# Origin of the word нету



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo.

I understand there were times when the French language was very fashionable in Russia, where it was spoken even by the Tzar and his family.
I wonder whether the use of the genitive case in Russian negative sentences might have been influenced by the French use of the genitive form of the article (partitive) in negative sentences?
("J'ai un ami" vs. "Je n'ai pas *d*'amis")

GS 



_*Mod.: Split form the thread " его нет дома / он не дома"*_


----------



## Maroseika

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> I wonder whether the use of the genitive case in Russian negative sentences might have been influenced by the French use of the genitive form of the article (partitive) in negative sentences?



No, this feature is peculiar to Slavic languages since the Proto-Slavic times.


----------



## Ma_linka

Following the French Revolution, French emigrants fleeded to Russia, many of whom worked as tutors, nannys and governesses in Russian families.


----------



## ahvalj

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo.
> 
> I understand there were times when the French language was very fashionable in Russia, where it was spoken even by the Tzar and his family.
> I wonder whether the use of the genitive case in Russian negative sentences might have been influenced by the French use of the genitive form of the article (partitive) in negative sentences?
> ("J'ai un ami" vs. "Je n'ai pas *d*'amis")
> 
> GS


This usage characterizes the languages spoken to the East of the Baltic sea — Baltic-Finnic (e. g. Finnish, Partitive case — _minulla ei ole ystäviä_), Baltic (e. g. Lithuanian, Genitive — _aš neturiu draugų_) and Slavic (e. g. Russian, Genitive — _у меня нет друзей_). Most probably it is much older than the French language.


----------



## Словеса

Hello,


Giorgio Spizzi said:


> I wonder whether the use of the genitive case in Russian negative sentences might have been influenced by the French use of the genitive form of the article (partitive) in negative sentences?
> ("J'ai un ami" vs. "Je n'ai pas *d*'amis")


Not sure what this has to do with this thread: «нет» is not a verb!


----------



## ahvalj

Словеса said:


> Hello,
> 
> Not sure what this has to do with this thread: «нет» is not a verb!


Here it is: _нет_ originates from _нѣсть_ (=_не есть_).


----------



## Словеса

ahvalj said:


> Here it is: _нет_ originates from _нѣсть_ (=_не есть_).


Thank you! So, нет его/не было его/не будет его looks more plain. Anyway, those two as well are not examples to fit with _il n'aura pas d'amis_: есть is not like any other verb, it does not take the nouns in the accusative case. That example is more in line with «я не купил ножниц»/«я не купил ножницы», not anything like «его нет дома».


----------



## FairOaks

ahvalj said:


> Here it is: _нет_ originates from _нѣсть_ (=_не есть_).



Close enough. In actual fact, it's from:
*нє ѥ ту = нє ѥстъ ту(-то)
*Which begs the question: Why are the Bulgarian word *тука *(*ту-ка*) and the Russian word *нету* considered colloquialisms, whilst *тук* (BG) and *тут, нет* (RUS) are undeservedly accepted as the norm, if *ту* is the original word for *here* and *то, ка* are particles?


----------



## Drink

FairOaks said:


> Why are the Bulgarian word *тука *(*ту-ка*) and the Russian word *нету* considered colloquialisms, whilst *тук* (BG) and *тут, нет* (RUS) are undeservedly accepted as the norm, if *ту* is the original word for *here* and *то, ка* are particles?



These kinds of "why" questions are difficult to answer. That's just the way it happened.


----------



## ahvalj

FairOaks said:


> Close enough. In actual fact, it's from:
> *нє ѥ ту = нє ѥстъ ту(-то)*


Well, I agree with the only correction that Russian had only _ѥсть_, even in dialects that otherwise show _ведетъ_.


