Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon
1. Origin of the dictionary
The dictionary is based on a
database that was created within the context of the Indo-European
Etymological Dictionary project (IED). The circumstance that the dictionary
originates from a database is still apparent from the way the lemmata are
structured. This type of rigid structure is at times a burden for the author,
but it also increases the value of the dictionary as a book of reference.
The main objective of the dictionary
is to present an up-to-date etymological account of the Slavic inherited
lexical stock. Since there is no consensus on neither the reconstruction of the
Indo-European proto-language nor on the reconstruction of Proto-Slavic, the
etymological dictionary is bound to represent my personal views, which
obviously reﬂect my academic background (see section 2). Few will deny,
however, that especially from the Indo-Europeanist’s point of view the
dictionary is more up-to-date than, for instance, the Ėtimologičeskij
slovar’ slavjanskix jazykov (ESSJa) or Pokorny’s treatment of the Slavic
material in his Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (IEW).
As to the scope of the dictionary, it
must be said that it has not been easy to deﬁne the set of etyma that were to
be discussed. It was completely out of the question that I should be able to
cover as many lemmata as the ESSJa, which at the moment contains about 20,000
entries (many of them marginally attested and of unknown origin), neither would
it have been desirable for a dictionary concentrating on the inherited lexical
stock. It was therefore decided to focus on etyma that have been part of the
scholarly discussion in the ﬁeld of Indo-European linguistics, e.g. etyma that
occur in Pokorny’s dictionary or LIV. Obviously, this selection includes a
number of etyma that may be considered borrowings from a non-Indo-European
substratum language (see 2.2). Excluding such etyma would not be very wise, as
the classiﬁcation of a word as, for instance, “North Indo-European” is merely
provisional. Furthermore, even the possibly non-Indo-European elements of the
Proto-Slavic lexicon usually meet the IED’s criterion that an etymon must be
attested in at least two branches of Indo-European in order to be included.
An important diﬀerence between the
present dictionary and etymological dictionaries such as the ESSJa or the Słownik
prasłowiański (Sławski SP) is the fact that an attempt is made to
reconstruct the prosodic characteristics of the Proto-Slavic etyma. I regard
this as a justiﬁable goal in itself, but Kortlandt’s theory about the origins
of the Balto-Slavic acute and circumﬂex intonations (see 220.127.116.11), to which I
subscribe, adds signiﬁcantly increases the importance of Baltic and Slavic
accentology for the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European. The accentuation of
an etymon may reveal the former presence of a laryngeal or be decisive in cases
where it is unclear whether or an aspirated or an unaspirated voiced stop must
At an earlier stage of the project I
planned to present the reconstruction of the accent paradigms more or less as
given facts. Then I decided to provide more information on the accentuation of
the forms attested in the individual languages, for instance by adding
information on the accentuation in Old Russian or presenting a number of
case-forms. While this dictionary does not aim at completeness, I have strived
for an accurate representation of reliable data. Since the database hopefully
remains available on-line, the set of data may be expanded.
Unlike many other etymological
dictionaries, the present dictionary does not abound in references. The Etymologický
slovník jazyka staroslovenského (ESJS), for example, painstakingly lists the
most prominent etymologies, which are subsequently evaluated. Though I highly
value this approach, I felt that my dictionary had to be set up in a diﬀerent
manner because otherwise too much time would be taken up by reproducing and
scrutinizing the scholarly literature. I realize that by limiting the number of
references I am at risk of ignoring valuable contributions to Slavic etymology.
This I regret, but I think that it is a concession I had to make.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 General considerations and
Not surprisingly, the ideas about
the structure of the Indo-European proto-language underlying this book conform
with the theories propagated by Leiden based Indo-Europeanists such as Beekes,
Kortlandt, and Lubotsky. The best introduction to this theoretical framework is
Beekes 1995, which is the English edition of Beekes 1990. The existence of this
introductory work largely relieves me of the obligation to present an outline
of the theories on which my Proto-Indo-European reconstructions are based.
Thus, I shall conﬁne myself to representing some of the main aspects.
It is a well-known fact that Leiden
Indo-Europeanists tend to deny that there was a Proto-Indo-European phoneme *a
(see especially Lubotsky 1989). Nevertheless, it is quite possible that a
Proto-Slavic etymon derives from a form containing *a. The Proto-Slavic
lexical stock contains numerous elements that do not have an Indo-European
origin. These may have been borrowed from a substratum language, possibly at an
early stage. The *a that these words may contain is sometimes called
“European *a” because the substratum language was located on European
I subscribe to the hypothesis that
Proto-Indo-European did not have an opposition between palatalized and plain
velars (cf. Meillet 1894, Steensland 1973). The latter arose from
depalatalization in certain constellations, in particular after *s
(though not before *i) and after *u, where the opposition between
the palatovelar and labiovelar series was neutralized. Depalatalization before
resonants unless followed by a front vowel occurred in Balto-Slavic and
Albanian (cf. Kortlandt 1978a: 240-242). The latter development is to a
considerable extent responsible for the variation between velar stops and
sibilants that we observe in both Baltic and Slavic.
The traditional Proto-Indo-European
system of voiceless, voiced, and aspirated voiced stops has repeatedly been
challenged on typological grounds. As an alternative, it was proposed that the
unaspirated voiced stops were actually glottalic (e.g. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov
1984: 5-84). The glottalic hypothesis was applied to great eﬀect by Kortlandt,
who employed it to tackle a diversity of issues in various branches of
Indo-European (cf. Kortlandt 1985a). Crucial to the present publication is
Kortlandt’s interpretation of the Balto-Slavic development known as Winter’s
law as the merger of the glottalic element of the traditional mediae with the
reﬂex of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals (see 18.104.22.168).
In Proto-Indo-European, the lengthened
grade vowels *ē and *ō occurred in a limited number of
categories, which can ultimately be reduced to monosyllables and forms ending
in a resonant (cf. Beekes 1990: 204, 1995: 167, Kortlandt 1986: 154-155).
Contrarily to what is generally assumed, lengthened grade vowels are regularly
circumﬂex in Balto-Slavic. Forms presented as counter-examples contain either a
laryngeal or can be regarded as examples of Winter’s law. Another source of
circumﬂex long vowels is contraction. A special case is the constellation *ēH
(*ōH), where according to Kortlandt the laryngeal was lost
(Kortlandt 1985b: 115, 118-120).
As can be gathered from the preceding
paragraphs, I adhere to the view that there once existed a Balto-Slavic
linguistic unity. It can be demonstrated that Baltic and Slavic underwent a
sequence of common developments, a number of which relate to the place of the
stress. In view of its complexity as well as the important role it plays in
this dictionary, Balto-Slavic accentology will be the subject of a separate
2.2 Balto-Slavic accentology
As stated above, Kortlandt’s theory
about the origins of the Balto-Slavic acute and circumﬂex intonations signiﬁcantly
increases the relevance of Balto-Slavic accentology for etymological studies.
This is reﬂected in numerous publications by Indo-Europeanists from Leiden, for
instance in several monographs that appeared in the Leiden Studies in
Indo-European series. A good example is Schrijver 1991, where a conscious eﬀort
is made to take the Balto-Slavic accentual evidence into account. My own book in the
series, Derksen 1996, is a slightly diﬀerent matter, as it deals with an
accentological subject, the problem of metatony in Baltic. It contains a brief
survey of Balto-Slavic accentology, which partly coincides with Derksen 1991. I
shall here repeat some of the points I tried to make in these two publications,
while shifting the emphasis onto Slavic phenomena.
