Proto-Slavic

Last updated
Proto-Slavic
Reconstruction of Slavic languages
RegionEastern Europe
Era2nd m. BCE – 6th c. CE
Reconstructed
ancestors

Proto-Slavic is the unattested, reconstructed proto-language of all the Slavic languages. It represents Slavic speech approximately from the 2nd millennium B.C. through the 6th century A.D. [1] As with most other proto-languages, no attested writings have been found; scholars have reconstructed the language by applying the comparative method to all the attested Slavic languages and by taking into account other Indo-European languages.

Contents

Rapid development of Slavic speech occurred during the Proto-Slavic period, coinciding with the massive expansion of the Slavic-speaking area. Dialectal differentiation occurred early on during this period, but overall linguistic unity and mutual intelligibility continued for several centuries, into the 10th century or later. During this period, many sound changes diffused across the entire area, often uniformly. This makes it inconvenient to maintain the traditional definition of a proto-language as the latest reconstructable common ancestor of a language group, with no dialectal differentiation. (This would necessitate treating all pan-Slavic changes after the 6th century or so as part of the separate histories of the various daughter languages.) Instead, Slavicists typically handle the entire period of dialectally-differentiated linguistic unity as Common Slavic.

One can divide the Proto-Slavic/Common-Slavic time of linguistic unity roughly into three periods:

Authorities differ as to which periods should be included in Proto-Slavic and in Common Slavic. The language described in this article generally reflects the middle period, usually termed Late Proto-Slavic (sometimes Middle Common Slavic [2] ) and often dated to around the 7th to 8th centuries. This language remains largely unattested, but a late-period variant, representing the late 9th-century dialect spoken around Thessaloniki in Greek Macedonia, is attested in Old Church Slavonic manuscripts.

Introduction

The ancestor of Proto-Slavic is Proto-Balto-Slavic, which is also the ancestor of the Baltic languages, e.g. Lithuanian and Latvian. This language in turn is descended from Proto-Indo-European, the parent language of the vast majority of European languages (including English, Irish, Spanish, Greek, etc.). Proto-Slavic gradually evolved into the various Slavic languages during the latter half of the first millennium AD, concurrent with the explosive growth of the Slavic-speaking area.

There is no scholarly consensus concerning either the number of stages involved in the development of the language (its periodization) or the terms used to describe them.

Proto-Slavic is divided into periods. One division is made up of three periods: [1]

Another division is made up of four periods:[ citation needed ]

  1. Pre-Slavic (c. 1500 BC – 300 AD): A long, stable period of gradual development. The most significant phonological developments during this period involved the prosodic system, e.g. tonal and other register distinctions on syllables.
  2. Early Common Slavic or simply Early Slavic (c. 300–600): The early, uniform stage of Common Slavic, but also the beginning of a longer period of rapid phonological change. As there are no dialectal distinctions reconstructible from this period or earlier, this is the period for which a single common ancestor (that is, "Proto-Slavic proper") can be reconstructed.
  3. Middle Common Slavic (c. 600–800): The stage with the earliest identifiable dialectal distinctions. Rapid phonological change continued, although with the massive expansion of the Slavic-speaking area. Although some dialectal variation did exist, most sound changes were still uniform and consistent in their application. By the end of this stage, the vowel and consonant phonemes of the language were largely the same as those still found in the modern languages. For this reason, reconstructed "Proto-Slavic" forms commonly found in scholarly works and etymological dictionaries normally correspond to this period.
  4. Late Common Slavic (c. 800–1000, although perhaps through c. 1150 in Kievan Rus', in the far northeast): The last stage in which the whole Slavic-speaking area still functioned as a single language, with sound changes normally propagating throughout the entire area, although often with significant dialectal variation in the details.

This article considers primarily Middle Common Slavic, noting when there is slight dialectal variation. It also covers Late Common Slavic when there are significant developments that are shared (more or less) identically among all Slavic languages.

Notation

Vowel notation

Two different and conflicting systems for denoting vowels are commonly in use in Indo-European and Balto-Slavic linguistics on one hand, and Slavic linguistics on the other. In the first, vowel length is consistently distinguished with a macron above the letter, while in the latter it is not clearly indicated. The following table explains these differences:

VowelIE/B-SSlavic
Short close front vowel (front yer)iĭ or ь
Short close back vowel (back yer)uŭ or ъ
Short open back vowelao
Long close front vowelīi
Long close back vowelūy and u
Long open front vowel (yat)ēě
Long open back vowelāa

For consistency, all discussions of words in Early Slavic and before (the boundary corresponding roughly to the monophthongization of diphthongs, and the Slavic second palatalization) use the common Balto-Slavic notation of vowels. Discussions of Middle and Late Common Slavic, as well as later dialects, use the Slavic notation.

Other vowel and consonant diacritics

Prosodic notation

For Middle and Late Common Slavic, the following marks are used to indicate tone and length distinctions on vowels, based on the standard notation in Serbo-Croatian:

Other prosodic diacritics

There are unfortunately multiple competing systems used to indicate prosody in different Balto-Slavic languages (see Proto-Balto-Slavic language#Notation for more details). The most important for this article are:

  1. Three-way system of Proto-Slavic, Proto-Balto-Slavic, modern Lithuanian: Acute tone á vs. circumflex tone ȃ or ã vs. short accent à.
  2. Four-way Serbo-Croatian system, also used in Slovenian and often in Slavic reconstructions: long rising á, short rising à, long falling ȃ, short falling ȁ. In the Chakavian dialect and other archaic dialects, the long rising accent is notated with a tilde ã, indicating its normal origin in the Late Common Slavic neoacute accent (see above).
  3. Length only, as in Czech and Slovak: long á vs. short a.
  4. Stress only, as in Ukrainian, Russian and Bulgarian: stressed á vs. unstressed a.

History

Phonology

The following is an overview of the phonemes that are reconstructible for Middle Common Slavic.

