# Bulgarian/Macedonian -т in Sg. 3



## ahvalj

Old Church Slavonic had _-т-_ in both Sg. 3 and Pl. 3 of the verbs in the Present tense:
_несетъ — несѫтъ
сѣдитъ — сѣдѧтъ
иматъ — имѫтъ_

Modern Standard Bulgarian and Macedonian show _-т _in the Plural but not in the Singular. Are there regional varieties where _-т_ is present in both numbers and is there any explanation why this asymmetry ever emerged?


----------



## Sobakus

The obvious explanation is that removing the -t from the Pl. 3 yields a substantial number of homonyms with Sg. 1 (_несѫ, имѫ)_ and I've always assumed this to be the reason for the spread of the Sg. 1 in -m in the affected languages (BCS _несем – несу_).


----------



## ahvalj

Sobakus said:


> The obvious explanation is that removing the -t from the Pl. 3 yields a substantial number of homonyms with Sg. 1 (_несѫ, имѫ)_ and I've always assumed this to be the reason for the spread of the Sg. 1 in -m in the affected languages (BCS _несем – несу_).


Macedonian:
_чујам — чуе — чујат
молам — моли — молат
имам — има — имаат.
_
Both the Sg. 3 _**чует_ and Pl. 3 _**чуја_ won't disturb the paradigm.


----------



## Sobakus

ahvalj said:


> Macedonian:
> _чујам — чуе — чујат
> молам — моли — молат
> имам — има — имаат.
> _
> Both the Sg. 3 _**чует_ and Pl. 3 _**чуја_ won't disturb the paradigm.


They wouldn't in standard Macedonian, but in Bulgarian they clearly would:
_чуя – чуе – чуят
моля – моли – молят
_
The deletion of this _-t_ obviously goes back some centuries, maybe even to Common Slavic, and thus should be explained by the situation in the language of the day, not the situation in the modern standard language. If my assumption is true, the switch to the _-am_ conjugation should have spread after _-t_ deletion (which is found even in Polish and Ukrainian), and the situation in Bg. and Mk. testifies to that – the former affected only Mk. while the latter didn't affect either. And even if the order was reversed, the two shifts are still evidently independent – being affected by one does not imply being affected by the latter, even if the resulting combination would preserve paradigm distinctions.


----------



## ahvalj

The problem of the history of the Slavic verbal endings is a more complicated one than slavicists used to acknowledge, but I intentionally asked about Bulgarian and Macedonian that have their direct ancestor in the form of Old Church Slavonic, so we _know_ that they had _-t-_ in Sg. 3 a millennium ago.

I understand your argumentation about Bulgarian, but on the other hand the merger of Sg. 2 and Sg. 3 in the Aorist and Imperfect endings that occurred some 1500 years ago (e. g. Bulgarian and Macedonian Aorist _прочита/прочита _and Imperfect _прочиташе/прочиташе_) didn't motivate the speakers to do something with this issue (Old East Slavic e. g. created the Sg. 3 Imperfect _-ашеть: не лѣпо ли ны бꙗшеть, братиѥ_). Again, _for 15 centuries_ the language doesn't distinguish between Sg. 2 and Sg. 3 in both its most used Past tenses — and the Sg. 2 and Sg. 3 are much more prone to be confused contextually than the Sg. 1 and Pl. 3 are.


----------



## DarkChild

ahvalj said:


> Are there regional varieties where _-т_ is present in both numbers and is there any explanation why this asymmetry ever emerged?


I'm not aware of any such varieties. 3rd Sig ending is -T sounds highly unnatural and foreign to my ears.

On the other hand, in Western dialects, the 1st sig ends in -M, which in turn makes the 1st pl end in -ME (in standard language the plural ends in -M)
Standard: az molya - nie molim
Western dialects: az molim - nie molime
This is a problem in -EM and -IM verbs (endings of the 1st plural in Standard)
Of course, there are many verbs that end in -AM even in standard (otivam - otivame), and here there's no differences between dialects.


----------



## ahvalj

Thank you. And are there varieties where -_т_ is absent in the Plural?

Also a question about _foreign: _is this the right word? Doesn't some acquiantance with Church Slavonic make this ending somewhat less alien? Do people in Bulgaria cite phrases from old texts where this or other obsolete traits are present? E. g., a considerable percent of Russians are aware of the former existence of _-х, -ше, -хом, -сте, -ша _and_ -ху_ endings of the Aorist and Imperfect: people don't understand the grammatical meaning of these anymore, but these morphemes aren't perceived as exactly _foreign_.


----------



## uugsxq

ahvalj said:


> Are there regional varieties where _-т_ is present in both numbers



The western Macedonian dialects (except most of the central ones) have _-т_ in both numbers.

In Ohrid, for example, the 3.S.PRS and 3.PL.PRS of _мисли _'think' is [ˈmislit] and [ˈmisleːt], respectively.

