović, etc., cf. Jurišić 1993: 118). 29 In Croatian, this suffix is incorporated in the augmentative -osija in grdòsìja ‘big man’ ← gȓd ‘large and dangerous’ (Babić 1986: 192). Croat, pr̀kos ‘spite’ does not contain this suffix (pace Jurišić 1993: 118) as it is best explained by contamination o f kȏs ‘slant’, dial, uskos ‘grumpy’ and the verb pŕčiti se ‘be haughty’ (Gluhak: 335).

110

‘clear’), Lith. var̃gšas ‘unlucky person’ ← var̃gas ‘poor’ (Vaillant 1974: 658). In most other ancient IE languages we find adjectival *-so-, e.g. in Lat. laxus ‘wide, loose’ < *lag-so- (from the root of langueo ‘to be sluggish or faint’, cf. Gr. lagarós ‘slack’, OIc. slakr ‘weak, floppy’, De Vaan 325), Lat. luxus ‘dislocated, sprained’ < *lug-so- (cf. Lat. luctor ‘wrestle’, OIr. fo-loing ‘supports’), PSl. *lixъ ‘remaining, superficient’ (Russ, lixój, Pol. lichy) < *leykwso- (from the root of Gr. leȋpō ‘leave’, Lat. linquo, etc.). Some such adjectives were probably substantivized already in PIE, cf. Gr. dóksa ‘opinion, glory’ ← dokéō ‘think’ (originally collective), Lith. tamsà ‘darkness’ ← témti ‘grow dark’ (perhaps influenced by 3sg. pres. íémsta), cf. also Goth, hals ‘neck’ and Lat. collus ‘id.’ < *kolso-, perhaps from the root *kwelhr ‘turn’ (cf. Lith. kāklas ‘neck’, from the same root), with the assumption that *kw was delabialized in Germanic, which is uncertain (De Vaan 125). [Sławski 1974-1979,11:31-32]

2.10.21 *-tja *pьxati ‘push, shove’ (Croat, phȁti, Pol. pchać), Lith./ns// ‘copulate’. PSI. *plotъ ‘fence’ (OCS plotъ, Russ. dial, plot, Croat, plot, Derksen 406), from the root found in *plestej > *plesti ‘weave’ (OCS plesti, Croat, pièstì) < PIE *plek’- (Gr. piékō). PSI. *pòtъ (c) ‘sweat’ (OCS potъ, Russ, pot, Pol. pot, Croat, pȏt, Derksen 415), from the root *pekti ‘cook’ (OCS pešti, pekq, etc.). PSI. *ščitъ́ (b) ‘shield’ (OCS štìtь, Russ, ščit, Cz. štít, Croat, štít, Derksen 486). Identical formation is found in Baltic, cf. Lith. skiẽtas ‘reed in a loom’, OPr. staytan ‘shield’ > PIE *skeyto- (OIr. sciath, cf. Lat. scūtum < *skoyto-). A possible instance is PSI. *orstъ ‘growth’ (OCS rastь, Russ, rȏst, ULus. róst, Vasmer II: 538) if it should be derived from *h2ordh-to(Lat. arduus ‘high, steep’, OIr. ard ‘high’, etc.); however, synchronically *orstъ is better regarded as a deverbal formation to *orsti ‘grow’ (OCS rastetъ, Croat, ráste, etc.). Neuters: PSI. *bólto (a) ‘swamp, mud’ (OCS biato, Russ, bolóto, Pol. bioto, Croat, bláto, ESSJa II: 179-80); inherited, cf. Lith. báltas (1) ‘white’, Alb. baltë ‘mud, swamp (unless borrowed from Slavic), from the same root as *bolna ‘membrane’. For the semantic connection of these words, see Derksen 52. 112

PSI. *deltó, *doltó (b) ‘chisel’ (Croat, dlijèto, Cz. dietko ‘edge of a plane’, Russ, dolotó, Cz. dláto, ESSJa IV: 205), OPr. dalptan ‘chisel’, from the root *dhelbh- ‘dig’ (OE delfan). PSI. *jẽto (a) ‘herd, flock’ (Russ. dial, ja t ‘shoal of fish’, Pol. obs. jato, Croat.jȁto, ESSJa VIII: 182-3). Inherited from PIE *yeh2-to- (Skr. yātá- ‘course’) from the root *yeh2- ‘go’ (Lith. jóti ‘ride’, Skr. yati ‘goes’). PSI. *mẽsto (a) ‘place’ (OCS město, Russ, město, Croat, mjȅsto, Pol. miasto, ESSJa XVIII: 203-206), of disputed etymology, but in my opinion derived from *med-to-, from the root *med- ‘measure’ (Lat. medeor ‘heal’, OIr. midithir ‘judge’, Gr. médomai ‘attend to, think on’, cf. Matasović 2011). PSI. *pą́to (a) ‘fetter’ (OCS pqta [Nom. pl.], Russ, pūto, Pol. pęto, Croat, pȕto, Derksen 417), probably inherited from BSl. in light of OPr. panto ‘fetter’, but cf. Lith. pȃntis ‘horse-lock’. The root is *penH‘stretch’ as in *pentā > *pęta ‘heel’. PSI. *sito (a) ‘sieve’ (Russ, sito, Pol. sito, Croat, síto, Derksen 451). Inherited from BSl. cf. Lith. sietas ‘sieve’, Latv. sièts ‘id.’, from the root *sehr ‘sow’ (with *-i- from the present stem?). PSI. *tẽsto (c) ‘dough’ (Russ, tésto, Pol. ciasto, Croat, tijȇsto, Derksen 493), related to OIr. tȃis ‘dough’, OHG deismo ‘leaven’, IEW 296. PSl. *zȏlto (c) ‘gold’ (OCS zlato, Russ, zóioto, Pol. zloto, Croat. zlȃto, Derksen 547). A similar formation in Latv. zelts, from the root *g’holh3- ‘yellow, green’ (Gr. khlōrós, OCS zelenъ ‘green’, etc.). PSI. *žíto (a) ‘grain’ (OCS žito, Russ, žito, Pol. żyto ‘rye’, Croat. zito, Derksen 563), probably identical to OPr. geytye, geits ‘bread’, from PIE *gwih3-to- (the same root is found in OCS žiti ‘live’, Lith. gyvénti, etc.). A formal parallel to the Slavic formation is found in Celtic, cf. OIr. biad ‘food’, W bwyd< PCelt. *bēto- < *gweyh3-to- (NIIL 186). The neuter *lysto ‘calf (of a leg)’ (Russ, lýsto, Vasmer I: 76) alternates with the masculine *lystъ (Croat, list, Pol. fyst, see above). The origin of the element *-sto in OCS monisto ‘necklace’, which is probably from the same root as Lat. moriīie ‘necklace’, is unclear. A neuter suffix *-tje < *-tja- is found in PSI. *plutjé (b) ‘lung’ (OCS plušta [Nom pl.] ORuss. pljuča, Pol. pluco, Croat, plúće, Derksen 4056). The word seems to be inherited from BSl., cf. Lith. plaiíčiai, Latv. plàuši. The root is *plew- ‘to swim’ (OCS pluti, Slov. plúti), cf. Gr. 113

pleúmōn. The form of the suffix *-tja- may be due to the conflation of *-ja- and the suffix *-to-, or we are dealing with a thematicization of a stem in *-ti, as in *datja ‘gift’ < *dāti-ã- (see *-tь < *-ti). Feminines: PSI. *cẽsta (a) ‘road’ (OCS cěsta, Cz. cesta, Croat, cësta, ESSJa 111: 188) < *kayd-tā, from the same root as in *čistъ ‘pure’ (Russ, ěístij), *cẽditi ‘strain, filter’ (Russ, cedit ’) < *skeyd- (OPr. skijstan ‘pure’, OIc. skȋta ‘shit’, IEW 520). It is possible that *cẽsta is a deverbal formation, based on *cẽstiti ‘cleanse’ (OCS cěstiti, Slov. céstiti ‘castrate’). PSI. *pętá (c) ‘heel’ (OCS pęta, Russ, pjatá, Pol. pięta, Croat, péta), cf. Lith. péntis ‘backside of an axe’, OPr. pentis ‘heel’. The root is probably the same as in *pęti ‘stretch’ (Russ, p ja t’, Croat, péti, Lith. pinti ‘braid’). PSI. *ustá (b) ‘mouth’ (OCS usta, Russ. arch, ustȃ, Pol. usta, Croat. ústa). Parallel to Lith. úostas ‘port, harbour’, Latv. uõsta ‘id.’ (but cf. NHL 388 for a different view), OPr. austo ‘mouth’ (EV), cf. also Skr. óffha- ‘upper lip’ (IEW 785, EIEC 387, NHL 390). PSI. *glistá (b) ‘earthworm’ (Russ, glistá, Croat, glista, Pol. glista, ESSJa VI: 128-129) may have been built by adding the suffix *-ta to a base *glīt- (or *gleyt-), cf. Lith. glitùs ‘sticky’, from the same root *gleyH-) as in *glina ‘clay’. PSl. *nevě̑sta (a) ‘bride’ (OCS nevěsta, Russ, nevěsta, Cz. nevēsta, Croat, nèvjesta, ESSJa XXV: 70-76) is certainly composed of the negation ne- and a feminine form of a participle in *-to. However, the identity of the verbal root is disputed: Derksen (351) thinks that it is PIE *woyd- ‘to know’ (OCS vědě ‘1 know’, Skr. véda, Gr. oīda, etc.), but at least equally possible is that the root is actually PIE *wed- ‘to buy’, also found in CSl. věno ‘bride-price’ < *wed-no- (= Gr. hédnon ‘bride-price’, OE weotuma ‘price’), and the length of the vowel in Slavic is due to Winter’s law (cf. Schelesniker 1987). Nouns derived with this suffix belong to all three accentual paradigms. Those with the acute in the coda of the first syllable (usually from the laryngeal) belong to AP a (*jẽto ‘herd, flock’, *sito ‘sieve’), while the others belong either to AP b (*delto, *dolto ‘chisel’) or AP c (*zolto ‘gold’, *tẽsto ‘dough’). The mobile nouns would appear to be substantivized participles, which were end-stressed in PIE, while those with fixed stress (i.e. belonging to AP b) were PIE substantives, which were barytona, cf. e.g. Gr. thanatos ‘death’ < *dhñh2to-,phórtos ‘load’ < 114

*bhortos, etc. (Balles 2008: 178), PGerm. *gulf>a ‘gold’ (Germ. Gold) < *g’í(H)to-. This suffix has very heterogenous origins. In part, words with this suffix are substantivized passive participles derived from verbal roots (e.g. *plotъ ‘fence’ < *plokto- ‘that which is vowen’, *potъ ‘sweat < *pokwto-), but there are also nouns for which deverbal and/or deadjectival origin cannot be proved (*ščitъ ‘shield’). The numerous nomina instrumenti (*delto ‘chisel’, *sito ‘sieve’) could have developed from original nomina actionis, which are common in Germanic (Meid 1967: 143-4), e.g. OHG mord ‘murder’ (n) < *mr-to- (Lat. mori ‘die’), Goth, hliup̀ ‘hearing’ < *k’lew-to- (Gr. klýō ‘hear’, etc.), OHG bad ‘bath’ < *bhhr to- (from the root of Germ, bahen ‘warm up’). For the origin of this suffix see also Sławski 1976. In Baltic, the suffix *-ta- is well attested in Old Prussian, e.g. dalptan ‘chisel’ corresponding to PSI. *dolto ‘id.’, cf. also meltan ‘flour’ (from the root of OCS mleti ‘grind’), anctan ‘butter’ (cf. Lat. unguo ‘smear, grease’ and OHG ancho ‘butter’), cf. also Lith. júosta ‘girdle’ ← júosiu ‘to girdle’. In Greek, Indo-Iranian, and Germanic there is a nominal suffix *-to- added to verbal stems to derive nomina actionis, e.g. nóstos ‘return’ ← néomai ‘return’, Goth, hliup̀ ‘hearing’ and Av. sraota- ‘id.’ < *k’lew-to- (from the root *k’lew- ‘hear’ > OCS slutí), OHG mord ‘murder’ < *mr-to- (from the root *mer- ‘die’ > Lat. monor, Skr. mriyate), Skr. bhūtám ‘existence’ ← bhū- ‘be’. This last form is parallel to PSI. *bytъ ‘being’ (ORuss. bytъ ‘essence’, Pol. byt ‘state’) ← *byti ‘be’ (OCS bytí), but the genders do not agree (probably because the Slavic word became a barytone by Hirt’s law, and then masculine by lllič-Svityč’s rule). Such abstracts are mostly neuter, but feminines in *-teh2 (originally collectives o f neuters) are also found, cf. Goth, slahta ‘killing’ ← slahan ‘slay’, Gr. brontē ‘thunder’ ← brèmõ ‘roar’. [Sławski 1974-1979,11:35-40]

2.10.24 *-tva *-itva, which was abstracted from infinitives in *-iti- e.g. *modliti ‘pray’ (Croat, mȏliti, Pol. modlić) *modlitva ‘prayer’ (OCS molitva, Croat, mȏlitva, Russ, molitva, Pol. modlitwa, ESSJa XIX: 92). In origin, this suffix may have come from the PIE suffix *-tu-, which was used to build abstract nouns (see the u-stems). These abstracts formed collectives in *-tuH-/ *-tweH-, from which the Slavic stem in *-twā > *-tva was generalized. A trace of the original form of the suffix (*-tuH > *-ty, Gen. sg. *-tъve) may be the form in -tev, found in Slovene and Čakavian, cf. e.g. Slov. molitev besides molitva, Cak. molitav (besides molitva). In Baltic, we find the suffix *-tuw-a- > Lith. -tuva-, *-tuwjā > Lith. -tuvė, e.g. in kéltuvas ‘crane’ ← kělti ‘raise’, žibintuvě, žibintùvas ‘lamp’ ← žibìnti ‘light’, Skerdžius 1941: 385. In Germanic, we find the suffix *-pwō- with a similar function as in Slavic, cf. Goth, wahtwa ‘watch’ ← wakan ‘to watch’, Goth, ūhtwȏ ‘dawn’ < *unktwā (from the root *nekw- found in Hitt, nekuzi ‘get dark’, cf. Skr. aktú- ‘darkness’ < *nk-tu- and Lith. ankstùs ‘early’ with unetymological -S-). In Greek, there is a large class of verbal abstracta in -tỹs comparable to Slavic action nouns such as OCS žętva ‘harvest’, ORuss. mytva ‘washing’ (← myti ‘wash’), ORuss. jętva ‘imprisonment’ (← jęti

116

‘take, catch’), e.g. Gr. brōtỹs ‘eating’ (cf. bibrṓskō ‘devour’), daitýs ‘portion’ (cf. daiomai ‘divide’), etc. (Balles 2008: 174).

2.10.25 *-vъ, *-vo < *-wa-, *-va < *-wāThis suffix is rather common in Proto-Slavic adjectives, but we also find it in nouns, many of which may be substantivized adjectives, e.g. *pivo ‘beer’ < ‘that which is drunk’, perhaps also *dervo ‘tree, wood’ < ‘wooden (material)’. Masculines: PSl. *glẽvъ ‘slime’ (Russ, glëv, ESSJa VI: 121), possibly inherited from PIE *gloyH-wo- (Gr. glows ‘glutinous substance’). Cf. also *gliva ‘fungus’. PSl. *stávъ (a) ‘position, order’ (Russ, stav, Croat, stȁv, Cz. stav, Vasmer III: 1), Lith. stovà ‘place, position’, stóvas ‘appearance’, Goth. staua ‘court’, from PIE *steh2wo- (from the root *steh2- ‘stand’ > Lat. sto, stare, OCS stojati, etc., LIV 590ff.). It is possible that this noun is derived from the verb *staviti ‘place’ (Croat, stȁviti, etc.), but in this case the origin of *-v- is uncertain. Neuters: PSl. *čȇrvo (c) ‘belly, intestine’ (OCS črēvo ‘womb’, Russ. dial. ěerëvo Pol. trzewo ‘entrails’, Croat, crijèvo ‘gut’, ESSJa IV: 82-3); a different formation is found in OPr. kērmens ‘body’ and Skr. cármcm‘hide, skin’, IEW 940. Arumaa (1985: 33) thinks that this means that the original suffix was *-wen- in (*ker-wen-), but I find this unlikely. A similar alternation between *-w- and *-m- is found in *čьrvь ‘worm’ (see 2.4.1). PSl. *dȇrvo (c) ‘tree, wood’ (OCS drěvo, Russ, dérevo, Pol. drzewo, Croat, dial, drȋvo, ESSJa IV: 211-13); inherited, cf. Lith. dervà 3/4 ‘chip, log’, Latv. dȃrva ‘tar, pitch’. Thematicized PIE u-stem, cf. Gr. dóty ‘spear’, Skr. dāru ‘wood’, Goth, triu ‘wood, tree’ < *doru-, IEW 216. PSl. *pȋvo (c) ‘beer’ (OCS pivo, Russ, pivo, Pol. piwo, Croat, pivo, Derksen 402), derived from the root of *piti ‘drink’ (OCS piti, Croat. Pit 0 -

Feminines:

117

PSÍ, *déví (b) ‘mwda)’ (OCS déva, R m . ob*. drna_ Cz. déva. CroaL ďjém, ESSJa V; 17-#). Presumably from Jbe PIE root * ‘dear’, Serb. Dùšan ← *duša ‘soul’, etc. A feminine form *-ana < *-ānā may be attested in PSl. *poljana ‘field (usually in a wood)’ (SerbCSl. poljana, Russ, poijánct, Pol. polana. Slov. poljána, Vasmer II: 402) ← *polje ‘field’ (OCS polje, Croat, pȍlje, Russ, póle, etc.), and in PSl. *sъmetana ‘cream’ (Russ. smetána, Cz. smetana, Bulg. smetána, Vasmer II: 672), if this is derived from the root *met- ‘throw’ (Russ, metát’, mečú, etc.). The existence of the suffix *-manъ, posited by Sławski (1974-1979, I: 131) is doubtful. It would have been attested in Croat, and Serb, personal names of the type Grdman ← grd ‘haughty’, Vukman ← vũk ‘wolf, as well as in isolated examples such as Ukr. kusmán ‘big piece’ ← kus ‘piece’. The starting point would have been the suffix *-anъ added to nouns and/or adjectives in *-mъ, *-mo, cf. LLus. bělman ‘leucoma’ ← *bẽlъ ‘white’ (cf. Pol. bielmo ‘id.’, Croat. Čak. bělmo). In Lithuanian, there is the suffix -onas which is used to build expressive nouns from verbs and adjectives, e.g. kuprõnas ‘hunchback’ ← kuprà ‘hump, hunch’, Lith. dial, šaukōnas ‘cryer, cry-baby’ ← Šaũkli ‘cry’. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 130-131] 122

2.11.5

*-arjь < *-ārja-

This suffix is used to derive masculine nouns denoting professionals, e.g. OCS grьnьčar’ь ‘potter’ ← grьnьcь ‘bowl’ (Croat, gmčār), OCS tybctr’ь ‘fisherman’ ← ryba ‘fish’ (Croat, r̃ibār̃), OCS vratar’ь ‘porter’ ← vrata ‘door’ (Croat, vràtār, Russ, vratár ’), Pol. kucharz ‘cook’ (Croat, kȕhār ‘id.’) ← *kuxati ‘cook’ (from Germanic), Pol. stolarz ‘carpenter’ (Croat, stȍlār ‘id.’) ← *stolъ ‘table’, etc. Nouns derived with this suffix are accented on the root, if it is acuted, or on the vowel *-a- of the suffix, if the root is non-acuted (Dybo 1981: 176). This suffix was borrowed, through a Germanic (Gothic) intermediary, from Lat. -ārius (e.g. in notārius ‘scribe’), cf. OCS mytar'ь ‘tax-collector’ < Goth, motareis. [Sławski 1974-1979, II: 21-23]

2.11.6

*-avъ < *-āwa-, *-ava < *-āwā-

This suffix is productive in individual Slavic languages, but there are very few exact cognates. PSl. *dьržava ‘power, state’ (Russ, deržáva, Croat, dr̀žava, Vasmer I: 343) ← *dьržati ‘hold’ (OCS drьžati, Russ, d e r ž á t etc.). PSI. *dąbrava (and *dąbrova) ‘(oak) wood’ (OCS dqbrava ‘wood’, Russ, dubrȃva, Croat, dùbrava, OCz. dúbrava ‘oak wood’, cf. also Ukr. dubróva, Pol. dąbrowa, ESSJa V: 93-94) ← *dąbrь ‘oak’ (OPol. dqbr, ESSJa V: 95), besides the more widespread *dąbъ ‘oak’ (Croat, dȗb, etc.). PSl. *rąkavъ (b) ‘sleeve’ (OCS rąkavь, Russ, rukáv, Croat, ritkāv, Pol. rękaw, Vasmer 11: 545) ← *rąka ‘hand’ (OCS rqka, Russ, ruká, Pol. ręka, etc.), perhaps a caique on Latin manica ← manus, but cf. also Lith. rankȏvě ‘sleeve’, which appears to have the same suffix. Cf. also Croat, tvrdava ‘fortress, stronghold’ ← tvrdili ‘make strong’, mèćava ‘snowstorm’ ← mètati ‘throw’, Russ, muravá ‘low grass’ (and Pol. murawa) ← Russ, mur ‘meadow grass’, parallel to Lith. máuras ‘a kind of grass’, etc. The suffix *-ava is common in Slavic hydronyms, cf., e.g., OCz. Bobrova, Ukr. bobrava (ESSJa II: 144) ← *bobrъ ‘beaver’ (Russ, bobr, Cz. bobr, etc.). 123

In origin, this suffix was formed by agglutinating *-wa- > *vъ to nominal and verbal stems in *-ā- > *-a- (e.g. *dьrža-va-); a cognate suffix *-āwyā > Lith. -ově exists in Baltic, cf. Lith. daržóvė ‘vegetables’ (from dar̃žas ‘garden’), also in toponyms such as Vieštóvė, Vindȏvė, etc. (Arumaa 1985: 32).

2.11.7

*-ąga < *-anga- (or *-unga-)

This is a rare suffix found in a few words which appear to be derived from adjectives: PSI. *xaląga ‘hay, shrubs’ (OCS xalqga, Croat, háiuga, Cz. chaluha ‘Fucus’, ESSJa VII: 15). Etymology is uncertain, but this word is probably derived from *xala ‘dirt’ (Croat, hȁia, Bulg. hála ‘monster’, ESSJa VII: 13). PSI. *ostrąga ‘spur’ (Croat, óstmga, Pol. dial, ostręga) ← *ostrь ‘sharp’ (Russ, óstryj, Croat, ȍštar). Cf. also Pol. dial, pstrąg ‘trout’ and Slov. dial, pestniga ‘id.’ ← ♦pьstrъ ‘speckled’ (Russ, péstryj, etc., cf. Croat, pȁstrva ‘trout’), and Pol. morqg ‘ray (fish)’, Croat, mȏmgva ‘id.’ from the root of Russ. marát’ ‘smear’, Pol. mctrctć (Vasmer II: 97). A variant of this suffix exists without nasalization, i.e. PSl. *-oga, cf. Russ, ostrogá ‘spur’, Pol. ostroga ‘id.’, Cz. ostroha (Vasmer II: 287) ← *ostrъ ‘sharp’, perhaps also *matoga ‘hallucination, illusion’ (Slov. matoga, Cz. mátoha, Pol. matoga) from the root of Pol. matać ‘deceive’, Cz. mȃtati ‘be afraid of hallucinations’ (Kurkina 1992: 120). In Germanic, the suffix *-ungō (f.) is very productive, but it is used to derive abstract nouns, cf. OHG kieinunga ‘smallness’ ← klein ‘small’, OE ieornung ‘learning’ ← leornian ‘learn’, etc. (Meid 1967: 209-2011). It is unclear whether there is any relationship with the Slavic suffix *-ąga. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 67-68]

124

2.11.8

*-ela < *-elā-

This rare suffix is found in two nouns denoting insects (*bьčela ‘bee’, *čьmela ‘bumble bee’). A derivative *-eljь is also attested in (dialectal) *kъrpeljь ‘tick’. PSl. *bьčela (b) ‘bee’ (OCS bьčela, Russ, pčelȃ, Pol. pszczoła, Croat, pčèla, ESSJa III: 104-5). An old loanword from some European substratum. The Slavic form shows the thematicized suffix *-el-, common in names of insects and plants. The root appears to be *bit- or *bik-, cf. Lith. Mtě, OPr. bitte, OIr. bech, OE bēo). PSI. *čьmela (and *čьmeljь m.) ‘bumble bee’ (Croat, dial, čmèla, Slov. ěmȇlj, Pol. czmiei, Russ, šmel’, ESSJa IV: 145-146, Kurkina 1992: 142), probably derived from the root *kem-/*kom-, which is also found in *komarъ ‘mosquito’ (CSl. komarь, Russ, komár, Cz. komár), cf. also OPr. camus ‘bumble bee’. PSl. *ьmela ‘mistletoe, Viscum album’ (OCS imela, Croat, imela, Pol. jemiola, Vasmer II: 267) < *h)m-el-, Russ, oméla identical to Lith. āmalas < *h)Om-el-, perhaps from the root *hļem- ‘catch’ (OCS jęti, Croat, imati, Lat. emo ‘buy, take’, etc., IEW 311). Slov. krpèlj and Croat, kr̀pelj ‘tick’ presuppose a proto-form *kъrpel(j)ь, from the same root as *kъrpa ‘rag’ (Croat, kr̀pa), *kъrpati ‘stitch’ (Croat, kr̀pati). Cf. also Croat, dial, krdelo ‘herd’, Slov. krdę́l, Cz. dial, krdel, krdél ‘multitude’ (Kurkina 1992: 144-5), which go back to *kъrd-el- ← *kъrdъ, *kъrdo ‘herd’ (Croat, krd, krdo).

