Villanueva Svensson Miguel͏. The origin of the Slavic 2 sg. present ending.
Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. 2022. 18(1): 426–443DOI: 10.30842/alp23065737181426443
The two 2 sg. present ending variants of Slavic, -sь/-šь and -si/-ši, are derived from pre-Slavic *-si and *-s-ai̯ s, respectively. The first variant is found in all Slavic languages, and in most of them it is the only one. The second variant survived mainly in Old Russian (cf. neseši) and Novgorod (cf. ideši) and as a relic form in other languages (cf. Ukr. jesý, Cz. jsi, SCr. jèsi). In both variants, the form with -š- is dominant.
The first variant goes back to the Indo-European primary ending 2 sg. *-si. The second variant reflects the Proto-Slavic form of the 2 sg. future with the sigmatic stem *-s-ai̯ s. This complex formant was formed in the Proto-Slavic period by adding the ending of the imperative 2 sg. *-ai̯ s (from the Baltic-Slavic imp. *-ai̯ s that continues PIE opt. *-o-i̯ h₁-s, compare OCS ved-i, OPr. wed-ais) to the ending of the future 2 sg. *-s (from PIE *-s-si; the athematic sigmatic stem of the future is reconstructed for Balto-Slavic on the basis of the Eastern Baltic languages, cf. Lith. duõs, Latv. duôs 'he will give').
A partial apocope of the final *-i in Balto-Slavic could be the main reason for this morphological innovation. As a result of the apocope, a formal contrast developed between the forms with accented ending (2 sg. *u̯ ede-si 'you lead') and with unaccented endings (2 sg. *de̍ d-s 'you put'). The reduced ending *-s merged with the sigmatic future stem, which provoked the renewal of this form with the imperative ending *-ai̯ s in Balto-Slavic or Proto-Slavic, cf. *dōd-s-si > *dōd-s-s > *dōd-s → *dōd-s-ai̯ s. The loss of the sigmatic future and the reduction of *-s in one of the two allomorphs of the 2 sg. present form conditioned the creation of the ending *-sai̯ s and its spread to the paradigm of the present.
The dominant forms -ši and -šь resulted from the first palatalization of velars from *-xi and *-xь, which in turn developed from *-si and *-sь according to the RUKI-rule in present stems in -i-. The original forms with *-s- were preserved only in athematic root present stems.
The first variant goes back to the Indo-European primary ending 2 sg. *-si. The second variant reflects the Proto-Slavic form of the 2 sg. future with the sigmatic stem *-s-ai̯ s. This complex formant was formed in the Proto-Slavic period by adding the ending of the imperative 2 sg. *-ai̯ s (from the Baltic-Slavic imp. *-ai̯ s that continues PIE opt. *-o-i̯ h₁-s, compare OCS ved-i, OPr. wed-ais) to the ending of the future 2 sg. *-s (from PIE *-s-si; the athematic sigmatic stem of the future is reconstructed for Balto-Slavic on the basis of the Eastern Baltic languages, cf. Lith. duõs, Latv. duôs 'he will give').
A partial apocope of the final *-i in Balto-Slavic could be the main reason for this morphological innovation. As a result of the apocope, a formal contrast developed between the forms with accented ending (2 sg. *u̯ ede-si 'you lead') and with unaccented endings (2 sg. *de̍ d-s 'you put'). The reduced ending *-s merged with the sigmatic future stem, which provoked the renewal of this form with the imperative ending *-ai̯ s in Balto-Slavic or Proto-Slavic, cf. *dōd-s-si > *dōd-s-s > *dōd-s → *dōd-s-ai̯ s. The loss of the sigmatic future and the reduction of *-s in one of the two allomorphs of the 2 sg. present form conditioned the creation of the ending *-sai̯ s and its spread to the paradigm of the present.
The dominant forms -ši and -šь resulted from the first palatalization of velars from *-xi and *-xь, which in turn developed from *-si and *-sь according to the RUKI-rule in present stems in -i-. The original forms with *-s- were preserved only in athematic root present stems.