The ending *-ętъ was generalized for the 3.PL.PRS. The e-type verbs merged with i-type verbs (cf. *znaj-e-tъ > *znaj-i-tъ > [ˈznai̯t], *znaj-ǫ-tъ > *znaj-ę-tъ > [ˈznaeːt]), so there is no homophony.


----------



## ahvalj

Thanks, that's interesting.


----------



## DarkChild

ahvalj said:


> Thank you. And are there varieties where -_т_ is absent in the Plural?
> 
> Also a question about _foreign: _is this the right word? Doesn't some acquiantance with Church Slavonic make this ending somewhat less alien? Do people in Bulgaria cite phrases from old texts where this or other obsolete traits are present? E. g., a considerable percent of Russians are aware of the former existence of _-х, -ше, -хом, -сте, -ша _and_ -ху_ endings of the Aorist and Imperfect: people don't understand the grammatical meaning of these anymore, but these morphemes aren't perceived as exactly _foreign_.


I can't think of any old texts that contain 3rd person sing -T ending. Old texts, however, do contain cases and thus people are somewhat familiar with them. Same with popular sayings, folklore songs, etc.


----------



## uugsxq

ahvalj said:


> And are there varieties where -_т_ is absent in the Plural?



Absent in both the singular and plural?

In Ljubanci (Skopje), the 3.S.PRS and 3.PL.PRS of _копа _'dig' is [ˈkopa] and [ˈkopae̯], respectively.


----------



## ahvalj

DarkChild said:


> I can't think of any old texts that contain 3rd person sing -T ending. Old texts, however, do contain cases and thus people are somewhat familiar with them. Same with popular sayings, folklore songs, etc.


And how do Bulgarian speakers perceive the _т-_endings (and overall the language) in the church texts:
http://static5.depositphotos.com/10...3951-Fresco-of-Rila-Monastery-in-Bulgaria.jpg
_Свѧтый архаггелъ Михаилъ мꙋчитъ дꙋшꙋ богатагѡ_ / _Свѧтый архаггелъ Михаилъ мучитъ душу богатаго_ ?


----------



## DarkChild

It sounds archaic and in a way Russian. That's my perception. I can't speak of others but I imagine it's something similar.


----------



## ahvalj

Well, this is Russian Church Slavonic, but the actual Old Bulgarian sentence would differ only in the preservation of ѫ: _свѧтыи архаггелъ Михаилъ мѫчитъ дѹшѫ богатаѥго_ (Old Church Slavonic) > _свѧтый архаггелъ Михаилъ мѫчитъ душѫ богатаго_ (Church Slavonic).


----------



## DarkChild

They're all the same to me


----------



## Christo Tamarin

ahvalj said:


> Old Church Slavonic had _-т-_ in both Sg. 3 and Pl. 3 of the verbs in the Present tense:
> _несетъ — несѫтъ
> сѣдитъ — сѣдѧтъ
> иматъ — имѫтъ_
> 
> Modern Standard Bulgarian and Macedonian show _-т _in the Plural but not in the Singular. Are there regional varieties where _-т_ is present in both numbers and is there any explanation why this asymmetry ever emerged?


No. Uniformly, all over Slavo-Balkanic (Bulgarian+Macedonian), the final -T is preserved in Plural (like in Russian) and lost in Singular (like the other Slavic languages except Russian). 

It was claimed in the 19th century, that in a region of Macedonia (now in Greece) the final -T was preserved in Singular too, but I doubt that some speakers survived. Slavophones were expelled from Greece or converted to Hellenophonia in the early 20th century.


----------



## Christo Tamarin

The final -T is preserved in all texts in Church Slavonic, as people usually do in Latin texts. No difference - Russia or Bulgaria.

In principle, in Bulgaria, the Russian pronunciation of Church Slavonic was accepted. So, in Bulgarian churches, you would never hear "_мѫчитъ дѹшѫ богатаѥго" _or_ "архаггелъ Михаилъ мѫчитъ душѫ богатаго"_. It would be "_Свѧтый архаггелъ Михаилъ мучитъ душу богатаго_". As in Russian, but O never goes to A, and -АГО is heard as written.


----------



## ahvalj

Thank you. So, we have two contradicting opinions about the preservation of _-т_ in Sg. in parts of Macedonia (Bulgarian/Macedonian -т in Sg. 3 vs. Bulgarian/Macedonian -т in Sg. 3). And do you people agree with Sobakus (Bulgarian/Macedonian -т in Sg. 3 and Bulgarian/Macedonian -т in Sg. 3) that the drop of _-т_ in Sg. was spontaneous, while in Pl. 3 the consonant persisted (in Bulgarian) to avoid the confusion with Sg. 1 (_неса — несат_)?


----------



## Зрак

Well actually, the 3rd person plural form should be pronounced as -ът, rather than -ат, which is a spelling convention from the end of the nineteenth century, in which case there would result no ambiguities as to meaning.