2.11.9

*-enъ, *-eno < *-ena-, *-ena < *-ena-

This suffix is attested in a number of very archaic formations, mostly in inherited PIE n-stems. In a number of examples we find alternation between *-enь and *-enъ (*sьršenь / *sьršenъ ‘hornet’, *grebenь / *grebenъ ‘comb’) which points to the earlier PSl. formation in *-y, Gen. sg. *-en-e, Acc. sg. *en-ь, from which the variant *-enь was generalized. The few feminines in this class (*pelena, *selzenь, *selzena) may be old collectives built to n-stems. Masculines: PSl. *ásenъ (a) ‘ash-tree’ (?o\.jesion, Croat, jasen, ESSJa I: 79-80); PIE *Heh3s- (Lith. úosis, io-stem), Lat. ornus, OHG asc, OIr. uinnius, 125

IEW 782). Besides the o-stem, there is also evidence for a yo-stem in Slavic, cf. Pol. jasień, Russ, j á sen ’, and together these may be taken as evidence for an original n-stem *asen- < *Heh3s-en-. PSl. *belenъ, *belena, *belnъ ‘henbane’ (RussCSl. belenъ, Russ, dial, belen, Cz. blín, Croat, belèna ‘fool’, ESSJa I: 185-7); the Germanic forms show that the non-syncopated forms are original, cf.OE bekne. Perhaps a loanword from some non-IE source (Schrijver 1999). PSl. *sьršenь, *sьršenъ ‘hornet’ (ORuss. sьršenь, Pol. szerszeń Croat, dial, sȑšljēn, Derksen 485-6), from an original ablauting n-stem, cf. OLith. širšuo, Latv. sirsuonis, Lat. crābrō < PIE *k’rh2srōn / *k’rh2sren- (Nussbaum 1986: 252-259). PSl. *grebenъ, *grebenь ‘comb’ (Russ, grében’, Croat, grȅbën, Pol. grzebień Vasmer I: 305) ← *grebti ‘comb, scratch’ (Russ, grebú, grestí, OCS grebq, greti ‘dig’, OPol. grzebę, grześć), from the root of Lith. grěbtí, grěbiu ‘to rake’, Goth, graban ‘dig’. Feminines: PSI. *pelena ‘band, bondage’ (OCS pelena, Russ, pelená ‘shroud’, Croat, pelèna, Derksen 394), cf. Lith. p lēn i ‘band’. Probably from the same root as Lat. pellis < *pelni- ‘skin’, OE fell ‘hide’, 1EW 803f. Perhaps an original *n-stem *pelēn / *pelnos? PSI. *selzem>, *selzena ‘spleen’ (Russ, selezënka, Serbian CSl. slėzenct, Croat, slèzena, Pol. sleziona, Vasmer II: 605); the PIE n-stem cannot be reconstructed precisely, but cf. Skr. plīhán-, Lat. lìēn, Gr. splēn (IEW 987), perhaps from PIE *spelg’h-n- / *splg’h-en-s. Neuters: PSI. *kolẽno ‘knee’ (OCS kolěno, Russ, koléno, Pol. kolano, Croat. kòíjeno, Vasmer I: 598); the comparison with Lith. kẽlis ‘knee’, Latv. celis ‘id.’ does not allow a BSl. reconstruction, but there is also Lith. kelenas pointing to an n-stem (BSl. *kalēn-). It seems that it was thematicized in Slavic. PSI, *pьšenó (b) ‘millet’ (Russ, pšenó, Pol. pszono, Slov. pšéno, Derksen 431), an old verbal adjective from the root of *pixātej > *pьxati ‘push, shove’ (Croat, phati, Pol .pchać, etc.). PSI. *vertenȏ (b) ‘spindle’ (CS vrěteno, Russ, vertem, Pol. wrzeciono, Croat, vřeteno, Derksen 516), cf. Skr. vártana- ‘rotation’, from the root *wert- ‘turn’ (Skr. vártati, etc.). The examples show that this suffix often represents a thematicization of original n-stem suffixes, e.g. *kolẽno < *kalẽn-, *asenъ < *asen-, 126

*sьršenъ < *sьršen-, etc. The original athematic suffix *-en is probably also found in *lepenь ‘piece, leaf (Russ, lepért’, Slov. lépert, Vasmer II: 31), from the root of Lith. lāpas ‘leaf and Latv. lapa ‘id.’. The form lopjeno in ULus. was probably influenced by *lopuxъ ‘burdock’ and other forms of the root with *lop- (*lopata ‘shubble’, etc.).31 In PIE, the original n-stems often had individuative meaning, e.g. Lat. edō, edōnis ‘eater, glutton’ ← edo ‘eat’, Gr. Plátōn ‘broad(shouldered)’ ← platýs ‘broad’, PIE *dhg’hmōn ‘man, earthling’ (Lat. homo, Lith. žmuõ, pol. žmónes, Goth, guma) ← dheg’hōm ‘earth’ (Hitt. tēkan, Gr. khthori). A possible trace of PIE *dhg’hmōn may be preserved in PSl. *mąžь, if it is derived from *gmanžja- (with regular loss of *gbefore *m) and under the assumption that the form of this word was influenced by *mogu- ‘servant, lad’ (Goth, magus, also Lith. žmogùs ‘man’, with *ž- by analogy with žmuō). The individuative function is perhaps preserved in the Slavic suffix *-anъ (see 2.11.4). Besides that, in PIE there was also the possessive suffix *-h3en(“Hoffmann’s suffix”, see Hoffmann 1955), e.g. in PIE *h2ep-h3ōn ‘river’ (‘water-possessing’) > OIr. aub, Gen. sg. abann, Lat. amnis < *abnis, etc. It seems to have left no trace in Slavic. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 124-125, 127-128]

2.11.10 *-erь, *-ero < *-era-, *-era < *-erā-, *-orь < *-araIn PIE this suffix was used in formation of contrastive or comparative adjectives, e.g. PIE *(s)upero- ‘upper, that is above’ (Lat. superus, OHG obero, Av. upara-) ← *(s)uper(i) ‘above’ (Goth, ufar, Lat. super, Skr. upári) ← *(s)up(o) ‘below, under’ (Gr. hypó, Lat. sub, Skr. úpa). In Slavic, this is a rare suffix, and only a few words having it may be inherited from PIE. Masculines and neuters: PSl. *vèčerь (c) ‘evening’ (OCS večerъ, Russ, večer, Pol. wieczór, Croat, vȅčer, Derksen 513), parallel to Lith. vãkaras and Latv. vakars, 31 Croat, bȕsēn ‘scrub’ ← hȗs ‘id.’ probably has the suffix -ēn in analogy with kòrijen ‘root’; the same might hold for Croat, (obsolete) gȑmēn ‘bush’ ← gȑm ‘id.’, while the origin of the suffix -ēn in pȑstēn ‘ring’ ← pȑst ‘finger’ is unknown. 127

further connected to Gr. hésperos, Lat. vesper, perhaps Olr. fescor, etc. (the exact IE reconstruction is burdened with problems, but *weskwerois a possibility, IEW 1173). PSI. *èzero (c) ‘lake’ (OCS jezero, Russ, ózero, Pol. jezioro, Croat. jȅzero, ESSJa VI: 33-4), Lith. ẽžeras, Latv. ęzęrs, OPr. assarart. From the same root as *ẽzъ ‘balk, weir’ (Croat, jaz). Perhaps related to Arm. ezr ‘edge’. PSI. *čemerь ‘poison’ (Russ, čémer ‘headache’, Croat, čȅmēr, Cz. center, Vasmer III: 315, ESSJa IV: 52-53), probably from the word meaning ‘Hellebore’, a poisonous plant (Lith. pl. kemerai, OHG hemem), which may be from *kemero-, a borrowing from some Central European substratum language. Since the root cannot be established, it is uncertain whether *-ero- is a suffix in this case. PSI. *stežerь ‘stack, pole’ (RussCSl. stežerъ, Bulg. stéžer, ULus. śćežor, Vasmer 111: 8), parallel to Lith. stāgaras ‘dry stalk’, stegerỹs ‘id.’ from the root of *stogъ ‘stack, haystack’ (Russ, slog, etc.). There is also a variant *stožerъ (Croat, stòžer, stȍžer, CSl. stožerь). Apart from these, we find words derived with *-ero- without parallels outside of Slavic: PSI. *aščerъ ‘lizard’ (OCS aštera (Supr.), Russ, jȃšěer ‘inflammation of the tongue’, Pol. dial, jaszczór, ESSJa I: 87-9); the etymology of this word is uncertain, but perhaps it is derived from *h)oh|k’- ‘swift’ (Gr. ōkýs etc., NHL 201). PSI. *ьverъ ‘splinter, chip’ (Ukr. iver, Bulg. Iver, Pol. wiór, Croat. ȉvēr, Vasmer I: 468) has a disputed etymology, but could, in principle, be derived from the zero-grade of the PIE root for ‘grain, cereal’, *iw-ero- (Tijmen Pronk, p.c.), cf. the full grade in *yewo- (Skr. yáva-, Lith. pi .javai, etc., IEW 512). A reflex of an original heterocliton may be preserved in Russ. dial. ědery (pl., in the phrase pitery i ědery ‘to drink and to eat’), if this is parallel to Gr. eīdar, -atos ‘food’ < PIE *h1ed-wr (NHL 208), from the root *h,ed- ‘eat’ (OCS jasti, Lat. edo, etc.). In the word for ‘sickle’ (PSI. *kosorь) the suffix *-erь alternates with *-on>, cf. CSl. kosorь, Croat, kȍsōr, Bulg. kóser, Pol. kosior ‘pick, little shubble’. The root is found in CSl. kosa ‘scythe’. On the variant *-orъ see 2.11.40. Feminines in *-era are rare, and often have very few cognates:

128

PSI. *esera ‘fishbone, awn’ (Pol. dial, jesiotry, ESSJa VI: 29-30), Lith. ešerỹs ‘perch, fin’. Derived from the root *h2ek’- ‘sharp’ (OCS ostrъ, Lat. acūtus, etc.). OCS peštera ‘cave’ and Russ, pečȏra are derived from *pektь ‘oven’ (OCS peštь, Croat, pȇć, etc.). CSl. nestera ‘niece’, OPol. nieściora, Croat, dial, nèstera probably go back to an athematic *nestẽr-, parallel to *mātēr > *mati ‘mother’, but thematicized on the basis of the Acc. sg. stem *nester-; the root is PIE *nepōt-, *nept- as in *netii ‘nephew’ (OCS netii, etc.). There is alternation between *-ora and *-era in *kotora, *kotera ‘strife’ (Russ, kotorá, ORuss. kotera, OCS kotora, Vasmer 1: 646), which is parallel to OHG hader ‘strife’, presumably from the root of OIr. cath ‘battle’, W cad < *kat- (EDPC 195). This suffix is related to monosyllabic *-ro-, but exact parallels in other IE languages are rare. In Greek we find productive derivation of adjectives in -m>-, e.g. phanerós ‘bright’, eleútheros ‘free’, but these have little in common with Slavic nouns listed above. [Sławski 1974-1979,11:23-24]

2.11.11 *-eto < *-etaThis suffix appears to be attested in the following lexical item: PSl. *teneto (b) ‘net, snare’ (RussCSl. teneto, Russ, tenëto, Cz. teneto, Derksen 490). Related to Lith. tmklas ‘net’, from the root *ten‘stretch’ (Skr. tanóti etc., LIV 626T, IEW 1065T, NIIL 691). It would appear that we have the same suffix in PSI. *rešeto ‘sieve’ (Russ, rešetó, Pol. rzeszoto, Croat, rešèto, Vasmer II: 518-519), but the etymology of that word is unknown. A similar suffix *-eto- occurs in Greek (Vine 1998, Balles 2008: 252), where it builds masculine nouns, e.g. aietȏs ‘eagle’ < *h2ewi-eto- (cf. Lat. avis ‘bird’), phlogetós ‘heat’ ← phlégō ‘bum’, etc.

129

2.11.12 *-ežь < *-ezjaThis suffix is used to derive masculine abstract nouns (*grabežь ‘pillage’, *mętežь ‘trouble’) mostly from verbal roots, but it is also found in some feminine collectives (*moldežь ‘youth’). PSl. *čьrtežь ‘drawing’ (ORuss. čьrtežь, Cz. črtež, Croat, cŕtež, ESSJa IV: 162-163) ← *čьrtati ‘draw’ (OCS črьtatì, Slov. ěŕtati, etc.). PSI. *grabežь ‘pillage’ (Russ, grabëž, Croat, grábež, Pol. grabież, Vaillant 1974: 505) ← *grabiti ‘take, seize’ (Croat, grȁbiti ‘seize’, OCS grabili). PSI. *madežь ‘mole’ (Slov. tnȃdež , Russ, mádež, Vasmer II: 86) < PIE *meh2d- ‘wet’ (ON. mōt ‘sign’ , Gr. madáō ‘to wet’, 1EW 694-5). PSI. *mętežь ‘fuss, uprising’ (OCS mętežь, Croat, métež, Russ. mjatéž, OCz. mětež, Slk. mãtež, ESSJa XIX: 17-18) ← *met- ‘throw’ (Russ, mesti, etc.). PSI. *padežь ‘fall’ (Russ, padëž, Croat, pȁdẽž ‘case’, a caique of Lat. casus, Vaillant 1974: 505) ← *pasti ‘fall’ (OCS pasti, Croat, pasti, Russ, past ’). The suffix *-ežь often has pejorative meaning, cf. Croat, tridež ‘roť ← trùliti ‘roť, páiež ‘burning’ ← pálili ‘bum’ (Russ, palëž), lávež ‘barking’ ← íajati ‘bark’, lúpež ‘thief (Cz. loupež ‘robbery’, Russ. dial. lupëž ‘id.’), Bulg. bodéž ‘sharp pain’, Croat, bȏdež ‘knife’ ← *bosti, *bodą ‘prick, stick’. It is also found in collective i-stems (< augmentatives) as in PSl. *moldežь ‘youth’ (Russ, moiodéž, Croat. mládež (perhaps from Russian), Pol. młodzież) ← *moldъ 'young' (Croat, mlád, etc.), cf. also Kurkina 1992: 118-119. The origin of this suffix is unclear. Vaillant 1974: (507) thinks it was borrowed, through German, from Romance, and that its ultimate origin is Latin -aticum (cf. It. viaggio ‘travel’, Fr. voyage ‘id.’ < Lat. viaticum), but this is unlikely since it does not occur in any Romance or Germanic loanwords. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 69-70]

2.11.13 *-ębъ < *-imbaThis suffix is found mostly in bird names:

130

♦ásъtrębъ (a) ‘hawk’ (ORuss. jȃstrjab, Pol. jastrząb, Croat, jȁstrẽb, ESSJa 1: 83-5), from a PIE compound *h1oh1k’u-ptro- ‘swift-flying’, cf. Lat. accipiter ‘hawk, falcon’. ♦erębъ (also *erębь) ‘partridge’ (ORuss. erjabь, Pol. dial, jetzqbek, Croat, dial, jȁrẽb, Slov. jeręb, ESSJa I: 73-76). Related to OIc. jarpi ‘hazel-grouse’, but ultimately perhaps of substratum origin (Derksen 2000). We have a similar formant (*-ąbь-) in PSl. *goląbь (OCS goląbь, Russ, gólub' (jo), Cz. holub (o), Croat, gȍlūb (o), Derksen 175), cf. also Russ, goiubȏj ‘pale blue’, OPol. gołęby ‘blue-grey’ and OPr. golimban ‘blue’). The relationship of these words to Lat. coiumba ‘pigeon’ is unclear. In Croatian, this suffix seems to have been productive at an early stage, as it spread to tȅtrijeb ‘grouse’ (Russ, téterev, Pol. cietrzew < PSI. *tetervъ, Vasmer III: 100-101, cf. Lith. tetervas, Gr. létrales) and gȁlẽb ‘seagull’, where the suffix was added to *galъ (Russ, gálka ‘corvus moneduiď, Bulg. gálica). It is possible that this suffix developed by metathesis of nasals following bilabial stops, i.e. that we would need to posit n-stems in PIE: Nom. sg. *ereb-ēn / Gen. sg. *erebn-os > *eremb-os, from which the new stem *erembo- was derived. In this case the primary suffix would have been *-bh-, which is also found in PIE names for animals, e.g. Skr. vfsabhá- ‘bull’, Gr. ėlaphos ‘deer’, Gr. ériphos ‘kid’, etc. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 62]

2.11.14 *-ęcь < *-inkaThis suffix appears to be attested only in the name of the moon, and perhaps in the noun denoting ‘hare’: PSl. *mě̑sęcь (a) ‘moon, month’ (OCS měsęcъ, Russ, mésjac, Pol. miesiąc, Croat, mjȅsẽc, ESSJa XVIII: 191-5); built to an s-stem found in Lith. mėnuo, Latv. mẽness, cf. also OPr. menig’moon’ (Otrębski 1972). PIE *mehļns (Lat. mẽnsis ‘month’, Gr. Ion. meis, Gen. sg. mēnȏs ‘moon’, OHG māno moon’), from the root *mehr ‘measure’ (Skr. mati ‘measures’, etc.). PSl. *zajęcь ‘hare’ (Russ, zájac, Slov. zȃjec, Pol. zając, Vasmer 1: 446), presumably from the same root as in Lith. žáidžiu, žáisti ‘jump’, perhaps Skr. hȃya- ‘horse’). 131

Given that the suffix *-ęcь < *-inka- is limited to only two lexical items, one is tempted to assume that the correct analysis of *měsęcь < *mẽsinka- is *mēsen-ka-, i.e. that the suffix *-ka- > *-kъ was added to the stem *mēsen-, which may have been metathesized from *mēnes-, which is found in Baltic. PSl. *zajęcь could also be from *zājen- (an nstem, like *elen- ‘deer’, see 2.4.6), with the diminutive suffix *-ka-.

2.11.15

*-ędzь < *-inga-

This suffix was borrowed from Germanic. It occurs in a number of nouns that can be reconstructed in Common Slavic or Proto-Slavic, e.g, *kъnędzь ‘duke’ (Croat, kněz, Russ, knjaz’), cf. OHG kuning ‘king’, PSl. *koldędzь ‘spring, well’ (OCS kladędzь, Croat, klȁdenac, Russ, dial, kolódjaz ’) from Germanic *kalding- (cf. Goth, kalds ‘cold’), PSl. *penędzь ‘money, coin’ (OCS penędzь, Russ, pénjaz’, Croat, dial. pȅnēz, Pol. pieniądz), cf. OHG phenning (Eng. penny), see PronkTiethofif 2013: 85, 91, 134. For the origin of the Germanic suffix see Meid 1967: 198-204. [Sławski 1974-1979,1:66]

2.11.16 *-ẽjь, *-ajь (after palatals) < *-ējaThis suffix is found in deverbal nouns, mostly built from prefixed verbs: PSl. *obyčajь ‘custom’ (OCS obyěai, Russ, obýčaj, Pol. obyczaj, Croat, ȍbičāj, Vasmer II: 247), from *ob- and the root of *vyknąti ‘get accustomed to’, Russ, výknut'. PSI. *rodjajь ‘birth’ (ORuss. rožaj, Pol. rodzaj ‘kind’, Croat, arch. rȍdāj ‘birth’), from the root of *roditi ‘bear’ (OCS roditi, Croat, rodiii, etc.). Other examples from OCS include priključai ‘event’ ← prikíjuěiti sę ‘happen’, myšíjai ‘thought’ ← mysliti ‘think’, etc., cf. also Croat. dȍgadāj ‘event’ ← dogóditi se ‘happen’, Croat, snr̀írāj ‘aquiescence’ ← smiriti se ‘calm down’, Russ, negodją́j ‘evil person, hobo’ ← ne + godit’ ‘not + be pleasant’. In Polish and Ukrainian, -aj often has augmentative meaning, cf. Ukr. nosaj ‘long-nosed person’ ← nis ‘nose’, OPol. nogaj ‘long-legged man’ ← noga ‘leg’. 132

This Slavic suffix is cognate with the Baltic deverbal suffix *-ēja- > Lith. -ėjcts, Latv. -ẽjs, built to the stem of the preterite in *-ē- (Vaillant 1974: 532-3), which corresponds to the Slavic imperfect, cf. Lith. davějas ‘giver’ ← dāvě ‘he gave’ (from the root of dúoti ‘give’, OCS dati), rašėjas ‘writer’ ← rāšě ‘he wrote’, sějéjas ‘sower’, Latv. sējējs from the root of Lith. sēti ‘sow’, etc. In Baltic, this suffix builds nomina agentis, which is rarely found in Slavic, but cf. ORuss. šьvějь ‘one who sews’, which is parallel to Lith. dial, siuvėjas ‘id.’. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 86-87]

2.11.17 *-ica PSl. *-ka > *-ca by third palatalization) was added (*wlkwih2 > *vьlčica ‘shew olf). [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 97-99]

2.11.18 *-ikъ < *-ejkaThe original shape of the suffix (*-ejka- rather than *-īka-) is ascertained by the absence of the third palatalization. The derived variant *-(n)ikъ is very productive in the individual Slavic languages. It is usually added to stems of the participles and adjectives in *-enъ and adjectives in *-ьnъ. Among examples from OCS we find the following: OCS ąz(ь)nikъ ‘prisoner’ (Croat, ȕznīk), OCS blaženikъ ‘holy man’ ← blaženъ ‘blessed’ (Croat, blȃženīk), OCS dlъžnikь ‘debtor’ ← dlьžьnъ ‘indebted’ (Croat, dùžnīk, Russ, dȏlžník), OCS grěšъnìkь ‘sinner’ (Croat, gríjȇšnīk) ← grěšьnъ ‘sinful’, OCSjarьmьnikь ‘beast of burden’ ← jarъmo ‘yoke’, OCS ljubljeníkъ ‘lover’ ← ljubljenъ ‘loved’, *mqčenikъ ‘martyr’ ← mąěenь ‘tortured’ ← mąčítí ‘torture’ (cf. ORuss. mąěenikъ, OPol. męczennik, ESSJa XX: 112), CSl. napastьnikъ ‘attacker’ (Ukr. napȃsnik, Croat, nápasník, Pol. napastnik) ← *napastь ‘attack’ (Croat, nápast), ratьnikъ ‘soldier, adversary’ ← ratьnъ ‘pertaining to war’ (Croat, rȁtnīk), etc. Words derived with this suffix are usually oxytona (AP b), unles derived from acuted roots (Dybo 1981: 175-6), cf. Russ, učeník, Gen. sg. učeníků ‘pupil’, Croat, dùžnīk. Gen. sg. dužníka ‘debtor’. It is unclear whether there is a variant with a voiced velar, *-ejgā > *-iga-, in PSI. *veriga ‘chain’ (Russ, veríga, Croat, vèriga, Bulg veriga, 134

Vasmer I: 189), if this is from the root of Lith. veriù, vérti ‘open, close’, as is usually assumed. In Baltic, we find the similar suffix in Lith. -ininkas (e.g. darbinmkas ‘worker’ ← dar̃bas ‘work’), but this may have been borrowed from Slavic. In Latvian, the corresponding suffix is -nieks (cf. Latv. darbinieks ‘worker’). [Sławski 1974-1979,1:90-91]

2.11.19 *-imъ < *-ejma-, *-imaThis suffix is mostly represented by substantivized passive present participles (originally found in verbs in *-iti), e.g. Croat, pòbratim ‘member of a fraternity’, CSl. bratimъ ← bratiti sę ‘to fraternize’ ← *bratrъ ‘brother’ (OCS bratrь, Croat, brȁt, etc.). [Sławski 1974-1979,11: 14-15]

2.11.20 *-ina (1) < *-ejnaThis suffix derives feminines, concrete nouns, often nouns denoting materials (*ẽrina ‘wool’), from other nouns. It is also found in deadjectival abstract nouns (*širina ‘width’). PSl. *bolzina ‘beam’ (Croat, blàzina ‘pillow, bolster’, Slov. Mazina ‘cross-beam’, ESSJa II: 183-4). Inherited in light of Lith. balžíenas (1/3) ‘cross-beam’, OPr. balsinis ‘cushion’, from PIE *bholg’h- (OHG balko ‘beam’). See also *bolzьno. PSI. *bystriná (b) ‘swiftness, rapid (in a river)’ (Russ, bystriná, Pol. bystrzyna, Croat, bistrina, ESSJa III: 152-3), derived from *bystrъ ‘swift, quick’ (usually predicated of rivers and brooks, cf. OCS bystrь, Russ, býstrij, Croat, bistar, etc.). PSI. *ẽrina ‘wool’ (ORuss. jarina, Pol. jarzyna ‘vegetables’, Croat. jȁrina ‘lamb’s w o o ljarina ‘spring crop’, ESSja VIII: 173-4), from the same root as *ẽrę ‘lamb, kid’ (Croat.jȁre). PSI. *godina ‘moment’ (OCS godina, Croat, gȍdina ‘year’, Pol. godzina ‘hour’) ← *godъ ‘year, period’ (OCS godь, Russ. god). PSI. *tišiná (b) ‘silence’ (Russ, tišina, Croat, tišina) ← *tixъ ‘quiet’ (OCS íixъ, Russ, tixij, Croat, tíh). 135

PSI. *krivina ‘curve’ (Croat, křivina, Russ. dial, křivina, Cz. křivina) ← *krivъ ‘curved’ (OCS krivь, Croat, krív, Pol. krzywy, Russ, krivój, etc.). PSI. *širiná (b) ‘width’ (OCS šiřina, Russ. širiná, Croat, šiřina). In OCS we find the following examples (among others): brьzìna ‘speed’ ← brьzъ ‘quick’ (Croat, brzina), čistina ‘purity’ ← čistъ ‘clear’ (Croat, čistina), sēdina ‘gray hair’ ← sėdъ ‘gray’ (Croat, sjèdina, Russ. sēdina). In principle, abstract feminines derived with this suffix are oxytone (AP b), e.g. *širina ‘width’, while concrete nouns and collectives derived from a similar suffix *-īnā > *-ina belong to AP a (*družina ‘company, squad’); this latter suffix is treated below. Originally, *-ina was a suffix for deriving possessive adjectives from feminine nouns (e.g. *mati, Gen. sg. *matere -> *materinъ ‘mother’s’, Russ, máterin, Croat, mȁterīn). The feminine form of this adjective was substantivized, often in the meaning ‘stuff belonging to the base word’, e.g. Russ, svinina ‘pork’ ← svin’jȃ ‘pig’, Pol. wołowina ‘beef ← wól ‘head of cattle’, Croat, jȁnjetina ‘lamb meat’ ← jȁnje ‘Iamb’, etc. In Baltic, we find the Lith. suffix —iena which has a similar function, e.g. avienà ‘mutton’ ← avis ‘sheep’, cf. also Lat. haedīna ‘kid’s flesh’ ← haedus ‘kid’, Lat. rāpīna ‘turnip-field’ ← rāpum ‘turnip’ (cf. also Lith. ropìenà ‘turnip-field’ ← rópě ‘turnip’), Lat .farina ‘flour’ ←fa r ‘spelt’ (Goth, berizeins ‘made of barley’, cf. OE bere ‘barley’). [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 120-123]

2.11.21 *-ina (2) < *-īnāThis suffix is often found in collectives (*družina ‘company’) and augmentatives (*mẽšina ‘large sack, bellows’). It is sometimes difficult to differentiate it from the similar *-ina < *-ejnā. PSI. *družína (a) ‘company, squad’ (OCS dntžìna, Russ, družina, Cz. družina, Croat, drùžina, ESSJa V: 134-5) ← *drugъ ‘companion, friend’. PSI. *kąpina ‘bush’ (OCS kqpina, Russ. arch, kupiná, Croat, kūpina ‘blackberry’, ESSJa XIII: 63-64) ← *kąpa ‘bush’ (Pol. arch, kępa), cf. also Lith. kùmpa ‘swelling’.

