Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/-nikъ

PBSl form
@Bezimenen Hi! Do you know what could have been the PBSl form - probably ? And is 🇨🇬 a Slavic borrowing (like for example)? Thanks in advance. PS Writing in English so that other users can eventually answer. Ентусиастъ (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a compound suffix < 🇨🇬 + whatever the ancestor of 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬 was. Probably it's just a Slavic-Latvian innovation.
 * PS Има книга от Janis Endzelins: "Baltu valodu ska nas un formas" (1948) (на англ. е преведена като "Comparative phonology and morphology of the Baltic languages"), която по-детайлно разглежда етимологията на различните ставки в Балтийски (+ Славянски). За жалост, в момента нямам достъп до нея, но вероятно там е разгледан въпросът с 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬. Моето предположение е, че латвийската наставка е онаследена, тъй като ако беше привзета от Слав., вероятно щеше да се произнася като **-nīks, не -nieks. Не съм сигурен, обаче, дали това е задължително. Знам, че 🇨🇬 се привзема като 🇨🇬, но за 🇨🇬 не съм сигурен. Безименен (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Благодаря ви много! :) Ентусиастъ (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Relationship with *-ьnikъ
@Bezimenen I was hoping you could help me out with understanding the relationship of this suffix to. According to one of the reference sources given for (emphasis mine):

Наставка -ьник-ъ (-еник-ъ)

245. Наставката -икъ, разширена с наставката за прилагателни -ьн- или с наставката за минало страдателно причастие -ен-, е дала сложната наставка -ьникъ (-еникъ). Съществителните, получени от тази наставка, са един много продуктивен тип в старобългарски.

Of course, this is referring to Old Church Slavic, but the emphasized part makes me wonder about the extent of overlap between *-nikъ and *-ьnikъ w.r.t. deriving nouns from past passive participles. At least at first glance, the following examples for *-nikъ seem like they'd fit with *-enikъ if we were to consider it a variant of *-ьnikъ as per the OCS source:
 * *učenikъ < *učenъ
 * *mǫčenikъ < *mǫčenъ

and, separately, these seem like they might be explainable as deadjectival formations, much in the spirit of *-ьnikъ:
 * *negodьnikъ < *negodьnъ
 * *bezrodьnikъ < *bezrodьnъ (?)
 * *čarovьnikъ < *čarovьnъ

Given that, and the article's explanation that "[f]orms appended to a- or ě-stems are obsolete. They are often resolved by duplicating ", do we believe that *-nikъ was an independent, productive suffix in Proto-Slavic? The other conversation on this talk page seems to indicate there are sources that could be added to the article, which might be helpful.

Thanks, and sorry for the long post,

Chernorizets (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Formally, it is not independent. I can't tell how productive was, but it's clear that it has been employed at least sporadically: e.g. , , . If one has the time, they could create separate , , and leave only those examples where  is applied to root-stems under the current entry.
 * In either case, it's useful to have compound suffixes listed on their own. Perhaps, the current is stretching the line, since it's rarely applied, but its offshoots, ,  definitely should. It should be pointed that even superficially basic suffixes like , ,  are technically compound (built upon earlier i-, u-, s-stems), but for clarity they are treated on their own.
 * PS Feel free to remove and reorganize duplicate examples in closely related entries like : . The current entry certainly demands improvements (e.g. the later development of 🇨🇬,  with duplicate -нн- should be given under Usage notes not under Etymology). 2A00:23C7:9C97:8201:5839:447F:5DA5:53A8 11:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for making all of those changes since I last looked at this :)
 * Chernorizets (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)