Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Proto-Indo-European ∗ -os in Slavic

Индоевропейское ∗ -os в славянском

  • Published:
Russian Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 this question up for a renewed discussion. In the present study it is argued that pre-Proto-Slavic ∗ -as yielded Proto-Slavic ∗- which is reflected as -ъ in all Slavic dialects except the Old Novgorod dialect where it yielded -e. Furthermore it is proposed that pre-Proto-Slavic ∗ -ās (from Proto-Indo-European ∗ , ∗ ) regularly became Proto-Slavic ∗- which yielded -y in most of the Slavic dialects, but -ě in the Old Novgorod dialect.

Аннотация

Среди исследователей нет согласия по вопросу о закономерном рефлексе раннеславянского ∗ -as (из индоевропейского ∗ -os) в славянских диалектах: -о или -ъ. Древненовгородское окончание им. п. ед. ч. м. р. -e открывает возможность свежего обсуждения вопроса. В данной статье приводятся аргументы в пользу того, что раннеславянское ∗ -as отражалось как праславянское ∗-, которое затем дало -ъ во всех славянских диалектах, кроме древненовгородского, где обнаруживается рефлекс -e. Кромо того, в статье предполагается, что раннеславянское ∗ -ās (из индоевропейского ∗ , ∗ ) закономерно приводило к праславянскому ∗-, которое дало -y в большинстве славянских диалектов, но в ‘древненовгородском’ -ě.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Thus Jan Ivar Bjørnflaten (pers. comm.) when I presented my ideas in a talk given in October 2011.

  2. Abbreviations of languages: CS: Common Slavic; CSa: Common Slavic excluding the Old Novgorod dialect; OCS: Old Church Slavonic; ONovg.: Old Novgorod dialect; ORu.: Old Russian; PIE: Proto-Indo-European; PS: Proto-Slavic. For the distinction between Proto-Slavic and Common Slavic see Olander (2009, 9, 127f.), with a slightly different phonological system.

  3. By ‘o hypothesis’ and ‘ъ hypothesis’ I refer to the views that the regular reflex of PIE ∗ -os is CS ∗ -o or ∗ -ъ.

  4. Thus also Zaliznjak (1993, 211); an interpretation of -mo as a recent Slavic innovation is given by Reinhart (2012).

  5. Leskien (1876, 4f., 1907). In the following the ‘o hypothesis’ is represented by two authors with more recent contributions to the discussion, Willem Vermeer and Vadim Krys’ko; for further references see Vermeer (1991), a useful introduction to the problem from the point of view of the ‘o hypothesis’ side of the front line; see also Vermeer (1994) and Krys’ko (2007, 83–114, based on 1993a and, partly, on 1993b). A recent variant of the ‘o hypothesis’ takes its starting point in the pronoun PIE ∗ so, ∗ sah 2 , ∗ tod (Majer 2011).

  6. E.g. Hujer (1910, 16–18) and Kortlandt (1983, 181).

  7. See e.g. Hujer (1910, 12, 25, 34), Kortlandt (1983, 182), Vermeer (1991, 278) and Krys’ko (2007, 83).

  8. Rudnyc’kyj (1966), Vermeer (1991, 280) and Krys’ko (2007, 85–89) (sceptical about part of the material).

  9. Torbiörnsson (1925, 276–279), Kortlandt (1979, 265, 1983, 182) and Vermeer (1991, 280).

  10. Krys’ko (2007, 89–92).

  11. Hujer (1910, 25f.), Kortlandt (1983, 182) and Vermeer (1991, 278).

  12. Mikkola (1896, 352), Rozwadowski (1915, 14–18), Kortlandt (1983, 182) and Vermeer (1991, 280f.).

  13. Rozwadowski (1915, 14–18), Kortlandt (1983, 182), Vermeer (1991, 280f.).

  14. Vermeer (1991, 281).

  15. The idea was conceived by Henning Andersen and presented in lectures since the late 1960s; see also Andersen (1998, 437) and Lunt (1981, 44f., 83, nn. 136, 138).

  16. See Andersen (1968).

  17. See also Le Feuvre (1998a, 238f.).

  18. Fortunatov (1888, 572 fn. 1, 1897, 164 fn. 1).

  19. See e.g. Schelesniker (1964, 56).

  20. See also Krys’ko (2007, 87).

  21. Taszycki (1925, 52f.), Stieber (1989, 132), Le Feuvre (1993, 245 fn. 72, 1998a, 238); see also Belić (1901, 162), Zaliznjak (1988, 171); this view is criticised by Krys’ko (2007, 85f.) and Øiestad (2009, 9).

  22. Maslov (1982, 137); concord according to semantic gender is also possible: Lénčeto e došlá samíčka; cf. Stojanov (1983, 100 fn. 1).

  23. But cf. Krys’ko (2007, 85f.).

  24. Cf. Shevelov (1964, 228) and Krys’ko (2007, 87).

  25. Thus also Le Feuvre (1998a, 239) and Øiestad (2009, 9f.).

  26. The set of cognate words was first presented in Kozlovskij (1887).

  27. Meillet (1934, 151, 469).

  28. Kozlovskij (1887).

  29. Thus already Agrell (1917, 114). I do not understand why Vondrák (1928, 94), Hujer (1911, 189) and Trávníček (1935, 363) all refer to adverbs like večeros and dnes as original nominative forms; Gebauer (1896, 507) correctly refers to this adverbial type as consisting of accusative forms.

  30. Vondrák (1928, 94).

  31. Gebauer (1896, 507) and Trávníček (1935, 363).

  32. Agrell (1917, 114f.); see also Jagić (1883, 430).

  33. Jagić (1883, 430), Diels (1963, 103); cf. Agrell (1917, 115 fn. 4).

  34. Similarly Agrell (1926, 38 fn. 1).

  35. The variant in -žde occasionally appearing in Old Church Slavonic texts is probably introduced from the pronoun tъžde, see Diels (1963, 205), Vaillant (1964, 142) and Majer (2012, 227).

  36. Thus Petr (1957, 92), who also points to the gen. sg. form kojęžde from a nom. sg. ∗ každe in the Codex Suprasliensis (fn. 24); Majer (2012, 226 fn. 6).

  37. Rozwadowski (1915, 15f.).

  38. See also Le Feuvre (1998a, 238).

  39. According to Lehr-Spławiński and Bartula (1976, 29), the alternation between ∗ kъ- and ∗ ko- may be of the same kind as the one found in tъgda, kъgda vs. togda, kogda, etc.

  40. See Andersen (2012).

  41. This was pointed out to me by Anders Richardt Jørgensen (pers. comm.).

  42. See e.g. Stang (1966, 195).

  43. Meillet (1918).

  44. One of the first authors to give a clear formulation of the view that PIE ∗ -os regularly yields CS ∗ -ъ was Filipp Fortunatov (1888, 572 fn. 1, 1897, 164 fn. 1); for precedents see Hujer (1910, 12). Candidates for a possible intermediate stage between ∗ -os and ∗ -ъ are ∗ -u(s) and ∗ - (s), e.g. Bräuer (1961, 103): “Die idg. Endung ∗ -os des Nom. Sg. m. der o-Stämme ist offenbar zu ∗- s oder ∗ -us verdumpft worden mit Weiterentwicklung zu -ъ(s)”; see also Vaillant (1950, 210).

  45. Thus also Meillet (1934, 405): “En effet l’analogie tendait à exclure une confusion du nominatif et de l’accusatif masculins, puisque les deux cas sont distingués au pluriel du même genre et qu’ils sont distingués au singulier dans les thèmes en -a-, qui forment paire avec les thèmes en -o-: si le nominatif pluriel v. sl. novi est distingué de l’accusatif novy et si le nominatif féminin singulier nova est distingué de l’accusatif singulier novǫ, une confusion du nominatif-accusatif masculin singulier dans l’unique novŭ ne peut être que phonétique.”; see also Meillet (1897, 108f.). While I agree with Meillet on this point, the scenario he sketches differs in many details from the one presented in this study.

  46. Olander (2005) with discussion and references; see also Ferrell (1965, 98f. fn. 6), Kazlauskas (1968), Stang (1975, 49).

  47. Similarly, Lunt (1981, 44f.) assumes that the ruki variant of ∗ s “was apparently generalized to replace every desinential ∗ s” (see also 83, n. 138), including the dat. pl. ending.

  48. For Slavic attestations of this word see Trubačev (1977, 128f.).

  49. Agrell (1926, 37f.), Halla-aho (2006, 139f.); but cf. Vermeer (2008, 291f.), who rightly claims that Halla-aho’s examples are of limited value. Arumaa (1985, 131) regards such pairs as an argument for the ‘o hypothesis’.

  50. The following remarks are based on Zaliznjak (2004, 99–104); see also Le Feuvre (1998a, 213–284), a fine treatment of the problems related to this ending. For the later development of -e in North Russian see Schaeken (1992) and Hendriks (2011, 174–188). The ending is attested also in modern dialects, see Honselaar (1997).

  51. This fact was first described by Zaliznjak (1986, 129); see Zaliznjak (2004, 147f.).

  52. Le Feuvre’s attempts at analysing <кетo> as not displaying the Old Novgorod masc. nom. sg. ending -e (1998a, 242–245) are unconvincing; note in this connection that a second occurrence of keto, written <кетъ>, was found in the 1998 season of excavations (Janin and Zaliznjak 2004, 88); doubts about keto as an example of a masc. nom. sg. are also expressed by Bjørnflaten (1990, 334 n. 19).

  53. Since this fact is easily explainable within most hypotheses on the origin of -e, I shall not discuss it further here; see Vermeer (1994) for a fuller treatment.

  54. See the overviews, also including older hypotheses, in Zaliznjak (1988, 169f., 1991, 232–238, 2004, 147–149), Vermeer (1991, 271f.), Krys’ko (2007, 93–99), Le Feuvre (1998a, 231–239, 2011, 351–353), Orr (2000, 113–116), Igartua Ugarte (2005, 105–109), Kwon (2009, 45f.), Keidan (2009, 184–187) and Øiestad (2009, 37–95).

  55. Šaxmatov (1915, 225, 1957, 50), Issatschenko (1980, 50f.); for criticism see Zaliznjak (1988, 169f., 1991, 237, 2004, 148), Le Feuvre (1998a, 233) and Keidan (2009, 185).

  56. Ivanov (1985), Zaliznjak (1986, 134); for criticism see Zaliznjak (1988, 170, 1991, 236, 2004, 148), Kazanskij (1989, 116 fn. 6), Vermeer (1991, 272), Krys’ko (2007, 93), Le Feuvre (1998a, 231f.), Igartua Ugarte (2005, 107), Kwon (2009, 45) and Øiestad (2009, 43–47).