136

PSI. *malína (a) ‘raspberry’ (Slov. malina, Russ, malina, Cz. malina, Skok II: 363) < PIE *mel(h2)- ‘black’ (Gr. mélas, Lith. mělas ‘dark blue’). PSI. *mẽšina ‘large sack, bellows’ (Bulg. mešína. Slov. mešína, Russ. dial, mešína (ESSJa XVIII: 217), from *mẽxъ ‘sack, bellows’. PSl. *mъnožina ‘multitude’ (Croat, množina, Russ. dial, množina, Slk. množina, ESSJa XX: 232) ← *mъnogъ ‘many’ (OCS mъrtogь, etc.). PSl. *paąčina ‘spider’s web’ (OCS paqčina, Croat, pȁuěina, Russ. pautina, with irregular -t-) ← *paąkъ ‘spider’ (Croat, pȁūk, Russ, pauk, etc.). Secondary extensions of this suffix include *-ovina, abstracted from u-stems, e.g. in PSI. *polovina (OCS polovina ‘half, Russ, polovina, Croat, polóvina ← *polъ ‘half (Russ, poi, Croat, pȍia), and *-otina, built to abstracts in *-ota, e.g. PSl. *bljьvotina ‘vomit’ (OCS pl. bljьvotiny, Russ, blevȏtina, Croat, bijùvotína). In contradistinction to those with the similar suffix *-ejnā > *-ina, which belong mostly to AP b (unless they have acuted roots), nouns derived with this suffix belong to AP a, with the acute falling either on the acuted root or on the vowel *-i- of the suffix (Dybo 1981: 173). In Baltic, the exact correspondance is found in Lith., where we have adjectives derived in -ynas, feminine -ỹně, e.g. akmenỹně ‘stony ground’ ← akmuõ ‘stone’. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 120-123]

2.11.22 *-inъ < *-ejnaThis suffix was often used for deriving singulatives from ethnic names in *-yān- > *-jẽn- (see that suffix). It also occurs in singulatives corresponding to other nouns referring to humans, e.g. PSl. *voinъ ‘soldier’ (OCS voinъ, ORuss. voinъ, Cz. vojín, Derksen 524), derived from *waja- > *vojь ‘soldier’ > OCS voi, cf. also the derivative (with the suffix -ak- in Pol. wojak ‘soldier’). We also find it in OCS gospodinъ ‘lord’ ← gospodь ‘lord’ (Croat, gospódin), OCS Ijudinъ ‘layman’ ← collective ljudьje ‘people’ (Croat. íjȗdi, Pol. ludzi), cf. Grošelj 1972. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 120] 137

2.11.23 *-išče < *-ȋskja-, *-ȋstja-

This suffix forms neuters which usually denote locations (nomina loci)\ the PSl. form *-išče may be regularly derived from both *-ĩskja- and *-ĩstja- (and *-ejskja- and *-ejstja-): PSI. *bojišče ‘battlefield’ (Croat, bȍjīšte, Ukr. boišče, OCz. bojišěe, ESSJa 11: 166-167), derived from *bojь ‘battle’ (OCS bojь, Croat, bój, Cz. boj, etc.). PSI. *boltišče ‘muddy place’ (Croat, blȁtīšte, blàtište, Ukr. bolotíšěe, Cz. blatiště, ESSJa II: 179 ), derived from *bolto ‘mud, swamp’ (OCS blato, Croat, bláto, etc.). PSI. *ležisko, *ležišče ‘lying ground’ (Croat, ièžīšle, Russ, iežíšče, Pol. iežysko ‘den, lair’, ESSJa XIV: 166-167) ← *ležati ‘lie’ (OCS ležatí, Croat, lèžati, Russ, ležát’, Pol. leżeć). In Polish, the old suffix -iszczę (preserved in Kashubian) was replaced with the suffix -isko (as in this example) from the 14th century onwards (Vaillant 1974: 427-8). It is also found in Ukrainian, cf. Ukr. ognisko ‘hearth’ vs. Croat, ȏgnjīšte ‘id.’, Russ, ogníšče ‘a place (in the open) where fire is lighted’. In OCS we find the following examples (among others): grobište ‘grave’ ← grobъ ‘grave’, is-xodište ‘exit’ ← isxoditi ‘to exit’, po-zorište ‘theater’ ← zьrěti ‘to watch’, sqdište ‘court o f law’ ← sqditi ‘to judge’. The suffix *-lišče is derived from the preceding one and has the same function. It is formed by adding *-išče to the stem of the 1participle of the base verb (e.g. xranilъ ← xrcmiti, žiiъ ← žiti). In OCS we find the following examples (among others): biqdilište ‘brothel’ ← blqditi ‘to fornicate’, sědaìište ‘seat’ ← sědati sę ‘to sit down’, vъiagalište ‘sack, bag’ ← vъlagati ‘to put in’ (Russ, vlagalíšče ‘vagina’), žilište ‘dwelling’ ← žiti ‘to live’, xraniìište ‘storage’ ← xraniti ‘to hide, store’. It is difficult to ascertain whether the original form of the suffix was *-istja- or *-iskja-. In Baltic, we find diminutives such as OPr. eristian ‘lamb’ (cf. Lith. ėras ‘ewe’), OPr. werstian ‘calf (cf. Lith. ver̃šis ‘cow’), but according to Vaillant 1974: (427-8) this suffix was borrowed from Polish. The form *-iskja- might be original, if it was formed by adding the adjectival suffix *-skja- (itself derived from original *-ska- < PIE *-sko-) to verbal stems in *-i-, e.g. *lovišče ‘hunting-ground’ (Croat, iòvīšte) ← *loviti ‘to hunt’ (Croat, iȏviti). Substantivized 138

adjectives would then have developed the meaning of nomina loci (? ‘hunting’ > ‘hunting ground’), but this is, of course, a rather speculative account. In Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic, the suffix *-iska- builds denominal adjectives denoting origin, cf. OCS zemljъskъ ‘earthly’ ← zemija ‘earth’, Lith. dañgiškas ‘heavenly’ ← dangùs ‘heaven’, Goth. mannish ‘manly’ ← manna ‘man’. [Sławski 1974-1979,1:95-97]

2.11.24 *-itjь < *-ītjaThis suffix is used to derive masculine nouns referring to young humans and animals and diminutives. PSl. *božitjь ‘young god’ (Croat. Bóžić ‘Christmas’, OCz. božic ‘son of God’, ESSJa II: 228) ← *bogъ ‘god’ (Croat, bȏg, Russ, bog, etc.). PSl. *brátitjь (a) ‘cousin’ (Croat, brȁtić, ORuss. bratiěь, ESSJa II: 237) ← *brat(r)ъ ‘brother’ (Russ, brat, Croat, brȁt, etc.). PSl. *děditjь ‘inheritor’ (Croat, dial. (Čak.) djȅdić, Russ. dial, dědič, Cz. dědic, ESSJa IV: 226). Examples from OCS include dětištь ‘infant’ ← dětę ‘child’ (Croat, dial, djètīć, ORuss. dětičь, ESSJa V: 15), pъtištь ‘young bird’ ← pъtica (Croat, ptȋć). In many Slavic languages this suffix is quite productive, cf. *korlevitjь ‘prince’ ← *korljevъ ‘king’s’ ← *korljь ‘king’ < Germ. *Karlu- ‘Carolus Magnus, Charlemagne’ (Croat, krȃljević, Russ. korolēvič, Pol. krolewic, królewicz (influenced by Russian), etc.). Words with this suffix generally belong to AP a. The suffix was acuted, so all nouns with non-acuted roots were stressed on it throughout the paradigm (*božítjь), and nouns with the acute on the root were stressed on the root throughout the paradigm (*brátitjь ‘cousin’), see Dybo 1981: 173-4. This Slavic suffix is related to Lith. diminutive suffix -ytis, e.g. brolýtis ‘little brother’ ← brólis ‘brother’, žąsýtis ‘little goose’ ← žąsìs ‘goose’ (Vaillant 1974: 335). [Sławski 1974-1979: 55-57]

139

2.11.25 *-ivo < *-ejw a-, *-iw a-; *-iva < *-ejw ā-, *-iw a-

The neuters in *-ivo often denote substances, especially kinds of food. Neuters: PSI. *kladivo ‘mallet’ (OCS kladivo, Cz. kládivo, Croat, klȁdivo) ← *klasti, *kladą ‘throw’ (OCS klāsti, Russ, klast’, etc.). PSl. *melzivo ‘first milk’ (Russ, molózivo, Cz. mlezivo, Vasmer 11: 151), from the root of *melzti, *mьlzą ‘milk’ (OCS mlěsti, Croat, mȕsū, múzem, cf. also Lith. mélžu). PSI. *sočivo ‘lentils’ (CSl. sočivo, Russ, sȏčivo, Serb, sȍčīvo) ← *sokъ ‘juice’ (OCS sokъ, Russ, sole, etc.). PSl. *varivo ‘cooked vegetables, soup’ (Russ, várivo, Pol. warzywo ‘vegetables’, Croat, vȁrīvo ‘cooked vegetables’) ← *variti ‘boil’ (OCS variti, Pol. warzyć, etc.). Feminines: PSl. *kropiva, *kopriva ‘nettle’ (CSl. kropiva, Croat, kòpríva, Pol. pokrzywa (with metathesis), Russ, kropiva, krapiva, Vasmer 1: 667), perhaps from *kopn> ‘fennel’ (Croat, kȍpar, Pol. kopr, Russ, kopēr̃). PSI. *tętiva ‘cord’ (OCS tętiva, Russ, tjativá, Pol. cięciwa, Croat. tětiva, Vasmer 111: 168), built from the participle *tętъ of the verb *tęti ‘stretch’ (Russ. tjat). The suffixes with original *ej < *ey and *T < *iH were confounded in Early PSl.

2.11.26 *-ьba < *-ibāThis suffix is mostly used to derive abstract nouns from verbs and agent nouns: PSI. *služьba ‘service’ (OCS služьba, Russ, slúžba, Pol. služba, Croat, slȕžba), ← *služiti ‘to serve’ (Croat, slúžiti, Russ, slúžit’, etc.). PSI. *družьba ‘friendship’ (OCS dmžьba, Russ, dríižba, Croat. dr̃ȕžba, ESSJa V: 135-6) ← *drugъ ‘comrade, friend’ (OCS drugь, Russ, drug, Croat, dmg, etc.). In OCS we also find the following examples (among others): OCS alъěьba ‘fast’ from OCS alъkati ‘to fast’, OCS cělьba ‘healing, cure’ from OCS cẽiiti ‘to cure’, OCS molъba ‘request’ from OCS moliti ‘pray’ (Croat, mȏlba, Russ, m ol’bȃ, OCz. modlba, ESSJa XIX: 94), OCS 140

svatьba ‘wedding’ from OCS *svatъ ‘wife’s or husband’s relative’ (OCS svatъ, Russ, svat, Croat, svař, Pol. swat, Vasmer II: 586-7), OCS tatьba ‘theft’ from tatь ‘thief, etc. Note also Croat, grózba ‘threat’, Cz. hrozba ← *groziti ‘threaten’ (ESSJa VII: 143), Slov. brȃmba ‘defence’, Russ. dial, boron’ba ‘id.’, ULus. bróńba ‘id.’ ← *bomiti ‘defend’ (ESSJa II: 209).32 In Baltic, we find a similar suffix with a similar function, but with long *ĩ, cf. Lith. gývyba ‘life’ (cf. gývas ‘alive’), Lith. draugyba ‘friendship’, Latv. draudzība (cf. Lith. draùgas ‘friend’), Latv. aklība ‘blindness’ ← akls ‘blind’. Lithuanian also has numerous deadjectival abstract nouns in -ybě ( Lith. —yba). Originally, this suffix may represent the agglutinated stem of the verb ‘to be’ (PIE *bhweh2-, the full grade of *bhuh2- attested in OCS bytí, Lith. buti, etc.). A less probable hypothesis is envisaged by NHL (7), following Heidermanns (1996), who sees in this suffix the agglutinated PIE root *bheh2- ‘shine’ (Skr. bhā- ‘light’). See also *-oba, 2.11.36. [Sławski 1974-1979,1:61-62]

2.11.27 *-ьcь, *-ьce/ *-ьca < *-ika-/*-ikāThis suffix often has diminutive or meliorative meaning (*ajьce ‘egg’, *ẽrьcь ‘young goat’), but in many old derivatives this meaning is no longer recognizable (e.g. *sъlnьce ‘sun’, *otьcь ‘father’). It also denotes nomina agentis (*gądьcь, *šьvьcь ‘tailor’, *žьrьcь ‘priest’). In some cases words formed with it have parallels in other IE languages (*šьvьcь ‘tailor, shoemaker’, *ovьca ‘sheep’), but there are few exact lexical cognates. 32 On this suffix see Osten-Sacken 1909, Kurkina 1992: 113.

141

Masculines: PSI. *ẽrьcь ‘young goat’ (Russ. dial, jaréc ‘one year old beaver’, Pol. jarzec ‘spring barley’, Croat, jȁrac ‘he-goať ESSja VIII: 180-1), diminutive to *ẽrъ, *ẽro ‘spring’ (Ukr.y̑ar, Cz.jaro, Croat.jȃr̃). PSI. *gądьcь (b) ‘fiddle player’ (OCS gądьcь, Croat, arch. gúdac, Russ. dial, gudéc, Pol. gędziec, ESSJa VII: 81), derived from the verb *gąditi, *gąsti ‘play a fiddle (*gąsli)’ (Po. dial, gędzić, Croat, arch. gūsti). PSI. *kobьcь ‘merlin’ (ORuss. kobecь, Slk. kobee, Croat, kòbac, ESSJa X: 101); the etymology of this word is disputed, but a derivation is possible from *kobь ‘fate’, see 2.4.1. The semantic connection would lie in augural rites. PSl. *konьcь ‘end’ (Croat, kȏnac, Russ, koniéc, Pol. koniec, ESSJa XI: 5-6) ← *konъ ‘end’ (Russ, kon, OCz. kon), from PIE *ken- ‘new, young’ (Lat. re-cens ‘new’, etc.). PSl. *mьrtvьcь ‘dead body’ (OCS mrьtvьcь, Russ, mertvéc', Cz. mrtvec, ESSJa XXI: 148) ← *mьrtvъ ‘dead’ (Russ. mértvyj, etc.). PSl. *vẽnьcь ‘garland’ (OCS věnьcь, Croat, vìjénac, Russ, venec, Pol. wieniec, Vasmer I: 182) ← *vẽnъ ‘garland’ (Pol. wian, Russ. dial. ven). Inherited in light of Lith. vamtkas (unless the Lithuanian word is borrowed from Slavic and adapted). PSl. *otьcь ‘father’ (OCS otьcь, Russ, otéc, Pol. ojciec, Croat, otac, Derksen 383), cf. Gr. ȃtta, Goth, atta < PIE *at(t)a-. PSl. *šьvьcь ‘tailor, shoemaker’ (ORuss. šьvьcь, Pol. szewc, Croat, dial, šȃvac, Derksen 488), identical formation in Lith. siuvikas ‘tailor’, OPr. schuwikis (EV) ‘shoemaker’. PSl. *žьrьcь ‘priest’ (OCS žrъcь, Russ, free, Bulg. žrec, Derksen 567), derived from the verb *žerti ‘sacrifice’ (OCS žrьti, Lith. gūti ‘praise’). Neuters: PSl. *ajьce ‘egg’ (Russ.jajcȏ, Cz. vejce, Bulg.jąjcé, ESSJa 1: 61-3); derived from PIE *h2ōwyo- ‘egg’ (see *aje). PSI. *sъlnьce (c) ‘sun’ (OCS slьnьce, Russ, sólnee, Pol. słońce, Croat, sȗnce, Derksen 479), from the root *seh2ul- (Lith. sȃuiě, OPr. sauie, Skr. sūrya- etc., IEW 88If., EIEC 556, NHL 606). The diminutive formation is obviously a Slavic innovation. For the PIE reconstruction see Beekes 1984 and Nikolaev 2010: 50-71.

142

PSI. *sьrdьce (c) ‘heart’ (OCS srьdьce, Russ, sérdce, Pol. serce, Croat, sȑce, Derksen 485), from PIE *k’erd- / *k’rd- (Lith. širdis, Lat. cor, cordis, etc., cf. IEW 579f., E1EC 262f., NHL 417-418). In OCS we also find the diminutives slovьce ← slovo ‘word’, imenьce ← imę ‘name’, okьnьce ← okьno ‘window’, etc. Feminines: PSI. *ovьca ‘sheep (OCS ovьca, Russ, ovcá, Pol. owca, Croat, óvca, Derksen 384), parallel to Skr. avikā ‘(female) sheep’, cf. Lith. avis ‘sheep’, Lat. ovis, Skr. ávi- (IEW 784, EIEC 510ff., NHL 335-336). The opposition between *ovьca (f.) and *ovьnъ (m.) in Slavic is parallel to the one between Lith. avis (f.) and āvinas (m.). The feminine suffix *-ьca is used to form the diminutive to the collective *dẽtь ‘children’ (from the singular *dětę ‘child’ > Croat. dijȇte), cf. Croat, djȅca, Slov. déca. In OCS this suffix is rather productive as a formant of nomina agentis from verbal roots and adjectives, e.g. kupьcь ‘buyer’ ← kupiti ‘buy’ (Croat, kúpac, Russ, kupéc ‘merchant’), lovьcь ‘hunter’ ← loviti ‘hunt’ (Croat, lòvac), mądrьcь ‘wise man’ ← mądrь ‘wise’ (Croat. mùdrac), svętьcь ‘holy man, saint’ ← svętъ ‘holy’ (Croat, svétac), tvorьcь ‘creator’ ← tvoriti (Croat, tvȏrac). It is also used in diminutives, e.g. pьsьcь ‘pup’ ← pьsъ ‘dog’, oblaěьcь ‘little cloud’ ← oblakь ‘cloud’. In some formations this suffix serves to derive singulatives, cf., e.g., OCS agnьcь, Croat, jánjac ‘lamb’ vs. collective Croat, jȁrtjād, OCS žrěbьcь, Croat, ždrijébac ‘foal’ vs. collective Croat, ždrȅbād (Vaillant 1974: 297). In origin, *-ьcь < *-ika- arose through agglutination of the PIE suffix *-ko- to i-stems, whence it expanded as an independent suffix (Jeżowa 1975). In Baltic, it corresponds to Lith. - ikas, which is used to derive nomina agentis from verbal roots (Lith. arìkas ‘worker’ ← arti ‘plow’), as well as nouns denoting humans with a certain property from adjectives (Lith. naujikas ‘novice’ ← naigas ‘new’). In other IE languages, *-iko- is often used for deriving adjectives from nouns, e.g. Gr. hippikós ‘equestrian’ ← hippos ‘horse’, OHG sweizig ‘sweaty’ ← sweiz ‘sweat’, but also, secondarily, nomina agentis from substantivized adjectives, cf. Lat. medicus ‘a medical man’ ← medeor ‘heal’. A similar development can be assumed for Balto-Slavic (derived adjectives > substantivized adjectives > nomina agentis). 143

[Sławski 1974-1979,1: 91,97-100]

2.11.28 *-ьda < *-idāThis is a rare suffix, presumably parallel to *-adā > *-oda, for deriving abstract nouns. We find it in OCS vražьda ‘enmity’ ← vragъ ‘enemy’, OCS pravьda ‘justice’ ← pravъ ‘just, right’ (Russ, pravda Croat. prȃvda) and OCS krivьda ‘guilt, fault’ ← krivь ‘guilty, wrong’ (Pol. krzywda, Croat, krȋvda). Vaillant’s hypothesis (1974: 493) that this suffix was borrowed from Germanic *-iba (cf. Goth, ga-raihip̀a ‘justice’ ← ga-raihts ‘just’) is unwarranted. It was probably formed by analogy to stems in *-oda within Slavic.

2.11.29 -ьjь, *-ьje < *-ija-, *-ьja < *-ijãThis suffix was used mostly to derive collective neuter nouns in *-ьje, but we find it also in a number of feminines, which are probably old ĩstems (*bratrьja ‘brothers’, *svinьja ‘pig’), and a few masculines, which may have been formed by adding *-ja to i-stems. Masculines: PSI. *ulьjь ‘bee-hive’ (Russ, ȗlej, Bulg. úlej, Pol. ul, Vasmer III: 181), identical to Lith. aulỹs ‘bee-hive’, Latv. aùlis and derived from PIE *h2ewl- (Gr. aulós ‘pipe’, Latv. alvus ‘belly’, etc.). PSI. *žerbьjь ‘lot’ (OCS žrěbii, Russ, žérebej, Vasmer 1: 419) ← *žerbъ ‘id.’ (Croat, ždrìjeb, Ukr. žéreb, Cz. hřeb), derived from the root of *gerbh- ‘carve’ (OPr. gīrbin [Acc. sg.] ‘number’, OE ceorfan ‘cut, carve’, Gr. gráphō ‘carve, write’). PSI. *inьjь ‘hoarfrost’ (Russ, irtej) alternates with the neuter collective *inьje (Croat, inje, OCz.jinie, Vasmer I: 483) and is identical to Lith. ýnis, Gen. sg. ýnies ‘hoarfrost’. The PIE etymology is unknown. PSI. *solvьjь ‘nightingale’ (Russ, solovéj, Croat, slàvūj, Bulg. stávej, Vasmer 11: 690-691) ← *solvъ ‘grey’ (Russ, solovój), from the same root as OHG salo ‘dun, Olr. salach ‘dirty’. A similar formation to *solvьjь is *vorbьjь > Russ, vorobej ‘sparrow’ (with diminutives in Croat, vrábac, Cz. vrabec), related to 144

Lith. žvìrblis ‘sparrow’ and Gr. rhóbillos (Hesych), probably from some non-IE substratum. Feminines: PSl. *brátrьja (a) ‘brothers’ (OCS bratrija, Russ, brat'ja, Pol. arch. bracia, Croat, brȁća, ESSJa III: 7-10); this word seems to be inherited, cf. Gr. phrātría < *bhreh2trih2. In Croatian, Russian and Polish it was remodelled as *bratьja. PSI. *svinьjá (c) ‘pig’ (OCS svinija, Russ, svinjȃ, Pol. Świnia, Croat, svinja, Derksen 477), from the derived adjective *suH-ino- (Lat. suīmts ‘pig-‘, Lith. dial, svýnas ‘pig-sty’), from the root of *suH-s ‘pig’ (Lat. sūs, 1EW 1038, EIEC 425). This word might have been an old īstem (*suHinih2 > PSl. *svini) which became associated with the collectives in *-ьja already in Proto-Slavic. PSI. *sẽmьja ‘family’ (OCS sěmьja, Russ, sem já, Vaillant 1974: 525), a collective built to the original ā-stem (*sěma), preserved in Lith. šeimà ‘family’. Other nouns of this type are often derived by feminine motion from masculines (Boskovic 1976), e.g. OCS voždьja ‘(female) leader’ ← voždь ‘leader’, OCS gostьja ‘(female) guest’ ← gostь ‘guest’ (Russ. góst’ja, Pol. gościa, Croat, gȍšća, but cf. OCz. hosti, pointing to an old ī-stem *gosti). Neuters: This suffix was very productive in the derivation of collectives, which were neuter singulars for the purposes of agreement. They may be formed from nominal and adjectival stems (*veselьje ‘joy’), and they usually mean a mass or heap of plants or some material (*zelьje ‘plant’, ♦kamenьje ‘stones’): PSI. *zelьje ‘plant’ (OCS zelьje, Croat, zȇlje, Russ. arch, z é lē ‘herb brandy), from the root of *zelenъ ‘green’ (OCS zelenъ, Russ, zelënnyj, Croat, zèlen). PSI. *kamenьje ‘stones’ (OCS kamenьje, Croat, kȁmenje, Pol. kamienie) ← *kamy ‘stone’ (OCS kamy, Russ, kámen’, Pol. kamień, etc.). PSI. *perьje ‘feathers’ (Croat, pȇrje, Pol. perze) ← *pero ‘feather’ (Russ, peró, Croat, péro). PSI. *tьrnьje ‘thorns’ (OCS trьnьje, Croat, trnje). A special case is PSI. *kopьje Tance’ (OCS kopije, Russ, kop'ë, OPol. kopije, Croat, kòpije, ESSJa XI: 41-2), certainly derived from the 145

root of *kopati ‘dig’ (OCS kopali, Russ, kopát Pol. kopač), Lith. kapóíi ‘dig’, Gr. kóptō ‘strike’ < PIE *kop-. This word may also have been a collective originally, but the semantic change from ‘a collection of spears’ to ‘a spear’ must have occurred already in Proto-Slavic. PSl. *sъnьje ‘dream’ (OCS sъnъje, Croat, arch, sȃnje) is parallel to Lith. sapnỹs ‘dream’ ← sãpncts ‘sleep’, Lat. somnium ‘dream’ ← somnus ‘sleep’ and Skr. svȃpniyam ← svȃpna-. In OCS we find also the following examples: iozьje ‘vine-twigs’ ← ioza ‘vine-twig’, trъstьje ‘reeds’ are loanwords: *avorъ ‘maple’ (Croat, jȁvor, Russ, jávor) from Germanic (OHG Shorn, cf. PronkTiethoff 2003: 185), *topon> ‘axe’ (Russ, topór, Pol. topor̃) from Iranian (Av. tapara-), *mormorъ ‘marble’ (OCS mramorъ, Croat, mrámor) from Greek mármaros. In PSl. *vixъr ‘whirlwind’ (Russ, vȋxor’, Croat, dial, vȉhār, Cz. vichr, Vasmer I: 207, from the root of *viti ‘blow’) we seem to have a zero-grade variant *-ъrъ < *-uro-, cf. Lith. dial, viesulas ‘whirlwind’ (with *-ul- rather than *-ur-). [Sławski 1974-1979,11:24-25]

