Reconstruction of Balto-Slavic Personal Pronouns

Mate Kapović

RECONSTRUCTION OF BALTO-SLAVIC PERSONAL PRONOUNS with emphasis on accentuation doktorski rad

Mentor: prof. dr. sc. Ranko Matasovi ć

ZADAR, 2006.

1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It seems that the topic on the reconstruction and accentuation of personal pronouns in Balto-Slavic was meant to be – or, to be less pathetic, it was always around. As early as in the course of my undergraduate study, personal pronouns were a nice topic to deal with – in that time I wrote a paper titled Personal Pronouns from Indo-European to Croatian . However, back then I could not even imagine that this would indeed one day be the topic of my PhD dissertation. In spite of all that, the topic itself did not come about that easily. After a lot of  thinking, the idea came to me one sunny summer day in Göreme (Cappadocia, Turkey) when my girlfriend Kristina said: "Why not pronouns?" Indeed, I said, why not? So it was settled – and in the train back to Croatia, I jotted down the concept of the future dissertation. The major part of the thesis was written during my scholarship in Vienna in the spring of 2006. And now the acknowledgments. My mentor Ranko Matasović read the manuscript on more than one occasion. I am grateful to him for numerous useful comments and his help in general. The first draft of the Slavic part of the dissertation was read by Thomas Olander; Siniša Habijanec discussed Slovak and Polish personal pronouns with me (shortly but usefully), and Matej Šekli helped me with a few details concerning Slovene. Special thanks go to Kristina Marenić and Marko Kapović, who have read the English version of the dissertation with great patience. And finally, I would like to thank my mother from whom I learned (pretty archaic) Croatian accentuation, without which my pursuit of Balto-Slavic accentuation would be much more difficult than it is. Zagreb, October 24 th 2006.

2

Abbreviations > yields regularly ⇒ yields irregularly (by analogy etc.) ~ related to * - reconstructed ** - impossible, not attested; internally reconstructed form A. – accusative a. p. – accentual paradigm G. – genitive D. - dative dial. – dialectal I. - instrumental L. – locative N. - nominative pl. – plural sg. – singular p. c. – personal communication Croat. - Croatian IE – Indo-European Lith. – Lithuanian Latv. - Latvian OCS – Old Church Slavic Sln. - Slovene PIE – Proto-Indo-European

3

Accentual marks Common Slavic * ʀ - place of the stress only * ɾ - old acute * ʂ - short circumflex * ʄ - long circumflex *` - short neo-acute * ɶ – long neo-acute [*eʖ represents *ĕ under the stress] BaltoBalto-Slavic -Slavic * ` - short accent * ɶ – circumflex *´ - acute IndoIndo-European -European *´ - place of the stress

4

Introduction In his famous monograph “Slavonic accentuation”, Christian Stang opens the very short chapter dealing with the accentuation of the pronouns with the sentence: “These [i.e. pronouns, M. K.] present a picture of considerable diversity, and it seems impossible to arrive at any clear definition of the original state” (Stang 1957: 105). This is a good example of how the accentuation of the pronouns has been treated in most of the works concerned with (Balto-)Slavic accentuation. It was either completely left out or, in the best case, covered unsystematically and not in so many details as it should have been. This is one of the things we shall try to amend in this work, at least in the case of personal pronouns. Historical Balto-Slavic linguistics is one of the liveliest fields in Indo-European linguistics today. In spite of the great progress achieved in the last fifty years, there are still many unsolved questions to be tackled – starting with the problems of phonology and prosody to morphology and syntax. As already said, much has also been done in the last fifty years in the delicate field of Balto-Slavic accentuation – a very complicated subject that continuously attracts the attention of numerous linguists from all around the world. A revolution in the field of Balto-Slavic accentology was caused by the work of several noted linguists – a Norwegian linguist Stang (1957) who suggested a new simplified approach to Slavic accentuation by introducing the concept of the accentual paradigms, a Russian linguist Иллич-Свитыч (1963) who derived Balto-Slavic nominal accentual paradigms from the IndoEuropean proto-language and a number of other linguists like Дыбо (cf. for instance his monograph from 1981). Many questions have been solved in their work, but still many problems remain to be examined. One such problem is the reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic 1 accentual system of  personal pronouns and the reconstruction of Balto-Slavic personal pronouns in general. To my knowledge, this topic has never been discussed in detail up until now – neither from a phonological and prosodic, nor from a morphological aspect. Thus, it is a fruitful topic to write about, even more so because the research on Balto-Slavic personal pronouns can provide us with important insights useful not only in the reconstruction of Balto-Slavic but in the reconstruction of the Indo-European proto-language as well. Aside from that, the application of modern accentology on the pronominal system should yield interesting results if we have in mind the fact that the pronouns very often differ from other declinable words not only morphologically, but sometimes even phonotactically (as in Proto-Indo-European) and, in the case of Balto-Slavic, accentologically. Simply put, this work will deal with the reconstruction of Balto-Slavic personal pronouns. The reconstruction itself will be discussed exhaustively, as well as all general problems of Balto-Slavic and Indo-European linguistics related to this subject. Thus, we shall cover a time span from the modern Slavic and Baltic languages and dialects to the ProtoSome linguists do not believe in the existence of Proto-Balto-Slavic language even today. I find that very hard to understand. It is impossible to account for numerous features shared by West and East Baltic and Slavic if one does not assume the existence of a common proto-language. The accentuation is very important here. Cf. for instance Croatian dial. N. sg. zīmaʂ, G. sg. zimeɶ,  D. sg. zîmi, A. sg. zîmu, N. pl. zîme and zîme and Lithuanian N. sg. žiemà, G. sg. žiemõs, D. sg. žieɶmai, m   ai, A. sg. žieɶmą  m   ą , N. pl. žieɶmos. m   os. This kind of agreement in accentuation cannot be coincidental or the result of parallel development. 1

5

Indo-European times. The topic of this work are personal pronouns and personal pronouns alone – or, to put it more precisely, the personal pronouns of the 1 st and 2nd person singular, dual and plural in modern Balto-Slavic languages, in Common Slavic 2, Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-European. We shall not handle the pronouns of the 3 rd person. These are not in fact real personal pronouns in many older Indo-European languages 3 (and in Proto-IndoEuropean)4, but rather demonstrative or similar pronouns. The reflexive pronoun “self”, morphologically related to personal pronouns, will also not be dealt with. This pronoun is, however, in Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-European generally identical to the personal pronoun of the 2nd person singular, except for the difference of the initial consonant, i.e. s-  instead of a t-  in Balto-Slavic, or a *t(w)- in Indo-European. Thus, since the reflexive pronoun generally has, as already said, the same oblique case forms as the 2 nd person singular personal pronoun, we shall sometimes, when necessary, mention and consider this form as well. This work is structured as follows: the body of the text is divided into four large parts – a Slavic part, a Baltic part, a Balto-Slavic part and an Indo-European part. In each of these sections, the subject of the personal pronouns will be examined within their limits. In the Slavic section, we shall deal with the reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic system of personal pronouns. In the Baltic section, we shall discuss the problems concerning the Baltic personal pronouns. The Proto-Baltic system of personal pronouns will not, however, be reconstructed, simply because of the fact that it seems that the supposed Proto-Baltic language has never actually existed5 and that all we can really get by reconstruction starting from Lithuanian, Latvian and Old Prussian is the Proto-Balto-Slavic system. This fact is especially clear when looking at the personal pronouns, in which we find, many agreements of Old Prussian and I shall call conventionally the reconstructed Slavic forms Common Slavic, rather than Proto-Slavic (the terms are sometimes used invariantly if the strict distinction is not necessary in a given situation).The reconstruction of Common Slavic (or Late Proto-Slavic) is traditional, i.e. only a formula. The reason for this lies in the fact that Slavic languages were already clearly differentiated in the period for which the accentual system can be reconstructed directly. However, it is not possible to reconstruct directly the accentual system of Proto-Slavic, the real proto-language from which all present-day Slavic languages can be derived with all their distinctive traits. The language here referred to as Proto-Slavic was the homogeneous language spoken sometime around year 600. The language here referred to as Common Slavic was a heterogeneous language spoken in the period between the 7 th and the 11th century (cf. for instance Holzer 1995). During this period, some pan-Slavic changes still occurred (together with the changes typical for separate Slavic languages only). After the 11 th century, there were no more panSlavic changes (and thus no more Common Slavic). 3 Cf. Latin ille , used instead of a 3 rd person personal pronoun, which can also be used as an attribute to a noun (ille (ille homo “that homo  “that man”). This is not possible in the case of real personal pronouns (cf. Croatian ôn , where **ôn čòvjek is not possible). In Classical Greek for instance, instead of the 3 rd person ̋ ̋ personal pronoun, in the nominative demonstrative pronouns ουʅ το, ǫʆ κǫιɶ  ɶνο νο are used, and in the ̋ oblique cases mostly the pronoun αυʆ τó τó “same”. In Sanskrit, demonstrative pronouns sas , ayam  are used instead of the personal pronouns etc. 4 Since there was no 3 rd person personal pronouns in Proto-Indo-European, this means that later 3 rd person personal pronouns in separate IE languages are not etymologically related, cf. Croatian ôn , Latin ille and ille and English he . This also goes for Balto-Slavic and Slavic. One cannot reconstruct re construct anything on the basis of completely different forms like Croatian ôn , Macedonian тоj and тоj  and Lithuanian  jìs . All these rd forms are unrelated and used only secondarily as 3 person personal pronouns. 5 Cf. Иванов & Toпоров 1958. 2

  

6

Slavic and many disagreements between Old Prussian and the Eastern Baltic languages. In the Balto-Slavic section, we shall start with the already reconstructed Proto-Slavic system and the systemized Baltic data and reconstruct the Balto-Slavic system of personal pronouns. In the last section, Balto-Slavic personal pronouns will be derived from the IndoEuropean system of personal pronouns. There, various problems concerning the IndoEuropean reconstruction of personal pronouns will be covered, especially when related to the Balto-Slavic data. We shall try to use the Balto-Slavic data in the best possible way in order to reconstruct the Indo-European system of personal pronouns. As we shall see, a careful examination of Balto-Slavic personal pronouns can be of great help in the reconstruction of  the Indo-European system. Because of the laid out plan of the discussion, it is clear that the problems concerning specific forms will be discussed in more than one place in the text. Thus, for instance, the problem of the form of the 1 st person nominative singular personal pronoun will be handled separately in each section respectively – in the Slavic section concerning the changes which belong to Slavic languages and Slavic period, in the Baltic section when talking about the forms attested in Baltic and problems related to those forms, in the Balto-Slavic section when talking about the changes and processes of that period, and in the Indo-European section when talking generally about the reconstruction of the IndoEuropean form. It is quite clear that in this kind of work, a comparative work, comparative  work, it is sometimes impossible, to stick only to Slavic data when discussing some problem in the Slavic section. Thus, we shall not try to exclude automatically all the data which does not strictly belong to the section concerned. We we’ll simply try to limit such data to the level of necessity and to deal mainly with the problems that do belong to a certain section.

7

N SLAVIC 1. PERSONAL PRONOUNS IIN Here is an overview of the personal pronouns paradigms. paradigms. We have included only §1 standard (literary) languages. Dialectal data will be presented in the discussion. Upper Lusatian is cited by Šewc 1968, Lower Lusatian by Šẃela 1952 and Janaš 1976, Kashubian by Lorentz 1925, 1962 and 1971, Slovincian by Lorentz 1903, and Polabian by Schleicher 1871 and Ceлищев 1941.

Paradigms OLD CHURCH SLAVIC singular N. azъ G. mene D. mьnĕ/mъnĕ, mi A. mę L. mьnĕ/mъnĕ I. mъnojNj

ty tebe tebĕ, ti tę tebĕ tobojNj

plural n. my gl. nasъ d. namъ, ny a. ny i. nami

vy vasъ vamъ, vy vy vami

dual N. vĕ GL. naju DI. nama A. na

vy/va vaju vama, va va

BULGARIAN singular N. àз D. на мèне, ми A/obl. мèне, мe

тиɳ на тèбе, ти тèбе, те

plural n. ниɳe d. на нàc, ни (arch. наɳ м) м)

виɳe на вàc, ви (arch. ваɳм) м)

8

a/obl. нàc, ни

вàc, ви

MACEDONIAN singular N. jac D. мeне ми, ми A/obl. мeне мe, мe

ти тeбе ти, ти тeбе те, те

plural n. ниe d. нам ни, ни a/obl. нac нè, нè

виe вам ви, ви вac вe, вe

CROATIAN singular N. jâ GA. meʂne, ne, me D. meʂni, ni, mi L. meʂni I. mnôm, mnóme

tî  teʂbe, be, te teʂbi, ti teʂbi toʂ  ʂbōm bōm

plural n. mî ga. nâs, nas d. naʂma, ma, nam li. naʂma ma

vî  vâs, vas vaʂma, ma, vam vaʂma ma

SERBIAN singular N. jâ GA. мèнe, мe D. мèни, ми L. мèни I. мнôм, мнóмe

тиɵ тèбe, тe тèби, ти тèби тoʂ  ʂбōм бōм

plural n. мî ga. нâs, нac d. нaʂмa, мa, нaм li. нaʂмa мa

вî  вâs, вac вaʂмa, мa, вaм вaʂмa мa

9

SLOVENE singular N. jàz G. méne, me D. méni, mi A. méne, me L. méni I. menóʜ  j, mâno

tî  tébe, te tébi, ti tébe, te tébi  j, tâbo tebóʜ

plural n. mî, mêʜ ga. nàs, nas d. nàm, nam l. nàs i. nâmi

vî, vêʜ vàs, vas vàm, vam vàs vâmi

dual N. mîdva, mîdve/mêʜdve dve GA. nâju, naju D. nâma, nama L. nâju/nâma I. nâma

vîdva, vîdve/vêʜ dve dve vâju, vaju vâma, vama vâju/vâma vâma

CZECH singular N. já G. mne D. mnĕ, mi A. mne, mĕ L. mnĕ I. mnou

ty tebe tobĕ, ti tebe, tĕ tobĕ tebou

plural n. my gal. nás d. nám i. námi

vy vás vám vámi

10

SLOVAK singular N. ja GA. mňa, ma D. mne, mi L. mne I. mnou

ty teba, ťa tebe, ti tebe tebou

plural n. my gal. nás d. nám i. nami

vy vás vám vami

UPPER LUSATIAN singular N. ja GA. mnje, mje D. mni, mi L. mni I. mnu

ty tebje, će tebi, ći tebi tobu

plural n. my gal. nas d. nam i. nami

wy was wam wami

dual N. mój GA. naju DLI. namaj

wój waju wamaj

LOWER LUSATIAN singular N. ja G. mnjo, mje D. mnje, mnjo, mě A. mnjo, mě L. mnje, mnjo I. mnu

ty tebje, tebjo, śi tebje, śi tebje, tebjo, śi tebje tobu 11

plural n. my gal. nas d. nam i. nami

wy was wam wami

dual N. mej GA. naju DLI. nama

wej waju wama

POLISH singular N. ja GA. mnie, mię D. mnie, mi L. mnie I. mną

ty ciebie, cię tobie, ci tobie tobą

plural n. my gal. nas d. nam i. nami

wy was wam wami

KASHUBIAN singular N. iʠω G. mɴe D. mɴe A. mɴe, mą L. mɴe I. mnNj, mɴNj

tǩ cebɴe, ce tobɴe, cǩ, tǩ, cï cebɴe, cą, ce, cebɴą cebɴe, tobɴe, cebɴi,i, ce tobNj

plural n. mǩ gla. nas, nωs d. nNjm, nama, namï i. namï, nam÷, nama, namǩ

vǩ vas, vωs vNjm, vamï vamï, vam÷, vamǩ

dual 12

N. ma, maiʠuɺu,ɺ naiʠuɺuɺ mɴe, mǩ, ma GLA. naiʠuɺu,ɺ naiʠï DI. nama

va vɴe, vǩ, va vaiʠuɺuɺ, vaiʠï,ï, vaiʠix ix vama, vNjma

SLOVINCIAN singular N. jǛu, jå G. mjìeʠ, mjä D. mjìeʠ, mjä A. mjìeʠ, mją, mjä L. mjìeʠ, mjä I. mnoɺųʠųʠ

taɺ, tä cìeʠbjä, bjä, cä tșɳȅʠȅbʠ jä, cä, tä cìeʠbjä, bjä, cą, cä cìeʠbjä, bjä, cä tȅboɺųʠųʠ

plural n. maɺ, mä gl. nãs d. noɺuʠuʠm, m, noɺuʠuʠm a. nãs, năs i. nąɶmï mï

vaɺ, vä vãs voɺuʠum, ʠm, voɺuʠuʠm vãs, văs nąɶmï mï

dual N. mã, ma mjìeʠ, mjä GLA. nãjșɺ DI. nąɶmƮ mƮ

vã, va vjìeʠ, vjä vãjșɺ vąɶmƮ mƮ

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

POLABIAN singular N. joz, jo, jaz, ja G. miné, mané, mánǩ, mán D. miné, mané, mánǩ, mán A. mą, miné, mané, mánǩ, mán, mƮ I. månNjɺ plural n. moiʠ g. nos, nas d. nom, nam, nǩm i. nómǩ

toiʠ tíbǩ, tibé tíbǩ, tibé, tĭ, t tíbǩ, tibé, tą, tƮ tåbNjɺ jaiʠ vom nomǩ, vom

RUSSIAN 13

singular N. яɴ GA. меняɴ DL. мнé I. мнóй

тыɴ тебяɴ тебé тобóй

plural n. мыɴ gal. нác d. нáм i. нáми

выɴ вác вáм вáми

UKRAINIAN singular N. яɴ GA. менé DL. мeнí I. мнóю

тиɴ тебé тoбí  тобóю

plural n. миɴ gal. нác d. нáм i. нáми

виɴ вác вáм вáми

BYELORUSSIAN singular N. яɴ GA. мянé DL. мнé I. мнóй , мнóю

тыɴ цябé тaбé тaбóй, тaбóю

plural n. мыɴ gal. нác d. нáм i. нáмi

выɴ вác вáм вáмi

14

Personal pronouns in singular In this section, we shall talk about the 1 st and 2nd person singular personal pronouns. First, we shall talk about the form *ja(zъ) “I”, which demands special attention and thus gets a separate section, and then about the oblique cases of the 1 st person singular and all the cases of the 2nd person singular. The general idea is to look at the material of all the languages first, together with the available historical and dialectological data and to explain the changes that have occurred in specific languages, and then try to reconstruct Common Slavic forms and paradigms while discussing specific problems concerned with the reconstruction and Common Slavic forms.

15

Slavic *ja *ja(zъ) (zъ) Here, after a survey of the material, we shall discuss phonological and prosodic issues of the Proto-Slavic form *ja(zъ), i.e. the Proto-Slavic nominative singular of the 1 st person personal pronoun. It is quite strange to see that so many problems concerning this short word exist. The problems that will be dealt with here are the vocalism of Slavic form (*-a- while other Indo-European languages point to *-e-, cf. Latin ego ),), the disappearance of the prothetic *j- in Old Church Slavic azъ , the variants *jazъ and *ja, and the complex problem of the accentuation of this form. MATERIAL First we shall adduce the forms for “I” in Slavic literary languages: OCS azъ, Bulgarian aз, Macedonian  jac, Croatian  jaʄ, Serbian  jaʄ,  Slovene  jàz, Czech  já, Slovak  ja, Lusatian  ja, Polabian jo, Polabian jo, joz, Polish ja, Polish ja, Kashubian  ʠi ω  ω , Slovincian jǛu, Slovincian jǛu, Russian/Ukrainian/Byelorussian яɴ.  Old Church Slavic §2 OCS shows a form without the initial j-  initial  j- ((azъ ), unlike all other Slavic languages except Bulgarian. This is usually the only form mentioned in OCS grammars 6; however,  jazъ  is a hapax in Codex Marianus 7, which could be due to the influence of the dialect area in which the text was written8. In Croatian and Russian Church Slavonic, there is the same form as in OCS (CCS azъ/azь, RCS azъ )9. In Psalterium Sinaiticum  (Ps. 38, 13), the OCS form a  is found. Diels (1932-4: 214) and Nandriş (1959: 105) take this form to be a mistake, but it probably represents the OCS j-  OCS j- less less pendant of the form ja  form ja in in other Slavic languages 10.

Cf. Vondrák 1912: 459, Leskien 1922: 109, Rosenkranz 1955: 96, Bielefeldt 1961: 146-147, Горшков 1963: 135, Trubetzkoy 1968: 150, Kurz 1969: 76-77, Hamm 1970: 133-134, Lunt 1974: 65, Damjanović 2005: 95 etc. 7 SP, Diels 1932-4: 77, Słoński 1950: 84, Nandriş 1959: 104. According to ðorñić (1975: 105),  jazъ  occurs number of times after the conjunction i – i ězъ (in ězъ  (in glagolitic script), i jazъ (in jazъ  (in cyrillic script). In fact, even the occurrence of  jazъ  of  jazъ (i.e. (i.e. ězъ ) in Codex Marianus  is in this position: vъprošNj i ězъ  (Mar. 162, 6-7). Weingart (1937-8: 200) considers this to be a sandhi variant of azъ  of azъ in in a hiatus. 8 The origin of Codex of Codex Marianus is Marianus is disputed. According to Jagić (1883), judging by the sporadic changes Nj > Nj > u, y > y > i, vъ > vъ > u, ę > ę > e, the manuscript could have been written in Croatian or Serbian speaking area (i.e. Štokavian, judging by vъ > vъ > u ).). Hamm thinks that the vocalization of the yers ( yers (ъ > ъ > o, ь > ь > e ) and the loss of epenthetic l could l  could point to Macedonian origin (Damjanović 2005: 18). Judging by  jazъ it  jazъ  it could be both (Croat. jaʄ (Croat. jaʄ, Maced. jac  Maced. jac ).). 9 According to Mihaljević (forthcoming), in Croatian glagolitic fragments from 12 th and 13th century only the forms azъ/azь/az appear. azъ/azь/az appear. There is no attestation of native ja  native  ja or or even jaz  even jaz in in these texts. 10 This would not be the sole occurrence of an unusual feature in Psalterium Sinaiticum. This text is for instance the only OCS source which preserves the *s of Proto-Slavic *u(s)tro “morning” in the adverb zaustra , which had disappeared elsewhere. 6

16

Bulgarian Bulgarian The Bulgarian form is also j-  also  j- less, less, in accord with OCS. Dialectally, besides aз, one also §3 11, яз  (Vasmer), finds the forms aзека, aзекана, àзкана, я, яɳ зе, зе, яɳзка, язекана  (ESSJ), ac, йa 11 12 etc. The Bulgarian j-  язека, яcка, aзи, aзe 12 Bulgarian  j- less less form aз must aз  must be of the same dialectal origin as OCS azъ . For the attestation of яз  of  яз , я and я and aз in aз  in Bulgarian dialects, cf. БДA I: 160. The form aз is aз is attested in southeastern Bulgaria, the form я is я is attested not only in the west of Bulgaria, but also in the southeast 13. The form я could я  could be attributed to the Serbian influence in some cases14. Macedonian The Macedonian literary form  jac  shows an initial  j-, thus differing from OCS and literary Bulgarian. In dialects, one also finds  ja (SP)  ja  (SP) – for instance in North-West Macedonia,  jáska (Małecki  jáska (Małecki 1934), ac, acкa, jaзека (ESSJ) jaзека  (ESSJ) etc. Croatian §4 The Croatian literary form is jaʄ is  jaʄ  (nì jā, ì jā with jā  with a Neo-Štokavian retraction of accent). Most dialects have a z- less less form, except for some of the Northern Čakavian dialects and a few Kajkavian dialects (in Štokavian, there are no forms with the final – z  anywhere). Two types of accentuation exist – the most common variant with the neo-acute ( ),ɶ), or with ʄ < ɶ in the dialects that do not preserve ɶ, and the rarer variant with the short falling accent ( ʂ ).). Again, the latter is non-existent in Štokavian dialects; it occurs marginally in Kajkavian and 15, Neo-Štokavian  jaʄ  regularly in North Čakavian. In Štokavian for instance: Posavina  jã 15 (everywhere). In Čakavian 16, as already said – there is a neo-acute in the South and in some Central Čakavian dialects. Cf. in South Čakavian: Blato (Korčula)  jã (personal  jã  (personal data), Hvar  jõ , Vrgada  j°ã (Jurišić  j°ã  (Jurišić 1973), Murter jã  Murter  jã (personal (personal data) etc. In Central Čakavian: Rivanj  jaʄ  ʘ  (no neo-acute, Radulić 2002), Pag j°aʄ Pag  j°aʄ (no neo-acute, Kustić 2002), Senj jã  Senj  jã (Moguš (Moguš 1966: 78) etc. In some of the Central Čakavian dialects and in North Čakavian, there is a short falling accent here (and final –z  – z in in some dialects). In Central Čakavian: Novi jaʂ Novi  jaʂ  (Белић 1909: 199), Silba  jaʂz (Bezlaj)   (Bezlaj) etc. In North Čakavian: Istria  jaʂ  (but also  jaʂs, jaʄ)  (Jurišić 1973), Cres (town)  jaʂ  (Tentor 1909: 172, 1950: 75), Bejska Tramuntana (Cres)  jaʂ  (Velčić 2003), Orlec (Cres) jaʂ (Cres) jaʂ (Houtzagers 1985), Tometići (near Kastav) jaʂ Kastav)  jaʂs (but  (but only when by itself, Skok), Kastav  jaʂ z (Bezlaj) z (Bezlaj),, In Istria, the form jaz  form  jaz was was attested already in 1454 (Bezlaj).

Стойков 1993: 90, 250. Mирчев 1963: 163. 13 SP, Xapaламниев 2001: 108. 14 Бернщейн 1948: 325-326. 15 Ivšić 1913, II: 34 or 1971: [373]. 16 For the grouping of Čakavian, cf. for instance Brozović & Ivić 1988: 87-88. 11 12

17

In Kajkavian, the form with the neo-acute (or long falling if ʄ < ɶ in the final syllable or in general) and with no – z is z  is the most frequent by far: Samobor jaʄ Samobor  jaʄ , jã sem (no sem  (no neo-acute in the final syllable, Šojat 1973c: 53), Ozalj  jaʄ (no neo-acute there, Težak 1981), Turopolje jaʄ Turopolje  jaʄ  (no neo-acute in the final syllable, Šojat 1982), Repušnica, Varaždin  jaʄ  ʖ  (no neo-acute in the final syllable, Brlobaš 1999, Lipljin), Cerje  jaʄ (no neo-acute in the final syllable, Šojat 1973b), Brdovec (today Kajkavian, but genetically Čakavian)  jã/jaʄ  (Šojat 1973a: 42). However, in Bednja (Jedvaj 1956), we find joʂ find  joʂz (older  (older and more frequent according to Jedvaj),  joʂ (younger). A similar thing is found in Gregurovec Veternički:  jaʂ s  s  and  jaʄ  (Jembrih & Lončarić 1982-3: 41)17. Until the beginning of the 17 th century,  jaz  was common in Kajkavian texts - for instance in Pergošić’s language. In his Decretum  from 1574,  jaz  occurs only four times (pages 5, 6, 147, 187), due to the legal nature of the text. Out of these four times,  jaz was  jaz  was written 1x as , 2x as and 1x as which strongly suggests that it was indeed jãz  indeed  jãz (or (or jaʄ  jaʄz ).). According to Šojat (1970: 89), the form ja  form  ja became became the main one from the beginning of the 17 th century under the influence of the spoken dialects. However, already in Vramec’s Postilla  from 1586, apparently only  ja appears  ja  appears (for instance, on pages 8, 9, 12 – 3x, 13 – 3x, 14 – 3x, 180 etc.). It is interesting that Vramec always writes for  ja , which might point to  jaʂ  rather than  jã / jaʄ,  considering that Vramec often indicates the length by doubling the vowel 18. However, since the doubling of the vowel is inconsistent, one cannot be certain. According to Šojat (1970: 89) and Junković (1972: 125), in the 16 th century works of Antun Vramec one finds both  ja and  ja  and jaz   jaz . I was not able to verify that on the material of  Postilla , as already said. The form  jaz is  jaz  is also found, for instance, in Pavlinski zbornik  from the year 1644 (Šojat 1992: 26). In Štokavian, the form  ja  is attested from the earliest times, for instance in Povelja  Kulina bana  from the year 1189 (ARj IV: 378) and elsewhere. Petar Budmani in ARj claims that the form jaz  form  jaz ( jazь  ( jazь ),), as well as az/azь, is not native but taken from OCS. He provides two Štokavian examples of  jazь  of   jazь  from 1186 and 1198-9. However, it is not clear if these examples are undoubtedly OCS loanwords (as azь certainly azь  certainly is) 19. Budmani also considers the Kajkavian example  jas (or  jas  (or  jaz?) from  jaz?)  from the year 1587 a Slovene loanword, but that seems an unnecessary assumption.

The authors dub the form  jaʂs  s    older and the variant  jaʄ  younger. The form  jaʄ  is more frequent, especially if before a word beginning with a consonant, while jaʂ while  jaʂs is s   is used before words beginning with a vowel (e. g. jaʂ g.  jaʂs oʂnda n  da veĜĩm, jaʂ s ıʂ deʚ deʚm  m).) . It is interesting to note the long falling accent in  jaʄ , in spite of  the fact that this dialect preserves the neo-acute in all positions, cf. bĩk, põt, stõp, strĩc etc. strĩc  etc. (Jembrih & Lončarić 1982-3: 32). That could perhaps indicate that we are dealing with a loanword from another Kajkavian dialect here. 18 For instance: znaam “I znaam  “I know”, know”, kluucz  “key”, “key”, kraal “king” kraal  “king”,, daal “gave” daal  “gave”,, deen “day” deen  “day”,, deel “part” deel  “part”,, zaam  “alone” etc. However, this is not consistent, cf.glaz  cf. glaz “voice”. “voice”. 19 For ja/jaz  For ja/jaz in in Croatian and Serbian old texts, cf. also Даничић 1874: 215. 17

18

Čakavian dialects mentioned above

19

Slovene 20. Cf. iaz  The Slovene literary form is  jàz . Snoj also adduces the younger variant  jaʄz  z   20 §5 already in the Freising Monuments and the forms Jas, forms  Jas, ya, ye in ye in the 16th century texts of the protestant writer Krelj (Bezlaj). In Središče, both jaz  both jaz and and ja   ja exist exist21. Pleteršnik adduces jaʄ adduces  jaʄ  for Eastern Styria and Bela krajina 22, cf. also  jà  for Bela Krajina (and elsewhere) in Bezlaj. In dialects one also finds jèst  finds  jèst (< (< *jàst) in Cerkno (FO 1981: 70), jǫʄ 70),  jǫʄ st in st in Hrušica (FO 1981: 114) etc. Forms with final –st  – st appear appear already from the 15 th century23 (Bezlaj). According to de Courtenay (1929: 228), the Slovene dialect of Rezija distinguished forms  jaz, used by males, and  ja , used by females. However, Steenwijk (1992: 119) claims that the forms are just free variants and not gender-related, the form  jas  being more “authoritative” 24.

Czech The literary form in Czech is já. is  já. In Old Czech, there was also jáz  also  jáz . The form já  form  já occurs occurs §6 from the beginning of the 14 th century25. Since there are practically no earlier attestations of  this pronoun at all, this means that both forms were used from the very beginning of Old Czech literary tradition. The form  jáz  was used in Czech as up until the end of the 15 th century26. As for some other attestations of Old Czech  jáz  and  já , cf. for instance Dalimila , which dates from sometime between 1308/1310 and 1314, where  jáz  is found only eight times (each time at the beginning of the sentence) and  já 27  já  27 times; in the Old Czech text Katonova dvojverší (found dvojverší (found in 6 manuscripts – one from the second half of 14 th century and 5 from 15th century), we find both jáz  both  jáz (“jáz (“jáz pomyslil”) and já  and já (“naučím (“naučím já tě”) (58b); in Závišova  píseň ( píseň  ( Jižť   Jižť mne vše radost ostává ) from the end of 14 th century one finds only  já five  já  five times;  já is  já is found also in the 14 th century Czech translation of the Bible (SBDO, e. g. page 293) and in the 14th century epic Vévoda Arnošt etc. Arnošt etc. Slovak This accent is found in Snoj only. The change  jàz  >  jaʄ z  z  is due to the very recent sporadic lengthening of the final short vowels in Slovene. This change is the part of a tendency to eliminate the quantitative oppositions in Slovene. Cf. also bàt > bàt > baʄt, màk > màk > maʄk, kràs > kràs > kraʄs etc. s   etc. (Šekli 2003: 33). 21 Rigler 2001: 361. 22 The attestation of  jaʄ of  jaʄ  in Bela krajina is not so important since that dialect is in fact genetically Croatian, not Slovene. 23 [s] yields [st] by fortition. Cf. Ramovš 1924: 222. This development can be typologically compared to German Karst  as opposed to Latin carsus , Čakavian kraʂs/kraʄ s  /kraʄs, s  , Slovene kraʄs  s    (a substrate word originally). 24 In Bezlaj, the forms jás, forms jás, jàs and jàs and jà   jà are are adduced for Rezija. 25 It occurs, for instance, already in Alexandreis , which could in fact stem not from f rom the beginning of the 14th, but from the end of the 13th century (each form, jáz  form, jáz and and já,  já, occurs seven times in the text, see § 12). 26 Gebauer 1896: 524, Gebauer (dictionary), Trávníček 1935: 335 etc. 20

20

§7 The Slovak literary form is  ja . Since the real beginnings of the Slovak literary language are not older than the end of the 18 th century, it is hardly surprising that there is no attestation of final –z  – z in in Slovak27. The fact that the modern Slovak dialects do not show the final –z  –z  anywhere is in accord with the same fact in modern Czech. If Slovak were attested earlier (not just in traces in Czech texts), we would probably also find the final – z  there, as in Old Czech (cf. however Old Polish with only one doubtful attestation of the z form, see § 8). The Slovak literary form  ja differs  ja  differs from the Czech form  já in  já  in length only on the surface. The length was originally there in Slovak as well (as it still is in dialects), but one cannot see it in Central Slovak because there  já  >  ja  regularly (cf. Czech voják , Croatian vòjāk  but Slovak vojak ).). Thus, Slovak  ja  stems from an earlier form  já  still attested in 28. The form jaɾ dialects. Older form still, also attested in dialects, is  jaɾ 28 form  jaɾ  is attested in Central and Eastern Gemer (North-West Slovakia) and Lower Orava (South-East Slovakia), in Central Slovak dialects which had no diphthongization aɾ  > iʠa  a , and in Western Liptova. The form já  form  já is is attested in the South-West of Slovakia and in Central Orava (where aɾ  > á) , cf. also SSN, Orlovský (Gemer), HSSJ. In Central Slovak, in North West Slovak and in East Slovak, the form  ja  occurs29. In Central Slovak, this form is explained via the diphthongization of  aɾ  > iʠa  according to which the old  jaɾ  yields jiʠ yields  jiʠa  a,  which then results with a form  ja , due to the change of  jiʠ  jiʠ > j . In East Slovak, the form ja  form  ja is is due to shortening ( jaɾ  jaɾ  > já >  já >  ja ).). In East Novohrad, aɾ  > eiʠ (thus the forms jeiʠ forms jeiʠ and eiʠ)30. Lusatian §8

In Lusatian, only the form ja  form  ja is is attested, including older texts and dialects.

Polabian In Polabian, one finds  jo and  jo  and joz   joz when when accented, and  ja and  ja  and jaz   jaz when when unaccented 31. According to Schleicher (1871: 259), the forms  joz, jo are jo are more frequent. The form jo  form  jo occurs occurs in front of verbs, for instance in jo in  jo jis < jis < *ja jesmь. Polish The modern Polish literary form is  ja. However, in Polish dialects which preserve å < å  < *ā, one finds the form  jå  with the attested length (i.e. neo-acute), as in Czech. Cf. also Kashubian  ʠi ω ( ω (ω < ω < *ā) and Slovincian jǛu  Slovincian  jǛu (SP). (SP). In Old Polish, the form jaz  form  jaz is is attested only as a hapax in 15th century in Psałterz floriański 108, floriański  108, 332. However, according to some authors 33, this is in fact a Czech loanword. The shorter form  ja  is attested in Polish already in 13 th century. Stanislav 1958: 290, Pauliny 1990: 150. 28 In Slovak, *ā after soft consonant yields aɾ which then yields iá > iá > ia. 29 Pauliny 1990, ibid., Stanislav 1958, ibid. For já, For já, cf. for instance Ripka 1975: 146. 30 Pauliny 1990, 1990, ibid. 31 Cf. Lehr-Spławiński 1929: 185, Ceлищев 1941: 440, PED. 32 Łoś 1927/III: 159, SS, SP. 33 Klemensiewicz, Lehr-Spławiński & Urbańczyk 1955: 321. 27

21

East Slavic Modern East Slavic languages all have the form яɴ. This form appears already in Old §9 Russian, as early as the year 1130 in Мьстиславова грамота , together with the longer form язъ and язъ and the OCS form aзъ , without any noticeable difference between these three forms – “ce aзъ Mьстилавъ”, “a язъ далъ”, “a ce я Bceволод” 34. Kiparsky (1967: 130-131) says that this only supports the conclusion that the forms я and я and яз were яз  were used in Russian for a long period without any significant stylistic difference. This is confirmed by Гадолина (1963) who gives clear examples of how both я and я and яз in яз in Russian occurred in the emphasized and in the nonemphasized position. According to Черных (1962: 218), яз was яз  was still a very usual form in the first half of the 16 th century in Moscow (although it was not the only existing form). According to Черных, both forms co-existed in Russian until the 17 th century. However, Cocron (1962: 133) and Гадолина (1963: 26) claim that the form я  was the only possible form already in the 17 th century. Interestingly, the forms яз and яз  and яз-to were яз-to  were found in былина  songs up to the 19th century (Черных, ibid .). .). In Ukrainian, the form яɴ is attested from 1322 and язъ from язъ from 1341 (CCM).

34

For attestations of these forms in Old Russian, cf. Cpeзнeвcкий, CДЯ and CДЯ 2. 22

OVERVIEW 1. Standard languages: Only z-  f  orms: Bulgarian, Macedonian, Slovene zz -  -  forms: Only z-  zz -  -  less  less forms: Croatian, Serbian, Slovak, Czech, Polish, Upper Lusatian, Lower Lusatian, Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussian 2. Modern dialects: Only z-  f  orms: zz -  -  forms: Only z-  zz -  -  less  less forms: Štokavian, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Kashubian, Slovincian, Upper Lusatian, Lower Lusatian, Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussian Z-  ZZ - and --     and z-  zz -  -  less  less forms both: Bulgarian, Macedonian, Čakavian, Kajkavian, Slovene 3. Historical attestations 35: Only z-  f  orms: zz -  -  forms: Only z-  l ess forms: Štokavian (?), Slovak, Upper Lusatian, Lower Lusatian zz -  -  less Z-  ZZ -  -  less  less and z-  zz -  -  forms  forms in the past: Bulgarian, Čakavian, Kajkavian, Slovene, Czech, Polish (?), Polabian, Russian

For some of the languages, like Kashubian and Slovincian, there is almost no historical data. In the case of East Slavic languages, the histories of Russian, Byelorussian and Ukrainian are not easily discernable. The same is true of Bulgarian and Macedonian and Czech and Slovak.

35

23

*ja*j-- in OCS and Bulgarian *ja- in *ja(zъ) and the dropping of the *j § 10 The question of the vocalism in the 1st person singular personal pronoun has been a subject of many disputes since the very beginnings of Indo-European linguistics. In order to explain Slavic *a, instead of *e, found in other Indo-European languages (Latin ego, Greek ǫʆγώ), γώ), various theories have been proposed. For an overview of various explanations, cf. for instance Tpyбачев, where a number of different explanations, serious and less serious, are presented 36. Today however, at least the length problem can be more or less easily explained by Winter’s Law, which accounts for the long vowel. Thus, we start with the usual IndoEuropean form *egɴ-37. In Balto-Slavic, we get a long vowel regularly via Winter’s Law, thus presumably the form *ēź-38. The problem of the Slavic *a vowel (instead of *ě), however, still remains. At first glance, the easiest way to solve this problem is to explain this *a by the known development *ě- > *jě- > *ja- at the beginning of the word in Slavic. This is a known and mostly unproblematic development 39 and this way of deriving the initial  ja-  in this pronoun is very frequent in the handbooks 40. However, should we assume that Slavic  jazъ  stems from the older *ězъ, we should also assume that Old Church Slavic azъ is azъ  is a secondary development via the change *ja- > a- . However, this development, although accepted without a question by many41, is not at all simple. Соболевский (1908) has stated that the occurrence of  a-  and  ja-  in OCS (and in Russian Church Slavic) is attested only in the words that etymologically have either *ā- or *jā- and never in the words that etymologically have *ě- or *jě- at the beginning. Thus we find in OCS the forms aky, amo, ablъko, aviti, agnьcь  etc. (where the initial a- stems a-  stems from *(j)ā- according to the Russian linguist), but only  jadro, jazditi, jaxati, jamь, jadъ, jazva  etc. written with either  ja-  or ě-  (where the initial  ja-  stems from *(j)ě-). Соболевский (1908: 204) concludes that, according to this, the a-  in the OCS pronoun azъ  cannot be closely related to the initial e-  of the other Indo-European languages. This means that OCS azъ  cannot be derived from an older *ězъ, which would thus be a great obstacle in the derivation of Slavic  jazъ  from an older *ězъ 42. However, Соболевский is mistaken in one thing – the

For a review of older theories, cf. for instance Knutsson 1935 and for a shorter review of some of the older explanations cf. for instance Skok, Ivšić 1970: 218 etc. 37 For various IE forms of this pronoun, see § 101. 38 For other Balto-Slavic forms and the exact details of the operation of Winter’s Law in this example, see § 70. 39 Cf. for instance Vondrák 1912: 292-293, Vondrák 1924: 85-87, Vaillant 1950: 180-182, Arumaa 1964: 103, Ivšić 1971: 95-96 etc. e tc. Most of the instances where *ě- does not yield ja-  yield  ja- in in Slavic are to be explained analogically (for instance, Croatian  jeʂsti instead s  ti  instead of **jaʂsti sti by analogy to ìzjesti, pòjesti etc.), pòjesti  etc.), even though it seems that this development was perhaps not absolutely regular. However, the undisputed result of *ě- in Slavic is ja-  is  ja- in in almost all the cases. 40 Cf. for instance Sławski, Brückner, Boryś, Birnbaum & Schaeken 1997: 73. 41 For instance Brückner, Boryś. 42 Соболевский’s argument is accepted for instance by Vondrák (1924: 87). 36

24

examples written in OCS with a-  or  ja-  never go back to the old (Proto-Slavic) *ja- 43. All these examples stem from Proto-Slavic *a-, not from Proto-Slavic *ja-. In fact, the development *ja- > a- is a- is practically non-existent in Slavic as a whole 44. All the discrepancies between (j)a-  in OCS/Bulgarian and  ja-  in all other languages are found in the words in which Proto-Slavic had *a-, not *ja-. For instance in: *aɾ blo “apple”, *avıɾ titi “notify” (and the adverb *avě), *aɾgnę gnę “lamb”, *aʄ  je (*ājьceʀ) “egg”, *aɾbolnъ/ь bolnъ/ь “poplar”, *aɾ goda goda “strawberry”, *aɾlovъ lovъ “barren”, *aɾma ma “hole”, *ārьmъʀ “yoke”, *aɾsenъ/ь senъ/ь “ash-tree”, *asıɾ  ɾka ka “asp”, *aɾstrębъ/ь strębъ/ь “hawk”, *aɾvorъ/ь vorъ/ь “maple” etc. In these examples, for instance, we find the following picture – OCS Slavic has only the form with initial a- in a-  in four examples: ablъko, agnę, ablanь, aice ; it has double forms in three examples, including later, Church Slavic examples: (j)aviti/(j)avě, (j)agoda, (j)avorь  (CS); and it has forms with initial  ja-  in two examples:  jarьmъ  and  jalovъ  (CS). In Bulgarian, the same tendency (not to have the initial  j- ) can be noted, but it is not as widespread as in OCS. There, we find only one form with a- only a- only (àгне  (àгне ),), two forms with both a-  and  ja-  (àвe /яɳвe  вe  but only явяɳ in the verb, яйцè /dial. /dial. aйцè ) and  ja-  only in all other forms45. In the rest of the Slavic languages, we only find initial  ja- in  ja- in these examples46. Thus, in the words beginning with *a- in Proto-Slavic, we find inconsistent a- or a-  or ja-   ja- in in OCS (much less in Bulgarian) or both, while in all other Slavic languages only  ja-  is found. The inconsistency of OCS and Bulgarian is to be explained probably by the late appearance of the prothetic *j- in front of *a- in Slavic. While this development, *a- > *ja-, was finished completely in most Slavic languages, it was only a tendency in OCS and Bulgarian, which resulted in the inconsistency and double forms (the change had not embraced all the examples at the same time). However, if a word had an initial *ja- in Proto-Slavic, this *jawas preserved everywhere, cf. for instance examples *jakъ “which > strong”, *jaʄ lъ lъ “jealousy”, *jaʄrъ “bitter”, *jaʄrъ rъ “heat; wheat etc.”, *jaɾ to to “flock” etc. The only possible examples of *ja- > a- are a-  are OCS forms like ako, aky, amo  (all from the same root) in which a confusion of two stems has occurred - original *jako and *ako were probably mixed in OCS (j)ako . Thus, the only possible example is highly disputable an unreliable. Knowing this, we can conclude that OCS a- / ja- continues  ja- continues only Common Slavic *a-, not *ja-. Соболевский also notes that the words with the etymological *(j)ā- are never written with initial ě - in OCS (thus written forms like **ěky or **ěblъko are not attested), which probably has to do with the fact that the writing of the initial ě- for ě-  for later [ja-] in Glagolitic script was not just an orthographical issue in the beginning (as it clearly was in the later texts). In these cases, yat , or an allophonic variant of it, was indeed pronounced. That explains why ja-  why  ja- of of a non-yat  non-yat origin origin was never written like that. In the case of the pronoun azъ in azъ in OCS, we do know that it was sometimes (although rarely) written as ězъ in ězъ in hiatus (cf. § 2), which might be indicative. Соболевский claims that there are no examples in which a Proto-Slavic *ě- would yield a-  in OCS. This may be true, but, as we have shown, the change of *ja- > a-  is It is an interesting fact that neither Vondrák (1924: 87), who has accepted Соболевский’s argument, nor Knutsson (1935), who has modified it, did not notice this. 44 Except for a few disputed examples that we shall discuss here. 45 In Middle Bulgarian, however, one finds also aгода, аремникъ  besides яремъ  and аблъка /яблъка  (Mladenov 1929: 124). All these words have я- in я- in modern Standard Bulgarian. 46 If we ignore a few anomalies, such as Ukranian dial. aйo or aйo or Czech vejce , in the word *aʄ je, *aʄ je, probably to do with a dissimilation of the two j  two  j -sounds -sounds in this word. 43

25

generally non-existent in Slavic, regardless of the origin of this *ja- (whether it is an original *ě- or *ja-)47. There is a possible example of *ě- > *ja- > *a- in Middle Bulgarian however 48, if these aдΧщим  and aдΧть  (besides яcти  and ядΧть ),), and in Bulgarian dial. - da adéš 48 examples are old49. But still a problem remains – how are we to explain the development of  the initial *ě- into a- in a-  in the 1st person sg. personal pronoun in Old Church Slavic, Bulgarian and some Macedonian dialects, when it seems that this is the only sure example of this change50? Actually, only the initial a-  of OCS/Bulgarian/Macedonian is problematic here, since the initial ja-  initial ja- attested attested elsewhere in Slavic is the expected result of the older *ě-. Knutsson (1935) tries to offer a solution for this unique development in OCS. He claims that the change of *ě- > *ja- > *a- has occurred only in azъ  in OCS and Bulgarian because of the supposed special position (or nature) of this particular word. Knutsson says that he has examined seven OCS texts, where the form azъ occurs azъ  occurs about 700 times. Out of  these 700 times, it appears 280 times (about 40%) at the beginning of the sentence and in 25% of times after i  or ь . As he says, this statistic does not prove that the initial *j- was dropped in OCS, but it clearly makes this supposed dropping much more probable. It is not difficult to imagine that a *j- would be dropped in an absolute anlaut or after i- sounds. sounds. However, his proposition remains a speculation. Putting the question why and exactly how *j- has disappeared in OCS and Bulgarian aside, another question remains – if not from *ězъ, how are we supposed to explain the initial (j)a- in (j)a-  in Slavic? If we disregard all entirely speculative and imaginative explanations 51, and if we exclude the possibility of an *o- (i. e. Balto-Slavic *a-) instead of *e- via Rozwadowski’s Change of Balto-Slavic *e- > *a- because of the relative chronology 52, the only serious explanation which remains is that we posit an ad hoc  Indo-European ablaut

One could of course claim that the process might have been *a- > *ja- > a- for a- for certain words in OCS and Bulgarian, but that approach is highly uneconomical and i s in fact improvable since no clear cases of the original *ja- becoming a- exist. a- exist. 48 Mladenov 1924: 124. 49 Another example by Mladenov, quoted by Knutsson (1935: 99), aднá, aднó (from aднó (from *edьnaʀ, *edьnoʀ),), is clearly a result of a later development. The same is of course possible for the Middle Bulgarian examples aдΧщим, aдΧть and aдΧть and dial. da adéš as adéš as well. One should also note that the fluctuation of a-  of  a- and and  ja- in  ja- in Bulgarian occurs in Greek and Turkish loanwords as well (Mladenov 1929: 124). 50 One could assume that there was a difference in the treatment of the original *ē-, which would yield *ā- and then regularly (j)a- in (j)a-  in Slavic, and *ay-, which would yield *ě- and then  ja-  in Slavic (Ranko Matasović, p. c.). However, this is very doubtful since both the results of the old *ē- and of the old *ayare written as <ě-> in OCS. Moreover, since the number of the examples with the old *ē- seems to be limited to the words (j)azъ “I”, (j)azъ  “I”, jasti   jasti “eat” “eat” and jazъ  and  jazъ “channel” “channel” (~ jezero  (~  jezero “lake”, “lake”, Lithuanian ežià, ažià) , this appears to be an artificial solution. 51 Cf. a survey of those in Tpyбачев for instance. 52 The material (cf. Andersen 1996) shows that the change must have been rather recent - there are many double forms and dialectal differences. Winter’s Law, however, was a rather early change, since it operated before the Balto-Slavic change of *o > *a (cf. PIE *h 2ebōl- “apple” > Lith. obuolyɶs  s  ,  but *nogw“naked” > Lith. núogas ),), and before the deaspiration of PIE aspirated plosives. Thus, *egɴ - first changes to *ēź- by Winter’s Law, and at the time of Rozwadowski’s Change, there is no short *e- that could be changed to *a-. Thus, Rozwadowski’s Change cannot be used to explain the vocalism of Slavic “I”. 47

26

variant *ogɴ-53. However, if this supposed o- ablaut ablaut is not attested anywhere else in IndoEuropean (see § 100, § 101), is it reasonable to reconstruct it based only on the Slavic data? The problem is in the choice of whether it is more economical to assume an ad hoc  IndoEuropean ablaut variant *ogɴ - or an irregular secondary allegro development allegro development of *jazъ (< *ězъ) > azъ in azъ in Old Church Slavic only? The rest of the Slavic, as said, is not problematic. In spite of  the fact that the development *ě- > *ja- > a- (or a-  (or just *ja- > a- ) is otherwise not found in OCS, in my opinion it is more elegant and economical to assume a secondary, even if not regular, development of *ě- > *ja- > a-  in OCS and some Bulgarian dialects, than it is to assume a ghost-form *ogɴ- for Indo-European 54. We shall return later to the problem of the IE form (§ 101).

This explanation is found not only in the older literature, but also in some of the newer works - cf. for instance Meillet 1937: 333, but also Andersen 1996: 148. 54 Another possible solution would be to assume an assimilation of early Slavic *ēzan > *āzan (Ranko Matasović, p. c.), which would then regularly yield Slavic (j)azъ . Although not impossible, one has to assume an incomplete assimilation (since *ē- > *ā- are long and *-a- is short) and rely on the very insecure phonetic status of a supposed early Slavic *-an < PIE *-om. 53

27

The final **--zъ -zъ in Slavic § 11 Traditionally 55, it has been taken as obvious by most linguists that the form *(j)azъ with final –z(ъ)  – z(ъ) is is the original one. The form *ja was always considered somehow secondary, as a result of some sort of secondary dropping of the final – z(ъ) . This supposed dropping of  the final –z(ъ)  –z(ъ) in in Slavic has been explained in many ways. Here, we shall mention a few of  those and discuss them briefly. One of the explanations is that the –z(ъ)  – z(ъ)  was dropped because of the sandhi positions like   jaz sam or sam or   jaz znam 56 (Solmsen as quoted in ARj for instance). As already noted very sharply by Budmani in ARj, the case of  jaz of  jaz sam can sam can hardly prove anything, since the only two modern Slavic languages that have only the shortened s -initial -initial forms of the 1 st person singular present tense of the verb “to be” are exactly the only two modern Slavic languages which have preserved the final –z  (Slovene and Bulgarian). The collocation  jaz  znam is znam is more convincing, but it is hard to imagine that this would be so frequent as to cause the –z  –z to to be dropped completely. An explanation similar to this is the one which states that the supposed shortening of   jaz(ъ) to  jaz(ъ) to ja   ja is is simply an allegro -process -process 57. This is possible but still ad hoc . Another explanation is that  jaz(ъ)  is shortened by analogy to ty  (and my  and vy )58 because in this way all the nominatives of the personal pronouns are monosyllabic and end in a vowel. This explanation seems perfectly possible. Yet another explanation, similar to the previous one, is that  ja  was created as an unaccented monosyllabic variant of bisyllabic  jazъ  so that   ja – jazъ would jazъ would function in the same way as mi – mъnĕ, mę – mene  etc. (Jakobson, cited from Tpyбачев – accepted by Gluhak for instance). Vaillant (1958: 443) 59 believed that both *ja and *jazъ originate from an older *jaz in the same way that the original *ot produced the form otъ (with otъ  (with an unetymological final yor ) instead of the expected ot-/o- . Thus, according to this explanation,  ja would  ja  would be a regular, expected form and  jazъ  would have an unetymological yor  which has risen to stop the dropping of the final –z  – z , while being in accord with the law of open syllables. However, since Slavic *-ъ can be derived directly from the attested IE *-om (see § 101), there is no need to assume that it is a secondary development. More importantly, the case of  otъ (and otъ (and izъ ) is not quite the same as the case of  jazъ. of  jazъ. In the first case, we have a preposition (used also as a verbal prefix) and in the second one we have a pronoun form. In the case of  ot > ot  > otъ and otъ  and iz  > izъ  (cf. Lithuanian at- , dial. and older iž ),), the reason for the introduction of the Although it is difficult to speak of tradition when so many different theories exist. 56 We shall take the Croatian form as an example here. 57 Cf. for instance Meillet 1934: 452, SP, Boryś. 58 Cf. for instance Гадолина 1963: 14, Иванов 1983: 295. 29 5. 59 Accepted for instance in Aitzemüller 1991: 107-108, Bańkowski etc. 55

28

unetymological –ъ-  –ъ-  was to prevent the making of the variants ot- and ot- and o-, which would lead to semantic confusion (cf. the preposition/prefix ob- /o- ).). Thus, -ъ  -ъ  was introduced to prevent verbs like *ot-nesti “take away” becoming *o-nesti, while having *ot-iti “go away” in the same time. There is also a possibility that the final –ъ  – ъ here here was introduced by analogy to the prepositions kъ, vъ, sъ  (Gluhak). In the case of *jaz, there is no reason whatsoever to introduce an unetymological –ъ. – ъ. The proto-form *jaz would simply yield *ja and the final *-z would be gone forever, just like the final *-s that disappeared in the o- stem stem nominative singular ending *-us > -ъ. - ъ. There was no need to preserve the final *-z in *jaz, unlike in *ot, where the final *-t was crucial for the communication. The final *-z did not have any special function, and the form *ja was distinctive enough, so there was no reason for a final *-ъ to be added60. Moreover, if *ja were the only original form, one would expect the acute here as the result of Winter’s Law - *jaɾ < PIE *égɴ. However, in that case it would be impossible to explain the neo-acute accentuation that also appears in this form (see § 13). Thus, Vaillant’s idea has to be rejected, since the cases of  otъ  and  jazъ  are not comparable and since the accentual data cannot be explained by his hypothesis. As we have seen, some of these explanations are indeed possible. However, there is another possibility - to presume that both of these forms, both *ja and *jazъ, are original and thus derived directly from Indo-European forms *égɴ and *egɴHóm. Hóm. This idea is not new 61, in spite of the fact that it was never very popular. This may strike us as a little bit odd, since it was clear for quite some time that there were at least two forms of this pronoun in IE (see § 100, § 101), which would in Slavic yield exactly the forms we have attested –  ja and  ja  and  jazъ . Thus, it is strange that so many linguists have gone at such trouble to explain the mysterious supposed disappearance of the final –z(ъ)  – z(ъ) , when there was no need to assume any disappearance in the first place. This is probably the result of the fact that in OCS only the form with the final –zъ is –zъ is attested62. Because of the false unconscious prejudice that OCS is for all practical purposes identical to Proto-Slavic, many linguists were probably prone to reject any possibility of  ja to  ja to be old, since it did not appear in OCS. There is more than one explanation as to why there is only one example 63 of the short form in OCS. The simplest explanation would perhaps be that this alternative form was lost in the dialect that was the basis of OCS. That can hardly be considered impossible since there are quite a number of such cases – it is not always true that OCS forms are the oldest, in spite of the fact that OCS is the first attested Slavic language. Thus, for instance, OCS has the ending –tъ  –tъ  in the 3rd person singular of the present tense, which is, according to the comparative IE evidence, apparently secondary to the ending – tь , attested in Old Russian and Old Polish. To name another example, in OCS, the ending of the n- stem stem dative plural is the obviously secondary –anьmъ  –anьmъ , with the final –ьmъ  –ьmъ  taken from the i- stems, stems, while in Old The case of Dutch [ik] and [ikǩ] is not really comparable. The exact origin of this schwa is not clear and, in any case, the schwa was not added here to prevent the loss of –k  – k in in Dutch. 61 Cf. for instance Kluge, Якубинский 1953: 200, Schmidt 1978: 27. Others have also accepted the two forms already in Proto-Slavic, even if they did not attribute them directly to IE heritage, cf. for instance Lehr Spławiński & Bartula 1954: 51 and Arumaa 1985: 159. 62 Although this is also not completely true, since, as we have seen, the form a is a is also attested in OCS, if only as a hapax in Psalterium Sinaiticum , see § 2. 63 Or none, if one does not accept the form a of  a of Psalterium Psalterium Sinaiticum as Sinaiticum as relevant. 60

29

Croatian (in Povelja Kulina bana  from 1189) one finds the ending –am which –am  which represents the original ending. The same goes for the OCS ending of the instrumental singular of  i- stems stems where we find the ending –ьjNj (taken –ьjNj  (taken from ā -stems -stems and there from the pronouns), while in modern Croatian we find a variant –i  – i which which is the reflex of the original IE ending *-ih₁. One can think of other reasons why there was no short form in OCS texts – for instance, the longer form *jazъ (i.e. azъ in azъ  in OCS) could have been regarded as a solemn form in opposition to ja  to  ja , which could have been regarded as a colloquial or intimate variant. This is of course speculation, but it is nonetheless possible. The question to be asked is – why should we presume the existence of two forms, *ja and *jazъ, at all? What are the reasons to consider this theory at all? There are a couple of  good answers to this question, some of which have already been mentioned: Firstly, the simple fact is that both *ja and *jazъ can be derived very easily from IndoEuropean and Balto-Slavic. In fact, no one really doubts that the form with the final *–zъ is old64, and this form is attested outside Balto-Slavic (Vedic ahám ),), while the form  ja  (from *jaz in pre-law-of-the-open-syllables Slavic) has a direct correspondence in Baltic 65. If there is a short form attested in Baltic, why should we assume that this short form had disappeared in Slavic just to be resurrected again via some irregular allegro  process or analogy? Thus, if one can explain both forms easily by deriving them regularly from IE, there is no point in struggling to explain ja  explain  ja in in a different fashion. A second reason for the assumption of the two original forms is the fact that, as was already seen (cf. the section Material), in many Slavic languages, the z- less less forms occur rather early. For instance: -in Štokavian only ja  only ja occurs occurs already from the 12 th century -in Kajkavian texts, ja  texts, ja and and jaz   jaz seem seem to occur at the same time -in Old Czech, the z -less -less form occurs together with the longer one from the very beginnings of the literary tradition -in Polish, the z- less less forms is practically the only one since the first texts -in Russian both forms occur together from the earliest times Thus one has to take into consideration the option that Proto-Slavic had both the form *ja and *jazъ, and that only later one of these forms was generalized in various Slavic languages - the form *ja was usually more successful. The third reason is that, like the two variants of the same pronoun that exist in Slavic, two types of accent can also be found. This has up until now, to my knowledge, never been taken as an archaism. These two types of accentuation must be related to these two different forms – it can hardly be a coincidence that there is evidence not only for two different forms, Except Vaillant, see above. Except for the fact that the final consonant is devoiced there, which also solves the disagreement in the vocalism, see § 70. 64 65

30

but for two different accents of the same pronoun. The existence of the two types of  accentuation (see § 13) provides an independent indication that there were two different forms for “I” in Slavic. If there had been only one form, there would be no reason for it to have two different accents.