  57. Sobolevskij (1888, 189f.), Šaxmatov (1957, 50), Schuster-Šewc (1998, 6ff.), Le Feuvre (1998a, 258–279, see also 214–231 and passim, 1998b, 244f., 247, 2011, 352–357), Kwon (2009); for criticism see Zaliznjak (1988, 170, 1991, 236f., 2004, 148), Vermeer (1991, 272), Krys’ko (2007, 95–99), Igartua Ugarte (2005, 106f.), Keidan (2009, 185) and Øiestad (2009, 48–64).

  58. Vermeer (1991, 1994), Birnbaum (1991, 203–207), Krys’ko (2007, 99–114, originally published in 1993), Igartua Ugarte (2005, 107–110), Øiestad (2009, 100f.), Keidan (2009, 185–187); cf. Zaliznjak (2004, 149): “Несмотря на некоторые трудности, путь объяснения, предложенный этими исследователями [Vermeer and Krys’ko], представляется плодотворным.”; criticism in Le Feuvre (1998a, 235–239, 2011, 352) and Kwon (2009, 45 and passim).

  59. Zaliznjak (1988, 170, 1991, 233–236, 2004, 148f.), Nikolaev and Xelimskij (1990, 42); criticism in Vermeer (1991, 272, 282f.), Krys’ko (2007, 94), Le Feuvre (1998a, 233f.), Igartua Ugarte (2005, 106), Kwon (2009, 45), Keidan (2009, 185) and Øiestad (2009, 39–42).

  60. See the references in the preceding footnotes.

  61. As seen by Øiestad (2009, 84f.), Krys’ko’s account is unclear as to which ending was replaced by -e in the Old Novgorod dialect, ∗ -o or ∗ -ъ; I assume, with Øiestad, that Krys’ko’s actual standpoint is that it was ∗ -o < PIE ∗-os that was replaced by -e.

  62. Krys’ko (2007, 100–105); see also Igartua Ugarte (2005, 107); but cf. Zaliznjak (2004, 103), Vermeer (1996, 42), Le Feuvre (1998a, 232 fn. 46) and Øiestad (2009, 85–88).

  63. Le Feuvre (1998a, 236f.).

  64. See also Kwon (2009, 45f.).

  65. See also Le Feuvre’s (1998a, 235–239, 1998b, 245) detailed and convincing critical discussion of the hypothesis that -e originates in the -stems; Vermeer’s idea of a Finnic substratum is criticised by Krys’ko (2007, 100).

  66. See e.g. Leskien (1876, 4).

  67. Vermeer (1994, 147), Krys’ko (2007, 112f.).

  68. A similar argument is used by Krys’ko in his criticism of the hypothesis that -e is the original vocative ending (2007, 98).

  69. Zaliznjak (1989, 24, 2004, 100f.).

  70. Zaliznjak (1988, 170f., 1991, 234ff., 2004, 148f.); see also Nikolaev and Xelimskij (1990).

  71. Vermeer (1991, 272), Øiestad (2009, 41).

  72. Vermeer (1991, 282f.), Krys’ko (2007, 94), Kwon (2009, 45), Keidan (2009, 185).

  73. Zaliznjak (1991, 236), Øiestad (2009, 40).

  74. Keidan (2009, 185) seems to imply that the adherents of the ∗- > -e hypothesis assume so.

  75. While probably only a consequence of the limited amount of linguistic material offered by the birchbark letters, it still deserves to be mentioned that the Old Novgorod dialect does not show any examples of nom. sg. -e in the masculine words that are traced back to original neuters by Illich-Svitych (1979, 108–121); the only word attested in the nom. sg., dvorъ, shows -ъ in a text which, however, does not show -e in other masc. nom. sg. forms either.

  76. Krys’ko (2007, 94).

  77. See Illich-Svitych (1979, 108–121).

  78. Zaliznjak (2004, 151).

  79. Øiestad’s comments (2009, 41) on this argument are very much to the point.

  80. See Olander (2005) for the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European ending; to those who reconstruct PIE ∗ -mus, this argument is obviously inapplicable.

  81. For similar definitions of a proto-language see e.g. Eichner (1988, 12) and Kümmel (2007, 2).

  82. See e.g. Andersen (1998, 427); cf. Lindstedt (1991, 117–120) and Holzer (2002, 553f.).

  83. Here and in the following, ∗ s in pre-Proto-Slavic reconstructions denotes either of the fricatives ∗ s or ∗ x. See Sect. 5.9 below for a discussion of this detail.

  84. This renders superfluous the usual explanation of ONovg. ā-stem gen. sg. -ě and nom. pl. -ě as taken from the -stems (see Sect. 5.6 below).

  85. Hirt (1893, 353–355), Meillet (1897, 96, 104, 125, 1914, 6f., 1934, 151, 398), Vondrák (1898, 337, 1904, 187, 1905, 218–220, 1906a, 152, 1906b, 52f.; but cf. 1924, 151f.); also Audouin (1898, 353), Lehr (1917, 38–40), Milewski (1932, 27–29), Lunt (1981, 45f., 1993, 372), Gălăbov (1973, 10), Zucha (1986); the idea is accepted in passing by Ferrell (1965, 99f.) and Ivanov (1990, 249).

