490 Andere Sprachen
Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Diboov zakon (2)
- Dybo’s law (2)
- accentuation (2)
- akcentuacija (2)
- Dybo's law (1)
- Dyboov zakon (1)
- Proto-Slavic (1)
- Slawische Sprachen (1)
- Slovene neo-cirkumflex (1)
- Stangov zakon (1)
The loss and restoration of the phoneme /j/ plays a major role in the development of Proto-Slavic. After vowel contraction in posttonic syllables, Dybo’s law, and the rise of new /j/ in east, South, and West Slavic, contracted and uncontracted forms may have coexisted during a considerable period of time. After Dybo’s law we have *voļȃ < *vòlja "will" but *rolьjà < *orlь̀ja "plowland", after contraction *roļá in Slovincian rolåu, Old Polish rolå. The loss of distinctive tone yielded merger of the two paradigms, as a result of which most nouns of the former type adopted the accentuation of the latter. Slavic deverbal ja-stems are original proterodynamic ī/jē-stems. The proterodynamic nouns *dūšà (c) "soul" and *zorjà (c) "dawn" have probably preserved the original accentuation. The other proterodynamic jā-stems evidently adopted the accent pattern of the deverbal ā-stems.
In a recent article of major importance (2013), Tijmen Pronk has treated the accentuation of l-participles of the type neslъ in western South Slavic. Pronk points out correctly that Dybo’s law did not shift the accent onto final jers, e.g. in *kòņь, *bòbъ, and that the short vowel was preserved in Slovak osem < *òsmь, oheň < *ògņь, mohol < *mòglъ. Contrary to what Pronk claims, Slovene nę́sǝlis the phonetic reflex of *néslъ < *neslъ̀, Slovak niesol. The Slovene doublets (v)ǫ̑gǝl < *ǫ̀glь and (v)ózǝl < *ǫ̀zlъ suggest an earlier paradigm with vǫ̑- < ǫ̑- in the nom.sg. form and ó- < *ǫ̀- in the oblique cases. The vowel of ógǝnj < *ògņь also stems from the oblique cases. The expected neo-circumflex in the nom.sg. form is actually attested in rę̑bǝr < *rèbrь beside rę́bǝr with the reflex of Stang’s law from the oblique cases. There is no reason to assume that the accent was not retracted at an early stage in *neslъ̀, nor is there any reason to assume that Dybo’s law shifted the accent to the final jer in *dòbrъ and *sèdmь, as Pronk claims.
Keith Langston disagrees with my account of the Slovene neo-circumflex. He rejects compensatory lengthening as an explanation of the neo-circumflex, primarily on theoretical grounds. His "moraic analysis" is quite unacceptable to me because it starts from an a priori segmentation of the speech flow. In a strict autosegmental approach, the segmentation of the speech flow should be part of the analysis and not be given a priori. Langston's rejection of van Wijk's law, according to which the simplification of certain consonant clusters yielded lengthening of the following vowel, is based on a misguided theoretical interpretation which led him astray.
Twenty years ago I discussed the oldest isoglosses in the South Slavic linguistic area (1982). Subscribing to Van Wijk’s view that the bundle of isoglosses which separates Bulgarian from Serbo-Croatian was the result of an early split in South Slavic and that the transitional dialects originated from a later mixture of Serbian and Bulgarian dialects when the contact between the two languages had been restored (1927), I argued that the shared innovations of Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian must be dated to a period when the dialects were still spoken in the original Trans-Carpathian homeland of the Slavs. I concluded that there is no evidence for common innovations of South Slavic which were posterior to the end of what I have called the Late Middle Slavic period, which I dated to the 4th through 6th centuries AD. At that time, the major dialect divisions of Slavic were already established.