31

Two forms in Old Czech § 12 As we have already said, in this work we shall begin with a presumption that ProtoSlavic originally had two different forms of the 1 st person singular personal pronoun in the nominative - *ja and *jazъ, both of which were a direct heritage from Indo-European. If  Common Slavic had two variants of the same pronoun, one can assume that they had different (or slightly different) functions. E.g. one could have belonged to the higher style, one to the lower, one could have been used more emphatically than the other 66 etc. Of  course, this need not be true. A language can have two forms of a same pronoun without really distinguishing them in any way. This is exactly what Kiparsky (1967: 130-131) claims for (Old) Russian, as was already said. He says that it is quite possible that the forms я and я  and яз have яз  have co-existed in Russian without problems for quite some time without any significant stylistic difference whatsoever. In fact, that is seen right from the earliest Old Russian texts like Мьстиславова грамота , where these two forms, together with OCS loanword azъ , occur together without any noticeable difference (see § 9). Kiparsky adduces a typological example of a Swedish dialect in Finland in which the 1 st person singular personal pronoun, written in Swedish, is pronounced both [ja:] and [ja:g] without any significant difference 67. Kiparsky says that [ja:g] indeed occurs when the pronoun is specially emphasized (like in the sentence “det är jag” – “that’s me”), but that it also occurs when it is not emphasized at all. That is exactly what Гадолина (1963), as already mentioned, has shown – that both я and я and яз  in Russian could have been in the emphasized and in the non-emphasized position 68. Thus, we may conclude that in Russian both forms co-existed for quite some time (up untill the 17th century) without any difference 69. However, as we have already said, it is possible that there was some difference in Common Slavic, which was perhaps lost in Russian. Thus, we should consider examining the occurrence of these two forms in other Slavic languages that preserve them 70. We have already excluded Russian. Polabian can be excluded for the lack of sufficient data. In Polish  jaz appears  jaz  appears only once (if at all). In Bulgarian, there seems to be no z- less less forms in the old texts. In Štokavian, only  ja appears  ja  appears from the earliest times. In Kajkavian, both forms occur, One could say that personal pronouns are emphatic by default in flective languages like Slavic. However, that is not completely true. For instance, "I" is used always (or almost always) in Russian and Lithuanian (which are, of course, flective), and in Croatian not every "I" must be used emphatically. 67 Since the forms *ja and *jazъ do indeed look like variants of the same form, the first form looking like a truncated version of the second one, one could also compare the use of these two forms with the invariant use of the adjectival-pronominal endings –og/-oga, – og/-oga, -om/-omu/-ome  in modern Croatian and other cases when more than one form is used in a language without any significant difference in meaning, function or style. In Slavic, the forms  ja and  ja  and jaz(ъ)   jaz(ъ)  were probably functioning like [ja:] and [ja:g] in the mentioned Swedish dialect, or like Dutch [ik] and [ikǩ], older English i and i  and ic etc., ic  etc., where there is also no difference in meaning. The Slavs could not have known the historical origin of these two forms. 68 Kiparsky 1967: 131 quotes four sentences in order to prove this. 69 Kiparsky criticizes Meyer (1923), who unwarrantedly suggested that the difference in the use of the two forms depends on the position of the form in the sentence. 70 Or rather, which had preserved them in a certain period in the history. 66

32

but, as we have already seen, in the languages of the earliest writers (Pergošić and Vramec) they apparently do not appear in the same texts. Thus, we are left with only one possible candidate that could have a functional opposition of  ja and  ja  and jaz   jaz -- Old Czech (for Rezija Slovene, cf. § 5). To determin if Proto-Slavic had a difference in the usage of the two variants of this pronoun, it is necessary to explore whether such a difference is maintained in the earliest stages of the Old Czech, which exhibits both forms. Of course, it is possible, as already said, that at that time there was no difference anymore (if it ever existed). For this purpose, I have examined three Old Czech texts from the 14 th century in which both forms appear 71. In Alexandreis (from Alexandreis  (from around the year 1300), the form  já and  já  and jáz   jáz both both appear exactly seven times. No pattern can be noticed. Each form appears both with emphasis and without it, and there is no significant difference concerning their position in the sentence –  já  appears six times in the middle of the sentence and once isolated ( Kráľu milý, já, člověk  svých přátel zbylý), while jáz  while  jáz appears appears twice at the beginning of the sentence, and five times in the middle of it. In Dalimila , which dates from sometime between 1308/1310 and 1314,  jáz appears  jáz  appears only eight times (each time at the beginning of the sentence), and  já 27  já 27 times in all positions (approaching the end of the text,  jáz  appears less and less). Both forms appear with an emphasis and without it 72. In Mastičkář muzejní, a text from the 2nd half of the 14th century, jáz  century, jáz is is attested nine times in all positions, while the form  já is  já  is attested nine times as well, but only in the middle of the sentence73. Again, each form appears both with emphasis and without it. We can conclude that one cannot find a pattern of use or a difference between Old Czech  já  and  jáz . Both are used in all positions in a sentence, and both are used when accented in a sentence and when not. The phonological shape of the next word also plays no role. A mild tendency may be noted in some texts for jáz  for  jáz to to be used at the beginning of a sentence and já  and já in in the middle of it. However, it is only a mild tendency, since either form can appear at the beginning as well as in the middle of a sentence. If there was a difference of  *ja and *jazъ in Common Slavic, it was not preserved in Old Czech, and it seems that it is to stay out of our reach for good.

Not all texts can be included for this kind of purpose, since in some the pronoun is not attested at all, in others only one form appears, so there is no variation, and yet in others there is simply not enough forms to conclude anything. Thus, the corpus of suitable Old Czech texts is not very large. 72 The form  jat  appears three times. This form was made by the wrong analysis in the sandhi – it appears twice in jat in jat to (before to (before to ) and once before s- ( s-  Jat  (Jat Svatoplukovi…) Svatoplukovi… ) in this text. It is also attested in other Old Czech texts. 73 The form ját  form ját appears appears here once as well together with its variant jáť  variant  jáť (both (both in ját/jáť in ját/jáť sem ).). 71

33

The accent of *ja(zъ) § 13 As we have already seen in the chapter Material, two types of accentuation are attested in the 1st person nominative singular pronoun in Slavic. Most languages point to the neo-acute (*jãzъ): Old Štokavian  jã , Neo-Štokavian  jâ  (ì jā) , South and part of Central Čakavian jã  Čakavian  jã , Kajkavian (most dialects)  jã , Czech já  Czech  já (Old (Old Czech já  Czech  já (z ))))74, Slovak dial.  já , Polish dial. jå  dial. jå , Kashubian   ʠi ω and ω and Slovincian jǛu  Slovincian  jǛu . On the other hand, Slovene jàz  Slovene  jàz (dial. (dial. also jà)  also  jà) , North and part of Central Čakavian jaʂ Čakavian  jaʂ(z) and z) and Kajkavian jaʂ Kajkavian  jaʂ(z) (in ( z) (in some dialects) point to the old acute (*jaɾzъ). In Old Russian, язъ  is an «энклиномен»75 (which points to the old circumflex), but this must be due to the analogical influence of the other personal pronouns ты, мы, вы  in which this is expected 76 (see § 14, § 29). Here is an overview of the reflexes in Slavic: NeoNeo-acute -acute

Štokavian, South and part of Central Čakavian, Kajkavian (most dial.), Czech/Slovak, (Old and dial.) Polish, Kashubian/Slovincian

Acute

Slovene, North and part of Central Čakavian, Kajkavian (marginally)

Circumflex

Old Russian 77

The problem of two kinds of accents is obviously very interesting. It is a stunning fact that it was, to my knowledge, never treated in the literature in more than a couple of  sentences. Three solutions are possible here – the first one is to assume that the acute is the original accent; the second one is that the neo-acute is original; and the third one is that both accents are original, i.e. that neither is secondary. The first possibility is took up by Kortlandt 78 who claims, very shortly, that the acute, preserved in Slovene  jàz  (as well as in the neighboring Čakavian dialects), is the original (Balto-)Slavic accent. Kortlandt believes that Old Štokavian  jã and  jã  and South Čakavian jã  Čakavian  jã are are the result of the later secondary lengthening 79. A similar claim is made by Vaillant (1958: 443) Czech já(z)  Czech  já(z) could could theoretically be derived from *jaɾzъ zъ as well but in the light of Slovak dial.  já , this seems highly unlikely, and the Czech form should also be derived from *jãzъ. 75 Зализняк 1985: 143. 76 Cf. a typological parallel in Štokavian, where tĩ, mĩ and mĩ  and vĩ have vĩ  have the neo-acute by analogy to the form  jã where  jã where this is expected. 77 The innovative Slovene form jâz  form  jâz (cf. (cf. § 5f) has no connection to this form. 78 Cf. for instance Kortlandt 1997: 29 and Kortlandt forthcoming b. forthcoming b. 79 It must be noted, however, that Kortlandt bases his theory on the subject on his own doctrine of  Slavic accentuation, many postulates of which I do not accept. Thus, his views on the subject are hardly explainable in the non-Kortlandt doctrine - for instance, in Kortlandt forthcoming  b, he says that Czech and Slovak have preserved the original short reflex of the acute in ty, my, vy . However, according to my view, and to the view of the most Slavic accentologists, the original reflex of the acute 74

34

who says that the Štokavian  jâ is  jâ  is the result of a compensatory lengthening and that (North) Čakavian  jaʂ(z)  represents the original Proto-Slavic form. Kortlandt and Vaillant aside, there are several reasons why the theory of the original acute cannot be correct. First of all, the proposed lengthening is completely ad hoc and hoc  and there is no real explanation for it (except, of  course, the ever present allegro change, allegro  change, which is not very convincing). Secondly, if we were to suppose that the acute is the original accent here, we would have to assume a secondary ad hoc lengthening hoc  lengthening not only in Štokavian and South Čakavian, but also in Kajkavian, Czech, Slovak, Polish and Kashubian/Slovincian. Somehow, this possibility does not strike me as very economical. One could assume compensatory lengthening due to the dropping of  *-zъ, like *jaɾzъ zъ > *jã (or *jaz > *jā), but it is not convincing that this would occur in so many languages (in Czech *jaɾ zъ zъ would yield jáz  yield  jáz , the same as *jãzъ), especially taking into account that there are absolutely no evidence that would point to the form *ja being more recent than *jazъ. Besides, in North Čakavian the form često  jaʂ  without final –z  –z , and the supposed lengthening occurs quite frequently, and the same goes for Slovene dial.  jà , also without the supposed shortening. Old Kajkavian in Pergošić's language, but in Vramec's (cf. § 4) goes directly against a conclusion like the one mentioned. We can conclude that the neo-acute/length in this pronoun has nothing to do with compensatory lengthening. The second possibility is to assume that the neo-acute is the original accent here, and that the short reflexes in Slovene, North Čakavian, and marginally in Kajkavian are secondary and due to an allegro shortening allegro  shortening 80. However, this view, in spite of the fact that it is more economical than the former, because it supposes allegro  shortening only in three neighboring dialects (and not in seven or so widely spread ones), is again troubled by the fact that yet again one must subside to the help of the mysterious allegro  changes and ad  hoc  developments. It is unclear why  jã(z)  would be shortened to  jaʂ(z), while there was no shortening of tî, of tî, mî, vî anywhere. vî anywhere. Thus, as already said, the deficiency of both of these approaches, in spite of the fact that these kinds of irregular secondary lengthening and shortening in short forms like these ones are theoretically possible, is that they presume ad hoc lengthening hoc  lengthening and shortening, not attested elsewhere in these languages. For instance, there is no parallel for the change of  jaʂ of  jaʂ  >  jã elsewhere  jã  elsewhere in Štokavian. Kortlandt’s theory is even more unconvincing since it includes, 81. among other things, lengthening in Slovene tî , but the absence of it in jàz  in  jàz 81 is long in Czech and short in Slovak. This is one of the reasons why Kortlandt’s theory cannot really be accepted by accentologists who are not working within the framework of the Leiden doctrine. 80 This is the view of Bulcsú László (personal communication). 81 Kortlandt (1997: 29) believes that the falling tone in Slovene tî , mî , vî , but the rising one in Posavina and southern Čakavian points to the secondary lengthening of an originally short vowel (i.e. the reflex of the old acute). However, he provides no reason for this supposed “secondary lengthening”. Besides, Old Russian and Middle Bulgarian point to the “real” Proto-Slavic cirkumflex as well (cf. § 14), exhibiting Vasilev-Dolobko’s Law and the shift of the accent to proclitics. It seems highly unlikely that a “secondary circumflex”, resulting from later (irregular) lengthening would in Old Russian behave exactly the same as an original circumflex. Cf. Croatian neo-circumflex in examples like G. pl. klaʄdā  d  ā , which is different from the original circumflex in A. sg. ruʄku ( k  u  (òd klādā/od klaʄ dā, dā, but naʂ  rūku ).). If the circumflex in Slovene tî (and tî  (and in Old Russian тыɴ,  иɴ  ты, ты жè ) is due to Meillet’s Law (see § 57), it is 35

The third approach, however, seems more reasonable. If we have established that there were probably two forms of the pronoun in question already in Common Slavic, *ja and *jazъ, and since we already know for sure that there were at least two different forms of this pronoun in PIE 82, why not assume that there were two types of accent in Slavic, if this is what the material points to? Why not assume that somehow both the old acute and the neo-acute are original in Slavic? Since we already have two forms - *ja and *jazъ, why should we not relate these two forms to the two different kinds of accentuation that the material seems to point at? The logical thing to do would be to assume that the old acute is the original accent of the shorter form *jaɾ , and that the neo-acute is the original accent of the longer form *jãzъ. In this way, Common Slavic *jaɾ could be derived from PIE *égɴ with the acute as the result of Winter’s law 83. The absence of the acute in Lithuanian àš is àš  is easily explained if we 84, a sandhi variant with the derive Lithuanian àš  and Old Lithuanian eš  from a PIE *ekɴ84 devoiced ending, which was generalized in Baltic and in front of which, logically, there was no Winter’s law and hence no acute. Common Slavic *jãzъ is to be derived from the older 85, with the neo-acute as the result of Ivšić’s Rule 86. It is only natural to relate a neo*jāzъʀ85 acute to a form that has two syllables, because the neo-acute demands an extra syllable (i.e. a weak yer ) in order to be explained convincingly. Slavic *jāzъʀ can also be directly derived from the PIE form *egɴHóm Hóm (Vedic ahám ) with the final accent 87. The lengthening in Slavic can be explained here also via Winter’s law 88. Here, Winter’s law has produced the acute pretonic length. In Slavic, the acute has been lost in unaccented positions 89, and when the stress was finally retracted via Ivšić’s Rule, the syllable received the usual neo-acute intonation. expected that it would act exactly the same as the old circumflex. Cf. Croatian glaʄvu, v  u, naʂ  glāvu , with the circumflex due to Meillet’s Law, and ruʄku, k  u, naʂ rūku , with the original circumflex. 82 *égɴ as attested in Old Lithuanian eš , and *egɴHóm Hóm as attested in Slavic jazъ  Slavic  jazъ or or in Vedic ahám . See § 101. 83 For the problem concerning this form and Meillet’s Law, see § 57. 84 For this reconstruction, cf. also Bańkowski, who takes it as a dialectal IE form. 85 In the Slavic nominal system, *-ъ in the nominative-accusative sg. (< IE *-os, *-om) could not be accented before Дыбо’s Law. Slavic had an initial accent in the nominative-accusative nominative-accusative sg. of the a. p. c , having thus lost the *-ós of the IE o -stem -stem oxytones (which were the source of Slavic a. p. c ).). In *jāzъʀ, however, the original place of the accent was preserved. This is not surprising, since the pronominal system often behaves differently from the nominal one – cf. Lithuanian forms like anàs (the anàs (the nominative –as cannot as cannot be accented in the nominal declension). Moreover, the form *jāzъʀ was isolated and not in a close relation to the nominal forms, so that the preservation of the final accent need not surprise us. Cf. also the accented gen. pl. *-ъʀ in a. p. c. 86 The retraction of the accent from a weak yer . 87 Ivšić (1911: 194) first proposed this explanation. e xplanation. 88 Cf. the closed syllable, which is necessary according to Matasović’s interpretation of Winter’s law (see for instance Matasović 1995). 89 This is the only logical assumption. That is clear from the fact that the old mobile acute paradigm has remained mobile, which points to the conclusion that the accent was not retracted to the acute pretonic vowel, as could be presumed, or the old mobile acute nouns would all get a fixed old acute on the root (thus, Lithuanian a. p. 3 would be related not to Slavic a. p. c , but to Slavic a. p. a ).). The old acute pretonic long vowels behave just like the old non-acute pretonic long vowels, which must mean that the acute has just disappeared if it was not accented. 36

PIE *égɴ > Slavic *jaɾ PIE *egɴHóm Hóm (Vedic ahám ) > Slavic *jāzъʀ > *jãzъ Thus, as we have concluded, there were two forms originally in Slavic - *jaɾ and *jãzъ < *jāzъʀ. What has happened after Common Slavic period? These two forms must have mixed, probably from an early age. Thus, the forms *jaɾ and *jaɾzъ zъ (cf. Slovene dial.  jà and  jà  and standard  jàz ) have emerged, as well as *jãzъ and *jã (cf. Old Czech  jáz  and  já) . Various languages/dialects have generalized one of the two accents in both forms, and that is what we see now in modern Slavic forms. First, there were two forms and two accents, then two forms and one accent, and finally one form and one accent. The generalization of the accent had finished before the disappearance of the two different forms. In the small area consisting of Slovene, part of Kajkavian and North Čakavian, the acute was generalized in both forms (cf. North Čakavian jaʂ Čakavian  jaʂ  and jaʂ and  jaʂz  z   ).). In the rest of the Slavic languages (excluding the unclear East Slavic), the neo-acute was generalized in both forms (Old Czech  já  and  jáz ).). Thus, the generalizing of the accent, as already said, occurred earlier than the generalization of one of the two forms and is therefore independent of it.

37

Slavic *ty § 14 The reconstruction of Common Slavic *tŷ is completely unproblematic. All languages show regular correspondences here. The circumflex in *tŷ is confirmed by Slovene tî , some Čakavian dialects (for instance Novi) tî , Kajkavian (Bednja) teʄi, Czech ty , Slovincian taɺ, Old Russian тыɴ , which is an 91) and Middle Bulgarian ты бωɳ, ты жè 92 92. «энклиномен» 90 (cf. иɴ ты, ты жè 91 Old Štokavian, South Čakavian and Kajkavian (most dialects) tĩ is tĩ  is secondary, due to analogy to the form jã  form  jã (thus (thus also secondary mĩ , vĩ , and in some dialects even õn , instead of  the older oʂn  n   , which is also attested93), where the neo-acute was a salient feature. In NeoŠtokavian, the acute original of tî  of  tî (and (and mî, vî) is vî) is seen in ì tī (and tī (and not **ıʂ tī).   

Зализняк 1985: 143. 91 Дыбo 1981: 51. 92 Дыбo, ibid . 93 Posavian õn  (not oʄn  n  )  points to analogy with other pronouns as the source, rather than to the lengthening before a sonant (which yields ʄ, not ɶ, in Posavina, cf. Kapović 2005: 54-55. 90

38

Oblique cases of 1st and 2nd person singular We shall discuss first the material of all Slavic languages separately, together with historical and dialectological relevant data. In general, only internal developments shall be discussed. Of course, a minimal amount of comparison with other languages and/or Common Slavic will also be applied when necessary. In the end, Common Slavic paradigm will be reconstructed, and special problems, concerning Common Slavic (or earlier) period will be discussed. Since 1 st and 2nd person singular share many traits, it is only logical that we discuss them consecutively. Old Church Slavic in OCS, the form mene  is attested. This form is quite § 15 In the genitive singular in unproblematic. The form mne , which occurs a couple of times already in OCS (and which reminds one of modern West Slavic forms like Czech mne  or Polish mnie ),), is obviously an innovation due to the influence of the dative singular mnĕ  < mьnĕ  and the instrumental singular mnojNj < mnojNj  < mъnojNj . With OCS genitive singular tebe , there are even fewer problems, or rather – there are no problems whatsoever. This is in fact the only attested form. The dative singular form is, however, very problematic. In OCS, it occurs as mьnĕ , but also as mъnĕ (the mъnĕ (the form mnĕ , also attested, is obviously younger). Since the reconstruction of  the first vowel in this form in Slavic depends practically solely on OCS data (except for Old Russian), due to the disappearance of the weak yer  in other Slavic languages, we shall discuss the problem of whether this form had ь or ь  or ъ here ъ  here in this section, while leaving the general discussion about the origin of this form for later. The usual presumption is that the form mьnĕ is mьnĕ is older, although some linguists do not agree94. The basic reason for this presumption is the obvious parallelism of the OCS dative and instrumental singular forms of the 1 st and the 2nd person singular95. One finds the forms mьnĕ and mьnĕ and tebĕ in tebĕ in the dative singular, which have a front vowel in the root (ь  ( ь –– e ),), while in the instrumental singular the forms mъnojNj and mъnojNj  and tobojNj appear, tobojNj  appear, which have a back vowel (ъ  ( ъ –– o ) in the root. It is also interesting to note that the front vowels occur in front of a front vowel in the next syllable (-ĕ  (- ĕ in in the dative), while the back vowels occur in front of a back vowel in the following syllable (-o-  (-o-  in the instrumental). It is, however, strange that while the connection of mьně  of  mьně and and tebě ( tebě  (ь ~ ь  ~ e ) is regularly noted (for OCS), no researcher has noticed that mъně would mъně  would indeed be in accord with North-West Slavic form tobě in tobě  in the dative. Thus, the parallelism of mьně  of  mьně and and tebě in tebě in OCS is irrelevant. The supporters of the thesis of the originality of the form mъnĕ are mъnĕ are not so numerous. The usual reason for the presumption that the form mъnĕ is mъnĕ is older is a supposed connection 96. In fact, for the Baltic dative stem mun- , of this form with a dialectal Lithuanian form mùnei 96 For instance Ivšić 1971: 219. Cf. the discussion there. 95 Cf. for instance Vondrák 1912: 459, Weingart 1937-8: 201 or Ceлищев 1952: 113. 96 Thus for instance Беседина-Heвзорова 1962: 178. The theory of Hujer (1911, 1912) is not very convincing. 94

39

Latvian dialectal data must be quoted, since Lithuanian mun- is mun-  is probably secondary (see § 59, § 62). A third, we could call them fatalistic (or maybe just realistic), group are those linguists who do not believe that it is possible to deduct the original state of affairs in the roots of the dative and instrumental singular in OCS (and Slavic in general), due to the inconsistencies in OCS spelling 97. It must be noted that in the case of the originality of the form mьnĕ , the secondary form mъnĕ  can easily be explained as analogical to the instrumental form mъnojNj . In the case of the originality of the form mъnĕ , one must attribute the secondary form mьnĕ:  -to the general mix up of the yers in yers in OCS98, -to the influence of the final front vowel 99, -or to the reshaping of the ablaut pattern - *en : *ъn (in *mene : *mъnĕ) > *en : *ьn (see § 46). Another angle could perhaps shed some light on this problem. The form mьnĕ  is attested in OCS in Codex Zographiensis and Zographiensis  and in Sava’s Book , while the form mъnĕ is mъnĕ  is attested in Codex Marianus , and for instance in Ostromirovo Evangelie in Evangelie  in Old Russian 100. Here might lie another argument for the originality of the form mьnĕ , since Codex Zographiensis  is considered to be second only to the Kiev Folia  when it comes to the preservation of the original difference of the yers , and Sava’s Book  is also considered to be one of the more archaic OCS texts in that regard 101. In return, Codex Marianus , in which the form mъnĕ  is attested, is notorious for its unreliability when it comes to the distribution of the yers . There, a tendency of a general spread of  ъ , instead of the original ь is ь is attested102, and, in general, a ъ  can take the place of any original ь . This makes the words with attested ь  true archaisms103. However, this is not conclusive, since a number of examples in Codex  Zographiensis  and Sava’s Book  show secondary changes of  yers  there as well. Thus, in Codex Zographiensis , a tendency is attested for a yer to yer  to appear when there is a front vowel in the next syllable, and for a yor to yor  to appear when there is a back vowel in the next syllable. Thus, we have, for instance, secondary bьdĕti  instead of  bъdĕti  and secondary vĕrъny  instead of  vĕrьny , besides the original vĕrьni  when the front vowel is in the following syllable104. Thus, we are back at the beginning of the problem since the form mьně can mьně  can be secondary in that text as well. Putting aside the (in)consistency of the OCS spelling, the parallelism of the 1 st and 2nd person singular forms in the dative and the instrumental singular is not strong enough an argument to presume that the form mьnĕ was mьnĕ  was indeed the original one. Especially since the This is the opinion of Vaillant 1950: 136 and Lunt 1974: 65 for instance. 98 This explanation could of course be possible in the first case, mьnĕ > mьnĕ > mъnĕ , as well. 99 Cf. for instance Leskien 1990: 109, who considers the option of a secondary ь , due to the influence of the ĕ in ĕ in the next syllable, possible. 100 Vondrák 1912: 459. 101 Vondrák 1912: 268-269. 102 Vondrák 1912: 272. 103 Leskien 1990: 29. 104 Nandriş 1959: 39, Leskien 1990: 28. 97

40

parallelism scheme is valid for South Slavic and OCS Slavic only, since in North and West Slavic, as already mentioned, one finds the form tobě in tobě  in the dative singular, which would be parallel to mъně, not mьně . Also, this parallelism could easily be secondary. For a further discussion on mъně and mъně and mьnĕ , see § 46. In OCS, the dative singular form of the 2 nd person singular is tebĕ . This form is unproblematic in OCS, although apparently not in Common Slavic, as is to be seen. In the accusative singular, the original OCS forms were mę , tę , which were still accented in that time. The use of the original genitive forms mene , tebe  as the accented accusative (while using mę , tę as tę  as clitics) is an innovation in OCS. This was an early change that has occurred in all Slavic languages. The locative singular is the same as the dative singular – mъně/mьnĕ , tebĕ , except for the absence of the clitic forms mi , ti that ti that do not exist in the locative. The instrumental singular form of the 1 st person is mъnojNj in mъnojNj in OCS. The form mnojNj is mnojNj is obviously younger, showing the disappearance of a weak yer . The 2nd person pronoun is tobojNj , with an –o  – o - in the root, which, as already said, corresponds to the reduced – ъ- in ъ- in the 1st person pronoun. Bulgarian § 16 In Modern Bulgarian, not much is preserved due to the loss of most cases. The loss, which was nearly complete in the nominal declension (setting the vocative aside), was a little bit more merciful in the pronominal declension. There, a larger number of forms was preserved105. However, the process of analitization continues up to the present day, as we shall see clearly in the case of the dative forms. The genitive forms have formally remained the same: мèне, тèбе , while merging with the reflexes of the old dative forms *mьnĕ (analogically ⇒ *menĕ with the *-e- from the genitive) and *tebĕ, which have also regularly (*ĕ > e ),), yielded мèне , тèбе . There are no real genitive forms in Bulgarian, of course, the old genitives *mene and *tebe have become, as elsewhere in Slavic, the accented accusatives, which are today accusative/oblique forms in Bulgarian. The forms мèне, тèбе have, тèбе have, up until recently, also functioned as datives on their own (as the rightful heirs of the old *mьnĕ, *tebĕ), but they are pretty much archaic nowadays in Modern Bulgarian, which prefers analytical phrases на мèне, на тèбе  instead. The short, unaccented dative forms are preserved: ми, ти , as well as the old accusatives, which have become (as elsewhere in Slavic) unaccented accusative forms: мe, те . We can find out a lot more in Middle Bulgarian. Cf. the system of  Evangelie 1139  (Hock 1992 I: 119): мeнé, мнΟ , мΧ ( мΧ  (мΧɴ ),), мнóΧ and мнóΧ  and тебé, тебΟ , тΧ ( тΧ  (тΧɴ ),), тoбóΧ . The accent in  

 

This is usually the case, cf. Romance languages or English, which have preserved the re mains of the declension in pronouns only.

105

41

the genitive is final, as we can see: мeнé, тебé. This must be due to an early analogy with the end stress of the dative-locative мнΟ , тебΟ  (see § 52). The Modern Bulgarian forms мèне, тèбе  are probably due to the regular stress retraction like *seloʀ > Bulgarian cèлo. In the instrumental, this Middle Bulgarian dialect has the accent on the first syllable of the ending: -óΧ . However, since we find the same accent in both a. p. b  and a. p. c ā- stems stems in that dialect (cf. женóΧ, странóΧ , Hock 1992 I: 90), these forms are not as indicative as Croatian ones (see § 17, 54). The accent is final in forms like вь мΧɴ, зa мΧɴ  (cf. Neo-Štokavian ú me, zá me ).).  

 

Macedonian In Macedonian, the situation is generally not much different from the Bulgarian situation. However, the dative forms мeне and мeне and тeбе (or тeбе  (or rather – doubled мeне ми and ми  and тeбе  ти ) do still function alone, without the preposition на , unlike in Modern Bulgarian. Forms like на мeне instead мeне instead of just мeне , do however appear in dialects and in spoken language 106. In Macedonian, the longer forms are generally (unlike Bulgarian) always «doubled» with the shorter forms (thus мeне мe and мe  and not just мeне ),), if we put aside special cases like ellipses and oaths. In Bulgarian, the longer forms can appear by themselves, in spite of the fact that the doubling of the object is quite frequent there as well. Croatian mene and tebe have tebe have remained unchanged. Today, they § 17 In Croatian, the genitive forms mene and function as the accented accusative as well, and the original accusative forms me and me  and te are te  are now the clitic genitive-accusative forms. In the dative-locative form, the ending –i  – i  is the same ending one finds in ā -stem -stem nouns like žèni  ⇐ *ženě (the soft-stem ending –i  – i  is generalized). In Jekavian Štokavian dialects, the expected form should be menje . This is indeed attested in Old Croatian, for instance in Dubrovnik (ARj). In the Ekavian dialects of Štokavian, one finds both the analogical meni , tebi  in some dialects, as well as the original mene , tebe  in others107. The vocalism of the dative-locative is younger, due to analogy to the genitive-accusative form. 108 are attested in older texts and in dialects (ARj). The The older forms mьně, mni, mani 108 analogical form meně  is attested since the 14 th century. The original stem mn-  was eliminated in the dative-locative, but not in the instrumental (at least not in all dialects, including the Standard Croatian). The same thing occurred, for instance, in Ukrainian (see § 28).

Koнески 1965: 123. The explanation of Mareš (2001: 136), that meni is meni is a mix of the original mene < mene < *menĕ (obviously, this would work for Ekavian dialects only) and the unaccented mi is mi is completely off track, since the form meni occurs meni occurs in Jekavian dialects as well, and one can hardly separate this development from the overall tendency of the generalization of soft endings in Štokavian dialects. 108 Cf. here «jaki vokalizam», i.e. «full vocalism» in Čakavian. 106 107

42

In Western (Croatian) Neo-Štokavian dialects, in both the genitive-accusative and in the dative-locative singular, one finds the short falling accent: meʂne, n  e, meʂni and i and teʂbe, teʂ bi (cf. bi (cf. also zà mene, òd tebe, ò tebi  etc.). This is the Standard Croatian accent as well. In Eastern (Serbian) Neo-Štokavian dialects, one finds the short rising accent – cf. Standard Serbian мèнe , тèбe, за мèнe, o тèби  etc. In Neo-Štokavian, one of these accents is usually generalized in both forms (for Kajkavian, cf. Bednja maʂna, taʂ ba, ba, maʂnje, taʂ be  be ).). In Posavina 109, according to Ivšić one usually finds meʂne, meʂni, teʂ be, be, teʂbi , but also sebıʂ , mèni, tèbi , menĩ, tebĩ in tebĩ  in DL. and rarely even mène, tèbe in tèbe  in GA. (some dialects in in Posavian have a secondary ɶ instead of ʂ in DL., like some Čakavian dialects). Cf. my own data from Posavina - Sapci od  meʂne , kod meʂne , ko d d  seʂbe , mèni, k mèni , tèbi , Glogovica kòd mene , mèni, oko seʂbe,  be, sèbi, na  sèbi, o sèbi, Oprisavci meʂne, po teʂ be, be, sèbi, na sèbi, Bebrina mèni, tèbi, Gundinci na meʂne, tebıʂ , Orubica mèni , Dubočac mèni, Siče tèbi . This data attests only the pattern meʂne –  mèni/menıʂ  in Posavina, while Ivšić claims that meʂ ne ne - meʂni is i is the commonest pattern. I have an attestation of  meʂne, but mèni  and teʂbe , but tèbi  for Slavonski Brod (Neo-Štokavian) as well. Ivšić (1971: [374]) adduces also Lumbarda Čakavian menĩ, tebĩ  (but also meneɶ) , and cites Kušar's data for the villages on Rab, where meʂne, meʂni/menıʂ  and teʂbe, b  e, teʂbi/tebıʂ  appear. He concluded that the pattern meʂne, menıʂ  is the original one, and that meʂne , meʂni  and meneʂ/mène , menıʂ /mèni  /mèni  are just generalizations of the accent of the genitive or the dative. For the preservation of the original pattern (attested for instance in North Čakavian), cf. also (Jurišić 1966: 84-85, Jurišić 1973): Vrgada meʂne, meʂni  and teʂbe, b  e, teʂ bi  bi , but in the locative po menĩn, o tebĩn etc. tebĩn  etc.110, Susak111 mêne, menıʂ , têbe, tebıʂ  etc., but Cres meneʂ, menıʂ . In Molise Croatian, one finds interesting data: in Mundimitar (Piccoli & Sammartino) meʂne , but tébe (< tébe  (< *meʂne, *tebeʂ),), while in Živavoda Kruč (Breu & Piccoli: 404-405) one finds mén a a,  téb a a  (< *meneʂ, *tebeʂ)112. Rešetar (1911: 212) adduces the Molise forms mén(e), téb(e) in téb(e) in the genitive, but meʂn(e), teʂb(e)  in the accusative (notice the unusual differentiation of the genitive and accusative by means of accent!) and meʂn(i), teʂb(i) in (i) in the dative 113. One should also note that the accent meʂne, teʂ be  be  was originally the absolute initial accent (the original circumflex) – thus oʂd mene  etc. (cf. Vrgada koʂ d mene, preʂs tebe, ıʂ za  za  mene, ıʂ spri spri mene, uʂ  tebe, uʂ  mene , Susak ôd mene, kêl mene, ôl tebe, kêl tebe  – with secondary lengthening etc.). However, in Western Neo-Štokavian (and Standard Croatian), this is not retained – there, these forms are òd mene, zà mene etc. mene  etc. There, the generalizated Ivšić 1971: [370, 373, 374]. 110 This kind of difference, between the accent (and form!) of the dative and the locative is seldom found. It is probable that Vrgada menĩn, tebĩn in tebĩn in the locative stem from the older *menĩ, *tebĩ < *menıʂ , *tebıʂ, while the dative form meʂni took n  i  took the accent of the genitive. Cf. also in Vrgada D. ńeʂmu  m   u , but L. ńemũ , both from the older *ńemuʂ . 111 In Susak, there is probably no distinctive intonation and that is the reason for leaving out the neoacute mark from the examples from Susak. The length in Susak examples like mêne, ôd mene  is, of  course, of secondary origin. 112 The transcription of the Živavoda Kruč dialect is somewhat adapted, for simplicity's sake. 113 The accusative forms meʂn(e), n  (e), teʂ b(e) point b(e)  point to the conclusion that both rising and falling accent was possible in the predecessor of that dialect in the genitive-accusative and dative-locative. The variant with the falling accent has prevailed in most cases (cf. ( cf. also the instrumental forms meʂnom, n  om, teʂ bom  bom ),), but the rising accent was generalized in the genitive forms in order to differentiate them secondarily from the accusative forms. A similar case of secondary development in the accentuation of the genitive and dative forms is attested in Kašić's grammar (cf. Kapović forthcoming b). forthcoming b). 109

43

short falling accent in the genitive-dative started functioning as the secondary falling stress (it was indeed secondary in the dative, but original in the genitive). These forms were influenced by other secondary falling accents in pronouns - toʂgā, g  ā, òd togā  (instead of the older tòga ),), njeʂga,  ga, zà njega (instead njega (instead of the older njèga ) etc. As already said, the old accusative forms me and me  and te are te  are the clitic genitive-accusative forms in Croatian. However, their old accentedness is seen in the fact that they can stand with the prepositions alone: zá me, zá te, ná me, ná te, pó te etc. te  etc. (always with the long rising accent in Standard Croatian in disyllabic forms). However, in polysyllabic forms one finds the following pattern: poʂ dā dā te, uʂ zā zā me etc. me etc. In Neo-Štokavian, the accentuation of the type zá me  is common. However, in Posavian (Old Štokavian), some Čakavian dialects and Kajkavian, one finds the pattern zâ me, nâ te  etc. Cf. for instance Bednja naʄu ma, naʄ o ta, zaʄ u ma, praʄd  114, Orlec zaʄ  te, vaʄ me, poʄ  me 115 115 etc. Some Čakavian dialects (like Vrgada) have forms like ma 114 n°ã me, z°ã te , where the accent surely originates from the older *zā meʂ (like Neo-Štokavian zá me ).). That is attested in Posavina as well (Ivšić 1971: [375]) 116. In the instrumental singular, two forms are attested – mnóme (usually mnóme  (usually when alone), and the original mnoʄm  (usually with a preposition). In the 2 nd person, there is toʂbōm  (tobome is tobome  is quite rare nowadays but attested in ARj) 117. The navezak –e is –e is attested in mnome  since the 16 th century (ARj). The origin of this –e  – e is is not quite clear 118. Before the added –e  – e , only the form mnom existed mnom  existed (attested from the 14th century), which itself stems from the older mnov (ARj) mnov  (ARj) < *mnou < *mnoju < *mъnojNj (the same development as in the ā -stems). -stems). In Čakavian, one finds the forms mnu (Antun mnu  (Antun Dalmatinac), maʂnū in ū  in North Čakavian (maʂ ( maʂnū < ū  < *mъnǍ < *mъnNjNj ⇐ *mъnNjjNj ⇐ *mъnojNj), cf. Susak z maʄnu; in u; in South Čakavian, the attested form has no contraction of *-ojNj, as in Štokavian, but has the «strong vocalism»: maʂnōm   nōm . Neo-Štokavian, with mnoʄ m, m, mnóme  (and toʂ bōm, bōm, tobóme –  the latter accent according to Белић 1964: 104, which could be artificial), would at first glance point to the older mnõm  (and mnōmeʂ ),), but, in fact, in Posavina (Ivšić 1971: 370), only mnoʄ m  m  is attested119. The accent mnóme , thus, must be secondary in Neo-Štokavian - due to the influence of  njîm, njíme , where the first form originally indeed was njĩm (cf. njĩm  (cf. Posavina njĩm , njíme , but mnoʄm  m   ).) . For the development of  njîm, njíme , cf. also the genitive plural glávā  (not *glâvā) from the 120. This kind of development was generalized in mnoʄm, mnóme , in spite of  older form glãv 120 Jedvaj 1956: 306. Houtzagers 1985: 102. 116 The type ú me also me also occurs in Posavina, but rarely. 117 Mareš (2001: 138) again has a nice theory that only mnóme  exists, and no *tobome, *sobome, because –e  –e is is supposed to have been used in order to produce a disyllabic form (which would be in accord with the already disyllabic mene, meni etc.), meni  etc.), and tobom, sobom was sobom  was already disyllabic so there was no need for this -e  -e . That is not entirely wrong, but he disregards the fact that tobome was tobome was attested at the same time as mnome – mnome – already in the 16th century (ARj). In addition, one cannot simply separate the instrumental navezak – navezak  –e  from the locative one. Moreover, the forms tome, lijepome  etc. exist in instrumental, which is to say that – e appears e appears in longer forms as well. 118 Белић (1964: 104) thinks that it stems from the particle –re/-r < –re/-r < *že. 119 In Hvar (Jurišić), however, besides toʂ bon/teʂ bon/teʂbon and b  on and meʂnon  n  on , the accent menõn is menõn is also attested. 120 When another syllable appears, the neo-acute sort of “goes back” to the final syllable. The basis for these kinds of processes are, of course, regular patterns like pũt, pūtaʂ /púta etc. /púta etc. 114 115

44

the fact that there was no neo-acute there originally. Cf. also the accents saʂ mnōm, zà  tobōm;  dialectally also zaʂ  tobōm , cf. Vrgada zaʂ  menōn, zaʂ  tobōn , Oprisavci (Posavina, my data) zaʂ  sobom, but Prapatnice zà tebōn , Korenica (Jurišić) prè tobōm . In many dialects, the genitive root has been generalized - meʂnōm instead ōm instead of mnôm  of mnôm . The unaccented forms of D. mi, ti have ti  have remained unchanged. Standard Croatian also has the reflexive form si, unlike Standard Serbian. In Križanić's grammar (1984: 110), one finds the following forms: N.   Jâz, Jâ, GA. Méne, Me: Menęɳ, Męɳ, DL. Méni, Mi: Mně , I. Ménoju: Mnóju and Mnóju  and N. Tî, GA. Tébe, Te: Tebęɳ, Tę , DL. Tébi, Ti: Tebě , I. Tóboju: Tobóju. The genitive-accusative forms Menęɳ, Tebęɳ, the dative forms Mně , Tebě , and the instrumental form Tobóju  are probably taken from Russian. His native Croatian dialect seemingly had initial stress in the genitive, dative and instrumental.  

 

 

 

Slovene § 18 In Slovene, the explanation for the flection of GDAL is the same as in Croatian: the dative-locative got the analogical men-/teb- from men-/teb-  from the genitive, the ending –i  – i in in the dativelocative is to be explained in the same way as in the ā- stem stem nouns, and the old accusative forms me , te  function today as the clitic genitive-accusative forms. The accent is rising in both of these forms, which is in accord with Serbian мèнe, тèбe, мèни, тèби . The old accusative forms *mę, *tę are used in the combination with prepositions: naʄ me, me, naʄ te, te, čeʖ ʄzme, čeʄ  ʖ zte, poʄ  ʖ dme, poʄ  ʖd  te etc. te etc. The instrumentals menóʜ j  and tebóʜj  (with the analogical root vocalism) point to the older neo-acute at the ending - menóʜ j ⇐  j ⇐ *mъnojNjʀ, which agrees with Old Russian (see § 27). The other Slovene form, which occurs with the prepositions, preserves the old vocalism of  the root: z mâno < mâno  < *sъ mъnǍ, but the accent is difficult to explain (see § 54). The form tâbo  is analogical to the form mâno . Czech mn-  of the § 19 The genitive form *mene has been replaced with mne , by analogy to the mn- of dative-locative and instrumental, from the earliest times, as in all other West Slavic languages. This new genitive form (as well as the unchanged tebe ) has taken over the role of  the accented accusative, as elsewhere. The old accusative forms *mę and *tę > *mä, *tä > mĕ, tĕ function tĕ function as the unaccented forms. The dative-locative full form mnĕ is mnĕ is preserved, and so are the unaccented dative forms mi, ti . However, the difference of the dative-locative mnĕ  and the genitive-accusative mne, mĕ  exists only in literary Czech. In spoken Czech, all of  these forms are pronounced exactly the same: [mńe] 121. Thus, in spoken Czech, like in Polish, there is only one form in GDAL.

121

In the dialect of Prague and in Central Czech dialects in general, mĕ is mĕ is generally pronounced [mńe]. 45

In the dative and locative singular of the 2 nd person, Czech has tob- , like Polish and other West Slavic languages. The form tebĕ is tebĕ  is attested in Old Czech dialectal texts 122 and in modern Czech dialects. In Old Czech, short accusative forms were used with prepositions, for instance na tě . This is impossible in Modern Czech, except in phrases like dojde na tě "it tě  "it will come to you (you will see what you did)". In the instrumental, Old Czech form mnú (< mnú  (< *mъnǍ < *mъnojNj) has regularly yielded modern mnou , while the original Old Czech tobú has tobú  has taken the secondary root vocalism –e  – e (instead of the original –o  – o -) -) from the genitive-accusative form (thus, the modern form is tebou ).). The analogical form tebú first tebú  first appeared in the 14 th century, and spread very quickly, taking the older tobú out tobú  out of the picture already in the 15 th century. The oldest texts, from 123. around 1300, still had the regular tobú 123 Slovak West Slavic, § 20 The original *men- in the genitive has been replaced, as elsewhere in West with mn- from mn- from the other oblique cases (dative-locative and instrumental). The clitic forms mi  and ti in ti in the dative are preserved. In the dative, mne represents mne  represents the original form, while in the 2 nd person, the root teb-  could have been imported from the genitive(-accusative), cf. Czech tobĕ . The other way to look at this is that Slovak tebe  with an –e  –e - represents yet another isogloss that connects (Central) Slovak with South Slavic (in South Slavic, only the form tebĕ is tebĕ  is attested), and that both forms existed (at least in some Slovak dialects) from the very beginning 124. Pauliny (1990: 151) believes that the form sobĕ  (and thus also tobĕ) , must have been more widespread in Old Slovak. He thinks that personal names which contain this stem prove this. He adduces the following names attested in Cividalský evanjeliár  (9th century) on the territory of the present day Slovakia: Sobĕmysla , Sobĕgojь , Sobĕslava, Sobina  but Sebĕtuxъ, Sebĕdragъ, Sebĕtĕxъ, Sebĕmyslъ . He also compares contemporary name Sebeslavce  with Hungarian Szoboszló  (in 1230/1285 – Scebeslou , 1294 – Zebezlouch , but 1271/1284 Zobozlo and Zobozlo  and in 1234 zoboslaus, comes nitriensis ).). The forms sobe , tobe also tobe  also appear in old texts, with the attestations ranging from 1479 to 1665, according to Pauliny (1990: 152). For the DL. forms tebe , sebe , he adduces examples as early as from the year 1380. There is one more thing which points to the existance of the old tobe , sobe . In East Slovak, in GDAL. one finds the forms tebe , sebe . However, one would expect, at least in GA. (where the – e-  must be old) the forms **ťebʆe, e, **sʆebʆ ebʆe. e. The hard consonants in East Slovak tebe , sebe  are explained as an original trait of the old DL. *tobʆĕ, *sobʆĕ 125. Cf. Gebauer 1896: 528, Vážný 1964: 121. 123 Gebauer 1896: 529. 124 Mareš (2001: 136) thinks that these forms in Slovak can be regarded without any difficulty as one of  the numerous Slovak meridionalisms. 125 Fedák 1937: 74. 122

46

The old ending of the genitive-accusative -e  - e in in mne , tebe is tebe is preserved in East Slovak dialects: GA. ťebe, sebe  was attested in the speech of older speakers in the dialect of  Liptova126, and the GA. forms mne – me , ťebe/tebe – ťe/te  are, for instance, attested in Gemer127. This is due to the fact that in this area, the short nasal *ę yielded e (thus e (thus *mę, *tę > me, ce ).). In Central and West Slovak dialects (and in Standard Slovak), where *ę yielded a , the short forms have influenced the long ones and the ending –a  – a has has analogically become the ending of the long forms as well (Slovak DL. mňa, teba ).). Thus, the same change occurred in the genitive-accusative as in Russian (see § 27). In these dialects, the dative-locative ending remained unchanged (i.e. mnĕ , tebĕ > tebĕ > mne , tebe ),), but in the genitive-accusative, the original mne , tebe  changes to mňa , teba  (already from the 15 th century, cf. Pauliny 1990: 153), analogically to the short forms ma and ma and ťa (originally ťa (originally the accusative forms and now the genitive-accusative clitics). Thus, the GA. and DL. forms remain different in these dialects (otherwise GA. mne , tebe and tebe and DL. mně, tebě would tebě would yield GDAL. mne, tebe ).). In the short forms, the process of change goes like this: mę > mę  > mä ⇒ mä  ⇒ ma and ma  and tę > tę  > ťä  > ťa . In most Central Slovak dialects, the form mä yields mä  yields ma by ma  by analogy to ťa (this ťa  (this is still a change in progress). In Central Slovak dialects, in which the form mä  still occurs, there is 128. The short accusative forms cannot be combined with prepositions in also ťebä, sebä 128 Slovak. In the instrumental, the original mn- has mn-  has been preserved, since this has become the stem of all oblique cases, while in the 2 nd person, the original tob- was tob-  was replaced by younger teb- from teb- from the genitive(-accusative), as in Czech. This is hardly surprising since the form teb-  is generalized in all oblique cases in (Central) Slovak 129. In West Slovak documents from the 15th century, both the forms sebou  and sobu  are attested. The forms tebu  and sebu  are mostly found in Central and East Slovak, but the forms with to- , so-  are attested in the North and East of Slovakia, as well as in Gemer 130. The (Central) Slovak ending –ou  – ou  looks identical to the Czech ending, but it is not. While in Czech the diphthong is due to the diphthongization of the older –ú  – ú (which (which is derived from the contracted ending *-Ǎ < *-ojNj), in Slovak, -ou  - ou  is the regular reflex of the noncontracted ending *-ojNj after the disappearance of the *-j- (*-ojNj > *-oju > - ou ).). In 131. dialects, one finds forms mnú and mnú and mnu besides mnu besides mnou 131 Upper Lusatian § 21 In Upper Lusatian, the typical West Slavic development of generalizing the stem mn-  in all oblique cases is also present. The genitive and the accusative are merged in the usual way. The old accusative forms mje, će  are now short forms, while the old genitive forms mnje , tebje are tebje  are the full forms (in GA. of course). Unlike Czech, Polish and the second-halfof-the-20th-century Lower Lusatian (see § 19, § 23, § 27), Upper Lusatian still clearly Stanislav 1932: 315. Orlovský 1975: 80. 128 Pauliny 1990: 151. 129 Unlike Czech, which has tob- in tob- in the dative-locative, and in Old Czech in the instrumental as well. 130 Pauliny 1990: 153. 131 Pauliny, ibid . 126 127

47

distinguishes the genitive-accusative forms from the dative-locative ones in both 1. and 2. person: mnje , tebje and tebje  and mni , tebi , in spite of the fact that one finds teb- and teb-  and not tob- in tob- in the dative-locative and mn- in mn-  in all oblique cases. This is due to the fact that the ending – i < i  < *-i (from the feminine jā-  feminine  jā- stems, stems, like zemja , DL. sg. zemi) , instead of the original – je  – je < < *-ě has been introduced to the dative-locative 132. The short dative forms are also preserved. In the dative form of the 2 nd person, as already said, the stem teb- occurs. teb- occurs. This could have been introduced from the genitive-accusative instead of the older tob- attested tob-  attested in Old Lower Lusatian (see § 22) or it could be old. The old stem tob- was tob-  was however, in opposition to Czech, preserved in the instrumental form tobu . Here, we can clearly see how levellings can function in different ways in different languages – in Lusatian, the dative-locative was analogically changed (if not old), in Czech – the instrumental, and in Slovak (if the dative tebe  is not considered to be a South Slavic isogloss) both the dative-locative and the instrumental were changed analogically. Lower Lusatian developments were similar or identical to Upper § 22 In Lower Lusatian, most forms and developments Lusatian, except for the innovation which happened in the 20 th century. In the older norm of  Lower Lusatian, from the beginning of the 20 th century, represented in Šẃela 1952 (: 3839)133, the GDAL. full forms were not completely merged, but were still partly distinguished in the 1st person. Thus, there was GA. mnjo but mnjo  but both mnjo and mnjo  and mnje in mnje  in the DL. In the 2 nd person, these had already practically merged: GDAL. tebje , tebjo (Šẃela, tebjo  (Šẃela, however, does not include the form tebjo as tebjo as possible in the locative) 134. In the short forms, there was mje, śi in śi in the genitive, and mĕ, śi  in the DA. Thus, as we can see, these forms were still partly differentiated, as in Upper Lusatian, but the merger had already started. In the younger norm, from the second part of the 20 th century, represented in Janaš 1976 (: 172-176), these forms are already completely merged. In the GDAL. full forms (used after prepositions), there are only mnjo  and tebje , while in the short forms (used without prepositions), mje  occurs in the genitive and mĕ  in the DA., while in the 2 nd person, śi  is used throughout. In the dative, as in Upper Lusatian, the stem teb- was teb-  was either analogically introduced from the genitive-accusative, or it represents a parallel form inherited from Common Slavic. The form tobje  is attested in Jakubica’s Lower Lusatian translation of the New Testament from the first half of the 16 th century135. In the instrumental, the forms are mnu , tobu  as in Upper Lusatian. The analogical form tebu was tebu was attested as a dialectal form at the end of the 18 th century136. Vaillant 1958: 458. 133 This book was actually written in 1905. 134 For the sake of simplicity, I write nj and nj and bj instead bj instead of ń  of ń and and bɴ.  135 Muka 1891: 390. 136 Muka, ibid . 132

48

One more thing should be mentioned for both Upper and Lower Lusatian – as Mareš (2001: 137) notes, the forms in teb- should teb-  should really have the form **ćeb- in Upper Lusatian, and **śeb- in Lower Lusatian (at least in the genitive-accusative where – e- is e-  is old) via usual sound laws in these two languages. The forms in teb-  are obviously analogous to the nominative, old dative-locative variant with an – o- and o- and instrumental forms, which all have t-  at the beginning. Polish § 23 In Polish, the development of personal pronouns is similar in many ways to their development in other West Slavic languages. The genitive and the accusative are unified in the usual Slavic way, and via sound laws the genitive-accusative form mnie became mnie became identical to the dative-locative form (the mn-  is of course generalized in all oblique cases). The difference of the dative-locative and genitive-accusative still exists in the short forms and in the 2nd person singular, where the DL. still preserves the old West Slavic stem tob- , while the stem *teb- > cieb-  (not levelled to **teb- like in Lusatian!) appears in the GA. The instrumental forms mną, tobą  correspond exactly to Old Czech mnú, tobú  (< *mъnǍ < *mъnojNj and *tobǍ < *tobojNj). Meillet (1934: 453) thought that the short genitive-accusative forms with no nasals – mie , cie (thus cie  (thus not like like Standard Polish mię , cię , derived from *mę, *tę), which appear in some Old Polish texts and in some Polish dialects, as well as in Kashubian, Slovincian and Polabian - are old and that they should be derived from Proto-Slavic *me, *te, which are in turn derived from the very same Indo-European forms 137. These non-nasal forms were used as clitic forms with verbs, while the nasal forms were used after prepositions. For instance in Psałterz floriański  (Old Polish) – na mię , but czemu mie męczysz , in Slovincian – (na-)mją , but –mjä  –mjä , in Polabian (no-)mang , but –me  –me . However, there is probably no reason to assume that these forms are archaic and that they stem from a Common Slavic variant *me, *te, rather than *mę, *tę (as attested elsewhere). These non-nasal forms are probably to be attributed to the influence of the full GA. forms (originally genitive forms), which had no 138. These were subsequently confined to nasal to begin with – thus mie by mie  by analogy to mnie 138 the use with verbs, while the older nasal variants were still used with prepositions. Kashubian § 24 The forms are generally in accord with the typical West Slavic development. GDAL. have the same form in the 1 st person as in Polish (with a generalized *mn- > mɴ-  -  ). ). In the 2nd person, the distinction is maintained due to the preservation of the old *teb- > ceb-  and tob- difference. tob-  difference. In Kashubian, the form tobɴe is   is the only one in the dative, but in the locative both tobɴ e and e  and cebɴe appear.   appear. The latter form might be an innovation (due to the influence of  the other cases), or an archaism inherited from Common Slavic. Slovincian is even more radical in this way (see § 25), there the *to- form is not even attested in the locative. The old Cf. also Schmidt 1978: 50. 138 Vaillant 1958: 444, Aitzemüller 1991: 108. 137

49

forms mnNj  and tobNj  are preserved in the instrumental (cf. Polish mną, tobą ).). The short forms are also preserved, and the accusative short forms can still be used with prepositions 139. Slovincian except the instrumental, have an § 25 The characteristic of Slovincian is that all forms, except accented and an unaccented variant – including not only the locative (which has no short form elsewhere in Slavic), but the nominative as well. The forms and development are, except for this fact, mostly the same as in Kashubian (the same form in the GDAL. accented form in the 1st person with a generalized *mn- > mj- , mj-  , the difference of *tob- and *teb- in the D. and GA. in the 2 nd person etc.). We have seen in Kashubian that besides the form tobɴe in   in the locative, the form cebɴ e  e  also exists. Slovincian is more consistent here in a way, and the form cìeʠbjä is bjä  is the only one that appears in the locative. This is either due to the analogical development in the locative, or to the generalization of one Common Slavic variant in the locative and the other in the dative (theoretically, it could be an archaism as well, from Common Slavic D. sg. *tobě, L. sg. *tebě). Due to this curious development (whatever its origin ultimately is – an analogy or inheritance), Kashubian and Slovincian are one of the rare Slavic languages/dialects that distinguish the dative and the locative of the personal pronouns. This kind of secondary distinction exists for instance in the Croatian dialect of Vrgada as well, see § 17. In the unaccented dative forms, one finds both cä and cä and tä in tä in the 2nd person. The latter 140. This is proved by the fact that we find this form has the t-  by analogy to tșɳȅʠȅbʠ jä 140 secondary tä  only in the dative, where the accented form begins with a t- , while this unaccented form does not appear in the GAL., where the accented forms have a c-  at the beginning. This analogical development is either not very old, since the t- does t-  does not appear in the locative (if the *te- form is not old there), or it can be regarded as evidence for the originality of *te- in the locative, i.e. that the *te- form is inherited from Common Slavic. It is interesting to note that the unaccented genitive form is really the unaccented dative form in origin (not the old accusative form as usual elsewhere!). This is the situation we find in both 1 st and 2nd person – mjä and mjä and cä in cä in the GDAL. The origin of this must be in the fact that the form mjä is mjä  is the regular outcome of both the genitive *mъ/ьne and the dative *mъ/ьnĕ. Thus, the form mjä  functions as both the genitive and the dative form due to phonological merger. The double function of  cä is cä  is due to analogy to the 1 st person141. The forms mjä and mjä and cä have cä have shown to be very aggressive and have penetrated to the accusative as well (cf. the old accusative short forms mją, cą ).).

Cf. Lorentz 1925: 156. Cf. also Lorentz 1903: 275. 141 Lorentz 1903: 275. 139 140

50

An interesting point is the final accent in the instrumental case mnoɺųʠųʠ and tȅboɺųʠųʠ which could indicate the old neo-acute (and thus old *-ojNjʀ ), like Slovene (but not necessarily, cf. § 54).  

 

Polabian § 26 Concerning Polabian, the unreliable orthography and the lack of data are the biggest problems142. In Polabian, like in Slovincian, unaccented forms exist even in the nominative. The development of the forms, as far as it can be judged from the attestations, does not differ much from the average West Slavic state. In the genitive-dative-accusative (old genitive forms are used for accusative of  course), both the forms with final (miné, ( miné, mané, tibé) and tibé)  and with initial accent (mánǩ, ( mánǩ, tíbǩ ) are attested. In the 1st person, man- is man-  is the expected result of old *mъ/ьn-, while min- must min-  must be analogous to the 2nd person tib- . One would expect i < i  < *e in front of a labial like in síbe < síbe  < *sebe, zímɴa <  < *zemja, but not in front of a *-n-  *-n - like like in zéna < zéna  < *žena143. Thus, this is not an example of the preserved stem *men- in West Slavic. Since the dative and genitive forms have more or less merged in Polabian 144, it goes without saying that the stem *tob- is not attested in the dative-locative forms – it was either replaced by the analogical *teb-, or inherited from Common Slavic. Cf. also the cases of Kashubian, Slovincian, Slovak and Lusatian where the same problem occurs. The original stem *tob- is preserved, though, in 145. the instrumental: tåbNjɺ (cf. Polabian vå dƮ < dƮ < *voda for the development *o > å) 145  

The old accusative mą  is still used after prepositions (the 2nd person form is not attested). Russian basically the same as OCS ones, except for the fact that in § 27 Old Russian forms were basically the dative-locative the form mъnĕ was mъnĕ was the only one and that besides tebĕ , there was also the form tobĕ (as tobĕ  (as in West Slavic). The form mъně , unlike in OCS, is in accord with the form tobě  (both ъ and ъ and o being o being back vowels). In Ukrainian and Byelorussian, we find in the 2 nd person dative-locative only to- , as in Czech or Polish. However, in Modern Russian only the form тебé  exists. In Old Russian, besides тебΟ , the form тoбΟ  is also attested. Both тeбΟ  and тoбΟ  appear from the earliest records - for instance in the same text from 1073 146.

For instance, cf. Polabian forms adduced by Schleicher (1871: 259) and by Ceлищев (1941: 440), which are not completely alike. 143 Cf. Schleicher 1871: 47, 49. 144 Ceлищев 1941: 440, but cf. Schleicher 1871: 260. 145 Schleicher (1871: 262) attributes the form tåbNjɺ to the analogy with the form månNjɺ, although it is not clear why, since both *ъ and *o would yield the same result here. 146 Meyer 1923: 147. 142

51

According to Дypново (1924: 258), the forms тебΟ and тебΟ  and cебΟ in cебΟ  in Old Russian are due to the OCS influence, which he tries to prove by pointing out that in some of the Old Russian texts, like in Aрхангельско евангелие (1092), евангелие (1092), where Ο is Ο is normally clearly distinguished from e , -Ο  - Ο is is written consistently in тoбΟ, coбΟ , but not in тебΟ , cебΟ , which also appear as тебe , cебe . This is indeed a very good argument and this proves that the forms тебΟ , cебΟ were cебΟ  were really OCS forms in some Old Russian texts. However, this does not mean that it was so in all texts/dialects, and the question is not very important anyway. Since the forms with –e-  – e- appear appear in most of the modern Russian dialects, we know for a fact that this must be a native Russian form, not an OCS loanword. The thing that is not so clear is the question of whether this тебΟ in тебΟ  in Russian is just a product of a later analogy to the genitive-accusative forms (which would mean that only the form *tobĕ existed in Russian originally), or whether both forms are equally original in Russian (which would mean that Old Russian has inherited both *tobĕ, like West Slavic languages, and *tebĕ, like South Slavic languages and probably some West Slavic languages as well, from Common Slavic 147). This is a difficult question to answer since this kind of innovation, the analogical spread of – e-  instead of –o-  –o- to to the dative-locative singular, might have occurred very early, like the West Slavic innovation of *mъ/ьne instead of *mene 148. If *tebĕ is a Russian innovation (and not an inheritance from Common Slavic), that must have been a very early change indeed, since, as already said, both of these forms are attested in Old Russian from the earliest records. It would seem more economical to assume that the form with the *-e- in the dative-locative was inherited rather than recreated anew by analogy 149. However, according to Mareš (2001: 135-136) 150, the first reliable attestation of Old Russian (and not Church Slavic) тебΟ , cебΟ  stems from the 14th century. If this view is to be trusted, the –e  – e - forms might be regarded as an internal Russian innovation, although this still remains controversial 151. According to Kiparsky (1967: 133), the form тoбΟ was тoбΟ  was more frequent than тебΟ  in Old Russian. However, since the 14th/15th century, the dative-locative form with an –e  – e - starts gaining power, which results in a complete disappearance of the – o- dative-locative o- dative-locative form by the end of the 17 th century in most dialects. Черных (1962: 218) thinks that the forms with –e-  – e-  suppressed the forms with –o  – o due to the literary tradition of OCS. This may be true in explaining the victory of the – e forms in the literary language, but since the same thing also happened in most dialects, the influence of the literary tradition of OCS was hardly very important. The –o  –o - forms have, however, managed to survive in certain dialects – cf. the forms тoбé, coбé in coбé  in North Russian, and тaбé, caбé in caбé  in South Russian 152. The tendency to unite the stems of the DL. and the GA. was strong and it resulted in the victory of the тe-  forms in That is the opinion of Eckert, Crome & Fleckenstein (1983: 140), for instance. 148 *mene with an *-e- appears nowhere in West Slavic, not even in the earliest records. 149 There is another angle to this story, Kiparsky (1967: 133) believes that the form *tobĕ was originally a locative, while *tebĕ is originally a dative. For the discussion, see § 47, § 72. 150 Cf. also Филин 1972: 430-431 and Бopковский & Кузнецов 1965: 196 5: 232-233. 151 Mareš (ibid. (ibid.)) himself says: “It is rather difficult to say, if Sorbian and Russian forms teb-/seb- DL teb-/seb- DL sg. can be interpreted as a belated branch of a tendency whose root was in the South Slavic territory, or if  we are dealing in this case with a quite independent and typologically parallel phenomenon (…)“. (…)“. 152 Бopковский & Кузнецов 1965: 229. 147

52

Russian. However, before the final winner was clear, the opposite scenario has occurred as well. The тo- forms тo- forms were attested in the GA. since the 14 th century, but not too often (this is attested even today in dialects). The first occurrence of  тoбe instead тoбe  instead of  тeбe in тeбe  in the GA. is from the year 1382 153. In the merged genitive-accusative 154, an unusual ending is found: меняɴ, тебяɴ . However, these forms are really not that difficult to account for. As explained already by Vatroslav Jagić, these forms are due to the merging of the original менe, тебe with тебe with the short forms мя , тя  < *mę, *tę. Mareš (2001: 136) explained why this has happened: «The phonemes /e/ and /ĕ/ were merging in Russian, and in the XV th century this coalescence was already accomplished in most of the Great Russian dialects. Accordingly, the genitiveaccusative and the dative-locative forms of the pronouns ty and ty  and sę became sę  became homophonous: tebe , sebe . This undesired lack of communicative clearness led to the assumption of the ending of the shorter forms tę > tę  > tja , sę > sę  > sja (A sja  (A sg.): tebé/sebé GA tebé/sebé  GA sg. X tja/sja GA tja/sja  GA sg. > tebjá, sebjá . All other endings having been the same with all three pronouns, the pronoun  ja  was adapted in the framework of the whole system: mené  GA sg. X (mę  (mę  >) mja  A sg. > menjá , like tebjá, sebjá  (though there was no homophonous fusion in genitive-accusative and in dative-locative: mene vs. mene  vs. mne )» )»155. The present day form меняɴ  was first recorded in 1383 and тебяɴ in 1461-1464. In the 16 th century the new forms grew strong, and by the 17 th century other competitive forms were completely and utterly gone 156. The short forms have disappeared altogether from Modern Russian (and from most modern East Slavic dialects in general) in 16 th/17th century. Old accusative forms, мя and мя and тя , were still used both in accented and in unaccented position in 13 th/14th century (Kiparsky 1967: 134). According to Eckert, Crome & Fleckenstein (1983: 141), the forms ми  and мя  were used in Moscow up until 17 th century157, but according to Бopковский & Кузнецов (1965: 232), these unaccented forms were used only in traditional formulas already in the 15th century. Before they disappeared, these forms were reduced, cf. Modern Russian reflexive –cь  –cь and and –cя  –cя with with verbs. The short forms are attested in some Russian dialects, but not all of them represent a continuation of the old short forms. In instrumental, the forms мнóй  and тобóй  represent an innovation, attested in Russian (and in Byelorussian) from the 13 th/14th century158. The older forms with the final – ю , мнóю and мнóю and тобóю , are today used only as poetic forms. Concerning the accent in Old Russian, the situation is a little bit different from that in Modern Russian. Modern Russian forms like меняɴ  and тобóй ( тобóй (тобóю ) are not really relevant by themselves, since the first form is innovative and the accent could be secondary as well, and in the second one the ending is shortened and thus the accent would have to be According to Kyзнецов 1959: 122. The original accusative forms have disappeared altogether in Modern Russian. 155 Cf. also Vaillant 1958: 456. 156 Kiparsky 1967: 131-132. 157 Cf. also Черных 1962: 219. 158 Mareš 2001: 138. 153 154

53

retracted even if it was not originally on the first part of –oю  – oю . In Old Russian 159, the forms of  the genitive and dative, мéне, тéбe , мъɴнΟ,  нΟ, теɴбΟ/тóбΟ , were enclinomena, i.e. stem stressed, although they had variants with the end-stress (which corresponds to modern меняɴ,  тебяɴ ).). In instrumental, the accent was on the final syllable – мнoюɴ and тобoюɴ.  Ukrainian § 28 In Ukrainian, the historical development of the personal pronouns oblique singular cases was much simpler than in Russian. Most of the forms represent just a regular outcome of the original North Slavic forms. The only exception is the dative-locative of the 1 st person pronoun, where the old мн-  was analogically changed to мeн - by the influence of the genitive-accusative form (cf. Russian мнé) . The old form мнí  is preserved in some West Ukrainian dialects 160. In the dative-locative of the 2 nd person, the old North-West Slavic –o  – o - is preserved. Unlike Russian, there was never any danger of the coalescence of the genitive-accusative and dative-locative form in the 2 nd person, not only because of the теб -/тoб  -/тoб - difference (the мeн -/мн  -/мн - difference is gone in the 1 st person though), but also because *ě and *e did not merge in Ukrainian, unlike Russian. Mareš (2001:137-8) notes a couple of interesting points concerning the Ukrainian dative forms. The stem мeн - in the dative-locative in Ukrainian is the only such example in North Slavic (Russian and Byelorussian have the old мн -), -), and, more interestingly, that is the only example in Slavic of the stem men- in men- in the dative-locative, while there is no parallel teb-  (and seb- ) in the dative-locative. Mareš interprets this development in the following way: the Ukrainian form мнí  was the only case of an isolated monosyllabic non-nominative form. It was the only monosyllabic form, and thus it was analogically made bisyllabic. In Russian and Byelorussian, the 1st person dative-locative form was not an isolated monosyllabic nonnominative form, since there the instrumental form was either mono- or bisyllabic 161, so there was no ground for this kind of change. In both the genitive-accusative and dative-locative, the accent is desinential in Modern Ukrainian, like in Russian. In the instrumental, the old final accent was replaced by the accent on the first syllable of the ending, in correspondence to the ending – óю in óю in ā- stem stem nouns. The original dative and accusative short forms have, like in Russian, disappeared from Ukrainian. They are however preserved in some Ukrainian dialects (Meyer 1923: 146). Byelorussian Byelorussian is the most archaic East Slavic language when it comes to the preservation of personal pronouns. In Byelorussian, only the regular sound change has occurred - there were no analogical changes whatsoever, the only minor exception being the shortening of the instrumental forms, мнóй and мнóй  and тaбóй , like in Russian (the old long forms мнóю, тaбóю are тaбóю  are poetical variants). The old *ě and *e have merged in Byelorussian just like Зализняк 1985: 143. Mareš 2001: 137. 161 Cf. Ukrainian мнóю but мнóю but Russian, Byelorussian мнóй/мнóю . 159 160

54

in Russian, but there was no merger of the genitive-accusative and dative-locative forms since these are clearly differentiated by the stems (GA. мянé мянé - DL. мнé , GA. цябé – цябé – DL. тaбé ).). The accent of the genitive-accusative and the dative-locative is on the second syllable, like in Modern Russian and Ukrainian (but unlike Old Russian). The short forms have disappeared, as in Russian and Ukrainian.

55

Personal pronouns in plural Slavic *my and *vy § 29 The reconstruction of Common Slavic *myʄ and *vyʄ, like that of *tŷ, is not problematic. The correspondences are quite clear. The circumflex in *mŷ and *vyʄ is confirmed by Slovene mî , vî, Čakavian (for instance Novi, Orlec) mî , vî , Kajkavian (Bednja) meʄi, veʄ i,i, Czech my , vy, Slovincian maɺ, vaɺ, Old Russian 163), and Middle Bulgarian мыɴ, выɴ - which are «enclinomena» 162 (cf. иɴ  мы, иɴ вы, мы жè, вы бò 163 164. мы жè, вы жè 164 Old Štokavian, South Čakavian and Kajkavian (most dialects) mĩ and mĩ and vĩ are vĩ are secondary, the result of the secondary spread of the neo-acute from  jã  (thus also secondary tĩ, see § 14). In Neo-Štokavian, the neo-acute original of  mî, vî is vî is seen in ì vī, ì mī (and mī  (and not **ıʂ mī, **ıʂ vī).   

  

The reflexes of the original my and my  and vy have vy  have been preserved in most languages. The only exceptions are Bulgarian ниɳe  e  and Macedonian ниe , which have the n-  from oblique cases and a secondary ending by analogy to the demonstrative forms like тие (< тие (< *ti-ję with a *ję originally from the accusative) 165. The form ny instead ny instead of my  of  my is is also a feature of the dialect of the Kiev Folia , where it is the only form attested (7x). The form ny  instead of  my  appears also once in the OCS text Glagolita Clozianus , but there it can be explained as writer's error 166. The form ниɳe is e is attested in Bulgarian since the 13th century167. The form мие with мие with the old м- appears м- appears in the Macedonian dialect of Mijaci. In Slovene, the new separate feminine plural forms were made by analogy to the 168 . nominal o- and o- and ā- stem stem endings: mî, mêʜ, vî, vêʜ168  In Polabian, the form  jai  instead of the expected *våi is attested. This is probably a 169. loanword from Lower German jî  German jî 169

Зализняк 1985: 143. 163 Дыбo 1981: 35, 51, Дыбo 2000: 62. 164 Дыбo 1981: 51. 165 Георгиев’s sandhi explanation *my esmъ > *mye smъ and *vy este > *vye ste (Xapaламниев 2001: 108-9) is not very convincing. 166 Cf. Weingart 1937-8: 202. 167 Xapaламниев 2001: 109. 168 The same thing happened in Slovincian and Kashubian in dual nominative forms. 169 Cf. Schleicher 1871: 262, Vaillant 1958: 452. Polabian jai  Polabian jai could could also be derived from older Slavic *ji. Curiously, this is the very form we would expect to get from the IE *yūs (the inital *y- is otherwise lost in Slavic, cf. § 48). However, it is highly unlikely that this kind of archaism would be preserved in Polabian only (Vaillant, ibid.). ibid.). 162

56

Oblique cases of 1st and 2nd person plural The forms of the 1st and 2nd person plural are always the same, except for the initial consonant (m-  (m- /n- : n-  : v- ).). The development of the plural oblique forms in Slavic languages is simpler than the development of the singular oblique forms. Old Church Slavic § 30 30 The genitive and locative forms are identical in OCS (and in other Slavic languages). This is due simply to the phonetic merger of the old endings *-som and *-su in Slavic (see § 69). The old accusative forms were ny, vy. In modern Slavic languages, the genitive forms nasъ and nasъ  and vasъ have vasъ  have taken over their place completely (due to the general tendency in Slavic to merge pronominal genitive and accusative forms). This process is seen already in OCS, where nasъ and nasъ and vasъ also vasъ also appear instead of the expected ny and ny and vy in vy in the accusative. This is a clear later innovation in OCS texts. In some OCS texts (Euchologium (Euchologium Sinaiticum , Codex Suprasaliensis , Glagolita  Clozianus ),), the forms ny and ny and vy were vy  were also used as the unaccented dative forms. This feature also appears in other Slavic languages – like Macedonian and Bulgarian, Old Russian, Old Croatian, some Montenegrin and Serbian dialects etc. Bulgarian declension. Thus, not many original § 31 As already said, Bulgarian has lost most of its declension. forms are preserved. The following forms are preserved: old genitive-locative forms нàc, вàc , which are now general oblique forms; the old accented accusative/unaccented dative forms ни  and ви , which are now used as the unaccented dative-accusative forms (the old genitives нàc, вàc are вàc  are used as the accented accusative, like in most other Slavic languages); and the old dative forms наɳм and   and ваɳм  м,  which are today archaic (unlike in Macedonian) and instead of which the new analytic forms на нàc and нàc and на вàc are вàc are used. We can find out more from Middle Bulgarian (Hock 1992 I: 119-120), where we find the forms practically identical to those of OCS. The form corresponding to Croatian dial. naʂ mi, mi, vaʂ mi and mi  and Czech námi, vámi is vámi  is нáми, вáми. In Evangelie 1139 (Hock 1139  (Hock 1992), one finds only secondary на ныɴ , на выɴ  in the accusative. The old forms like наɴ  ны  are facultatively preserved in other Middle Bulgarian monuments (Дыбo 1981: 50). Macedonian In Macedonian, the situation is similar to Bulgarian but not the same. The accented forms, the dative нам  and вам  (preserved in Modern Macedonian, unlike Bulgarian, where they are archaic) and the accusative/oblique нac , вac (originally вac (originally genitive) are usually doubled with the unaccented forms. In the dative, the unaccented forms are ни  and ви , but in the accusative, new forms нè and нè  and вe have вe  have been formed analogically (like in some Montenegrin dialects). 57

Croatian declension was changed in many ways. The older § 32 In Neo-Štokavian, the original declension declension pattern was preserved in many Čakavian and Kajkavian dialects. The old genitive-locative forms *nasъ, *vasъ are now the genitive-accusative forms, which can be both accented and unaccented. These forms are attested as the accusative from the 15th century. When accented, some northern Čakavian dialects (for instance Cres, Susak), Kajkavian (for instance Bednja GAL. noʂs,  s, voʂs ) and some South-West Štokavian dialects have the original forms naʂ s  s,  vaʂ s  s , while South Čakavian and Posavina Old Štokavian have the secondary neo-acute here - cf. Posavina nãs, Hvar nõs . This form is also the source 170. The original accent is still seen in Štokavian of the Neo-Štokavian naʄ s, s, vaʄs,  s, nà vās, zà vās 170 possessive pronouns naʂ š and š  and vaʂ š  š . The source of the secondary neo-acute in Štokavian and South Čakavian nãs , vãs must vãs  must be sought in the pronominal forms like njĩh , teɶ  ʖh   (>   (> tîh, tıʂ jeh    etc.), and in the frequency of the neo-acute in the genitive plural in general – cf. nominal 171. This change is probably genitive plural forms like kostĩ , rukũ , and in Štokavian also glāvã 171 not very old in Neo-Štokavian – according to Rešetar (1911: 212), in Molise these forms have the old accent: naʂ s  s,  vaʂs . The Molise Croats came to Italy in 15 th/16th century, which means that in that time the forms naʂs  s   , vaʂ s were s were still used in Neo-Štokavian - at least in the territory between the rivers Cetina and Neretva, where they came from. Today, only the forms naʄ s, s, vaʄ s are s  are attested there. Thus, the innovation naʂ s  s,  vaʂ s ⇒ s  ⇒ nãs , vãs  (naʄ s, s, vaʄ s  s)  was probably a later isogloss, which has encompassed most of Štokavian and South Čakavian. In the standard language, and in many Štokavian dialects, the original dual forms naʂ ma and ma  and vaʂ ma are ma  are used for the dative-locative-instrumental plural. The form vama in vama  in the dative, for instance, is attested from the 15 th century (ARj). In the locative, nama, vama  appear from the 17 th century, and in the instrumental from the 14 th century172. The forms nami, vami  in the dative appear from the 14 th century, and in the locative from the 17 th century173. It is clear that the system was not stable from the very beginning. In the instrumental, for instance, the forms nam and nam  and vam instead vam  instead of nami, of  nami, vami are vami  are attested as early as the 13 th century174. The use of nas  of  nas , vas in vas  in the locative is preserved mostly in Kajkavian and Čakavian dialects. In Štokavian, the use of  nas in nas  in the locative has been declining from the 17 th century (ARj). The old dative form nam  is still used as the unaccented dative form 175. Old instrumental forms naʂ mi  mi  and vaʂ mi  mi  are also used as dative-locative-instrumental forms in In the light of Posavina nãs, vãs, it is clear that Stang’s (1957: 106) and Дыбо’s (1981: 35, 2000: 63) claims that Neo-Štokavian naʄs, s  , vaʄ s  s  is the result of the old neo-circumflex are blatantly wrong. Kajkavian Prigorje genitive vaʄs, s  , but locative vaʂs (Rožić  (Rožić 1889-94/116: 130) is an example of a real neocircumflex (see § 55 for the discussion). Cf. Bednja GAL. noʂ s, s, voʂ s  s.  171 Белић’s (1964: 106) argument that Štokavian naʄs, s  , vaʄ s  s  is older than Čakavian naʂs, vaʂ s  s  makes no sense. 172 Jurišić 1992: 152. 173 Белић 1964: 105. 174 Jurišić, ibid . 175 The variation –ma  –ma :: -m  -m is is common in the plural of pronouns and adjectives in Croatian. 170

58

many Štokavian dialects (for instance in Vrgorska krajina). In Posavina 176, the forms naʂ mī and mī and vaʂ mī (analogically mī (analogically also naʂmā) are m   ā) are attested, which have the long –ī  – ī by by analogy to the –ī  – ī in in the locative-instrumental of the o- stems stems (zubĩ, (zubĩ, voʂ lī with lī with the –ī  –ī originally originally from a. p. b *-īxъ, b *-īxъ, a. p. c *-ĩxъ). c *-ĩxъ). This is in accord with Slovene naʄ mi, mi, vaʄ mi and mi and Slovak dialectal namí, vamí (see vamí (see § 33, § 34). According to ARj, the form ni was ni  was never used for the accusative, except due to the influence of OCS 177. The form ni  as the dative enclitic is attested in Boka kotorska and in some Montenegrin and East Serbian dialects. The dialects which have enclitic dative ni  usually have the new accusative ne  (like in Macedonian), due to analogy with nominal declension (ne  (ne like like kònje ) and other pronouns (accusatives teʄ,  njeʄ , sveʂ etc.). Unlike the form ni , attested only in modern dialects, and not in old texts, the unaccented dative vi is vi  is well-attested in Old Croatian, as well as the accusative vi (ARj). vi (ARj). From the 15th century, the old genitive form vas is vas is used instead. Slovene § 33 In Slovene, the development of the plural oblique forms was rather simple, unlike Croatian. The old genitive forms are used for the accusative, as usual, and from the accented forms, the new clitic forms in the genitive-accusative and the dative were made. Slovene nàs , nàm  is in accord with Čakavian naʂ s  s  and Czech nás , nám . The neocircumflex in the instrumental naʄ mi  mi , vaʄmi can i  can be explained in a similar fashion as Croatian (Posavina) naʂmī  m   ī , vaʂ mī  mī . The reason for the neo-circumflex (thus a former long *-ī) is to be found in Slovene forms like mîšmi , obraʄzi , leʄ  ʖt  i , meʖ ʄsti , goraʄmi , možmí , kostmí  etc. The reason for the long *–ī in *–ī  in these examples is in the compensatory lengthening of *-Cь/ъmi > *-Cmī, and in the regularly preserved length in the locative forms like mîših , leʖ ʄ tih  tih , možéʖh  h  (instead of **možíh) etc. Under the influence of the long *–ī  in some instrumental forms (in i-  and u- stems), stems), and the length of the ending *–īxъ in the locative, the long *–ī  was generalized in Slovene. Czech § 34 In Czech, the forms remained practically unchanged except for the usual Slavic nás , vás  in the accusative. The long –á-  – á-  in all forms is in accord with Slovene and northern Čakavian dialects. Slovak In Slovak, the original genitives nás  and vás  function also as the accusatives. However, older accusative forms may have been attested in Slovak dialects 178. Ivšić 1971: [374]. 177 Križanić (1984: 110) has the forms Nás: Nì and Nì  and Vás: Vì in Vì  in the accusative plural. However, the short falling accent in these forms (cf. the long accent in the nominative forms Mî, Vî)  points to the conclusion that these forms were artificial in his language and not a part of his native dialect. 178 Pauliny 1990: 155. 176

59

In the instrumental, the forms nami , vami  are expected, compared to Czech námi , vámi and vámi and Croatian dialectal naʂ mi  mi , vaʂ mi  mi . However, the long vowel in the forms nás , vás , nám , vám  cannot be explained so easily (the acute yields short syllable in Slovak). In dialects, regular nas , vas  also appears179. An ad hoc  solution would be some kind of sporadic lengthening, maybe originally only in nám , vám in vám  in front of a sonant (cf. sám , sama sama  - where sám  is secondary for *sam). Another possible solution would be an analogy to the possessives náš , naša , naše  and váš , vaša , vaše , which have the length only in the monosyllabic forms (where it is due to analogy with môj , tvôj) , and a short syllable in the disyllabic forms (just like nás , nám , nami )180. The borrowing of these forms from the Czech literary language is excluded, since the long forms appear in dialects as well (the same thing is attested in Old Polish, see § 35). In the instrumental, further variation is attested in dialects – in the east of Slovakia, besides or instead of the form nami , the older dual form, nama , is used (like in Croatian). In Central Slovakia, the form namí is namí  is used181, which is to be explained in a similar fashion as Croatian (Posavina) and Slovene forms. Lusatian In Lusatian, one finds no special developments except for the usual use of the genitive-locative nas , was in was in the accusative as well. Polish § 35 The same that goes for Lusatian, goes for Polish as well - Lusatian and Polish plural forms of the personal pronouns are exactly the same. The old accusative ny is ny  is attested, as usual in Polish, as a hapax 182. In Old Polish Bible of Queen Sophia  (Biblia królowej Zofii)  from the 15th century, before the elimination of the distinctive length, one can see forms , but (with <á> being [a], and being [å]), which is in accord with Slovak nás , nám , but nama . These long forms are difficult to account for, but they must be a younger development. Kashubian Kashubian The old genitive-locative is, as usual, used in the accusative as well. In the dative, besides the original nNjm and nNjm  and vNjm , the original instrumental forms namï and namï  and vamï are vamï  are used in some dialects, and in the case of the 1 st person, the older dative-instrumental dual form nama  is also attested for D. pl. (like in Croatian and Slovak dialects). In the instrumental, variation is also present, and the form nama  is used instead of the original namï  in some dialects.

Pauliny 1990: 154. 180 Siniša Habijanec (p.c.). 181 Pauliny, ibid . 182 Klemensiewicz, Lehr-Spławiński & Urbańczyk 1955: 322. 179

60

Slovincian As usual, the original genitive-locative forms nãs and nãs  and vãs are vãs  are used in the accusative as well. The new enclitic forms năs, văs have văs have developed, and the same thing happened in the dative. Unlike Kashubian, the old plural forms are preserved in all cases without secondary fluctuation. Polabian No special development here, except for the regular sound laws. East Slavic § 36 Russian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian have the same plural oblique forms. Except for the usual use of the old genitive-locative forms in the accusative, nothing else changed. The original accusative forms ны and ны  and вы were вы  were used in Russian texts untill the 17 th century, but the use of the genitive form instead of it is attested from the 13 th for васъ , and from the 14 th 183. century for нacъ 183 According to the statistical analysis of Caмойленкo (1962), the forms ны and ны and вы were вы were more common in Old Russian than the forms нacъ  and васъ  in the accusative, but in the dative they were far less common than the forms нaмъ , вамъ . The GDLI. had an initial stress in Old Russian, as in all modern East Slavic languages. 184. This points to the old acute, cf. Old Russian над нáми , оɺ вáсъ 184 In the old accusative forms, the accent “jumps” to the preposition which points to the 185. old circumflex (*nyʄ, *vyʄ): Old Russian нá ны , нá вы 185

Kiparsky 1967: 137. Дыбо 1981: 35, Дыбo 2000: 62-63. 185 Дыбо, ibid . 183 184

61

Personal pronouns in dual The reconstruction of the dual forms is a little bit more difficult, because the dual forms were less well attested than the singular and plural forms, and because of the nonexistance of this category in most modern Slavic languages. However, the dual forms do appear in older phases of all Slavic languages attested sufficiently early. The only modern languages that preserve the dual are Slovene, Lusatian and Kashubian (as well as now extinct Slovincian). Old Church Slavic § 37 Already in OCS, the dual shows quite a fluctuation of forms. In 1 st person nominative dual, besides the form vě (very vě  (very well attested), a secondary na , originally an accusative form, appears, though very rarely. In the 2 nd person nominative dual, forms va and va  and vy appear. vy appear. The second form is identical to the 2 nd person nominative plural form – that, however, does not mean that these forms are of the same origin (see § 48, § 50). The form vy in vy in the nominative 186, and it is consistently used in older glagolitic dual is much more frequent than the form va 186 187. The nominative dual texts Codex Zographiensis , Codex Marianus and Marianus  and Codex Assemanius 187 form va , identical to the accusative dual va , is attested in cyrillic texts Codex Suprasaliensis  188. and Sava’s Book 188 In the 1st person accusative dual, besides the original na , younger naju  (originally a genitive) appears due to the overall tendency of the pronominal genitives to become the accusatives 189. Originally plural forms ny (accusative) ny  (accusative) and nasъ (originally nasъ  (originally genitive plural and secondary also accusative plural) also appear as secondary A. dual 190. In the 2nd person, instead of va  of  va , the original genitive dual form vaju appears, vaju  appears, as well as vy which vy which is either the nominative dual form or the accusative plural form. Use of  ny , vy  for the accusative dual was consistent in the older glagolitic texts Codex Zographiensis , Codex Marianus and Marianus  and Codex Assemanius; the Assemanius; the forms na, va are va are attested 191. in younger, cyrillic texts Codex Suprasaliensis and Suprasaliensis and Sava’s Book 191 In Codex Suprasaliensis , in the 2nd person dative dual, the unaccented form va  is used besides the accented vama , like vy and vy and vamъ in vamъ in plural192. The form na in na in this function is not attested in OCS.

Cf. Mareš 2001: 177. 187 Nandriş 1959: 104. 188 Diels 1932: 214. 189 Cf. also in the singular mene instead mene instead of mę  of mę , in the plural nasъ instead nasъ instead of ny  of ny etc. etc. 190 Mareš (2001: 178) believes that the form na  was in the process of elimination because of the similarity with the preposition na. However, since the pronoun form was stressed, this could hardly be a major factor in the elimination of the dual accusative na. 191 Diels, ibid ., ., Weingart 1937-8: 202, Kurz 1969: 77. 192 Diels, ibid. 186

62

Middle Bulgarian In Evangelie 1139  in Middle Bulgarian (Hock 1992 I: 119), one finds the forms: вΟ , наɴю,  ю, нáма, нá  and ваɴ ю, ю, вáма, вá  (the 2nd person nominative dual is not attested in this manuscript).  

Croatian but the dual forms have § 38 The dual does not exist in modern Croatian (in any dialect), but influenced the plural of the literary language. The original dative-instrumental dual forms naʂ ma  ma , vaʂ ma are ma are used as the dative-locative-instrumental plural forms. The forms *vě, *na and *va are unattested even in Old Croatian according to ARj (but see below for Bednja) 193. The forms naju , vaju  are found in the texts up untill the 17 th century, not only in the original function of the genitive-locative dual, but also as the accusative dual and instead of the plural forms (ARj). There is no attestation of the accentuation of these forms, except for Križanić’s Náju, Váju (1984: Váju (1984: 110), i.e. naʂ ju,   vaʂ ju    . In the archaic Bednja Kajkavian dialect 194, a trace of the old dual va > va  > Bednja –vo had –vo had been preserved in the speech of very old people (in the middle of the 20 th century) as a particle added to the plural pronouns meʄi and  and veʄi when  when talking about two people: mıʂ vo vo dvaʄ o  o  “us two”, vıʂvo dvaʄ o  o  “you two”195. The preservation of this –vo  here is remarkable. It is not clear if this –vo  – vo < < *va is originally the old N. dual of the 1 st person (like va in va  in Old Czech and Old Polish for instance, cf. § 38, § 40) or the old A. dual of the 2 nd person. Slovene § 39 Modern Slovene still preserves the old dual forms, but with certain changes. In the nominative, the old forms were replaced by the new agglutinative forms mîdva , mîdve/mêʜdve , vîdva , vîdve/vêʜdve  (like in Lithuanian), which differentiate gender, like plural forms. The old genitive-locative forms naʄ ju    and vaʄ ju    have spread to the accusative (as in plural). In the locative, both the old forms naʄ ju    and vaʄju  and the new naʄ ma  ma  and vaʄ ma  ma  (originally dative-instrumental) can be used. In the genitive-accusative and dative, new atonic forms naju , vaju , nama , vama have vama have developed. Both naʄ ju    , vaʄ ju    and naʄma  m   a , vaʄma  have a neo-circumflex in Slovene. In naʄ ma  ma , vaʄma , the neo-circumflex is to be explained as in the plural – the length of the final *-ma is due to the compensatory lengthening in old i- and i-  and u- stems stems (*-Cь/ъma > *-Cmā), like mîšma , and due to analogy to the plural forms naʄ mi  mi , vaʄ mi (see mi  (see § 33). The forms naʄ ju and  ju    and vaʄ ju probably  ju    probably have the neo-circumlfex analogically to naʄma  m   a , vaʄ ma  ma . One could also imagine an analogical Vaillant (1958: [252-253]) says that “le vieux serbo-croate” had these forms, but it is not clear what he means by that, since the existence of these forms is clearly rejected in ARj. 194 Jedvaj 1956: 306. 195 It is difficult to explain the accent ʂ here. It is hard to believe that this could be a pre-Meillet old acute. 193

63

development similar to the development of the long –ú  – ú in in najú, vajú in vajú  in Old Czech (see § 40), and of the long -ū  - ū in in Croatian196, but, strictly speaking, that is improvable, since the old dual ending –u  –u is is not preserved in Slovene except in naʄ ju    , vaʄju . Old Czech vě  is attested in the 14th/15th century. In the 15 th century, a § 40 In Old Czech, the form vě is younger form va appears. va appears. This form is probably due to analogy with the new verbal ending – va  (instead of the older ending –vě  – vě , both of which are attested in Old Czech) in the first person dual. Another likely influence was the number dva . One could also imagine the influence of the 1 st person accusative dual form *na (cf. va : va  : va in va  in 2nd person dual in OCS), but the accusative na is na is not attested in Old Czech. In the verbal ending, – vě > vě > -va was -va was due to the influence of the 2 nd person ending –ta . The ending –va  – va in in verbs is attested from the 14 th century, and the nominative dual va is va  is attested from the 15 th century197. That also points to the conclusion that the new form was transferred from the verbal ending to the pronominal form198. In the year 1502 and 1672, an even newer form ma , with the analogical plural m- is m- is attested199. In the 2nd person nominative dual, there is no form *va, unlike in OCS. Only the form vy is vy is attested there, which is an archaism (see § 50). Old accusative forms *na and *va are not attested at all in Old Czech. The original genitive dual forms najú and najú and vajú are vajú are used instead (due to the general tendency of using the genitive forms instead of the accusative ones in Slavic). Later, the plural forms ny and ny  and vy are vy  are used. The old forms have been preserved in the genitive-locative dual: najú , vajú  (> nají , vají) . The length of the final –ú  – ú  is secondary200 and due to analogy with the forms which developed the long –ú  – ú by by contraction: jú  contraction: jú < < *jejuʀ, tú < tú < *tojuʀ, dvú < dvú < *dvojuʀ, obú < obú < *obojuʀ, mú  < *mojuʀ, tvú < tvú < *tvojuʀ, svú < svú < *svojuʀ. This long –ú  – ú has has been generalized not only in the forms najú , vajú , but also in all genitive-locative dual nominal forms in Old Czech: očú , ušú , hosťú , zubú , letú etc. letú  etc. The length of the Slavic old acute in the first syllable in Czech najú , vajú has vajú  has disappeared because of the secondary length of the ending 201. For the reconstruction of  202. Common Slavic *naɾ ju, *vaɾ ju, cf. Slovene naʄ ju,   vaʄ ju and  ju    and Old Russian в нáюɺ, в вáюɺ202

In Croatian, the long -ū  - ū (cf. (cf. forms like noʂgū, g  ū, rùkū, slúgū), which is today one of the genitive plural endings, is due to the influence of the i- stem stem genitive plural –ī , in which the length is the result of the contraction of the old ending *-ijь < *-ьjь. The accent of the Old Croatian naju, vaju is vaju  is not known (for Križanić's forms, see § 38). 197 Gebauer 1898: 15-16. 198 In Old Czech from the end of the 14 th century, the following types of sentence are attested: vě na  každý den obět vzdáváva (Mareš vzdáváva (Mareš 2001: 180). 199 Mareš 2001: 180. 200 All the long vowels in final open syllable in Slavic are secondary, cf. Kapović 2003: 57f. 201 Cf. Kapović 2003, Kapović 2005. 202 Дыбо 1981: 35, 2000: 63. 196

64

The dative-locative forms náma , váma  are preserved in Old Czech as well. These forms are used for plural in some Czech dialects 203. Lusatian § 41 Lusatian has, as already said, maintained dual as a category, unlike most other Slavic 204, with a languages. The old pronoun *vě has been preserved in Upper Lusatian dialectal wi 204 205. In Lower Lusatian, this has been replaced secondary –i  –i by by analogy to the o- stem stem plural –i  – i 205 by younger forms mej (1 mej (1st person), wej (2 wej (2nd person), and in Upper Lusatian by mój , wój . According to Mareš (2001: 183), these forms are due to analogy with, also younger, dual verbal 1 st person endings – cf. LL njasomej “carry” njasomej  “carry” : mej (analogically mej (analogically also wej ),), UL smój  “are” : mój  (analogically also wój) . The unifying of the verbal ending and the personal pronoun exists in Lusatian in the plural as well: cf. LL njasomy : njasomy  : my (and my  (and wy ),), UL smy : smy  : my  (and wy ).). In the plural, the verbal ending – my  is a secondary development due to analogy with the personal pronoun my (cf. my (cf. also –my  – my in in Polish and in Old Czech). Vaillant (1958: [252]) offers a different explanation of the Lusatian nominative dual forms. He thinks that the forms mej , wej have wej  have the ending –ej  – ej from from the pronouns tej , wonej . This seems a little bit strange and Mareš (2001: 183f) rejects this idea vehemently. For the UL mój , wój , Vaillant (ibid  (ibid .).) takes mój as mój as analogous to wój , this form itself being the old *vy with the dual – j  – j added. added. The development of *y > ó is, ó is, according to him, due to the preceding labial (cf. the form móš besides móš  besides the form myš “mouse”). myš  “mouse”). The explanation via the influence of  the verbal endings seems to be more economical than the latter one. The old genitive-locative forms, naju and naju  and waju , are used in Lusatian as the genitiveaccusative forms. For the locative, the old dative-instrumental form is used (cf. the situation in Slovene, § 39). The old dative-instrumental forms are used for the locative as well. In Lower Lusatian, these forms are unchanged: nama , wama. In Upper Lusatian, these forms got a secondary – j at  j at the end, namaj , wamaj , due to the influence of the – j  – j in in the nominative: mój , wój . Old Polish va  was attested besides (actually after) older vě , in § 42 Unlike Old Czech, where younger va was Old Polish only the newer form wa  is attested in the 15 th/16th century (due to the same analogy as in Czech, see § 40). In 2 nd person nominative, only the form wy is wy  is attested, as found in Old Czech and Old Russian. The old accusative dual forms were lost before the earliest records – old genitive plural forms nas , was are was are used instead in Old Polish. Mareš 2001: 181. Muka 1891: 393-394. 205 Vaillant 1958: 458. 203 204

65

In the 15th/16th century, in the genitive-locative and dative-instrumental, the old forms, naju , waju  and nama , wama , were preserved in Old Polish. These forms are still widely used in Polish dialects, mostly functioning as plural 206. Kashubian Kashubian § 43 In Kashubian, the dual has been preserved as a category, but not without a lot of  changes. In the nominative dual forms, special secondary feminine forms have developed (like in Slovene) in some Kashubian dialects. In the 1 st person dual, the forms ma , maiʠuɺuɺ, naiʠuɺuɺ are attested. The form ma  is the original one here, explained via *vě > *va > ma , like in Old Czech (-a  (-a  due to the verbal ending, and m-  due to the influence of the plural form). The form naiʠuɺuɺ is the original genitive-locative (in modern Kashubian also accusative) form. The same goes for the form maiʠuɺuɺ, which has a secondary m- due m- due to the from ma (and ma (and plural mǩ ).). The use of the accusative for the nominative is hardly an unusual development in Slavic (cf. the ā- stem stem nominative plural in –y  – y , which is originally the accusative plural ending). In the feminine gender, either the same form ma  is used, or the secondary forms mɴe  e  ,  mǩ  (with feminine endings endings *-ě, *-y). In the 2nd person dual, the form va  is used in the masculine gender. This va  is probably due to analogy with the 1 st person dual form ma , and it is unlikely to be connected to the OCS nominative form va. The development of the secondary feminine forms is the same as in the 1 st person. The old genitive-locative forms are, as usual, used for the accusative as well (and the nominative in the 1st person). A couple of secondary forms, besides the original naiʠuɺuɺ, vaiʠuɺuɺ have developed (cf. for instance vaiʠix with ix with a genitive plural ending –ix  – ix ).). The old forms nama , vama are vama are preserved in the dative-instrumental. Slovincian preserved. The development is quite similar to § 44 In Slovincian, the dual has also been preserved. Kashubian, of course. The nominative forms mã and mã and vã are vã are to be explained in the same way as in Kashubian (see § 43). Lorentz (1903: 274) thought that the dual nominative form mã is mã  is due to analogy with the old accusative *va (sic! not *na), which first became the 2 nd person nominative, and then influenced the 1 st person nominative form. This is not impossible, but the old accusative forms *na, *va are not actually attested anywhere in West Slavic. 2 nd person vã  could, thus, be either analogical to mã , which got its –a  –a from from the verbal ending. Even if the 2nd person nominative vã is vã is due to analogy with the accusative *va, this does not necessarily mean that this vã  is the same as OCS va . These could be unrelated innovations (using the accusative va as va as both the nominative and accusative) in Slovincian (and Kashubian) and OCS. 206

Cf. Klemensiewicz, Lehr-Spławiński & Urbańczyk 1955: 322. 66

Besides these forms, new clitic forms ma , va exist, va  exist, as well as the secondary feminine forms with the feminine ending *-ě: mjìeʠ, vjìeʠ (here the numeral forms dvã , dvjìeʠ probably played a crucial role), also with new clitic forms mjä , vjä . The original genitive-locative forms nãjșɺ, vãjșɺ are of course used for the accusative as well. In the dative-instrumental, the original forms nąɶmƮ , vąɶ mƮ were mƮ were preserved. Old Russi Russian an § 45 In Old Russian, the situation with dual personal pronoun forms is very similar to OCS. The form вa is вa  is attested only as the accusative dual and only in the OCS influenced texts 207. The form вы  in the nominative dual is attested already in the year 1056 208. According to Mareš (2001: 179), the forms на , ва  are not attested for the dative dual in Old Russian. According to Vondrák (1912: 460, citing Соболевский), these forms are attested very well in Old Russian 209 – this probably refers to Church Slavic texts. For the accentuation of  на , ва , which points to Slavic *naʄ , *vaʄ, cf. Зализняк 1985: 143.

Гадолина 1963: 112-113. Соболевский 1907: 206. 209 Cf. also Birnbaum & Schaeken 1997: 75 for this. 207 208

67

Reconstruction of personal pronouns in Common Slavic Up until now, we have reconstructed Common Slavic forms *jaɾ and *jãzъ < *jāzъʀ and *tyʄ, *myʄ, *vyʄ. The first two forms were discussed exhaustively, while the reconstruction of  the last three is fairly simple. We have also laid out all available material for the reconstruction of other forms of personal pronouns in Slavic. Now, we shall first discuss some specific problems concerning the reconstruction of  the Common Slavic personal pronoun system, and then we shall reconstruct all the paradigms, 1st and 2nd person singular/plural/dual, with the accompanying accents of  course. Up until now, we have mainly discussed the problems of the development in the historical times in the separate Slavic languages. Here, we shall discuss the problems of the development in Common Slavic and Proto-Slavic times 210. The problems of the derivation of  the Slavic forms from Balto-Slavic will be discussed mainly in the section dealing with the reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic personal pronoun system (see § 69, § 70 and passim ).).

210

Of course, in many cases it is not easy to distinguish these periods. 68

Dative*mъ/ьněě Dative-locative -locative singular *mъ/ьn § 46 As already said, the dative-locative singular form of the 1st person personal pronoun presents a very difficult problem, the problem being in the practical impossibility of  ascertaining the nature of the first syllable (at least within Slavic), i.e. whether we are dealing with *ь or *ъ here. OCS is ambiguous concerning this problem, since both ь  and ъ appear ъ  appear there and both could be secondary (see § 15), and the rest of the Slavic languages are quite useless in this respect, since the yers are yers are simply lost everywhere in that position. The argument for the originality of  mьně usually mьně  usually adduced (see § 15), is that the yer  here is parallel with e  in tebě . However, this argument is valid for OCS (and South Slavic) only. In West and East Slavic, the original form in the dative singular of the 2 nd person was not only tebě , but tobě as tobě as well211. This tobě would tobě would be parallel not with mьně , but with mъně . Even if the –o-  – o- in in tobě is tobě is not very old (see § 47, § 72 for its origin), that must not necessarily 212. It is even possible that both be an argument against the originality of the form mъně 212 variants (*mъně and *mьně) existed in Common Slavic, which would then be parallel to *tebě/tobě. Anyhow, the possible parallelism of  mьně  with tebě  and mъně with mъně  with tobě  does not really shed any light on the origin of this form. There are two basic possibilities for the origin of this mъn-/mьn- . If the original form was mьně , the yer could yer  could be explained via reduction. This is also possible for mъně , but not so likely, since it seems that the cases of a reduced *ъ are practically non-existant. This would be the same kind of sporadic reduction seen in Slavic words like *čeloveʖ  ɾkъ - *čьloveʖ   ɾkъ "man", *česoʀ - *čьsoʀ "of what", *četyɾre - *čьtyɾre "four", *veʂčerъ čerъ "evening" - *vьčeraʀ "yesterday" and *mèčь/mьɳčь čь "sword" (< Gothic mēkeis )213 and *žeravь - *žьravjь "crane". However, this kind of reduction is difficult to explain. The adduced examples all have a *č before or after the yer (except yer  (except for the "crane" word), which is not very similar to *mьně. The sonant *-n- after the vowel, however, would favor reduction. That would also explain the possible reduction in *mьně, but not in *tebě. The following *-b- would not really favor such a reduction. An important thing in this reduction is that the reduced vowel is always unaccented, which is also the case in DL. *mьneʖ  ʀ (cf. G. *meʂne without reduction). However, since other examples of the reduction of *e to *ь in front of *n are not attested, at least to my knowledge, this approach does not seem to be very fruitful. Anyhow, explaining the form *mьně via reduction is a clear case of an obscurum per obscurius explanation. obscurius explanation. If the form mъně  is the original one, then it is simply an archaism connected to Latvian (and maybe Lithuanian, see § 59, § 62) dialectal stem mun- . The form mьně would mьně would then be secondary. Since the Baltic (i.e. Latvian) data does indeed point to the stem *mun- in the dative, the easiest solution is to assume that the form mъně is mъně  is the original one. For the discussion of the origin of this form see § 73. It is not clear whether all of North Slavic had both forms from the beginning, or if some of the dialects had just one of them (*tobě), see § 20-28, § 47. 212 The –o-  –o- in in tobě could tobě could have already been there in the time when the form with mъn- was mъn- was made. 213 Cf. also a different case of the loanword *cěsarь - *cьsarь. 211

69

We have concluded that the form mъně is mъně is probably older. How are we then to explain the form mьně in mьně  in OCS? One possible explanation was already mentioned - the assimilation of the back yor to yor to the front yat in yat in the following syllable. This is especially possible if we bear in mind that OCS had only the variant tebě in tebě  in the 2nd person. This assimilation would yield the parallelism of –e-  – e- and and –ь - here. There is another possible explanation. The original form being mъně , there was an ablaut –en-  – en- :: -ъn- here -ъn-  here214. This pattern could have been changed to –en-  –en- :: -ьn- , which was a very productive ablaut pattern 215.

Or at least an ablaut-looking vowel change in the root. 215 For this kind of development, cf. Matasović 2004. 214

70

Dativelocative singular *tebě/tobě Dative--locative dative-locative singular of the 2nd person personal pronoun, § 47 As we have seen, in the dative-locative both the forms with teb- and teb-  and with tob- are tob-  are attested. In South Slavic, only the form *tebě is attested. In East Slavic, both forms are attested, but it is not certain if the form *tebě is indeed old (inherited from Common Slavic, together with *tobě), or a younger independent innovation in Russian (see § 27). In West Slavic, both *tebě and *tobě appear – again, it is impossible to tell when (or if) this *teb- is inherited from Common Slavic, and when it is analogous to other cases. The change of the dative-locative tobě to tobě  to tebě due tebě  due to the influence of the genitiveaccusative tebe  is quite imaginable, due to the importance and frequency of genitiveaccusative forms. However, the to- forms to-  forms can hardly be secondary, since there is no reason why the dative-locative tebě  should be, for instance, influenced by the instrumental form 216. Instrumental is neither very frequent, nor especially close to dative-locative in any tobojNj 216 way217. Thus, every to- form to- form can generally be regarded as an archaism, and every te- form te- form in the dative-locative can be an innovation as well as an archaism . In Czech and Slovak, both te-  and to-  are attested; in Polish only to-  appears; in Lusatian both stems appear; Kashubian has to-  in the dative and te-/to-  in the locative; Slovincian has to- in to-  in the dative and te- in te-  in the locative; in Polabian only te- is te-  is attested. Here is an overview: Only te  te-  -  - 

OCS, Macedonian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Slovene, Polabian

Only to-  to -  - 

Polish, Ukrainian, Byelorussian 218

Both te  te-  - and --  and to-  to -  - 

Czech, Slovak, Upper Lusatian, Lower Lusatian, Kashubian, Slovincian, Russian

It is hard to think of a different source for the supposed secondary –o-  – o- in in tob- . 217 Exactly that kind of ad of ad hoc explanation hoc explanation is provided by Schenker 1995: 128. 218 Ukrainian and Byelorussian presence in this group must be taken as somewhat arbitrary. To my knowledge, the forms with te-  are not attested in modern Ukrainian and Byelorussian dialects. However, since there is no practical difference between Old Ukrainian, Old Byelorussian and Old Russian, the presence of the te- forms te-  forms in Old Russian points to their presence in the earlier stages of  Ukrainian and Byelorussian as well. 216

71

72

One could claim that only to-  is the original stem in the dative-locative in West Slavic, while all te- forms te-  forms are secondary and analogical 219. This is possible in theory, but not very likely, since practically every (sic!) West Slavic language has the te-  form attested (at least as the dialectal variant or historically). It is not very likely that this was an independent parallel change in almost all West Slavic languages. If we were to assume that this supposed analogical change occurred early in some Proto-West-Slavic, we would either have to assume that the form *tobě was the only existing form in Common Slavic (which is not likely, see § 47), or that the variant *tebě first disappeared in West Slavic and that it was then reintroduced by analogy. The last approach is not economical. Thus, we may conclude that in all probability, at least some of the West Slavic languages have inherited Common Slavic form *tebě. Of course, it is quite possible that *tebě is inherited in some West Slavic languages, while it is analogical in others. A question arises – how to explain the variants *tebě and *tobě in the dative-locative in Common Slavic? If we were to reconstruct the Common Slavic paradigm based solely on Slavic evidence, the simplest solution would be to reconstruct only *tobě in the dativelocative singular. If we were to start with an original paradigm *tebe - *tobě – *tobojNj (as attested, for instance, in Polish or Ukrainian), we could easily get to *tebe - *tebě - *tobojNj (as attested, for instance, in Croatian), or even further to *tebe - *tebě - *tebojNj (as attested, for instance, in Slovak). Another easy way to explain the variants *tobě/tebě in the dative-locative would be to assume that one was the original dative form, and the other the original locative form. Thus, if we were to believe that Slovincian is the most archaic here, we should reconstruct *tebe - *tobě - *tebě - *tobojNj, which would yield all attested Slavic patterns even more easily. However, even though we are concentrating mostly on Slavic internal evidence in this section, in historical linguistics external evidence should also be considered whenever possible. In the light of the comparative evidence (and the dative-locative forms like Old   Prussian tebbei and tebbei  and Avestan ta i ibya, see § 72, § 98), there is no evidence indicating that the form *tobě could have been the original one in the dative 220. Thus, this theory is not very likely and Slovincian must have innovated here, generalizing one of the inherited forms in the dative and the other one in the locative. The secondary introduction of the stem teb- in teb-  in the locative only is also a possibility. A different kind of solution is offered by Vaillant (1958: [249]) and Kiparsky (1967: 133). They claim that the original pattern was *tebě in the dative and *tobě in the locative. They derive this from the fact that in the parallel reflexive pronoun the stem *sob- is found in some derivatives that seem to be in connection with the locative form. Thus, in OCS there is the adverb osobě «especially, osobě  «especially, separately» (~ *o sobě), posobije «help» posobije «help» (~ *po sobě), Czech násobný «diverse, násobný «diverse, manifold» (~ *na sobě). This interesting solution is downplayed by the fact One could claim that for South Slavic as well! 220 For the locative form, such a possibility exists, see § 72. 219

73

that no Slavic language preserves this kind of pattern (i. e. D. *tebě, L. *tobě). What is even worse, the only Slavic language that has the stem distinction of the dative and the locative form by the stems *teb-/tob-, Slovincian (and not so strictly Kashubian), has the exact opposite distribution – *tobě in the dative, and *tebě in the locative! These derivatives indeed point to the conclusion that the form *sobě (and thus also *tobě) existed even in the earlier phases of those languages, like OCS, in which it was never attested. However, these derivatives do not prove that these *-o- forms were the only possibility in L. or that they were not possible alternants in the dative as well. This theory could be correct but the distribution of the stem *teb- in the dative and *tob- in the locative would have to be preCommon Slavic.  Judging by the reflexes in Slavic languages, it seems only reasonable to reconstruct both *tebě and *tobě in the dative-locative singular for Common Slavic. The form *tebě must be reconstructed because this is what is attested in South Slavic as the only possibility, and in the rest of the Slavic together with *tobě as one of the variants (when looking at West and East Slavic as a whole). The form *tobě must also be reconstructed for Common Slavic, because there is no possibility of this form emerging secondarily in North Slavic. As already said, the instrumental is not so frequent as to be the source of this kind of analogy. How are we then to explain these two variants in the dative-locative singular? Within Slavic itself, there seems to be no obvious reason for the stems *teb-/tob- to be attested in the dative-locative, in the same manner as there seems to be no reason for the stem *tebto be attested as the only one in the genitive, or for *tob- to be the only stem attested in the instrumental 221. The same goes for the ablaut alternations in the 1 st person singular oblique stems. Thus, this problem must be dealt with in the Balto-Slavic section (see § 72).

There is a possibility of the preference of the stem *tob-, instead of *teb-, because of the *-o- in the ending *-ojNj, but that can hardly be called a solution.

221

74

Nominative plural *my and *vy § 48 In the nominative plural of personal pronouns, we find the forms my  and vy . The apparent characteristic of these forms is that they have the same ending as the accusatives ny  and vy  (and as the nominal o-  and ā- stem stem accusatives). Thus, these endings have generally been explained in the literature as the original accusative endings that have been taken analogically to the nominative 222. However, there is simply no reason to take the supposed accusative vy for vy for the nominative as well. This kind of development would be a little strange typologically, since, in general, languages tend to preserve the accusativenominative difference in pronouns 223, and do not eliminate it without any apparent reason. However, cf. Kashubian maiʠuɺuɺ, naiʠuɺuɺ in N. dual (see § 43). It is difficult to presume that a highly flective language like Slavic would eliminate the difference of N. and A. pl. of the 2 nd person personal pronoun for no reason (although it is possible to look for the source of  analogy in the ā- stems stems which have the same ending –y  –y in in both cases). Another, more fruitful approach has also been presented 224. According to Lithuanian  jũs (and  jũs (and the forms in other IE languages), we would expect *jūs > *jū > *jī > *ji in Slavic. But before the change of *jū(s) > *jī(s) 225, the initial *j- in Slavic was replaced with the *w- from the oblique cases. Thus, the form *wūs was made, which regularly yielded attested vy . The form my is my is then made analogically to vy (cf. vy (cf. Lithuanian meɶs ).). This kind of development explains Slavic nominative-accusative vy  via a simple sound merger of the original *wūs and *wāns (and my via my via convincing analogy to vy ),), and not by assuming an unmotivated change by which the accusative form has become both the nominative and the accusative form (or that the accusative ending was taken to the nominative).

Cf. for instance Meillet 1934: 454, Vaillant 1958: 452, Arumaa 1985: 168. 223 Cf. English we  : us , a pattern inherited from PIE, in spite of the almost complete lack of cases outside pronouns. 224 Cf. for instance Беседина-Heвзорова 1962: 178, Aitzemüller 1991: 111. 225 Cf. also Schmidt 1978: 210. 222

75

Unaccented forms *ny and *vy in dative plural § 49 In Slavic, besides the regular dative plural forms *namъ and *vamъ, the forms *ny and *vy, identical to the original accusative plural forms, appear as clitics in the dative. This was often regarded as a secondary development 226. However, there are two basic problems with this explanation. Firstly, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to explain exactly how the accented accusative forms became the unaccented dative forms. Secondly, ny and ny  and vy in vy  in the dative function are attested very well in the whole variety of Slavic languages – in OCS (and Bulgarian & Macedonian), Old Russian, Old Croatian, and in Montenegrin and Serbian dialects. Thus it must have been already a Common Slavic feature. Since the explanation of this phenomenon as an innovation is not very convincing, one should consider the other possibility – that the use of  ny , vy  in the dative is not an innovation, but an archaism. Slavic accusatives ny  and vy  are derived from IE unaccented GDA. forms *nos/nōs, *wos/wōs (see § 94), cf. GDA. nas , vas in vas  in Vedic. In (Balto-)Slavic, the *-n- was added in the accusative, thus *nōs > *nōns > *nāns > ny . Since this *nōns with a secondary accusative *-n- has taken the place of the old *nōs in the accusative, the old *nōs was replaced with *nōns in the dative as well. Thus, we got the unaccented ny, vy  in the dative, identical to the accusative forms (which have become accented forms already in Balto-Slavic, see § 79). Here, the polyfunctionality of Vedic nas , vas is vas  is still seen in Slavic 227. This is the only way to explain the appearance of the same form in the accusative and in the dative plural.

Cf. for instance Hamm 1970: 134. 227 Cf. Meillet 1934: 455, Vaillant 1958: 453. 226

76

Nominative dual of 2 nd person § 50 Traditionally, many linguists have been hasty to accept OCS 2 nd person nominative dual va as va as the oldest Slavic form 228. The reason for this was the fact that this va was va was a special form, different from the 2 nd person nominative plural form vy . The logic is clear – if the dual is a separate category in Slavic, it must also have separate pronoun forms to differentiate it completely from the singular and the plural. However, after a careful inspection of the material, one gets a different picture. The form va  is attested in OCS, but only in the younger, cyrillic texts (see § 37). Except for that, it is attested only in Kashubian and Slovincian, where it is probably a younger form created due to the influence of the 1 st person forms (Kashubian ma , see § 43). The exact origin of Bednja –vo  – vo is is not clear (cf. § 38). Everywhere else, including OCS older, glagolitic texts, Old Russian, Old Czech and Old Polish, only the form vy  appears in the function of the 2nd person nominative dual. That this can hardly be explained as an innovation, i.e. taking the plural form for the dual, is clear from the fact that the 1 st person nominative dual form vě (or vě  (or younger va ) is very well attested in Old Russian, Old Czech and Old Polish. It is not very likely that in all these languages, the 1 st person form would be preserved, but that the separate 2 nd person form would have vanished without a trace. Thus, another approach is necessary – and that is to assume that the best attested 2nd person form, vy , is indeed the oldest form 229, in spite of the fact that it is identical to the plural form. The reason why the dual and the plural form are identical is simple – they were once different, but later, due to sound change, they became identical. We have already explained the plural form vy from vy  from the older *jūs where *j- was substituted with *w- (see § 48). According to Lithuanian dialectal  jù-du  for the 2nd person nominative dual, we can assume a pre-Proto-Slavic form *jū (see § 69, § 70). Here, *j- was also substituted with *wby analogy to the oblique forms (GL. vaju , DI. vama , A. va ),), and the new dual form *wū merged with the new plural form *wūs when all final consonants were dropped in Slavic by the law of the open syllables. In this way, as we have shown, we have come to the point where both the plural and the dual 2nd person nominative form was vy . This was, of course, a little bit problematic because it seemed that the plural form was used instead of the dual form. This functioned in Old Czech, Old Polish and Old Russian for instance (only for some time though, since the dual eventually disappeared in every one of those languages), but in the OCS of the cyrillic texts, the unfortunate nominative form vy was vy  was already replaced with the original accusative dual form va , which was distinct from the plural form. In this way it was possible to differentiate the dual as a category from the plural more clearly. In OCS glagolitic texts, however, the older dual form vy  was preserved, which led to the general instability of the difference of the dual and plural in the nominative-accusative personal pronoun forms. Since the nominatives were already the same in the plural and dual ( vy  = vy ),), this led to the transfer of the accusative plural vy into vy  into the dual – thus we got N. vy – A. –  A. vy in vy in the dual, just For instance Mareš 2001: 176. 229 For this approach, cf. for instance Vaillant 1958: 455. 228

77

like in the plural. Since the accusative plural vy appeared vy  appeared in the dual as well, this was taken even further and the accusative plural ny was ny  was also used instead of the original na . Thus, the original accusative dual forms na and na  and va are va  are not even attested in OCS glagolitic texts (nor in Old Czech and Old Polish) where the original nominative dual vy  was preserved. That the original accusative forms na and na  and va are va  are attested in cyrillic texts is explained by the fact that there the older nominative vy  was replaced with a new va , which helped to preserve the general difference of the plural and dual better. The preservation of the form vě (unlike vě  (unlike va  and na ) in OCS glagolitic texts, Old Czech and Old Polish (and not its replacement with the plural form my , which is exactly what happened later in Czech and Polish though), is easily explained – the form vě (or vě (or younger va ) was strongly supported by the verbal dual 1 st person ending –vě  –vě . Thus, vě was vě was preserved, while na and na and va were va were eliminated. It is highly probable that the accidental merger of the pronouns of the 1 st person nominative plural and dual (the older *jūs and *jū both becoming vy ) has facilitated the overall disappearance of the dual as a category in most of the Slavic languages. This was one of the ways in which the system was made unstable. One could even claim that this merger was the trigger that eventually led to the disappearance of the dual as a category in Slavic. That this is not an overstatement is proved by the fact that in all Slavic languages which have preserved the dual as a category up to today (Slovene, Lusatian and Kashubian – all fringe dialects, by the way), the nominative plural and dual of the 2 nd person personal pronoun forms are different – cf. Slovene vî : vî : vîdva , Lower Lusatian wy : wy : wej , Kashubian vǩ : vǩ : va .

78

Dative dual na , va  nama and vama . However, in Codex Suprasaliensis , § 51 The normal dual dative forms are nama and the form va appears va  appears as the unaccented dative form as well 230. The form na is na is not attested in the dative in the canonical OCS texts, but both na and na  and va appear va  appear frequently in this function in Church Slavic texts 231. Again, this function of  na  and va  is considered secondary and innovative by many 232, but Meillet (1934: 455) and Vaillant (1958: 455) think of it as an archaism233. As is the case with the clitic ny , vy in vy  in the dative plural, it is hard to think of a reason why the accented accusative forms would become the unaccented dative forms. This can only be explained if one takes both of these forms to stem originally from an oblique clitic form234. Thus, the forms na, va were va were originally the GDA. clitics that are preserved as the secondary stressed A. dual and D. dual clitics. (cf. § 80).

Diels 1932: 214. 231 Vaillant 1958: 454. 232 Mareš 2001: 176. 233 Cf. the Vedic GDA. dual clitic forms nau and nau and vām . 234 The implausibility of the transference of function from the accented accusative to the unaccented dative is not to be mistaken with the IE general oblique unaccented forms. That one clitic form can serve for more than one oblique case is not at all unusual. 230

79

Accentuation of 1 st and 2nd person genitive/dative singular § 52 As we have seen in the material, in the reflexes of the genitives *mene, *tebe and the datives *mъně, *tebě/tobě, in Slavic languages one mostly finds the same kind of  accentuation - on the first or on the second syllable, in both cases. For the initial accent, cf. Croatian meʂne, teʂbe,  be, meʂni, teʂbi , Old Russian мéне, тéбe , мъɴнΟ, теɴ бΟ/тóбΟ  бΟ/тóбΟ , and for the desinential accent, cf. Serbian мèнe , тèбe , мèни , тèби, Slovene méne, tébe, méni, tébi and tébi and Middle Bulgarian 235: мeнé , мнΟ , тебé, тебΟ 236. In Polabian one finds both the initial and the desinential accent: miné, mané, mánǩ, tíbǩ, tibé. The accentuation of Slovincian cìeʠbjä, bjä, tșɳȅʠȅʠbjä  bjä  is not relevant, since the final accent would be retracted from the short final syllable anyway. The answer to this distribution is, as already mentioned, attested in archaic Croatian dialects (Štokavian and Čakavian), which preserve the initial accent in the genitive: meʂne, teʂbe, oʂd mene, and the desinential accent in the dative: menıʂ , tebıʂ  (see § 17 for the dialectal attestations of this). this). Thus, one should reconstruct Common Slavic genitive *meʂne, *teʂbe, and the dative *mьneʖ  ʀ/mъneʖ /mъneʖ  ʀ, *tebeʖ  ʀ/tobeʖ  ʀ.  

 

Evangelie 1139 (Hock 1139 (Hock 1992 I: 119). 236 Modern Bulgarian forms мèнe , теɳбe are бe are the result of stress retraction. 235

80

Accent of *mę, *tę § 53 The problem of the accent of the original accusative singular forms *mę and *tę is difficult to solve. The reason for this is that these original accusatives were preserved as such only in OCS, and there, there are no accentual marks. In the present day Slavic languages, these forms are always, if preserved, unaccented, which does not help us in determining the original accent. The only useful material for the reconstruction of the accent of *mę and *tę is the accentuation of the combination of these pronouns with a preposition, like *za mę, *na tę etc. Here, only Croatian (Štokavian, Kajkavian, Čakavian) and Slovene material are useful, since there are no combinations like this in Russian, and in West Slavic the shortness of the preposition (cf. Old Czech na tě) is tě) is not very useful, because it is hard to expect that prepositions prepositions could, for instance, be long in these combinations, when they are otherwise always short. In Slovene, there is ʄ on the first syllable in these combinations: naʄ me  me , zaʄte . One also finds this in Kajkavian (for instance Bednja), some Čakavian and some Old Štokavian (like Posavina) dialects: naʄ me, zaʄ te . In Neo-Štokavian, the accentuation of these forms is different: ná me, zá te (from te (from the older *nā meʂ, *zā teʂ)237. This kind of accentuation is also attested in some Čakavian dialects, but with a secondary stress retraction, cf. Vrgada: n°ã me  (from the older *nā meʂ) 238. However, if the yer  at the end of the preposition is vocalized in Neo-Štokavian, another pattern is observed: poʂdā d  ā me, naʂ dā dā te, uʂ zā zā me (from me (from *podъ mę etc. with a vocalization of the yer, or a secondary prop vowel, in order to break the cluster *-d m-). In Vrgada, one finds the same pattern here as in the combinations with no vocalized yer: uz°ã me. The reconstruction of the Common Slavic accentuation of these combinations is not easy because of the differences shown in the material we just saw. Kajkavian, Čakavian and Old Štokavian accentuation would point to Common Slavic *naʄ mę, i.e. to *męʄ. This *męʄ would than be in accord with the rest of the personal pronouns accusatives (*nyʄ , *vyʄ, *naʄ, *vaʄ    ʄ, see § 56, § 57). In Old Russian, мя,тя do мя,тя  do not function like ны, вы, на, ва –  first two being “плюсовые энклитики” (like ми, ти ),), which looks like an innovation, and the latter forms being “минусовые энклитики” 239. Thus, мя  and тя  did not participate in the 240. Middle Bulgarian вь мΧɴ , зa мΧɴ  (Hock 1992 I: 120) must combinations like нá ны, нá вы 240 also be secondary (cf. also нa ныɴ  there, as opposed to нá ны, preserved in some other Middle Bulgarian texts). Kajkavian, Čakavian and Old Štokavian forms like naʄ  me can me  can easily be derived from Slavic *naʄ mę. These would then be the sole examples of the preserved (i.e. not shortened) long circumflex on the preposition with the absolute initial accent in Croatian. In all other examples, like naʂ  svijēt, naʂ  strānu, zaʂ  mēso  etc., the circumflex was shortened due to the The length is generalized in cases like pó me, pó te where te where we would expect **pò me, **pò te. 238 This kind of retraction is known in Čakavian, in spite of the fact that there is no general retraction of stress, cf. Vrgada tũći for tũći for older *tūć ıʂ (this is typical for all of Čakavian), pũta instead pũta instead of *pūtaʂ etc. 239 Зализняк 1985: 143. 240 Дыбо 1981: 35, Дыбо 2000: 62. 237

81

241. number of syllables, while *naʄ mę would preserve the length like *męʄ so so > meʄ so  so 241 However, the Slovene forms are not so simple as to be explained in such a manner. Slovene naʄ me cannot me  cannot be derived regularly from the Common Slavic *naʄ mę, since this should yield **na meʖ  ʄ in Slovene, with a progressive shift of the circumflex. It is not clear how Slovene forms like naʄ me should me  should be explained. An ad hoc solution hoc  solution would be to presume the analogy with the cases like *nî za mę > ni zaʄ  me , but it is unlikely that combinations with two prepositions were common enough to be strong enough an influence in this case.

Neo-Štokavian forms like ná me  < *nā meʂ, would, on the other hand point to the possible Common Slavic *nā męɾ. However, forms like poʂdā d  ā me  could be in accord with dialectal Croatian naʄ  me  (and Vrgada uz°ã me  would be taken one step further in the innovation). It is possible that in these cases the old accentuation was preserved, while naʄ  me changed me changed to secondary ná me . Considering the practical isolation of Neo-Štokavian in this accentuation (together with Middle Bulgarian) and structural reasons 242, it would be safest to assume that the accentuation naʄ  me  is the archaic one 243. Old Czech na tě  also confirms that. It is not difficult to explain the secondary accentuation in Neo-Štokavian. The forms like naʄ  me, zaʄ  te were te  were isolated in the system – this was the only case where the long falling accent was placed on the preposition; in all other cases, the accent on the preposition (if the accent was there) was either ʂ (like in zaʂ  strāne, naʂ  rūku, zaʂ  brōd) or brōd)  or ɳ/´ (like nà ulicu, zà  kuću , and in combinations like trí dāna  < trî daʄna, stó godīnā  < stoʄ  goʂdīnā, dvá trī  < dvaʄ  trî) . Thus, the unusual forms like naʄ  me  were eliminated and adjusted to the type of the newer Neo-Štokavian accentual type like dvá trī . On the other hand, dialectal Croatian naʄ me  is hard to explain via any analogy or secondary development, because, as already said, ʄ on the prepositions appears in this case only. This is also one of the reasons why one should assume that the accentuation like naʄ  me is me  is more archaic than the accentuation like ná me -  it is the usual approach in historical linguistics to assume that the form that looks odd and cannot be interpreted in any way as innovative must be regarded as archaic.

For a thorough discussion of these problems, cf. Kapović 2003: 58-61, Kapović 2005: 7 7-81. 242 One would expect a circumflex in the accusative, not an acute, because of Meillet’s Law, see § 57, and because one finds a circumflex in the other personal pronoun accusatives. 243 In spite of the fact that Slovene does not provide real support for that solution. 241

82

Accentuation of 1 st and 2nd person instrumental singular § 54 As is known, the ending of the pronominal instrumental singular, *-ojNj, like in *mъnojNj and *tobojNj, is found also in the ā- stems, stems, like ženojNj . This ending was transferred from the pronouns to the ā- stems stems (for the origin of this ending, see § 77). In the ā- stems, stems, 244. In on the structural grounds, one expects the ending *-òjNj in a. p. b and b  and *-ojNjʀ in a. p. c 244 ā- stems, stems, one finds the reflexes of the old a. p. c *-ojNjʀ c  *-ojNjʀ generalized (in both a. p. c and c  and in a. p. b ) in Čakavian nogõn, ženõn (< ženõn  (< nogõm < nogõm < nogõv ⇐ nogõv  ⇐ *nogouʂ ⇐ *nogojuʂ < *nogojNjʀ)245 and in Slovene nogóʖ, ženóʖ. On the other hand, Russian ногóю, женóю (thus женóю (thus also in Old Russian), would point to the generalization of the old *-òjNj. However, Russian – óю  might also be derived from the older –oюɴ – oюɴ  by analogy to other cases, in which the accent is always on the first syllable after the stem. The accent –oюɴ – oюɴ  would be the only exception in the paradigm. In Old Russian, one finds мнoюɴ  and тобoю    ɴ, where the –oюɴ –oюɴ  is indeed attested – there, the declension had different forms, including ones like мя, тя , which were totally different from the other accented forms, and the initial accent in the dative/genitive forms, so there was no real pressure for –oюɴ –oюɴ to become –óю, –óю, which might have happened in the ā- stems stems (if the –óю  –óю  there is not to be attributed to the old a. p. b *-òjNj, b *-òjNj, which is also, of course, possible). In the Middle Bulgarian dialect of  Evangelie 1139  (Hock 1992), one finds the forms мнóΧ, тобóΧ , with the same accent as in the nominal forms женóΧ (a. женóΧ (a. p. b ), странóΧ (a. странóΧ (a. p. c ).). There is one dialect, though, that seems to have preserved the opposition of the old *-òjNj in a. p. b and b  and *-ojNjʀ in a. p. c  - Bednja Kajkavian. There, one finds the instrumental storešĩnu from storešĩnu  from the noun storešēīnoʂ  (a. p. b ),), but the instrumental rukũ from rukũ  from the noun rōūkoʂ  (a. p. c )246. As noted by Vermeer (1978: 376), rukũ is rukũ is to be derived from *rNjkNjɶ < *rNjkojNjʀ and storešĩnu < storešĩnu  < *starěšīnNjʄ < *starěšīnòjNj, with a typical Kajkavian development of ɷ ʄ > ɶˇ as defined by Ivšić (cf. Kajkavian *zābaʄ va va > zãbava , but *otaʄva va > otaʄva ).). The accentual paradigms of both 1 st and 2nd person personal pronoun belonged to a special case of mobile a. p. c , which is clear from the forms like *meʂne, *oʂ tъ tъ mene, but *mьneʖ  ʀ etc. (see § 56 for more details). Since the paradigm was mobile, one would expect on structural grounds the instrumental forms *mъnojNjʀ and *tobojNjʀ with final accent. This is exactly what is found in Old Russian мнoюɴ,  тобoюɴ,  Slovene menóʖj, tebóʖ j, and possibly also in Slovincian mnoɺųʠų,ʠ tȅboɺųʠųʠ. However, Slovincian forms could be from *-òjNj as well, if the contraction occurred after Ivšić's Law 247, as it did in Bednja. In the Bednja form, there was no Ivšić's Law in the form *starěšīnNjʄ - the accent was retracted only later by a specific Kajkavian development. There is another possible example of the final accent in Čakavian (Hvar) menõn . This could, however, easily be a younger form due to analogy with nouns like ženõn . Cf. the variant meʂnon in on in the same dialect.  

 

Cf. Stang 1957: 62. The ending –õv  –õv  is long due to –u  – u  becoming asyllabic (-u  (-u  > -v ),), which caused compensatory lengthening of the preceding syllable syllable ( ɶ is expected since the accent was desinential: -ouʂ - ouʂ  > -õv ).). Vaillant's (1931: 13-14) theory that –ovь  – ovь comes comes from pronominal *-ojejNj is not valid. 246 Cf. Jedvaj 1956: 300. 247 I.e. the retraction retraction of internal internal * ʄ. 244 245

83

However, there is some evidence which seems to point otherwise. In Slovene, after the prepositions one finds forms maʄno and o  and taʄbo (the o  (the second is obviously analogous to the first one), which are very difficult to explain. Vaillant (1958: 460) derives this from the form that had the accent on the preposition (like Croatian saʂ mnōm ),), where the accent was shifted to the next syllable yielding the usual ʄ, and with the usual development of a lengthened yer  into a. However, Slovene z maʄno cannot o cannot be compared to Croatian saʂ mnōm , because ʂ in the latter form represents an original short neo-acute * ɳ, and not an original circumflex 248 – see below for the development of the Croatian form. An ad hoc solution hoc  solution would be to reconstruct a prepositional proto-form *sъʂ mъnojNj, which would yield Slovene z maʄno (as o  (as suggested by Vaillant), besides the usual form *mъnojNjʀ, without a preposition, which yielded Slovene menóʖ j . But how is one to explain such a strange form *sъʂ mъnojNj? Again, an ad hoc solution hoc solution would be to suggest an analogy with the forms like *oʂtъ mene (the trouble is that even *meʂne is not attested in Slovene), but that is not even remotely convincing. For now, the problem remains unsolved. In Croatian, these forms have the accentuation mnoʄm, saʂ  mnōm/zaʂ  mnōm  (dial. Čakavian also maʂnōm with n  ōm  with a vocalized yer ) and toʂ bōm ( bōm  (zà tobōm, but also dial. zaʂ  tobōm) . Posavina mnoʄm confirms   confirms the originality of the ʄ (thus not mnoʄm <   < **mnõm, which would also be possible as a development in Neo-Štokavian). Knowing that the circumflex in mnoʄ m  m  is original, the forms saʂ  mnōm  and toʂ bōm  bōm  are easily explained by Ivšić's Law – the neocircumflex made by the contraction of *-ojNj was retracted to a preceding syllable (if there was one). In mnoʄ m  m,  it did not move because the yer disappeared yer  disappeared in the first syllable (but cf. dial. maʂnōm   nōm , where the yer was yer  was vocalized, and where, expectedly, a retraction has occurred because of that). In saʂ  mnōm, toʂbōm  b  ōm , as already said, the accent was retracted to the preceding syllable as a short neo-acute by Ivšić's Law: *sъ m(ъ)noʄ v > *sъɳ m(ъ)nōv ⇒ saʂ  mnōm, *toboʄv > *tòbōv > *toʂ bōv bōv ⇒ toʂ bōm. bōm. The accent zà tobōm is tobōm  is the original one, while the accent zaʂ  tobōm is tobōm  is analogous to saʂ mnōm. Cf. this kind of secondary retraction of the original short neo-acute in Croatian proʂlijēm l ijēm - neʂ prolijēm, but the original lack of it in lıʂ jēm    - nè lijēm . The situation in Croatian (toʂ ( toʂbōm ⇐ b  ōm  ⇐ *toʂbōv bōv < *toboʄv < *toboʂ ju) *toboʂ ju) is in accord with 249. Middle Bulgarian мнóΧ, тобóΧ 249 From these forms we can see that Croatian (Štokavian and Čakavian) and Middle Bulgarian (Evangelie (Evangelie 1139 ) point to the old *mъnòjNj and *tobòjNj, unlike Slovene and Old Russian. Since the nominal accent has generalized the variant *-ojNjʀ (Old Štokavian/Čakavian nogõm, ženõm ),), it is difficult to understand this *-òjNj in personal pronouns, since other languages point to *-ojNjʀ , which is also the expected accent on structural grounds, as already said. The usual way to explain such discrepancies would be to assume *-òjNj in one pronoun and *-ojNjʀ in the other, but we have no other clues that would point to that direction. One also has to take into consideration that the mobile paradigm in pronouns is not quite the same as in nouns (see § 56), and that it is not impossible that *mъnòjNj/mъnojNjʀ represents an old dialectal isogloss in Slavic. Here, I shall reconstruct both forms in Common Slavic. See § 78 for further discussion. Which would be shifted progressively in Slovene. 249 Hock 1992 I: 119. 248

84

Accent Ac cent of genitive/locative plural pronouns is the same in § 55 The accent of the genitive and locative plural of personal pronouns most Slovene, Kajkavian and Čakavian dialects, cf. Slovene GL. nàs, vàs , Kajkavian (Bednja 250) GL. noʂs,  s, voʂs,  Čakavian GL. naʂ s, s, vaʂ s (for s (for instance Cres). However, one finds different forms in the Kajkavian dialect of Prigorje 251 – G. naʄs, s  , vaʄ s with s with a neo-circumflex, but L. naʂ s, s, vaʂ s  s.  A question appears whether this could be archaic – that is, has there been a neocircumflex in the genitive plural already in Common Slavic 252? This is not very likely. Firstly – the pattern of Prigorje is isolated. Secondly – it could be explained as secondary very easily, due to the neo-circumflex appearing regularly in the genitive plural, like in nouns like kraʄ v, v, njîv, sît etc. sît etc. And thirdly – it is not even certain that the neo-circumflex is of pan-Slavic origin in the nouns, since there is no trace of it in Russian, cf. Russian G. pl. корóв but корóв but Croat. dial., Sln. kraʄ v  v,  Czech krav . Thus, it seems safest to assume that in the case of Prigorje Kajkavian forms one deals with an innovation, not an archaism when it comes to Common Slavic itself (in Kajkavian-Slovene area it is an archaism – Slovene nàs and nàs and Kajkavian naʂ s are s are L. pl., not G. pl. in origin). The original accent in the genitive-locative plural is the acute – as attested in Čakavian naʂ s, s, vaʂ s  s , Czech nás, vás etc. vás etc. For the explanation of Štokavian and Slovak innovative forms, cf. § 32 and § 34.

 Jedvaj 1956: 306. Rožić 1889-1894/116: 130. 252 Stang 1957: 106. 250

251

85

Mobile paradigm of Slavic personal pronouns § 56 As is widely accepted, all Slavic morphological paradigms are divided into three accentual paradigms – a. p. a , a. p. b  and a. p. c . These paradigms are not the same everywhere – differences exist because of the differences of the different parts of speech, different declension and conjugation types etc. However, accentual paradigms always have basic things in common – the a. p. a always a always has an acute on the stem, a. p. b always b always has the accent on the first syllable after the stem (or a neo-acute on the stem, if the accent is retracted), and in a. p. c the c  the accent is mobile – it can be initial (then the accent «jumps» to the preceding clitic), final, or an acute on the first syllable of the ending. The mobility can be regarded as a prototype of a paradigm which has to have the three mentioned characteristics (the initial, final or the acute accent in the first syllable of  the ending), even though not all three must be included in a single paradigm. The way in which this abstract mobility will appear on a surface in a particular paradigm depends basically on the type of endings that appear in that paradigm (for instance, some endings attract the accent, other do not). One kind of mobility is exactly what we find in personal pronouns (cf. Зализняк 1985: 143 who puts all personal pronouns into Old Russian a. p. c ).). We find all the traits of a. p. c  in personal pronouns: absolute initial accent - *meʂ ne, *męʄ, *tyʄ, *teʂbe, *tęʄ, *myʄ, *nyʄ, *vyʄ, *veʖ  ʄ, 253 (like *goʄrdъ «town», *goʄ lvNj *naʄ, *vaʄ253 lvNj «head»), final accent - *mь/ъneʖ  ʀ, *mъnojNjʀ, *te/obeʖ  ʀ, 254 (like L. *golveʖ *tobojNjʀ254     ʀ, *golvojNjʀ, *gordomъʀ),), and old acute on the first syllable of the "ending" (see below) *naɾsъ, sъ, *naɾmъ, mъ, *naɾmi, mi, *vaɾsъ, *vaɾmъ, mъ, *vaɾmi, mi, *naɾ ju, *naɾma, ma, *vaɾ ju, *vaɾma ma (like *golvaɾmъ, *golvaɾxъ, *golvaɾmi, mi, *golvaɾma). ma). Of course, the mobile paradigm of personal pronouns has its own special peculiarities, just like verbs have theirs, adjectives theirs, and   just like the i- stems stems are different from the o-  and u- stems stems etc. One can compare pronominal forms like *tyʄ with nouns like *kryʄ «blood», *syʄnъ «son», *teʂbe with *goʄ rda, rda, *te/obeʖ  ʀ with the locative *golveʖ    ʀ, *męʄ with with *goʄlvNj, lvNj, *tobojNjʀ with *golvojNjʀ, *myʄ with *goʄlvy, *naɾsъ sъ with *golvaɾxъ, *naɾmъ mъ with *golvaɾmъ, mъ, *naɾmi mi with *golvaɾmi, *nyʄ with *goʄlvy, lvy, *naɾma ma with *golvaɾma etc. One can see that many features are similar to those found in other morphological types, but nowhere is the exact same pattern found. The forms *naɾsъ, sъ, *naɾmъ, mъ, *naɾmi, mi, *vaɾsъ, sъ, *vaɾmъ, mъ, *vaɾmi, *naɾ  ju, *naɾma, *naɾma, *vaɾ  ju, *vaɾma *vaɾma have to be explained separately. As clearly seen, these forms did not really have an internal old acute like *golvaɾ mъ, mъ, *golvaɾxъ, *golvaɾmi, *golvaɾma. However, this acute behaved synchronically and was regarded as an internal acute, as well as the accent on the first syllable of the ending, in connection to the operation of Meillet's Law (cf. § 57).

Cf. Зализняк 1985: 143 for Old Russian вΟ  which is most likely an “enclinomenon“. The reconstruction of *naʄ, *vaʄ is based on structural grounds, since the direct evidence does not exist. 254 The instrumental accentual variants *mъnòjNj and *tobòjNj (see § 54) can be regarded as a special trait of the pronominal mobile paradigm. 253

86

Meillet's Law in nominative/accusative forms of personal pronouns § 57 In the nominative-accusative of the personal pronouns, we find the forms with the circumflex in Slavic 255, i.e. unaccented words or the words with the absolute initial accent: *męʄ, *tyʄ, *tęʄ, *myʄ, *nyʄ, *vyʄ, *veʖ  ʄ, *naʄ, *naʄ, *vaʄ. Forms like Old Prussian toū, ioūs or ioūs  or Latvian jũs  Latvian  jũs  point to the Balto-Slavic acute in these forms (see § 81). This discrepancy of Baltic and Slavic can be explained by Meillet’s Law – the elimination of acute in forms with initial accent in mobile accentual paradigms 256. The original acute in NA. plural/dual is proven by oblique cases as well – all oblique cases have the acute (*naɾ sъ, sъ, *naɾmъ, mъ, *naɾmi, mi, *vaɾsъ, sъ, *vaɾmъ, mъ, *vaɾmi, mi, *naɾ ju, *naɾma, ma, *vaɾ ju, *vaɾma). Working out the exact details of the operation of Meillet’s Law in personal pronouns is not an easy task, as we shall see. The exact conditions of the operation of Meillet's Law are not certain. Stang (1957: 10) assumes an analogy – the acute has disappeared first in the pretonic syllable in *golvaʀ, and then by analogy in the accented position as well (*glvNj > *goʄ lvNj). lvNj). This connects Meillet’s Law with the loss of acute in pretonic syllables (see below). Rasmussen (1999b: 474-475) explains it by absolute polarization of accent in mobile stems in Slavic, thus connecting it to the “jumping” of the accent to proclitics. Perhaps one should connect these two mentioned hypotheses. The loss of acute in *goʄ lvNj lvNj might have been analogous to *golvaʀ    ʀ; the form *goʄlvNj had the accent on the first mora (unlike earlier *glvNj with the accent on the second mora) and this polarization of accent was carried a step further and resulted in *naʄ golvNj etc. However, that remains a speculation. The exact place of Meillet’s Law in the relative chronology is uncertain as well. However, it seems that it was a rather recent development. According to Holzer 2005 (: 4344), Meillet’s Law operated after the metathesis of liquids. For instance, Holzer adduces the examples of Russian/Ukrainian ланиɴ тa  тa , Czech lanitva “cheek” lanitva  “cheek” and Russian рамяɴнo “very” o  “very” (~ Slovene rámeno ),), where the ra- /la- (and la-  (and not ro- /lo- ) point to the acute in the first pretonic syllable. If the examples are reliable, they would actually prove that the elimination of acute intonation in pretonic syllables occurred after the metathesis of liquids. This hypothesis presupposes that the elimination of pretonic acute and the loss of acute in initial syllables of  mobile paradigms were simultaneous, i.e. a part of the same process (see above). There are two main problems to be addressed concerning Meillet’s Law in personal pronouns. The first one is the absence of Meillet’s Law in the form *jaɾ , and the second one is the question of the operation of the Law in plural – how to explain the forms *myʄ , *nyʄ and *vyʄ? The operation of Meillet’s Law is clear in the 2 nd person singular paradigm. The paradigm is obviously mobile – *teʂbe, *te/obeʖ    ʀ, *tobòjNj/tobojNjʀ (cf. (cf. § 56). Thus, the forms with the initial acute accent obtain the circumflex by Meillet's Law - *tyɾ > *tyʄ, *tęɾ > *tęʄ. A Kortlandt’s doctrine that all personal pronouns in Slavic had an unchanged original acute (cf. for instance Kortlandt 1997: 29) is unsubstantiated unsubstantiated in the material (see § 4, § 6-8, § 13, § 14, § 29 for the examples). All the forms point to the original circumflex in *ty, *my, *vy – Kortlandt’s hypothesis is thus completely ad hoc . 256 Cf. Дыбо 1981: 37 for the explanation of *tyʄ, *myʄ, *vyʄ via Meillet's Law. 255

87

question appears - if the new circumflex forms came into existence via Meillet’s Law in the nominative and accusative forms of the 2 nd person personal pronoun, how are we then to explain the preserved acute in one of the nominative 1 st person singular forms - *jaɾ (see § 13 for this form)? There is a simple answer to this question. In order for Meillet's Law to work, one has to have a paradigm – a mobile paradigm. Now, the 1 st person singular is a clear case of mobility, cf. *meʂne, *mъneʖ  ʀ (cf. § 56). Yes, the mobility is indeed there, but where is the paradigm? That the forms *naʄ gъ gъ “naked”, G. *naʄ ga ga or *golvaʀ, A. *goʄlvNj lvNj belong to the same paradigm is quite clear. That the forms *tyʄ, *teʂ be, be, *te/obeʖʀ, *tęʄ, *tobòjNj/tobojNjʀ belong to the same paradigm is not quite as clear because this paradigm is irregular, but still, all these forms are similar enough to be considered a paradigm, although a far less prototypical one than the first two mentioned. Thus, the operation of Meillet’s Law in *tyʄ and *tęʄ is not surprising, since these two forms belong to a mobile paradigm. But in the case of  the 1st person singular, it was not so. In this case, we had a form which was completely isolated in a number of ways. Firstly, its nominative forms (*jaɾ and *jãzъ < *jāzъʀ ) were completely different than the rest of its “paradigm”. Secondly, the 1 st person nominative singular forms are also special because there are two of them – which is not the case anywhere else. Thirdly, the form *jaɾ was not similar to any of the other pronominal nominative or accusative forms in any visible way (neither in the initial consonant, nor in the final vowel). Thus this form was simply not a part of the same paradigm as the forms *meʂne, *mъneʖ  ʀ, *męʄ, *mъnòjNj/mъnojNjʀ. The form *jaɾ was an isolated form (*jāzъʀ as well), not a part of a mobile paradigm 257, and thus, logically, Meillet’s Law did not operate in it and the form managed to preserve its acute 258. 259 because of the *teʂbe, *te/obeʖ It is easy to understand that *tyɾ > *tyʄ259     ʀ (a mobile paradigm), but why did this occur also in the old *myɾ, *naɾ sъ, *naɾmъ, mъ, *naɾmi? If all the forms had an acute originally, why was the paradigm *myɾ, *naɾ mъ mъ identified with *glvy, *golvaɾ mъ mъ (the acute mobile paradigm), and not with *ryɾby, *ryɾbamъ (the acute immobile paradigm, i.e. a. p. a )? )? The basic problem is in the forms *glvy and *ryɾby – what was the difference between them? One can assume that there was no phonetic difference, i.e. that they were pronounced in the same way. The difference was probably only in the fact that the accent of  *glvy was not on the same syllable in other cases, while the acute of *ryɾby always remained on that syllable 260. The fact that *myɾ, *naɾ sъ sъ (and *vyɾ, *vaɾsъ, sъ, and dual forms in line with

A suppletivity of completely unrelated (or very different) forms is thus not regarded as the same paradigm, but as two (or more) different forms. One can set a provisional hierarchy of the prototypical paradigms – the most prototypical ones would be those that make a clear paradigm, the so-called regular words like Croatian koʂnj, n  j, kònji or kònji  or English horse, horses. The less prototypical paradigm would be that of the irregular words, like Croatian tî, teʂ be or be or English man , men . The least prototypical, i.e. not really a paradigm, is a case of synchronic suppletivity like Croatian čòvjek - ljuʄ di, di, doʂ bar bar - boʂ ljī  ljī  or English good – better . Traditional grammars may teach us that the form better  is a comparative of  good, but one should know better – especially when talking about what really is in a native speaker’s mind and not in grammar-books. 258 In the form *jāzъʀ , the acute was, as already said, eliminated in the pretonic syllable. 259 The operation of Meillet’s Law in monosyllables is seen in the 2 nd and 3rd person of aorist, cf. Croatian bıʂh  h   , bî, bî  (dòbih, doʂ bi, bi, doʂ bi) in bi) in a. p. c , but šıʂh  h   , šıʂ,  šıʂ (ùših, ùši, ùši) in ùši)  in a.p. a . 260 A typological parallel is found in Croatian – the forms noʂgu and u  and kuʂću are ć  u  are phonetically pronounced exactly the same (in most dialects), the only difference being the way these forms function in other 257

88

them) were identified as the acute mobile paradigm (and not as the acute immobile paradigm) probably has to do with Meillet's Law operating in *tyɾ > *tyʄ (where the mobility was obvious). By analogy to *tyɾ > *tyʄ, the forms *myɾ, *nyɾ and *vyɾ, which rhymed with *tyɾ (and the NA. dual forms after them) were also interpreted as having the «mobile» rather than the «immobile» acute. This points to the conclusion that in personal pronouns, Meillet's Law was not a completely phonetic change. It was partly analogical – as seen by the operation of  it in *myʄ, *nyʄ and *vyʄ. This explains the absence of Meillet's Law in oblique plural/dual forms (kao *naɾsъ, *naɾmъ, mъ, *naɾmi mi itd.) – there was no Meillet's Law because the acutes in these forms were regarded as a part of the ending, thus word internal, rather than word initial (like in *golvaɾmъ etc.). If these acutes had been regarded in the system as initial, they would have all been changed to the circumflex by Meillet's Law (however, that would be very strange since elsewhere there was no circumflex in those cases – thus, the change never occurred there). Of course, this behavior was hardly etymological, since originally these forms were to be analyzed like *naɾ -sъ, -sъ, *naɾ-mъ, -mъ, *naɾ-mi -mi (< *nō-su, *nō-mos, *nō-mih1s, see § 69), unlike *golv-aɾmъ, mъ, *golv-aɾxъ, xъ, *golv-aɾmi, mi, *golv-aɾma ma (< *gholHw-eh2mos, *gholHw-eh2su, *gholHweh2mih1s, *gholHw-eh2moh1). The *-aɾ- in the pronouns was originally a part of the root, while the *-aɾ- in the ā -stems -stems was a part of the ending (or a thematic vowel that makes a unit with the ending). Thus, one has to suppose a misanalysis in Slavic, which is not problematic – these endings were synchronically identical. It can be argued that the operation of Meillet’s Law in *tyɾ > *tyʄ was perhaps what triggered off its operation in plural (and by analogy in dual). The nominative-accusative circumflex in *tyʄ, *tęʄ was the ground for the establishment of the circumflex in the nominative-accusative plural and dual. The analogy was simple, as already said - *tyʄ influenced *myʄ and *vyʄ in the nominative. The 2 nd person accusative plural *vyʄ was the same as the nominative plural, the 1 st person accusative *nyʄ rhymed with the other forms. Thus, the circumflex was easily established in plural. In dual, the 2 nd person nominative was *vyʄ as well (see § 50). Thus, by analogy to the plural forms, the circumflex was introduced to the nominative and accusative dual as well. However, there was one more crucial factor that made this kind of change possible – the already mentioned analogy with the ā- stem stem acute mobile plural paradigm. Since there was no Meillet's Law in the DLI. plural (and DI. dual) of  the ā -stems -stems (where the accent was in the middle of the word - *golvaɾ mъ, *golvaɾxъ, xъ, *golvaɾmi, *golvaɾma), ma), it is understandable that there was no Meillet's Law in the morphologically similar cases of personal pronouns in plural/dual 261. The parallelism of  personal pronoun plural/dual paradigms and ā- stem stem plural/dual paradigms is obvious. The distribution of the acute on the ending and the initial circumflex is the same. The only difference is that the ā- stems stems are at least disyllabic in NA. plural/dual and that the oblique cases are at least trisyllabic, while NA. is monosyllabic in the pronouns and the oblique cases are disyllabic. cases (nòga  (nòga , but kuʂća  ć  a ),), or with a preposition (naʂ ( naʂ  nogu, ù kuću ).). These forms, like Common Slavic *glvy and *ryɾby by are the same on the surface, but different in the way they behave in various environments. 261 It was convenient that N. pl. *my – A. pl. *ny, N. pl. *vy – A. pl. *vy had the same endings as N. pl. *golvy – A. pl. *golvy (although only accidentally in the nominative, see § 48). 89

The parallelism of personal pronouns and ā -stems: -stems: N. *vyʄ D. *vaɾmъ mъ A. *vyʄ L. *vaɾsъ sъ I. *vaɾmi mi

*goʄlvy lvy *golvaɾmъ *goʄlvy lvy *golvaɾxъ *golvaɾmi

D/I. *vaɾma ma

*golvaɾma

< pre-Meillet's Law Slavic *vyɾ, *glvy < pre-Meillet's Law Slavic *vyɾ, *glvy

Thus, we have concluded that the operation of Meillet's Law in the nominativeaccusative plural/dual of personal pronouns was due to analogy with the regular *tyʄ, *tęʄ in singular and to analogy with the plural/dual pattern of the acute mobile ā- stems. stems. One might argue against such an analysis claiming that it is somewhat far-fetched, i.e. not very likely. However, the Slavic nominative-accusative forms of personal pronouns very clearly attest the circumflex accent, while the same forms in Baltic point to the acute (as well as the oblique cases in Slavic). The change of acute to circumflex can be explained via Meillet's Law only 262. The question is only – why did Meillet's Law operate there? The proposed scheme, although complicated at first glance in some regards, provides us with the answer to that question.

Rasmussen (1999b: 481) explains Slovene tî, mî, vî  by his rule that only circumflex is possible in monosyllables in Balto-Slavic. I cannot accept that rule, not only because of the Slavic aorist forms like *bıɾ, *šıɾ (Croatian bıʂ,  šıʂ )  , which do not look analogical, but also because of the existence of Slavic *jaɾ (North Čakavian jaʂ Čakavian jaʂ )  . 262

90

Reconstructed Common Slavic paradigms § 58 Here, we shall just adduce all Common Slavic personal pronoun paradigms. Most of  the forms and their accents are reflected very well in the daughter languages, but the accentuation of some of the forms (like *naʄ, *vaʄ) is based on structural grounds 263. 1st person singular

2nd person singular

N. *jaɾ, *jãzъ < *jāzъʀ G. *meʂne DL. *mъneʖ  ʀ, *mi A. *męʄ I. *mъnòjNj/*mъnojNjʀ

N. *tyʄ G. *teʂbe be DL. *tebeʖ  ʀ, *tobeʖ  ʀ, *ti A. *tęʄ I. *tobòjNj/*tobojNjʀ

1st person plural

2nd person plural

n. *myʄ gl. *naɾsъ sъ d. *naɾmъ, mъ, *ny a. *nyʄ i. *naɾmi mi

n. *vyʄ gl. *vaɾsъ sъ d. *vaɾmъ, *vy a. *vyʄ i. *vaɾmi mi

1st person dual

2nd person dual

N. *veʖ  GL. *naɾ  D. *naɾma, ma, *na A. *naʄ I. *naɾma ma

  ju

ʄ

N. *vyʄ  ju GL. *vaɾ D. *vaɾma, ma, *va A. *vaʄ I. *vaɾma ma

Дыбо 1981: 35, for instance, does not reconstruct the nominative and accusative dual because of  the lack of evidence. 263

91

2. PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN BALTIC Paradigms Standard languages are cited. In Old Prussian, the most representative forms are adduced (other attested variants are found in the discussion). LITHUANIAN singular N. àš G. manęɶs D. mán A. manè L. manyjè I. manimì

tù tavęɶs táv tavè tavyjè tavimì

plural n. meɶs g. mūsų sų d. mùms a. mùs l. mūsyjè i. mumìs

jũs jūsų sų jùms jùs jūsyjè jumìs

dual NA. mùdu GL. mù-dviejų D. mù-dviem

jùdu jù-dviejų jù-dviem

 

 

LATVIAN singular N. es G. manis D. man A. mani L. manĩ

tu tevis tev tevi tevĩ 

plural n. meɶs g. mũsu d. mumʄs a. mũs l. mūsuoʄs

jũs jũsu jumʄs jũs jūsuoʄs 92

OLD PRUSSIAN singular N. as, es G. maisei D. mennei A. mien I. māim plural n. mes g. nuson/noūsan d. nūma(n)s/noūma(n)s a. mans

toū, tu twaise tebbe(i) tien

ioūs iouson/ioūsan iūma(n)s/ioūma(n)s wans

Since we have to deal with only three languages here 264, we shall not divide the presentation of the material into separate sections for the discussion of the personal pronouns in singular/plural/dual. All the forms belonging to one language will be discussed under the same heading.

Conveniently labeled Baltic, although the author does not believe in the existence of the supposed Proto-Baltic, as already pointed out (see Introduction).

264

93

Lithuanian § 59 In dialects and in Old Lithuanian texts, various forms, different from the Modern Standard Lithuanian ones, are attested 265. The Lithuanian forms are closely related to the Latvian forms. This is normal, since those two languages form the East Baltic branch of  Balto-Slavic. They are, however, very different from the Old Prussian forms, which are as close to Slavic as they are to East Baltic (still, there are some developments that are shared by Lithuanian, Latvian and Old Prussian). This is also one of the facts that points to the conclusion that West and East Baltic do not represent a unity inside Balto-Slavic. In Old Lithuanian and in Lithuanian dialects, secondary cases, like allative, inessive etc., have developed. Since the purpose of this work is strictly comparative, we shall not tackle these forms, unless they bear some importance in the discussion of cases inherited from ProtoBalto-Slavic and Indo-European (i.e. the «original» cases). The general characteristic of the Lithuanian system of personal pronouns is that it is not very archaic. The East Baltic system of personal pronouns is in general much more innovative than that of Old Prussian and Slavic. Singular The nominative singular of the 1 st person personal pronoun is àš  in Modern Lithuanian. In some Old Lithuanian texts and in dialects, the form eš  is attested, which seems closer to other IE languages (cf. Latvian es , Latin ego etc.). ego etc.). This is due to the complete confusion of the original Balto-Slavic *a- (< IE *h 2e-, *Ho-) and *e- (< IE *(h 1)e-) in Lithuanian, called Rozwadowski's Change. Old *a- and *e- yield e- /a-  indiscriminately in Lithuanian 266. Dialectal (Anykščiai) õš (with õš  (with õ- < õ-  < a- ) is problematic, since it cannot really be derived from the older *eš, cf. esmù «am» esmù  «am» in the same dialect, with the unchanged *e- 267. In dialects, the adding of various suffixes in both 1 st and 2nd person is usual: cf. dialectal ašaĩ, 268, àšenai; tùje, tùjei, tùjeinas, tùjeino(s), tùjen, tùjenai etc. àšai, àšen 268 tùjenai  etc.269 Standard Lithuanian 2 nd person nominative singular is tù . This form is ambiguous. It can be derived from the old *tū , with the length (as in Old Prussian tū, toū and toū  and OCS ty ) and with the acute shortened by Leskien's Law, as well as from the old short *tù (as in Latvian tu , Greek Doric τύ etc.). However, dialectal North-West Žemaitian toʜ ɳ unambiguously points to the older short *tù. Thus, the Standard Lithuanian tù is tù is also to be derived from the older *tù. The possibility that both the form *tū and *tù are attested in Lithuanian dialects is not very likely. Since the short form is attested in Latvian too, it points to the East Baltic generalization of the short form. The development of Lithuanian genitive and accusative forms must be dealt with together. Numerous different forms exist in dialects and in older texts. The oldest forms  

 

For a good overview of various attested complete systems of Lithuanian dialects and Old Lithuanian texts, see Rosinas 1995: 12-21. 266 Kortlandt forthcoming a. forthcoming a. 267 Endzelīns 1971: 186. 268 This –en  –en could could very speculatively be related to PIE *-om (> Slavic – ъ ),), as a reflex of a variant *-em (Steven Young, p. c.). 269 Senn 1966: 190. 265

94

must have been *mene (cf. OCS mene , Avestan mana ) and *tewe (Vedic táva ) in the genitive, and *mēn, *tēn270 (Old Prussian mien , tien , OCS mę , tę ) in the accusative. The modern Lithuanian genitive and accusative forms are obviously innovative (as is the whole paradigm). The old stems *men- and *tew- were changed to man-  and tav-  in Lithuanian (dialectally also mun- and mun-  and tev- ) in all oblique forms, thus also in the genitive (and accusative). The old *mene, *tewe are reshaped to *mane, *te/awe in Lithuanian 271 (see § 74-75). The whole development of the modern forms is to be explained in the following fashion 272: the old genitive form *mane (we shall take the 1st person form as the example, but the same goes for the 2nd person as well) starts being used for the accusative as well (cf. the secondary use of mene  of mene in in the accusative in Slavic). Then, this *mane is contaminated with the old accusative form *mēn, which probably had an acute - *mē n. n. Thus, one gets *manēn in both the genitive and accusative 273. Instead of a contamination of *mane and *mē n, one could also imagine that the form *mēn was just analogically transformed into *m-an-ē n, n, with the stem *manthat is found in all other oblique cases. This new form *manęɴ  ɴ looked like an accusative, because of the nasal. Thus, a new genitive form *manęɴ  ɴs was created with the typical genitive *-s. The acute was then changed to the circumflex, *manęɴ    ɴs ⇒ *manęɶs, by analogy to the circumflex in the nominal genitive forms (žiemõs  ( žiemõs , avieɶs , sunaũs ).). In the accusative *manęɴ  ɴ, the final syllable is shortened to manè by manè by Leskien's Law (dialectally also manì for manì for instance)274. Here is a schematic presentation of these developments:  

 

 

 

East Baltic

 

G. *mane, A. *mēn  

G. *manēn, n, A. *manē n  

 

G. *manęɴ  ɴs, s, A. *manęɴ  ɴ s, A. manè Standard Lithuanian G. manęɶ s, Stang (1966: 249) says that it is possible that manè  could also be due to the irregular shortening of the form manęɶ . That is not entirely impossible, but not very likely. Dialectal accusative form manęɶ  probably ows its accent to the genitive. In some dialects, the form manęɶ  appears in the genitive (no *-s was added), while in the accusative, the form manè is manè  is

The long *ē here seems necessary because of the Slavic form at least. 271 Stang (1966: 250) reconstructs the accent *manè, and Rosinas (1995: 37) *menè and *teuʠ è here. These forms are completely unsubstantiated and obviously biased by the accent of the innovative Modern Lithuanian accusative forms manè , tavè . 272 Cf. Stang 1966: 249-250. 273 Cf. exactly the same process in Russian, where the new genitive-accusative form меняɴ  has developed through the contamination of the original genitive менe and менe and the original accusative мя , see § 27. 274 The reason for the reconstruction of *manęɴ   ɴ for the modern manè  is that this is the only way to explain the nasal in the genitive manęɶs (Stang s    (Stang 1966: 250). If there is a nasal in the genitive, then it must have been there in the accusative as well. If not for this, one could theoretically reconstruct *manè > manè . 270

95

attested. Arumaa's claims275 that the –ęɶ –ęɶs in  s  in the genitive is older than the –ęɶ – ęɶ , because of the allative –ęɶ –ęɶsp(i)  together with the genitive –ęɶ – ęɶ  as the only form in some dialects, is not very convincing. In the dialect of Garliava 276, three versions of the genitive form are attested: manè , manès and manès  and manęɶ s  s.  The first one could be a regular reflex of the old *manęɴ  ɴ, and the second one of the old *manęɴ  ɴs without an analogical circumflex (which is also attested in this dialect). In North-West Žemaitian, forms mõʜneʜ neʜs and   and tãveʜs /teɶveʜ v  eʜs  are attested, which could point to the original accent on the first syllable (as in Slavic *meʂne, Vedic máma ).). In dialects, the ending –ies , borrowed from the i- stems, stems, also appears in the genitive singular personal pronoun forms - manieɶs . In the accusative, Bezzenberger (1877: 162) records a possible, but uncertain, example of Lithuanian tuwe . Concerning the confusion of the genitive and the accusative, Stang (1966: 250) makes two opposite claims on the same page of his book. First, he explains it as obvious – the merger being due to the fact that the genitive and the accusative of the singular personal pronouns were syntactically closer to each other than the same cases in the nominal declension. The reason for this was that the genitives of the singular personal pronouns were not used in the possessive constructions277. Therefore, the genitive forms had a limited use - only after some prepositions and in negative sentences. Thus, they were syntactically more alike to the accusative than is usually the case. A little bit further in the text, however, Stang says that it is not easy to explain this confusion of the genitive and the accusative. He claims that the situation in Slavic is different, because there the genitive is used instead of  the accusative for living beings 278. In spite of this claim, the use of the genitive form in the accusative does not appear very strange. The genitive and the accusative were syntactically close – cf. the use of the accusative in the positive and the use of the genitive in the negative sentences for the direct object. To avoid the problem of explaining the confusion of the genitive and the accusative, one can simply take the new accusative form *m-an-ęɴ  ɴ as the analogically transformed old *m-ęɴ  ɴ, as already suggested. The confusion of the forms *manęɴ  ɴ and *mane would then be more likely to occur because of the similarity of these two forms. In the dative, the forms mán  and táu  are attested in Standard Lithuanian. In Old Lithuanian, the form mani  is also attested (but rarely), from which mán  stems (with the truncation of the final –i)  – i) . Cf. also dialectal tãvi . The form mán points mán  points to the older *màni 279. This is the same ending –i  – i that that appears in Old Lithuanian nominal datives like šuni "dog" šuni  "dog" or dukteri "daughter". dukteri  "daughter". This ending clearly stems from the IE ending *-i, which was the locative ending in the nominal declension. Instead of the stems man- and man-  and tav- , the stems mun- and mun-  and tev- also tev-  also appear in dialects. Žemaitian mun- is mun-  is secondary according to Stang (1966: 252), due to the phonetic change of  –an-  > -un- . The stem tev-  appears in some North-West Žemaitian dialects. Dialectally, the dative forms with the final – ie and ie  and –ei  –ei are are also attested – mánie/mãnie, mãnei . This ending must stem from the IE dative ending *-ey (cf. Old Prussian mennei) . As quoted by Stang 1966: 250. 276 Stang 1966: 251. 277 Cf. the Lithuanian possessive forms màno , tàvo – tàvo  – the genitive form is not used in this function. 278 That is, however, secondary in Slavic. 279 Stang 1966: 168. 275

96

In Old Lithuanian and in some modern dialects in the genitive, dative and accusative singular, the short unaccented forms mi and mi  and ti appear ti  appear (also truncated –m , -t ).). They can be affixes or independent enclitics. According to Rosinas (1988: 160, 1995: 10), these are used in the genitive, dative and accusative function. Stang (1966: 253) claims that these forms were used in the function of the dative and accusative only. The reason for these different claims must lay in the fact that Stang did not consider the appearance of these forms in negative sentences important enough to regard them as the genitive unaccented forms as well. Indeed, all except one of the Rosinas’s examples (1995: 10) of the genitival use of  mi  and ti are ti are in negative sentences, the exception being the sentence “pa mi gaylies” 280. The forms of the locative – manyjè , tavyjè , and of the instrumental - manimì , tavimì  are obviously secondary, due to the influence of the i- stems stems (cf. also the dialectal genitive ies forms). ies forms). Colloquially, these forms appear as manyɶ (j) and (j) and manimɶ . Plural plural were also also far-reaching. Here, the analogical influence § 60 The developments in the plural of the nominal u- stems stems was notable. This was due to the analogical spread of the *-ū- from the stem of the 2 nd person plural nominative form, which was later associated with the *-ufrom the u -stems. -stems. The nominative plural forms are meɶs and   and  jũs . In dialects, the form m÷ s  is attested, which is either due to analogy with the 2 nd person pronoun or to the original variant *mē s281. The accent of the form meɶs is   is analogical to jũs  to  jũs and and the circumflex in the 2 nd person form is likewise secondary – the original acute is not only attested in Latvian  jũs , Old Prussian ioūs , but also in the Lithuanian genitive form  jū sų . The circumflex of Lithuanian  jũs  is due to metatony, the form without it being attested in dialects 282. In Standard Lithuanian, the acute does not appear in the final or the only syllable. Another reason for this change is the imitation of the pattern of the u- stems, stems, cf. the nominative sū nūs with nūs with –ūs  –ūs and and the accusative sū nus with nus with –us  –us . Thus also jũs  also jũs :: jùs .   

 

 

 

 

The genitive forms are mū sų  sų , jū sų  sų , with the long –ū-  – ū- originally originally from the 2 nd person nominative form. This –ū-  –ū- has has also spread into the 1 st person oblique cases.  

 

In the dative and instrumental forms, the –u  – u - of the stem is short, which must be due to analogy with the u- stems. stems. The long –ū-  –ū- , which is a part of the stem, has been reinterpreted as part of the ending and thus shortened, like the – u- in u-  in the u- stem stem endings. The endings are the usual plural endings – ms  and –mis  –mis . Theoretically, the dative forms mùms , jùms could  jùms  could be derived from the old *mū ms ms < *mūmus, mus, and not only from *mùm(a)s,  

 

For the material and examples of Old Lithuanian mi, ti , cf. Hermann 1926: 15-88. 281 Cf. also the analogical influence of the 2 nd person concerning the plural oblique stem. 282 Cf. for instance Otrębsky 1958: 239. In Žemaitian dialects that preserve the original rising pronunciation of the acute, the form jūs  form  jūs also also has the original rising accent. 280

97

but the instrumental forms mumìs ,  jumìs attest  jumìs  attest the short –u-  –u- , which is then to be assumed in the dative as well 283. In the accusative, one finds the forms mùs , jùs . These forms are in accord with Latvian mũs ,  jũs  and must be due to the operation of Leskien’s Law. The preforms were *mūns, ns, *yūns, ns, the first form being analogous to the second one. These forms are usually explained through the influence of the u- stems stems as well. Another way to explain them is through the insertion of the accusative *-n- in the original (nominative) form *yū s. This new made form, *yū -n-s, -n-s, replaced the old accusative form, attested in Old Prussian wans  and OCS vy . That the proto-forms were indeed *mū ns, *yūns is seen by the fact that dialectally, nominative forms męɶ s and s  and jųɶ  jųɶ s are s  are attested. The nasal in the nominative forms is obviously analogous to the old accusative forms 284. The old *jųɴ s is also confirmed by the form iunspi  from a Lithuanian text from the year 1711 285. It must be noted that mùs, jùs  could be derived directly from *m/nō ns, *wōns, as Old Prussian mans, wans and wans and OCS ny, vy . However, this is not certain, since the *-ū -, originally stemming from the 2nd person nominative plural, was generalized in all oblique cases in East Baltic.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlike other oblique cases (GDAI. pl.), which have the usual plural nominal endings, the locative has an analogical singular i- stem stem ending in Standard Lithuanian. This is certainly 286. In dialects, the forms with the due to the influence of the singular forms manyjè , tavyjè 286 plural locative endings are also widely attested – mūsuosè , jūsuosè (with jūsuosè (with the o- and o-  and u- stem stem ending), mumysè , jumysè (with  jumysè (with the i- stem stem ending). In Old Lithuanian, the nominative form juos  form  juos and and the genitive form juosų  form  juosų are are attested. Stang (1966: 256) also adduces the forms mousu  (together with  junsu ) from the 17th 287. century, the form mousu  probably being an error in Stang’s book, instead of  muosu 287 Stang explains this –uo- as –uo-  as a remnant of the old stems *nō-/wō-, attested in OCS na- , va- . If these forms are reliable, this would mean that the generalization of the *-ū- in the plural is post-Proto-East-Baltic (see § 67). Dual § 61 The Standard Lithuanian (Aukštaitian) dual forms are all innovative, made by the agglutination of the stems mu- , ju- and ju- and the number «two». The 1 st person form is obviously, as usual, analogically based on the 2 nd person form (the –u  –u - in the stem), and the initial m-  288. The original *we- (cf. OCS vĕ)  is seen is due to the influence of the plural form meɶs 288 dialectally, in Žemaitian: veɶdoʖ  doʖ, and in Old Lithuanian 289. The form jùdu  form  jùdu is is ambiguous. It can Endzelīns 1923: 379. 284 Stang 1966: 255. 285 Arumaa 1933: 22. 286 In the singular forms, the i- stems stems were a major influence, while in the plural, the u- stems stems had that role. 287 However, if it was a mistake, it was not recorded r ecorded in the addenda and corrigenda to his book (1975). 288 Cf. the same development in the Old Czech and Kashubian/Slovincian dual forms, see § 40, § 43, § 44. 289 Cf. Rosinas 1995: 21 for vedu and vedu and muddu in muddu in the same text. 283

98

be derived from the form *yù-du, from the form *yu-dù with a secondary stress retraction, or from *yū > *yù > *yù-du with Leskien’s Law shortening. Leskien’s Law would have to operate before the adding of the –du  – du , of course. The same goes for veɶdoʖ  doʖ as well, it seems. The form veɶdoʖ  doʖ is derived from vèdu , in which the short accent can be derived in the same way as in jùdu  in jùdu .  

In Old Lithuanian, the dative-instrumental dual forms mùma, jùma  are attested290 (also mùmu , jùmu  in dialects). These are probably to be derived from *mumō, *yumō (cf. OCS nama , vama ).). Rosinas (1995: 30) also adduces dialectal mumì , jumì  as archaic instrumental dual forms, which are to be derived from *mumī, *yumī. These forms must be an East Baltic (or Lithuanian) innovation, since the dative and instrumental dual are the same in OCS and Vedic. The dialectal accusative form nuodu has nuodu  has often been cited 291 as the archaic form and the only remnant of the old accusative dual form *nō, attested in OCS na  for instance. In Lithuanian, the form nuodu  is attested only in the book of folk poetry Lietuvių tauta III  (1920-1922: 417). However, apart from that source, this form is not attested anywhere else. By checking the manuscript of the poem in which it supposedly appeared, Sabaliuskas (1976) concluded that the form does not really exist. In the manuscript, there is just the usual Lithuanian form mudu . The supposed old dual form nuodu  is just an error made in print, when the form mudu from mudu  from the manuscript was wrongly copied as nuodu . Thus, there is no evidence for the old dual form *nō in Lithuanian 292.

Vaillant 1958: 455f. Otrębsky 1956: 139, Stang 1966: 257, Zinkevičius 1966: 306 etc. 292 It is unfortunate that this inexistent form is still found in the handbooks, cf. Fortson 2004: 127. 290 291

99

Latvian § 62 Due to its many changes, Latvian is morphologically less archaic than Lithuanian. Many of the developments show similarities to Lithuanian. Some of these are to be attributed to the Proto-East-Baltic, and some are just independant parallel developments 293. It is not always easy to separate the two. Singular In the nominative singular, the form es  and tu  are attested. The form eʔs  s  appears dialectally. The High Latvian form as stems as stems from this. Thus, the a- here a- here has no connection to the Lithuanian form àš or àš or Old Prussian as . In the oblique stems, Latvian, just like Lithuanian, has generalized the secondary stem man- . Unlike Lithuanian, it has generalized the stem tev- , not tav- . In dialects, however, tav-  also appears. In High Latvian, instead of the stem man- , the stem mun-  appears. In some dialects, it appears in all oblique cases and in some only in the dative (cf. OCS mъnĕ) . The stem mun- is mun- is also found in the possessive adjective muns in muns in all High Latvian dialects, even in the ones that only have man  (and not mun ) in the dative 294. Unlike the Žemaitian mun-  (see § 59), the Latvian stem mun- cannot mun-  cannot be explained phonetically as a secondary development. 295 can be compared to both the Lithuanian The Standard Latvian genitive form manis 295 genitive manęɶ s and s  and to the Lithuanian dialectal manieɶs . Both endings would yield the same result in Latvian. Since the form manęɶs is   is much more common in Lithuanian, it seems as a likelier source of Latvian manis as manis as well296. Latvian dialectal man , tev is tev is of the same source as Lithuanian dial. manè  in the genitive. Latvian dialectal manes , teves is teves  is due to analogy with the ē -stems. -stems.

The dative forms man , tev  (dialectally also tav ) are to be derived from the older *mani, *tevi, as in Lithuanian (see § 59). For the accusative forms mani , tavi , again more proto-forms are possible *manēn297 or *manin, due to analogy with the i- stems stems298. The first possibility seems more likely. The instrumental singular has coincided with the accusative in Latvian. In dialects, the forms manim , tevim are tevim are found, with the original i- stem stem ending, as in Lithuanian manimì , tavimì . For an overview of Latvian dialectal systems, see Rosinas 1995: 32-33. Endzelīns 1923: 375. 295 The same goes for tavis , of course. 296 Endzelīns 1923: 373. 297 As in Lithuanian dialectal manęɶ,  with the same origin, see § 59. 298 Which, like in Lithuanian, have influenced the declension of the singular personal pronouns. 293 294

100

The locative forms manĩ , tevĩ also tevĩ  also have the originally i- stem stem ending, and correspond exactly to Lithuanian manyjè , tavyjè . The forms manē , tevē , corresponding to Lithuanian dialectal man÷ , tav÷ , appear dialectally.   

  

Plural § 63 The development of the plural forms is almost identical to the Lithuanian one. In the nominative, the old acute is still attested – meɶs ,  jũs (dialectally  jũs  (dialectally also meʔ ɶs ).). The length of the first form is either due to the second one, or it is a reflex of the original *mē s, and is to be compared to Lithuanian dialectal m÷ s  s . The short version can be found in Latvian dialects – mes , meʔs (>  (> mas ).). This corresponds to Lithuanian meɶs.   

  

The genitive plural forms mūsu ,  jūsu  also correspond to Lithuanian forms. These forms are attested with all three possible accents – mũsu/jũsu , muʄsu/juʄsu  and mū su/jū  su/jū su  su . The first one is the original one. The second one is due to the spread of mobility in the East Baltic (cf. Lithuanian dial. mūsuosè) , which must be secondary (see § 81). The third one is 299. due to analogy with the dative mùms/jùms 299  

 

The dative forms mums/jums  are either the original dative or the original instrumental forms300. Again, all three accents appear here. In mùms ,  jùms , the short –u  –u - is due to the influence of the u- stems. stems. The forms mumɶs/jumɶs are  are to be derived either from the original *mūms, *yūms, or due to the influence of the nominative and genitive forms with 301.   ɶ301      

     

The accusative forms are to be derived in the same manner as in Lithuanian (see § 59), with the old acute preserved. The dialectal forms muʄs/juʄ s owe s owe the accent to the analogy with the other cases. The forms mùs , jùs are  jùs are due to analogy with the dative form. The locative forms mūsuoʄ s  s,   jūsuoʄs  correspond to Lithuanian dialectal mūsuosè ,  jūsuosè . Cf. also Latvian dialectal mumīs , corresponding to Lithuanian dialectal mumysè , with the original i- stem stem ending. Dual The dual is, of course, lost in Latvian. The dialectal Rucava forms mū duiʠ,  jū duiʠ are due to the Lithuanian influence.   

  

Endzelīns 1923: 379. There is no separate instrumental form in Latvian. 301 Endzelīns, ibid . 299 300

101

Old Prussian § 64 Old Prussian system of personal pronouns is much more conservative than that of  East Baltic. Old Prussian, for instance, preserves the suppletive pattern of the plural forms, which is completely missing in East Baltic. The problem with Old Prussian is the inconsistent orthography and the disputable phonetic realization of many forms. Singular Old Prussian form as  is attested 46 times, and form es  only twice (in the Second  Catechism )302. At first glance, this resembles the state in Old Lithuanian, where aš/eš  are attested. Kortlandt (2000) believes that the old *e- always and without exception yields a- in a- in Old Prussian and, accordingly, that only as is as  is the real Old Prussian form for «I». He claims that the form es  is due to a «secondary fronting» and that it has no connection with the original *es. According to his theory, this had regularly yielded as in as  in Old Prussian. However, he proposes no explanation for this «secondary fronting», which makes this an ad hoc  303, but we cannot solution. It just may well be that the old *e- always yields Old Prussian a- 303  just classify Old Prussian by-form es as es  as secondary and disregard it. There is a good chance that it just might be a remnant of the older form with initial e- . In my view, that seems likely. In the 2nd person nominative, one finds the following variants: tu (often), tu  (often), tou (often), tou  (often), toū (6x), toū  (6x), tū (once) tū  (once)304. The long vowel corresponds to Slavic ty and ty  and not to East Baltic *tu. The writing toū , with a length on the second part of the diphthong, points to the old acute. The short tu  frequently occurring in the texts probably represents a short variant of this pronoun, corresponding to East Baltic forms 305. The writing <ū> and is a result of the development of diphthongization in Old Prussian 306. The older pronunciation was [ū] and the younger [oū]. This can also be seen in the plural personal pronoun stems (see § 65) 307. In the genitive, the forms maisei  and twaise  appear, clearly originally the genitive forms of possessive pronouns308. Palmaitis (1976), tries to explain the use of the possessive form here in a complicated, although possible way. According to him, the unaccented form *mey (used for the genitive and dative) analogically got the genitival *-s 309. This *meys was remodeled to *meyse, by analogy with the demonstrative pronoun stese . Then this *meyse Stang 1966: 247. For attestations of Old Prussian pronouns, cf. Toпоров. 303 Or in most cases, cf. other examples in Kortlandt 2000. 304 Stang, ibid . Other writing variants were also: tau, du, thou, thu, thuo, ton  (obviously a lapsus) (Schmalstieg 1974: 138). 305 Considering the Indo-European evidence (see § 90), Schmalstieg’s (1974: 139) opinion that the short forms in East Baltic are “in all probability a later development” is completely unfounded. 306 If was not really a diphthong, it would be very difficult to explain exactly why the German scribes would have written down Old Prussian /ū/ with a rising accent as with a macron on the second letter. That seems impossible, and, thus, diphthongal pronunciation must have been real. 307 For a discussion on the diphthongization in Old Prussian, cf. for instance Kortlandt 2001. 308 Cf. the Latin genitive meī , also originally the genitive of the possessive pronoun. 309 Cf. Old Latin mīs < mīs < *mey-s. 302

102

again coalesced with the original (and still used) *mey forming the new form *meysey. This form was subsequently easily confused with the original genitive maisei  of the possessive pronoun. In the dative, the pronouns mennei (9x) mennei (9x) and tebbei (often), tebbei (often), tebbe (4x) tebbe (4x) appear (cf. also sebbei attested sebbei attested 3x)310. The same ending *-ey is found dialectally in Lithuanian (see § 59). In the accusative singular, the archaic forms mien and mien  and tien are tien  are attested (cf. OCS mę , tę ).). How these forms are supposed to be read is, as always in Old Prussian, disputed. Stang (1966: 248), for instance, thinks that this should be read as [miʠ en], while Schmalstieg (1971: 137, 1974: 137-139) thinks that this was pronounced either [men] or [min]. Besides the forms tien , sien (the sien  (the reflexive pronoun), there are also enclitics –tin , attested once, and –sin  (9x), -si  -si (4x). (4x). In the instrumental case, the form māim is māim  is attested (twice, maim once). maim  once). This form is not easy to explain. Berneker (1896: 209) and Trautmann (1910: 269) derived it from the possessive pronoun stem, like the genitive form, which seems possible 311. Stang (1966: 249) considers a possibility of deriving this form from the older clitic *moy + instrumental *-mī. For an idea that māim  actually represents the form /manim/, corresponding to Lithuanian manimì , which does not sound too convincing, cf. Schmalstieg 1974: 138. The biggest problem with this proposition is that one would have to have the stem man - in the instrumental (like in East Baltic), while Old Prussian knows only men- in men- in the dative. The form māim  is attested one time in the dative function as well. This must be due to a slave translation from German (cf. German dative mir and mir and mit mir )312. Plural mes  and ioūs . First one corresponds § 65 In the nominative plural, the attested forms are mes and to Lithuanian meɶs (the   (the vowel is short), while the other, like Latvian jũs  Latvian  jũs , points to the acute. The form mas is mas  is also attested once in Old Prussian. According to Schmalstieg (1976: 195) this is either a “scribal error or an indication of the very open pronunciation”. However, this is neither possible to know, nor all that important. In the genitive plural, many different written variants are attested: nuson, nusun, nusan, nusen, noūson, noūson, noūsan, noūsen, nouson . In the 2nd person, the variants ioūsan, iouson, iousan  are attested313. The writing , as elsewhere, points to the acute. Both the older monophthongal and the younger diphthongal pronunciation are reflected here, as in the 2 nd person nominative singular pronoun. The vocalism of the stem of the genitive and dative is clearly due to analogy with the nominative plural of the 2 nd person. There, the *ū is original 314. The pronunciation of the genitive plural ending is disputable, as

According to a disputed theory of Kortlandt’s (1974), the double consonants in these forms point to the accent on the syllable after it. 311 In spite of Schmalstieg’s rejection of this possibility (1974: 138). 312 Endzelīns 1944: 132. 313 Schmalstieg 1974: 138-139. 314 Cf. the same independant development in East Baltic. 310

103

well as whether it is supposed to be derived from the older *-ōn (like the ending in East Baltic), or from the older *-on (like the ending in Slavic). In the dative plural, again many forms are attested 315: nūmas, noūmas, noūmans, noūmons, noumans, naūmans . In the 2nd person: ioūmas, ioūmans, ioūmans, ioumas, ioumus . For the vacillation of the monophthongs and diphthongs in the stem, see § 64. The vocalism of the dative plural stem is, as in the genitive plural, due to the influence of the nominative plural form ioūs . The new vocalism was generalized first in the 2 nd person forms, and then, by analogy, in the 1 st person as well. As for the ending, here we find both the secondary ending –mans  – mans , and the original ending –mas . The latter was preserved in personal pronouns only316. In the accusative plural, the forms mans and mans  and wans are wans  are found. The latter corresponds 317, and the former has the initial m-  by analogy to the nominative completely to OCS vy 317 form318. Endzelīns’s (1944: 134) suggestion that the form mans is mans is due to the dissimilation of  the old *nans (cf. OCS ny ) could also be correct, in the sense that the occurrence of  n-n in n-n  in this form could have been a factor in the analogical change of  n- to n- to m- .

Schmalstieg, ibid . 316 For a discussion on the dative plural ending in Balto-Slavic, cf. Olander 2005. 317 Cf. the suppletion of Old Prussian ioūs : ioūs : wans , gone from East Baltic and Slavic. 318 The suppletion is preserved in OCS my : my : ny . 315

104

Reconstruction of personal pronouns in East Baltic § 66 Here, we shall try to reconstruct the Proto-East-Baltic system of personal pronouns, i.e. the system out of which Lithuanian and Latvian systems have developed. First, we shall discuss some of the problematic issues, and at the end, a provisional reconstruction will be given. In the case of the nominative singular of the 1 st person, there is no doubt that the form *eś must be reconstructed. Lithuanian vaccilation of  e- and e- and a- (Rozwadowski’s a- (Rozwadowski’s Change) is of secondary nature. In contrast to the Slavic final – zъ , both East and West Baltic show the variant *-ś, which is due to the generalization of the unvoiced sandhi variant 319. Cf. also Lithuanian iš to iš  to Slavic iz < iz  < *jьz for the same kind of development. The generalization of the unvoiced sandhi variant also explains the short vowels in East and West Baltic – if the original voiced consonant had been preserved, we would expect the operation of Winter’s Law, as in Slavic. Stang’s opinion (1966: 247) that a dropping of the final *-an can be justified in this word by its special psychological position is unnecessary. The easiest solution is that there was no *-an from the beginning320. Lithuanian clitics mi , ti are ti are usually derived from the older *mie, *tie, derived from the even earlier *mey, *tey (Otrębsky 1956: 137, Zinkevičius 1980: 50) 321, cf. OCS mi , ti . 322. Since we However, Rosinas (1995: 12) compares these Lithuanian forms to Hittite mi , ti 322 already need to reconstruct *mey, *tey for Slavic (which Rosinas does not reject), and since the supposed *mi, *ti do not appear anywhere else, except maybe in Hittite, which is highly questionable, this proposition seems unlikely 323. In the 16 th century, the dative function was more frequent, but in the 17 th century, it was the accusative that was more frequent, which according to Stang (1966: 253) proves the original dative function (unlike Rosinas). Hermann (1926: 82) proposed that –m(i)  – m(i) , -t(i)  could also have had another source – old unaccented accusative *me, *te. This could probably also explain numerous examples of Old Lithuanian –se instead –se instead of –si  –si . However, this remains highly controversial (although not impossible). The most difficult problem in the reconstruction of the East Baltic 324 system of  personal pronouns is the ablaut (or quasiablaut) pattern in the singular. When it comes to the changes of the stem vowel in personal pronouns, it is clear that we are not just dealing with “regular” ablaut patterns. The different “ablaut-grades” of the stem are mostly due to soundchange and analogy, and not to PIE or Balto-Slavic ablaut patterns. We shall try to reconstruct the East Baltic system here (or one of the possible reconstructible systems). Cf. for instance Endzelīns 1971: 186. 320 Thus also Schmalstieg 1976: 195. 321 The development *-ey > *-ie > -i  - i  is usually expected under the acute accent. Here however, it seems to be due to the unaccentedness of these forms (Stang 1966: 254). 322 Cf. for instance Иванов 1965: 230. 323 This would also demand a reconstruction of not only of the IE *moy and *mey (see § 99), but also of  the form *mi. 324 And Balto-Slavic in general. 319

105

However, the major part of the discussion should be left for the Balto-Slavic section (see § 71, § 73-76). In East Baltic, stems man- and man- and mun- appear mun- appear in the 1 st person. The stem mun-  is found in some Latvian dialects 325. The stem mun-  appears in all oblique cases in some dialects, while in others, it appears only in the dative. Since one has to explain the dialectal patterns with man-  and mun-  generalized in all oblique cases, the easiest solution is to assume that the stem mun- is mun- is original in the dative only ( man- being man-  being the stem of the other cases). This seems to be confirmed by external evidence (OCS mъnĕ) . In the 2nd person, stems tav- and tav- and tev- appear tev- appear326. The easiest way to explain this is by assuming the original tev-  in the dative and original tav-  elsewhere, with dialects generalizing one or the other later on. The reasons for reconstructing tev- in tev-  in the dative lie outside East Baltic. Since we know from other languages (Old Prussian tebbei , OCS tebĕ) that tebĕ) that the original dative stem was really teb- , we can explain the stem tev-  in the dative in the following way - the stem *tew- was regularly changed to *taw- in front of a vowel in BaltoSlavic, while it remained unchanged in *teb-. Later, this *teb- was analogically changed to tev- in tev-  in East Baltic. Of course, one could also reconstruct *teb- here for East Baltic. However, since there is no concrete evidence for the stem *teb- in East Baltic, it is methodologically more correct to assume that it was already *tev-. Naturally, we also assume that by that time the change *ewV > *awV was no more active. One also has to note that in order to assume this kind of development, one has to take the change *ewV > *awV as unconditional, i.e. as operational in front of both back and front vowels. Some linguists assume that this change was carried out only in front of back vowels 327. That makes the explanation of East Baltic forms much more difficult. This change, which obviously has tremendous importance for the reconstruction of personal pronouns, will be discussed in the Balto-Slavic part (see § 71). One also has to note that the question of the East Baltic stems in 1 st and 2nd person singular is related to the problem of the stems of possessive pronouns. In Lithuanian, tãvas  is attested, while in Latvian, there are both mans and mans  and muns , and tavs and tavs  and tuvs . See more in § 76. plural stems, both the 1st and the 2nd person have a younger § 67 As we have seen, in the plural *-ū- in the stem 328. It is not certain whether this change was already carried out in ProtoEast-Baltic. Here, we shall assume it did. Although this kind of analogical change can hardly be problematic, Rosinas (1995: 29) suggests a cause for this change. He relates the analogical introduction of *yū - in the oblique cases with a regular sound change *wō- > *ōin East Baltic329. Thus, the old *wō- in the 2 nd person oblique stems (cf. OCS vasъ , vamъ ) was changed regularly to *ō-. This *ō- in the oblique cases was awkward, so *y- from the nominative *yūs was introduced. Then this new *yō- was finally changed to *yū-, making it, thus, identical to the nominative in the stem. Soon, the 1 st person forms followed, and the old *nō- was replaced by *nū- and, finally, *mū- 330. This kind of scenario seems plausable.

It also occurs in some Lithuanian dialects, but it is irrelevant there, see § 59. The possible Lithuanian stem tuv- is tuv- is very doubtful, see § 59. 327 For instance Stang 1966: 32-33. 328 And, of course, a younger initial *y- and *m- from the nominative as well. 329 Cf. for instance Mažiulis 1970b for this change. 330 It might have been replaced with *mū- at once, of course. 325 326

106

The provisional reconstruction of East Baltic system of personal pronouns: 1st person singular N. *èś G. *màne, *mey D. *mùni, *mey A. *mēn, n, *mey

2nd person singular *tù *tàwe, *tey *tèwi, *tey *tēn, n, *tey

1st person plural n. *mès/mēs g. *mūsōn d. *mūmas mas a. *mūns i. *mūmīs mīs

2nd person plural *yūs *yūsōn *yūmas mas *yūns *yūmīs mīs

1st person dual N. *wè/wē D. *mūmō I. *mūmō/mū mō/mūmī mī

2nd person dual *yù/yū *yūmō *yūmō/yū mō/yūmī  mī 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few comments concerning the proposed reconstruction are necessary. In the genitive and accusative I reconstruct *mane and *mē n respectively. It is fairly possible that the forms like *manē n(s) were already Proto-East-Baltic331, but here, due to various attested genitive and accusative forms in East Baltic, I have chosen to reconstruct the older phase of  those cases.  

 

Since the stem men- is men- is not attested in East Baltic, I reconstruct *man- in the genitive. The *mun- in the dative is reconstructed on the basis of Latvian dialectal evidence (see § 62) and on the basis of the external evidence in Slavic *mъnĕ. The accent of the original genitive form *mane is not certain. Lithuanian evidence points to the initial accent in the genitive and dative (see § 59). Thus *màne etc., which is apparently in accord with Slavic *meʂne and Vedic máma . The acute accent of *mē n, *tēn is also a bit speculative, but I believe it explains the 332. final short accent in Modern Lithuanian manè , tavè (cf. tavè (cf. Russian меняɴ) 332  

 

The ending *-i in the dative is attested in dialects and in Old Lithuanian. I take it to be the oldest one, because it seems that it was also the oldest one in PIE (see § 101). The variant ending *-ey (seen also in Old Prussian mennei)  could easily be secondary, but it Cf. Rosinas (1995: 34), who reconstructs *mene/ē, *menes, *menen(s) and *menā (for Modern Lithuanian possessive màno ) for the genitive, and *mene, *menen for the accusative. The stem *menhere is based on external evidence, of course. 332 Stang (1966: 249) considers the accentuation of *mēn, *tēn unknown. 331

107

could also have been Proto-East-Baltic or even Proto-Balto-Slavic. However, it is impossible to determine that. The locative was perhaps identical to the dative originally, the modern forms being younger. I have chosen not to reconstruct instrumental *manimī for the proto-language, despite the fact that it is possible that it was already there. As for the clitic forms, only *mey and *tey are reconstructed (confirmed by external evidence). The forms *mi, *ti are not likely and the evidence for *me, *te is inconclusive (see § 66). In plural, the short *mès is reconstructed, as well as the variant *mē s. It is possible, however, that the latter is a secondary development due to the influence of *yū s. s.  

 

The stems *mū- and *yū- are reconstructed throughout, although it is possible that this analogous development was not entirely finished back in the East Baltic protolanguage333. However, in order to reconstruct the older stage of these stems, we would have to reach out for external evidence, which we shall try to avoid whenever possible 334. For the ending of genitive plural, cf. § 70. In all oblique plural cases, the acute has been reconstructed on the stem. This must be due to analogy with the nominative – the accent was transferred together with the stem335. The mobile accent in modern dialects is certainly secondary.  

 

In the dual, only three cases are reconstructed. In the case of *yù/yū , the evidence is not clear and both forms can be reconstructed. It is also possible that both variants existed.  

The dative and instrumental dual are reconstructed on the basis of Lithuanian dialectal evidence, the instrumental being East Baltic (if not Lithuanian) innovation – cf. the ending *-mī without the plural *-s at the end. The oblique stems *mū -/yū- are reconstructed in the dual as well, although it is possible that they were indeed *mu-/yu-, corresponding to the modern attestations of these forms (mùmu  (mùmu , mùma, mumì) , and corresponding to the possible nominative short *yù. If  there was no nominative *yū, it would be imaginable for the oblique dual stems to have a short *-u-336.  

 

 

For possible traces of the old *-ō- from the Balto-Slavic *nō-/wō- in Lithuanian, Lithuanian, cf. Stang 1966: 256 and § 60. 334 This is one of the general problems of reconstruction. Forms can, and do, simply disappear from a language, and one cannot reconstruct something that has disappeared from the daughter languages altogether (although, in reality, that form was once indeed there in the system). If East Baltic were an isolated language group, in all probability there would have been no possibility of reconstructing anything but *mū- and *jū- in the plural oblique cases. 335 Although the acute was already there in all oblique cases in Balto-Slavic, see § 81. 336 But the long *-ū- could have been introduced from the plural of course. 333

 

 

108

Reconstruction of personal pronouns in West Baltic § 68 Here, we shall attempt to reconstruct the West Baltic, i.e. pre-Old-Prussian, system of  personal pronouns. This is what can be reconstructed based on Old Prussian material (together with the minimal use of external evidence): 1st person singular N. *eś D. *meney A. *mēn

2nd person sing singular ular *tū, *tu *tebey *tēn

1st person plural n. *mes g. *nūso/ōn d. *nūmas mas a. *ma/ōns

2nd person plural *yūs *yūso/ōn *yūmas mas *wa/ōns

 

 

 

 

 

 

The nominative *eś, with initial *e-, is reconstructed on the basis of the Old Prussian es . If this is really secondary (according to Kortlandt), *a- should be reconstructed. *-ś is reconstructed on the basis of external evidence of course. In the 2nd person, besides a long acuted *tū , a short *tu should be reconstructed. It is not likely that every Old Prussian was /tū/, and not /tu/.  

The older genitive forms cannot be reconstructed on the basis of internal Old Prussian evidence. One could claim that Old Prussian dative mennei (cf. mennei  (cf. OCS mъně) is mъně)  is due to the older genitive *mene, but it could just as easily be analogous to the 2 nd person tebbei . The accentuation of the dative forms *meney and *tebey is not known. If the – nn and –bb-  really point to the final accent in Old Prussian (Kortlandt 1974), we could reconstruct *menèy, *tebèy. However, Kortlandt also assumes a forward stress shift in Old Prussian337. In that case, Old Prussian /mennéi/ could be derived both from the older *menèy and from the older *mèney, which would render those forms irrelevant. The pronunciation of Old Prussian mien , tien is tien is disputable, as already said. In spite of  Schmalstieg (1976: 195), who says that he cannot see the evidence for the reconstruction of  *ē in these Old Prussian forms anymore than he can see them anywhere else in Baltic, it seems far more probable that *mēn, *tēn should be reconstructed here. Original *men, *ten would be expected to yield **men, **ten, cf. *mes > mes .

The hypothesis that the geminates indicate the stress on the following syllable and the hypothesis of a progressive stress shift are allegedly independent, i.e. one hypothesis does not depend on the other according to Kortlandt.

337

109

The instrumental form is not reconstructed, since the Old Prussian māim is māim is obviously not archaic. The analogical *nū - and *yū- are reconstructed in the genitive/dative plural. The older ending *-mas is reconstructed in the dative, while in the genitive one cannot say whether one has to reconstruct *-ōn (as in East Baltic) or *-on (as in Slavic), cf. § 70. The same goes for the accusative, where both *-ōns and *-ans can be reconstructed. However, a structural analysis points to the pre-forms with *-ōns (see § 79). The spread of the *-ū -stems -stems in the oblique plural is a pan-Baltic tendency, although it is not sure whether this is a common development or an independent innovation. It must be noted that Old Prussian did not introduce new forms into the A. pl. and that it does not have the stem *mū- but *nū- in the 1. person, unlike Lithuanian and Latvian.  

 

 

 

 

110

3. RECONSTRUCTION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN BALTOBALTO -SLAVIC -SLAVIC basis § 69 Here, we shall reconstruct the Balto-Slavic system of personal pronouns on the basis of our previous reconstructions of Slavic, East Baltic and West Baltic systems. The proposed reconstruction will be based mostly on internal Balto-Slavic material, with the use of external evidence when necessary. Here, the changes occurring in Balto-Slavic and from Balto-Slavic to Slavic, East and West Baltic shall be considered. The changes that have occurred from Proto-Indo-European to Balto-Slavic time shall be discussed in the Indo-European section. Once more, we shall show the reconstructed systems of Slavic (or rather pre-ProtoSlavic this time, reconstructed with the help of external, Baltic and Indo-European evidence), East and West Baltic, followed by the Balto-Slavic reconstruction and a discussion:

Slavic 1st person singular N. *ēź, *ēźàn G. *mène D. *munà/āʱy, y, *mey A. *mēn L. *munà/āʱy I. *munayān

2nd person singular *tū *tèbe *te/abà/āʱy, y, *tey *mēn *te/abà/āʱy *tabayān

1st person plural n. *mūs g. *nōsan d. *nōmas, mas, *nōns a. *nōns l. *nōsu i. *nōmīs

2nd person plural *wūs *wōsan *wōmas, mas, *wōns *wōns *wōsu *wōmīs

1st person dual N. *wē GL. *nōyaw yaw DI. *nōmō, *nō A. *nō

2nd person dual *wū *wōyaw yaw *wōmō, *wō *wō

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes: In the dative-locative singular, one cannot tell whether Slavic *-ĕ represents an older *-ay or *-āy. The original accent of the instrumental singular is not certain (see § 54, § 78). These are pre-Meillet's Law forms.

111

East Baltic 1st person singular N. *èś G. *màne, *mey D. *mùni, *mey A. *mēn, n, *mey

2nd person singular *tù *tàwe, *tey *tèwi, *tey *tēn, n, *tey

1st person plural n. *mès/mēs g. *mūsōn d. *mūmas mas a. *mūns i. *mūmīs mīs

2nd person plural *yūs *yūsōn *yūmas mas *yūns *yūmīs mīs

1st person person dual N. *wè/wē D. *mūmō I. *mūmō/mū mō/mūmī mī

2nd person dual *yù/yū *yūmō *yūmō/yū mō/yūmī  mī 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Baltic 1st person singular N. *eś D. *meney A. *mēn

2nd person singular *tū, *tu *tebey *tēn

1st person plural n. *mes g. *nūso/ōn so/ōn d. *nūmas a. *ma/ōns

2nd person plural *yūs *yūso/ōn so/ōn *yūmas *wa/ōns

 

 

 

 

 

 

112

BaltoBalto-Slavic -Slavic 1st person singular N. *ēź, *èś, *ēźàn G. *mène, *mey D. *mùni, *mèni, *mey A. *mēn, *mey (?) L. I. *menàyān (?)

2nd person singular *tū, *tù *tàwe, *tey *tèbi, *tùbi, *tey *tēn, *tey (?) *tawày (?) *tawàyān (?)

1st person plural n. *mès, *mēs g. *nōso/ōn, *nōns d. *nōmas, *nōns a. *nōns, ns, *nōns l. *nōsu i. *nōmīs mīs

2nd person plural *yūs *wōso/ōn, *wōns *wōmas, *wōns *wōns, ns, *wōns *wōsu *wōmīs mīs

1st person dual N. *wē, *wè (?) G. *nōyaw, yaw, *nō D. *nōmō, *nō A. *nō, *nō L. *nōyaw yaw I. *nōmō

2nd person plural *yū, *yù (?) *wōyaw, yaw, *wō *wōmō, *wō *wō, *wō *wōyaw yaw *wōmō

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

113

General Balto--Slavic Gene ral notes on reconstruction of Balto -Slavic personal pronouns § 70 In the 1st person nominative singular, three forms must be reconstructed. The form *èś was just a sandhi variant of the primary form *ē ź in front of voiceless consonants. The form *èś is generalized in East and West Baltic, while the other two forms are reflected in Slavic. The difference in length is explained via Winter's Law, which operated in front of  voiced *ź < *gɴ, but not in front of voiceless *ś < *kɴ . In the form *ēźàn, Winter's Law operated in the closed syllable 338, cf. PIE *egɴHóm (see § 101). One could presume that positing three forms for “I”, *ē ź, *èś and *ēźàn, is inconceivable. However, *ē ź and *èś were not really different forms, as already said. At first, the alternation was automatic and then simply inherited – the form *ē ź appearing in front of  voiced and *èś in front of unvoiced consonants. It is also possible that one of the forms (*ē ź or *èś) was generalized in various dialects already in Proto-Balto-Slavic. This kind of  alternation, especially in the light of the presence of yet another form, *ēźàn, must have been obliterated by generalization very early.  

 

 

 

 

In the 2nd person nominative singular, two forms are reconstructed - *tū and *tù. The first one is reflected in Slavic and Old Prussian, and the second one in East Baltic and probably in Old Prussian.  

The existence of Balto-Slavic *yù is not certain, since Lithuanian  jù-du  points to either *yū or *yù. The form *yū is confirmed by Slavic vy , so it must be reconstructed in Balto-Slavic. The form *yù might also have existed in Balto-Slavic, but there is no way of  proving it.  

 

The accent in the genitives *mène and *tàwe is reconstructed on the basis of Slavic *meʂne, *teʂbe be and Vedic máma , táva . Lithuanian also seems to point to the initial accent (see § 59), but since the original form is not preserved, the data is inconclusive. In the dative, Lithuanian mán , táu point táu point to the initial accent, while Slavic points to the final accent. Slavic has probably innovated here, this innovation perhaps being related to the new ending. The exact origin of the Slavic final accent is not clear. In Slavic, the ending *-ĕ is stressed in the locative singular of a. p. c ā -stems, -stems, and it is unstressed in the dative singular of a. p. c ā -stems -stems and locative singular of a. p. c o- stems. stems. The ending *-i is reconstructed because the IE data seems to point to the conclusion that this ending is the oldest one (see § 101). This idiosyncratic ending was changed in different ways, perhaps already in BaltoSlavic. In East Baltic, the ending *-ey (from the consonant and i -stems) -stems) also appears, and the same ending is the only one attested in Old Prussian. Slavic ending *-ĕ is often interpreted as DL. ending of  ā -stems -stems339. However, it could also be a reflex of PIE *-oy, the locative ending of o-  of  o- stems stems (see § 72 for that theory). The ending *-ĕ in the DL. must have been one of the reasons for the introduction of the instrumental ending *-ojNj to ā -stems -stems in Slavic. Matasović 1995. 339 Cf. for instance Birnbaum & Schaeken 1997: 74. 338

114

Since the dative-locative singular ending was the same in the ā -stems -stems and personal pronouns340, this was the basis for the introduction of the pronominal instrumental ending *-ojNj to ā -stems -stems341. Slavic *męʄ, *tęʄ, Lithuanian manè, tavè and tavè  and Old Prussian mien, tien seem tien  seem to point to *mēn. n.  

In the nominative plural of the 1 st person personal pronoun, we have reconstructed the form *mès together with the variant *mēs. s. The latter is reflected probably in Latvian meɶs  and Lithuanian dialectal m÷ s . Latvian and Lithuanian dialectal forms could also be explained via the influence of the 2 nd person plural forms or the 1 st person plural verbal ending *-mēs (whatever its origin). The variant *mēs, if archaic, is a case of monosyllabic lengthening 342.  

  

 

The genitive plural ending had two variants: *-on and *-ōn 343. The first one is reflected in Slavic, and the second one in East Baltic 344. The languages have obviously generalized the same ending as in nouns. The ending *-yaw in the genitive-locative dual has been taken over from demonstrative pronouns (cf. OCS toju ),), where the *-y- was part of the stem 345. The DALI. plural and DI. dual have the endings identical to the nominal ones. This is mostly due to Balto-Slavic innovation. The accusative dual endings in *nō , *wō were identical to the accusative dual of the o- stem stem ending in Balto-Slavic. Both endings stem from PIE *oh1 (see § 95).  

 

Whatever the ultimate origin of the pronominal dative-locative *-ĕ is. 341 The reason for the elimination of the old IE ending of the ā- stem stem instrumental singular was that it was the same as the nominative singular endings, *-ā (PIE nominative *-eh 2 and instrumental *-eh 2eh1 have both yielded *-ā in Slavic regularly). The Lithuanians, however, do not seem to mind the fact that both the nominative and the instrumental ending is – à in à in Lithuanian. Lithuanian. 342 Cf. Stang 1966: 254. 343 We shall consistently write *-n for the Balto-Slavic reflex of PIE *-n and *-m. 344 The reconstruction of Lithuanian –ų  – ų  < PIE *-ōm presupposes that PIE *-om regularly yields Lithuanian –ą in –ą  in A. sg. of  o- stems. stems. If one wants to explain this accusative form as secondary to the nominative –as, –as, it is possible to derive Lithuanian – ų from ų  from PIE *-om, like Slavic –ъ  – ъ . In that case, one should reconstruct Proto-Balto-Slavic Proto-Balto-Slavic *-on only. However, we shall provisionally reconstruct both *-ōn and *-on in the genitive plural. 345 The PIE dual ending was actually *-ow. 340

115

Problem of *ew > *ow in BaltoBalto-Slavic -Slavic § 71 Before we discuss the problem of the singular stems in Balto-Slavic personal pronouns, we must discuss the problem of the change of heterosyllabic *ew > *ow in BaltoSlavic. Obviously, the question of whether PIE *tewe would regularly remain *tewe in BaltoSlavic, or whether it would yield *tawe, is of great importance in the matter of the development of the singular stems of personal pronouns. There are two basic approaches here. One is that the change of heterosyllabic *ew was unconditioned 346, and the other one is that is occurs only in front of back vowels 347. The relative chronology of this development is also disputed, i.e. whether this is a Balto-Slavic development or an independent innovation in Baltic and Slavic 348. There seems to be no reason to question Balto-Slavic origin of this change 349. Mikkola (1913: 44) takes the change as regular in front of all vowels and explains apparent exceptions as secondary. Thus OCS devętь  and Lith. devynì  (instead of **novętь and **navynì) are due to analogy to desętь  and deɶšimt . This is quite acceptable, since we need the analogy to explain the initial d- anyway. d- anyway. He explains the lack of the change in OCS nevĕsta and nevĕsta  and nevodъ by nevodъ  by assuming that these are compounds, which in turn explains why ne-  was not changed here. This is also a satisfactory explanation. Even if the quoted words are not real compounds (the etymology of  nevĕsta  is disputable), it is certain that they could have been analyzed as such, which makes the question irrelevant. Vaillant (1950: 110) thinks the change was regular only in front of back vowels and he gives an example of OCS revNj /rovNj  «roar», where the alternation of –ev-  – ev- /-ov-  /-ov-  is to be explained as the different generalization of the older *rovNj - *revetъ. This example seems convincing at first glance, but the forms reveši, revetъ, revemo etc. revemo  etc. could also be explained by the assimilation of *o-e > e-e (*rovetъ e-e  (*rovetъ > revetъ  etc.) or by analogical reintroduction of  the e- grade grade into the root. Shevelov (1964: 357-359) takes the forms novъ : novъ  : nevĕsta as nevĕsta  as his Paradebeispiel , but, as already said, even if these two words are of the same origin, the other could have easily been misanalyzed as a compound. He also adduces OCS adverb drevlje  «once» (obviously secondary, since one would expect *-u- here, and not –ev  – ev -) -) and various Slavic reflexes of  the adjective *drevьnъ «ancient». The latter, however, is surely not archaic and can be explained as a younger derivative 350. Lithuanian dreɶ v÷ «hollow v÷  «hollow tree trunk» and Latvian dreve  are deemed irrelevant by Arumaa (1964: 69), since –÷  – ÷  here is derived from the older *-yā (Old Indic dravya- «belonging dravya- «belonging to a tree») 351. Dialectal Russian adjective нéвенний «thin» нéвенний  «thin» that For instance Mikkola 1913: 44, Arumaa 1964: 68-69. 347 For instance Vaillant 1950: 110, Shevelov 1964: 357-359, Stang 1966: 32-33, Endzelīns 1974: 32. 348 The same change also occurs in Celtic and Italic languages. 349 Shevelov’s (1964: 359) argument against the Balto-Slavic origin of this change makes no sense. 350 The etymology of this word is also not completely clear. It is traditionally related to the PIE stem *d(e)r(e)w- “tree”, but the semantic development “tree” > “ancient, old” is hardly straightforward. 351 Cf. also Lithuanian dravìs, Latvian drava “Waldbienenstock”, drava “Waldbienenstock”, Old Prussian drawine “Beute, drawine “Beute, Bienenfaß” and Latvian drava “Höhlung drava  “Höhlung im Bienenstock” (Pokorny). These are not necessarily the reflex of PIE *ow-. 346

116

Shevelov quotes (making a possible connection with нaв «dead») нaв «dead») does not look very relevant. Shevelov takes the trouble to explain some of the supposed paradigmatic generalizations. He explains Slavic slovo , slovese as slovese as generalized to the nominative-accusative singular. That is very possible, in spite of the fact that in most cases, according to him, *slev- would be expected. However, he also explains the nominative plural synove  as secondary to the genitive plural synovъ . He does not even mention the dative singular form synovi . It is not very clear why –ev  – ev - in the dative singular and nominative plural would be changed to – ov- , due to the influence of the genitive plural. That kind of analogy seems very improbable why and how would genitive plural influence dative singular? In any case, the possibility of  analogical generalization in the root, like in slovo , is understandable. However, we are dealing with endings here. Why would the supposed endings *-evi, *-eve and *-ovъ, which are not very close to begin with, be remodeled to –ovi  – ovi , -ove  and -ovъ  -ovъ ? And more so, why would they be remodeled by analogy to genitive plural 352, which is itself only one form, in comparison to two forms with the supposed regular *-ev-? This kind of analogical change seems very strange and highly unlikely. Shevelov also adduces Russian можжевельник  «juniper» as supposed evidence of the old *-ew-, but he fails to notice the - жж- in жж-  in front of  it. Shevelov also explains the present forms like plovNj , slovNj , trovNj etc. trovNj etc. by the generalization of –ov-  –ov- in in the paradigm. This is possible, in spite of the fact that one has to assume that the stem of only two forms (1st singular and 3 rd plural) was victorious in the end. Arumaa (1964: 68-69) takes another approach. He believes that the change is regular in all cases, but that there are a few cases in which the change was stopped due to the influence of the following front vowel. He ascribes this to a tendency, rather then to a strict rule. This looks like an ad hoc solution, hoc solution, but it cannot be ruled out, since this kind of sporadic tendencies have been known to occur. Stang's (1966: 32-33) main examples are Latvian personal pronouns like tevis, tevim  etc. However, he does not mention that the forms with tav- are tav-  are attested in dialects and in Lithuanian, nor does he mention that this tev- is tev-  is easily explained as analogical due to the influence of the stem *teb- (cf. Old Prussian tebbei) . Stang also mentions two Lithuanian examples that need to be explained as secondary in order for his claims to be correct: Žemaitian šlavù  (which he claims can also be derived from PIE *-ow-) and Daukša's sráwanczio (IE sráwanczio (IE *srew-), which he does not explain. If one assumes that *ew > *ow occurred only in front of back vowels, the pronominal forms in *taw- are very difficult to explain (see § 74). The evidence adduced in order to support the theory that the change occurs only in front of back vowels is not very strong and is definitely inconclusive. All the examples can be explained differently (see above), while some of the supposed analogical changes (like the one in the u- stems) stems) seem highly unlikely. What is also suspicious is that it seems that it is always –ov-  –ov-  that is generalized in the paradigm. Why would that be so, if both *-ov- and *-ev- were there earlier, and if the forms in *-ev- were even more numerous353? The only possible answer seems to be that the change of heterosyllabic *ew to *ow was regular in all conditions. This is clearly seen in the paradigms, where only –ov-  – ov- is is ever attested. In some of the other examples, the change was Not nominative-accusative singular as in slovo , which are likely to be a role model for other cases. 353 Like in the present tense of words like plovNj and plovNj and in the u- stems. stems. 352

117

reversed due to various additional processes. The advantage of this interpretation also lies in the fact that in this way, as already mentioned, the development of the 2 nd person singular personal pronoun oblique stems is much more easily explained.

118

BaltoSlavic singular stems of personal pronouns Balto--Slavic § 71 Concerning the stems in the singular oblique cases in Balto-Slavic, there are many problems to be dealt with. These problems involve some forms in Slavic, but East Baltic is notorious in this respect. The problem of the East Baltic singular stems of personal pronouns is that they make no sense in the wider scope of IE, and are, of course, very difficult to account for. For instance, one can note that Stang (1966: 253) says that he will not even try to explain the origin of East Baltic man- . Since this work deals with the reconstruction of  Balto-Slavic personal pronouns per se , cannot afford that kind of luxury. What is there to be found in the genitive and dative-locative singular 354 stems in Balto-Slavic? In Slavic, there is men- in men-  in the genitive, mъn- in mъn-  in the dative-locative 355, teb- in teb-  in the genitive-dative-locative and tob- in tob- in the dative-locative. In Old Prussian, there are menn-  and tebb- in tebb-  in the dative. In East Baltic, it is a little bit more complicated. In Lithuanian, one 356 and tav- , tev- , depending on the dialect 357. In Latvian, one finds man- , mun-  finds man- 356 (in all oblique cases or in the dative only) and tav- , tev- , depending on the dialect. Here is an overview: Slavic

G. men- , teb- , DL. mъn- , teb-/tob- 

Old Prussian

D. menn- , tebb- 

Lithuanian

GD. man- , (mun-  (mun- ),), tav- , tev- 

Latvian

GD. man- , mun- , tav- , tev- 

If we start from PIE and Balto-Slavic, we can expect *men- (like in Slavic and Old Prussian), *taw- (like in Lithuanian and Latvian) and *teb- (like in Old Prussian and Slavic). By assuming a simple analogy of *teb- > *tew- (via the influence of *taw-  *taw - ),), one also gets *tew-  *tew-  (attested in Lithuanian and Latvian). This also goes for *tab- (in Slavic), due to analogy with *teb-, instead of older *taw-. The Balto-Slavic stem *men- is derived from the PIE G. sg. *men-, *taw- from the PIE G. sg. *tew- and *teb- from the PIE D. sg. *teb h-. In Old Prussian, the dative stems menn- and menn-  and tebb- need tebb-  need no special explaining. The same goes for the Slavic men- in men- in the genitive.

The Slavic instrumental form has been explained elsewhere (see § 77). The East and West Baltic instrumental forms are secondary, as well as the East Baltic locative forms. 355 This seems to be the oldest form, f orm, according to the comparison with Latvian. 356 And also mun- , but probably always secondary (see § 59). 357 Perhaps also tuv- , see § 59. 354

119

Slavic *tebě/*tobě teb- (instead of **tov-) in the genitive and teb-/tob- (instead teb-/tob-  (instead of only *teb-) in § 72 Slavic teb- (instead the dative need some explaining. The *-b- instead of *-v- in the genitive is explained by a simple analogy to the dative form, and the same goes for the *-e- instead of *-o-. Thus, analogically to *tebě, we get *tebe instead of *tove 358. Nevertheless, how does that explain the two variants in the dative? This can be interpreted in two ways. When the genitive form *tove changed its *-v- to *-b-, a form *tobe was made. This genitive form *tobe gained a secondary variant *tebe not only by analogy to the dative *tebě, but also by analogy to *mene. Thus, we got two forms in the genitive - *tebe and *tobe. By analogy to this, in the dative singular, a secondary *tobě was also created - in addition to the original *tebě. Thus, for a while there were *tebe, *tobe in the genitive and *tebě, *tobě in the dative. Then the form *tebe completely pushed out the other form in the genitive. This was due to the powerful influence of the form *mene in the 1 st person pronoun. However, in the dative, there was *mъně359 in the 1st person pronoun. This form could not influence the variants *tebě and *tobě, and thus, both were preserved in Common Slavic and reflected in Slavic languages 360. Since there is no reflex whatsoever of the reconstructed Slavic *tobe in the genitive, we can safely assume that this form had disappeared from Slavic before its disintegration. Here is a schematic presentation of these changes (it is not possible to ascertain in details at exactly which stages particular changes occurred): IndoIndo-European -European

G. *mene, *tewe, D. *teb hi

BaltoBalto-Slavic -Slavic

G. *mene, *tawe, D. *tebi

PrePre-Proto -ProtoProto-Slavic -Slavic

G. *mene, *tabe, *tebe, D. *tebay

ProtoProto-Slavic -Slavic

G. *mene, *tabe, *tebe, D. *tebay, *tabay

Common Slavic

G. *mene, *tebe, D. *tebĕ, *tobĕ

Another way to explain Slavic *tebě/tobě in the dative is to start with a locative form 361. In Balto-Slavic, this *twóy would by analogy *twóy in pre-Balto-Slavic (cf. Old Indic tvé) 361 become *tewóy, which would later yield *tawáy regularly. This form would yield *tabáy in Slavic, since the *-w- of the 2 nd person singular was always replaced by analogy to the *-bthere. This *tabáy would yield *tobeʙ  ʀ in the locative, and the ending *-ě would be taken over to the dative *tebě. Here, for the sake of simplicity, we shall use the traditional Slavic notation of the reconstructions (i.e. *v instead of *w, *o instead of *a, *ъ instead of *u etc.). 359 And secondary *mьně. 360 Cf. the same explanation for the preservation of the dative *tobě and the disappearance of the genitive *tobe in the frame of a different theory in Hujer 1911. 361 For *twoy, cf. for instance Stang 1966: 253, Schmidt 1978: 130-131. 1 30-131. 358

120

Vaillant (1958: [249]) and Kiparsky (1967: 133) assume that the stem *tob- was originally found only in the locative. They, however, came to this conclusion through an analysis of various derivatives of the stem *sob- in Slavic (see § 47), and not by deriving the forms from PIE like here. However, since the only Slavic language that has a difference of the stem in the dative and locative, Slovincian, shows exactly the opposite distribution of these stems362, it seems probable, that if this scenario is true, the forms *tebě and *tobě functioned both as the dative and as the locative in Common Slavic. The advantage of this theory is: not only does it explain the variation of *teb- and 363 and the dative*tob- in the Slavic dative-locative, but it also explains the ending –ě  – ě 363 364. Thus, one should perhaps reconstruct *tawáy in the locative final accent *t(e)wóy > *tobeʙ  ʀ364 locative. Also, one cannot rule out the possibility that both of our solutions for the development of the Slavic dative-locative *teb-/tob- are correct. It is impossible to determine which of the solutions is more useful, but the explanation involving the protoform *twóy has an advantage that it explains everything and not just the teb- /tob-  fluctuation.

*tob- in the dative and *teb- in the locative, see § 25. 363 The explanation that –ĕ  – ĕ  was taken from the ā -stems -stems lacks a convincing reason for this sort of  analogy. 364 The accent of *mъneʖ   ʀ would then be analogous to the 2 nd person form. 362

121

BaltoBalto-Slavic -Slavic *muni basis of  § 73 In the dative singular, we have reconstructed Balto-Slavic *muni, on the basis Latvian dialectal mun- , attested only in the dative in some dialects, and on the basis of the OCS mъn- in mъn-  in the dative 365. Since these two forms cannot be explained as secondary in any convincing way, they must be an archaism going back to Balto Slavic. However, this form is very difficult to explain. From the PIE *megɴ h- (see § 101), one would expect Balto-Slavic *men- here (since no *meź- is attested). The unusual stem *mun- can perhaps be explained in the following way – besides the form *tebi in the dative 366 there was also a variant *tubi in Balto-Slavic, coexisting with *tebi 367. This Baltofor some time. This *tubi probably has the same origin as Old Indic túbhyam 367 Slavic-Indic isogloss could be regarded either as a PIE dialectalism 368, or as an independent innovation (see § 98 for the discussion on PIE reconstruction). However, there is no tub-  attested anywhere in Balto-Slavic 369, which makes this supposition speculative. What happened next is that this variation *tebi/tubi also created new forms *meni/muni in the 1 st person. The dative stem *men- is attested in Old Prussian mennei , if that is not analogous to tebbei . The dative stem *mun- is attested in Latvian and OCS 370, and *teb- is attested in Slavic and in East Baltic 371. The stem *tub- is probably not attested anywhere, as already said, which is the biggest problem of this hypothesis 372. There are a couple of other solutions by which we can get Balto-Slavic *tu- in the oblique cases, which would in turn cause the making of *mun-. One is by supposing an analogy to the possessive pronoun *tuwos (cf. Latvian dialectal tuvs ),), a by-form of *twos (cf. ̋ Old Indic tvás and tvás and Greek σó) 373. However, it is not clear why the possessive would influence the dative. Another possibility is the existence of old locative *twoy (see § 72), which would have a by-form *tuwoy. This could then be mixed with the dative *tebi and thus new forms with *tub-/tuw- would appear in the dative. However, the same problem remains in all three hypotheses – *tub- or *tuw- are attested nowhere in Balto-Slavic (except for a slight possibility of the attestation of tuv-  of tuv- in in Lithuanian, as mentioned). For mъn- in mъn- in the instrumental, see § 77. 366 Attested in Old Prussian tebbei and tebbei and Slavic tebĕ . 367 Cf. Endzelīns 1971: 187. 368 Kortlandt forthcoming c , reconstructs PIE dative *h 1mighi, *tubhi and Balto-Slavic *minoy, *tub hoy (I have normalized the reconstructions) based on (within Balto-Slavic) Polish mnie, tobie, sobie (and sobie  (and the corresponding forms in Czech and Old Russian), East Baltic dial. mu- from mu-  from tu- and tu-  and Old Prussian subs  “self”. Outside Balto-Slavic he adduces Sanskrit túbhyam and túbhyam  and Oscan sífeí . However, he does not note that Polish mnie  does not tell us whether there was *-u- or *-i- in Balto-Slavic. He also does not explain exactly how *tub hoy (= Common Slavic *tъbĕ) would yield Polish tobie , not to mention Czech tobĕ (in tobĕ (in Russian, at least strong *ъ > o ).). For the reconstruction of PIE forms see § 98, § 101. 369 Except for the one possible occurrence of Lithuanian tuv- in tuv- in the accusative, see § 59. 370 Perhaps also in Lithuanian, if some of the examples of mun-  of  mun- are are old. 371 Changed analogically to tev- there. tev- there. 372 Cf. also Stang 1966: 252. 373 Cf. also Stang 1966: 252 for *tuwos. 365

122

Balto-Slavic *mun- would be a regular reflex of the PIE *mn  ʘ  ʘ-, -, but it would be very difficult to explain the appearance of the zero grade in front of a vowel. This would necessitate the introduction of a laryngeal, thus *mn  ʘ  ʘH-. H-. Ranko Matasović (p. c.) suggests an analogy to the 1st person singular middle present ending *-h₂ey – thus *bȹeroh₂ey mn  ʘh₂ey h₂ey “I carry to myself”, parallel to the introduction of the 1 st person singular active present ending *-oh₂ into *egɴoh₂ from *egɴ oh₂ oh₂ bȹeroh₂ “I carry”. This idea is interesting but the development would be rather unusual. Matasović (p. c.) offers another possible solution. One should start form the PIE 1 st person dative singular clitic *-mu, preserved in Hittite –mu  – mu (dative-accusative (dative-accusative clitic) and Old Irish –m-  –m-  (a form of infixed pronoun and 1 st sg. pronominal ending of pronominal prepositions). In Old Irish, the fact that this –m-  – m-  is never palatalized would point to the proto-form *-mu, cf. duit "to duit  "to you" < *to-tī < ?*to-toy, but dom < dom  < *to-mu (and not **duim). In Balto-Slavic, this *mu- would be trivially extended with the *-n- from the genitive *mene. In this case, the form *mu would be an archaism and the form *moy (attested in Greek and Old Indic) an innovation, perhaps by analogy to *toy. It is not easy to determine which of these theories is the most probable. Here, I shall tentatively support the idea of PIE *túbȹi as a possible source of Balto-Slavic *muni (see § 98), but the question remains open.

123

East Baltic tav-  tav -/tev  -- /tev-  /tev    -  -  § 74 If one assumes that *ew > *ow is regular in all conditions in Balto-Slavic, the East Baltic distribution of  tav-  (from Balto-Slavic *taw- < IE *tew-) and tev-  (from Balto-Slavic *teb-, with an analogical *-w-) is easily explained. However, if one assumes the change of  *ew > *ow only in front of back vowels, the stem tav- in tav- in East Baltic is not so easy to account for. Stang (1966: 251) assumes the influence of the possessive *tavas < *tewos, or of the possible instrumental *taway- < *teway- (1966: 253). It is also possible to assume the locative *twoy ⇒ *tewoy > *taway (see § 72). However, these solutions are not very elegant. It is hard to imagine why the stem tav- , originally supposedly found only in the instrumental, locative and the possessive form, would become the only stem in many East Baltic dialects. Not to mention the fact that it has influenced the original *men- to become man- (see man- (see § 75). Since the reconstruction of the pre-forms of these supposed forms is not very secure in any case, one can only conclude that such explanations cannot really explain the facts. Therefore, our assumption on the overall regularity of *ew > *ow in Balto-Slavic (see § 71) must be correct.

124

East Baltic man-  man -  -  § 75 The next problem to be dealt with is the mysterious East Baltic stem man- . As is known, besides the stem mun- , which we have already tried to explain, East Baltic only has the stem man- . The stem **men- is not attested anywhere. This seems strange at first glance, since both tav- (from tav- (from Balto-Slavic *taw- < IE *tew-) and tev- (from tev- (from Balto-Slavic *teb, with an analogical *-w-) are widely attested. The –a - in man- cannot man-  cannot be original (cf. Slavic G. mene, Old Prussian D. mennei) mennei)  - it must be secondary. The obvious source of analogy is tav- . The lack of the stem *men- in East Baltic does not perhaps need to worry us. If we are to assume that the analogical change of *men- ⇒ *man- occurred already in the days when there was no separate locative and instrumental, we would simply get *mane in the genitive and *muni in the dative (with a variant *mani, instead of *meni). It was enough to change the stem analogically in one case only (in the genitive), and the stem *men- was lost for good. When the separate locative and instrumental emerged, the stem man-  was the only one there374. Although there seems to be no other choice than to regard the stem man-  as analogous to tav- , Stang (1966: 253) notes that the problem lies in the fact that the stem man-  in Latvian is most scarcely attested375 exactly in those dialects where only tav-  and sav- is sav- is attested, not only in the dative, but also in the possessive. However, this could be the result of a later development.

Together with mun-, of course. 375 I.e. the stem mun- is mun- is attested there. 374

125

Possessive pronouns in East Baltic pronouns in East Baltic have often been connected to the oblique § 76 The possessive pronouns singular personal pronoun stems. Thus, mun- in mun- in the oblique cases of the 1 st person personal pronoun in Latvian was explained as a result of the influence of possessive pronouns. However, the reason for this possible analogy is not at all clear. The origin of the mun- in mun-  in the possessive muns , attested in almost all High Latvian dialects, is also uncertain. That is a clear case of obscurum of obscurum per obscurius . The explanation of  muns  by analogy with the possessive tuvs, suvs  (from *tuwos) seems highly unlikely, since exactly those Latvian dialects that have muns , very often have 376. only tavs, savs 376 One would be more prone to believe that the possessive forms like muns were muns  were built by analogy to the oblique cases with the stem mun- . Such a premise could also lead us to believe that tuvs  came from the oblique tuv-  (otherwise not attested, see § 71). This is, however, very speculative. The –u- in –u-  in tuvs  could be due to analogy with the nominative tu   just as well, which seems like a good solution.

376

Stang 1966: 252. 126

instrumentall singular Slavic instrumenta § 77 In the instrumental singular, the East and West Baltic forms seem very recent (see § 64, § 67). Slavic forms, however, could be somewhat older, although it is not sure that they should be reconstructed already in Proto-Balto-Slavic - perhaps only as Proto-Balto-Slavic dialectal variants? How does one explain the Slavic forms mъnojNj and mъnojNj and tobojNj ?377 A start should be made with with pronominal stems *moy- and *twoy-, which get the ending *-oh 1. This ending looks strange, since it must be a misanalysis from the o- stem stem ending *-o-h1. It is not clear why exactly this ending would be attached to *moy-/twoy-, but it is the ending one needs in order to explain Slavic *-Nj. Now, the forms *moy-oh 1, *twoy-oh1 are analogically remodeled to *menoyoh1 and *tewoyoh1 due to the influence of *mene, *tewe. The form *tewoyoh 1 regularly yields *tawayō. The usual (Balto-)Slavic singular instrumental ending *-mi is now added at the end. Thus we get *menayōmi and *tawayōmi. These four-syllable long forms were too long compared to other pronominal forms. Therefore, they were shortened – the final *-i disappeared 378. The new forms were *menayōn and *tawayōn. The latter received an analogical *-b- instead of *-w- in Slavic, as in the genitive singular, and is regularly reflected as tobojNj . The other possibe explanation is that the ending –ojNj  – ojNj originated originated in the demonstrative instrumental tojNj  < *toy- oh1-m(i)379, and that it was analogically transferred to personal pronouns. However, that would perhaps deprive us of the possibility that *-mi was shortened to *-m, because the forms *menayōmi and *tawayōmi were too long. Besides, it is not clear why personal pronouns would take the feminine ending from demonstrative pronouns. If the ending –ojNj  – ojNj is is indeed secondary in personal pronouns, it must have been introduced there before it was introduced into the ā -stems -stems (see § 70). It is also possible that the ending –ojNj  –ojNj appeared appeared in personal and demonstrative pronouns at the same time. As for the 1 st person form, one mysteriously finds an old *-u- instead of *-e- there. Thus mъnojNj , and not **menojNj. The obvious solution is to try to find a source for that – ъ-  in the dative form mъnĕ , but the motivation for this influence is quite unclear. A possible explanation would be that tobojNj had tobojNj  had a stem tob- , just like one of the dative forms (tobĕ)  ( tobĕ) . 380 to be imported to the instrumental by analogy. That could have been the reason for mъn- 380 Another solution would be to assume that the new forms of instrumental (which was nonexistant in PIE) were simply made from the dative stems *mun- and *tob-, whatever their origin. However, this is only a formal solution. It is not clear why the instrumental would be Old Indic máyā , tváyā have tváyā  have no direct relation to the Slavic forms. They are younger forms (cf. Vedic tvā , *mā is not attested), due to analogy to the ā- stem stem instrumental singular –áyā  – áyā , with the usual secondary –ay-  –ay- , and to the demonstrative táyā , where the –ay  – ay - is old (IE demonstrative stem *toy-; cf. also the abscence of Brugmann's Law in táyā) . 378 Of course, this was not a regular process, but such irregular shortenings in pronominal forms are hardly unusual. For example, contemporary Lithuanian exhibits such changes (like manimì > manimì  > manimɶ )  . Cf. also dialectal Croatian meʂn <  < meʂni etc. n  i etc. 379 For the stem *toy-, cf. *toysom > OCS tĕxъ , *toymos > tĕmъ . 380 This was also perhaps only one of the dative forms, the younger mьnĕ  might have already been there. 377

 

 

127

built from the dative form (although there were probably only two different stems – the genitive and the dative one). In the 2 nd person, this derivation is somewhat problematic since the stem *tob- in the dative is not very archaic. In case of a derivation like this, Slavic instrumental forms would have to be rather young, i.e. they would have to be younger than the dative in *tob-. If we were to accept this, the ending *-ojNj would be unaccounted for, since the scheme proposed above (which presupposes an older origin of these forms) would not be possible.

128

Accent of Slavic instrumental singular accent of the instrumental singular forms in Slavic is not easy to explain. As we § 78 The accent have shown (see § 54), Croatian (Štokavian and Čakavian) and Middle Bulgarian of  Evangelie  1139 point 1139  point to the old *mъnòjNj and *tobòjNj, while Slovene and Old Russian point to the old *mъnojNjʀ, *tobojNjʀ. These could have been Common Slavic dialectal variants. But how are we to explain them? If we start from the original *moy-, *twoy-, we can assume that the new instrumentals *móy-oh1, *twóy-oh1 had the initial accent like all other oblique forms originally had. The result are the transformed *menàyōn and *tawàyōn with the unchanged place of the accent. Now, these supposed *menàyōn and *tawàyōn could be the direct source of the Common Slavic *mъnòjNj and *tobòjNj. In this case, the final accent of Old Russian and Slovene (a dialectal variant in Common Slavic), could be explained in the following way: The original forms were *mъnòjNj and *tobòjNj. When this *-ojNj was taken over analogically to the ā- stems stems381, new accentual variants appeared in nouns to incorporate them into the nominal accentual system: in a. p. b *ɪ-ojNj b  *ɪ-ojNj (*-òjNj after Dybo’s Law), and in a. 382. With time, the new a. p. c *-ojNjʀ p. c *-ojNjʀ c  *-ojNjʀ382 c  *-ojNjʀ could have been transferred to *mъnojNjʀ and *tobojNjʀ in some Proto-Slavic dialects 383, since there the desinential accent was also nicely incorporated in that specific pronominal mobile paradigm. Thus, the forms *mъnòjNj and *mъnojNjʀ could be Proto-Slavic dialectal isoglosses. However, if Dybo’s Law operated in the case of medial syllables of a. p. c  (in the interpretation of Rasmussen 384), and not only in a. p. b , the forms *mъnojNjʀ, *tobojNjʀ, attested in Old Russian and Slovene, would be regular reflexes of the old *menàyōn and *tawàyōn. However, in this case, the variants *mъnòjNj and *tobòjNj would be almost impossible to interpret. Štokavian and Čakavian have generalized the variant *-ojNjʀ in the instrumental of  the ā- stems stems in both a. p. c (where c  (where it is expected) and in a. p. b (where b  (where it is not expected) cf. dialectal Croatian –õv in –õv  in both paradigms. Thus, it is completely unclear in which manner the innovative *mъnòjNj and *tobòjNj could have developed. The question of the operation of  Dybo’s Law in the medial syllables of a. p. c  is much more complicated, of course, and cannot be dealt with here.

Because the original instrumental ending *-ā (< PIE *-eh₂eh₁) was identical to that of the nominative singular. 382 In a. p. b , the accent was in pre-Dybo Slavic on the last syllable of the stem, like in all other cases in a. p. b , and in the a. p. c , the instrumental became the “strong” case, with the stressed ending. The new ending *-ojNj was apparently interpreted as having its own accent (thus being +, not – in the valence theory). 383 Old Russian –oюɴ –oюɴ in personal pronouns, but –óю in –óю in nouns perhaps contradicts this possibility (see § 54). 384 Cf. Rasmussen 1999b: 478. Dybo’s Law would operate here in the same way as in *pečeʀte > *pečeteʀ. 381

129

BaltoSlavic plural and dual oblique stems Balto--Slavic oblique cases of plural and dual, all the forms were rebuilt on the § 79 In Balto-Slavic oblique basis of the stems *nō- and *wō-. These stems are derived from the PIE GDA. unaccented plural forms *nōs and *wōs 385. In the dual, the basis were the dual unaccented NA. forms *nō and *wō < PIE *noh₁, *woh₁ 386 (cf. § 100, 102). In the plural, even the accusative was remodeled: *nōs > *nōns and *wōs > *wōns, cf. OCS ny , vy  and Old Prussian mans , wans . In the dual, the original *nō and *wō were preserved (OCS na , va ),), but they became accented - at least in the accusative function. These newly modeled plural cases were often explained as *nōs, *wōs + endings 387. This functions for the explanation of *nōs-o/ōn, *wōs-o/ōn (or *nōs-so/ōn, *wōs-so/ōn, with the pronominal ending *-so/ōn, like in *toyso/ōn) and *nō s-su, s-su, *wōs-su. s-su. In the case of the D. pl. *nōmas, *wōmas and I. pl. *nō mīs, *wōmīs, one could assume a development *-sm- > *m- like in Slavic tomu < tomu  < *to-sm- (cf. Sanskrit tasm- ).). However, in the case of A. pl. *nō ns, *wōns, ns, no such explanation would work. Thus, it is easier to assume that the basis were the bare stems *nō-, *wō- from the start. When the *-n- was inserted in the accusative plural, *nōns and *wōns were analyzed as *nō-ns, *wō-ns, and thus new stems were made. The acute from the original *nō s and *wōs remained, and thus all these new forms now had the acute on the first syllable (for the origin of this acute, see § 106). According to what has already been said here, the stems *nō - and *wō- in the oblique cases, attested in Slavic, are the oldest. In East Baltic, the oblique stems were completely reshaped by analogy to the nominative forms. In West Baltic, only the accusative form of the 2nd person has managed to preserve the original wa -388. In the other oblique cases, the development was the same as in East Baltic (except that 1 st person GD. pl. have n-  instead of m-  of m- ).). However, one could claim that there were no Balto-Slavic *nō - and *wō- stems in the oblique plural cases and that that is just a Slavic innovation. Balto-Slavic could have had different forms in these cases, perhaps inherited directly from PIE. These would then be changed with the new *nō -, -, *wō- stem forms in Slavic, with the new *mū -, -, *yū- in East Baltic and with the new *nū -, *yū- in West Baltic independently 389. Nevertheless, this possibility seems improbable. The *n- in the 1 st person genitive-dative plural in West Baltic seems to point to the original *nō- here. Otherwise, we would expect the stem *mū - here, like in East Baltic, with an *m- as in the nominative mes and mes  and accusative mans . If there were no Balto-Slavic oblique *nō - to begin with, Old Prussian n- in n-  in the genitive-dative would be hard to explain. Likewise, the Old Prussian accusative wans , stemming from the PIE *wo/ōs transformed to a «regular» accusative, points to the earlier presence of this w-  in the genitive-dative.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cf. Vedic nas , vas < vas < *nos, *wos and Latin nōs and nōs and uōs . Cf. unaccented Gatha Avestan nā and nā and Vedic vā-m . 387 Cf. for instance Birnbaum & Schaeken 1997: 74-75. 388 In the 1st person, the m- was m- was introduced from the nominative plural or by dissimilation (cf. § 65). 389 Since West Baltic had the *n-, and East Baltic the *m- here, a common Baltic innovation is not very likely (cf. § 68). 385 386

130

Since the stems *nō-, *wō- were generalized in all oblique cases, this points to the conclusion that the Old Prussian A. pl. forms mans , wans were wans  were originally *nōns, *wōns and not *nons, *wons. The development of the oblique plural stems in Balto-Slavic can be summarized as follows:  

 

1. PreBalto--Slavic Pre-Balto -Balto -Slavic

unknown stems, probably *ins-, *us- < PIE *nʢ  ʢs-, s-, *us-390

2. BaltoBalto-Slavic -Slavic

*nō-, -, *wō- (from the PIE oblique clitics *nōs and *wōs)

3A. Slavic

preserved *nō -, -, *wō-

3B. West Baltic 1

preserved *nō-, -, *wō-

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Baltic 2

A. pl. *nō -, *wō-; analogical GD. pl. *yū - and *nū-

Old Prussian

A. pl. *wō-; analogical GD. pl. *yū - and *nū -, analogical A. pl. *mō-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3C. East Baltic 1 East Baltic 2

preserved *nō-, -, *wō 

 

analogical *mū -, *yū-391  

 

For these forms, see § 102. It is very possible that the change in East Baltic was also carried out in a couple of phases. However, we have no evidence of that.

390 391

131

Clitics § 80 The clitics have gone completely different ways in East Baltic and in Slavic 392. In Old Lithuanian one finds only the GDA. singular clitics –mi , -ti  < *mey, *tey, which have preserved their original polyfunctionality (and pushed it a little bit further, see below). In Slavic however, *mey, *tey are preserved as well as mi , ti , but only in the dative function. In general, Slavic has preserved only the dative function of the clitics, not only in singular, but also in plural and dual. In dual, the PIE polyfunctional *nō , *wō have become the accented accusatives, but have also remained unaccented dative forms (thus in OCS). In singular, the polyfunctionality of *mey and *tey is proven by Old Lithuanian. There are no such direct evidence for the polyfunctional use of clitics in plural and dual, since these are dative only in Slavic and non-existant in Baltic. However, considering the polyfunctional forms in singular and the existance of polyfunctionality in PIE (see § 100), the reconstruction of Balto-Slavic GDA. plural/dual clitics seems rather certain. One has to note that the pronouns *mey/moy, *tey/toy were used only for GD. sg. in PIE (see § 99). The use of these pronouns in A. sg. is either BSl or East Baltic/Lithuanian innovation. Here we have tentatively reconstructed *mey/tey for BSl as well, although it is not sure whether they were accusative clitics already then. In plural, the old PIE polyfunctional unaccented oblique forms *nōs , *wōs have been remodeled. They were used as a base for all new (accented) oblique cases, but they were also preserved as the unaccented dative forms (thus in OCS, see § 30, § 49). However, since old *nōs, *wōs were remodeled to *nōns, *wōns in the accusative 393, the dative unaccented forms *nōs, *wōs were also changed to *nōns , *wōns. Since these are attested as such only in Slavic, one cannot be sure whether this occurred already in the Balto-Slavic proto-language. In dual, both the accented accusative *nō , *wō and the unaccented dative *nō , *wō remained unchanged, since their ending *-ō was the ending of the NA. dual of  o- stems stems as well.

Old Prussian accusative clitics –tin , -si(n ) look secondary, i.e. made by cliticization of the accented forms tien , sien . 393 Cf. OCS ny, vy and vy  and Old Prussian mans, wans, which probably proves that this change was already Balto-Slavic. 392

132

BaltoSlavic accentual paradigm of personal pronouns Balto--Slavic paradigms of personal § 81 As far as can be seen, the accentual pattern of Balto-Slavic paradigms pronouns was not mobile, i.e. it was always on the first syllable 394. Many forms were monosyllabic (like *ēź, ź, *tū, *mès, *nō etc.), and in some of them the initial accent was inherited from PIE (like in *mène, *tàwe, *tèbi etc.). The initial acute of the oblique plural and dual stems was derived, as mentioned, from the original clitic forms that received the acute in Balto-Slavic - *nō s, s, *nō etc. All Balto-Slavic personal pronoun forms with the long vowel in the first syllable had an acute. For the origin of this acute, see § 106.  

 

 

 

 

In Slavic, the singular pattern became mobile due to the desinential accent of the dative and instrumental. The accent of the instrumental is, as the form itself, not very conclusive (see § 77, § 78). In the dative-locative, the desinential accent can perhaps be explained by assuming that the dative-locative ending of  ā -stems -stems has been introduced in Slavic instead of the original *-i. As already said, the dative-locative ending of  ā -stems -stems was unaccented in the dative and accented in the locative of the a. p. c . To explain Slavic desinential accent in *mъneʖ  ʀ, *tebeʖ    ʀ, one would have to assume original dative *mъʀnĕ *mъʀnĕ and 395, which was later generalized to DL. sg. *mъneʖ locative *mъneʖ  ʀ395     ʀ. Although possible, this explanation seems only formally satisfactory. . See also § 72 for a possible development *t(e)wóy > *tobeʖ  ʀ etc. The Balto-Slavic forms *mène and *tàwe were interpreted as unaccented in Slavic 396, when the whole paradigm was interpreted as mobile due to the end-stress in the dativelocative and instrumental. For the developments concerning Meillet's Law in Slavic see § 56, § 57. In East Baltic, as already said, the accentual pattern was originally immobile, with the acute in all the forms that had a long vowel stem. The mobile paradigm, seen in present day Lithuanian and Latvian, is of a later date. The rise of the mobility in personal pronouns (Lithuanian manimì , manyjè , mumìs etc.) mumìs  etc.) is obviously directly related to the introduction of  the new nominal endings, the making of the new forms (like the new locative singular) and analogical changes like the shortening of the *-ū- in the dative-instrumental plural etc.

Of course, in some of the cases, the accent cannot be reconstructed reliably. One form that had a desinential accent was *ēźàn (but the pretonic length had the acute as well, due to Winter's lengthening). 395 Like D. sg. *voʂ dĕ dĕ – L. sg. *vodeʖ  ʀ, cf. Croatian D. sg. voʂdi  d  i , L. sg. vòdi . 396 I.e. enclinomena, words with the absolute initial accent. 394

133

4. RECONSTRUCTION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN INDO INDO--EUROPEAN -EUROPEAN pronouns in Proto-Indo-European. § 82 Here, we shall reconstruct the system of personal pronouns Since the main subject of this work is the reconstruction of Balto-Slavic personal pronouns, we shall mostly deal with Indo-European problems related to Balto-Slavic in order to derive Balto-Slavic forms from their Proto-Indo-European origin. Of course, it is necessary to deal with the problems concerning other Indo-European languages as well. However, many of the innovations concerning specific languages only cannot be dealt with here. The glottogonic problems, very popular in the research of the Indo-European personal pronouns, will also be left out of consideration 397. Needless to say, the literature on the problems of the reconstruction of IE personal pronouns is vast. It would be impossible to list or cite even a small part of it. Therefore, we shall not make any claim regarding the comprehensiveness of  the literature quoted. For an overview of the literature and references, cf. Schimdt 1978 and Szemerényi 1989.

Paradigms Here, we shall list the paradigms of the personal pronouns in various Indo-European languages (we shall leave out Balto-Slavic of course) 398. After that, we shall list the PIE paradigms of personal pronouns as reconstructed in some of the works dealing with the problem. Again, the list is representative rather than comprehensive. We shall then briefly criticize some of the proposed reconstructions and then propose our own reconstruction together with the discussion. As already said, the emphasis will be on the derivation of  Balto-Slavic data from the Indo-European source. HITTITE singular N. uk, ugga G. ammēl, -miš D. ammuk, -mu A. ammuk, -mu Ab. ammēdaz

zik tuēl tuk, -ta, -du tuk, -ta, -du tuēdaz

Thus for instance, we shall reconstruct PIE *egɴ Hóm, disregarding the possible analyses of this form (*egɴ-Hóm -Hóm or *egɴH-óm), H-óm), the origin of the initial *egɴ - and the final *-(H)om etc. These questions are undoubtedly very interesting, but they are outside the scope of this work and are immanently very speculative. 398 As a rule, we shall list only the oldest and the most archaic forms, e.g. Vedic and not Classic Sanskrit, Old and not Middle Hittite, Aeolic or Doric instead of Attic Greek (regarding the plural personal pronoun forms) etc. Younger and obvious innovations in specific languages will not be dealt with except when of particular interest. 397

134

plural n. wēš g. anzēl d. anzāš, -naš a. anzāš, -naš ab. anzēdaz

šumēš šumēl, šumenzan, -šmiš šumāš, -šmaš šumāš, -šmaš šumēdaz

OLD INDIC singular N. ahám G. máma, me D. máhya(m), me A. mām, mā L. máyi I. máyā Ab. mát

tuvám táva, te túbhya(m), te tvām, tvā tvé, tváyi tvā, tváyā tvát

plural n. vayám g. asmākam, nas d. asmé, nas a. asmān, nas ab. asmát

yūyám yušmākam, vas yušmé, vas yušmān, vas yušmát

dual N. vām G. āváyos A. āvām, m, nāu Ab. āvát

yuvám yuvós, yuváyos yuvām, m, vām yuvát

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AVESTAN singular N. azǩm, azǩɷm G. mana, mōi D. maibiiā, mōi A. mąm, mā I. Ab. mat   ʣ

tū, tuvǩɷm tauuā, tōi taibiiā399, tōi θβąm, θβā θβā θβat    ʣ

plural 399

      The forms ma i ibiiā, ta i ibiiā etc. biiā  etc. are written also as ma i ibyā, ta i i byā and byā and maibyā, taibyā .

135

n. vaēm g. ahmākǩm, nǩɷ, nō d. ahmaibiiā, nǩɷ, nō a. ahma, nå, nō i. ǩɷhmā hmā ab. ahmat   ʣ

yūš, yūžǩɷm, yūžǩm yūšmākǩm, vǩɷ, vō yūšmaibiiā, vǩɷ, vō -, vå, vō xšmā yūšmat    ʣ

dual N. vā G. yauuākǩm A. ǩɷǩāuuā, nā GREEK singular N. ǫʆγώ, γώ, ǫʆγών γών G. ǫʆµǫɴο, ο, µǫο D. ǫʆµoί, µoι A. ǫʆµǫɴ, µǫ plural (Aeolic) ̋ n. αʆ  ɴµµ µµǫ µµǫɴων g. αʆµµ ων d. αʆ  ɴµµ µµι(ν) a. αʆ  ɴµµ µµǫ dual NA. νώ, νωɶǫ GD. νωɶ  ʛν, ν, νωɶ̓ν

τύ, τυɷνη, σύ σǫɴο, ο, τǫɴο, ο, σǫο σoί, τoί, σoι σǫɴ, τǫɴ, σǫ  

̋ υʆ  ɴ  ɴµµ µµǫ µµǫɴων υʆµµ ων   ɴυʆµµ µµι(ν)   ɴυʆµµ µµǫ σ ϕώ, σ ϕωɶ̓ σ ϕωɶ  ʛν, ν, σ ϕωɶ̓ν

(OLD) LATIN singular N. egō G. meī, mīs D. mihī A. mēd Ab. mēd

tū tuī, tīs tibī  tēd tēd

plural n. nōs g. nostrum, nostrī d. nōbīs a. nōs ab. nōbīs

uōs uostrum, uostrī  uōbīs uōs uōbīs 136

ARMENIAN singular N. es G. im D. inj A. is I. inew Ab. inēn

du k Ɉo kɈez kɈez kɈew kɈēn

plural n. mekɈ g. mer d. mez a. mez i. mewkɈ ab. mēn ǐ 

dukɈ jer jez jez jewkɈ jēn ǐ 

GOTHIC singular N. ik G. meina D. mis A. mik

þu þeina þis þik

plural n. weis g. unsara d. uns, unsis a. uns, unsis

jus izwara izwis izwis

dual N. wit G. D. ugkis A. ugkis

igqara igqis igqis

OLD IRISH singular NA. mé GDA. -mɈ, -m

tú -thɈ, -t

137

plural n. sní gda. –nn

sí  -b

TOCHARIAN B singular N. ñäś, ñiś G. ñi obl. ñäś, ñiś

twe, tuwe tañ ci

plural n/obl. wes g. wesi, wesäñ, wesämʖ gda. –me

yes yesi, yesäñ, yesämʖ -me

dual N/obl. wene

yene

ALBANIAN singular N. unë GDA. mua, më Ab. meje(t)

ti ty, tyɷj, të teje(t)

plural n. ne gda. nē, neve, na ab. nesh

ju juve, u jush

138

Previous reconstructions Here, as already said, we shall list some of the previous reconstructions of the ProtoIndo-European system of personal pronouns. The survey is not comprehensive and the emphasis is on recent works. We shall briefly comment on each of the proposed reconstructions. The comments on the previous reconstructions will also find their place in the main discussion. The list comprises the standard recent Indo-Europeanist general handbooks - Szemerényi 1989, Beekes 1995, Sihler 1995 and Meier-Brügger 2002, the classic compendium on the IE personal pronouns - Schmidt 1978, and a very good recent dissertation on the topic of IE personal pronouns - Katz 1998. § 83

Schmidt 1978400

singular N. *egʄ-H > *egʄ G. < GAb. *(e)me-ne/ē DL. *(e)m-oy D. < L. L. A. *(e)me, *mē Ab. < I. *(e)med (*(e)m-ed) N. *tu-H DG. < L. *tew D. < L. *tu-bhey A. *tu L. *tew Ab. < GAb. *tus I. *tw-ē/ō plural n. *mes g. *mʘser-om (*moser-om) d. < l. *mʘs-bhey s-bhey a. *mōs l. *mʘser ser (*mos-er) l. > dg. i. – ab. < gab. *mʘs- e/os

*egʄ-H-o/ōm *(e)me-gʄ-bhi -bhi > *(e)megʄhi *(e)me-gʄe *(e)me-gʄe *tu-H-om *te (enclitic) *tw-i(-n), *tow-oy

*we-y (younger) *mos (enclitic) *mos (enclitic)

Schmidt’s reconstructed paradigms are cited by his Zusammenfassung sections Zusammenfassung sections in the book (1978: 110, 144, 205-206, 245-246). I have omitted the possessive forms, changed the order of the cases and translated German notes to English. E nglish.

400

139

n. g.(ab.) *wos dg. (enclit.) < l. *wos d. < l. *wos-bhi

*yuH-s *wos-om (only g.)

a. *us-me l. *us-m-ey i. *wos? dual N. *nʘH-we *we (elliptic) G. *noH-Hu D. < L. *noH-bhi (orthotonic) L. *noH-Hu N. *yuH GAb. G(L.?) *yuH-eH2qw-Hu D. < L. *yuH-eH 2qw-bhi? A. *sgwhes L. *yuH-eH2qw I. -

*we-de (extended) *noH (enclitic)

*woH *woH

Schmidt’s book is unavoidable in any serious study of Indo-European pronouns because it provides a great survey of the pre-1978 material and theories. However, Schmidt’s reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European system of personal pronouns is not at all satisfactory. As is clearly seen, many of his reconstructions are arbitrary, fanciful and insufficiently substantiated in the attested material. He insists on the reconstruction of seven case forms, in spite of the fact that there is no real evidence for it. PIE personal pronoun declension seems to have had fewer cases than nominal declension. He also seems too prone to glottogonic solutions, reconstructing, for instance, enclitic *mos (instead of *nos) with a *m- that is not attestad in any Indo-European language. As an example of unreasonable reconstructions, we can mention his 2 nd person singular DGL. *tew, not attested anywhere, his GAb. *tus, attested only in Germanic (Gothic us ),), his 1st person plural L. *mʘ ser ser (*mos-er), his only 2nd person plural G. *wos-om (in spite þ us  of the fact that Slavic vasъ is vasъ  is obviously not archaic) etc. The most monstrous reconstruction is his 2nd person dual form *yuH-eH 2qw-, based practically solely on Indo-Iranian (Vedic yuvā k-  k- ).).  

§ 84

Szemerényi 1989

singular N. *eg(h)om, *egō G. *mene, *mei/moi

*tū, *tu *tewe/tewo, *t(w)ei, *t(w)oi 140

D. *mei/moi, *mebhi A. *(e)me, *mē, *mēm Ab. *med

*t(w)ei/t(w)oi, *tebhi *twe/te, *twē/tē, *twēm/tēm *twed

plural n. *wei, *n  ʘ  ʘsmés smés g. *nosom/nosōm d. *n  ʘ  ʘsmei smei a. *nes/nos, *nēs/nōs, *n  ʘ  ʘsme sme ab. *n  ʘ  ʘsed/n sed/n  ʘ  ʘsmed smed

*yūs, *usmés (uswes?) *wosom/wosōm *wosom/wosō m *usmei *wes/wos, *wēs/wōs, *usme, *uswes (*used?)/usmed

Szemerényi’s approach to personal pronouns is unusual in many ways and it cannot be accepted. His glottogonic attempts to get rid of the suppletion do not really represent a sound methodology401. The accusative *mēm is unnecessary in PIE, since the final *-m is an obvious innovation in certain languages. The same goes for the ablative forms. The form *mebhi is mostly a product of Szemerényi’s strong dislike of suppletion. The supposed nominative forms *n  ʘ  ʘsmés smés and *usmés obviously cannot be PIE. Not to mention the fact that forms like these are attested only in Greek. They can hardly be archaic and Szemerényi’s reconstruction of them is guided only by his glottogonic aspirations. The genitive plural forms are also unattested in the material, except for Slavic, where they are clearly secondary. The main flaw of Szemerényi’s approach is that he values theory (which itself is not very convincing) above the factual attestations. To get rid of the suppletion, he even reconstructs such blatantly inexistent forms as *n  ʘ  ʘsmés, smés, whose reconstruction goes against any logic and linguistic methodology 402. § 85

Beekes 1995

singular N. *h₁egɴ (-oH, -Hom) G. *h₁méne, *h₁moi D. *h₁mégɴȹyo, ȹyo, *h₁moy A. *h₁mé, *h₁me L/I. *h₁móy (h₁moí) Ab. *h₁méd

*tuH *téwe, *toy *tébȹyo, *toy *twé *toy *twéd

plural n. *wey g. *n  ʘ  ʘs(er)o-, s(er)o-, *nos d. *n  ʘ  ʘsmey, smey, *n  ʘ  ʘs

*yuH *yus(er)o-, *wos *usmey

For a reasonable critique of Szemerényi, cf. Katz 1998: 28-37. 402 It is completely impossible that the majority of Indo-European languages would rather prefer to generalize the nominative form *wey-, which is completely different from the oblique cases, than the form *n  ʘ  ʘsmés, smés, which would make a regular pattern with the oblique cases. 401

141

a. *n  ʘ  ʘsmé, smé, *nōs l. *n  ʘ  ʘsmí smí ab. *n  ʘ  ʘsmed smed

*usmé, *wos *usmi *usmed

Beekes’s approach is not very radical. The characteristic points of his reconstructions are the unnecessary initial *h₁- in the 1 st person singular forms, and the assumption that Old Indic –ya  – ya < < *-yo might be the oldest dative ending, since it is otherwise unexplainable. He disregards the fact that it is not attested outside Indo-Iranian. The reconstruction of the separate ablative forms ending in *-ed also seems somewhat far-fetched – these could have easily been formed later due to analogy with the nominal declension. His reconstruction of  the genitive plural forms *n  ʘ  ʘs(er)os(er)o- and *yus(ero)- (cf. Gothic unsara , izwara ) is highly unlikely. § 86

Sihler 1995

singular N. *egɴoH G. *mé-me, *mos (adj.) D. *mébȹi, *mey, ? moy A.*mé, *me Ab. **mm-ét (> *mét)

*ti/ī (tu/ū) *té-we, *tos (adj.) *tebȹi, *tey/toy *t-wé, *te *tw-ét

plural n. *we-i g. *n  ʘ  ʘsóm, sóm, *nos/nōs d. *n  ʘ  ʘsm-éy, sm-éy, *nos/nōs a.*n  ʘ  ʘsmé, smé, *nos/nōs ab. *n  ʘ  ʘsm-ét sm-ét

*yūs (? yuHs) *usóm *usm-éy, *wos/wōs *usmé, *wos/wōs *usm-ét

dual N. *weh₁ A. *n  ʘ  ʘh₁-wé, h₁-wé, *no/ōh₁

*yuh₁ (? yūh₁) uh₁-wé, *wo/ōh₁

Sihler gives an extensive survey of the reconstruction of personal pronouns in his comparative Greek and Latin grammar. His approach is also characterized by a few unusual solutions. For instance, he reconstructs PIE *mébȹi on the grounds of Avestan ma i i biiā , disregarding Old Indic máhyam  and Latin mihī. However, the whole idea of *m-b h being dissimilated into *m-gɴ h is not very convincing. It is not at all clear why *b h would yield a palatalized (sic!) aspirated velar by dissimilation. Thus, it is much more reasonable to   assume that Avestan ma i ibiiā is biiā  is analogous to ta i i biiā (see biiā  (see § 101). Also, the reconstruction of  *méme in the genitive (Old Indic máma ) seems unnecessary and based on glottogonic considerations. On these problems, Sihler has the same opinion as Szemerény.

142

Sihler also reconstructs PIE nominative *ti/ī based on Hittite zik . That does not seem very reasonable, in the light of the possibility that Hittite -i  - i is is actually a regular reflex of PIE *-ū here (see § 90). Reconstruction of the ablative forms is highly unlikely, as already said, since it is quite clear that PIE system of personal pronouns did not have all the cases as in the nominal declension403. In addition, since the ablative has a separate ending only in the o- stems, stems, one would hardly expect to find it in the declension of personal pronouns. The reconstruction of the genitive plural forms *n  ʘsóm, sóm, *usóm is quite ad hoc . Structurally, it works just fine, the usual plural oblique *n  ʘ  ʘs-/uss-/us- + *-(s)om, but there are no real attestations of these forms. Either PIE did not have the accented genitive plural forms, or the original forms were lost everywhere (or transformed beyond recognition). It seems safer not to reconstruct genitive plural forms, than to resort to reconstructing completely speculative forms, however may they fit into a proposed system. § 87

Katz 1998404

singular N. *egʄ(H)-(o/ō(H?)m)405 G. *méne, *moy A. *(m-)mé

*tū/tú /tú *téuʢe, e, *toy *t(uʢ)é )é

plural n. *uʢéy(e)s, éy(e)s, *més a. *n  ʘ  ʘsmé, smé, *no/ōs

*iʢūs *usuʢé, é, *uʢo/ōs o/ōs

dual N. *uʢē A. **n  ʘ  ʘh3mé, *noh3

*iʢū *uh3uʢé, é, *uʢoh oh3

 

 

 

 

Katz reconstructs the suffix in the 2 nd person plural accented A. as *-wé, rather than as *-mé as is usually reconstructed 406. The usual reconstruction *usmé is based on the clear correspondence of Greek Aeolic αʆ  ɴµµ υʆµµ -. However, Katz µµǫ,   ɴ µµǫ407 and Old Indic asmá- , yušmá -. For this, cf. for instance Petersen 1930: 164. 404 Katz does not really deal with w ith the reconstruction of the whole system in this work. He just discusses the accented plural (and dual) accusative forms in various IE language families, while reconstructing in passing some of the other forms. Since his view of these forms is different from the classic approach, I believe it is justifiable to list his reconstructions here as well. Since Katz does not adduce the complete PIE paradigms, some of the adduced forms perhaps need to be taken conditionally. 405 This is, of course, rather a formula, than an actual reconstruction. Katz does not present his ideas on the reconstruction of the dative singular forms. 406 It is interesting to note that Szemerényi, whose views Katz vehemently disapproves, also reconstructs *usw- in the 2 nd person plural. However, while Katz proposes that reconstruction on the basis of a thorough research on the material of the “non-classic” IE languages, Szemerényi reconstructs reconstructs his *usw- out of glottogonic reasons mostly (his only real trace of *usw- being Gothic izw- ).). 407 Cf. Doric ʅ αɷ µ µµǫɴ for the older accent. αµµ ɷ µǫɴ and ʅυɷυɷµµ 403

143

points to various traces of older *-wé in other IE branches – Celtic, Germanic, Anatolian and Armenian (he also deals extensively with Tocharian forms). The evidence from each branch itself is perhaps not too strong, but put together, it makes quite a strong case. In Celtic, Katz derives Old Irish sní, sí  from Indo-European *n  ʘ  ʘsmé, smé, *uswé with the aphaeresis of the initial *n  ʘ  ʘ- and *u- and a (monosyllabic or emphatic) lengthening of the forms408. This explanation is not very problematic 409 and is by far superior to other explanations of these forms 410. In Germanic, Katz derives Gothic izw-  in izwis  from PIE *uswé. This form yields strong support for the reconstruction of *-wé. The – z- in z-  in Germanic is due to Verner’s Law and the initial i- is i- is due to the dissimilation *u- -w- > *i- -w- 411. The evidence in Anatolian 412 is less conclusive. Katz’s derivation of Hittite anzāš , Cuneiform Luwian 1 st person ānza  and 2nd person ū(n)za  from PIE *n  ʘ  ʘswé, swé, *uswé413 is possible, but not certain. On the other hand, the derivation of Hieroglyphic Luvian á-zu-za  /antsunts/, /antsunts/, u-zu-za /untsunts/ u-zu-za  /untsunts/ from the same forms seems far more likely. The –u-  – u- in in the second syllable of these forms is supposed to be a reflex of PIE *-w-. However, I cannot accept Katz’s derivation of Hittite šumāš  from aphaeretized *swé > *suwé. The old assumption that šum- is šum- is to be derived by methatesis of old *usw- (or *usm-) 414 seems much more convincing. In the case of Armenian, the evidence for *-mé and *-wé is indirect 415, but in the light of other evidence, Katz’s analysis seems satisfactory. We can conlude that it seems probable that the suffix *-wé in the accented 2 nd person accusative plural form in Indo-European indeed existed. This suffix was perhaps only one of the possible variants (see § 100, § 102 for the reconstruction). In dual, Katz reconstructs oblique forms with the *-h 3-. Even though this would enable us to derive Homeric νωɶǫ directly from *n  ʘ  ʘh3wé, I cannot accept Katz’s 416 claim that this *-h3- does not have to be related to the nominal dual ending *-h 1. Therefore, I think *h1- should be reconstructed here as well, despite the problems (see § 102 for further discussion on this). Cf. Katz 1998: 77-106. In Celtic, *ē > *ī regularly, *-w- drops regularly in Old Irish (cf. Old Irish sí  and Middle Welsh chwi) . The whole process is: *n  ʘ  ʘs-mé s-mé ⇒ *n  ʘ  ʘs-né s-né (assimilation) ⇒ *sné (aphaeresis) ⇒ *snē (lengthening) > *snī > Old Irish sní, Gaulish SNÍ , Middle Welsh ni. Similar in: *us-wé ⇒ *swé (aphaeresis) ⇒ *swē (lengthening) > *swī >Old Irish sí, Middle Welsh chwi. 409 The notion of aphaeresis is not strange, as this is typologically very frequent in pronouns. Cf. Croatian dialectal nàkō “like nàkō “like that”, that”, vàkō “like vàkō “like this (1. sg.)” from onàkō, ovàkō (though ovàkō (though analogy with tàkō  “like this (2. sg.)” is also possible). 410 Usually deriving the forms from the ad hoc  forms *s-nēs and *s-wēs (in relation to the usual *no/ōs, *wo/ōs). Cf. for instance Schmidt 1978: 218. 411 Katz’s (1998: 111) solution to the problem of the initial i- is i-  is unacceptable. For the final –is  – is , the 1st person form etc., cf. Katz 1998: 107-131. Katz’s explanation of the ending –is  – is  is not completely convincing, but *usw- > izw- seems izw- seems quite certain. 412 Katz 1998: 134-151. 413 The ending *-wé was apparently generalized in Anatolian, unlike Indo-Iranian and Greek. 414 In Hittite, one cannot tell whether it was *-w- or *-m-, since both yield – m- after m- after –u-  –u- . If it was *-m, this would mean that *-wé was not generalized in Anatolian, but that seems less likely. 415 Cf. Katz 1998: 186-193. 416 1998: 209f. 408

144

§ 88

MeierMeier-Brügger -Brügger 2002

singular N. *egɴóh₂, *egɴh₂óm G. *méne D. *me-gɴȹey, ȹey, *me-gɴȹy-om ȹy-om G/D. unacc. *moy A. *mē, *me  

plural *wéys

*túh₂ *téwe *te-bȹey, *te-bȹy-om *n  ʘ  ʘs-mé-i s-mé-i *toy * tē, *t(w)e *n  ʘ  ʘs-mé, s-mé, *nos  

*yúHs *us-mé-i *us-mé, *wos

Meier-Brügger’s reconstruction is rather conservative. In the dative singular, he reconstructs the ending *-ey, based on such forms as Old Prussian tebbei or tebbei  or Latin tibī . This seems reasonable, but one must be aware that a common dative ending *-ey can easily be secondary. The other ending *-y-om that he reconstructs is based on the authority of  Sanskrit, the “favorite” Indo-Europeanists’ language of all times. Still, since it is widely known that Sankrit is fond of the *-om particle in personal pronouns, it is unlikely that this *-om should be attributed to PIE here. A good side of Meier-Brüggers conservativeness is that he does not venture into the reconstruction of cases like the ablative and instrumental singular or genitive plural, where there is no material available for a plausible reconstruction of these PIE forms.

145

Reconstruction of personal pronouns in IndoIndo -European -European As pointed out many times before, this is mostly a research on Balto-Slavic personal pronouns and their Indo-European origins. Accordingly, we shall pay most of our attention to the problems of Indo-European reconstruction concerning Balto-Slavic. In fact, the main concern will be the problem of monosyllabic lengthening in Indo-European, which is of great interest for the questions of Balto-Slavic accentuation. Another important question is the Balto-Slavic form *mès and its Indo-European origin. The question of possible Balto-Slavic dative singular form *tubi and its connection to Old Indic túbhya(m)  is also important, but inevitably inconclusive and not really solvable. The rest is practically uncontroversial, though one should mention the unaccented forms *moy/mey, *toy/tey. We shall avoid detailed discussions on the problems about which one is unlikely to say anything original.

146

Personal pronoun forms with possible monosyllabic leng lengthening thening § 89 It is widely known that many PIE personal pronoun forms show reflexes with both a short and with a long vowel, cf. for instance Greek σύ, but Latin tū . These reflexes have been explained in two basic ways: either by a laryngeal – thus for instance *tuH (or *tuh 2), or by monosyllabic lengthening – thus, *tú/tū 417. The disadvantage of reconstructing a laryngeal here is that we cannot convincingly explain the short reflexes 418. Thus, we shall assume that whenever both the short and the long reflexes exist, we must be dealing with the monosyllabic lengthening 419. If we assume that the long and short reflexes are due to this process, it is easy to understand the origin of the double forms. The original short vowel was lengthened (already in PIE or later, in separate languages) and, thus, two forms were made. Phonetic lengthening in monosyllabic word is an extremely common typological phenomenon, so there is no reason whatsoever not to assume that it could have been present in Proto-Indo-European as well. We shall first take a look at all forms with a possible case of monosyllabic lengthening:  

2nd person nominative singular (accented) § 90 u  (German du ),), Old *tu – Greek Doric τύ, Latvian tu , Lithuanian Žemaitian tòʖ, Old English þ u (German 420, tú 421 421, Old Indic t(u)vám 422 422, tú  (particle), Gatha-Avestan tuvǩɷm , Hittite A. Irish tu-ssu 420 423, Old Prussian tu , Tocharian B t(u)we (?) tuk 423 t(u)we (?) *tū ū  *tū – Latin tū , Greek Homeric τυ  ɷνη, Avestan tū , OCS ty , Old Prussian tū, toū , Old English þ ū  426 (English thou )424, Albanian ti , Old Indic tū (particle), Hittite zik (?) zik (?)425, Breton te 426  

 

The idea of the facultative lengthening in monosyllables stems already from Hirt (1921-37/II: 227). 418 Ranko Matasović (p. c.) has suggested the following scenario to me. One starts with the original short *tu and a variant *tuh 2om (like *egɴ and *egɴh2om). This would make Old Indic tuvám archaic tuvám  archaic (cf. also Oskic tiium ).). From *tuh 2om, the form *tuh2 might have been made by wrong segmentation. I find this explanation formally satisfactory, but in the light of, for instance, Greek τύ, τυɷ  ɴνη, this hypothesis  just does not seem convincing enough. Besides, monosyllabic monosyllabic lengthening occurs in other examples as well. 419 Cf. Rasmussen 1999a: “Given the possibility of emphatic forms, I see no reason to read laryngeals into the forms *uʢ ē ‘we two’, *iʢ ū ‘you two’ or even *iʢ ūs ‘you’, secondary lengthening of old short vowels will do”. 420 Cf. Pedersen & Lewis 1937: 215. Schmidt 1978: 116 believes that Old Irish tu-ssu  is analogous to me-sse (and me-sse (and that Breton te is te is analogous to me ).). That does not seem too convincing. 421 Probably with the Old Irish monosyllabic lengthening, like in *me > mé . 422 The pre-form *tū-om or *tuH-om would have probably yielded Old Indic **tūvám, and the same goes for Avestan. This is disputable - examples like Old Indic ba-bhūvā n  from the root bhū-  (PIE *bhuH-) seem to confirm that, but cf. also Old Indic bhúvat . 423 Melchert 1994: 132, 188. 424 Old English situation could be secondary (the same goes for the rest of the older Germanic languages). There, the long variant was accented and the short one unaccented. Thus, this variation 417

 

 

 

 

147

In some languages, forms can be derived from both variants - for instance Armenian 427. Old English seems to have preserved both PIE variants (if it is not secondary), just like du 427 Balto-Slavic (most probably also Old Prussian), Indo-Iranian and Greek. Having considered the evidence, we have to reconstruct PIE *tú, *tū , with the second form being the result of the monosyllabic lengthening. The reconstruction **tuH is impossible, since it cannot account for the numerous short reflexes.  

2nd person nominative plural (accented) § 91 428, Lithuanian jū  *yūs Lithuanian jū s , Latvian jũs  Latvian jũs , Old Prussian ioūs , OCS vy  *yūs – Avestan yūš , Old Indic yūyám 428   

429. All forms point to the long vowel 430. Armenian duk ʅ is ambiguous, as is Gothic jus  Gothic  jus 429 Thus, we are left with a choice to either reconstruct the laryngealistic proto-form *yuHs or the secondary lengthened *yū s, s, in spite of the fact that the short variant seems to be unattested. One could suppose that the long variant was generalized already in Proto-IndoEuropean, or that the short **yús is accidentally not attested. On the grounds of other forms (especially the 2nd person dual form, see § 92), I shall tentatively reconstruct *yū s, to be derived from the older, unattested **yús by monosyllabic lengthening 431.  

 

1st person nominative dual (accented) § 92 *we – Gothic wit  *wēē – Avestan vā , OCS vĕ  *w Vedic vā m  and Žemaitian veɶdoʖ  doʖ are inconclusive. In spite of only three clear correspondences, PIE *wé, *wē can probably be reconstructed 432.  

 

2nd person nom nominative inative dual (accented)

could be the outcome of later lengthenings or shortenings (cf. also secondary Old English īc  "I"). It seems that the length in PIE was not dependent on the accent (see § 96). 425 Melchert 1994: 84, 132. 426 In Brythonic, *ū > *ī > *i regularly, and in Breton *i > e regularly. e regularly. 427 PIE *u and *ū > Armenian u. 428 With the –y  – y - by analogy to vayám . 429 In North and West Germanic, the form *jiz has a vowel analogous to the 1 st person plural form *wiz, and, therefore, tells us nothing about the original vowel. 430 Albanian ju  Albanian ju could could be derived from PIE *yus with a short vowel. However, the initial *y- should rather yield gj- or gj- or z- in z- in Albanian, so this derivation is not very reliable. 431 However, it is not impossible that Indo-European had, for instance, *tú/*tū but *yúHs. 432 The final –t  –t in in Germanic is usually attributed to PIE *dwoh 1 “two”, but the details are not clear.  

148

433 *yu – Old Indic yuvám 433

*yū *yū – OCS vy  Again, Lithuanian  jùdu is  jùdu  is inconclusive 434 (see § 61), but we can reconstruct PIE *yú, *yū. As in the 1st person nominative dual, there seems to be no need to reconstruct the laryngealistic *weh1, *yuh1, despite the insufficient evidence in the case of the 2 nd person pronoun.  

1st person accusative singular (accented/unaccented) § 93 435, Gothic mi-k  *me – Greek ǫʆ µǫɴ, µǫ, Old Irish mé 435 *mē mēd (?)436, Welsh mi (?) mi (?)437, Gaulish mi (< mi (< *mē) *mē – Old Indic mā , Avestan mā , Latin mēd (?) Balto-Slavic also seems to point to *mē indirectly (see § 70). The reconstruction of  PIE *mé, *mē, *me, *mē seems quite certain. The long and short forms were present in both accented and unaccented form.  

2nd person accusative sing singular ular (accented/unaccented) *t(w)e – Greek σǫɴ, τǫɴ (Doric), σǫ *t(w)ē tēd (?) *t(w)ē - Old Indic tvā , Avestan θβā , Latin tēd (?) The same that goes for the 1 st person form, goes for the 2 nd person as well. We can reconstruct PIE *twé, *twē , *te, *tē. For the reconstruction of *tw-/t-, see § 101.  

1st person genitive genitive--dative dative---accusative accusative plural (unaccented) -dative § 94 *nos – Old Indic nas , Hittite –naš  –naš , Young Avestan nō , Gatha-Avestan nǩ    ɷ, Albanian na , Greek νόσ-ϕι(ν) “apart (from)” *nōs nå (?)438 *nōs – Latin nōs , OCS na- , Gatha-Avestan nå (?)

See the note for t(u)vám though. t(u)vám though. 434 In Gothic, this form is not attested, and Old English git  has taken the vocalism of the 1 st person form *wit. 435 The length in mé is mé is a later Old Irish development. PIE *mē would have yielded Old Irish **mí. 436 The reliability of the Latin form is questionable, since the origin of the final – d is d  is not clear. The most common explanations are the adding of a particle or confusion with the ablative form. 437 Welsh mi is mi  is unreliable since it could have the –i by –i  by analogy to ti < ti  < *tū. Cf. Pedersen & Lewis 1937: 204. 433

149

The evidence is quite strong and we can posit PIE *nos, *nōs without any doubt 439. 2nd person genitive genitive--dative dative---accusative accusative plural (unaccented) -dative *wos – Old Indic vas , Young Avestan vō , Gatha-Avestan vǩ    ɷ *wōs vå (?) *wōs – Latin uōs , OCS va- , Gatha-Avestan vå (?) Like in the 1st person form, PIE *wos, *wōs can also be reconstructed without any problems. 1st person genitive genitive--dative dative---accusative accusative dual (unaccented) -dative § 95 440 *noh₁ *noh₁ – Greek νώ, Old Indic nau , Avestan nā , OCS na , Old Irish ná-(tha)r 440 All the reflexes point to the originally long vowel. Because of that, but also because of the presence of a laryngeal in the accusative dual accented forms (cf. Old Indic āv-  < *nʢh1-), it seems that, unlike elsewhere, laryngealistic *noh 1 must be reconstructed. 2nd person genitivedative---accusative accusative dual (unaccented) genitive-dative -dative 441 *woh₁ *woh₁ – OCS va , Old Indic vām 441

Despite only two attestations, it is clear that the form *woh 1 is to be reconstructed (cf. the well-attested length in *noh 1). Structural reasons also validate our claim that *noh 1, *woh1 should be reconstructed. Compare the parallel of unaccented GDA. dual *noh 1, *woh1 and the accented accusative dual *nʢh1wé, *uh1wé with the relation of the unaccented GDA. plural *nos, *wos and the accented accusative plural *nʢ smé, smé, *usm/wé. It should be noted that the lengthened variants *nōh 1, *wōh1 can also be reconstructed, but are unprovable since they would yield the same result as the short *noh 1, *woh1. If not analogous to the accusative plural. In Young Avestan, GDA. pl. are nō , in Gatha-Avestan GD. pl. are nǩ    ɷ and A. pl. is nå . That is not in accord with Old Indic GDA. pl. nas . 439 Old Indic nas could nas  could theoretically be derived from *nes as well, but Latin nōs and nōs  and OCS na- point na-  point to the o- vocalism. vocalism. 440 Probably from *noh1-tero-, analyzable as the old unaccented dual form plus the contrastive suffix *-ter-o-. 441 Old Indic vām is vām is probably due to the dissimilation from the older *vau. In this way, one can explain nau  and vām in vām  in the same way. If one were to assume that vām is vām  is made by the usual adding of the particle –am in –am  in Old Indic, it would be difficult to explain the reason why these two parallel forms get such different treatment. The form vām is vām  is a Rgvedic hapax, the normal nominative form āvám  being due to analogy with the accusative form (āvám  ( āvám :: āvā m like m like tvám : tvám  : tvā m , cf. Katz 1998: 202f). 438

 

 

150

Monosyllabic lengthening § 96 We have already seen that the presumption of monosyllabic lengthening is very useful in the reconstruction of personal pronouns. Here, we shall try to handle this phenomenon in more detail. The basic characteristics of monosyllabic lengthening are: 1) Monosyllabic lengthening is not regular in the neo-grammarian sense. Thus, it cannot be described as a regular sound law. 2) Monosyllabic lengthening operates in clitics as well (cf. clitic PIE *nōs, *mē). 3) The forms made by monosyllabic lengthening were probably just phonetic variants (thus, *tū was just one possible phonetic realization of the phonological *tu). The first point is obvious from the fact that there are numerous short monosyllables in PIE, cf. for instance *égɴ “I” or *nókwts “night”. This reduces monosyllabic lengthening to a tendency, i.e. a facultative change – PIE monosyllables could have been phonetically lengthened, but it was only a possibility. The second point seems to invalidate the claim that monosyllabic lengthening was originally an emphatic lengthening. It is hard to envisage emphatic use of clitics. Some of PIE lengthened clitics, like *mē, could be interpreted as analogous to accented forms like *mē , but in cases like *nōs for instance, there is no source of analogy. One could suppose that the length of *nōs and *wōs is post-PIE, but that does not seem likely 442. As we have already mentioned, monosyllabic lengthening is typologically very well attested. It occurs not only in PIE, but also in the separate histories of some IE language families and languages – for instance in Germanic, Latin, Old Irish etc. The typological confirmation for long pronominal clitics is found in Croatian, for instance: cf. Croatian long clitic forms  jē  “of her” or  jōj  “to her”443. The third point is closely related to the first point. The results of this sporadic monosyllabic lengthening were not phonemic. They were probably only phonetic variants. Thus, long *ū and *ī in the monosyllables were just phonetic realizations of inherently short phonemic *u and *i. Later, after *uH > *ū and *iH > *ī, these allophones became separate phonemes. Some languages generalized short (Latvian tu ),), some long variants (OCS ty ),), and sometimes both variants were preserved (possibly Old English þ ū  ū , þ u  u). ). It is quite possible that in some cases, the short or the long variant was not preserved by mere chance (like in  

The argument of Sihler (1995: 38) that *tu was originally unaccented and *tū accented is not possible, since *nōs was always unaccented and still one gets both the short and the long variant. 443 In Croatian, all unstressed variants of the long accented personal pronoun forms are long as well (when posttonic, of course). Standard language grammars do not mark this, but it is certain that this is a feature of at least some Neo-Štokavian dialects. Cf. for instance zóvnijo bi nās "he nās  "he would call us" in Imotski/Bekija (Šimundić 1971: 120). 442

151

*yūs, where only the long variant is attested). Of course, it is possible that in some cases there was never any lengthening. Here, we shall see what one gains with the assumption of monosyllabic lengthening and which are this theory’s faults. The advantages of monosyllabic lengthening are: 1) A simple answer to the problem of the double pronominal forms like *tú, *tū , which cannot be solved by laryngeal theory.  

2) The assumption of monosyllabic lengthening explains the reconstruction of many IE particles and adverbs (accented and unaccented): PIE *nu “now” > Old Indic nú , Greek νυ, Latin nu-nc , Old Irish nu, no , Latvian nu , OCS nъ  “but” (?) *nū444 > Old Indic nū , Avestan nū , Greek νυɶν, ν, OCS ny-nĕ , Lithuanian nūnaĩ   

PIE *ud “on high” > Old Indic úd  445 *ūd > Gothic ut [ūt], ut [ūt], the length is seen in English out , German aus 445 PIE *ne “not” > Old Indic ná , OCS ne , Latin ne-que , Gothic ni-h  *nē > Latin nē , Old Irish ní , Gothic nē , OCS nĕ-  PIE *gɴhi (particle) > Old Indic hí , Greek –χι *gɴh ī > OCS –zi  – zi  PIE *u, *ū (particle) > Old Indic u , ū  446, Greek - ϑǫ (?) PIE *gwhe/o (particle) > Old Indic gha, ha , OCS že, -go 446 ? *gwhō > Croatian ga 

PIE *ni “downward” > Old Indic ní  *nī > *nī > OCS ni-zъ  The possible problems concerning monosyllabic lengthening: 1) The reconstruction of long *ī and *ū in PIE, which were otherwise not present in PIE. This is not problematic, since these were probably mere allophones in PIE (see above).

The secondarity of this length is also seen from the fact that this *nu “now” is probably just a zero grade of the stem *new-o- “new”. 445 OCS vy- is vy- is due to Winter’s Law. 446 In pronominal G. sg. like togo "of togo "of this". 444

152

2) The occurrence of monosyllabic lengthening in clitics – one could be skeptical about a process that involves lengthening of clitics. This seems counterintuitive at first glance, but long clitics are attested typologically (see above), so this does not pose any real problem. 3) The irregularity of monosyllabic lengthening. This is also not a real problem, since it could be the result of the generalization of individual variants, and since the regularity is not really expected in a process such as this one to begin with. We still have to take a look at the length appearing in root nouns. Could this also be a case of monosyllabic lengthening? Could this be a possible explanation of the otherwise strange lengthening in root nouns like *pō ds ds “foot”447? Many of these nouns, like the already mentioned *nókwts "night" do not have a long vowel in the nominative. It is likely that the lengthening in the words like *pō ds ds is not completely the same phenomenon as the lengthening in *tú, *tū 448. The nonexistence of dual (long and short) forms in root nouns points to that conclusion (root nouns are either long or short in N. sg.). The details might be impossible to reconstruct, but monosyllabic lengthening could have occurred in many phases in PIE. It seems that the long vowels in PIE root nouns are treated the same way in Balto-Slavic as all other long vowels in PIE. However, the length made by monosyllabic lengthening in pronouns appears to have a different outcome in Balto-Slavic concerning the accentual development (see § 106). This would point to the conclusion that the stable length in root nouns is ultimately not of the same origin as the unstable length in personal pronouns (and monosyllabic particles and adverbs). For our purposes, we should probably leave the root nouns out of the consideration for monosyllabic lengthening. Thus, the monosyllabic lengthening, which we are dealing with here, was probably constricted to pronouns and particles/adverbs. The reason why monosyllabic nouns were left outside of  this sporadic process lies probably in the fact that the length in the nominal forms was strictly governed by the ablaut processes. Thus, if any phonetic length appeared there, it could have been quickly eliminated by analogy, back-formation etc. Also, the occasional length that could have appeared in a root noun like *pō ds could have quickly been stabilized (thus phonemized) by the analogy to other lengthened grades, like the long vowels in sonant stems, which were not the result of monosyllabic lengthening (like *kɴ wōn wōn “dog” etc.) 449. This would explain the different accentological treatment of the length in pronouns and the length in root nouns in Balto-Slavic (see § 106).  

 

 

 

In the end, putting aside the controversial lengthening in nominal forms, the secondary lengthening in monosyllabic personal pronouns and particles/adverbs seems obvious. Thus, we must conclude that our reconstruction of PIE personal pronouns is correct and that one has to take the monosyllabic lengthening as a real PIE phenomenon. Not every length in the nominative of a root-noun has to be due to monosyllabic lengthening. For instance, the length in the form *kēr “heart”, might be due to the dropping of the final *-d, if this occurred already in PIE (cf. Greek κ   ɶ η ɶρ, Hittite kīr ).). 448 If one insists on explaining the length in the root nouns via some kind of monosyllabic lengthening, lengthening, one could assume the existence of the first and second PIE monosyllabic lengthening for instance. 449 In the sonant stems, the length is due to the dropping of the nominative ending *-s: **kɴ wons > *kɴwōn. wōn. 447

153

ProtoProto-Indo -IndoIndo-European -European *més? § 97 The Balto-Slavic 1st person nominative plural form *mes and the according Armenian form mek ʅ  have always been troublesome. The reason for that lies in the fact that these forms are completely different from the forms found in other IE languages – Old Indic vayám, Gothic weis , Hittite wēš , which are all reconstructible as the older *wey-((e)s). There are two basic ways how to deal with this problem. The first is to assume that these *m-forms are archaic. This is, of course, just what the glottogonists want, since this *mes is in perfect accord with the singular 1 st person oblique stem *me-, with the oblique plural stem *nʢss- < **mʢs-450, and with the verbal 1 st person singular ending *-m and 1 st person plural ending *-me. The problem with the reconstruction of this *mes in PIE is that it is attested only in two languages 451, and that is not enough for the reconstruction of PIE if  one of the languages in question is not Sanscrit. The other explanation is that these forms are somehow innovative. The basic approach is to try to reduce these forms to some sort of the old *wey-((e)s) 452. The initial *m- is attributed either to the influence of the *m- in the singular, or to the influence of the *-m- in the 1st person plural verbal endings. The analogy of the nominative plural with oblique singular stem does not seem very likely 453, but the idea that a verbal ending could influence pronouns is not impossible. Cf. for instance German dialectal (Bavarian-Austrian) 2 nd person plural forms like dir , 454, instead of Standard German ihr , with the d-  due to the misanalysis of the verbal des 454 ending –d  –d  and the consonantless initial of the pronoun. The Swedish 2 nd person plural pronoun ni and ni  and (Old) Norwegian 1 st and 2nd person dual and plural pronouns in m- and m-  and þ -  -  can also be explained in a similar fashion 455. The famous Bavarian form mir (instead mir  (instead of wir  of  wir ),), very frequently mentioned in this context, is due to the assimilation of the verbal ending –n  and the initial pronominal w- in w- in the inversion during fast speech 456. It must be noted that all these forms are due to sandhi misanalysis in inversion and that they do not really correspond to the Balto-Slavic-Armenian situation. This kind of development is not possible in Balto-Slavic, since the verbal ending was certainly not just *-m, and the inversion of the verb and personal pronouns was hardly so frequent there (if it existed at all). Another example of the mutual influence of personal pronouns and verbal endings is the Polish 1st person plural verb ending – my , made by analogy to the pronoun my . A further parallel is the influence of the 1 st person dual verb ending –va  – va on on the dual pronoun vĕ , due Cf. the probable *-ms > *-ns in the accusative plural of nominal declensions (*-m being the singular accusative ending and *-s the general plural ending, of course). ̋ 451 The idea that the old *mes is seen in Greek forms like αʆ   ɴµ-µǫ is not very convincing. 452 The idea that this *mes is a pluralization of the singular stem *m(e)- (Szemerényi 1989: 229) looks highly unlikely. 453 In a case of this type of suppletion, one would expect the plural oblique stem initial consonant *nto be taken into the nominative plural analogically, rather than the singular oblique stem initial consonant (sic!). Thus, it is hard to accept such an analogy. 454 Howe 1996: 280-281. 455 Howe 1996: 300, 316-318. 456 Howe 1996: 280-281. 450

154

to which this pronoun was changed to va in va  in Old Czech and Old Polish (see § 40, § 42). The second case seems typologically closest to the supposed influence of *-m- 1 st person plural verbal forms on *wey-((e)s). However, it must be noted that in the case of Balto-Slavic, the initial consonant was also changed, unlike the second example in which the final vowel was changed. In the first example, the pronoun has actually influenced the verbal ending, and not vice versa. It may well be accepted that the initial *m- of Balto-Slavic and Armenian could be due to some sort of analogy like the ones mentioned above, despite the fact that the real typological parallel is missing. However, it is not the initial *m- that is problematic. While it is possible to derive Armenian -ek ʅ  from *-eyes457, there is no obvious way of deriving Balto-Slavic *-es from the older *-eys, *-eyes or even *-ey. The easiest solution would be to assume that the original *wey (nowhere attested as such, by the way) first changed to *mey, and then to *mes458. However, this also seems very questionable 459. Because of the uncertain derivation of Balto-Slavic *mes from the PIE *wey-((e)s), I shall tentatively conclude that the form *mes might indeed be old, together with the elsewhere attested *wey- based forms 460.

Matzinger 1997: 88f. 458 The *-s being from the verbal ending or by analogy to *yūs. 459 A possible suggestion that *wey((e)s) was transformed to *mes with the final *-es also from the verbal ending *-mes seems very unconvincing. 460 The easiest way to explain the two 1 st person plural personal pronouns would be to suppose that one was inclusive and the other exclusive. Since *mes has a common stem with the 1 st person oblique *m-, this could be the exclusive form, while *wey- could be the inclusive form since it apparently shares a common stem with the *w- from the 2 nd person plural pronoun (cf. for instance Prokosch 1939: 282 or Watkins 1969: 47). 457

155

Accented 2nd person dative singular dative form túbhya(m)  has always been controversial. Usually, it was § 98 Old Indic dative   regarded as secondary to the older **tábhya(m), attested in Avestan ta i ibiiā, Old Prussian tebbei , OCS tebĕ and tebĕ  and Umbrian tefe . However, the origin of this analogy was very difficult to explain. Why would t(u)vám  influence only the dative form? An old rule of historical linguistics says – if you cannot interpret it as an innovation, it must be archaic. Thus, there are some who reconstruct *tubh- in the dative singular 461. The parallel to Old Indic túbh- is túbh-  is found in Balto-Slavic, where the supposed *tub- is found in the influence it had made on the Latvian dialectal dative stem mun- and mun- and maybe in the Old Prussian subs “self”. subs “self”. Can we indeed reconstruct Proto-Indo-European *tub h- in the dative singular based on such meager evidence? The rest of the forms, which point to *teb h- are easily explained as analogous to *téwe (and *méne, *mégɴ hi). What would we get by supposing that this is an archaism? We would explain the Old Indic form, which is otherwise solved with an ad hoc  analogy with the nominative. The otherwise strange occurrence of the u- vocalism vocalism in Latvian dialects, also in the dative singular, would be explained as well. It seems too much of a coincidence that the unusual u -vocalism -vocalism forms appeared independently in Balto-Slavic and in Indic. Therefore, we shall tentatively reconstruct Proto-Indo-European dative form *túb hi. The more regular variant *tébȹi might have existed already in PIE.

For instance Hujer 1912, Schmidt 1978 (cf. :127-129 for the discussion), Kortlandt forthcoming c etc. 461

156

Unaccented 1st and 2nd person genitive genitive--dative -dative singular recon structed Balto-Slavic 1 st and 2nd person genitive-dative (and § 99 We have reconstructed accusative?) singular unaccented pronouns *mey and *tey. This is the easiest reconstruction that yields OCS mi, ti . It was long ago noted that OCS mi and mi and ti are ti  are not in accord with Greek vocalism. However, it seems more reasonable to µοι and τοι, which clearly point to the o- vocalism. assume PIE variants *mey/moy, *tey/toy 462, than to claim that only *moy and *toy are original (on the authority of Greek alone), and that OCS mi, ti have ti  have to be explained via some special sound law 463. Old Indic me and me and te do te do not tell us whether their pre-form was *mey/tey or *moy/toy. However, the support for the reconstructions *mey, *tey could perhaps be found in Old Latin, where the form mīs is mīs is most easily explained from the old *mey with the addition of the usual genitive ending *-s 464. Perhaps one could derive Old Latin mīs from mīs from *moy-s as well 465, but that is questionable. The same goes for Latin mī  (< Old Latin mei  < PIE *mey) in the vocatives like pater mei!, mī fīlī! . One objection might be that it is not certain that Old Latin mīs  was a clitic, since clitics were usually written together with orthotonic words, for instance –que, –que, -met, -pte  etc. But the derivation of  mīs < mīs  < *mey-s does not need Old Latin mīs to mīs  to be a clitic, since the development of clitics to accented forms is very well attested in all Indo-European languages. One might suppose that Old Indic locative forms máyi and máyi and tváyi could tváyi could point to the old stems *mey- and *twey-, since *moy- and *twoy- would here yield a long –ā-  – ā-  due to Brugmann’s Law. However, these forms do not seem to be relevant, since they are probably 466. far too recent to be reliable (cf. Old Indic older locative tvé) 466 The support of Latin mī (and mī (and mīs ) to the Balto-Slavic data allows us to reconstruct PIE *mey/moy, *tey/toy.

For the possibility of PIE *mu instead of *mey/moy, see § 73. 463 For instance, that *-oy yields –i  – i in in clitic forms in Slavic. One could also compare it to the nominal – i  < PIE *-oy etc. 464 Cf. for instance Sihler 1995: 377. 465 Cf. the PIE o -stem -stem instrumental plural *-ōys > Latin -īs  - īs . However, in this case, we would probably have to deal with a short ending *-oys in a probably unaccented monosyllable, so the development might not be the same. 466 Some researchers believe that tvé is tvé  is not old, for this cf. Schmidt 1978: 79-84. Cf. also Old Indic demonstrative feminine instrumental táyā , which also does not have a long – ā- in ā- in spite of the fact that the PIE stem was *toy-. This seems to prove that this kind of forms are not reliable enough. 462

157

Reconstruction of Proto Proto--Indo -IndoIndo-European -European paradigms af ter discussing discus sing all major problems concerning Balto-Slavic, we shall § 100 Here, after reconstruct the whole paradigms of the Proto-Indo-European personal pronouns. The reconstructions will be explained after the given paradigms, except for the cases already discussed (see § 90-95, § 97-99). The basis of our approach is that the Proto-IndoEuropean declension of personal pronouns did not have as much different cases as the nominal paradigm 467. In the cases where the attested forms in the daughter-languages point to completely different forms, we shall assume that PIE just did not have those forms (or, if it had them, that they were irreversibly lost). This approach seems much more logical than reconstructing full paradigms, where many of the forms are based on the data from one language only (usually Old Indic), or just on theoretical considerations (see § 83, § 84, § 86 for that kind of reconstructions). Thus, in the singular, we shall reconstruct N., G., D. and A. and in the plural and dual the accented N. and A. only, with the unaccented GDA. forms. 1st person singular N. *égɴ, *egɴHóm, Hóm, *egɴóh2 G. *méne, *mey/moy D. *mégɴhi, *mey/moy A. *mé/mē, *me/mē

2nd person singular *tú/tū *téwe, *tey/toy *túbhi/tébhi, *tey/toy *twé/twē, *te/tē

1st person plural n. *wéy, *més g. *nos/nōs d. *nos/nōs a. *nʢsmé, smé, *nos/nōs

2nd person plural *yūs *wos/wōs *wos/wōs *uswé/usmé, *wos/wōs

1st person dual N. *wé/wē G. *noh1 D. *noh1 A. *nʢh1wé, *noh1

2nd person dual *yú/yū *woh1 *woh1 *uh1wé, *woh1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although it is perhaps not completely sure that it is justified to reconstruct the classic full paradigms in the plural of PIE nouns for instance, since many of the supposed PIE endings behave in many ways as postpositions.

467

158

thee reconstruction: Notes on th 468, Old § 101 In the 1st person nominative singular, we reconstruct the forms *égɴ (Hittite ūg 468 469), *egɴHóm Lithuanian eš , Slavic  ja , ?Avestan azǩ 469 Hóm470 (Old Indic ahám , Avestan azǩɷ m  m , OCS azъ , Greek ǫʆγών γών471) and *egɴóh óh2 (Latin egō , Greek ǫʆγώ, γώ, Venetic ego )472. The third variant could be an innovation, due to the pattern *-oh 2 : *-om in verbs, but since it occurs in at least three IE languages, it was probably there already in the PIE times. There seems to be no grounds for assuming an initial *h 1- in PIE (although it is not impossible) or a final *-H in the 473. The form *égɴ is obviously the most archaic one, with *egɴ Hóm form *égɴ473 Hóm and *egɴóh2 being younger, dialectal variants. The sandhi form of *égɴ - *ékɴ, with final devoiced plosive, is 474. attested in Baltic (Old Prussian as, es ) and apparently in the Hittite variant ugga 474 The evidence for the reconstruction of PIE *egɴHóm with final *-óm is not as firm as is usually presumed. The attestation of *-om in Indo-Iranian is not very relevant since this *om is practically omnipresent in personal pronouns. However, the agreement of the accent of Vedic ahám and ahám and Slavic *jāzъʀ (see § 13) points to the PIE *-óm and is highly indicative. It is possible that the proliferation of *-óm in Indo-Iranian started from this form. Greek ǫʆ γών almost certainly reflects this *-óm indirectly and at least some of the Germanic forms can probably be derived from *egɴ Hóm. Hóm. The strongest case for the reconstruction of PIE *-óm comes from Slavic –ъ  – ъ , since this cannot be explained as secondary as Vaillant wants to (see § 11). Thus, in spite of the difficulties, it seems that the reconstruction of PIE *egɴ Hóm is founded.

Hittite ūg has ūg has the vocalism by analogy to the old *tū. Cf. for instance Melchert 1994: 7, 84. Once in Gatha-Avestan, according to Beekes 1995: 207. However, Beekes 1988a (: 137) says that the interpretation of the form is doubtful. 470 Instead of an unknown laryngeal, *-h 2- is often reconstructed here, but there is no secure evidence that would prove the assumption. The presence of the laryngeal is confirmed by the –h - in Old Indic. The closed syllable also permits us to explain the operation of Winter’s Law in this example (cf. Matasović 1995). 471 -ω- is analogous to ǫʆ γώ. γώ. Latin egomet is egomet  is to be analyzed synchronically as ego-met, cf. also nōs-  met, uōs-met. However, it is perhaps possible that egom-et was egom-et was analyzed secondarily as ego-met, and that the forms like nōs-met were nōs-met were made by analogy to egomet after egomet after this reanalyzation. Oskic tiium and tiium and Umbrian tiom probably tiom probably point to analogy to the lost *egom as well. 472 Germanic is problematic. One could easily derive Gothic ik , Old English ic , Old High German ih from ih from PIE *egɴHóm. Hóm. However, Rhunic Germanic (on the golden horn of Gallehus) shows the form ek , but horna  “horn” < PIE *kɴ rʢrnom. nʢ om. Thus, Rhunic ek cannot ek cannot be derived from *egɴHóm Hóm with *-om, but from *egɴV with a mysterious final short vowel (Sihler 1995: 369). Even stranger is the Old Nordic unaccented –eka  besides the accented ek . The form –eka could –eka  could be derived from PIE *egɴHóm, Hóm, but it seems unusual that the final vowel would be preserved in an unstressed form, and lost in a stressed one (cf. Schmidt 1978: 24-25). Armenian es (instead es (instead of expected *ec, probably due to a sandhi phenomenon), is inconclusive regarding the ending. It could be derived from both *egɴ and *egɴHóm. 473 Schmidt’s (1978: 27f) claim that the pre-form *égɴh2 cannot be reconstructed, because *-h 2 would yield *-o in Slavic, is false. In the case of the eh 2-stem vocative, Slavic –o  – o is is to be reconstructed from PIE *-e(h2) > *-a(h2) > *-a > -o  - o , with the laryngeal dropping out before a pause, and not from a simple *-h2. Schmidt’s derivation of Russian devjano-sto  “90” directly from PIE *-kɴ mʠ mth tʠ h2 is hardly worth commenting. 474 Ranko Matasović (p. c.). 468 469

159

The genitive *méne475 is reconstructed based on Avestan mana and mana  and OCS mene . Old Indic máma shows máma shows an assimilation of *m-n > *m-m and is not archaic. Welsh fy n n “my” can be derived from *men’ 476, a syncopated form of *méne. The stem *mégɴh- in the dative singular is reconstructed on the basis of Old Indic 477. The secondarity of Avestan ma i i biiā  (by analogy to ta i i biiā)  is mah-  and Umbrian meh- 477 proven by the Wakhī form maž “me” maž “me” < Iranian *mazya 478. The *men- in Balto-Slavic (besides *mun-) is due to analogy with the genitive *méne. The final *-i is attested in Old Lithuanian (see § 59) and in Indo-Iranian with the added particle –a: Vedic –a:  Vedic máhya . Cf. the same particle in the o- stem stem dative –āy-a  –āy-a < < PIE *-ōy. The final –m  – m in in Vedic máhyam is máhyam is due to analogy with –am  – am in in the other forms 479. This unusual final *-i, on the origin of which we shall not speculate here, was replaced by *-ey from the nominal declensions in Italic and Old Prussian, for instance. The final *-i must be the oldest, because it is otherwise impossible to explain, while the ending *-ey is explained by a simple analogy. For the possibility of PIE 1 st person singular dative clitic *mu instead of *mey/moy, see § 73. There was probably no ablative singular in PIE. Old Indic mát and mát  and Old Latin mēd are mēd  are most probably independent innovations 480. There is no reason to reconstruct either the locative or the instrumental. 2nd person nominative singular forms with *-om, like Old Indic t(u)vám , Tocharian 481 probably all represent independent innovations and t(u)we , Oskic tiium and tiium  and Umbrian tiom 481 point indirectly to the existence of the old *-om in 1 st person as well. 2nd person genitive singular *téwe is reconstructed based on Old Indic táva , OCS tebe  (with the –eb  –eb - from the dative) and East Baltic tav- . In the 2nd person accusative singular, the distribution of *tw- in the accented forms *twé/twē and *t- in the unaccented forms *te/tē is in fact nowhere attested. Some languages generalized in oblique cases *t- everywhere (like OCS, Gothic, Latin), some *tw- (like  

Oblique cases of the 1 st person singular had an initial *m-. The initial a- in a- in Hittite, ǫʆ - in Greek and i - in Armenian does not stem from an original *h 1-, but rather from the analogical *e-, taken from the nominative form. 476 Of course, *mem’ is also theoretically possible. 477 Kortlandt’s (forthcoming c ) argument that Latin mih- in mih- in mihī is mihī is archaic is not convincing. Latin mihī  and tibī have tibī  have a secondary weakened min- and min-  and tib- (cf. tib-  (cf. Sihler 1995: 40 for a possible explanation). Cf. Umbrian mehe, tefe . 478 Morgenstierne 1945: 233. 479 Cf. for instance Schmidt 1978: 65. 480 This is especially true for Latin, which introduces a secondary *-d into the ablative of all the nominal declensions. 481 Cf. Schmidt 1978: 113-115, for a discussion on the development of these forms, which clearly seem to be innovative. 475

160

Armenian), and some have both but without any visible difference (Greek dialects). Only Indo-Iranian preserves the difference. There, *t- appears in the unaccented *te/oy (Old Indic te ),), and *tw- appears in the accented accusative *twe- (Old Indic tvā m ).). The Old Indic unaccented accusative tvā  is analogical. Since the unaccented *te/oy only had *t-, we presume that the A. *te/tē also had *t- by parallel, and this makes the reconstruction of the accented *twé/twē and the unaccented *te/tē probable 482.  

 

The same that goes for the 1 st person instrumental and ablative singular goes for the 2nd person as well. Also, there was probably no locative in PIE. Vedic tvé  < *twóy and possible pre-form *twóy of Slavic tobĕ (see tobĕ (see § 72) are probably just independent innovations, if these forms are related at all. § 102 In the 1st person nominative plural, the form *wéy (not attested as such anywhere) is reconstructed on the basis of Old Indic vay-ám (Avestan vay-ám  (Avestan vaēm ),), Gothic weis (from weis  (from *weys or *weyes)483 and Hittite wēš (from wēš  (from *weys or *weyes). The forms *wey-s and *wey-es, with the additional plural *-(e)s, might have existed already in PIE. Except for the accented accusative plural form, no other accented oblique case can be reconstructed for PIE. All other forms attested in the IE languages look like clear innovations. This is especially obvious in the genitive plural. In the dative plural, the accented *nʠsméy sméy is usually reconstructed on the authority of Vedic asmé . However, this seems to be an apparent innovation of the basis of the accusative *nʠ smé (*-ey being a µµι cannot really be derived from the same normal dative singular ending). Greek (Aeolic) αʆ  ɴµµ pre-form as Vedic asmé . In the 2nd person accented accusative plural, I reconstruct both *uswé and *usmé (see § 87). The secondary *usmé seems to have been a dialectal variant already in PIE, replacing the older *uswé. In the accented accusative dual forms, the ending *-wé seems to have been generalized already in PIE, although one should probably reconstruct *-mé in the 1 st person dual in pre-PIE. The original distribution of *-mé and *-wé according to the persons (1 st person: *-mé, 2nd person: *-wé) is confirmed by the singular forms *mé and *twé. This system, arranged according to the persons, was being transformed to the system according to number probably already in PIE 484. Thus, *-wé was generalized in the dual accusative forms, while *-mé was generalized in some languages in the plural (Indo-Iranian, Greek, Tocharian).

Cf. for instance Rasmussen 1999: 259. In North and West Germanic, the reflexes like Old High German wir and wir  and Old Islandic vér point vér  point to short *wiz. This is probably due to the influence of the dual *wit. Cf. also Schmidt 1978: 168-169. 484 Since PIE was just a normal language, like any other, I see no problem in reconstruction of an “imperfect” system. Pre-PIE might have had a “perfect”, symmetric distribution of *-mé and *-wé, but that certainly does not seem to be valid for the last phase of PIE we are reconstructing. 482 483

161

The evidence for the accusative dual forms is slim, but the reconstruction seems accurate485. The form *nʢ h1wé is reconstructed based on Avestan ǩɷǩāuuā /āwa/  ǩāuuā /āwa/ and Old Indic 486, while the form *uh 1wé is based on Old Indic yuvá- with āvá- 486 yuvá- with the secondary y- and y- and short –  u- from u- from the nominative. The reconstruction of *uh 1wé is, thus, based more on the supposed structure, than on actual evidence. Greek (Boeotian and Ionic) νωɶ ǫ487 seems to point to *nóh1we, a form transformed from the original *nʢ h1wé, by analogy to the unaccented form *noh1 (which became the accented νώ in Greek). The accentuation of Greek νωɶǫ points to its secondary nature. If the form was to be derived directly from PIE *nʢ h3wé, as the supporters of the *-h₃ in the dual want to, the expected form would be **νωǫɴ .

For the reconstruction, cf. Cowgill 1965: 169. Even though the accusative dual forms are reconstructed on the material of Indo-Iranian and Greek alone, structural reasons (i.e. the parallelism of these forms with the plural ones) indicate that they are indeed archaic. 486 Vedic accusative āvā m is m is due to the adding of the usual particle *-om of course. 487 According to Cowgill (1965: 170), the Attic form νώ is a contraction of this form, rather than a reflex of the old unaccented *noh 1, as is usually presumed. 485

 

162

Reflex of PIE lengthened grade in Balto Balto--Slavic -Slavic 103 We have seen that all long vowels in the Balto-Slavic paradigm of personal pronouns § 103 have the acute accent (cf. § 69 and § 81). The PIE origin of these long vowels (except for the unaccented dual forms and perhaps the 2 nd person nominative plural form) are phonetically long vowels made by monosyllabic lengthening (cf. § 89-95). In order to account for the origin of the acute in personal pronoun forms in Balto-Slavic, we shall first have to tackle a great problem in the area of Balto-Slavic accentology – the reflex of PIE lengthened grade. The traditional approach (of which Jens Elmegård Rasmussen is a modern advocate, for instance)488 claims that PIE lengthened grade yielded the acute intonation in Balto-Slavic, just like the long vowels made by dropping of laryngeals (which yielded the acute intonation as well – that is accepted by everybody). In another approach, advocated by Frederik Kortlandt, PIE lengthened grade yielded circumflex intonation in Balto-Slavic, in opposition to long vowels made by dropping of laryngeals, which yielded the acute. Before we start, a couple of preliminary remarks are necessary. The first question that appears is the relevance of the problem. Simply, there seems to be a rather limited number of the inherited PIE lengthened grade forms in Balto-Slavic. If we are talking about approximately 10 reliable words or even less, the question of the intonation of these forms is not very important. The second point is that one does not need to search for a simple solution. Thus, the answer is perhaps not simple – that the regular reflex is either acute or circumflex. The reflex might be different according to specific conditions, the reflex of the new Balto-Slavic lengthened grade might be different than that of the old, PIE lengthened grade, the reflex of the normal PIE lengthened grade may be different from the reflex of the monosyllabic lengthening length etc. The third point is that one should look for examples in which the PIE origin of the lengthened grade is certain, i.e. for the examples in which there is evidence from other PIE languages for the reconstruction of the lengthened grade. If the lengthened grade is found only in Balto-Slavic, that can hardly be taken as the evidence of  PIE lengthened grade, since vrddhi-formations were very productive in Balto-Slavic (see below). An interesting suggestion is that the original PIE lengthened grade yields the BaltoSlavic circumflex, while the new, Balto-Slavic lengthened grade yields the acute 489. This supposition seems to be confirmed by Slavic iteratives with a new Slavic lengthened *-i-/-yfrom the original *-ь-/-ъ-/-u-. Cf. Croatian màći  : mıʂ cati  cati , dotàći  : dòticati , (pro)drijéti  : pròdirati , (u)prijéti : (u)prijéti  : ùpirati , (u)mrijéti  : ùmirati, braʂti : i  : ùbirati , -súti : -súti  : sıʂ pati, pati, uzéti : uzéti  : ùzimati , prodrijéti : prodrijéti  : pròdirati , sàhnuti : sàhnuti  : sıʂ sati  sati , svànuti : svànuti  : svıʂ tati etc. tati  etc. Additional evidence of the acute in this kind of iteratives is found in Baltic 490: cf. Lithuanian mýnioti , Latvian mĩnât , meɶtât etc. ât  etc. The quoted examples probably go to the same Balto-Slavic phase as the famous examples of  491, Žemaitian šlóv÷ . the acute Balto-Slavic vrddhi: Croatian vraʂ na  na , slaʂ ʂ va  va  ~ Lithuanian várna 491 The example of Croatian sjeʂći and i  and Lithuanian s÷ kti probably kti  probably stems from this phase as well.  

Cf. also for instance Panzer 1999: 327. 489 Matasović 2006. 490 Cf. for instance Endzelīns 1971: 227. 491 The other solution is to reconstruct a suffix *-h ₃n- here (Kortlandt 1985: 121), cf. Greek κó ρ-α ξ "raven" but κoρ-ών-η "crow". 488

163

However, I am inclined to believe that this kind of behavior is correct only for the (Balto)Slavic lengthened grades in particular phases. In other phases of (Balto-)Slavic, the new lengthened grade could have behaved differently. Because of this possibility, the only cases that may be taken as relevant in our cause are the cases where we can convincingly reconstruct a PIE lengthened grade. It is very dangerous to lump all lengthened grades together, PIE, Baltic and Slavic, since it is well known that this was a very productive morphonological process in Balto-Slavic. As already mentioned, the lengthened grade could have been prosodically treated in different ways according to the time of its origin. Cf. also Croatian iteratives pomòći  : pomágati , slòžiti  : slágati , prelòmiti  : prelámati , umòriti  : umárati , opròstiti  : opráštati , skòčiti : skòčiti  : skákati , prèsjeći  : presijécati , izvúći  : izvláčiti  etc., which seem to stem from another, probably Slavic, phase 492. However, cf. otvòriti : otvòriti  : òtvarati , hroʂ m : m  : hraʂ mati (but mati  (but also hrámati ),), glaʂ bati (besides bati  (besides glábati) with glábati)  with an exceptional acute in the a -iterative, -iterative, and okrénuti  : òkretati . In Baltic, words like Lithuanian žol÷  «grass» may be an example of the younger circumflex-vrddhi formations. The circumflex examples could be either Slavic, Baltic or Balto-Slavic. Possible reflexes of PIE causatives like Croatian kániti  "intend", sáditi  "plant", gásiti  "extinguish fire" are not reliable. The PIE origin of the long vowel is not certain – the formations might be younger, and sáditi and sáditi  and gásiti are gásiti  are a. p. c originally c  originally (cf. dial. Croatian gasĩm , sadĩm ).). There, the acute would be eliminated either by Meillet’s Law or in pretonic position (see below). The verb kániti  could also belong to a. p. c  originally, since NeoŠtokavian kaʄ nīm is nīm  is inconclusive (cf. Kapović 2003: 67-68) and the word is attested in South Slavic only. Cf. also Croatian dáviti  (a. p. b , cf. Slovene dávim ) from PIE *dȹow- with the causative length. However, there are no IE cognates and this could be a younger derivation. Another thing that must be cleared out is the question of relevance, since a lot of  irrelevant or inconclusive evidence seems to be adduced when trying to prove a case in these discussions. In Slavic, the circumflex (in a. p. c ) can replace the original acute in many cases. The most common way is Meillet's Law 493. Except for Meillet's Law, the secondary circumflex in Slavic originates in deverbative suffixless o- stem stem nouns (cf. Croatian straʂšiti > iti  > strâh) , in the late spread of mobility in the i- stems stems (cf. Sandžak dialectal o- stem stem zveʂr   r,  but Standard Croatian i- stem stem zvijêr )494, and in some cases due to the secondary spread of mobility in early Slavic (Common Slavic *dêʖverь, but Lithuanian dialectal díeveris )495. Cases like these cannot be cited for the originality of the circumflex. If we assume that PIE lengthened grade yielded the Balto-Slavic acute tone, these examples would be a. p. a or a  or a. p. c (via c  (via Meillet's Law or the other changes) in Slavic. If we   

This type was productive in Croatian, cf. the younger stávljati instead stávljati  instead of the older staʂ vljati (the vljati (the acute is in the root here - staʂviti), poprávljati  instead of  pòpravljati  (~ praʂviti)  v  iti) , zaborávljati  instead of  zabòravljati (~ zabòravljati (~ zabòraviti ),), otvárati instead otvárati instead of òtvarati  of òtvarati (~ (~ otvòriti , see above), okrétati instead okrétati instead of òkretati  of òkretati  (~ okrénuti, see above) etc. Cf. also secondary Croatian bírati, dírati, tícati but tícati  but original ùbirati, nàdirati, dòticati , mıʂcati  c  ati , sıʂpati  p  ati . The original acute was often preserved in the verbs with a prefix. Cf. however nazívati (~ nazívati (~ zvaʂti)  t  i) . 493 By which all previous mobile acute stems (preserved in Lithuanian) become mobile circumflex stems. Slavic mobile accentual paradigm always has the circumflex in the case of initial accent. 494 The accent was originally immobile in Balto-Slavic (PIE *gɴ hweh1r). Lithuanian žv÷rìs (3) žv÷rìs (3) is secondary to the unattested (1), and the Slavic mobile accent is due to the rising mobility in the i- stems. stems. 495 For the last three developments, cf. Kapović forthcoming a . 492

164

assume that PIE lengthened grade had yielded the Balto-Slavic circumflex tone, these examples would belong to a. p. b or b or a. p. c in c in Slavic. if PIE *ō *ō > BSl *ō 

>

Slavic Slav ic a. p. a  a/  c  c 

if PIE *ō *ō > BSl *ō  

>

Slavic a. p b  b/  c  c 

This means that Slavic a. p. c is, c is, for all practical purposes, completely inconclusive by itself, since it does not tell us whether the original accent in it was acute or circumflex 496. Thus, if one wants to prove that PIE lengthened grade yielded the acute tone in Balto-Slavic, one must search for examples that belong to a. p. a  to validate one's claims. A. p. c  examples are inconclusive unless the word is not attested in Lithuanian or Latvian, and a. p. b forms b  forms are counterexamples. On the other hand, if one wants to prove that PIE lengthened grade yielded the circumflex in Balto-Slavic, one must look for a. p. b examples b  examples in Slavic. A. p. c examples c examples are inconclusive, while a. p. a forms a forms are direct counterexamples. Relevant examples in Slavic: for BSl **ōō 

>

Slavic a. p. a  a 

for BSl. **ōō    

>

Slavic a. p. b  b 

Everything is easier if a Lithuanian or Latvian cognate is attested, since there the original acute is preserved 497. PIE lengthened grade in Balto§ 104 Here, we shall examine the evidence for the reflex of PIE Slavic. We shall start with the examples adduced by Kortlandt 1997 498 and Rasmussen 1999b. The latter tries to prove that the acute is the regular reflex, while the former maintains that the circumflex is the regular reflex. Since Kortlandt 1997 is a criticism of  Rasmussen 1999b (originally 1992), we shall start from that article. For the circumflex reflex of PIE lengthened grade, Kortlandt first adduces the following examples: Lithuanian akmuõ  «stone», dukt÷  «daughter», Latvian âbuõls  «apple» and Croatian žeʂrāv  and Czech žeráv  «crane». The first three examples are indeed relevant, and these reflexes of PIE *-ōn, *-ēr and *-ōl indeed show the circumflex in Baltic. To these, I would add PIE *-ōm > Lithuanian –ųɶ – ųɶ  in the genitive plural of the o- stems stems499 (this was   

Thus for instance, *h 2ōwyóm “egg” > Croatian (Dubrovnik) jâje  (Dubrovnik)  jâje is is just not reliable, since the word in question is mobile and there is no Baltic cognate. 497 The cases of secondary metatony in Baltic are usually obvious. 498 Kortlandt has also presented his theory elsewhere (like Kortlandt 1985), but the article in question is the one that deals directly with our problem. 499 Cf. the acute Lithuanian –mìs, -mì in -mì in the instrumental from *-mih 1s and *-mih 1, due to confusion of  the instrumental endings/postpositions *-mi(s) (cf. the Slavic u- and u-  and i- stem stem instrumental –mь ) and *h1 (cf. *-oh1 in the Lithuanian o- stem stem instrumental –ù) . The acute of the Lithuanian o- stem stem A. pl. –ùs  – ùs  (PIE *-ons) is probably due to analogy with the ā- stems stems form –às  –às , where it has a laryngeal origin (PIE *eh2(n)s). 496

165

probably uncontracted in PIE: *-o-om). However, it must be noted that these examples only prove that the circumflex was the regular reflex in the final syllable in front of a sonant. The Slavic example is however somewhat difficult and Kortlandt ignores a lot of data. Croat. 500. Czech žeʂ rāv (a. rāv  (a. p. c ) has a variant žèrav (a. žèrav  (a. p. a ),), which is in accord with Slovene žerjàv 500 žeráv  is not in accord with Croatian žeʂ rāv  rāv  as Kortlandt seems to suggest501 (one would expect Czech **žerav in a. p. c ).). Czech žeráv is žeráv is most easily derived from the old *žerãv(j)ь (a. p. b ),), which is in accord with Russian жураɴ ɴ вль , журaвляɴ . It is difficult to say whether one should reconstruct *žeraɾ v(j)ь v(j)ь here (which would be a counterexample to Kortlandt's theory502, based on Croatian žèrav and žèrav  and Slovene žerjàv ),), *žeʂrāvь rāvь (based on Croatian žeʂ rāv  rāv ) or *žerãv(j)ь (based on Czech žeráv and žeráv  and Russian жураɴ ɴ вль  вль ).). Finally, one can conclude that this example is not reliable (and clear) enough for us to use it in discussing the reflex of PIE lengthened grade. Kortlandt further adduces the Croatian aorist forms dònijēh  «I brought», ùmrijēh  «I died», zàklēh «I zàklēh «I swore» and the infinitive rıʂ jet «say»  jet    «say» (Dubrovnik). Instead of the last example, which is an innovation that is due to the influence of the old s -aorist -aorist rıʂ jeh    «I said», it is better to take the aorist form itself as an example. These examples are indeed relevant, being the original a. p. b paradigms b  paradigms (cf. Croat. dial. zaklésmo, zakléste, zakléše ) in a. p. c  type words (cf. the present tense donèsem, mrémo, kùnem ).). These forms are reflexes of the PIE s -aorists, -aorists, which had the regular lengthened grade. The next group of examples are the Croatian 2 nd and 3rd person singular aorists dâ  «you/he gave» and lî «you/he lî  «you/he poured» compared to the 1 st person singular forms daʂh, h  , lıʂ h  h . Kortlandt derives the first two forms from *dōs, *lēys with a supposed disappearance of the laryngeal after the long vowel (which then yields a circumflex), and the second two from *doHs- and *leHis-. It is hard to understand why the 2 nd and 3rd person would have a long vowel and the 1 st person would not. Kortlandt's derivation is not convincing. In fact, the forms dâ and dâ and lî owe lî owe its circumflex to Meillet's Law and are irrelevant for our discussion 503. The next piece of the supposed evidence is the metatony in the Lithuanian future. Again, Kortlandt assumes the loss of a laryngeal after a long vowel. I do not think that this is the right explanation, but we cannot get into that problem here. Anyhow, this is irrelevant since we are not dealing with PIE lengthened grade here. This kind of examples only gets in our way of finding the correct answer. Next, Kortlandt mentions «original root nouns», Lithuanian g÷là «pain», g÷là  «pain», žol÷ «grass» and m÷sà «meat». m÷sà  «meat». The first example is perhaps not very old, so I do not see the relevance. The vocalism of the second example points to its secondarity (cf. Lithuanian žélti  «grow»). The problem with m÷sà  is that it could very well be a loanword from Slavic. According to   

Kortlandt’s (1985: 113) explanation that this is due to analogy with the homonym meaning “burning” is strange. 501 The last syllable of the word, if long, is shortened in a. p. c in c in West Slavic, cf. Kapović 2003: 76-77 and 2005: 104-105. 502 This form was *gérh₂ōws with long grade in PIE! 503 These verbs belong to a. p. c , cf. Croatian l -participles -participles dála, dâlo and dâlo  and líla, lîlo . The relation of daʂ of  daʂh : h   : dâ is dâ is to be understood as the relation of polòmih  of  polòmih :: poʂlomi “broke”. omi “broke”. The acute in the 2 nd and 3rd person was interpreted as initial (like in poʂlomi) and l omi)  and was subjected to Meillet’s Law, while the acute in the 1 st person was treated as medial accent (like in polòmih, pròdah ),), so there was no Meillet’s Law. Cf. the same situation in the plural personal pronouns (see § 56, § 57). 500

166

Fraenkel, the real Lithuanian form was *mensā, reflected in Žemaitian miesa . Thus, this example is also not conclusive504. Kortlandt also adduces the following Slavic examples: Croatian rijeʄč  «word», čaʄ r  r  «enchantment», saʄm «alone» m    «alone» and Czech čár, čára and čára  and sám . Croatian examples are all mobile, and rijeʄč is  is moreover an i- stem, stem, so they are not really relevant. Czech čár (< čár (< *čãrъ, a. p. b ) is not in accord with Croatian čaʄr (<  (< *čaʄrъ, rъ, a. p. c ).). Czech čár is čár is in accord with čára (< čára (< *čāraʀ, a. p. b ),), which is in accord with Ukrainian чapá and чapá  and points to the original non-acute lengthened grade (a. p. b ),), the antiquity of which seems to be proven by Avestan čārā . Kortlandt (1985: 118), following Vaillant, adduces more examples of the original PIE root nouns that point to circumflex in Balto-Slavic. Many of his examples are not relevant (for instance all a. p. c  ones). However, those a. p. b examples b  examples that have a reliable attestation of lengthened grade outside of Balto-Slavic, may very well prove that the circumflex is a regular reflex of PIE lengthened grade. In the case of Latvian sā ls  «salt» (Lithuanian sólymas  «brine»), which Kortlandt mentions, the circumflex is hard to explain, but since I believe this word ultimately stems from PIE *seh2l-, with a laryngeal, this is of no concern to us here. As for Latvian gùovs  «cow», Kortlandt again reconstructs a lost laryngeal after the lengthened grade. I find it much easier to reconstruct a simple PIE *g wōws. This is also one of the compelling pieces of  evidence for the circumflex reflex of PIE lengthened grade in Balto-Slavic. Kortlandt also supposes the connection of Lithuanian ending -÷  - ÷ with Vedic –dhā  –dhā and Latin –dēs . This would be another example of the loss of a laryngeal after a lengthened grade. However, the example is not compelling.  

  

 

Kortlandt also criticizes Rasmussen 1999b (= 1992). Many of his objections are valid and I shall not repeat them. Rasmussen's connection of Lithuanian súolas  «bench», Latvian suôls with suôls with Greek (Hesychius)   ɴǫʆ λµ λµατα «bedstead», attempting to prove that lengthened grade yields acute accent, is not very persuasive. If the roots are related at all (the etymology is not very convincing), the lengthened grade is hardly of PIE date. Kortlandt's objections to the following examples of Rasmussen are also justifiable: Latvian vâts «wound» vâts  «wound» (I cannot accept Rasmussen's *H3wātH2wy- as a reconstruction), Latvian smiêtiês  «laugh» and Latvian lâcis  «bear» (Rasmussen's etymology is obviously not correct). As far as Rasmussen's example of  Croatian sjeʂći  ć  i  with the acute (cf. Lithuanian s÷ kti)  kti)  is concerned, concerned, it is better than the other examples, but it is surely not of PIE date 505, and thus it is irrelevant. This example probably belongs to the phase of the Balto-Slavic acute vrddhi with the rest of the examples (see § 103)506. Kortlandt's critique of Rasmussen's circumflex in the monosyllables theory is also well-founded. Lithuanian tieɶ  "those" is obviously not old, compared to Latvian tieɶ , and Kortlandt is right in criticizing Rasmussen's ideas about the 2 nd and 3rd singular of the aorist  

Slavic cognates, like Croatian mêso , are inconclusive due to the possible operation of Meillet’s Law. 505 The lengthened grade is attested only in Balto-Slavic. 506 The athematic formation of the iterative is a little bit strange. However, it is easy to presume that the iterative could have won over the original form in the verb with the meaning “cut” (Ranko Matasović, p. c.). The displacement of the normal form of the verb with an iterative is quite usual. Cf. secondary Croatian iterative hódati , which has mostly displaced the original hòditi  “walk, go”, šívati  instead of šıʂ of šıʂti “sew”, t  i “sew”, spávati instead spávati instead of spaʂ of spaʂti “sleep” i “sleep” etc. 504

167

in Slavic. For the explanation of the falling accent in personal pronouns, which I consider to be due to Meillet's Law, unlike Kortlandt, see § 57. The example of Croatian vaʂ diti, diti, Slovene váditi, if it were to be related directly to Greek ωʆϑǫɴω (LIV) would be a good example for the acute reflex of the PIE lengthened grade. However, this might be an independent parallel development in Balto-Slavic and Greek. § 105 In the end, we can conclude that it seems that the regular reflex of PIE lengthened grade in Balto-Slavic is the circumflex tone, in spite of the fact there are few certain examples. This is confirmed by the following evidence: PIE *-ōn > Lith. –uõ  – uõ ((akmuõ)  PIE *-ēr > Lith. –÷  – ÷ (dukt÷ ) PIE *-ōl > Latv. –õl(s)  –õl(s) ((âbuõls ) PIE *-ōm > Lith. –ųɶ – ųɶ (G. pl.) PIE *-ōts > Lith. -uo  - uo ((m÷ nuo  nuo ) PIE *gwōws > Latv. gùovs    

  

 

Besides these examples, Slavic reflexes of the original PIE root nouns, belonging to a. p. b , also prove a non-acute reflex of PIE lengthened grade. One such example is: PIE *kwēr- (Avestan čārā) > čārā) > Czech čára , Ukrainian чapá  Moreover, the long s- aorists aorists in Croatian, like rijeʄh <  < *wrēk-, definitely prove that the circumflex is the true reflex of PIE lengthened grade in Balto-Slavic. One could claim that the reflexes in final syllables (or in final syllables before a resonant or just before a resonant) are a special case, e.g. that the circumflex is regular in these positions only. However, that cannot explain the long vowel in Croatian s- aorists. aorists. One should bear in mind that the circumflex was a regular reflex of Proto-IndoEuropean lengthened grade only. In the case of the new Balto-Slavic, East Baltic and Slavic lengthened grade, the result in some cases was obviously the acute tone (see § 103), and in some it could have been the circumflex as well. The question of the intonation of the new vrddhi formations in Balto-Slavic (like the Slavic iteratives) should be discussed with more scrutiny in the future.

168

Acute in personal pronouns in BaltoBalto -Slavic -Slavic § 106 Here, we shall deal with the origin of the acute in Balto-Slavic personal pronouns. As we have already shown, the regular reflex of PIE lengthened grade in Balto-Slavic was the circumflex intonation. However, all long-vowel personal pronouns in Balto-Slavic show the acute and not the circumflex, in spite of the fact that in most cases the origin of their length is not laryngeal. Thus, we must ask the question – why do the long vowels (made by monosyllabic lengthening) of these PIE forms have the acute and not the circumflex in BaltoSlavic? There are more possible answers to this question. The first one is obvious – analogy. How can we get the acute in all forms of Balto-Slavic long-vowel personal pronouns if we assume that only the PIE laryngeals result in the acute intonation? Here, we shall see whether the acute in Balto-Slavic could be the result of analogy in these cases. According to our reconstruction (see § 90-95), the only monosyllabic pronominal forms with the laryngeal in PIE were the dual forms *noh 1 and *woh1. These would regularly yield Balto-Slavic *nō and *wō with the acute. We could suggest that the acute of the nominative *wē and *yū is analogous to these forms. From *yū, the acute could have spread to *yūs. However, this could also be a regular reflex of the PIE *yúHs. Since there is no short **yús attested, we cannot be sure that the correct reconstruction was not indeed *yúHs (see § 91). The plural clitics *nō s and *wōs could have gotten the acute from the dual *nō and *wō, and the form *tū could have gotten its acute from the form *ē ź, where it was due to Winter's Law. In spite of the fact that each of these individual analogical changes is possible, the whole explanation does not seem very convincing. One would have to assume too much analogies, and the initial reason for the spread of the acute from only two or three forms (*nō, *wō and perhaps *yū s) s) would remain completely obscure. Therefore, explanation that involves analogy must be discarded.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let us see some other possible explanations. We could assume that the circumflex in Balto-Slavic was, like in Slavic, not really a special intonation, but rather a lack of an acute. Thus, the circumflex would be regarded as an unspecified tone. Since the pronouns were often used emphatically 507, one could suggest that they have got a secondary acute in this kind of emphatic usage. Since the acute was the only «real» tone, personal pronouns, often used emphatically, have also acquired this «non-neutral» tone. However, this explanation also seems a little far-fetched. The third assumption is very simple – let us just assume that the Balto-Slavic reflex of the normal PIE lengthened grade was different than the reflex of the PIE long vowels made by monosyllabic lengthening. The first would regularly yield the circumflex in Balto-Slavic,

507

One could even say pronouns are used emphatically by default. 169

while the second one would yield the acute 508. The assumption is rather simple, although trying to think of an explanation for this kind of development might be a bit more difficult. The assumption that the length made by monosyllabic lengthening was somehow phonetically different than the normal length does not seem like a good suggestion. We can perhaps offer a more convincing one. One could assume that the length in the personal pronouns remained only phonetic in the earliest stage of Balto-Slavic. Thus, as the form *tū was only a phonetic variant of the phonological *tú in Proto-Indo-European, the same state of affaires was preserved in the earliest Proto-Balto-Slavic. In the meantime, when the vowels preceding a laryngeal (and later vowels preceding voiced plosives) developed a acute accent, the original PIE long vowels developed a circumflex accent. The long vowels made by monosyllabic lengthening, which was perhaps still a productive rule in Balto-Slavic, were still treated as mere phonetic variants, and the long forms acquired no special intonation. Only later, when the short and long forms became real lexical variants (and not just phonetic variants)509, did these long variants acquire an intonation. But in that phase of Balto-Slavic, they acquired not the circumflex, but the acute. Thus, they developed in a different way than the original (non-monosyllabic-length) PIE long vowels. This conclusion is supported by the accentuation of the particles/adverbs (see § 107).

 

In this case, one would have to claim that because of PIE *g wōws > Latv. gùovs , the length in such PIE nouns was of different origin than the length caused by monosyllabic lengthening, or that monosyllabic lengthening in nouns was somehow different than the one in pronouns (and in particles). The length in root nouns could be a product of an earlier phase of monosyllabic lengthening. That this might be the case is indicated by the fact that in nouns, there is no fluctuation of length we find in pronouns and particles (see § 90-96). 509 Probably at the time when monosyllabic lengthening stopped being a productive rule of BaltoSlavic. 508

170

Acute in Balto Balto--Slavic -Slavic particles and adverbs § 107 To confirm the theory layed out in § 106, one can look at the accent of the PIE particles and adverbs that also show monosyllabic lengthening (see § 96). As for the reflexes of PIE *nu «now», in East Baltic, Latvian nu shows nu shows the short variant of the root, while Lithuanian nù  can point to the older *nù, as well as to *nū , and is thus inconclusive. Lithuanian nū n is n  is probably due to the metatony and stems from an old acute. The final accent of Lithuanian nūnaĩ is nūnaĩ  is probably secondary due to the adding of the suffix or to the metatonized form nū n . However, Old Czech form nýnie  (attested for instance in Alexandreida )510, together with Russian ныɴ не  не  points unambiguously to Common Slavic *nyɾnĕ, nĕ, which shows the acute reflex of PIE *nū. The acute intonation is also seen in Croatian neʂ - < -  < older njeʂ - in -  in pronominal forms like njeʂtko, njeʂšto, njeʂkī, njeʂkakav, njeʂkoliko, as well as in Middle Bulgarian нΟ кто , нΟ что, нΟ кыи (Hock кыи  (Hock 1992, I: 121, II: 398-400) etc. This acute *neʖ  ɾ- in Slavic stems from PIE *nē (cf. § 96) and confirms, together with *nyɾ nĕ, nĕ, my theory that the monosyllabic length yields the acute in Balto-Slavic.  

  

  

          

          

́

́

           ́

Modern Czech nyní is nyní  is ambiguous, since the acute length disappears in front of long syllable (which is secondary here), cf. Kapović 2003: 57 and 2005: 77.

510

171

Conclusion In the dissertation, I have reconstructed the Common Slavic, East and West Baltic, Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-European system of personal pronouns. Here, I shall list the most original and innovative points of this work: 1) The detailed examination of the Slavic variants *ja and *jazъ and the evidence that points to the direct PIE source of both forms (see § 11). 2) The convincing explanation of the two accentual variants in mentioned forms, the relation of two different accents with two different forms (*jaɾ and *jãzъ), and the derivation of both the accentual variants from PIE (see § 13). 3) A comprehensive treatment of the problem of the OCS form azъ  and its relation to the problem of the development of Common Slavic *ĕ-, *a- and *ja- in Slavic languages (see § 10). 4) A comprehensive treatment of the distribution of the stems teb-  and tob-  in Slavic languages (see § 47). 5) A comprehensive treatment of the problem of Slavic *mъnĕ and *mьnĕ (see § 15, § 46). 6) The clarification of some minor issues concerning the accentuation of personal pronouns in Slavic – for instance, the origin of the accent of the Neo-Štokavian forms naʄs, s  , vaʄs (see   (see § 32). 7) The explanation of the accent of the Slavic forms *mę, *tę, and the origin of the secondary Neo-Štokavian zá me, ná te (see te (see § 53). 8) The explanation of the conditions of the operation of Meillet's Law in personal pronouns and elsewhere (see § 56, § 57 for the pronouns, and § 104f for the aorist). 9) A comprehensive treatment of the problem of mobility in personal pronouns paradigms, and the position of this specific mobile paradigm in the wider frame of the accentual mobility phenomenon in Slavic (see § 56). 10) A comprehensive treatment of the development of East Baltic paradigms of personal pronouns, especially concerning the problems of the different stems (man-, ( man-, mun-, tav-, tev-  ) and accentuation (see § 66, § 71, § 73-76). 11) A comprehensive treatment of the *ew > *ow problem in Balto-Slavic and its relation to the problems concerning the reconstruction of personal pronouns (see § 71, § 74).

172

12) The reconstruction of the Proto-Balto-Slavic paradigm of personal pronouns, including the accentuation (see § 69, § 70). 13) A comprehensive treatment of the origin of the Common Slavic forms *tebeʖ  ʀ/tobeʖ  ʀ, including the accentuation (see § 47, § 72). 14) The explanation of the origin of the Slavic instrumental forms mъnojNj  and tobojNj , including the accentuation (see § 54, § 77, § 78). 15) The reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European personal pronouns' paradigms, with the assumption these paradigms did not have 7 or 8 different cases like the nominal ones, but less (especially in the plural) (see § 100-102). 16) A comprehensive treatment of the phenomenon of monosyllabic lengthening in ProtoIndo-European personal pronouns (and particles/adverbs) (see § 89-95, § 96). 17) The tentative reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European forms *túb hi (see § 98) and *més (see § 97), otherwise not usually a part of the communis opinio . 18) A comprehensive treatment of the problem of the reflex of Proto-Indo-European lengthened grade in Balto-Slavic (with a careful approach to Balto-Slavic data) – the conclusion being that it yielded the circumflex. However, the idea that one has to count with more the one phase in the development of the new Balto-Slavic vrddhi is also presented (see § 103-105). 19) The explanation of the acute accent in the long vowels of Balto-Slavic personal pronouns and monosyllabic particles/adverbs, the conclusion being that the reflex of Proto-IndoEuropean normal long vowels and PIE long vowels made by monosyllabic lengthening is not the same. The former obtained the circumflex and the latter the acute accent in Balto-Slavic (see § 106, § 107).

173

Bibliography Aitzemüller, Rudolf 1991 2, Altbulgarische Grammatik als Einführung in die Slavische  Sprachwissenschaft , U. W. Weilar, Freiburg Andersen, Henning 1996, Reconstructing prehistorical dialects: Initial vowels in Slavic and  Baltic (Trends Baltic (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 91), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin Arumaa, Peter 1933, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der litauischen Personalpronomina , Tartu Arumaa, Peter 1964, Urslavische Grammatik. Einführung in das vergleichende Studiun der  slavischen Sprachen, I. Band, Einleitung. Lautlehre , Carl Winter – Universitäatsverlag, Heidelberg Arumaa, Peter 1985, Urslavische Grammatik. Einführung in das vergleichende Studiun der  slavischen Sprachen, III. Band, Formenlehre , Carl Winter – Universitäatsverlag, Heidelberg Bader, Françoise 1990 «Les pronoms dans les langues indo-européennes», Mémoires de la  Société de Linguistique de Paris 1990: Paris  1990: 23-35 Beekes, Robert S. 1988a, A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan , E. J. Brill, Leiden Beekes, Robert S. P. 1988b, «The origin of Indo-European pronominal inflection» , Festschrift  Polomé: 73-87 Polomé: 73-87 Beekes, Robert Stephen Paul 1995, Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: an Introduction ,  John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia Белић, Александар 1909, “ЗамΟтки по чакавскимъ говорамъ”, ИзвΟстия отдΟления  русского языка и словесности  Академии Н аукъ 14: аукъ 14: 181-266 Белић, Александар 1964 4, Истори  ј а српскохрватског  ј езика, езика, II/1 Peчи са деклинаци  ј  ом ,  ј ом  Hayчна књига, Беoград Berneker, Erich 1896, Die preussische Sprache , Karl J. Trübner, Strassburg Бернщейн, C. Б. 1948, Paзискования в области болгарской исторической диалектологии, Toм I, Язык валашских грамот XIV-XV веков , Издательство Aкадемии нaук CCCP, Москва Ленинград Беседина-Heвзорова, B. П. 1962, Старославянский язык , Харьков Bezzenberger, Adalbert 1877, Beiträge zur Geschichte der litauischen Sprache auf Grund  litauischer Texte des XVI. und des XVII. Jahrhunderts , Jahrhunderts , Gottingen Bielefeldt, Hans Holm 1961, Altslawische Grammatik, Einführung in die slawischen Sprachen , Sprachen , Veb Max Niemeyer Verlag, Halle (Saale) Birnbaum, Henrik & Schaeken, Jos 1997, Das altkirchenslavische Wort. Bildung-Bedeutung-  Herleitung. Altkirchenslavische Studien I , Verlag Otto Sagner, München Бopковский, B. И. & Кузнецов, П. С. 19652, Историческая грамматика русского языка , Издательство «Наука», Москва Brlobaš, Željka 1999, «Kajkavski govor Repušnice», Rasprave Instituta za hrvatski jezik i   jezikoslovlje 25:  jezikoslovlje 25: 77-87 Brozović, Dalibor & Ivić, Pavle 1988,  Jezik, srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski, hrvatski ili srpski ,  Jugoslavenski leksikografski zavod «Miroslav Krleža», Zagreb Brugmann, Karl & Delbrück, Berthold 1897-1916, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik  der indogermanischen Sprachen I/1-2, II/1-3 , Strassburg – Berlin

174

Cocron, Friedrich 1962, La langue russe dans la seconde moitié du XVII e e  siècle  (morphologie) , Paris Cowgill, Warren 1965, «Evidence in Greek», in: Werner Winter (ed.), Evidence for Laryngeals , The Hague – London – Paris: 142-180 Черных, П. Я. 19623, Историческая граматика русского языка, краткий очерк , очерк , Москва Damjanović, Stjepan 2005 5, Staroslavenski jezik, Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada, Zagreb Даничић, Ђурa 1874, Историja oблика српскога или хрватскога jeзика до cвршетка XVII  виjeка , Биоград de Bray, R. G. A. 1980, Guide to the Slavonic Languages , 1-3 (Guide (Guide to the South Slavic  languages, Guide to the West Slavic languages, Guide to the East Slavic languages ), languages ), Slavica, Columbus de Courtenay, Jan Baudouin 1929, «Einfluss der Sprache auf Weltanschauung und Stimmung», Prace filologiczne 14: filologiczne 14: 185-256 Derksen, Rick 2002, “’Rozwadowski’s change’ in Baltic”, Baltu Filolo ă  i  ja 11/1: 5-12 ăija 11/1: Diels, P. 1932-4, Altkirchenslavische Grammatik I-II, Heidelberg Дypново, Никоай 1924, О черк черк истории русского языка , Государственное издательство, Москва - Ленинград Дыбо, Владимир А. 1981, Славяанская акцентология. О пыт пыт реконструкции системы  акцентных парадигм в праславянском, Издательство «Наука», Москва Дыбо, Владимир А. 2000, Mop ф  о  логизированные парадигматические акцентные  фологизированные системы. Tипология и генезис. Toм I, Языки русской культуры, Москва  ðorñić, Petar 1975, Staroslovenski jezik, Matica srpska, Novi Sad Eckert, Reiner; Crome, Emilia & Fleckenstein, Christa 1983, Geschichte der russischen  Sprache , Veb Verlag Enzyklopädie, Leipzig Endzelīns, Jānis 1923, Lettische Grammatik , Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung, Heidelberg Endzelīns, Jānis 1944, Altpreussische Grammatik , Latvju grāmata, Rīga Endzelīns, Jānis 1971, Comparative phonology and morphology of the Baltic languages , Mouton, The Hague [translation of: Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos , Valstybin÷ politin÷s ir mokslin÷s literatūros leidykla, Vilnius 1957] Fedák, Ján 1937, “Zo šarišského skloňovania zámenného”, Sborník Matice slovenskej 15: slovenskej  15: 7274 Филин, Ф. П. 1972, П роисхождение роисхождение русского, украинского и белорусского языков , Ленинград FO 1981, Fonološki opisi srpskohrvatskih/hrvatskosrpskih, slovenačkih i makedonskih  govora obuhvaćenih opšteslovenskim lingvističkim atlasom , ANUBiH, Sarajevo 1981 Fortson, Benjamin W. IV 2004, Indo-European Language and Culture , an Introduction , Blackwell Publishing, Padstow Fraenkel, Ernst 1950, Die baltischen Sprachen , Carl Winter, Heidelberg Гадолина, M. A. 1963, История  ф орм орм личных и возвратного местоимений в славянских  языках , AH CCCP, Институт славяноведения, Москва Gebauer, Jan 1896, Historická mluvnice jazyka českého, III-1, Skloňování , Praha – Vídeň Gebauer, Jan 1898, Historická mluvnice jazyka českého, Tvarosloví - Časování , Praha – Vídeň Горшков, A. И. 1963, Старославенский язык , Государственное издательcтво «Bысшая школа», Москва 175

Hamm, Josip 19703, Staroslavenska gramatika, Školska knjiga, Zagreb Xapaламниев, Иван 2001, Историческа граматика нa българския eзик , Фадер, B. Tърново Hermann, Eduard 1926, Litauische Studien, eine historische Untersuchung schwachbetonter  Wörter im litauischen , Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, Berlin Hirt, Hermann 1921-37, Indogermanische Grammatik , I-VII, Heidelberg Hock, Wolfgang 1992, Der Flexionsakzent im mittelbulgarischen Evangelie 1139 (NBKM), I:  Akzentgrammatik, II: Akzentwörterbuch, Verlag Otto Sagner, München Holzer, Georg 1995, «Die Einlichkeit des Slavischen um 600 n. Chr. und ihr Zerfall», Wiener  Slavistisches Jahrbuch 41: Jahrbuch 41: 55-89 Holzer, Georg 2005 (2006), «Zur relativen Datierung prosodischer Prozesse im Gemeinslavischen und frühen Kroatischen», Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 51: Jahrbuch  51: 31-71 Houtzagers, H. P. 1985, The Čakavian dialect of Orlec on the island of Cres, Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 5, Rodopi, Amsterdam Howe, S. 1996, The Personal Pronouns in the Germanic Languages, A study of personal  pronoun morphology and change in the Germanic languages from the first records to the  present day, Berlin/NY Hujer, O. 1911, «K slovanské deklinaci zájmenné», Sborník filologický II: filologický II: 188-207 Hujer, O. 1912, «Zur Deklination der Personalpronomina», Indogermanische Forschungen  XXX: 49-54 Иллич-Свитыч, Bладислав M. 1963, Именная акцентуация в балтийском и славянском , Издательство Академии наук СССР, Москва [translation: Nominal Accentuation in Baltic and  Slavic, The MIT Press Cambridge & London 1979] Иванов, В. B. 1965, О бщеиндоевропская, бщеиндоевропская, праславянская и анатолийская языковые  системы , Москва Иванов, В. B. 19832, Историческая грамматика русского языка , «Просвещение», Москва Иванов, В. B. & Toпоров, B. H. 1958, "On the Relations between Slavic and Baltic Languages", 4th International Congress of Slavic Studies , Moscow Ivšić, Stjepan 1911, “Prilog za slavenski akcenat”, Rad JAZU 187: JAZU 187: 133-208 Ivšić, Stjepan 1913, “Današńi posavski govor”, Rad JAZU 196 JAZU 196 (I): 124-254, 197 (II): 9-138 Ivšić, Stjepan 1971, Izabrana djela iz slavenske akcentuacije (Gesammelte Schriften zum  slavischen Akzent) , mit einer Einleitung sowie Berichtigungen und Ergänzungen des Verfassers herausgegeben von Christian Alphonsus van der Berk, Slavische Propyläen, Texte in Neu- und Nachdrucken, Band 96, Wilhelm Fink Verlag, München  Jaksche, Harald 1965, Slavische Akzentuation, II Slovenisch , Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden Якубинский, Л. П. 1953, История древнерусского языка , Москва  Janaš, Pětr 1976, Niedersorbische Grammatik , VEB Domowina – Verlag, Bautzen Явнис, K. [= Jaunis, K.] 1908-1916, Граматика литовскаго языка , Петроградъ  Jedvaj, Josip 1956, “Bednjanski govor”, Hrvatski dijalektološki zbornik 1: zbornik 1: 279-330  Jembrih, Alojz & Lončarić, Mijo 1982-3, “Govor Gregurovca Veterničkoga”, Rasprave Zavoda  za jezik Instituta za filologiju i folkloristiku  8-9: 5-62  Junković, Zvonimir 1972, “Jezik Antuna Vramca i podrijetlo kajkavskoga dijalekta”, Rad JAZU, knj. 363: 1-229  Jurišić, Blaž 1966, Rječnik govora otoka Vrgade, I dio, Uvod , JAZU, Zagreb   Jurišić, Blaž 1973, Rječnik govora otoka Vrgade, usporeñen s nekim čakavskim i  zapadnoštokavskim govorima, II dio: Rječnik , JAZU, Zagreb 176

  Jurišić, Blaž 1992, Nacrt hrvatske slovnice. Glasovi i oblici u povijesnom razvoju, Matica hrvatska, Zagreb [reprint] Kalsbeek, Janneke 1998, The Čakavian Dialect of Orbanići near Žminj in Istria, Amsterdam – Atlanta Kapović, Mate 2003 (2005), «Razvoj starih dugih samoglasa u hrvatskom i ostalim slavenskim jezicima», Filologija 41: Filologija 41: 51-82 Kapović, Mate 2005 (2006), «The Development of Proto-Slavic Quantity (from Proto-Slavic to Modern Slavic Languages)», Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 51: Jahrbuch 51: 73-111 Kapović, Mate (forthcoming a), «Reexamining Meillet's Law» Kapović, Mate (forthcoming b), «Bilješke o naglasku Kašićeve gramatike», Croatica et Slavica  Iadertina  Katz, Joshua 1998, Topics in Indo-European Personal Pronouns (PhD Pronouns  (PhD dissertation, Harvard) Kazlauskas, J. 1968, Lietuvių kalbos istorin÷ gramatika , Mintis, Vilnius Kiparsky, Valentin 1967, Russische historische Grammatik, Band II, Die Entwicklung des  Formensystems , Carl Winter – Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg 1967 Klemensiewicz, Z., Lehr-Spławiński, Tadeusz & Urbańczyk, S. 1955, Gramatyka historyczna   języka polskiego , Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, Warszawa Knutsson, Knut 1935, “Altbulgarisch azъ ”, ”, Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie , XII: 94-102 Kortlandt, Frederik 1974, “Old Prussian accentuation”, Zeitschrift für vergleichende  Sprachforschung 88/2: Sprachforschung  88/2: 299-306 Kortlandt, Frederik 1985, “Long vowels in Balto-Slavic”, Baltistica XXI(2): Baltistica XXI(2): 112-124 Kortlandt, Frederik 1997, “PIE. lengthened grade in Balto-Slavic”, Festschrift for Eric P. Hamp , vol. II: 26-31 Kortlandt, Frederik 2000, “Initial a- and e- in Old Prussian”, Linguistica Baltica 8: Baltica 8: 125-127 Kortlandt, Frederik 2001, “Diphthongization and monophthongization in Old Prussian”, Res  Balticae 7: Balticae 7: 57-65 Kortlandt, Frederik (forthcoming a), “Indo-European e-, a-, o- in Slavic” Kortlandt, Frederik (forthcoming b), “Miscellaneous remarks on Balto-Slavic accentuation”, in: M. Kapović & R. Matasović (ed.), Tones and Theories. Proceedings of IWoBA 2005  Kortlandt, Frederik (forthcoming c), “Hittite ammuk 'me'” Koнески, Блаже 1965, Истори  ј а на македонски   ј азик  азик , «Koчо Paцин» Cкоп је/«Просвета» Белград Križanić, Juraj 1984, Gramatično izkazanje ob ruskom jeziku , JAZU, Zagreb Kurz, Josef 1969, Učebnice jazyka staroslověnského , Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, Praha Kustić, Nikola 2002, Cakavski govor grada Paga s rječnikom, Zagreb Kyзнецов, П. С. 1959, О черк черк историческoй мор ф  о  логии русского языка , Москва фологии Lehr-Spławiński, Tadeusz 1929, Gramatyka połabska, Lwów Lehr Spławiński, Tadeusz & Bartula, Czesław 1954 4, Zarys gramatyki języka staro-  cerkwieno-słowiańskiego na tle porównowczym , Zakład narodowy im. Ossolińskich wydawnictwo, Wrocław - Kraków Leskien, August 19226, Handbuch der Altbulgarischen (Altkirchenslavischen) Sprache, Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, Heidelberg Lorentz, Friedrich 1903, Slovinzische Grammatik , St. Petersburg

177

Lorentz, Friedrich 1925, Geschichte der pomoranischen (kaschubischen) Sprache , Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin - Leipzig Lorentz, Frydryk 1962, Gramatyka pomorska, Tom III (Fleksja, Składnia) , Zakład narodowy im. Ossolińskich wydawnictwo, Wrocław – Warszawa – Kraków Lorentz, Friedrich 1971, Kaschubische Grammatik , Verlag Dr. H. A. Gerstenberg, Hildesheim  Łoś, J. 1922-7, Gramatyka polska I-III, polska I-III, Kraków Lunt, Horace G. 1974 5, Old Church Slavonic grammar , Mouton, The Hague Małecki, Mieczysław 1934, Dwie gwary macedońskie (Suche i Wysoka w Soluńskiem). I. Teksty, II. Słownik, Kraków Mareš, František Václav 2001, Diachronische Morphologie des Ur- und Frühslavischen , Frühslavischen , Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main Matasović, Ranko 1995 (1996), "A Reexamination of Winter’s Law in Baltic and Slavic", Lingua  Posnaniensis 37: Posnaniensis 37: 57-70 Matasović, Ranko 2004, "The Proto-Indo-European syllabic resonants in Balto-Slavic", Indogermanische Forschungen 109: Forschungen 109: 337-354 Matasović, Ranko 2006, Poredbenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika (manuscript) jezika  (manuscript) Matzinger, Joachim 1997, “Zu armenischen mek ʅ  ‘wir’”, Historische Sprachforschung  110: 83-92 Mažiulis, Vytautas 1966, Prūsų kalbos paminklai , Mintis, Vilnius Mažiulis, Vytautas 1970a, Baltų ir kitų indoeuropiečių kalbų santykiai , Mintis, Vilnius Mažiulis, Vytautas 1970b, “D÷l balt. *uʠ nykimo”, in: V. Rū ėe-DraviĦa (ed.), Donum Balticum  (Festschrift Ch. Stang):  Stang): 334-337 334-337 Mažiulis, Vytautas 2004, Prūsų kalbos istorin÷ gramatika , Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, Vilnius Meier-Brügger, Michael 2002 8, Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. (8., überarbeitete und  ergänzte Auflage der früheren Darstellung von Hans Krahe. Unter Mitarbeit von Matthias  Fritz und Manfred Mayrhofer), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York Meillet, Antoine 19342, Le slave commun , Librairie ancienne Honoré Champion, Paris Meillet, Antoine 1937 8, Introduction a l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes, Librairire Hachette, Paris Melchert, H. Craig 1994, Anatolian Historical Phonology , Rodopi, Amsterdam/Atlanta Meyer, Karl. H. 1923, Historische Grammatik der russischen Sprache I , Bonn Mihaljević, Milan (forthcoming), “Zamjenice u hrvatskoglagoljskim fragmentima 12. i 13. st.” Mikkola, Jooseppi Julius 1913, Urslavische Grammatik . Einführung in das vergleichende  Studium der slavischen Sprachen , I . Teil , Lautlehre, Vokalismus, Betonung , Carl Winter – Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg Mikkola, Jooseppi Julius 1950, Urslavische Grammatik . Einführung in das vergleichende  Studiun der slavischen Sprachen , III . Teil , Formenlehre , Carl Winter – Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg Mирчев, Kирил 1963 2, Историческа граматика нa български eзик , Државно издателство «Наука и изкуство», Co фия Mladenov, Stefan 1929, Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache , Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin - Leipzig Moguš, Milan 1966, “Današnji senjski govor”, Senjski zbornik 2: zbornik 2: 5-152

178

Morgenstierne, Georg 1945, "Indo-European k'  in Kafiri", New Testament Studies  13: 225238 Muka, K. A. [= Mucke, K. E.] 1891, Historische und vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre der  niedersorbischen (niederlautsitzisch-wendischen) Sprache. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung  der Grenzdialecte und des Obersorbischen , Leipzig Nandriş, Grigore 1959, Old Church Slavonic Grammar, University of London, The Athlone Press, London Oбнорский, C. & Бapaxyдoв, C. 1938-1949, Xpecтoматия по истории pyccкoгo языка 1-2 , Москва Olander, Thomas 2005, “The dative plural in Old Latvian and Proto-Indo-European”, Indogermanische Forschungen 110: Forschungen 110: 273–281 Orlovský, Jozef 1975, Stredogemerské nárečia , Vydavateľstvo Osveta, Martin Otrębsky, Jan 1956, Gramatyka języka litewskiego , Tom III , Nauka o budowie wyrazów , Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, Warszawa Otrębsky, Jan 1958, Gramatyka języka litewskiego , Tom I , Wiadności wstępne, Nauka o  głoskach , Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, Warszawa Palmaitis, Mykolas Letas 1975, Baltų kalbų negimininių  į vardžių vardžių istorija , Vilnius (dissertation) Palmaitis, Mykolas Letas 1976, Prūsų kalbos negimininių  į vardžių vardžių formų kilm÷ , Baltistica 12(2): 156-165 Panzer, Baldur 1999 3, Die slavischen Sprachen in Gegenwart und Geschichte , Geschichte , Lang, Frankfurt am Main Pauliny, Eugen 1990, Vývin slovenskej deklinácie, Veda - Vydavateľstvo Vydavateľs tvo Slovenskej akadémie akadémie vied, Bratislava Pedersen, Holger & Lewis, Henry 1937, A Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar , Göttingen Petersen, Walter 1930, «The Inflection of Indo-European Personal Pronouns», Language  6: 164-193 Pisani, Vittore 1974, “Zum Personalpronomen”, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung  88: 113-166 Prokosch, E. 1939, A Comparative Germanic Grammar , Philadelphia Radulić, Ladislav 2002, Rječnik rivanjskoga govora, Matica hrvatska, Zadar Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård 1999a, «The Constituent Elements of the Indo-European Personal Pronouns», Selected Papers on Indo-European Linguistics . With a Section on Comparative  Eskimo Linguistics, 1-2, Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen: 256-275 [first published in: Arbejdspapirer udsendt af Institut for Lingvistik , Københavns Universitet, vol. 6/1987: 89-112] Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård 1999b, «Die Vorgeschichte der baltoslavischen Akzentuierung – Beiträge zu einer vereinfachten Lösung», Selected Papers on Indo-European Linguistics. With  a Section on Comparative Eskimo Linguistics , 1-2, Museum Tusculanum Press, University of  Copenhagen: 468-489 [first published in: B. Barschel, M. Kozianka & K. Weber (Hrsgg.): Indogermanisch, Slawisch und Baltisch . Materialien des vom 21.-22. September 1989 in Jena  in Zusammenarbeit mit der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft durchgeführten Kolloquiums  (= Slavistische Beitraege, Bd. 285), Otto Sagner, München 1992: 173-200] Rešetar, Milan 1911, Die serbokroatischen Kolonier Süditaliens , Alfred Hölder, Wien Rigler, Jakob 2001, Zbrani spisi 1. Jezikozgodovinske in dialektološke razprave, Založba ZRC, Ljubljana 179

Ripka, Ivor 1975, Dolnotrenčianske nárečia, Veda - Vydavateľstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied, Bratislava Rix, Helmut 19922, Historische Grammatik des Griechischen : Laut- und Formenlehre, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt Rosenkranz, Bernhard 1955, Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Altbulgarischen  (Altkirchenslavischen ),), Mouton & Co. N. V./’s-Gravenhage – Carl Winter/Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg Rosinas, Albertas 1988, Baltų kalbų į vardžiai  vardžiai , Mokslas, Vilnius Rosinas, Albertas 1995, Baltų kalbų į vardžiai: vardžiai: morfologijos raida , Vilnius Rožić, Vatroslav 1889-1894, “Kajkavski dijalekat u Prigorju“, Rad JAZU  115: 68-136, 116: 113-174, 118: 55-115 Rudzīte, Marta 1964, Latviešu dialektolo ă  ija , Latvijas valsts, Rīgā ă ija  Rudzīte, Marta 1993, Latviešu valodas vēsturiskā fonētika , Zvaizgne, Rīgā Sabaliauskas, A. 1976, “D÷l lie. formos nuodu ‘MUDU’”, Baltistica 12(2): Baltistica 12(2): 167 Caмойленкo, C. Ф. 1962, “Из истории основ граматических форм личных местоимений в славянских языках“, Н аучные аучные доклады высшей школы, Филологические науки 2 науки  2 (18): 3-15 Caвченкo, A. H. 1962, “Славянские и балтийские местоимения в соотношении к местоимениям других индоевропейских языков“, Филологические науки 3(19): науки 3(19): 73-81 Schenker, Alexander M. 1995, The Dawn of Slavic , An Introduction to Slavic Philology , Yale University Press, New Heaven and London Schleicher, August 1871, Laut- und Formenlehre der polabischen Sprache , Sprache , St.-Petersburg Schmalstieg, William R. 1971, “A new look at the Old Prussian pronoun“, Baltistica  7: 129138 Schmalstieg, William R. 1974, An Old Prussian Grammar: the phonology and morphology of  the three catechisms , The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park – London Schmalstieg, William R. 1976, Studies in Old Prussian , A Critical Review of the Relevant  Literature in the Field since 1945 , The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park – London Schmidt, Gernot 1968, “Zu den singularischen Genetiven der idg. Personalpronomina“, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 82/2: Sprachforschung  82/2: 225-250 Schmidt, Gernot 1978, Stammbildung und Flexion der indogermanischen  Personalpronomina , Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden Seebold, E. 1984, Das System der Personal-pronomina in den frühgermanischen Sprachen, Göttingen Ceлищев, A. M. 1941, Cлавянское языковедение 1, Зaпаднославянские языки , Москва Ceлищев, A. M. 1952, Cтарославянский язык II, Teксты. Cловарь. О черки черки мор ф  ологии , ф ологии  Москва Senn, Alfred 1966, Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, Band I: Grammatik , Grammatik , Carl WintersUniversitätsverlag, Heidelberg Shevelov, George Y. 1964, A Prehistory of Slavic. The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic , Winter-Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg Shields, Kenneth 1985, “Some Remarks about the personal Pronouns”, Zeitschrift für  vergleichende Sprachforschung 98/1: Sprachforschung  98/1: 10-21 Słoński, Stanisław 1950, Gramatyka języka starosłowiańskiego (starobułgarskiego), Państwowe zakłady wydawnictw szkołnych, Warszawa 180

Соболевский, A. H. 1907 4, Л екц  екц і іи  по истор і і и русскаго языка , Москва Соболевский, A. H. 1908, “ Одинъ изъ законовъ церк.-слaвянскаго языка”,  Jagić-  Festschrift/Zbornik u slavu Vatroslava Jagića , Berlin 1908: 204-205 Stang, Christian S. 1957, Slavonic accentuation , I kommisjon hos H. Aschehoug & Co. (W. Nygaard), Oslo Stang, Christian S. 1996, Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen , Universitetsforlaget, Oslo - Bergen – Tromsö [with: Ergänzungsband. Register, Addenda und  Corrigenda zur VGbS , Universitetsforlaget, Oslo-Bergen-Tromsø] Stanislav, Ján 1932, Liptovské nárečia , Turčiansky Svätý Martin Stanislav, Ján 1958, Dejiny slovenského jazyka. II. Tvaroslovie, Veda - Vydavateľstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied, Bratislava Steenwijk, Han 1992, The Slovene Dialect of Resia San Giorgio , Amsterdam Стойков, Стойко 1993 3, Българска диалектология , Издателство на българска академия на науките, София Svane, Gunnar Olaf 1958, Grammatik der slowenischen Schriftsprache, Rosenkilde und Bagger, Kopenhagen Szemerényi, Oswald 1989 3, Einführung in die Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt Šekli, Matej 2003, “Odrazi praslovanskih oblikotvornih naglasnih tipov samostalnikov moške o-  jevske sklanjatve v (knjižni) slovenščini”, Jezikoslovni slovenščini”, Jezikoslovni zapiski 9/2: zapiski 9/2: 29-50 Šewc, Hinc 1968, Gramatika hornoserbskie rĕče , Ludowe nakładnistwo Domowina, Budyšin Šimundić, Mate 1971, Govor Imotske krajine i Bekije, Sarajevo Šojat, Antun 1970, “Kratak navuk jezičnice horvatske (Jezik stare kajkavske književnosti)”, Kaj III/2: Kaj III/2: 81-96 Šojat, Antun 1973a, “Kajkavski ikavci kraj Sutle”, Rasprave Instituta za jezik 2: jezik  2: 37-44 Šojat, Antun 1973b, “O govoru Cerja kod Sesveta”, Rasprave Instituta za jezik 2: jezik  2: 45-49 Šojat, Antun 1973c, “Govor u Samoboru i njegovoj okolici”, Rasprave Instituta za jezik 2: jezik  2: 5172 Šojat, Antun 1982, “Turopoljski govori”, Hrvatski dijalektološki zbornik 6: zbornik 6: 317-493 Šojat, Antun 1992, “Kulturološko-jezične značajke Pavlinskog zbornika (1644)”, Kaj XXV/4: Kaj  XXV/4: 21-28 Šẃela, Bogumił 1952, Grammatik der Niedersorbischen Sprache , Domowina – Verlag Bautzen, Bautzen Tentor, Mate 1909, “Der čakavische Dialekt der Stadt Cres”, Archiv für slavische Philologie 30 Philologie  30 Tentor, Mate 1950, Leksička slaganja creskoga narječja i slovenskoga jezika protiv Vukova   jezika, Razprave/Dissertationes I, Ljubljana Težak, Stjepko 1981, “Ozaljski govor”, Hrvatski dijalektološki zbornik 5: zbornik 5: 203-432 Townsend, Charles E. & Janda, Laura 2002, Gemeinslavisch und Slavisch im Vergleich:  Einfürung in die Entwicklung von Phonologie und Flexion, Otto Sagner, München [translation of: Common and comparative Slavic: Phonology and inflection, with special attention to  Russian, Polish, Czech, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian , Bulgarian , Slavica, Columbus 1996] Trautmann, Reinhold 1910, Die altpreußischen Sprachdenkmäler . Einleitung, Texte, Grammatik, Wörterbuch , Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen Trávníček, František 1935, Historická mluvnice československá , Praha

181

Trubetzkoy, Nikolaus S. 1968 2, Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Schrift- , Laut- und  Formensystem , Herausgegeben von Rudolf Jagoditsch, Hermann Böhlaus Nachlf., Graz – Wien – Köln Užpuris, J. 1990, Trys kalbin÷s studijos , Fundation of Lithuania Minor, Chicago Vaillant, André 1931, La langue de Dominko Zlatarić , Imprimerie nationale, Paris Vaillant, André 1950, Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, Tome I: Phonétique, IAC, Lyon Vaillant, André 1958, Grammaire comparée des langues slaves , Tome II. Morphologie. Deuxième Partie: Flexion pronominale, IAC Lyon Valeckien÷, Adel÷ 1966, “D÷l dabartin÷s lietuvių kalbos negimininių įvardžių linksniavimo sistemų susidarymo ir raidos”, Baltistica 1(2): Baltistica 1(2): 127-141 Vážný, V. 1964, Historická mluvnice česká II/1, Tvarosloví: skloňovaní , Praha Velčić, Nikola 2003, Besedar Bejske Tramuntane, Adamić, Mali Lošinj/Beli/Rijeka Vermeer, Willem 1978, “Innovations in the Kajkavian Dialect of Bednja”, in: Dutch  th  International Congress of Slavists, Lisse: 347-381 Contributions to the 8 th  Vondrák, Wenzel 1912 2, Altkirchenslavische Grammatik, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, Berlin Vondrák, Wenzel 1924 2, Vergleichende slavische Grammatik, I Band. Lautlehre und  Stammbildungslehre , Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen Watkins, Calvert 1969, Indogermanische Grammatik III. 1. Geschichte der indogermanischen  Verbalflexion , Heidelberg Weingart, Miloš 1937-8, Rukovĕť jazyka staroslovĕnského 1-2 , Praha Зализняк, A. A. 1985, О т праславянской акцентуации к русской , Издательство «Наука», Москва Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1957, Lietuvių kalbos į vardžinotinių vardžinotinių būdvardžių istorijos bruožai , Vilnius Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1966, Lietuvių dialektologija , Mintis, Vilnius Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1981, Lietuvių kalbos istorin÷ gramatika, II , Mokslas, Vilnius Dictionaries and dialectal atlases ARj = Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika , t. 1-97 [vol. I-XXIII], JAZU, Zagreb 1881-1976 Bańkowski = Bańkowski, Andrzej 2000, Etymologiczny słownik języka polskiego , 1-2, Wydawnictwo naukowe PWN, Warszawa БДA = Български диалектен атлас . Съставен под ръководство иа Ст. Стойков и С. Б. Бернщейн (I), Ст. Стойков (II), София 1964 Bezlaj = Bezlaj, France 1977-1982, Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika  1-3, Institut za slovenski jezik/Mladinska knjiga, Ljubljana Boryś = Boryś, Wiesław 2005, Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego , Wydawnictwo literackie, Kraków Breu & Piccoli = Breu, Walter & Piccoli, Giovanni 2000 (con la collaborazione di Snježana Marčec), Dizionario croato molisano di Acquaviva Collecroce. Dizionario plurilingue della  lingua slava della minoranza di provenienza dalmata di Acquaviva Collecroce in Provincia di  Campobasso (dizionario, registri, grammatica, testi) , Campobasso Brückner = Brückner, Aleksander 1993, Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego , Wiedza Powszechna, Warszawa [reprint] 182

Derksen = Derksen, Rick, Slavic inherited lexicon, Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Project (Leiden University). Available at: http://iiasnt.leidenuniv.nl/ied/ ESSJ = Etymologický slovník slovanských jazik ů  ů , Slova gramatická a zájmena 2, Academia, Praha 1980 Fraenkel = Fraenkel, Ernst 1955-1965, Litauisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch , Göttingen Heidelberg Gebauer = Gebauer, Jan 1903-1916, Slovník staročeský I-II , Praha Gluhak = Gluhak, Alemko 1993, Hrvatski etimološki rječnik, August Cesarec, Zagreb HSSJ = Historický slovník slovenského jazyka  I , Veda/Vydavateľstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied, Bratislava 1991   Jurišić 1973 = Jurišić, Blaž 1973, Rječnik govora otoka Vrgade, usporeñen s nekim  čakavskim i zapadnoštokavskim govorima, II dio, Rječnik , JAZU, Zagreb Kluge = Etymologische Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache , bearbeitet von Elmar Seebold, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin – New York 2002 24 Lipljin = Lipljin, Tomislav 2002, Rječnik varaždinskoga kajkavskog govora , Garestin d.o.o., Varaždin LIV 20012 = Rix, Helmut & Kümmel, Martin (ed.), Lexikon der Indogermanischen Verben, Wiesbaden Mažiulis = Mažiulis, Vytautas 1988-1998, Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas I-IV , Mokslas, Vilnius Orlovský = Orlovský, Jozef 1982, Gemerský nárečový slovník , Vydavateľstvo Osveta, Rimavská Sobota PED = Polański, K. & Sehnert 1967, G. A., Polabian-English dictionary , The Hague-Paris Piccoli & Sammartino = Piccoli, Agostina & Sammartino, Antonio 2000, Dizionario dell'  idioma croato-molisano di Montemitro / Rječnik moliškohrvatskoga govora Mundimitra . Mundimitra . [Redazione della parte fonematica e croata / Sastavljanje i prireñivanje fonološkoga i hrvatsko-ga dijela: Snježana Marčec i Mira Menac-Mihalić], Fondazione «Agostina Piccoli»/Matica hrvatska, Montemitro- Zagreb Pleteršnik = Maks Pleteršnik 1894-5, Slovensko-nemški slowar, I-II, Ljubljana Pokorny = Julius Pokorny, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch , Francke, Bern 1948-59 CДЯ = Словар русского языка (XI ~ XVII вв.) , 1-26, Издательство « Наука», Москва 19752002 CДЯ 2 = Словар древнерусского языка (XI ~ XIV вв.) , I-VII, red. A. Aванесов, «Pyccкий язык», Москва 1988-2004 Skok = Petar Skok, Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika , Knjiga prva: A-J. Knjiga druga: K-poni 1. Knjiga treća: poni 2-Ž. Knjiga četvrta: Kazala. Uredili akademici Mirko Deanović i Ljudevit Jonke. Surañivao u predradnjama i priredio za tisak Valentin Putanec.  JAZU, Zagreb 1971-4 Sławski = Sławski, Franciszek 1952/6-1975/82, Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego , IV, Kraków Snoj = Snoj, Marko 2003 2, Slovenski etimološki slovar , Modrijan, Ljubljana SP = Słownik prasłowiański  (red. F. Sławski), 1-8, Polska Akademia Nauk, Wrocław 19612001

183

Cpeзнeвcкий = Cpeзнeвcкий, И. И. 1893-1903, Maтepиaлы для cлoвapя дpeвнepyccкoгo  языкa пo пиcьмeнным пaмятникaм I-III , Caнктпeтepбypг SS = Słownik staropolski , I-X, Polska academia nauk, Warszawa 1953/5-1988/93 їнско     ї   ї  мови CCM = Cловник староукра ї   мови XIV-XV cт., cт., 1-2, « Наукoва книга», Kи їв 1977-1978 SSN = Slovník slovenských nárečí I  nárečí  I , Veda/Vydavateľstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied, Bratislava 1994 Toпоров = Toпоров, B. H., П русский русский язык , I-V, Издательство « Наука», Москва 1975-1990 Tpyбачев = Э тимологический тимологический словарь славянских языков  (red. O. H. Tpyбачев), Aкадемия Hayк CCCP 1974Vasmer = Vasmer, Max 1950-8, Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg Sources Alexandreida  = Važný, Vaclav 1963 2, Staročeská Alexandreida, Nakl. Československé  Akademie věd, Praha Codex Marianus  = Jagić, Vatroslav (ed.) 1883, Quattuor evangeliorum versionis  palaeoslovenicae codex Marianus glagoliticus. Characteribus cyrillicis transcriptum V. Jagić (mit Anhang über Schreibweise und Sprache und einem erschöpfenden Index), Berlin – Sankt Peterburg Dalimila = Dalimila = Bláhová, Marie & alii (ed.) alii (ed.) 1977, Kronika tak řečeného Dalmila, Praha Decretum  = Ivanuš Pergošić, Decretum  1574, Hrvatski kajkavski editio princeps , za tisak priredio i priloge napisao Zvonimir Bartolić, Matica hrvatska/Zrinski, Čakovec 2003 Katonova dvojverší = dvojverší  = in: Petrů, Eduard (ed.) 1999, Ezopovy bajky, Katonova dvojverší, Rada  otce synovi, Praha Postilla  = Antun Vramec, Postilla , JAZU/Zavod za znanstveni rad Varaždin i Kršćanska sadašnjost, Zagreb – Varaždin 1990 Psalterium Sinaiticum  = Psalterium Sinaiticum , Akademischer Druck- und Verlagsanstalt [reprint], Graz 1954 SBDO = Staročeská Bible Dráž ď   ď  anská a Olomoucká. Kritické vydání nejstaršího českého  překladu bible ze 14. století. I. Evangelia, Vladimír Kyas (ed.), Praha 1981 Vévoda Arnošt = Arnošt = in: Petrů, Eduard (ed.) 1984, Rytířské srdce majíce. Česká rytířská epika 14. století, Praha Závišova píseň  ( Jižť   Jižť mne vše radost ostává ) = in: Lehár, Jan (ed.) 1990 (: 244-246), Česká  středověká lyrika, Praha

184

Summary This dissertation provides an overview of personal pronouns and their history in all Balto-Slavic languages. Common Slavic, East Baltic, West Baltic, Balto-Slavic and IndoEuropean system of personal pronouns (including accentuation) is reconstructed, and the Balto-Slavic system of personal pronouns is derived from Proto-Indo-European. In the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European personal pronouns, emphasis is placed on BaltoSlavic data and its use in the reconstruction. We also deal with several problems of historical phonology, accentology and morphology of Slavic and Balto-Slavic which are related to the reconstruction of personal pronouns. In Slavic, there were two different forms of the 1 st person nominative singular pronoun with two different accents - *jaɾ i *jãzъ < *jāzъʀ. Both forms were inherited from Proto-Indo-European: *égɴ (>*jaɾ) and *egɴHóm (>*jāzъʀ).). Later in Slavic, one of these two forms and accents was generalized differently in different languages. OCS azъ is azъ  is due to an irregular allegro- change change of the initial *ě- > *ja- > a- . The problem of the dative/locative singular variants *mъně and *mьně is also tackled - on the basis of the correspondence to the Latvian dative mun , the form *mъně is interpreted as older. The dative-locative singular variants *tebě and *tobě are closely investigated (South Slavic has only *tebě, North Slavic has both), and possible historical explanations are suggested. The reconstruction of the accent in the Slavic dative singular *mъneʀ  ʖ  ʀ, *tebeʀ  ʖ  ʀ/tobeʀ /tobeʀ  ʀ    ʖ (cf. genitive singular *meʂne, *teʂbe), accusative singular *męʄ and *tęʄ, and instrumental singular *mъnòjNj/mъnojNjʀ , *tobòjNj/tobojNjʀ is discussed as well. In Slavic personal pronouns, the circumflex in the nominativeaccusative of all numbers is explained via Meillet's Law. Meillet's Law was partly analogical in personal pronouns and not a strictly phonetic change. The special type of mobile paradigm in personal pronouns is tackled, and some secondary Slavic forms, like Štokavian naʄ s  s,  vaʄ s  s,  zá  me  etc. are explained as well. Concerning East Baltic, an overview and historical interpretation of different singular stems is given: man-  (by analogy to tav- ),), mun-  (originally only in the dative singular), tav- (regullarly tav- (regullarly from PIE *tew-), tev- (from tev- (from older *tebby analogy to tav- ).). The Balto-Slavic change of *ew > *ow is important in the reconstruction of personal pronouns - it is concluded that this change was regular in front of all vowels, not only back ones. As for PIE personal pronouns, they seem to have had less cases than nouns. In singular, there were no special forms (or no reconstructable forms) in the locative, instrumental and ablative. In plural and dual, there were orthotonic forms in the nominativeaccusative and clitics in the genitive-dative-accusative. In Indo-European, I tentatively reconstruct the 1st person nominative plural form *més (besides *wey-) and the 2 nd person dative singular *túbȹi (besides *tébȹi). Concerning PIE personal pronouns and monosyllabic   ɴ "thou", *nú/nū  ɴ  ɴ "now"), the problem of monosyllabic particles and adverbs (cf. PIE *tú/tū  ɴ lengthening is thoroughly dealt with. The cases of monosyllabic lengthening are interpreted as having phonetic (not phonologic) length. The length arising from monosyllabic lengthening yields acute in Balto-Slavic, while regular PIE lengthened grade yields circumflex accent. As for the reflex of PIE lengthened grade in Balto-Slavic, it is concluded that a more careful approach to the material is needed. It is likely that there were a couple of phases in Balto-Slavic during which, depending on the phase, new vrddhi-derivations got either acute or circumflex accent.

185

Sažetak U radu se daje iscrpan pregled sustavâ osobnih zamjenica svih baltoslavenskih jezika i njihove povijesti te se rekonstruira općeslavenski, istočnobaltijski, zapadnobaltijski, baltoslavenski i indoeuropski sustav osobnih zamjenica, kao i njihov naglasni sustav. Baltoslavenski se sustav osobnih zamjenica izvodi iz indoeuropskoga te se posebna pažnja posvećuje upotrebi baltoslavenske jezične grañe pri rekonstrukciji indoeuropskih osobnih zamjenica. U radu su takoñer obrañeni mnogi problemi slavenske i baltoslavenske povijesne fonologije, akcentologije i morfologije vezani uz rekonstrukciju osobnih zamjenica. U slavenskom su izvorno postojala dva oblika zamjenice 1. lica jednine u nominativu koja su imala različitu akcentuaciju - *jaɾ i *jãzъ < *jāzъʀ. Oba su ta oblika naslijeñena iz indoeuropskoga prajezika i izvode se iz praoblika *égɴ (>*jaɾ) i *egɴHóm Hóm (>*jāzъʀ).). U slavenskom je poslije došlo do poopćenja jednoga od oblikâ i jednoga od naglasaka kako u kojem jeziku. Staroslavenski je oblik azъ postao azъ  postao nepravilnom allegro -promjenom -promjenom početnoga *ě- > *ja- > a- . Govori se o problemu varijanata dativa/lokativa jednine *mъně i *mьně te se na osnovi podudarnosti s latvijskim dativom mun  zaključuje da je stariji lik bio *mъně. Detaljno se razmatraju i slavenske varijante dativa/lokativa jednine *tebě i *tobě (u  južnoslavenskom je samo *tebě, a u ostalim je slavenskim jezicima uglavnom oboje) te se predlažu različite mogućnosti kako je do tih varijanata došlo. Objašnjava se rekonstrukcija naglaska u slavenskom dativu jednine *mъneʀ   ʀ  ʖ, *tebeʀ   ʖ  ʀ/tobeʀ  ʀ    ʖ (ali u genitivu jednine *meʂne, *teʂbe), be), akuzativu jednine *męʄ i *tęʄ, te u instrumentalu jednine *mъnòjNj/mъnojNjʀ , *tobòjNj/tobojNjʀ . Cirkumfleks se u nominativu i akuzativu svih brojeva u slavenskim osobnim zamjenicama objašnjava djelovanjem Meilletova zakona, koje je kod osobnih zamjenica bilo djelomično i analoško, a ne strogo fonetsko pravilo. Osim toga, objašnjava se poseban tip pomične naglasne paradigme koja se nalazi u osobnih zamjenica te se objašnjava postanak nekih sekundarnih slavenskih oblika, kao što je štokavsko naʄs , vaʄs , zá me  itd. U istočnobaltijskom se pomno sagledavaju različite jedninske osnove koje se ondje javljaju te se objašnjava njihov postanak: man- (analogijom man- (analogijom prema tav- ),), mun- (izvorno mun- (izvorno samo u dativu  jednine), tav- (pravilno tav- (pravilno od indoeuropskoga *tew-), tev- (od tev- (od starijega *teb- analogijom prema tav- ).). S rekonstrukcijom je osobnih zamjenica povezana i glasovna promjena *ew > *ow u baltoslavenskom za koju zaključujemo da je bila je djelovala ispred svih samoglasa, a ne samo ispred stražnjih. Što se tiče indoeuropskih osobnih zamjenica, zaključuje se da su imale manje padeža od imenica. U jednini nije bilo posebnih oblika (ili se ne mogu rekonstruirati) za lokativ, instrumental i ablativ, a u množini je i dvojini moguće rekonstruirati samo nominativ i akuzativ od naglašenih oblika, te nenaglasnica u genitivu, dativu i akuzativu. U indoeuropskom provizorno rekonstruiramo i oblike *més u nominativu množine 1. lica (uz *wey-) te *túbȹi u dativu jednine 2. lica (uz *tébȹi). Pomno se razmatra problem duljenja u jednosložicama u indoeuropskim osobnim zamjenicama te jednosložnim   ɴ "ti", *nú/nū  ɴ "sada"), te se zaključuje da je riječ o česticama i prilozima (npr. ie. *tú/tū  ɴ fonetskom duljenju (a ne o fonološkoj duljini). Zaključuje se da duljina nastala duljenjem u  jednosložicama daje akut u baltoslavenskom, dočim obična indoeuropska prijevojna duljina daje cirkumfleks. Vezano uz odraz indoeuropske prijevojne duljine u baltoslavenskom, zaključuje se da je potreban pomniji pristup grañi te da je u baltoslavenskom po svemu sudeći bilo više faza u kojima su vrddhi-tvorbe dobivale katkad akut, katkad cirkumfleks, ovisno kada je tvorba nastala. 186

187