Re: [tied] Yers

Sergey,

Thanks for the informative note, I will take it into consideration.

Eva


-- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Sergejus Tarasovas" <
S.Tarasovas@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fortuna11111" <

fortuna11111@...>

> wrote:
>
> > I know about this. Yet was what you call Russian

orthography not

> > under the influence of OCS? Or do you have other,

independent

> > written sources confirming the existence of those Yers in the
> actual
> > language of Russians? Did Russians have a written

language at all,

> > before OSC?
>
> Old Russian texts we have at our disposal are of course

written

> mainly with the Cyrillic, but that doesn't mean they are all

written

> in OCS -- otherwise we coudn't even speak of Old Russian at

all, only

> of the Old Russian version of OSC texts. For instance, the

language

> of the birch bark inscriptions doesn't show any OSC influence
> whatsoever -- neither orthographical nor lexical or

morphological.

> The yers (including word-final ones), BTW, are often rendered

with

> the graphemes <o> (for etymological *U) and <e> (*I) in the

birch

> bark inscriptions. That's not what one would call an OSC
> orthographical influence, is it? The East Slavic loans in Baltic

and

> Baltic Finnish prove the yers were still alive and kicking at the
> time of borrowing (cf., eg., Lith. <kùbilas> 'vat, tub' < ORuss
> <kUbIlU> 'id.' which demonstrates the existence of medial yers

and

> Finnish <käämi> 'spindle, bobbin' < ORuss (Krivichian) <ke^vI>

'id.'

> demonstrates the existence of a word-final yer).
>
> Sergei