Vowels

Middle Common Slavic had the following vowel system:

Short vowels
Front Central Back
Close ь/ĭъ/ŭ
Mid eo
Open
Long vowels
Front Central Back
Close iyu
Mid ě
Open a
Nasal vowels (long)
Front Central Back
Close
Mid ęǫ
Open
Liquid diphthongs
Front Central Back
Close ьl/ĭl, ьr/ĭrъl/ŭl, ъr/ŭr
Mid el, erol, or
Open

The columns marked "central" and "back" may alternatively be interpreted as "back unrounded" and "back rounded" respectively, but rounding of back vowels was distinctive only between the vowels *y and *u. The other back vowels had optional non-distinctive rounding. Thus:

The vowels described as "short" and "long" were simultaneously distinguished by length and quality in Middle Common Slavic. Vowel length evolved as follows:

  1. In the Early Slavic period, length was the primary distinction (as indicated, for example, by Greek transcriptions of Slavic words[ citation needed ], or early loanwords from Slavic into the Finnic languages).
  2. In the Middle Common Slavic period, all long/short vowel pairs also assumed distinct qualities, as indicated above.
  3. During the Late Common Slavic period, various lengthenings and shortenings occurred, creating new long counterparts of originally short vowels, and short counterparts of originally long vowels (e.g. long *o, short *a). The short close vowels *ь/ĭ and *ъ/ŭ were either lost or lowered to mid vowels, leaving the originally long high vowels *i, *y and *u with non-distinctive length. As a result, vowel quality became the primary distinction among the vowels, while length became conditioned by accent and other properties and was not a lexical property inherent in each vowel.
  4. Many modern Slavic languages have since lost all length distinctions.

Some authors avoid the terms "short" and "long", using "lax" and "tense" instead. [3]

Consonants

Middle Common Slavic had the following consonants: [4]

Consonants of Middle Common Slavic
Labial Coronal Palatal Velar
v−v+v−v+v−v+v−v+
Nasal mnň
Plosive pbtdťďkg
Affricate cdzč(dž)
Fricative szš (ś)žx
Trill rř
Lateral approximant lľ
Central approximant vj

The phonetic value (IPA symbol) of most consonants is the same as their traditional spelling. Some notes and exceptions:

In most dialects, non-distinctive palatalization was probably present on all consonants that occurred before front vowels. When the high front yer *ь/ĭ was lost in many words, it left this palatalization as a "residue", which then became distinctive, producing a phonemic distinction between palatalized and non-palatalized alveolars and labials. In the process, the palatal sonorants *ľ *ň *ř merged with alveolar *l *n *r before front vowels, with both becoming *lʲ *nʲ *rʲ. Subsequently, some palatalized consonants lost their palatalization in some environments, merging with their non-palatal counterparts. This happened the least in Russian and the most in Czech. Palatalized consonants never developed in Southwest Slavic (modern Croatian, Serbian, and Slovenian), and the merger of *ľ *ň *ř with *l *n *r did not happen before front vowels (although Serbian and Croatian later merged *ř with *r).

Pitch accent

As in its ancestors, Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-European, one syllable of each Common Slavic word was accented (carried more prominence). The placement of the accent was free and thus phonemic; it could occur on any syllable and its placement was inherently part of the word. The accent could also be either mobile or fixed, meaning that inflected forms of a word could have the accent on different syllables depending on the ending, or always on the same syllable.

Common Slavic vowels also had a pitch accent. In Middle Common Slavic, all accented long vowels, nasal vowels and liquid diphthongs had a distinction between two pitch accents, traditionally called "acute" and "circumflex" accent. The acute accent was pronounced with rising intonation, while the circumflex accent had a falling intonation. Short vowels (*e *o *ь *ъ) had no pitch distinction, and were always pronounced with falling intonation. Unaccented (unstressed) vowels never had tonal distinctions, but could still have length distinctions. These rules are similar to the restrictions that apply to the pitch accent in Slovene.

In the Late Common Slavic period, several sound changes occurred. Long vowels bearing the acute (long rising) accent were usually shortened, resulting in a short rising intonation. Some short vowels were lengthened, creating new long falling vowels. A third type of pitch accent developed, known as the "neoacute", as a result of sound laws that retracted the accent (moved it to the preceding syllable). This occurred at a time when the Slavic-speaking area was already dialectally differentiated, and usually syllables with the acute and/or circumflex accent were shortened around the same time. Hence it is unclear whether there was ever a period in any dialect when there were three phonemically distinct pitch accents on long vowels. Nevertheless, taken together, these changes significantly altered the distribution of the pitch accents and vowel length, to the point that by the end of the Late Common Slavic period almost any vowel could be short or long, and almost any accented vowel could have falling or rising pitch.

Phonotactics

Most syllables in Middle Common Slavic were open. The only closed syllables were those that ended in a liquid (*l or *r), forming liquid diphthongs, and in such syllables, the preceding vowel had to be short. Consonant clusters were permitted, but only at the beginning of a syllable. Such a cluster was syllabified with the cluster entirely in the following syllable, contrary to the syllabification rules that are known to apply to most languages. For example, ‹See Tfd› *bogatьstvo "wealth" was divided into syllables as *bo-ga-tь-stvo, with the whole cluster *-stv- at the beginning of the syllable.

By the beginning of the Late Common Slavic period, all or nearly all syllables had become open as a result of developments in the liquid diphthongs. Syllables with liquid diphthongs beginning with *o or *e had been converted into open syllables, for example *TorT became *TroT, *TraT or *ToroT in the various daughter languages. The main exception are the Northern Lechitic languages (Kashubian, extinct Slovincian and Polabian) only with lengthening of the syllable and no metathesis (*TarT, e.g. PSl. ‹See Tfd› *gordъ > Kashubian gard; > Polabian *gard > gord). In West Slavic and South Slavic, liquid diphthongs beginning with *ь or *ъ had likewise been converted into open syllables by converting the following liquid into a syllabic sonorant (palatal or non-palatal according to whether *ь or *ъ preceded respectively). [6] This left no closed syllables at all in these languages. The South Slavic languages, as well as Czech and Slovak, tended to preserve the syllabic sonorants, but in the Lechitic languages (such as Polish), they fell apart again into vowel-consonant or consonant-vowel combinations. In East Slavic, the liquid diphthongs in *ь or *ъ may have likewise become syllabic sonorants, but if so, the change was soon reversed, suggesting that it may never have happened in the first place.

Grammar

Proto-Slavic retained several of the grammatical categories inherited from Proto-Indo-European, especially in nominals (nouns and adjectives). Seven of the eight Indo-European cases had been retained (nominative, accusative, locative, genitive, dative, instrumental, vocative). The ablative had merged with the genitive. It also retained full use of the singular, dual and plural numbers, and still maintained a distinction between masculine, feminine and neuter gender. However, verbs had become much more simplified, but displayed their own unique innovations.

Alternations

As a result of the three palatalizations and the fronting of vowels before palatal consonants, both consonant and vowel alternations were frequent in paradigms, as well as in word derivation.

