Sussex R., Cubberley P. The Slavic Languages
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
that the denasalization of the front nasal typically produced /a
¨
/. In a phonemic
view of the motivation for sound change, this could have provided a push for /e
ˇ
/to
move upwards. Where nasality remained, this position remained available to /e
ˇ
/.
Subsequently in all areas /a
¨
/ from whatever source became an allophone of /a/. In
Slovak, which alone now has the phoneme /a
¨
/, its source was, in fact, the front
nasal. In all these areas we find the /a/ result consistently only in a ‘‘hard’’ context,
i.e. followed by a hard consonant or syllable (the position of stress is also relevant in
Bulgarian). In other contexts the result was /e/.
In the other areas the vowel moved upwards. Sometimes it jumped existing /e/ to
become a high-mid [e], for example in Old Russian, where it was supported in some
areas by a back partner [o]. The dialects at the base of standard Russian either did
not acquire that partner or lost it quickly and along with it went /e
ˇ
/. In some
northern Russian dialects /e
ˇ
/ is reflected, along with certain reflexes of /e/, in high-
mid [e] or a diphthong of the [ i 9e] type, both usually supported by back partners
(10.3.3). And in Ukrainian, as noted above, it continued even higher to dislodge /i/,
which elsewhere in East Slavic remained the dominant variant of the /i/-/y/ pair.
In Ukrainian original /i/ shifted to /y/, eliminating the variation, as /i/ and /y/ are
there unquestionably separate phonemes. (It should be noted that Ukrainian /y/ is
still a front vowel, close to [
I], and so not as far back as the /y/ of Russian or
Belarusian.)
For the rest of South and West Slavic positing the stage of /i 9e/ helps to explain
what followed: in those areas which developed vocalic quantity as a phonemic
feature, this diphthong could split into higher and lower versions, e.g. Cz > short
/e/ or lo ng /
i/, while in B/C/S (Jekavian) it gave short /je/ or long /ije/; or it could
remain diphthongal when long, e.g. Slk > short /e/, long /i 9e/, Sorb > short /e/ or /je/,
long > /ı
´
e/.
Table 3.3 shows examples of the reflexes. Belarusian orthography reflects
unstressed vowel pronunciation, in this case pretonic /e/ > /a/ (raka
´
). Czech uses
the letter e
ˇ
to represent /e/ after palatal stops (including /n/) and /je/ after
other consonants. In Sorbian this letter represents the falling diphthong /ı
´
e/ (or a
close /e
´
/ ). For other orthographic details, including diacritics, see appendix B.
A context of special interest for jat
0
– and for vowels in general (3.2.1.4) – is word-
initial position, where jat
0
essentially behaves the same as internally (table 3.3).
This indicates that its nature was such that it did not require or acquire the prothetic
/j/ which was typical of initial front vowels, since, if it had done so, the result-
ingsequenceof/je
ˇ
/ would have become /ja
¨
/, then /ja/, as happened internally
(1.3.1.6), and as happened to /e
ˇ
/ where it became /a/ (see below). This supports the
notion that jat
0
was more than just a fronted [a
¨
] and rather a diphthongal [ i 9a].
