# All Slavic languages: definiteness with adjectives



## cajzl

IMHO every Slavic language have short (nominal) and complex forms of adjectives.

In Czech we use:

*mlád, mláda, mládo* (short forms)
or
*mladý *< mladъjь < mladъ + jь
*mladá < *mladaja *< *mlada + ja
*mladé *< mladoje < mlado + je

The Czech complex forms evolved from the nominal forms and the demonstrative enclitic by contraction (e.g. *-á < aja*).
I think it is similar in Serbian. The Russian complex forms are less contracted than the Czech ones.

the meaning was:

nova-*ja* kniga (nom.) = *the* new book
novu-*ju* knigu (acc.)
novy-*je* knigy (plur.)
etc.

the old pronoun *jь, ja, je* is preserved in the pronoun *jenž, jež, jež* (jehož, jemuž, ...) and in forms of the pronoun *on, ona, ono*: *jeho, jemu, ji,* ....


----------



## Jana337

> *mlád, mláda, mládo* (short forms)
> or
> *mladý *< mladъj < mladъ + j
> *mladá < *mladaja *< *mlada + ja
> *mladé *< mladoje < mlado + je


This is an interesting theory but I won't stop quibbling. 

OK, we have "mlád", a short (and dated) word for "young" (masculine).

In old Czech, you could say: Když jsem byl mlád, ...
Nowadays, we would say: Když jsem byl mladý, ...
Both mean: When I was young

We also say "mladý muž", "a young man" nowadays. I am rather disinclined to believe that our ancestors would say "mlád muž" - I hasten to add that it does not follow from your contribution.

But...
Would it mean that j, ja, je are/used to be applied as both determinate and indeterminate articles?
We say: "ten mladý muž" but also "nějaký mladý muž". 

A comparison with German:
Der Mann ist jung.
Ein junger Mann.
Der jung*e* Mann.

In the last case, Germans have both an article and a suffix. I thought Czech was similar.

Jana


----------



## cajzl

I wanted to say that the majority of the Slavs uses _unconsciously_ the demonstrative enclitic in their speech. Only the Bulgarians use it consciously, but they replaced the *jь, ja, je* by *tъ, ta, to.*

BTW it is not a theory, the demonstrative pronoun *jь, ja, je* existed in OCS (in some form; and in Old Czech: *jen, jě, je*) and meant *ten, ta, to* (this, the). Thus the Proto-Slavic *dobra-ja voda* meant _*the* good water_.


----------



## natasha2000

I wouldn't know about other Slavic languages, because it is alreadu demonstrated that I know very little about them, but at least I know about my mother tongue. There are no enclitic demonstratives. Demonstratives -i.e. demonstrative pronouns, are always in front of the noun (if not poetically used), and they are:

ovaj, ova, ovo
taj, ta, to
onaj, ona, ono

which the first two would be THIS and the third one THAT.
That's all about demonstratives in Serbian.

This:


> *mlád, mláda, mládo (short forms)
> or
> mladý < mladъj < mladъ + j
> mladá < mladaja < mlada + ja
> mladé < mladoje < mlado + je
> 
> *


 
I assume this would be in Serbian:
mlad, mlada, mlado
mladi, mlada, mlado (where feminine and neuter have different acentuation, but we do not WRITE accents).


At least in Serbian, and as far as I know, these are not demostratives, these are adjectives and one of them is called deffinite and the other indeffinite, but ADJECTIVE, not article. I cannot say which is which since this difference is almost forgoten in our language, and it is completely same if you say "mladi profesor" or "mlad profesor"... Maybe people still make difference between masculine deffinite and indeffinite adjective, but they are for sure only proffesors of Serbian language. Normal people do not make that difference at all. I doubt they even know it exists.


----------



## cajzl

mlad, mlada, mlado - _indefinite_
mladi, mlada, mlado - _definite_

The Serbian definite forms have evolved from the indefinite (nominal) ones and the demonstrative enclitic (*jь, ja, je*) like in Czech and other Slavic languages. But the difference _definite vs. indefinite_ was nearly or completely lost.


