# All Slavic: Suffix? Белесый, белёсый, belasý



## bragpipes

These colors have the suffix -сый which turns white into "whitish" in Russian, but "blue" in Slovak. 

Is the suffix just -сый or is there a vowel in there?  The three forms for belasý have three different vowels, so I don't see the pattern bel*e*syj, bel*jo*syj, bel*a*sý.  

Are there other words with this suffix?
Is this suffix still productive? 

Am I correct in assuming it means -ish, -esque, -like?


----------



## ahvalj

I don't know if in any language they are productive: if so, it must be secondarily, _*bělesъ~bělasъ_ being the parade examples of this type. In addition to _белесый~белёсый _"whitish, albescent" (the form with _ё_ is phonetically regular, the one with _е_ is bookish), Russian dictionaries seem to have only _пелёсый_ "spotted, motley" and _перепелёсый_ "idem" (I have never encountered these two words before).
_
Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Праславянский лексический фонд. Выпуск 2 (*bez–*bratrъ) · 1975: _62–64 states that _*-as-_ seems not to have been dealt with in the literature, and suggests the derivation from the Comparative degree suffix for _-es-_ (comparing it with the Lithuanian _-es-nis, _e. g. _baltesnis _"whiter"). I don't think this scenario is plausible since _*-ı̯e->-e-_ is regular in Baltic but is attested nowhere in Slavic, which, in particular, always has _j_ or its reflexes in the Comparative (e. g. _bělěje<*bēlēı̯es _"whiter",_ boļe<*balı̯es _"more").

To me, the distribution _-as-~-es-_ clearly points to the _-es-_stems: in this scenario, the earlier Common Slavic adjective _*bēlas_ "white" (_>bělъ_) gave rise to the noun _*bēlōs, _Gen. Sg. _*bēleses_ "something white" (cp. OCS _kamy, kamene_ "stone"  from _*kāmōn, *kāmenes, _Lithuanian _akmuo, akmenes; _the _ōs_-nouns are attested e. g. in the Greek _αἰδώς_ "decency" or Latin _honōs_ "honor"), from which the secondary adjectives were formed: either from the Nominative, _*bēlōsas>*bělasъ,_ or from the oblique cases, _*bēlesas>*bělesъ _(cp. for this latter type the Sanskrit _vacas_ "word" → _vacasaḫ_ "eloquent", _nabhas_ "cloud, sky" → _nabhasaḫ_ "cloudy", _manas_ "mind" → _manasaḫ_ "wise").

_Пелёсый_ confirms this scenario since it is related, in particular, to the Lithuanian _pelėsis_ "mould" (_Фасмер М · 1987 · Этимологический словарь русского языка. Том III (Муза – Сят): _229–230), which should have been formed from _*pelēs,_ the Nom. Sg. with the lengthened _e_-grade (vs. the Slavic lengthened _o_-grade in _*bělasъ_). _Перепелёсый _is the same word with the prefix.


----------



## bragpipes

Thank you for your answer, ahvalj.  Your theory is more convincing than a derivation from the comparative.  

From пелёсый, and the other examples, I get the sense that this suffix is not -ish, -esque.  
Белесый has that meaning, yes, but had there been "cloudy" "sky-y" "heavenly" it would be just an adjective formed from noun and not have any sense of "rather" "a bit" etc. like -ва́тый.

So, with the exception of _белесый, _I'd say this suffix is closer to -ный (небесный, облачный) than to -ва́тый (зеленова́тый‎, краснова́тый‎, синева́тый‎).  Would you agree?

On this note, is the word "белесова́тый" suffixed twice?


----------



## ahvalj

bragpipes said:


> Thank you for your answer, ahvalj.  Your theory is more convincing than a derivation from the comparative.
> 
> From пелёсый, and the other examples, I get the sense that this suffix is not -ish, -esque.
> Белесый has that meaning, yes, but had there been "cloudy" "sky-y" "heavenly" it would be just an adjective formed from noun and not have any sense of "rather" "a bit" etc. like -ва́тый.
> 
> So, with the exception of _белесый, _I'd say this suffix is closer to -ный (небесный, облачный) than to -ва́тый (зеленова́тый‎, краснова́тый‎, синева́тый‎).  Would you agree?
> 
> On this note, is the word "белесова́тый" suffixed twice?


