Same

About yers

The topic is very long and would be divided in several parts:

Thereʼre also related topics, but I guess, they can be omitte:

Declining of yers

1. General remarks

Before declining yers, there were declining of stressing yers (there're some exceptions). The definition of «declining of yers» is about two processes: weak yers were totally removed, while strong yers had: → o or e.

With exception one-syllabe words, yers where weak at the word-end, and in the middle of the word if the next syllabe wasnʼt with a weak yer. And yers were strong in one-syllabe words, and in the middle of a word if the next syllabe was with weak yer. Thus, домъ, къто had weak yers; a pronoun тъ had a strong yer; in a noun стьжька the first yer was strong, the second: weak (modern Ukrainian: дім, хто, той, сте́жка).

Itʼs not about where after yers were r or l with the next consonant.

4. Reflexes of yers: position at the end of word

Yers declined at the end of word if it wasn't one-syllabied. There were not so much the such words: prepositions къ, съ, въ, conjunction нъ, pronouns тъ, сь. One-syllabe prepositions were proclitics: from phonology view they were counted as part of the next word. Thus those yers were also counted, as yer in the first syllabe: if the next syllabe doesn't have a weak yer — they declined, it has --- changed into o: во тъ час. At most late in ⅩⅣ century, this rule was applied to other prepositons: those where ended with consonant (there were no -ъ) as in ото въстока; and where originally were two-syllabed like подъ, надъ (example: надо нь), and when the next word a consonant cluster (подо властью). Those doublets as с ~ со, без ~ безо, над ~ надо etc existed in usage during all middle-Ukrainain epoch, and still exist in the modern Ukrainian (itʼs about з, над, перед & під) while from epoch of Ševčenko & Kulêš, -o was changed into -i (зі мною, наді мною etc), with exception as a fixed prefixes in some words: безо́дня, відо́зва, передо́всім, підо́шва, підо́зра etc.

In Old Ukrainian texts, -o happened in prepositions or prefixes, if the next morpheme started with o or u (and i), as in во ѹмѣ, безоѹпованьство 'безнадія'. Those became wide from ⅩⅢ century, mostly where ъ and о were mistaken (во очѣ, ко ѹх(ѹ)).

In Middle Ukrainain a preposition къ had an equalent as ку: ку нємцєм, ку вѣчнои etc. Modern and old Ukrainian doesn't have it which says about a artificial nature. It was loanworded from Polish where itʼs a normal (as in Slovak and Čech).

In meaningful words end-syllabe yers were count as strong, thus: sь > se, tъ > to.

Under influence of one-syllabed сь & ть, near two-syllabed вьсь appeared всь. But after declining of yers, it didn't bring to masculine 'vse which would be the same as neutral — it resulted that masculine весь dominated.

The similar problem were with сє & то, but there were no any equal word, they were in usage around two centuries. But later they were changed with words which had signs of masculine: in the start they were mostly dialectal, but later became they lost it. They were as in reduplication structure: сьсь, тьть > сєсь, тот; as adjectived: se + j, to + j, were created from masculine form, appeared after declined yers; and as the first form masculine form with other point-pronoun nъ.

Between those three forms, at the end of Old Ukrainian, and during all Middle Ukrainian, reduplicated was the most popular almost anywhere. Today theyʼre mostly where all genders where adjusted to masculine (тот : тота, тото, тоті; сесь, сеся, сесе, сесі), so in Carpathian and Over-Dněster dialect zones.

During Middle Ukrainian there was concurrention between тот, сєсь and той, сєй without any region limit. During ⅩⅦ century, тот and especially сесе started to declined, in some authors they appears only in some phrases or as high style. And at middle ⅩⅧ tot was basically lost.

Old Ukrainian an adversative conjunction нъ could be a proclitic, but in emphathis usage could be stressed. In first case, a yer acted as in prepositions (nъ > n), and if the next syllabe had a weak yer [or o-, u-] then it was o (nъ > no). This conjunction was lost to the last decade of Middle Ukrainian.

