Sussex R., Cubberley P. The Slavic Languages

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

2. Ukrainian doubles certain stem-final consonants (from older

‘consonant þ j’) in the instrumental singular: Ukr ni

c ‘night’

[NomSg], nı

cju [InstrSg].

b. Inflexions

1. Czech and Slovak have a genuine (feminine) i-declension as well as a

mixed i-ja type, with zero nominative singular but the remainder as

in the ja type: Cz lan

‘roe deer’ [NomSg], lan

e [GenSg]; Slk dlan

‘palm of hand’ [NomSg], dlane [GenSg].

2. The instrumental plural shows -(

)mi in only a few nouns: Rus l

sad

‘horse’ [NomSg], [InstrPl] lo

sad

mı

,Czkostmi (table 5.7).

5.5.1.5 u/v-declension (u-stems)

The u/v-declension originally contained a small number of feminine nouns, which

have now migrated to the other primarily feminine declensions – a/ja or i. Like the

consonant-declension (5.5.1.6), all forms other than nominative singular had a

consonant theme, in this case /v/, while the nominative singular had /y/ from

Proto-Slavic /



u/ (from older /u

/, giving /u

v/ in pre-vocalic position, cf. the alter-

nation ov  u, 4.4.2). The typical migration has been to the i-declension, and the

accusative singular, containing /v/, has become the new nominative singular.

The sole example of retained -y in the nominative singular is Sln krı

‘blood’:

(85) ‘blood’:

PSl B/C/S Sln Rus Pol

[NomSg] kr-y kr

v-ø kr-ı

-ø krew-ø

[AccSg] kryv-{ =NOM =NOM =NOM =NOM

[GenSg] kryv-i kr

v-i krv-ı

ov-i krw-i

The best traces of the original paradigm remain in modern Czech, though the

endings are close to the Czech ‘‘mixed’’ ja-declension. Table 5.8 shows the Proto-

Slavic and modern Czech forms.

Examples of the shift of this group into the a/ja or i-declensions are:

(86) ‘church’:

a/ja: LSorb cerkwja, Bel carkva

, Ukr ce

rkva, B/C/S cr

kva, Blg

rkva,

Mac crkva;

i: USorb cyrkej, Slk cirkev, Pol cerkiew, Rus ce

rkov

, Sln ce

rkev.

5.5.1.6 The consonant-declension

Proto-Slavic nouns of this declension had an additional (epenthetic) -VC- in all

cases but the nominative singular, hence the name ‘‘consonant’’ declension. (This

5.5 Paradigms 259

syllable was originally a suffix, in some cases functioning as a lexical classifier

(e.g. -(t)er ‘close kin’, -nt ‘young animal’), which had been lost in the nominative

singular of Proto-Slavic.) This type is not productive in modern Slavic, and is best

preserved in Czech.

The consonants appearing in Proto-Slavic are: -n- (masculine and neuter);

-r- (feminine); -s- (neuter); and -nt- (neuter). The Proto-Slavic forms are shown in

table 5.9; the modern forms are discussed in non-tabular form.

The tendency has been to remove the consonant-declension, mainly by

re-adjustments of inflexional class. Sometimes a suffix, in another declensional

class, has become the regular form, as in the (n)t-stems (below). Alternatively,

nouns have taken the expanded stem as the norm, have back-formed a new

nominative and given the new formation a new set of endings, usually preserving

the original gender, and following the hard/soft pattern of the original paradigm:

Rus ka

men

[NomSg] ka

mnja [GenSg] ( jo Masculine)

Ukr ka

min

[NomSg] ka

menja [GenSg] ( jo Masculine)

A similar evolution is found in the transfer of u/v-stem feminines like PSl cr

‘church’ (OCS cryky)toi-stems, where the oblique case forms provide a new stem

for the nominative (5.5.1.5).