2.11.41

*-otъ < *-ata-, *-ota < *-atā- (and *-etъ)

This suffix is mostly found in abstract nouns, chiefly feminine, but also with a number of masculines, which are probably secondary (*životъ ‘life’ vs. Lith. gyvatà f. ‘id.’) and/or expressive/onomatopoetic (*blekotъ ‘bleating’, *brękotъ ‘clanking’, *kokotъ ‘rooster’). Such nouns are often deverbal, tied to verbs like *groxotati ‘laugh loudly’, *bleketati ‘bleat’, etc.). Masculines:

155

PSI. *blekotъ ‘bleating’ (Russ. dial, blëkot ‘henbane’, Cz. blekot ‘shouter, babbler’, ESSJa II: 108-9); derived from *blekъ ‘bleating’ (Cz. blek, Croat, blẽk), which is onomatopoetic. PSl. *brękotъ ‘clanking, noise’ (Pol. brzękot, Croat, brȅkēt, Russ. brékot, ESSJa III: 23), derived from the root of *brękati ‘clank’ (Pol. brzękać, Croat, brȅkati, etc.). PSl. *groxotъ ‘loud noise’ (CSl. gróxotь, ‘loud laughter’, Russ. gróxot ‘loud noise’, Croat, gmhot, Pol. grochot, Vasmer I: 311), derived from the root of Russ, grȏxnut’ ‘fall loudly’, Bulg. grȏxam ‘strike’. PSl. *kokotъ ‘rooster’ (Croat, kokot, OCz. kokot, ORuss. kokotъ, ESSJa X: 117), from the onomatopoetic root *kok-. PSl. *živòtъ (b) ‘life’ (OCS životъ, Russ, živȏt ‘belly’, Pol. żywot, Croat, život, Derksen 563), parallel to Lith. gyvatà ‘life’, OPr. (EV) giwato ‘life’, from the adjective *živъ ‘alive’ < PIE *gwih3-wo-, Lat. vīvus ‘alive’, Gr. bios ‘life’, OIr. béo ‘alive’, etc., IEW 467-469, cf. also the verb *žiti ‘live’ (OCS žiti, Russ, ž it’, Pol. żyć, etc.) < *gweyh3-. The variant *-etъ is found in PSl. *trepetъ ‘shaking, terror’ (OCS trepetъ, Russ, trépet, Croat, trȅpēí, Vasmer III: 136), from *trepetati ‘shake’ (OCS trepetati, Pol. trzepiotać, Croat, trepètati). The PIE root is *trep- ‘turn’ (Lat. trepo, Gr. trépō, etc., IEW 1094),34 cf. also *lepetъ ‘stuttering’ (Russ, lépet, Croat, lȅpẽt ‘fluttering’, Vasmer II: 32), from the expressive verb *lepetati (Croat, lepėtati ‘flutter’), probably from the root of Skr. lápati ‘chat, talk’; in Croatian, we also have zvȅkēt ‘clink, clatter’ from zvekètati ‘to clatter’ (from the root of *zvąkъ ‘sound’ > Croat, zvȗk, Russ, zvuk, etc.). Feminines: PSI. *čistotá (b) ‘cleanliness, purity’ (OCS čistota, Croat, čistòta, Pol. arch, czystota, Russ, čistotá, ESSJa IV: 121) ← čistъ ‘clean, pure’ (OCS čistъ, Croat, cist, etc.). PSl. *dъlgota ‘length’ (OCS dъlgota, Russ, dolgotá, Slov. dolgólct, ESSJa V: 208) ← *dъlgь ‘long’ (Russ, dȏlgyj, Pol. dlugi, etc.). PSI. *golotá (b) ‘nakedness’ (Russ. dial, golotá ‘the poor’, Cz. holota, Croat, dial, golȏta, ESSJa VI: 213-4) ← *golъ ‘naked’ (Russ. gólyj, Croat, gȏi).

34 For the semantic development cf. Lat. trepidus ‘fearful, anxious’. 156

PSI. *orbota ‘work’ (OCS rabota, robota ‘slavery’, Russ, robóta, Pol. robota, Croat, ràbota), cf. also Goth. arbaiPs ‘labour’. Derived from *orbъ ‘slave’, cf. Lat. orbus ‘orphan’. In OCS, this suffix is still quite productive, as it is in other Slavic languages, cf. OCS dobrota ‘virtue’ ← dobrь ‘good’ (Croat, dobròta, Pol. dobrota), krasota ‘beauty’ ← krasa ‘beauty’ (Russ, krasotȃ, Croat. krasòta), íěpota ‘beauty’ ← lěpъ ‘beautiful’ (Croat, ljepòta, Cz. lepota), ništeta ‘poverty’ ← ništъ ‘poor’, sirota ‘orphan’ ← sirъ ‘deprived’, sramota ‘shame’ ← sramь ‘shame’ (Croat, sramótà), slēpota ‘blindness’ ← slěpъ ‘blind’, sujeta ‘vanity’ ← sujь ‘vane’, toplota ← topíъ ‘warm’, výsota ‘height’ ← vysokъ ‘high’, etc. In PSI. *lopata ‘shubble’ (OCS lopata, Russ, lopȃta, Croat, lópatct) the suffix seems to be *-ata < *-ātā, from the root of Lith. lāpas ‘leaf and Croat, lòpoč ‘water-lily’. A similar suffix (*-atja < *-ātjā) might underlie Croat, mókraća ‘urine’ ← mȏkar ‘wet’. Chiefly in West South Slavonic, this suffix was amalgamated with *-ja to produce *-otja > Croat, -oca, Slov. -(o)ěa, which is productive in derivation of abstracts (Bošković 1936: 126): čistòća ‘purity’ ← cist ‘clean’ (cf. Slov. čistóča), gluhȏća ‘deafness’ ← glȗh ‘deaf, mirnóča ‘peacefulness’ ← míran ‘peaceful’, zlȏća ‘naughtiness’ ← zȁo ‘evil’, purtóća ‘fullness’ ← pȕn ‘full’, etc.35 A few parallel formations are found in East Slavic, cf. Slov. hladnȏča ‘cold, coolness’, Croat. hladnòća ‘id.’, Ukr. xolodnéěa ‘id.’ (ESSJa VIII: 59) ← *xo!dъ ‘cold’ (Russ, xȏlod, Croat, hlãd, etc.), Croat, arch, maloća ‘small size, smallness’, Ukr. maleča (Kurkina 1992: 179) ← *malъ ‘small’ (Croat. māli, OCS maiъ), cf. OCS maiota ‘smallness’. Nouns derived with this suffix usually belong to AP b (Russ. krasotá, krasoty, etc.), but there is a class of exceptions in which the first vowel of the suffix is stressed throughout the paradigm (Russ, rabȏta, rabȏty, etc.). The accentuation of these nouns was influenced by the accentuation of the corresponding verbs (Russ, rabȏtat' ‘to work’).36

35 Cf. Babić 1986: 310. This suffix is somewhat productive in both Croatian and Slovene, and can be added to borrowed roots, cf. Croat, finòća ‘raffinemenť, Slov.fmȏča ‘id.’ ← fin < Italian fino ‘fine’. 16 See Dybo 1981: 172 for a different account o f the accentuation o f this class of nouns.

157

PSI. *-ota can be compared to Skr. -atā, which is a suffix deriving abstract nouns from adjectives, e.g. dīrghatā ‘length’ ← dĩrghá- ‘long’ (OCS dlъgota ← dlьgь), cf. also Lith. gyvatà ‘life’ ← gyvas ‘alive’ (Vaillant 1974: 372, Martynov 1973: 49-50), Lith. nuogatà ‘nakedness’ ← núogas ‘naked’, Skr. nagnátā ‘nakedness’ ← nagná- ‘naked’, Gr. neótēs ‘youth’ ← neós ‘new, young’. It seems probable that the form of the suffix *-oteh2 in PIE was secondary, and that it developed by adding the original abstract-forming suffix *-teh2 (see *-tъ, *-ta) to thematic stems, cf. OE friod ‘love’, Skr. priyȃtā < *priHo-teh2 (Skr. priyá- ‘dear’ < *priHo-). In PIE, this suffix built abstract nouns also from adjectives in other types of stems, e.g. Skr. vasútā ‘goodness’ ← vásu- ‘good’, Gr. barýtēs ‘heaviness, weight’ ← barýs ‘heavy’, etc.

2.11.42 *-tajь < *-tājaThis suffix is found in a few nouns derived from verbal roots as nomina agwttis. PSI. *ȏrtajь ‘ploughman’ (Russ. dial, rȃtaj, Pol. rataj ‘farmer’, Croat, dial, ràtaj, rȁtaj, Slov. rátaj, ESSJa XXXII: 209-11), identical with Lith. artójas ‘ploughman’, OPr. (EV) artoys ‘farmer’ (borrowed from Slavic?). Derived from the root *orati ‘plow’ (Croat, ȏratí). In OCS we find a few more examples, in which the form *-atajь was generalized (presumably after verbs in *-ati): OCS xodatai ‘mediator’ ← xoditi ‘go, walk’, vozatai ‘charioteer’ ← voziti ‘drive’, pozoratai ‘spectator’ ← pozorovali ‘watch’, etc. In modem Slavic languages this suffix is not productive, cf. Wojtyła-Świerzewska 1974: 49-52. However, we find isolated examples such as Ukr. hintáj ‘lazy person, bum’ ← honvty ‘drive, chase’. In Baltic, the suffix *-tāja- (> Lith. -tojas, -tojis, Latv. -tãjs) is productive in derivation of agent nouns, cf. Lith. giedótojis ‘singer’ ← giedȏti ‘sing’ (Latv. dziedātājs), Lith. mókytojas ‘teacher’ ← mókyti ‘teach’, etc. It is probable that the BSl. suffix *-tāja- arose by agglutination of thematic *-yo- to the PIE suffix for deriving agent nouns *-teh2- > Gr. -tās, -tēs (e.g. Gr. arótēs ‘ploughman’ < *h;erh3teh;-. Gr. naȗtẽs ‘sailor’ < *neh2u-teh2-, toksótēs ‘archer’ ← tóksort ‘bow’). [Sławski 1974-1979, II: 53-54] 158

2.11.43 *-tьje < M ija -

We find this suffix in the following item: PSl. *bytьje ‘existence’ (OCS (vlije, Russ. obs. bvt'ë, Pol, tovie, Croat, bice. ESSJa 111: 1571; derived from the inherited stem in 'Mifound in OCS zu-ȏvfь ‘oblivion’, OCz. byl (i) ‘existence’, Croat. hit ‘essence’, also in Lith. bulls ‘being’, from the root *bhuh.>- ‘be’ (OCS byti. Russ, byť, etc.).

2.11.44 ? *-tьno < MinaA problematic suffix, perhaps to be posited on the basis of the following item: PSl. *poltьnó (b) ‘linen’ (OCS plutьno, Russ, polotnó, Cz. plátno, Croat, plátno, Derksen 411-12); presumably from the same root as in *pelenā > *pelena, in which case the suffix seems to be Minu- > Mьno, Perhaps it was formed by agglutination of Mio- to an ahstract noun in Mi-.

2.11.45 Mn> < MraFor this suffix, see *-rь, *-ra.

2.11.46 *-uga/-uža < ",-awga-/-awžaThis rare suffix usually has augmentative meaning. PSl. *kaluga, *kaluža ‘mud’ (Russ, kalùgit, Croat, kàljužu, Ci. kaluže, Vasmer 1: 511) ← *kalъ ‘dirt’ (Russ, kul, Pol. kid, Croat, dial, kȁo). In Croatian, we find this suffix also in íòpuža ‘thief (besides lòpov ‘id.’ < Hungarian lopó ‘id.’). The nasalized variant of this suffix (*-qga < *-ungā) is found in PSI. *béląga ‘white animal* (Russ, beluga ’white fish (Acipenser huso)’, Croat, dial, bjèlugu ‘white pig’. Slov. hę́logu ‘white pig* ESSJa I: 77) ← *bélъ ‘white’ (Russ, hėiyj, Pol. hiuly, etc.). 159

The origin of this suffix is unclear, but it is worth noting that Germanic has a number of similar suffixes (Germanic *-uka-, *-ika-, *-aka-) wit! expressive meaning, often found in nouns denoting animals, cf. OE bulluc ‘young bull’, OHG habuh ‘hawk’, OHG kranuh (OE cranoc ‘crane’, etc. (Meid 1967: 211-213). [Sławski 1974-1979: 68-70]

2.11.47 *-uxъ < *-awxa-, *-ъ/ьxa, *-ьxa < *-u/ixā-, *-uxa < *-awxā-

A series of similar suffixes often found in expressive words, hypocoristica and augmentatives. Masculines: PSl. *kožuxъ ‘skin cloak’ (OCS kožuxъ, Russ, kožúx, Croat, kóžuh ESSJa XII: 37) ← *koža ‘skin’ (OCS koža, Russ, kóža, Croat, kȍža, etc.). PSl. *lopuxъ ‘burdock’ (OCS lopuxъ, Pol. lopuch, Croat, dial, lòpūh. ESSJa XVI: 45), from the same root as *lopata ‘shubble’, Lith. lāpas ‘leaf. PSl. *pẽtuxъ ‘cock’ (OPol. petuch, Russ, peticc, Vasmer II: 350) ← *pẽti ‘to sing’ (OCSpěti, Russ, p e t’, etc.).37 PSl. *konjuxъ ‘horse-groom’ (OPol. koniuch, Russ, kȏnjux, Croat, dial, kȍnjūh, ESSJa X: 185-6) ← *konjь ‘horse’ (Croat, kȍnj, Russ. kon ’, etc.). Feminines: PSl. *čermъxa, *čermuxa ‘ramson, bird cherry’ (Russ, čerëmuxa, Pol. tzemcha, Croat, crìjemuša < *čermuxja, ESSJa IV: 66-8), Lith. dial. kermušė ‘tip of a drill, ramson’, perhaps Gr. krȏmmyon, krómyon ‘onion’; OE hramsa ‘ramson’, OIr. crem ‘wild garlic leek’, perhaps an old loanword from some non-IE language. PSl. *olьxa ‘alder’ (Russ, o l’xa, Pol. olcha, Bulg. elxá, ESSJa VI: 23-25.) apparently points to a suffix *-ьx-, cf. Lith. aĩksnis, eĩksnis, dial. 37 We also find a dialectal form *pẽtexъ in Slov. dial, pę́teh, Croat, dial, petëh (Kurkina 1992: 124); for this form of the suffix (*-exъ) cf. also PSl. *lemexъ (besides *lemešь) ‘plough iron’ (Russ, lémex, Pol. lemiesz, Croat, lèmeš, Vasmer II: 29) from the root o f *lomiti ‘break’ (Russ, lomit’, Croat, lòmiti, etc.), cf. also Latv. lemesis ‘ploughshare’.

160

alìksnis ‘alder’ (Smoczyński 11); there are parallels in Germanic (OE alor, OHG elira < *alisa, Orel 15) and Latin {aims ‘alder’, de Vaan 3435). The variation in the Anlaut points to probable substratum origin (thus Derksen 370-1). Cf. also Pol. dziewucha ‘girl’ ← dziewa ‘id.’ (Ukr. divuxa, Croat. djèvuša < *dẽvuxja, ESSJa V: 21-22), Russ, staritxa ‘old woman’ ← stȃryj ‘old’, Russ. dial, dočtúxa ‘daughter’ ← doč’ ‘id.’, etc. This suffix did not become productive in any of the Slavic languages. However, its derivative -ušet < *-uxja is common in Croatian (Babic 1986: 311-312), cf. plàvuša ‘blondie’ ← plȃv ‘blue, blond’, čegr̀tuša ‘rattle-snake’ ← čegr̀tati ‘to rattle’, djevèmša ‘brother-in-law’s wife’ ← djȅver ‘brotherin-law’, óskoruša ‘true service tree, Sorbus domesticď (Bulg. oskóruša ‘id.’) ← *o- + *skora ‘bark’; it sometimes has slightly depreciative meaning {seljàkuša ‘rude woman, a (female) peasant’ ← sèljctk ‘peasant’, prostàkuša ‘common woman’ ← pròstāk ‘common man, boor’). Analogically to feminines in -uša we also find Croat. ~uš in glàduš ‘hungry person’ ← glȃd ‘hunger’. In Bulgarian we find examples such as Bulg. dial, belúša ‘white sheep’ (BER I: 109) ← *bẽlъ ‘white’, garùša ‘goat with a black dot’ (BER I: 236) ← *gan> ‘dark, dun’, and of course Russian has hypocoristica such as Katjúša, etc., as well as a number of pejorative formations such as krikúša ‘cry-baby’ ← krik ‘cry',p jȗ ša ‘drunkard’ ←p it’ ‘drink’, etc. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 74-75]

2.11.48

*-urъ < *-awra-, *-ura < *-awrā-

This is a rare suffix, found in a few Proto-Slavic reconstructions, but more common in individual languages. Words with this suffix often have expressive, augmentative or pejorative meaning, and they are usually denominative formations. PSl. *mẽxurъ ‘bubble’ (Slov. mehȗr, Ukr. mixúr, Pol. dial, miechur, ESSJa XV11I: 153) ← *mẽxъ ‘sack’ (OCS mẽxъ, etc.). We find this suffix also in Pol. kosztur, kostur ‘crutch, wooden leg’, Croat, kòstur ‘skeleton’ ← *kostь ‘bone’ (Croat, kȏst, OCS kostь, etc.), Croat, kȍtūr ‘disk, wheel’ from the same root as kȏtāč ‘wheel’, and in Pol. koezur ‘tomcat’ (from kot ‘cat’), Croat, jȅžūr ‘hedge-hog’ besides jēž ‘id.’. 161

The feminine form *-ura is found in Croat, bàbura ‘old hag’ ← bába ‘old woman’, Pol. myszura ‘mouse skin’ ← mysz ‘mouse’, etc. [Sławski 1974-1979, II: 26-27]

2.11.49 *-ъkъ, *-ъko < *-uka-, *-ъka < *-ukāThis suffix is of heterogenous origin. In some instances, the suffix *-kowas added to nominal or adjectival u-stems (*vъnukъ ‘grandson’, *pẽsъkъ ‘sand’). Presumably from these cases the form *-uka- > *ъkъ was generalized. Masculines: PSl. *pẽsъkъ (b) ‘sand’ (OCS pěsъkъ, Russ, pesók, Pol. piasek, Croat, pijȇsak, Derksen 398). Skr. pāmsú- ‘sand’ points to an u-stem, cf. also Skr. pārņsuka- with the same suffix (Arumaa 1985: 57). A variant *-ukъ < *-awka- is found in the following item: PSl. *vъnúkъ (a) ‘grandson’ (Russ, vnúk, Pol. wnuk, Croat, urtuk, Derksen 530-1), from the same root as in Lat. anus ‘old woman’ (PIE *h2n- > *ъn- > *vъn-). Probably an old nominalized u-stem adjective (cf. Trubačev 1959: 73-75). This suffix is often added to infinitival stem in *-tej- > *-ti, or supine in *-tu- > *-tъ, e.g. Russ, napitok and Croat, nȃpitak ‘drink’ ← *napiti sę ‘get drunk, drink one’s fill’ (Croat, nàpiti se), etc. In OCS we find the following nouns of this class (all of the examples contain prefixes): OCS izbytъkъ ‘relic’ ← byti ‘be’ (Russ, izbýtok ‘plenty’), ostatъkъ ‘remain’ ← ostati ‘remain’ (Croat, ostátak), sъvitъkъ ‘scroll (of a book)’ ← sьviti (Croat, svitak), etc. Neuters: PSl. *áblъko (a) ‘apple’ (OCS ablъko, Russ, jábloko, Croat, jȁbuka, Pol. jablko, ESSJa I: 41, 44-7); a younger derivative of the more scarcely attested *ablo ‘apple’ (rather than from a neuter *ablu-). Feminines: PSl. *bítъka (a) ‘battle’ (Croat, bitka, Pol. bitka, Ukr. bitka, ESSJa II: 101), derived from the root of *biti ‘strike’ (OCS biti, Croat, biti, Russ, bit etc.). PSl. *dojьka ‘nurse’ < *dojъka (Russ, dójka, OCz. dojka, Croat. dȏjka ‘breast’, ESSJa V: 55) ← *dojiti ‘breastfeed’ (Croat, dojiti, Russ. doit ’, etc.). 162

PSI. *lątъka ‘doll’ (Croat, kůtka, Pol. lątka, SP V: 88) ← *lątъ ‘bark’ (Russ, lut ‘bark of a lime-tree’). PSl. *palъka ‘staff (Russ, pálka, Pol. palka, Bulg. pálka, Derksen 390), from the same root as *palica, perhaps originally diminutive. PSI. *pъtъka ‘bird’ (Russ. dial, pótka, Croat, pȁtka ‘duck’, Derksen 425), from the same root as *pъtica ‘bird’. Perhaps originally a diminutive. In North Slavic languages this suffix becomes the default in feminine motion, and it is very common in feminine diminutives, while South Slavic usually preserves the inherited *-ica, cf. Russ, golȏvka ‘little head’, Pol. giȏwka vs. Croat, glàvica. The suffix *-uka- > *-ъkъ, *-ъko was originally built by adding *-ko- to u-stems (similarly as *-i-ko- > *-ika- to i-stems, see *-ьcь). In Baltic, we find a parallel suffix which often has diminutive meaning, e.g. Lith. paršùkas ‘piglet’ ← par̃šas ‘piglet’, Latv. bèmuks ‘child’ ← bèrns ‘id.’, Lith. vilkiùkas ‘little wolf ← viĩkcts ‘wolf, etc. In Germanic, the suffix *-uga- is usually found in adjectives, cf. Goth. handugs ‘wise, handy’ ← handles ‘hand’. A variant *-aka- > *-okъ, which appears to be formed by adding *-ko- to thematic stems, is found in ORuss. sъvědokь ‘witness’, Croat. svjèdok besides *sъvẽdъkъ (Pol. świadek, Cz. svědek). In some languages, such as Russian, this variant seems rather productive, cf. Russ, igmk ‘player’ ← igrát' ‘play’, edók ‘eater’ ← ést', edú ‘eat’, but of course this is partly because *-okъ and *-ъkъ became confused in East Slavic.38 In Baltic, we find *-aka- in Lith. marmākas ‘talker, babbler’ ← mctrměti ‘babble’, and in Germanic, we have the adjectival suffix *-aha-/-aga-, e.g. in Goth, stainahs ‘stony’ ← stains ‘stone’, OHG heilaga ‘holy’ (from the root of Germ, heil ‘whole, healthy’). [Sławski 1974-1979,1:92-95]

38 In South Slavic, we have Slov. snúbok, ‘wedding guest’, Croat, snùbok, RussCSl. snubokъ ‘pimp’ ← *snubiti ‘woo’ (Croat, snȗbiti etc.), cf. Kurkina

1992: 129. 163

2.11.50 *-ъlъ, *-ъlo < *-ula-, *-ъla < *-ula-

We find this suffix in concrete nouns denoting instruments (*igьla, *metъla), but also other concepts. They may be of all three genders. PSl. *ą́gъlъ (c) ‘comer’ (OCS ągъlъ, Russ, úgoi, Pol. węgiel, Croat. ȕgao). Probably inherited from PIE in light of Lat. angulus ‘comer, angle’, OHG artchal ‘ankle’ (< PIE *h2eng-ulo-) , cf. also OIc. ekkja ‘ankle, heel’ < *h2eng-. PSl. *igъlá (c) ‘needle’ (CS igla, Russ, iglá, Pol. igla, Croat, iglct, ESSJa VIII: 213-4), OPr. ayculo, derived from the root of Lith. dial. ȃigyti ‘prick, sting’. PSl. *metъla ‘broom’ (CSl. metla, Slov. métla, Russ, metla, Pol. miotła), from the root *met- ‘throw’ (Russ, mesti, etc.). PSl. *pьkъlo ‘pitch, hell’ (OCSpьkъlъ, Russ.péklo ‘hell’, Cz.peklo, Croat, pàkao, Derksen 426), from the same root as Lith. pìkís ‘pitch’, OPr. pyculs ‘hell’ (EV, perhaps from Slavic), cf. also Lat. pix ‘pitch’. At least partially, this suffix may have been formed by adding the suffix *-lo- > PSl. *-lъ to u-stems, cf. Goth, magula ‘little servant, boy’ ← magus ‘servant’. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 111-112]

2.11.51 *-ъljь < *-uljaThis suffix is certainly related to the following one (*-ulja) by Ablaut. PSl. *bođъljь (c) ‘thorn’ (Croat, bódlja (a), RussCSl. bodíь, Bulg. obs. bodét ESSJa II: 154-5.). [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 111]

2.11.52 *-u!ja < *-awljāA rare suffix, found in a few deadjectivals (*krivulja ‘curve’) and deverbals (*češulja ‘scale (of a fish)’). PSI. *češulja ‘scale (of a fish), husk’ (Croat, dial, and arch, ěešulja) besides *češuja ‘id.’ (CSl. češuja, Russ, češujá, ESSJa IV: 91-92) ← *česati ‘comb’ (OCS česati, češq etc.). 164

PSI. *krivulja ‘curve’ (Croat, krìvulja, Ukr. krivúlja, Pol. bzywula ‘bent stick’, ESSJa XII: 170-171), derived from *krivъ ‘curved’ (see *krivica). In Croatian, this suffix is somewhat productive, especially in deriving expressive and depreciative feminine nouns, cf. vlàsulja ‘wig, periwig’ ← vlȃs ‘a hair’, ròsulja ‘light rain’ ← rȏsa ‘dew’, etc. (Babić 1986: 311). We find it also in some plant names such as kàdulja ‘sage, Salvia officinalis ’ ← káditi ‘cense’ (also in Slov. kadúljá) and in birdnames such as *bergulja (Croat, dial, brèguija ‘a kind of swallow’, Ukr. beregulja ‘Riparia ripariď, Cz. břehule, ESSJa 1: 191) ← *bergъ ‘coast, embankment’ (Russ, béreg, Croat, brijȇg ‘hill’, etc.). In Croat. dragūlj ‘precious stone’ (Slov. dragūlj) ← drȃg ‘dear’ the masculine form is probably secondary, cf. Croat, dial, dràgulja ‘name of a cow’. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 110-111]

2.11.53 *-ъno *-unaThis suffix can be certainly reconstructed only in a few words relating to material culture: ‘window’ (*okъno) ‘basket’ (*ląkъno) and ‘textile’ (*sukъno). While *okъno is a denominal formation, *ląkъno and *sukъno are clearly deverbal. PSl. *okъnó (b) ‘window’ (Russ, oknó, Pol. okno, Croat, òkno, ESSJa XXXII: 45-47), derived from *aka > *oko ‘eye’. This PSl. reconstruction is ascertained by the fact that the word for ‘window’ was borrrowed into Finnish (akkuna) from Proto-Slavic. PSl. *ląkъno ‘(tree-bark) basket’ (ORuss. lukъno, OCz. lukno, Croat. Kajk. lȕkno, lȕkne, Boryś 2007: 38-40, SP V: 307-8), derived from the verbal root of *lękti ‘bend, twist’ PSl. *sukъnó ‘textile, rag’ (Russ, suknó ‘rag’, Pol. sukno, Croat. súkno, Vasmer 111: 42-43), derived from the verbal root of *sukati ‘spin’ (Russ, sukát’, Croat, súkati, Pol. sukać, etc.). [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 145-146]

165

2.11.54 *-unъ < *-aw na-

This suffix is found in a few nouns in OCS, but it is productive in expressive formations in individual Slavic languages. Nouns derived with this suffix are usually deverbal. PSl. *bẽgunъ ‘fugitive’ (OCS běgunь, CSl. běgunъ, Russ, begun, Pol. biegun, cf. also the Croat, derivative bjegúnac) ← *běgti ‘run’ (Croat, bjȅžatì, Russ, begát’, etc.). In OCS we find also pěstunъ ‘teacher’ ← pěstovati ‘teach’ (Pol. piastun, Russ. dial, pestún, Slov. pestȗn, Kurkina 1992: 157), cf. also Russ, bolím ‘chatterer’ ← boltȃt’ ‘chatter’, Croat, bogàtūn ‘a rich person’ ← bògat ‘rich’, Ukr. lysún ‘a bald man’ ← lýsyj ‘bald’, Russ. botȗn ‘plant Allium altaicum' ← (Russ, dial.) bot ‘leaf, Slov. tekũn ‘fugitive’, Croat, tèkūn ‘wheel’ (Skok III: 450), Russ. dial, tekun ‘a fluid’ ← *teką ‘run’, etc. The name of the Slavic thunder-god *Perunъ (ORuss. Pentnъ, Croat, placename Perun, Pol. piontrt ‘thunder’, Vasmer II: 345) is derived from the root *per- ‘strike’ (Russ, perét' ‘press’, Croat, za-prìjeti ‘close’, etc.); its exact relationship to Lith. Perkunas ‘thunder-goď, Lat\ . pērkons ‘thunder’ is unclear. The suffix *-unь, *-unja, chiefly attested in hypocoristics, developed from this suffix in individual Slavic languages, e.g. Pol. babunia ← baba ‘old woman’, Ukr. tatún’ ‘daddy’ ← táto, etc. [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 134-135]

2.11.55 *-utъ < *-awta-, *-uta < *-awtā This is a are suffix with very few lexical cognates in Slavic languages. Words ending in *-utъ are often deverbal nouns from expressive verbs in *-utati, e.g. Croat, kȍlȗt ‘circle’ from kolùtati ‘wind’, but cf. also Croat, (obsolete) trȅnūt ‘moment’ besides trën ‘id.’. Here belong also Slov. prhȗt ‘dandruff, Russ, pérxot’ ‘id.’ (Vasmer II: 346), from the root of *porxъ ‘dust, powder’ (Russ, pȏrox, Croat, práh, etc.) < *pers(Skr. pīsȃn- ‘sprinkled’, Hitt, papparš- ‘sprinkle’, IEW 823).