  86. Hujer (1910, 76); see also Kuznecov (1961, 73).

  87. Kortlandt (1983, 180).

  88. See Lehr (1917, 39), Milewski (1932, 28f.) and Zucha (1986, 135f.).

  89. For the idea that CS ∗-i may reflect ∗ see Mareš (1962, 20, 1963, 55), Ebeling (1963, 32), Gălăbov (1973, 13ff.), Kortlandt (1975, 42f., 1979, 265, 1983, 177f.) and Lunt (1981, 17, 22, 46f., 67 n. 59; but cf. 2001, 227). I now prefer this explanation of the apparent double representation of pre-PS ∗ in final syllables over the one given in Olander (2009, 90).

  90. Similar developments are assumed by Pedersen (1905, 323–325), followed by Meillet (1914, 5), Ebeling (1963, 31f.) and Kortlandt (1979, 265, 1983, 175). The chronology of Slavic phonological developments is presented in a broader context in my forthcoming book on the inflexional morphology of Proto-Slavic. Incidentally, I find it somewhat difficult to understand why scholars who already do accept a special development of PIE ∗ in Slavic (Mareš, Ebeling, Kortlandt; see the preceding footnote) reject similar developments of ∗ -os and ∗ -ās, given the evidence in favour of such a development.

  91. Similarly e.g. Meillet (1934, 334), Stang (1942, 95), Kiparsky (1967, 241) with references and Le Feuvre (1998a, 157). Ebeling (1963, 33) assumes that -a was introduced from the oblique stem. The different reflexes in the acc. pl. and the prs. ptc. in North Slavic are explained by the presence of an original ∗ t in the latter form, PIE ∗ -onts, by van Wijk (1925, 283), Kortlandt (1979, 267, 1983, 179) and Vermeer (1996, 46). Zaliznjak (1993, 229–231; see also 2004, 153) sees an old connection between ONovg. -ja and Old Serbian nese, moge.

  92. Holzer (1998, 61, 2001, 39).

  93. Most authors assume that the various endings in -ě in the Old Novgorod o- and ā-stems are imported from the soft stems, see e.g. Krys’ko (2007, 107f.), Zaliznjak (2004, 146f., 150) and Vermeer (1996, 43f., 48–51); cf. Le Feuvre (1998a, 312 and 2007, 13), where ě is assumed to have spread from the ā-stem nom.-acc. du. To the supporters of the view that ONovg. o-stem masc. nom. sg. -e is taken from the -stems (see Sect. 4.2 above), that ending of course belongs to the list of endings imported from the soft to the hard stems.

  94. Vermeer (1996, 50).

  95. The ONovg. 1 pl. ending -me is indecisive as it may reflect PS ∗ -me; see Sect. 1 above and Zaliznjak (1988, 170).

  96. See e.g. Lunt (2001, 24).

  97. See Andersen (1968).

  98. Pointing out the similar developments in Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Greek and Celtic, Kortlandt suggests a development of final ∗ s to ∗ h in Early Slavic (1979, 267, 2008, 419).

  99. See e.g. Arumaa (1964, 114, 1985, 130), Igartua Ugarte (2005, 200f.).

  100. Kortlandt mentions “the Iranian development of ∗ -ah, ∗ -āh to -o, -å” (1979, 267 fn. 24) in connection with the Slavic raising of “∗ -ois, ∗ -ōis, and ∗ -oNs” (p. 265); but since he does not believe in raising of PIE ∗ -os, ∗ -ah 2 (a)s, his use of the Iranian data serves a different purpose than mine.

  101. Hoffmann and Forssman (1996, 63f., 72); see also de Vaan (2003, 384): “Since the change of ∗-āh to is conditioned by ∗-h, it may well have been contemporaneous with ∗ -ah > -.”

  102. Tedesco (1926, 125–130) and Emmerick (1989, 210). The development ∗ -ah > -i is also seen in Sogdian (Tedesco) and, indirectly, in Ossetian (Cheung 2002, 56ff.).

  103. Because of the known prehistoric contacts between Slavic and Iranian, one might consider interpreting the centralisation of ∗ to ∗ before word-final fricatives as a common Slavic-Iranian innovation. For chronological reasons I do not think this is plausible.

  104. Vermeer (1994, 148); cf. the disagreement with this view expressed by scholars like Le Feuvre (1998a, 388ff., 1998b, 245, 247f.) and Bjørnflaten (1990, 330ff.).

References

  • Agrell, S. (1917). Slavische Lautstudien (Lunds universitets årsskrift, Ny føljd, Avd. 1, 12(3)). Lund, Leipzig.

  • Agrell, S. (1926). Zur Geschichte des indogermanischen Neutrums. Kungliga Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund, årsberättelse 1925–1926, 17–64.

  • Andersen, H. (1968). IE ∗ s after i, u, r, k in Baltic and Slavic. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 11(2), 171–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, H. (1998). Slavic. In A. Giacalone Ramat & P. Ramat (Eds.), The Indo-European languages (pp. 415–453). London, New York (first published as ‘Le lingue slave’ in P. Ramat & A. Giacalone Ramat (Eds.), Le lingue indoeuropee (pp. 441–479). Bologna 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, H. (2012). The new Russian vocative: synchrony, diachrony, typology. Scando-Slavica, 58(1), 122–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arumaa, P. (1964). Urslavische Grammatik. Einführung in das vergleichende Studium der slavischen Sprachen. I. Band: Einleitung. Lautlehre (I. Teil: Vokalismus, II. Teil: Betonung). Heidelberg.

  • Arumaa, P. (1985). Urslavische Grammatik. Einführung in das vergleichende Studium der slavischen Sprachen. III. Band: Formenlehre. Heidelberg.

