Tuesday, September 27, 2016

About the Approximation of Fricatives in Slavic Loanwords

Относно апроксимирането на проходнитѣ съгласни при заемки в славянски


    About the Approximation of Fricatives in Slavic Loanwords


Table of Contents:

.. to the bottom ..

1. Defining the problem

Note: The problem is approached through Bulgarian perspective. It can be easily aligned to any other Slavic perspective.
Two Bulgarian words - old loanwords from Greek into Slavic - колиба and кораб - have a peculiarity: the Greek beta appears as б[b] instead of в[v] as expected since the Greek pronunciation at the time of borrowing was already в[v] and not б[b] anymore.
  • Bulg. колиба <= Gr. καλύβη
  • Bulg. кораб <= OldSlav./Rus. корабль <= Gr. καράβιον => Port. caravela => It. caravella
Quotes from Ivan Charalampiev (Bulgarian Etymological Dictionary: school edition, Slovo, Turnovo, 1998):
колиба: Една от двете най-стари гръцки заемки в славянските езици заедно с кораб, сравни в старогръцки καλύβη, заета още преди настаняването на славяните на Балканския полуостров.
One of the two oldest loanwords from Greek into Slavic along with кораб, see Ancient Greek καλύβη, borrowed before the Slavic migration to the Balkans.
кораб: Една от двете най-стари гръцки заемки в славянските езици, старогръцки κάραβος, заедно с колиба.
One of the two oldest loanwords from Greek into Slavic, Ancient Greek κάραβος, along with колиба
Quotes from Bulgarian Etymological Dictionary, Vol. II (И – КРЕПЯ, Bulgarian Academy of Science, Sofia 1979):
кораб: Праслав. *karābjь. Стара заемка (с б < β и о < α в неударено положение) от гр. καράβιον, стгр. κάραβος ..

Според Vasmer, REW, 1, 622 предположението за тракийско посредничество (Romanski, Brückner) е неубедително. Romanski изказва възможност и за връзка с кора, корито (прасл. *(s)ker-), което според Vasmer е неправдоподобно, понеже остава необяснена група –бль. Pokorny 943-944 вижда родство с бълг. коруба .., което е неправдоподобно. Обяснението на Perveden .., че гр. καράβιον е от славянски, е също неправдоподобно. Заето (от бълг.) в рум.
Proto-Slavic *karābjь. An old loanword (having б[b] <= β and о <= α unstressed) from Gr. καράβιον, Ancient Greek κάραβος ..

According Vasmer, REW, 1, 622, the hypothesis about Thracian mediation (Romanski, Brückner) is unconvincing. Romanski suggests possible connection to кора, корито (Proto-Slavic *(s)ker-), which Vasmer considers improbable because the cluster –бль cannot be explained in that way. Pokorny 943-944 sees a cognation with Bulg. коруба .., which is unlikely. Perveden's opinion .. that Gr. καράβιον is from Slavic, is improbable as well. Borrowed (from Bulg.) to Rumanian.
колиба: От стгр. Καλύβη. Предаването на β с б и промяната α > о сочат, че е стара гръцка заемка, заета от славянските племена преди настаняването им на Балканския полуостров, заедно с кораб.

Вж. К. Мирчев, Историческа граматика, 62, М. Филипова-Байрова, Гр. Заемки, 109.
..
Неоснователно Miklosich .., Romansky, ..Berneker, .. смятат, че думата е дошла чрез тюркско посредничество. Обратно, тур. кoliba е от слав., вж. Vasmer, ИОРЯС, 12, 2, 243. Тракийско посредничество е неправдоподобно, вж. Krahe III, 116.
..
Заето (от български, б.м.) и в рум. .., алб. ..
From AncientGreek Καλύβη. Passing β as б[b] and the change α => о show that it is an old loanword from Greek, borrowed by the Slavic tribes before they migrated to the Balkans, along with кораб.

See K. Mirchev, Historical Grammar of Bulgarian, 62, М. Филипова-Байрова, Гр. Заемки, 109.
..
Miklosich .., Romansky, ..Berneker, .. consider a Turkic mediation for this word which is baseless. On the contrary, Turkish кoliba is a borrowing from Slavic, see Vasmer, ИОРЯС, 12, 2, 243. Thracian mediation is unlikely, see Krahe III, 116.
..
Borrowed (from Bulgarian, ChrTam) to Rumanian .. and .. Albanian.
Passing the Greek vowel A to the Slavic O by itself does not imply any particular or peculiar antiquity of those loanwords. The same is observed for instance in some placenames like {TheSALONiki=>} Солун [Solun] and {Adrianopolis=>} Одрин [Odrin], for which it is hardly to say that they were borrowed before the Slavic migration to the Balkans.