The examples in (5a) show initial /je/ from /e
ˇ
/ corresponding to internal /e/
3.2 Historical evolution and modern equivalences 119
Table 3.3. Reflexes of /e
ˇ/
a. Proto-Slavic (all NomSg nouns or NomSgMasc adjectives)
sve
ˇt
y ‘light, world’ sve
ˇtja
‘candle’ ve
ˇra
‘faith’ re
ˇka
‘river’
te
ˇ
lo ‘body’ de
ˇ
lo ‘affair, thing, work’ le
ˇ
to ‘year, summer’ be
ˇ
ly( j{) ‘white’
b. Modern
Blg svjat sves
ˇ
t vja
´
ra reka
´
tja
´
lo ( de
´
lo) lja
´
to bjal
(Def sveta˘
´
t) (Pl tela
´
) (Pl be
´
li)
( ja only under stress and before [formerly] hard consonant)
Mac svet svek
´
a vera reka telo delo leto bel
B/C/S (Ek) sve
&
t sve
´
c
´
ave`` ra re
´
ka te
&
lo de`` lo le`` to be`` o
(Def be
&
lı¯ )
(Jek) svı%
jet svije
`
c
´
avje`` ra rije
`
ka tı%jelo dje`` lo lje`` to bı%o/bı%jel
Sln sve
´
t sve
´
c
ˇa
ve
´
ra re
´
ka telo
´
de
´
lo le
´
to be
´
l
Rus svet svec
ˇ
a
´
ve
´
ra reka
´
te
´
lo de
´
lo le
´
to be
´
l-yj
Ukr svit svı
´
c
ˇka
vı
´
ra rı
´
ka tı
´
lo dı
´
lo lı
´
to bı
´
lyj
Bel svet sve
´
c
ˇka
ve
´
ra raka
´
* ce
´
la dze
´
la le
´
ta be
´
ly
(*pretonic /e/ > /a/ after hard consonant)
Pol s
´
wiat s
´
wieca wiara* rzeka ciał
o działo lato biały
(LocSg s
´
wiecie)(*a only before [formerly] hard dental )
Cz sve
ˇt
svı
´
ce vı
´
ra r
ˇ
eka te
ˇlo
dı
´
lo le
´
to bı
´
ly
´
Slk svet svieca viera rieka telo dielo leto biely
Sorb swe
ˇ
t swe
ˇ
ca we
ˇ
ra re
ˇ
ka c
´
e
ˇ
łodz
´
e
ˇ
łole
ˇ
to be
ˇ
ły
(LSorb s
´
e
ˇ
łoz
´eˇ
ło)
(PSl *e
ˇxati/eˇdo
˛ ‘travel’ [Det] Inf/1ps (which appears to have had a Proto-Slavic
variant in ja-), *e
ˇ
zditi/e
ˇ
zda ‘travel’ [Indet] Inf/noun NomSg, *e
ˇ
sti ‘eat’ Inf/e
ˇ
da
‘food’ NomSg); Russian initial e- means /je/. But those in (5b) show the expec-
ted /ja/, as is also found internally, and those in (5c) show /ja/ where it is not
expected:
(5) Initial /e
ˇ
/
(5a) > je
B/C/S ( ja
´
hati ja
´
s
ˇ
em) je
´
zditi Sln je
´
zda je``sti je``dja (arch.)
Rus e
´
xat
0
e
´
du e
´
zdit
0
ezda
´
est
0
eda
´
Cz jet jedu jezdit jı
´
zda jı
´
st jı
´
dlo
(5b) > ja/je
Blg – ( ja
´
xam) –ja
´
zdene jam ja
´
dene
Pol jechac
´
jade˛ jez
´dzic
´
je
_
zd
_
zenie jes
´
c
´
jadl
‘
o
(5c) > ja
Mac – ( java) jazdi – jade jadenje
Slk – – jazdit’ jazda ( jest’ jedlo)
This last /ja/ may be explained either as a dialectal alternative, which is better for
the inconsistent results of Slovak and Slovenian; or as an indication of the earlier
shifting of /e
ˇ
/to/a
¨
/ in these areas, which is better for the consistent Macedonian
results.
3.2.1.4 Word-initial vowels and prothesis
Prothesis During the open-syllable period of Proto-Slavic (1.3.1.1) there was a
hiatus between the compulsory final vowel and any following initial vowel. This led
to the regular insertion of a glide, which then became perceived as an initial
(prothetic) consonant. The nature of the glide was controlled by that of the initial
vowel, namely [i 9] before a front unrounded vowel and [u
&
] before back (typically
rounded). The only uncertain situation was before initial /a/, which was treated
mostly as a back vowel, but also sometimes as a front vowel. The hesitation was
probably due to its lack of lip-rounding, which discouraged [u
&
]. This was perhaps
supported by its contextually fronted variant [a
¨
], though this [a
¨
] would not have
occurred initially, since it was induced by the preceding consonant. With the
syllable restructure (closing) and the new importance of consonants, these glides
became consonantal [j] and [w], respectively, and the latter then usually became
labio-dental [v].