Over the years Frederik Kortlandt
has devised a detailed relative chronology of developments ranging from
Proto-Indo-European to disintegrating Slavic. It was ﬁrst published in a
Serbo-Croation translation in 1989. The English version, which was marred by
many misprints, appeared in 1994, to be followed by a corrected version on the
World Wide Web (2002). Articles reproducing and discussing large parts of the
relative chronology are Kortlandt 2005 and 2007. Kortlandt’s chronology might
be called the backbone of my investigations in the ﬁeld of Balto-Slavic
historical linguistics, which is not to say that it will be treated as if it
were carved in stone.
The Balto-Slavic section of
Kortlandt’s relative chronology contains a number of developments that concern
accentology. These are conveniently listed in Kortlandt 2006a (349):
“1. Loss of PIE accentual
mobility, of which there is no trace outside the nominal ﬂexion of the
consonant stems, e.g. Lith. duktė̃ ‘daughter’, piemuõ ‘shepherd’,
and the ﬂexion of the athematic verbs, e.g. duodą̃s ‘giving’ (cf.
Kortlandt 1985b on the latter).
2. Pedersen’s law: the stress was
retracted from medial syllables in mobile accent paradigms, e.g. acc.sg. dùkterį,
píemenį, Greek thugatéra, poiména.
3. Barytonesis: the retraction of
the stress spread analogically to vocalic stems in the case forms where
Pedersen’s law applied, e.g. acc.sg. ãvį ‘sheep’, sū́nų ‘son’, diẽvą
‘god’, žiẽmą ‘winter’.
4. Oxytonesis: the stress is shifted
from a medial syllable to the end of the word in paradigms with end-stressed
forms, e.g. inst.sg. sūnumì, inst.pl. žiemomìs.
5. Hirt’s law: the stress was
retracted if the vowel of the pretonic syllable was im-mediately followed by a
laryngeal, e.g. dúona ‘bread’, výras ‘man’, dū́mai
‘smoke’, Vedic dhānā́s, vīrás, dhūmás.
6. Winter’s law: the PIE glottalic
stops dissolved into a laryngeal and a buccal part. The former merged with the
reﬂex of the PIE laryngeals and the latter with the re-ﬂex of the lenes stops,
e.g. Latvian pȩ̂ds ‘footstep’ < *pedóm, nuôgs ‘naked’
< *nogʷós, duômu ‘I give’ < *dodH₃mí.
7. Retraction of the stress from ﬁnal
open syllables of disyllabic word forms unless the preceding syllable was
closed by an obstruent, e.g. Lith. gen.sg. vil̃ko ‘wolf’, dat.sg. vil̃kui,
gálvai ‘head’, nẽša ‘carries’, Serbo-Croatian vȗka, vȗku,
glȃvi, nȅse ‘carried’, neuter pȋlo ‘drank’, but Lith.
gen.sg. aviẽs, gen.pl. vilkų̃ < *-òm, nom.sg. galvà
< *-àH, Russian pilá ‘she drank’ < *-àH, neuter nesló,
inﬁnitive nestí, where syllable-ﬁnal consonants (including word-ﬁnal
laryngeals) prevented the retraction of the stress.”
22.214.171.124 The rise of the
The developments 1-4 and 7 are
intended to account for the accentual curve of the Balto-Slavic mobile
paradigm. Here a few words on the historical background of the problem are in
order. According to de Saussure (1896), the Lithuanian opposition between
barytona and mobilia continues an Indo-European opposition between barytona and
oxytona. As the identity of the Lithuanian and Proto-Slavic mobile paradigms is
beyond doubt, this implies that the Balto-Slavic mobile paradigm arose from an
oxytone paradigm. De Saussure’s explanation for the origin of the Lithuanian
mobile paradigm started from consonant stems of which the number of syllables
did not remain constant within the paradigm. In Kortlandt’s chronology it
appears under the name Pedersen’s law in view of Pedersen’s eﬀort (1933: 25) to
reformulate the law proposed by de Saussure.
The prehistory of the Balto-Slavic
accentual system has been the subject of much debate (see especially Olander
2006 for an overview). Kortlandt’s development (1) places him at the same
starting-point as de Saussure: the early Balto-Slavic system mainly had an
opposition between barytona and oxytona. The few traces of original accentual
mobility that survived only played a modest role. The question is if it is
possible to strengthen the link between the Balto-Slavic accentual mobile
paradigm and Proto-Indo-European accentual mobility. We may note that
Illič-Svityč, when he set out to provide comparative proof for de Saussure’s
hypothesis on the Indo-European background of the Balto-Slavic barytone and
mobile paradigms (1963, English translation 1979), tried to gain a better understanding
of Pedersen’s law by suggesting a link with the survival of mobile root nouns.
With respect to the Indo-European situation he preferred the term
“mobile-oxytone” to “oxytone”.
It so happens that Kortlandt himself
(2006b) has recently modiﬁed his account of the rise of the Balto-Slavic mobile
paradigm. Instead of assuming an early loss of Proto-Indo-European accentual
mobility, he now starts from the Late Indo-European hysterodynamic and
proterodynamic paradigms. The ﬁrst step is the replacement of the isolated root
stress of the Nsg. of the hysterodynamic paradigm by ﬁnal stress. The sigmatic
Nsg. of the proterodynamic paradigm then underwent the same development,
creating a clear accentual opposition between end-stressed masculines and
feminines on the one hand and root-stressed neuters on the other. The medially
stressed case-forms, viz. the Asg., Lsg., Apl., and Npl. forms of the
hysterodynamic paradigm and the Dsg. and Npl. forms of the proterodynamic
paradigm, subsequently retracted the stress to the initial syllable.
Kortlandt’s objective here is to reformulate Pedersen’s law as a phonetic
development. Furthermore, the scope of the barytonesis has been limited:
“The barytonesis did not aﬀect
acc.sg. ãvį ‘sheep’, sū́nų ‘son’, which had preserved
Indo-European radical stress, nor žiẽmą ‘winter’, which was built on the
original nom.sg. form *ǵheim (cf. Beekes 1985: 44), but did yield the
retraction in diẽvą ‘god’, cf. Vedic devám, because the o-stems
had ﬁxed stress from the outset.” (Kortlandt 2006b: 3)
Finally, the existence of
oxytonesis as a Balto-Slavic development is put into doubt. The accentuation of
Lith. sūnumì Isg. and žiemomìs Ipl. may be old because it
replaces the end-stressed instrumental in *-bʰi. On the whole, the new
scenario links the Balto-Slavic state of aﬀairs more closely to Late
Indo-European nominal accentuation.
The retraction listed as number 7 was ﬁrst
formulated by Kortlandt in 1975 (5-7). Since it was inspired on a retraction
formulated by Ebeling, it was baptized Ebeling’s law, but in recent
publications by Kortlandt this designation tends to be avoided. An interesting
consequence of the condition that the stress was not retracted to syllables
ending in an obstruent is the rise of a class of oxytone neuters. In Slavic,
these oxytona ended up in AP (b). If the root contained the reﬂex of a
laryngeal or the laryngeal part of a PIE glottalic stop, it was lost in
pretonic position. In Baltic, the oxytone neuters became barytone when the
stress was retracted from ﬁnal *-à, yielding metatony (Derksen
1996: 96-128, 229-232, see also 2004: 87-89). Words belonging to this class
were occasionally misinterpreted by Illič-Svityč (1963). The eﬀects of
Ebeling’s law may also be observed in masculine o-stems (Derksen forthc.
126.96.36.199 Hirt’s law
Hirt’s law, which is listed above as
development 5, was proposed in order to account for the
large number of correspondences between Baltic and Slavic barytona and nouns
which considering the Sanskrit, Greek and Germanic evidence had mobile/oxytone
accentuation in PIE. In Hirt’s original formulation (1895) the stress was
retracted to long root syllables. Since then the law has been reformulated a
remarkable number of times, among others by Hirt himself (1899). An important
observation was made by Bonfante (1935, 1937), who showed that the stress was
only retracted to non-apophonic long vowels, i.e. to sequences of a short vowel
and a laryngeal.