The following table lists various consonant alternations that occurred in Proto-Slavic, as a result of various suffixes or endings being attached to stems:

Regular consonant alternations
LabialsCoronalsVelars
Normalbpvmdtsznlrgkxj
First palatalizationbpvmdtsznlržčšj
Second palatalizationdzcś
+j (iotation)bjpjvjmjďťšžňľřžčšN/A
+t (in infinitive)tt 1 t 2 stt 2 lt 3 rt 3 ťt 1

Vowels were fronted when following a palatal or "soft" consonant (*j, any iotated consonant, or a consonant that had been affected by the progressive palatalization). Because of this, most vowels occurred in pairs, depending on the preceding consonant.

Originaeiuāēīūaneninunūnauaiei
After hard consonantsoeьъaě₁iyǫęę, ьǫ, ъyuě₂i
After soft consonantseьaiǫęę, ьę̇, ьę̇ui

Most word stems therefore became classed as either "soft" or "hard", depending on whether their endings used soft (fronted) vowels or the original hard vowels. Hard stems displayed consonant alternations before endings with front vowels as a result of the two regressive palatalizations and iotation.

As part of its Indo-European heritage, Proto-Slavic also retained ablaut alternations, although these had been reduced to unproductive relics. The following table lists the combinations (vowel softening may alter the outcomes).

PIEeeyeweleremen
Long ē-gradeě₁????ę
e-gradeeijuelerę
zero grade?ьъьl, ъlьr, ъrę, ǫ
o-gradeoě₂uolorǫ
Long ō-gradea????ǫ

Although qualitative alternations (e-grade versus o-grade versus zero grade) were no longer productive, the Balto-Slavic languages had innovated a new kind of ablaut, in which length was the primary distinction. This created two new alternation patterns, which did not exist in PIE: short *e, *o, *ь, *ъ versus long *ě, *a, *i, *y. This type of alternation may have still been productive in Proto-Slavic, as a way to form imperfective verbs from perfective ones.

Accent classes

Originally in Balto-Slavic, there were only two accent classes, fixed (with fixed stem accent) and mobile (with accent alternating between stem and ending). There was no class with fixed accent on the ending. Both classes originally had both acute and circumflex stems in them. Two sound changes acted to modify this basic system:

As a result, three basic accent paradigms emerged: [7] [8] [9]

For this purpose, the "stem" includes any morphological suffixes (e.g. a diminutive suffix), but not generally on the inflectional suffix that indicates the word class (e.g. the -ā- of feminine ā-stem nouns), which is considered part of the ending. Verbs also had three accent paradigms, with similar characteristics to the corresponding noun classes. However, the situation is somewhat more complicated due to the large number of verb stem classes and the numerous forms in verbal paradigms.

Due to the way in which the accent classes arose, there are certain restrictions:

Some nouns (especially -stem nouns) fit into the AP a pattern but have neoacute accent on the stem, which can have either a short or a long syllable. A standard example is ‹See Tfd› *võľa "will", with neoacute accent on a short syllable. These nouns earlier belonged to AP b; as a result, grammars may treat them as belonging either to AP a or b.

During the Late Common Slavic period, the AP b paradigm became mobile as a result of a complex series of changes that moved the accent leftward in certain circumstances, producing a neoacute accent on the newly stressed syllable. The paradigms below reflect these changes. All languages subsequently simplified the AP b paradigms to varying degrees; the older situation can often only be seen in certain nouns in certain languages, or indirectly by way of features such as the Slovene neo-circumflex tone that carry echoes of the time when this tone developed. See History of Proto-Slavic#Accentual developments for more details.

Nouns

Most of the Proto-Indo-European declensional classes were retained. Some, such as u-stems and masculine i-stems, were gradually falling out of use and being replaced by other, more productive classes.

The following tables are examples of Proto-Slavic noun-class paradigms, based on Verweij (1994). There were many changes in accentuation during the Common Slavic period, and there are significant differences in the views of different scholars on how these changes proceeded. As a result, these paradigms do not necessarily reflect a consensus. The view expressed below is that of the Leiden school, following Frederik Kortlandt, whose views are somewhat controversial and not accepted by all scholars.

AP a nouns

Example Late Common Slavic nouns in AP a
Masc. long -oNt. long -oMasc. long -joFem. long -āFem. long -jāMasc. long -iFem. long -iMasc. long -uFem. long -ūFem. long -rMasc. long -nNt. long -nNt. long -sNt. long -nt
breadsummercrywoundstormson-in-lawthreadclaypumpkinmotherstoneseedmiraclelamb
SingularNom ‹See Tfd› xlě̀bъ ‹See Tfd› lě̀to ‹See Tfd› plàčь ‹See Tfd› ràna ‹See Tfd› bùřā ‹See Tfd› zę̀tь ‹See Tfd› nìtь ‹See Tfd› jìlъ ‹See Tfd› tỳky ‹See Tfd› màti ‹See Tfd› kàmy ‹See Tfd› sě̀mę ‹See Tfd› čùdo ‹See Tfd› àgnę
Accxlě̀bъlě̀toplàčьrànǫbùřǫzę̀tьnìtьjìlъtỳkъvьmàterьkàmenьsě̀męčùdoàgnę
Genxlě̀balě̀taplàčarànybùřę̇zę̀tīnìtījìlutỳkъvemàterekàmenesě̀menečùdeseàgnęte
Datxlě̀bulě̀tuplàčuràněbùřīzę̀tinìtijìlovitỳkъvimàterikàmenisě̀meničùdesiàgnęti
Instxlě̀bъmьlě̀tъmьplàčьmьrànojǫ
rànǭ [lower-alpha 1]
bùřējǫ
bùřǭ [lower-alpha 1]
zę̀tьmьnìtьjǫ
nìťǭ [lower-alpha 1]
jìlъmъtỳkъvьjǫ
tỳkъvljǭ [lower-alpha 1]
màterьjǫ
màteřǭ [lower-alpha 1]
kàmenьmьsě̀menьmьčùdesьmьàgnętьmь
Locxlě̀bělě̀těplàčiràněbùřīzę̀tīnìtījìlūtỳkъvemàterekàmenesě̀menečùdeseàgnęte
PluralNomxlě̀bilě̀taplàčirànybùřę̇zę̀tьjē
zę̀ťē [lower-alpha 1]
nìtijìlovetỳkъvimàterikàmenesě̀menāčùdesāàgnętā
Accxlě̀bylě̀taplàčę̇rànybùřę̇zę̀tinìtijìlytỳkъvimàterikàmenisě̀menāčùdesāàgnętā
Genxlě̀bъlě̀tъplàčьrànъbùřьzę̀tьjь
zę̀tī [lower-alpha 1]
nìtьjь
nìtī [lower-alpha 1]
jìlovъtỳkъvъmàterъkàmenъsě̀menъčùdesъàgnętъ
Datxlě̀bomъlě̀tomъplàčēmъrànamъbùřāmъzę̀tьmъnìtьmъjìlъmъtỳkъvьmъmàterьmъkàmenьmъsě̀menьmъčùdesьmъàgnętьmъ
Instxlě̀bȳlě̀tȳplàčīrànamībùřāmīzę̀tьmīnìtьmījìlъmītỳkъvьmīmàterьmīkàmenьmīsě̀menȳčùdesȳàgnętȳ
Locxlě̀bě̄xъlě̀tě̄xъplàčīxъrànaxъbùřāxъzę̀tьxъnìtьxъjìlъxъtỳkъvьxъmàterьxъkàmenьxъsě̀menьxъčùdesьxъàgnętьxъ
  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The first form is the result in languages without contraction over /j/ (e.g. Russian), while the second form is the result in languages with such contraction. This contraction can occur only when both vowels flanking /j/ are unstressed, but when it occurs, it occurs fairly early in Late Common Slavic, before Dybo's law (the accentual shift leading to AP b nouns). See below.

