Clever Geek Handbook
📜 ⬆️ ⬇️

Accent in the pre-Slavic language

In the pre-Slavic language, stress was free, mobile, and musical [1] , but in most modern Slavic languages it has strongly changed its character. The emphasis was preserved in a musical character only in the Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian languages , however, in the Novoktavian dialects of the Shtokav dialect of the Serbo-Croatian, the stress was systematically shifted one syllable closer to the beginning of the word. The East Slavic , Bulgarian , Slovin, and Kashubian languages retained the mobility of stress, but the musical stress in them was replaced by a dynamic one. In Czech , Slovak , Polish , Lusatian and Macedonian languages, stress has lost both mobility and musical character [2] . The pre-Slavic nouns distinguish three accent paradigms that arose from the two original paradigms, one with a fixed stress on the first syllable, and the other with a movable [3] .

Origin

Ancient Greek and Vedic data allow us to restore two accent paradigms for the Pra-Indo-European language - baritone (with emphasis on the root) and mobile-oxitonized [4] .

There is debate about the nature of the pre-Indo-European stress. On the one hand, the data of Vedic Sanskrit, ancient Greek and Baltic Slavonic languages ​​indicate that the stress was tonic. On the other hand, the occurrence of ablaut is associated with the reduction of vowels, which is usually characteristic of languages ​​with dynamic stress. There are supporters of both the tonic (for example, A. Meier [5] and R. Bekes [6] ), and the dynamic nature of the pre-Indo-European stress. At the same time, there are compromise positions, according to which the initial emphasis was dynamic, and at the end of its existence the proto-language changed its character to tonic [7] [8] [9] or combined features of both dynamic stress and tonic [10] .

F. F. Fortunatov , J. Mikkola, and restored two intonations for the Pra-Indo-European language - acute (ascending-descending) and circumflex (descending-ascending) [11] .

D. Adams and J. Mallory , as well as T. Olander, believe that the stressed syllable was pronounced with a high (or rising tone), and unstressed with a low (or decreasing) [9] [12] .

The original hypothesis was put forward by the Polish linguist E. Kurilovich . According to this hypothesis, only Vedic Sanskrit preserves the ancient state, the ancient Greek accentuation system is the result of prehistoric acquisitions of vowels, and the Baltic Slavic was the result of the movement of stress from the initial syllables. At the same time, the presence of coincidences in the place of stress in the ancient Greek and Baltic Slavonic languages, Kurilovich considers random and irreducible to the pra-Indo-European state [13] . Kurilovich’s hypothesis was rejected by the scientific community [14] [15] [16] .

L. G. Herzenberg created a hypothesis according to which in the Indo-European language there were four tones, which were based on two distinctive signs: height / strength and laryngalization / pharyngalization. Moreover, according to the scientist, these tones could affect the consonants [17] .

Intonation Characterization

For the last phase of the existence of the Proto-Slavic language, two primordial tones are reconstructed - an acute (ascending intonation) and circumflex (descending intonation) and one innovative - a new acut that appeared as a result of the movement of stress [18] [19] [20] . F. F. Fortunatov considered circumflex as a descending-ascending intonation [21] . S. B. Bernshtein also considered circumflex as a descending-ascending intonation, and an acute act as an ascending-descending intonation [22] . V. A. Dybo considers the acut to be ascending and descending intonation, and the circumflex to be descending [23] .

The grounds for reconstructing an act as an upward intonation are its reflection in Slovenian (for example, vőrna > Slovenian. Vrána “crow” with upward intonation) and East Slavic languages ​​(for example, vorna > Russian. Voron with an accent on the second syllable of a full-consonant combination). In addition, this correlates well with the Latvian upward intonation ( Latvian. Mãte - Praslav. Ma̋ti “mother”) and the fact that in the Prussian Slavic act there corresponded intonation, denoted by a macron on the second element of the diphthong ( Praslav. Na̋sъ - Prussian. Noūson ) [24 ] .

In transcription, an acut is traditionally indicated by an á, a circumflex is an ȁ, and a new acute is an ã [25] [26] .

In newer works, an acut is denoted by a̋, a short circumflex - ȁ, a long circumflex - ȃ, a short new acut - à, a long new acut - ã [27] .

The Lithuanian intonations regularly correspond to Lithuanian ones, which are called identically, but are pronounced back to the Slavic: Lithuanian circumflex (in the letter ͂) is the upward intonation, and the Lithuanian acute (in the letter ´) is downward [28] . It should be borne in mind that the final accused syllables in Lithuanian experienced a reduction according to Leskin’s law , and the acut in them disappeared (they do not differ in short syllables in Lithuanian intonation): lit. gerà “good” with geróji “good” (full form), * vilkúo “wolf”> vilkù . The circumflex in the final syllables is preserved: sesuõ "sister". In the емemaiti dialect of Lithuanian, an acute accent is reflected as “broken” intonation (interrupted by the laryngeal bow) [29] .

Correspondence of Slavic intonations to the Baltic [28] :

Intonationpre-SlavicSerbo-Croatian (Stockaw)SlovenianLithuanianLatvian
Akut* vólga [30]moisture "moisture"vlága "moisture"válgyti "eat"val̃gs "wet"
Circumflex* lǫ̑kъ [31]onion " onion "lȏk onionlañkas "rim"lòks “bow, arc”

In turn, T. Pronk, in his article on pra-Indo-European accentuation, analyzing the work of Dybo and several other scholars on Balto-Slavic accentuation, notes that, in addition to ancient Indian, only Proto-Slavic intonations, but not Baltic ones, directly reflect the pra-Indo-European tonal system [ 32] . According to T. Pronka, the pre-Slavic intonations are not an innovation and it is difficult to consider them in such a quality, often as the Baltic-Slavic innovation [33] .