----------



## ahvalj

By the way, most probably _нету_ comes directly from _нѣсть ту, _since_ несту _would have given_ нёт/нёту._

Concerning the colloquial status of _нету_ vs. _нет_: I suspect that the latter at some point replaced _нѣсть_ and inherited its stylistic properties. _Нѣсть числа_ = _нет числа_ 'it's countless', but _нету числа_ 'there is no number'.

Update. And of course Ukrainian _ні_ 'no' implies _нѣ-(сть [ту])_.


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> By the way, most probably _нету_ comes directly from _нѣсть ту, _since_ несту _would have given_ нёт/нёту._



не е ту > нѣту. The two "е"s merged into "ѣ". The word "е" was an alternative form of есть that has died out in standard Russian. "нѣсть" would also have come from "не есть", but then you would have to explain the disappearance of the "с".


----------



## Словеса

ahvalj said:


> _Нѣсть числа_ = _нет числа_ 'it's countless', but _нету числа_ 'there is no number'.


I don't see such difference between нет числа and нету числа. To me, both of them can mean either thing.


----------



## ahvalj

Drink said:


> не е ту > нѣту. The two "е"s merged into "ѣ". The word "е" was an alternative form of есть that has died out in standard Russian. "нѣсть" would also have come from "не есть", but then you would have to explain the disappearance of the "с".


I am not sure if _не ѥ_ or _нѣ_ are attested in the ancient texts (may be wrong, however). As to _нѣ́къто_, _нѣ́которъи_ etc. the _ѣ_ has an acute intonation there (and hence causes a stable stress as opposed to _никъто́_ related to Lithuanian _niẽkas _with the circumflected vowel), which makes it impossible to postulate a contractional origin (plus Lithuanian has a non-acuted contractional _ė_ in _nėrà 'нѣсть, is not' _from *_ne īrā_).


----------



## ahvalj

Словеса said:


> I don't see such difference between нет числа and нету числа. To me, both of them can mean either thing.


I meant the variants of replacement of the older construction. The meaning conveyed in the pre-modern language by _нѣсть числа_ can't be expressed by _нету числа_ (_звѣздамъ числа нѣтъ, безднѣ дна_).


----------



## Словеса

That just depends on how you are disposed at any moment. «Да им числа нету, когда ж это кончится!» is quite fine.


----------



## ahvalj

Словеса said:


> That just depends on how you are disposed at any moment. «Да им числа нету, когда ж это кончится!» is quite fine.


Well, accepted.


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> I am not sure if _не ѥ_ or _нѣ_ are attested in the ancient texts (may be wrong, however). As to _нѣ́къто_, _нѣ́которъи_ etc. the _ѣ_ has an acute intonation there (and hence causes a stable stress as opposed to _никъто́_ related to Lithuanian _niẽkas _with the circumflected vowel), which makes it impossible to postulate a contractional origin (plus Lithuanian has a non-acuted contractional _ė_ in _nėrà 'нѣсть, is not' _from *_ne īrā_).



I don't see why acute intonation and stable stress make it impossible to postulate a contractional origin.


----------



## ahvalj

Drink said:


> I don't see why acute intonation and stable stress make it impossible to postulate a contractional origin.


For empirical reasons — the Balto-Slavic acute is found on:
(1) several very old contractional lengths, most probably of the IE times (the sources of the end-stress in _нести_, _в сети, на дому_ — where i<*ēy<*eyi and u<*ōw<*owi)
(2) before the lost tautosyllabic laryngeal (_стану__, __дену__ — _from_ *staH-, *dheH-)_
(3) before the IE b, d, g, g' (_яблоко, падать, ягода, резать _— from _*abl-, *pod-, *og-, *reg'-_)
(4) in some words with the very old IE compensatory length (_журавль_ — from *gerōw- — though I am not sure about the intonation in this particular example)
(5) in several unexplained cases (_выше < *upsyos_).

All the newer lengths, including contractional ones (_стола_ — from _*stoloed _or_ росы _from_ *rosaHes_) are non-acute. There are also cases when the old acute intonation becomes non-acute, e. g. before -_a_- in the secondary imperfectives (_срезать — срезать_). 