166

2.11.56 * - ъ tъ < * -u ta -

This is a rare suffix, attested in a few nouns denoting plants or plant materials: PSl. *xъbъtъ ‘Sambucus ebulus’ (Croat, àbad, dial. (Čakavian) hàbat, OPol. chebd, Russ. dial, xobóta, ESSJa VIII: 136-7) may contain the same suffix if it is etymologically related to Lith. skubùtis ‘early fruit’, from the root of skuběti ‘hurry’, skubùs ‘quicky, fast’. The original meaning of *xъbъtъ would have been ‘the plant that blossoms (or bears fruit) early’. PSl. *osъtъ ‘thistle’ (OCS osьtъ, Russ, osȏt, Pol. oset, LLus. woset, Slov. osȃī Derksen 380). Inherited from BSl., cf. Lith. ãšutas ‘hair of a horse’s tail’, from the root *h2ek’- ‘sharp’ (OCS ostrь, Lat. acer, etc., IEW 18-19), Boryś 2007a: 71-78. PSl. *věxъtъ, *vẽxъtь ‘a broom made of hay, a bundle of hay’ (Croat, dial. (Kajk.) vehet, Cz. vẽchet, Russ, véxot’, Pol. wiecheć, Vasmer I: 308, Kurkina 1992: 179), derived from *vẽxa, *vẽxъ ‘a bundle of hay, stick’ (Slov. véha, Cz. věch, Russ. vexá). The feminine form of this suffix (*-utā > *-ъta) is found in a number of archaic formations, such as Croat, lȏpta ‘ball’ < *lopъta (from the same root as in *lopuxъ ‘leaf), Croat, sȃnta ‘floating ice, floe’ < *sanъta (from the same root as in *sani ‘sledge’ [pl.], Slov. saní, Rus. sáni, Vasmer II: 576-7). This suffix is certainly related to *-ъtь in istems (see 2.5.3). In origin, both *-ъtъ and *-ъtь may represent extensions of original consonant stems in *-ut-.

2.11.57 *-ylъ, *-ylo < *-ūla- (also *-yljь < *-ūlja-) This is a very rare suffix, presumably a variant of *-h>, *-lo abstracted from stems in *-y: PSl. *kovylъ, *kovyljь ‘spike, spikenard’ (Russ, kovýl, kovýl’, Bulg. kovíl, Croat, coll, kòvilje, Vasmer I: 587), probably derived from the root of *kovati ‘hew, forge’ and related to Goth, hawi ‘hay’, OHG hou ‘id.’, with the same semantic development as in Germanic. A similar formation is PSl. *motylь, *metyljь ‘a bug’ (Russ, motýl' ‘butterfly, Croat, mètilj ‘fluke’, Pol. motyl ‘butterfly’, Vasmer II: 165),

167

probably, like ORuss. motyla, motylo ‘manure’, derived from the root *met- ‘throw’ (OCS metąr, mesti, Croat, mèsti, etc,). It has been claimed that the feminine form of this suffix (*-yla) is found in *kobyla ‘mare’ (Croat, kóbila, Cz, kobyla), and *mogyla ‘grave, mound’ (Russ, mogiła, Pol, mogiła, Cz, mohyla, Vasmer II: 144), but both words have unclear etymologies. The former was probably borrowed (and adapted) from Lat. cabalius ‘workhorse’, or from the same source as that word, while the latter might represent a metathesized form of *gomyla ‘lump, great quantity’ (Croat, gòmiía, Slov. gomȋla ‘heap of earth’), from the root of *gomolъ, *gomoljь ‘lump’. Otherwise, it may be connected to Lat. mālēs ‘heap, large mass’, if this is derived from *mogslē- (with the compensatory lengthening of the vowel, as in māla ‘chin’ < *magslā, cf. the deminutive maxilla). In that case, the root could be *mogh- as in PSI. *mogą ‘can, be able’ (OCS mogą, Russ, mogú, Croat, mȏgu, etc.). [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 112]

2.11.58 *-yrjь < *-ūrjaFor this suffix, see *-yrъ < *-ūra-, *-yra < *-ūrā-.

2.11.59 *-yrь < *-ūra-, *-yra < *-ūrāA rare suffix, found in PSl. *sekyra ‘axe’ (OCS sēkyra, Russ, sekira, Croat, sjȅkira, Cz. sekyra, Snoj 645), apparently derived from the verb *sẽkti ‘cut’ (OCS sěští, Russ, seč’, etc.) with the same suffix as Lat. secūris ‘axe’ from secāre ‘cut’. The long vowel in the root of the Slavic verb is unclear. In some Slavic languages we find this suffix in a few expressive formations derived from verbs, such as Ukr. tupỹr ‘silly man’ ← tupýj ‘blunt’, etc. A derivative of this suffix is *-yrjь < *-ūr-ja- found in Russ, puzýŕ ‘bladder, blister’ ← púzo ‘belly’. [Sławski 1974-1979, II: 27-28]

168

2.11.60 *-yšь < *-ũšjaThis rare suffix usually forms diminutives and hypocoristica, e.g. in Russ. dial, kámyšek, OPol. kamyszek, where a second diminutive suffix *-kъ was added to PSl. *kamyšь ‘pebble’ ← *kamy ‘stone’ (OCS kamy, Russ, kámen’, etc.), or in Pol. dial, krzemyszek ‘flintstone’ ← *kremę ‘flintstone’, Russ, voróbyš ‘little sparrow’ ← vorobéj ‘sparrow’, Serb. bjèlīš ‘fish Choondostroma nasus’ ← bijȇl ‘white’ (cf. also OCz. bělýš ‘elk’, Russ. dial, belýš ‘egg white’, ESSJa II: 83-84). [Sławski 1974-1979,1: 75-76, 79-80]

2.11.61 *-yto < *-ūtaThere are very few nouns derived with this suffix: PSI. *kopýto (a) ‘hoof (Russ, kopýto, Croat, kòpito, ) ← *kopati ‘dig’ (Russ, kopát’, Croat, kópati) < PIE *kop- ‘strike’ (Lith. kapȏti ‘dig’, Gr. kóptȏ, etc.), cf. Lith. kanȏpa ‘hoof < *kapona (Boryś 2007a: 348). PSI. *korýto (a) ‘trough’ (Russ, koryto, Pol. koryto, Croat, kòrito, ESSJa XI: 121-126). The root is *ker- ‘cut’, cf. OPr.pracartis ‘trough’. It is unclear whether PSl. *orkyta ‘a kind of willow’ (Russ, rakita, Pol. rokyta, Vasmer II: 488) belongs here. It is probably cognate with Latv. ẽrcis, ẽrcetis ‘juniper’. In the attested examples, the first vowel of the suffix (*-y-) bears the stress, and nouns derived with it belong to AP a). Probably, the suffix was originally acuted, but the reflexes of *-y- are short in all Slavic languages, hence they are formally indistinguishable from the reflexes of the original short accented vowel. It is also possible, but in my opinion less likely, that the vowel *-y- received the stress as the result of Dybo’s law, i.e. that the development was from *kòpyto to *kopy̑to.

169

3

Prefixes in nominal derivation

Most nouns containing prefixes in Proto-Slavic were derived from prefixed verbs, i.e. they are deverbatives. This pattern of deverbal formation remained productive in individual Slavic languages, and it is difficult to distinguish lexical items inherited from Proto-Slavic from parallel innovations. However, there are numerous exceptions, i.e. cases where we find a prefixed noun that can be reconstructed to Proto-Slavic without a corresponding verb, e.g. PSl. *zakom> ‘law’ does not have a corresponding verb from which it could be directly derived (there is, of course, *začęti ‘begin’, which contains the same root), and *orzumъ ‘mind’ seems to be composed of *orz- and the thematic noun *umъ ‘mind’, besides the originally stative verb *umẽti ‘know’. Nominal forms of prefixes that also occur with verbs sometimes have a long vowel, e.g. nominal *pra- < *pra- vs. verbal *pro- < *pra-, nominal *pa< *pā- vs. verbal *po- < *pa-, but in some early derivatives this pattern cannot be observed, e.g. *podъ ‘floor’ < *pa-da-. In some cases, only the form of the prefix with the short vowel exists, e.g. *do- (not **da-), and in some cases the form is ambiguous as to the length of the vowel, e.g. *pri- < *prej- or *prēj-. For a synthetic account of nominal prefixation in Slavic see Boryś 1975. Here is a list of prefixes that occur in nominal formations reconstructable to Proto-Slavic. As will become apparent, most prefixes can be shown to be derivable from prepositions.

3.1

*do- OCS -drěti), rasponъ ‘cross’ (from *pęti ‘stretch’ > OCS -pętì), razląka ‘separation’ (from ląčiti ‘separate’), etc.

3.6

*otъ- < *at-

This prefix developed from the preposition *otъ ‘from’ (ORuss. otъ, Croat, od, Pol. od, ode, ULus. wot, wole, Vasmer II: 289) < PIE *h2et‘away’ (Lith. at- ‘away’, OIr. aith- ‘again’). It is chiefly a verbal prefix (e.g. in *otiti ‘go away’ > Croat, òtići), so nouns derived with it are mostly deverbal. PSl. *ot(ъ)lẽkъ ‘remainder’ (OCS otъlěkъ), cf. Lith. ãtìaikas ‘remainder’, from the root *leykw- ‘leave’ (Gr. leípȏ, Lat. linquo, etc.). However, no verb derived from this root is attested in Slavic. PSl. *otrokъ ‘child, servant’ (OCS otrokъ, Russ, ótrok, OPol. otrok, Slov. oíròk ‘child’, Derksen 382) ← *rekti ‘say’ (OCS reštt). This noun probably presupposes a verb *otrekti ‘be mute, speechless’, as the semantic development was from *‘speechless (creature)’ to ‘infant, child’.

3.7

*po- < *pa-

This prefix developed from the preposition po (OCS po, Russ, po, Pol. po, Croat, po) < PIE *h2po (Lith. pa-, Gr. ápo. Lat. po- (e.g. in positus ‘placed’)) PSI. *poběda ‘victory’ (OCS pobėda, Russ, pobéda, Croat, pòbjeda (perhaps from OCS), Vasmer II: 380), probably from *bẽda ‘suffering, deprivation’ (see 2.10.2). PSl. *podoba ‘manner’ (OCS podoba ‘manner’, Cz. podoba ‘similarity) ← *doba ‘time, opportunity’ (Croat, doba, Pol. doba ‘day and night’), Lith. dabà ‘nature’, Latv. daba ‘manner’. PSl. *podъ ‘floor’ (Russ, pod ‘sole’, Croat, pȏd, pȍd, Derksen 4089),. We find the same formation in Lith. pãdas ‘sole, floor of a stove’, Latv. pads ‘stone floor’, from PIE *(h2)po-dhh1o- (from the root of OCS děti ‘do, make’).

173

PSI. *pojasъ ‘belt, girdle’ (OCS pojasъ, Russ, pój as, Croat, pȍjās, Pol. pas, Vasmer II: 423). This is a deverbal noun based on *pojasati ‘to girdle’ (Vaillant IV: 179), cf. also RussCSl.yasa/o ‘girdle’, from the PIE root *(H)yeh3s- ‘belt’ (Lith. júosta ‘girdle’ < *(H)yeh3s-to-, Gr. zṓnē ‘id.’ < *(H)yeh3s-neh2-, etc., cf. L1V 31 1 ,1EW 513, NHL 391-392). PSl. *pokȏjь (a) ‘rest’ (OCS pokoi, Russ, pokój, Pol. pokój ‘peace, chamber’, Croat, pòkoj ‘peace, tranquility’, Derksen 410-11), from the same root as in PSI. *čajati ‘wait, rest’ (with the lengthened grade) and in Lat. ąuiẽs ‘tranquility’ < PIE *kweyH-. PSl. *posъlъ ‘envoy’ (Russ, posól, Pol. poseł), from *po-sъlati ‘send’ (OCS posъlati, Croat, slȁtì, pȏslati ‘send’, etc.). PSI. *požan> ‘fire’ (CSl. požarъ, Croat, pȍžār, Russ, požár, Pol. požár, Vasmer II: 387), from the root o f *žarъ ‘glow’, *gorẽti ‘bum’, etc.

3.8

*pa- < *pa-

This prefix is identical to the preceding one, but with a long vowel (lengthened grade). It often has negative or pejorative meaning that can be rendered as ‘bad’ or ‘false’ (*padorga ‘bad weather’, *pastorъka ‘step-daughter’). PSl. *padorga ‘bad weather’ (ORuss. padoroga, Derksen 389), cf. Lith. dargà ‘rainy weather’, dárgctna ‘bad weather’. PSI. *pámętь (a) ‘memory’ (OCS pamętь, Russ, pámjat’, Pol. pamięć, Croat, pȁmẽt, Derksen 391), cf. Lith. mintìs ‘thought’ < PIE *mnti- ‘mind’ (Lat. mens, Skr. mati-). PSI. *paąkъ ‘spider’ (CSl. paąkъ, Russ, paúlc, Cz. pavouk, Croat. pȁūk Derksen 391); the second element *-ąkъ is derived from PIE *h3onko- ‘hook’ (Lat. uncus, Gr. ógkos, etc.). PSI. *pastorъka ‘step-daughter’, *pastorъkъ ‘step-son’ (CSl. pastorъka, also pastorьkь ‘step-son’, Croat, pȁstōrka, Cz. pastorek Vasmer II: 322); the etymology of the element *-storъkъ, *-storьka is disputed, but it appears probable that it can be derived from PIE *-ph2tor-, an ablauting form of *ph2tēr ‘father’ (Gr. paíēr, Lat. pater, Goth, fadar, etc.). This is possible under the assumption that *pHt- > BSl. *str- as in Lith. striijùs ‘(paternal) uncle’, CSl. stryjь ‘id.’, Ukr. stryj (Vasmer III: 29) from PIE *ph2truH-yo- ‘paternal uncle’ (Av. 174

tūirya-, Lat. patruus, etc.). However, these words have an alternative etymology linking them with OIr. smith ‘venerable’ < *stru-ti-. This prefix is also found in OCS padъšíi ‘step-daughter’, Russ. pádčericct ‘id.’, parallel to Lith. pȏdukrě ‘id.’; in individual Slavic languages we find, e.g., Cz. pablesk ‘reflection’, Russ, págolos ‘echo’, pádora ‘bad weather’, Pol. parów ‘ravine’, Slov. pákol ‘short stick’ (and Russ, pákolok ‘stick’), etc.

3.9

*paz- < *pas-

A rare prefix, probably originally a variant of the preceding one. Perhaps related to Lith. pás ‘next to’, Lat. post ‘after’. PSI. *pázduxa ‘bosom, armpit’ (OCS pazuxa, Russ, pȃzuxa, Cz. dial. pazucha, Croat, pȁzuho, Slov. pȃzduha, Derksen 392), Latv. paduse, cf. Skr. dós 'arm' < PIE *dows-.

3.10

*pra-< *pra-

This prefix is probably formed with the lengthened grade (*prō) from the same preposition as the prefix *pro (on which see 3.12). In adjectives it signifies a strong, excessive quality (e.g. *prastarъ ‘very old’ > Russ, prastȃryj, Croat, pràstarj, while in nouns we have it, e.g., in terms for great-grandparents and (*pradẽdъ ‘great-grandfather’, *prababa ‘great-grandmother’, Vasmer II: 423). Its cognate is found in Lith. prō ‘in front o f (e.g. próperncti ‘the year before last’, cf. also OPr. prābutskas ‘eternal’), Lat. pro ‘in front o f. Alternatively, these prepositions with the long vowel may be from *preh3 (or *proh3), from the same root as in *prh3wo- ‘first’ > OCS prьvъ, Skr. pūrva-, PSI. *pradẽdъ ‘grand-grandfather’ (OCS pradědъ, prědědъ, Russ. práded, Croat, pràdjed, Pol. pradziad, Vasmer II: 424, Vaillant 759). In individual Slavic languages we find also Croat, prȁbaba ‘great­ grandmother’ (Russ, prabábka), Pol. prasól ‘salt merchant’ (Russ. prȃsol), Pol. prawiek ‘ancient times’, etc.

175

3.11

*pri- < *prej-

This prefix developed from the preposition *pri ‘ať (OCS pri, Pol.przy, Russ, pri, Croat, pri) < *prey (Lith. prie). Words derived with it are chiefly deverbal. PSl. *pridъ ‘addition’ (Croat, príd, Slov. prìd ‘use, advantage’, Derksen 419) identical to Lith. prièdas ‘addition, supplement’ < *prey-dhh1o-, with the same element as in *pada- > *podъ (see 3.8).39 PSI. *prisęga ‘oath’ (OCS prisęga, Russ, prisjȃga, Croat, prìsega, Pol. przysięga, Vasmer II: 434), from the verbal root *sęg- ‘reach’ (Russ, sjagát’, Cz. sahati, etc.), cf. Lith. segù, sègti ‘attach’, Skr. sájaú ‘attach’ < PIE *seg-. PSl. *pritъča ‘story’ (OCS pritъča, Russ, prítča ‘parable’, Croat. prȋča, Vasmer II: 435), from the root of OCS pri-tъknąti ‘strike’, Pol. (s)potkać ‘meet’.

3.12

*pro-< *pra-

This prefix developed from the preposition *pro ‘over, for’ (Russ, pro, Cz. pro ‘because’, Vasmer II: 437) < PIE *pro (Lith. pro-, Skr. pro-, OIr. ro-, Lat.pro-, Gr. p m ‘before’). As a prefix, *pro- is chiefly verbal, so most Slavic nouns containing it are deverbal. However, in some nouns the original verb was either lost, or the connection with the verb is no longer obvious. PSl. *prodadja ‘sale’ (Croat. prȍdaja, Slov. prodȃja, Russ, prodáža), from the root o f *dati ‘give’, which had the reduplicated stem in the present (OCS 3 pl. dadętъ, Russ. [3 pl. pres.] dadút). The prefix *prowas attached to this stem, to which the suffix *-ja was also added. PSl. *proso ‘millet’ (Croat, prȍso, Russ, próso, Pol. proso), from PIE *pro-sh!0-, with the root *sehr ‘sow’ (see *sẽmę ‘seed’).

39 PIE *-dhhļO- also occurs in the adjective *gъrdъ (c) ‘proud’ (OCS grъdъ, Russ, górdyj, Pol. gardy, Croat, gȓd ‘terrible’, ESSJa VII: 206-207), which may be derived from PIE *gwrH-dhh 1o-, where the first element is the verbal root *gwerH- ‘praise’ (Ved. grņāti, Lith. girth Lat. grãtus ‘thankful’, OCS inti ‘sacrifice’, IEW 478).

176

PSI. *prostъ ‘simple, open, right’ (OCS prostь, Russ, prostoj, Croat. prȍst, Pol. prosty, Vasmer II: 444) < PIE *pro-sth2o-, identical to Skr. prastha- ‘plain, elevated lands’ and perhaps to OIr. ross ‘wood, height’ < PCelt. *frosto- (EDPC 142), from the root *steh2- ‘to stand’ (Lat. sto, stare, OCS stojatí, etc., cf. LIV 590ff„ IEW 1004ff„ NHL 637-643). The adjective *prostъ was the basis of the derivation of *prostakъ ‘simpleton, rude man’ (see 2.11.2). PSl. *prostorъ ‘room’ (Russ, prostór, Cz. prostor, Croat, próstor, Vasmer II: 445), a deverbal noun from the verb *pro-sterti ‘spread’ (Russ, prosterét’, OCS prostrēti, etc.), cf. also Skr. prastará- ‘flat surface’. OCS prorokь ‘prophet’ (and Croat, prȏrok) ← *pro- + *rekti ‘say’ is probably a caique on Gr. prophëtẽs (from pro- and phëmí ‘say’).

3.13

*są- < *sun- ‘together’

This prefix is etymologically identical with *sъ- < *su(n)- ‘together’ (see 3.14). Its form was generalized in the position before consonants, since *sunC- yielded *sąC- regularly. PSl. *sąsẽdъ ‘neighbor’ (OCS sąsědъ, Russ, soséd, Pol. sqsiqd, Croat, sȕsjed, Vasmer II: 701), from the root *sěd- ‘sit’ (OCS sēsti, Russ, sest ’, Croat, sjȅsti, etc.). PSl. *sąprągъ ‘husband’ (OCS sąprągъ ‘yoke’, sqprqžьnilcъ ‘husband’, Russ, supmg, Croat, sùprug), from the verbal root *prąg‘harness’ (Russ, prjagú, prjač'). In individual Slavic languages we also find CSl. sqglasie ‘accordance’ (Russ, soglásie, Croat, sȕglasje), Russ, súkrovica ‘gore’ (Croat, sȕkrvica), Cz. soustava ‘composition, system’ (Croat, sústav), etc.

3.14

*sъ- < *su(n)- ‘together’

This prefix is etymologically identical with the preposition *sъ ‘with’ (OCS sъ, Russ, s, so, Croat, s, sa, Pol. z, ze, Vasmer II: 564) < *som(Lith. sq-, OPr. sen ‘with’, Skr. sam ‘with’, Lat. simul ‘together, simultaneously’). 177

PSI. *sъborь ‘assembly’ (OCS sъborь, Russ, sbor, Croat, zbòr, Vasmer II: 585), from the root of *bьrati ‘gather’; the second element is from PIE *bhoro- ‘carrying, burden’ (Gr.phóros ‘tax’, NHL 17). PSl. *sъjьmъ ‘assembly, fair’ (Russ, sójm, OPol. sejm, Croat, sájam, Vasmer II: 687), from the verbal root *jęti *jьmą ‘take, have’ (Croat. imati, Russ. ìmét ’, etc.). In OCS we also have sъvětъ ‘counsel’ (from the root of *větje ‘assembly’ > Croat, vijèće, Russ, véče), sъvēstь ‘conscience’ (from ♦věsti ‘know’, cf. also *vẽstь ‘news’ > Croat, vijèst, Russ, vést), etc.

3.15

*u-< *-aw-

This prefix is derived from the preposition u ‘near’ < ‘away’ (OCS u, Russ, u, Pol. u, Croat, u, Vasmer III: 168) < PIE *h2ew- (Lith. au-, Lat. au-, Skr. ȃva ‘away’). PSl. *udъ ‘member’ (Russ, ud, Croat, ȗd, Pol. ud, Vasmer III: 173) derived from the root *dẽ- ‘do’ < *dheh]- ‘make, put’ (see *dẽlo ‘deed’). PSl. *užasъ ‘amazement, horror’ (OCS užasъ, Russ, úžas, Cz. úžas, Bulg. úžas, Vasmer III: 174, Derksen 511), from the root of *žasiti ‘frighten’ (CSl. žasiti) and further to *gasiti ‘extinguish’ (OCS gasiti, Croat, gásiti). There is no need to consider it a Germanic loanword (pace Pronk-Tiethofif2013: 163).

