Same

Evolution of yers before a sonorant between two consonants as in CъSC and CьSC

1. General remarks

In combinations as C + a yer + S + C (where S is for a sonorant), yers, as in elsewhere, were undergoing to e and o, but with some changes: ъ → о, ь → е with no matter if the next syllabe had a yer; thus: not only търгъ, вьрхъ, вълкъ → Modern Ukrainian торг, верх, вовк, but also acc. pl. търгы, вьрхы, вълкы → торги́, верхи́, вовки́. Thus, those yers in all the such positions were counted as strong. And hereʼre another their changes and influences on the previous syllabe. If the previous syllabe had a yer, then he wasnʼt influenced as the next yer: gen. sg. съмьрти hadnʼt changed into ⁺somrti or ⁺somerti. If the previous syllabe had o or e, they also havnʼt influences of this yer: gen. sg. чєтвьрга → Modern Ukrainian четверга́, but not ⁺čitverha.

Practically Cъ/ьSC is three variations: CъrC, CьrC, CъlC. Nasal sonorants hadnʼt occured here, because V + N before a consonant turned into a nasal vowel in Late Pra-Slavic epoch. Also there hadnʼt been CьlC, because in a period from mid-Ⅷ to mid-Ⅸ (during rising liquid metathesis) CьlC (or a previous form CĭlC) had been merged with CъlC (CŭlC). This change is featured for all East-Slavic dialects (also, Polabian, and partly Upper Sorbian). Materials about differences of CьlC and CъlC are very limited. In Polish and East Slovac the first combination, unlike the second, appears as CilC after labial: Ukrainian вовк, Russian волк, Belarusian воўк against Polish wilk, East Slovak vilk; understandable, with middle-palatal the combination could be only as CьlC, because this consonant couldnʼt developed before ъ: Ukrainian жо́втий, Russian жёлтый, Belarusian жо́ўты, Polish żólty, Slovak žltý, Bulgarian жълт — all of them are from *žьlt-. In other cases only non-Slavic languages allows to find out an origin of Modern Ukrainian CovC; for an example, visual similar roots in words до́вгий and довг, but with different units: Lithuanian ìlgas ‘long’ (< *dilgas) and Goth *dulgs ‘debt’.

2. Recreation Cъ/ьSC in Old Ukrainian text, and choronology of changes

By Old Church Slavonic orthography, in the such combinations a yer immutably appeared only after a sonorant; exactly the such writing came to Ukraine from Bulgaria. But, it contradicted to local language usage, thus in Old Ukrainian texts the such writing occured in very small numbers. Local writers, trying to copy the such writing, were often mistaking, thus a reverse — writing a yer before sonorant — occured. As examples 1073 (прьвѣньца gen. sg. but сълньцє), Ⅺ (чрьны but чьрноризица) etc; in Ⅺ some writers already refused from Old Church Slavonic style: 1076 (пьрва, дълго), Ⅺ (дьржѧ, твьрдь), 1117 (дьржимыꙗ, съмьртию) etc. In secular documents a yer + a sonorant was consistent: Свѧтопълк (1104), запъртить (1130). Obviously, in this case most writers thought Church Slavonic style as very mannered without any reason.

Old Ukrainian text has another good values: construction Cъ/ьSC was unchanged until mid-Ⅻ, when they changed into о and e. Just after this time we see appearings of o and e, while yer-letters still were using a long time. The first text is in 1164: испєрва, съмєрти gen. sg., исполнь; and after this you may find at least one the such occurence in a text where, even in high-level writers.

3. Writing with two yers, and a problem of «the second liquid metathesis»

There was another variation of writing Cъ/ьSC in Old Ukrainian texts: with a yer before a sonorant, and with an apostrophe or with the second yer after the sonorant. This writing we will call as a writing with two yers, — often occured in very early texts, as in 1073. Its the first writer often wrote as Cъ/ьSʼC, the second wrote as Cъ/ьSъ/ьC (51 times); examples: чьрʼта ‘риска’, пьрʼвыихъ gen. pl., ѹмьрʼлъ — сквьрьно ‘погано’, испълънь ‘сповнений’. Writing with two yers is featured in some texts Син. Патер. Ⅺ (сьрʼдьцє, твьрʼдѣ) and 1117; etc. Writing an additional yer wasnʼt depended on being yer — after 1150: e or o — before a sonorant. For this time we may divide into three groups: 1) with often usage: 1164 (пєрьста, мєрьтвии), 1307 (where sometimes о or e are occured instead a yer: коромьчии, зємлєполозныꙗ); 2) with occasional usage; 3) as an exception.

Thereʼre no areal distinctions, but we can note, that most texts with two-yer writing are mostly from Kyïv. Obviously, using this writing mostly depended on writerʼs education than on the local language. Also we can note, in oldest texts, where is the such writing, an apostrophe is prefered over a yer.

About interpetation, thereʼs a debate. Potebni saw in this a colloquial phenomen, and called it as the second liquid metathesis (povnoholos), but he consider this type as Novgorod region, basically North Russian. With some changes, linking this phenomen to Old Ukrainian text, the same thougts had Sololevsky, Šaxmatov (1915), Kulbabin, fan Vajk, Markov, Filit etc. As the second method, often associated with Yagich: two-yer writing is just orthographic convention — one yer before a sonorant based on a local language, and the second with reverse is based on Church Slavonic traditiond. With the such view, they tried show their own pronounce, but without breaking the tradition. Again, this thesis, with some changes, was agreed by: Šaxmatov (1902), Fortunatov, Buzuk. There also was a thesis, that an apostrophe and the second yer could mark a syllabic [characteristic] sonorant (Černyx, Sydorov, Holyšenko) or its softing / hardening (Kovaliv).

Thereʼre some facts, which on the view shows its artificiality — верьхнии (after 1349), пєрєвоѣ (1418), which also could be a typo; anyway, thereʼre many. If the second yers were real yers, we could expect that they mostly lost after yer-declining, but their usage was the same as before. A choice which a yer should be — ь or ъ — as in some later texts (ⅩⅣ), was depended, as we may see, by type of the next consonant (ь mostly appearred before labial, midle-palatal, velar & dental — with a fron vowel; ъ — before dental with the next back vowel: отвєръство, вєрьхѹ, пєрьвии), which contradict to idea as vowel-harmony realization, because in two sides of sonorant would be used the same vowel.

However, as an opposite view, according to which thisʼs only an artifical orthograpy is also unacceptable, because thereʼre no combination of Old Church Slavonic orthogrpahy tradition with Old Ukrainian, also thereʼre no precedent of developing of the such orthography, maybe by an exception writhing рє as compromise between Church Slavonic рѣ and a local єрє (дрѣво × дєрєво = *дрєво), but thereʼre specific reasons, and compromise was no only about spelling, but also pronouncing (more in 13.4).

Finding a way to remove those contradictions — we speak only about Old Ukrainian, because in Old Russian was a different situation, — we shouldnʼt dismiss the fact, that an apostrophe was used more than a yer. Analyzing yer-declining, we may assume, that an apostrofe was introduced as a unvoicing mark of a weak yer. This observation is related to cases as мьрʼтва (1073). By the such writing, it indicated a strong yer before a sonorant, and unvoiced one after it. Need to note, in general the such unvoiced yers mostly occured with unvoiced consonants and sonorants. In analized case, a yer was near to sonorant exactly. It was a real phenomenon in language before yer-declining; if apostrophe sometimes was changed by a yer, then it was due interchangabe two orthographic tricks, when tradition required a yer, but pronounce — an apostrophe. In essence, thus writing an apostrophe was not artifical, it was just orthographic phenomenon; but artifical was changing it into a yer.

After yer-declining this unvoiced yer should totally declined, even if the next syllabe had a weak yer. A position was very important to understand a yer (not near sonorant, after which was the next consonant), while yers were dividing to strong and weak (around 1050); but fromnow (around 1150), being or not-being a yer as a vowel was depended not a position, but voicing or unvoicing — and in Cъ/ьSC all yer after sonorant were unvoiced. As result, a marking of them turned into an orthographic converntion. We may say, a Potebiʼs view is more about pre-1150, and Yagich — later epoch.

In this case, a terminology «the second liquid metathesis» is not very resonable. The second vowel in Cъ/ьSC wasnʼt the same to the first, and after-1150 in the next evolution it was losting. If we use the such phrase, then only as just convention.

As conclusive arguments for them, or against, we may get if we look at the situation in Middle and Modern Ukrainian: do we find there a result of Cъ/ьSC (aka Cъ/ьSʼC) in Cо/еSC or Co/eSo/eC? Finding the reflexes of the second type would refute the stated view.

For the modern Ukrainian two-syllabe reflexes of Cъ/ьSC are very atypical. Hovewer, something similar to it we can find. We need find out their origin: are those forms of later changes, or are result of Cъ/ьSʼC?

Two-syllabe reflexs of a yer + sonorant between consonants can be find in Modern Ukrainian words:

  1. чо́вен, по́вен, те́рен, де́рен (< чьлнъ, пълнъ, тьрнъ, дьрнъ)
  2. зере́нце, кочере́жка, джоло́нка ‘дятел’, ополо́нка (also ополо́ник from 1642 at late), вірьо́вка, — compare: зе́рно, коче́рга, жо́вна, по́вний, верве́чка;
  3. за́пороток ~ за́порток (comp. вы́поротокъ ‘викидень’, 1627; запорток ‘яйце-бовтун’, 1642), щолопок / чолопок (comp. щовб ‘скеля’)
  4. жеретія́ ‘ненажера’, comp. же́рти.

Words from 1. after yer-declining were ending with a consonant + a sonorant. In undergoing the next evolution, thereʼre occured droppable e or o, comp.: вѣтръ > ві́тер, замислъ > за́мисел, огнь > вого́нь. In 2. we collected words which were created by a suffix which were starting with a yer, after its reducing we get S + C + C (zьrnьce > zernce, kočьržьka > kočeržka, opъlnъka > opolonka etc); in the such cases, a vowel was inserted (in Middle Ukrainian, mostly e), or a middle sonorant was removed, examples: трьми > MdlU трєми instr (ⅩⅥ), *jigъlьnoe > (оу̏хо) иглєноє (1571), рємєсльникъ > рємєсникъ; also comp. MdrnU па́семце diminutive from пасмо (< *pasmьce), ребре́рце diminutive from ребро́ etc. In both cases, a vowel appeared after a yer-declining, thus itʼs not a reflex of yer, and also doesnʼt have nothing with the second liquid metathesis. Words in 2. are from this type, and only by coincidence remind the liquid metathesis (LM). Three words which left in 3. and 4. are not very clear, but even they arenʼt LM. From *zaporъtъkъ : *zapъrtъka we should expect за́порток : за́портка (and those variations are in usage), but in -rtk- in non-direct cases, appearing a vowel was possible. The same чолопок in non-direct cases had a base which ends with three consonants (*ščъlbъka > *ščolbka), thus there a vowel was put. The second feautre is marked by unvoicing b to p, which couldnʼt be realised if this vowel was from ъ. A word ополо́ник in 2. could be this type if the origin sufix wasnʼt -ik- (> -yk-), but had a yer: *opъln-ъkъ : *opъln-ъka. Puting in non-direct cases, a new base with an inserted vowel would came to nom. sg. too. A word жеретія́ is another different case: itʼs not from the modern же́рти (which is a new word of ⅩⅦ, look 6.5г), but from older form жєрєти (comp. OChSl (по)жрѣти), thus it has the «first», aka real, LiqMet.

So, we have a conclusion, in the Modern Ukrainian thereʼre no cases or examples of the second LiqMet.

4. Spreading areal, conditions and results

Evolution of Cъ/ьSC is actual for all Ukrainian dialects, also itʼs actual (with notes about a-ing or its lacking) for Russian or Belarusian. But in Russian, esp. in northern dialects, the second LiqMet was developed indeed. Probably, the first stage was common (unvoiced vowel after a sonorant); but in Old Ukrainian this vowel havnʼt remained due yer-declining was earlier, while in northen Russian dialects, where yer-declining occured in 100 years later, the inserted sound come in time to turn into a vowel (Markov). Thereʼs also could be Finnish incluence.

In Polish and East Slovak, as in Ukrainian, yers with sonorant with the next consonant, were turned into — no matter, strong or weak position — into a different vowel (not as yer) which their system had. But, instead one sound for ъ, and other for ь, they had a wide variation of reflexes depending on their sound neighbouring: Polish garnek, twardy, pełny, chełm, żółw, wilk, and due metathesis słup, długi (more cases with oł in Mazovi and Silezi dialects). In Bulgarian ə occured after ъ, ь, and its position is depends on consonant clustering. No one language have a result of unvoiced vowel which would be resulted after a sonorant. So, this phenomenon in Polish, East Slovak and Bulgarian was different from Ukrainian.

From chronology aspect, occurence of Ukrainian phenomenon is dated mid-Ⅻ, which is going after mentioned East Slovak, Bulgarian (around Ⅹ), Polish (Ⅺ) processes, but before Russian (mid. ⅩⅢ) and, possible, Belarusian. From inner structure, it was just a part of a general process of yer-declining; the only distinction is in distribution of weak and strong yers. As result, no pholonogic system, no a syllabe struture doesnʼt have notabe changes, if we compare to general yer-declining.

5. Deviations

Middle and Modern Ukrainian have a notable number of deviations from regural reflexs in Cъ/ьSC.

Theyʼre mostly Polonisms:

Polish language, probably, influenced for introducing e instead expected o in Boiko: бевз ~ бевза, comp. toponims Белз and Певжа — comp. Pol. pełzać.

Probably Belarusianism: карнову́хий — Bel. карна́ти

Romanian was as inter-language of spreading South-Slavic with Bulgarian ə, Serbo-Croatian r̥ thro y: гирло — Rom. gî́rlă, SCr kȑd; ти́рло ← Rom. tî́rlă ← Bulg. тъ́рло; probably ви́рла ← Rom. vîrlán ← Bulg. върл, SCr vȑljav, vȑlo; but ми́ршавий, while Rom. mîrșáv, is mostly from Slovac mrcha, Čech mrcha, probably thro Polish dial. mercha (comp. Lith. marcha).

All those words came into Ukrainian after-Ⅻ.

Other group of deviations are by affectivity, often related to onomatopea. Those deviations, at least partly, could be also archaism in a preserved pre-yer reflex of a vowel (u or prolonged y). To this number we may apply:

Both variation could be occure in one the same root: моркоті́ти ~ мурмоті́ти ~ ми́ркати and (with metathesis) ми́мрити; comp. also a form ма́мрати (with a).

In affectivity lexicon, forms often occure metathesis as in an example мимрити. There were also secondary creation where yer never been: ге́рбувати and гребувати (with association гребти); Mid Ukr. хорбак, which is from хроба́к ~ гроба́к, comp. Pol. robak.

Thereʼs also affective forms with a: га́ркати, са́ркати, sometimes before l can be occured e: бе́вкнути, бе́взь, comp. Čech blázen.

In Lemko dialect y occure instead regular o ← ъ in such words: гырлиця, сырна, сыршін, пригырщи, вырчати, пырхати. Those could be from Slovak r̥, not regular ъr, if Old East Slovak r̥ was, and Lemki were at this time were contacting. Otherwise this reflex should be explained as mistaking CъrC and CrъC, as it happened within грытан ~ гыртан ← грътань. Thereʼre no affectivity, they occured after yer-declining.

And finily cases, where a sonorant or one of consonants was lost.

Sonorant was lost in some clusters, as: переве́сник if itʼs from *perevьrstъnikъ — comp. верства́. (about losing l — look 30.6)

A consonant lost after a sonorant in a cluster at the word end (тепе́р < то-пьрв-, четве́р < чєтвьргъ), also in some clusters in the middle (се́рце < сьрдьцє. Losting the last -l is very typical for verb forms m. past. as уме́р, тер < ѹмьрлъ, тьрлъ.

#linguistic #ukrainian