H. Stang believed that the Slavic Akut, unlike the Lithuanian one, preserved the Baltic-Slavic nature [34] [35] .

Z. Shtiber considered that initially the acut and circumflex were in a position of additional distribution: the acute accent stood on long syllables (containing a long vowel or long diphthong), and the circumflex on short ones. Phonologization of the contrast occurred after the reduction of long diphthongs [36] .

believed that the acut was originally on the syllables with long vowels and long diphthongs that arose after the fall of laryngals, and the circumflex stood on short diphthongs and long vowels that arose from two short ones [37] .

According to M. Kapovich, the accute could be on any syllable in a word, provided that this syllable etymologically ascended to a long vowel, diphthong or diphthonic combination: * a (<* ā, * ō), * i (<* ī) , * u (<* au̯, * ou̯), * y (<* ū), * ě (<* ē), * ę, * ǫ, * rr, * ъr, * ll, * ъl, * er, * or, * el, * ol, and circumflex could stand both on short and long vowels [38] .

After the formulation of the laryngal theory, it was noticed that the Prabaltoslav Slavonic acut usually stands precisely on the syllables in which the laryngals are reconstructed. In particular, the root * u̯er- “burn” (Hitt. U̯ar-) was reflected in the Proto-Slavic as circumflected * vôrnъ “raven”, and its variant * u̯erH- ( Hitt . (U̯) arḫ-) as an acute * vórna “raven”. In this case, the circumflex arose on long vowels arising from the contraction of two short ones. This means that the prabaltoslav Slavic opposition of the circumflex and the similar Greek arose independently after the collapse of the pra-Indo-European language [39] .

F. Cortlandt believes that the Prabaltoslav Slavonic accent was a glottalized tone and was preserved in the емemaiti dialect of Lithuanian and Latvian (broken tone). According to the Cortlandt hypothesis, the acute episode was characterized by the presence of a laryngeal bow, and circumflex by its absence [40] .

A similar position is held by J. Yasanoff, who believes that the pra-Indo-European combinations -VHV- (where, V is any vowel, and H is any laryngal) gave super-long vowels in Prague, Prabaltic and Proto-Slavic, and the opposition is a long vowel in the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​- the superlong vowel was transformed into the opposition of a glottalized tone - a non-glottalized tone. According to Yasanoff, the tonal characteristic of the vowel was independent of the place of stress [41] .

Metatonia

At a certain point in time, the phenomenon of metatonia occurred in the Proto-Slavic, when in certain positions (from the end of nouns to * -ša <* -xja, as well as from the reduced * b and * b), the stress moved to the previous syllable with circumflex intonation. Such a syllable received a new intonation, which Y. Rozvadovsky called the “new acute” (“new acute intonation”) [42] [43] .

Metatonia occurred in the following positions [44] :

  • with the loss of the final shock reduced in two-syllable (after the fall of the reduced - monosyllabic) words
    • in the nominative case of a single number of masculine nouns, adjectives and possessive pronouns ( Serbohorv. crȃљ “king”, tsrn “black”, mȏј “mine”)
    • in the nominative case of the numerals ( Serbohorv. Py "five")
    • in the instrumental and local cases of the personal pronoun of the 3rd person of the masculine and middle gender (chak. ńín “them”, ńén “him”)
    • in the genitive plural (chak. žén from ženȁ “woman”; vlás from vlȃs “hair”; serbochor. woman from wife ; head from the head “head”; Slovenian. žén from žéna ; lás from lȃs ; gláv from gláva )

The new acute could stand on both short and long vowels. It was most likely an upward intonation [45] . The new acute accent is preserved in the Chakavian and Kaykavian dialects in the form of a long upward accent, in the Shtokavian dialects in the form of a long downward accent (the old accut in the Serbo-Croatian language has turned into a short downward accent), in Slovenian, Czech and East Slavic languages, the new accent coincides with the old [46] .

A. A. Zaliznyak believes that the difference between the acute and the new acute was extremely quantitative: the vowel under the new acute was long and the short under the acute, and points to Chakavian and Slovenian data, where the opposition between the acute and the new acute is exactly this [ 47] .

Z. Stieber believed that metatonia took place after 600 A.D. e. and by the 9th century there were already three intonations in the Pre-Slavic [42] .

For the Slovenian language and the Kaykavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian, one should postulate the presence of a fourth intonation, which also appeared as a result of metatonia: Novocircum flex. However, this phenomenon, apparently, arose after the collapse of the Proto-Slavic language [42] [48] .

Accent Place

Compared with the pre-Indo-European language, the Pre-Slavic experienced some movements in the place of stress. The Hirth law and the Fortunatov – de Saussure law [49] also date back to the Prabaltoslavian period. According to Hirt’s law, the emphasis was shifted to the pre-stressed syllable if it contained an uncontrolled laryngal: pra-ie. * dʰuh 2 mós “smoke” ( Skt. धूमः dhūmáḥ IAST , other Greek θυμός )> lit. dū́mai (plural), Latvian. dũmi (plural), Serbohorv. dȉm (genus p. dȉma ), Russian smoke (a kind of smoke ) [49] .

At the same time, T. G. Khazagerov considers the Hirt law as doubtful, and L. A. Bulakhovsky believed that in reality there are no reliable grounds for adopting the Hirt law in Slavic, also, however, noting that the Ler-Splavinsky amendment to the law of Hirth, formulated for the Pre-Slavic language, makes its action in the Slavic more likely [50] [51] [52] [53] .

