Proto-Slavic language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proto-Slavic is the proto-language from which Old Church Slavonic and all the other Slavic languages later emerged. It was spoken before the seventh century. No Proto-Slavic writings have been found, so the language has been reconstructed by applying the comparative method to all the attested Slavic languages and other Indo-European languages.

[edit] Origin

Historical distribution of the Slavic languages. The larger shaded area is the Prague-Penkov-Kolochin complex of cultures of the sixth to seventh centuries, likely corresponding to the spread of Slavic-speaking tribes of the time. The smaller shaded area indicates the core area of Slavic river names (after EIEC p. 524ff.)

There is much debate whether pre-Proto-Slavic branched off directly from Proto-Indo-European, or whether it passed through a Proto-Balto-Slavic stage which split apart around 1000BC.

The original homeland of the speakers of Proto-Slavic also remains controversial. The most ancient recognisably Slavic hydronyms (river names) are to be found in northern and western Ukraine and southern Belarus (see map). It has also been noted that Proto-Slavic seemingly lacked a maritime vocabulary^{[citation needed]}.

The Proto-Slavic language existed approximately to the middle of the first millennium AD. By the 7th century, it had broken apart into large dialectal zones. Linguistic differentiation received impetus from the dispersion of the Slavic peoples over a large territory - which in Central Europe exceeded the current extent of Slavic-speaking majorities. Written documents of the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries already have some local linguistic features. For example the Freising monuments show a language which contains some phonetic and lexical elements peculiar to Slovenian dialects (e.g. rhotacism, the word krilatec).

In the second half of the ninth century, the dialect spoken north of Thessaloniki- in the hinterlands of Macedonia, became the basis for the first written Slavic language, created by the brothers Cyril and Methodius who translated portions of the Bible and other church books. The language they recorded is known as Old Church Slavonic. Old Church Slavonic is not identical to Proto-Slavic, having been recorded at least two centuries after the breakup of Proto-Slavic, and it shows features that clearly distinguish it from Proto-Slavic. However, it is still reasonably close, and the mutual intelligibility between Old Church Slavonic and other Slavic dialects of those days was proved by Cyril's and Methodius' mission to Great Moravia and Pannonia. There, their early South Slavic dialect used for the translations was clearly understandable to the local population which spoke an early West Slavic dialect.

[edit] Historical development

Proto-Slavic is part of the Satem group of Indo-European languages (along with Indo-Iranian, Albanian, and Baltic) wherein palatovelar consonants became affricate or fricative consonants pronounced closer to the front of the mouth. In Proto-Slavic, the former palatovelar stops became coronal fricatives:

• *ḱ → *s
• *ǵ → *z
• *ǵʰ → *z

Another change shared with much of the Satem group is the ruki sound law, which had the effect in Slavic languages of shifting *s to *x (possibly with *š as an intermediate stage) after a high vowel.^{[citation needed]}

Once it split off, the proto-Slavic period probably encompassed a period of stability lasting 2000 years with only several centuries of rapid change before the breakup of Slavic linguistic unity that came about due to Slavic migrations in the early sixth century.^[1][2] As such, the chronology of changes including the three palatalizations and ending with the change of *ě to *a in certain contexts defines the Common Slavic period.

Changes that occurred when Proto-Slavic began to develop separately from other Satem languages include the merger of aspirated consonants with voiced ones and delabialization of labiovelars.

• *bʰ → *b
• *dʰ → *d
• *gʰ → *g
• *gʷʰ → *gʷ → *g
• *kʷ → *k

Other important diachronic changes include the merger of long *ō and *ā into *a, the merger of short *o and *a into *o,^[3] the disappearance of PIE *ə when in a non-initial syllable, and the elimination of the distinction between long and short diphthongs.^{[citation needed]}

Also present were the diphthongs *ei and *oi as well as liquid diphthongs *ŭl, *ĭl, *ŭr, *ĭr; some scholars^[who?] characterize the liquid diphthongs as syllabic sonorants: *l̥, *ĺ̥, *r̥, *ŕ̥.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Progressive palatalization

Eastern Europe in the 3rd century AD:      Chernyakhov culture      Przeworsk culture      Wielbark Culture (associated with the Goths)      a Baltic culture (Aesti/Yotvingian?)      Debczyn culture      Roman Empire

