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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Thus Jan Ivar Bjørnflaten (pers. comm.) when I presented my ideas in a talk given in October 2011.
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.
By ‘o hypothesis’ and ‘ъ hypothesis’ I refer to the views that the regular reflex of PIE ∗ -os is CS ∗ -o or ∗ -ъ.
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).
Krys’ko (2007, 89–92).
Vermeer (1991, 281).
See Andersen (1968).
See also Le Feuvre (1998a, 238f.).
See e.g. Schelesniker (1964, 56).
See also Krys’ko (2007, 87).
But cf. Krys’ko (2007, 85f.).
The set of cognate words was first presented in Kozlovskij (1887).
Meillet (1934, 151, 469).
Kozlovskij (1887).
Vondrák (1928, 94).
Similarly Agrell (1926, 38 fn. 1).
Rozwadowski (1915, 15f.).
See also Le Feuvre (1998a, 238).
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.
See Andersen (2012).
This was pointed out to me by Anders Richardt Jørgensen (pers. comm.).
See e.g. Stang (1966, 195).
Meillet (1918).
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).
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.
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.
For Slavic attestations of this word see Trubačev (1977, 128f.).
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).
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).
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.
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).
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).
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).
See the references in the preceding footnotes.
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.
Le Feuvre (1998a, 236f.).
See also Kwon (2009, 45f.).
See e.g. Leskien (1876, 4).
A similar argument is used by Krys’ko in his criticism of the hypothesis that -e is the original vocative ending (2007, 98).
Keidan (2009, 185) seems to imply that the adherents of the ∗- > -e hypothesis assume so.
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.
Krys’ko (2007, 94).
See Illich-Svitych (1979, 108–121).
Zaliznjak (2004, 151).
Øiestad’s comments (2009, 41) on this argument are very much to the point.
See Olander (2005) for the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European ending; to those who reconstruct PIE ∗ -mus, this argument is obviously inapplicable.
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.
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).
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).
Kortlandt (1983, 180).
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).
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.
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.
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.
Vermeer (1996, 50).
See e.g. Lunt (2001, 24).
See Andersen (1968).
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.
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.
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.
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).
Andersen, H. (2012). The new Russian vocative: synchrony, diachrony, typology. Scando-Slavica, 58(1), 122–167.
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.
Birnbaum, H. (1991). Reflections on the language of medieval Novgorod. Russian Linguistics, 15(3), 195–215.
Bjørnflaten, J. I. (1990). The birch bark letters redeemed. Russian Linguistics, 14(3), 315–338.
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.
Emmerick, R. E. (1989). Khotanese and Tumshuqese. In R. Schmitt (Ed.), Compendium linguarum Iranicarum (pp. 204–229). Wiesbaden.
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.
Fortunatov, F. (1888). Phonetische Bemerkungen, veranlasst durch Miklosich’s Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen. Archiv für slavische Philologie, 11, 561–575.
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.
Gălăbov, I. (1973). Urslavische Auslautprobleme. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, 18, 5–17.
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.
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.
Holzer, G. (2001). Zur Lautgeschichte des baltisch-slavischen Areals. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, 47, 33–50.
Holzer, G. (2002). Urslawisch. In M. Okuka (Ed.), Lexikon der Sprachen des europäischen Ostens (Wieser Enzyklopädie des europäischen Ostens, 10) (pp. 551–557). Klagenfurt.
Honselaar, Z. (1997). Sledy okončanija e i. ed. muž. o-sklonenija v odnom sovremennom gdovskom govore. Russian Linguistics, 21(3), 271–274.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kazlauskas, J. (1968). O balto-slavjanskoj forme datel’nogo pad. mn. i dv. č. Baltistica, 4(2), 179–183.
Keidan, A. (2009). Le iscrizioni novgorodiane su corteccia di betulla in ottica comparatistica. Incontri linguistici, 32, 175–196.
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.
Kortlandt, F. (1983). On final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies, 11, 167–185.
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.
Kozlovskij, I. (1887). Altsloven. amo, tamo, kamo = griech. , , . Archiv für slavische Philologie, 10, 657–658.
Krys’ko, V. B. (1993a). Obščeslavjanskie i drevnenovgorodskie formy nom. sg. masc. ∗ o-sklonenija. Russian Linguistics, 17(2), 119–156.
Krys’ko, V. B. (1993b). Novye materialy k istorii drevnenovgorodskogo nominativa na -e. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 6, 78–88.
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.
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.
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.
Le Feuvre, C. (2007). Sur la flexion des thèmes en -a- en vieux novgorodien. Revue des Études Slaves, 78(1), 7–17.
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.
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.
Lindstedt, J. (1991). The notational fallacy in Common Slavonic phonology. Scando-Slavica, 37, 108–122.
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.
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.
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.
Mareš, F. V. (1962). Rannij period morfologičeskogo razvitija slavjanskogo sklonenija (obščaja xarakteristika). Voprosy jazykoznanija, 6, 13–21.
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.
Meillet, A. (1918). Les vocatifs slaves du type mǫžu. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 20, 95–102.
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.
Milewski, T. (1932). Rozwój fonetyczny wygłosu prasłowiańskiego. Slavia, 11, 1–32, 225–264.
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.
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.
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.
Rozwadowski, J. M. (1915). Przyczynki do historycznej fonetyki języków słowiańskich. Rocznik Slawistyczny, 7, 9–23.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Torbiörnsson, T. (1925). Die bestimmten Adjektivformen der slavischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, 1, 267–279.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Vondrák, W. (1904). K výkladu některých padů slovanské deklinace. Stat’i po slavjanověděniju, 1, 184–193.
Vondrák, W. (1905). Zu den nasalen im Slavischen. Beiträge zur kunde der indogermanischen sprachen, 29, 201–225.
Vondrák, W. (1906a). Slavische akzent- und quantitäts-studien, 1. Beiträge zur kunde der indogermanischen sprachen, 30, 100–153.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zaliznjak, A. A. (1991). Berestjanye gramoty pered licom tradicionnyx postulatov slavistiki i vice versa. Russian Linguistics, 15(3), 217–245.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-012-9097-z