After a thorough investigation of the
“Hirt-Bonfante hypothesis”, Illič-Svityč (1963: 80 = 1979: 63) concluded that
the retraction was indeed limited to non-apophonic long syllabic elements, i.e.
to non-apophonic long vowels, long resonants and long diphthongs. He contrasts
syllables containing “new length” from laryngeal loss after a syllabic element
with syllables containing apophonic length or an original sequence of a short
vowel followed by a resonant and a vocalized laryngeal, e.g. *tenəu̯ós
< *tenHu̯ós, cf. Gk. ταναός ‘outstretched, tall’, Latv. tiêvs
‘thin’. This invites the conclusion that at the time of the retraction the
laryngeals were still present, as has indeed been argued by some scholars (cf.
Kortlandt 1975a: 2, Rasmussen 1985: passim). In that case one might simply say
that the stress was retracted to an immediately preceding syllable containing a
vocalic element followed by a laryngeal. That the position of the laryngeal
plays an essential role was demonstrated by Kortlandt in connection with the accentuation of the Slavic l-participle (1975: 2-4). He suggested
that in instances such as Ru. pilá f.sg. ‘drank’ the laryngeal must
originally have preceded the i of the root. His reconstruction *pHiláH
is supported by full grades of the type *pe/oh3i- or *pe/oh3-
e.g. Skt. pāyáyati. The opposition between *-HI- and *-IH-
has a parallel in Greek and Italo-Celtic, where we ﬁnd indications that
pretonic *-HI- yielded a short reﬂex (Schrijver 1991: 512-536). It may
be clear that Hirt’s law is a strong argument for a Balto-Slavic linguistic
188.8.131.52 Winter’s law
Winter’s law, which in its original
formulation is vowel lengthening before PIE unaspirated voiced stops (Winter
1978), is without doubt a sound law of major importance. So far, however, it has not received the recognition it deserves. The
main reason for this is probably the fact that a number of appealing examples
seem to violate the law. Since a survey of the evidence clearly indicates that
the law is essentially correct (cf. Young 1990, Rasmussen 1992, and especially
Dybo 2002), the next logical step is to look for special circumstances which
might provide an explanation for the apparent exceptions. For ‘water’ (cf. OCS voda vs. Lith. vanduõ 3a) and ‘ﬁre’ (cf. Lith. ugnìs, OCS ogn’ь), Kortlandt
has proposed that the law did not aﬀect the clusters ndn and ngn
(1979: 61, 1988: 388-389). The nasal inﬁx which may be reconstructed for
Balto-Slavic must have developed from a nasal suﬃx in PIE times already (cf.
Thurneysen 1883). Another major exception is Slavic *xodъ ‘going,
course’. Here the absence of Winter’s law may originate from a reduplicated
present stem *sizd-, where the law was blocked by an intervening z
(Kortlandt 1988: 394).
This is not the place to discuss the
various attempts to modify the formulation of Winter’s law, for which I refer
to Derksen 2003a, 2004, and forthc. b. I would like to elaborate, however, on
Kortlandt’s interpretation of Winter’s law and its relationship to the
Balto-Slavic prosodic system. According to the
traditional doctrine, the Balto-Slavic acute intonation, which is usually reconstructed
as a rising tone, reﬂects length, i.e. original length or length resulting from
the loss of a laryngeal. If Winter’s law is interpreted as vowel lengthening,
the fact that the law yields acute long vowels and diphthong is only to be
expected. The regular reﬂex of a lengthened grade, however, is circumﬂex in
Balto-Slavic, as Kortlandt has argued on several occasions (e.g. 1985b, 1997a).
The main reason why this is not generally recognized is the ease with which
some Indo-Europeanists postulate lengthened grades, thereby obscuring the
original situation. Since both the presence of a laryngeal and Winter’s law
generate acute syllables, one may try to link this observation to the
hypothesis that the PIE voiced unaspirated stops were actually (pre)glottalized
(Kortlandt 1978b). In Kortlandt’s interpretation, Winter’s law is the merger of
the laryngeal element of the glottalic stop with the reﬂex of the Indo-European
laryngeals, which had become a glottal stop in Balto-Slavic.
An advantage of Kortlandt’s
interpretation of Winter’s law is the possibility to regard the Latvian and
Žemaitian broken tones as direct continuations of a Balto-Slavic glottal
element (Derksen 1995, Kortlandt 1998). This does not imply that already in
Balto-Slavic glottalization existed as a vocalic feature. There are no
indications that the Balto-Slavic glottal stop lost the status of a segmental
phoneme which it must still have had when Hirt’s law operated (see 184.108.40.206).
The Balto-Slavic distinction between acute and circumﬂex syllables, which was
clearly independent of the place of the (free and
mobile) ictus, was originally the distinction between the presence and absence
of a glottal stop. It most certainly was not a tonal distinction originating
from PIE (cf. Kortlandt 1985b, Nassivera 2000). The rise of tonal distinctions
must probably be dated to the separate branches of Balto-Slavic. One of the
subjects of the next section is the rise of distinctive tone in Proto-Slavic.
2.2.3 Slavic accentology
220.127.116.11 Introduction: Stang 1957
The starting-point of modern Slavic
accentology is the publication of Stang’s Slavonic accentuation (1957). In this study
Stang eﬀectively did away with a number of concepts of what is often called
“classical accentology”, though in particular the interbellum witnessed many
unrealistic theories. Stang ends his book with a list of conclusions (1957:
179), which I shall now try to rephrase and provide with comments (cf. Derksen
Stang established three (Late)
Proto-Slavic accent paradigms, each with its own prosodic characteristics:
(a) Fixed stress on the stem. If the stem is monosyllabic, the
stressed syllable is “acute”, i.e. we ﬁnd a short rising tone on a historically
“long” syllable, which is equivalent to saying that the nucleus of the root
syllable is not constituted by monophthongal *e, *o, *ъ,
or *ь. A special class is formed by nouns of the so-called *vòļa
type, where the root has neo-acute intonation. Stang discusses these nouns
within the context of (j)ā-stems belonging to AP (a), but there are
good arguments to classify them as belonging to AP (b), which is what will be
done in this dictionary.
If the stress is on a medial syllabe, there is a greater number of
possibilities regarding the prosodic qualities of the root. Since these cases
are not crucial for understanding the three basic types, I shall not go into
the matter here.
(b) The stress alternates
between the last syllable of the stem and the ﬁrst syllable of the ending.
Stem-stressed forms have a rising tone with retention of the old quantity of
the syllable. This tone is called “neo-acute”. Forms with stress on the ending
have a short rising tone.
(c) The stress alternates
between the ﬁrst syllable of the stem and the ending. Stem-stressed forms have
a falling tone and lose the stress to a clitic. End–stressed forms usually have
a short rising accent, but in some cases a long rising accent. The falling tone
is sometimes referred to as “circumﬂex”. This is potentially confusing because
the same designation has been used to refer to any non-acute long syllable or
even to any non-acute syllable (cf. Derksen 1991: 55).
In classical accentology, an
acute or a circumﬂex tone changed under certain conditions into a neo-circumﬂex
and a neo-acute tone, respectively. This process, called metatony, yielded four
distinctive tones (Kortlandt 1978c: 271). In Stang’s system there are three
tones, which are all connected with a speciﬁc accent paradigm. Stang now showed
that the neo-acute originated from a retraction of the stress. He also showed
that the neo-circumﬂex is an innovation of Slovene and the Kajkavian dialects
of Serbo-Croatian rather than a Proto-Slavic tone. The next question
that we must address is the relationship between the Slavic and the Baltic
18.104.22.168 Progressive shifts
Lithuanian nouns belong to one of
four accent paradigms, of which (1) is barytone, while (2), (3), and (4) are
mobile. Monosyllabic stems are acute in (1) and (3), while they are circumﬂex
or short in (2) and (4).
