[A SHORTCUT]FROM PIE TO SERBIANALEKSANDRA TOMICHISTORICAL LINGUISTICSUNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 2018

PRESENTATION FOCUS

• What makes Serbian – Serbian? What makes Polish – Polish?

• Differences between Slavic languages and other Indo-European (IE) languages• Differences among South, West and East Slavic languages• Differences within the South Slavic language group

4/19/2018

�2

CONTEMPORARY SLAVIC LANGUAGES4/19/2018

�3

SERBIAN IN RELATION TO OTHER SLAVIC LANGUAGES

4/19/2018

�4

SERBIAN LANGUAGE

• 30 phonemes, 25 consonants, 5 vowels (no diphthongs)• Interesting features:

• Plenty of palatal affricates, with softness and hardness (laminality) distinctions • /r/ trill

• pitch accent: short-falling, short-rising, long-falling, long-rising

• 7-case system (nouns, pronouns, adjectives, determiners) • 4 verb conjugation classes

• synthetic language (prefixation, suffixation, infixation)

• free word order • agreement:

• Determiner-adjective-noun agreement in number, gender, case • Subject-verb agreement in case, number, gender

4/19/2018

�5

SERBIAN PHONOLOGY

• Vowels, short and long

4/19/2018

�6

Front Central BackClose i uMid e oOpen a

SERBIAN PHONOLOGY

• Pitch accent

4/19/2018

�7

Slavicistsymbol

IPA symbol Description

ȅ ê short vowel with falling toneȇ êː long vowel with falling toneè ě short vowel with rising toneé ěː long vowel with rising tonee e non-tonic short vowelē eː non-tonic long vowel

SERBIAN PHONOLOGY

• Consonants

4/19/2018

�8

Many palatal soundsMany affricates

Today’s presentation might help you figure out why!

CONTEMPORARY DIFFERENCES AMONG SLAVIC LANGUAGES • Proto-Slavic: *golvà, ‘head’:

• Serbian (South Slavic) – Lat. gláva; Cyr. гла́ва • Russian (East Slavic) – Cyr. голова́ /golova/• Polish (West Slavic) – Lat. głowa /glova/

• Proto-Slavic: *dьnь, ‘day’:• Serbian (South Slavic, western group) – Lat. dan; Cyr. гла́ва • Bulgarian (South Slavic, eastern group) – Cyr. ден; Lat. den• Russian (East Slavic) – Lan. день (denʹ)• Polish (West Slavic) – Lat. dzień

• PIE *ǵʰeluna, ‘fir’:• Serbian (South Slavic, western group) – Lat. jela;• Polish (West Slavic) – Lat. jodła• Czech (West Slavic) – Lat. jedle• Russian (East Slavic) – Cyr. ель /yel’/

4/19/2018

�9

Where do the differences come from? We will revisit!

PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN URHEIMAT

• Kurgan Hypothesis (Gimbutas, 1956):• Original PIE speakers, members of the Kurgan culture,

originated from the Pontic steppe, to the North and between the Black Sea and the Caspian Lake (kurgan (Rus.) – burial mound)

• Magenta – PIE homeland, Samara culture (5000 BC), Sredny Stog culture (hunter-gatherers, people and animal sacrificers)

Spread:• Red – inhabited by PIE speakers up to 2500 BC• Orange - inhabited by PIE speakers up to 1000 BC

4/19/2018

�10

PROTO-SLAVIC LANGUAGE (* RECONSTRUCTED)• Proto-Balto-Slavic

• Proto-Slavic (developed c. 1500 BC)• Pre-Slavic period (till 4 AD) • Late Proto-Slavic, Proto-Slavic proper,

Common Slavic (5th to ~ 9th AD)• South Slavic (Sclaveni):

• Serbian, Macedonian, Slovenian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Montenegrin, etc.

