The Dual Treatment of - Oi in Slavic Revi PDF

DUAL TREATMENT OF *-OI IN SLAVIC REVISITED 175
The Dual Treatment of *-oi in Slavic Revisited1

Yaroslav Gorbachov
The University of Chicago
0. The honoree of this volume, Victor Friedman, has always held a deep conviction
that the diachronic approach to language should be an integral part of both research
and instruction in Slavic studies. Sharing this conviction, I am pleased to dedicate
to my friend and colleague a discussion of a hitherto unsolved problem of Slavic
diachronic phonology as a paltry token of esteem and appreciation for his inspired
lifelong service to our field.
1. The Problem
The final syllable is a phonological domain in which the traditional comparative

method of invoking regular sound correspondences and predictable sound changes
often encounters trouble. Within the Indo-European (IE) language family, a
number of branches display phonological developments in word-final position that
diverge from the developments in initial and medial syllables. One such branch is
Slavic.
Slavic is characterized by multiple special phonological treatments of word-
final segments, each standing in contrast to a generally valid rule. Most of the
Slavic Auslautgesetze constitute a diachronic problem still awaiting a generally
accepted solution ― assuming, of course, that phonological processes in all
domains, including the auslaut, are rule-governed and regular (the
“Neogrammarian Hypothesis”). The famously problematic auslaut treatments in
Slavic include the following:
(1) the o-stem nom.-acc.sg. masc. in -ъ (why is -ъ the reflex of *-os

and *-om in the masculine, while in the neuter the PIE nom.-
acc.sg. ending *-om gives -o?);
Balkanistica 28 (2015)
176 YAROSLAV GORBACHOV
(2) the ja-stem acc.pl. in SSl. vs. E/WSl.: cf. OCS nošę vs. ORuss.
nošě ‘burden-ACC.PL.’ (in addition to the synchronic
discrepancy between the branches, there is the problem of
deriving both endings from PIE *-i̯ ah2s);
(3) the ePSl. gen.pl. in -ъ: OCS vlьkъ ‘wolf-GEN.PL.’ < ePSl.
*wĭlkōm (?) < PIE *u̯l̥ kwoHom (how is -ъ a reflex of *-oHom?);
and
(4) the raising of *ē# and *ō#, which only occurs in the nom.sg. of
r-stems and n-stems2: cf. OCS mati ‘mother’ (< PIE *mātē[r]),
dъšti ‘daughter’ (< *dъ[k]t'i < PIE *dhugh2tē[r]), kamy ‘rock’
(< virtual “*k̑ah2mō”3), etc.
To this day scholars disagree in their formulation of the Auslautgesetze responsible

for producing the observed word-final effects in Slavic (both the above and
multiple others).4 As an example, one may recall the 1983 exchange of opinions
between Jasanoff, Schmalstieg and Kortlandt (Jasanoff 1983, Schmalstieg 1983,
Kortlandt 1983) on the auslaut treatment of *ē and *ō (recall PSl. *dъ[k]t’i, *mati,
*kamy, etc.). Today, more than thirty years later, still no consensus has emerged on
how the raising rule should be formulated.
Among the unsolved puzzles is the dual reflex of the PIE oral diphthongs in
i ― *ai̯ , *āi̯ , and *oi̯ ― in final syllables.5 Within Proto-Slavic these diphthongs
merged into a single phoneme */oi/ or, to apply the notation used by some Slavists,
*/åi/, which was subsequently monophthongized. Word-internally and ― in the
majority of cases ― word-finally, ePSl. *åi developed to lPSl. ě2. Consider the
following OCS forms:
(5) 1.sg. vědě ‘I know’ < ePSl. *wåidåi < PIE 1.sg. pf. *u̯oi̯ d-h2ai̯ ;6
(6) nom.-acc.neut.du. selě ‘two fields; two farmsteads’ < ePSl.
*selåi < PIE *sel-o-ih1;
(7) nom.-acc.fem.du. rǫcě ‘two hands’ < ePSl. *rånkåi < PIE
*rank-ah2-ih1;
(8) ā-stem dat.sg. rǫcě ‘hand-DAT.’ < ePSl. *rånkåi < PIE
*rank-ah2-ei̯ ;
(9) ā-stem loc.sg. rǫcě ‘hand-LOC.’ < ePSl. *rånkåi < PIE
*rank-ah2-i; and
(10) o-stem loc.sg. vlьcě ‘wolf-LOC.’ < ePSl. *wĭlkåi < PIE
*u̯l̥ kw-o-i̯ .
In the following three morphological categories, however, the diphthong *åi# has
yielded i2#; cf.:
(11) o-stem. nom.pl. vlьci ‘wolves’ < ePSl. *wĭlkåi < PIE *u̯l̥ kwoi̯ ;
cf. also the pronominal masculine plural ti, oni, ovi ‘those,’ etc.
(-i < *-oi̯ );7
(12) 2.-3.sg. thematic impv. beri ‘take!; may (s/he) take!’ < ePSl.
*beråi[s], *beråi[t] < PIE opt. *bher-o-ih1-s, *bher-o-ih1-t (but
cf. 2.pl. berěte < *bher-o-ih1-te); and
(13) dative enclitics mi ‘to me,’ ti ‘to thee,’ si ‘to oneself’ < PIE
*moi̯ , *toi̯ , *soi̯ .8
To summarize, there are two outcomes of ePSl. *åi̯ in late Proto-Slavic and early
historical Slavic:
(14) ě2 (in any inlaut position and in most auslaut positions); and
i2 (in a subset of auslaut positions; the aberrant treatment).
2. The Principal Schools of Thought
A diachronic rule (or rules) to account for the synchronic distribution of the two
outcomes of *åi# has never been worked out. It is not even clear whether the
change *åi# > i2# should be viewed as a true (Neogrammarian-style) sound
change, whose conditioning environment has simply eluded formulation.
Examining the segmental level in isolation does not induce optimism. The
case of the o-stem loc.sg. and nom.pl. is especially striking: OCS loc.sg. vlьcě (10)
and nom.pl. vlьci (11) go back to identical early post-PIE antecedents, both
reconstructed as *u̯l̥ kwoi̯ .
Considering perplexing cases such as OCS vlьcě, vlьci < *u̯l̥ kwoi̯ ,
suppositions have naturally been made as to whether some sporadic changes
should be posited, i.e., ones that do not obey the Neogrammarian regularity
principle; cf. Schmalstieg (1980:217): “…The nom.pl. ending (vlьc-)i as opposed
to the loc.sg. (vlьc-)ě is a result of the fact that the nom.pl. ending is more frequent
than the loc.sg. and is therefore subject to irregular phonological change.” Such ad
hoc irregular rules, of course, lack any explanatory power and have not carried
much clout. The main thrust of research has been directed at pinpointing
suprasegmental conditioning factors for the dual reflex of ePSl. *åi# in late Proto-
Slavic. Another major school of thought has regarded the aberrant treatment *åi# >
i2# as a case of analogy rather than a regular phonological process.
2.1. Let us first consider the latter claim (analogy). It has been espoused by such
preeminent scholars as Vaillant (1950:212f.), Shevelov (1965:287) and Schenker
(1993:71, 89, 103; 1995:86), among others. The thematic plural -i, it is argued, was
extracted from the “soft” (je/o-) declension. Thus, the ending in OCS vlьci
‘wolves,’ gradi ‘towns,’ večeri ‘evenings,’ dvori ‘enclosures, atria; sheepfolds,’
etc. is analogical to such plurals as:
(15) kon’i ‘horses’ < *konjei < *konjöi < ePSl. *kåmnjåi; and
mǫži ‘men’ < *monžjei < *monžjöi < ePSl. *mångjåi, etc.
Implicit in this scenario is the notion that the phonologically regular outcome of
the nom.pl. *u̯l̥ kwoi̯ or *g̑hordhoi̯ should have been *vlьcě and *gradě, respectively
(identical with the loc.sg. forms vlьcě < *u̯l̥ kwoi̯ and gradě < *g̑hordhoi̯ ).
By the same token, OCS 2.-3.sg. thematic imperatives such as beri ‘take!,’
ženi ‘persecute!,’ etc. are supposed to be analogical to je/o-stem imperatives such
as:
(16) or’i ‘plow!’ < *orjei[s] < *orjöis < *(h2)årjåis (√*h2ar-); and
žьn’i ‘reap!’ < *žĭnjei[s] < *žĭnjöis < *g(wh)ĭnjåis (√*gwhen-/
*gwhn̥-), etc.
In Schenker’s formulation, “the instances of ī2 occurring for the expected ě2 … are

