Balto-Slavic accentology

This paper deals with certain aspects of accentuation of the Čakavian dialect of Blato on the island of Korčula from a historical and wider dialectological perspective. The material in the paper is based completely on a recently published dictionary – Milat Panža ([2014]). The topics discussed are posstonic acute length, locative plural in *-axъ (and the accent of *nasъ, *vasъ), one archaic length alternation in the verb "činiti", the accentuation of the "za me" type and some minor issues.

While L2 acquisition by Brazilians has been studied for different languages, the acquisition of Brazilian Portuguese by foreigners has been poorly explored. Recent studies of non-native accented speech in other languages have shown that a foreign accent could largely influence the perception of personal qualities of speakers, and this issue presents a large interest for intercultural research projects. Our research project is focused on Russophone immigrants living in Brazil, bilingual speakers of Russian and Portuguese. The specific aim of the current work is to describe a database containing information about 40 native Russian speakers living in São Paulo for at least six months. Their linguistic and sociocultural profiles are presented, and the experimental protocol of the data collection is described. The protocol included recording speech samples in Russian and in Portuguese and video recordings for further facial expression analysis of bilinguals by the program FaceReader 7.0. The analysis of the sociocultural profiles of the Russophones, presented in the current work, provides a strong basis for the enrichment of the phonetic, sociolinguistic, and nonverbal behavior analysis of these speakers.

„Donelaičio kirčiavimas. Přízvukování u Donalitia“ is the first ever linguistic monograph (doctor thesis) on the accentuation of Kristijonas Donelaitis, written by the famous Czech professor Karel Janáček in 1928 in Brno. The manuscript was never published and was rediscovered by Vaidas Šeferis in the year 1997 at the Library of the Faculty of Arts of the Masaryk University in Brno (Czech Republic). With the support of Ministries of Education of both Czech Republic and Lithauanian Republic this work was then published in Brno, Vaidas Šeferis being the editor and translator of the monograph into Lithuanian and prof. Bonifacas Stundžia providing comprehensive analysis of the Janáček’ monograph. Below is the row-text of the book and both forewords (by Vaidas Šeferis and Bonifacas Stundžia). To purchase the book please contact Vaidas Šeferis via e-mail [email protected].

го окончания в чеlllСКОМ и старословацком: чеш. -tСh, дР.-чеш. -tech, СТ.-слвц. -tech (Stan. П, с. 80), а также рефлекс долготы в кашу6ском: словинц. 'X.l~pje'X., Ьгасе'Х.. Loc. pl. (о-основы ср.р.) словен. lijtth. тftBtth и др. : каАк. (Бедня) l1:ete, т/:eBte и др.; ср. схрв. лосавск. (РЬ Н) веИ, (па) let11; (ра) brdi, (и) drvi, (па) neЬеВ!: и др.; схрв. ceB.-чак. (Нови) ra.lfh, z.rсаИh, veBl1h и veBlih, па тeBt{h и др.; а также рефлекс долготы в кашу6ском: словинц. йЕ,;сё'Х., тJi~BCe'X..

The position of the so-called ‘Baltic’ languages Lithuanian, Latvian and Old Prussian within the Balto-Slavonic branch of Indo-European is still a matter of debate. Within Balto-Slavonic, the Slavonic sub-branch is clearly identifiable due to an exclusive set of phonological and morphological innovations not shared by ‘Baltic’. The ‘East Baltic’ languages Lithuanian and Latvian are similarly separated from both Slavonic and the ‘West Baltic’ language Old Prussian by a set of characteristic innovations. What remains to be clarified, is the exact position of Old Prussian. Traditionally, Old Prussian is either grouped with ‘East Baltic’, thus implying a common Proto-Baltic stage after
the disintegration of Proto-Balto-Slavonic, or it is seen as a separate sub-branch of Balto-Slavonic. The situation is additionally complicated by several nontrivial features shared by ‘East Baltic’ and Slavonic but not found in Old Prussian. Such features point to a third possible position on the sub-branches of Balto-Slavonic, i.e. grouping East Baltic together with Slavonic which implies a particularly early separation of Old Prussian from the rest of the branch. The paper intends to foster the theoretical discussion by pointing out two nontrivial phonological developments which must be assumed for both ‘East’ and ‘West Baltic’ but not for Slavonic and therefore may constitute evidence for Proto-Baltic as a parent language of both ‘Baltic’ branches.