What is likely to be the chronologically oldest palatalization is often called the "third" palatalization (hereafter called the progressive palatalization) due to confusion over the exact phonetic conditions that triggered it as well as forms such as the nominative singular *otĭcĭ (from *otĭk-os) but vocative singular *otĭče (from *otĭk-e) which made it seem that the progressive palatalization happened after this first regressive palatalization (see below).^[4] However, incorporating and strategically ordering other diachronic changes (such as the fronting of back vowels after palatal consonants) sufficiently explains most of the discrepancies while placing this "third" palatalization before the other two.^[5]

This palatalization goes as follows: Velar consonants become palatalized (*k, *g, *x → *ḱ, *ǵ, *x́) when following a front high vowel (either long or short) and preceding a mid back vowel (either long or short) across a morpheme boundary. An *n or *r between the velar and the high vowel does not prevent this palatalization. Also, the preceding front high vowel must itself follow a consonant.^[6]

Slavic contact with Germanic tribes (such as the migrating Goths) around the second or third century is the earliest date from which the progressive palatalization could have occurred since loan words such as *kuning → kŭnędzĭ ('king') and *pfenning → *pěnędzĭ ('penny') show the reflex of this palatalization.^[7] After the ninth century, this palatalization was likely no longer operating since Varangians (*varing-) were known as варѧгъ (varęgŭ) in Russian (without the palatalization of *g to *z) while the nominative plural: варѧзи (varęzi), and locative singular show that either the second regressive palatalization was still operative or that an analogy with other nouns ending in a velar consonant.

[edit] Syllabic Synharmony

After the progressive palatalization took place, a tendency arose in the Common Slavic period wherein successive segmental phonemes in a syllable assimilated articulatory features (primarily place of articulation).^[8] Another tendency, generally referred to as the "Law of Open Syllables" marks the beginning of the Common Slavic period in which an arrangement of phonemes in a syllable (from lower to higher sonority) led to final consonants being deleted, consonant clusters being simplified (either by deletion or epenthesis), diphthongs being monophthongized, nasal consonants in the syllable coda becoming the nasalization of the preceding vowel (*ę and *ǫ), etc.^[9] After these changes, a CV syllable structure (that is, one of segments ordered from lower to higher sonority) arose and the syllable became a basic structural unit of the language. Thus syllables (rather than just the consonant or the vowel) were distinguished as either "soft" or "hard;" most consonants having developed palatalized allophones in soft syllables (a situation dubbed "syllable synharmony" or the "syllabeme").^[10]

[edit] Regressive palatalizations

As an extension of the system of syllable synharmony, velar consonants were palatalized to postalveolar consonants before front vowels (*i, *ĭ, *e, *ę) and *j. ^{[11] [12]}

• *k → *č [tʃ]
• *g → *ž [ʒ] (possibly via [dʒ])
• *x → *š [ʃ]

This was the first regressive palatalization. Subsequently, a number of vowel changes took place: *ū shifted to a central unrounded vowel (possibly [ɨ], represented hereafter as <y>, as in modern Russian) both *ou and *eu became *u,^[13] and back vowels became front vowels after palatal consonants (including *j). This was closely followed by the monophthongization of diphthongs in all environments.^[14]

• *ū → *y
• *ou → *u
• *eu → *u
• *o → *e / J_
• *ŭ → *ĭ / J_
• *y → *i / J_
• *oi → *ei / J_
• *ei → *i
• *oi → *ě

By this point, Proto-Slavic had the following vowel system:

Proto-Slavic was still operating under the system of syllabic synharmony; because it had a new front vowel, yat (possibly an open front vowel [æː]^{[citation needed]}), the language underwent the second regressive palatalization in which velar consonants preceding *ě were palatalized.^[15][16] As with the progressive palatalization, these became palatovelar. Soon after, palatovelar consonants from both the progressive palatalization and the second regressive palatalization became sibilants.