However, passing the Greek βῆτα as Slavic Б[B], at first glance, is intriguing and requires a particular explanation. Traditionally, this is explained in this way: those two borrowings, колиба and кораб, are too old, from the time when the Greek βῆτα still sounded as b, i.e. before the 3rd century AD, because in the 4th century AD the Greek βῆτα already sounded as [v], everywhere and forever.

The Etymological dictionary of Slavic Languages (Proto-Slavic lexical fond) misses the word колиба. However, it contains a several page entry for кораб, demonstrating many inconsistencies, e.g.:
..
.. Но греч. καράβιον как обозначение морского судна засвидетельствовано лишь в византийскую эпоху, будучи уменьшительным производным от κάραβος..
..
..
.. However, Gr. καράβιον as a denotation of a naval vessel has been attested since Byzantine times only, being a diminutive of κάραβος..
..

For another Bulgarian word, босилек[bosilek], it is conventionally assumed to be borrowed from Lat. basilicum and not directly from Gr. βασιλικόν, which can explain the [b] sound. For this word, босилек[bosilek], this explanation should be accepted, most probably.

.. to the top ..

2. The Anticipated Result in Brief


It shall be demonstrated that passing an original [v] sound as [b] in Slavic loanwords which were borrowed before the 8th century AD can be consider normal and regular rather than peculiar. And, of course, this phenomenon can be observed in other loanwords, too, besides колиба and кораб.

In addition, I shall use this problem as defined above to make a popular introduction into the Indo-European comparativistics. Those familiar with the latter can skip the chapters 3, 4 and 5, and go to the chapter 6 directly.

.. to the top ..

3. Excursus in Terminology: Classification of the Consonants in the modern Bulgarian Language


Based on the modern Bulgarian language, this is an attempt to provide the public with the classification of consonants and the related terminology as necessary for the issue.


3.1. Two Types of Consonants: Obstruents and Sonorants


In the modern Bulgarian language, the following are sonorant consonants: Λ[l], М[m], Н[n], Р[r], Й[j].

The rest of consonants are obstruent consonants or just obstruents.

Obstruents can be considered as true consonants while sonorant consonants can be considered as semi-vowels.


3.1.1. The Sonorant Consonant Й[J] and the Statute of the Soft Consonants in Bulgarian

In the official Bulgarian orthography, the sonorant consonant (semi-vowel) Й[J], is denoted not only by the letter Й but also as a part of the letters Ю and Я. Fyromians use the letter J to denote it.

Usually, the soft consonants and hard consonants in Bulgarian are considered as separate phonemes. This is a tradition that came from the other Slavic languages, primarily from Russian.

In an alternative way, any soft consonant in Bulgarian can be considered as a diphthong rather than as a separate phoneme. That diphthong consists of the corresponding hard consonant followed by the sonorant consonant Й[J].

In ancient Greek, for both the the sonorant consonant (semi-vowel) Й[J] and for the И[I] vowel in its both short and long versions, the same letter I (ἰῶτα) was used. That letter I (ἰῶτα) was borrowed from the Greek alphabet to (the Roman alphabet and) to the old Cyrillic alphabet with those functions: for both the vowel and the semi-vowel.


3.1.2. The Sonorant Consonant W (semi-vowel U)

In Bulgarian, the sonorant consonant (or the semi-vowel) W appeared recently in some loanwords from English, primarily names. Please compare. In the older loanwords, the English semi-vowel W appears as a consonant В[v]: Вашингтон (<=Washington). In most loanwords, however, the English semi-vowel W stays: Уисконсин (<=Wisconsin), Уол стрийт (<=Wall Street), хардуер (<=hardware), софтуер (<=software), уиндоуз (<=windows). Because of the many loanwords from Turkish, it has been recognized that there is a consonant ДЖ(Џ)[dʒ] in Bulgarian. Now, because of the many loanwords from English, it should be recognized that there is a sonorant consonant (a semi-vowel) W in Bulgarian. For it, the letter Ў, existing in the Belorussian version of the Cyrillic alphabet and analogous to the letter Й, could be adopted.