----------



## ahvalj

Зрак said:


> Well actually, the 3rd person plural form should be pronounced as -ът, rather than -ат, which is a spelling convention from the end of the nineteenth century, in which case there would result no ambiguities as to meaning.


Isn't _-а/я_ in Sg. 1 actually _-ъ_ as well?


----------



## Christo Tamarin

ahvalj said:


> Isn't _-а/я_ in Sg. 1 actually _-ъ_ as well?


Yes, of course.



ahvalj said:


> Thank you. So, we have two contradicting opinions about the preservation of _-т_ in Sg. in parts of Macedonia (Bulgarian/Macedonian -т in Sg. 3 vs. Bulgarian/Macedonian -т in Sg. 3). And do you people agree with Sobakus (Bulgarian/Macedonian -т in Sg. 3 and Bulgarian/Macedonian -т in Sg. 3) that the drop of _-т_ in Sg. was spontaneous, while in Pl. 3 the consonant persisted (in Bulgarian) to avoid the confusion with Sg. 1 (_неса — несат_)?


Yes, I would accept that explanation.


----------



## Зрак

Yes, I was referring to the 3rd person singular. As to 1st person singular you are correct, and ambiguities would occur, only in the eastern dialects however.


----------



## ahvalj

Thanks.

I have noticed that in #18 I gave the wrong link: that should have been the post #8.


----------



## nimak

ahvalj said:


> Old Church Slavonic had _-т-_ in both Sg. 3 and Pl. 3 of the verbs in the Present tense:
> _несетъ — несѫтъ
> сѣдитъ — сѣдѧтъ
> иматъ — имѫтъ_
> 
> Modern Standard Bulgarian and Macedonian show _-т _in the Plural but not in the Singular. Are there regional varieties where _-т_ is present in both numbers and is there any explanation why this asymmetry ever emerged?



Привет ahvalj! 

It is true that Standard Macedonian doesn't have *-т* in 3rd person singular.

BUT many of the southwestern Macedonian dialects (Охрид, Струга, Вевчани, Дебар, Река, Кичево, Демир Хисар, Македонски Брод etc.) have it. And it is used even today in everyday speech in these dialects. So, these verbs sound and are written like this:

_сѣдитъ — сѣдѧтъ_
седит — седат
_иматъ — имѫтъ_
имат — имаат, имает, имеет_ (where aa is one long a, and ee is one long e)

Other samples, 3rd p.sg. — 3rd p.pl.:_
значит — значат _... Standard Macedonian: значи — значат_
читат — читаат _ (where aa is one long a) ... Standard Macedonian: чита — читаат_
сакат — сакаат_  (where aa is one long a) ... Standard Macedonian: сака — сакаат_
стоит or стојт — стојат _ (where и is short) ... Standard Macedonian: стои — стојат_
пеит or пејт — пејат_ (where и is short) ... Standard Macedonian: пее — пеат_
знаит or знајт — знаат_ (where и is short; aa is one long a) ... Standard Macedonian: знае — знаат_
праит or прајт — праат_ (where и is short; aa is one long a) ... Standard Macedonian: прави — прават
_
3rd p.sg. -т form is mainly same in all those dialects where it's used. But there are differences in their 3rd p.pl. forms, like you saw with the verb имат (имаат, имает, имеет). The other verbs from the samples have also different 3rd p.pl. forms in different dialects/regions.


----------



## ahvalj

nimak said:


> Привет ahvalj!
> 
> It is true that Standard Macedonian doesn't have *-т* in 3rd person singular.
> 
> BUT many of the southwestern Macedonian dialects (Охрид, Струга, Вевчани, Дебар, Река, Кичево, Демир Хисар, Македонски Брод etc.) have it. And it is used even today in everyday speech in these dialects. So, these verbs sound and are written like this:
> 
> _сѣдитъ — сѣдѧтъ_
> седит — седат
> _иматъ — имѫтъ_
> имат — имаат, имает, имеет_ (where aa is one long a, and ee is one long e)
> 
> Other samples, 3rd p.sg. — 3rd p.pl.:_
> значит — значат _... Standard Macedonian: значи — значат_
> читат — читаат _ (where aa is one long a) ... Standard Macedonian: чита — читаат_
> сакат — сакаат_  (where aa is one long a) ... Standard Macedonian: сака — сакаат_
> стоит or стојт — стојат _ (where и is short) ... Standard Macedonian: стои — стојат_
> пеит or пејт — пејат_ (where и is short) ... Standard Macedonian: пее — пеат_
> знаит or знајт — знаат_ (where и is short; aa is one long a) ... Standard Macedonian: знае — знаат_
> праит or прајт — праат_ (where и is short; aa is one long a) ... Standard Macedonian: прави — прават
> _
> 3rd p.sg. -т form is mainly same in all those dialects where it's used. But there are differences in their 3rd p.pl. forms, like you saw with the verb имат (имаат, имает, имеет). The other verbs from the samples have also different 3rd p.pl. forms in different dialects/regions.


Oh, thank you very much.


----------

