Re: [tied] Slavic endings

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:47:30 -0400 (EDT), Andrew Jarrette
<anjarrette@...> wrote:

>This has probably been referred to many, many times on cybalist, but I am seeking a definitive answer (and the search function on cybalist gives me trouble because it's hard to isolate this subject matter, I've tried already).
>
> 1. What is the origin of Common Slavic *-U the nom./acc. sg. of masc. o-stems? I think I once read that it comes from the accusative *-om which became *-U due to nasalization. But then what about the neuters with *-om (next question)?
> 2. What is the origin of Common Slavic *-o the nom./acc. sg. of neuter o-stems? I believe I've read that it is held to have come from *-od which is an importation from the pronouns -- correct? But why do neuter s-stems also have *-o in their nom./acc. sg., while retaining *-es- in other cases and numbers?
> 3. What is the origin of Common Slavic *-u the dative singular of o-stems? How can this go back to *-o:i?
> 4. What is the origin of Common Slavic *-y the genitive singular and nominative plural of a:-stems? How can this go back to *-a: + *-es/os?
> 5. What is the origin of the Slavic ending *-e of the dative singular of a:-stems?
> 6. Why does the genitive plural of a:-stems have no ending in modern Slavic languages?
> 7. Why do a:-stems have a separate accusative ending, but o-stems do not?
> 8. Why does OCS have <kamy> "stone" with <-y> from *-o:n, but *-a:m becomes <-o,> (nasalized /o/)? Wouldn't both have evolved from proto-Slavic nasalized *a:?
>
> I hope someone will be willing to answer these questions, as I find the Slavic inflectional endings to be mysterious when compared to the IE endings.

The solution I gave some time ago here explains all the
endings (except those that are analogical) using just 6
Auslautgesetze (R = resonant [iumnrl]):

(1) circumflex raising (e:~, a:~ and o:~ become i:, o: and
u: in a final syllable)

(2) N-raising of back vowels (-aN > -uN, -a:N > -o:N, -o:N >
-u:N)

(3) s-raising (h-raising) of back vowels (-ah > -uh, -a:h >
-o:h, -o:h > -u:h)

(4) long diphthong shortening (-V:R > -VR; where o:/a: > a)

(5) lengthening before -Rh (-VRh > -V:Rh)

(6) j-umlaut (the details are a bit complex, but basically
ja > je (except jaN, jau), ju > ji, ju: > ji: (but -ju:Nh >
je:N))

(Step 7 is the elimination of -h and the rewriting of:
a as o
e e
i I
u U
a: a
e: ê
i: i
o: a
u: y
ai ê
ei i
ui u
u:i y
au u
aN oN
eN eN
iN I
uN U
a:N a
e:N ê (East/West-Slavic) / eN (South Slavic)
i:N i
u:N y)


Your 8 questions can then be answered as follows:

> 1. What is the origin of Common Slavic *-U the nom./acc. sg. of masc. o-stems? I think I once read that it comes from the accusative *-om which became *-U due to nasalization. But then what about the neuters with *-om (next question)?

Nsg o-stems PBS *-as (3)> -uh > -U
Asg o-stems PBS *-am (2)> -uN > -U

> 2. What is the origin of Common Slavic *-o the nom./acc. sg. of neuter o-stems? I believe I've read that it is held to have come from *-od which is an importation from the pronouns -- correct? But why do neuter s-stems also have *-o in their nom./acc. sg., while retaining *-es- in other cases and numbers?

NAsg n. o-stems PBS *-a[d] > -o. The endings *-om (o-stems)
and *-os (s-stems) should have yielded -U, as indeed happens
in many neuters (now masculines) which in PIE had the stress
on the stem (e.g. *dhwórom > Slav. dvorU). Although stress
plays no part in any of the other Auslautgesetze, there is a
possibility that *-om became -uN while *-óm was still -áN,
thus facilitating the shift to *-á (< *-ód) [after which
surviving cases of *-áN became *-úN anyway?].

> 3. What is the origin of Common Slavic *-u the dative singular of o-stems? How can this go back to *-o:i?

Dsg o-stems PBS *-o:~i (1)> -u:i (4)> -ui > -u (the
development was probably -ui > -ue/-uo/-ô > -u:)

> 4. What is the origin of Common Slavic *-y the genitive singular and nominative plural of a:-stems? How can this go back to *-a: + *-es/os?

Apl a:-stems PBS *-a:ns (2)> -o:Nh (3)> -u:Nh (4)> -uNh
(5)> -u:Nh > -y. The Npl. is the Apl., the Gsg should have
been *-a:~s (1)> -o:s (3)> -u:h > -y, but was analogically
nasalized after the NApl. (as shown by the soft stem ending
-jeN/-jê < *-ju:Nh, given that *-ju:h would have given
+-ji).

> 5. What is the origin of the Slavic ending *-e[^] of the dative singular of a:-stems?

Dsg. a:-stems PBS *-a:~i (1)> -o:i (4)> -ai > -ê

> 6. Why does the genitive plural of a:-stems have no ending in modern Slavic languages?

Gpl (o- and a:-stems) PBS *-o:~m (1/2)> -u:N (4)> -uN > -U.
Masculines have replaced the ending -U > -0 with the u-stem
ending *-euo:~m > -ovU, at least in East and West Slavic.

> 7. Why do a:-stems have a separate accusative ending, but o-stems do not?

Nsg a:-stems PBS *-a: > -a
Asg a:-stems PBS *-a:m (2)> -o:N (4)> -aN > -oN.
(cf. the phonological merger to -U in the o-stems).

> 8. Why does OCS have <kamy> "stone" with <-y> from *-o:n, but *-a:m becomes <-o,> (nasalized /o/)? Wouldn't both have evolved from proto-Slavic nasalized *a:?

At the PBS stage there were probably two variants *-mo:N and
*-mo:~, the latter with circumflex accentuation and loss of
the resonant (cf. ma:te:r ~ ma:te:~ > Slav. mati, Lit.
mo:te:~). This yields (1)> -mo:N ~ -mu: (2)> -mu:N ~ -mu:
(4)> -muN ~ -mu:, and therefore kamU (dial.) ~ kamy
(standard). Another dialectal variant, kama, is probably
analogical after the stems in -ont- (ptc.praes.act.), where
we also have two parallel developments: *-ants, simplified
to *-ans _before_ soundlaws (2/3)> -uNh (5)> -u:Nh > -y (OCS
nesy); and *-ants > *-aNts, and simplification to -aNh
between soundlaws 2/3 and 4/5, yielding *-a:Nh > -a (ORuss.
nesa).

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