All single-syllable AP a stems are long. This is because all such stems had Balto-Slavic acute register in the root, which can only occur on long syllables. Single-syllable short and non-acute long syllables became AP b nouns in Common Slavic through the operation of Dybo's law. In stems of multiple syllables, there are also cases of short or neoacute accents in accent AP a, such as *osnòvā. These arose through advancement of the accent by Dybo's law onto a non-acute stem syllable (as opposed to onto an ending). When the accent was advanced onto a long non-acute syllable, it was retracted again by Ivšić's law to give a neoacute accent, in the same position as the inherited Balto-Slavic short or circumflex accent.

The distribution of short and long vowels in the stems without /j/ reflects the original vowel lengths, prior to the operation of Van Wijk's law, Dybo's law and Stang's law, which led to AP b nouns and the differing lengths in /j/ stems.

AP b nouns

Example Late Common Slavic nouns in AP b
Masc. long -oNt. long -oMasc. short -joNt. short -joFem. short -āMasc. long -iFem. short -iMasc. short -uFem. short -ūMasc. short -nNt. short -nNt. long -nt
bullwineknifebedwomanwaydooroxturtledeertribebaby animal
SingularNom ‹See Tfd› bỹkъ ‹See Tfd› vīnò ‹See Tfd› nõžь ‹See Tfd› ložè ‹See Tfd› ženà ‹See Tfd› pǫ̃tь ‹See Tfd› dvь̃rь ‹See Tfd› võlъ ‹See Tfd› želỳ ‹See Tfd› elỳ [lower-alpha 1] ‹See Tfd› plemę̀ ‹See Tfd› zvě̄rę̀
Accbỹkъvīnònõžьložèženǫ̀pǫ̃tьdvь̃rьvõlъželъ̀vьelènьplemę̀zvě̄rę̀
Genbȳkàvīnànožàložàženỳpǫ̃tidvь̃rivolùželъ̀veelèneplemènezvě̄rę̀te
Datbȳkùvīnùnožùložùženě̀pǭtìdvьrìvolòviželъ̀vielèniplemènizvě̄rę̀ti
Instbȳkъ̀mьvīnъ̀mьnožь̀mьložь̀mьženòjǫ
žẽnǫ [lower-alpha 2]
pǭtь̀mьdvь̃rьjǫ
dvь̃řǫ [lower-alpha 2]
volъ̀mьželъ̀vьjǫ
želъ̀vljǭ [lower-alpha 2]
elènьmь [lower-alpha 3] plemènьmьzvě̄rę̀tьmь
Locbȳcě̀vīně̀nožìložìženě̀pǫ̃tidvь̃rivõluželъ̀veelèneplemènezvě̄rę̀te
PluralNombȳcìvīnànožìlõžaženỳpǫ̃tьjē
pǫ̃ťē [lower-alpha 2]
dvьrìvolòveželъ̀vielèneplemènāzvě̄rę̀tā
Accbȳkỳvīnànožę̇̀lõžaženỳpǭtìdvьrìvolỳželъ̀vielèniplemènāzvě̄rę̀tā
Genbỹkъvĩnъnõžьlõžьžẽnъpǭtь̀jь
pǫ̃ti [lower-alpha 2]
dvьrь̀jь
dvь̃ri [lower-alpha 2]
volòvъželъ̀vъelènъplemènъzvě̄rę̀tъ
Datbȳkòmъvīnòmъnõžemъlõžemъženàmъpǭtь̀mъdvьrь̀mъvolъ̀mъželъ̀vьmъelènьmъplemènьmъzvě̄rę̀tьmъ
Instbỹkyvĩnynõžilõžiženàmīpǫ̃tьmīdvь̃rьmīvõlъmīželъ̀vьmīelènьmīplemènȳzvě̄rę̀tȳ
Locbỹcěxъvĩněxъnõžixъlõžixъženàxъpǭtь̀xъdvьrь̀xъvolъ̀xъželъ̀vьxъelènьxъplemènьxъzvě̄rę̀tьxъ
  1. This word is reconstructed as *olỳ in Verweij. The initial e-, however, is what is found in Derksen (2008) and other sources.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 The first form is the result in languages without contraction over /j/ (e.g. Russian), while the second form is the result in languages with such contraction. This contraction can occur only when both vowels flanking /j/ are unstressed, but when it occurs, it occurs before Dybo's law. At that point in this paradigm, stress was initial, allowing contraction to occur, resulting in a long *ī. As a result, after Dybo's law moved stress onto the vowel, it was retracted again by Stang's law. Without contraction, only Dybo's law applied.
  3. Verweij has *olènьmъ here, with unexpected -mъ ending when AP a *kàmy has expected *kàmenьmь. This may be a typo.

AP b-stem nouns are not listed here. The combination of Van Wijk's law and Stang's law would have originally produced a complex mobile paradigm in these nouns, different from the mobile paradigm of ā-stem and other nouns, but this was apparently simplified in Common Slavic times with a consistent neoacute accent on the stem, as if they were AP a nouns. The AP bjo-stem nouns were also simplified, but less dramatically, with consistent ending stress in the singular but consistent root stress in the plural, as shown. AP bs-stem noun are not listed here, because there may not have been any.

