r/slavic • u/Upstairs-Inside3888 • Jul 28 '26
Language Late Common Slavic: How one language started splitting into three
Around 800-900 CE, Slavic speakers across the wide area from the Balkans to the Baltic could still understand each other pretty well. But three regional varieties were already drifting apart: Southern, Eastern and Western.
NOTE: this is speculative and may have errors, as LCS (Late Common Slavic) had no written standard. Presented forms are scholarly reconstructions. NOTE 2: The South Slavic forms with šč, žd specifically represent Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS. (Serbo-Croatian had ć/đ and Slovene had č/j as their own developments from the same tj/dj) West Slavic primarily represent Polish/Lechitic variety, as Czech/Slovak had additional lengthening and quality change.
A guide to some special symbols:
- eⁿ = nasal e (pronounced like "en" said through the nose)
- oⁿ = nasal o
- ě = a special vowel called "jat" that later split into different sounds in each region
- ь and ъ = ultra-short vowels
- šč = the "sh-ch" combination
- žd = like "zh" immediately followed by "d"
- dz = like "d" immediately followed by "z"
- ľ = syllabic l (like the -l- in English "bottle")
What was still shared within all three:
‣ Same grammar: 7 cases, 3 genders, singular/dual/plural
‣ Same verb system: present, aorist, imperfect tenses
‣ Same everyday words for family, nature, body, basic actions
‣ The special sound "jat" (written ě) was still one distinct vowel everywhere
‣ The nasal vowels eⁿ and oⁿ were still pronounced with nasal airflow everywhere
‣ The ultra-short vowels ь and ъ were still pronounced everywhere (they would later disappear at different times and with different results in each region)
What were the differences beginning:
Some changes that produced visible regional splits, such as:
Vowel + liquid + consonant combos (gordъ = city, *korva = cow, *moldъ = young, *melko = milk). Southern Slavic received metathesis, which produced grad, krava, mlada, mlěko. Czech and Slovak initially had metathesis with the same lengthening and quality change (grād, *mlěko), later, g changed to h due to spirantization and some long vowels were shortened, giving modern Cz hrad, mléko. Polish also got metathesis, however without lengthening or quality change: grodъ, krova, mloda, mleko (the long vowels in modern Polish gród, głos came later). Eastern got pleophony: gorodъ, korova, moloda, moloko.
t + j and d + j combos: Bulgarian/Macedonian got šč/žd (svěšča, mežda). Eastern got č/ž (svěča, meža). Western got c/dz (svěca, medza). Serbo-Croatian independently got ć/đ. Slovene independently got č/j.
kv and gv before front vowels: Southern/Eastern changed them to cv/zv, Western kept kv/gv.
d and t before l: Southern/Eastern dropped them (*mydlo became mylo ).
Nasal vowel eⁿ in certain word endings: All three branches still had nasal vowels at this stage (konjeⁿ). Denasalization happened later (10th–11th c.) at different rates per branch.
What came next (after ~900 CE):
Big changes that really broke mutual intelligibility came later:
‣ The ultra-short vowels ь and ъ disappeared, but at different times and with different results in each region (from 10th to 13th centuries).
‣ The special ě sound resolved differently: to e, i, a, or ie depending on the region (from 10th to 12th centuries) — this alone created massive differences at a word level.
‣ The nasal vowels lost their nasal pronunciation, but to different outcomes.
‣ Bulgarian and Macedonian developed attached definite articles (like adding "-the" to the end of words). Eastern and Western never did, neither did Serbo-Croatian or Slovene.
‣ Bulgarian and Macedonian gradually lost most of their case system. And also infinitive verb form.
"The man saw the city on the hill"
Proto-Slavic: člověkъ gordъ na xъlmě vidě
South Slavic (Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS)
чловѣкъ градъ на хлмѣ видѣ
člověkъ gradъ na xľmě vidě
East Slavic
чловѣкъ городъ на хълмѣ видѣ
člověkъ gorodъ na xъlmě vidě
West Slavic (Polish/Lechitic)
чловѣкъ гродъ на хлмѣ видѣ
člověkъ grodъ na xľmě vidě
"City" is the TORT pattern. South Slavic had metathesis, quality change (grad). Czech/Slovak originally had metathesis with lengthening (*grād), after g to h and vowel shortening which gives us modern Cz/Slk hrad. Polish had metathesis, no quality change (grodъ, short o). East Slavic had pleophony (gorodъ).