3.16

*(v)ъ(n)- < *un- ‘in’, *ą- < *an-

This prefix developed from the preposition *vъn ‘in, into’ (OCS vь, Russ, v, Croat, u, Pol. w, we, Vasmer I: 161) < PIE *h)en-, ^ n - (Latv. ie, Lat. in, OIr. f , Gr. eis, etc.). The o-grade of this prefix is found in PSl. *ą- < *h1on-, e.g. in *ątroba ‘entrails’. We have it in many deverbal nouns, e.g. OCS vьxodь ‘entrance’ (and Russ, v jcod) < vьxoditi ‘enter’, OCS vъčęlo ‘beginning’ ← vь-čęti ‘begin’, etc. PSl. *ątorь ‘cleft’ (Croat, ȕtor, Russ, utór, pol. wqtor, Vasmer III: 194), from the root of *terti ‘rub, drill’ (Russ, terét’, etc.). PSI. *ątroba ‘entrails’ (OCS qtroba, Russ, utrȏba, Croat, útroba, Pol. wątroba ‘liver’, Vasmer III: 195).

178

3.17

*(v)ъz- < *uz- ‘u p w a rd s’

This prefix developed from the preposition *vъz (ORuss. vъz ‘for’, OCS vьz-, Croat, uz ‘near, by’, Pol. wz-, Vasmer I: 214). It is found mostly in deverbal nouns (e.g. Croat, ùzvrat ‘retům’ ← uzvrátiti ‘return’, Russ. vozvrȃt ‘return’ ← vozvratít’ ‘to return’), but cf. OCS vъzduxъ ‘air’ (Russ, vózdux, and Serb, vàzduh are OCS loanwords, cf. also Cz. vzduch) ← *vъz- + *duxъ ‘breath’.

3.18

*y-< *ū-‘out o f

This prefix is found only in East and West Slavic (and marginally in Croatian and Slovene dialects), cf. Russ, vy-, Pol. wy~, Cz. vy- (Vasmer I: 238), but it must be an archaism, as it correpsonds to Goth, ȗt ‘out o f, Skr. ud ‘upwards’. It is primarily verbal, but it is also found in deverbal nouns, e.g. Russ, výxod ‘exit’ ← vyxodít’ ‘exit’, Russ, výbor ‘choice’ ← vybrat' ‘choose’ (parallel to Pol. wybór ← wybrać), etc.

3.19

*za-< *za-

This prefix is also attested as the preposition za ‘behind’ (Russ, za, Pol. za, Croat, za), presumably related to Lith. dial ažù ‘behind’, azi ‘id.’, from PIE *h|g’h-, the zero-grade of *h]eg’h- ‘out of, from’ (Lat. ex, Gr. éks) > PSI. *ьzъ (OCS iz, Russ, iz, Pol. iz, Croat, iz, Lith. iš, ESSJa Vlil: 6-8). PSI. *zadъ ‘back’ (OCS zadъ, Russ, zad, Croat, zȁdnji ‘last’, Pol. zad, Vasmer I: 438), from *za- ‘behind’ and *dhh!0- (perhaps by analogy with *prkh> ‘addition’, *udъ ‘member’, etc.). PSl. *zajьmъ ‘loan’ (OCS zaimъ, Russ, zaëm, Croat, zájam, Cz. zájem, Vasmer I: 438), from the root of *jęti, *jьmą ‘take’. PSI. *zakonъ ‘law’ (OCS zakonъ, Russ, zakón, Croat, zákon, Pol. zakon, Vasmer I: 439), derived from *konъ ‘end, edge’ (the original meaning of *zakonъ was probably ‘beginning, origin, principle’), cf. also PSl. *začęti ‘begin’ (OCS začęti, Croat, zàčēti, etc.).

179

PSI. *zapadъ’ ‘west’ (OCS zapadъ, Russ, západ, Croat, zȁpād, Vasmer I: 441), derived from the root of *pasti, *padą ‘fall’ (the original meaning of *zapadъ was presumably ‘sundown’).

3.20

*ko- (?)

The existence of the prefix *ko- (Schtìtz 1968) is problematic; it has been identified, e.g. in *kovьrča ‘curl, twist’ (Croat, kóvrča, Slov. kovȓčje 'Stipa pennata'), a deverbal formation of *kovьrkati ‘twist’ (Russ, kovérkat', ESSJa XII: 18) from the root of *vьrtẽti ‘tum’ (Croat. vr̀tjeti), in *kovьrza ‘something twisted’ (Russ. dial, kóverza ‘intrigue’, kóverzen’ ‘rind shoe’, ESSJa XII: 18-19), from the root of Lith. vetžiù, ver̃žti ‘tie’, vir̃žis ‘rope’, *kovortъ ‘door’ (Ukr. kȏvorot, ESSJa XII: 14), from the root of *vorta ‘door’ (Croat, vráta), and in verbs such as Croat. komèšati ‘flounce’ (? from *ko- + *mẽšati ‘mix’, ESSJa X: 171), OCS kolěbati ‘agitate, shake, waver’, Cz. kolėbati se ‘waver’, Russ, kolebát’ ‘shake’, perhaps from *ko- and the root of Lith. láibas ‘thin’ (ESSJa X: 129-130). As can be seen from the examples, most nouns with this putative prefix are clearly dialectal, and the etymologies of words in which it allegedly occurs are often doubtful.

3.21

*be- (?), *bo- (?)

In PSl. *besě̑da (a) ‘talk, conversation’ (OCS besēda, Croat, bèsjeda, Russ, besédct, Pol. biesiada ‘amusement’, ESSJa I: 21 If.) we seem to have a prefix *be- added to the root of *sẽsti, *sẽdą ‘sit’; the semantic development would have been from ‘a sitting’ to ‘a conversation’ (cf. Croat, zbȍr ‘a gathering’ and zbȍríti ‘talk’). However, the origin of the prefix *be- is unclear; it may be related to the Lithuanian durative verbal prefix be-, or with the preposition *bez ‘without’ (OCS bez, Croat, bez, Russ, bez, Pol. bez), which is cognate with Lith. bè, OPr. bhe and Skr. bahis ‘outside’. The same prefix with the o-grade may be preserved in PSl. *bokъ ‘side, hip’ (Croat, bȍ/c, Russ, bole, Pol. bole, ESSJa II: 170), if this is a substantivized adverb, which originally meant ‘by the side’. Such a formation would be parallel to *prokъ (OCS prokъ ‘remainder’, Russ, prok ‘use, benefit’, Derksen 421) and *dokъ ‘while, until’ (Croat. 180

dok, Russ, doka, Vasmer I: 358), derived from the prepositions *proand *do- respectively. The element *-kъ can be identified either with the stem of the interrogative pronoun *kwo- (OCS kъto ‘who’), or with the preposition *kъ ‘towards’ (Russ, ko, Croat, lc, ka). The form of the first element of *bokъ is preserved in the particle *bo ‘and, then’ (OCS bo, Croat, arch, bo, Pol. bo ‘because’). The semantic evolution may have been from ‘except’ or ‘besides’ to ‘as well’ and ‘and’.

181

r;

■ļ i í I

l.

4 Nominal compounds We can distinguisth three different types of compounds: A) Copulative compounds consist of two elements belonging to the same categories. They are also called dvandva compounds (Skr. dvandva- ‘pair’). They can usually be paraphrased as X and Y (where X is the first, and Y the second member of a copulative compound). Examples are found in most IE languages (Scarlata 1999, Lindner 2002, Meid 1967), cf. Skr. pitā-putrās ‘father and sons’, OIr. gaisced ‘weapons’ (cf. gáe ‘spear’, sciath ‘shield’), Gr. nykhth-ēmeron ‘night and day’, etc. Besides nouns, copulative composita can be formed with two adjectives, cf. Gr. leukȏ-melas ‘white and black’, OIr. lethan-glas ‘broad and grey’, Russ, veliko-lépnyj ‘beautiful, splendid’ (lit. ‘great and beautiful’). In Slavic, such adjectival copulative compounds are much more common than nominal copulative compounds. B) Determinative compounds consist of two parts, the second of which somehow determines the first one. These compounds can consist of a variety of elements: 1) they can combine two nominal elements, e.g. OE wull-camb ‘wool-comb’, Skr. rāja-īsi- ‘a seer-king’ (= a king who is a seer), Skr. gphá-pati ‘lord of the house’. 2). Determinative compounds can consist of a nominal and an adjectival element. The nominal element can precede the adjectival element, as in Gr. theo-eikelos ‘similar to gods’, OIr. cath-bȗadach ‘victorious in battle’, or it can follow it, as in Gr. akrȏ-polis ‘upper town, citadel’, ON mid-gardr ‘middle-earth’ (= inhabited world). 3) Determinative compounds can combine two adjectives, as in Skr. sarvá-rohita- ‘completely red’, Croat, polu-živ ‘half-alive’, OHG rōt-brūn ‘red-brown’. 4) Finally, determinative compounds can combine a verbal and a nominal element, e.g. OE saelida ‘seafarer’ Ģīdan ‘travel’). The verbal element can be a root-noun with verbal meaning, e.g. Gr. boȏ-kleps ‘cattle-thief (cf. Gr. kléptō ‘steal’). C) Exocentric compounds. Taken together, copulative and determinative compounds are endocentric, as their meaning can be understood as the sum of the meaning of their parts. Exocentric 183

compounds consist of two elements that are combined to express a meaning that is not denoted by any of the parts. These compounds can consist of 1) two nominal elements (these are also called Bahuvnhi compounds in the Sanskrit tradition), e.g. Skr. raja-putra- ‘whose sons are kings’ (in opposition to the determinative compound rāja-putrá‘son of a king’). This is an exocentric compound, since it refers neither to the king nor to a son, but rather to someone whose sons are kings. Such compounds are generally adjectives; 2) an adjectival and a nominal element, e.g. Gr. mega-kleēs ‘very famous’ (= whose fame is great), Skr. ugrá-bāhu- ‘having strong arms’, Gr. poly-ṓnymos ‘many-named’, Lat. magn-artimus ‘having great courage’; such a compound is usually an adjective, although it can easily be substantivized; 3) a nominal and a verbal element, e.g. Gr. (Hom.) pheré-oikos ‘house-carrier’ (= a snail). In the following section, we shall classify the Slavic compounds according to their constituent parts (whether they are nominal, adjectival, or verbal). Within each group, we shall distinguish endocentric from exocentric compounds.40 It should be noted that not all of the adduced compounds are etymologically transparent, i.e. it seems probable that they were not understood as compounds by speakers of Proto-Slavic. The first element of Slavic compounds can be the simple nominal, adjectival, numeral, or verbal stem, e.g. *medvědь ‘bear’ (Russ. medvěd), from the u-stem *mẽdъ ‘mead’ and *ẽsti ‘eat’, *dobro-dẽjь ‘benefactor’ (OCS dobrodějõ), from the thematic stem *dobro- and *děti ‘do’, *tri-golvъ ‘three-headed’ (Slov. oronym Triglav), from *tri- ‘three’ and *golva ‘head’. However, the vowel *-o- from thematic stems was analogically spread to many compounds where it is unexpected. This is especially common in compounds where the first element is a nominal ā-stem, e.g. *vodo-nosъ ‘water-bearer’ (OCS vodonosъ) from the ā-stem *voda ‘water’ and *nositi ‘carry’. There is also a large class of compounds where the first element is the imperative form of the verb, e.g. *dadjь-bogъ ‘a pagan deity’ (from the imperative of *dati ‘give’ and *bogъ ‘god’). This type is parallel to a common Romance pattern of compound-building, e.g. Italian stuzzica-denti ‘tooth-pick’.

40 For a more refined classification of nominal compounds in Slavic see Sadovski 2000. 184

4.1

V-N

This type of compounds is rare in Slavic, except in onomastics. PSl. *dadjьbogъ (ORuss. dažьbogъ, OPol. Dadzibog, ESSJa IV: 182-3), from *dati ‘give’ (OCS dati, Russ, dat’, Croat, dali, etc.) and *bogъ ‘god’ (OCS bogъ, Russ, bog, Croat, bóg, etc.). PSl. *drъkolь ‘stick, club’ (OCS drьkolь, Russ. dial, drekol’, Slov. dŕkoí, Cz. drkoíí, ESSJa V: 139-40), from the root of *dьrati ‘tear, stab’ and *kolъ ‘stick’ (Vaillant 1928). Note that there is the wrong yer in both OCS and Russ. (ъ is expected). In onomastics, we find personal names such as Croat. Zvonimir ( ← *zvoniti ‘sound, ring’ + *min> ‘peace’, Berisiav (← *berą ‘take’ + *slava ‘fame’), Rastimir (← *rasti ‘grow’ + *min> ‘peace’), OCroat. Mątimirъ (← *mątiti ‘perturb, shake’ + *mirъ), Cz. Bořivoj (← *borti, *boriti ‘fight’ + *vojь ‘soldier’), Pol. Kazimierz (← *kazati ‘show’ + *min>), Russ. Vladimir (and ORuss. Voiodimirь) ← *voldati ‘rule’ + *mirъ), Old Serb. Časlavъ (and Pol. Czasiaw) ← *čajati ‘wait’ + *slava ‘fame’, Old Croat. Pribislav (and Pol. Przybysiaw) ← *pri-biti ‘strike’ + *slava etc. (on this type see particularly Pohl 1977). In individual Slavic languages, we find examples such as Croat. kàžiprst ‘index finger’ (← *kazati ‘show’ + *pьrstъ ‘finger’, pàiikuća ‘pyromaniac’ (← *paliti ‘set fire, alight’ + *kątja ‘house’), jèbivjetar ‘superficial, light-hearted person’ (literally ‘fuck-wind’). The first element o f such compounds is usually the imperative (< PIE optative) 2sg. form of the verb, but we also find examples where the verbal form is in the 3rd person sg. present, e.g. Cz. neznaboh ‘atheist’ (← *ne znati ‘ignore’ + *bogъ ‘god’).

4.2

N-N

Most of the compounds in this group are etymologically non­ transparent. Originally, they were endocentric compounds, either determinatives (*gospodь ‘lord of hosts’), or dvandvas (*bratъsestra ‘brother and sister’). PSl. *gospodь ‘lord’ (OCS gospodь, Russ, gospód’, Pol. dial. gospód, Croat, gȍspōd, ESSJa VII: 61-3). Cf. Lat. hospes ‘host’. The first element is found in PSl. *gostь ‘guest’, while the second is from 185

PIE *poti- Mord, master’ (Skr. pati-, Gr. pȏsis ‘husband’) with unexplained *-d-. PSl. *gavęzъ ‘dog’s tongue, Cynoglossum officinale' (Croat, gȁvēz, Russ, gavjáz, Cz. havez, Vasmer 1: 248), compounded from the word for ‘cow, cattle’ (PIE *gwow- or *gweh3u- > Gr. boũs, Skr. gáu-, OIr. bó, cf. PSI. *govędo) and ‘tongue’ (PIE *dng’huh2 > OHG zungct, Av. hizm, PSl. *ęzykъ > Russ, jazýk Croat, jězik, Cz. jazyk, etc.). The semantic connection is in the appearance of the plant which is called Hundszunge in German and boúglōsson in Greek. PSl. *čeljustь ‘jaw ’ (OCS čeljiestь, Cz. čelist, Russ, čéljust Croat. ěȅljūst, ESSJa IV: 43), derived from *čelo ‘front (of the head)’ and *usta ‘mouth’. In OCS, we also find the determinative (possessive) compounds bratučędъ ‘nephew’ ← brat(r)ъ ‘brother’ + čędo ‘kid, child’, glavobolie ‘headache’ ← glava ‘head’ + *bolie ‘pain’ (bolěti ‘hurt’). Dvandva compounds are rare in Slavic, but cf. OCS braíъsestra [Nom. du.] ‘brother and sister’, Byelorussian bratseslrȃ ‘a kind of plant’ (ESSJa III: 9).

4.3

N-V

This type of compound is quite common and productive in Slavic; such compounds mostly belong to the exocentric type (e.g. *krъvopija ‘blood-sucker’). PSl. *čarodẽjь ‘sorcerer’ (OCS čaroděi, Slov. čaroděj, Pol. czarodziej, ORuss. čaroděi, ESSJa IV: 24), derived from *čarь, *čara ‘magic’ and *dẽti ‘do’. PSl. *gumьno ‘threshing-floor’ (OCS gumьno, Russ, gumnó, Po. gumno, Croat, gúmno, Vasmer I: 321); the first element is *gu- < *gwow- (as in *govędo ‘head of cattle’), while the second element is probably the verbal root *mьn- ‘thresh, trample, step’ (as in OCS mьną, Russ, mm, mjat’, Lith. minu mìnti). This compound is atypical, as the nominal element is not the object of the verbal root, but its (locative) adjunct. A similar type is found in Gr. hippódromos ‘hippodrome’ ← hippos ‘horse’ + drameȋn [aor. inf.] ‘run’.

186

PSI. *krъvopija, *krьvopijьcь ‘blood-sucker’ (Croat, krvòpija, Russ, dial, krovopíja, OCz. krvopijec, ESSJa XIII: 63), derived from *kry/*krьvь ‘blood’ and *piti ‘drink’. PSl. *medvẽdь ‘bear’ (OCS medvědь, Russ, medvéd’, Pol. arch. miedźwiedź, Croat, mèdvjed, ESSJa XVIII: 55, 65-7). Perhaps inherited, cf. Skr. madhvȃd- ‘honey-eater’, from *medhu- ‘mead, honey’ and *h,ed- ‘eat’. PSl. *nozdьrja ‘nostril’ (Russ, nozdrjȃ, Ukr. nȋzdr̀a, OCS nozdri pl., Croat, nozdra, nȍzdrva, Pol. nozdrza, ESSJa XXVI: 15-18) is probably a compound of *nosъ ‘nose’ and *der-/*dьr- ‘cut’ (Vasmer II: 225) rather than directly comparable with Lith. nasrai, MHG nuster. The sequence *-dьr- is assured by the Ukr. form nízdr̀a. PSI. *rąkojętь ‘handful’ (OCS rąkojętъ, Russ, rukojȃt', Pol. rękojeść < *-jęć, Vaillant 1974: 689), from *rąka ‘hand’ and *jęti ‘take’. The following two compounds were presumably non-transparent in Proto-Slavic: PSl. *soldъ ‘sweetness, malt’ (ORuss. solodь, Russ, sólod, Pol. slȏd, Croat, sìȃcl) < *sol-dh3o- ‘salt’ (see *solь) and the root *deh3- ‘give’ (Gr. dȋ-dō-mi, Lat. do, dare, etc.). Germ. *salta- ‘salty, salt’ (ON saltr, OE sealt, OHG salz) reflects the same compound, cf. also Lith. saldùs ‘sweet’, which may be from *sol-dh3u- (NHL 586). PSl. *uzda (b) ‘bridle’ (OCS uzda, Russ, uzda, Pol. uzda, Croat. ùzda, Derksen 511), derived from the same root as in *usta ‘mouth’ (Croat, usta, etc.) and the root *dhehr > OCS děti ‘put, do’. In OCS we also find examples such as bogorodica ‘mother of god’ < ← bogь ‘god’ + roditi ‘give birth to’, drěvodělja ‘carpenter’ ← drěvo ‘wood’ + děti ‘do, work’, potьbēga ‘adultress’ ← *potь ‘lord, husband’ + *bẽgti ‘run’, kopijenosьcь ‘spear-bearer’ ← kopije ‘spear’ + nesti ‘carry’, čędoljubъ ‘child-lover’ ← ěędo ‘kid’ + ijubiti ‘love’ (translates Gr. philóteknos), slavoljubie ‘ambition’ ← slava ‘fame’ + ijubiti ‘love’ (translates Gr. philodoksia), bogoavlenie ‘theophany’ ← bogь ‘god’ + avìti sę ‘appear’ (translates Gr. theophanía), pēsnopěvьcь ‘singer’ ← pěsnь ‘song’ + pēti ‘sing’, etc. This type of nominal composition is still productive in most Slavic languages, cf. Croat, pismònoša ‘postman’ ← písmo ‘letter’ + nositi ‘carry’, yietrògonja ‘jerk’ ← vjȅtar ‘wind’ + gònitì ‘chase’, Russ, miroljúbie ‘pacifism’ ← mir ‘peace’ + ljubít’ ‘love’, verolȏmstvo ‘treason’ ← véra ‘faith’ + lomát’ ‘break’, etc. The

187

title vojevoda ‘duke’, which is quite widespread in Slavic languages may be a caique on Germanic compounds like OHG heri-zogo.

4.4 Adj-N This is the cross-linguistically most common type of determinative compounds. However, in Slavic there seem to be rather few inherited lexemes, and some of them were probably non-transparent (*dъsdjь ‘rain’ ← ‘bad day’, *sъmьrtь ‘death’ ← ‘good death’). PSl. *dъs-djь ‘rain’ (OCS dъždь, Russ, dožd', Pol. deszcz, Croat, dial, dȁžd), from PIE *dus-dyu-, where the first element is reflected in Skr. dus- ‘bad’, Gr. dys- ‘id.’, OIr. do- ‘id.’, and the second element contains the zero-grade of PIE *dyẽws ‘sky’ (Skr. dyau-, Gr. Zeus ‘Zeus’, etc.), see NHL 71. PSl. *pьrstъ ‘finger’ (OCS prьstъ, prъstъ, Russ. arch, perst, Croat. pȑst, Pol. parst, Vasmer II: 344), identical to Lith. pir̃štas ‘finger’ and Ved. pfsthá- ‘back, top, tip’, YAv. paršta- ‘back’ < PIE *pr-sth2o- ‘tip, something protruding’ (IEW 1005, N1IL 552-553), cf. also Lat. postis ‘post’ < *pr-sth2i-. PSl. *sъmьrtь ‘death’ (OCS sъmrьtь, Russ, smert’, Pol. śmierć, Croat, smȑt, Derksen 480), cf. Lith. mirtis and Lat. mors. The first element is apparently from PIE *h!su- ‘good’ (Skr. su-, Gr. eu-), but it was probably not transparent as an adjectival form in Proto-Slavic. We find it also in the adjective *sъ-dorvъ ‘healthy’ (Russ, zdorȏvyj, Croat. zdrȁv). PSI. *velьmoža ‘potentate’ (OCS velьmoža, Bulg. velmȏža, Russ. vel’mȏža, Cz. velmož(a), BER I: 132), composed o f the root *velь ‘big’ (OCS vein) and *mog- ‘can, be able’ (OCS mogą). In OCS we also find examples such as blagoděteljь ‘benefactor’ ← blagъ ‘beneficjent’ + *dẽteljь ‘actor, agent’ (translates Gr. euergétēs), milosrъdie ‘pity’ ← milъ ‘dear’ + *sьrd- ‘heart’, črьnorizьcь ‘monk’ ← črьnъ ‘black’ + riza ‘robe’, samodrьžьcъ ‘ruler, lord’ ← samъ ‘only, single, alone’ + drьžati ‘hold’ (translates Gr. autokrȃtōr), lъžepmrokъ ‘false prophet’ ← lъžь(nъ) ‘false’ + prorokь ‘prophet’ (translates Gr. pseudo-prophētēs), skoro-pisьcь ‘quick writer’ ← skorь ‘quick’ + pisьcь ‘writer’ (translates Gr. takhy-gmphos). Cf. also RussCSl. malomoci ‘weak woman’ (ī-stem) besides malomošěь ‘id.’ (i-stem) ← 188

malь ‘small, weak’ + močь ‘power’, CSl. siavooěye ‘state of having grey eyes, glaucitas’ ← slavь ‘grey’ (Russ, solóvyj ‘light bay’) + oči ‘eyes’. A special subtype o f such determinative compounds have a numeral as the first element, e.g. OCS trьząbъ ‘trident’ (translates Gr. triȏdous), or OCS inoěędъ, jedirtočędъ ‘only child’ (also used as an adjective) ← (jedytnъ ‘one’ + čędo ‘child’ (translates Gr. monogenēs). Compounds are usually stressed on the first syllable of the second element, cf. Russ, vodopád ‘waterfall’ (← vodá ‘water’ + past’, pádat’ ‘fall’), Croat, bjelóuška ‘water snake, natrix natrix’41 (← bijėl ‘white’ + ȕška ‘auricle’).

41 The Standard Croatian form bjelòuška, with the short rising accent on -0-, is the result o f the (late) Štokavian accent retraction, i.e. the original form was *bẽloùšьka.

189

.1

5

References

Aitzetmũller, Richard 1953. “Zur slavischen -nt- Deklination“, Zeitschrift fu r vergieichende Sprachforschung 71: 65-73. Arumaa, Peeter 1985. Ursiavische Grammatik, Band III. Heidelberg: Winter. Babić, Stjepan 1986. Tvorba riȋeči u hrvatskom krtjiževnom jeziku, Zagreb: HAZU. Bajec, Anton 1950-1959. Besedotvorje siovenskega ježíka, I-IV, Ljubljana. Balles, Irene 2008. Nominale Wortbildung des Indogermanischen in Grundztigen. Die Wortbildungsmuster ausgewahiter indogermanischer Sprachen, herausgegeben von Rosemarie LUhr, Band 1: Latein, Altgriechisch, Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kováč. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1984. “PIE ‘sun’”, Mtinchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 43: 5-8. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1985. The origins o f the Indo-European nominal inflection, Innsbruck: IBS. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1992. “‘Widow’”, Historische Sprachforschung 105: 171-188. Beekes, Robert S. P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, Amsterdam: Benjamins. Benveniste, Emile 1935. Origines de la formation des noms en irtdoeuropéen, Paris. Benveniste, Émile 1948. Noms d ’agent et noms d'action en indoeuropéen, Paris. Bemštejn, Samuil B. 1970. “Sledy konsonantnyx imennyx osnov v slavjanskix jazykax (Sledy osnov na -s)”, Voprosy jazykoznanija 3, 1970: 71-86. Bemštejn, Samuil B. 1972. K istorii slavjanskogo sufiksa -te l\ Russkoe i slavjanskoe jazykoznanie, Moscow.