AP c nouns

Example Late Common Slavic nouns in AP c
Masc. short -oNt. long -oMasc. long -joNt. short -joFem. short -āFem. long -jāMasc. long -iFem. short -iMasc. long -uFem. nonsyllabic -ūFem. short -rMasc. short -nNt. short -nNt. short -sNt. long -nt
cartbellymanfieldlegsoulwild animalbonesoneyebrowdaughterrootnamewheelpiglet
SingularNom ‹See Tfd› vȏzъ ‹See Tfd› břȗxo ‹See Tfd› mǫ̑žь ‹See Tfd› pȍľe ‹See Tfd› nogà ‹See Tfd› dušà ‹See Tfd› zvě̑rь ‹See Tfd› kȏstь ‹See Tfd› sy̑nъ ‹See Tfd› brỳ ‹See Tfd› dъ̏ťi ‹See Tfd› kȍry ‹See Tfd› jь̏mę ‹See Tfd› kȍlo ‹See Tfd› pȏrsę
Accvȏzъbřȗxomǫ̑žьpȍľenȍgǫdȗšǫzvě̑rьkȏstьsy̑nъbrъ̑vьdъ̏ťerьkȍrenь [lower-alpha 1] jь̏mękȍlopȏrsę
Genvȍzabřȗxamǫ̑žapȍľanogýdušę̇́zvěríkostísy̑nubrъ̏vedъ̏ťerekȍrenejь̏menekȍlesepȏrsęte
Datvȍzubřȗxumǫ̑župȍľunȍdźědȗšīzvě̑rikȍstisy̑novibrъ̏vidъ̏ťerikȍrenijь̏menikȍlesipȏrsęti
Instvȍzъmьbřȗxъmьmǫ̑žьmьpȍľьmьnogojǫ́dušejǫ́zvě̑rьmьkostьjǫ́sy̑nъmьbrъvьjǫ́dъťerьjǫ́kȍrenьmь [lower-alpha 2] jь̏menьmьkȍlesьmьpȏrsętьmь
Locvȍzěbřȗśěmǫ̑žipȍľinodźě̀dušìzvěríkostísynúbrъ̏vedъ̏ťerekȍrenejь̏menekȍlesepȏrsęte
PluralNomvȍzibřuxàmǫ̑žipoľànȍgydȗšę̇zvě̑rьjē
zvě̑řē [lower-alpha 3]
kȍstisy̑novebrъ̏vidъ̏ťerikȍrenejьmenàkolesàporsętà
Accvȍzybřuxàmǫ̑žę̇poľànȍgydȗšę̇zvě̑rikȍstisy̑nybrъ̏vidъ̏ťerikȍrenijьmenàkolesàporsętà
Genvõzъbřũxъmǫ̃žьpõľьnõgъdũšьzvěrь̃jь [lower-alpha 4] kostь̃jь [lower-alpha 4] synõvъ [lower-alpha 5] brъ̃vъdъťẽrъkorẽnъjьmẽnъkolẽsъporsę̃tъ
Datvozõmъbřuxõmъmǫžẽmъpoľẽmъnogàmъdušàmъzvě̑rьmъ [lower-alpha 6] kȍstьmъ [lower-alpha 6] sy̑nъmъ [lower-alpha 6] brъ̏vьmъ [lower-alpha 6] dъťẽrьmъ [lower-alpha 7] korẽnьmъ [lower-alpha 7] jьmẽnьmъ [lower-alpha 7] kolẽsьmъ [lower-alpha 7] porsę̃tьmъ [lower-alpha 7]
Instvozýbřuxýmǫžípoľínogàmidušàmizvěrьmìkostьmìsynъmìbrъvьmìdъťerьmìkorenьmìjьmenýkolesýporsętý
Locvozě̃xъbřuśě̃xъmǫžĩxъpoľĩxъnogàxъdušàxъzvě̑rьxъ [lower-alpha 6] kȍstьxъ [lower-alpha 6] sy̑nъxъ [lower-alpha 6] brъ̏vьxъ [lower-alpha 6] dъťẽrьxъ [lower-alpha 7] korẽnьxъ [lower-alpha 7] jьmẽnьxъ [lower-alpha 7] kolẽsьxъ [lower-alpha 7] porsę̃tьxъ [lower-alpha 7]
  1. This word is reconstructed as *kȍręnь in Verweij, with a nasal vowel in the second syllable (and similarly for the rest of the paradigm). This is based on Czech dokořan. Verweij notes that *kȍrěnь is an alternative reconstruction, based on Serbo-Croatian kȍrijen. The form with medial -e-, however, comports with the majority of daughters and with other n-stem nouns.
  2. Verweij has *kȍręnьmъ here, with unexpected -mъ ending when AP a *kàmy has expected *kàmenьmь. This may be a typo.
  3. The first form is the result in languages without contraction over /j/ (e.g. Russian), while the second form is the result in languages with such contraction. See the corresponding AP a footnote.
  4. 1 2 Verweij reconstructs i-stem genitive plural *zvěrь̃jь and *kostь̃jь, even though his reconstructed dative plural forms are *zvě̑rьmъ, *kȍstьmъ (see note below). This is because the strong yer preceding /j/ is a tense yer that is strong enough to block the supposed rule that skips intervening yers when retracting from a yer (see note below).
  5. Verweij has *synóvъ here, with unexpected long rising accent on an originally short vowel. This may be a typo.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 These forms originally had final accent, which was retracted. Retraction from a yer skipped over intervening yers, even if strong. The result still should show neoacute accent, but according to Verweij, this is rarely found, and falling accent is the norm.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 These forms originally had final accent, which was retracted, skipping over the intervening yer (see footnote above).

The accent pattern for the strong singular cases (nominative and accusative) and all plural cases is straightforward:

  1. All weak cases (genitive, dative, instrumental, locative) in the plural are ending-stressed.
  2. The *-à ending that marks the nominative singular of the (j)ā-stems and nominative–accusative plural of the neuter (j)o-stems is ending-stressed.
  3. All other strong cases (singular and plural) are stem-stressed.

For the weak singular cases, it can be observed:

  1. All such cases in the (j)o-stems are stem-stressed.
  2. All such cases in the j(ā)- and i-stems are end-stressed except the dative. (However, the masculine i-stem instrumental singular is stem-stressed because it is borrowed directly from the jo-stem.)

The long-rising versus short-rising accent on ending-accented forms with Middle Common Slavic long vowels reflects original circumflex versus acute register, respectively.

Adjectives

Adjective inflection had become more simplified compared to Proto-Indo-European. Only a single paradigm (in both hard and soft form) existed, descending from the PIE o- and a-stem inflection. I-stem and u-stem adjectives no longer existed. The present participle (from PIE *-nt-) still retained consonant stem endings.

Proto-Slavic had developed a distinction between "indefinite" and "definite" adjective inflection, much like Germanic strong and weak inflection. The definite inflection was used to refer to specific or known entities, similar to the use of the definite article "the" in English, while the indefinite inflection was unspecific or referred to unknown or arbitrary entities, like the English indefinite article "a". The indefinite inflection was identical to the inflection of o- and a-stem nouns, while the definite inflection was formed by suffixing the relative/anaphoric pronoun ‹See Tfd› *jь to the end of the normal inflectional endings. Both the adjective and the suffixed pronoun were presumably declined as separate words originally, but already within Proto-Slavic they had become contracted and fused to some extent.

Verbs

The Proto-Slavic system of verbal inflection was somewhat simplified from the verbal system of Proto-Indo-European (PIE), although it was still rich in tenses, conjugations and verb-forming suffixes.

Grammatical categories

The PIE mediopassive voice disappeared entirely except for the isolated form vědě "I know" in Old Church Slavonic (< Late PIE *woid-ai, a perfect mediopassive formation). However, a new analytic mediopassive was formed using the reflexive particle ‹See Tfd› *sę, much as in the Romance languages. The imperative and subjunctive moods disappeared, while the old optative came to be used as the imperative instead.

In terms of PIE tense/aspect forms, the PIE imperfect was lost or merged with the PIE thematic aorist, and the PIE perfect was lost other than in the stem of the irregular verb ‹See Tfd› *věděti "to know" (from PIE *woyd-). The aorist was retained, preserving the PIE thematic and sigmatic aorist types (the former is generally termed the root aorist in Slavic studies), and a new productive aorist arose from the sigmatic aorist by various analogical changes, e.g. replacing some of the original endings with thematic endings. (A similar development is observed in Greek and Sanskrit. In all three cases, the likely trigger was the phonological reduction of clusters like *-ss-, *-st- that arose when the original athematic endings were attached to the sigmatic *-s- affix.) A new synthetic imperfect was created by attaching a combination of the root and productive aorist endings to a stem suffix *-ěa- or *-aa-, of disputed origin. Various compound tenses were created, e.g. to express the future, conditional, perfect and pluperfect.

The three numbers (singular, dual and plural) were all maintained, as were the different athematic and thematic endings. Only five athematic verbs exist: ‹See Tfd› *věděti "to know", ‹See Tfd› *byti "to be", ‹See Tfd› *dati "to give", ‹See Tfd› *ěsti "to eat" and ‹See Tfd› *jьměti "to have". (*dati has a finite stem *dad-, suggesting derivation by some sort of reduplication.) A new set of "semi-thematic" endings were formed by analogy (corresponding to modern conjugation class II), combining the thematic first singular ending with otherwise athematic endings. Proto-Slavic also maintained a large number of non-finite formations, including the infinitive, the supine, a verbal noun, and five participles (present active, present passive, past active, past passive and resultative). In large measure these directly continue PIE formations.

Aspect

Proto-Indo-European had an extensive system of aspectual distinctions ("present" vs. "aorist" vs. "perfect" in traditional terminology), found throughout the system. Proto-Slavic maintained part of this, distinguishing between aorist and imperfect in the past tense. In addition, Proto-Slavic evolved a means of forming lexical aspect (verbs inherently marked with a particular aspect) using various prefixes and suffixes, which was eventually extended into a systematic means of specifying grammatical aspect using pairs of related lexical verbs, each with the same meaning as the other but inherently marked as either imperfective (denoting an ongoing action) or perfective (denoting a completed action). The two sets of verbs interrelate in three primary ways:

  1. A suffix is added to a more basic perfective verb to form an imperfective verb.
  2. A prefix is added to a more basic imperfective verb (possibly the output of the previous step) to form a perfective verb. Often, multiple perfective verbs can be formed this way using different prefixes, one of which echoes the basic meaning of the source verb while the others add various shades of meaning (cf. English "write" vs. "write down" vs. "write up" vs. "write out").
  3. The two verbs are suppletive — either based on two entirely different roots, or derived from different PIE verb classes of the same root, often with root-vowel changes going back to PIE ablaut formations.

In Proto-Slavic and Old Church Slavonic, the old and new aspect systems coexisted, but the new aspect has gradually displaced the old one, and as a result most modern Slavic languages have lost the old imperfect, aorist, and most participles. A major exception, however, is Bulgarian (and also Macedonian to a fair extent), which has maintained both old and new systems and combined them to express fine shades of aspectual meaning. For example, in addition to imperfective imperfect forms and perfective aorist forms, Bulgarian can form a perfective imperfect (usually expressing a repeated series of completed actions considered subordinate to the "major" past actions) and an imperfective aorist (for "major" past events whose completion is not relevant to the narration). [10]

Proto-Slavic also had paired motion verbs (e.g. "run", "walk", "swim", "fly", but also "ride", "carry", "lead", "chase", etc.). One of the pair expresses determinate action (motion to a specified place, e.g. "I walked to my friend's house") and the other expressing indeterminate action (motion to and then back, and motion without a specified goal). These pairs are generally related using either the suffixing or suppletive strategies of forming aspectual verbs. Each of the pair is also in fact a pair of perfective vs. imperfective verbs, where the perfective variant often uses a prefix *po-.

Conjugation

Many different PIE verb classes were retained in Proto-Slavic, including (among others) simple thematic presents, presents in *-n- and *-y-, stative verbs in *-ē- (cf. similar verbs in the Latin -ēre conjugation), factitive verbs in *-ā- (cf. the Latin -āre conjugation), and o-grade causatives in *-éye-.

The forms of each verb were based on two basic stems, one for the present and one for the infinitive/past. The present stem was used before endings beginning in a vowel, the infinitive/past stem before endings beginning in a consonant. In Old Church Slavonic grammars, verbs are traditionally divided into four (or five) conjugation classes, depending on the present stem, known as Leskien's verb classes. However, this division ignores the formation of the infinitive stem. The following table shows the main classes of verbs in Proto-Slavic, along with their traditional OCS conjugation classes. The "present" column shows the ending of the third person singular present.