In Modern Russian, the former acute syllables are usually stressed (if several, stressed is the leftmost one), whereas the non-acute syllables have the stress moved one syllable to the right (leaving aside many old peculiarities and newer developments; the initial stress may also have a different origin, like in _город_ or _свечка_).


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> For empirical reasons — the Balto-Slavic acute is found on:
> (1) several very old contractional lengths, most probably of the IE times (the sources of the end-stress in _нести_, _в сети, на дому_ — where i<*ēy<*eyi and u<*ōw<*owi)
> (2) before the lost tautosyllabic laryngeal (_стану__, __дену__ — _from_ *staH-, *dheH-)_
> (3) before the IE b, d, g, g' (_яблоко, падать, ягода, резать _— from _*abl-, *pod-, *og-, *reg'-_)
> (4) in some words with the very old IE compensatory length (_журавль_ — from *gerōw- — though I am not sure about the intonation in this particular example)
> (5) in several unexplained cases (_выше < *upsyos_).
> 
> All the newer lengths, including contractional ones (_стола_ — from _*stoloed _or_ росы _from_ *rosaHes_) are non-acute. There are also cases when the old acute intonation becomes non-acute, e. g. before -_a_- in the secondary imperfectives (_срезать — срезать_).
> 
> In Modern Russian, the former acute syllables are usually stressed (if several, stressed is the leftmost one), whereas the non-acute syllables have the stress moved one syllable to the right (leaving aside many old peculiarities and newer developments; the initial stress may also have a different origin, like in _город_ or _свечка_).



So how does that apply to _не_ + _е_ not being able to contract to _нѣ_?


----------



## ahvalj

Drink said:


> So how does that apply to _не_ + _е_ not being able to contract to _нѣ_?


It is able, just the resulting vowel was not able to carry the stress and produce the Russian forms like _некто_ and _некоторый_ — the stress must have been _некто_ and _некоторый_. I just wanted to illustrate that I was not sure if the short negative forms you had suggested were attested in the ancient texts or left any detectable traces in the modern language. By the way, there is a further extension of _нету_ — _нетути_.


----------



## ahvalj

It turns out that our speculations are all unsubstantiated: I have checked the situation with the Old Novgorod birch bark letters, and the forms _нѣ, нѣту, нѣть, нѣтъ_ are all attested there, making it impossible to tell anything definite about the origin of the extended forms (_Зализняк АА · 2004 · Древненовгородский диалект:_ 139 — https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJUEhqQzJXT2p3ZUk/edit?usp=sharing).


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> It is able, just the resulting vowel was not able to carry the stress and produce the Russian forms like _некто_ and _некоторый_ — the stress must have been _некто_ and _некоторый_. I just wanted to illustrate that I was not sure if the short negative forms you had suggested were attested in the ancient texts or left any detectable traces in the modern language. By the way, there is a further extension of _нету_ — _нетути_.



Your argument finally makes sense to me. But somehow it must have ended up with an acute accent, since there is no other explanation than a contraction. Take for example the other conjugated negations of _быть_, such as _нѣсмь_ (я) and _нѣси_ (ты).


----------



## ahvalj

Drink said:


> Your argument finally makes sense to me. But somehow it must have ended up with an acute accent, since there is no other explanation than a contraction. Take for example the other conjugated negations of _быть_, such as _нѣсмь_ (я) and _нѣси_ (ты).


I have never ever seen the stress marked in this negative verb. In particular, since the plain verb in _ѥси́_ (Sg. 2), _ѥсте́_ (Pl. 2), _ѥсвѣ́_ (Du.1) and _ѥста́_ (Du.2–3) is end-stressed, the non-acuted negatives _нѣси́, нѣсте́, нѣсвѣ́_ and _нѣста́_ must be end-stressed as well, whereas the acuted forms must carry an initial stress. If the latter is true, then a) _нѣ-_ in _нѣ́къто, нѣ́которъи, нѣ́когда,_ _нѣ́ отъ кого_ etc. is indeed related to _нѣ(сть)_ and b) the contraction must go back to the IE times (which is quite possible).