In other cases, the end-word yers were declined: сынъ > син, сынъ тъ > син-от. In Old and Middle Ukrainian there were one notable exception: names with base on j which had to have at least ∅-ending in sg-nom were written with є (as example: Old Ukrainian Игнатиѥ повєлѣваѥть, Middle Ukrainian Юрїє и Козма, Василиє…). Those forms were loanworded form Balkan languages, and copied Serbian recreation of Greek -ios, compare: Serbian Mȁkarije, from here Romunian Macarie. In the Middle Ukrainain those form firstly appeared in Moldavia; in ⅩⅥ–ⅩⅦ there were popular in clergy. But in usage there never leaved Moldavia; and in clergy were lost when Russian influence in clergy became stronger. In this case -e isn't from -ь and had nothing common with Ukrainian names with -o as in Дніпро́, Петро́ etc.

5. Reflexes of yers: one-yers in the middle of word

In this paragraphe we analyze only words where there're no two neighbour syllabe with yer (as in сънъ : съна). In the middle of words, with mentioned exceptions, one-yers were weak, thus declined. Atypical changes into e or o were due specific evolution of those words.

We speak about the such positions:

  1. Two-syllabe words: дъва > два, тьма > тьма, стькло > скло and so on. We may find renewing vowels in (western) dialects потя (птах < път-), те́ща which are from пътѧ, тъща. In the second case a form with e are noted in ⅩⅤ (тєща). A vowels are from forms where were two yers as in тьсть > тесть, пътъка > потка (comp. поткы in Ip., 1175)

  2. Middle syllabe in three-syllabe words:

    1. With one yer in a root: на́зва < *nazъva (comp. зъвати), по́мста < *pomъsta (comp. мьстити) etc; also with two-syllabe prefixes: безо́дня < *bezъdьn(j)a (comp. дъно ~ дьно). Also with words which have prefix and suffix: не́хтувати (comp. хътѣти), нехлю́й < *-xъl (comp. пахо́лок, Polish pacholę, Russian хо́лить) and so on.

    2. With one yer in sufix: ка́зка < *-kazъка, пірце́ < *perьce and so on.

  3. Started syllabes in three and many-syllabe words: кни́га < кънʼига, сса́ти < съсати and so on.

  4. At late Old Ukrainian, and during Middle Ukrainian, there're many e instead a weak ь in sufix -ьств(о): царєство, рожєства etc. It happened due interaction with suffix -ьствьѥ where ь was strong (as in чювєствьѥ, до царєствиꙗ); but later it became as clergy pronouncing, not colloquial. But some forms appeared in folklore as in множество ляхів.

6. Reflexes of yers: yers in two neighbour syllabes.

If there are two neighbour syllabes, then the first yer usually acts as strong one (e < ь, о < ъ), while the second usually declined: ре́вний — рьвьнъ.

If we compare other related, then we may find forms with ∅-vowel as in: легки́й : пі́льга, ме́нший : прина́ймні, ме́сник : помста, со́тник : сто and so on.

Among adjectives, it created opposition between nom. sg. m of noun type with others forms (example: мѹжєскъ, жєнєскъ, морєск- — мужский, жєнский, морский etc). But this opposition was lost totally almost with losting adjectives of noun type in Ukrainian (with some remained: ви́нен : ви́нний, ладе́н : ла́дний, зго́ден — зго́дний, пе́вен : пе́вний). It also related to toponyms like Луцьк which is from adjective type (< Лучьскъ (городъ), comp. Лучєск). Albeit a noun type is preserved, it was restructured on example of non-dirrect cases (locative?).

In noun declensions for masculine (mostly with originally -o), and feminine (mostly with originally -i) opposition were appeared with sg. nom. (and instr. for fem.) and rest forms. In first forms instead yers were appeared o or e; in seconds yers were declined. This relation still exist, especially in sufixes — горобе́ць : горобця́, місто́к : містка́, ми́ска : мисо́к etc, — but you still may find in roots too:

  1. Masculine: день : дня, пень : пня, пес : пса, сон : сну, hydronim Псьол (Псєлъ) : Псла; pronoun весь : вся. Alternation V:∅ better preserved in the such words, where a dropped syllabe isnʼt the first: козе́л : козла, о́цет : оцта etc. A word ромен joined to this group later — itʼs a French loanword [camomille] romaine, where no yer was. Outside this group we also have dial. оде́н : одна; and a verb (from adverb origin) form; ішо́в : ішла.