191

Bemštejn, Samuil B. 1980. “K ètimologii praslavjanskogo *degъtь ‘pix axungia’”, in: V. Čolakov et alii (eds.) V čest na akademik Vladimir Georgiev, Sofija: BAN, 206-212. Birnbaum, Genrik 1986. Praslavjanskij jazyk. Dostiženija i probierni ego rekonstrukcii, Moscow: Progress. Boryś, Wiesław 1969. Budowa słowotwórcza rzeczowników w tekstach czakawskixh XV i XVI w., Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk. Boryś, Wiesław 1975. Preflksacja imienna w językach słowiańskich, Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk. Boryś, Wiesław 2007. Čakavske leksičke studije, Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. Boryś, Wiesław 2007a. Etymologie słowiańskie i polskie. Wybór studiów z okazji 45-lecia pracy naukowej, Warszawa: Institut Slawistyki PAN. Bošković, Radosav 1936. “Razvitak sufiksa u južnoslovenskoj jezičkoj zajednici”, Južnoslovenskì filolog 15: 1-155. Bošković, Radosav 1976. “Neka pitanja imeničke mocije i praslovenske derivacije”, Zbornikza filoloģiju i lingvistiku 19,2: 7-11. Brȃuer, Herbert 1969. Slavísche Sprachwissenschaft, 1-3, Berlin: De Gruyter. Carlton, Terence 1991. Introduction to the phonological history of the Slavic languages, Columbus (OH): Slavica. Chantraine, Pierre 1933. La formation des noms en grec ancien, Paris. Clackson, James & Olsen, Birgit Anette (eds.) 2002. Indo-European Word Formation. Proceedings o f the Conference held at the University o f Copenhagen, October 20-22, 2000, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. de Bernardo Stempel, Patrizia 1999. Nominale Woríbíldung des ālteren íríschen, Tubingen: Niemeyer. Danes, F., Dokulil, M., Kuhař, J. 1967. Tvoření slov v češtině, I: Odvozování podstatnýnjmen, Prague. Debrunner, Albert 1954. Die Nominalsuffixe, in: J. Wackemagel, Altindische Grammatik, II.2., Gottingen. Demiraj, Bardhyl 1997. Albanische Etymologíen, Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. Derksen, Rick 2000. “Old Icelandic jarpi ‘hazel-grouse’, rjúpa ‘ptarmigan’ and their Germanic and Balto-Slavic cognates” in: D. Boutkan and A. Quak (eds.) Language contact. Substratum,

192

superstratum, adstratum in Germanic Languages, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 97-105. Derksen, Rick 2011. “The fate of the neuter o-stems in Balto-S lavic”, in: Accent Matters. Papers on Balto-Slavic Accentology, ed. by Tijmen Pronk & Rick Derksen, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 59-66. Dickenmann, Ernst 1978. Das slavische Suffix -yńi (-ynja). Unter bes. Beriicks. des Serbokroatischen, Munster (Selbstverlag). Duchesne-Guillemin, J. 1939. Les composés de l'Avesta, Paris. Dybo, Vladimir A. 1981. Slavjanskaja akcentologija, Moscow: Nauka. Dybo, Vladimir A., Zamjatina, G. I., Nikolaev, S. L. 1993. Osnovy slavjanskoj akcentologii. Slovar'. Neproizvodnye osnovy mužskogo roda, Moscow: Nauka. Eckert, Rainer 1974. “Studien zuř Geschichte der nominalen Stammbildung im Slawischen”, Zeitschriftfur Slawistik 19: 489506. Eckert, Rainer 1983. Die Nominalstāmme a u f -i im Baltischen unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung des Slawischen, Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Endzelīns, J. 1971. Comparative phonology and morphology o f the Baltic languages, The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Gołąb, Zbigniew 1992. The Origins o f the Slavs, Slavica, Columbus (OH): Slavica. Griepentrog, W. 1995. Die Wurzelnomina des Germanischen und ihre Vorgeschichte, Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrãge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Grošelj, M. 1972. “O proponi -in', Slavistična rēvija 20: 4-42. Halla-aho, Jussi. 2006. Problems o f Proto-Slavic Historical Nominal Morphology, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Handke, K. 1979. “Urslawische Muster der westslawischen Nominalkomposita”, Zeitschrift fu r Slawistik, 24: 44-50. Hausler, Sabine 2003. “Zu From und Funktion der balto-slawischen -tiAbstrakta” in: Eva Tichy, Dagmar S. Wodtko, Britta Irslinger (eds.) Indogermanisches Nomen. Derivation, Flexion und Ablaut, Bremen: Hempen Verlag, 67-82. Heidermanns, Frank 1996. „Der Ursprung der gotischen Adverbien auf -ba“, Historische Sprachforschung 109: 257-275. Hoffmann, Karl 1955. “Ein grundsprachlisches Possessivsuffix”, Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 6: 35-40. 193

Holzer, Georg. 1995. “Die Einheitlichkeit des Slavischen um 600 n. Chr. und ihr Zerfall”, Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 41: 55-89. Holzer, Georg. 2005. “Zur relativen Datierung prosodischer Prozesse im Gemeinslavischen und frtìhen Kroatischen”, Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 51:31-71. Holzer, Georg. 2007. Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen. Einleitung und Lautgeschichte der Standardsprache, Frankfurt a/M & Wien: Peter Lang. Xoxlačeva, Vera N. 1969. K istorii otglagol’nogo slovoobrazovanija suščestvitei ’nyx v nisskom literatumom jazyke novogo vremeni, Moscow: Nauka. Illič-Svityč, Vladimir M. 1963. Imennaja akceniuacija v baltijskom i slavjamkom, Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Ivanov, Vjačeslav V. 1983. Istorija slavjartskix i balkanskix nazvanij metallov, Moscow: Akadēmija nauk SSSR. Janda, Laura A. 1996. “Figure, ground, and animacy in Slavic declension”, Slavic and East European Journal, 40: 325-355. Jeżowa, M. 1975. Suffix —ika w językach słowiańskich, Wroclaw: Ossolineum. Jurišić, Blaž 1992. Nacrt hrvatske slovnice. Tvorba imenica u povijesnom rozvojů, Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. Kapovič, Mate 2007. “The *vȏl'ā-type Accent in Slavic”, in: M. Kapović & R. Matasović (ur.) Tones and Theories. Proceedings o f IWoBA 2005, IHJJ, Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, 89-104. Kapović, Mate 2009. “Rising mobility in Slavic /-stems”, in: Rosemarie Lūhr & Sabine Ziegler (eds.), Protolanguage and Prehistory. Akten der XII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, vom 11. bis 15. Oktober 2004 in Krakau, 2009: 236-243. Kapovič, Mate 2010. “Naglasak o-osnova muškoga roda u hrvatskompovijesni razvoj”, Filoloģija 54: 51-110. Klimas, Antanas 1973. “Word-formation in Lithuanian”, in: H. Rix(ed.) Flexion und Wortbildung, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, p. ISO147. Kortlandt, Frederik 2009. Baltica & Balto-Slavica, Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. Kortlandt, Frederik 2011. Selected writings on Slavic and general linguistics, Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. 194

Kortlandt, Frederik 2011a. “The accentuation of sufixless deverbal nouns in Slavic”, in: Kortlandt 2011: 67-70. Kurkina, L. V. 1992. Dialektnaja struktura praslavjamkogo jazyka po dannymjužnoslovjanskoj ieksiki, Ljubljana: SAZU. Kurz, J. 1971. “O rekompozici složených sloves v slovanštině”, Slavia 40: 511-524. Langston, Keith 2007. “Common Slavic Accentual Paradigm (d): A reevaluation of evidence from Čakavian”, in: M. Kapović & R. Matasović (eds.), Tones and Theories: Proceedings o f the International Workshop on Balto-Slavic Accentology, Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, 121-150. Lehfeldt, Werner 2001. Einfiihrung in die morphologische Konzeption der slavischen Akzentologie, Munchen: Verlag Otto Sagner. Leumann, Manu 1928. Lateinische Gmmmatik. Laut- und Formenlehre, Syntax und Stilistik, in fūnfter Aujlage võllig neu bearbeitet, Munchen: Beck. Lindner, Thomas 2002. Lateinische Komposila, Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrãge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Lutterer, I. 1971. “Zur Entwicklung der Bildungstypen slawischer Ortsnamen”, in: T. Witkowski (ed.) Forschungen zur slawischen un deutschen Namenkunde, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 8-13. Martynov, V. V. 1973. Praslavjartskaja i balto-slavjanskaja suffiksal’naja derivacija imen. Minsk: Nauka i texnika. Martynov, V. V. 1977. “Bal’to-slavjanskij innovacionnyj process v oblasti imennogo slovoobrazovanija”, Baltistica 2 priedas, 107113. Matasovič, Ranko 1995. “A re-interpretation of Winter’s law in Baltic and Slavic”, Lingua Posnaniensis 37: 57-70. Matasovič, Ranko 1998. “The Proto-Indo-European heteroclita in BaltoSlavic”, Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 44: 121-129. Matasovič, Ranko 2004. Gender in Indo-European, Heidelberg: Winter. Matasovič, Ranko 2005. “Collectives in -ьje in Slavic”, Suvremena lingvistika 59-60: 35-38. Matasovič, Ranko 2005a “The Centum Elements in Balto-Slavic”, in: Meiser, G. & Hackstein, O. (eds.) Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Tagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Wiesbaden: Reichert, ,7 ,-,79.

195

Matasović, Ranko 2006. “Toward a relative chronology of the earliest Baltic and Slavic sound changes”, Baltistica 40,2: 147-157. Matasovič, Ranko 2008. Poredbenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika, Zagreb: Matica hrvatska. Matasovič, Ranko 2010. “The loss of *g before *m in Proto-Slavic”, Rasprave Institūta za hrvatskijezik ijezikoslovlje 36,2: 299-306. Matasovič, Ranko 2011. “Winter’s law and the loss of stops before obstruents in Proto-Slavic”, in: V. A. Kočergina (ed.), Sinxronnoe i diaxronnoe v sravnitel ’tĩo-istoñčeskom jazykoznanii, Moscow: Studia Academica, 154-164. Matasovič, Ranko 2013. “Substratum words in Balto-Slavic”, Filoloģija 60:75-101. Meid, Wolfgang 1967. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, III. Wortbildungslehre, Berlin: De Gruyter. Meier-Briigger, Michael. 2003. Indo-European Linguistics, Berlin: De Gruyter. Meillet, Antoine 1905. Etudes sur / ’etymologie et le vocabulaire du vieux slave, //. Formation des noms, Paris: Librairie Emile Bouillon. Meissner, Torsten 2005. S-stem Nouns and Adjectives in Greek and Proto-Indo-European. A Diachronic Study in Word Formation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Němec, I. 1979. “O slovanské expresivní předponě /a-“, Slavia 48: 121-

122. Nikolaev, Gennadij A. 1984. Istoričeskoe slovoobrazovanie russkogo jazyka, Kazan: IzdatePstvo Kazanskogo universiteta. Nikolaev, Aleksandr S. 2010. Issledovanija po praindoevropejsbj imennoj morfologii, Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Nussbaum, Alan 1986. Head and Horn in Indo-European, Berlin: De Gruyter. Olander, Thomas 2009, Balto-Slavic accentual mobility, Berlin: De Gruyter. Olsen, Birgit A. 1988. The Proto-Indo-European Instrument Noun Suffix *-tlom and its variants. Copenhagen: Tusculanum. Orr, Robert 1996. “Again the «-stems in Common Slavic”, Journal of Slavic Linguistics 4,1: 312-314. Osten-Sacken, F. 1909. “Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Nomina auf slavisch - ьba”, Indogermanische Forschungen 26: 2-13. 196

Otkupščikov, Juryj V. 1967. lz istorii indoevropejskogo slovoobrazovanija, Nauka: Leningrad. Otrębski, J. 1972. “Iz oblasti slavjanskogo i baltijskogo slovoobrazovanija”, in: Balto-slavjanskie issledovanija, Moscow, 186-192. Petit, Daniel. 2010. Untersuchungen zu den baltischen Sprachen. Leiden: Brill. Poetto, Massimo. 1991. “Tocario A kolye, B kolyi: slavo *golen-”, in: L. Isebaert (ed.) Studia Eíymologìca Indoeuropaea. Memoriae A. J. van Windekens Dicata, Leuven: Peeters, 211-220. Pohl, H. D. 1977. “Die Komposition im alt- und gemeinslavischen. Ein Beitrag zur slavischen, indogermanischen und allgemeinen Wortbildung”, Klagenfurt: Klagenfurter sprachwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft. Pronk, Tijmen 2010. “The Accentuation of the Slavic n-stems”, Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 35: 101-114. Pronk, Tijmen 2010a. “Etimoloģija praslavenskoga *jarьmъ, *jarьmo’’, Rasprave Institūta za hrvatskijezik ijezikosiovlje 36: 307-311. Pronk-Tiethoff, Saskia 2013. The Germanic loanwords in Proto-Slavic, Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. Rešetar, Milan 1936. Jezik pjesama Rańinina zbomika, Zagreb: Rad JAZU 255 (114). Revzina, O. G. 1969. Struktura slovoobrazovatel'nyx polej v slavjanskix jazykctx, Moscow: Nauka. Rieken, Elisabeth 1999. Untersuchungen zur nominalen Stammbildung des Hethitischen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Risch, Ernst 1974. Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache, Berlin: De Gruyter. Rospond, S. 1978. “Uwagi o toponymach z suf. -ynja, czes. - y n ẽ ’, Slavia 47: 731-375. Russell, Paul 1990. Celtic Word-Formation. The Velar Suffixes, Dublin: DIAS. Sadovski, Velizar 2000. “Nominalkomposita im Euchologium Sinaiticum 1/N und Missale Sinaiticum 5/N”, in, H. Miklas, S. Richter & V. Sadovski (eds.), Glagoiitica. Zum Urspmng der slavischen Schriftkultur, Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 130-149.

197

Scarlata, S. 1999. Die Wurzelkomposita im Rg-Veda, Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schelesniker, Herbert 1987. “Slavisch nevēsta ‘Braut’ und Zugehõriges”, in: Wolfgang Meīd (ed.), Studien zum indogermanischen Wortschatz, Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrãge zur Sprachwissenschaft. 245-248. Schindler, Jochem 1972. “L’apophonie des noms racines indoeuropéens”, Bulletin de la Societě de linguistique de Paris 67: 31-38. Schindler, Jochem 1975. “L’apophonie des themes i.-e. en -r/n“, Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 70: 1-10. Schindler, Jochem 1975a “Zum Ablaut der neutralen s-Stāmme des Indogermanischen", in: H. Rix (ed.) Flexion und Wortbiidung, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 259-267. Schrijver, Peter 1999. “On henbane and early European narcotics”, Zeitschrift fu r celtische Philologie 51:17-45. Schũtz, J. 1968. “Das prafigierte Element ka-, ko-, k- in der Wortbiidung des Slavischen”, Die Welt der Slawen 10: 23-31. Shevelov, Yuri 1964. A Prehistory o f Slavic, Heidelberg: Winter. Skardžius, Pranas 1941, Lietuviy kaibos žodžitf daryba Vilnius: Lietuvos Moksli| Akadēmija. Sławski, Franciszek 1974-1979. “Zarys słowotwórstwa prasłowiańskiego”, in: SP, I: 43-141, II: 13-60, III: 11-19. Sławski, Franciszek 1976. “Das urslavische Suffix -fь”, Wiener slawistisches Jahrbuch 22: 74-77. Sławski, Franciszek 1980. “Prasłowiański suffix -ęt-'\ in: V. Čolakov et alii (eds.) V čest na akademik Vladimir Georgiev, Sofija: BAN, 386-392. Sławski, Franciszek 1989a. “Z zagadnień rekonstrukcij słowotwórstwa prasłowiaśkiego”, in: F. Sławski, Slavica. Wybrane studia z językoznawstwa siowiaśkiego, Wrocław etc.: Ossolineum, 3339. Sławski, Franciszek 1989b. “Lexikalische Neuerungen im baltischslavischen”, in: F. Sławski, Slavica. Wybrane studia z językoznawstwa siowiaśkiego, Wrocław etc.: Ossolineum, 4044. Snoj, Marko 1993. “Zuř Akzentuierung der urslavischen neutralen menStamme", Linguistica 33: 227-241. 198

Snoj, Marko 1994. “Naglaševanje praslovanskih -y/-«v-osnov ženskega roda”, Slavistična rēvija 42/4: 491-528. Stachowski, Marek 2005. “Uwagi o zapożyczeniach ałtajskich w języku prasłowiańskim i kwestie pokrewne”, Studia Turcologica Cracoviensia 10: 437-454. Stang, Christian 1957. Slavonic accentuation. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Stang, Christian 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Stang, Christian 1972. Lexikalische Sonderiibereinstimmungen zwischen dem Slavischert, Baltischen und Germanischen, Oslo: Universitetforlaget. Stūber, Karin 2002. Die primāren s-Stāmme des Indogermanischen, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Szymański, T. 1968. Slowotwórstwo rzeczownika w bułgarskich tekstach XVII-XVI11 wieku, Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk. Tolstoj, N. N. 1969. Siavjanskaja geograftčeskaja terminoloģija, Moscow: Nauka. Townsend, Charles, E. & Janda, Laura A. 1996. Common and Comparative Slavic, Columbus (OH): Slavica. Trubačev, Oleg N. 1959. Istorija slavjanskix terminov rodstva i nekotoryx drevnejšix terminov obščestvennogo stroją, Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Trubačev, Oleg N. 1960. Proisxoždenie nazvanij domašnix životnyx v slavjanskix jazykax, Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Trubačev, Oleg N. 1966. Remeslennaja terminoloģija v slavjanskix jazykax, Moscow: IzdateTstvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Trubačev, Oleg N. 1977. “Iz praslavjanskogo slovoobrazovanija: imennye složenija s pristavkoj a - \ in: Problemy istorii i dialektologii slavjanskixjazykov, Moscow: Nauka, 267-272. Vaillant, André 1928. “Vieux slave drьkolъ ‘baton’”, Revue des Etudes slaves 8: 88. Vaillant, André 1974. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, Tome IV: Formation des noms, Paris: Klincksieck. Vaillant, André 1950-77. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, (1V) Lyon: IAC. Vajs, Nada. 2003. Hrvatska povijesna fitonimija. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje. 199

Varbot, Ž. Ž. 1969. Drevrtentsskoe imennoe slovoobrazovanie. Retrospektivou)a formal ’naja xarakteristika, Moscow. Vendina, T. I. 1990. Differenciacija slavjanskix jazykov po dannym slovoobrazovanija, Moscow: Nauka. Vermeer, Willem 1992. “In the beginning was the lengthened grade: On the continuity of Proto-Indo-European vowel quantity in Slavic”, in: R. Beekes et al. (eds.) Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie: Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen GeseUschaft, Innsbruck: IBS, 115-136. Vine, Brent 1998. Aeolic hórpeton and Deverbative *-etȏ- in Greek and Indo-European, Innsbruck: IBS. Vondrák, W. 1906. Vergleichende slavische Grammatik, Band I: Lautlehre und Stammbildungslehre, Gottingen. Wackemagel, Jakob & Debrunner, Albert. 1954. Altindische Grammatik II. 2. Die Nominalsufftxe. Gottingen: Wandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Warchoł, Stanisław 1984. Geneza i rozwój słowiańskich formacji ekspresywnych z sufiksalnym -k- i -c-, Warszawa: PWN. Wojtyła Swierzowska, M. 1974. Prasłowiańskie nomen agentis, Wroócław: Ossolineum.

Lexica BER = Bāígarski etimologičen rečnik, ed. by V. Georgiev et alii, BAN, Sofia 1971-. Bezlaj = F. Bezlaj, Etimoíoški slovar slovenskega jezika, Ljubljana 1976-2007. Chambers = R. K. Barnhart (ed.) Chambers Dictionary o f Etymology, Chambers 1988. de Vaan = M. de Vaan, Etymological Dictionary o f Latin and the other Italic Languages, Brill, Leiden 2008. Derksen = R. Derksen, Etymological Dictionary o f the Slavic Inherited Lexicon, Brill, Leiden 2008. EDPC = R. Matasović, Etymological Dictionary o f Proto-Celtic, Brill, Leiden 2009. DELG = P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, Paris 1967. 200

EIEC = Mallory, J. P. & Adams, D. Q. Encyclopedia o f Indo-European Culture, London-Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn 1997. EWA = M. Mayhrofer, Etymologisches Wõrterbuch des AUindoarischert, Heidelberg 1992-2001. Gluhak = A. Gluhak, Hrvatski etimološki rjeěnik, August Cesarec, Zagreb 1993. IEW = J. Pokorny, lndogermanisches etymologisches Wõrterbuch, Francké, Bem 1959. Jurišić = B. Jurišić, Rječnik govora otioka Vrgade, Zagreb: JAZU 19661973. LIV = H. Rix et aln, Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 22000. NIL = Wodtko, D. S., Irslinger, B. & Schneider, C. Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon, Heidelberg: Winter, 2008. OLD = Oxford Latin Dictionary (ed. by P. W. Glare), Clarendon, Oxford 1982. Orel = V. Orel, A handbook o f Germanic etymology. Brill, Leiden 2003. Skok = P. Skok, Eíimoíogijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, Zagreb 1985. Smoczyński = W. Smoczyński, Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego, Uniwersytet wileński, Vilnius 2007. Snoj = M. Snoj, Slovenski etimološki slovar, Modrijan, Ljubljana 2003. SP = Słownik prasłowiański, pod redakcją Franciszka Sławskiego, Wrocław etc.: Polska Akademia Nauk, 1974-. Trautmann = R. Trautmann, Baíto-slavisches Wõrterbuch, Gottingen 1921. ESSJa = V. N. Trubačev (ed.), Ètimologičeskij slovaõ slavjanskix jazykov, Moscow 1974-.

201

Indices

I

Proto-Slavic

áblo, 71,72 áblъko, 162 ábolnь, 42 agla, 95 ąglь, 39 ágnę, 31 agnędъ, 82 ágoda, 153 ą́gorjь, 154 aje, 91 ajьce, 142 ȃlkъtь, 53 áma, 97 arьmo, 148 arьmъ, 148 ásenъ, 125 ąsъ, 109 ásъtrębъ, 131 aščerъ, 128 ątorъ, 178 ątro, 152 ątroba, 152, 178 ą́zlъ, 94 azьno, 149 ąžь, 87 bába, 75 bąbьnъ, 149 bagno, 99

baranъ, 122 basnь, 45 bebrъ, 79 běda, 74, 173 bẽdá, 74 bẽditi, 74 bedró, 104 bẽgačь, 119 bẽgati, 63 běgti, 119, 166 bẽgunъ,166 bẽgъ, 63 bẽląga, 159 belenъ, 126 bẽlъ, 100, 159 bẽlьmo, 148 bérmę, 25 berstъ, 111 bérza, 75 besẽda, 180 bẽsъ, 109 bičь, 80 bidlo, 83 biti, 80, 83, 162 bítъka, 162 bląditi, 63 blą́dъ, 63 blędь, 39

blekotъ, 156 blekъ, 156 blěskъ, 106 blȋskъ, 106 blъxá, 76 blьskati, 106 blьskъ, 106 bljьvotina, 137 bobrь, 79 bodъljь, 164 bogyni, 55 bogъ, 139 bògъ, 63 bojaznь, 49 bojišče, 138 bojь, 63 bokъ, 180 bol(j)estь, 51 bolbolъ, 79 bolẽti, 49 bolẽznь, 49 bólna, 100 bolnь, 42 boltišče, 138 bólto, 112 bolzina, 135 bolzьno, 149 bolь, 51 bòlь, 39 bordá, 74 bordlo, 83 bomá, 100 bȏmь, 42 bòršьno, 149 bȏrti, 83 borzdá, 80 borь, 57 božitjь, 139 brat(r)anъ, 122 brátitjь, 139 204

brátrь, 30, 139 brátrьja, 145 bredą, 73 brękati, 156 brękotъ, 156 brẽzgъ, 85 bričь, 80 bridъ, 80 briti, 80, 116 břitva, 116 brjuxo, 71 broditi, 63 brodъ, 73 brodъ, 20, 63 brosnь, 45 brutъ, 112 bry, 59, 149 brьvьno, 149 búrja, 88 bykъ, 92 bystřina, 135 bystrь, 135 byti, 92, 115 bytъ, 115 bytьje, 159 bъma, 101 bъrtь, 47 bьbrъ, 79 bьčela, 125 bьrati, 171, 178 cěná, 101 cesta, 114 cẽstiti, 114 čara, 21 čaroděj ь, 186 čarъ, 21, 186 čarь, 21 čásъ, 68 čečetъ, 79 čędo, 81

