# All Slavic languages: palatalization in plural and vocative



## jadeite_85

Hello I'm new in this forum. 

When I started studying BCS, I've found amazing that in these languages you transform the last consonant (if it is *k*, *g* or *h*) of a noun when you make some cases of the plural and in the vocative before the vowels *e* and* i*. Some exemples to clarify what I mean.

nom.sg. : vojnik (soldier)
nom.pl. : vojnici
vok.sg. : vojniče

nom.sg. : orah (walnut)
nom.pl. : orasi
vok.sg. : oraše

nom.sg. : vrag (devil)
nom.pl. : vrazi
vok.sg. : vraže

In Slovene on the contrary you say vojaki and orehi. The only exception that comes to my mind now is otrok - otroci (child). 

I wonder if it is a remnant of old slavic or an innovation of BCS? And which other slavic languages have this feature? I think Russian doesn't. 

And also:
-In an article of the slovene newspaper Edinost from the end of the 19th century I've found the word vojaci instead of vojaki. 
-I've also heard that in Croatian it is not compulsory to use these forms for some words (you can use vragovi instead of vrazi).


----------



## Awwal12

There is no vocative case in Russian (only colloquial vocative forms for some words).
As for interchange of consonants during declension - it take no place.

The interchange of consonants in Russian can take place in homonymous words:
Вол*г*а (Volga, n.) - Вол*ж*ский (attr.)
вол*к* (a wolf, n.) - вол*ч*ий (attr.)
пере*ц* (a pepper) - пер*ч*ить (to pepper)

...and during conjugation of verbs:
пе*ч*ь (to bake) - пё*к* (past, single, m.)


----------



## slavic_one

First of all, don't know if "vojak" is a propriate BSC word.
Second - yes, there is rule in Croatian: k,g,h → c,z,s. Don't know why, but it's like that!
And third.. sometimes, it's correct both forms (vragovi, vrazi) - no rules for that.

I don't think I helped you at all, but it's sth that can't be explained more as far as I know.


----------



## slavic_one

Awwal12 said:


> There is no vocative case in Russian (only colloquial vocative forms for some words).
> As for interchange of consonants during declension - it take no place.
> 
> The interchange of consonants in Russian can take place in homonymous words:
> Вол*г*а (Volga, n.) - Вол*ж*ский (attr.)
> вол*к* (a wolf, n.) - вол*ч*ий (attr.)
> пере*ц* (a pepper) - пер*ч*ить (to pepper)
> 
> ...and during conjugation of verbs:
> пе*ч*ь (to bake) - пё*к* (past, single, m.)



It's sth different. It's also in BCS - vuk → vučji / pekar → peč. In topic jadeite_85 asked it's about k,g,h to c,z,s rule.


----------



## Awwal12

> In topic jadeite_85 asked it's about k,g,h to c,z,s rule.


That's true, but I wanted to note that similar interchanges of consonants exist in Russian - just not during declension.  Otherwise somebody could think that they don't exist at all.

P.S.: Well, the Russian language has the same thing with the word "God":
Бо*г* (God) - О Бо*ж*е! (Oh God!)
The influence of Old Church Slavonic is very clear here. But it isn't a normal declension, just loaned vocative form.


----------



## slavic_one

Awwal12 said:


> That's true, but I wanted to note that similar interchanges of consonants exist in Russian - just not during declension.  Otherwise somebody could think that they don't exist at all.
> 
> P.S.: Well, the Russian language has the same thing with the word "God":
> Бо*г* (God) - О Бо*ж*е! (Oh God!)
> The influence of Old Church Slavonic is very clear here. But it isn't a normal declension, just loaned vocative form.



Still, BCS has it also: Bog → Bože, and I think it's sth different.


----------



## slavic_one

Actualy, that what you wrote, Awwal12 is palatalization, you're right. Jadeite_85 gave wrongly the examples of a sibilarization.
Palatalization is k,g,h to č,ž,š.

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalizacija
http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibilarizacija
http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jotacija


----------



## jadeite_85

You're right vojak is not BCS. The proper word is vojnik. I was fooled by the word used in the Edinost newspaper, which I thought was due to croatian influence.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

slavic_one said:


> Actualy, that what you wrote, Awwal12 is palatalization, you're right. Jadeite_85 gave wrongly the examples of a sibilarization.
> Palatalization is k,g,h to č,ž,š.
> 
> http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalizacija
> http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibilarizacija
> http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jotacija


 
The book _The Slavonic Languages_ (Comrie, Corbett, eds.) refers to shift from k, g, h, d to č, ž, š, j (and many, many more) as the *first* (Slavic)* palatalization* and the shift from k, g to c, z (and so on) as the *second* (Slavic)* palatalization*.

The chapter on Slovenian by T.M.S. Priestly gives the examples of *reči, rekla, recite* and *striči, strigla, strizite*. However, despite these examples, the second palatalization is only barely preserved in Slovenian according to Priestley (the first palatalization, on the other hand, is "extensively preserved").