3.2. Obstruent Consonants: Voiced and Voiceless


Those are the obstruents that are divided into these two groups: voiced and voiceless.

Below, all obstruents in Bulgarian are listed and grouped as voiced and voiceless:
voiceless  voiced
П[p]Б[b]
Ф[F]В[v]
Т[t]Д[d]
К[k]Г[g]
С[s]З[z]
Ш[ʃ]Ж[ʒ]
Ч[tʃ]ДЖ(Џ)[dʒ] (the phonemic status of [dʒ] is suspicious)
Ц[ts]ДЗ[dz] (the phonemic status of [dz] is more than suspicious)
Х[x](Х has a voiced alophone but has not a related voiced phoneme)


3.3. Obstruent Consonants: Plosives (Stops), Fricatives, Affricates


In addition to the voiceless-voiced division, the obstruents are classified in the following three categories:
  • Plosives (Stops): П[p], Б[b], Т[t], Д[d], К[k], Г[g]
  • Fricatives: С[s], З[z], Х[x], Ф[f], В[v], Ш[ʃ], Ж[ʒ]
  • Affricates (a combined consonant that begins with a plosive and ends with a fricative): Ч(ТШ)[tʃ], Џ(ДЖ)[dʒ], Ц(ТС)[ts], ДЗ[dz]
In Bulgarian, the following consonants are mutually related and differ by the plosive-fricative characteristic only: {П[p] and Ф[f]}, {Б[b] and В[v]}, {К[k] and Х[x]}.

In Bulgarian, the plosives Т[t], Д[d], Г[g] have no corresponding fricatives and the fricatives С[s], З[z], Ш[ʃ], Ж[ʒ] have no corresponding plosives.

The following table summarizes the correspondence of obstruents in Bulgarian according to their plosive-fricative characteristic:
--
Plosive(Stop)  Fricative
П[p]Ф[f]
Б[b]В[v]
К[k]Х[x]
Г[g]-
Т[t]-
Д[d]-
-С[s]
-З[z]
-Ш[ʃ]
-Ж[ʒ]


3.4. Aspirated Obstruent Consonants


In Bulgarian, there are no aspirated obstruents. If an aspirated consonant from Chinese speach, e.g., somehow enters Bulgarian ears, the Bulgarian mind in the background would not notice the aspiration.

.. to the top ..

4. Obstruents in Greek


The following GR-table shows the obstruent consonants in Greek: (show the old image)

Basic matrix of some consonant phonemes in Greek Column: Neutral consonant phonemes Π_Τ_Κ Column: Voiced consonant phonemes Β_Δ_Γ Column: General consonant phonemes Φ_Θ_Χ
Row: Labial consonant phonemes Π (Pi) [p] Β (Beta) [b] => [v] Φ (Phi) [ph] => [f]
Row: Dental consonant phonemes Τ (Tau) [t] Δ (Delta) [d] => [δ] Θ (Theta) [th] => [θ]
Row: Velar consonant phonemes Κ (Kappa) [k] Γ (Gamma) [g] => [γ] Χ (Chi) [ch] => [χ]
Old sounding (before 300BCE) Voiceless, Plosive Voiced, Plosive Voiceless, Plosive, Aspirated
New sounding (after 400CE) Voiceless, Plosive Voiced, Fricative Voiceless, Fricative
Tracing from the old to the new Stability Plosives to Fricatives Plosives to Fricatives, Aspiration eliminated
Legend for the colors of cells Sounds existing also in Slavic in the 9-10th centuries The case being discussed in the topic Fricatives missing in Slavic in the 9-10th centuries and approximated by the corresponding plosives


All obstruents in Greek except Σ (Sigma) and Ζ (Zeta) are listed in the GR-table above.

Actually, all plosives in Ancient Greek are listed in the GR-table. It is shown that two thirds of them changed from plosives to fricatives by the 3rd-4th century. Since Slavic missed most of those fricatives, in loanwords from Greek into Slavic, the missing fricatives were replaced by the corresponding plosives: Иосип[Josip](<=Ἰωσήφ), театро[teatro](<=θέατρο), Георги[Georgi](<=Γεώργιος), Димитър[Dimitъr](<=Δημήτριος).

It is demonstrated in this article that the fricative [v], the new sounding of Β(Beta), see the red cell above in the GR-table, was also missing in Slavic by 700/800AD. If so, then the voiced fricative [v] would be regularly approximated by the corresponding voiced plosive [b].

.. to the top ..

5. Popular History of the Indo-European Consonants



5.1. Introductory Review


The basic model of the phonology of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language is that of the NeoGrammarians (NG), elaborated in the 19th century. In the 20th century, two complements to the NG model were introduced: the Laryngeal theory and the Glottalic hypothesis.

According to the basic NG model, PIE had:
  • obstruents (obstruent consonants, true consonants)
  • ten vowels ([a], [o], [e], [i], [u] – with short and long variants, same as in Latin)
  • diphthongs ([ai], [oi], [ei], [au], [ou], [eu])
  • sonorant consonants [m], [n], [l], [r], [j] (I semi-vowel), [w] (U semi-vowel)
In PIE, the sonorants [m], [n], [l], [r] could be syllabic (syllabopoetic) or non-syllabic. Actually, all the six sonorant consonants could be syllabic (syllabopoetic) or non-syllabic: in a syllabic position, the semi-vowels [j] and [w] became true vowels [i] and [u]. The Laryngeal theory uses that fact and postulates the following:
  • PIE had obstruents (obstruent consonants, true consonants), of course
  • PIE had also the following six sonorants: [i], [u], [m], [n], [l], [r], and each of them had three allophones:
    • a syllabic allophone
    • an allophone before a vowel
    • an allophone after a vowel, forming a diphthong in this way
  • [+] PIE is supposed to have also some (usually three) laryngeals: consonants whose exact phonetic values cannot be now discovered
  • [+] The PIE phonemes listed so far formed the skeleton of a word. Usually, a PIE-root contained three such phonemes.
  • [+] As a complement to the word skeleton, PIE had an ablaut (apophony)
  • [+] PIE is supposed to have some (usually six) ablaut grades:
    • zero grade – normal and long
    • E-grade – normal and long
    • O-grade – normal and long
  • [+] In the model, the laryngeals are defined in such a way that the ablaut rules seem as simple as possible.

.. to the top ..

5.2. The Obstruents in PIE (Proto-Indo-European) and Tracking Them to Slavic


All obstruents (obstruent consonants, true consonants) in PIE {except [s]} are listed in the following PIE-table: (show the old image)


Basic matrix of PIE obstruents Column: Neutral consonant phonemes Π_Τ_Κ Column: Voiced/Glottalic consonant phonemes Β_Δ_Γ Column: General consonant phonemes Φ_Θ_Χ
Row: Labial consonant phonemes Π (piePi) [NG:p][Grimm:f] Β (pieBeta) [NG:b][Grimm:p] Φ (piePhi) [NG:bh][Grimm:b]
Row: Dental consonant phonemes Τ (pieTau) [NG:t][Grimm:θ] Δ (pieDelta) [NG:d][Grimm:t] Θ (pieTheta) [NG:dh][Grimm:d]
Row: Velar consonant phonemes with no para‑sound Κ (pieKappa) [NG:k][Grimm:h] Γ (pieGamma) [NG:g][Grimm:k] Χ (pieChi) [NG:gh][Grimm:g]
Row: Velar consonant phonemes with +j para‑sound Κj (pieKappa+j) [NG:kj][Grimm:h] Γj (pieGamma+j) [NG:gj][Grimm:k] Χj (pieChi+j) [NG:ghj][Grimm:g]
Row: Velar consonant phonemes with +w para‑sound Κw (pieKappa+w) [NG:kw][Grimm:hw] Γw (pieGamma+w) [NG:gw][Grimm:kw] Χw (pieChi+w) [NG:ghw][Grimm:gw]
[NG‑interpretation] Sounding as supposed by the basic NG model (The velar consonants with a para-sound are discussed separately outside this table) Voiceless, Plosive (as in Greek, Latin and Slavic) Voiced, Plosive (as in AncientGreek, Latin and Slavic) Voiced, Plosive, Aspirated (Voiced as in Sanskrit, despite Voiceless in Greek)
[Grimm] Sounding in Proto-Germanic according to the Grimm's law Voiceless, Fricative Voiceless, Plosive Voiced, Plosive
[Glottalic interpretation] Sounding as supposed by the Glottalic hypothesis Voiceless, Plosive, Aspirated Glottalic, Plosive, no aspiration (no matter Voiceless/Voiced) Voiced, Plosive, Aspirated
Tracing from the Glottalic interpretation to the NG‑interpretation Aspiration eliminated Glottality eliminated, Voice assigned Stability


Two interpretations of PIE plosives are given in the PIE-table above: the NG-interpretation and the Glottalic interpretation.

Please note that all consonants listed in the above PIE-table are supposed to be plosives by both the NG-interpretation and the Glottalic interpretation.

The following obstruents (true consonants) which exist in Bulgarian and are fricatives or affricates were missing in PIE: В[v], Ж[ʒ], З[z], Ф[f], Х[x], Ц(ТС)[ts], Ч(ТШ)[tʃ], Ш[ʃ], Џ(ДЖ)[dʒ], ДЗ[dz].

The above PIE-table is based on the similar GR-table. The last row of the GR-table, the velar one, was now divided into three rows: pure velars, palatovelars (having a para-sound +j), and labiovelars (having a para-sound +w). Ignoring the para-sounds would reduce the PIE-table cells to the corresponding GR-table cells (with the peculiarity still at the pieBeta cell).

Note: I added a reference to the article of Biliana Mihaylova "An Outline of Indo-European Phonetics" and I recommend it. It is in Bulgarian. I added also some comments about that article, also in Bulgarian. The intersection of this article and the referenced article of Biliana Mihaylova is in this section: Popular History of the Indo-European Consonants.

.. to the top ..

5.2.1. Glottalic hypothesis
  • The plosives are traced to Proto-Slavic directly from the NG-interpretation. So, Slavic does not need the glottalic hypothesis.

  • The glottalic interpretation was introduced just some decades ago. It helps in explaining the following:

    • Proto-Germanic obstruents (Grimm's law) can be easily explained in this way:
      • In the Glottalic column: No Voice was assigned
      • In the Neutral column: due to the Aspiration, plosives changed to fricatives
      • In all the three columns: Aspiration and "Glotality" were eliminated

    • A typological problem can be solved by the glottalic hypothesis. It was shown that world-wide there are no languages having voiced aspirated consonants and no voiceless aspirated consonants. According the NG-interpretation, the PIE language would be atypical and unique. The glottalic hypothesis introduces aspiration to the neutral column thus discontinuing the uniqueness of PIE.

    • If we accept the assertion that the glottalic pieBeta was very hard to pronounce, then the rarety of pieBeta in the PIE-roots could be explained.

  • As far as Greek was involved in the topic, tracing from the glottalic interpretation to the GR-table would be appropriate:

    • In the Glottalic column: Voice was assigned (different than Proto-Germanic) and "Glotality" was eliminated as expected
    • In the Neutral column: the Aspiration was eliminated
    • And at the end, in the General column: Voice was eliminated

  • And of course, Slavic cannot be bypassed here. Tracing from the glottalic interpretation to Proto-Slavic could be as follows:

    • In the Glottalic column: Voice was assigned (similar to Greek-Latin-Sanskrit, and different than Proto-Germanic)
    • In the Glottalic column: "Glotality" was eliminated (as everywhere in the PIE-world)
    • In both the Neutral and the General columns: the Aspiration was eliminated
      • causing the merger of these columns in Slavic:
      • a similar table for Proto-Slavic would have just two columns: voiceless (PIE-neutral) and voiced (PIE-glottalic-general)

We are now at that point in the PIE-table: the velar rows with para-sounds.

.. to the top ..

5.2.2. The Para-Sound +w at the Velar Row in the Table of PIE Obstruents

According to the +w para-sound, the IE-languages can be divided into three groups:
  • With the +w para-sound preserved (Latin, [Proto-]Germanic)
  • With the +w para-sound eliminated ([Proto-]Slavic)
  • With some traces (vestiges, remnants) of the +w para-sound (Greek)
The +w para-sound can be seen in Latin and [Proto-]Germanic. For instance, in Latin, the [k+w] consonant is denoted as qu. In [Proto-]Germanic, according to the Grimm's law, [k+w] changed to hw, which is denoted as wh in the modern English.

In Greek, the +w para-sound modified the velars so that their "velarity" was lost giving Π, Τ, Β or Ζ according to the phonetic environment and to the column in the PIE-table.

In [Proto-]Slavic, the +w para-sound has been eliminated completely.

.. to the top ..

5.2.3. The Para-Sound +j at the Velar Row in the Table of PIE Obstruents

According to the +j para-sound, the IE-languages can be divided into two groups:
  • With the +j para-sound eliminated (kentum group of IE-languages)
  • With some traces of the +j para-sound (satem group of IE-languages)

IE-languages having preserved the +j para-sound are not attested.

Greek, Latin, and [Proto-]Germanic belong to the kentum group. They have no traces of the +j para-sound.

[Proto-]Slavic belongs to the satem group. In the satem IE-languages, the +j para-sound modified the velars so that their "velarity" was lost. [Proto-]Slavic has С[s] from PIE [k+j] and З[z] from PIE [g+j]. Please remember that the other para-sound, +w, has been eliminated in [Proto-]Slavic.

.. to the top ..

6. Popular History of the Sonorant Consonant W in Some IE Languages


Please have a look at chapters 3.1.2 and 5.1 again.

Please remember that PIE is supposed to have a single fricative, [s]. All the other obstruents in PIE are supposed to be plosives.

This means that the fricative [v] was missing in PIE. PIE, however, had a sonorant consonant (a semi-vowel) [w] as an allophone of [u].

For each PIE-language having the [v] fricative now, the following question could be asked: in which way that language got that fricative in its phonetic repertory.
  • {Greek} Already in pre-classical Greek, the old [w] PIE sonorant consonant became a fricative, probably voiced and aspirated, denoted by the F (digamma) letter. Later, that Greek fricative, digamma, disappeared, leaving an aspiration which also disappeared. The F (digamma) letter fell off the Greek alphabet; it has been still used to denote the number 6. We may consider appropriate here to think that there was no [v] fricative in classical Ancient Greek. The [v] fricative appeared in Greek only when [pieBeta] changed from [b] to [v] (please see the chapter 4).

  • {Latin:Romance} In classical Latin, all the three allophones of the [u] phoneme (as a vowel, as a part of a diphthong, and as a [w] consonant) were denoted by the same letter U-V. Please note that the letters U и V were not distinguished until the Middle Ages. In particular, this means that when the U-V letter denoted a consonant in classical Latin, it still sounded as a sonorant consonant (as a semi-vowel) [w]. And soon after the classical times, the change from [w] to [v] in that case happened in Latin-Romance as we find now [v] all over the Romance. We may assume that both Latin-Romance and Greek, the two main languages of the Roman Empire, obtained the [v] fricative synchronously, at the same time approximately. In brief, by 400AD, Latin-Romance already had the [v] fricative which had replaced the old [w] semi-vowel and which was denoted in a new way by the V letter distinguished from U.

  • English has been preserving the old [w] PIE sonorant consonant.

  • {High German} In High German, however, the same change from [w] to [v] happened as in Latin-Romance. When? Most probably, after Romance. Probably, after Slavic as well.

  • {Slavic} In Slavic, at some time, the change from the [w] semi-vowel to the [v] fricative must also have happened, the same change as in Latin-Romance and as in High German. By the end of the 9th century, the [v] fricative already existed in Slavic, and that fricative was denoted by the Greek or Cyrillic letter В. By the traditional assumption, in Slavic, that change is dated at times immemorial because it happened all over the Slavophonia, in all Slavic dialects. This is that assumption which creates the peculiarity of the etymologies of the two Bulgarian words - колиба and кораб, two loanwords from Greek into Slavic, please see the chapter 1 again. By the traditional assumption, Slavic has ever had the [v] fricative, the same fricative as in the Greek originals - καλήβη and καράβιον.
On the one hand, in both languages, Latin-Romance and Slavic, the change from the [w] semi-vowel to the [v] fricative has been implemented in all the descendent languages and dialects. In which way could that change be dated (or antedated)? Times immemorial could be assumed for Latin-Romance, too. However, the considerations about the common letter U-V implies a real dating for Latin-Romance.

On the other hand, the peculiarity of the etymologies of the two loanwords from Greek into Slavic - колиба and кораб, could be enough as an argument to give a real date to that sound change in Slavic: about 700AD (±50). Thus, there is enough time for borrowing those two words from Greek into Slavic before that change and also, there is enough time to 800AD approximately to deliver the Slavophonia to the Dneper river and to the North of Carpathian Mountains.

Please see The CV of Slavophonia. I think that the Slavophonia originated in the basin of the Middle Danube. After the 6th century, the Slavophonia was infiltrated into the territory of the Roman Empire on the Balkans (i.e. the terrritory of present-day Bulgaria). About 800AD, the Slavophonia passed the Carpathian Mountains and reached the Dneper river.

In summary, during the centuries 500AD-700AD, the [v] fricative already existed in both Greek and Romance and was still missing in Slavic. By that reason, in the loanwords from Greak and Latin-Romance into Slavic, the original [v] fricative was approximated by the corresponding plosive Б[b] in a regular base, in the same way as happened with other fricatives missing in Slavic (Gamma, Delta, Phi, Theta).

Besides the two words mentioned so far, колиба and кораб, there are also some ethnonyms in which the original [v] fricative was approximated by the [b] plosive in Slavic:
  • обръ – please compare to Latin avarus and Gr. άβαρος (avar)
  • блъгаринъ – from Lat. vulgaris commoner (Bulgarian)
  • срьбъ – from Lat. servus servant, slave (Serb)
  • доулѣбъ – from Gr. δουλεύων working (Dulebe)
In light of the fact that the international word for slave has its origins from the Slavic own ethnonym, some confusion of the meanings of words may be assumed to have happened. Loanwords originally meaning servant or working could be re-interpreted and perceived as ethnonyms by some Slavophones. Probably, any of these four ethnonyms - Slovene, Bulgarian, Serbs and Dulebes, had the potential to be perceived as an ethnonym all over the Slavophonia - no one succeeded. There is not any common ethnonym for all the Slavophones and there has never been such an ethnonym. And it is normal: there has never been a common ethnonym for people speaking a Germanic language, too.

In relation to the word босилек: it could be now a direct borrowing from Gr. βασιλικόν rather than from Lat. basilicum; we have now an explanation for the [b] plosive at the place of the original [v] fricative. Anyway, the traditional etymology is to be accepted here: that word was borrowed from Lat. basilicum and not directly from Gr. βασιλικόν since Romance knows that word and the stress position in Bulgarian follows Romance.

.. to the top ..

7. References



.. to the top ..

8. Comments, Q&As


Comments and questions will be copied into this section. My comments and answers will appear in this section, too.

  • ◄► ::christo.tamarin, 2016-09-26 21:11:: Old versions of this article:

  • ◄► ::christo.tamarin, 2016-09-27 19:08:: About the word босилек[bosilek]:

    • The traditional etymology is to be accepted here:
    • That word was borrowed from Lat. basilicum and not directly from Gr. βασιλικόν since Romance knows that word and the stress position in Bulgarian follows Romance.

  • ◄► ::christo.tamarin, 2016-09-27 19:25:: We can merely forget about the word доулѣбъ.

  • ►► ::christo.tamarin, 2016-09-27 22:41:: An alternative etymology of the Bulgarian ethnonym was suggested here. My comments about it are in Bulgarian. Show my comments about the etymology of the Bulgarian ethnonym.

  • ►► ::christo.tamarin, 2016-11-03 21:11:: I added a reference to the article of Biliana Mihaylova "An Outline of Indo-European Phonetics" and I recommend it. It is in Bulgarian. My comments about it are also in Bulgarian. Show them.

  • ►► ::christo.tamarin, 2017-12-12 14:22:: An Essay on the Popular Explanation of the Thesis [..Show it..]

  • ►► ::christo.tamarin, 2018-07-09 19:12:: [..Show here..] [..Show there..]

    • PIE reconstructions: Laryngeal Theory and Glottalic Theory [Brian Collins on Quora]

  • ►► ::christo.tamarin, 2019-03-16 16:48:: [..Show there in newscientist.com..]

  • ►► ::christo.tamarin, 2019-04-23 22:36:: Besides кораб and колиба, another example appeared:
    • бунище.

  • ►► ::christo.tamarin, 2019-10-09 21:33:: A new link has been added to the References, Chapter 7:

  • ►► ::christo.tamarin, 2020-10-15 11:45:: About the name of Venice in some Slavic languages.

.. to the top ..








Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,
Last changed at 2024-09-14T12:23:58Z

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)