H. Stang and after him F. Cortlandt , R. Derksen, V. G. Sklyarenko and many other modern accentologists deny the effect of the law of Fortunatov - de Saussure in Proto-Slavic [54] [55] [56] [57] . Representatives of the Moscow school of accentology (V. A. Dybo, S. L. Nikolaev), within the framework of one of their own alternative reconstructions of Proto-Slavic accentology, accept the law of Fortunatov - de Saussure in Proto-Slavic [58] .

T. Pronk notes that the observations of Dybo on the placement of accents in the Pre-Slavic can be better explained if we consider this prosodic phenomenon as arising from the placement of accents in the pre-Indo-European [59] .

Accent Paradigms of Nouns

In 1957, Chr. Stang reconstructed three accent paradigms for the Pre-Slavic. In the accent paradigm a, the accented stress is always based on, in the paradigm b the stress is always at the end (after the emergence of a new act, it could fall to the root if the ending was reduced), in the paradigm c in the singular the emphasis is placed on the basis of plural - at the end. According to the accent paradigm c, the stress could shift to prepositions and conjunctions [60] [61] .

There are two perspectives on the origin of moving stress paradigms. The Moscow Accentological School sees them as archaic, having parallels in the Vedic and Ancient Greek, and the Leiden Accentological School, on the contrary, believes that moving paradigms are the Baltic-Slavic innovation [62] .

The Moscow Accentological School is also reconstructing the fourth accent paradigm ( d ), characterized by mobile stress [63] . Moreover, as the representative of this school, S. L. Nikolaev, points out, the accent paradigm ( d ) is a pre-Slavic version of the accent paradigm ( b ) [64] . In turn, S. Lashin claims that “ a. n. d in historical development is a drift from a.p. b to a.p. c, not everywhere completed ” [65] .

Pre-Slavic accent paradigms of nouns * -ā-declension [66] :

Accent paradigmsabc
I. unit* ry̋ba* žena̍* voda̍
R. unit* ry̋by* ženy̍* vody̍
D. units* ry̋bě* ženě̍* vȍdě
B. units* ry̋bǫ* ženǫ̍* vȍdǫ
Sound units* ry̋bo* žȅno* vȍdo
Tv units* ry̋bojǫ* ženòjǫ* vodojǫ̍
M. units* ry̋bě* ženě̍* vodě̍
I. pl.* ry̋by* ženy̍* vȍdy
R. pl.* ry̋bъ / rŷbъ* žènъ / žẽnъ* vòdъ / võdъ
D. plural* ry̋bamъ* žena̋mъ* voda̋mъ
B. pl.* ry̋by* ženy̍* vȍdy
Tv many* ry̋bami* žena̋mi* voda̋mi
M. pl.* ry̋baxъ* žena̋xъ* voda̋xъ

Reflection of the accent paradigm a in Russian and Serbo-Croatian, as well as its Lithuanian correspondence (Lithuanian 1st accent paradigm) using the word “crow” as an example [67] :

RussianSerbo-Croatian
(shtokavsky)		Lithuanian
I. unitcrowtimevárna
R. unitravensvrȁnēvárnos
D. unitscrowtimevárnai
B. unitsravenlyingvárną
Sound unitswrongvárna
Tv unitsravenvrȁnōmvárna
M. unitscrowtimevárnoje
I. pl.ravenstimevárnos
R. pl.ravenvrânāvárnų
D. pluralravensvrȁamavárnoms
B. pl.raventimevárnas
Tv manyravensvrȁamavárnomis
M. pl.ravensvrȁamavárnose

The accent paradigm a is characterized by acute, much less frequently, new-acute intonation [68] .

In the accent paradigm b, the stress at the root is new acute, and acute at the end [68] .

Reflection of the accent paradigm c in Russian and Serbo-Croatian, as well as its Lithuanian correspondence (Lithuanian 3rd accent paradigm) using the word “head” as an example [69] :

RussianSerbo-Croatian
(shtokavsky)		Lithuanian
I. unitheadchaptergalvà
R. unitheadschaptergalvõs
D. unitsthe headchaptersgálvai
B. unitsheadchaptergálvą
Sound unitsheadthe headgalvà
Tv unitsheadchaptergálva
M. unitsthe headchaptersgalvojè
I. pl.headschaptergálvos
R. pl.headschaptergalvų̃
D. pluralheadchaptergalvóms
B. pl.headschaptergálvas
Tv manyheadschaptergalvomìs
M. pl.headchaptergalvosè

In the accent paradigm c, the stress standing at the root is usually circumflex. The stress at the end is acute, less often new acute [68] .

Reflection of the Pre-Slavic stress in descendant languages

South Slavic Languages

In Serbo-Croatian dialects, stress systems vary greatly. Almost everywhere, stress is free (although there are dialects with associated stress). In some dialects, the tone distinction was lost, in the rest, the number of intonations varies from two to six [70] .

In the Novo-Stavka dialects of the Serbo-Croatian, on which the literary Serbo-Croatian are based, the acute accent is reflected as a brief descending intonation (in the transcription: “raven”, “straw”, “pit”, birch- tree “birch”), and the transmission as long (as ̂: brig “coast”, city “city”) [20] . The new acute is also reflected as a long downward intonation. In polysyllabic (more than two syllables) words, a brief descending intonation is on the syllables with the old circumflex that survived the contraction. Long downward intonation can also stand on syllables with an old short downward stress, surviving a substitution elongation as a result of a reduction in reduction [71] . At the same time, there was a delay of emphasis one syllable closer to the beginning of the word. In the syllables to which the emphasis has shifted, the original opposition of vowels in longitude is preserved, but the intonation is always ascending (a short ascending is indicated by a `, and a long ascending is indicated by '): it is wine with a chuck. vīnȍ and Russian wine , go with the chuck. dāvȁti and Russian give , sister at the chuck. sisterȁ and Russian. sister [72] [73] .

The old Stokavian dialects of the Serbo-Croatian retain the old accentuation system, in which the stressed syllable did not shift one syllable closer to the beginning of the word.

In the Chakava dialect of the Serbo-Croatian, the acut and the new circumflex were reflected as a brief descending intonation ( accut : cȅsta “road”, lȉpa “linden”, krȁva “cow”; new circumflex: kȍra “bark”, kȍža “skin”), circumflex as a long descending ( jâje “egg”, mêso “meat”, mûž “husband”), a new acut as an ascending-descending intonation (in the transcription ͂: krãļ “king”, klẽtva “curse”, gospodãr “master”). In addition to such a system of three tones, Chakava dialects present a wide variety of systems, from generally non-discriminating tones to distinguishing five tones (three Chakava tones + long ascending and short descending intonations, as in the Shtokav dialect) [74] .

 
Distribution of dynamic and musical (tonic) types of stress in dialects of the Slovenian language [75] [76]

In literary Slovenian three intonations are distinguished: short descending (in transcription ȁ or à ), long descending ( ȃ ) and long ascending ( á ). The contrast of short and long stressed vowels with stress is possible only in the final syllable. The old downward accent moved one syllable closer to the end of the word: * ȍbvolkъ > oblȃk “cloud” (stock. Ȍblāk ), * zȏlto > zlatọ̑ “gold” (stock. Zlȃto ). The new circumflex retains its place: mẹ̑sec “month”. The old acut in the last syllable is reflected as a short descending intonation: * pőrgъ > prȁg “threshold”, in the last one as a long ascending intonation (while the endless stressed syllables lengthened): gen. sg. * pőrga > prága of the "threshold". A brief new acut gave the same reflexes as the old acut, and a long new acut is reflected as a long ascending intonation in all positions: králj “king” [77] .

From the final open syllable, the short emphasis shifted one syllable to the left: ženȁ > žéna “wife”, glavȁ > gláva “head”. Unlike the Shtokavian one, the old pre-shock longitude did not survive in Slovenian, but when shifting the emphasis to the old long e and o, they were reflected as closed ( * trǭba̍ > trọ́ba “pipe”), and short as open ( * noga̍ > nóga “foot”) [ 78] .

In modern Bulgarian, tonal differences are lost, but the emphasis is still heterogeneous. As a rule, the place of the pre-Slavic stress is preserved, but in some cases the stress moved from the last open syllable closer to the beginning of the word: “milk”, “village” faded, “wine” felt, “sieve” was decided . For words with an initial circumflex, the emphasis shifted in the member form to the article ( * mę̑so “meat” - * męsoto̍ “(this) meat” as the city “city” - the city “(this) city”), and then, similarly to the earlier examples, it was shifted by one syllable is closer to the beginning of the word ( place ), and then, by analogy, the place of emphasis was changed also by non-term forms: place, sky, “sky”, eye “eye”, field “field”, golden “gold” [79] .

In Macedonian, tonal differences were also lost. In literary language, the stress is fixed - always on the third syllable from the end of the word. However, in eastern dialects, stress is still free [80] .

East Slavic languages

The East Slavic languages lost their tone differences, however, they indirectly preserve the opposition of the acute and circumflex in syllables with full consonance . In place of the circumflex, the emphasis falls on the first syllable of the full-consonant combination, in place of the old acute and the long new acute, on the second: Rus. the city at Serbohorov. deg , but rus. cow at serbochor. krȁva , rus. Solom at the Serbochor. slma [81] [82] [83] .

The groups * orT , * olT under acute intonation in all Slavs changed in raT , laT , under the circumflex and new Akuta in the South Slavic languages ​​and the Slovak, they also gave raT , laT , and in the western (except Slovak) and eastern roT , loT [84] [85 ] [85 ] ] .

The East Slavic languages ​​completely lost the difference between the acute and the new acute. Sometimes the new acute genesis is attributed to the closed ô in North Russian dialects, as well as to the reflexes of olі , olі , erі in syllables with a smooth metathesis in the Ukrainian language. However, a detailed analysis of both cases shows that such an assumption is unfounded [86] .

The place of stress in the literary East Slavic languages ​​differs slightly, although the situation may be different in dialects [87] .

West Slavic Languages

In Czech, musical emphasis was replaced by expiratory, mobility was also lost, in the XII-XIII centuries, the emphasis was fixed on the first syllable [88] . Vowels under the acute accent were reflected as long ( vrána “crow”, sláma “straw”, kláda “deck”, bříza < břieza “birch”, umřít < umřieti “die”), and under the circumflex as short ( břeh “shore”, hrad “ castle ”) [20] [89] . Both a long and a short new acut gave in Czech longitude: klíč “key”, vůle “will”, kůže “skin”, můžeš “you can”. Alternations of long and short vowels are found ( kráva “cow” - krav “cows”), but it should be noted that in many cases they were eliminated as a result of the analogy [90] .

As in Czech, in Slovak accent was recorded on the first syllable. Vowels under the old acute and circumflex were reflected as short ( krava “cow”, dub “oak”, vlas “hair”), and under the new acute as long ( stôl “table”, rúčka “pen”, hláv “heads”, rúk “ hands "). In addition, the Slovak is characterized by a “rhythmic law”, according to which, when there are two long vowels in the word, the second is abbreviated: krásny “beautiful” in Czech. krásný [91] [92] .

In Polish in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, stress is fixed on the first syllable, and by the beginning of the eighteenth century it is replaced by a paroxytonic [93] . However, some traces of the pre-Slavic stress in Polish were preserved: the new acute was reflected as the longitude of the vowels. Subsequently, the quantitative contrast was replaced by the qualitative one: long vowels were reflected as ą , ó (in dialects also å and é ), and short ones as ę , o , a and e [94] .

In the Upper Luzhitsky contrast of intonations was reflected in syllables that survived the smooth metathesis ( * TorT , * TolT , * TerT * TelT > TroT , TloT , TreT , TleT , where T is any consonant ). In the syllables with the former acute, vowels ó and ě are found , and in the syllables with the former circumflex - o and e : błóto “swamp”, wróna “crow”, črjóda “herd”, brěza “birch”, krówa “cow”, dróga “road” ”, But złoto “ gold ”, drjewo “ tree ”, črjewo “ belly ” [81] . The initial groups * orT , * olT under acute intonation changed in raT , laT , and under the circumflex and new acutus in roT , loT [95] [96] . As in Czech, the stress in the Upper Luzhniki was fixed on the first syllable [97] .

In the Lower Luzhitsky, traces of the old accentuation are also preserved in syllables with a smooth metathesis, while circumflexed and accented syllables gave short reflexes, both in Polish and Slovak. However, the later proper Lower Slug processes to a very large extent erased the old reflexes [98] .

Pivot Tables

Reflection of the pre-Slavic stress in descendant languages [99] :

languagesfree
stress		tonemeaningful
longitude		traces
old longitude
stockok+-
(in dialects +)		++
Slovenian++
(in dialects -)		++
Bulgarian+---
Macedonian-
(in dialects +)		---
Czech and Slovak-
(in Slovak dialects +)		-++
Polish---+
luzhitsky---+
Kashubian and Slovenian+--+
East Slavic+---
(in dialects +)

Reflection of the Proto-Slavic intonations in descendant languages [100] :

IntonationRussianCzechSlovakPolishstockokchakaviankaikavianSlovenian
Akutcrowvránavranawronatimevrȁnavrȕnovrána
peashráchhrachgrochgrȁhgrȁhgrȍhgràh
Long New Acutekingkrálkráľkrólkrâљkráljkrõlj
Long circumflexravenhavran rooktimevrân
hairvlasvlaswłosvlâslâoslâs

Study History

The "classical" theory of accentology was formed in the writings of A. Betzzenberger , F. F. Fortunatov , F. de Saussure , A. Leskin , F. Hanssen , G. Hirt , A. A. Shakhmatov , A. Meie , L. L. Vasiliev , M. G. Dolobko , S. Ivshich and L. A. Bulakhovsky [101] .

 
Chr. Stang
 
V.M. Illich-Svitych

The turning point is the publication in 1957 of the monograph by Chr. Stang Slavonic Accentuation , which proved the existence of three accent paradigms in the Pre-Slavic, the origin of the new act as a result of delayed stress, and the fact that the new circumflex is a local Slovenian-Kaykavan innovation. In addition, Stang showed the identity of the Lithuanian accent paradigm 3 and the Slavic paradigm c , which implied the unlawfulness of the law of Fortunatov - de Saussure, previously recognized by all accentologists [102] [103] [101] .

Stang's ideas were developed in the writings of representatives of the Moscow Accentological School, primarily V. M. Illich-Svitych and V. A. Dybo , as well as R. V. Bulatova, A. A. Zaliznyak and S. L. Nikolaev . This concept is also called “morphological”, and the “classical” concept is called “phonetic” [104] [101] .

Notes

  1. ↑ Guyer O. Introduction to the history of the Czech language. - URSS, 2004 .-- S. 71 .-- 136 p. - ISBN 5-354-00564-7 .
  2. ↑ Meye A. Pan-Slavic language. - M .: Publishing house of foreign literature , 1951. - S. 126-127.
  3. ↑ Beekes RSP Comparative Indo-European linguistics: an introduction. - Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamin's Publishing Company, 2011 .-- P. 158.
  4. ↑ Illich-Svitych V.M. Nominal accentuation in the Baltic and Slavic. - M .: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1963. - S. 4-5.
  5. ↑ Meye A. Pan-Slavic language. - M .: Publishing house of foreign literature , 1951. - S. 127.
  6. ↑ Beekes RSP Comparative Indo-European linguistics: an introduction. - Amsterdam - Philadelphia: John Benjamin's Publishing Company, 2011 .-- P. 159.
  7. ↑ Gamkrelidze T.V., Ivanov Vyach. Sun Indo-European language and Indo-Europeans: Reconstruction and historical-typological analysis of the proto-language and protoculture: In 2 books. - Tbilisi: Tbilisi University Press, 1984. - S. 194-195.
  8. ↑ Języki indoeuropejskie. - Warszawa: PWN, 1986. - S. 24-25.
  9. ↑ 1 2 JP Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams. Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture. — London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1997. — P. 462. — ISBN 9781884964985 .
  10. ↑ Савченко А. Н. Сравнительная грамматика индоевропейских языков. — 2-е изд.. — М. : УРСС, 2003. — С. 154. — ISBN 5-354-00503-5 .
  11. ↑ Скляренко В. Г. Праслов'янська акцентологія. — Київ, 1998. — С. 9. — ISBN 966-02-0542-2 .
  12. ↑ Olander Th. Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility. — Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. — P. 84. — ISBN 978-3-11-020397-4 .
  13. ↑ Kuryłowicz J. L'accentuation des langues indo-européennes. — Wrocław-Kraków: Zakład imienia Ossolińskich — Wydawnictwo PAN, 1958. — P. 411—412.
  14. ↑ Семереньи О. Введение в сравнительное языкознание. — М. : УРСС, 2002. — С. 92.
  15. ↑ Erhart A. Indoevropské jazyky. — Praha: Academia, 1982. — S. 63.
  16. ↑ Савченко А. Н. Сравнительная грамматика индоевропейских языков. — 2-е изд.. — М. : УРСС, 2003. — С. 156. — ISBN 5-354-00503-5 .
  17. ↑ Герценберг Л. Г. Вопросы реконструкции индоевропейской просодии. — Л. : Наука, 1981. — С. 157—163.
  18. ↑ Селищев А. М. Старославянский язык. — Издательство Московского университета, Наука. — М. , 2006. — С. 210. — ISBN 5-211-06129-2 .
  19. ↑ Stieber Z. Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich. — Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. — Warszawa, 2005. — С. 62—63.
  20. ↑ 1 2 3 Lamprecht A. Praslovanština. — Brno: Univerzita JE Purkyně v Brně, 1987. — С. 78.
  21. ↑ Фортунатов Ф. Ф. Сравнительная фонетика индоевропейских языков // Избранные труды. — М. : Государственное учебно-педагогическое издательство Министерства просвещения РСФСР, 1956. — Т. I. — С. 208.
  22. ↑ Бернштейн С. Б. Сравнительная грамматика славянских языков. — Издательство Московского университета, Издательство «Наука». — М. , 2005. — С. 141.
  23. ↑ Дыбо В. А. Морфонологизированные парадигматические акцентные системы. — М. : Языки славянской культуры, 2000. — С. 17. — ISBN 5-7859-0140-4 .
  24. ↑ Kapović M. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. — Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 2015. — ISBN 978-953-150-971-8 .
  25. ↑ Shevelov GY A Prehistory of Slavic. — Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. — Heidelberg, 1964. — P. 39.
  26. ↑ Schenker A. Proto-Slavic // The Slavonic Languages / Comrie B., Corbett G. — London, New York: Routledge, 1993. — P. 78. — ISBN 0-415-04755-2 , ISBN 978-0-415-04755-5 .
  27. ↑ Kapović M. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. — Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 2015. — ISBN 978-953-150-971-8 .
  28. ↑ 1 2 Shevelov GY A Prehistory of Slavic. — Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. — Heidelberg, 1964. — P. 38.
  29. ↑ Matasović R. Podrebenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika. — Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2008. — С. 137. — ISBN 978-953-150-840-7 .
  30. ↑ Derksen R. Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. — Leiden — Boston: Brill, 2008. — P. 524—525.
  31. ↑ Derksen R. Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. — Leiden — Boston: Brill, 2008. — P. 289.
  32. ↑ Pronk Tijmen, On Indo-European tones, accentuation and ablaut // Gotz Keydana, Paul Widmer, Thomas Olander (eds.), Indo-European Accent and Ablaut, University of Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum Press, 2013, стр. 151—153
  33. ↑ Pronk Tijmen, On Indo-European tones, accentuation and ablaut // Gotz Keydana, Paul Widmer, Thomas Olander (eds.), Indo-European Accent and Ablaut, University of Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum Press, 2013, стр. 154—155
  34. ↑ Скляренко В. Г. К истории славянской подвижной акцентной парадигмы // Вопросы языкознания, 1991, № 6, стр. 72
  35. ↑ Stang Ch. S. Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo, Bergen, Tromso, 1966, стр. 125
  36. ↑ Stieber Z. Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich. — Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. — Warszawa, 2005. — С. 62—63. — ISBN 83-01-14542-0 .
  37. ↑ Lamprecht A. Praslovanština. — Brno: Univerzita JE Purkyně v Brně, 1987. — С. 26.
  38. ↑ Kapović M. Razvoj hrvatske akcentuacije // Filologija. — Zagreb, 2009. — № 51 . — С. 2—3 .
  39. ↑ Shevelov GY A Prehistory of Slavic. — Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. — Heidelberg, 1964. — P. 46—47.
  40. ↑ Kortlandt F. Proto-Indo-European tones? // Journal of Indo-European Studies. — 1986. — № 14 . — С. 154—155 .
  41. ↑ Jasanoff J. Acute vs circumflex: Some Notes on PIE and Post-PIE Prosodic Phonology // Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics. — 2003. — Т. 8 . — P. 249—252.
  42. ↑ 1 2 3 Stieber Z. Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich. — Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. — Warszawa, 2005. — С. 63. — ISBN 83-01-14542-0 .
  43. ↑ Селищев А. М. Старославянский язык. — Издательство Московского университета, Наука. — М. , 2006. — С. 211. — ISBN 5-211-06129-2 .
  44. ↑ Shevelov GY A Prehistory of Slavic. — Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. — Heidelberg, 1964. — P. 534—536.
  45. ↑ Kapović M. Razvoj hrvatske akcentuacije // Filologija. — Zagreb, 2009. — № 51 . - S. 3 .
  46. ↑ Селищев А. М. Старославянский язык. — Издательство Московского университета, Наука. — М. , 2006. — С. 211—212. — ISBN 5-211-06129-2 .
  47. ↑ Зализняк А. А. От праславянской акцентуации к русской. — М. : Наука, 1985. — С. 160.
  48. ↑ Derksen R. Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. — Leiden — Boston: Brill, 2008. — P. 8—9.
  49. ↑ 1 2 Shevelov GY A Prehistory of Slavic. — Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. — Heidelberg, 1964. — P. 46.
  50. ↑ Хазагеров Т. Г. Второй закон Ф. де Соссюра и проблемы балто-славянской языковой общности // Baltistica. — 1980. — Т. 16 , № 2 . — P. 136.
  51. ↑ Скляренко В. Г. К истории славянской подвижной акцентной парадигмы // Вопросы языкознания, 1991, № 6, стр. 74—75
  52. ↑ Булаховский Л. А. Дискуссии и обсуждения. Материалы к IV Международному съезду славистов // ВЯ, 1958, № 1, с. 42-43.
  53. ↑ И. К. Можаева. Библиография советских работ по славянской акцентологии за 1958—1962 гг. // Краткие сообщения Института славяноведения, вып. 41. Славянская и балтийская акцентология. М., 1964. с. — 70
  54. ↑ Дыбо В. А. Сравнительно-историческая акцентология, новый взгляд: по поводу книги В. Лефельдта «Введение в морфологическую концепцию славянской акцентологии» // Вопросы языкознания. М., 2006. № 2, стр. 6
  55. ↑ Kortlandt, F. Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited. // Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 17), Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi, 2009, стр. 345
  56. ↑ Derksen R. Introduction to the History of Lithuanian accentuation // Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics. — 1991. — Т. 16 . — P. 56.
  57. ↑ Скляренко В. Г. К истории славянской подвижной акцентной парадигмы // Вопросы языкознания, 1991, № 6, стр. 75
  58. ↑ Дыбо В. А. Сравнительно-историческая акцентология, новый взгляд: по поводу книги В. Лефельдта «Введение в морфологическую концепцию славянской акцентологии» // Вопросы языкознания. М., 2006. № 2, стр. 15
  59. ↑ Pronk Tijmen, On Indo-European tones, accentuation and ablaut // Gotz Keydana, Paul Widmer, Thomas Olander (eds.), Indo-European Accent and Ablaut, University of Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum Press, 2013, стр. 155, 159
  60. ↑ Бурлак С. А., Старостин С. А. Сравнительно-историческое языкознание. — М. : Академия, 2005. — С. 225. — 432 с. - ISBN 5-7695-1445-0 .
  61. ↑ Kapović M. Razvoj hrvatske akcentuacije // Filologija. — Zagreb, 2009. — № 51 . — С. 3-4 .
  62. ↑ Greenberg M. Slavic // The Indo-European Languages. — London - New York: Routledge, 2016. — С. 526. — ISBN 978-0-415-73062-4 .
  63. ↑ Kapović M. Razvoj hrvatske akcentuacije // Filologija. — Zagreb, 2009. — № 51 . — С. 7 .
  64. ↑ Николаев С. Л. Восточнославянские рефлексы акцентной парадигмы d и индоевропейские соответствия славянским акцентным типам существительных мужского рода с o- и u-основами // Карпато-балканский диалектный ландшафт: Язык и культура. 2009—2011. Vol. 2. Москва, 2012, стр. 40
  65. ↑ Светозар Лашин. Акцентуация глаголов на -iti, производных от существительных праславянской а. п. d: пробный шар. // Балто-славянская акцентология. IWoBA VII: Материалы VII международного семинара. Repl. ed. М. В. Ослон, М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2016, стр. 70
  66. ↑ Kapović M. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. — Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 2015. — ISBN 978-953-150-971-8 .
  67. ↑ Matasović R. Podrebenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika. — Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2008. — С. 210. — ISBN 978-953-150-840-7 .
  68. ↑ 1 2 3 Derksen R. Introduction to the History of Lithuanian accentuation // Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics. — 1991. — Т. 16 . — P. 54.
  69. ↑ Matasović R. Podrebenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika. — Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2008. — С. 212-213. — ISBN 978-953-150-840-7 .
  70. ↑ Kapović M. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. — Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 2015. — ISBN 978-953-150-971-8 .
  71. ↑ Matasović R. Podrebenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika. — Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2008. — С. 169. — ISBN 978-953-150-840-7 .
  72. ↑ Shevelov GY A Prehistory of Slavic. — Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. — Heidelberg, 1964. — P. 41.
  73. ↑ Matasović R. Podrebenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika. — Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2008. — С. 169—170. — ISBN 978-953-150-840-7 .
  74. ↑ Lisac J. Hrvatska dijalektologija 2. Čakavsko narječje. — Zagreb: Golden marketing - Tehnička knjiga, 2009. — С. 23—26. — ISBN 978-953-212-169-8 .
  75. ↑ Lencek R. L . The structure and history of the Slovene language. — Columbus: Slavica, 1982. — P. 141. — ISBN 0-89357-099-0
  76. ↑ Ponovne objave člankov s kartami za Slovenski lingvistični atlas (do leta 2008). Osnovna karta (словенск.) . . Dialektološka sekcija (2016). (Проверено 22 марта 2017)
  77. ↑ Kapović M. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. — Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 2015. — ISBN 978-953-150-971-8 .
  78. ↑ Kapović M. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. — Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 2015. — ISBN 978-953-150-971-8 .
  79. ↑ Kapović M. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. — Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 2015. — ISBN 978-953-150-971-8 .
  80. ↑ Kapović M. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. — Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 2015. — ISBN 978-953-150-971-8 .
  81. ↑ 1 2 Shevelov GY A Prehistory of Slavic. — Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. — Heidelberg, 1964. — P. 43.
  82. ↑ Matasović R. Podrebenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika. — Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2008. — С. 139. — ISBN 978-953-150-840-7 .
  83. ↑ Kapović M. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. — Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 2015. — ISBN 978-953-150-971-8 .
  84. ↑ Бернштейн С. Б. Сравнительная грамматика славянских языков. — Издательство Московского университета, Издательство «Наука». — М. , 2005. — С. 220—221.
  85. ↑ Галинская Е. А. Историческая фонетика русского языка. — Издательство Московского университета, Издательство «Наука». — М. , 2004. — С. 34—35. — ISBN 5-211-04969-1 .
  86. ↑ Зализняк А. А. От праславянской акцентуации к русской. — М. : Наука, 1985. — С. 160-163.
  87. ↑ Kapović M. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. — Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 2015. — ISBN 978-953-150-971-8 .
  88. ↑ Гуйер О. Введение в историю чешского языка. — УРСС, 2004. — С. 72. — 117 с. — ISBN 5-354-00564-7 .
  89. ↑ Shevelov GY A Prehistory of Slavic. — Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. — Heidelberg, 1964. — P. 42—43.
  90. ↑ Kapović M. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. — Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 2015. — ISBN 978-953-150-971-8 .
  91. ↑ Short D. Slovak // The Slavonic Languages / Comrie B., Corbett G.. — London, New York: Routledge, 1993. — P. 533. — ISBN 0-415-04755-2 .
  92. ↑ Kapović M. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. — Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 2015. — ISBN 978-953-150-971-8 .
  93. ↑ Długosz Kurczabowa K., Dubisz S. Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego. — Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. — Warszawa, 2006. — С. 133—134.
  94. ↑ Дыбо В. А., Замятина Г. И., Николаев С. Л. Основы славянской акцентологии. — М. , 1990. — С. 13-14. — ISBN 5-02-011-011-6 .
  95. ↑ Stone G. Sorbian // The Slavonic Languages / Comrie B., Corbett G. — London, New York: Routledge, 1993. — P. 609—610.
  96. ↑ Schaarschmidt G. A historical phonology of the upper and lower Sorbian languages. — Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1997. — P. 45. — ISBN 3-8253-0417-5 .
  97. ↑ Schaarschmidt G. A historical phonology of the upper and lower Sorbian languages. — Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1997. — P. 87—88. — ISBN 3-8253-0417-5 .
  98. ↑ Дыбо В. А., Замятина Г. И., Николаев С. Л. Основы славянской акцентологии. — М. , 1990. — С. 14. — ISBN 5-02-011-011-6 .
  99. ↑ Kapović M. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. — Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska, 2015. — ISBN 978-953-150-971-8 .
  100. ↑ Дыбо В. А., Замятина Г. И., Николаев С. Л. Основы славянской акцентологии. — М. : Наука, 1990. — С. 14-15. — 284 с. — ISBN 5-02-011-011-6 .
  101. ↑ 1 2 3 Šekli M. Predzgodovina praslovanskega naglasnega sistema v luči moskovske naglasoslovne šole // Jezikoslovni zapiski. — 2011. — Т. 17 , № 2 . - S. 8 .
  102. ↑ Derksen R. Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon. — Leiden — Boston: Brill, 2008. — P. 8-9.
  103. ↑ Ослон М. В. Научный путь В. А. Дыбо // Балто-славянская акцентология: Материалы VII международного семинара. — 2016. — С. 9 .
  104. ↑ Lehfeldt W. Einführung in die morphologische Konzepzion der Slavischen Akzentologie. — München: Verlag Otto Sagner, 1993. — ISBN 3-87690-504-4 .

Literature

  • Дыбо В. А. , Замятина Г. И. , Николаев С. Л. Основы славянской акцентологии. — Институт славяноведения и балканистики АН СССР; Repl. ed. Р. В. Булатова. М.: Наука, 1990. — ISBN 5-02-011011-6 .
  • Селищев А. М. Старославянский язык. — М. : Издательство Московского университета, Издательство «Наука» — С. 210—216
  • Скляренко В. Г. Праслов'янська акцентологія. — Київ, 1998. — ISBN 966-02-0542-2 .
  • Lehr-Spławiński T. O prasłowiańskiej metatonii. // Studia i szkice wybrane z językoznawstwa słowiańskiego. — Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1957. — S. 52-92
  • Lehr-Spławiński T. O jakości intonacji prasłowiańskich. // Studia i szkice wybrane z językoznawstwa słowiańskiego. — Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1957. — S. 93-124
  • Matasović R. Podrebenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika. — Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2008. — s. 137—139, 167—170, 208—214. — ISBN 978-953-150-840-7 .
  • Olander Th. Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility. — Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. — ISBN 978-3-11-020397-4 .
  • Shevelov GY A Prehistory of Slavic. — Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1964. — P. 38—80, 532—581.
  • Stieber Z. Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich. — Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. — Warszawa, 2005. — S. 62-65. — ISBN 83-01-14542-0 .
Источник — https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ударение_в_праславянском_языке&oldid=97815868


More articles:

  • Baranenko, Vladimir Yakovlevich
  • Koski (Minsk region)
  • Berulava, Alesia
  • Markovic, Franjo
  • Scythian Monks
  • Auerbach, Herman
  • Brownies, or Sleep in the winter night
  • Compact Disco
  • Skopelli, Giovanna
  • Martian Hunter

All articles

Clever Geek | 2019