  • Audouin, É. (1898). De la déclinaison dans les langues indo-européennes et particulièrement en sanscrit, grèc, latin et vieux slave. Paris.

  • Belić, A. (1901). Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der slavischen Deminutiv- und Amplificativsuffixe. Archiv für slavische Philologie, 23, 134–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, H. (1991). Reflections on the language of medieval Novgorod. Russian Linguistics, 15(3), 195–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnflaten, J. I. (1990). The birch bark letters redeemed. Russian Linguistics, 14(3), 315–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bräuer, H. (1961). Slavische Sprachwissenschaft. I. Einleitung, Lautlehre. Berlin.

  • Cheung, J. (2002). Studies in the historical development of the Ossetic vocalism (Beiträge zur Iranistik, 21). Wiesbaden.

  • de Vaan, M. (2003). The Avestan vowels (Leiden Studies in Indo-European, 12). Amsterdam.

  • Diels, P. (1963). Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Mit einer Auswahl von Texten und einem Wörterbuch. I. Teil: Grammatik (2nd ed.; 1st ed. 1932–1934). Heidelberg.

  • Ebeling, C. L. (1963). Questions of relative chronology in Common Slavic and Russian phonology. Dutch contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavicists (Slavistic Printings and Reprintings, 45) (pp. 27–42). The Hague.

  • Eichner, H. (1988). Sprachwandel und Rekonstruktion: Prinzipielles zur indogermanistischen Rekonstruktion. In C. Zinko (Ed.), Akten der 13. Österreichischen Linguistentagung. Graz, 25.–27. Oktober 1985 (Arbeiten aus der Abteilung ‘Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft’ Graz, 1) (pp. 10–40). Graz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmerick, R. E. (1989). Khotanese and Tumshuqese. In R. Schmitt (Ed.), Compendium linguarum Iranicarum (pp. 204–229). Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, J. (1965). Some observations on the form of the nominative and vocative singular of the o- and -stems in Common Slavic. Scando-Slavica, 11, 93–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortunatov, F. (1888). Phonetische Bemerkungen, veranlasst durch Miklosich’s Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen. Archiv für slavische Philologie, 11, 561–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortunatov, F. (1897). Ueber accent und länge in den baltischen sprachen (Mit erlaubnis des verfassers aus dem ‘Russkij filologičeskij vestnik’ bd. XXXIII 252ff. übersetzt von Felix Solmsen). Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen, 22, 153–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gălăbov, I. (1973). Urslavische Auslautprobleme. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, 18, 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebauer, J. (1896). Historická mluvnice jazyka českého. Díl 3: Tvarosloví. I. Skloňování. Praha, Vídeň.

  • Halla-aho, J. (2006). Problems of Proto-Slavic historical nominal morphology. On the basis of Old Church Slavonic (Slavica Helsingiensia, 26). Helsinki.

  • Hendriks, P. (2011). Innovation in tradition: Tönnies Fonne’s Russian-German phrasebook (Pskov, 1607). Ph.D. dissertation. Leiden.

  • Hirt, H. (1893). Zu den slavischen Auslautsgesetzen. Indogermanische Forschungen, 2, 337–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, K., & Forssman, B. (1996). Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, 84). Innsbruck.

  • Holzer, G. (1998). Zur Rekonstruktion urslavischer Lautungen. In J. Rusek & W. Boryś (Eds.), Prasłowiańszczyzna i jej rozpad (pp. 57–72). Warszawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, G. (2001). Zur Lautgeschichte des baltisch-slavischen Areals. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, 47, 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, G. (2002). Urslawisch. In M. Okuka (Ed.), Lexikon der Sprachen des europäischen Ostens (Wieser Enzyklopädie des europäischen Ostens, 10) (pp. 551–557). Klagenfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honselaar, Z. (1997). Sledy okončanija e i. ed. muž. o-sklonenija v odnom sovremennom gdovskom govore. Russian Linguistics, 21(3), 271–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hujer, O. (1910). Slovanská deklinace jmenná (Rozpravy České akademie Císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, Třída III, 33). Praha.

  • Hujer, O. (1911). K slovanské deklinaci zájmenné. Sborník filologický, 2, 188–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Igartua Ugarte, I. (2005). Origen y evolución de la flexión nominal eslava (Filología y lingüística, 11). Bilbao.

  • Illich-Svitych, V. M. (1979). Nominal accentuation in Baltic and Slavic (translation of Imennaja akcentuacija v baltijskom i slavjanskom. Moskva 1963, by R. L. Leed & R. F. Feldstein). Cambridge, London.

  • Issatschenko, A. (1980). Geschichte der russischen Sprache. I. Band: Von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg.

  • Ivanov, V. V. (1985). Otraženie indoevropejskogo casus indefinitus v drevnenovgorodskom dialekte. Russian Linguistics, 9(2–3), 327–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanov, V. V. (1990). Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka (2nd rev. ed.; 1st ed. 1964). Moskva.

  • Jagić, V. (1883). Quattuor Evangeliorum versionis Palaeoslovenicae Codex Marianus glagoliticus. Sanktpeterburg.