probably analogical to the umlauted forms” (1995:86). “The expected -ě2 was
probably displaced by -i (< -ĕi) of the i̯ o-stems” (Schenker 1993:89).
While not impossible, this scenario runs counter to the general tendency
observed in late Proto-Slavic and early historical Slavic: analogy between hard and
soft forms, inasmuch as it takes place at all, as a rule happens in the form of a
hard-stem variant exerting analogical influence on its soft-stem counterpart, and
not the other way around ― at least as far as the uncontroversial cases of analogy
are concerned. One may recall the 1.sg. and 3.pl. pres. ind. of the je/o-class, e.g.,
OCS znajǫ ‘I know’ (like berǫ ‘I take’), znajǫtъ ‘they know’ (like berǫtъ ‘they
take’), etc.9
2.2. The other obvious approach is to try to ascertain a prosodic or suprasegmental

difference between loc.sg. *-oi̯ (yielding -ě2) and nom.pl. *-oi̯ (yielding -i2). The
possibilities to look into are length, stress and pitch. Many Slavists and Indo-
Europeanists have followed this approach. Thus, according to Mikkola (1913:60),
the difference in timbre of the two reflexes is indicative of the original difference
in length: ě2# < *ōi̯ #, *āi̯ #, whereas i2# < *ŏi̯ #, *ăi̯ #. Brugmann (1897:941), on the
other hand, attributed the phonemic split of *åi to differences in the degree of
stress (“starktonige Schlußsilbe” vs. “schwachtonige Schlußsilbe”) rather than
pitch (“Tonqualität”).10 In a very similar vein, Hirt (1893:350ff.) and Endzelin
(1911:151f.) believed stressed *åi# to have given ě2# and unstressed *åi# to yield
i2#. Neither theory ― Mikkola’s or Brugmann’s ― is tenable.
2.3. A more promising approach to pursue is to look into original differences in the
tonal properties of the desinential syllables. As is well-known, Balto-Slavic is
reconstructed as a pitch-accent language with a pitch contrast on historically long
nuclei: a rising tone contour (“acute”) vs. a falling tone contour (“circumflex”).
Some authors, including Pedersen (1905:326ff.),11 Seliščev (1951:134ff.) and
Xaburgaev (1974:123ff.), have derived ě2# from acute *åi# and i2# from
circumflex *åi#. The original idea is traceable to Fortunatov’s lectures, which he
gave at Moscow Imperial University.
Again, this view is falsifiable: the imperative suffix in the PSl. thematic
class is securely reconstructible as acute, which is supported, e.g., by Čakavian
thematic imperatives such as tresȉ, tresȉte ‘shake!,’ pecȉ, pecȉte ‘bake!,’ etc. (cf.
Stang 1965[1957]:49, 137). Hence, if Fortunatov and Pedersen were correct, one
would expect OCS *tręsě ‘shake!’ < *tremsoih1s, *pьcě ‘bake!’ << *pekwoih1s, etc.
2.4. Jagić (1906:120f.) proposed “das gerade Gegenteil”:
(17) under circumflex intonation *åi# > ě2# (loc. vlьcě); and
under acute intonation *åi# > i2# (nom.pl. vlьci).
The idea was suggested to him by the accentual properties of some Greek case
forms, e.g.
(18) Gk. loc.sg. ἰσθμοῖ ‘on the isthmus,’ οἴκοι ‘at home’; vs.
Gk. nom.pl. ἰσθμοί ‘isthmuses,’ θεοί ‘gods,’ οἶκοι ‘houses,’ etc.
Jagić’s proposal has become one of the two most widely held theories explaining
the dual reflex of *åi# (the other one being the approach involving analogy).12 And
yet, the proposed sound law has never been properly demonstrated as such and
remains but a hypothesis. As things stand now, it is not even a probable one, for in
addition to the lack of sufficient evidence in support of the alleged law, there are
problems with Jagić’s methodology.
First of all, the Greek accentuation system is not a useful point of reference
in dealing with Balto-Slavic prosodic facts. The pitch contrasts in the two
branches, while bearing the same labels (“acute” and “circumflex”), are not
“genetically” identical. They have disparate origins and cannot be trivially mapped
onto each other (despite displaying the occasional distributional similarity).13
Moreover, taken in isolation, Slavic data shed no light on the type of
intonation this or that word-final stressed nucleus bore in Proto-Slavic (Carlton
1991:188f., Lehfeldt 2009:46, 48f.). Therefore, if one takes the Greek data out of
the picture, as one should, Jagić’s reasoning becomes circular: the PSl. o-stem
nom.pl. marker was originally acute, hence the OCS reflex -i; the OCS o-stem
nom.pl. ending is -i, hence it was historically acute.
In the absence of Greek data to anchor the claim, could Baltic be of any
help?
The relevant Baltic evidence, taken at face value, is sometimes helpful (in
supporting Jagić’s claim), other times inconclusive or obscure, and at yet other
times seems to militate plainly against Jagić’s theory (assuming, of course, that
Baltic has preserved the original Balto-Slavic situation). The examples
immediately supporting Jagić’s view are very few:
(19) Lith. namiẽ ‘at home’ < PB loc.sg. *damaĩ : OCS gradě ‘in
town’; and
Lith. geríe-ji ‘the good ones’ < PB nom.pl. *geraí-jai : OCS
dobri-ji ‘idem.’
The list of apparent disparities is more impressive:
(20) Lith. “permissive” te-vediẽ ‘let him/her/them lead’ vs. OCS vedi
‘may s/he lead!’ (acute?);
Lith. nom.pl. vilkaĩ ‘wolves’ vs. OCS vlьci ‘wolves’ (acute?);
Latv. tiẽ ‘those’ < PB *taí14 vs. OCS ti ‘those’ < PSl. *tȋ;
Lith. du. dvì galvì ‘two heads’ vs. OCS dvě glavě (circumflex?);
and
Lith. miegmì ‘I sleep’ < PB *maigmaí << *-h2ai̯ vs. OCS vědě
‘I know’ (circumflex?).
From the correspondences in (19) and (20) no clear-cut pattern seems to emerge to
support Jagić’s hunch. Even more disappointingly, the relevant Slavic and Baltic
forms, when transposed back into PIE, do not appear to warrant a tonally
conditioned split of ePSl. *åi# into two phonemes; cf.:
(21) PIE *u̯l̥ kwoi̯ > loc.sg. vlьcě ‘wolf-LOC.’

PIE *u̯l̥ kwoi̯ > nom.pl. vlьci ‘wolves’
(22) PIE *seloi̯ h1 > nom.du. selě ‘two farmsteads; two fields’
PIE *bheroi̯ h1s > 2.sg. impv. beri ‘take!’
The synchronic acute : circumflex contrast in Balto-Slavic reflects the original