ClassPresentInfinitiveExamplesNotes
1st-e-tь-ti
-ati
‹See Tfd› *nestì, *nesȅtь "carry"
‹See Tfd› *mę̀ti, *mьnetь "crumple"
‹See Tfd› *gretì, *grebetь
‹See Tfd› *peťì, *pečetь "bake"
‹See Tfd› *žìti, *živetь "live"
‹See Tfd› *bьrati, *beretь "take"
‹See Tfd› *zъvati, *zovetь "call"
PIE primary verbs, root ending in a consonant. Several irregular verbs, some showing ablaut. Not productive. Contains almost all infinitives in -Cti (e.g. *-sti or *-ťi), and a limited number of verbs in -ati. In verbs with an infinitive in -ti, various changes may occur with the last consonant.
(ę)-e-tь-ti ‹See Tfd› *leťi, *lęžeti "lie down"
‹See Tfd› *stati, *stanetь "stand (up)"
PIE nasal-infix presents. The infinitive stem may end in either a vowel or a consonant. Not productive, only a few examples exist.
2nd-ne-tь-nǫ-ti ‹See Tfd› *rìnǫti, *rìnetь "push, shove"From various PIE n-suffix verbs, the nasal vowel was a Slavic innovation. Two subclasses existed: those with -nǫ- also in the aorist and participle, and those without.
3rd-je-tь-ti
-ja-ti
‹See Tfd› *bìti, *bь̏jetь "beat"
‹See Tfd› *myti, *myjetь "wash"
‹See Tfd› *duti, *dujetь "blow"
‹See Tfd› *dajati, *dajetь "give"
PIE primary verbs and presents in -ye-, root ending in a vowel. -j- is inserted into the hiatus between root and ending. Verbs with the plain -ti infinitive may have changes in the preceding vowel. Several irregular verbs, some showing ablaut. Not productive.
-je-tь-a-ti ‹See Tfd› *sъlàti, *sъljȅtь "send"PIE presents in -ye-, root ending in a consonant. The j caused iotation of the present stem.
-aje-tь-a-ti ‹See Tfd› *dělati, *dělajetь "do"PIE denominatives in -eh₂-ye-. Remained very productive in Slavic.
-ěje-tь-ě-ti ‹See Tfd› *uměti, *umějetь "know, be able"PIE stative verbs in -eh₁-ye-. Somewhat productive.
-uje-tь-ova-ti ‹See Tfd› *cělovàti, *cělùjetь "kiss"An innovated Slavic denominative type. Very productive and usually remains so in all Slavic languages.
-ęje-tь-ę-tiIn some cases.[ which? ]
-C-tь-C-tiIn some cases,[ which? ] where not class I.
4th-i-tь-i-ti ‹See Tfd› *prosìti, *prõsitь "ask, make a request"PIE causative-iteratives in -éye-, denominatives in -eyé-. Remained very productive.
-i-tь
-i-tь
-ě-ti
-a-ti
‹See Tfd› *mьněti, *mьnitь "think"
‹See Tfd› *slỳšati, *slỳšitь "hear"
A relatively small class of stative verbs. The infinitive in -ati was a result of iotation, which triggered the change *jě > *ja. In the present tense, the first-person singular shows consonant alternation (caused by *j): ‹See Tfd› *xoditi "to walk" : *xoďǫ, ‹See Tfd› *letěti "to fly" : *leťǫ, ‹See Tfd› *sъpati "to sleep" : *sъpľǫ (with epenthetic *l). The stem of the infinitives in *-ati (except for *sъpati) ends in *j or the so-called "hushing sound".
5th-(s)-tь-ti ‹See Tfd› *bỳti, *ȅstь "be"
‹See Tfd› *dàti, *dãstь "give"
‹See Tfd› *ě̀sti, *ě̃stь "eat"
‹See Tfd› *jьměti, *jьmatь "have"
‹See Tfd› *věděti, *věstь "know"
PIE athematic verbs. Only five verbs, all irregular in one way or another, including their prefixed derivations.

Accent

The same three classes occurred in verbs as well. However, different parts of a verb's conjugation could have different accent classes, due to differences in syllable structure and sometimes also due to historical anomalies. Generally, when verbs as a whole are classified according to accent paradigm, the present tense paradigm is taken as the base.

AP a verbs

Verbs in accent paradigm a are the most straightforward, with acute accent on the stem throughout the paradigm.

AP b verbs

Verbs with a present stem in *-e- have short *-è- in the present tense and acute *-ě̀- or *-ì- in the imperative. Verbs with a present stem in *-i- have acute *-ì- in the imperative, but a historical long circumflex in the present tense, and therefore retract it into a neoacute on the stem in all forms with a multisyllabic ending. The infinitive is normally accented on the first syllable of the ending, which may be a suffixal vowel (*-àti, *-ìti) or the infinitive ending itself (*-tì).

In a subset of verbs with the basic *-ti ending, known as AP a/b verbs, the infinitive has a stem acute accent instead, *mèlti, present *meľètь. Such verbs historically had acute stems ending in a long vowel or diphthong, and should have belonged to AP a. However, the stem was followed by a consonant in some forms (e.g. the infinitive) and by a vowel in others (the present tense). The forms with a following vowel were resyllabified into a short vowel + sonorant, which also caused the loss of the acute in these forms, because the short vowel could not be acuted. The short vowel in turn was subject to Dybo's law, while the original long vowel/diphthong remained acuted and thus resisted the change.

AP c verbs

Verbs in accent paradigm c have the accent on the final syllable in the present tense, except in the first-person singular, which has a short or long falling accent on the stem. Where the final syllable contains a yer, the accent is retracted onto the thematic vowel and becomes neoacute (short on *e, long on *i). In the imperative, the accent is on the syllable after the stem, with acute *-ě̀- or *-ì-.

In verbs with a vowel suffix between stem and ending, the accent in the infinitive falls on the vowel suffix (*-àti, *-ě̀ti, *-ìti). In verbs with the basic ending *-ti, the accentuation is unpredictable. Most verbs have the accent on the *-tì, but if the infinitive was historically affected by Hirt's law, the accent is acute on the stem instead. Meillet's law did not apply in these cases.

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 Savel Kliachko (1968). The sharpness feature in Slavic. Dept. of Slavic Languages and Literatures. p. 57. Its immediate successors were Proto-East Slavic, Proto-South Slavic, and Proto-West Slavic. The Proto-Slavic era itself is often divided arbitrarily into three periods: (1) early Proto-Slavic, until about 1000 B.C.; (2) middle Proto-Slavic, during the next millennium; (3) late Proto-Slavic, from the 1st to the 6th century A.D., although it was not until the 12th century that Slavic linguistic unity actually ceased to function.
  2. Lunt 1987.
  3. Lunt 2001, p. 192.
  4. Schenker 2002, p. 82.
  5. Gwary polskie - Frykatywne rż (ř), Gwarypolskie.uw.edu.pl, archived from the original on 2013-11-13, retrieved 2013-11-06
  6. Schenker 2002, p. 75.
  7. Derksen 2008 , p. 8, echoing Stang 1957.
  8. Kortlandt 1994.
  9. Kortlandt 2011.
  10. Scatton 2002, p. 213.