  • Janin, V. L., & Zaliznjak, A. A. (2004). Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste 776–915 (iz raskopok 1997–2000 gg.). In V. L. Janin, A. A. Zaliznjak & A. A. Gippius (Eds.), Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1997–2000 gg.) (pp. 10–107). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazanskij, N. N. (1989). K rekonstrukcii kategorii padeža v praindoevropejskom. In A. V. Desnickaja (Ed.), Aktual’nye voprosy sravnitel’nogo jazykoznanija (pp. 115–130). Leningrad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazlauskas, J. (1968). O balto-slavjanskoj forme datel’nogo pad. mn. i dv. č. Baltistica, 4(2), 179–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keidan, A. (2009). Le iscrizioni novgorodiane su corteccia di betulla in ottica comparatistica. Incontri linguistici, 32, 175–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, V. (1967). Russische historische Grammatik. Band II: Die Entwicklung des Formensystems. Heidelberg.

  • Kortlandt, F. (1975). Slavic accentuation: a study in relative chronology (PdR Press Publications in Slavic Accentuation, 1). Lisse.

  • Kortlandt, F. (1979). On the history of the Slavic nasal vowels. Indogermanische Forschungen, 84, 259–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortlandt, F. (1983). On final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies, 11, 167–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortlandt, F. (2008). Slavic historical morphology: nominal paradigms. In P. Houtzagers, J. Kalsbeek & J. Schaeken (Eds.), Dutch contributions to the Fourteenth International Congress of Slavists. Linguistics. Ohrid. September 10–16, 2008 (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 34) (pp. 397–429). Amsterdam, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlovskij, I. (1887). Altsloven. amo, tamo, kamo = griech. , , . Archiv für slavische Philologie, 10, 657–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krys’ko, V. B. (1993a). Obščeslavjanskie i drevnenovgorodskie formy nom. sg. masc. ∗ o-sklonenija. Russian Linguistics, 17(2), 119–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krys’ko, V. B. (1993b). Novye materialy k istorii drevnenovgorodskogo nominativa na -e. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 6, 78–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krys’ko, V. B. (2007). Očerki po istorii russkogo jazyka. Moskva.

  • Kuznecov, P. S. (1961). Razvitie indoevropejskogo sklonenija v obščeslavjanskom jazyke. In N. I. Tolstoj (Ed.), Issledovanija po slavjanskomu jazykoznaniju (pp. 114–164). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kümmel, M. J. (2007). Konsonantenwandel. Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden.

  • Kwon, K. (2009). The early development of animacy in Novgorod: evoking the vocative anew. In V. Bubenik et al. (Eds.), Grammatical change in Indo-European languages (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, 4. Series IV. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 305) (pp. 43–53). Amsterdam, Philadelphia.

  • Le Feuvre, C. (1993). The sound change e > o in the birchbark letters of Novgorod and T. Fenne’s Manual, and the N. sg m. ending -e. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 17(3–4), 219–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Feuvre, C. (1998a). Études linguistiques sur les documents de Novgorod: leur apport à la grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Thèse de doctorat. Paris.

  • Le Feuvre, C. (1998b). Études linguistiques sur les documents de Novgorod: leur apport à la grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Revue des Études Slaves, 70(1), 241–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Feuvre, C. (2007). Sur la flexion des thèmes en -a- en vieux novgorodien. Revue des Études Slaves, 78(1), 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Feuvre, C. (2011). Mécanismes de réaffectation désinentielle et hiérarchie des oppositions casuelles en slave. In M. Fruyt, M. Mazoyer & D. Pardee (Eds.), Grammatical case in the languages of the Middle East and Europe. Acts of the international colloquium ‘Variations, concurrence et evolution des cas dans divers domaines linguistiques’. Paris, 2–4 April 2007 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 64) (pp. 345–358). Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehr, T. (1917). Ze studjów nad akcentem słowiańskim (Prace Komisji Językowej Akademji Umiejętności w Krakowie, 1). Kraków.

  • Lehr-Spławiński, T., & Bartula, C. (1976). Zarys gramatyki języka staro-cerkiewno-słowiańskiego na tle porównawczym. Wrocław.

  • Leskien, A. (1876). Die Declination im Slavisch-Litauischen und Germanischen (Preisschriften gekrönt und herausgegeben von der fürstlich Jablonowski’schen Gesellschaft zu Leipzig. Nr. XI der historisch-nationalökonomischen Section, XIX). Leipzig.

  • Leskien, A. (1907). Über slavisches o in Endsilben. Indogermanische Forschungen, 21, 335–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindstedt, J. (1991). The notational fallacy in Common Slavonic phonology. Scando-Slavica, 37, 108–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunt, H. G. (1981). The progressive palatalization of Common Slavic. Skopje.

  • Lunt, H. G. (1993). From late Indo-European to common Slavic phonology. In R. A. Maguire & A. Timberlake (Eds.), American contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists. Literature. Linguistics. Poetics. Bratislava, August–September 1993 (pp. 363–376). Columbus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunt, H. G. (2001). Old Church Slavonic Grammar. Berlin, New York.

  • Majer, M. (2011). PIE ∗ so, ∗ seh 2 , ∗ tod / PSl. ∗ tъ, ∗ ta, ∗ to and the development of PIE word-final ∗ -os in Proto-Slavic. In T. Krisch & T. Lindner (Eds.), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog. Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg (pp. 352–360). Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majer, M. (2012). An archaic Indo-European verbal form in the Slavic generalizing particle ∗ -žĭdo? In H. Craig Melchert (Ed.), The Indo-European verb: proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies. Los Angeles, 13–15 September 2010 (pp. 225–234). Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mareš, F. V. (1962). Rannij period morfologičeskogo razvitija slavjanskogo sklonenija (obščaja xarakteristika). Voprosy jazykoznanija, 6, 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mareš, F. V. (1963). Vznik a raný vývoj slovanské deklinace. Československé přednášky pro V. Mezinárodní sjezd slavistů v Sofii (p. 51–63). Praha.