Anyway, this discussion is based around the relationships of _нѣтъ_ and _нѣсть_. As it has turned out, we cannot trace the relationships of these two forms on the base of the written records because both forms are attested in the early texts. And, since the Novgorod birch bark letters contain both _нѣтъ_ and _нѣть_ and the latter is not derivable from _нѣ(сть) тѹ,_ we must assume that the details of their origin remain obscure.


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> I have never ever seen the stress marked in this negative verb. In particular, since the plain verb in _ѥси́_ (Sg. 2), _ѥсте́_ (Pl. 2), _ѥсвѣ́_ (Du.1) and _ѥста́_ (Du.2–3) is end-stressed, the non-acuted negatives _нѣси́, нѣсте́, нѣсвѣ́_ and _нѣста́_ must be end-stressed as well, whereas the acuted forms must carry an initial stress. If the latter is true, then a) _нѣ-_ in _нѣ́къто, нѣ́которъи, нѣ́когда,_ _нѣ́ отъ кого_ etc. is indeed related to _нѣ(сть)_ and b) the contraction must go back to the IE times (which is quite possible).
> 
> Anyway, this discussion is based around the relationships of _нѣтъ_ and _нѣсть_. As it has turned out, we cannot trace the relationships of these two forms on the base of the written records because both forms are attested in the early texts. And, since the Novgorod birch bark letters contain both _нѣтъ_ and _нѣть_ and the latter is not derivable from _нѣ(сть) тѹ,_ we must assume that the details of their origin remain obscure.



You have convinced me that the _-тъ_/_-ть_ is uncertain, but it seems pretty clear that the _нѣ-_ part is a contraction of _не_ + _ѥ(сть)_, whether this contraction occurred in PIE, PBS, PS, or later. A side question I have is why is the past tense equivalent _не́ было_ not pronounced _нё было_?


----------



## ahvalj

Drink said:


> You have convinced me that the _-тъ_/_-ть_ is uncertain, but it seems pretty clear that the _нѣ-_ part is a contraction of _не_ + _ѥ(сть)_, whether this contraction occurred in PIE, PBS, PS, or later.


This is probable but not necessary. E. g., _па_- and _пра_-, special forms of the prefixes _по_- and _про_- found in nouns (_падчерица, правнук; _the same in Lithuanian: _podukra, proanūkis_ [in Lithuanian, _o_ replaced several centuries ago the ancient_ ā_ preserved in Latvian]), are now often interpreted not as lengthened-grade forms (where _o>ō>a_) but as generalized variants that originated before the combination laryngeal+consonant (i. e. _p(r)o HC->p(r)ō C-_), which explains the acute accent. The same may be suggested for the variant of _ne_ found in these pronouns (along with the _ne est(i)_ etymology).



Drink said:


> A side question I have is why is the past tense equivalent _не́ было_ not pronounced _нё было_?


I have no idea. May be since _не_ is most often unstressed. Otherwise, sometimes the language preserves _е_ — cp. the regular _ужо_ and the more archaic _уже_. Interestingly, the Belarusian correspondence to the Russian _есть_ is _ёсьць_, with an irregular _е>ё_ before the palatalized consonants.


----------



## ahvalj

An addition. The laryngeal scenario seems to be supported by the Lithuanian -_y_- (i. e. _ī_) in nominal prefixes vs. zero/-_i_- in verbs: _apsakyti_ — _apysaka_: the lengthened grade scenario would have produced _ie_ or _ei_ (both from *_ei_), i. e. **_apiesaka_. In Slavic, there are remnants of this system as well, e. g. _обходить_ — _обиход_, but since _ī_ and _ei_ have merged, it is impossible to choose either explanation.