• ḱ → *c ([ts])
• ǵ → *dz → *z
• x́ → *s/*š

In noun declension, the second regressive palatalization originally figured in two important Slavic stem types: o-stems (masculine and neuter consonant-stems) and a-stems (feminine and masculine vowel-stems). This rule operated in the o-stem masculine paradigm in three places: before nominative plural and both singular and plural locative affixes.^[17]

[edit] Dialectal differentiation

It is at this point that dialectal variation becomes more apparent. Some dialects (such as those ancestral to Old East Slavic), allowed the second regressive palatalization to occur across an intervening *v. ^[18]

• Russian: *gwojzda → *gwězda → zvězda → [zʲvʲɪˈzda] ('star')
• Polish: *gwojzda → *gwězda → gwiazda → [ˈɡvʲazda] ('star')
• Czech: *gwojzda → *gwězda → hvězda → [hvʲezda] ('star')

The phonetic realization of subsequent sibilants varied from dialect to dialect. According to Aleksandar Belić, the phonetic character of the palatalizations was uniform throughout Common Slavic and West Slavic languages developed *š later on by analogy.^[19] In all dialects (except for Lechitic), [dz] was deaffricated to [z]:^[20] The following table illustrates the differences between the different dialects as far as phonetic realization of the palatalizations.

The Proto-Slavic period ended when syllabic synharmony ended. The first trigger was the change of *ě to *a after palatal consonants and *j, which then created *ča/*ka contrasts.^[21]. Also, weak yers (*ь/ĭ and *ъ/ŭ) were shortened and then elided (see Havlík's law) creating newly formed closed syllables.^[22] By which point, Common Slavic had the following consonants.

For many Common Slavic dialects—including most of West Slavic, all but the northernmost portions of East Slavic, and some western parts of South Slavic— *g lenited from a voiced velar plosive to a voiced velar fricative ([g] → [ɣ]). Because this change was not universal and because it did not occur for a number of East Slavic dialects (such as Belarussian and South Russian) until after the application of Havlík's law, Shevelov (1977) calls into question early projections of this change and postulates three independent instigations of lenition, dating the earliest to before 900 AD and the latest to the early thirteenth century.^[23]

[edit] Loanwords

The lexical stock of Proto-Slavic also includes a number of loanwords from the languages of various tribes and peoples that the Proto-Slavs came into contact with. However, the list of the borrowings, their sources and other details are under discussion. According to most sources^{[citation needed]}), the earliest traceable lexical or semantic borrowings were loans from the Northeastern Iranian languages spoken by the Scythian, Alanian, and Sarmatian tribes. Most of these borrowings appertain to the religious sphere: *bogъ 'God', *gatati 'to divine', *divъ 'demon', *rajь 'paradise'. Yet non-religious terms such as *(j)aščerъ 'serpent'^{[dubious – discuss]}, *patriti 'to look after', *radi 'for the purpose of', *sobaka 'dog', *toporъ 'axe', *xvala 'glory' and (at least according to some scholars^{[citation needed]})) *xata 'hut, house' are also of Iranian origin.

Some words may be of Celtic origin: *bagno 'bog', *jama 'cave', *korsta 'canker', *sěta 'grief', *sluga 'servant' *tragъ 'foot(step)'.

It is generally acknowledged that of the various languages which left their mark on the early lexical stock, Germanic occupies a pivotal position^{[citation needed]}), and many early Germanic loanwords into Proto-Slavic are known.

Examples of early Germanic loanwords: *xlěbъ 'bread' (Eng. cognate "loaf"), *xlěvъ 'pigsty', *měčь 'sword', *stьklo 'glass', *šelmъ 'helmet', *xъlmъ 'hill', *plugъ 'plough', *skotъ 'cattle', possibly also *melko 'milk'^{[citation needed]}, *xyzъ/*xyzja 'hut' (← PGmc. *hūs)^{[citation needed]}. The words *lěkъ 'medicine' (Eng. "leech") and *tynъ 'fence' (Eng. cognate "town") were borrowed from Germanic (cf. Goth. lēkeis 'physician'; PGmc. *tūnaz), but are believed to be originally of Celtic origin.^{[dubious – discuss]}

Later Germanic (Gothic and Old High German) borrowings are *pěnędzь 'penny, money', *kъnędzь 'king, prince, priest' (← OHG kuning), *istъba 'room, apartment' (← OHG stuba), *bjudo 'bowl, basin; table', *bukъ 'beech-tree', *tjudjь 'foreign, stranger, somebody else's' (← Gothic *þiuda 'people'), *smoky 'fig', *opica 'monkey' (← OHG affo).^{[dubious – discuss]}