If the stem is polysyllabic, the situation is slightly more complicated, but
that need not concern us here. The four accent paradigms can be reduced to a
barytone and a mobile paradigm if one takes into account the progressive shift
which is commonly referred to as de Saussure’s law. Employing the method of
internal reconstruction, de Saussure (1896) demonstrated that at a certain
point in the history of Lithuanian accentuation the stress shifted from a
circumﬂex or short syllable to an immediately following acute syllable. This
development was independently discovered by Fortunatov (1897). Hence, de
Saussure’s law, when applied to both Baltic and Slavic, is sometimes referred
to as Fortunatov’s law. Propagated by none other than Meillet, de Saussure’s law
came to occupy an important place in classical accentology. The law was often
considered a Balto-Slavic innovation, though Meillet regarded the progressive
shifts in Baltic and Slavic as parallel developments (1900: 350-351, 1924:
The decline of de Saussure’s law as a
Balto-Slavic development may be said to have started with Kuryłowicz (1931: 75ﬀ,
1952), who denied its operation in Slavic, albeit basically without addressing
the facts. A much heavier blow, one might argue, was delivered by Stang (1957:
15-20), who by presenting a series of factual arguments undermined the at the
time prevailing view that de Saussure’s law had also operated in Slavic. Now as
we have seen, Stang reconstructed three Proto-Slavic accent paradigms, whereas
the Lithuanian situation points to a system with two paradigms, one of them
barytone and the other mobile. Since AP (a) corresponds
to Lithuanian AP (1), while AP (c) corresponds to (3) and (4) (see the next
section), the core of the problem is the relationship between AP (b) and AP
(2). As shown by Stang, the neo-acute tone originates from a retraction of the
stress, a development now generally referred to as Stang’s law. This means that
AP (b) was originally oxytone. AP (2), however, is a mobile paradigm
originating from a barytone paradigm as a result of de Saussure’s law. Stang
did not have an answer for this discrepancy, but he made it clear that the answer
most certainly was not de Saussure’s law.
A solution was proposed by Dybo and
Illič-Svityč, who argued that the oxytone paradigm which must have existed
prior to Stang’s retraction had been generated by a progressive stress shift
that cannot be identiﬁed with de Saussure’s law (see especially Dybo 1962, Illič-Svityč 1963: 157-161 = 1979: 140-144). According to
Dybo’s law, also known as Illič-Svityč’s law, a syllable which was neither acute nor falling lost the stress to
the following syllable, causing a split of the Proto-Slavic immobile paradigm.
The syllable which received the stress became falling, which provided the input
for Stang’s law, the retraction of the stress from long falling vowels in ﬁnal
The scenario proposed by Dybo and
Illič-Svityč allows us to derive the Baltic and Slavic accentual systems from a
stage when there were only an immobile barytone and a mobile or oxytone
paradigm. As later publications from the Moscow accentological school have
shown (see especially Dybo 1968a), it is possible to distinguish between dominant (“strong”) and recessive (“weak”) morphemes at this stage. The
place of the stress is governed by the valency of the morphemes that constitute
a given form (cf. Dybo 1981: 260-262, 2000a: 10-14, Lehfeldt 2001: 67-69).
Whether a morpheme is dominant or recessive cannot be
predicted on the basis of its phonological structure: the distribution of
morphemes over the two classes is “traditional” (Dybo 2000a: 10).
22.214.171.124 Illič-Svityč’s law
and the neuter o-stems
In his monograph on nominal
accentuation in Baltic and Slavic, Illič-Svityč tried
to explain why so many PIE neuter o-stems appear to have become masculine in Slavic, an observation
which was ﬁrst made by Hirt. A comparison with accentual data from Baltic,
Greek, Sanskrit and Germanic led Illič-Svityč to
conclude that PIE barytone neuter o-stems correspond with Slavic masculine o-stems belonging to
the barytone class in the case of “long” roots and to the oxytone class in the
case of “short” roots (in Stang’s terminology to accent paradigms a and b,
respectively). As we have seen, AP (a) and (b) continue a single barytone
paradigm, which allows the conclusion that PIE barytone neuter o-stems
became barytone masculine o-stems in Slavic. This shift of gender must
be rooted in Balto-Slavic (see below). In originally
masculine mobile o-stems
with a non-acute root, accentual mobility has been generalized (Illič-Svityč
1963: 109-119 = 1979: 94-104), a development that is sometimes called
Illič-Svityč’s law. Thus, Slavic masculine o-stems belonging to AP (b)
in principle continue old neuters. I consider it possible, however, that
masculine o-stems that were oxytone in Late Balto-Slavic, i.e. after
Ebeling’s law, escaped the transfer to the mobile class (cf. Derksen forthc.
Whereas the barytone neuter o-stems
became masculine, PIE oxytone neuter o-stems remain neuter in Slavic.
According to Illič-Svityč, the majority of the Slavic neuter o-stems
belong to the oxytone class, Stang’s AP (b). Mobile neuter o-stems (c)
contain, as a rule, a historically long root or have a i̯o-suﬃx. In my
opinion, the distribution between AP (b) and (c) is not completely clear. We
can say with a high degree of certainty, however, that originally oxytone
neuters of the structure CVC₁C₂-ó (where C1 is an obstruent) belong to (b), in conformity
with Ebeling’s law (see 126.96.36.199). Proto-Slavic neuter o-stems
belonging to AP (a) originate from the retraction generally known as Hirt’s
law, which generated a new class of neuter o-stems with ﬁxed root stress
in Balto-Slavic times already.
It is remarkable that Illič-Svityč,
who reaches the conclusion that the Baltic and Slavic accentual paradigms were
identical, does not make an attempt to connect the Slavic NAsg. -o with
the Lithuanian ending -a, which now only occurs in adjectives,
participles and pronouns but must have been the East Baltic NAsg. ending of
neuter o-stem nouns, as is evident from Baltic
borrowings in Finnic. While he follows Nieminen (1922) in deriving the East
Baltic ending from pronominal *-od, Illič-Svityč assumes that Slavic -o continues stressed *-om,
a delevopment advocated by Hirt (1893). In my opinion, it would be natural to
look for a common origin. Since I do not believe that *-om ever yields
Balto-Slavic *-o, the best option would be to assume that in
Balto-Slavic the ending *-om was replaced by *-od in oxytone
neuters. In that case one would expect Old Prussian neuter o-stems to
correspond to Slavic neuter o-stems and end-stressed neuters in other
Indo-European languages. The evidence seems indeed to
point in that direction, e.g. (cf. Kortlandt 1983: 183).
Illič-Svityč’s law implies that
barytone neuter o-stems were still distinct from masculine o-stems.
Though the above-mentioned bifurcation of neuter o-stems
seems to be Balto-Slavic, suppletive neuter plurals may have existed both in
Baltic and Slavic. The existence of suppletive neuter plurals may also explain
why we ﬁnd so much vacillation between neuter and masculine o-stems
belonging to (a) and (b). Illič-Svityč’s law must have
preceded the rise of distinctive tone in mobile paradigms because the transfer to the mobile class was based on the identity of the barytone
case forms. For the same reason, Illič-Svityč’s law must have preceded Dybo’s
The above-mentioned developments may
be illustrated with the following examples:
*tỳlъ (a) ‘back
of the head, back’ (e.g. Ru. tyl, Cz. týl) < *túHlom,
cf. Skt. tū́la- n. ‘tuft, reed, panicle’. Secondary *tỳlo in Slk. tylo.
PSl. *dvòrъ (b) ‘courtyard, door’ (e.g. Čak. dvõr,
Cz. dvůr) < *dʰuórom, cf. Skt. dvā́ra- n.‘door, gate,
(c) ‘tooth’ (e.g. Čak. zȗb, Sln. zǫ́b) < *ǵómbʰos, cf.