• East Slavic (Antes):• Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian

• West Slavic (Veneti):• Polish, Sorbian, Czech, Slovak

Red dots – Proto-Slavic hydronymsWhite – names of culturesBlack –tribes

4/19/2018

�11

GREAT MIGRATIONS

• Proto-Slavic homeland: • Ukraine marshes, between the Bug and the Dnieper

• Migration Period: 5th to 9th century AD (Late Proto-Slavic, i.e. Common Slavic)

• Comparative method shows that the dialectal diversification occurred before the migrations (South Slavs - to the Balkan peninsula)

4/19/2018

�12

LATE PROTO-SLAVIC DIALECTAL DIVERSIFICATION• 5th to end of 9th century AD: time of rapid changes

• Nevertheless, Late Proto-Slavic/Common-Slavic still functioned as a single mutually intelligible language, with dialectal changes usually spreading to all dialects

4/19/2018

�13

OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC IN RELATION TO OTHER SLAVIC LANGUAGES

4/19/2018

�14

Old Church Slavonic semi-artificial language

and the first written language of the Slavs

FIRST SLAVIC WRITTEN LANGUAGE – OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC• Great Moravia (now the territory of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland,

Hungary)• West Slav territory• nevertheless, West and South Slavs spoke Common Slavic at the time• king Rastislav in 863 AD invited St. Cyril and St. Methodius from Greeceto (continue) spreading Christianity

4/19/2018

�15

FIRST SLAVIC WRITTEN LANGUAGE – OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC• St. Cyril and St. Methodius:

• contacted Byzantine Slavs from Thessalonica, Greece to help them create the written language Old Church Slavonic (OCS) and the alphabet

• OCS thus based on the variant of the Common Slavic spoken north of Thessalonica

• created glogoloca or glagoljica alphabet (Proto-Slavic glagolati – to speak)

• OCS valuable for the reconstruction of Proto-Slavic since it is the closest written relative

• their students created Cyrillic alphabet, prized script of predominantly Orthodox Christian countries

4/19/2018

�16

GLAGOLITIC SCRIPT, GLAGOLITSA, ⰃⰎⰀⰃⰑⰎⰉⰜⰀ

• Glagolitsa used to translate Bible and other

Ancient Greek church texts • Picture: page from Zoograf codex with text of the Gospel of Luke, illuminated cannon manuscript from 10th or 11th cent. AD

4/19/2018

�17

MAIN PHONOTACTIC PRINCIPLES DRIVING CHANGES DURING THE COMMON SLAVIC PERIOD (5-9 AD)

• Law of open syllables • All syllables have to be open, resulted in:

• Monophthongization• Nazalization of vowels preceding *N in coda• Elimination of consonant clusters • Metathesis

• Intrasyllabic synharmony• Syllables have to internally agree in “softness” or “hardness” (place of articulation)

4/19/2018

�18

PROCESSES OPERATING DURING EARLY PROTO-SLAVIC AND COMMON SLAVIC PERIODConsonant changes

• Satem sound changes:• PIE *ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ → PSl. *ś, *ź, *źʰ (→ CS *s, *z, *z)• PIE *kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ → PSl. *k, *g, *gʰ

• Loss of voiced aspirates: PIE *bʰ, *dʰ, *gʰ → PSl. *b, *d, *g

• Ruki rule: • PIE *s → PSl. *š / *r, *u, *k, *i _ (Ljubivoje Ršumović)

4/19/2018

�19

PROCESSES OPERATING DURING EARLY PROTO-SLAVIC AND COMMON SLAVIC PERIODVowel changes

• Prothesis:• #V → #jV or #wV• PIE *h₂ébōl ‘apple’ > PSl. *ablъko (-ko - dim. suffix) > Serbian jabuka, Polish jabłko

• Merger of *o and *a: PIE *a/*o, *ā/*ō → PSl. *a, *ā (→ CS *o, *a)

• Monophthongization (due to Law of open syllables):• PIE *oi/*ai, *ou/*au, (PBalto-Sl. *ai, *au), *ai, *au, *ei, *eu → PSl. *ē, *ū, *ī, *jū

4/19/2018

�20

PROCESSES OPERATING DURING EARLY PROTO-SLAVIC AND COMMON SLAVIC PERIOD• Slavic first regressive palatalization, 400 – 475 AD (Lemprecht):

• Intrasyllabic synharmony (Jacobson, 1929) – syllables internally agree in “hardness” and “softness” (place of articulation)

• Velar sounds pronounced in the back, front vowels pronounced in the front create disharmony, resolved by palatalization:

