On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:22:43 +0000, fortuna11111 <
fortuna11111@...>
wrote:
>Yes, I know what you mean under the Yers, since I am proficient
>in both Bulgarian and Russian. I write in Cyrillic. However, my
>feeling about Russian (synchron) has been more (if I have
>gotten you right) like telling me there are no Yers or what
>corresponds to "tvjerdyj znak" in Russian at the end of the word
>(they have disappeared?)
Yes.
>What usually
>disturbs me is that in producing protoslavic reconstructs,
>scientists often end up repeating the OCS form. I assume this
>should happen only accidentally
No. OCS is close enough to Common Slavic that in I'd say over 50% percent
of cases, it's not necessary to give a Common Slavic asterisked form, when
the OCS form (if attested) is identical.
Now if we're talking about Proto-Slavic, the language form that can be
reconstructed by combining (A) internal reconstruction of the Slavic
languages and (B) external comparison with Indo-European in general (and
Baltic in particular), we get a different picture (to put it differently:
"Proto-Slavic" is the earliest possible language stage that can be called
"Slavic" [right after the split from Baltic], while "Common Slavic" is the
latest possible stage [right before the different Slavic languages started
to differentiate].
For instance, in Ramat & Ramat ("The IE Languages"), Henning Andersen in
his chapter on Slavic tries to give the Proto-Slavic forms (alongside the
Common-Slavic/OCS ones). The o-stem paradim in his version looks like this:
sg. du. pl.
Nom. STAL-A-X STAL-A: STAL-0-AI
Acc. STAL-A-M STAL-A-NS
Gen. STAL-A-AT STAL-0-AU STAL-0-AM
Loc. STAL-A-I STAL-AI-XU
Dat. STAL-? STAL-A-MA: STAL-A-MAX
Ins. STAL-A: STAL-AIS?
versus Common Slavic:
sg. du. pl.
Nom. stol-U stol-a stol-i
Acc. stol-U stol-y
Gen. stol-a stol-u stol-U
Loc. stol-ê stol-êxU
Dat. stol-u stol-oma stol-omU
Ins. stol-omI stol-y
[My own reconstruction would rather be:
sg. du. pl.
Nom. STAL-A-H STAL-A: STAL-AI
Acc. STAL-A-M STAL-A:-NH
Gen. STAL-A-AT STAL-AU STAL-AM
Loc. STAL-A-I STAL-AI-XU
Dat. STAL-Ô STAL-A-MA: STAL-A-MAH
Ins. STAL-A-MI STAL-ÔH]
>I would personally be interested to see if OCS could also show
>some features of the language of the Old Bulgarians.
I can't think of a single one.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...