Examples of each of the possible initial vowels follow (for /e
ˇ
/, see the preceding
section). /y/ and the jers were impossible initially, having earlier always acquired
3.2 Historical evolution and modern equivalences 121
a prothetic consonant: [u
&
](> /w-v/) to /y/ (from /u/) and /
y
/(from/u
˘
/), [ i 9](> /j/)
to /
{
/(from/ı˘/); further, the sequences /j/ þ /
y
/ and /j/ þ /
{
/ had subsequently
become /i/.
/i/ The articulation of /i/ would have made the [i 9] glide very weak. In many
areas it did not survive, but in others it actually dominated the vowel:
(6) Initial /i/
PSl igrati ‘to play’ ( < j{-) ime
ˇ
ti/imati ‘to have, take’ (< j{-)
iva ‘willow’ ime˛/imene ‘name’ NomSg/GenSg (< j{-)
ido˛ ‘I go’ (< j{-):
Blg igra
´
ja ı
´
mam ı
´
va ı
´
me/Pl imena
´
ida˘
´
B/C/S ı
´
grati ı
`
mati ı%va ı%me/ı%mena ı%dem
Rus igra
´
t
0
ime
´
t
0
ı
´
va ı
´
mja/ı
´
meni idu
´
(/j/ before (any) stressed /i/ was lost in CS-Russian only in the
twentieth century)
Ukr hra
´
ty ma
´
ty ı
´
va imja
´
/ı
´
meny ı
´
du
Bel ihra
´
c
0
mec
0
ı
´
va imja
´
/ı
´
meni idu
´
Cz hra
´
tmı
´
tjı
´
va jme
´
no jdu
Slk hrat’ mat’ jı
´
va meno idem
Pol grac
´
miec
´
iwa imie˛/imienia ide˛
USorb hrac
´
me
ˇc
´
jiwa mjeno du
LSorb wiwa me
ˇ
/mjenja
Retention or loss of /i/, therefore, is unconditional across one of the three groups
only in South Slavic. In East and West Slavic the position of stress is relevant. In
Sorbian, which is now virtually never without a prothetic consonant, there are only
a few examples of prothetic /h/ in this context, e.g. PSl iti ‘go’ Inf > USorb hic
´
,
LSorb hys
´
; PSl inaky ‘other’ > USorb hinak/jinak, LSorb hynak.
/e/ Thecontextofinitial[i9]plus/e/(> /je/) produced one of the earliest
major group splits, in that East Slavic converted this sequence to #o- in many
words. The othe r language s retaine d /je/, Bulgari an and Macedonian later los ing
the /j/. The development in East Slavic is often explained in terms of phonemics:
/o/ and /e/ may have been perceived as back front variants of the same phoneme,
with /o/ the more independent one (i.e. less controlled by context) and thus the
more natural for initial position. But this argument did not hold good for the
whole area, so that there are other issues at play. The new vowel would still have
had to meet the ‘‘anti-hiatus’’ principle which was producing the glides in the first
place – unless this principle had weakened, which would place the change potentially
within the syllable-restructuring period. It is possible that the new vowel did
122 3. Phonology
contain a glide of its own, which would have been [u
&
]. Alternatively, the strong lip-
rounding of the new vowel could have been sufficient to act in the same way as a [u
&
]
glide. In fact, the change in East Slavic affected only certain roots, and it seems that
the nature of the second syllable was relevant, with certain following vowels
apparently inhibiting the change. This is an easier case to argue than the converse:
that certain following vowels encouraged the change. In a few cases Old Russian
shows variation, supported by modern Russian dialects, suggesting that there were
more cases of the change than are evident in the early texts, and that the forms with
#je- are influenced by Old Church Slavonic.