The consonant-declension types or their remnants in modern Slavic include:

a. n-stems: a separate neuter declension only (87a), except for a few

masculines in Czech (87b), the rest having shifted mainly into the

masculine i type, then further into jo (cf. Rus kamen

above):

(87a) ‘name’: Bel imja

[Nom-AccSg] ı

meni [Gen-Dat-LocSg]

(or: imja

[GenSg] ı

mju [Dat SG], ı

mi [LocSg] )

menem or ı

mem [InstrSg]

eny or imı

[NomPl]

Rus ı

mja [Nom-AccSg] ı

meni [Gen-Dat-LocSg]

imena

[NomPl]

‘seed’ Cz sı

e/se

e [NomSg] (also now semeno)

semene [GenSg] semena [NomPl]

(87b) ‘day’: Cz den [NomSg Masc] dne [GenSg]

dni/dnu [Dat/LocSg]

dni/dny [NomPl] dnı

/dn

u [GenPl]

Bulgarian and Macedonian, with only singular  plural endings, have

retained the ‘‘consonant’’ look of the neuter ones, Bulgarian with the

old nominative plural endings, Macedonian with a new suffix:

260 5. Morphology: inflexion

(87c) ‘seed’ Blg se

me [Sg] semena

[Pl]

Mac seme [Sg] seminja [Pl]

b. r-stems: feminine, two words only: ‘mother’ and ‘daughter’. Most

languages retain the irregularity of the nominative singular (88a),

but some have preferred the regular a-declension diminutive (88b):

(88a) ‘mother’: Sln ma

ti [NomSg] ma

ter [AccSg] ma

tere [GenSg]

Ukr ma

ty [Nom-AccSg] ma

teri [GenSg]

(88b) ‘mother’: Pol matka [NomSg] matki [GenSg]

c. s-stems: neuter, now regular o-declension inflexions, but with stem alter-

nations retained in a few common words, and in their derived adjectives,

e.g. the concrete and abstract variants of the root neb- in Russian:

(89) ‘sky’: Rus ne

bo [NomSg] ne

ba [GenSg]

nebesa

[Nom-AccPl]

‘celestial’: Rus nebe

snyj

‘palate’: Rus n

ebo [NomSg] n

eba [GenSg]

eba [Nom-AccPl]

‘palatal’: Rus n

ebnyj

d. (n)t-stems (the vowel of the extra syllable is the nasal /e˛/, derived from

pre-consonantal /n/, hence this type is usually called nt-stem): neuter,

lexically (originally and mostly still) the names of young domestic

animals. Inflexions are normally

o-declension; in some languages the

stem alternation is retained, and in Czech this includes even the

‘‘suffixal’’ vowel changes, undergoing pr

ehla

ska only in the singular:

(90) ‘calf’: B/C/S te

le [NomSg] te

leta [GenSg]

Cz tele [NomSg] telete [GenSg] telata [NomPl]

Russian has the nt-stem suffix (with neuter endings) only in the plural.

The singular is replaced by the masculine o-declension diminutive

suffix -

en(o)k-, originally applied to young wild animals:

(91) ‘piglet’: Rus poros

enok [NomSg] poros

enka [GenSg]

porosja

ta [NomPl]

Polish has the same, but with the singular lacking a specific diminutive

form:

(92) ‘piglet’: Pol prosie˛ [Nom-AccSg] prosia [GenSg]

prosiata [Nom-AccPl]

5.5 Paradigms 261

Though for this word it has a parallel masculine with diminutive suffix

for both the singular and plural:

(93) ‘piglet’: Pol prosiak [NomSg] prosiaka [Gen=AccSg]

prosiaki [Nom-AccPl]

Bulgarian and Macedonian again retain the stem alternation between

singular and plural; as with n-, one has the old suffix, one a new suffix:

(94) ‘lamb’: Blg a

gne [Sg] a

gneta [Pl]

Mac jagnje [Sg] jagninja [Pl]

5.5.2 The adjective and determiner declension

The adjective and ‘‘determiner’’ paradigm, with some variations, covers a variety of

word classes:

1. Long-form adjectives (East and West Slavic)

2. Definite adjectives (B/C/S and Slovenian)

3. The numeral ‘1’

4. Determiners like ‘this’, ‘that’, ‘such’

5. Quantifiers like ‘some’, ‘all’

6. Nouns with adjectival endings (substantivized adjectives), including

many proper names:

Rus parikma

xer-sk-aja ‘hairdresser’s’, Tolst-

oj, Pol Sław-sk-i

7. Nominalization of any of the above categories:

Pol ci dobrzy ludzi ‘these good people’

ci dobrzy ‘these good ones’

ci ‘these (ones)’

8. Non-personal pronouns

9. Personal pronouns (3 Person)

Their inflexional properties differ somewhat from those of nouns (see below on the

noun-like forms of the short-form adjectives):

Case: No distinct vocative. Bulgarian and Macedonian show case only in

the personal pronouns (here 3 Person, type 9).

Number: is not an inherent category in types 1–5.

Gender: is not an inherent category in types 1–5 and 7. Secondary gender

(5.4.4) is crucial, and combines with primary gender in the nominative

and accusative (see below).

262 5. Morphology: inflexion

If secondary gender occurs in the nominative, the marked category has a special

distinct form:

(95a) Cz [NomPl]: novı

‘good’ [MascAnim] vs unmarked nove

(95b) Pol [NomPl]: nowi ‘good’ [MascPers] vs unmarked nowe

But in the accusative, the forms showing secondary gender are like the correspond-

ing genitive:

(96a) Cz [AccSg]: nove

ho [Anim] vs novy

(¼ Nom)

(96b) Rus [AccPl]: n

ovyx [Anim] vs n

ovye (¼ Nom)

Apart from the question of gender, the forms of the adjective-determiner declen-

sion fall within two extremes: noun-like and adjective proper:

1. Noun-like inflexions (o/jo and a/ja): the short-form and indefinite adjective

Adjectives in early Proto-Slavic had the form of nouns, each with three patterns

by gender. Most stems ended in a hard consonant and followed the noun patterns

o-Masc, a- Fem and o-Neut; relatively few had soft stems and followed the corres-

ponding jo or ja patterns. Models (NomSg only) are shown in table 5.10.

The short-form adjective of modern East and West Slavic follows this pattern,

though it survives only in the nominative – and in the oblique cases in a few fixed

idiomatic expressions (e.g. Rus sredı

la dnja

[GenSg] ‘in broad daylight’, lit. ‘in

the midst of white day’), and is only hard. It is principally used as part of an

expanded predicate after ‘be’:

(97) Cz je povinen-ø to zaplatit ‘he must pay for it’ (‘is obliged to ...’)

In Russian, short-form adjectives include the short predicative forms of the passive

past participles (98b) (the citation form is the long form):

(98a) Rus got

ov-yj ‘ready’

on got

ov-ø prijtı

‘he is ready to come’

(98b) Rus o

car

ovan-n-yj ‘enchanted’

car

ovan-ø ‘I am enchanted (by ...)’

Table 5.10. Proto-Slavic short adjectives

Masc Fem Neut

‘new’ nov-y nov-a no-vo

declined as: raby (5.5.1.1) ˇzena (5.5.1.3) m

esto (5.5.1.1)

‘blue’ sin-j{ sin-ja sin-je

declined as: kon{ (5.5.1.1) du

sa (5.5.1.3) sr

ce (5.5.1.1)

5.5 Paradigms 263

Ukrainian has effectively lost a functional short form in that it has only short,

contracted forms in the nominative singular feminine and neuter and nominative

plural. Only a few adjectives can have a short form in the nominative singular

masculine, where the regular form is uncontracted (e.g. k

oˇznyj/k

oˇzen ‘each’):

(99) Ukr ‘new’ nov-y

j [Masc], nov-a

[Fem], nov-e

[Neut], nov-ı

[Pl]

The other languages have many fewer short predicative forms. Czech, like Russian,

has short forms of the passive past participle, as well as a few other short forms

where the adjective is expanded by a following element:

(100) Cz d

um je postaven-ø znova ‘the house has been rebuilt’

je hotov-y

‘he is ready’

je hotov-ø k slu ˇzbam ‘he is ready to serve (lit. ‘for service’)’

In Russian, too, in simple predicates the short form is giving way to the long form,

at least in neutral style, the short form marking an expressive function:

(101) Rus on (

cen

) sla

b-yj ‘he is (a very) weak (person)’ (factual)

on (

cen

) slab-ø ‘he really is (very) weak’ (figurative, emotive)

but this is not the case where the adjective has only a short form (being always

semantically expanded by a following element):

(102) Rus ja

´´

cen

d-ø va

svı

det

‘I am very pleased to see you’

2. Adjective inflexions: formation of the long adjective. The long-form adjective was

formed in Proto-Slavic by adding 3 Person pronouns to the declined short adjective

(i.e. with its inflexions). The original pronoun forms (including some early local

variants) are shown in table 5.11.

One assumes that there would have been contraction from the start, especially of

forms with a reduplicated consonant (e.g. InstrSg, LocPl), including the redupli-

cated /j/ of the pronoun itself (in Fem):

InstrSgMasc *novom{ þ jim{ > novoim{

LocPl *nov

exy þ jixy > nov

eixy

GenSgFem *novy þ jej

e/jeje˛ > novyj

e/novyje˛

Nominal forms with a single vowel (e.g. GenSg, DatSg) were a lesser problem,

treated in different ways in accordance with the general approach (by area) to

contraction of intervocalic /j/:

GenSgMasc *nova þ jego > novajego, novajago, novaago, novaego and further to:

novago (OCS), novego (West), novogo (East, by morphological analogy with ty ‘that’,

5.5.2.2), novega (South, the -a perhaps by analogy with the GenSing of (o) nouns).

264 5. Morphology: inflexion

The modern Slavic languages have thus simplified to a greater or lesser extent the

complex new inflexions. The nominative and accusative singular and the nominative

plural created few phonological problems, and so tend to show more noun-like forms:

NomSgMasc *novy þ j{ > novyj{:

Rus n

ovyj, Ukr novy

j, Bel n

ovy, Pol, Sorb nowy,

Cz, Slk novy

; Blg, Mac nov, B/C/S no%v, Sln no

NomSgFem *nova þ ja > novaja:

Rus, Bel n

ovaja, Ukr nova

, Blg, Mac n

ova,

B/C/S no

va, Sln no

va, Pol, Sorb nowa, Cz, Slk nova

NomSgNeut *novo þ je > novoje:

Rus n

ovoje, Bel n

ovaje, Ukr nove

, Blg, Mac n

ove,

B/C/S no

, Sln no

ve, Pol, Sorb nowe, Cz, Slk nove

East Slavic and most of West Slavic have removed primary gender distinctions in

the plural, using typically the feminine nominative plural form:

NomPlFem *novy þ j

e/je˛ > novyj

e/novyje˛:

Rus n

ovye, Bel n

ovyja, Ukr novı

, Pol, Sorb nowe, Slk nove

Table 5.11. Proto-Slavic 3 Person pronouns

Masc Fem Neut

Sg Nom -j{ ja je

Acc ¼ NOM jo˛ ¼ NOM

Gen jego jej

e/jeje˛ ¼ MASC

Dat jemu jeji ¼ MASC

Instr jim{ jejo˛ ¼ MASC

Loc jem{ jeji ¼ MASC

Du Nom ja ji ji

Acc ¼ NOM ¼ NOM ¼ NOM

Gen jeju ¼ MASC ¼ MASC

Dat jima ¼ MASC ¼ MASC

Instr ¼ DAT ¼ DAT ¼ DAT

Loc ¼ GEN ¼ GEN ¼ GEN

Pl Nom ji j

e/je˛ ja

Acc j

e/je˛ ¼ MASC ¼ MASC

Gen jixy ¼ MASC ¼ MASC

Dat jimy ¼ MASC ¼ MASC

Instr jimi ¼ MASC ¼ MASC

Loc jixy ¼ MASC ¼ MASC

Note: as for a/ja stem nouns, the endings in

e/e˛ are early north vs

south (1.4).

5.5 Paradigms 265

cf. NomPlMasc *novi þ ji > noviji

NomPlNeut *nova þ ja > novaja.

Czech has retained the three genders in the nominative plural by using the old

masculine form for secondary gender [MascPers]: novı

, and keeping Fem nove

and

Neut nova

. Slovak, Polish and Upper Sorbian (not Lower Sorbian) have also used

the old masculine for secondary gender [MascPers]: novı

/nowi, but used the femi-

nine for all others: nove

/nowe.

B/C/S has retained all three genders in the nominative-accusative plural – in both

long and short forms, the two sets distinguished by pitch and quantity:

(103) B/C/S Masc Fem Neut

NomPl short: no

vi no

ve no

NomPl long: no%v



i no%v



eno%v



Slovenian, too, has retained all three genders in the nominative-accusative

plural, but only in a single (short) form:

(104) Sln Masc Fem Neut

NomPl: n

ovi n

ove n

ova

B/C/S and Slovenian preserve some of the Proto-Slavic indefinite paradigm in

their indefinite adjectives. In Slovenian only the masculine singular nominative

shows a distinct indefinite form (no

v ‘new’ [Indef ], no

vi [Def ] ), all other forms being

identical to the long (definite) forms. B/C/S has special indefinite forms in the

masculine and neuter singular, excluding the instrumental (adjectival inflexion

only), and the neuter nominative (consistent with either long or short forms). The

feminine forms differ from the corresponding definite forms only in pitch, and

sometimes in length in the inflexional vowel (also (103) and table 5.12).

