On 2007-01-29 16:43, tgpedersen wrote:
> They are from Leskien: Handbuch der altbulgarischen Sprach, neunte
> Auflage, 1969, p. 109. In your notation they are
> A mIneN, tebeN
> I mUnojoN, tobojoN
> L mIneN, tebeN
> (but
> D mene tebe)
> (past knowlegde suddenly dawns on me that Old Bulgarian isn't CSl)
It is, basically, and alas the forms are still wrong. If you have copied
them correctly, perhaps the proofreader of the 1969 edition blundered
horribly. I haven't got Leskien's Handbook within reach now, but the
forms marked as dative above are most certainly genitives (and variant
forms of the accusative), the alleged accusatives are non-existent, and
the loc. ending is -e^, not -eN, EVERYWHERE in Slavic.
Try this online version of Schaeken and Birnbaum's Altkirchenslavische
Studien (esp. the Flexionmuster chapter for the forms themselves and
Wortbildung IV.1 for a detailed explanation):
http://www.schaeken.nl/lu/research/online/publications/akslstud/index.htm
> OK. So that means Havlík needs an overhaul? I would of course be happy
> if we could backproject a modified version of it into the field of PIE
> enclitics?
Havlík's Law is about the pattern of loss and preservation of yers in
words that have them in successive syllables, in those Slavic languages
that have lost some of their yers. As OCS wasn't one of them, Havlík's
Law just doesn't apply here. In yer-dropping languages the first vowel
of mIne^, mUnojoN etc. of course disappears in accordance with Havlík's
Law, cf. Pol. 1sg. <mnie, mna,> but 2sg. <ciebie, toba,>, as in the
latter case the vowels are etymologically full.
Piotr