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> This is probable but not necessary. E. g., _па_- and _пра_-, special forms of the prefixes _по_- and _про_- found in nouns (_падчерица, правнук; _the same in Lithuanian: _podukra, proanūkis_ [in Lithuanian, _o_ replaced several centuries ago the ancient_ ā_ preserved in Latvian]), are now often interpreted not as lengthened-grade forms (where _o>ō>a_) but as generalized variants that originated before the combination laryngeal+consonant (i. e. _p(r)o HC->p(r)ō C-_), which explains the acute accent. The same may be suggested for the variant of _ne_ found in these pronouns (along with the _ne est(i)_ etymology).



But the meaning of these words contradicts that theory. The meaning of _нѣ(т)(у)_ is clearly a negation of the verb to be, equivalent to _не есть_, and not simply a negative particle. Same goes for the prefixed form seen in _нѣкого_, _нѣчего_, _нѣкуда_, etc., which have the respective meanings _не есть кого_, _не есть чего_, _не есть куда_, etc. However, it seems that in the nominative forms _нѣчто_ and _нѣкто_, as well in _нѣкоторый_, _нѣкий_, _нѣсколько_, etc., the meaning is completely different and I don't know how to explain it as coming from either of _не_ or _не есть_.



ahvalj said:


> I have no idea. May be since _не_ is most often unstressed. Otherwise, sometimes the language preserves _е_ — cp. the regular _ужо_ and the more archaic _уже_. Interestingly, the Belarusian correspondence to the Russian _есть_ is _ёсьць_, with an irregular _е>ё_ before the palatalized consonants.



That's actually not so irregular. Compare the Russian forms of _идти_: _идёшь_, _идёте_, and in some dialects _идёть_. It seems that _ё_ in verb endings is the rule and _есть_ is an exception.


----------



## ahvalj

Drink said:


> But the meaning of these words contradicts that theory. The meaning of _нѣ(т)(у)_ is clearly a negation of the verb to be, equivalent to _не есть_, and not simply a negative particle. Same goes for the prefixed form seen in _нѣкого_, _нѣчего_, _нѣкуда_, etc., which have the respective meanings _не есть кого_, _не есть чего_, _не есть куда_, etc. However, it seems that in the nominative forms _нѣчто_ and _нѣкто_, as well in _нѣкоторый_, _нѣкий_, _нѣсколько_, etc., the meaning is completely different and I don't know how to explain it as coming from either of _не_ or _не есть_.


The indefinite pronouns sometimes preserve elements that aren't transparent anymore to the current speakers: e. g. Spanish _algo_ "something" from Latin _aliquod_ ("other-what"), or, like in our case, develop newer meanings. What we need is to find somewhere the accentuation of the negative forms in the Present tense: if, as I have written, the stress was _нѣ́си, нѣ́сте_ etc., then there is no problem and this particle is derivable from the verb (both having an acute intonation); if, however, the verb is end-stressed, then we must explain the discrepancy between it and the indefinite particle, which opens doors to various speculations.




Drink said:


> That's actually not so irregular. Compare the Russian forms of _идти_: _идёшь_, _идёте_, and in some dialects _идёть_. It seems that _ё_ in verb endings is the rule and _есть_ is an exception.


Here we meet the leveling within the paradigm, whereas in _есть/ёсьць_ there is no analogy (moreover, Belarusian has _весьць_ from _вѣсть_, which didn't stop _ѥсть_ from developing that way).


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> The indefinite pronouns sometimes preserve elements that aren't transparent anymore to the current speakers: e. g. Spanish _algo_ "something" from Latin _aliquod_ ("other-what"), or, like in our case, develop newer meanings. What we need is to find somewhere the accentuation of the negative forms in the Present tense: if, as I have written, the stress was _нѣ́си, нѣ́сте_ etc., then there is no problem and this particle is derivable from the verb (both having an acute intonation); if, however, the verb is end-stressed, then we must explain the discrepancy between it and the indefinite particle, which opens doors to various speculations.



Is there any way to infer stress from Old Russian texts?



ahvalj said:


> Here we meet the leveling within the paradigm, whereas in _есть/ёсьць_ there is no analogy (moreover, Belarusian has _весьць_ from _вѣсть_, which didn't stop _ѥсть_ from developing that way).



I don't see any leveling, since it seems that all the forms that have _ё_, except for _идёмъ_, end (or can end) in soft consonants. It would be pretty strange if the first person plural alone caused the leveling of all the other forms.


----------



## ahvalj

Drink said:


> Is there any way to infer stress from Old Russian texts?


Of course. When I have time, I'll check.



Drink said:


> I don't see any leveling, since it seems that all the forms that have _ё_, except for _идёмъ_, end (or can end) in soft consonants. It would be pretty strange if the first person plural alone caused the leveling of all the other forms.


In literary Russian, the soft consonant is present only in -_те_, since -_шь_ was already hard at the time of this shift (the Sg. 3 -_тъ_ is old in the North). In Belarusian, the only form with _ё_ in the thematic stems is -ём (but also -_ем_ is widespread): _вяду, вядзеш, вядзе, вядзём/вядзем, вядзеце, вядуць_.


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> In literary Russian, the soft consonant is present only in -_те_, since -_шь_ was already hard at the time of this shift (the Sg. 3 -_тъ_ is old in the North). In Belarusian, the only form with _ё_ in the thematic stems is -ём (but also -_ем_ is widespread): _вяду, вядзеш, вядзе, вядзём/вядзем, вядзеце, вядуць_.



I can't seem to think of any words other than verbs ending in _-ешь_ or _-ежь_, but there are many ending in _-ец_ (such as _отец_ and _дворец_), which used to be soft and thus does not have _ё_. But I don't know whether _ц_ hardened at the same time as _ш_ and _ж_ or not. As for the third person singular, I doubt the leveling would have spread from the literary _идёт_ to the dialectal _идёть_, otherwise the hard consonant would have spread as well.


----------



## ahvalj

Drink said:


> I can't seem to think of any words other than verbs ending in _-ешь_ or _-ежь_, but there are many ending in _-ец_ (such as _отец_ and _дворец_), which used to be soft and thus does not have _ё_. But I don't know whether _ц_ hardened at the same time as _ш_ and _ж_ or not. As for the third person singular, I doubt the leveling would have spread from the literary _идёт_ to the dialectal _идёть_, otherwise the hard consonant would have spread as well.


There are dozens of words with -_ёш_- and -_ёж_-: _тёша_, _трёшка, Алёша, ёж, падёж, надёжа, зубрёжка, Серёжа _etc. but none with -_ёц_-, which suggests that _ц_ hardened after the shift _е>ё_ took place.

I don't see why the hard consonant from the northern dialects (not the literary language) must have spread to the southern ones. The leveling was within paradigms. There are dialects with -_ёть_ and dialects with -_еть_ (south), dialects with -_ёт_ (center and north) and dialects with -_ет_ (north, where _е_ didn't develop to _ё_). The literary norm is based on the late medieval situation in Moscow.


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> There are dozens of words with -_ёш_- and -_ёж_-: _тёша_, _трёшка, Алёша, ёж, падёж, надёжа, зубрёжка, Серёжа _etc. but none with -_ёц_-, which suggests that _ц_ hardened after the shift _е>ё_ took place.



You're right, I guess the soft sign was actually irrelevant (but I wouldn't count _Алёша_ or _Серёжа_ as evidence, because there is also _Лёня_ and others).



ahvalj said:


> I don't see why the hard consonant from the northern dialects (not the literary language) must have spread to the southern ones. The leveling was within paradigms. There are dialects with -_ёть_ and dialects with -_еть_ (south), dialects with -_ёт_ (center and north) and dialects with -_ет_ (north, where _е_ didn't develop to _ё_). The literary norm is based on the late medieval situation in Moscow.



