From: sergejus_tarasovas
Message: 14368
Date: 2002-08-17
--- In cybalist@..., Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
[defending Fortunatov-Kuznetsov-Watkins, now also -Carrasquer theory
of origin of Proto-Slavic 3rd. p. verval marker: ]
> OCS and East Slavic are the only evidence we have, as in all modern
West and
> South Slavic languages the 3rd. person forms have lost the *-t(U)
and/or *-t(I)
> [which is an aberration in itself].
S. Nikolaev in _Rannee dialektnoje c^lenenije i vnes^nije sv'azi
vostoc^noslav'anskix dialektov_ (1994) writes that while West Slavic,
of South Slavic and Ukrainian/Belarusian have lost the *-tI marker in
the singular, only West Slavic has lost in in the plural.
By the way, in the same article he notes that in so called Viatichian
(as it can be reconstructed on the base of today's Russian dialects),
the -tI/-tU/zero distributian was "untrivial". Eg, e-verbs has sg.
_sta'ne_ - pl. _sta'nut_ (more rarely _sta'nu_), sg. _nese'_ - pl.
_nesu't_, while i-verbs has sg. _xo'di_ -- pl. _xo'd'ut' (more rarely
_xo'd'u_), sg. _sidi't'_ (more rarely _sidi'_) -- pl. sid'a'.
Interestingly enough, Krivichian (with its phonological if not
morphonological archaisms) has lost this morpheme as well. Many
features of Northern Russian have been explained via Krivichian, but
this is obviously not the case here -- Northern Russian -tU must have
originated from something else.
> I would hesitate to call OCS aberrant here
> (from a Slavic point of view). Northern (and literary) Russian has
hard -t in
> the 3sg. and pl., against soft -t' in athematic est' (sut') [unless
those are
> churchslavonicisms, I'm not sure], exactly as in OCS. It is hard
to imagine
> how, given Proto-Slavic thematic -etI, -o~tI and athematic -tI, -
e~tI, the OCS
> and N-Russian split (them. -tU, athem. -tI) may have arisen, while
the converse
> (East-Slavic merger) is unproblematical.
_Dictionary of Old Church Slavonic_ (ed. Vec^erka et al.), Moscow,
1999 in the grammatical addendum gives _jestU_ (not **jestI), it also
gives 9 examples of _jestU_ under the dictionary entry for _byti_,
and zero examples for **_jestI_.
_Old Church Slavonic_, A. Selishchev, Moscow, 1952.
A bit outdated and idiosyncratic (but not to _that_ extent). Gives
_jestU_ [and argues that Proto-Slavic *-tI yielded (rather early) Old
Bulgarian -tU as a result of _de-palatalization because of weakening
of articulation in auslaut_; also states that this de-palatalization
operated rather late in Northern Russian]. Also mentiones sporadic -
tI (mostly in athematic, but also in thematic -- as in _mInitI_ --
conjugation).
N. Rusinov in his _Old Russian_ explaines Northern Russian -tU as
originating from de-palatalized -tI.
What is wrong with my sources?
Sergei