issues on Bulgarian verbal morphology

[Paul B. Gallagher]

Alexander Sitzmann wrote:

> * = front jer, # = back jer, ê = jat ...., ^V = long vowel, ^C =
> ha^cek, PIE = Proto Indo European, PS = Proto Slavic [Comments on
> Paul B. Gallagher's answers]

Thanks for the refresher. A few comments interspersed below.

> 2. In Bulgarian there are no forms like pletem, letim in 1st sg.
> because they would be homonymous with the 1st pl. (not like in
> Serbian, where the ending of 1st pl. is -mo, there -m for 1st sg.
> was generalized in all conjugations). Here you have the same rule OCS
> oN > # in Bulgarian, therefore nesoN > nes# > nesa and nesoNt# > nes#t
> > nesat (by the way, in Bulgarian these endings are really pronounced
> like -#t). Your problem with the thematic vowel is no problem because
> in 1st sg. and 3rd pl. it's -o, otherwise -e (Ablaut!). [No, the
> thematic vowels were not absent Mr. Gallagher.]

>From the historical and PIE point of view, of course you're right. But
from the Slavic point of view, "theme vowels," and ablaut in general,
become less and less clear, and it becomes easier in the later languages
to analyze them as /e/ present ~ absent rather than as /o/ ~ /e/. What
late Common Slav child, inventing the grammar as s/he grew up, would see
that /o/ in /-oN/, /-oNt#/ alternates with the /-e^si/, /-et#/...?

> 4. In fact, there is no 1st palatalization in your examples, it is
> jotation (or rather the product of jotation, as tj> t' and kt before
> front vowel > t'):
> re^sti < ret'i < rekti < PS rektêj (with the Bulgarian reflex of t'
> > ^st), like for example in PIE makti > Bulgarian mosht, Slovenian
> mo^c and so on. More interesting seems to be, how the 2nd sg. is to
> explain: rekoN, re^ce^si, because we have PS rekôm, *re^cesi >
> *re^cexi > re^ce^si (with 1st palatalization in the last step).
> [There's no penetration of i through t!!!]

These phonological changes are not very easy to explain because it is
hard to see the path from beginning to endpoint. Why, for example,
should -kti- become -tji-? Because the typist is dyslexic and "j" is
next to "k" on the keyboard???
(certainly you would not propose such a ludicrous scenario; I don't mean
to suggest it :-) ...)

Even if we accept that -kti- > -tji-, why should the -j- then jump back
to the other side of the -t-, thus: -kti- > -tji- > -jti- > -s^ti-,
presumably by devoicing of the jod? It seems much more plausible to
posit -kt(i)- directly > *-jt(i)-. Admittedly, we still have to posit
*-tj- > *-jt- metathesis (possibly aided by phonetic palatalization of
the /t/ and confusion with existing *-jt-, also with phonetic
palatalization, from *-kt-), before converting all *-jt- > *-çt- > -s^t-
in the South Slavic branch and -(s^)c^ in the East (retaining the -s^-
under Southern influence, e.g., ES native moguc^ij, borrowed
mogus^c^ij).

However we choose to explain it, the correspondence *tj > SS s^t, ES
(s^)c^ is not very plausible, albeit well attested. If we didn't have
the Slavic record, we would never predict such a change, and if we were
offered such a derivation by a student, we would wonder whether s/he had
any promise as a phonologist.

Finally, as to "penetration of i through t," we do have to explain the
palatalization of the velar somehow, and unless we can get the palatal
feature to extend through the /t/, I just don't see it. The /-kt-/
sequence does not change in the absence of a palatalizing vowel, so it
seems reasonable to attribute the change at least in part to the
palatalizing influence of the /i/.

--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
pbg translations, inc.
"Russian Translations That Read Like Originals"
http://pbg-translations.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                http://members.home.net/lists/seelangs/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------