And within the dialects with _-ть_, there is no reason for the leveling to have occurred except from influence of other dialects.


----------



## ahvalj

Drink said:


> You're right, I guess the soft sign was actually irrelevant (but I wouldn't count _Алёша_ or _Серёжа_ as evidence, because there is also _Лёня_ and others).


_Лёня_ is a new abbreviation from a newly introduced name _Леонид_ (I can't recall anybody outside the church hierarchy called this way before the second half of the 19th century). In contrast, _Федя_ from _Феодор_ has a front vowel (and _Юра/Юрий_ from _Георгий_ has the unusual _eo_ replaced with _'u)._


----------



## Drink

ahvalj said:


> _Лёня_ is a new abbreviation from a newly introduced name _Леонид_ (I can't recall anybody outside the church hierarchy called this way before the second half of the 19th century). In contrast, _Федя_ from _Феодор_ has a front vowel (and _Юра/Юрий_ from _Георгий_ has the unusual _eo_ replaced with _'u)._



Then how do you explain words like _тёща_ and _тётя_?


----------



## ahvalj

Drink said:


> Then how do you explain words like _тёща_ and _тётя_?


_Tata, dada, mama, papa, baba_ are nursery words, coded in the brain and recreated by children independently of the phonetical development of the language. For example, the Russian word _мама_ would normally imply the Late Indo-European *_māmā_, which would have produced the modern English **_moom_ and the modern German **_mume_. Neither _тётя_, nor _тятя_ or _дядя_ could have arisen during the normal phonetic development, even because the ancient stem-final *_tj_ would have produced _ч_ in Russian (_вертеть — верчу, хотеть — хочу, светить — свеча_). So, I assume that _тётя_ and _тятя_ represent the standard nursery _tVtV_ modified with the arsenal of the modern Russian phonetics (like _п__и́__сать_ becomes _пи́сять_ for some people). 

_Тёща_ is more difficult. It appears to me that it is the result of a merger of the regular **_теща_ (<*_testjā_), a feminine of _тесть_ (<*_testiṣ_), with _тётя_.


----------



## Словеса

The explanation that these words are coded in the brain would beg the question why these words are not the same in all languages. Nicer to think that some ways of word formation (namely, repetition of the consonant along with saying some "comfortable" vowels, maybe suggested by moms) are coded in the brain, not the words themselves. One might like to think, for example, how abbreviations of names like Вова for Владимир or Nanette for Anne are created.


----------



## ahvalj

Словеса said:


> The explanation that these words are coded in the brain would beg the question why these words are not the same in all languages. Nicer to think that some ways of word formation (namely, repetition of the consonant along with saying some "comfortable" vowels, maybe suggested by moms) are coded in the brain, not the words themselves. One might like to think, for example, how abbreviations of names like Вова for Владимир or Nanette for Anne are created.


As far as I imagine, they are the same for the newborn, and then get adjusted for the language the child is learning, so that the original _mVmV_ eventually settles as _мама, mum, maman, mamá, mamma_ etc.


----------



## Словеса

It certainly makes sense.


----------



## Drink

Словеса said:


> The explanation that these words are coded in the brain would beg the question why these words are not the same in all languages. Nicer to think that some ways of word formation (namely, repetition of the consonant along with saying some "comfortable" vowels, maybe suggested by moms) are coded in the brain, not the words themselves. One might like to think, for example, how abbreviations of names like Вова for Владимир or Nanette for Anne are created.



I wouldn't say they are "coded in the brain", but they are just the first meaningless sounds that babies tend to make, and the adults around consciously or subconsciously assign meanings to them. (For example, a baby makes the sound "mama", so the mother, who happens to be nearby, assumes the baby is calling her. Then eventually the baby learns that saying "mama" calls the mother.)


----------