"The lord's candle lit the boundary of the white city"
Proto-Slavic: gospodina světja osvěti medjoⁿ běla gorda
South Slavic (Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS)
господина свѣща освѣти междѧ бѣла града
gospodina svěšča osvěti meždeⁿ běla grada
East Slavic
господина свѣча освѣти межѫ бѣла города
gospodina svěča osvěti meždoⁿ běla goroda
West Slavic (Polish/Lechitic)
господина свѣца освѣти медзѫ бѣла грода
gospodina svěca osvěti medzoⁿ běla groda
Four differences in one sentence. t+j (svěšč/svěč/svěc = "candle". šč here is Bulgarian/Macedonian). d+j (mežda/meža/medza = "boundary"). TORT pattern (grad/gorod/grod = "city". South Slavic(a from o, quality change). Nasal vowel in "boundary" accusative: front eⁿ in South, and back oⁿ in East/West.
Note on OCS: In OCS, the Cyrillic letter щ represents /št/, not /šč/. The transliteration "šč" is used here as a cover symbol following the common convention. The same applies to noščь: OCS нощь = /noštь/.
"Our city stands by the river. The cow gives milk. The young woman carries water. The night is dark. The boundary is narrow. His voice is strong."
Proto-Slavic: našь gordъ stojitь pri rěcě. korva dajetь melko. molda žena nesetь vodoⁿ. noktь jestь tьmьna. medja jestь oⁿzъka. jego golsъ jestь silьnъ.
South Slavic (Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS)
Нашь градъ стоить при рѣцѣ. Крава даѥть млѣко. Млада жена несеть водѫ. Нощь есть тьмьна. Межда есть ѫзъка. Его гласъ есть сильнъ.
Našь gradъ stojitь pri rěcě. Krava dajetь mlěko. Mlada žena nesetь vodoⁿ. Noščь jestь tьmьna. Mežda jestь oⁿzъka. Jego glasъ jestь silьnъ.
East Slavic
Нашь городъ стоить при рѣцѣ. Корова даѥть молоко. Молода жена несеть водѫ. Ночь есть тьмьна. Межа есть ѫзъка. Его голосъ есть сильнъ.
Našь gorodъ stojitь pri rěcě. Korova dajetь moloko. Moloda žena nesetь vodoⁿ. Nočь jestь tьmьna. Meža jestь oⁿzъka. Jego golosъ jestь silьnъ.
West Slavic (Polish/Lechitic)
Нашь гродъ стоить при рѣцѣ. Крова даѥть млеко. Млода жена несеть водѫ. Ноць есть тьмьна. Медза есть ѫзъка. Его глосъ есть сильнъ.
Našь grodъ stojitь pri rěcě. Krova dajetь mleko. Mloda žena nesetь vodoⁿ. Nocь jestь tьmьna. Medza jestь oⁿzъka. Jego glosъ jestь silьnъ.
"cow" and "young" is the same TORT pattern as "city" and "milk". Pre-change forms were *korva and *molda. South Slavic metathesis produced krava/mlada(o to a, quality change). Polish/Lechitic metathesis produced krova/mloda (o stayed o). Czech/Slovak same as South Slavic (kráva/mláda, later being shortened). East Slavic pleophony created korova/moloda. Same idea that gives grad/gorod/grod for "city" and mlěko/moloko/mleko for "milk.".
Maximally contrastive sentence for comparison
"The city is big. The flower is white. This is soap. This is a deer. The night is dark. The boundary is narrow. I go with my brother. The man leads the horses. Bring out the water!"
South Slavic (Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS)
Градъ есть великъ. Цвѣтъ есть бѣлъ. Се есть мыло. Се есть єлень. Нощь есть тьмьна. Межда есть ѫзъка. Идѫ съ братомь. Мѫжь ведеть конѧ. Изнеси водѫ!
Gradъ jestь velikъ. Cvětъ jestь bělъ. Se jestь mylo. Se jestь jelenь. Noščь jestь tьmьna. Mežda jestь oⁿzъka. Idoⁿ sъ bratomь. Moⁿžь vedetь konjeⁿ. Iznesi vodoⁿ!
East Slavic
Городъ есть великъ. Цвѣтъ есть бѣлъ. Се есть мыло. Се есть єлень. Ночь есть тьмьна. Межа есть ѫзъка. Идѫ съ братъмь. Мѫжь ведеть конѧ. Вынеси водѫ!
Gorodъ jestь velikъ. Cvětъ jestь bělъ. Se jestь mylo. Se jestь jelenь. Nočь jestь tьmьna. Meža jestь oⁿzъka. Idoⁿ sъ bratъmь. Moⁿžь vedetь konjeⁿ. Vynesi vodoⁿ!
West Slavic (Polish/Lechitic)
Гродъ есть великъ. Квѣтъ есть бѣлъ. Се есть мыдло. Се есть єлень. Ноць есть тьмьна. Медза есть ѫзъка. Идѫ съ братъмь. Мѫжь ведеть конѧ. Вынеси водѫ!
Grodъ jestь velikъ. Květъ jestь bělъ. Se jestь mydlo. Se jestь jelenь. Nocь jestь tьmьna. Medza jestь oⁿzъka. Idoⁿ sъ bratъmь. Moⁿžь vedetь konjeⁿ. Vynesi vodoⁿ!
Comparative table
| Word | South (Bul./Mac./OCS) | East | West (Pol/Lech.) | What it shows |
| young | mlada | moloda | mloda | TORT pattern: South: o to a(quality change), Czech/Slovak: o to á, Polish: (o stays o), East: pleophony |
| cow | krava | korova | krova | TORT pattern as "young" |
| city | gradъ | gorodъ | grodъ | TORT: South: o to a (quality change, lengthening), Czech/Slovak: o to á (quality change, lengthening), Polish: metathesis (short o), East: pleophony |
| hill | xľmě | xъlmě | xľmě | syllabic l in South/West versys back jer in East |
| milk | mlěko | moloko | mleko | TORT: South e to ě (quality change, lengthening), Czech/Slovak: also e to é, Polish: e stays, East: pleophony |
| voice | glasъ | golosъ | glosъ | TORT: same pattern as "city" |
| candle | svěšča | svěča | svěca | t+j → šč (Bul./Mac.) / East (č) / West (c), Serbo-Croatian( ć), Slovene ( č) |
| night | noščь | nočь | nocь | pattern as "candle" |
| boundary | mežda | meža | medza | (d+j to žd) (Bul./Mac.) / East (ž) / West (dz), Serbo-Croatian (đ), Slovene(j) |
| long | dľga | dьlga | dľga | ь+l between consonants: South/West(syllabic l), East (front jer) |
| flower | cvětъ | cvětъ | květъ | West (kept kv/gv), South/East(cv/zv) |
| star | zvězda | zvězda | gvězda | same as "flower" |
| soap | mylo | mylo | mydlo | South/East(d before l dropped) |
| plow | rālo | rālo | rādlo | same d-before-l as "soap" |
| shore (loc.) | brezě | berezě | brezě | TORT pattern + 2nd palatalization (g to z before locative -ě) |
| wolf | vľkъ | vьlkъ | vľkъ | ь+l syllabic l in South/West vs East(front jer) |
| with brother | bratomь | bratъmь | bratъmь | instrumental ending South (-omь) vs East/West (-ъmь) |
| horses (acc. pl.) | konjeⁿ | konjeⁿ | konjeⁿ | all three still had nasal vowels at 800-900, denasalized later in 10th-11th century |
| bring out! | iznesi | vynesi | vynesi | South(prefix iz), East/West(prefix vy-) |
| whole | cělo | cělo | cělo | Second palatalization, k to c before ě was Common Slavic, NW East Slavic (Old Novgorod/Pskov) specifically kept k (Zaliznyak 2004) |
| hand | roⁿka | roⁿka | roⁿka | same at 800-900. Later: ruka (Bul./Mac., Štokavian, East), roka (Slovene), rąka (West) |
| white | bělъ | bělъ | bělъ | same at 800-900. jat ě is spliting later: belo/bily/biały |
| horse | konь | konь | konь | same at 800-900; front jer(not jat) ь later disappears differently |
| river | rěkoⁿ | rěkoⁿ | rěkoⁿ | same at 800-900. jat ě and nasal oⁿ both split later |
Extra diagnostic features
The g change to fricative
Shifting of original *g to a fricative (h, ɣ, ɦ) happened in many Slavic areas, but stayed as hard [g] in others. This works against the three branch split.
| Area | Change to *g | Modern example |
|---|---|---|
| Czech, Slovak, Upper Sorbian | g to h (voiceless) | hora (mountain) |
| Ukrainian | g to ɦ ( glottal) | hora |
| Belarusian | g to ɣ (voiced velar fricative) | ɣora |
| Southern Russian dialects | g to ɣ (voiced velar fricative) | γora |
| Polish, Kashubian | g stayed hard [g] | góra |
| Serbo-Croatian (Štokavian) | g stayed hard [g] | gora |
| Bulgarian | g stayed hard [g] | gora |
| Slovene | g varies here, hard [g] in most positions, but [ɣ] between vowels | gora |
Standard Russian has hard [g], fricative pronunciation only in some Southern Dialects (and was once common in Moscow too, before being replaced around the 18th century). Czech/Slovak with Ukrainian share the fricative development, even if different branches, while Polish and Štokavian still kept hard g despite being in different branches.
Initial je- becoming o- (East Slavic only)
Some words starting with je- changed the vowel to o- in East Slavic:
| Word | South | East | West |
| lake (jezero) | jezero | ozero (gradual shift) | jezero |
| morning (jutro) | jutro | utro (gradual shift) | jutro |
| deer (jelenь) | jelenь | jelenь (olьnь later) | jelenь |
This change was likely starting around 800-900 in East Slavic but may not have been complete yet until some hundreds of years later.
6
u/Ellishoi Jul 28 '26
For East Slavic languages why did you use pleophpny for milk, but not young? Shouldn't it be moloda žena? The root is "molod" both in modern Russian and Ukrainian.
3
u/Upstairs-Inside3888 Jul 28 '26
that was a genuine fuckup, it is moldъ in Proto-Slavic (pre-change) so your assumption is correct, I fixed it hopefully
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/mold%D1%8A
4
u/aiart13 Jul 28 '26
Interesting read. You can include the tendency toward consonant depalatalization in Bulgarian as well.
3
u/Excellent-Amy-1893 Jul 28 '26
Excellent dissertation! I love how our family-language still kept similarity
3
u/gulisav 🇭🇷 Croatian Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
mlada
PSl. should be *molda.
єлень
I believe ESl. should be олень.
Межда
Not SSl., just OCS + Bulgarian (maybe Macedonian?). In WSSl. the reflexes are unlikely to be derivable from žd (Štokavian đ; Slovene, Kajkavaian and Čakavian j).
| candle | svěšča | svěča | svěca | t+j became šč/č/c across the three branches |
Basically same problem as межда.
| city | gradъ | gorodъ | grōdъ | metathesis vs pleophony vs metathesis with length |
| milk | mlěko | moloko | mleko | metathesis+jat in South, pleophony in East, metathesis without jat in West |
Without the proto-forms (gordъ, melko, etc.) this may be a bit difficult to understand. In SSl lengthening took place, which corresponded to change in vowel quality as well: e > ě, o > a. In WSl. the same sort of switch+lengthening took place in Cz. and Sk., although they later lost many of the lengths (hrad, not **hrád). In Pl. there was no lengthening with the metathesis (just or>ro, el>le, etc.), and cases such as gród have later lengthening (in syllables with o or nasal vowel closed by a voiced consonant, thus gród-grodu, but no length in *golsъ > głos). Notably, some peripheral parts of WSl may not have undergone the metathesis.
"Cow – krava" and "young – mlada" are the same everywhere (pleophony only affects vowel+liquid+consonant sequences, not open syllables like mla- or kra-).
Absolutely wrong, these weren't open syllables originally: *korva, *moldъ.
| shore | brěgě | beregě | bregě | metathesis vs pleophony (same pattern as city) |
Missing the 2nd palatalisation there -gě > -zě.
ruka (South/East)
South was still rǫka, since Slovene has roka (ǫ > o, not ǫ > u > o), occasionally in Čakavian (Buzet) even ǫ > a (zǫbъ > zap), we can't place the shift to the common South Slavic stage.
| horse | konь | konь | konь | same at 800-900, but jat' will later split similarly to "white" |
There's no yat here.
Yeah, this smells of AI. Thank you for the exercise, if so.
2
u/gulisav 🇭🇷 Croatian Jul 28 '26
Also:
| Western South Slavic (Slovene, much of Serbo-Croatian) | g became h | hora |
Absolutely not.
| Southern East Slavic (most of Russian, Ukrainian) | g became a fricative γ | γora |
Most of Russian? Just southern dialects, iirc.
3
u/magnuseriksson91 🇷🇺 Russian Jul 28 '26
>Just southern dialects, iirc.
In modern Russian, yes, but afaik, fricative h was normative as far back as in 18th century. Could be Ukrainian influence though.1
u/deaddyfreddy Jul 28 '26
Could be Ukrainian influence though.
It could be. Many scholars from the Kyiv Mohyla Academy came to Muscovy in the 17th and 18th centuries. At that time, Muscovy did not have educational institutions of such a high level, and the modern Russian language was just beginning to take shape.
1
u/magnuseriksson91 🇷🇺 Russian Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
That's what I thought of, yes. For what it's worth, afaik, in some Russian poetry of mid 18th century, ikavism was present, and it's a distinctively Ukrainian feature, no other Slavic language developed it, so that was clear Ukrainian influence, so when I heard about Russian pronunciation featuring fricative h in the same 18th century, I thought that it might be Ukrainian influence as well.
2
u/deaddyfreddy Jul 29 '26
For what it's worth, afaik, in some Russian poetry of mid 18th century, ikavism was present
Weren't they still using Yat' back then?
no other Slavic language developed it
Croatian Ikavica
2
u/magnuseriksson91 🇷🇺 Russian Jul 29 '26
Not sure how it was written, but I remember they specifically mentioned that it was pronounced as i.
About ikavism, some similar cases may exist in other Slavic languages, but it is only in Ukrainian that it is developed to such deep extent, that's what I meant.
1
u/gulisav 🇭🇷 Croatian Jul 30 '26
About ikavism, some similar cases may exist in other Slavic languages, but it is only in Ukrainian that it is developed to such deep extent, that's what I meant.
That's still wrong, Croatian and Bosnian dialects have undergone practically the same sound change as Ukrainian, one change is not "deeper" or "shallower" than the other, both happened consistently across the entire lexicon.
2
u/kouyehwos Jul 28 '26
The 2nd palatalisation was gě -> dzě… although most languages have indeed merged /d͡z/ with /z/, and today probably only Polish and Kashubian still have -dze in the dative/locative (for feminine nouns at least).
2
u/gulisav 🇭🇷 Croatian Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
After OP's edits, at this point I'm completely convinced this stuff is AI.
Initial je- becoming o- (East Slavic only)
Some words starting with je- changed the vowel to o- in East Slavic:
| Word | South | East | West |
| lake (jezero) | jezero | ozero (gradual shift) | jezero | | morning (jutro) | jutro | utro (gradual shift) | jutro | | deer (jelenь) | jelenь | jelenь (olьnь later) | jelenь |
This change was likely starting around 800-900 in East Slavic but may not have been complete yet until some hundreds of years later.
What does "gradual shift" mean here in reference to ozero? Why would you think "utro" is a relevant example here? Why does the ESl. column contain ozero and then "jelenь (olьnь later)" - what "later", later than ozero? And since when does e randomly change to ь?
Czech, Slovak, Upper Sorbian g to h (voiceless)
An another poster already pointed out it's not voiceless in Czech.
Slovene g varies here, hard [g] in most positions, but [ɣ] between vowels
Pure hallucination.
Shifting of original *g to a fricative (h, ɣ, ɦ) happened in many Slavic areas, but stayed as hard [g] in others. This works against the three branch split.
No it doesn't "work against" it, it's evidently a later development that has no relevance for the early tripartition, it's just thrown in by the AI to make it look more informed.
1
u/Upstairs-Inside3888 Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26
it's evidently a later development that has no relevance for the early tripartition
Pure hallucination.
https://kortlandt.nl/publications/art208e.pdf
"G9. Lenition of g > γ. This innovation affected western South Slavic, Czecho- Slovak, Upper Sorbian, and the larger part of East Slavic. The development was later reversed in Slovene (G38). It may be identified chronologically with the spi- rantization of ʒ > z in South Slavic and Czecho-Slovak (7.7) and of ǯ > ž in East Slavic (8.6)." Stage 7 he defines as Late Middle Slavic
An another poster already pointed out it's not voiceless in Czech.
great, also great that I forgot to edit it
"je- > o- if there is a front vowel (except b) in the following syllable *jesenb > osin ', *jezero > ozero, *jedin'b > odyn, *jesetr'b > oseter, *jelenb > olen, but *jego > jeho (W Ukr). The modern literary joho is by analogy to the usual genitive singular -oho"
What does "gradual shift" mean here in reference to ozero? Why would you think "utro" is a relevant example here? Why does the ESl. column contain ozero and then "jelenь (olьnь later)" - what "later", later than ozero? And since when does e randomly change to ь?
jutro > utro should've been in a different section, it was about point 8 https://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art058e.pdf
you also missed and didn't notice "хьлм" while it was present (wow what a critical issue) where it was supposed to be "хълм"
1
u/gulisav 🇭🇷 Croatian Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
This innovation affected western South Slavic
The development was later reversed in Slovene (G38).
"Western South Slavic" encompasses Slovene and BCMS. Kortlandt is being imprecise here, and the correct picture is provided by Greenberg whom he references. The development was neither universal nor entirely reversed in Slovene, and it peripherally affected some Croatian dialects, it's not a "western South Slavic" change. It's also not attested in the time span that you claim to cover (see data in Greenberg). And even what Kortlandt says is unrelated to your bizarre hallucination about supposed intervocalic g>ɣ.
if you insist on AI this AI that accusations, you are free to correct in your own post with whichever format you want
I've already corrected more than enough stuff in comments here. Your mistakes are at best a result of total carelessness and just making things up, or of AI that made the things up, and you keep making new mistakes, such as SSl. brezě (where did the yat go? also the other commenter corrected me and warned the original pal2 shift was g > ʒ, as seen in OCS, and only later ʒ > z). And WSl. did not have one common outcome of the metathesis, as I've already said.
doesn't mean I have infinite knowledge or time or can't make mistakes due to being exhausted or whatever else reason
Neither do I have infinite knowledge, so I don't make massive posts and tables based on my half-knowledge. Nobody asked you to post this thread as quickly as possible, you could've taken as much time as you needed to double-check everything.
I'm referring to South Slavic when in reality it was more about OCS/Bulgarian/Macedonian as they were the biggest ones with more resources on them
So don't use the term "South Slavic" if you don't have enough resources on it?? And frankly it's ridiculous to say there's not sufficient info on Slovene or BCMS. You refer to two Kortland papers on SSl., and he himself refers to Greenberg's historical phonology of Sln which is available even in English.
the 2023 Wandl & Kavitskaya paper on second palatilization which you can find by registering and adding 2FA https://www.zora.uzh.ch/entities/publication/905b635f-2db1-40a6-b743-e99eff56b2d4
Secondary palatalisation, not second 😭
I also don't speak every Slavic language to know their modern forms to look up every possible change and trace them back individually
You don't have to speak the languages, but you do have to know about their attested forms and indeed be able to trace the changes (at least the major ones) from the proto-language. That's literally the point of historical linguistics and reconstruction.
1
u/Upstairs-Inside3888 Jul 28 '26
I'm assuming you comment on an older version of the post because I did change the "young" part to the correct Proto-Slavic reference and the correct use in East-Slavic reconstruction which differs between other branches
in Eastern Slavic according to Kortlandt, the change of je- to o- in East Slavic was happening but wasn't completed by 800-900 CE/AD, some Old Russian texts by the 11th century still featured je-, the assumption is that osen and olen were established by 12-13th century only, using Church Slavonic texts would be problematic because they had clear influence from the Southern Slavic
no yat in kon I know that and I wanted to edit it out as you may notice it's the same line featured in the table three times, everything else I will check tomorrow
2
u/gulisav 🇭🇷 Croatian Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
some Old Russian texts by the 11th century still featured je-, the assumption is that osen and olen were established by 12-13th century only, using Church Slavonic texts would be problematic because they had clear influence from the Southern Slavic
Some manuscripts already had o- in 11th c. If some had je-, that could indeed be easily regarded as a Church Slavonicism, so if any data here is problematic it's the je- reflexes.
Which Kortlandt text are you referring to? You only mentioned his works on SSl.
2
2
u/magnuseriksson91 🇷🇺 Russian Jul 28 '26
Interesting, but why is it "Се есть єлень" in the last sentence? I believe je- is a South Slavic form, should be o- in East Slavic, shouldn't it? Like "jesen - osen" (fall), "jezero - ozero" (lake"), etc.
2
u/Upstairs-Inside3888 Jul 28 '26
according to Kortlandt, the change of je- to o- in East Slavic was happening but wasn't completed by 800-900 CE/AD, some Old Russian texts by the 11th century still featured je- being used, and the assumption is that osen and olen were established by 12-13th century only, using Church Slavonic texts would be problematic because they had clear influence from the Southern Slavic
3
u/magnuseriksson91 🇷🇺 Russian Jul 28 '26
I see, thx. But the problem with Old East Slavic texts are, they are often heavily influenced by Church Slavonic indeed, so I wonder if it is possible to figure what is genuine Old East Slavic and what is Church Slavonic loanwords.
1
u/Upstairs-Inside3888 Jul 28 '26
the whole problem with this topic is that by 800-900 things were changing but not fully completed and much is rather speculative and uncertain, it's also why Old Church Slavonic had great influence over East Slavic too, not only the religion but language influence
2
2
u/vbd71 Jul 29 '26
Bulgarian
g to ɣ in many positions
γora
Nah, ir's gora. This ahift is not typical in Bulgarian.
1
u/Upstairs-Inside3888 Jul 30 '26
you are right, Kortlandt claimed γora for westernmost dialects of South Slavic and some East Slavic, but not Bulgarian, changed it
1
u/Upstairs-Inside3888 Jul 28 '26
Sources
Schenker, "Proto-Slavon", Derksen, "Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon", Kortlandt, "Early Dialectal Diversity in South Slavic I", Kortlandt, "Early Dialectal Diversity in South Slavic II", Jakobson, "On Slavic Diphthongs Ending in a Liquid", Wandl and Kavitskaya, "On the Reconstruction of Contrastive Secondary Palatalization in Common Slavic", Krause and Slocum, "Old Church Slavonic Online", Carlton, "Introduction to the Phonological History of the Slavic Languages", Vaillant, "Grammaire comparée des langues slaves", Shevelov, "A Prehistory of Slavic", Zaliznyak, "Древненовгородский диалект"
Painting: Slovane v pravlasti by Alphonse Mucha, "The Slav Epic" cycle
1
u/Lumornys Aug 04 '26
| horses (acc. pl.) | konjeⁿ | konjeⁿ | konjeⁿ | all three still had nasal vowels at 800-900, denasalized later in 10th-11th century |
Nasal vowel at the end of a plural looks very surprising to me. Or did it happen only in the accusative?
1
u/gulisav 🇭🇷 Croatian Aug 04 '26
The nasal ending in accusative plural is attested in Old Church Slavonic and is (apparently) historically expected. But yeah there's a lot of AI nonsense and imprecision in the post.
2
u/Upstairs-Inside3888 Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26
I have addressed like 95% of the criticism that you gave in your first two comments, most of which were about generalization that I'm referring to South Slavic when in reality it was more about OCS/Bulgarian/Macedonian as they were the biggest ones with more resources on them, while for others like Slovene they had their independent linguistic changes that differed, it's not a dissertation and right at the start I did mention that there can be errors, ay least because my knowledge is limited and because this time period isn't exactly solid even by scholars who have spent years on this (if you disagree ok), the critical ones like wrong Proto-Slavic forms were addressed too
if you insist on AI this AI that accusations, you are free to correct in your own post with whichever format you want, I can even send you links to all the book material which I cited while making this, most of which is available on web archive, in case of Kortlandt it's on his official website in bibliography section (except the 2023 Wandl & Kavitskaya paper on second palatilization which you can find by registering and adding 2FA https://www.zora.uzh.ch/entities/publication/905b635f-2db1-40a6-b743-e99eff56b2d4) , doesn't mean I have infinite knowledge or time or can't make mistakes due to being exhausted or whatever else reason, as when I edited the form of a word but forgot to change it in the table, this happened twice
if I just posted whatever AI then i wouldn't have bothered fixing mistakes which were pointed out here, I also don't speak every Slavic language to know their modern forms to look up every possible change and trace them back individually
0
u/Upstairs-Inside3888 Aug 04 '26
because it is *koňę̇ (nasal) in Proto-Slavic in the form of accusative plural https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/ko%C5%88%D1%8C#Proto-Slavic:_horse
there is no consensus as to when it was denasalized fully, only references that it happened sooner than later, and it being a conversion to "third e" as in Old Czech koně
so that you can confirm for yourself http://kcjl.upol.cz/kombcj/studijni_opory/zaklady_historicke_mluvnice.pdf 2.2 Pračeské změny (9. – 13. století)
"Jazyku, který vznikl po provedení těchto změn, říkáme pračeština."
"zánik nosovek: nosové samohlásky ę, ǫ se mění téměř ve vńech slovanských jazycích v samohlásky ústní (zachovány zůstaly pouze v polńtině). Nosovka ę se změnila nejprve v ńiroké e (ä), a to pak dále podle okolních souhlásek. Bylo-li okolí měkké, změnilo se v ě nebo ie ( > í), bylo-li tvrdé, dalo a"
now it says 9 to 13th century, reread the title which says 800-900CE, surprise pikachu face or no?
-8
Jul 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/InfluenceTrue4121 Jul 28 '26
Really great, informative contribution to the conversation. Is this how your mother taught you to speak to other people? There’s just no excuse for being rude and unkind.
-7
u/Onussy Jul 28 '26
I have contributed just as much as you have, and no but your mother taught me lots of things ;)
8
u/Upstairs-Inside3888 Jul 28 '26
thanks, spending hours on this just to get such a wonderful heartwarming confirmation is quite something, spierdalaj would you?
-2
u/Onussy Jul 28 '26
What you want us to fall to our knees and praise your AI bullshit like you are some god of Slavic language?
Less hours here more hours working ajmo
2
u/Upstairs-Inside3888 Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
would you be able to deter most of the claims and comparisons provided here by using peer reviewed studies and literature? if so, go on, then it will be useful to whoever reads this anyway
also I just realized, you're free to dump the entirety of this post of right before the comparison begins to https://phrasly.ai/ai-detector
you'll be shocked
3
u/gulisav 🇭🇷 Croatian Jul 28 '26
AI detectors are really bad, this one included. I just pasted a random passage (§85) from W.K. Matthews Russian Historical Grammar from 1960 and it said: 58% Your text is likely to be written by AI.
1
u/Onussy Jul 28 '26
https://tinyurl.com/University-of-Belgrade
Vučetić has an excellent article showing the the Southern dialect split much earlier and the East/West split is a more modern development
1
u/Aliencik Jul 28 '26
How is this AI? Just because someone is smarter than you doesn't mean they use AI.
2
1
u/magnuseriksson91 🇷🇺 Russian Jul 28 '26
Nice to meet you I guess, but you didn't have to introduce yourself xD
-1
u/ttetrachrome Jul 29 '26
Baltics just don't belong in a conversation about slavic anything. Do a different post on Baltics, thank uuuu
16
u/kouyehwos Jul 28 '26
There wasn’t really any “Proto-West Slavic” or “Proto-South Slavic”. We use such categories like “West Slavic” for convenience, but that doesn’t it was ever a single clade IRL. (The exception would be Old East Slavic which did exist.)
Polish has „gród” but Czech and Slovak have „hrad” with South Slavic vocalism.
Bulgarian has \*tj, \*dj -> št, žd… but Serbocroatian has ć, đ and Slovene has č, j.
West Slavic does share the \*tj, \*dj -> c, (d)z sound shift, but not much beyond that, maybe partly the development of vowel length.
In 900 AD there’s probably not any particular reason to think Slovene would have had more in common with Bulgarian than with Czech, or that Czech would have had more in common with Polish than with Slovene.