The paper discusses the accent of kako ‘how’, tako ‘thus’, ovako ‘this way’, onako ‘that way’ and some other related words (like nikako ‘no way’, nekako ‘somehow’) primarily in Štokavian and Čakavian from a dialectological (including standard-dialect sources) and historical perspective (going back to Common Slavic). The alternation kȁko ‘how’ — kàko ̮ je < kakȍ ̮ je ‘how is’ is discussed in some detail.

III prūsų katekizmo rašyba liudija šią priesagą buvus kirčiuotą, pozicinį dvigarsio in pirmojo dėmens pailgėjimą žymintis brūkšnelis rodo prūsų kalboje priesagai buvus būdingą cirkumfleksinę priegaidę, plg. pr. wertīngs. Rytų baltų kalbose ši priesaga, kaip žinoma, akūtinė, plg. lie. vertngas, la. vẽrtîgs. Į šią problemą dėmesį atkreipė, nors plačiau ir nekomentavo, jau F. Fortunatovas ir E. Bernekeris, pirmąsyk prūsistikos istorijoje išnagrinėję brūkšnelio vartojimo dėsningumus III katekizme ir pastebėję prūsų ir lietuvių kalbų kirčio vietos bei priegaidžių atitikimus (žr. Ф о р т у н а т о в ъ 1895, 261t.; B e r n e k e r 1896, 114t.).

The article deals with the history of SCr. krd(o) and its Balto-Slavic cognates. A supposed descendent of the zero-grade root *ḱr̥dh-, SCr. krdo acquired its plain velar as a result of the Proto-Indo-European depalatalization before a syllabic resonant. The other root variant reflected in Balto-Slavic, *skerdh-, which underlies Lith. sker͂džius ‘shepherd’ and sker͂dis ‘id.’, was also regularly depalatalized, as PIE *ḱ expectedly yields *k if preceded by *s. The e-grade without the s-mobile provided no conditions for the said depalatalization to occur, which points to the analogical spread of the plain velar from the other two variants. / Članak obrađuje istoriju sh. reči krd(o) i njoj srodnih baltoslovenskih oblika, sa posebnim osvrtom na poreklo inicijalnog velara.

Ls,j D=F= Heccrjt elfhtybt b tuj ghjbc[j;ltybt @ghj,ktvf utytpbcf gfhflbuvfnbxtcrb[ frwtynys[ cbcntv& Nj-rfr j,`zdktyf ntvf ljrkflf b tuj gjlpfujkjdjr-vj;tn dspdfnm dgtxfnktybt-xnj tuj pflfxf bpkj;bnm ghj,ktvfnbre chfdybntkmyj/bcnjhbxtcrjq frwtynjkjubb t? vtnjls b jcyjdyst t? htpekmnfns= Xnj-rjytxyj-ytdjpvj;yj= Z ghjcnj gjgsnf.cm hfccrfpfnm jxtym rhfnrj b gj djpvj;yjcnb gjyznyj-xnj cltkfyj yt,jkmijq uheggjq bccktljdfntktqrjnjhe. yf Pfgflt yfpsdf.n Vjcrjdcrjq frwtynjkjubxtcrjq irjkjq d yfghfdktybb r htityb. gjcnfdktyyjuj d pfujkjdrt djghjcf=

The article discusses the development of the Proto-Slavic vowels *o
and *e with a neoacute accent. These vowels are reflected as short
vowels, diphthongs or long vowels in the modern Slavic languages.
Their outcome is conditioned by the origin of the neoacute: if it arose
through retraction of the accent from a word-final jer, the newly accented *o or *e became long and was subsequently diphthongized in
a number of Slavic dialects. If the neoacute accent arose in a different
way, the quantity of the newly accented *o or *e depends on the dialect.

This PhD thesis examines a phenomenon known as Monosyllabic Circumflexion (MC, hereafter) from a historical linguistics / phonological point of view. MC denotes a Lithuanian or Balto-Slavic phenomenon according to which long vowels and diphthongs in monosyllabic words exhibit a circumflex tone instead of the expected acute tone. It is observed in the following four categories:

All South Slavic languages, from Bulgaria in the SouthEast to Slovenia in the NorthWest , are part of a dialect continuum. This paper outlines the position of what is traditionally called Kajkavian in that continuum in light of old accentual isoglosses. Kajkavian shares several old prosodic-phonological iso-glosses with Slovene (such as the rise of the neocircumflex), while on the other hand it is connected with Western Štokavian and Čakavian through some morphological categorial accentual isoglosses (like the innovative accent of the infinitive and l-participle).

Статья посвящена просодическим соответствия между прагерманским и поздним индоевропейским языками. Данные соответствия описываются законом Вернера и законом Хольцмана и отличаются высокой регулярностью. Доказывается, что раннегерманские языки, включая готский язык эпохи Вульфилы, не утратил разноместное словесное ударение, а колебания в отражении рефлексов закона Вернера и закона Хольцмана объясняются тем, что разные германские языки генерализовали варианты с разным таймингом - т.е. нормальным или опережающим движением тона на ударном гласном. Закон Вернера, вопреки стандартным интерпретациями, следует понимать как озвончение инициали неначального ударного слога, он отражает не снятие ударения с неначальных слогов, а его наличие. Ошибкой К.Вернера, О.Есперсена и последовавших за ними германистов было то, что они пытались подвести два процесса - чередование глухих и звонких спирантов в середине слова и устранение глухих спирантов в конце слова в предударной позиции - под одну общую рубрику. Неприемлема также трактовка Ф.де Соссюра, который утверждал, что древние германские языки имели не оппозицию глухих и звонких спирантов, а оппозицию сильных и слабых спирантов. Глагольные корни с законом Хольцмана отражают пангерманский процесс удлинения интервокальных j,w перед неначальным ударным слогов: в ларингалистской перспективе корни с законом Хольцмана имеют выпавший ларингал, а в нотации В.А.Дыбо - сократившийся долгий дифтонг, в том числе, в корне, давшим рус. блевать и гот. bliggwan, ср. англ. blow.

The paper discusses the reflexes of the Proto-Slavic i-verbs accentual paradigms in Croatian (Štokavian/Čakavian/Kajkavian) dialects, with special regards to the reflexes of the a. p. b1 and b2, as well as to a Štokavian/Čakavian a. p. c > B: transfer. The paper provides a great amount of accentological data for the reconstruction of Proto-Slavic, Balto-Slavic and Indo-European accent.

In the following presentation, I will try to outline a theory of how the three Common Slavic accent paradigms (a, b and c) can be derived from accentual patterns in Proto-Indo-European, for both nouns/adjectives and verbs. A central assumption will be that Balto-Slavic had three accent paradigms, not two, as is usually assumed.

The paper is a part of an ongoing discussion on various topics of historical Slavic accentology with Frederik Kortlandt. The topics discussed in the paper are: the reflex of the Proto-Slavic short neo-acute in Kajkavian; the reflex of pretonic and posttonic length in West and South Slavic; the reconstruction of the ending *-ъ in Slavic genitive plural, its accentuation, and the ending -ā in Štokavian and Slovene; the lengthening of the bȏg ‘god’ and kȍkōt ‘rooster’ type in Western South Slavic; the *obőrna ‘defense’ and *čьrnĩna ‘blackness’ type accent and retractions of contractional neo-circumflexes; the reflex of Slavic *ò in Slovak and Czech monosyllables; and the valence theory and Proto-Indo-European origin of Balto-Slavic accentuation.

The article discusses a number of cases in which Proto-Indo-European word-initial sequences of the type *Hi- and *Hu- yield an acute vowel in Baltic and in Slavic. It is argued that this is a regular development and that the acute accent was frequently transferred analogically to the corresponding full grade forms *Hei- and *Heu-.

The paper discusses the retraction of the neo-circumflex in Čakavian (and also in passing in Kajkavian as well). The two main points of discussion are the border of the southern isogloss of the retraction of word-final neo-circumflex (of all origins) as in gȍdīšć < godȋšć ‘years’ and the northern retraction of the contractional word-medial neo-circumflex as in vȍńāmo < vońȃmo ‘we stink’. The problem of a dialectal Common Slavic contraction and the rise of the neo-circumflex in a number of phases is also tackled.

Cet ouvrage s’intéresse aux facteurs morphologiques et sémantiques qui sont susceptibles de rendre compte de l’accentuation des thèmes en * ā (< * eh2) des différentes langues indo-européennes étudiées : dérivation primaire ou secondaire, présence ou non d’un vocalisme *o apophonique en cas de dérivation primaire, maintien ou rupture du lien qui unissait les formes étudiées à leur famille étymologique, sens abstrait ou concret, appartenance à un microsystème lexical impliquant une accentuation spécifique, etc. C’est en grec ancien que la conjonction de ces différents facteurs semble le mieux capable d’expliquer l’essentiel des données accentuelles relatives aux noms en *-ā, et, de ce fait, c’est le dossier grec qui se trouve le plus largement développé dans cette étude (p. 7-367). Mais cet ouvrage traite aussi assez largement de faits védiques (p. 373-412), baltiques et slaves (p. 413-512), ainsi que germaniques (p. 513-532). Il aborde également une question transversale, à savoir celle du contraste accentuel qui apparaît entre des formes de masculin ou de neutre singulier thématiques et des formes de féminin ou de neutre pluriel d’origine collective (p. 533-565).

Comptes rendus :
- Francesco Dedè, Incontri Linguistici, 40, 2017, p. 183-184 ;
- Romain Garnier, Wékwos. Revue d’études indo-européennes, 3, 2017, p. 292-301 ;
- Julián Mendéz Dosuna, Emerita. Revista de lingüística y filología clásica, 86/2, 2018, p. 370-374 ;
- Alain Blanc, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 113/2, 2018, p. 204-207.

The paper argues that the distribution of the two late PSl. reflexes of early PSl. *oi# (namely, *ě2# and *i2#) is governed in a regular fashion by the presence or absence of an original [+acute] feature on the original diphthong. The old "Jagić rule" (which is generally NOT believed to be borne out by the data) should be thought of as an exceptionless (Neogrammarian-style) sound law.

Curonian, an extinct East Baltic language once spoken on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea, influenced the accentual systems of western dialects of Latvian and Lithuanian, as well as Livonian. Substrate or adstrate features in the accentual systems of these languages indicate that Curonian had fixed initial stress – ultimately due to a Balto-Fennic substrate in Curonian itself – and a tonal opposition between a broken tone and a sustained tone.

Vocatives in Vedic Sanskrit were lexically unaccented. In phrase-initial position, they host a phrasal tone, much as lexically unaccented words in Tokyo Japanese and Northern Bizkaian Basque. Departing from this grammar, we arrive just as easily at the Greek and Balto-Slavic data, so this is what we should reconstruct for the linguistic ancestor of those branches (at least). I find no evidence for a synchronic vocative accent retraction process.

The aim of the article is to present basic (albeit not exhaustive) data on the tonal accent in the modern Western South Slavic languages in synchronic and diachronic perspective, with the main focus on Štokavian/Čakavian/Kajkavian and New Štokavian in particular. Apart from that, the author briefly reviews relevant present-day scientific works and touches upon some typical problems, especially those causing confusion, puzzlement and contradictions in research today.

                             Восточнославянские рефлексы а. п. d и индоевропейские соответствия 33                                                                                                                              Восточнославянские рефлексы а. п. d и индоевропейские соответствия 41           oacc arra  r ru   r ru   r  r   n  an      a                                  oacce  ee  ae  oe   oc e             u e   a a a                      o        me r  u      e         a                                 c  a ae 