Same

Slavic Pleophony

Some notes:

3. Free vocalization

All combinatioins as COSC1 in the middle of aword gave in proto-Ukrainian dialects full-vocalized groups: CoarC- > CoroC, CearC- > CereC, CoalC- > ColoC. Interpretation of CealC- was depended on its phonologic accents and sounds. After middle-palatal, and without the next syllaby with a front-vowel, it became as ColoC; and if the next syllaby had a fronted vowel, it became as CeleC. After other consonant it was depended on accents: with accute it was ColóC, with circumflexed — probably CéleC (not so many examples, and some of them are not assured). For other mentioned three, accents didnʼt effect on vocalic structure, but determined its accent: the firs syllabe (with exception where both syllabes arenʼt stressed) when it was circumflexed, and the second if accute (and new-accute, look 7,2).

Some examples:

  1. CoaŕC- (with accut accent): горо́х;
  2. CôarC- (with circumflex accent): по́рох;
  3. CeaŕC- (with accute accent): бере́за;
  4. CêarC- (with circumflex accent): ве́рес;
  5. CoaĺC- (with accute accent): боло́то;
  6. CôalC- (with circumflex accent): со́лод;
  7. CealC- with the first mid-palatal consonant:
    1. with accute accent before a syllaby without a front vowel: шоло́м;
    2. with circumflex accent before a syllaby without a front vowel: жо́лоб;
    3. before a syllabe with a frotn vowel: о́желедь;
  8. CeaĺC- with accute accent) with the first non-mid-palatal consonant: поло́ти;
  9. CêalC- (with circumflex accent) with the first non-mid-palatal consonant: селезі́нка.

А development of full vocalization in proto-Ukrainian dialects theoretically can be explained in two ways: in original COSC- after dediphthongization between liquid and the next conconant an inserted vowel appeared, or the metathesis was the first and then an inserted vowel appeared. On an example of CoarC-:

  1. CoarC- > Coa||rC- > Co||rC- > Co||roC- or
  2. CoarC- > Croa||C- > Cro||C- > Co||roC-

If to chose between those two, the first is preferred. Not only itʼs simpler (because historical changes shouldnʼt go by easiest way), but because an inserted vowel is justified within in such clusters (S+C) while not justified in wide used (as C+S before a vowel). If an inserted vowel appeared in such words as +groxъ > goroxъ, then you should expect them in such words as вродъ, плодъ (modern-Ukrainian брід, плід) etc, from which +borid, +polid would be expected. We should be also noted, that the second o in full-vocalized had different quality: probably it was wider that the regular o. This difference is more obvious if we note that in later each o (and sometimes e) in Ukrainian changed into i in closed syllaby after reduced yers (брод > brȯd > брід), while with mentioned sounds nothing happened (we have горо́х, not +horix); and this phenomenon is easy understand in an inserted vowel, and it cann't be explained in case of a regular o (or e).

4. Chronology of metathesis of liquid and pleophony

It happened for sure in prehistoric times. [examples with rewriting, and loanwords]

From the other side, during Baptism and contacts with Varangians, pleophony didnʼt develop. If cluster of liquid with consonant were removed, then by inserting of yer [examples: (H)elga → Ольга, Old Upper German altāri ~ Latin altāre олтътарь etc].

From this material, this phenomenon happened around between middle Ⅷ and mid. Ⅸ. The such assumption are confirmed by the related chronology such proceses. Both where before reducing accents, which exactly determined a result between o and e during the metathesis, and the accent within pleophony (óro against oró etc). Among those two proceses, metathesis happened before splitting oā̆ into ŏ and ā. Pleophony didnʼt have the such difference: under circumflex and accute accents we have o and e (not a, ě). So, obviously, pleophony happened after splitting oā̆.

5. Areal and after-effect

Metathesis of liquied made a border between proto-Ukrainian dialects with South (agaist proto-Bulgarian), and pleophony: with West (against proto-Polish and proto-Slovak) and South (proto-Bulgarian). While those phenomenons (if we donʼt cound liltle nuances), can be found in other Slavic dialects from the North (proto-Belarusian and proto-Russian).

Nor liquid metathesis, nor pleophony didnʼt provide new phonems. The second vowel problably was wider (to regular o, e), but this difference was only on combinatory level. The changes made accents surplus [examples], and vowel alternations became clearer [examples].

7. Note about vowel harmony

The pleophony can be understand as vowel harmony variation: the second vowel is always the same as the first. Among languages which are neighbour to proto-Ukrainian, vowel harmony was/is a feature of Turkic ones [big not-bad yapping with examples, but with notes that we cann't to prove this; Hungarian was add as example with some notes].

Another similarity: nor Turkic languages, nor Hungarian didnʼt allowed consonant cluster at the word beginning. Slavic dialects allowed it from Proto-Slavic, and later (in Ⅻ there were other new). But exactly at this time, pleophony allowed to stopped new cluster at the word start.

In later times, Ukrainian had other examples of vowel harmony: бога́тий > бага́тий, топе́р > те́пер. All of them has two-syllaby characteristic. The difference with pleophony is a asimilation direction: the next vowel changed the previous (regresive). The result may remind Turkic or Hungarian, but apply principe is different. Thus itʼs hard to explain by Hungarian or Turkic contacts.

  1. C [any consonant], O [any mentioned vowel {as funtional diphtongs / combined sounds: oa, ea}], S [sonors as l and r]↩

#анґлійською #українська #фонолоґія