Proto-Slavic Inflectional Morphology: A Comparative Handbook (Brill's Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics)
Proto-Slavic, the reconstructed ancestor of the Slavic languages, offers a wealthy inflectional approach inherited from Proto-Indo-European. during this instruction manual the entire inflectional endings of Proto-Slavic are traced again to Proto-Indo-European via a scientific comparability with the corresponding varieties in similar languages. employing a redefinition of Proto-Slavic according to prehistoric loanword family members with neighbouring non-Slavic languages, Thomas Olander offers a brand new examine the Proto-Slavic inflectional method. The systematic, coherent and exhaustive method specified by the guide paves the way in which for brand new recommendations to long-standing difficulties of Slavic old grammar.
*‑onts | Otrębski 1956: 250: Li. ‑ąs, OCS ‑y replicate *‑onts | Endzelīns 1923: 719–721: OLv. ‑us, Li. ‑ą̃ s mirror PIE *‑onts playstation Vondrák 1908/1928: 2, 56–57, 138–139: OCS ‑y, ‑ję replicate *‑on(t)s, *‑i̯on(t)s; Ru. nesa is analogical in line with delicate kryja | Hujer 1910: 42–46 (following Zubatý): OCS ‑y, ‑ję mirror PIE *‑(i̯)ṓn, additionally in Gk. ‑ων; ORu. ‑a, OCz. ‑a replicate PIE version *‑ō̃ | Meillet 1924/1934: 152, 430: ‑y, ‑ję are from PIE *‑(i̯)onts | Vaillant 1958: 544–545, 548–549: OCS ‑y, ‑ję,.
additionally as ‑ęi and, much less often, as ‑ǫi. In a few manuscripts the ę of ‑ęi is written with a unique register this type (see e.g. Diels 1932–1934/1963: 232–233; Vaillant 1948/1964: 30, 127; Ferrell 1971: 88–89). In outdated Russian we discover ‑a within the e-present and ‑( j)a within the i̯e-present. From the 11th century e-present kinds like nes’a develop into more and more widespread (Ferrell 1965a: 15–16 with n. 3). within the Novgorod zone participles aren't inflected for case; right here we basically locate varieties in ‑ja, even.
brought from the tender stems, the place it really is considered as common (e.g. Torbiörnsson 1923b: 123). even though, as pointed out above, the masculine finishing PIE *‑i̯onts may probably yield playstation *‑i̯ən > CS N *‑jě, that's incompatible 92 bankruptcy three with ORu. ‑( j)a. hence, ‑( j)a can't be phonetically standard within the masculine nominative singular of the i̯e-present lively participle. the shape in ‑( j)a can have originated within the ei̯e-verbs, the place ‑( j)a is among the standard end result of either.
position independently in Greek and Lithuanian. a unique strategy is that of Beekes (loc. cit.), whose framework predicts PIE *‑h₂os with 0 grade of the suffix; this reconstruction doesn't appear to be supported through the cloth. for my part the decisive argument in favour of a reconstruction of monosyllabic PIE *‑ah₂s in concord with what we think from inner recontruction is the desinential accessory of the shape within the Balto-Slavic cellular paradigm, e.g. Li. galvõs, playstation *naˈgə̄ (CS Cl *nogỳ).
PIE The vocative singular kind of the ā-stems was once a bit of bizarre in Proto-Indo-European because it didn't comprise the stem-suffix *‑ah₂‑ yet, it seems that, consisted in simple terms of *‑a or *‑h₂. based on a frequent speculation, the vocative shape initially resulted in *‑ah₂, yet in pausa *‑h₂ used to be misplaced (Kuiper 1947: 210 with n. fifty three; 1961/1997: 18–19; Rix loc. cit.; Sihler loc. cit.; Ringe 2006a: 21; Weiss loc. cit.). it may be famous that if *‑a from *‑ah₂ is the Proto-IndoEuropean shape, then laryngeal.