length distinctions at the PIE level or else the presence/absence of a laryngeal (see
a more detailed discussion in Section 3, below). Yet, the final syllables in the
preforms in (21) and (22) are identical or near-identical and therefore are not
expected to have produced tonal differences at the BSl. level.
2.5. As a consequence, throughout the history of historical Slavic studies there has
always been a sizeable group of agnostics: cf. Leskien (1905:13, 47), Meillet
(1924[1965]:149),15 Nandriş (1959:14), Bernštejn (1961:197),16 Schmalstieg
(1980:40, 46) and Birnbaum (1987:95), to name only a few. It is emblematic of the
current state of scholarship that in their treatments of Slavic historical phonology,
Carlton, Lunt, and Sussex and Cubberley have had exactly nothing positive to say
on the phonological context for the change *åi# > i# (Carlton 1991:119; Lunt
1993:365, 372; 2001:48, 227, 246; Sussex and Cubberley 2006:31, 34).17 Hock, in
his useful 2005 review of Balto-Slavic scholarship to date, dismisses the original
tonal differences allegedly causing the split of *åi# as “eine ältere Erklärung.”18
3. Current Views on the Origin of Balto-Slavic Intonations
In the remaining part of the article, this “older explanation” is revisited and
reevaluated in light of what we currently know about the rise of the Balto-Slavic
intonations. A number of inherited bimoraic segments and segment sequences
developed in Balto-Slavic a special feature, which may be labeled abstractly as
[+acute]. Just how the nuclei marked with “acuteness” were realized phonetically
cannot be established with certainty. It is nevertheless clear that the original
“acuteness” was not a pitch property of an accented syllable in a pitch-accent
language. Unaccented syllables could likewise be marked as “acute.” In real
phonetic terms, the mark “acuteness” at the BSl. level is likely identified with a
glottalic feature, perhaps comparable to the Danish stød.19
Such identification is strongly suggested by the reflex of “acuteness” in East
Baltic: the feature survives in some modern dialects as a “broken tone” realized
phonetically with a creak.20 In Žemaitian Lithuanian it is found in originally
stressed [+acute] syllables and in prosodically conservative Central Latvian ― in
formerly unstressed [+acute] pretonic syllables.21 Already within Balto-Slavic
[+acute] (creaky?) nuclei, when stressed, appear to have received a high or rising
pitch, which would have been a natural and cross-linguistically well-attested
development. Laryngeal features and phonation types on vowels ― e.g., creaky or
breathy ― are known to interact with tone, and unsurprisingly so, since tones are
produced by modifications of the configuration of the larynx. In the history of
Vietnamese, e.g., the distinction between a rising and level tone “initially arose
from a contrast between creaky and modal voice in syllables not ending in stops or
fricatives in Proto-Vietic” (Kingston 2011:2310ff.). Subsequently, because
syllable-final stops were realized with a glottal closure, tones in syllables ending in
stops merged with those arising in creaky-voice syllables (Op. Cit.:2311). In much
the same way, in Middle Chinese and parts of Athabaskan, syllable-final glottalic
consonants appear to have introduced a degree of glottal constriction on the
preceding vowel, which later developed a rising tone (Op. Cit.:2310ff.; cf. also
Kortlandt 2010: 39 on parallels between Balto-Slavic and Athabaskan).22
In sum, it is likely that the “acute” syllable was realized in Balto-Slavic with
a creaky- or “stiff”-voice nucleus. In what follows, BSl. nuclei marked as [+acute]
are indicated by a tilde beneath the vowel. In this the present article departs from
Jasanoff’s notation, who chooses a non-committal underlining of marked nuclei
(cf. Jasanoff 2004a, passim).
The following are the PIE sources of BSl. [+acute] nuclei according to the
“traditional” theory as summarized and updated in Jasanoff 2004a.23 When
stressed, an acute nucleus surfaced in Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic with a rising
pitch (the “acute intonation”):
(23)
V̅ (vr̥ddhi, lengthening by Winter’s law, etc.):
PIE *u̯ō̍rnah2 > BSl. *vō̰̍rnā̰ > Lith. várna, BCS vȁrna ‘crow’
PIE *Hŏ̍g- > BSl.*(H)ō̰̍g- > Lith. úoga, BCS jȁgoda ‘berry’
VH.:
PIE *bhu̍H- > BSl.*bṵ̄̍- > PSl. *by̋ti > BCS bȉti ‘to be’
VRH.:
PIE *bhe̍rHg̑- > BSl. *bḛ̄̍rź- > Lith. béržas, Russ. berë̍za ‘birch’
Segments and segment sequences that were not assigned a [+acute] prosodic
feature remained unmarked. When stressed, an unmarked (non-acute) nucleus
surfaced with a falling pitch (the “circumflex intonation”):
(24)
V̆, V̆R., V̆i̯ , V̆u̯:
PIE *h1e̍sti > OLith. ẽsti ‘is’
PIE *sno̍i̯ gwh- > Lith. sniẽgas ‘snow,’ snaĩgė ‘snowflake’
V.HV > V̅3μ (trimoraic, or “hyperlong” vowels):
PIE *-a̍h2as > BSl. *-ā̃ s > Lith. ā-stem gen.sg. -õs24
PIE *-o̍Hom > Lith. gen.pl. -ų̃
V̅# > V̅3μ#:
PIE *su̯esōr > PB *s(w)esō > Lith. sesuõ ‘sister’24
4. A Fresh Look at Jagić’s Hypothesis
In light of the above, let us now revisit Jagić’s claim with a view to putting it on a
secure phonological footing. Of course, rather than operating with BSl.
“intonations” (“acute” and “circumflex”), as did Jagić, now one has to operate with
the abstract [+acute] feature, which was originally independent of pitch and the
location of the ictus (being a glottalic feature rather than a prosodic one). Recall,
that any final syllable, accented or unaccented, could be marked as [+acute]. Only
when the final acute syllable was accented did its nucleus receive a rising pitch. An
unmarked (non-acute) final syllable did not necessarily receive a falling pitch
(“circumflex”); it did so only when it bore the ictus.
4.1. Let us begin with the 1.sg. “perfect” in *-h2a[i̯ ]. PIE *u̯oi̯ d-h2a ‘I have learned,
I know’ gave BSl. *waid(h2)a[i], where the last syllable was not marked as
[+acute], hence ePSl. *wåidåi > lPSl. *vědě > OCS vědě ‘I know’ as expected
under the (updated) Jagić theory. The Proto-Baltic counterpart *-[m]a̰̍ḭ is
problematic in that it is, unexpectedly, [+acute]. It is likely to be an inner-Baltic
problem, however. “Acuteness” in PB *-[m]a̰̍ḭ > *-mḛ̄ ̣̰́ > Lith. -mì may be
analogical to thematic 1.sg. *-ọ̰̰̄́ (> Lith. -ù) (Jasanoff, Op. Cit.:253, Fn. 15). The
Slavic reflex of the 1.sg. “perfect” ending supports Jagić’s hypothesis. Its treatment
in Slavic has to be phonological, whereas the acute in the Baltic ending is
innovative, analogical.
4.2. Next to consider is the o-stem loc.sg. (OCS vlьcě, gradě, večerě, dvorě, etc.).
In the East Baltic languages the original o-stem locative was replaced with
innovative forms. The original ending did survive, however, in a few adverbs
(fossilized locative singulars) such as Lith. namiẽ ‘at home,’ dial. oriẽ ‘in the air,’
vãkarie ‘in the evening,’ miškiẽ ‘in the woods,’ artiẽ ‘close by,’ toliẽ ‘afar,’ etc.
(Stang 1966:126, 135; Endzelin 1971[1948]:134ff.).25
Is Jagić’s hypothesis borne out by these data? Slavic -ě and Lith. -iẽ both
point to a BSl. non-acute ending. Transposing the historically attested forms back
into Balto-Slavic thus gets one the desired [–acute] preform. Reconstructing from
PIE forward is likewise unproblematic: a PIE *oi̯ is not supposed to have been
assigned acute marking in Balto-Slavic (cf. (24) above), and indeed, the PIE short
i-diphthongs appear very regularly as non-acute (circumflex when stressed) in both
Baltic and Slavic.
But was the ending in question monosyllabic (*-oi̯ )? A disyllabic sequence
*o.ï would likewise be expected to yield a BSl. non-acute *ai (a treatment that
would be comparable to the treatment of V̍.HV > V̍̅ 3μ > V̅̅̃ in (24) above). It so
happens that a disyllabic scansion of the PIE thematic locative singular is not only
consistent with the Baltic and Slavic reflexes, but is actually necessitated by the
Greek ones. Hoffmann has famously proposed that the late PIE compound
thematic loc.sg. ending (*-o + *-i) had remained disyllabic and uncontracted (*-o.ï,
*-o̍.ï), which would explain why its reflex in Greek bears a circumflex when
stressed (as in ἰσθμοῖ) and patterns as long for accent assignment purposes when
unstressed (as in οἴκοι) (Hoffmann 1976:615; cf. also Schindler apud Mayrhofer
1986:161, Jasanoff 2009:52ff.).
Upon evaluating the existing comparative evidence, Jasanoff finds it
insufficient to set up for PIE a fully moraic thematic locative marker *-ï and, as a
result, takes a conservative stance on the origin of the circumflex in the Baltic
thematic locative, deriving it from a monosyllabic PIE *-oi̯ .26 Yet, the striking
three-way agreement between OCS/ORuss. -ě, Lith. non-acute -iẽ and Gk.
uncontracted -οι, -οῖ makes virtually inescapable the conclusion that the PIE
thematic locative was indeed disyllabic (PIE *domo.ï, *u̯l̥ kwo.ï, etc.), as argued by
Hoffmann.27
Original disyllabic sequences are expected to come out non-acute in Balto-
Slavic. Jagić’s hypothesis is borne out again.
4.3. The Slavic thematic imperative and its Baltic counterpart, the “permissive,”
both descend from the PIE thematic optative:
(25) 2.sg. OCS vedi, OPr. /vedais/ (wedais, wedeys, weddeis) ‘lead!’
< BSl. *weda̍is < PIE *u̯e̍dhoih1s;
3.sg. OCS vedi ‘let him/her lead!,’ 3.pers. Lith. te-vediẽ ‘let
him/her/them lead!’ < BSl. *weda̍it < PIE *u̯e̍dhoih1t; and
2.pl. OCS veděte ‘lead!’ (cf. OPr. immaiti ‘take!’) < BSl.
*weda̍ite < PIE *u̯e̍dhoih1te, etc.
It has been argued by Hoffmann (Op. Cit.) and further substantiated by Jasanoff
(2009:52ff.) that the PIE thematic optative in *-o-ih1- was likewise a disyllabic
sequence. “[It] must have been realized in some way that made *-oii̯ - rather than
*-oi̯ - the ordinary antevocalic reflex of this sequence in the daughter languages”
(Jasanoff, Op. Cit.:53). Hence Ved. 1.sg. bháreyam < *bheroi.i̯ m̥ for expected
*bháraya(m) < *bhero.i̯ m̥ (cf. Jasanoff, Op. Cit.:52-54, with more supporting
evidence from Greek, Avestan, and Sogdian).
Jasanoff has further demonstrated that Balto-Slavic lends additional support
to a PIE disyllabic *-o.ih1-. The accent on the second syllable in the BSl. optative