  • Maslov, Ju. S. (1982). Gramatika na bălgarskija ezik. Sofija.

  • Meillet, A. (1897). Recherches sur l’emploi du génitif-accusatif en vieux-slave (Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes études. Sciences philologiques et historiques, 115). Paris.

  • Meillet, A. (1914). De quelques finales slaves. Rocznik Slawistyczny, 7, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meillet, A. (1918). Les vocatifs slaves du type mǫžu. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 20, 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meillet, A. (1934). Le slave commun (Collection de manuels publiée par l’Institut d’Études Slaves, II). Paris.

  • Mikkola, J. J. (1896). Slavica. Indogermanische Forschungen, 6, 349–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milewski, T. (1932). Rozwój fonetyczny wygłosu prasłowiańskiego. Slavia, 11, 1–32, 225–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikolaev, S. L., & Xelimskij, E. A. (1990). Slavjanskie (novgorodsko-pskovskie) zaimstvovanija v pribaltijsko-finskix jazykax: -a i -i v refleksax imen mužskogo roda. In V. V. Ivanov, T. M. Sudnik & E. A. Xelimskij (Eds.), Uralo-Indogermanica: Balto-slavjanskie jazyki i problema uralo-indoevropejskix svjazej. Materialy 3-ej balto-slavjanskoj konferencii, 18–22 ijunja 1990 g. Vol. 1 (pp. 41–43). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Øiestad, A. (2009). Nominativ singularis på -e i gamle Novgorod. MA thesis. Oslo.

  • Olander, T. (2005). The dative plural in Old Latvian and Proto-Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen, 110, 273–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olander, T. (2009). Balto-Slavic accentual mobility (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 199). Berlin, New York.

  • Orr, R. (2000). Common Slavic nominal morphology. A new synthesis. Bloomington.

  • Pedersen, H. (1905). Die nasalpräsentia und der slavische akzent. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanische Sprachen, 38 (Neue Folge, 18), 297–421.

  • Petr, J. (1957). Zaimek każdy w historii i dialektach języka polskiego (Polska akademia nauk, Komitet językoznawczy. Monografie polskich cech gwarowych, 2). Wrocław.

  • Reinhart, J. (2012). Inheritance or innovation in the Proto-Slavic verb: The ending -mo (1st person plural). In H. Craig Melchert (Ed.), The Indo-European verb: Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies. Los Angeles, 13–15 September 2010 (pp. 289–294). Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozwadowski, J. M. (1915). Przyczynki do historycznej fonetyki języków słowiańskich. Rocznik Slawistyczny, 7, 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudnyc’kyj, J.-B. (1966). The problem of nom. sg. endings of o-stems in Slavic. In D. Gerhardt, W. Weintraub & H.-J. zum Winkel (Eds.), Orbis Scriptus. Dmitrij Tschižewskij zum 70. Geburtstag (pp. 655–658). München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Šaxmatov, A. A. (1915). Očerk drevnějšago perioda istorii russkago jazyka (Ėnciklopedija slavjanskoj filologii, 11(1)). Petrograd.

  • Šaxmatov, A. A. (1957). Istoričeskaja morfologija russkogo jazyka. Moskva.

  • Schaeken, J. (1992). Zum nordrussischen Nominativ Singular auf -e im Gesprächsbuch des Tönnies Fenne (Pskov 1607). http://www.schaeken.nl/lu/research/online/publications/art18.pdf (originally published in A. A. Barentsen, B. M. Groen & R. Sprenger (Eds.), Studies in Russian linguistics (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 17) (pp. 285–293). Amsterdam, New York 1992).

  • Schelesniker, H. (1964). Beiträge zur historischen Kasusentwicklung des Slavischen (Wiener Slawistisches Jahrbuch. Ergänzungsband, V). Graz, Köln.

  • Schuster-Šewc, X. (1998). K voprosu o tak nazyvaemyx praslavjanskix arxaizmax v drevnenovgorodskom dialekte russkogo jazyka. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 6, 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shevelov, G. Y. (1964). A prehistory of Slavic. The historical phonology of Common Slavic. Heidelberg.

  • Sobolevskij, A. I. (1888). Lekcii po istorii russkago jazyka. Kiev.

  • Stang, C. S. (1942). Das slavische und baltische Verbum (Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-filos. Klasse, 1). Oslo.

  • Stang, C. S. (1966). Métatonie douce’ in Baltic. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 10, 111–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stang, C. S. (1975). Ergänzungsband. Register, Addenda und Corrigenda zur Vergleichenden Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo, Bergen, Tromsö.

  • Stieber, Z. (1989). Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich. Warszawa.

  • Stojanov, S. (1983). Gramatika na săvremenija bălgarski knižoven ezik. Tom 2: Morfologija. Sofija.

  • Taszycki, W. (1925). Najdawniejsze polskie imiona osobowe (Polska akademja umiejętności, Wydział filologiczny, Rozprawy, 62(3)). Warszawa.

  • Tedesco, P. (1926). Ostiranische Nominalflexion. Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik, 4, 94–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torbiörnsson, T. (1925). Die bestimmten Adjektivformen der slavischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, 1, 267–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trávníček, F. (1935). Historická mluvnice československá. Úvod, hláskosloví a tvarosloví (Řada spisů duchovědných, 2). Praha.