  2. In feminine with -i, alternation e ~ o : ∅ was lost, comp: ку чти (Vol. Eu. 1571) and the modern че́сті dat. sg;

  3. In gen. pl. f & n nouns e ~ o : ∅ still exist, only in: зло : зол, дно : ден, сто : сот, and in many nouns which would end with a consonan clusters as in мітла́ : мі́тел, со́тня : сотень.

    In some verbs at the first glance it may look that we have the same phenomenon (умру́ : уме́р), but itʼs actually a different phenomenon.

    However, e ~ o : ∅ was lost mostly due unification of two different forms. Usually a form with a vowel dominated, but sometimes ∅-form too. We speak about the such roots:

    1. дощ : дощу́ (comp. Church Slavonic дъждь), лев : лева (львъ), грек : грека (грькъ) and so on.

      An expansion ∅-forms (from non-dirrect cases) influenced to appearing -o in nom, which also effected to gender changing. So, from gen. sg. шьва it was easily to create nom. sg. шьвъ or шьво. The latter, basically, appears in the moder Ukrainian: шво, comp. Russian шов : шва, Polish szew : szwu, Slovak šev : šva; hydronim Псло, Ворскло (Vъrskълъ, comp. Ворсколець); also in cases where were three yer-syllabes: пе́кло (comp. ChSl пьцьлъ).

      Suffixes almost always were out of the such unifications. But some cases can be appeared: зойк : зо́йку if itʼs from *zoj-ьkъ; a reasoun could due analogy to words as йойк, брязк, брезк. Ambiguous understanding of sufix -ень (о́лень : о́леня, пе́рстень : пе́рстеня — comp. пєрстєнєй, but перстнях, comp. пі́вень : пі́вня, у́чень : учня, sometimes красень : красеня / красня); itʼs due two originally different suffixes as -en- and -ьn-.

    2. Feminine nouns with -i: брость : бро́сті, честь : че́сті, плоть : плоті etc; with changing declension to -a: во́ша; words like кров : крові, любо́в : любо́ві which had -ъv- in base, also unificated with o within nom. / inst. to rest forms.

    3. Interaction between gen. pl. and rest can be change the latter on gen. pl. paradygm, or reverlse. The first case: стебло (*stьblъ) with strong ь; as for example to the second case: дошка which is from дъщька > дощка (not Old Ukrainian дъска); gen. pl. дъщька would be *dščok, with o — дощо́к (which exist in today usage); therefore a consonant cluster ščk was simpled to šk, thus today we have до́шка : дощо́к.

All forms with e and o instead weak yers are secondary. In middle Ⅻ century yers were declined; reappearing happenned later — the first cases dated ⅩⅤ. To make a general chronolgy is imposible, becase each word had own history. Process of removing alternation e ~ o : ∅ activelly started somewhere from ⅩⅥ, and still exist to the current days. In some cases, alternation e ~ o : ∅ not just declined, but was changed by other e ~ o : i as in утік : утоку (comp. in 1690 вткꙋ).

Difference alternation e ~ o : ∅ in roots and suffixes (declining in the former, preserved in the latter) can be explain by frequency where suffixes have a bigger number (also to note, in frequent words alternation in root also usually preserved); but itʼs not a perfect explanation, because even in not-frequent suffixes (as otʼ) alternation is usually preserved (ки́коть : ки́ктя, кла́поть : кла́птя etc). Itʼs more important about of scructure of those morphems: if roots in Ukrainian usually have CVC, then in noun suffixes main pressing is on consonant, while a vowel easily acts as jointer.

7. Reflexes of yers: yers in three neighbour syllabes.

If thereʼre three (or more) syllables with yers, whereʼre one is usually at the end of a word or a base, then from a regular evolution it should be double alternation, where a vowel (e or o) as first appeared in [a] even [syllabe], and as the second — in odd, while we count from the last syllabe with yer. Those alternations are kinda a remaining nature, thus occured only at least three words: швець : шевця́ (< шьвьць : шьвьцꙗ), жнець : женця́, жрець : жерця́. More common pattern is where alternation occured only in the last syllabe of a base, moslty as a suffix, examples: пе́рець : пе́рцю, кле́вець : кле́вця, це́бер : це́бра (comp. old Polish: dżber : czebru, Slovak džber, Bulgarian чъ́бър), in general all diminutive forms: рот : рото́к : ротка́. In dialects, some words appeared here too, while in the standard itʼs double alternation: шеве́ц : шевца́ (Hutsul & Dobruǯi). The same pattern is for gen. pl. as in: бочка : бочо́к instead expected form as ⁺bčok (< bъčъкъ)

Finally, in small number of words alternation was removed totally — because of morphology synchonization (or indirect declension > a base) — сойм : со́йму (< sъjьmь : sъjъma), or, more often case (base > all): глек : глека́, клець : кле́ця; in case бервено́ : берве́н is gen. pl. as a base (бьрьвьно : бьрьвьнъ).

In Old- and Middle-Ukrainian thereʼre many examples, where synchonization is missed. This started to occure from ⅩⅤ, but it was slower then with two neibour-syllabe of yers, because there were two cross-directioin powers: 1) removing alternatiion e ~ o : ∅, 2) concentration of alternation in suffixes. The phenomen rapidly moved in ⅩⅦ–ⅩⅧ, and the process still continues today (as example, вітере́ць : вітерця́ becomes more popular than вітре́ць : вітреця́; in Ševčenko itʼs only latter).

So, «dropped» e & o presserved in sufixes, especially for less contrast between nom. sg. to other cases (they were less wanted in gen. pl, where in a syllable of some suffixes new e and o were removed: служб, просьб, comp. gen. pl служобъ 1545, 1552, while from the other side, it appeared in other suffixes which didnʼt have yers, as example: моли́тва, же́ртва (молитва, жрьтва) have gen. pl. молито́в and жерто́в (standard жертв), from which also appeared молито́вник, жерто́вник). Accepting of dropping vowels as a suffix pattern is explained as turning non-sufixal last part of words into sufixes by cost of a root. It included many loan-words: геба́нок (Hobelbank), ри́нок (Ring), ґа́нок (Gang), ґату́нок (Gattung), я́рмарок (ярмаркъ), ко́рок (Kork), ту́рок (türk) etc. Most words came from German thro Polish where «dropped» e occured, from where Ukrainian o : ∅ changed Polish e : ∅; while doubtly турок is Polish influence, kinda the same is Polish jarmark, kark; thus it wasnʼt just blind imitation after Polish. The same phenomenon occured in some native words: мозгъ → мо́зок → мозку; віск has dialect восок; заѩць (comp. Polish zając, Slovak zajac) → (still in Western dialects) за́яць : за́яця → за́єць : зайця.

8. Non-regular reflexes of strong yers.

In different Slavic languages there were small changes in usage yers, using ь instead ъ and reverse. […]

Thereʼre many cases of appearing e on a strong yer possition: без, кре́вний (кро́вний is new re-loanworded from Russian), даре́мний, місте́чко, ске́льць (from скло), пеке́льний, пе́вний, стате́чний, туте́шній, сукно : middle Ukrainian сукен etc.

All of those examples are loanwords from Polish where ъ → e occured. But even in loanwords o occured instead e: остато́чний (остатє́чний, 1634), суко́нка, цукор which never had a yer (from German Zucker thor Polish cukier), while a standard Ukrainian preserved e in цукерка (from Polish cukierki).

A diminutive suffix -enʼk- in the standard Ukrainian appears after any consonant (мале́нький, сухе́нький, мʼякенький) often is with o, mostly after velar, in group of Western dialects (Bojkı, Bukovına, Pokutjje, and many Naddněster with exception of North-West Ljvô̟vščını) (сухо́нький, мʼяко́нький); Bojkı also have -ойкий. The suffix -enʼk- is not counted as Proto-Slavic, itʼs Ukrainian-Belarusian creation whichʼs dated around ⅩⅥ. From here he appeared in Polish, while thereʼre no on left-bank of Visla. For now itʼs not known, in Russian appeared due self-creation or loan-wording. In Slovak we may find -unk-, -ink-, in Čech -ounk-, -ink- which are similar to Ukrainian-Belarusian -enʼk- but they have a different etymology. Bulgarian has -ink- (also different etymology) and has more narrowed usage (also not used in masculine, where -ičk- is used instead, and can be used for other genders too). Serbo-Croatian doesnʼt have the such suffix. Examples: Belarusian мале́нькі, добранькі; Polish (Eastern) maleńki, choreńki; Slovak slabunký, slabulinký, bledulinký; Čech malinký, kratinký, lehounký, bělounky; Bulgarian добрички : добри́нка, добринко, добринки. Late appearence in Ukrainian of -enʼk- is explained not only by lacking older examples in Old Ukrainian, but by also lacking e → i. By etymology this complex sufix: meaning of diminutive is from -enʼ-, used for small creations (лис: lys-enʼ-á). And with -k- (< -ьк-) we finish adjectivization. During appearing there were no limit for velar before fonted vowels as it was in Proto-Slavic. Thus near маленький — легенький was possible. We may guess that леге́нький is older all-Ukrainian form, but when this suffix became more popular in East Polish, in part of Western Ukrainian dialects e → o, because e had vibes as Polish one by example as ostateczny → остаточний, while е isnʼt from ъ. In this meaning, adjectives as легонький can be counted as hypercorrection to Polish influence, and e was reinterpreted as from ъ. Itʼs no hard to do, because of double-meaning of -en- which is from Pra-Slavic -en- (our case), and -ьn- (as in пі́вень : пі́вня).

So, е ← ъ is always direct or non-direct Polonisms; there were never regularity, and very limited.

9. Condition and results

General pre-conditions of yer-declining as phonems, and their physical loss as sounds in weak position were created by result of increasing consonant phonems, mostly by different types of palatalization. Decreasing vowel-system started during Proto-Ukrainian epoch, continues later, and yer-declining was just the next step. Novelity is not just decreasing phonems, but also decreasing frequency of vowels in language. Again, it was possible due good developed differentiation of consonants which allows to differ semantics and morphology even by decreasing of vowel number. Loss of prosodic opposition in vocal-system also speeded the next decreasing of vowels.

Declining exactly yers, not other vowel is explained due overnumber of middle-vowels [in the box].

i       y        u
******************
* ė              *
*   ь       ъ    *
*     е   o      *
******************
        а

Identification ь → е, ъ → о (in strong position) was the simplest solution.

If by action yer-declining totally alings with sound laws, then by result it was more massive than preivous; it removed some vowels. Also, it effected main language features, inheritated from Proto-Slavic epoch, and brought new features which totally not-like Proto-Slavic. Main results:

  1. Before yers-decline, syllabes usually were open, and difference in their structure was non-notable: CV, CCV, CCCV (with limited possible consonant clusters). It was making a sylabbe almost as a constructed unit without own functions. Now we have closed-syllabes which created possibility of usage of syllabe structure in morphology.

  2. Speaking more precise, now words could end with a consonant. This broke contrasting between a word (which always ended with a vowel) and a morpheme (which usually ended with consonant if it wasnʼt at the end of word), as in Old Ukrainian adjective бєзгнѣвьнъ 'лагідний', which was built from morphemes бєз, гнѣв, ьн and ъ. With new conditions, this contrasting, and non-/end morphemes lost meaning.

  3. Zero-ending appeared. In contrasting masculine бєзгнѣвьнъ and feminine бєзгнѣвьна after yers-decline, exactly zero-endings started to mark masculine (in nom. sg.).