(*weda̍is, *weda̍it, *weda̍ite …) shows that these forms were originally trisyllabic,
hence the protraction of the ictus off the first syllable (PIE *u̯e̍.dho.ih1s > *we.da.ī̍s
> *we.da̍is). BSl. disyllabic forms retain the ictus in its original position (Op.
Cit.:57-60). “The testimony of the accent in Balto-Slavic thus confirms the
evidence of Greek and Indo-Iranian. The disyllabic reading of the thematic
optative complex (*-o.ih1-) can be considered a virtual certainty” (Op. Cit.:60).
The significance of this discovery for our purposes is clear. A PIE disyllabic
sequence *-o.ih1- should surface in Balto-Slavic as non-acute (recall the patterns in
(24)). Lith. te-vediẽ thus looks regular. For Proto-Slavic, however, one has to posit
an acute *-å̰̍ḭ- > lPSl. *ě̋2, *i̋ 2 (cf. Čak. vedȉ, vedȉte).28 While mildly disconcerting,
this fact does not upset our main argument. After all, i2# as the regular auslaut
treatment of acute *-å̰̍ḭ- is precisely what is predicted by Jagić (cf. Čak. vedȉ, OCS
vedi). The source of acuteness in the Slavic imperative (< optative) is a separate
problem. One may assume, e.g., that the Proto-Slavic thematic optative *-å̰ḭ-
copied the acute feature from the athematic allomorph *-ḭ̄ - (cf. OCS jadite ‘eat!’ <
PIE *h1ed-ih1-te, and recall the patterns in (23)). What is important is that Jagić’s
hypothesis continues to hold up.
4.4. Unlike the imperative (optative) suffix, the nom.-acc. neuter dual ending of
thematic stems has maintained its non-acute status throughout the prehistory of
Slavic. The PIE ending, again, was most likely disyllabic (*-o.ih1-), considering the
Vedic irresolvable (not subject to sandhi) nom.-acc.du. -e (Jasanoff 2009:61). Thus
PIE *seloïh1 > BSl. *selai (non-acute) > lPSl. *selě > OCS selě. Jagić’s hypothesis
begins to look unassailable.
4.5. The o-stem nom.pl. in *-oi̯ (post-PIE *u̯l̥ kwoi̯ analogical to *toi̯ ) presents a
difficult case. Lithuanian displays two treatments: cf. Lith. vilkaĩ ‘wolves,’ tiẽ
‘those,’ etc. (non-acute) vs. adjectival mažì ‘small ones,’ mažíe-ji ‘the small ones,’
gerì ‘good ones,’ geríe-ji ‘the good ones,’ etc. (acute). One first has to decide
which of the two reflexes is phonologically regular in order to choose between
*wilkai or *wilka̰ḭ as the BSl. archetype. If the regular outcome is found in the
adjectival ending *-a̰̍ḭ > *-ḛ̄ ̣̰́ > -ì / -íe- (Lith. geríe-ji), then OCS vlьсi corroborates
Jagić’s hypothesis in (17): acute *å̰ḭ# is indeed expected to yield i2#. If, however,
the regular reflex is seen in the nominal ending -ai (Lith. vilkaĩ), then OCS vlьсi
constitutes evidence against Jagić’s hypothesis: non-acute *åi# is not supposed to
have yielded i2#.
Jasanoff treats the discrepancy between -aĩ and -í(e) as follows. The PIE
pronominal termination *-oi̯ would not have initially surfaced as acute, but the
original nominal plural *-ōs surely did. Pronominal *-a̰ḭ copied its acuteness from
nominal *-ō̰s before the latter was analogically eliminated (Jasanoff 2004a:253,
Fn. 15; Jasanoff 2009:56). This copying of the [+acute] feature took place only in
the accented allomorph *-a̍i, the one that we see generalized in the Lith. adjectives:
*-a̍i >> *-a̰̍ḭ > *-ḛ̄ ̣̰́ > -ì. “Nouns, on the other hand, generalized the unstressed
allomorph, which resisted monophthongization and shortening, and eventually
surfaced as circumflex -ai (vilkaĩ, etc.)” (Jasanoff 2004a:253). In short, the
difference between Lith. -í(e) and -aĩ is attributed to the position of the accent. The
nominal nom.pl. in -aĩ is special and archaic in that it has remained non-acute.29
There are reasons to suspect, however, that the post-PIE nom.pl. *-oi̯ had a
single reflex in Balto-Slavic ― regardless of the position of the accent and the
lexical category involved. That single regular reflex was *-a̰ḭ in all lexical
categories (except, perhaps, monosyllabic pronouns), introducing its acuteness
analogically after the replaced termination *-ō̰s as per Jasanoff’s explanation
above.30 First of all, observe that an acute plural ending was originally proper
precisely to the nominal declension (where, in the first instance, the ending was
*-ō̰s). It would be natural for the intrusive plural *-ai to have received its acuteness
first in nouns (by analogy with *-ō̰s, which it was replacing), while the plural *-ai
of polysyllabic pronouns and adjectives would only have followed suit. If so, the
BSl. and PB nominal nom.pl. *-ai was acute from the start, as has been suspected
by some scholars (thus already Endzelin 1911:143f.; cf. also Kortlandt 1993:46).
Furthermore, in Slavic, both masculine adjectives and nouns receive in the plural
the same desinence, which, if Jagić’s hypothesis is vindicated, may be set up as
ePSl. [+acute] *-å̰ḭ: cf. OCS vlьci, gradi, večeri, dvori, dobri(ji), etc. These Slavic
data seem to indicate that acuteness was generalized to all masculine plurals in *-ai
― not only adjectival, but (polysyllabic) pronominal and nominal as well.
As for the monosyllabic circumflex pronoun *tȋ ‘those (masc.),’
monosyllables tend to be prosodically special. In particular, they may exist in two
variants ― emphatic and non-emphatic; cf., e.g., Arm. mek‘, Lith. mẽs < *mes ‘we’
and Latv. mẽs < *mēs ‘we’ (Stang 1966:354; on monosyllabic lengthening of
pronouns, cf. also Kapović 2006:151ff.). There is something automatic about the
way in which all stressed monosyllabic pronouns surface in Slavic as circumflex
(beside *tȋ ‘those,’ cf. also *my̑ ‘we,’ *ny̑ ‘us[acc.],’ *nȃ ‘us[acc.du.],’ *ty̑
‘you[sg.],’ *vy̑ ‘you[pl.],’ *vȃ ‘you[acc.du.],’ etc.). It appears that Proto-Slavic
generalized the emphatic ― lengthened, extra-long ― variants, which came out as
non-acute (just as expected, recall (24)), and discarded the non-emphatic variants,
which would have come out as acute (Jasanoff, personal communication).
To be sure, that constitutes a problem. Jagić would have the non-acute
variant *tåi surface as *tě̑ rather than *tȋ, but considering all the masculine nouns,
adjectives and (most importantly) polysyllabic pronouns, whose nom.pl. desinence
was -i (< *-å̰ḭ), the phonologically regular form *tě would surely have been
subjected to analogical reshaping.
In Latvian, acute -i is found in plural masculine adjectives and pronouns;
recall Latv. tiẽ in (20), whose sustained tone points unequivocally to PB *ta̰̍ḭ (cf.
also Lith. tíe-ji).31 The nominal thematic plural -i is identifiable with the adjectival/
pronominal [+acute] plural (Endzelin 1971[1948]:136). Thus, in Latvian, a single
acute ending is found in the masculine plural in all three lexical categories: nouns,
pronouns and adjectives. This could be viewed as a Latvian innovation vis-à-vis
the potentially more conservative Lithuanian. After all, nominal paradigms in
historical IE languages are known to import pronominal endings easily. 32 On the
other hand, it does seem to be more economical to assume that the BSl. masc.
nom.pl. *-ai was uniformly acute from the beginning in both nouns and pronouns/
adjectives, and that the generalization of the acute feature would have happened
regardless of the position of stress (pace Jasanoff). There is no evidence to support
the notion that the difference between -ai and -i(e) in Lithuanian is due to the
original position of the accent.
Slavic and Latvian masculine plurals must therefore reflect original BSl.
acute *-a̰ḭ, whereas non-acute -aĩ/-ai of Lith. vilkaĩ ‘wolves,’ výrai ‘men,’ etc. is
more likely to be an innovation than an archaism of a BSl. time depth. A scenario
to explain the Lithuanian innovative -aĩ is readily conceivable. In Lithuanian,
word-final acute long nuclei are synchronically disallowed. The inherited BSl./PB
plural *-a̰ḭ was subject to monophthongization and then shortening by Leskien’s
law (*-a̰̍ḭ > *-ḛ̄ ̣̰́ > -ì):
(26) PB *gera̰ ̍ ḭ > Lith. *gerḛ̄ ̣̰́ > gerì ‘good ones,’ etc.
That is indeed what must have happened in the first instance in all three lexical
classes (nouns, adjectives, polysyllabic pronouns). At some point, the ending *-a̰ḭ
(or *-ḛ̄ ) within the Lithuanian nominal o-stem paradigm was replaced with an
innovative non-acute *-ai, whose source is to be sought in the monosyllabic
pronominal plurals. As is well-known, Lithuanian acute long nuclei undergo
circumflection in monosyllabic forms; cf.:
(27) PIE *k̑u̯ō > PB *ś(w)ō̰̍ > Lith. *šō̰ ̣̰́ > Lith. šuõ ‘dog’;
PB *jṵ̄̍s > Lith. *jṵ̣̰̄́s > jū̃s ‘you (pl.)’ (but cf. gen.pl. jụ̰̄́ sų with
the original acute retained); and
PIE *toi̯ >> PB *ta̰̍ḭ > Lith. *tḛ̄ ̣̰́ > tiẽ ‘those’ (but cf. the original
acute in Lith. tíe-ji, Latv. tiẽ)
Subsequently, the non-acute plural ending in monosyllabic tiẽ ‘those,’ šiẽ ‘these,’
jiẽ ‘they,’ etc. spread analogically to polysyllabic pronouns such as aniẽ ‘those,’
kuriẽ ‘who, which ones’ and so on. The nominal nom.pl. ending may then have
lost its acuteness by analogy with the innovative “de-acuted” pronominal ending
(tiẽ, aniẽ), thus yielding surface vilkaĩ ‘wolves,’ namaĩ ‘houses,’ výrai ‘men,’ etc.33
To summarize, both -aĩ and -í(e) can go back to BSl. acute *-a̰ḭ. It is the
adjectival plural morpheme -í(e) that is archaic. The circumflex in Lith. vilkaĩ is an
innovation. Therefore, the Slavic treatment (*-å̰ḭ > -i) is phonologically regular,
and the tonal mismatch between the synchronic OCS and Lithuanian nominal
endings is due to an innovative nature of the Lithuanian form. The OCS o-stem
plurals such as vlьсi, gradi, večeri, dvori, etc. support Jagić’s rule.
The remaining relevant terminations are all products of contraction across
laryngeal hiatus. They do not present insurmountable problems for the sound law
advocated in this article.
4.6. The ā-stem nom.-acc.du. in *-ah2-ih1 (pre-BSl. *ron.ka.h2ih1) should not come
out marked as acute (cf. nom.pl. *-ā͂s < *-a̍h2-as in (24)), and in all likelihood it
was indeed unmarked in Proto-Slavic; hence OCS dvě rǫcě as would have been
predicted by Jagić. Again, the problem is not the Slavic form, but its Baltic
counterpart (Lith. dvì rankì). The acute in the latter must be analogical to the masc.
nom.du. in *-ō̰ < *-oh1.
4.7. The dat.sg. of ā-stems is reconstructed as *-ah2-ei̯ : pre-BSl. *ron.ka.h2ai̯ >

BSl. *rankāi > *rankai with contraction over laryngeal hiatus, no acute in the final
syllable as expected, and Osthoff’s shortening of the diphthong. One would then
expect ePSl.*rånkåi, giving lPSl. *rǫ̑cě (and AP(b) *ženě̍) with non-acute
terminations, whence ultimately OCS rǫcě, ženě, etc. Jagić is again right.
4.8. The case of the ā-stem loc.sg. is less clear. If tautosyllabic *VHi was realized
in Balto-Slavic as *VHi̯ , as was certainly the case word-internally in
preconsonantal contexts,34 then one would expect PIE *-ah2 i̯ > BSl. *-āi̯ > *-a̰ḭ and
lPSl./OCS/ORuss. -i. The actual forms are OCS rǫcě̍ and ženě̍, ORuss. rucě̍ and
ženě̍. However, word-finally a sequence *VHi# was most likely syllabified as
*V.Hi# rather than *VHi̯ # (thus, *ron.ka.h2i), in which case the lack of acuteness
in Slavic would be just as expected.
4.9. The only category remaining to consider is the Slavic dative enclitics mi, ti and
si. For reasons as yet unclear, PIE *moi̯ , *toi̯ , *soi̯ have ended up patterning with
ultimate acutes. One could, of course, rest one’s case with the notion that, cross-
linguistically, atonic words and monosyllables tend to display phonological
irregularities and often do not obey the sound laws observed in stressed
polysyllables. Alternatively, the Slavic dative enclitics could go back to *mei̯ , *tei̯ ,
*sei̯ rather than *moi̯ , *toi̯ , *soi̯ . The existence of PIE e-grade *mei̯ , *t(u̯)ei̯ , etc.
has not been ruled out.35
5. Conclusions
Until now, Jagić’s rule has been nothing but an opinion predicated on a wrong
premise (a direct comparison between the Slavic and Greek intonations).
Ironically, Jagić’s opinion emerges vindicated from detailed scrutiny of all
pertinent data, and, it appears, should be thought of as an exceptionless
(Neogrammarian-style) sound law. The distribution of ě2# and i2# indeed seems to
be governed in a regular fashion by the presence or absence of an original [+acute]
feature on the diphthong *åi# at the ePSl. level. Just as was suspected by Jagić,
non-acute *åi# regularly yields ě2#, whereas acute *å̰ḭ gives i2# (with an important
caveat that our current notion of the “acute” feature differs considerably from that
of Jagić).
If the proposed account is correct, Slavic emerges more conservative than
Baltic in that it more often retains the original suprasegmental properties of Balto-
Slavic ultimate nuclei. Only the thematic imperative termination (< PIE optative)
displays the unexpected [+acute] feature ― clearly by analogy with the athematic
optative marker. But this termination (analogically altered already in early Proto-
Slavic) still conforms to the late Proto-Slavic rule formulated more than a century
ago by Jagić.
Notes
1. I wish to thank Jay Jasanoff for very helpful comments on some of the points made in this
article. Thanks are also due to Alan Yu for bringing to my attention some useful facts about
Vietnamese and Middle Chinese tonogenesis. Any remaining opinions and errors of fact are
solely my responsibility.
2. Otherwise, the normal treatments of *ē and *ō in Slavic are ě and a, respectively.
3. A metathetic form continuing, mutatis mutandis, PIE *h2ak̑mō.
4. In the phonological development of Proto-Slavic from PIE there may have been up to forty
problematic syllables in auslaut position, including a number of disputed derivations (Holzer
1980:9).
5. The long diphthong *ōi̯ is excluded from this discussion. The auslaut treatment(s) of *ōi̯ in
Slavic are famously problematic (recall the reflexes of the o-stem dat.sg. in *-ōi̯ and the o-stem
instr.pl. in *-ōi̯ s).
6. The real preform was, of course, *u̯oi̯ d-h2a. On the way to Slavic and a few other daughter
languages, most notably Latin, the “perfect” endings were extended with the primary marker *-i.
7. The ending *-oi̯ in *u̯l̥ kwoi̯ has replaced earlier *-ōs (*u̯l̥ kwōs) in a number of daughter
traditions, including Balto-Slavic, Latin, and Greek. It was imported from the pronominal
paradigm.
8. Carrasquer Vidal (2011:25, 39) discusses two more potential instances of *åi# > i2#: BSl.
infinitive *-ti, whose preform he sets up as *-t(h2)ai, and 2.sg. athematic pres. ind. -si, which he
derives from BSl. *-sai ― “the 2.sg. athematic middle ending” (cf. similar ideas already in
Pedersen 1905:326ff.). These alleged instances of the change *åi# > i2# will not be considered
here, because the PIE sources of these forms are less than securely established.
9. The phonologically regular forms would have been originally “umlauted” by intrasyllabic
synharmony: *znajǫ̈ > OCS *znaję and *znajǫ̈(tь) > OCS *znajętъ.
10. “… ě in starktoniger Schlußsilbe, i in schwachtoniger Schlußsilbe. Zusammenhang der
Differenz mit ursprünglicher Verschiedenheit der Tonqualität ist unwahrscheinlich.”
11. Similarly to Mikkola, Pedersen made a distinction between the originally short and long
diphthongs. The dual treatment of the short diphthongs depended on intonation ― as in
Fortunatov’s scheme. The long diphthongs, however, all gave ě: “Also bereitet der Dat. sing.
fem. ženě, vgl. gr. τιμῇ, keine Schwierigkeiten; auch der Lok. sing. fem. ženě kann keine
Schwierigkeiten bereiten, wenn man die Endung als *-āi ansetzt (und dazu nötigt uns das lit.
rañkoj-e). Nach dem Lok. sing. fem. hat sich der Lok. sing. masc. rabě gerichtet …” (Pedersen,
Op. Cit.:326f.)
12. “… *plådåi with rising pitch > LCS plodi” (Townsend and Janda 1996:53; cf. also Townsend
and Janda, Op. Cit.:79, Schmalstieg 1980:75, Bethin 1998:41, etc.).
13. Cf., e.g., the once much celebrated agreements between the o-stem masc. dat.sg., loc.sg., and
inst.pl. endings: Lith. -ui, *-uĩ = Gk. -ῷ; Lith. -iẽ = Gk. -οῖ; Lith. -aĩs = Gk. -οῖς. Such tonal
matches are found in the two languages between several other o-stem and ā-stem case forms as
well (cf. a list in Stang 1966:127). These agreements are purely accidental. They do not (pace
Stang, Op. Cit.:67, 127, 131ff.) reflect a common PIE heritage (Jasanoff 2004a:252f., 2009:55f.;
Petit 2010:101ff.; cf. also Carrasquer Vidal 2011). For example, the Lith. dat.sg. and inst.pl.
endings are only secondarily circumflex. The original phonologically regular reflex of the late
PIE inst.pl. *-ōi̯ s in Balto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic must have been acute, and the same is true of
the o-stem dat.pl. (Jasanoff 2004a:248 (Fn. 2), 252ff. (Fn. 14); Jasanoff 2004b:176). The
circumflexes on the locative singular terminations in Lithuanian and Greek are not directly
comparable, either (for details, see Jasanoff 2009:55ff.).
14. The sustained tone in Latv. tiẽ reflects the original PB acute, whereas the Lith. circumflex
form tiẽ is innovative (on which more below).
15. “… L’hypothèse de l’intonation, qui a été proposée, ne se laisse pas démontrer.”
16. “[The diphthong] *oi has monophthongized to ě2; in a few cases the reflex of a word-final
*oi# is i#. The environment for this treatment remains unclear” (transl. from Russian mine ―
Y.G.).
17. “… [ePSl.] ai̯ develops both to ě2 and i2, but the exact reason for this has never been fully
established” (Carlton 1991:119). “Twofold masculine nom.pl. -i (morphophonemically {i2}…)
goes back to the IE pronominal *-oi. Just why it did not become ě … is unknown” (Lunt
2001:227). “The singular [optative] -i is particularly difficult to explain” (Op. Cit.:246). Lunt
(1993) and Sussex and Cubberley (2006) limit themselves to stating the two synchronic reflexes
of *åi# without any further discussion.
18. “… Die Frage des [Litauischen] N.Pl. der etymologischen o-Stämme … [auf] –aĩ … -íe …
hat noch keine allgemein akzeptierte Antwort gefunden. Im Slavischen ergibt sich ein Problem…
der Endung -i des N.Pl [neben der] Endung -ě des L.Sg .… Ältere Erklärungen sind
grundsprachliche Intonationsunterschiede ― Zirkumflex im L.Sg., Akut im N.Pl., so noch
Townsend, Janda (1996:143 = 2002:111)” (Hock 2005:17).
19. “One might describe an exaggerated stød as a glottal stop, a strong stød as a creak, and a
milder stød as creaky voice” (Fischer-Jørgensen 1987:181). BSl. “acuteness” was first suspected
to have been a glottalic feature ― rather than a tonal one ― a long time ago; cf. already Vaillant
(1936:114f.) and Stang (1966:137). In recent times, a number of prominent Indo-Europeanists,
including Kortlandt, Rasmussen and Jasanoff, have subscribed to this point of view. One has to
bear in mind, of course, that while various schools agree on this point, they may still differ
considerably on the exact PIE sources of BSl. glottalization (cf. Kortlandt 1998, 2010 vs.
Rasmussen 1992, Jasanoff 2004a).
20. The broken tone, at least in Latvian, is usually described as a LHL pitch contour with a
glottal catch in the middle or some degree of creaky voice throughout the production of the
nucleus.
21. According to some authors, the broken tone in Latvian is regular in all originally unaccented
[+acute] syllables, not only pretonic ones (cf. Olander 2009:118ff.).
22. It is generally held that the Middle Chinese shang (“rising”) tone developed in syllables
historically ending in a glottal stop (see Kingston 2011:2310ff. for a discussion with references).
The rise of a high tone from glottal constriction in some Athabaskan languages, e.g., Chipewyan,
is discussed in Kortlandt (2010).
23. For similar views the reader may refer to Rasmussen (1992), Hock (2006) and Villanueva
Svensson (2011), to name a few proponents of the traditional theory. Close to the traditional take
on the BSl. long vowels are the views espoused by Carrasquer Vidal (2011, 2013). In opposition
to the traditional theory is the Leiden School represented by Kortlandt and his followers. The
centerpiece of Kortlandt’s theory is the restriction of BSl. acute long vowels exclusively to PIE
sequences “V + laryngeal” and “V + plain voiced stop.” The latter class of consonants is
reconstructed as glottalic or preglottalized. The author of the present study does not share these
ideas. For an edifying critique of Kortlandt’s views, see Villanueva Svensson (2011). A detailed
overview of both schools may also be found in Petit (2010:100-39).
24. Trimoraic (“hyperlong”) vowels are posited for Balto-Slavic and Proto-Germanic in Jasanoff
2004a. For the Germanic side of the story of the “hyperlong” vowels the reader is also referred to
Jasanoff 2002.
25. The Old Prussian o-stem locative singular is unattested, but there is an adverb bītai ‘in the
evening.’
26. “In the last analysis, the totality of the evidence for special prosodic behavior on the part of
‘locative’ *-i reduces to one and only one linguistic fact, the aberrant position of the ictus in
Greek forms of the type ἰσθμοῖ. It would be daring indeed to project this back to the parent
language. […] The independent evidence for an uncontracted ending *-o.i in the parent language,
as opposed to early Greek, is too weak to support significant IE-level theory-building” (Jasanoff
2009:57). “Unlike ἰσθμοῖ, with an aberrant circumflex that requires some explanation (even if not
necessarily Hoffmann’s), Lith. namiẽ can be — and in the unmarked state of affairs should be
assumed to be — the regular reflex of a normal preform in monosyllabic accented *-ói̯ ” (Op.
Cit.:55f.)
27. To be sure, in standard Lithuanian some of the locatival adverbs of the type toliẽ actually
have acute terminations: tolì, artì, etc. as if from *-ẹ̰̄́ < *-a̰̍ḭ. In light of the Greek and Slavic
evidence above, it is virtually inconceivable that the acute ending in tolì, etc. should be original.
28. Cf. also Latv. 2.pl. vediẽt with the sustained tone.
29. Recently, Carrasquer Vidal, who sets up an early BSl. o-stem nom.pl. *-ō̃s (< **-o̍es) rather
than acute *-ō̰̍s, has suggested another possibility (falsifiable, it seems, on at least chronological
grounds): “The nom.pl. ending of the o-stem nouns must … be the result of adding pronominal
*-aj to the neuter nom.-acc.pl. ending -ạ̰̄́ , which would have regularly resulted in *-ãi > -aĩ; cf.
OPr. -aey in pallapsaey ‘commandments,’ which suggests a pronunciation [a:i]” (Carrasquer
Vidal 2011:31 and Fn. 13). The idea that an extended neuter plural ending *-āi is behind Lith.
circumflex -aĩ was first formulated by Hirt (1899:49f.). Kortlandt, likewise, has seen the “locus”
of PB *-ai in the PIE neuter plural ending, the inherited *-a̍H extended with *-i to give *-a̍Hi,
except ― according to his theory ― such a sequence yielded PB acute *-aí, whence Lith. -íe(ji)
(Kortlandt 1993:46f.).
30. The fact that the original o-stem neuter plural ending was likewise acute might also have
helped.
31. Some scholars regard Latv. nom.pl. tiẽ (and acc.pl. tuõs) as analogical, having adopted the
acute from the parallel adjectival and nominal endings (cf. Rasmussen 2007:31, Villanueva
Svensson 2011:17), but this is unlikely given Lith. tíe-ji. Others grant that PB *ta̰ḭ (whence Latv.
tiẽ, Lith. tíe-ji) was originally acute (cf. Endzelin 1911:143, Kortlandt 1993:45ff., Carrasquer
Vidal 2011:26).
32. Cf., e.g., Latv. dat.sg. tēv-am (like tam) beside the original ending in Lith. tẹ̰̇́ v-ui ‘father-
DAT.,’ the Lat. nom.pl. in -ī and -ae, gen.pl. -ōrum and -ārum, etc.
33. Monophthongization very probably predated monosyllabic circumflection, and so the ending
that was de-marked as acute was *-ḛ̄ rather than *-a̰ḭ. It could be then restored to *-ai
analogically from the other case forms (Jasanoff, personal communication). Thus, *-ḛ̄ > *-ē >
*-ai. A slightly different scenario is discussed in Jasanoff’s forthcoming book on Balto-Slavic
accentology. It involves an analogical restoration of *-ai while the (monophthongized?) ending
was still acute. As is widely held, Leskien’s shortening of ultimate acutes affected only
monophthongs and did not apply to other nuclei. All remaining ultimate acutes, including the
restored diphthongs (which, as such, were immune to Leskien), were subsequently “de-acuted”
(Jasanoff [forthcoming]; cf. also Endzelin 1911:143ff., Stang 1966:115). Thus, *-ḛ̄ > *-a̰ḭ >> *-ai
(*-aĩ when stressed).
34. Tautosyllabic *VHiC produced BSl. long diphthongs, which then surfaced as acute: *VHiC
> *V̅i̯ .C > *V̰ḭ.C. Thus, PIE *dah2i̯ u̯er- > BSl. *dāiwer- > PSl. *dě̋ver- > BCS djȅver, Lith.
díeveri- ‘brother-in-law’; PIE *poHimen- > BSl. *pōimen > PB. *pá̰ḭmen- > Lith. píemen-
‘shepherd,’ etc. (cf. Jasanoff 2004a:251).
35. Thus, while Lat. mī is ambiguous between *moi̯ and *mei̯ , the existence of *mei̯ is suggested
by possessive meus < *mei̯ -os; Go. gen.sg. meina has been explained by some as a cross between
*mei̯ and the original gen.sg. form *mene; etc. (cf. Szemerényi 1996[1990]:214, 218, 220 with
lit., Sihler 1995:376ff., Weiss 2009:327, etc.). Kapović has derived the OCS dat.sg. clitics mi, ti
and the Old Lithuanian gen.-dat.-acc.sg. clitics -mi, -ti from BSl. *mei, *tei (Kapović 2006:105-
13, 132, 157ff.). “One might suppose that the Old Indic locative forms mayi and tvayi could point
to the old stems *mey and *twey, since *moy and *twoy would here yield a long ā due to
Brugmann’s Law” (Op. Cit.:157).
Works Cited
Bernštejn, Samuil Borisovič. 1961. Očerk sravnitel’noj grammatiki slavjanskix