----------



## natasha2000

cajzl said:
			
		

> mlad, mlada, mlado - _indefinite_
> mladi, mlada, mlado - _definite_
> 
> The Serbian definite forms have evolved from the indefinite (nominal) ones and the demonstrative enclitic (*jь, ja, je*) like in Czech and other Slavic languages. But the difference _definite vs. indefinite_ was nearly or completely lost.


 
This is what I am trying to say. NO article in Serbian.

What was the history of Serbian from Church Slavonic to today's modern Serbian... I don't know. But I know one thing for sure. There are no articles in Serbian.


----------



## cajzl

And I am trying to say that the definite (complex, long) adjective forms _implicitly_ include the old Slavic demonstrative enclitic *jь, ja, je.*

This is true even for the Serbian language (despite of the fact that some Serbs do not know it).


----------



## cajzl

I have found an interesting feature of the Slovene language:




> Slovene also has definite and indefinite adjectives, for example:
> 
> *"Velik konj"* means _"*A* big horse"_, and *"dober clovek"* means _"*A* good person"_ but...
> *"Veliki konj"* means _"*THE* big horse"_, and *"dobri clovek"* means _"*THE* good person"_


 
I think it proves the theory that the definite adjectives evolved from the indefinite ones and the demonstrative (anaphoric) pronoun *jь/ja/je *in Common Slavic.

Whence it follows that the Bugarian definite article is _nihil novum sub sole_.


----------



## natasha2000

cajzl said:
			
		

> Whence it follows that the Bugarian definite article is _nihil novum sub sole_.


 
For me, it is.


----------



## cajzl

It simply means that Serbian as well as Modern Czech (and unlike Slovene and Common Slavic) does not distinguish the difference:

*velik konj* (a big horse) _vs._ *veliki konj* (the big horse)


----------



## Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!

Jana337 said:
			
		

> This is an interesting theory but I won't stop quibbling.
> 
> OK, we have "mlád", a short (and dated) word for "young" (masculine).
> 
> In old Czech, you could say: Když jsem byl mlád, ...
> Nowadays, we would say: Když jsem byl mladý, ...
> Both mean: When I was young



Indeed. It should be noted, however, that these "short forms" (called jmenné tvary, literally nominal forms) of adjectives derived from verbs are commonly used along with an auxiliary "být" to express passive tense.

Compare:

"Vůz byl při havárii poškozen." - The car was damaged in the accident. "Byl poškozen" = "was damaged" (passive verb).
"Vůz byl při havárii poškozený." - Does not compute; at best, it could mean the car already had damage when the accident took place. "Byl poškozený" = "was damaged" ("was" + adjective).

Remarkably, Slovak lost this distinction, and uses the long forms exclusively (I believe this particular sentence would go, "voz bol pri havárii poškodený").


----------



## Ozar Midrashim

janecito said:


> I like your approach, cajzl.  I agree. Although I'm not sure if jь, ja, je indeed is a *demonstrative* (pronoun).


 
In fact, it was an anaphoric pronoun in Common Slavic. An anaphoric pronoun makes reference to something / someone which has already been mentioned by the speaker. So, in Old Church Slavonic we can find:

й призъвавъ единого отъ рабъ · въпрашааше *à* 
(i prizъvavъ edinogo otъ rabъ, vъprašaaše *jь*)

"And, calling one of the servants, he asked him" 

As Cajzl points out, the anaphoric pronoun was added to adjectives in order to give them a definite meaning. That's how the opposition definite / indefinite (long / short) arose in Slavic adjectives. It's not just a theory, you can find it in any book about Slavic linguistics, and it's easily proven by the facts.


Greetings


----------



## dudasd

cajzl said:


> mlad, mlada, mlado - _indefinite_
> mladi, mlada, mlado - _definite_
> 
> The Serbian definite forms have evolved from the indefinite (nominal) ones and the demonstrative enclitic (*jь, ja, je*) like in Czech and other Slavic languages. But the difference _definite vs. indefinite_ was nearly or completely lost.