čelo, 72 čelo, 71 čeljadь, 40 čeljustь, 186 čemerь, 128 čerdá, 75 čermuxa, 160 čermъ, 97 čermъxa, 160 čȇmъ, 98 čẽrpъ, 68 čersló, 107 čȇrvo, 117 česati, 95, 164 česljь, 95 česnъ, 68 čę̑stь, 47 češulja, 164 čȋnъ, 98 čislȏ, 107 čismę, 26 čisti, 26 čistota, 156 čúdo, 34 čьmela, 125 čьrpakъ, 120 čьrtati, 130 čьrtežь, 130 čьrvь, 37 čьstь, 47 čьtati, 107 dąbrava, 123 dadjьbogъ, 185 dalь, 36 dȃnь, 42 dȃrъ, 42, 103 dateljь, 28 dati, 28, 176 dẽdítjь, 139 dẽdъ, 68

degъtь, 53 dělo, 94, 95 deltó, 113 dẽlъ, 94 dẽrá, 77 demъ́, 98 dèrvo, 117 dęsná, 108 děti, 35 dẽvá, 118 dẽver(j)ь, 31 dẽvíca, 133 dẽžá, 89 dira, 77 dȋvo, 34 do, 170 doba, 74, 173 dojidlo, 83 dojiti, 83, 162 dokъ, 180 dolnь, 43 doltó, 113 dòlъ, 64 doljá, 89 dòmъ, 57 drozdъ, 64 drugъ, 136, 140 drùgъ, 64 družina, 136 družьba, 140 drъkolь, 185 drъvo, 72 drъžь, 37 dupa, 74 dupló, 94 dušá, 89 dùxъ, 64, 89 dvorъ, 20 dy̑mъ, 96 dъkti, 30 205

dъlgotá, 156 dъlgъ, 156 dъno, 99 dъs-djь, 188 dъxati, 154 dъxnąti, 154 dъxorjь, 154 dьlgostь, 52 dьliti, 36 dьnь, 42 dьržava, 123 ęčьmy, 27 ęčьmykъ, 92 ẽdja, 89 edla, 95 ẽdlo, 94, 95 ędzá, 76 ědь, 37 elenъ, 24 elenjь, 24 ẽrę, 31 erębъ, 131 ẽrina, 135 ẽrostь, 50 ẽrь, 39 ẽrьcь, 142 esenь, 43 esera, 129 esetrъ, 104 esetь, 41, 104 èzero, 128 ęzy̑kъ, 92 ežь, 87 gąditi, 142 gádъ, 64 gądьcь, 142 gąserъ, 23 gą́sli, 44 gąsti, 142 gą̑sь, 23 206

gatь, 47 gavęzъ, 186 glẽvъ, 117 glina, 114 glina, 101 glistá, 114 glíva, 117, 118 glogъ́, 65 glumъ, 96 glьjь, 87 gnẽzdo, 71 gnida, 76 gnȏjь, 65 godina, 135 godъ, 64 gogoljь, 79 gojь, 64 goląbь, 131 golẽnь, 24 golgolъ, 79 golotá, 156 golsъ, 79 gȏlsъ, 109 golvá, 19, 150 golvьnja, 150 golъ, 156 gonъ, 73 gorá, 23, 80 gȏrdъ, 64 gorẽti, 91 gorje, 91 górxъ, 64 gospodь, 185 gostь, 185 gòstь, 46 govędo, 81 gòvorъ, 154 govьnó, 149 grabežь, 130 grabiti, 130

grą̑dь, 43 granica, 133 granь, 22, 133 grebenъ, 126 grebenь, 126 grẽti, 85 grěxъ, 85 griva, 149 gríva, 118 grivьna, 149 groxotъ, 156 gumьno, 186 gvẽzda, 81 gъlъ, 164 gъrdlo, 83 gъrlica, 133 gьrnъ, 98 igъlá, 164 ikra, 105 inьjь, 144 iskra, 105 íva, 76 jęti, 178, 187 jẽto, 113 jętry, 59 jẽxati, 80 jẽzda, 80 juxá, 19, 86 jьgo, 35, 72 kądělь, 41 kadidlo, 83 kaditi, 83 kaługa, 159 kaluža, 159 kalъ, 159 kamenьje, 145 kamy, 145 kámy, 27 kamykъ, 92 kamyšь, 169

kąpa, 136 kąpati sę, 41 kąpělь, 41 kąpina, 136 kara, 77 kašljati, 87 kašljь, 96 kášljь, 87 kątъ, 112 kaznь, 43 kladivo, 140 klьvati, 98 ključь, 87 kljúka, 76 kljunъ, 98 kljuvati, 98 knife’, 87 kobь, 39 kobьcь, 142 kokošь, 52 kokotъ, 156 kolačь, 119 kólda, 74 koldędzь, 132 kolẽno, 126 kolkolъ, 79 kolo, 79 kòlo, 34 kȏlsъ, 109 koltъ, 112 kolъ, 65 komarъ, 155 komarь, 155 konjuxъ, 160 konjь, 160 kopačь, 119 kopati, 149, 169 kopřiva, 140 koprъ, 140 kopy̑to, 169 207

kopьje, 145 kopьno, 149 korá, 74 korbi, 54 korda, 74 korẽ, 24 korę, 24 kortъ, 65 kȏrva, 118 kory̑to, 169 kosrnъ, 96 kosorь, 128 kosъ, 109 košara, 155 košarъ, 155 kovačь, 119 kovaljь, 121 kovylъ, 167 kovyljь, 167 koxati, 172 kozьlъ, 147 koža, 160 kožá, 89 kožuxъ, 160 krádja, 89 krajь, 70 kremy, 27 krěpostь, 50 krẽpъkъ, 50 krēslo, 107 krivica, 133 křivina, 136 krivulja, 165 krivъ, 136 krojiti, 70 kropi va, 140 kry̑, 59 krъvopija, 187 krьvopijьcь, 187 kúpъ, 65 208

kury, 59 kvȃsъ, 68 kyjь, 87 kyslъ, 68 kbrma, 97 kbrmb, 97 lagoda, 153 lą̑gъ, 65 ląkъno, 165 lalokъ, 79 lątъ, 163 lątъka, 163 leboda, 153 legio, 94 legti, 91, 99 lękti, 165 lepetъ, 156 lẽvakъ, 121 ležati, 150 ležisko, 138 ležьnjь, 150 lípa, 76 lixъ, 111 lòjь, 65 loky, 60 lonȏ, 108 lonò, 99 lopata, 40, 157 lopuxъ, 160 lososjь, 35 lože, 91 ložesno, 99, 108 lúbъ, 65 lučá, 89 lūčь, 38 luná, 108 lýko, 72 lysto, 113 lystъ, 112 lъbъ, 69

lъžь, 38 lьnъ, 69 ljudьje, 38 madežь, 130 mądrostь, 50 mądrъ, 50 malina, 137 máslo, 107 mȃstь, 47 máti, 30 matjexa, 152 matjuxa, 152 mazati, 39, 107 mȃzь, 39 mąžь, 127 medjá, 89 medvẽdь, 187 mèdъ, 57 melzivo, 140 mẽlь, 38 měna, 101, 102 mẽra, 105 merti, 66 měsęcь, 131 mę̑so, 71 město, 113 mẽšina, 137 mętežь, 130 metyljь, 167 metъla, 164 mẽxurъ, 161 mẽxъ, 70, 137, 161 mě̑xъ, 65 mirъ, 103 modliti, 116 mogą, 168 mòktь, 47 moldežь, 130 morje, 91 morvi, 54

mórzъ, 66 morь, 65 mošьna, 149 motyka, 93 motylь, 167 múxa, 78 mýdlo, 83, 84 my̑slь, 44 my̑šь, 23 myti, 83 mъldni, 55 mъnogъ, 137 mъnožina, 137 mъrky, 93 mъxa, 78 mьglá, 95 mьlzti, 140 mьrtvъ, 142 mьrtvьcь, 142 mьrva, 118 mьrzẽti, 66 mьrznąti, 66 mьzdá, 77, 78 naborь, 171 načędlo, 171 nagonki, 171 nagonъ,171 nalegti, 172 nalogъ, 172 naorvъ, 172 napasti, 172 napastь, 172 narodъ, 171 natь, 38 naučiti, 172 nauka, 172 naukb, 172 navь, 38 nèbo, 34 nestera, 30 209

netьjь, 146 nevēsta, 114 nogá, 53, 78 nogá, 74 nògъtь, 53 nòktь, 22 nosъ, 187 nòsъ, 66 novakъ, 121 nozdьrja, 187 obolkъ, 172 obora, 172 oborb, 172 obyčajь, 132 ognь, 37 òje, 34 oko, 165 okъnȏ,165 oldi, 54 olni, 25, 55 òlъ, 57 olьxa, 160 orbota, 157 orbъ, 63, 157 ȏrdlo, 82, 84 orkyta, 169 órkъ, 63 ȏrmo, 97 orstъ, 112 ȏrtajь, 158 orvьnъ, 172 orzkošь, 172 orzumъ, 172 orь'lъ, 147 osenь, 43 osla, 95 osnòva, 172 ostrąga, 124 ostrь, 124 ostь, 47 210

osъtъ, 167 osь, 37 osьla, 147 ot(ъ)lẽkъ, 173 otrokъ, 173 otьcь, 142 ovьca, 143, 148 ovьnъ, 148 ovьsъ,110 paąčina, 137 paąkъ, 137, 174 padežь, 130 padorga, 174 palica, 163 pálica, 133 palъka, 163 pámętь, 174 pasti, 130, 172 pastorъka, 174 pą́to, 113 pątь, 38 pázduxa, 175 pečenь, 24 pèktь, 47 pelena, 126, 159 pélva, 118 pelýnь, 55 pěna, 101 penędzь, 132 pepelъ, 79 pero, 72, 145 perȏ, 71 pèro, 20 perьje, 145 pěsnь, 45 pěstъ́, 112 pę̑stь, 47 pěsъkъ, 162 pętá, 114 pěti, 147, 160

pẽtuxъ, 160 pẽtьlъ, 147 pisьmo, 148 pitati, 89 pítja, 89 pȋvo, 117 pizdá, 81 plemę, 25 plesna, 108 pleso, 110 pletjé, 91 plodъ, 57 plotъ, 112 plutjé, 113 pobẽda, 173 podoba, 173 podъ, 173 pojasati, 174 pojasъ, 174 pokójь, 174 pólmy, 27 polovina, 137 poltьnó, 159 pòlje, 91 pórgъ, 66 pȏrsę, 31 porxъ, 48 posъlъ, 174 pòtъ, 112 požarь, 174 prababa, 175 pradẽdъ, 175 prastarъ, 175 pridъ, 176 prijateljь, 28 přijati, 28 prijaznь, 50 prisęga, 176 pritъča, 176 prodadja, 176

prokъ, 180 proso, 176 prostakъ, 121, 177 prostorъ, 177 prostъ, 177 pryščь, 87 pustošь, 52 pustyni, 55 Pyr(j)ь, 104 py̑rъ, 104 pъtakъ, 121 pъtica, 133, 163 pъtъka, 163 pьkъlo, 164 pьrstь, 47,188 pьrsь, 38 pьsati, 148 pьšenó, 126 rąká, 74, 78 rąkavъ, 123 rąkojętь, 187 rebrȏ, 104 rẽčь, 36 rẽka, 93 rekti, 173 remy, 28 řešeto, 129 ritь, 39 rodjajь, 132 ròdъ, 66, 171 rògъ, 66 rokъ, 66 rosá, 75, 78 runó, 100 ruxo, 86 ry̑dlo, 83, 84 ryti, 83 rъdja, 89 sȃdъ, 70 sądъ, 67 211

sąprągъ, 177 sąsẽdъ, 177 sędra, 105 sekyra, 168 selzenь, 126 sě̑mę, 25 sěmьja, 145 sě̑no, 71, 72 sẽnь, 43 semъ, 98 sẽsti, 65 sestrá, 105 sidlȏ, 83 síto, 113 sláva, 77 sloboda, 153 slovo, 33, 34 sluti, 33 slūxъ, 66 služiti, 140 služьba, 140 smẽjati, 85 směxъ, 85 smȏrdъ, 66 smьrděti, 66 sně̑gъ, 66 snuti, 172 snъxá, 62, 77 sočiti, 153 sočivo, 140 sokolъ, 153 sokotati, 153 sokъ, 140 sòkъ, 67 soldъ, 187 sȏlma, 75, 78 solna, 101 solpъ, 67 solvъ, 144 solvьjь, 144 212

sȏlь, 22 somъ, 20, 67 sȏrmъ, 96 soxá, 75 spẽti, 85 spẽxъ, 85 stádo, 81 stȃnъ, 99 starosta, 51 starostb, 51 stávъ, 117 stegnó, 100 stežerь, 128 stoborь, 154 stogь, 67, 128 stolъ, 94 storžá, 90 stȏržь, 88 stožerъ, 128 strādāti, 48 strȃstь, 48 straxъ, 85 strȃxъ, 85 stremę, 25 strẽxa, 86 struja, 89 strumy, 28 stьbló, 95 stьdza, 77 stьgna, 101 sukāti, 165 sukъnȏ, 165 svekry, 59 svekrь, 69 svẽtjá, 90 svinьjá, 145 svoboda, 153 sy̑nъ, 57 sy̑rь, 104 sъborь, 178

sъjьmъ, 178 sъlnьce, 142 sъlъ, 69 sъmetana, 122 sъmьrtь, 188 sъnъ, 99 sъnьje, 146 sьrdьce, 143 sьma, 101 sьršenъ, 126 sьršenь, 126 ščenę, 31 ščitъ, 112 širiná, 136 šьvьcь, 142 tą́ča, 90 tajiti, 150 tajbna, 150 tajbnb, 150 tątьnjь, 150 telę, 32 tẽmę, 25 teneto, 129 tesla, 83 těsto, 113 tetervъ, 131 tęti, 140 tętíva, 140 tišiná, 135 tixъ, 135 tòkъ, 67 travá, 19, 78 traviti, 78 trepetь, 156 trudъ, 67 truti, 78 trьstь, 48 tukъ, 93 túkъ, 92 túrь, 67

tvȃrь, 37 tvorъ, 37 tvòrъ, 67 tyky, 93 tyti, 92 tъlmačь, 120 tьlo, 72 tьló, 72 tbma, 77 tbmb, 99 tьmьje, 145 tьstь, 46 u(s)tro, 33 ú(s)tro, 104 udъ, 178 ujь, 88 úlica, 133 ulьjь, 88, 144 umъ, 98, 172 umъ, 96 usta, 150 ustá, 114 ustьje, 146 ustьna, 150 ùxo, 35, 71, 72 uzda, 187 užasъ, 178 varivo, 140 vasnь, 45 vèčerь, 127 vẽdja, 90 vẽdró, 104 věja, 90 vẽko, 71 velь, 188 velьmoža, 188 věno, 71, 100 věnъ, 142 vẽnьcь, 142 vepijь, 88 213

vēra, 10, 105 veriga, 134 vermę, 25 versъ, 110 vertenó, 126 veslo, 107 vesna, 101 vesti, 107 věsti, 48 vẽstь, 48 větrъ, 103 vẽxъtъ, 167 vẽxъtь, 167 vidẽti, 90 vȋdъ, 69 vixъr, 155 vodá, 75 voinъ, 102, 137 vojьna, 102 vȏlga, 75 voliti, 90 volkno, 100 volknȏ, 100 vȏlstь, 48 volsъ, 100 voljá, 90 vȏrgъ, 68 vȏma, 18 vorta, 71 (v)osa, 110 voskъ, 68 vozъ, 70 vȏzъ, 68 vъnúkъ, 162 (v)ъšь, 48 vьdova, 118 vьlkti, 172 vьlkъ, 70 vьĩkъ, 70 vьlna, 102 214

vьrtẽti, 26 vьrxъ, 57 vьsь, 23 xala, 124 xaląga, 124 xodъ, 70 xȏdъ, 65 xudoba, 152 xъbъtъ, 167 y̑dra, 105 y̑mę, 26 zadъ, 179 zajęcь, 131 zajьmъ, 179 zakonъ, 170, 179 zapadъ’, 180 zelenъ, 145 zelьje, 145 zemja, 90 zẽnica, 133 zę́tь, 46 zimá, 76 zlakъ, 92 znakъ, 92 známę, 26 znati, 92 zȏlto, 113 zorkъ, 92 zvąkъ, 92 zvẽrь, 23 zvonъ, 92 zvȏnъ, 68 zъloba, 152 zъly, 59 zьlčь, 40 zьrẽti, 92 žalь, 37 žarь, 70, 174 žę́dlo, 83 želądь, 82

želẽti, 90 žely, 59 želja, 90 žená, 76 ženixъ, 86 žeravjь, 88 žerbъ, 144 žerbьjь, 144 žerdlȏ, 83 žerti, 142 žęti, 116 žę́tva, 116 žíca, 93 žíla, 43, 107 žinja, 43 žiti, 156

II

žito, 113 živȏtъ, 156 živъ, 156 župa, 103 županъ, 103 žьlna, 102 žьly, 59 žьrti, 116 žьrtva, 116 žьrьcь, 142 ьmę, 25, 26 ьmela, 125 ьverъ, 128 ьzъ, 179

Proto-Indo-European

at(t)a-, 142 bhago-, 63 bhars-, 149 bhebhru-, 79 bhedhr, 104 bhegw-, 63 bheh2-, 54, 141 bheh2bheh2, 75 bheh2-dhlo-, 84 bheh2g’hus, 56 bheh2g’o-, 62 bhelH-, 100 bher-, 49 bherHg’o-, 75 bher-H-men-, 25 bhẽrmen-, 25 b^rom ^no-, 98 bhog-, 99 bhoh2bheh2, 75 bhol-, 39

bholg’h-, 135 bhordheh2, 74 bhorg’h-, 21 bhoro-, 178 bhowHr-, 88 bhoyd(h)-s-o, 109 bhoydheh2, 74 bhrehlg’-, 85 bhreh2tēr, 29, 30 bhreh2trih2, 145 bhrews-o-, 71 bhrHg’-, 75 bhrodh-, 45 bhrti-, 49 bhug-, 62 bhuh2-, 141, 159 bьweh2-, 141 breh2trih2, 146 deh2(i)-, 94 deh2iwer-, 31

deh3-, 103 deh3r, 42 deh3ro-, 16 delhj-, 89 der-, 77 deru-, 72 derwo-, 61 deyk’-, 62 deywo-, 69 deywó-, 61 dheg’hȏm, 127 dhegwh-, 53 dhegwhi-, 36 dhegwh-ut-, 53 dhehь 16 dhehr , 77 dhehr , 94 dhehr , 178 dheh,-i-, 118 dhelbh-, 113 dherghno-, 98 dhewb(h)-, 99 dheyg’h-, 89 dhg’hem-, 90 dhg’hmȏn, 127 dhg’hȏm, 90 dhńh2to, 114 dhoh|mo-, 97 -dhro-, 30 dhugh2tēr, 30 dhuh2mȏ-, 70, 96 dhwȏrom, 62, 70, 72, 108 dlHgVh^ti-, 52 dng’huh2, 92, 186 domHu-, 57 doru-,61, 72, 117 dows-, 175 drosdo-, 64 dus-dyu-, 188 dyew-, 61 216

dyēws, 69, 188 ereb-ēn, 131 g’enh,-, 30, 46 g’enhdȏr, 30 g’enus, 56 g’heh2n-, 23 g’heluH-, 59 g’heyȏm, 76 g’holh3-, 113 g’Nvelpr, 23 g’hwer-, 23 g’hyem-, 76 g’í(H)to-, 115 g’lh2-ȏw-, 59 g’neh3-, 26,46 g’rH-no-, 100 geh|dh-, 64 gerbh-, 144 gerHȏw-, 88 gheluH, 59 ghōrdh-, 64 ghosti-, 46 ghr d \ 64 ghrewdh-, 43 ghrey-, 85 ghrowdhos-, 43 ghrudh-ni-, 43 glȏgh-, 65 gloyH-wo-, 117 gnoydo-, 71 gnoyHo-, 65 g o h ^ o -, 64 grōn-, 22, 133 gwelH-, 102 gwelh2-n-, 82 gwenh2, 76 gwerbh-, 32 gwerH-, 60 gwerh3-, 83 gweyh3-to-, 113

gwhen-, 116 gwher-, 70, 98 gwhermo-, 97 gwhiH-slo-, 107 gwhono-, 73 gwhóno-, 73 gwhormo-, 97 gwhoygw-s-dhh1-eh2, 81 gwhr-no-, 98 gwih3-to-, 113 gwih3-wo-, 64, 118, 156 gwȏrH-, 23 gwow-, 81, 149 gwōw-, 186 gwȏws, 32, 82 gwoyh3o-, 64 gwreh3-tu-, 58 gwrh3-ti, 58 gwrh3-tlo-, 83 gwrH-dhh|0-, 176 gwrHn-, 60 gwuHs-dhh,o-, 81 gwuHs-dhh| 0-., 81 h,ed-, 89, 128 h,edhlo-, 95 h)edyeh2, 89 h,eg,h-, 87, 179 hielH-ēn, 24 h,en-, 178 h,es-, 52 h(lewdh-, 38 h[lewdhos, 61 h,lngwhro-, 103 hmogVo-, 87 h|Og-mo-, 97 hioh.k’-, 128 l^ohļk’u-ptro-, 131 h)On-, 178 hļon-tro-, 152 Inort^o-, 63

h!orbhos, 61 hļOs-r, 43 hjosti-, 52 IpoyHwelъ, 76 hļpi-sdo-, 81 h,rewdh-, 89 IprudV)-, 103 h)Su-, 188 h|Wed-no-, 100 h!widh(e)weh2, 118 h2ebōl, 71 h2eg’-, 149 h2egwen-, 31 h2egwnos, 31 h2ek’-, 27,41,95, 129 h2ek’mōn, 27 h2emg’h-, 94 h2eng-, 164 h2engōl, 39 h2eng-ulo-, 164 h2engwhi-, 87, 154 h2enhļ-, 97 h2enh!mo-, 97 h2enh2t-, 60 h2ep-h3ōn, 127 h2erh3-, 82 h2erh3teh2-, 158 h2erh3-tlo-, 82 h2erh3-tro-, 82 h2erh3trom, 84 h2et-, 173 h2etno-, 102 h2ew-, 91,96, 178 h2ewHo-, 88 h2ewi-, 91 h2ewis, 36 h2ewl-, 133, 144 h2ewli-, 88 h2ews-, 71 h2ewsos-, 35 217

h2ewsōs, 33 h2ews-ro-, 104 h2eyH-os-, 34 h2eyos, 34 h2n-, 162 h2ngwh-, 87 h2nk-, 27 h2onk-, 27 h2ordh-to-, 112 h2ōwyo-, 91, 142 h2oyu, 56 h2po, 173 (h2)po-dhh!o-, 173 h2stel-, 29 h2ster-, 29 h2us-s-ihь 35 h2wehr , 103 (h3)bhruh2, 59 h3er-, 147 h3nogw\ 74 h3nogwhs-, 78 h3nomn, 25 h3okw-, 35 h3onko-, 174 h3reyH-, 93 Heh3l-, 53 Heh3s-, 125 Heh3s-en-, 126 (H)regwh-men-, 28 (H)ros, 75, 78 Hrowmen-, 100 HuHdh-r/n-, 26 (H)ud-er-o-, 104 (H)yeh3s-, 174 (H)yeh3s-neh2, 174 (H)yugȏm, 61, 72 (H)yuHs-, 86 k’elH-, 101 k’erd-, 143 k’erh2-, 118 218

k’erh3-, 97 k’lew-, 33 k’lewos, 77 k’lewos-, 34 k’lew-to-, 115 k’okH-, 75 k’olh2meh2, 75, 78 k ^ m -d ^ o -, 67 k’oyno-, 71 k’woyt-, 90 kat-, 129 keh)SO-, 70 kelH-, 65 ken-,81, 142 kērd-, 21 kert-, 77 ker-wen-, 117 kewdos-, 34 kleh2u-, 76 kop-, 146, 169 kreydhro-, 84 kreytro-, 84 k'rh2srōn, 126 krowH-, 59 kruH-, 59 kweh2s-, 87 kwekwlo-, 79 kwelhr , 111 kwer-, 21 kwey-, 98 kweyH-, 174 kwoyneh2, 102 kwoy-no-, 101 kwrmi-, 37 leg-, 153 legh-, 94 leh2i-wo-, 118 lewH-, 72 leykw-, 173 leykwso-, 111

leyn-, 69 leyp-, 76 log s-no-, 100 lok’s, 35 loku-, 60 lowbh-, 65 lowk’-, 38 lugi-, 36 med-, 113 medhu-, 56, 57 medhyo-, 89 med-to-, 113 mehr , 105 melpns, 131 meh2d-, 130 meh2tẽr, 16, 30, 84 mel(h2)-, 137 mēmso-, 71 men-, 49 men-tu-, 58 mer-, 66 merh2-, 118 mey-, 77 mh2ti-, 49 mis-dhhļO-, 77 misdho-, 77 mnti-, 49, 174 mn-ti-, 58 mntis, 36 mogu-, 127 mori, 36, 91 moro-, 65 morwiH, 54 mows-, 78 moy-no-, 101 moyso-, 65, 70 mrti-, 48 mr-to-, 115 muHdh-, 44 mus-, 78

nebhes-, 33 nebhos-, 33, 34 negwhro-, 103 neh2s-, 66 neh2u-teh2-, 158 nepōt-, 30, 129 newo-, 121 newos, 61 nokwt-, 22 peh2u-, 104 peh2wr, 104 pekw-, 47 pekwen-, 24 pel-, 79 pelēn, 126 pelH-, 82 pelHōw, 118 pelni-, 126 penH-, 113 penkwe, 47,49 penkw-ti-, 47, 49 peyt-, 89 ph2tēr, 174 ph2truH-yo-, 174 plek’-, 112 pleth2-, 91, 110 plus-, 76 pnkwsti-, 47 pōd-, 21 pokwto-, 115 polh2i-, 91 pol-wo-, 118 ponteh2, 38 pork’o-, 31 poti-, 36, 186 poyHweh2, 119 prews-, 88 prh3to-, 118 prh3wo-, 118 priHo-teh2, 158 219

pro, 176 pro-sip o-, 176 pro-sth2o-, 177 pr-sth2o-, 188 puh2-ro-, 104 sed-, 81 seg-, 186 sehr, 25, 113, 176 selpmen-, 25 seh2l-, 22 seh2ul-, 142 sekw-, 87, 153 sendh-, 105 sewH-, 104 seyH-, 83 (s)ken-, 31 sker-, 74, 97 skeyto-, 112 skoyto-, 112 sneygwh-, 66 snoygwho-, 66 snuseh2, 77 snuso-, 62, 77 sodo-, 65, 70 sodyom, 87 sokwyo-, 87 solH-wo-, 118 spehi-, 86 speHimȏn, 101 spelg’h-n-, 126 srew-, 28, 90, 97 srow-mo-, 97 srowmōn, 28 steh2-, 94, 177 steh2men-, 28 steh2-mõn, 28 steh2-no-, 99 stéh2no-, 99 steh2wo-, 117 stel-, 94 220

sterh3-, 101 stibh-, 95 stogho-, 67 stogo-, 67 strebh-men-, 25 strosdo-, 64 stru-ti-, 175 suHinih2, 145 suH-ino-, 145 suH-nu-, 56, 57 suHs, 145 supno-, 99, 102 (s)up(o), 127 (s)upero-, 127 swe-, 69 swek’ruh2-, 58, 59 swesōr, 105 swopr, 99 tawro-, 67 teg-, 25,61 teh2-, 46 teh2-y-, 150 tek’-slo-, 83 tek’t-, 83 tekw-, 67 telh2-, 72 temk-, 90 ten-, 129 tenuh2-, 58 ters-, 62 tókw-o-, 67 towH-ko-, 92 trep-, 156 tmo-, 99 trowdo-, 67 ud-ro-, 105 weg’hoh2, 61 weg’hos, 61 welpro-, 103 wekw-, 34

wekwos, 33 wers-, 57 wert-, 71, 126 weyd-, 90 weyH-, 90 wlh2neh2, 102 wlHneh2, 102 wlkwih2, 54 wlkwo-, 60, 70 wobh-, 110 wodōr, 75 wodr, 44 wog’ho-, 68 woyd-, 114 woyk’-, 23 yeh2-, 81, 113 yeh2g’-, 86 yeh2-to-, 113 yẽkwr, 105 yenh2tēr, 59 yewg-, 61 yewges-, 35 yewo-, 128 yh2g-yo-, 86 yugóm, 62