Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

On the relative chronology of the II regressive and the progressive palatalizations of Common Slavic

Об относительной хронологии второй регрессивной и прогрессивной палатализаций общеславянского языка

  • Published:
Russian Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines one of the oldest conundra of Slavic historical linguistics, namely the relative chronology of the II regressive and the progressive palatalizations of velar obstruents. To do so, it is first of all shown that these palatalizations constitute two discrete innovations and not a single bidirectional change. On the basis of a thorough analysis of the competing hypotheses it is then argued that the assumption of a relative chronology which dates the progressive before the II regressive palatalization (Pedersen’s chronology), allows the attested forms to be accounted for best. The main complication relating to this chronology concerns certain inflectional endings of the Old Church Slavonic pronouns vьsь and sicь. In the instrumental singular masculine and neuter and the genitive, dative, instrumental and locative plural these pronouns show endings of the hard inflectional type instead of the expected soft-stem endings. Contrary to what may be considered the communis opinio, this peculiarity can, however, be explained by means of a morphological innovation. This assumption is supported by evidence from the medieval Novgorod and Pskov dialects. Three morphological mechanisms, which may have been involved in the rise of the unexpected endings, are discussed: proportional analogy, product-oriented innovation and syntagmatic assimilation. Examples of typologically parallel developments from Slavic and other languages are provided in order to substantiate the claim of a morphological innovation.

Аннотация

В данной статье рассматривается одна из старейших проблем славянского сравнительно-исторического языкознания: а именно относительная хронология второй регрессивной и прогрессивной палатализаций шумных задненёбных. Для этого прежде всего показывается, что данные палатализации представляют собой две отдельные инновации, а не единое двунаправленное изменение. На основе тщательного анализа конкурирующих гипотез утверждается, что предположение об относительной хронологии, в которой прогрессивная палатализация датируется как предшествующая второй регрессивной (хронология Педерсена), позволяет объяснить засвидетельствованные формы наилучшим образом. Основное затруднение для этой хронологии представляют собой некоторые флективные окончания местоимения ст.-слав. vьsь and sicь. В формах творительного падежа единственного числа мужского и среднего рода и в родительном, дательном, творительном и местном падежах множественного числа данные местоимения показывают окончания твёрдого флективного типа вместо ожидаемых окончаний т.н. мягкого склонения. Вопреки тому что можно считать всеобщим мнением, эта особенность может быть, однако, объяснена морфологическим изменением. Данная точка зрения подкрепляется древненовгородским и древнепсковским диалектами. В статье затрагиваются три морфологических механизма, которые могли стать причиной возникновения неожиданных окончаний: пропорциональная аналогия, ориентированная на результат инновация и синтагматическая ассимиляция. В качестве обоснования утверждения о морфологической инновации приводятся примеры типологически параллельного развития из славянских и других языков.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the present paper I refer mainly to publications by Vermeer, because in many instances only this scholar expresses explicitly what is to be found only implicitly or tentatively in earlier publications. An excellent overview of the problem’s history is given in Vermeer (2002–2003, 2003).

  2. In the present article I will not deal with Channon’s (1972) dating of the progressive palatalization before the I regressive one (cf. also Lunt 1981). For a criticism of this relative chronology see especially Schenker (2014, pp. 91 f.) and Vermeer (2003, p. 436 ff. with references).

  3. A more detailed treatment of the individual palatalizations can be found in handbooks such as Vaillant (1950), Bräuer (1961), Shevelov (1964), Arumaa (1976), and Carlton (1991).

  4. The reflex *ī  is limited to certain endings. It is possible that it arose secondarily from *ē, which means that at the time when the II regressive palatalization took place only mid-front vowels might have existed in the position immediately following a velar obstruent. The fact that palatalization occurred before high front vowels as well, is, however, shown by loanwords, e.g. OCS crъky ‘church’ form OBav kirkô ‘id.’ or another Gmc form, OR cęta ‘small coin; piece of jewelry’ from Gothic kintus ‘id.’, etc.

  5. In the sense of Vermeer and his predecessors this would be the regressive part of the bidirectional palatalization.

  6. The reflex \(s\) in Slovak occurs only at morpheme boundaries, cf. Npl mňísi, DLsg muse etc., and is thus to be explained as secondary (see Troubetzkoy 1922, p. 233 f.).

  7. In the sense of Vermeer and his predecessors this would be the progressive part of the bidirectional palatalization.

  8. The CSl umlaut furthermore affected PSl *a which changed to *e and may also have occurred with *ā which changed to *ē (see, for example, Bräuer 1961, p. 101 ff.; Shevelov 1964, p. 264 ff.; Carlton 1991, p. 116 f. with a different notational convention).

  9. Cf., for example, Meillet (1934, p. 90 ff.). See Vermeer (2008, pp. 511, 547) for a discussion of the seeming counterexamples OR trizъ ‘three-year-old’, and OCS lice ‘face’.

  10. Pace Shevelov (1964, pp. 339, 343 f.), Steensland (1975, p. 91 f.) and others, who argue against Mareš (1956, p. 466) and Channon (1972, pp. 29, 33) that *̯i most probably was not purely consonantal and should therefore have triggered palatalization.

  11. Note that Bhat does not always distinguish between synchronic and diachronic processes (see Kochetov 2011, p. 5 fn. 2).

  12. For the present discussion it is of no immediate relevance whether Bhat’s theoretical considerations on palatalization (‘fronting’, ‘raising’) are correct.

  13. This type of difference may according to Bateman (2007, p. 270 ff., 2011, p. 596 with reference to Wierzchowska 1971, p. 126 ff.) be found in Polish (cf. also the discussion of Wierzchowska’s findings in Hall et al. 2004, p. 208 ff.).

  14. The same is true for progressive palatalization in general.

  15. Steensland (1975, p. 92) states that examples from dialectal Russian and South Slavic as well as German reich ‘rich’ and euch ‘you’ show, “[da]ss i-diphthonge tatsächlich in derselben weise wie i-monophthonge eine palatalisierende wirkung haben können”. There is of course nothing wrong with this assumption. However, it by no means implies that monophthongs such as these necessarily show this effect. The mentioned progressive palatalization in dialectal Russian is rather a case of assimilation across neighboring consonants, cf. cases such as pečk’a ‘stove’. After front vowels (see Baudouin de Courtenay 1894, p. 47) it is according to Kasatkin restricted to certain suffixes, which implies a morphological explanation (cf. Kasatkin 1968, pp. 8–13 although his own account is not quite convincing).

  16. In fact, it is in most of the cases impossible to determine whether a Slavic front nasal vowel goes back to a sequence *en or *in.

  17. Such forms could also be the result of back formations (see point (e)).

  18. Cases with *k in this position are, according to Ringe and Taylor (2014, p. 211), ambiguous.

  19. Word-medially sequences of *l or *r plus *k or *g were also palatalized between front vowels (see Sect. 2.2.2).

  20. Note that palatalization occurs in other Basque dialects as well (see Hualde 1988; Trask 1997, p. 146 ff.).

  21. The fact that these examples of synchronic palatalization result from a corresponding diachronic process is affirmed, for example, in Trask (1997, p. 146 ff.).

  22. Thus, implicitly Shevelov (1964, p. 354) and Steensland (1975, p. 92).

  23. Bateman (2007, p. 79) speaks of “palatalization spreading over more than one consonant” in similar cases.

  24. Lunt (1981, p. 68 f.) must, however, admit: “I have no phonetic explanation for the resistance of the long or tense low back vowel to the fronting influence, nor can I explain why that same environment excluded the long or tense low front vowel.” A case where short vowels were affected by umlaut earlier than long vowels may be found in Old Swedish (see Steensland 1975, p. 104).

  25. Cf. cases such as PSl *stajētēj > *stajātēj > OCS stojati ‘stand’ or PSl *džēli > *džāli > OCS žalь ‘grief’.

  26. Differently, Vermeer and his predecessors (see the discussion in Sect. 2.2).

  27. Dialectal Russian knjazínja is of later origin (see Vasmer 1953, p. 581).

  28. Contamination of parallel formations may have occurred as well, cf. Russian prižigat’ ‘burn’ alongside OCS prižagati ‘id.’ Supr 13,2 and prižidzati ‘id.’ Supr 13,13.

  29. Another option would be to explain the velar analogically to formations such as OCS stьgna ‘place’, RCS stogna ‘marketplace’, Slovene stegnà ‘path for cattle’, OP ściegna ‘path’ etc. Codex Suprasliensis displays a form stьgda which according to Vaillant (1974, p. 490) must be interpreted as a scribal error for *stьgna (cf. also Aitzetmüller 1991, p. 45 fn. 62).

  30. Vermeer’s (2012, p. 354) scepticism concerning this explanation is unwarranted. The fact that Russian fljaga ‘flask’ is “patently non-native” is of no relevance for the analogical process. Another instance of back formation might be Russian jaga in baba-jaga ‘Baba-Yaga; old witch’ (as opposed to OCS jędza ‘disease’), cf. the diminutive bab(k)a-ёžka (o is secondary). Note that some kind of analogy must be assumed to explain the palatal ž in the corresponding Czech Ježibaba as well. Zaliznjak’s (2004, p. 302) suggestion according to which the rare ONovg personal name Jaža belongs to the same root is uncertain.

  31. This is probably what Lunt (1985, p. 155) had in mind when he stated without further specification: “The remarkably different environments of the progressive and the second regressive palatalizations are strong reasons for assuming different chronology until that possibility can be definitely ruled out […].”

  32. Vermeer (2002–2003, p. 387 fn. 21) also refers to bidirectional labialization rules in East Caucasian languages and Shuswap. Furthermore, he mentions a soft pronunciation of velars after front vowels in Russian words by Dutch beginners, who at the same time produce ‘passable’ realizations of velars before front vowels. It is, however, not clear to me how this could indicate the existence of a diachronic bidirectional palatalization.

  33. Campbell speaks of fronting here.

  34. The chronology of i-umlaut is not entirely clear (see the discussion in Hogg 1979).

  35. Not all of them, however, occur in word final position.

  36. Note that according to Hogg (1992, p. 260 fn. 3) examples such as the ones from the Lindisfarne Gospels mentioned above are inconclusive.

  37. Note that Kümmel (2007, p. 397) employs several formulas to account for the OE palatalizations.

  38. This problem is not eliminated by assuming ambisyllabic consonants as Hogg (1992, pp. 44, 259) does.

  39. An important difference to Slavic would in any case be the interrelation of palatalization and syllable structure in OE palatalization.

  40. The same evidence speaks against dating the II regressive before the progressive palatalization, which is why I do not discuss this relative chronology separately here.

  41. Cf. the discussion in Vermeer (2008, p. 548 ff.).

  42. Kortlandt’s (2005, p. 119) assumption according to which bidirectional palatalization operated before a following front vowel *ǖ posited by him for several endings, but not after a preceding one, seems contradictory.

  43. To give an example, Elmar Ternes (32012, p. 38), in his introductory course on phonology, notes that the articulation of the velar plosive is approximately the same in German Kiefer ‘pine’ and Küfer ‘cooper’.

  44. Roundness is according to Kortlandt (1984, p. 212) and others the reason why palatalization was blocked before PSl *ū and *u.

  45. As Vermeer (1986, p. 507 ff.) has shown, the fact that the II regressive palatalization has left no traces in the medieval dialects of the Novgorod and Pskov area, whereas progressive palatalization occurred with *k, may be explained as the result of a reversed relative chronology of monophthongization and bidirectional palatalization. Consequently, we cannot use this fact as an argument for separating the II regressive and the progressive palatalization (pace Moser 1998, p. 133; Hock 1998, p. 27; cf. Vermeer 2008, p. 545).

  46. There are other cases seemingly contradicting Pedersen’s chronology such as OCS lьzě or the Imp2pl OCS tьcěte, which, however, can be explained as secondary (cf. Zubatý 1910; Steensland 1975, p. 98 f.). The truncated form R zgi (in ni zgi ne vidno ‘it’s pitch-dark’) as well as dialectal stegi and Br ščegi are (pace Kortlandt 1984, p. 215) hardly good counterexamples. Its velar can be explained either as reflecting a later derivation from the verb -stigat’ (cf., for example, dostigat’ ‘reach’), or as reflecting an influence by this verb. Furthermore, adaption to a parallel form derived with a suffix starting in a consonant, e.g. OCS stьgna, RCS stogna (see fn. 32), cannot be excluded.

  47. The only OCS i-form is Gpl sicixъ from the ZogrFr (cf. Diels 1932, p. 134 f.). In Pedersen’s scenario it may be interpreted either as an archaism or an innovation, whereas it must be an innovation in Meillet’s explanatory model.

  48. Note that the assumption of an analogical leveling in favor of the hard inflectional type might make it possible to explain several alleged exceptions to the progressive palatalization as well. Due to its speculative character and the complications discussed in this section, I, however, did not include this possibility in the survey above (Sect. 2.1).

  49. Vermeer’s paradigm is based on those presented in Zubatý (1910, p. 151) and Mareš (1956, p. 467). He recognizes that different reconstructions are possible but does not consider the issue as being immediately relevant to the problem of Pedersen’s chronology. Since Vermeer (2012, p. 352), however, starts from the same reconstruction, it seems to be the one which he considers to be the most plausible.

  50. Note that these are the same endings which correspond across the hard and the soft inflectional types if Pedersen’s chronology is assumed.

  51. Shevelov (1964, p. 423 ff.) and others assume that at least two chronologically separated shifts from *e to *o took place. The first one occurred only after hushing consonants and *j unless followed by a front vowel in the next syllable, whereas the second, chronologically later, shift took place in all positions except before a soft consonant. If this is correct *o would have already existed after hushing consonants and j when it arose in the position after a soft consonant taking part in the correlation of palatalization, e.g. stage 1, Gplf *žonъ ‘wife’: Gpln *s’elъ ‘village’; stage 2, Gplf *žonъ, Gpln *s’olъ.

  52. Vermeer (2008, p. 529) compares his phonotactic umlaut with “voice assimilation in obstruent clusters that has been more or less universal in Slavic ever since the fall of the weak jers.” Since voice assimilation in obstruent clusters was a part of PIE phonotactics already, one could stretch Vermeer’s claim and argue that it never ceased to exist in Slavic. This does not seem very plausible considering the significant changes the Slavic phonological system has undergone since then. Rather it is the ‘triviality’ of changes such as these which makes them reappear again and again in the phonological history of a language.

  53. Vermeer’s (2008, p. 520) statement according to which Meillet’s conception is “more or less inevitable because even at as late a stage as the language underlying OCS, back vowels were still excluded after palatal consonants” contributes nothing to the argument. It by no means proves that changes which would have violated Meillet’s phonotactic rule were impossible at this stage. Note further that the presence of OCS ě in the position after a soft consonant as it occurs mainly in the glagolitic manuscripts, cf. stoěti ‘stand’, žělь ‘grief’ etc., is usually explained as a dialectal peculiarity (cf., for example, Diels 1932, p. 31; van Wijk 1931, p. 126 ff.; Holzer 2006, p. 41 f.). This implies that forms such as stojati, žalь from the cyrillic texts display an archaism. Moreover, the back nasal vowel OCS -ǫ probably occurred after soft consonants in most of the dialects, e.g. Asg zem̑lǫ ‘earth’, Isg zem̑lejǫ. Thus, at least the non-front vowels *ā and *ǭ must have existed after soft consonants at a pre-stage of the dialects underlying the Glagolitic alphabet as well.

  54. As Vermeer (2008, p. 524 f., 2003, p. 416) points out, most of the scholars adhering to Pedersen’s chronology have either displayed no awareness of Meillet’s ě or just ignored it. Lunt’s (1981, pp. 37, 80 f. note 124) statement according to which pronouns often display idiosyncratic inflection is clearly not a satisfying solution. This is especially true since opposing theories provide explanations even if they are, at least in my opinion, problematic. For a discussion of Trubetzkoy’s unsuccessful effort to deal with Meillet’s ě see Vermeer (2008, p. 541 ff.).

  55. A possible translation for the latter example can be found in Zaliznjak (2004, p. 408).

  56. At least according to the material as interpreted by Zaliznjak.

  57. If this is not accepted, the change from ě to i needs to be dated earlier. A morphological origin is also suggested by Galinskaja (2002, p. 16).

  58. Le Feuvre (2007, p. 15) merely cites the i-forms stating that they are “sans doute à mettre en partie au compte de la confusion entre [ě] et [i] […].” See, however, Sect. 4.1.1.

  59. Vermeer (1996, p. 50) also tries to account for the spread of soft endings in the imperative and the present participle. However, since the latter two occur in standard Russian as well, it seems doubtful to link them to a development specific for ONovg / OPsk.

  60. Not every phenomenon must, of course, be explained by proportional analogy as is specifically argued in Sect. 4.2. However, Vermeer gives no hints as to how the analogical spread of the i-forms evolved.

  61. Note, however, that Aduf svinьi exhibits a soft-type ending in the first half of the 12th century (see Zaliznjak 2004, pp. 99, 311; Le Feuvre 2007, p. 9).

  62. The only case which might display a nominal NAdun ending in -ě is according to Zaliznjak (2004, p. 111) unreliable.

  63. For example, Kuznecov et al. (2006, p. 125) start their account from the Gsgf, stating: “Pričiny rasprostranenija fleksii mjagkoj raznovidnosti na tverduju v RP žen. roda ne jasny” (‘the reasons for the extension of the soft-type Gsgf ending to the hard inflectional type are unclear’). Vermeer (1996, p. 50) assumes that the soft o-stem Aplm ending was introduced into the hard stems to avoid syncretism with the Ipl, not mentioning, however, that this transfer resulted in syncretism with the Lsg itself.

  64. Note that this form is more recent than the Ldu tiju in vo kolьcju tiju (No 644, 1100-1120, see Sect. 4.1.1) which presupposes the existence of the i-forms in the pronoun.

  65. That analogical processes did not operate along the same lines in the nominal and pronominal paradigms is further suggested by forms such as Lplm Mъlъvoticěxъ (2x) and Ve[l]im[i]cěxъ (No 516, 1120-1170, most probably 1140-1150, see Zaliznjak 2004, pp. 111, 516), which contrary to the corresponding pronominal forms contain ě.

  66. See, however, Vermeer (1991) and Krys’ko (1993); critically Olander (2012).

  67. This and the fact that conflation of soft and hard endings is known from other Slavic languages as well (cf., for example, the DLsg -e in both the hard and soft ā-stems in East Slavic or the inflection of these stems in BCS and Slovene) are the reason, why it is in my opinion most plausible to account for the ONovg / OPsk declensional system by means of morphological change. Differently, Olander (2012, 2015, p. 56 f.) has put forward the idea that the ě-endings in the Aplm of the o-stems, the Gsg and NApl of the ā-stems as well as the Nsg ending -e of the masc. o-stems result from a phonological change. Starting from the assumption that pre-PSl *̄̆a was raised to   before final fricatives, he posits a merger of this schwa with the reflexes of *̄̆e in ONovg but with the reflexes of *̄̆u elsewhere in Slavic. Although I agree with the author that some kind of auslautgesetz has to be assumed if one wishes to plausibly explain the Slavic reflexes of PIE endings in *-s, I believe that his account of the ONovg data yields several complications. First, one needs to posit a pre-stage of Slavic, at which schwa existed only in auslaut. Second, as Olander (2012, p. 335) mentions himself, according to his hypothesis one would expect the Dpl ending in ONovg / OPsk to be *-me instead of the attested -mъ. The author accounts for this contradiction by positing another auslautgesetz that made the schwa merge with the reflexes of *̄̆u after a labial (as it did in any position in the rest of Slavic; see also Olander 2015, p. 67), which clearly is a further complication. Third, since the proposed rise of schwa must have occurred before umlaut (see Olander 2015, p. 56), another vowel needs to be added to its domain. However, no direct reflex of umlautedschwa can be found in Slavic. Fourth, from the considerations above it follows that Olander’s explanation of the ending -i in the NPlm of the o-stems and the Imp2sg by means of a regular sound change necessitates the assumption of two additional diphthongs (*- or *-ъ̯i and its umlauted counterpart) for Slavic outside the Novg / Psk area, which may be conceived as a further complication. Because of these reasons I cannot agree with Olander, at least at this point. NB: Since Olander (2015, p. 63), at least in a later contribution reckons with a bidirectional palatalization, his account for Slavic desinences ending in a fricative appears to be acceptable only if the merger of schwa with the reflexes of PSl *̄̆u is dated before palatalization. Otherwise one would have to assume that palatalization was blocked before schwa which does not seem very plausible from a phonetic point of view.

  68. Note that the II regressive palatalization did not occur in the dialects later to become Old Novgorodian / Old Pskovian, while progressive palatalization affected only PSl *k (see Sect. 2.1).

  69. One of the differences, of course, being that Meillet’s ě had not yet emerged.

  70. Cf. further the occurrence of endings of the determined adjective in these pronouns, cf. Isgmn mъnogyimь, Gpl mъnogyixъ, Dpl mъnogyimъ, Ipl mъnogyimi, but also tolikaago Supr (2x) (see Diels 1932, p. 212 f.; Vaillant 1948, p. 149).

  71. It is interesting to note that the analogy at hand resulted in an inflection that was more complex with regard to stem alternation but simpler with regard to the absolute amount of forms in the paradigm, since the difference in gender was eliminated in the oblique cases of the plural. Both these aspects might have played a role in the extension of pronominal endings.

  72. Note further that the only case form of the Russian interrogative pronoun čto ‘what’ which adopted an ending from the hard-type counterpart kto ‘who’ is the Isg, cf. čem as opposed to OR čimь.

  73. Note that the Nplm ending was most probably already -i in both the hard and the soft declension. We do not know if a hard-type ending was extended to the NAdufn as well since it is not attested with the pronouns OCS vьsь and sicь.

  74. Note that Nesset and Makarova (2014) posit a Semantic Homogeneity Constraint which restricts analogical change to semantically homogeneous domains.

  75. Another case in which an analogical process only affected a subparadigm can be found in the heteroclitic inflection of Russian xotet’ ‘want’: 1sg xoču, 2sg xočeš’, 3sg xočet, 1pl xotim, 2pl xotite, 3pl xotjat. As the OCS paradigm reveals, an ending of the IV verbal class was originally present only in the 3pl, cf. 1sg xoštǫ, 2sg xošteši, 3sg xoštetъ, 1pl xoštemъ, 2pl xoštete, 3pl xotętь (cf. Kiparsky 1967, p. 219). It was therefore most probably via this scharnierform that endings of the IV class verbs were introduced also in the 1 and 2pl. The analogy did, however, not spread further into the singular paradigm. Cf. also the leveling in English speak : spake : spoken → speak : spoke : spoken (see Fertig 2013, p. 72).

  76. This does, however, not mean that the morphological processes which resulted in the mixed paradigms of Old Church Slavonic and 12th century Russian discussed in this section must have been identical to each other or to those responsible for the rise of Meillet’s ě and the corresponding ONovg / OPsk i.

  77. It is difficult to say whether a similar scenario may be posited for several other Modern Russian pronouns. According to Kiparsky (1967, p. 158) the vowel i in the Isgmn and GDILpl of the pronoun ėtot ‘this’ resulted from the merger of ě and i in unaccented syllables reflected in the script. Such an explanation is, however, impossible for the pronoun sam ‘myself’. Unbegaun (1935, p. 392) supposes that the generalization of the vowel i in the oblique cases of the plural might at least in part have resulted from an influence of the personal pronoun oni ‘they’ (GLpl ixъ, Dpl imъ etc.). In a similar way Gorškova and Xaburgaev (1997, p. 279) propose that sam adopted the i-endings following the example of onъ ‘he’: ego : imъ : ixъ. The vocalism was then further extended to the nominative plural from the oblique case forms. Another possibility would be to explain the i-forms in this pronoun as resulting from a proportional analogy such as the following: si : sixъ / simъ / simi = sami : x; x = samixъ / samimъ / samimi. This process could be interpreted as reversed to that which may be posited for explaining the pronominal Nplmnf ending MoR -e (< -ě): OR sixъ / simъ / simi : si = těxъ / těmъ / těmi : x; x = tě (cf. with no exact description of the analogical process, Unbegaun 1935, p. 376; Kiparsky 1967, p. 147). Both these analogies can be compared to the one proposed above. A curious inflectional paradigm is attested for the 16th century Russian pronoun sesь. Contrary to what would be expected, one finds endings containing ě in the Isgmn and in the oblique cases of the plural. According to Unbegaun (1935, p. 383) these forms arose analogically to the pronoun totъ ‘this, that’. If this is correct, a process parallel to the one posited for OCS and ONovg / OPsk in the present paper may be assumed here as well. However, these forms could also have emerged by analogy with the pronoun vesь.

  78. Unfortunately, I had no access to Zager’s dissertation from 1980 which is why it is cited via Bybee and Slobin (1982, p. 285) here.

  79. Cf. also Bybee and Moder (1983, p. 255), Bybee (2001, p. 126 ff.), Albright and Hayes (2003, p. 135), and Bybee (2010, p. 20 ff). To be precise, Bybee and Slobin (1982, p. 185) and Bybee and Moder (1983, p. 255) speak of ‘modifications’ noting, however, that this is roughly equivalent to ‘innovations’. Albright and Hayes (2003, p. 135) use the term ‘generalization’. Since the present article is mainly concerned with diachrony, I use the term ‘innovation’ here.

  80. Cf. the table in Bybee and Moder (1983, p. 252) and Bybee (2001, p. 127).

  81. For example, in the nonce-probe experiment reported by Bybee and Moder (1983, p. 263 f.) the stimulus form vin elicited the past tense form vung, smip elicited smuk, and stid elicited stud (cf. also Bybee 2001, p. 126 f.).

  82. Note that Bybee (2001, p. 90) reports a number of experiments showing that among patterns which are in conformity with phonotactics, subjects judge sequences and patterns with high type frequency to be more acceptable than those with low type frequency.

  83. Apart from phonotactic constraints (see Sect. 4.2), this may be seen as the reason why Meillet’s ě was not extended to pronouns ending in the glide *j, e.g. OCS iže ‘which, that’: Isg imьže, GLpl ixъže, Dpl imъže, Ipl imiže.

  84. Note that the existence of a pronoun sikъ ‘of this sort’ as it is attested in South-Western Church Slavonic cannot be excluded entirely for prehistoric times (see Pedersen 1907, p. 216 ff., whose accent rule is, however, untenable, Birnbaum and Schaeken 1997, p. 77; critically, for example, Vermeer 2008, p. 523 ff.). A “trivial local leveling inspired by the stem-final -k- in the continuations of *takъ and related words” as it is posited by Vermeer (2008, p. 523) for the corresponding dialects may at any rate also be assumed for an earlier stage, cf., for example, the doublet OCS klětьca, klětьka in Sect. 2.1 (f). However, since no unambiguous case forms occur in OCS the matter remains speculative. Recent is R sjak ‘of such kind’ (see Vaillant 1958, p. 484).

  85. Cf. apart from the demonstrative sь the possessives moi ‘my’ (moixъ, moimъ, moimi), tvoi ‘your’ (tvoixъ, tvoimъ, tvoimi), svoi ‘own’ (svoixъ, svoimъ, svoimi), našь ‘our’ (našixъ, našimъ, našimi), vašь ‘your’ (vašixъ, vašimъ, vašimi) and maybe also tuždь ‘foreign, alien’ (tuždixъ, tuždimъ, tuždimi), if it already inflected according to the pronominal inflection during the time relevant for the problem discussed here. A predominance of the soft inflectional type within pronouns is also supposed by Le Feuvre (2007, p. 15). According to her, the extension of the i-endings in the pronoun is in part the result of the confusion of ě and i “mais […] s’explique vraisemblablement aussi par la nette prédominance du type mou dans la flexion pronominale, puisque c’est celui de la flexion déterminée des adjectifs.” It is, however, incorrect that the inflection of pronouns at any time corresponded exactly to that of the determined adjectives. Initially the latter had a double inflection (nominal ending + inflecting pronoun) and later on, after certain phonological as well as morphological innovations had rendered the original state of affairs opaque, they employed a special set of desinences. Furthermore, clear examples of such an influence from 14th and 15th century Russian, e.g. GLpl tyxъ, Ipl tymi, etc. suggest that it would have led to a result different than the one to be explained in Old Novgorodian / Old Pskovian (more examples from these dialects can be found in Zaliznjak 2004, p. 129; for 16th century Russian see Unbegaun 1935, p. 371 ff.).

  86. The last example is adopted from Zaliznjak (1981, p. 98). Further pronouns of the hard inflectional type which might have occurred in such constructions are drugъ ‘other’ (drudzěxъ, drudzěmъ, drudzěmi), prokъ ‘remaining’ (procěxъ, procěmъ, procěmi). It is, however, uncertain whether they had already adopted pronominal endings during the time relevant for the problem discussed here. Note that combinations such as OCS Gpl vьsěxъ ixъ Supr 557,15, Gpl vьsěxъ svoixъ 84,28/29, Gpl v’sěxъ sixъ Euch 80v9 etc. occurred as well.

  87. Note that these criteria do not constitute a prerequisite for the occurrence of syntagmatic assimilation. For example, the individual components may be reversed in the case of the pronominal ending Gsgmn -oga.

  88. As Marek Majer noted in a comment on my talk given at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Slavic Linguistics Society at the University of Potsdam (September 11–13, 2019) the innovated aorist forms could also have arisen by proportional analogy via the homonymous 3sg ending.

  89. This explanation seems to be implicit in Šaxmatov (2002, p. 119). Note, however, that these endings may also be explained by analogy to the pronoun vьsь.

  90. Note that sjak also developed an inflection (cf., for example, Sreznevskij 1912, p. 908 f.).

  91. It is possible that the proposed syntagmatic assimilation occurred before the CSl change of *a to *o. In this case we would have to posit something like *wiśega taga. However, a sequence of soft consonant plus short *a at this point likewise did not exist in the language.

  92. Cf. the birchbark letter No 9 for an example from Old Novgorodian (see Zaliznjak 2004, p. 300) and Večerka (1993, p. 53) for OCS.

References

  • Aitzetmüller, R. (1991). Altbulgarische Grammatik als Einführung in die slavische Sprachwissenschaft (2., verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage; Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et dissertationes, XXX). Freiburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albright, A., & Hayes, B. (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90, 119–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alekseev, M. E. (1981). Palatalizacija soglasnyx v rutul’skom jazyke (po dannym govora sel. Xnjux). In B. B. Talibov (Ed.), Fonetičeskaja sistema dagestanskix jazykov: tematičeskij sbornik (pp. 122–128). Maxačkala.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alekseev, M. E. (1994). Budukh. In R. Smeets (Ed.), The Indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Volume 4. North East Caucasian languages. Part 2 (pp. 259–296). Delmar, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, H. (1980). Morphological change: towards a typology. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical morphology (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 17, pp. 1–50). The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arumaa, P. (1976). Urslavische Grammatik. Einführung in das vergleichende Studium der slavischen Sprachen. II. Band: Konsonantismus (Slavica. Sammlung slavischer Lehr- und Handbücher. Neue Folge). Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, N. (2007). A crosslinguistic investigation of palatalization (Doctoral dissertation, University of California), San Diego.

  • Bateman, N. (2011). On the typology of palatalization. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5(8), 588–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudouin de Courtenay, J. N. (1894). Einiges über Palatalisierung (Palatalisation) und Entpalatalisierung (Dispalatalisation). Indogermanische Forschungen, 4, 45–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belić, A. (1921). Najmlađa (treća) promena zadnjenepčanih suglasnika k, g i h u praslovenskom jeziku. Južnoslovenski filolog, 2, 18–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhat, D. N. S. (1978). A general study of palatalization. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language. Volume 2. Phonology (pp. 47–92). Standford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, H., & Schaeken, J. (1997). Das altkirchenslavische Wort. Bildung – Bedeutung – Herleitung. Altkirchenslavische Studien I (Slavistische Beiträge, 348). München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bräuer, H. (1961). Slavische Sprachwissenschaft. I: Einleitung, Lautlehre (Sammlung Göschen, 1191/1191a). Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, J. L. (2001). Phonology and language use (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 94). Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, J. L. (2010). Diachronic linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (electronic version). Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0036.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, J. L., & Moder, C. L. (1983). Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59(2), 251–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, J. L., & Slobin, D. I. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58(2), 265–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. (1964). Old English grammar. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlton, T. R. (1991). Introduction to the phonological history of the Slavic languages. Columbus, Ohio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Channon, R. (1972). On the place of the progressive palatalization of velars in the relative chronology of Slavic (Janua Linguarum. Studia memoriae Nicolai van Wijk dedicata. Series Practica, 72). The Hague, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diels, P. (1932). Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Mit einer Auswahl von Texten und einem Wörterbuch. I. Teil: Grammatik (Sammlung Slavischer Lehr- und Handbücher. I. Reihe: Grammatiken, 6). Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fertig, D. (2013). Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Feuvre, C. (2007). Sur la flexion des thèmes en -a- en vieux novgorodien. Revue des Études Slaves, 78(1), 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galinskaja, E. A. (2002). Istoričeskaja fonetika russkix dialektov v lingvogeografičeskom aspekte. Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorškova, K. B., & Xaburgaev, G. A. (1997). Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, T. A. (2011). Phonologie. Eine Einführung. Berlin, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, T. A., Hamann, S., & Zygis, M. (2004). The phonetic motivation for phonological stop assibilation. In S. Fuchs & S. Hamann (Eds.), Papers in Phonetics and Phonology (ZASPiL, 37 – December 2004) (pp. 187–219).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hock, H. H. (1991). Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hock, W. (1998). Das Urslavische. In P. Rehder (Ed.), Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen (mit einer Einführung in die Balkanphilologie) (3., verb. und erw. Auflage, pp. 17–34). Darmstadt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, R. M. (1979). Old English palatalization. In The Philological Society (Ed.), Transactions of the Philological Society 1979 (pp. 89–113). Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, R. M. (1992). A grammar of Old English. Volume 1: Phonology. Oxford, UK, Cambridge, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, G. (2006). Die Geschichte des Slavischen der Stadt Saloniki bis zum Jahre 863. In J. Reinhart (Ed.), Slavia mediaevalia in memoriam Francisci Venceslai Mareš (Schriften über Sprachen und Texte, 8, pp. 29–67). Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzer, G. (2007). Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen. Einleitung und Lautgeschichte der Standardsprache (Schriften über Sprachen und Texte, 9), Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hualde, J. I. (1988). Palatalization in Biscayan Basque and Feature Geometry. In M. Crowhurst (Ed.), Arizona Phonology Conference. Vol. 1 (pp. 36–46).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeżowa, M. (1968). Z problemów tak zwanej trzeciej palatalizacji tylnojęzykowych w językach słowianskich. (Monografie Slawistyczne, 13), Wrócław.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasatkin, L. L. (1968). Progressivnoe assimiljativnoe smjagčenie zadnenebnyx soglasnyx v russkix govorax. Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibrik, A. E., & Kodzasov, S. V. (1990). Sopostavitel’noe izučenie dagestanskix jazykov. Imja. Fonetika. Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibrik, A. E., Kodzasov, S. V., & Olovjannikova, I. P. (1972). Fragmenty grammatiki xinalugskogo jazyka. Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, V. (1967). Russische historische Grammatik. Band II: Die Entwicklung des Formensystems. Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochetov, A. (2011). Palatalization. In M. van Ostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology. Volume III: Phonological processes. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0071.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kodzasov, S. V. (1996). Phonological preliminaries. In A. E. Kibrik (Ed.), Godoberi (LINCOM Studies in Caucasian Linguistics, 2, pp. 1–6). München, Newcastle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortlandt, F. (1984). The progressive palatalization of Slavic. Folia Linguistica Historica, 5(2), 211–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortlandt, F. (2005). From Serbo-Croatian to Indo-European. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, 51, 113–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krys’ko, V. B. (1993). Obščeslavjanskie i drevnenovgorodskie formy nom. sg. masc. *o-sklonenia. Russian Linguistics, 17, 119–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kümmel, M. J. (2007). Konsonantenwandel. Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznecov, A. M., Iordanidi, S. I., & Krys’ko, V. B. (2006). Istoričeskaja grammatika drevnerusskogo jazyka. Tom III: Prilagatel’nye. Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luick, K. (1940). Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Erster Band. II. Abteilung. Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunt, H. G. (1981). The progressive palatalization of Common Slavic. Skopje.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunt, H. G. (1985). On the progressive palatalization of early Slavic: synchrony versus history. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 15(2), 149–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mareš, F. V. (1956). Vznik slovanského fonologického systému a jeho vývoj do konce období slovanské jazykové jednoty. Slavia, 25(4), 443–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meillet, A. (1900). Notes sur quelques faits de morphologie. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 11, 6–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meillet, A. (1902–1905). Études sur l’étymologie & le vocabulaire du vieux slave 1–2. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meillet, A. (1934). Le slave commun. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, M. (1998). Urostslavisch oder Gemeinostslavisch? Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, 44, 129–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesset, T., & Makarova, A. (2014). Testing the semantic homogeneity constraint. Analogical change and Russian verbs. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 4(2), 161–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohala, J. (1993). The phonetics of sound change. In Ch. Jones (Ed.), Historical linguistics: problems and perspectives (pp. 237–278). London, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olander, T. (2012). Proto-Indo-European *-os in Slavic. Russian Linguistics, 36(3), 319–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olander, T. (2015). Proto-Slavic inflectional morphology. A comparative handbook. Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, H. (1905). Die nasalpräsentia und der Slavische akzent. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen, 38(3), 297–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, H. (1907). Neues und nachträgliches. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen, 40(2), 129–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringe, D., & Taylor, A. (2014). A linguistic history of English (The Development of Old English. Vol. II). Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Šarafutdinova, R., & Levina, R. (1961). Xvaršinskij jazyk (predvaritel’noe soobščenie). In E. A. Bokarev (Ed.), Voprosy izučenija iberijsko-kavkazskix jazykov (pp. 89–122). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Šaxmatov, A. A. (1896). K istorii zvukov russkago jazyka. Smjagčennyja soglasnyja. Izvestija otdělenija russkago jazyka i slovesnosti, 1, 695–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Šaxmatov, A. A. (2002[1915]). Očerk drevnějšago perioda istroii russkago jazyka (Ėnciklopedija slavjanskoj filologii, Vypusk, 11.1). Petrograd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenker, A. M. (2014). The dawn of Slavic. An introduction to Slavic philology. New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shevelov, G. Y. (1964). A prehistory of Slavic. The historical phonology of Common Slavic. Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sławski (Ed.) (1974). Słownik prasłowiański. Tom I. A–B. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sreznevskij, I. I. (1912). Materialy dlja slovarja drevne-russkago jazyka po pis’mennym pamjatnikam. Tom tretij. Sanktpeterburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steensland, L. (1975). Ein beitrag zur diskussion anlässlich R. Channons On the Place of the Progressive Palatalization of Velars in the Relative Chronology of Slavic [review]. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 21, 90–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ternes, E. (2012). Einführung in die Phonologie (3., überarbeitete Auflage). Darmstadt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trask, R. L. (1997). The History of Basque. London, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troubetzkoy, N. (1922). Essai sur la chronologie de certains faits phonétiques du slave commun. Revue des Études Slaves, 2(3–4), 217–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unbegaun, B. (1935). La langue russe au XVIesiècle (1500–1550). I. La flexion des noms (Bibliothéque de L’Institut Français de Leningrad, XVI). Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaillant, A. (1948). Manuel du vieux slave. Tome I. Grammaire. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaillant, A. (1950). Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome I. Phonétique. Lyon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaillant, A. (1958). Grammaire compareé des langues slaves. Tome II. Morphologie. Deuxième partie: Flexion pronominal. Lyon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaillant, A. (1974). Grammaire compareé des langues slaves. Tome IV: La formation des noms. Lyon.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Wijk, N. (1931). Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache. Erster Band: Laut und Formenlehre. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasmer, M. (1953). Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I. Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Večerka, R. (1993). Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax. II: Die Innere Satzstruktur (Monumenta linguae Slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et dissertationes, XXXIV). Freiburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer, W. (1986). The rise of the north Russian dialect of Common Slavic. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 8, 503–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer, W. (1991). The mysterious North Russian nominative singular ending -e and the problem of the reflex of Proto-Indo-European *-os in Slavic. Die Welt der Slaven, 36, 271–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer, W. (1996). Historical dimensions of Novgorod inflexion. In A. A. Gippius, T. M. Nikolaeva, & V. N. Toporov (Eds.), Rusistika. Slavistika. Indoevropeistika. Sbornik k 60-letiju Andreja Anatol’eviča Zaliznjaka (pp. 41–54). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer, W. (2000). On the status of the earliest Russian isogloss: four untenable and three questionable reasons for separating the progressive and the second regressive palatalization of Common Slavic. Russian Linguistics, 24, 5–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer, W. (2002–2003). Leading ideas in the study of the progressive palatalization of Proto-Slavic. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 44–45, 377–394 [special issue: Henrik Birnbaum in memoriam, ed. by M. S. Flier, V. V. Ivanov, J. Schaeken, & D. S. Worth].

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer, W. (2003). Comedy of errors or inexorable advance? Exploring the dysfunctionality of the debate about the progressive palatalization of Slavic. In J. Schaeken, P. Houtzagers, & J. Kalsbeek (Eds.), Dutch contributions to the Thirteenth International Congress of Slavists. Ljubljana. August 15–21, 2003 (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 30, pp. 397–452). Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer, W. (2006). Jagić’s chronology of the progressive palatalization. In P. Ambrosiani, I. Lysén, E. Löfstrand, & J. Muskala (Eds.), Jako blagopesnivaja ptica. Hyllningsskrift till Lars Steensland (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Slavic Studies, 32, pp. 229–240). Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer, W. (2008). Pedersen’s chronology of the progressive palatalization. In P. Houtzagers, J. Kalsbeek, & J. Schaeken (Eds.), Dutch contributions to the Fourteenth International Congress of Slavists. Ohrid. September 10–16, 2008 (Linguistics Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics, 34, pp. 503–571). Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeer, W. (2012). Why baba-yaga? Substratal phonetics and restoration of velars subject to the Progressive Palatalization in Russian/Belorussian and adjacent areas (appr. 600-900 CE). In R. Grünthal & P. Kallio (Eds.), A linguistic map of prehistoric northern Europe (Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, 266, pp. 345–370). Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wierzchowska, B. (1971). Wymowa polska. Warszawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zager, D. (1980). A real-time process model of morphological change (Doctoral dissertation, SUNY). Buffalo.

  • Zaliznjak, A. A. (1981). Protivopostavlenie otnositel’nyx i voprositel’nyx mestoimenij v drevnerusskom. Balto-slavjanskie issledovanija, 1980, 89–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaliznjak, A. A. (1993). Lingvističeskie issledovanija i slovoukazatel’. In V. L. Janin & A. A. Zaliznjak (Eds.), Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1984–1989 gg.) (pp. 191–343). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaliznjak, A. A. (2004). Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt. Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zubatý, J. (1910). Výklady etymologické a lexikální. Sborník filologický, 1, 95–164.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Florian Wandl

Authors
  1. Florian Wandl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Wandl.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Parts of this paper were presented at the Altslavistentagung at the University of Vienna (September 29–30, 2017) and the 14th Annual Meeting of the Slavic Linguistics Society (September 11–13, 2019). I am grateful to Barbara Sonnenhauser, Jussi Nuorluoto, Georg Holzer, Thomas Olander and Florian Sommer for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. All remaining errors are my sole responsibility.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wandl, F. On the relative chronology of the II regressive and the progressive palatalizations of Common Slavic. Russ Linguist 44, 79–108 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-020-09219-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-020-09219-w

Search

Navigation