 
The difference _definite vs. indefinite _concerning adjectives in Serbian still exists in nominative of masculine gender, and the rules are very strict and precise.

Examples:
What kind of a man? - *Dobar čovek.*
Which man? - *Dobri čovek.*
What is the man like? - *Čovek je dobar.*

Also it can make distinction between characteristic of a group and an unit:

*Divlji konj *- a member of a sort of the horses that are not cultured by man's hand.
*Divalj konj *- a horse that has a bad character and can't be tamed easily.

Etc. Just jumped in to beg you to consult valid sources before you post. Hope you don't mind.  

But I don't think that definite/indefinite adjective suffixes in other Slavic languages can be compared with Bulgarian and Macedonian clauses, for there are no definite/indefinite _nouns_ in other Slavic languages. Also, so-called "Torlak dialect" is considered to be a borrowed local dialect, so it doesn't count as an original Serbian dialect. (I remember that in one of the previous threads had put it together with prizrensko-timočki once. Again: consult the serious sources, please.)

A question for Bulgarian native speakers - I'm good with Middle Age Slavonic, but not with later redactions of Church Slavonic (apart from the Serbian redaction). Do clauses appear in Bulgarian redaction later, at any moment? Or they appeared in literature together with predomination of everyday language?


----------



## Christo Tamarin

cajzl said:


> Thus the Proto-Slavic *dobra-ja voda* meant _*the* good water_.


Yes, the Proto-Slavic made an unsuccessful attempt to adopt the arthromania. Only the second attempt of the Slavo-Balkanic was successful.


----------



## phosphore

natasha2000 said:


> I assume this would be in Serbian:
> mlad, mlada, mlado
> mladi, mlada, mlado (where feminine and neuter have different acentuation, but we do not WRITE accents).
> 
> 
> At least in Serbian, and as far as I know, these are not demostratives, these are adjectives and one of them is called deffinite and the other indeffinite, but ADJECTIVE, not article. I cannot say which is which since this difference is almost forgoten in our language, and it is completely same if you say "mladi profesor" or "mlad profesor"... Maybe people still make difference between masculine deffinite and indeffinite adjective, but they are for sure only proffesors of Serbian language. Normal people do not make that difference at all. I doubt they even know it exists.


 
That is not true. I think absolutely no one would ever use the definite adjective form as a predicative or to answer a question of which kind someone or something is, it would be both descriptively and prescriptively ungrammatical.

*Kakav je taj balon?*
(What kind of baloon is that?)

*Žut.*
(Yellow.)

*Taj balon je žut.*
(That baloon is yellow.)

*Koji je to balon?*
(Which baloon is that?)

*Žuti.*
(The yellow one.)


But it could be said that the difference in declension (in cases other that nominative) is preserved only in grammars.


----------



## Duya

phosphore said:


> But it could be said that the difference in declension (in cases other that nominative) is preserved only in grammars.



Well, I disagree. The difference is preserved in accent, however weak or volatile it is with many people's pronunciation. I do discern it, for onе:

*U kakvom je kaputu bila?*
(What kind of coat did she wear?)

*U žú**tō**m.*
([In] A yellow one.)

*U kojem je kaputu bila?*
(Which coat [of the known coats] did she wear?)

*U* *žû**tō**m.*
([In] The yellow one.)


----------



## phosphore

But the correct indefinite form would be _žutu_, wouldn't it?


----------



## Duya

phosphore said:


> But the correct indefinite form would be _žutu_, wouldn't it?



That I'm not sure of, and I'd have to verify it in a grammar book. I believe both forms are valid. "_Žutu_" is certainly correct, but would sound very archaic and/or stilted to most people; it is somewhat better preserved in Croatian, especially higher registers, but still rare even there, in my opinion.


----------



## WannaBeMe

cajzl said:


> I wanted to say that the majority of the Slavs uses _unconsciously_ the demonstrative enclitic in their speech. Only the Bulgarians use it consciously, but they replaced the *jь, ja, je* by *tъ, ta, to.*
> 
> BTW it is not a theory, the demonstrative pronoun *jь, ja, je* existed in OCS (in some form; and in Old Czech: *jen, jě, je*) and meant *ten, ta, to* (this, the). Thus the Proto-Slavic *dobra-ja voda* meant _*the* good water_.



