Appendix talk:Proto-Slavic pronouns

I think that *(j)a was never used for ("I"). In OCS "azъ"; old russian "(j)azъ"; old czech/old polish "jaz". The next problem for Slavs would be to differentiate it in the prior form without letter "j" from the conjuntion "a" ("and,or") :-))

There is a blunder here in row 3: *onъ,*ona,*ono means ("yon,that"). For the expression of ("he,she,it") were used definite articles: *jь, *ja, *je. They are still preserved in most slavic languages as indirect cases of today's "on,ona,ono". Same problem is in the row 6.

If you don't have anything against this, I'll correct it. ;-) H.patera 13:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See Derksen; *(j)a could (and should!) be reconstructed for LPSl. It does 1) have reflections in all three branches and 2) could, like Derksen suggests, rise as later inovation (with which I don't agree, but it's existence is nevertheless undoubtful). It could even be traced comparatively for PIE proper; PIE head at least three forms for first-person pronoun: *éǵh₂om,, , and the form *éǵ (identical to *éǵh₂om without the particle *-h₂om) (I listed on PIE article in Appendix only one form unfortunately :), and that form explains both Slavic *(j)a, Lithuanian , Latvian , which all arose by assimilation of final Balto-Slavic -ź before vociless consonants at the beginning of the next word. This confirms Avestan azə, Hittite uk and ugga (geminated writing of obstruents confirms voicless -k, which arose in conditions identical to Lithuanian '-š'). *éǵh₂om form (not listed in Appendix, and the form Derksen also postulates, with "unknown laryngeal" symbol but we know that it was voiceless fricative h₂ ^_^) is naturally reflected in OCS *azъ, Vedic Sanskrit etc. The most ancient form of first-person pronoun in PIE is in fact *éǵ, since *éǵoh₂ probably arose by analogical leveling with grammatical morpheme of first-person singular present of thematic verbs (*bʰeroh₂ - I carry).


 * Constantine was smarter than one would think; Glagolitic 'a' letter Ⰰ was in fact named - 'azъ'. You think that's just coincidence? ;-)


 * Next, onъ, ona ono were full-blown third-person pronouns in LPSl., and are reflected as such in all branches. They originate from PIE, which makes them originally demonstratives. The same evolution of demonstrative to third-person pronoun you can even be seen in PIE proper; cf. . It Baltic it remained demonstrative (Lithuanian ) and in the Language of Gods, can serve for both purposes; both as a pronominal base in certain cases of the 3rd-person pronoun (thus in the acc. sing. du. pl. (, ,  etc.), inst. sing.  gen. loc. du. (, Vedic ); the other cases are formed from the pronominal base  (इदम्:) and as "this, that", exclusively enclitic demonstrative.


 * So don't remove any of those, please :> --Ivan Štambuk 15:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. I have seen Derksen and there is written: "Proto-Slavic form: azú". The "assimilation of final Balto-Slavic -ź before vociless consonants at the beginning of the next word" is normal phenomenon of spoken languages ;-) Derksen says, that "The distribution of *jazú and *ja suggest that the latter form is a Proto-Slavic innovation". You can see, that he doesn't talk about "azъ" and "a", although he reflects on the top only the form without letter "j". I can tell you, that I have never read about *(j)a and the second form of late proto-slavic *(j)azъ is also very rare shown. All authors I have read write chifly about *azъ. Can you tell me, where have you this information about *ja found? Okay, you say that this is reflected in all branches... tell me one slavic language, where "ja" hadn't evolved directly from "jaz".


 * You are practically right with "onъ, ona ono", except two things. They are not reflected in all branches. The eastern section of south slavic languages (bulgarian, macedonian) has instead of them "toj, tja, to", which evolved from the *tъ + *jь and the second thing is, that in OCS were they still demonstrative pronouns, so this evolution to third-person pronouns couldn't happen before the fall of LPSl. H.patera 17:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Derksen lists under the reflexes of *azъ both of ja and jaz, which is absurd. I've read the upper explanation in one comparative grammar of Croatian (written by Ranko Matasović), and I'm pretty much sure that I've read something similar in Schenker's book. I'll look up tomorrow in the library what the other renown authors say (Orr, Townsend etc.) and cite it here. I've told you that "ja" couldn't have possibly originated from "jaz", because two of those evolved from separate PIE roots for third-person/demonstrative pronoun that were provably reflected differently in different branches. But moreover, that *(j)a was the original form out of which *(jaz) was built. Anyway, I'll see tomorrow what the other authors say, though I doubt Matasović is wrong on this one ;)


 * Modern Bulgarian/Macedonian constitute very distinctive dialect continuum with respect to other branches (complete lost of cases, rise of definiteness etc.) and can't be taken as a final argument especially when confronted with the evidence of other languages of the same branch that do retain it (Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Slovenian), and all the other languages of the other branches. *tъjь, *tъ < PIE are entirely different thing, and these demonstratives have also been preserved in most other Slavic languages.


 * Derksen says in his onъ, ona, ono etry that OCS really meant "he", and that same form is shared with demonstrative онъ that meant "that" (in Croatian on/ona/ono vs. onaj/ona/ono - but they differ in pitch accent). I'll check this one too in literature tomorrow, I'm puzzled now :/ --Ivan Štambuk 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, find *(j)a in two books, scan and send it to my e-mail. I will apologize you then. I have never seen it before :-))


 * Now I'll show you, that Derksen is a hard liar. This is an OCS text with english translation, where is used "И" (*jь) as ("he") and "онъ" as ("that"). http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ocsol-2-X.html 62.77.101.220 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL, OK whatever. Derksen does mention *(j)a existing in LPSl, just not as lemma form but in comment "later inovation..". Don't you find it weird that, if онъ was only a demonstrative in LPSl, prior to the formation of 3 branches + major dialectal isoglosses, that it was reflected as the same third-person pronoun in all languages/dialects (apart from Bulgarian/Macedonian) ? ^_^ We'll see tomorrow then, hopefully me citing you several examples of OCS canon of онъ undoubtoubly not being used as a demonstrative :) --Ivan Štambuk 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't find Derksen as an authentic source. You say yourself, that you disagree with him and besides he talks only about "ja" without * and without (j) in brackets. Derksen is in fact only extract from Trubačov's masterpiece, toped up with PS accents. In Trubačov's work are not for example PIE reconstructions, PS meanings or the commentaries. That is why I find Derksen very "fabricated". I really don't find it weard, because I studied a lot of literature for this theme. I recommend you to learn basics of OCS grammar, before saying these words. H.patera 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ts, ts, ts, to quote yourself a few levels discussion above: Derksen says, that "The distribution of *jazú and *ja suggest that the latter form is a Proto-Slavic innovation". So you are either blind or what? ;) I suppose they are also incorrect? I'll quote my sources, but will ask the same of you for any of your "interpretations" that are generally non-mainstream. Trubačev is actually translated Max Vasmer's mater-piece from German, + his own comments. Both are somewhat obsolete. --Ivan Štambuk 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the form with "j" is a direct descendant of the "azъ". And as you certainly know, in the OCS was only the "azъ" and not "jazъ". Okay, find one more paper book from recent time and scan it. You should know that this is not my interpretation, but interpretation of Prof. PhDr. Radoslav Večerka DrSc. and Prof. PhDr. Arnošt Lamprecht, DrSc., whom I trust more than you.. hehe ;-) I am very amazed where you take your self-confidence. I'll tell you that I have lust for creating of independent database. I wanted always to work in pair, but it is impossible with infallible man that knows everything and the others are wrong. I tell you once more that writing of *onъ,*ona,*ono as ("he, she, it") is a colossal blunder, that cannot be written by anyone, who knows something about the PS. Hey Ivan, I really think, that you don't understand anything what is there written, so don't wonder me ;-) H.patera 08:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Appeal to authority is not an argument, but a logical fallacy. When it comes to published papers/references, I sincerely doubt Večerka/Lamprecht can compete with Matasović, especially regarding IE studies, but whataver. I've just read two most interesting pages in Robert Orr's "Common Slavic nominal morphology" (that book is the real master-piece, not that second-hand translation of half-a-century-old treatise ;) on the issue of *(j)azъ/*(j)a, and he deduces it from the same PIE root as Matasović, quoting most interesting paper of Eric Hamp "Ja = Runic ek" (which I have yet to dig up), claiming that the predecessor of *azъ was borrowed from Iranian (not < PIE *éǵh₂om), where *(j)a evolved naturally from PIE *éǵ. Literary language of OCS canon is based on Bulgarian/Macedonian dialect which even today preserves only forms with final 'z', so it's not really an evidence. After the LPSl breakup, it couldn't have possibly been a coincidence of so many dialects of different branches using "ja" form. *onъ as a suppletive nominative singular (oblique cases still using "soft" endings) stem of *j- functioning as third-person pronoun was already moprhologized in LPS, and I found that in both Schenker's and Townsend-Janda book. Bulgarian/Macedonian are, again, the only ones that used suppletive *t-* in nominative singular, but that could possibly ascribed to later development, Bulgarian/Macedonian being so prominently distinctive from other dialects ("Balkan sprachbund"), or even traced back to LPSl isogloss; at any case, without *onъ being suppletized as "he" prior to the LPSl. breakup, it couldn't have possibly surfaced as such in all the other dialects apart from Bulgarian/Macedonain. I'll add some interesting citations later, I have to copy them first - so stay tuned ;) --Ivan Štambuk 10:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Appeal to authority is not an argument, but logical fallacy. Strange, that you do the same in the next sentence. Yes, maybe, show me scanned page with *(j)a, you might be right as I said before. But Večerka/Lamprecht are experts in PS and OCS. You should know that existed also west and east slavic redactions of the OCS and they were practically similar except some phone-changes. I really don't think, that this you tell me here about *onъ is true. Your arguments are very unclear and fabricated, moreover you change them permanently. Opposite my "several examples of OCS canon" are direct proof of "my" version. Tell me how could slav in LPSl. say *onъ as "he" and "bulgarian" in OCS later as original "yon"? Or do you think that slavo-bulgarians were not slavs? Just tell.. H.patera 12:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I didn't do the fallacy, but was just mentioning the credibility of my source when you mentioned credibility of yours ;) Matasović is doing the 'An etymological lexicon of Proto-Celtic' in IEED project; I'd say he has pretty good understanding of modern PIE morpholohy, as opposed to Vasmer/Trubačev who basically did a synthesis of 19th century Slavistics ;) You can find student's version of Matasović's grammar here, page 123 discusses the first-person pronoun (in Croatian). Yes, they were different later "recensions"/"redactions" (those two terms tend to be used interchangibly, but mean different things) of OCS, but at that time, liturgical OCS was very different than naturally spoken vernacular, and the writers usually used to borrow words from it as an elements of "higher style". I wouldn't call them "similar", since they exhibited very extensive morphological changes.

What exactly is "unclear" to you about my arguments? I'm just trasnferring to you what the others have written, and what I've read; A. Schenker, The Dawn of Slavic, page 126:


 * The third-person pronoun was expressed by the anaphoric *j-. When functioning as a a relative pronoun (with the particle *že), the stem *j- was used in all cases. As a personal pronoun (without *že) it had suppletive paradigm, with *j- in the oblique cases and, depending on the dialect, the demonstrative *t- or *on- in the nominative case.

There's really no other way to translate *onъ in nominative singular used as a third-person pronoun but as "he" (maybe you have a better suggestion? ;). The exception should be made for Bulgarian/Macedonian though, them having '-', and I suppose *tъ functioning as a third person pronoun should be added to the list, with no reflexes in languages other than Bulgarian/Macedonian ;)

Think about it again; could it be possible that all of those Slavic languages acquired the same suppletive nominative singular stem after the breakup of Slavic linguistic union by accident? Compare the declension of Croatian, Polish on and Russian , South, West and East Slavic - you really think that the acquiring of the same suppletive stem occured after the splitup, and the geographical isolation among them?

The same thing can be found in the book: Charles E. Townsend and Laura A. Janda - Common and Comparative Slavic: Phonology and reflection, page 133:


 * The pronoun *tъ is sometimes reduplicated, sometimes combined with one of the other two, and combined with LCS (Late Common Slavic) *jъ, a demonstrative pronoun which by the LCS period relinquished it's demonstrative role and, as we have seen, was drafted for the formation of compound ajdectives. It's accusative and oblique forms constituted the oblique forms of the 3rd-person pronoun ("he"), but the nominative forms were replaced by forms from other demonstrative pronouns, for R, P, Cz and SC LCS *onъ, and for B from LCS *tъ''.

Robert Orr in his "Common Slavic nominal morphology" discusses *azъ on pages 167, 168, claiming that it was not only borrowed from Iranian (most probably - Ossetian) source like Eric Hamp suggests, but that it was reborrowed, and that one cannot deduce final 'ъ' of *azъ from PIE suffix '-om' of '*éǵh₂om, writing:


 * Hamp 1983, however, argues quite convincingly that *ja can be traced directly to IE *éǵ (Matasović reconstructs it just like this, as I've said previously) as reflected in Baltic (Lith. aš) and Germanic (Gothic ik) with Slavic loss of final 'ǵ'.

Subsequently he argues that it's not so impossible to borrow personal pronouns from other languages, and even English 3rd-person plural pronoun was borrowed from Scandinavian to prevent homonymy.

So I propose this: We add *tъ in the sense of "he" in the table, with reflexes in just Macedonian/Bulgarian and their reflexes of *onъ used as a personal pronoun (not demonstrative) marked with '-' (i.e. not existing), and for *(j)a keeping it the way it is, adding *eǵ as another PIE etymon. --Ivan Štambuk 13:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I find that your knowledges of LPSl. are on higher level than mine now. I am sorry, you were right. Maybe I'm too much affected by OCS, as being similar to LPSl and I've read different authors, with different opinions. But simultaneously I find your knowledges of OCS on a low level, which made me tell you in the past, what I've said. I don't know what do you mean with very extensive morphological changes, the main changes in morfology is different evolution of *dj, *tj and *skj; some differents between wowels and -lo/-dlo. Later maybe also falling of u-stems and masculine i-stems and so on. But in fact OCS remained one language with really similar recensions. Maybe you study much intensive only the theory and neglect the "praxis" (of OCS). But as I have seen, I will have to fit up my knowledges of LPS, get and read the literature you have cited. But back to the LPS. I fully agree with your suggestion of *ja and with *onъ I have another suggestion. Leave there onъ, maybe also tъ, but I would like to mention there also *jь as an "archaic form" of he, because it was still used 200 years later, although only in the "higher style" as thou said ;-) H.patera 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm back again :-) I'll give you a taste of my literature, hope that my translation will be understadable:

R. Večerka, Staroslověnština, page 97: Function of 3rd person personal pronoun was where necessary borrowed by nominatives of demonstrative pronouns in the anaphoric function: "onъ, sь, ovъ, inъ, drugъ and tъ". In OCS is documented the stage without fully stabilised suppletive paradigma of the 3rd person sg. pers. pronoun and which only in the later evolution of the slavic languages merged into one genetically unoriginal nominative - in the most slavic languages onъ, ona, ono; in bulg. and mac. tъ, ta, to, with oblique cases jego, jemu ...

I propose a new thing - to give a comment (1) to the fields with (onъ, ona, ono) and (oni, ony, ona) and write below about all 7 used personal pronouns, including "jь" in the oblique cases. I would also like to add a new (onъ, ona, ono)-field in the meaning of "yon, that".

Check please also the lenght of letter "a" in (j)a and (j)az. Some of your sources mentioned above talk about (j)ā and (j)āz. H.patera 14:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jan :-) I'm very glad you're back!
 * Well, one can argue when exactly this "later evolution" occurred..was it present in the 6th century already, or at the time of OCS writings. It was definitely a secondary development, though. onъ as a demonstrative pronoun definitely needs to be added, I didn't even notice I missed that ;)
 * I think that long vowels weren't present as distinct phonemes in Late Proto-Slavic (quantitative oppositions long:short turned to qualitative ones). Please, feel free to add/correct everything you please, I'll be busy with some Semitic stuff for some time! --Ivan Štambuk 17:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that in classical Proto-Slavic were all vowels either short (o,e,ъ,ь) nor long (a,y,ě,i,u,ę,ǫ). In the late PSl. started the long ones turn to short due to Šaxmatov's law and this lead later to the fall of yers. But I would let it be, because the distribution of short (earlier long) vowels was mostly fixed to its position in the word and it is not so important. H.patera 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

where, when
How about such pronouns like: (PL) gdzie, kiedy; (CS) kde, kdy; (SH): gdje, kad etc. Are they derived from Proto-Slavic? Maro 21:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, from *kъdě/*kъde, kъgda..but shouldn't these be listed as adverbs? --Ivan Štambuk 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But we don't have Appendix:List of Proto-Slavic adverbs :). Maro 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

*svojь
From PIE or ? Maro 22:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Other cases?
Why is there only the nominative here? Proto-Slavic has seven noun cases. Also, why all the other Slavic languages in the table, this is called "Proto-Slavic pronouns", not "comparison of Proto-Slavic nominative pronouns with other Slavic languages" Jalwikip (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)