• *k *g *x > *č *ž *š / _ {*e/ē, *i/ī, palatal semivowel *j}: • *k > *kʲ > *č • *g > *gʲ > *dž > *ž _ • *x > *xʲ > *š

• *x absent in PIE, arose from *s by Ruki law (*s > *š / {*r, *w, *K, *y} _)

• Compare:• PIE *wĺk̥ʷe 'wolf!' (vocative singular of *wĺk̥ʷos) > PSl. *wilke > OCS vlьče, Pol. wilcze, SCr. vȗče• PIE *gʷeneh₂ 'woman' > PSl. *ženā > OCS žena, Russ. žená, Pol. żona• PIE *muHs 'mouse' > PSl. *mūsi > *mūxi > mūši > OCS myšь, Russ. myš', Pol. mysz

4/19/2018

�21

PROCESSES INVOLVED IN LATE PROTO-SLAVIC OR COMMON SLAVIC DIALECTAL DIVERSIFICATION• Second Slavic regressive palatalization, or sibiliantization:

• Caused by monophthongization, :• Proto-Slavic diphthong *aj/āj (< PIE *oy, *h₂ey/ay) > ē

• Then *kaj *gaj *xaj > *kē *gē *xē violation of intrasyllabic synharmony!• *k *g *x > c z s / _ ē

• *k > *t' > c PIE *koylo- > PSl. *kajlu 'whole, healthy' > OCS cělъ, Russ. célyj, Pol. cały• *g > *d' > dz > z• *x > *ś > s/š

• East and South Slavic > s, West Slavic š

4/19/2018

�22

PROCESSES INVOLVED IN LATE PROTO-SLAVIC OR COMMON SLAVIC DIALECTAL DIVERSIFICATION• Second Slavic regressive palatalization, or sibiliantization:

• Caused by monophthongization, :• Proto-Slavic diphthong *aj/āj (< PIE *oy, *h₂ey/ay) > ē

• Then *kaj *gaj *xaj > *kē *gē *xē violation of intrasyllabic synharmony!• *k *g *x > c z s / _ ē

• *k > *t' > c• *g > *d' > dz > z• *x > *ś > s/š

• Other differences:• South Slavic allows palatalization across *w (> OCS *v), East and West Slavic do not• Compare:

• PSl. *kwajtu 'flower' > OCS cvětъ, Serbian cvet, but Pol. kwiat, Cz. květ, Ukr. kvitka, Belarus. kvetka, Russ. dial. Kvet• PSl. *gwajzdā 'star' > OCS zvězda, Serbian zvezda, but Pol. gwiazda, Cz. hvězda

4/19/2018

�23

PROCESSES INVOLVED IN LATE PROTO-SLAVIC OR COMMON SLAVIC DIALECTAL DIVERSIFICATION• Liquid Metathesis:

• Elimination of liquid diphthongs (e.g. *or, *ol, *er, *er) due to the Law of open syllables, second half of 8th century, early evidence of diversification among West, East, and South Slavic;

• Word-medially: C *or, *ol, *er, *el C → C *ro, *lo, *re, *le C, in West Slavic C *or, *ol, *er, *el C → C *oro, *olo, *ere, *olo C, in East Slavic C *or, *ol, *er, *el C → C *rā, *lā, *re, *le C, in South Slavic

• PIE *bʰardʰeh₂ > PSl. *borda > Serbian brada, Russian boroda, Polish broda

• Liquid metathesis still in effect by the end of the 8th century, Charlemagne adapted as:• Old High German Karl > PSl. *karlju > Common Slavic *korljь > Russian koról′, Polish król, Slovak kráľ,

Serbo-Croatian krȃlj

4/19/2018

�24

PROCESSES INVOLVED IN LATE PROTO-SLAVIC OR COMMON SLAVIC DIALECTAL DIVERSIFICATION• Liquid Metathesis

• Word-initially, dependent on accent and phon. environment:

AccentProto-Slavic reconstructio

n

South Slavic, Czech and Slovak North SlavicOCS Slovene Serbo-

CroatianBulgaria

nMacedo

nian Czech Slovak Russian Belarusian

Ukrainian Polish Low.