  • Trubačev, O. N. (Ed.) (1977). Ėtimologičeskij slovar’ slavjanskix jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksičeskij fond. Vypusk 4: ∗ čaběniti – ∗ děl’a. Moskva.

  • Vaillant, A. (1950). Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome I: Phonétique (Collection ‘Les Langues du Monde’. Série Grammaire, Philologie, Littérature, 6). Lyon, Paris.

  • Vaillant, A. (1964). Manuel du vieux slave. Tome 1: Grammaire (2nd rev. ed.; 1st ed. 1948). Paris.

  • Vermeer, W. R. (1991). The mysterious North Russian nominative singular ending -e and the problem of the reflex of Proto-Indo-European ∗ -os in Slavic. Die Welt der Slaven, 36, 271–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer, W. R. (1994). On explaining why the Early North Russian nominative singular in -e does not palatalize stem-final velars. Russian Linguistics, 18(2), 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer, W. R. (1996). Historical dimensions of Novgorod inflexion. In A. A. Gippius, T. M. Nikolaeva & V. N. Toporov (Eds.), Rusistika. Slavistika. Indoevropeistika. Sbornik k 60-letiju Andreja Anatol’eviča Zaliznjaka (pp. 41–54). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer, W. R. (2008). Jussi Halla-Aho, problems of Proto-Slavic historical nominal morphology. On the basis of Old Church Slavonic (Slavica Helsingiensia, 26). Helsinki, 2006, 289 pp. Scando-Slavica, 54, 288–294.

  • Vondrák, W. (1898). Einige Bemerkungen anlässlich Meillet’s ‘Recherches sur l’emploi du génitif-accusatif en vieux-slave’ Paris 1897. Archiv für slavische Philologie, 20, 325–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vondrák, W. (1904). K výkladu některých padů slovanské deklinace. Stat’i po slavjanověděniju, 1, 184–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vondrák, W. (1905). Zu den nasalen im Slavischen. Beiträge zur kunde der indogermanischen sprachen, 29, 201–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vondrák, W. (1906a). Slavische akzent- und quantitäts-studien, 1. Beiträge zur kunde der indogermanischen sprachen, 30, 100–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vondrák, W. (1906b). Vergleichende slavische Grammatik. I. Band: Lautlehre und Stammbildungslehre. Göttingen.

  • Vondrák, W. (1924). Vergleichende slavische Grammatik. I. Band: Lautlehre und Stammbildungslehre. Zweite stark vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage (1st ed. 1906). Göttingen.

  • Vondrák, W. (1928). Vergleichende slavische Grammatik. II. Band: Formenlehre und Syntax. Zweite Auflage, neubearbeitet von Dr. O. Grünenthal (1st ed. 1908). Göttingen.

  • van Wijk, N. (1925). Zur Entwicklung der partizipialen Nominativendung -onts in den slavischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, 1(1–2), 279–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaliznjak, A. A. (1986). Novgorodskie berestjanye gramoty s lingvističeskoj točki zrenija. In V. L. Janin & A. A. Zaliznjak (Eds.), Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste, 8. Iz raskopok 1977–1983 gg. (pp. 89–219). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaliznjak, A. A. (1988). Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt i problemy dialektnogo členenija praslavjanskogo jazyka. In Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. X Meždunarodnyj s”ezd slavistov. Doklady sovetskoj delegacii. Sofija, sentjabr’ 1988 g. (pp. 164–177). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaliznjak, A. A. (1989). Novgorodskie berestjanye gramoty i problema drevnix vostočnoslavjanskix dialektov. In G. A. Fedorov-Davydov, E. A. Rybina & A. S. Xorošev (Eds.), Istorija i kul’tura drevnerusskogo goroda (pp. 18–30). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaliznjak, A. A. (1991). Berestjanye gramoty pered licom tradicionnyx postulatov slavistiki i vice versa. Russian Linguistics, 15(3), 217–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaliznjak, A. A. (1993). K izučeniju jazyka berestjanyx gramot. In V. L. Janin & A. A. Zaliznjak (Eds.), Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1984–1989 gg.) (pp. 191–321). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaliznjak, A. A. (2004). Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt. Vtoroe izdanie, pererabotannoe s učetom materiala naxodok 1995–2003 gg. (1st ed. 1995). Moskva.

  • Zucha, I. (1986). Zu den Endungen -y, -ę, -ě im G. Sg. und N. Pl. der slawischen Deklination und zu den Nasalvokalen. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, 32, 133–137.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Scandinavian Studies and Linguistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Thomas Olander

Authors
  1. Thomas Olander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Olander.

Additional information

I have received very fruitful input to this study from Vasya Ivanova, Martin Kümmel, Andreas Øiestad and Stefan Jacobsson Schulstad, as well as from my colleagues at the Roots of Europe—Language, Culture, and Migrations project at the University of Copenhagen: Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, Birgit Anette Olsen, Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen, Guus Kroonen, Janus Bahs Jacquet, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen, Oliver B. Simkin and Tobias Mosbæk Søborg. A draft version of the study was commented by Henning Andersen, Frederik Kortlandt, Martin Kümmel, Andreas Øiestad, Willem Vermeer and Andrej Zaliznjak, to all of whom I am very grateful for their useful advice and corrections.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olander, T. Proto-Indo-European ∗ -os in Slavic. Russ Linguist 36, 319–341 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-012-9097-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-012-9097-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation