3. Slavic historical phonology
3.1. Sound changes from PIE to OCS: overviews
The development of the individual consonants from PIE to CS:
| PIE | PBS | PS | CS |
|---|---|---|---|
| *p | *p | *p | *p |
| *b | *b (+ Winter’s Law 3.2.8) | *b | *b |
| *bʰ | *b (3.2.9) | ||
| *t | *t | *t | *t |
| *d | *d (+ Winter’s Law 3.2.8) | *d | *d |
| *dʰ | *d (3.2.9) | ||
| *k̑ | *ś (3.2.1) | *s | *s |
| *g̑ | *ź (3.2.1; + Winter’s Law 3.2.8) | *z | *z |
| *g̑ʰ | *ź (3.2.1; 3.2.9) | ||
| *k | *k | *k | *k |
| *kʷ | *k (3.2.2) | *č (1st pal.; 3.4.1) | |
| *c (2nd pal.; 3.4.4) | |||
| *g | *g (+ Winter’s Law 3.2.8) | *g | *g |
| *gʰ | *g (3.2.9) | * ž (1st pal.; 3.4.1) | |
| *gʷ | *g (3.2.2; + Winter’s Law 3.2.8) | ||
| *gʷʰ | *g (3.2.2; 3.2.9) | ||
| * (d)z (2nd pal.; 3.4.4) | |||
| *s | *s | *s | *s |
| *š (ruki; 3.2.3) | *x | *x | |
| *š (1st pal.; 3.4.1) | |||
| *ś (2nd pal.; 3.4.4) | |||
| *h₁ | *∅ (3.2.4) | *∅ | *∅ |
| *h₂ | |||
| *h₃ | |||
| *r | *r | *r | *r |
| *l | *l | *l | *l |
| *m | *m | *m | *m |
| *n | *n | *n | *n |
| *i̯ | *i̯ | *i̯ | *j (3.4.7) |
| *u̯ | *u̯ | *u̯ | *v |
The development of the vowels from PIE to CS:
| PIE | PBS | PS | CS |
|---|---|---|---|
| *i | *i | *i | *ĭ |
| *e | *e | *e | *e |
| *a (before heterosyll. *u̯; 3.2.14) | *a | *o | |
| *a | *a (3.2.10) | ||
| *o | *e (after *j; 3.4.7) | ||
| *u | *u | *u | *ŭ |
| *ĭ (after *j; 3.4.7) | |||
| *ih | *ī (3.2.4) | *ī | *i |
| *ē | *ē | *ē | *ě |
| *eh₁ | *ḛ̄ (3.2.4) | ||
| *a (after *j; 3.4.7) | |||
| *ah₂ | *ā̰ (3.2.4) | *ā | *a |
| *ō | *ō | *ā (3.3.3) | |
| *oh₁/h₂/h₃ | *ō̰ (3.2.4) |
The development of diphthongs from PIE to CS (cf. Andersen 1998a: 426–427):
| PIE | PBS | PS | CS |
|---|---|---|---|
| *ei̯ | *ei̯ | *ei̯ | *i |
| *ai̯ | *ai̯ | *ai̯ | *ě |
| *oi̯ | |||
| *eu̯ | *i̯au̯ (3.2.14) | *i̯au̯ | *u |
| *au̯ | *au̯ | *au̯ | *u |
| *ou̯ |
The development of syllabic nasals from PIE to CS:
| PIE | PBS | PS | CS |
|---|---|---|---|
| *n̥ | *in (3.2.6) | *in | *ĭn (before vowel) |
| *ę (before consonant and word-finally) | |||
| *un (3.2.6) | *un | *ŭn (before vowel) | |
| *ǫ (before consonant and word-finally) | |||
| *m̥ | *im (3.2.6) | *im | *ĭm (before vowel) |
| *ę (before consonant) | |||
| *um (3.2.6) | *um | *ŭm (before vowel) | |
| *ǫ (before consonant) |
The development of syllabic liquids from PIE to CS:
| PIE | PBS | PS | CS |
|---|---|---|---|
| *r̥ | *ir (3.2.6) | *ir | *ĭr |
| *ur (3.2.6) | *ur | *ŭr | |
| *l̥ | *il (3.2.6) | *il | *ĭl |
| ul (3.2.6) | *ul | *ŭl |
For the further changes of the syllabic liquids in OCS see 2.2.
3.2. Sound changes from PIE to Proto-Balto-Slavic
Traditional presentations of the historical phonology of any language are usually organised around the development of specific sounds, e.g. the outcome of PIE *gʰ in OCS in different positions. It may be more useful to see the sound changes in their relative chronology, however, so this is what we are going to try here (cf. Holzer 2007; Wandl 2020; Olander 2015: 47–67; for thoughts on the visualisation of sound changes in a relative chronology see Wandl & Theliz 2024; cf. also Wandl, Olander & List forthcoming). The chronology below more or less follows that of Olander (2015: 47–67).
As the relative order of several (groups of) sound changes cannot be determined with certainty, the order given below should be taken with a grain of salt.
3.2.1. Satəm assibilation
In the satəm branches of Indo-European (Armenian, Albanian, Indo-Iranian, Baltic and Slavic) the palatal stops series (whatever its age, whether PIE or post-PIE) *k̑ g̑ g̑ʰ undergoes assibilation to PBS *ś ź ź (see Clackson 2007: 49–53 for a discussion of the satəm change). In Slavic, these sibilants develop further to PS *s z z, while in Lithuanian they become š ž ž.
- PIE num. *k̑m̥tó‑ n ‘hundred’ > PBS *ˌśimta > (with unexplained vocalism in first syllable) PS *ˈsuta (CS *sŭ̏to) (a.p. c); Lith. šim̃tas, Latv. sìmts; cf. Ved. śatá‑, YAv. sata‑; Lat. centum ([k‑]), Goth. hunda, Gk. ἑκατόν
- PIE *k̑léu̯os ‘fame; praise’ n > PBS *ślau̯as > PS *slau̯a (CS *slȍvo) ‘word’ (a.p. c); cf. OIr. clú ‘fame’, Gk. κλέος ‘fame’, Ved. śrávas‑ ‘praise’, OAV. srauuah‑ ‘fame’
- PIE *g̑neh₃‑ ‘know’ > PBS *źnō̰‑ > PS inf *ˈznātēi̯ (CS *zna̋ti); Lith. žinóti, Latv. zinât, OPr. posinnat ‘confess’; cf. Ved. jānā́ti ‘knows’; Goth. kunnan ‘know’; Gk. γιγνώσκω ‘realise’
- PIE *g̑ʰéi̯m‑ ‘winter; snow’ > PBS *źei̯ˈmā̰ f ‘winter’ > PS *zei̯ˈmā (CS *zimà) (a.p. c); Lith. žiemà (a.p. 4), Latv. zìema; cf. Ved. himá‑ m ‘cold’, OAv. zimō gen.sg.m ‘in winter’, YAv. ziiā̊ m ‘winter’; Hitt. [dat–loc.sg] giemi ‘in winter’, Lat. hiems f ‘winter; storm’, Gk. χιών f ‘snow’
3.2.2. Delabialisation of labiovelars
The PIE labiovelar stops *kʷ gʷ gʷʰ lose their labial articulation and merge with the plain dorsals *k g gʰ. This innovation also takes place in Indo-Iranian and possibly also in Armenian and Albanian.
- PIE *pekʷ‑ > PBS *pek‑ ‘bake’ > PS prs.1sg *ˌpekān (CS *pȅkǫ) (a.p. c), PS prs.3sg *pekeˈti (CS *pečètĭ||ŭ) (with First Palatalisation, 3.4.1), Lith. kèpti ‘bake; fry’ (with metathesis); cf. Ved. pácati ‘cook’, YAv. pačata ‘cooked’; Lat. coquō ‘cook’, Gk. πέσσω ‘cook’
- PIE *gʷen‑ f ‘woman’ > PBS *ˈgenā̰ > PS *geˈnā (CS *ženà) (a.p. b) ‘woman; wife’, OPr. genno ‘woman’; cf. Ved. jáni ‘woman’, OAv. gənā‑ ‘woman’, Arm. kin ‘woman; wife’; CLuw. wāna(/i)- ‘woman’, OIr. béN ‘woman’, Goth. qino ‘woman’, Gk. γυνή ‘woman’
- PIE *gʷʰen‑, *gʷʰn̥‑ > PBS *gen‑, *gi/un‑ ‘chase’ (3.2.6) > PS inf *guˈnātēi (CS *gŭna̋ti) (a.p. b), PS prs.1sg *geˈnān (CS *ženǫ̀), Lith. giñti ‘chase’, Latv. dzìt ‘chase’; Ved. hánti ‘strikes; slays’; Gk. θείνω ‘kill’
3.2.3. Ruki change
At a pre-stage of Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-Iranian, PIE *s develops an allophone *[ʂ] (> PBS *š; PIIr. *ʂ > Ved. ṣ, Av. š) after *ī̆ i̯ ū̆ u̯ r K (where *K represents voiceless, voiced unaspirated and voiced aspirated palatal, plain and velar dorsals). PBS *š yields PS (CS) *x, Lith. š, and Latv. s, OPr. s (merging again with the reflex of PIE *s).
- PIE *u̯r̥s (from *u̯erš‑ ‘high place’) > PBS *ˈu̯iršu‑ > PS u̯irˈxu (CS *vĭ́rxŭ) m u-stem (a.p. b) ‘top’, Lith. viršùs m (a.p. 4) ‘top’, Latv. vìrsus m ‘upper part; top’; cf. Ved. várṣman‑ m ‘top’; OIr. ferr ‘better’, Goth. wairs ‘worse’
- PIE *moi̯só‑ ‘sheep; sheep skin’ > PBS *ˌmai̯ša‑ > PS *ˌmai̯šə (CS *mě̑xŭ) (a.p. c) ‘bag (made from skin)’, Lith. maĩšas (a.p. 4) ‘bag; sack’, Latv. màiss ‘bag’, OPr. (Elbing Vocabulary) moasis ‘bellows’; cf. Ved. meṣá‑ m ‘ram’; ONor. meiss m ‘basket’
- PIE *snusó‑ f ‘daughter-in-law’ > PBS *snuˈšā̰ > PS *snuˈxā (CS *snŭxà) (a.p. b/c); cf. Ved. snuṣā́‑ f; cf. Lat. nurus f, OEng. snoru f, Gk. νυός f
- PIE o-stem loc.pl *‑oi̯su > PBS *‑ai̯šu > PS *‑ai̯xu (CS *‑ěxŭ); for Lithuanian see below; cf. Ved. ‑eṣu, Av. ‑aēšū̆
Before an obstruent PBS *š reverts to *s in Slavic:
- PIE *pr̥s‑to‑ > PBS *ˈpiršta‑ m/n ‘finger’ > PS *pirˈstə (CS *pĭ́rstŭ) (a.p. b) ‘finger’, Lith. pir̃štas (a.p. 2), Latv. pìr(k)sts, OPr. pirsten ‘finger’; cf. Ved. pr̥ṣṭhá‑ n ‘back; mountain ridge’
In Slavic, ruki *x is subsequently generalised almost everywhere there is an alternation between *s and *x; but in Lithuanian it is the non-ruki s that is generalised
- PS ā-stem loc.pl *gālˈu̯-āxu (CS *golv‑a̋xŭ) from *-āsu by analogy with o-stem PS *‑ai̯xu (CS *‑ěxŭ), i-stem *-ixu (*-ĭxŭ), u-stem *-uxu (*-ŭxŭ)
- cf. Lith. o-stem loc.pl languosè, i-stem mintysě, u-stem sūnuosè with *-š- replaced by -s- by analogy with ā-stem galvosè
According to Andersen (1968), the different trajectories taken by Slavic and Lithuanian can be explained by the outcome of PIE *k̑:
- in Slavic, *k̑ becomes *s: an alternation between *s and *x can be synchronically derived from an underlying *x (but not from *s) – therefore *x is generalised in Slavic
- in Lithuanian, conversely, PIE *k̑ becomes š: thus an alternation between s and š can be synchronically derived from an underlying s (but not from š) – therefore s is generalised in Lithuanian
3.2.4. Loss of laryngeals
The PIE laryngeals *h₁ h₂ h₃ were lost to different degrees in all Indo-European subgroups. Balto-Slavic has no traces of laryngeals (a) word-initially before a consonant, as opposed to Anatolian, Greek, Armenian and Phrygian; (b) word-initially before a vowel, as opposed to Anatolian; (c) between vowels.
Syllable-final laryngeals are also lost in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic, but when this happens, a preceding vowel is lengthened and becomes acute (see 9.3.1), also across an intervening resonant (Olander 2009: 151–152; 2015: 47–48; cf. Jasanoff 2017: 74–103; Villanueva Svensson 2023).
- PIE *doh₃tḗi̯ > PBS *ˈdō̰tēi̯ > PS *ˈdātēi̯ (CS *da̋ti) ‘give’, Lith. dúoti ‘give’, Latv. duôt, duõt ‘give’
- PIE *gʷerh₃tḗi̯ > PBS *gḛrˈtēi̯ > PS *gērˈtēi̯ (CS *žertì) ‘devour’, Lith. gérti ‘drink’, Latv. dzer̂t ‘drink’ – the acute accent does not surface in Slavic due Meillet’s Law (3.3.2)
- PIE *tenh₂u̯ós > PBS *ˌtḛnu̯as > Lith. (Žem.) tę́vas (a.p. 3) adj. ‘thin, slender’, Latv. tiêvs adj. ‘thin, slender’
Another possible source of acute tone are PIE plain long vowels, but this is disputed (see 9.3.1).
Between consonants it seems likely that the three laryngeals yielded PBS *a, although examples are difficult to find.
- PIE *sth₂‑tó‑ pst.ptcp.pass > PBS *ˌstata‑ in Lith. statýti ’
3.2.5. Hirt’s Law
In pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic the accent is retracted from the accented syllable to an immediately preceding syllable which ends in a postvocalic laryngeal (Olander 2009, xxx).
- PIE *pl̥h₁nós > PBS *ˈpḭlnas > PS *ˈpīlnə (CS *pĭ̋lnŭ) (a.p. a); Lith. pìlnas (a.p. 1), Latv. pil̃ns
- PIE *dʰuhmós > PBS *ˈdṵ̄mas > PS *ˈdūmə (CS *dy̋mŭ) (a.p. a); Lith. dū́mai (a.p. 1), Latv. dũmi
- PIE *grih₃u̯áh₂ > PBS *ˈgrḭ̄u̯ā̰ > PS *ˈgrīu̯ā (CS *gri̋va) (a.p. a); Latv. grĩva
3.2.6. Diphthongisation of syllabic sonorants
The Baltic and Slavic languages have two different outcomes of PIE *R̥ (*l̥ r̥ m̥ n̥): *iR and *uR (see the overview in Hock 2004: 6–7). The normal outcome is PBS *iR, which is the most frequent outcome in roots and the only outcome in all inflectional endings. We also find PBS *iR when the ablaut alternations are preserved, e.g. Lith. kir̃pti ‘cut’, prs. ker̃pa, past kir̃po.
- PIE *h₂u̯ĺ̥h₁nah₂‑ f ‘wool’ > PBS *ˈu̯ḭlnā̰ > PS *ˈu̯īlna (CS *vĭ̋lna) (a.p. a); Lith. vìlna (a.p. 1), Latv. vil̃na; cf. Hitt. ḫulana-, Lat. lāna, OIr. olann, Goth. wulla, Gk. λῆνος n, Ved. ū́rṇā-, YAv. varənā-
- PIE *k̑ḗr, *k̑erd‑, *k̑r̥d‑ n ‘heart’ > PBS *śird‑ > PS *ˌsīrdika (CS *sĭ̑rdĭce), Lith. širdìs f (a.p. 3), Latv. sir̂ds f, OPr. seyr; cf. Hitt. ker, kard(i)‑ n, Lat. cor (stem cord‑), OIr. cride, Goth. hairto, Gk. κῆρ, καρδίᾱ, Hom. Gk. κραδίη, Arm. sirt
- PIE i-st. nom.sg *mn̥t-ís ‘thought’ > PBS *ˌmintiš (> Lith. at-mintìs) > PS *ˈpā‑minti (CS *pa-mętĭ) > OCS pa-mętĭ ‘memory’
- PIE num. *dek̑m̥-tí‑ ‘ten’ > PBS *ˌdeśimti (Lith. dẽšimt, dešimtìs) > PS *ˌdesinti (CS *dȅsętĭ) > OCS desętĭ
In some cases we find *uR.
- PIE *gʷr̥h₃‑tlo‑ n > PBS *gṵrtla‑ > PS *ˈgūrtla‑ (CS *gŭ́rdlo‑ (a.p. a) ‘throat’, Lith. gurklỹs m (a.p. 3) ‘crop (of birds), craw’
The double outcome has not found a good explanation (cf. e.g. Stang 1966: 77–82; Hock 2004: 6–7; Matasović 2004). It has been suggested that the u-outcome is due to dialect mixture with an extinct Indo-European dialect that had *uR from PIE *R̥; this dialect would have been a centum dialect since the Balto-Slavic words with centum reflexes as a rule also have uR. Others assume that i is the regular zero-grade outcome in roots with e in the full grade, whereas u appears in the zero grade of roots with o in the full grade. Still others ascribe u to expressive formations or loanwords.
3.2.7. Accentual mobility
In pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic certain word-forms accented on the ending in PIE receive initial accent (or, perhaps more precisely, become unaccented). The formulation is disputed (see Olander 2009; Jasanoff 2017). Some authors consider it to be in principle inherited from PIE, others purely analogical, still others as the result of a sound law plus systematic analogical processes, still others as the result of a sound law.
My own suggestion (the “Mobility Law”) is that at some point in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic a high tone became low (i.e. accented words became unaccented) if it was on a short final vowel or on a final hiatal structure: μ[+H] > [-H] / C₀#.
Two synchronic prosodic rules of Proto-Slavic find a natural diachronic explanation if one accepts that the Proto-Balto-Slavic accentual mobility is the result of accent loss (Andersen 2009a). The example word without clitics is PBS acc.sg *ˌgā̰lu̯ām > PS *ˌgālu̯ān (CS *gȏlvǫ) > Ru. gólovu, BCMS glȃvu ‘head’.
Šaxmatov’s Law in Slavic: “initially accented” word-forms in the mobile accent paradigms (i.e. unaccented) give up their accent to a preceding preposition.
- Ru. ná golovu, BCMS. nȃ glāvu’on the head’ from PS *ˌnā gālu̯ān (CS *nȃ glovǫ) < PBS *ˌnā gā̰lu̯ām
Vasil´ev–Dolobko’s Law in Slavic: “initially accented” word-forms in the mobile accent paradigms (i.e. unaccented) give up their accent to a following enclitic – the accent is not lost by the Mobility Law since it is on a non-final syllable.
- e.g. OESl. golovu tú ‘this head’ from PS *gālu̯ān ˈtān (CS *golvǫ tò) < PBS *gā̰lˈu̯ām tām
3.2.8. Winter’s Law
Before the deaspiration of voiced aspirated stops in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic (3.2.9) a vowel is lengthened and becomes acute, also across a resonant, in front of voiced unaspirated stops (PIE *b d g gʷ g̑), but not in front of voiced aspirated stops (PIE *bʰ dʰ gʰ gʷʰ g̑ʰ).
- PIE *sed- ‘sit’ (cf. La. sedeō) > PBS *sḛ̄d- > PS *sēd- > CS *sěd- > OCS sěd-, Lith. sėd-
- PIE *h₂melg̑- ‘milk’ (cf. Gk. ἀμέλγω, OEng. melcan) > PBS *mḛlź- > PS inf. *ˈmēlztēi̯ > CS *me̋lzti, Lith. mìlžti mélžu (across a resonant)
- cf. PIE *u̯edʰ- ‘lead’ > PBS *u̯ed- > OCS ved-, Lith. ved-
3.2.9. Deaspiration of voiced aspirated stops
Like in Albanian and Anatolian, at a pre-stage of Balto-Slavic the voiced aspirated stops (*bʰ dʰ g̑ʰ gʰ gʷʰ) lose their aspiration and merge with the voiced unaspirated stops (*b d g̑ g gʷ). This change is later than Winter’s Law (3.2.8), which requires a distinction between voiced unaspirated and voiced unaspirated stops.
- PIE *bʰer‑ ‘carry’ > PBS *ber‑ > PS *ber‑ ‘take’ (CS *ber‑) (> OCS inf bĭrati, prs.3sg beretŭ), Lith. ber̃ti ‘scatter’, Latv. bḕrt ‘scatter’; cf. Lat. ferō ‘carry’, Goth. bairan ‘carry’, Gk. φέρω ‘carry’, Ved. bhárati ‘carry’
- PIE *u̯edʰ- ‘lead’ > PBS *u̯ed‑ > PS *u̯ed‑ (CS *ved‑) (> OCS inf vesti, prs.3sg vedetŭ), Lith. inf vèsti, prs.3sg vẽda
3.2.10. Delabialisation of *o to *a
PIE *o and *a merge in PBS *a, like in Germanic and Albanian. Since Winter’s Law (3.2.8) produces different outcomes of lengthened PIE *o and *a in Baltic, it must precede their merger.
- PIE *h₂óu̯i‑ ‘sheep’ > PBS *ˌavi‑ > PS *au̯iˈkā (CS *ovĭcà) f (a.p. c), Lith. avìs f (a.p. 4); cf. Lat. ouis f ‘sheep’, Gk. ὄϊς m/f ‘sheep’, Ved. ávi‑ m/f ‘sheep; ram’
- PIE *tokʷó‑ ‘course; stream’ > PBS *ˌtaka‑ m > PS *ˌtakə (CS *tȍkŭ) (a.p. c), Lith. tãkas (a.p. 4) ‘(foot-)path’, Latv. taks ‘(foot-)path’; YAv. taka‑ m ‘course’
- PIE num. *h₃ok̑tóh₁ ‘eight’ > PBS *aśtā̰ > (with remade final part) PS *aˈsmi (CS *òsmĭ) (a.p. b), Lith. aštuonì, Latv. astuôņi; cf. Lat. octō, Gk. ὀκτώ, Ved. aṣṭáu
3.2.11. Dissimilation of dental stops to *s plus stop
At a pre-stage of Proto-Balto-Slavic, the first dental stop of dental stop clusters becomes a sibilant: PIE *TT > PBS > PS *sT. The same outcome is seen in Tocharian, Greek and Iranian.
- PIE i-stem loc.sg *u̯edʰ-tēi̯ (from *u̯edʰ-ti‑ from *u̯edʰ- ‘lead’) > PBS *u̯esˈtēi̯ > PS inf *u̯esˈtēi̯ (CS *vestì) > OCS vesti (cf. prs vedǫ); Lith. vèsti (cf. prs vedù)
For Slavic see Andersen (1998a), 425–426.
3.2.12. Loss of word-final stops
Word-final stops are lost in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic (but cf. 3.3.5).
- PIE prs.inj.act.3sg *u̯édʰed > PBS, PS *ˌu̯ede > CS *vȅde ‘led’
- PIE dem. pron. nom–acc.sg.n *tód ‘that’ > PBS *ta > PS *ˌta (CS *tȍ)
The last example, with a short vowel before original *‑d, shows that that before Winter’s Law (lengthening before PIE *b d g̑ g gʷ; see 3.2.8) final voiced stops either became devoiced, or had already been lost. If not, we would have had PS **ˌtā (CS **ta).
3.2.13. Regressive voicing assimilation of obstruents
Balto-Slavic has regressive voicing assimilation of obstruents.
- PIE i-stem loc.sg *u̯eg̑ʰ-tēi̯ (from *u̯eg̑ʰ-ti‑ from *u̯eg̑ʰ- ‘carry’) > PBS *u̯esˈtēi̯ > PS inf *u̯esˈtēi̯ (CS *vestì) > OCS vesti (cf. prs vedǫ); Lith. vèžti (pronounced [št]; cf. prs vežù)
- PIE *misdʰ- ‘reward’ > PBS *mizˈdā̰ > PS *mizˈdā (CS *mĭzdà) > OCS mĭzda
In Ukrainian, a voiced obstruent appears before a voiceless obstruent in cases like vezti [ʋezˈtɪ]. This is not an archaism (Andersen 1969), but the result of an analogical reintroduction of the voiced obstruent from prevocalic allomorphs, e.g. prs.3sg vezé. The reintroduction was made possible when new clusters of voiced plus voiceless obstruent arose following the loss of reduced vowels (3.4.12), e.g. Ukr. dúžka [ˈduʒkɐ] ‘handle’ (from CS *dǫ́žĭka, from CS *dǫgà a.p. b ‘arc’).
3.2.14. PIE *ē̆u̯ in Balto-Slavic
The development of PIE *ĕ̄u̯ in Balto-Slavic is complicated. When the sequence *ĕ̄u̯ occurred before a consonant or in final position, it apparently yielded *iau̯ in all cases.
- PIE *leu̯dʰ- > *leu̯d- > PBS *li̯au̯d-, which yielded Lith. liáudis (a.p. 1) and PS *li̯au̯d-, CS *lʲud- ‘people’
- PIE *kéu̯d- > *ˈkēu̯d- > PBS, PS *ˈki̯āu̯d‑, CS *čűd-, OCS čudo ‘miracle’
Otherwise *eu̯ became *au̯ before a vowel.
- u-stem nom.pl *‑eu̯es > PBS *-au̯es> PS -au̯e, CS *-ove, e.g. OCS synove ‘sons’
In endings *i̯ was lost again in analogy with endings with preserved *ĕ̄u̯ (before a vowel).
- PIE u-stem loc.sg *-ēu̯ > *-i̯āu̯ → PBS, PS *-āu̯, CS *-u, e.g. OCS synu ‘son’
3.3. Sound changes from Proto-Balto-Slavic to Proto-Slavic
3.3.1. Dybo’s Law
By Dybo’s Law the accent is advanced from an accented non-acute syllable to a following syllable.
- pre-PS ā-stem nom.sg *ˈgenā̰ ‘woman; wife’ > PS *geˈnā (CS *ženà)
- pre-PS acc.sg *ˈgenām (from *ˈgenā̰) > PS *geˈnān (CS *ženǫ̀)
Dybo’s Law does not affect the non-desinentially accented word-forms of accent paradigm c lexemes since such word-forms with “initial” accent were in fact phonologically unaccented.
- PBS, PS acc.sg *ˌnagān (from naˈgā f ‘foot, leg’) (CS *nȍgǫ)
Some authors assume that Dybo’s Law did affect accent paradigm c lexemes – however, it did not target the unaccented word-forms, but such desinentially accented word-forms that had a disyllabic ending where the first syllable was non-acute (Rasmussen 1999: 478; Olander 2004; 2009: 142–143).
- PBS prs.3sg *neˈseti (from *nes‑ ‘carry’) > PS *neseˈti (CS nesètĭ)
- PBS instr.pl *gaˈstimḭ̄s (from *ˌgastiš ‘guest’ a.p. II) > PS *gastiˈmī (CS *gostĭmì)
- cf. PBS instr.pl *ga̰lˈu̯ā̰mḭ̄s (from *ga̰lˈu̯ā̰ ‘head’ a.p. II) > PS *gālˈu̯āmī (CS *golva̋mi) with no accent advancement from a non-acute syllable
Cf. Saussure’s Law in Lithuanian (9.6.1), according to which the accent is advanced from a non-acute syllable to a following acute syllable.
- PIE *h₃mígʰlah₂‑ f ‘fog’ > PBS *ˈmiglā̰ > Lith. miglà; cf. PS *miˈglā (CS *mĭglà); Gk. ὀμίχλη
- PBS instr.pl *gaˈstimḭ̄s (from *ˌgastiš ‘guest’ a.p. II) > Lith. gastimìs
Contrary to Dybo’s Law, Saussure’s law does affect the initial syllable of originally unaccented word-forms, indicating that when Saussure’s Law operated, these words had become accented. For the similarities and differences between Saussure’s Law and Dybo’s Law see Olander (2009), 116.
3.3.2. Meillet’s Law
In Slavic the distinction between acute and non-acute syllables is lost in unaccented position, including the first syllable of unaccented word-forms.
- PBS *ˌnō̰gām (acute tone) > PS adj. acc.sg.f *ˌnāgān (CS *nȃgǫ) ‘naked’
- PBS *ˌźei̯mām (circumflex tone) > PS acc.sg *ˌzei̯mān (CS *zȋmǫ) f ‘winter’
This leads to a merger of Proto-Balto-Slavic mobile words with acute and non-acute roots (i.e. words with a.p. 3 and 4 in Lithuanian) as a.p. c in Slavic (9.3.2).
- PBS *gā̰lˈu̯ā̰ f (a.p. II) ‘head’, acc.sg *ˌgā̰lu̯ām (> Lith. galvà, gálvą (a.p. 3)) > PS *gālˈu̯ā, *ˌgālu̯ān > CS *golvà, *gȏlvǫ > Ru. golová, gólovu, BCMS gláva, glȃvu
- cf. PBS *barˈdā̰ f (a.p. II) ‘beard’, acc.sg *ˌbardām (> Lith. barzdà, bar̃zdą (a.p. 4); Latv. bā̀rda) > PS *barˈdā, *ˌbardān > CS *bordà, *bȏrdǫ > Ru. borodá, bórodu, BCMS bráda, brȃdu
3.3.3. Delabialisation of *ō to *ā
In Slavic, but not in Baltic, PBS *ō is delabialised to *ā, thereby merging with PBS *ā.
- PIE *mah₂tér‑ f ‘mother’ > PBS *ˈmā̰ter- > PS *ˈmāter- (CS *ma̋ter-) (a.p. a); cf. OLith., dial. Lith. mótė ‘wife; mother’ (a.p. 1/3), Latv. mãte; Lat. māter, OIr. máthir, Gk. μήτηρ, Ved. mātár‑, OAv., YAv. mātar‑
- PIE *bʰráh₂ter‑ m ‘brother’ > PBS *ˈbrā̰ter- > PS *ˈbrātrə (CS *bra̋trŭ) (a.p. a); cf. Lith. broterė̃lis, brólis (a.p. 1/3), Latv. brãlis; TochB procer, TochA pracar, Lat. frāter, Goth. broþar, Gk. φρᾱ́τηρ ‘member of a phratria’, Ved. bhrā́tar‑, OAV., YAv. brātar‑
- PIE *nogʷó‑ adj. ‘naked’ > (by Winter’s Law, 3.2.8) PBS *ˌnō̰ga‑ > PS *ˌnāgə (CS *nȃgŭ) (a.p. c); cf. Lith. núogas (a.p. 3), Latv. nuôgs; Lat. nūdus, Goth. naqaþs, Ved. nagná‑
3.3.4. Loss of word-final fricatives
PIE final *s is preserved in Baltic, but not in Slavic. According to many authors, final *s disappeared tracelessly in Slavic; others maintain that a final *s affected the quality of a preceding vowel in pre-Proto-Slavic. It is difficult to speak of a communis opinio.
A limited version states that only *oi̯ was affected by a word-final *s, *‑oi̯s becoming CS *‑i (not *‑ě) (Kortlandt 2011a: 177–178):
- PIE pron. nom.pl.m *-oi̯ plus analogical *-s > *-oi̯s > CS *vĭ̑lci ‘wolves’
- PIE prs.impv.act.2sg *-oi̯h₁s > CS impv. *vedì ‘lead’
According to this view, forms like OCS o-stem nom.sg vlĭkŭ ‘wolf’ must be analogical for *vlĭko; the ending ‑ŭ may have been taken over from u-stem nom.sg (e.g. OCS synŭ ‘son’_ < PIE *suHnús) or from o-stem acc.sg (e.g. OCS vlĭkŭ < PIE *u̯ĺ̥kʷom), where ‑ŭ < *‑om is regular (see 3.3.5).
A relatively widespread view maintains that *o was also affected, *‑os regularly becoming CS *‑ŭ:
- PIE o-stem nom.sg.m *-os > CS *vĭ̑lkŭ ‘wolf’
Within this framework it is problematic that neuter s-stem nom–acc.sg shows -o, not -ŭ as expected.
- OCS slovo ‘word’ from PIE *k̑léu̯os (cf. Ved. śrávaḥ, Gk, κλέος)
These forms may have analogical -o, ultimately from pronouns (*tód > OCS to etc.).
An extended version claims that pre-PS *ā (from PIE *ah₂) was also affected, pre-PS *-ās becoming CS *-y (Meillet 1897: 96, 104, 125).
- PIE ā-stem gen.sg *-ah₂s > pre-PS *-ās > CS *golvỳ
- PIE ā-stem nom.pl *-ah₂as > pre-PS *-ās > CS *gȏlvy
An even more extended version claims that any pre-PS *ā̆ in a final syllable ending in *s is affected, and that the Old Novgorod dialect has a different outcome (Olander 2012; 2015: 56–57; Viredaz 2009; partly Zaliznjak 2004: 148–149): pre-PS *a ā > PS *ə ə̄ > Classical CS *ŭ y (merging with PS *u ū) || Old Novgorod dialect e ě (merging with PS *e ē).
- PIE m o-stem nom.sg *-os > pre-PS *-as > PS *ˈxlāi̯bə > OCS xlěbŭ, ONovg. xlěbe
- PIE ā-stem gen.sg *-ah₂(a)s, ā-stem nom.pl *-ah₂as > pre-PS *-ās > PS *geˈnə̄ > Classical CS *ženỳ || OCS grivĭně
3.3.5. Loss of word-final nasals
Final *m is lost after a short vowel in pre-Proto-Slavic; a preceding PIE *o becomes PS *u > CS *ŭ.
- PIE m o-stem acc.sg *-om > PS *ˌu̯ilku > CS *vĭ̑lkŭ
- PIE thematic secondary ending 1sg *-om > OCS aor. sěd-ŭ ‘I sat down’
According to the communis opinio final *n also disappears after a short vowel in Slavic, except if preserved by a final dental.
- PIE thematic secondary ending 1sg *-om > OCS aor. sěd-ŭ ‘I sat down’
- PIE thematic secondary ending 3pl *-ond > OCS aor. sěd-ǫ ‘they sat down’
This would mean that the loss of word-final stops took place independently in Baltic and Slavic. An alternative hypothesis would be to ascribe the loss of word-final stops to the pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic period, and to assume that the different outcomes of PIE *‑V̆m and *‑V̆nd in Slavic is conditioned by the different nasals (*m vs. *n) (Olander 2010; but cf. Hill 2013: 172 n. 7). In the alternative scenario, *m disappears after a short vowel in Slavic, whereas final *n is preserved and eventually forms a nasal vowel with the preceding vowel.
- PIE pst.3pl *-ond > PBS, PS *-an > CS *-ǫ > OCS sěd-ǫ ‘they sat down’
- PIE n-stem nom–acc.sg.n *-n̥ > PBS, PS *-in > CS *-ę > OCS im-ę
3.3.6. Loss of syllable-final stops
- PIE *gʰrebʰ- ‘dig’ + infinitive marker *-tēi̯: PS *greˈtēi̯ > CS *gretì ‘row, dig’ > OCS greti (prs. grebǫ)
Before a back vowel PS *kt and *gd yield CS *t and *d. However, *kt gd before front vowels merge with *ti̯ di̯ in CS *tʲ dʲ
- PIE *nókʷt- f ‘night’ > PS *ˌnakti > CS *nȍt’ĭ > OCS noštĭ, OESl. nočĭ, Po. noc, etc.
3.4. Common Slavic phonological developments
3.4.1. First Palatalisation
Before front vowels and *i̯, PS *k g x are palatalised to CS *č ž š.
- PIE *kes- ‘comb’ > PS *kesˈātāi̯ (CS *česa̋ti)
- PIE *gʷihu̯ó- adj. ‘alive’ > PBS *ˌgḭ̄u̯a- > PS *ˌgīu̯a- (CS *žȋvŭ) adj. (a.p. c); cf. Lith. gývas (a.p. 3), Latv. dzîvs
- PIE nom–acc.du *h₂au̯s-ih₁ ‘ears’ > PBS *ˌau̯šḭ̄ > PS *ˌau̯xī (CS *ȗši); cf. PS nom–acc.sg *ˌau̯xa (CS *ȗxo); Lith. ausìs f (a.p. 4) ‘ear’, Latv. auss f ‘ear’
Note that in Klotz (2023) the First Palatalisation is considered to be pre-Proto-Slavic.
3.4.2. Fronting of vowels after palatal consonants
One of the defining changes of the Slavic vowel system was the fronting of non-front vowels after palatal consonants: PS *a ā̄ u ū ə ə̄ appear as CS *o a ŭ y ŭ||e y||ě after non-palatal consonants, but *e ě ĭ i ĭ ě(?) after palatal consonants.
- PIE *mori‑ n ‘sea’ > PBS *mari̯a‑ > PS *ˌmari̯a (CS *mȍrʲe) (a.p. 2) ‘sea’; cf. Lith. mãrios pl (a.p. 2) ‘isthmus; (dial.) sea’; Lat. mare, OIr. muir, Goth. marei f
- PIE prs.3sg *si̯uh‑i̯e‑ti ‘sews’ > PBS *si̯ṵ̄i̯eti > PS *ˈsi̯ūi̯eti (CS *ši̋jetĭ); cf. Lith. inf siū́ti, prs.3sg siùva, Latv. šũt; Lat. suō, Goth. siujan, Ved. sī́vyati
3.4.3. Monophthongisation of oral diphthongs
The Proto-Slavic oral diphthongs *ā̆i̯ ē̆i̯ ā̆u̯ ē̆u̯ are monophthongised to CS *ě i u (j)u.
- PIE *loi̯kʷó‑ > PBS *ˌlai̯ka‑ > PS *‑lai̯kə (CS *‑lěkŭ) > OCS otŭ‑lěkŭ ‘rest’; cf. Lith. laĩkas (a.p. 4) ‘time; period’; Latv. laĩks ‘time; Gk. λοιπός adj. ’remaining’, Ved. pra-reká- m ‘abundance’
- PIE [pf.1sg] *u̯ói̯d‑h₂а + *i > PBS *u̯āi̯dai̯ > PS *u̯āi̯dai̯ (CS *vědě); cf. Lat. uīdī, Goth. wait, Gk. οἶδα, Ved. véda
- PIE *kʷoi̯náh₂‑ > PBS *kai̯ˈnā̰ > PS *kai̯ˈnā (CS *cěnà) (a.p. c) ‘price; value’; cf. Lith. káina (a.p. 2/4) ‘price; value’, Latv. cìens ‘respect’; cf. Gk. ποινή ‘penance; penalty’, Av. kaēnā‑ penance; penalty’
- PIE *h₁ei̯‑ ‘go’ > PBS inf *ei̯tēi̯ > PS *ei̯ˈtēi̯ (CS *iti); cf. Lith. eĩti, Latv. iêt; Lat. eō Gk. εἶμι, Ved. éti
- PIE *g̑ʰéi̯m‑ ‘winter; snow’ > PBS *źei̯ˈmā̰ f ‘winter’ > PS *zei̯ˈmā (CS *zimà) (a.p. c); Lith. žiemà (a.p. 4), Latv. zìema; cf. Ved. himá‑ m ‘cold’, OAv. zimō gen.sg.m ‘in winter’, YAv. ziiā̊ m ‘winter’; Hitt. [dat–loc.sg] giemi ‘in winter’, Lat. hiems f ‘winter; storm’, Gk. χιών f ‘snow’
- PIE *h₁rou̯dʰo‑ adj. ‘red’ > PBS *rau̯da‑ > PS *ˌrau̯də (CS *rȗdŭ) (a.p. c); cf. Lith. raũdas ‘reddish brown’ (a.p. 4), Latv. raũds ‘red; reddish brown’; Lat. dial. rufus ‘red-haired’, OIr. rúad ‘red’; Goth. rauþs ‘red’
- PIE *bʰou̯dʰ‑ ‘awaken’ > PBS *bau̯d‑ > PS *bau̯dei̯ti (CS *buditĭ||ŭ) (a.p. c) ‘awaken’; cf. Lith. baũsti ‘incite’, báudyti ‘incite’, Latv. baũdît / bàudît ‘incite’, OPr. etbaudints [pst.pass.ptcp] ‘awakened’; Ved. bodháyati ‘awaken’
- PIE *bʰeu̯dʰ‑ ‘become aware’ > PBS *bi̯au̯d‑ (3.2.14) > PS prs.3sg *bi̯au̯deˈti (CS *blʲudètĭ||ŭ) (a.p. c) ‘watch; observe’; cf. Gk. πεύθομαι ‘give notice’, Ved. bódhati ‘observe’
3.4.4. Second Palatalisation
After the monophthongisation of PS *ai̯ əi̯ to *ē ī, the Slavic velars (PS *k g x) underwent a second round of palatalisations, this time to CS *c ʒ ś, in two positions:
- before the new front vowels CS ě and i
- between PS *ī̆(n) and a non-high vowel (*ā̆ or *ə̄̆)
Formula: PS *k g x > CS *c ʒ ś / _(u̯)V[+front] (“Second Palatalisation”) and ī(n)_V[–high] (“Third Palatalisation”)
Note that CS *ś is a shorthand for the outcome *s in South and East Slavic and *š in West Slavic.
In most Slavic dialects CS *ʒ is simplified to z, but in Polish it is retained as dz.
- PIE *kʷoi̯náh₂ > PBS *kai̯ˈnā̰ (> Lith. káina f (a.p. 1) ‘price’) > PS *kai̯ˈnā > CS *cěnà f ‘price, value’ > OCS cěna, Bulg. cená, BCMS cijèna, Ru. cená, Cz., Po. cena
- PIE *h₃nogʷʰ-áh₂ai̯, dat.sg of *h₃nogʷʰ-áh₂ f ‘nail, hoof’ (cf. Gk. ὄνυξ m ‘nail, hoof’; OHG nagal m ‘nail’) > PBS *ˌnagāi̯ (> Lith. nãgai) > PS *ˌnagāi̯ > CS *nȍʒě ‘foot, leg’ (nom.sg *nogà) > OCS noʒě (nom.sg noga), BCMS nòzi (nom.sg nòga), Cz. noze (nom.sg noha), Po. nodze (nom.sg noga)
- PS *xai̯r- > CS *śěr- adj. ‘grey’ > Sln. sę́r, Ru. séryj; Cz., Slk. šerý, Po. szary; ONovg. gen.sg.f xěri ‘of a grey cloth’
The palatalisation across *u̯ (PS *ku̯, *gu̯, *xu̯ > CS *cv, *ʒv, *śv) takes place in South Slavic and some East Slavic dialects, but not in West Slavic and other East Slavic dialects.
- PS *ku̯ai̯t- ‘flower’ > OCS cvětŭ, Ru. cvét, but Cz. květ, Po. kwiat; Ukr. kvít alongside cvít
The Old Novgorod dialect is only partly affected: there is no regressive palatalisation and probably no progressive palatalisation of *x and perhaps *g (see 1.1.3).
- ONovg. o-stem pron. adj. nom.sg.m kěle from PS *ˌkai̯lə ‘whole’ – all other Slavic dialects have reflexes of *cě̑lŭ
Some authors consider the Second and Third Palatalisations to be different processes (mostly with the Third Palatalisation preceding the Second Palatalisation) (e.g. Pedersen 1905; Wandl 2020).
Others consider them to be the same process as they yield exactly the same results in the Slavic dialects (e.g. Andersen 1998b: 588–589; Vermeer 2003; Olander 2015: 63–64 with further references).
3.4.5. Liquid Metathesis
The Liquid Metathesis refers to the process whereby inherited sequences of PS *ā̆ or *ē̆ followed by *r or *l undergo various changes in the Slavic languages. It is one of the diagnostics in the traditional subgrouping of Slavic (see 1.1.2). The general outcomes in the Slavic languages are shown in Table 10.
| PS | CS | SSl. | ESl. | Po., LSorb., USorb. | Cz. | Slk. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| *-ā̆r- -ā̆l- | *-or- -ol- | ra la | -oro- ‑olo- | -ro- -lo- | -ra- -la- | -ra- -la- |
| *ar- al- | *ȏr- ȏl- | ro- lo- | ro- lo- | ro- lo- | ra- la- | |
| *ār- āl- | *őr- ől- | ra- la- | ra- la- | ra- la- | ra- la- | |
| *ē̆r ē̆l | *er el | rě lě | ere olo | re le | rě lě | re le |
Examples:
- PS *ˌgardə (CS *gordŭ) m
o-stem ‘fortification, town’
- OCS gradŭ; Bulg. grád; Mac. grad; BCMS grȃd; Slovene grȃd
- Ru. górod, BRu. hórad, Ukr. hórod – for Russian place names in ‑grad see below
- Po. gród, USrb. hród
- Cz. hrad, Slk. hrad
- PS *ˈārdla (CS *a̋rdlo) n
o-stem ‘plough’
- OCS ralo, Bulg. rálo, Mac. ralo, BCMS rȁlo, Slovene rálo
- Ru. rálo, BRu. rála, Ukr. rálo
- Cz. rádlo, Slk. radlo, Po. radło, USrb. radło, LSorb. radło
- PS *ald‑ (CS *old‑) ‘boat’
- OCS ladii (also alŭdii), Bulg. ládja, BCMS lȃđa, Slovene ládja; OESl. lodĭja, Ru. lódka; Cz. loď, Po. łódź, USrb. łódź
- PS ˌalkŭtĭ (CS ȏlkŭtĭ) m
i-stem / i̯o-stem ‘elbow’
- OCS lakŭtĭ, Bulg. lákăt, Mac. lakt, lakot, BCMS lȃkat, Sln. lȃket, lakȃt
- Ru. lókotʹ, BRu. lókacʹ, Ukr. líkotʹ
- Cz. loket, Slk. lokeť (lakeť), Po. łokieć, USorb. łochć
- PS *ˈbērzā (CS *be̋rza) f
ā-stem ‘birch tree’
- OCS brěza, Bulg. brezá, Mac. breza, SCr. brȅza, Sln. brẹ́za
- Ru. berëza, BRu. bjaróza, Ukr. beréza
- Cz. bříza (with long ě > í), Slk. breza, Po. brzoza (with e > o before a non-palatalised dental), USrb. brěza, LSrb. brjaza
- PS *ˈmēltēi̯ (CS *me̋lti) inf
‘grind, mill’
- OCS mlěti, SCr. mljȅti, Sln. mlẹ́ti
- Ru. molótʹ, BRu. malócʹ, Ukr. molóty
- Cz. mlít (with long ě > í), Slk. mlieť, Po. mleć, USrb. mlěć
Fun fact: Russian toponyms in ‑grad – e.g. Saint Petersburg’s former names Petrográd (1914–1924) and Leningrád (1924–1991); Volgográd and its earlier name Stalingrа́d (1925–1961) – have the South Slavic version. The East Slavic outcome is seen in toponyms in ‑gorod (e.g. Nóvgorod).
3.4.6. Common Slavic vowel contractions
The Slavic languages, including OCS, have varying degrees of vowel contractions (Andersen 2014).
- PS def.m–n.gen.sg *naˈu̯ā‑i̯aga (CS *nova‑jego) (from PS *naˈu̯ə (CS *nòvŭ) adj. ‘new’ (a.p. b)) > OCS novaego, novaago, novago; Po. nowego; Cz. nového
- PS *ˌpai̯āsə (CS *pȍjasŭ) m o-stem (a.p. c) ‘girdle’ > OCS pojasŭ, Bg. pójas, BCMS pȍjās, pȃs, Sln. pȃs; Ru. pójas; Po. pas, Cz. pás, Slk. pás
3.4.7. Loss of postconsonantal *i̯
PIE (and Proto-Balto-Slavic) consonants followed by *i̯ underwent significant changes in Slavic. The first step was loss of the *i̯ with palatalisation of the preceding consonant: PIE *Ci̯ > PS *Ci̯ > CS *Cʲ (see e.g. Andersen 1998a: 431; Olander 2015: 65).
The outcome of dental stops plus *i̯ – PS *ti̯ di̯ (CS *tʲ dʲ; also written *t’ d’) – is one of the main diagnostics for the internal subgrouping of Slavic (see 1.1.2), although the South Slavic languages have diverging results.
| PS | *ti̯ | *di̯ |
|---|---|---|
| CS | *tʲ | *dʲ |
| OCS | št | žd |
| Bulg. | št | žd |
| Mac. | ḱ | ǵ |
| BCMS | ć | đ |
| Sln. | č | j |
| East Sl. | č | ž |
| West Sl. | c | dz / z |
The reflexes of PS *su̯ai̯ˈti̯ā (CS *světʲà) f ‘light’ and *meˈdi̯ā (CS *medʲà) f ‘border’ are shown in Table 12.
Fun fact: The preposition CS *medʲù ‘between’ is originally a locative dual form of *medjà ‘border’; the -žd- of Ru. méždu shows it is a borrowing from Church Slavonic.
| PS | *ti̯ | *su̯ai̯ˈti̯ā ‘light’ | *di̯ | *meˈdi̯ā f ‘border’ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CS | *tʲ | *světʲà | *dʲ | *medʲà |
| OCS | št | svěšta | žd | mežda |
| Bulg. | št | svéšt | žd | meždá |
| Mac. | ḱ | sveḱa | ǵ | meǵa |
| BCMS | ć | svéća, svijèća | đ | mèđa |
| Sln. | č | svẹ́ča | j | méja |
| ESl. | č | Ru. svečá | ž | Ru. mežá |
| WSl.: Po. | c | świeca | dz | miedza |
| WSl.: Cz. | svíce | z | meze | |
| WSl.: USrb. | swěca | mjeza |
PS *kt followed by a front vowel merges with PS *ti̯ as CS *tʲ.
- PIE *nókʷt- f ‘night’ > PS *ˌnakti (CS *nȍtʲĭ): OCS *noštĭ, Bulg. nošt, Mac. noḱ, BCMS nȏć, Sln. nọ̑č; Ru. nočʹ, BRu. noč, Ukr. nič; Po. noc, USorb. nóc, LSorb. noc, Cz. noc, Slk. noc
Before a non-front vowel PS *kt yields CS *t.
If the consonant was a labial, *l was inserted after the consonant in Common Slavic.
- PIE *dʰg̑ʰem- > PS ā-stem nom.sg *zemˈi̯ā (CS *zemlʲà) f ‘earth’
A following front vowel may have prevented the insertion of *l.
- PS ā-stem loc.sg *zemˈi̯ēi̯ (CS *zemʲì)
The alternation of allomorphs with and without *lʲ was not tolerated, an *lʲ was normally generalised, e.g. Ru. zemljá, loc zemljí.
3.4.8. Backing of *ē to *ā after palatalised consonants
After a palatalised consonant *ē becomes *ā.
- PS *ˈgēli > *ˈžēli (3.4.1) > *ˈžāli > CS *ža̋lĭ f i-stem (a.p. a) ‘grief; regret’
- PS loc.sg *zem‑ˈi̯āi̯ > *zem‑ˈi̯ēi̯ > CS *zemʲì (3.4.3) (from PS *zem‑ˈi̯ā (CS *zemlʲà) f ā-stem (a.p. c) ‘earth’)
- PS i̯e-present prs.1sg *pei̯s‑ˈi̯ān > *‑ˈi̯ēn > *‑ˈi̯ān > CS *pišǫ̀ (from PS *piˈsātēi̯ (CS *pĭsa̋ti) (a.p. b) ‘write’)
The change is later than the first palatalisation (3.4.1), the vowel fronting after palatal consonants (3.4.2), and the monophthongisation of oral diphthongs (3.4.3); cf. CS *zemʲì above, not **zemlʲě̀. It takes place before the monophthongisation of nasal diphthongs (3.4.9); cf. CS *pišǫ̀ above, not **pišę̀.
3.4.9. Monophthongisation of nasal diphthongs
In the Common Slavic period nasal diphthongs were monophthongised to nasal vowels: *ā̆n ē̆n ī̆n ū̆n > CS *ǫ ę ę ǫ. For the hypthesised reflexes of *ə̄̆n see Olander (2015: 66).
- PS *ranˈkā f ā-stem (a.p. c) ‘hand’ > CS *rǫkà
- PS *ˌpenti f i-stem (a.p. c) ‘five’ > CS *pę̑tĭ
- PS *ˈpā‑minti f i-st. (a.p. a) ‘memory’ > CS *pa̋‑mętĭ
- PS pfv.prs.3sg *ˈbūndeti (from PS *ˈbūtēi̯ (CS *by̋ti) (a.p. a) ‘to be’) > CS *bǫ̋detĭ/ŭ
3.4.10. Reinterpretation of vowel quantity as quality
In all Slavic languages, at some point vowel quantity was reinterpreted as vowel quality: *ī ē ā ū ȳ i e a u > CS *i ě a u ĭ e o ŭ. This systemic change affects all Slavic words.
The change is referred to as the “Second CS Vowel Shift (VS₂)” by Andersen (1998c).
3.4.11. Stang’s Law (Slavic)
The accent was retracted to a preceding syllable from, from reduced vowels in weak position, from short (i.e. non-acute) medial diphthongs and from contracting syllables. The syllable receiving the accent acquired neoacute tone.
- PS nom.sg *snaˈpə m o-stem ‘sheaf’ (a.p. b): CS *snòpŭ ‘sheaf’ > BCMS snȍp, Sln. snȍp
- PS nom.sg *karˈli̯ə m o-stem ‘king’ (a.p. b): CS *kórlʲĭ ‘king’ > Čak. králj, Ru. korólʹ
- PS prs.3pl *maˈganti ‘they can’: CS *mògǫtĭ > Čak. mȍrū, Ru. mógut
- PS prs.2sg *pūˈtāi̯exei̯ ‘you ask’: CS *pyta̋ješi > Čak. pítā̆š; cf. uncontracted Ru. pytáešʹ
3.4.12. The loss of the reduced vowels (jers)
The Common Slavic vowel system included the two so-called “reduced vowels”, or jers, written *ĭ ŭ or *ь ъ and normally reflecting PS *i u. In “Urkirchenslavisch”, the original language of Cyril and Methodius, they may have been pronounced [ɪ ʊ].
The reduced vowels are to some extent preserved as ĭ ŭ in the most conservative OCS and Old East Slavic manuscripts. In most manuscripts, however, and in the remaining Slavic languages, the reduced vowels have two different types of reflexes, depending on their position in the word.
A reduced vowel is in weak position if it is the final vowel of the word, or if it is followed by a non-reduced vowel; and in strong position if it followed by a reduced vowel in weak position. This rule is referred to as “Havlík’s Law”.
- CS nom.sg *gȏrdŭ m o-stem ‘fortification; town’: the final ŭ is in weak position
- CS nom.sg *sŭ̀nŭ m o-stem ‘sleep; dream’: the final ŭ is in weak position; the initial ŭ is in strong position
- CS gen.sg *sŭ̀na (from *sŭ̀nŭ m o-stem ‘sleep; dream’): the initial ŭ is in weak position
In weak position the reduced vowel disappears, although in many cases ĭ causes palatalisation of the preceding consonant. In strong position, the reduced vowel becomes a full vowel, with different qualities in the various Slavic languages (see Table 13).
At the time of the writing of the actual extant OCS manuscripts, the speakers had probably already lost the weak reduced vowels and replaced the strong ones with the full vowels e o.
In all Slavic languages reduced vowels in strong position merge with other vowels.
| CS | *ĭ | *ŭ |
|---|---|---|
| OCS | ĭ (e) | ŭ (o) |
| Bulg. | e | ă [ə] |
| Mac. | e | o |
| BCMS | a | a |
| Sln. | a | e [ə] |
| East Sl. | e | o |
| West Sl. | e | e |
Examples of reduced vowels in strong and weak position (an underlined ŭ or ĭ in the Common Slavic reconstruction indicates strong position).
- PS nom.sg *atiˈkə m o-stem ‘father’ (CS *otĭ̀cĭ) > OCS otĭcĭ, Bulg. otéc (old-fashioned), BCMS òtac; Ru. otéc; Po. ojciec, Cz. otec
- PS gen.sg *atiˈkā (from m o-stem ‘father’) (CS *otĭ̀cà) > OCS otĭca, BCMS òca; Ru. otcá; Po. ojca, Cz. otce
- PS acc.sg *ˌkruu̯i (from f ū-stem *ˌkrū ‘blood’) (CS *krŭ̏vĭ) > OCS krŭvĭ / krovĭ, Bulg. krăv, BCMS ; OESl. krŭvĭ / krovĭ, Ru. krovʹ; Po. krew
- PS nom.sg *ˌgardə m o-st. ‘fortification; town’ (CS *gȏrdŭ) > OCS gradŭ, Bulg. grad, Mac. grad, BCMS grȃd; OESl. gorodŭ, Ru. górod, BRu. hórad, Ukr. hórod; Po. gród, LSrb. grod, USrb. hród, Cz. hrad, Slk. hrad
- PS nom.sg *suˈnə m o-st. ‘sleep’ (CS *sŭ̀nŭ) > OCS sŭnŭ, Bulg. săn; BCMS sȁn; Sln. sèn [sən], snà; Ru. son; Po. sen, Cz. sen
- PS gen.sg *suˈnā (from *suˈnə m o-stem ‘sleep’) (CS *sŭˈna) > OCS sŭna, BCMS snȁ, Sln. snà; Ru. sna; Po. snu, Cz. snu / sna
Reduced vowels in weak position are lost in all Slavic languages, with one exception: Polabian treats a weak reduced vowel as strong if it occurs in the word’s first syllable in accented or immediately pretonic position
- CS inf. *sŭpa̋ti ‘sleep’ > Plb. såpăt
- CS o-stem nom.pl.m *pĭsì ‘dogs’ > Plb. pasai