Skt. jámbha- m. ‘tooth’, Gk. γόμφος ‘pin, nail’, Lith. žam̃bas
‘sharp edge’ 2/4.
*jàto (a) ‘ﬂock, herd’ (e.g. SCr. jȁto) < *i̯áHto <
*i̯eh₂tód << *i̯eh₂tóm, cf. Skt. yātá- n. ‘course,
motion’. Secondary *jàtъ in Ru. jat (dial.) ‘shoal of ﬁsh’.
(b) ‘feather’ (e.g. Ru. peró, SCr. pèro) < *pèro < *peró
< *peród << *perHóm (*tperóm?), cf. Gk. πτερόν
(c) ‘meat, ﬂesh’ (e.g. SCr. mȇso, Pl. mięso) < *mēmsó
< *mēmsód << *mēmsóm, cf. Skt. māṃsá- n. ‘id.’.
188.8.131.52 The fate of the
Balto-Slavic acute and circumﬂex
As I explained in the section on
Winter’s law, the Balto-Slavic opposition between acute and circumﬂex syllables
is in Kortlandt’s framework equivalent with the respective presence or absence
of a glottal stop. Before discussing the fate of the glottal stop in Slavic, I
would like to present a concise account of the rise of the East Baltic tones
(cf. Kortlandt 1977, Derksen 1995).
The crucial point is that the broken tone is an archaism.
In East Baltic, the glottal stop
became a feature of the neighbouring vowel, yielding the laryngeal pitch that
in Baltic linguistics is known as “broken tone”. Tonal oppositions arose when
the stress was retracted from prevocalic *i and word-ﬁnal *‑a. In
the Aukštaitian varieties of Lithuanian, retraction
onto glottalized syllables yielded a rising tone and loss of the laryngeal
feature, e.g. ė̃dis ‘food, fodder’, cf. sti ‘eat’ (of animals).
In originally stressed syllables, the glottalic pitch changed into a falling
tone, e.g. sti ‘sow’, whereas the non-glottalic pitch merged with the
new rising tone, e.g. duktė̃ ‘daughter’. Retraction of the stress onto
non-glottalized syllables yielded a middle tone, which later merged with the
falling tone, e.g. vìlkė ‘she-wolf’, cf. vil̃kas ‘wolf’. In
unstressed syllables, glottalization was eventually lost. In Žemaitian, the
broken tone was preserved under the old ictus, e.g. ộmž́iọs (Kretinga)
‘age, century’ = ámžius.
In Latvian, the
retractions of the stress yielded a rising tone on both plain and glottalized
vowels. The other stressed vowels became falling per oppositionem.
Subsequently, glottalization was lost under the falling tone. The result was a stretched tone, which
later merged with the rising tone, e.g. sẽt ‘sow’ with the same tone as sniẽdze
‘snow-bunting’, cf. snìegs ‘snow’. The remaining glottalized stressed
vowels, which had lost their distinctive tone when the glottalic feature was
lost under the falling tone, lost their glottalization as well and became
falling, e.g. dȩ̀sts
‘plant’, cf. dẽstît ‘plant’, dêt ‘lay (eggs)’. In originally unstressed syllables, glottalization was preserved as
a broken tone, e.g. gal̂va ‘head’, Lpl. gal̂vâs, cf. Lith. galvà,
Lpl. galvosè. This scenario is in conﬂict with the widespread view
according to which the broken tone results from retraction of the ictus. The
system with a threefold tonal opposition only survives in certain Central
Latvian dialect areas.
Apart from the fact that it
is not always easy to tell if the tone of a given syllable is metatonical, the
way in which the Balto-Slavic acute and circumﬂex are reﬂected in East Baltic
is fairly straightforward.
It is often insuﬃciently realized that this is not the case in Slavic. A common
misapprehension, for instance, is the idea that the “Serbo-Croatian” short
falling tone indicates that the syllable was originally acute. In reality, the
situation is much more complex. If the form belongs to the neo-Štokavian
variant of Serbo-Croatian, the short falling tone indicates that the syllable
was already stressed before the neo-Štokavian retraction of the ictus and that
it is short. The quantity may be related to the fact the syllable was
originally acute, but it may also have been originally short or originate from
a comparatively late shortening, for instance the shortening of long falling
vowels in forms counting more than two syllables. The fact is that the history of
Slavic quantity is immensely complicated. Both the vowels that on qualitative
grounds are considered “historically long” and the ones considered
“historically short” may be reﬂected as either long or short. In order to
establish the origin of a morpheme in terms of acute and circumﬂex, one must
evaluate the information oﬀered by the individual Slavic languages regarding
stress, tone and quantity within the context of the Proto-Slavic accent
paradigms, which is by no means simple (cf. Vermeer 1992, Kortlandt 2005).
In the classical view, sequences of
vowel plus laryngeal merged with lengthened grade vowels. Subsequently, long
vowels acquired an “acute” tone movement, probably a rising tone. Thus, the
Balto-Slavic acute is about vowel length. As one might expect, Winter’s law,
insofar as the law is accepted, is interpreted as vowel lengthening. The diﬃculties
raised by the classical scenario are numerous (cf. Vermeer 125-126). In
Kortlandt’s theory, sequences of vowel plus laryngeal (including the glottal stop
that arose from Winter’s law) remain essentially distinct from lengthened grade
vowels up to the end of the Proto-Slavic period. With the exception of certain
positions where the distinction was lost (see below), the original contrast is
reﬂected by a quantitative diﬀerence. I shall now give an overview of the fate
of the laryngeals in Slavic (cf. Kortlandt 1975: 21-37, Vermeer 1992: 127-130):
(1) The laryngeals were
lost in pretonic and postpostonic syllables with compensatory lengthening of
the adjacent vowel. In mobile paradigms the loss of the laryngeals gave rise to
an alternation between long vowels and sequences of vowel plus laryngeal. In
root syllables the long vowel was generalized. This is Kortlandt’s explanation
of Meillet’s law, according to which mobilia with an acute root underwent
metatony (Meillet 1902).
(2) The laryngeals were
lost in the ﬁrst posttonic syllable without compensatory lengthening. In
stressed syllables the glottal stop became a feature of the adjacent vowel.
Since the new short vowels had the same timbre as the long vowels and the
glottalized vowels and therefore did not merge with the old short vowels, the
timbre distinction became phonemically relevant. In pretonic syllables, where
the laryngeals had been eliminated at stage (1), quantitative oppositions were
rephonemicized as qualitative oppositions. In other words: pretonic long vowels
were shortened. At a later stage, Dybo’s law reintroduced phonemic length in
(3) Glottalized vowels
lost their glottalic feature and became distinctively short rising. This
development must have been posterior to Dybo’s law because the progressive shift
only applied to non-acute non-falling syllables.
Summarizing, we could say
that originally acute syllables are reﬂected as short vowels in syllables which
prior to Dybo’s law were stressed or immediately followed the stressed
syllable. In originally pretonic or postposttonic position acute and non-acute
long syllables merged. Non-acute long vowels and original diphthongs are long
in AP (b), whereas in AP (c) they often fell victim to the widespread
shortening of falling vowels. Length was preserved in monosyllabic and
disyllabic word-forms in Serbo-Croatian and in Slovene monosyllables.
2.3 Substratum borrowings
The Indo-Europeans who populated
Europe must have come into contact with speakers of non-Indo-European
languages, who to a certain extent were assimilated to the invading tribes.
Consequently, we expect to ﬁnd traces of non-Indo-European substrata in the
attested Indo-European languages. In Leiden, the study of substratum inﬂuences
received an impetus from Kuiper 1995, where mainly on formal grounds three
substratum layers were distinguished (see also Beekes 1996: passim, Boutkan and
Siebinga 2005: xiii-xvii). What these layers have in common, is the frequent
occurrence of the vowel *a, which did not belong to the
Proto-Indo-European phoneme inventory (see 2.1). One of the layers, labelled
A3, is the language of Krahe’s hydronymy and is usually called “Old European”. It
is, among other things, characterized by the vocalism *a and the high
frequency of continuants and *s. Substratum A2, qualiﬁed as “European”,
only had aspirated voiced stops in antevocalic position, or rather the
antevocalic stops were identiﬁed with the traditional mediae aspiratae.
Furthermore, there seems to have been variation between labial and velar stops.
The vowel *a was frequent and there probably was no distinctive vowel
length. Another characteristic feature are vowel alternations of the type *a
:*ai and *a : *au. Substratum A1, which is mainly reﬂected
in Germanic, but also left traces in Italo-Celtic and Balto-Slavic, is claimed
to have had *a : *i : *u vocalism, prenasalization,
initial consonant clusters *Kn- and *Kl-, as well as a remarkable
alternation of root-ﬁnal stops, including geminates.
While A3 did not prove to be a
fruitful subject of investigation, one might say that as far as Kuiper’s
substratum layers A1 and A2 were concerned, the hunt was on, e.g. Beekes 1996,
Schrijver 1997, Boutkan 1996, 1998, 2003, Derksen 1999, 2000. Kuiper’s criteria
for identifying substratum borrowings were applied to various Indo-European
languages and attempts were made to establish more phenomena indicative of
non-Indo-European origin, of which Schrijvers preﬁx *a- (1997: 307-312)
is among the most spectacular.
At the same time, Kuiper’s distinction between A2 and A3 was called into
question by Beekes (1996: 217), who proposed to group these two together under
the name “European”. I am inclined to agree with him that in this respect
Kuiper’s classiﬁcation seems premature. Beekes (ibidem) also suggested the
designation “Helladic” for the non-IE substratum language that left so many
traces in Greek, but he himself now seems to prefer “Pre-Greek”. Without question,
Beekes deserves great credit for his attempt to reconstruct Pre-Greek through a
careful analysis of the Greek material (1997, cf. Furnée 1972). A diﬀerent
approach is applied by Schrijver (2007), who tries to link the Pre-Greek
substratum to “Minoic” (attested in Linear A) and Hattic. In his view, we are
dealing here with the language of the ﬁrst agriculturalists, who migrated from
Asia Minor to Central Europe through Greece and the Balkans and whose language
left traces in Anatolian, Greek, Albanian, Germanic, Balto-Slavic and
Undeniably, it makes perfect sense to
look for formal characteristics of non-Indo-European elements in the vocabulary
of the individual Indo-European languages. Within a couple of years after the
publication of Kuiper’s article, however, the limitations and inherent dangers
of this new line of research became apparent, in particular with regard to the
Pre-Germanic substratum, where there was a tendency to pay insuﬃcient attention
to the role played by speciﬁcally Germanic developments, such as Kluge’s law
(see Kroonen forthc.). Though it seems to me that the Indo-European origins of
Balto-Slavic etyma which in view of their Germanic cognates seem to violate
Winter’s law are suspiciously often unclear, it cannot be denied that the
typically Germanic alternation of root-ﬁnal consonants may at least partly
result from Proto-Germanic sound laws. Nevertheless, the question why Germanic
underwent these speciﬁc developments (the rise of geminates, for instance) is
So far I have only discussed
borrowings from a non-Indo-European substratum, but we must also reckon with
the possibility that etyma were borrowed from an unknown Indo-European
language. An interesting attempt to demonstrate a layer of borrowings of this
type was made by Holzer (1989, cf. Kortlandt 2003). Holzer reconstructs an
Indo-European language whose main feature is the fact that it underwent a
consonant shift: the traditional tenues became mediae, while the mediae
aspiratae became tenues (hence the name “Temematic”). This shift enables Holzer
to propose alternative etymologies for words that often belong to classes where
substratum borrowings are expected. Holzer’s etymologies will occasionally come
up in this dictionary.
3. Structure of the entries
3.1 The reconstructed etymon
The reconstructed etyma represent a
late stage of Proto-Slavic, posterior to the loss of glottalization under the
stress and Stang’s law. Quantity, tone and stressed are marked accordingly (see
3.5) The most recent development that I have taken into account is the
shortening of the falling tone in word-forms of more than two syllables, e.g. *sь̏rdьce.
With respect to the metathesis of liquids (and the East Slavic polnoglasie),
which shows dialectal diﬀerentiation, I had no option but to let the forms reﬂect
the stage where the syllable was still closed, even though the metathesis
preceded the above-mentioned developments.
The alphabetical order observed in
this dictionary is: a b c č d e ě ę g x i j k l m n o ǫ p r s š ś t u v ъ y
ь z ž. Please note the following:
The results of the second and third
palatalizations of velars (*k, *g, *x) are written *c, *dz
and *ś. This may seem inconsistent, but I considered that there was
nothing to gain by using *ć and *dź or *ʒ́. The
introduction of *ś, on the other hand, could not be avoided, cf. *vьśь
‘all’ vs. *vьsь ‘village’.
I have employed the signs *ļ, *ņ
and *ŗ to render sequences of resonant + *j. In the alphabetical
order these signs are equivalent to *lj, *nj and *rj,
I follow the ESSJa in writing anachronistic *tj,
*dj rather than *tć, dʒ́ vel sim.
Word-initially, I do not distinguish between *e-
and *je-. I simply write *e- because the *j- was automatic
before front vowels from a certain stage onwards. I also write *ě- for
etymological *ě- and *ja-, which merged after the rise of
prothetic *j-. I do distinguish between *u- and *ju-.
Initial *jь- < *i- is more complicated. I have argued that we
basically had stressed *ji- vs. unstressed *jь- with generalization
of the latter in mobile paradigms (Derksen 2003b). Nevertheless, I have decided
in favour of a uniform spelling *jь-, which is more conventional.
3.2 Grammatical information
Following the reconstruction, there
is an indication of the word class the etymon belongs to. In the case of
substantives, the stem class is preceded by an indication of gender, e.g. “m.
n” for “masculine n-stem”. The ﬂexion types to which OCS mlьn’i(i)
‘lightning’ and svekry ‘church’ belong are designated with ī and ū,
respectively. If there is more than one lemma, the grammatical information runs
parallel to the lemmata.
For the sake of readability, the
attested Slavic forms are generally speaking only provided with grammatical
information if they belong to a diﬀerent word class than the etymon. This practice
extends to non-Slavic forms insofar as it does not cause confusion.
3.3 Accent paradigm
In those cases where I deemed it
justiﬁed to reconstruct the accent paradigm of a noun or verb, the paradigm is
indicated by Stang’s (a), (b) or (c). I am not convinced that there ever was a
Proto-Slavic paradigm (d) (Bulatov, Dybo, and Nikolaev 1988, cf. Vermeer 2001).
I have occasionally resorted to designations such as (b/c) in those cases where
there is strong evidence for two accent paradigms.
Tone and quantity are indicated in the
same way as is conventional for literary Serbo-Croatian:
rising: *màti (a) ‘mother’, *mǫ̀ka (a) ‘torment, torture’, *nòžь
rising: *bě́lъ (b) ‘white’, pǫ́tь (b) ‘way’
falling: *sь̏rdьce (c) ‘heart’
falling: *mę̑so (c) ‘ﬂesh, meat’, *bȏgъ (c) ‘god’
long unstressed: *mǭkà ‘ﬂour’ (b), *osnovā ‘base,
Thus, I have not adopted any
of the special signs that are sometimes used to indicate the original acute,
e.g. *ma̋ti or *maˀti.
Unlike the ESSJa, I have attempted
to provide a reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic meaning of an etymon. In
principle, attested forms meaning the same as the reconstructed etymon have not
been glossed, though occasionally the meaning has been retained for the sake of
clarity. This holds good for both the Slavic and the non-Slavic forms.
The line beginning with the
reconstructed etymon is concluded by a reference to the ESSJa unless, of
course, the latter dictionary does not have a corresponding lemma. The most
recent volume at my disposal was volume 32 (-*orzbotati). I have not included a
reference to the Słownik prasłowiański because at this point the number
of published volumes is too limited.
3.6 Church Slavic
The ﬁeld “Church Slavic” contains
forms that occur in texts belonging to the Old Church Slavic canon as well as
forms that occur in Church Slavic texts whose language was inﬂuenced by the local
vernacular. The latter varieties of Church Slavic are called recensions. With
the aid of the Slovník jazyka staroslověnského, which, by the way,
includes a number of texts that fall outside the canon, and the Staroslavjanskij
slovar’, I have tried to keep Old Church Slavic and Church Slavic forms
apart. Here I should also mention Birnbaum and Schaeken 1997, where attention
is paid to the lexicon of the manuscripts that were discovered at the Monastery
of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai in 1975.
It is not
unusual to present Old Church Slavic forms in a normalized shape and this is
the practice I have adopted here. If an etymon is only rarely attested,
however, I usually present the form as it occurs in the manuscript(s). If an
etymon occurs in a fairly limited number of manuscripts, the latter have been
mentioned. I have used the following abbreviations:
Ass.: Codex Assemanianus
Dim.: Psalter of Dimitri
Sin.: Psalterium Sinaiticum
St. Petersburg Oktoich
Codex Zographensis palimpsest
3.7 East Slavic
The East Slavic ﬁeld comprises three
living languages: Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian. Furthermore, an
important place is occupied by Old Russian, which can sometimes hardly be
distinguished from Russian Church Slavic. Here I generally follow the ESSJa.
For Old Russian accentual data I have relied on Zaliznjak 1985. The
accentuation of a noun or verb in Old Russian is chieﬂy mentioned in those
cases where it deviates from the modern Russian standard language.
My main sources for Russian dialect
material are the classic dictionary by Dal’ and the Slovar’ russkix narodnyx
govorov (SRNG). To indicate the region where a form is attested I have used
a number of abbreviations: Psk. (Pskov), Olon. (Olonec), Arx. (Arxangel’sk), Novg.
(Novgorod), Smol. (Smolensk), Rjaz. (Rjazan’).
3.8 West Slavic
Czech forms may belong to the
literary language, for which the SSJČ is an important source, or originate from
dialects. Dialect material generally stems from the ESSJa or from Machek’s etymological
dictionary. A special category is formed by the 18th century
dictionaries of Jungmann and Kott, which include archaic and dialectal forms,
but also borrowings from other Slavic languages and neologisms. An analysis of
the material from these dictionaries is beyond my competence, so I have conﬁned
myself to indicating Jungmann (Jg.) or Kott as the source. Slovak forms,
insofar as they are not dialectal, are generally quoted according to the Slovník
slovenského jazyka (SSJ). Since the juxtaposition of Czech and Slovak forms
is interesting from an accentological point of view (cf. Verweij 1993), the
collection of Slovak material is relatively comprehensive.
Upper Sorbian is one of the languages
that are not heavily represented in this dictionary. Nevertheless, the language
has retained a number of features which may provide additional information
about Proto-Slavic prosody (cf. Dybo 1963, 1968b, Derksen forthc. c). In this
respect Lower Sorbian has less to oﬀer. Schuster-Šewc’s Sorbian etymological
dictionary (HEW) deals with both languages and may also function as a source of
older attestations and dialect forms.
A considerable portion of the Polish
material in the ESSJa, which subsequently found its way to the present
dictionary, is quoted from the voluminous dictionaries by Karłowicz et al.
(1900-1927) and Doroszewski (1958-1969). For Old Polish the main source is, of
course, the yet unﬁnished Słownik staropolski. The etymological
dictionaries by Sławski (unﬁnished) and Bańkowski (in progress) provide a lot
of information about the earliest attestations of an etymon. In this context
the Słownik języka
polskiego XVII i 1. połowy XVIII wieku (Karplukówna
and Ambrożewicz 1999‑) is also worth mentioning.
Within West Slavic, Slovincian – now
extinct – and the North Kashubian dialects are unique in having preserved
accentual mobility, albeit with certain restrictions. Furthermore, old
quantitative distinctions have been transformed into qualitative distinctions,
like in Polish. In Slovincian and Kashubian, however, this phenomenon (called pochylenie
in Polish) applies to a greater number of vowels. Our most important source for
Pomeranian, as Slovincian and Kashubian are sometimes called, are the works of
Friedrich Lorentz (e.g. 1903, 1908-1912, 1958-1983).
The westernmost attested Lechitic
language, Polabian, only plays a marginal role in this dictionary. Forms will
be quoted according to Polański and Sehnert 1967.
3.9 South Slavic
The name “Serbo-Croatian” will
occasionally be used as a generic designation for all varieties of the language
spoken in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Montenegro. The abbreviation
“SCr.”, however, refers in principle to neo-Štokavian, i.e. to those Štokavian
dialects that underwent the neo-Štokavian retraction of the stress. A prominent
example is the language that was codiﬁed by Vuk Karadžič and Đuro Daničić in
the 19th century and subsequently became the basis of normative
grammars and dictionaries, for instance the Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga
jezika (RJA). The Serbo-Croatian (neo-Štokavian) forms presented in this
dictionary usually conform to aforementioned normative tradition. In some cases
I have quoted directly from Vuk Karadžič’s dictionary (abbreviated as “Vuk”).
The Čakavian dialects of
Serbo-Croatian are mainly represented by Jurišić’s description of the Vrgada
(Vrg.) dialect (1966-1973), Kalsbeek’s description of the dialect of Orbanići
(Orb.) near Žminj (1998) and Belić’s description of the dialect of Novi (1909),
which is the best-known description of a Čakavian dialect. In addition, I have
occasionally added data from Hvar (Hraste 1937), Cres (Tentor 1909, 1950), and
(Houtzagers 1985). The Kajkavian dialects are respresented by Jedvaj’s
description of the Bednja dialect.
The Slovene material originates almost
exclusively from Pleteršnik’s dictionary (1894-1895), which is a compilation of
data from a great variety of sources presented in a historical spelling, i.e.
in a spelling that reﬂects dialectal diﬀerences that are absent from many
dialects, including the ones underlying the modern standard language. The
reader will therefore be confronted with the spectacular dialectal diﬀerentiation
that is characteristic of Slovene (cf. Greenberg 2000).
Bulgarian and especially Macedonian
provide little information on the prosody of Proto-Slavic. Nevertheless, it
is clear that this corner of the Slavic territory must not be neglected. The
material presented here is chieﬂy modern Standard Bulgarian.
adhere to the view that there was a Balto-Slavic proto-language, I found it
atttractive to include a ﬁeld “Proto-Balto-Slavic” in order to obtain a
modernized version of Trautmann 1923a (cf. Derksen forthc. d). As I explained
above, I follow Kortlandt in not reconstructing any Balto-Slavic tones. The
stage represented by my reconstructions is posterior to Winter’s law. The reﬂex
of the laryngeals and the glottal element of the (pre)glottalized stops is
indicated by ʔ, the IPA symbol for a glottal stop. The phonological system is
as follows (cf. Kortlandt 1994):
With respect to morphology,
it is important to note that the barytone neuters have a Nsg. in *-um
< *-om, while the originally oxytone neuters have *-o < *-od
Notwithstanding my comparison with
Trautmann’s Baltisch-slavisches Wörterbuch, it is my opinion that these
reconstructions in themselves do not have independent evidential value for the
Balto-Slavic hypothesis, as striking formal similarities between Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic etyma usually relate to those common
developments on the basis of which the Balto-Slavic linguistic unity was
postulated. We must reckon with the possibility that seemingly Balto-Slavic
etyma are actually old borrowings from Slavic into Baltic or vice versa. In particular, Baltic substratum words in Slavic are a factor
that is to be taken into account (cf. Nepokupnyj 1976).
The assumption that there was a
Proto-Baltic-Slavic stage raises the question how to act if an inherited
Proto-Slavic etymon does not have a Proto-Baltic counterpart? Does it make sense to reconstruct a Balto-Slavic form
anyway, thereby assuming that the etymon was lost in the other branch? In my
opinion, it does not. The main point of the ﬁeld Balto-Slavic is to get an
impression of the number of lexical items shared by
Baltic and Slavic. A Proto-Balto-Slavic reconstruction of an etymon that is
exclusively found in Baltic or Slavic would just be one of many intermediate
Another, quite common problem is the
determination of the orginal stem class of a noun in
those cases where Baltic and Slavic diverge. Unless there are clear indications
which stem class is more archaic, I considerered it best to allow the variation
to be reﬂected in the Balto-Slavic reconstructions.
It stands to reason that Baltic is
fairly well represented in this dictionary. On the other hand, it would hardly
make sense if the Baltic material were so extensive as it will be in my Baltic
etymological dictionary. For this reason I cut down on the Lithuanian and
Latvian data by leaving out some of the morphological and accentual variants.
Where the modern Standard Lithuanian
form serves our purpose, I have quoted from the fourth edition of the DLKŽ. The
most important source for Lithuanian, however, is the LKŽ, which has
incorporated data from older periods and dialect data. The most important Old
Lithuanian text is Daukša’s Postilla (DP). Latvian data will be quoted
from the dictionary by Mühlenbach and Endzelīns (ME) and the supplement by
Endzelīns and Hausenberg (EH). The orthography used in these works deviates
from modern Standard Latvian orthography but is still customary in the
scholarly literature. Forms followed by ² originate from a dialect with two
tones (instead of three), where the tone of that particular form is ambiguous
from a historical point of view (cf. Derksen 1996: 11-14). We are dealing
either with a conﬂation of the broken and the falling tone (West Latvian) or a
conﬂation of the sustained and the falling tone (East Latvian). These tones are
indicated by ^² and `², respectively, but it should be noted that there exists
considerable variation regarding the realization of the conﬂated tones.
The Old Prussian evidence stems from the
Enchiridion (or Third Catechism) unless indicated otherwise: I write “I” for
the First Catechism, “II” for the Second Catechism, “EV” for the Elbing
Vocabulary, and “Gr.” for Simon Grunau’s vocabulary. The forms are quoted from
Trautmann 1910 and Mažiulis PKEŽ.
The ﬁeld “PIE” basically contains
forms that may have belonged to the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary. I do not
wish to condemn the practice of reconstructing quasi-Indo-European forms, as
the latter may contain useful information, even in the case of etyma that may
have been borrowed from a non-Indo-European language, but I personally prefer
to let this information be part of the discussion of the etymology.
It is not my intention to present an
exhaustive list of cognates from other branches of Indo-European. One may
expect to ﬁnd quite comprehensive lists of cognates in the dictionary that is
the ultimate goal of the Indo-European Etymological Dictionary project.
I have tried to mention forms that are in all respects close to the
Proto-Slavic etymon, but occasionally I had to settle for forms that merely
contain the same root.
3.14 Discussion of the
As a rule, the etymology of a given
root is discussed under a single lemma. If the eymology is perfectly clear,
there may be no discussion at all. Instead, only a Proto-Indo-European
reconstruction is given.
Any lemma may contain a number of
notes pertaining to a variety of subjects. The notes do not directly concern
the etymology of the lemma, which is discussed elsewhere (see 3.13).
The last ﬁeld mentions all cognate lemmata
except the ones that are referred to in the discussion of the etymology. If the
discussion of the eymology contains a reference to a cognate lemma, the ﬁeld is
 We may draw a comparison with the thematically similar
dissertation Beekes 1969, where Balto-Slavic accentology still does not play
any role of signiﬁcance.
 The sections on Hirt’s law and Winter’s law
as well as section 184.108.40.206 on progressive shifts in Baltic and Slavic are
adaptations of the corresponding sections in Derksen 2004.
 See especially Vermeer 1998, which deals with the place
Stang’s monograph occupies in the history of the ﬁeld.
 The neo-circumflex also occurs in Northwest Čakavian (cf.
 See 220.127.116.11 for the realization of the acute and circumflex in
 Actually, Meillet had already
suggested the operation of the progressive shift in Slavic at the very same
session where de Saussure presented his discovery (CIO 1894).
 The designation Illič-Svityč’s law is also used to indicate
the transfer of masculine o-stems belonging to AP (b) to the mobile
 This is actually the formulation of
Stang’s law as it appears in publications of Dutch accentologists. Stang
himself did not limit the retraction to ﬁnal syllables. In order to account for
the *vòļa type, he also assumed that the stress was retracted from
semi-vowels. For Kortlandt’s solution, which is connected with a development
that he baptized “Van Wijk’s law”, see Kortlandt 1975: 30-32.
 It should not be left unmentioned that in the last few decades the concepts of the Moscow accentological
school have undergone signiﬁcant modiﬁcations, on which see Vermeer 2001. Since
at present it is doubtful whether these modiﬁcations can be regarded as
improvements, a discussion of the relevant issues fall outside the scope of
this dictionary. I shall conﬁne myself to the remark that the new scenario for
the rise of AP (b) comes close to a rehabilitation of de Saussure’s law for
 This section derives from an (unpublished) paper that was
presented at the Fachtagung of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft in Cracow (October 2004).
 Since our knowledge of West Baltic is based on a limited
number of Old Prussian documents, the accentual
developments in this branch of Balto-Slavic cannot be determined in detail. The
system reflected in the Enchiridion points to a rising acute and a
falling circumflex. Furthermore, Old Prussian seems to have undergone a shift
of the ictus from any short vowel to the next syllable (Kortlandt 1974).
 In this account the term “circumflex” refers to non-acute long
vowels and diphthongs. In my description of the Balto-Slavic situation I,
strictly speaking, used the term as a designation of every non-acute syllable.
It may be clear, however, that there is no distinction between acute and
circumflex short vowels.
 Note that in the traditional view the
distinction between the rising acute and falling circumflex must have existed
in unstressed syllables as well.
 Interestingly, this type of preﬁxation
seems to occur both in Greek (and possibly Anatolian) as well as in “North
 In the case of original u-stems it is assumed that the
reader is familiar with the fact that in the attested languages the u-stem
and (masculine) o-stem paradigms have merged into a single paradigm,
which here will be referred to as the o-stem paradigm.
 Ps. Sin. MS 2/N refers to the part of the Psalterium
Sinaiticum that was discovered in 1975 at the Monastery of St. Catherine.
The other part (MS 38/O) was discovered in 1850 at the same location.
 Discovered by Hilferding.
 For practical reasons, I have used the third edition of Vuk’s
dictionary (Belgrade 1898) instead of the second, which appeared in Vienna in 1852. The latter would have been preferable, as the later editions are marred by
 A village on the island of Cres.
 This does not hold good for Middle Bulgarian, which is the
language of a number of accented texts. Since Middle Bulgarian is on a par with
Russian Church Slavic, etc., it belongs to my category Church Slavic.
 Actually, I am not convinced that it is justiﬁed to
reconstruct a Proto-Baltic stage. The term Proto-Baltic
is used for convenience’s sake.