Germanic also transmitted some Latin and Greek loans into Slavic:

• Latin: *kupiti 'to buy' (Goth. kaupōn from Lat. caupō 'merchant', ultimately from Etruscan), *dъska 'board' (← Lat. discus through OHG tisk), *kotьlъ 'kettle', *cěsarjь 'king, imperator', *krьstъ 'cross' (← Lat. Chrīstus through OHG Krist), *čeršn'a 'cherry' (Popular Lat. ceresia, Old Bavarian chersia), *osьlъ 'ass, donkey' (Lat. asinus, Goth. asilus);^{[dubious – discuss]}
• Greek (with Gothic mediation): *cьrky 'church', *velьbǫdъ 'camel' (← Gk. elephas 'elephant' through Goth. ulbandus);

Some Latin (including words from Balkan Romance) and Greek words entered Late Proto-Slavic even without Germanic mediation:

• Latin: *konopja (← Popular Lat. *canapis), *vino 'wine' (← Lat. vīnum), *poganъ 'pagan' (← pagānus), *kоlęda 'carol' (← Lat. calendae);^{[dubious – discuss]}
• Greek: *korabjь 'ship' (Byzantine Gk. karábion), *polata 'abode' (Byzantine Gk. palátion 'palace'), *popъ 'priest', *sǫbota 'Sabbath' (Byzantine Gk. sámbaton).

There is a number of local Slavic words which are suspected to be of Turkic origin: *kobyla 'mare', *xomǫto 'horse's yoke', *gatь 'dam', *kъnęga/*kъniga 'book'^{[dubious – discuss]}, *kovъčegъ 'box', *kolpakъ/klobukъ 'hat/cowl'.

Some words may also have originated from Dacian/North Thracian languages [1]; e.g., *mogyla 'kurgan, tomb, grave' is considered etymologically uncertain but has been compared to Albanian magulë 'hill' and Romanian măgură 'hill, elevation'.

Loanwords in Proto-Slavic lexical stock are outlined in Schenker (1996): 159-160.

[edit] References

[edit] Bibliography

• Belić, Aleksandar (1921), “Најмлађа (Трећа) Промена Задњенепчаних Сугласника k, g и h у Прасловенском Језику”, Јужнословенски Филолог II: 18-39 
• Bethin, Christina Yurkiw (1998), Slavic Prosody: Language Change and Phonological Theory, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521591481
• Channon, Robert (1972), On the Place of the Progressive Palatalization of Velars in the Relative Chronology of Slavic, Mouton
• Kiparsky, Valentin, Russische Historische Grammatik, 3 vols., 1963, 1967, 1975.
• Lehr-Spławiński, Tadeusz (1957), written at Sofia, "Z dziejów języka prasłowiańskiego (Urywek z większej całości)", Езиковедски изследвания в чесм на академик Смефан Младенов
• Lightner, Theodore M. (1972), written at Edmonton, Problems in the Theory of Phonology, I: Russian phonology and Turkish phonology, Linguistic Research, inc
• Moszyński, Leszek. Wstęp do filologii słowiańskiej. PWN. Warszawa, 1984.
• Padgett, Jaye (2003), "Contrast and Post-Velar Fronting in Russian", Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21 (1): 39-87
• Paliga, Sorin. Phd linguistics. Lexicon Etymologum Elementorum Thraecorum.
• Schenker, Alexander M. The Dawn of Slavic. Yale Language Series, 1995.
• Shevelov, George Y. (1977), "On the Chronology of h and the New g in Ukrainian", written at Cambridge, in Harvard Ukrainian Studies, vol. vol 1, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 137–52
• Snoj, Marko. Slovenski etimološki slovar. Ljubljana: Modrijan, 2003.
• Thomason, Sara G (1976), "What Else Happens to Opaque Rules?", Language 52(2): 370-381
• Van Wijk, Nikolaas (1956), Les langues slaves: de l'unité à la pluralité (2nd ed.), 's-Gravenhage
• Vasmer, Max. Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg, 1950-1958.

[edit] See also

• Balto-Slavic languages
• Old Church Slavonic

[edit] External links

• The Indo-European Etymological Dictionary (IED)
• From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic, Frederik Kortlandt 1983