Three problems of Balto-Slavic phonology (original) (raw)

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.