(7) Initial /e/
PSl ediny ‘one’ ezero ‘lake’ ezˇ{ ‘hedgehog’
edl{/edla ‘fir’ est{ ‘be’ 3 Sg ed(y)va ‘scarcely’:
OCS jediny jezero –– jesty jedva
Blg edı
´
ne
´
zero ezˇ ela
´
e edva
´
B/C/S je
`
dan je``zero je
&
zˇ j e
´
la je je
`
dva
Rus odı
´
no
´
zero e
¨
zˇ * e l
0
/jo
´
lka est
0
edva
´
**
(*ORus jezˇ{/ozˇ{) (**dial. odva
´
, ORus jedyva and odyva)
Ukr ody
´
no
´
zero jizˇa
´
k jaly
´
na je (le
´
dve)
Bel adzı
´
nvo
´
zera vo
´
zˇyk e
´
lka josc
0
*(le
´
dz
0
ve)
(*e > o is a later East Slavic development, see below)
Cz jeden jezero jezˇek jedle je jedva
Initial /e/ (with no prothesis) occurs in Russian in only one case – that of
the demonstrative e
`
t-ot ‘this’, which derives from a prothetic expletive of the
‘hey!’ sort, added later to the basic demonstrative root t-. This is supported by the
Belarusian form he
`
t- [¨˜ft-].
/e˛/ No doubt all areas had initial /je˛/ by the time of denasalization, which
would produce /ja
¨
/. Where this /a
¨
/ mov ed to /e/ (see above, 3.2.1.3) the reflex is
either /je/ (B/C/S , Sln) or /e/ (Blg), the latter match ing the loss of /j/ in #je
(above). Where /e˛/ became /a/, the refle x is always /ja/ (East and West Slavic).
Pol ish r etained nasalization and has /je˛/or/ja˛ /. The only odd area is standard
Macedonian and B/C/S dialects, which do not match the rest of South Slavic –
neither standard B/C/S nor Bulgarian – but have /ja/. Other Macedonian dialects
have the expected /e/:
(8) Initial /e˛/
PSl e˛zyky ‘tongue’ e˛ti ‘to take’ (with prefix pri-)
e˛c
ˇ
{my/e˛c{mene ‘barley’ NomSg/GenSg;
and cf. je˛dro ‘kernel’,
3.2 Historical evolution and modern equivalences 123
apparently with original /j/
(‘d.’ ¼ ‘dialectal’)
Blg ezı
´
k – ec
ˇemı
´
k jadro
´
Mac jazik – jac
ˇ
men (d. ec
ˇ
men) jadro
B/C/S je
`
zik (C
ˇ
ak. jazı%k) Sln prije
´
ti je
`
c
ˇ
men je
´
dro
Rus jazy
´
k pri-n-ja
´
t
0
ja
´
c
ˇ
me
´
n
0
jadro
´
Pol je˛zyk przyja˛ c
´
je˛czmien
´
ja˛dro
Cz jazyk Slk prijat’ jec
ˇmen/
Slk jac
ˇmenˇ
ja
´
dro
/a/ The most typical result here was prothetic /j/. We rarely find prothetic
/w-v/ (see 3.2.2.4). This result is unsurprising, given that /a/ was not rounded. But
we do find a few reflexes with no prothesis, again mainly in the Bulgarian/
Macedonian area. The proclitic conjunction a ‘and, but’ is the only native form
never to acquire prothetic /j/ anywhere:
(9) Initial /a/
PSl azy ‘I’ ablyko ‘apple’ agne˛ ‘lamb’
aje ‘egg’ asen{ ‘aspen’ ako ‘how, as’
(‘d.’ ¼ ‘dialectal’)
Blg az ja
´
ba˘lka a
´
gne jajce
´
ja
´
sen (d. osen) OCS ako
Mac jas jabolko jagne jajce jasen (d. esen)(kako)
B/C/S ja
&
ja`` buka ja`` gnje ja
´
je ja`` sen (ka`` ko)
Rus ja ja
´
bloko jagn-e
¨
nok jaj-co
´
ja
´
sen
0
Ukr jak
Pol ja jabłko jagnie˛ jaje jesien
´
(d. jesion) jak
Cz ja
´
jablko jehne
ˇ
vejce jasan (d. jesen ) jako/Slk ako
/Slk vajco
/u/ The most rounded vowel is perhaps least likely to acquire a [u
&
], since this
would be assimilated into the vowel and thus be redundant. Proto-Slavic itself did
not have prothesis here, but the prothesis did appear later, though inconsistently, in
Ukrainian/Belarusian and Sorbian (see below on the related feature of initial ju-).