Authors:
Villanueva Svensson Miguel͏
Vilnius University (Vilnius, Lithuania)
miguel.villanueva@flf.vu.lt
Svensson Miguel͏ Villanueva
References:
T. Alkire, C. Rosen. Romance Languages. A Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
H. Andersen. IE *s after i, u, r, k in Baltic and Slavic. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. 1968. Vol. 11. P. 171-190.
W. Cowgill. The Old English Present Indicative Ending -e. S. Drewniak, A. Heinz (eds.). Symbolae linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kuryłowicz. Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1965. P. 45-50.
W. Cowgill. The Personal Endings of Thematic Verbs in Indo-European. J. Klein (ed.). The Collected Writings of Warren Cowgill. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press, 2006. P. 535-567.
G. E. Dunkel. On the “Thematisation” of Latin sum, volo, eo, and edo and the System of Endings in the IE Subjunctive Active. J. H. Jasanoff, H. C. Melchert, L. Olivier (eds.). Mír Curad: Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 1998. P. 83-100.
J. Endzelin. Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter, 1923.
E. Hill, S. Fries. On personal endings of thematic verbs in Proto-Indo-European. L. Repanšek, H. Bichlmeier, V. Sadovski (eds.). vácām̐ si miśrā krṇavāmahai. Proceedings of the international conference of the Society for IndoEuropean Studies and IWoBA XII, Ljubljana 4–7 June 2019, celebrating one hundred years of Indo-European comparative linguistics at the University of Ljubljana. Hamburg: Baar, 2020. P. 253-282.
W. Hock. Baltoslavisch. II. Teil: Morphologie, Stammbildung, Flexion. Kratylos. 2005. Vol. 50. P. 1-39.
H. Hoenigswald. Some Considerations of Relative Chronology: The Greek Thematic Present. A. Etter (ed.). O-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 1986. P. 372-375.
J. Jasanoff. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
J. Jasanoff. The sigmatic forms of the Hittite verb. Indo-European Linguistics. 2019. Vol. 7. P. 13-71.
R. Kim. North Slavic -ě vs. South Slavic -ę: A Problem of Forward Reconstruction. Journal of Slavic Linguistics. 2019. Vol. 27. P. 1-26.
F. Kortlandt. Toward a reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic verbal system. Lingua. 1979. Vol. 49. P. 51-70.
H. G. Lunt. Old Church Slavonic Grammar. Seventh Revised Edition. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001.
M. Majer. From Indo-European to Proto-Slavonic: Problems in verbal inflection. J. Fellerer, N. Bermel (eds.). The Oxford Guide to the Slavonic Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
K.-H. Mottausch. Die Präsens-Singular-Endungen des baltischen und slawischen Verbs. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. 2003. Vol. 63. P. 83-108.
T. Olander. Proto-Slavic Inflectional Morphology. A Comparative Handbook. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015.
D. Ringe, A. Taylor. A Linguistic History of English. Volume 2: The Development of Old English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
W. Smoczyński. Lexicon der altpreussischen Verben. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck, 2005.
C. S. Stang. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo; Bergen; Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget, 1966.
A. Vaillant. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome 3: Le verbe. Paris: Klincksieck, 1966.
W. Vermeer. Dabragezas and friends: a celebratory note on 6th-century Slavic. Available at: http://inslav.ru/zalizniak80/list.html; accessed on 07.05.2022.
M. Villanueva Svensson. Lith. ankstì, artì, tolì and Baltic and Slavic Auslautgesetze. Scando-Slavica. 2016. Vol. 62. P. 160-182.
M. Villanueva Svensson. The Conditioning of the Balto-Slavic i-Apocope. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. 2017-2018. Vol. 71. Iss. 2. P. 277-304.
M. Weiss. Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press, 2009.
A. A. Zaliznjak. Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt [Old Novgorod dialect]. 2. ed. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kultury, 2004.
Z. Zinkevičius. Lietuvių dialektologija. Vilnius: Mintis, 1966.
Issue
18 (2022) 1
Документ