[tied] Re: Slavic peoples and places

> At 6/11/01 08:43 AM +0000, tgpedersen@... wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: tgpedersen@...
> > > To: cybalist@...
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 12:18 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [tied] Slavic peoples and places
> > >
> > > I recall from a Czech phrase book for tourists something like:
> > >
> > > "Personal" adjectives:
> > >
> > > -úv, -ová, -ovo (masculine), eg. Karlúv most (´ should be a

circle)

> > >
> > > -in, -ina, -ino (feminine) , eg. Libus^in hrad
> > >
> > > Is the former related to the Russian "hard" masc.-neutr. gen.

pl.

> > > ending -ov?
> > >
> > > Torsten
> >
> >--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> > > Yes, it is the same ending. The Proto-Slavic masculine nom.sg.

was

> >*-ov-U. The loss of the final reduced vowel ("yer") triggered the
> >compensatory lengthening of the *o in West Slavic, and the long *o:
> >was eventually raised yielding /u/ spelt <ó> in Polish and /u:/

spelt

> ><u with a circle> in Czech. In feminine *-ov-a, and neuter *-ov-o
> >there was no vowel loss and consequently no lengthening.
> > >
> > > Actually, the suffix -in- may be added to masculines too, since

the

> >Slavic languages retain a number of masculine a-stems (like nauta,
> >scriba or agricola in Latin).
> > >
> > > Piotr
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >That makes sense. I figured that somehow historically the gen. pl.
> >had become endingless, thus making difficult to distinguish from
> >the also endingless masc. nom. sg., wherefore -ov was dragged into
> >service as a case ending. Fem. and neut. nom. sg. with their

endings

> >-a and -o had no such problems, so kept the null gen. pl.
> >
> >Torsten
> >

--- In cybalist@..., Andrei Markine <andrey@...> wrote:
> I am confused.
>
> Nouns of both -o and -u stems reduced their final vowel to -U.
Gen.pl. -ov
> belongs to -u stems only. -o stems seem to have had no problem in
having
> gen.pl same as nom.sg - both "endingless".
>
> Piotr's words about "masc. nom. sg. was -*ov-U" were about
possessive
> adjectives, weren't they?
>
> As for modern Russian second noun declension (where all non -a
masculines
> belong), it is a mixture of former -o, -u, -i stems. Wouldn't it be
simpler
> to assume that "hard" masculines regularized in gen. pl. on ending
of -u
> declension than to bring possessive suffux in?
>
> Andrei
>
If you bring in developments in Old Russian, you are making *me*
confused-
I'm out of my depth here. It was a little rule I had made up for
myself to explain the variation in Modern Russian gen. pl. endings.
As to *why* the Russians chose exactly those endings, I don't know.

BTW Who are the Az- in the Sea of Azov? Yaz? Azeri?

Torsten