Its not so easy to explain this. You are right but not completely.

For explaination of all this feature we need to look a little bit in Old Slavonic or Churchold Slavonic.

Like todays BCS, also Churchslavonic had two declinations of Adjectivs, a short one which would points at undefinite things and a long one which points at more definite noun.

Short form masculinum
Singular 
1. mUdr človek
2. mUdra človeka 
3. mUdru človeku 
4. mUdra človeka 
5.=---- 
6. s mUdrim človekom  
7. o mUdrom človeke

Plural
1. mudri ljudi
2. mudryh ljudej
3. mudrym ljudom
4. mudryh ljudej
5.  -----
6. s mudry ljudy
7. o mudryh ljudeh

Dual
1.4. mudra človeka
2.7. mudru človeku
3.6. mudryma človekoma

Long form (definite form)
Singular
1. mudrYj <<<<< mudr+ij
2. mudrAgo<<<<<mudra+ego
3. mudrOmu<<<<<mudru+emu
4. mudrYj (-ago) =1. or 2
5. mudrYj <<<<<=1.
6. s mudrYm<<<<mudry(m)+jim
7. o mudrEm<<<<mudro(m)+jem

Plural
1. mudrjI <<<<<mudry+ji
2. mudrYh<<<<<mudry(h)+jih
3. mudrYm<<<<<mudry(m)+jim
4. mudrijA<<<<<mudri+ija
5. =1.
6. s mudrYmi<<<mudry+jimi
7. o mudrYh<<<<mudry(h)+jih

Big letter always points to the accentuation of a word.

mudr človek - a wise man
mudrij človek - the wise man

mudra žena - a wise woman
mudraja žena - the wise woman

mudro solnce - a wise sun
mudroe solnce - the wise sun 

The short form is older and the long one is created after division of the Slavic and Baltic languages because Baltic dont own this feature.

With the time vowels have fused on diferent way by diferent Slavic languages. 
East Slavic languages own almost identical gander as Chirchslavonic but also the short form is almost lost.
West Slavic languages also lost short declension exept perhaps in Nominative where it also sounds archaic. The long form difused this way:
mudryj>>>mudry
mudraja>>mudra
mudroe>>mudre
mudraego>>mudrego
mudroemu>>mudremu etc.

South Slavic:
Slovenian has principle of West Slvic languages.
BCS has kept the short and the long gander but the short one is used mostly in Nominative, rest ov the short declension you can use but it sound a bit poethic.

mUdar čovek and mUdrI čovek
mUdra žena  and  mUdrA žena 
mUdro dete  and  mUdrO dete
*please pay atention on the accent by mudra and mudro in bouth cases, short and long!!!


mUdra čoveka and mUdrOga čoveka 
mUdru čoveku and mUdrOmu čoveku etc.

Bulgarian and Macedonian have lost any type of declinsion although they both had such declension as Serbian or Russian.
And they also had such system of short and long adjectivs but it has remained only in Nominative and they got "articles".

muder čovek and mudrI+ot čovek but not muder+ot čovek, you see what I mean?

Exept this article there are 2 more in Bulg and Mac.

mudriOT čovek = the or that man
mudriON čovek = that man there
mudriOV čovek = this man here

analogue  mudraTA, mudraNA, mudraVA žena etc.

And be aware that this so called article in some cases changes the position, from the noun to the adjective or vice versa.


----------



## WannaBeMe

phosphore said:


> But the correct indefinite form would be _žutu_, wouldn't it?


Nope, U žutu would be totaly incorrect and u žutom correct because its lokative and not dative. And dative and locative have the same form only by nouns, not by adjctivs. It was this way also in Churchslavonic.

locative: v žOltom vs v žOltJEm while dative was žoltu vs žoltomu


----------



## phosphore

WannaBeMe said:


> