The differentiation between simple palatalization and affrication allows a further specification of the relative chronology in the Slavic dialects. According to this chronology, the oldest isoglosses are between North Russian, West Slavic, and the other languages. The next layer of isoglosses separates Lechitic and Bulgarian from the others. Several peripheral South Slavic dialects have preserved archaisms.Razlikovanje jednostavne palatalizacije od afrikacije omogućuje detaljniju relativnu kronologiju fonetskoga razvoja slavenskih dijalekata. Prema toj kronologiji, najstarije se izoglose nalaze između sjevernoruskoga, zapadnoslavenskoga i ostalih jezika. Potonji sloj izoglosa odvaja lehitske jezike i bugarski od ostalih slavenskih jezika. Nekoliko rubnih južnoslavenskih govora čuva arhaizme

Frederik Kortlandt

English

Razlikovanje jednostavne palatalizacije od afrikacije omogućuje detaljniju relativnu kronologiju fonetskoga razvoja slavenskih dijalekata. Prema toj kronologiji, najstarije se izoglose nalaze između sjevernoruskoga, zapadnoslavenskoga i ostalih jezika. Potonji sloj izoglosa odvaja lehitske jezike i bugarski od ostalih slavenskih jezika. Nekoliko rubnih južnoslavenskih govora čuva arhaizme.The differentiation between simple palatalization and affrication allows a further specification of the relative chronology in the Slavic dialects. According to this chronology, the oldest isoglosses are between North Russian, West Slavic, and the other languages. The next layer of isoglosses separates Lechitic and Bulgarian from the others. Several peripheral South Slavic dialects have preserved archaisms

Kortlandt, Frederik

Hrčak - Portal of scientific journals of Croatia

465RASPRAVEČasopis Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje 42/2 (2016.)UDK 811.16(091) Izvorni znanstveni radRukopis primljen 19. IX. 2016.Prihvaćen za tisak 30. X. 2016.Frederik KortlandtDepartment of comparative linguisticsLeiden UniversityP.O. Box 915NL-2300 RA Leiden, The NetherlandsF.Kortlandt@hum.leidenuniv.nlwww.kortlandt.nlON THE RELATIVE CHRONOLOGY OF SLAVIC CONSONANTAL DEVELOPMENTSThe differentiation between simple palatalization and affrication allows a further specification of the relative chronology in the Slavic dialects. Accor­ding to this chronology, the oldest isoglosses are between North Russian, West Slavic, and the other languages. The next layer of isoglosses separates Lechitic and Bulgarian from the others. Several peripheral South Slavic dia­lects have preserved archaisms.In 2013 I presented an improved version of my earlier account of the Slavic consonantal developments at the 9th IWoBA in Pula (published as Kortlandt 2015), which is summarized here:C1. First palatalization of velars: *k > č, *g > ǯ, *x > š before *e, *ē, *i, *ī, *j.C2. Spirantization of the voiced affricate: *ǯ > ž.C3. Palatalization of dental fricatives: *s > š, *z > ž before *j, *č, *ǯ.C4. Second palatalization of velars: *k > ć, *g > ʒ́, *x > ś before the new front vowels *ē and *ǖ which had arisen from the monophthongization of *ai and *oi, and after the high front vowels *i, *ī, *į unless followed by a conso­nant or by one of the high back vowels *u, *ū, *ų. The clusters *sk and *zg be­came ść and źʒ́ before the new front vowels.C5. Rise of geminated affricates: *tj > *tćj, *dj > *dʒ́j. The cluster *kt yield­ed *tć before high front vowels, e.g. OCS noštь ‘night’, S/Cr. nȏć.C6. First simplification of palatals: *ć > c, *ʒ́ > ʒ, in South and East Slavic also *ś > s, *ść > sc, *źʒ́ > zʒ.Frederik Kortlandt: On the relative chronology of Slavic consonantal developmentsRasprave 42/2 (2016.), str. 465–469466C7. Simplification of geminates: *tć > *ść, *dʒ́ > *źʒ́, also *śtć > *ść, *źdʒ́ > *źʒ́. This development was limited to Bulgarian. In the other languages, the dental affricates were simply degeminated: *tć > *ć and *dʒ́ > *ʒ́.C8. Spirantization of the ungeminated voiced affricate: *ʒ > z. This deve­lopment did not reach Lechitic and a part of the Bulgarian dialects. The spiran­tization of the velar stop *g in the central dialects of Slavic was probably not much later than this development, perhaps even earlier.C9. Van Wijk’s law and loss of /j/. Postconsonantal *j was assimilated to the following vowel, e.g. S/Cr. pȋšē ‘writes’ < *píšje, also *wòļā ‘will’ < *wòlja.C10. Merger of palatal fricatives: *ś > š, also *ść > šć, *źʒ́ > žʒ́.C11. Merger of palatal clusters: *šč > šć, *žǯ > žʒ́.C12. Second simplification of palatals: *ć > c, *ʒ́ > ʒ in West Slavic, and sub sequently *ʒ > z in Czech and Sorbian; *ć > č, *ʒ́ > *ǯ > ž in East Slavic. The clusters *šć and *žʒ́ were reduced to št and žd in Bulgarian and the eastern dia­lects of Serbian/Croatian, and later in Czech and Slovak. Similarly, the clusters *sc and *zʒ became st and zd in a part of the Bulgarian dialects.This improved version is based on the presupposition that the length of the thematic vowel in ne‑presents is analogical after the corresponding je‑presents (cf. in this connection Tedesco 1948) and that postconsonantal *j was preserved until the operation of Van Wijk’s law. It follows that my assimilation of *j to a preceding consonant (e.g. 2011: 167, 302) must be abandoned.At the same time, Willem Vermeer presented his version of the developments to the 15th ICS in Minsk (2013, published as Vermeer 2014). There are two ma­jor differences between his account and mine. First, he distinguishes between simple palatalization *k > *ḱ > *ť and affrication *ť > *ć as two stages of my se­cond palatalization (C4). Second, he collapses my first (C6) and second (C12) simplifications of palatals into a single process of depalatalization. As a result, he reconstructs the following system of obstruents for the stage between affri­cation and depalatalization (Vermeer 2014: 202):lab p balv t d s zpal(2) ć, ćj dź, dźj śpal(1) č, čj š, šj ž, žjvel k g xThis is a peculiar system, with two distinct palatal series but lacking alveolar affricates. Moreover, the palatals could be followed by a distinctive *j, unlike Frederik Kortlandt: On the relative chronology of Slavic consonantal developmentsRasprave 42/2 (2016.), str. 465–469467the other series. It is unlikely that such a system could have persisted very long. Nevertheless, Vermeer dates a number of developments in the separate languages between affrication and depalatalization (2014: 201–209).The differentiation between simple palatalization and affrication allows a further specification of the relative chronology in the dialects. There are four positions where the second palatalization did not yield the normal outcome c, (d)z, s. Firstly, the affrication did not affect the clusters *kn and *gn, which were palatalized before high front vowels, e.g. S/Cr. knjȉga ‘book’, gnjȉti ‘to rot’. Secondly, the affrication did not affect the clusters *kw and *gw in West Slavic, e.g. Polish kwiat ‘flower’, gwiazda ‘star’, Czech květ, hvězda, S/Cr. cvȉjet, zvijèzda. Thirdly, the depalatalization did not affect the reflex of the clus-ter *kt before high front vowels except in West Slavic, e.g. Po. noc ‘night’, Cz. noc, S/Cr. nȏć. Fourthly, the depalatalization did not affect the reflex of *x in West Slavic, e.g. Po. szary ‘grey’, Cz. šerý, Ru. séryj. It appears that these exceptional treatments are interrelated and that West Slavic lagged behind in the development of the consonantal system.The Bulgarian reflexes št, žd of original *tj, *dj point to earlier palatalized geminates *ťť, *ďď with dissimilation to *śť, *źď before affrication of *ť, *ď to *ć, *ʒ́ (cf. Vermeer 2014: 199). Since we find the same reflex in the case of the cluster *kt before high front vowels, e.g. in OCS noštь ‘night’, we may also re­construct a geminate *ťť before affrication here. As this gemination is not con­ditioned by a following *j, we may also reconstruct a geminate *tt from *kt in other positions at this stage, e.g. in letěti ‘to fly’, Lith. lėk̃ti, lakstýti. This elimi­nates the isolated character of the palatalized geminates. It is possible that ge­mination also affected the clusters *lj and *nj, for which we may reconstruct *ľľ and *ńń on a par with *ťť and *ďď. The corresponding development of the labials was the rise of an epenthetic *ľ, yielding clusters *pľ, *bľ, *mľ. It appears that *j was not lost after the geminates but vocalized and assimilated to the following vowel (Van Wijk’s law). Since the vocalization of *j is more easily understood after a cluster than after a single consonant, I now think that Van Wijk’s law preceded the loss of geminates and reformulate the law as *j > *ь, followed by contraction with the following vowel in posttonic syllables (cf. Kortlandt 2011: 170). It is possible that the clusters *tl and *dl yielded a gemi­nate *ll except in West Slavic and North Russian. For OCS kaměnъ ‘of stone’, ORu. kamjanyj it is reasonable to reconstruct *kamenno‑ with a geminate *nn and early degemination to *ēn in South and West Slavic and *ęn in East Slavic (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 108). In Slovene and Serbian/Croatian the suffix was largely replaced by *en on the analogy of zèlen and stùden (cf. Vaillant 1974: 459 on vodènica replacing voděnica ‘water mill’ and Rigler 1964).Frederik Kortlandt: On the relative chronology of Slavic consonantal developmentsRasprave 42/2 (2016.), str. 465–469468We now arrive at the following relative chronology (for additional informa­tion and references to the literature see Vermeer 2014):C1. First palatalization of velars: *k > č, *g > ǯ, *x > š.C2. Spirantization of the voiced affricate *ǯ > ž.C3. Palatalization of dental fricatives: *s > š, *z > ž before *j, *č, *ǯ.C4a. Second palatalization of velars (a): *k > ḱ, *g > ǵ, *x > x́, also *kn > *ḱń, *gn > *ǵń, *kw > *ḱw, *gw > *ǵw, perhaps also *kl > *ḱľ, *gl > *ǵľ  (cf. Vermeer 2014: 217).C4b. Second palatalization of velars (b): *ḱ > ť, *ǵ > ď, *x́ > ś. This deve­lopment did not reach the North Russian dialect of Novgorod and Pskov, e.g. kěle ‘whole’, xěri ‘grey cloth’. It did not affect the clusters *ḱń, *ǵń, *ḱľ, *ǵľ, nor *ḱw, *ǵw in West Slavic.C5. Rise of gemination: *tj > *ťťj, *dj > *ďďj, *kt > *ťť  before high front vowels, *kt > *tt elsewhere, *lj > *ľľj, *nj > *ńńj, *pj > *pľj, *bj > *bľj, *mj > *mľj, perhaps *tl > *ll, *dl > *ll, also *ngn > *nn (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 108).C6a. Affrication: *ť > ć, *ď > ʒ́. In the North Russian dialect of Novgorod and Pskov we find *ḱ > ć between front vowels, e.g. *otьce ‘father’ (with umla­ut of the ending *‑os after *ḱ, cf. Kortlandt 2011: 300), but vъxo ‘all’ (with the regular neuter ending).C6b. First simplification of palatals: *ć > c, *ʒ́ > ʒ, in South and East Slavic also *ś > s, *ść > sc, *źʒ́ > zʒ.C7. Simplification of geminates: *ťť  > *śť, *ďď  > *źď. This development was limited to Bulgarian.C8. Spirantization of the voiced affricate *ʒ > z. This development did not reach Lechitic and a part of the Bulgarian dialects.C9a. Van Wijk’s law: postconsonantal *j > *ь, followed by assimilation of *ь to the following vowel in posttonic syllables yielding a long vowel.C9b. Loss of gemination: *ťť  > *ť, *ďď  > *ď, *tt > t, *ľľ  > ľ, *ńń > ń, *ll > l.C9c. Affrication: *ť  > ć, *ď  > ʒ́. This development did not reach peripheral South Slavic dialects, including those of the Freising documents and the origi­nal glagolitic alphabet (cf. Vermeer 2014: 198, 213).C10. Merger of palatal fricatives: *ś > š, also *ść > šć, *źʒ́ > žʒ́.C11. Merger of palatal clusters: *šč > šć, *žǯ > žʒ́.C12. Second simplification of palatals: *ć > c, *ʒ́ > ʒ in West Slavic, and sub sequently *ʒ > z in Czech and Sorbian; *ć > č, *ʒ́ > ǯ > ž in East Slavic. The clusters šć and žʒ́ were reduced to št and žd in Bulgarian and the eastern dia­Frederik Kortlandt: On the relative chronology of Slavic consonantal developmentsRasprave 42/2 (2016.), str. 465–469469lects of Serbian/Croatian, and later in Czech and Slovak. Similarly, the clusters sc and zʒ became st and zd in a part of the Bulgarian dialects.According to this relative chronology, the oldest isoglosses are between North Russian, West Slavic, and the other languages. The next layer of isogloss- es separated Lechitic and Bulgarian from the others. Several peripheral South Slavic dialects have preserved archaisms. All this variation developed in what I have called the Middle Slavic period (2011: 150–153, 164–169, 251–254, 300–304).References:Kortlandt, Frederik. 2009. Baltica & Balto‑Slavica. Rodopi. Amsterdam.Kortlandt, Frederik. 2011. Selected writings on Slavic and general linguis‑tics. Rodopi. Amsterdam.Kortlandt, Frederik. 2015. Proto-Slavic *j, Van Wijk’s law, and ē­stems. Ras prave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje 41/1. 65–76.Rigler, Jakob. 1964. Glasovna podoba sufiksa *‑ěno. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 7. 49–51.Tedesco, Paul. 1948. Slavic ne‑presents from older je‑presents. Language 24/4. 346–387.Vaillant, André. 1974. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves IV: La for‑mation des noms. Klincksieck. Paris. Vermeer, Willem R. 2014. Early Slavic dialect differences involving the con­sonant system. Dutch contributions to the 15th international congress of slavists: Linguistics. Rodopi. Amsterdam. 181–227.O relativnoj kronologiji razvoja slavenskoga suglasničkog sustavaSažetakRazlikovanje jednostavne palatalizacije od afrikacije omogućuje detaljniju relativnu kronologiju fonetskoga razvoja slavenskih dijalekata. Prema toj krono-logiji, najstarije se izoglose nalaze između sjevernoruskoga, zapadnoslavensko-ga i ostalih jezika. Potonji sloj izoglosa odvaja lehitske jezike i bugarski od osta-lih slavenskih jezika. Nekoliko rubnih južnoslavenskih govora čuva arhaizme.Ključne riječi: relativna kronologija, palatalizacija, afrikacija, najstarije izogloseKeywords: relative chronology, palatalization, affrication, oldest isoglosses

O relativnoj kronologiji razvoja slavenskoga suglasničkog sustava

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hrčak - Portal of scientific journals of Croatia