  4. Appeared a new alternation — е, о : ∅.

  5. Many consonant clusters. Later it also removed y and ė vowels. In final, it aslo leaded to reinterpatation of a consonant corelation by voicing.

  6. More oposition by palatalization. If before yers-decline consonant automatically palatalized before weak ь, and not before ъ, then later palatalization became own feature of consonants.

Separate quetion is linking with declining weak yers, and alternation strong yers to o and e: it was two sides of the one process or different processes? As noted in (2, 3), weak yers started to decline earlier in 100 years that alternation of strong years; mostly often devoiced in some phonetic constructions. At this time strong yers didnʼt devoice, but still didnʼt alternating into o and e. We may guess, alternation was at first started as optionality, and and after declining of weak, it was not the same process, not a dirrect reaction on this. The popular opinion as — reducing weak brought number reduction, and alternation compensated it — is very complex, because it assumes that — after short time — changine one evolution process by other directed into other way; but this opinion isnʼt approved by found materials, and conflicts with structure of Ukrainian language which at this time lost mora (duratiion) oposition of vowels.

10. Spreading areal

In all neighbour to Ukrainian Slavic languages weak yers were declinded. And strong (with exception as Bulgarian) became as some other vowels which existed in those languages: in Russian, Belarusian they were o and e, as in Ukrainian; in Polish and East Slavi — e (and differention of ъ, ь moved to consonants: Polish łeb 'head' : lew 'lion'; in East Slova it preserved as remainin and so-so: ten 'that' against cenki 'thin'). In Bulgarian it reflexes as sound ə ("ъ"), and ь — partly e (especially in sufixes) and partly ə (especially in bases/roots): mostly depends on position in words, and by dialect. From this short and simplified surveying we can understand that in Ukrainian, as in neighbour Slavic languages (with Bulgarian as expection) yers were divided into weak and strong, and the former were declined; and if we speak about strong, we can speak about similarity of Old Ukrainian process with Old Russian and Old Belarusian (by this indirectly we can add argument in 9. about process of weak and strong as two different processes in time and developing).

Still, even the same processes have different chronology. In Old Bulgarian, and possible in Old Slovak, yers declined at the and Ⅹ century; in Old Polish it happened in Ⅺ, in Old Russian — in the middle of ⅩⅢ, and in Old Belarusian problaly alittle earlier. In Old Ukrainian it dated in the middle Ⅻ, thus later than Polish, but erlier than Russian, and with the same time-step (around 100 years), from which we may understand that three processes were independent. Processes which named «yers-decline» — itʼs not one evolution, but the similar answer of each Slavic language to the same problem which appeared in the late stage of developing Proto-Slavic.

Similar sound changes [to Old Ukrainian and other Slavic languages] occured in other neighbour non-Slavic languages. For an example, in Romanian ĭ and ŭ at the end were declined if before were no consonant cluster which ends with r or l (veterānu(m) > bătrîn 'old', against soceru(m) > sócru); in the middle ĭ and ŭ also declined, sometimes even in two neighbor syllabes (ambulāre > umblá 'to walk', calidu(m) > cald 'warm'). Hungarian also lost ŭ, ü̆ and ĭ at the word end in the start of ⅩⅢ; the lost of this vowel could be compansated by longing a vowel in the previous syllabe: utu > út 'way', kerekü > kerék 'a wheel'. Finally, tendetion to reduction and declining closed vowels (with pro-longing a vowel in the previous consonant) occured, as we see, also for Ural-Altai languages over Volga: some of speaker, as Voga Bulgarian, moved to south and after 679 settled in Bulgaria. Some Turkic were settled in Ukrainian steppes. Thus itʼs not wise to dismiss contacts between them and Proto- or Old-Ukrainian language.

We can conclude, that yers-declining — in wide meaning — happened on huge territory, in all Slavic languages and neighbor non-Slavic languages. Of course, reasons, conditions, developings — even to their similarity of processes — werenʼt the same.

#linguistic #ukrainian