The problem of Proto-Balto-Slavic 'aspirates' revisited (original) (raw)

Balto-Slavic phonological developments

Baltistica, 2011

Elsewhere I have proposed the following relative chronology of early sound changes (1989a: 42-47, 2005a: 115-118): (1) Neutralization of the opposition between palatovelars and labiovelars after *u and *s, yielding a palatovelar before *i and a plain velar elsewhere (cf. Steensland 1973: 34, Kortlandt 1979: 58). This development belongs to the Proto-Indo-European period (stages 1.2 and 1.3 of my chronology). (2) Rephonemicization of the opposition between fortes ("voiceless") and lenes ("voiced aspirates") as an opposition between voiceless and (plain) voiced stops. This was a shared innovation of all Indo-European languages except Anatolian and Tocharian and therefore belongs to the dialectal Indo-European period (my stage 2.1). The (lenes) glottalic stops (traditionally called "plain voiced") became preglottalized voiced at this stage (cf. Kortlandt 1978a: 110). (3) Retraction of *s to *ṣ after *i, *u, *r, *k in Balto-Slavic, Albanian, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian. The highly specific character of this sound change points to a common, dialectal Indo-European development (my stage 2.2).

Proto-Indo-European *-os in Slavic

Opinions are divided on whether the phonetically regular outcome of pre-Proto-Slavic *‑as (from Proto-Indo-European *‑os) is ‑o or ‑ъ in the attested Slavic dialects. The masc. nom. sg. ending ‑e in the Old Novgorod dialect opens up for a renewed discussion. In this study it is argued that pre-Proto-Slavic *‑as yielded Proto-Slavic *‑ə which is reflected as ‑ъ in all Slavic dialects except the Novgorod dialect where it yielded ‑e. Furthermore it is proposed that pre-Proto-Slavic *‑ās (from Proto-Indo-European *‑ah₂s, *‑ah₂as) regularly became Proto-Slavic *‑ə̄ which yielded ‑y in most of Slavic, but ‑ě in the Old Novgorod dialect.

From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic

Journal of Indo European Studies, 1994

A correct evaluation of the Slavic evidence for the reconstruction of the Indo-European proto-language requires an extensive knowledge of a considerable body of data. While the segmental features of the Slavic material are generally of corroborative value only, the prosodic evidence is crucial for the reconstruction of PIE. phonology. Due to the complicated nature of Slavic historical accentology, this has come to be realized quite recently. 1 As a result, much of the earlier literature has become obsolete to the extent that it is based upon an interpretation which does not take the multifarious accentual developments into account. I shall give one example. In Evidence for laryngeals (ed. by W. Winter, 1965), which remains a milestone in Indo-European studies, two of the authors adduce the short accent of SCr. sȑce 'heart' as evidence for a Proto-Slavic acute tone (117, 133). Actually, Slavic *sьrdьce has a falling tone and mobile accentuation, as is clear from the Slovene and Russian evidence. The circumflex was regularly shortened in trisyllabic word forms (see 9.4 below), e.g. mlȁdōst 'youth', cf. mlȃd 'young', and prȃse 'suckingpig', gen.sg. prȁseta. This does not detract from the fact that we have to reconstruct an acute tone for Balto-Slavic in view of Latvian sirds 'heart'. In Slavic, the acute tone became circumflex in words with mobile stress in accordance with Meillet's law (see 5.4 below). The tone of trisyllabic neuters can never be used for comparative purposes because they always have mobile accentuation if they belong to the older layers of the language. The Balto-Slavic acute tone in the word for 'heart' is no evidence for either a laryngeal or a PIE. long vowel because it arose phonetically before PIE. *d in accordance with Winter's law (see 4.3 below). The only evidence for an original long vowel is found in Old Prussian seyr, which in combination with the East Baltic and Slavic material points to a PIE. alternating paradigm *ḱēr(d), *ḱṛd-. The full grade form of the root *ḱerd-is attested in Lith. šerdìs 'core', OCS. srěda 'middle'. The small chapter on Balto-Slavic in Evidence for laryngeals is not only very short, but also quite useless. In the following I intend to present a synopsis of the main developments from Proto-Indo-European to Slavic in their chronological order so far as that has been established at this moment. It is largely based on my earlier account of the accen-1 For a survey of recent research I refer to the Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 92 (1978), 269-281.