The preposition u ‘next to’, being usually proclitic, does not attract the prothesis even
where – as happens with Sorbian – the prothesis occurs elsewhere in that region:
(10) Initial /u/
PSl uxo ‘ear’ umy ‘mind’ ume
ˇ
ti ‘to know’
usta/ust{ny( j{) ‘mouth, lips’ Pl/‘oral’ u ‘next to’
124 3. Phonology
Blg/Mac uxo
´
/uvo um ume
´
ja/umee usta
´
/usta u
B/C/S/Sln u`` ho/uho
&
u
&
m/u
´
m ume
´
ti/u
`
meti u
´
sta B/C/S u
Rus u
´
xo um ume
´
t
0
usta
´
u
Ukr vu
´
xo um umı
´
ty (v) usta
´
u
Bel vu
´
xa – ume
´
c
0
vu
´
sny u
Pol ucho um umiec
´
usta u
Sorb wucho um LS wume
ˇ
s
´
LS wusta wu/LS wu/hu
Cz/Slk ucho um ume
ˇt/umet’
u
´
sta u
/o˛ / Where /o˛/ was denasalized to /u/ the reflexes are as for /u/. In
Slovenian the new /o/ did not acquire a prothesis, but Bulgarian /
e
/ (initially
nasalized) did usually acquire /w-v/, and Macedonian /a/, like regular /a/, could
acquire /j/. In Polish the new back nasal acquired /w-v/ regardless of its shape
in Proto-Slavic:
(11) Initial /o˛ /
PSl o˛ g(y)ly ‘corner’ o˛ zˇ { ‘adder’ o˛ gor{ ‘eel’
o˛ zyky( j{) ‘narrow’ (v)o˛ sy/(v) o˛ sy ‘beard’/‘moustache’ Pl
Blg/Mac a˘
´
ga˘l/agol jagu
´
lja/jagula – – Blg va˘sı
´
Mac d. jagol
B/C/S u`` gao u`` gor (gu
&
zˇ ) u`` zak –
Sln o
&
gel ogo
´
r (go
´
zˇ ) o
´
zek d. vo
&
si
Rus u
´
gol u
´
gor
0
uzˇ u
´
zkij usy
´
Ukr/Bel vu
´
hol/vu
´
hal vuho
´
r vuzˇ vuz
0
ky
´
j/vu
´
zki vus
Pol we˛gieł we˛gorz wa˛
_
zwa˛zki wa˛s
Sorb nuheł/nugeł wuhor
´
wuzˇ wuski wusy
Cz/Slk u
´
hel/uhol u
´
hor
ˇ
/u
´
hor uzˇovka u
´
zky
´
/u
´
zky vous/fu
´
z
The reflexes of (v)o˛ s-, i n which only Russian has no /v/, suggest that the /v/
was either part of the original root or attached in Proto-Slavic. Indo-European
parallels (e.g. OIrish fe
´
s ‘beard’) also suggest t he /v/ is old. On why Russian h as
no /v/, see below (b) on initial u-/ju-. Initial /g/ in B/C/S and Slovenian
may be a special case of expressive prothesis or – more likely – the result of
‘‘blending’’ with other words (Shevelov, 1964: 244) (cf. B/C/S gu
´
ja ‘snake’,
Sln go
´
zˇ ‘rope’)
/o/ The same results attach to /o/, which acquires /w-v/ in the same general
areas as does /u/: Ukrainian/Belarusian and Sorbian, but this time more rarely in
Ukrainian and Belarusian. In East Slavic original /o/, and /o/ from /je/, behave
3.2 Historical evolution and modern equivalences 125
identically. The preposition o(b) ‘about, concerning, during, against’, as with u
(above), acquires /w-/ only in Sorbian:
(12) Initial /o/
PSl ogn{ ‘fire’ oko/oc
ˇ
i ‘eye’ Sg/Pl ony ‘he’ ov{ca ‘sheep’
ostry( j{) ‘sharp’
Blg/Mac o
´
ga˘n/ogan oko
´
/oko on ovca
´
/ovca o
´
sta˘r/ostar