Related Research Articles

Slavic languages Languages of the Slavic peoples

The Slavic languages, also known as the Slavonic languages, are Indo-European languages spoken primarily by the Slavic peoples or their descendants. They are thought to descend from a proto-language called Proto-Slavic, spoken during the Early Middle Ages, which in turn is thought to have descended from the earlier Proto-Balto-Slavic language, linking the Slavic languages to the Baltic languages in a Balto-Slavic group within the Indo-European family.

In linguistics, the Indo-European ablaut is a system of apophony in the Proto-Indo-European language. An example of ablaut in English is the strong verb sing, sang, sung and its related noun song, a paradigm inherited directly from the Proto-Indo-European stage of the language. All modern Indo-European languages have inherited the feature, though its prevalence varies strongly.

Russian is a Slavic language of the Indo-European family. All Indo-European languages are descendants of a single prehistoric language, reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European, spoken sometime in the Neolithic era. Although no written records remain, much of the culture and religion of the Proto-Indo-European people can also be reconstructed based on their daughter cultures traditionally and continuing to inhabit most of Europe and South Asia, areas to where the Proto-Indo-Europeans migrated from their original homeland.

The history of the Slavic languages stretches over 3000 years, from the point at which the ancestral Proto-Balto-Slavic language broke up into the modern-day Slavic languages which are today natively spoken in Eastern, Central and Southeastern Europe as well as parts of North Asia and Central Asia.

This page describes the declension of nouns, adjectives and pronouns in Slovene. For information on Slovene grammar in general, see Slovene grammar.

Proto-Balto-Slavic language

Proto-Balto-Slavic (PBS) is a reconstructed proto-language descending from Proto-Indo-European (PIE). From Proto-Balto-Slavic, the later Balto-Slavic languages are thought to have developed, composed of sub-branches Baltic and Slavic, and including modern Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian and Serbo-Croatian among others.

The phonology of the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) has been reconstructed by linguists, based on the similarities and differences among current and extinct Indo-European languages. Because PIE was not written, linguists must rely on the evidence of its earliest attested descendants, such as Hittite, Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, and Latin, to reconstruct its phonology.

Hirt's law or Hirt–Illich-Svitych's law, named after Hermann Hirt, who originally postulated it in 1895, is a Balto-Slavic sound law that triggered the retraction of the accent under certain conditions.

The Polish language is a West Slavic language, and thus descends from Proto-Slavic, and more distantly from Proto-Indo-European. More specifically, it is a member of the Lechitic branch of the West Slavic languages, along with other languages spoken in areas within or close to the area of modern Poland, including Kashubian, Silesian, and the extinct Slovincian and Polabian.

Proto-Indo-European accent refers to the accentual (stress) system of the Proto-Indo-European language.

Meillet's law is a Common Slavic accent law, named after the French Indo-Europeanist Antoine Meillet, who discovered it.

Dybo's law, or Dybo–Illich-Svitych's law, is a Common Slavic accent law named after Russian accentologists Vladimir Dybo and Vladislav Illich-Svitych. It was posited to explain the occurrence of nouns and verbs in Slavic languages which are invariantly accented on the inflectional ending. The latter is seen as an innovation from the original Proto-Balto-Slavic accent system, in which nouns and verbs either had invariable accent on the root, or "mobile" accent which could alternate between root and ending in the inflectional paradigm.

Ivšić's law, also Stang's law or Stang-Ivšić's law, is a Common Slavic accent law named after Stjepan Ivšić (1911) and Christian Schweigaard Stang (1957); the two linguists independently discovered the law in those years.

Lithuanian has eleven vowels and 45 consonants, including 22 pairs of consonants distinguished by the presence or absence of palatalization. Most vowels come in pairs which are differentiated through length and degree of centralization.

In the Lithuanian language, heavy syllables may be pronounced in one of two prosodically distinct ways that are determined by accent and pitch. One way is the acute or falling accent. It may be described as sudden, sharp or rough. The phrase tvirtaprãdė príegaidė has the literal meaning "firm-start accent". The second way is the circumflex or rising accent. It may be described as continued, mild or smooth. The word tvirtagãlė has the literal meaning "firm-end". Short syllables may have stress without the differentiation of an accent.

Serbo-Croatian is a South Slavic language with four national standards. The Eastern Herzegovinian Neo-Shtokavian dialect forms the basis for Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian.

Proto-Slavic accent is closely related to the accentual system of some Baltic languages with whom it shares many common innovations that occurred in the Proto-Balto-Slavic period. Deeper, it inherits from the Proto-Indo-European accent. In modern languages the prototypical accent is reflected in various ways, some preserving the Proto-Slavic situation to a greater degree than others.

This glossary gives a general overview of the various sound laws that have been formulated by linguists for the various Indo-European languages. A concise description is given for each rule; more details are given in their articles.

The Proto-Slavic language, the hypothetical ancestor of the modern-day Slavic languages, developed from the ancestral Proto-Balto-Slavic language, which is the parent language of the Balto-Slavic languages. The first 2,000 years or so consist of the pre-Slavic era, a long period during which none of the later dialectal differences between Slavic languages had yet happened. The last stage in which the language remained without internal differences that later characterize different Slavic languages can be dated around AD 500 and is sometimes termed Proto-Slavic proper or Early Common Slavic. Following this is the Common Slavic period, during which the first dialectal differences appeared but the entire Slavic-speaking area continued to function as a single language, with sound changes tending to spread throughout the entire area. By around 1000, the area had broken up into separate East Slavic, West Slavic and South Slavic languages, and in the following centuries it broke up further into the various modern Slavic languages of which the following are extant: Belarusian, Russian, Rusyn and Ukrainian in the East; Czech, Slovak, Polish, Kashubian and the Sorbian languages in the West, and Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian in the South.

In linguistics, metatony refers to the change of nature of accent, usually within the same syllable. When the accent also changes its syllable, the process is called metataxis. Metataxis can also be analyzed as a combination of accent movement and metatony. The term is usually used when referring to accentual developments in the history of Baltic and Slavic languages which exhibited numerous such developments, representing the accentual equivalent of sound change.

References

Further reading

In English
In other languages