A Russian speaker, at least, doesn't perceive any meaning in this suffix: for this, a pattern should be available, which seems to have been destroyed long ago. Of the three Russian adjectives with this suffix, until tonight I knew only _белёсый_… Let's listen to the other Slavic speakers: in particular, medieval Slovene was active in forming new _-es-_nouns, so perhaps it possesses more instances of this suffix in the adjectives as well.


----------



## ahvalj

I should emphasize that this simple thematic type (athematic stem + _*-o-_) must be very old, essentially early Balto-Slavic, much older that the spread of the suffix we know as _-ьnъ. _This way of forming the adjectives is attested in Vedic, which was the language of the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C.: to the turn of the 1st and 2nd millennia C.E. (the early Slavic texts) this pattern had long been extinct in all branches (to a great extent because the athematic nouns themselves had almost vanished).


----------



## Panceltic

ahvalj said:


> Let's listen to the other Slavic speakers: in particular, medieval Slovene was active in forming new _-es-_nouns, so perhaps it possesses more instances of this suffix in the adjectives as well.



Can you give an example please? I'm trying to think about any adjective with this ending, but nothing comes to mind right now.


----------



## ahvalj

Panceltic said:


> Can you give an example please? I'm trying to think about any adjective with this ending, but nothing comes to mind right now.


I don't have examples: that's why I wrote the word "perhaps" ,-) They should end on -_es_ or -_as_. Though, if the scenario I have invented reflects the reality, this type had become extinct millennia ago, so these adjectives, if found anywhere in Slavic, must be simply petrified remnants.


----------



## ahvalj

There is an archaic-looking derived Ukrainian adjective _біластий/bʲilastɨj_ "whitish" with _-t-_ added directly to the _s_-stem (_<*bēlōstas_). This resembles such ancient adjectives as e. g. the Latin _honōs_ "honor" → _honestus_ "honorable", only with the _ō_-grade in the suffix (the exact counterpart would be _**honōstus_).

Also, _*bělasa_ (the feminine Nom. Sg. of *_bělasъ_) from _*bēlōsā_ can be formally compared to the Latin noun _aurōra_ "dawn", where _ō_ penetrated to the derived stem (from the original athematic Nom. Sg. _*au̯sōs, _cp. the Doric _ἀϝώς_).


----------



## Panceltic

What about these:

črtast (<črta)
pikast (<pika)
progast (<proga)
etc.

They all have -t added though.


----------



## ahvalj

Panceltic said:


> What about these:
> 
> črtast (<črta)
> pikast (<pika)
> progast (<proga)
> etc.
> 
> They all have -t added though.


I suspect it is the same as _zǫbatъ~zǫbastъ_ "large-toothed, sharp-toothed": the base suffix is _-t-_ (OCS _bradatъ_ : Latin _barbātus_), and _st<*t+t_ (like in _mesti<*met-t-_).


----------



## Panceltic

ahvalj said:


> I suspect it is the same as _zǫbatъ~zǫbastъ_ "large-toothed, sharp-toothed": the base suffix is _-t-_ (OCS _bradatъ_ : Latin _barbātus_), and _st<*t+t_ (like in _mesti<*met-t-_).



That sounds plausible, yes. But what did you have in mind when you talked about medieval Slovene being active in forming -es nouns - things like črevo, črevesa?


----------



## ahvalj

Panceltic said:


> That sounds plausible, yes. But what did you have in mind when you talked about medieval Slovene being active in forming -es nouns - things like črevo, črevesa?


That the _-es_-stems are not only preserved in Slovene better than in any other modern Slavic language, but they were productive in its south-western dialects, where such new forms as _polesa, krvesa, bedresa, uljesa_ and _peresa_ are found (examples from _Бернштейн СБ · 1974 · Очерк сравнительной грамматики славянских языков. Чередования. Именные основы: _162).


----------



## Panceltic

Thanks. _Peresa_ and _uljesa_ are also standard forms.


----------