B/C/S o
`
ganj o`` ko o
&
no
´
vca o`` s
ˇ
tar
Sln o
´
genj oko
´
o
`
no
´
vca o
´
ster
Rus ogo
´
n
0
arch. o
´
ko on ovca
´
o
´
stryj
Ukr voho
´
n
0
arch. o
´
ko vin vivcja
´
ho
´
stryj
Bel aho
´
n
0
vo
´
ka jon au
˘
ca
´
vo
´
stry
Pol ogien
´
oko on owca ostry
Kash wo
¨
nwo
¨
wca wo
¨
stri
U/LSorb wohen
´
woko wo
´
n wowca/wojca wo
´
try/wo
´
ts
ˇ
y
Cz/Slk ohen
ˇ
oko on ovce/ovca ostry
´
In osm{ ‘eight’, the appearance of /v/ throughout East Slavic – including Russian
vo
´
sem
0
– is due to the tonal nature of the vowel; see below, 3.2.1.5.
Ukrainian ho
´
stryj ‘sharp’ is an exceptional example of prothetic /h/.
Czech dialects (Bohemian) show prothetic /v/, e.g. von ‘he’, vokno ‘window’
(10.4.3).
Other word-initial features
i. Initial /ju/
In this same context a curious feature concerns etymological initial
ju-, which in East Slavic lost the /j/ and retained an /u/, which did not
then acquire a new prothetic /w-v/ in either Ukrainian or Belarusian.
But there are very few reliable examples. Several appear in Russian in
their Russian Church Slavonic (i.e. South Slavic) form, and there are
some in Ukrainian and Belarusian in the Polish form. This develop-
ment has been related to the East Slavic loss of /j/ before /e/ (and > /o/,
see above), suggesting that initial /j/ became unstable through con-
fusion with the prothetic, non-etymological /j/:
(13) Initial /ju/
PSl jugy ‘south’ NomSg juxa ‘soup’
NomSg
jutro ‘morning’
NomSg
(and za-jutra
‘tomorrow’)
126 3. Phonology
Blg/Mac jug Mac juva u
´
tro (utre)
B/C/S/Sln ju`` gju
´
ha ju`` tro su`` tra/(Sln ju
&
tri)
Rus jug
(RusChSl);
ORus ugy
uxa
´
u
´
tro za
´
vtra (< za utra)
Ukr/Bel – juxa
´
(Pol) – za
´
vtra/za
´
u
˘
tra
Pol/Sorb – jucha jutro/juts
ˇ
o (jutro/(jutre
ˇ
/wits
´
e)
Cz/Slk jih/juh jı
´
cha/jucha jitro/jutro zı
´
tra/zajtra
(< z(a) jutra)
ii. Simplification of initial clusters
In the same way as newly formed final consonant clusters were
avoided in most areas by the insertion of a fill vowel (see above,
3.2.1.1), new initial consonant clusters formed through the loss of a
jer were also not favored. This would be the case especially if the new
sequence was ‘sonorant þ obstruent’ – in groups like rt-, ln-, mx-,
which is against the principle of rising sonority which had dominated
until then. The normal solution was the same as for final clusters –
treat the weak jer as strong, thus eliminating the alternation with zero
which was otherwise the typical result. Examples include PSl l{na
‘flax’ GenSg, ryzˇ i ‘rye’ GenSg, ryzˇati ‘neigh’ Inf, myxa ‘moss’
GenSg (and see table 3.1). Some areas accept these happily, e.g.
