Re: [tied] Slavic -ogo, -ego

From: Miguel Carrasquer
Message: 16639
Date: 2002-11-09

On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 15:16:46 +0100, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...>

>I was thinking:
>The original genitive (*-osyo) has been lost in the Slavic o-stems,
>replaced by the Ablative *-õ:d. The Ablative itself is a contraction
>of thematic vowel -o- + ending -od > -o:d. Suppose in monosyllabic
>pronouns such as *tU/*kU, *sI/*jI the uncontracted form survived into
>proto-Slavic as *too(d), *koo(d), *seo(d), *eo(d). We know that in
>the Anlaut, o- and u- receive a euphonic prefix *w- (v-) or *g(h)-
>(h-), basically to resolve a(n) hiatus with the preceding vowel (in
>Common Slavic, words ended in a vowel). The same hiatus blocker would
>have been inserted before o in the Ablative, giving *tovo, *kovo,
>*sevo, *jevo (as in std. Russian pronunciation) or *toho, *koho,
>*seho, *jeho (> togo, kogo, sego, jego).

It should be added that Lith. has Abl. -> Gen. -õ in the pronouns (G.
tõ, kõ, s^iõ, jõ), so we would *expect* the Slavic pronominal Gen. to
be an Abl. too (except of course for the lone form c^eso < *kWesyo,
which is a genuine genitive), and that uncontracted thematic forms are
not unheard of, but actually attested in Avestan (Gpl. bisyllabic -aam
(written -a:m), monosyllabic -a:t, but sometimes written
-a:at(~)). The Lith. forms also show that the Balto-Slavic pronominal
Ablative lacked the *-sm- element (Skt. tásma:d, tá:d adverbially).

So this solution provides a plausible IE origin for the Slavic
pronominal genitive, which moreover is in line with the Baltic
evidence, and additionally it solves the old problem of (Northern)
Russian -ovo, -evo. Has nobody suggested this before?

Miguel Carrasquer Vidal