Toward a reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic verbal system

Lingua, 1979

The reconstruction of Balto-Slavic must of necessity be based upon two types of data. On the one hand, it requires the application of the comparative method to the three branches of the sub-family (West Baltic, Hast Baltic, Slavic). One reason for writing this article is that, to my mind, especially the Slavic evidence has not adequately been evaluated. In particular, I think that the non-Bulgarian material must be taken into account to a larger extent. On the other hand, Balto-Slavic must be viewed äs a further development of the Indo-European proto-language, the reconstruction of which is chiefly based on material from the early recorded history of its southern branches (Indo-Iranian, Greek, Hittite). As the history of Indo-European studies shows, the reconstruction of the protolanguage is likely to have a bias toward the language(s) on which it relies primarily. It is therefore of paramount importance to consider time and again the likelihood of the developments which are implied for the other branches (especially Celtic, Balto-Slavic, and Tocharian). 1 Indeed, I think that a few details of the Indo-European verbal System can be clarified on the basis of the Baltic and Slavic evidence.

Three problems of Balto-Slavic phonology

Baltica & Balto-Slavica

Professor Hamp has recently returned to the problem of PIE *eu in Balto-Slavic (1976). I take the matter up again because his analysis has certain implications for the relative chronology of sound laws. After a detailed study of the earlier literature, Endzelin concludes that both prevocalic and preconsonantal *eu have a twofold reflex in Balto-Slavic, viz. *ev and *jau (Slavic ju) if the following vowel is front, but *av (Slavic ov) and *au if the following vowcl is front, but *av (Slavic ov) and *au (Slavic u) if the following vowel is back (1911 : 78-104). This point of view is often repeated in the more recent literature (e. g., Vaillant 1950 : 110 and 123, Stang 1966 : 32 and 74). I agree with Hamp that it cannol be correct. The Slavic dat. sg. synovi < *-euei and nom. pl. synove < *-eues suffice to show that prevocalic *eu yielded Slavic ov before front vowcls äs well. Since H. Pedersen's conclusive discussion of Lith. tau (1935), it can hardly be doubted that the only phonetic reflex of preconsonantal *eu was *jau in Balto-Slavic. If the Balto-Slavic reflex of PIE *eu was *av (or rather *ov) before vowels and *jau (or tarher *jou) before consonants, the occurrence of ev requires an explanation, especially in Lith. devyni, Slavic devgtt. The Suggestion that de-was borrowed from desimtjdesgtb cannot be maintained. As Hamp points out, ev must have been reintroduced in the cardinal *dovin < *Η^ neun on the model of the ordinal *deuno-, which was subsequently replaced by *devino-on the model of the new cardinal *devin. 1 It follows that preconsonantal *eu had becn preserved at a stage which was posterior to the phonetic elimination of prevocalic *eu and that the latter development was early Balto-Slavic. This chronology is in contradiction with the one given by Zupitza, who dates the Slavic development of *ev to *ov after the first palatalization (1907 : 251). The latter chronology i s based on Czech navsteva ,visit', Old Czech vscieviti ,to visit', which is derived from *(s)keu-, cf. Gothic usskaws, Latin caveo (Matzenauer 1884 : 179 and Mikkola 1904 : 96). Though Machek does not even mention this etymology (1968 : 392), I think that it is correct. It is certainly preferable to the proposed connections wAh Lith. svecias and Slavic posetiti, which do not fit phonologically, or PIE *ueid-(Berneker), which cannot be identified without violating Winter's law (sce below). I assume that ev was restored in this word on the basis of preconsonantal *eu, e. g. in cuti, in the same way äs in devgtb.

Proto-Indo-European long vowels and Balto-Slavic accentuation

Baltistica 47/2, 5–48., 2012

The article is a critical review of the evidence regarding the reflexes of Proto-Indo-European long vowels in Baltic and Slavic. It is argued that in Balto-Slavic, inherited long vowels receive circumflex intonation in all positions in the word. Examples like Lith. várna ‘raven’, žvėrìs ‘wild animal’ and grė́bti ‘to rake’ that are traditionally thought to show that an Indo-European long vowel obtained acute intonation must be explained differently. A number of verbal roots forming a yod-present can be shown to have undergone metatony rude in Lithuanian and Latvian and metatony douce in Lithuanian. There is no evidence for the thesis that Balto-Slavic monosyllables always had circumflex intonation. Lithuanian examples that would show this development can be shown to be due to inner-Lithuanian innovations. Finally, Balto-Slavic ā-stems and intensive verbs with long vocalism generally have circumflex intonation and can be shown to reflect Proto-Indo-European formations containing a long vowel.