*Otrok, otroci* is the only palatalized plural in modern Slovenian (*volk, volcje* is archaic).


----------



## Awwal12

Damn, I almost forgot. 
There is at least one noun in Russian that has a palatalization _in plural_:
дру*г* (a friend) - дру*з*ья


----------



## slavic_one

Awwal12 said:


> Damn, I almost forgot.
> There is at least one noun in Russian that has a palatalization _in plural_:
> дру*г* (a friend) - дру*з*ья



Стул → стуля is also palatalisation of a consonant, right?


----------



## Awwal12

> Стул → стул*ь*я


Yes, but it is totally another sort of palatalisation, when a hard (velarized) consonant before appearing [j] consonant naturally turns into a simple soft (palatalized) analogue ([st*u*l] -> [st*u*l'jə]).


----------



## jadeite_85

Yes I mean the change of *k*, *g*, *h *to *č*, *ž*, *š* and *c*, *z*, *s* before e and i. 
In Slovene it is present in verbs conjugation and in homonymous words (example: *tih *(silent) - *tišina* (silence) but not in the declension system as in BCS.

I wonder if it is something that Slovene has lost or it is a BCS innovation?


----------



## Awwal12

> example: tih (silent) - tišina (silence)


By the way, in Russian it is all the same: "т*и*хий" - "тишин*а*". ([x'] -> [ʂ]) It is also noticeable that the closest phonetical surrounding of the consonant being conjugated is the same in both words, and in the first word the consonant is already palatalized (it is [x'], not [x]). That means that the word "тишина" (just like all other examples of similar palatalization) in Russian is of quite archaic origin, whereas modern full forms of attributives have appeared later.


----------



## bibax

In Czech:

k, h (< g), ch changes to č/c, ž/z, š/š (not to s!) before the front vowels e/é, i/í (not before y/ý).

voják : vojáci
ořech : ořechy (o ořeších)
vrah : vrazi or vrahové

The vocative often ends in -u (no change occurs): vojáku!, ořechu!, vrahu!

Vocative with -e: člověk : člověče!, bůh : bože!, duch : duše!


----------



## Duya

The wikipedia article on Second palatalization, although short, is spot on, so I'll take the liberty to quote a few sentences:



> That anomaly has been resolved by palatalization of velar consonant, just as it was done during the preceding first palatalization. Only the results of this new palatalization were different, and not completely uniform on all Slavic territory, indicating first dialectal differences. Usually this palatalization is described as gradual, first fronting of the velars to proper palatals occurred, and then (perhaps with those that were affected with the third palatalization) they were assibilated. Hence it's sometimes called _sibilantization_.
> [...]
> The second palatalization has probably spread from Slavic south; it started to operate sometimes between the end of the sixth and the middle of the seventh century CE, and the environments where it operated where various. In Russian, for example, it didn't operate at all at the morpheme boundary, i.e. before inflectional endings. Compare:
> 
> 
> OCS _rǫka_ 'hand', L. _rǫcě_ : Russ. _ruká_, L. _ruké_
> In Ukrainian and Belarusian, however, the effect of second palatalization is still evident in such cases (Ukr. _ruká_, L. _rucí_; Belarus. _ruká_, L. _rucé_)


----------



## WannaBeMe

This consonant change is a churchslavonic remnant and nowdays it exists in Serbian, Lausitz Sorbian (only feminin), Bulgarian, Macedonian and Ukrainian.
It is called the second palatalization or sibilarisation.
The second palatalization has probably spread from Slavic south; it started to operate sometimes between the end of the sixth and the middle of the seventh century CE, and the environments where it operated vary. In Russian, for example, it didn't operate at all at the morpheme boundary, i.e. before inflectional endings. But Russian as all slavic languages has made the first slavic palatalization which changes k>č, g>ž, h>š.
The second palatalization is:
k>c, g>z, h>s infront of i or e which comes from "jat" sound.

churchslavonic example

N_____G_____D_____A_____V_____I_____L____

volk__volka__volku__volka_vol*č*e__volkom_vol*c*e 
vol*c*i__volkov_volkom_volki__vol*c*i__volki__vol*c*eh

Serbocroatian

vuk__vuka___vuku__vuka__vu*č*e__vukom__vuku
vu*c*i_vuka__vu*c*ima__vu*c*i__vu*c*i___vu*c*ima__vu*c*ima

This second palatalization can be avoided by eding infix -ov- in plural but only by one or two silable words and only in masculin genus.

vukovi, vukova, vukovima, vukovi, vukovi, vukovima, vukovima

Ukrainian (vovk is pronounced as vouk)

vovk__vovka__vovku__vovka__vov*č*e__vov*c*i (it can be avoided by ending -u, vovku)
in plural Ukrainian doesnt undergo any palatalization exept for drug - druzi.