Russian (14a). Others do not, e.g. B/C/S (14b). A third solution is a
prothetic vowel, and this is adopted by Belarusian, at least in variant
(dialectal) forms (14c). And languages with syllabic /r
˚
/or/l
˚
/ may use
this solution, e.g. B/C/S and Macedonian (14d):
(14a) Rus l
0
na rzˇi rzˇat
0
mxa
(14b) B/C/S lana razˇi maxa
(14c) Bel il
0
nu
´
(i)rzˇa
´
c
0
imxu
´
/mo
´
xu
(14d) Mac ’rzˇ ’rzˇi
B/C/S r`` zˇati
3.2.1.5 Quality changes
a. Non-contextual: /y/
We have noted the non-contextual changes to the major vowels above
( jers, nasals and jat
0
). The only other vowel to undergo such change
was /y/. With the syllable restructure and the separation of consonant
and vowel phonemes, all languages had to make decisions, as it were,
3.2 Historical evolution and modern equivalences 127
about the status of the previously positionally soft consonants
(1.3.1.3). The possibilities were: (1) make them into palatalized pho-
nemes; (2) leave them as allophones controlled by front vowels; or (3)
eliminate the palatalization completely. We shall deal with the details
of this development below (3.2.2.2). The fate of /y/ relates directly to
this problem. In type (1) (e.g. Russian) /y/ became an allophone of /i/,
since the choice of quality depended on that of the preceding conso-
nant, but the separate quality nevertheless remained. In type (2) (e.g.
early Ukrainian) /y/ could survive as a phoneme, since it could control
the quality of the preceding consonant. In type (3) (e.g. B/C/S) /y/ did
not survive at all, since there was no longer any choice of
[Palatalized] within the system. Intermediate solutions occurred
where languages passed through type (2) into type (3) (e.g.
Ukrainian, Czech, with fusion of /i–y/ and loss of palatalization) or
back into type (2) (e.g. Ukrainian, with the appearance of a new /i/).
Thus we find the following situation with regard to PSl /y/:
1. It is a separate phoneme: in Ukrainian, which shifted from type
(3)backtotype(2),thatis,itredevelopedpalatalizationwhen/e
ˇ
/was
converted into a new /i/. The original /i/ and /y/ had merged and shifted
to an intermediate /y/ position. Consonants may now be allophonically
hard or soft before these vowels. This is also the situation in Sorbian.
2. It is an allophone controlled by the preceding consonant. This is the
best description of the situation in Russian, Belarusian and Polish,
where palatalization is clearly phonemic throughout the system, so
that the choice of [i] or [y] is controlled by the preceding consonant
rather than being independent.
3. It is an allophone controlled by length: in Czech and Slovak /i/ and /y/
merged in /i/, but with a long and short version. The short version
has a retracted or reduced quality which is effectively /y/ (phoneti-
cally close to the /y/ of Ukrainian, but lower and more fronted than
that of Russian and Belarusian (3.4.2)).
4. It no longer exists: all of South Slavic eliminated palatalization and
/y/ along with it. While Bulgarian has redeveloped some palataliza-
tion, this has not affected the /i/ phoneme.
b. Contextual: effects of surrounding consonants
i. Fronting/raising
Contextual changes to vowels are also frequently related to the hard
soft nature of surrounding consonants. Given the regressive nature
of Slavic assimilation, the following consonant is the main actor in
128 3. Phonology