jazykov. Moskva: AN SSSR.
Bethin, Christina Y. 1998. Slavic Prosody. Language Change and Phonological
Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Birnbaum, Henrik. 1987. Praslavjanskij jazyk. Dostiženija i problemy v ego

rekonstrukcii. Moskva: Progress.
Brugmann, Karl. 1897. Grundriss der vrgl. Grammatik …, I. Bd., Einleitung und
Lautlehre (2. Hlft.). Strassburg: Trübner.
Carlton, Terence R. 1991. Introduction to the Phonological History of the Slavic
Languages. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.
Carrasquer Vidal, Miguel. 2011. “Syllables, Intonations, and Auslautgesetze,”
Accent Matters: Papers on Balto-Slavic Accentology (Studies in Slavic and
General Linguistics 37), Pronk, T., and R. Derksen (eds). Amsterdam, New
York: Rodopi, pp. 19-57.
________. 2013. “Balto-Slavic Long Vowels,” Baltistica 48(2), pp. 205-17.
Endzelin, Jan. 1911. Slavjano-baltijskie ètjudy. Xar’kov: Zil’berberg i synov’ja.
________. 1971 [1948]. Comparative Phonology and Morphology of the Baltic
Languages. Transl. by William R. Schmalstieg and Benjamiņš Jēgers from
Baltu valodu skaņas un formas (Rīga: Latvijas Izdevniecība, 1948). The Hague:
Mouton.
Fischer-Jørgensen. 1987. “A Phonetic Study of the stød in Standard Danish,”
Annual Report of the Institute of Phonetics of the University of Copenhagen 21,
pp. 55-265.
Hirt, Herman. 1893. “Zu den slavischen Auslautsgesetzen,” Indogermanische
Forschungen 2, pp. 337-64.
________. 1899. “Akzentstudien,” Indogermanische Forschungen 10, pp. 20-59.
Hock, Wolfgang. 2005. “Forschungsbericht. Baltoslavisch. II. Teil: Morphologie,
Stammbildung, Flexion,” Kratylos 50, pp. 1-39.
________. 2006. “Das Urslavische,” Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen 5,
durchgesehene Aufl., Rehder, Peter (ed.). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, pp. 17-34.
Hoffmann, Karl. 1976. “Präteritaler Optativ im Altiranischen,” Aufsätze zur
Indoiranistik. Bde. I und II, Narten, Johanna (ed.). Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp.
605-19.
Holzer, Georg. 1980. “Die urslavischen Auslautgesetze,” Wiener slavistisches
Jahrbuch 26, pp. 7-27.
Jagić, Vatroslav. 1906. “Die Formen der aks. Deklination, angez. von V. Jagić,”
Archiv für slavische Philologie XXVIII, pp. 117-25.
Jasanoff, Jay. 1983. “A Rule of Final Syllables in Slavic,” Journal of Indo-
European Studies 11, pp. 139-49.
Jasanoff, Jay. 2002. “The Nom.sg. of Germanic n-stems,” Verba et Litterae:

Explorations in Germanic Languages and German Literature. Essays in Honor
of Albert L. Lloyd, Wedel, Alfred, and Hans-Jörg Busch (eds). Newark,
Delaware: Lingua Text, pp. 31-48.
________. 2004a. “Acute vs. Circumflex: Some Notes on PIE and Post-PIE
Prosodic Phonology,” Per Aspera ad Asteriscos: Studia Indogermanica in
honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii idibus Martiis anno MMIV
(Fs. Rasmussen), Hyllested, A., A.R. Jørgensen, J.H. Larsson and T. Olander
(eds.). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, pp.
247-55.
________. 2004b. “Balto-Slavic Accentuation: Telling News from Noise,”
Baltistica 39(2), pp. 171-77.
________. 2009. “Notes on the Internal History of the PIE Optative,” East and
West: Papers in Indo-European Studies, Yoshida, Kazuhiko, and Brent Vine
(eds). Bremen: Hempen Verlag, pp. 47-68.
________ [forthcoming]. The Prehistory of the Balto-Slavic Accent.
Kingston, John. 2011. “Tonogenesis,” The Blackwell Companion to Phonology.
Vol. IV. Phonological Interfaces, van Oostendorp, M., C.J. Ewen, E. Hume and
K. Rice (eds). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 2304-33.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1983. “On Final Syllables in Slavic,” Journal of Indo-
________. 1993. “Tokie šalti rytai,” Baltistica 28(1), pp. 45-48.
________. 1998. “The Rise and Fall of Glottalization in Balto-Slavic,” Linguistica
Baltica 7, pp. 147-50.
________. 2010. “Glottalization and Tonogenesis in Athabaskan, Balto-Slavic and
Germanic,” Suvremena Lingvistika 69, pp. 37-44.
Lehfeldt, Werner. 2009. Einführung in die morphologische Konzeption der
slavischen Akzentologie. 3., verbesserte und ergänzte Aufl. Vorträge und
Abhandlungen zur Slavistik, Bd. 49. München: Otto Sagner.
Leskien, August. 1905. Handbuch der abg. (aks.) Sprache. 4. Aufl. Weimar:
Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger.
Lunt, Horace G. 1993. “From Late Indo-European to Common Slavic Phonology,”
American Contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists,
Bratislava, August-September 1993. Literature. Linguistics. Poetics, Maguire,
Robert A., and Alan Timberlake (eds). Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, pp.
363-76.
Lunt, Horace G. 2001. Old Church Slavonic Grammar, 7th rev. ed. Berlin, New
York: de Gruyter.
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986. Indogermanische Grammatik. I/2. Lautlehre.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Meillet, Antoine. 1924 [1965]. Le slav commun. 2-e éd. Paris: Librairie Honoré
Champion.
Mikkola, Jooseppi J. 1913. Urslavische Grammatik. I. Teil. Lautlehre, Vocalismus,
Betonung. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Nandriş, Grigore. 1959. Old Church Slavonic Grammar. University of London:
The Athlone Press.
Olander, Thomas. 2009. Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility. Berlin, New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Pedersen, Holger. 1905. “Die Nasalpräsentia und der slavische Akzent,” Zeitschrift
für vergleichende Sprachforschung 38, pp. 297-421.
Petit, Daniel. 2010. Untersuchungen zu den baltischen Sprachen. Leiden, Boston:
Brill.
Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård. 1992. “Die Vorgeschichte der baltoslavischen
Akzentuierung: Beiträge zu einer vereinfachten Lösung,” Indogermanisch,
Slawisch und Baltisch. Materialien des vom 21.-22. September 1989 in Jena in
Zusammenarbeit mit der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft durchgeführten
Kolloquiums, Barschel, Bernd, et al. (eds). München: Otto Sagner, pp. 173-200.
________. 2007. “The Accent on Balto-Slavic Monosyllables,” Tones and
Theories. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Balto-Slavic
Accentology, Kapović, Mate, and Ranko Matasović (eds). Zagreb: Institut za
hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, pp. 29-38.
Schenker, Alexander M. 1993. “Proto-Slavonic,” The Slavonic Languages,
Comrie, Bernard, and Greville G. Corbett (eds). London, New York: Routledge,
pp. 60-121.
________. 1995. The Dawn of Slavic. An Introduction to Slavic Philology. New
Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Schmalstieg, William R. 1980. An Introduction to Old Church Slavonic. 2nd ed.
Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.
________. 1983. “Slavic kamy and mati: A Structural View,” Journal of Indo-
Seliščev, Afanasij Matveevič. 1951. Staroslavjanskij jazyk. Čast’ I. Vvedenie.
Fonetika. Moskva: UčPedgIz.
Shevelov, George Y. 1965. A Prehistory of Slavic. The Historical Phonology of

