Re: [tied] Re: Slavic ptc.praes.act.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:54:56 +0000, pielewe
<wrvermeer@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer <mcv@...> wrote:
>
>> As far as I know (which is mainly the modern standard
>> languages), there are 5 different systems:
>>
>> 1. nesy, znajeN, xvaleN (OCS)
>
>
>Actually, the situation is more complex in that several other
>possibilities are attested in the manuscripts alongside the textbook
>ending -y, most spectacularly the use of a glagolitic letter that was
>apparently developed for the express purpose of writing this very
>ending and nothing else.

I didn't kow that. The textbook (Leskien-9) does mention
it:

"Eine glagolitische Nebenform des [SMALL YUS], nämlich [
SMALL YUS], wird nur nur im N. sg. m. der Partizipien wie
<nesy> angewandt [..], die Aussprache ist nicht sicher
bestimmbar"

Apparently, this variant was beyond the typographical
possibilities of Carl Winter Universitätsverlag in 1969.
Fortunately, it's in Unicode now (GLAGOLITIC CAPITAL LETTER
SMALL YUS WITH TAIL U+2C25 and GLAGOLITIC SMALL LETTER SMALL
YUS WITH TAIL U+2C55).

There is another letter there (YO), which in the draft
proposal for the Glagolitic encoding is described as: "For
the letter ÷ even the phonetic value is uncertain: ö, jö or
jo have been suggested. We have used YO, which was also used
to name this character in ISO 6861:1996." Is there any
other information about this sign?

>> 2. extension of -e(N) to all forms (Slv, Srb, Mod.Russ)
>
>
>The Mod. Russ. system is attested from the earliest times in the
>extreme North (Novgorod). It is not without significance that
>Slovene, SCr

Sorry for the confusion. I started to wonder myself why I
had used "Serbian" here, when I realized that I meant it to
stand for "Sorbian". I don't know why I used such a
confusing abbreviation. Especially since I wouldn't be
surprised if Croatian dialects (Kajkavian?) have the same
system as Slovene, Sorbian and Novgorodian.

>and Novgorod are precisely the Slavic dialects that have
>tended most strongly to generalize "soft" endings in decensions that
>oppose a hard to a soft sub-paradigm, so extension of -e(N) fits a
>morphological pattern in all three dialect areas. The southward
>spread of the Novgorod system to embrace all of Russian is in a line
>with the general tendency of morphological simplifications that arose
>in Novgorod to spread southward.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...