Bulgarian and Macedonian have lost its declensions but in the nominative case it works just like Serbocroatian.

volk - volci  (or volkove)

For femine genus it looks like so:

OCS

ruka__ruky__ru*c*e___ruku__ruko__rukoju__ru*c*e
ruki__ruk___rukam__ruki__ruki__rukami__ru*c*eh

Serbocroatian

ruka__ruke__ru*c*i_____ruku__ruko__rukom___ru*c*i
ruke__ruku__rukama__ruke__ruke__rukama__rukama

Ukrainian

ruka__ruki__ru*c*i____ruku__ruko__rukoju__ru*c*i
ruki__ruk___rukam__ruki__ruki___rukami__rukah

Sorbian

ruka__ruki__ru*c*e__ruku__ruko__ruku__ru*c*e
in plural it is ruki but Sorbian has dual and it is ru*c*e.

Bulgarian and Macedonian have lost it with losing of declensions.


----------



## Kanes

Bulgarian has only vocative but in nominative is the same.

вълк - вълци
войник - войници
ръка - ръце
кола - коли (palatalized L)


----------



## Azori

In Slovak, k changes to c:

vojak - vojaci

ch to s:

Čech (Czech) - Česi

but: orech - orechy (o orechoch - no change, unlike in Czech)

The letters h and g do not change:

vrah (murderer) - vrahovia
archeológ - archeológovia

Slovak doesn't use the vocative.


----------



## Orlin

Kanes said:


> Bulgarian has only vocative but in nominative is the same.
> 
> вълк - вълци
> войник - войници
> ръка - ръце
> кола - коли (palatalized L)


 
Kanes, не знам какво имате предвид с последния си пример: струва ми се, че става дума за нещо, което е съвсем off topic тук - в книжовния български език "л" пред "е" и "и" винаги се изговаря "средномеко", това е само позиционен вариант на звука "л" в тази позиция (например в думите "лед" и "лист").


----------



## bibax

> This consonant change is a churchslavonic remnant and nowdays it exists in Serbian, Lausitz Sorbian (only feminin), Bulgarian, Macedonian and Ukrainian.


Add Czech and Polish.

OCS

ruka__ruky__ruce___ruku__ruko__rukoju__ruce
ruki__ruk___rukam__ruki__ruki__rukami__ruceh

Czech (nearly identical to OCS):

ruka__ruky__ruce___ruku__ruko__rukou__ruce
ruce__rukou (ruk)__rukám__ruce__ruce__rukami__rukou (rukách)

The plural forms ruce/rukou are old dual forms.

The Czech peculiarity: ch has changed to š (like in the 1st palatalization) and not to s (I don't know why). E.g. vlk - vlci, vrah - vrazi, hroch - hroši, not hrosi (= hippopotamus).

N.B. h (< g): voiced, ch: voiceless


----------



## vianie

bibax said:


> Vocative with -e: člověk : člověče!, bůh : bože!, duch : duše!



The analogy is gramatically logical, but "duch" nor "duše" does not belong here and actually these are two different things.


----------



## Azori

There aren't any declension consonant changes in Slovak.

N, G, D, A, I, L

ruka_ruky_ruke_ruku_rukou_ruke
ruky_rúk_rukám_ruky_rukami_rukách

The palatalization is present (in case it is) only in the nominative plural:

vlk_vlka_vlkovi_vlka_vlkom_vlkovi
vlci_vlkov_vlkom_vlkov_vlkmi_vlkoch


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Slovenian:

N, G, D, A, I, L

*Singular:* roka, roke, roki, roko, roko, roki
*Dual:* roki, rok, rokama, roki, rokama, rokah
*Plural:* roke, rok, rokam, roke, rokami, rokah

*Singular:* volk, volka, volku, volka, volkom, volku
*Dual:* volka, volkov, volkoma, volka, volkoma, volkovih
*Plural:* volkovi, volkov, volkovom, volkove, volkovi, volkovih

As you can see, there is no palatalization anywhere (except archaically, where _volcje_ is used instead of _volkovi_).


----------



## bibax

> The analogy is gramatically logical, but "duch" nor "duše" does not belong here and actually these are two different things.


Right, duch (spiritus) and duše (anima) are different things, but the vocative case of duch is duše! (or more often duchu!), e.g Svatý Duše! (Holy Spirit!).


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

I forgot to mention something: While Slovenian does not have the vocative, the rare _remnants_ of the vocative display the same palatalization patterns we've seen elsewhere. For instance, *oče* (= father) was once the vocative form of the now virtually extinct *otec*.


----------



## vianie

bibax said:


> Right, duch (spiritus) and duše (anima) are different things, but the vocative case of duch is duše! (or more often duchu!), e.g Svatý Duše! (Holy Spirit!).


 
Then all right.
I see this alternative for the first time.
I like these gender mutations or associations in Czech.
: D

_Ty klučino nespratná!_


----------