(105) B/C/S Masc/Neut Fem

GenSg short: no

va/no



og(a) no



GenSg long: no%v



og(a) no%v



Finally, Bulgarian and Macedonian have only short forms, and, of course, no cases.

A regular pattern of shortened nominative and accusative is found with deter-

miners (5.5.2.2.) and 3 Person pronouns (5.5.2.3).

With two exceptions, the adjective/definite inflexion is the last morpheme in the

word. The exceptions are:

a. The East Slavic reflexive -sja (always post-inflexional) with participles:

(106) Rus vozvra

c-ij-sja ‘returning’ [NomSgMasc]

vozvra

c-aja-sja [NomSgFem]

(Inf vozvra

sja ‘to return’)

266 5. Morphology: inflexion

Table 5.12. Modern adjective paradigms: nov- ‘new’ (long forms)

B/C/S Russian Czech

Masc/Neut Fem Masc/Neut Fem Masc/Neut Fem

Sg Nom no%v-



i/no%v-



ono%v-



ov-yj/n

ov-oe n

ov-aja nov-y

/nove

nov-a

Acc ¼ NOM/GEN no%v-



u ¼ NOM/GEN n

ov-uju ¼ NOM/GEN nov-ou

Gen no%v-



og(a) no%v-



ov-ogo n

ov-oj nov-e

ho nove

Dat no%v-



om(e/u) no%v-



oj n

ov-omu ¼ GEN nov-e

mu ¼ GEN

Instr no%v-



imno%v-



om n

ov-ym ¼ GEN nov-y

m ¼ GEN

Loc ¼ DAT ¼ DAT n

ov-om ¼ GEN nov-e

m ¼ GEN

MascAnim/Neut Fem Masc/Neut Fem Masc/Neut Fem

Pl Nom no%v-



i/no%v-



ano%v-



ov-ye nov-ı

/nova

nov-e

Acc no%v-



e/¼ NOM ¼ NOM NOM/GEN nov-e

/¼ NOM ¼ NOM

Gen no%v-



ihn

ov-yx nov-y

Dat no%v-



ima n

ov-ym nov-y

Instr DAT n

ov-ymi nov-y

Loc DAT GEN nov-y

b. The article/deictic suffixes of Bulgarian and Macedonian, which

attach to the leftmost concording member of the noun phrase:

(107) Mac ˇze

n-a-ta ‘the woman’, uba

v-a-ta ˇze

na ‘the beautiful woman’

5.5.2.1 Adjectives

The adjectives of East and West Slavic retain a hard and a soft paradigm. B/C/S has

only a hard paradigm, and Slovenian only a soft paradigm (inflexions begin with

front vowels). The remains of the inflexions in Bulgarian and Macedonian reflect

the hard paradigm in most of their forms. The choice of paradigm for a given

adjective depends on the final consonant of the stem and on phonotactic rules,

especially after palatals and velars (3.4.3, 4.2.5). As examples we show in table 5.12

the hard long forms in our sample languages, and in table 5.13 the hard and soft

paradigms in Slovak:

Morphophonology

1. Vowel  zero alternation

A short-form adjective, indefinite adjective (B/C/S, Sln) or regular

adjective of Bulgarian and Macedonian, may show a fleeting vowel in

the masculine singular:

(108) Blg dob ˘a

r ‘good’, dobra

[Fem], dobr

o [Neut], dobrı

[Plur]

B/C/S do%bar ‘good’, do

bra [Fem], do

bro [Neut], do

bri [Plur]

Table 5.13. Slovak novy´ ‘new’ (hard) and cudzı

‘foreign’ (soft)

Masc Neut Fem

Sg Nom nov-y

cudz-ı

nov-e

cudz-ie nov-a

cudz-ia

Acc ¼ NOM/GEN nov-e

cudz-ie nov-u

cudz-iu

Gen nov-e

ho cudz-ieho nov-ej cudz-ej

Dat nov-e

mu cudz-iemu ¼ GEN ¼ GEN

Instr nov-y

m cudz-ı

m nov-ou cudz-ou

Loc nov-om cudz-om ¼ GEN ¼ GEN

MascPers/Other Neut Fem

Pl Nom nov-ı

/nov-e

cudz-ı

/cudz-ie nov-e

cudz-ie ¼ NEUT

Acc ¼ GEN/NOM ¼ NOM ¼ NOM

Gen nov-y

ch cudz-ı

Dat nov-y

m cudz-ı

Instr nov-y

mi cudz-ı

Loc ¼ GEN

268 5. Morphology: inflexion