SorbianUpp.

Sorbian

AcutePSl. *ardla > CS *őrdlo"plough"

ralo rálo rȁlo / рал̏о

ра́ло (rálo)

рало (ralo) rádlo radlo ра́ло

(rálo)ра́ла (rála)

ра́ло (rálo) radło radło radło

CircmflxPSl. *arstu > CS *orstъ "growth"

rastŭ rȃst rȃst /

рас̑тръст (răst)

раст (rast) růst rast рост

(rost)рост (rost) ріст (rist) wzrost róst

If the accent was circumflex, the metathesis in South Slavic + Czech and Slovak occurred with lengthening, in West and East Slavic occurred without the lengthening so Early Proto-Sl. *a retains its short quantity and yields /o/; compare EPSl. *ȃlkuti ('elbow') > Serbo-Croatian lȃkat, but Czech loket.

4/19/2018

�25

PROCESSES INVOLVED IN LATE PROTO-SLAVIC OR COMMON SLAVIC DIALECTAL DIVERSIFICATION• Loss of *t and *d, only in East and South Slavic languages, motivated by the Law

of open syllables:• PSl. *d, *t → Ø / _ *l

• Red: South Slavic and East Slavic• Blue: West Slavic

AccentProto-Slavic reconstructio

nOCS Slovene Serbo-

CroatianBulgaria

nMacedo

nian Czech Slovak Russian Belarusian

Ukrainian Polish Low.

SorbianUpp.

Sorbian

AcutePSl. *ardla > CS *őrdlo"plough"

ralo rálo rȁlo / рал̏о

ра́ло (rálo)

рало (ralo) rádlo radlo ра́ло

(rálo)ра́ла (rála)

ра́ло (rálo) radło radło radło

4/19/2018

�26

PROCESSES INVOLVED IN LATE PROTO-SLAVIC OR COMMON SLAVIC DIALECTAL DIVERSIFICATION• Yers:

• ь and ъ, front and back yer, short high lax vowels, disagreement between features high and lax

• Havlík's law (1889), Division of yers to strong and weak:• Rhythmic law, every odd yer in a row is strong, every even weak:

• Nom. sg. ‘father’ /otəts-ə/ [otats] • Gen. pl. ‘of fathers’ /otəts-əa/ [otats-a]• Gen. pl. with intervening suffix /-ev-/ /otəts-ev-əa/ [otʃ-ev-a]

4/19/2018

�27

PROCESSES INVOLVED IN LATE PROTO-SLAVIC OR COMMON SLAVIC DIALECTAL DIVERSIFICATION• Yers:

• ь and ъ, front and back yer, short high lax vowels, disagreement between features high and lax

• Havlík's law (1889), Division of yers to strong and weak:• Rhythmic law, every odd yer in a row is strong, every even weak:

• Nom. sg. ‘father’ /otəts-ə/ [otats] • Gen. pl. ‘of fathers’ /otəts-əa/ [otats-a]• Gen. pl. with intervening suffix /-ev-/ /otəts-ev-əa/ [otʃ-ev-a]

4/19/2018

�28

ONLY STRONG ONES SURVIVEBUT HOW?

PROCESSES INVOLVED IN LATE PROTO-SLAVIC OR COMMON SLAVIC DIALECTAL DIVERSIFICATION• Yers:

• ь and ъ, front and back yer, short high lax vowels, disagreement between features high and lax

• Yer Lowering:

4/19/2018

�29

PSl. OCS Bulg Mac S-C Slvn Cze Slvk Pol USrb LSrb Bel Russ Ukr

strong *ь ь e, ă e a ǝ,a e e

(a,á,o) 'e e e 'e 'e e

strong *ъ ъ ă o a ǝ,a e o

(e,a,á) e e e o o o

CONTEMPORARY DIFFERENCES AMONG SLAVIC LANGUAGES • Proto-Slavic: *golvà, ‘head’:

• Serbian (South Slavic) – Lat. gláva; Cyr. гла́ва • Russian (East Slavic) – Cyr. голова́ /golova/• Polish (West Slavic) – Lat. głowa /glova/

• Proto-Slavic: *dьnь, ‘day’:• Serbian (South Slavic, western group) – Lat. dan; Cyr. гла́ва • Bulgarian (South Slavic, eastern group) – Cyr. ден; Lat. den• Russian (East Slavic) – Lan. день (denʹ)• Polish (West Slavic) – Lat. dzień

• Proto-Slavic • Serbian (South Slavic, western group) – Lat. jela;• Polish (West Slavic) – Lat. jodła (=fir)• Russian (East Slavic) – Cyr. ель /yel’/

4/19/2018

�30

What processes and differences do you recognize?

SOUTH SLAVS

• Sclaveni - proto-tribe of the South Slavs

• Raided, invaded, and settled in the Balkans in

early Middle Ages (5-6th cent. AD)

• Accepted Byzantine rule [“Sclaveni” (Lat.) – slaves]• First military mention, 537 AD:

• Byzantine Emperor Justinian I sent Sclaveni and Antescavalry to Italy to save general Belisarius

Sclaveni between the Danube and the Balkan Mountains

4/19/2018

�31

DIVISION IN SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES

• South Slavic languages create a dialect continuum, yet are divided into:

• Eastern group:• Bulgarian (magenta)• Macedonian (bordeaux)• Transitional (around country borders: Torlakian, Prizren-Timok)

• Western group:• Serbian (blue), Croatian (yellow), Montenegrin (dark blue),

Bosnian (green)• Slovenian (yellow)

4/19/2018

�32

SERBIAN, CROATIAN, BOSNIAN, MONTENEGRIN LANGUAGE – ANOTHER DIALECT CONTINUUM• Dialectal division based on the reflex of Proto-Slavic yat sound:

• Ijekavian• Ekavian• Ikavian

• Dialectal division based on the form of the interrogative adverb “why” (reflects different sounds changes):

• Chakavian• Kajkavian• Shtokavian

4/19/2018

�33

DIFFERENCES WITHIN SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES – NOMINAL MORPHOLOGYEASTERN GROUP OF SLAVIC LANGUAGES

• existence of a definite article (e.g. книга, book – книгата, the book, време, time – времето, the time)

• near complete lack of noun cases• formation of comparative forms of adjectives

formed with the prefix по- (e.g. добър, по-добър (Bulg.)/добар, подобар (Maced.) – good, better)

WESTERN GROUP OF SLAVIC LANGUAGES• No articles, definiteness indicated by word order and

determiners

• 7 cases

• formation of comparative forms of adjectives formed with the suffix –iji

4/19/2018

�34

DIFFERENCES WITHIN SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES – VERBAL MORPHOLOGYEASTERN GROUP OF SLAVIC LANGUAGES

• lack of a verb infinitive• future tense formed by the present form of the

verb preceded by ще/ќе (will)• existence of a renarrative mood (e.g. Той ме

видял. (Bulg.)/Тој ме видел. (Maced.) – He supposedly saw me. Compare with Той ме видя./Тој ме виде. – He saw me.)

• strong use of aspectual forms aorist and imperfect

WESTERN GROUP OF SLAVIC LANGUAGES• verb infinitive alive and well

• Future tense formed analytically with auxiliary hteti (will) + infinitive, or synthetically with base form + abbreviated form of hteti

• Aorist, imperfect, and plusquamperfect almost lost

4/19/2018

�35

SERBIAN, CROATIAN, BOSNIAN, MONTENEGRIN, LANGUAGE TODAY• Language planning and language nationalism

• After nationalistic (civil) wars (’80s and ‘90s) in former Yugoslavia, every new-born nation wanted its own language

• Serbo-Croatian became Serbian and Croatian, with further languages sprouting: Montenegrin, Bosnian-Herzegovinian, etc.

• Standard Croatian: yat reflex ije (dijete – ‘child’), script Latin, Kajkavian dialect• Standard Serbian: yat reflex e (dete – ‘child’), both Latin and Cyrillic script, Shtokavian

dialect

• Croatian borrowing type: calques using Slavic roots (zrako-plov - ‘airplane’, ‘air’ + ‘boat’) • Serbian borrowing type: foreign (mostly phonetically and morphologically adapted)

borrowings (avion (from Fr.) - ‘airplane’)

4/19/2018

�36