Common Slavic. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Stang, Christian S. 1965[1957]. Slavonic Accentuation. Oslo, Bergen, Tromsö:
Universitetsforlaget.
________. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo,
Bergen, Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget.
Sussex, Ronald, and Paul Cubberley. 2006. The Slavic Languages. Cambridge
University Press.
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. 1996[1990]. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics
(translated from Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, 4th ed.,
1990, with additional notes and references). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Townsend, Charles E., and Laura A. Janda. 1996. Common and Comparative
Slavic: Phonology and Inflection. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.
Vaillant, André. 1936. “Le problème des intonations balto-slaves,” Bulletin de la
Société de Linguistique de Paris 37, pp. 109-15.
________. 1950. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome I. Phonetique.
Lyon, Paris: IAC.
Villanueva Svensson, Miguel. 2011. “Indo-European Long Vowels in Balto-
Slavic,” Baltistica 46(1), pp. 5-38.
Weiss, Michael. 2009. Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of
Latin. Ann Arbor, New York: Beech Stave Press.
Xaburgaev, Georgij Aleksandrovič. 1974. Staroslavjanskij jazyk. Moskva:
Prosveščenie.

The Dual Treatment of - Oi in Slavic Revi PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Dual Treatment of - Oi in Slavic Revi PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

DUAL TREATMENT OF *-OI IN SLAVIC REVISITED 175

The Dual Treatment of *-oi in Slavic Revisited1

The final syllable is a phonological domain in which the traditional comparative

(1) the o-stem nom.-acc.sg. masc. in -ъ (why is -ъ the reflex of *-os

To this day scholars disagree in their formulation of the Auslautgesetze responsible

2. The Principal Schools of Thought

In Schenker’s formulation, “the instances of ī2 occurring for the expected ě2 … are

2.2. The other obvious approach is to try to ascertain a prosodic or suprasegmental

2.4. Jagić (1906:120f.) proposed “das gerade Gegenteil”:

The list of apparent disparities is more impressive:

(21) PIE *u̯l̥ kwoi̯ > loc.sg. vlьcě ‘wolf-LOC.’

The synchronic acute : circumflex contrast in Balto-Slavic reflects the original

3. Current Views on the Origin of Balto-Slavic Intonations

4. A Fresh Look at Jagić’s Hypothesis

4.7. The dat.sg. of ā-stems is reconstructed as -ah2-ei̯ : pre-BSl. ron.ka.h2ai̯ >

Bernštejn, Samuil Borisovič. 1961. Očerk sravnitel’noj grammatiki slavjanskix

Birnbaum, Henrik. 1987. Praslavjanskij jazyk. Dostiženija i problemy v ego

Jasanoff, Jay. 2002. “The Nom.sg. of Germanic n-stems,” Verba et Litterae:

Shevelov, George Y. 1965. A Prehistory of Slavic. The Historical Phonology of

S-ar putea să vă placă și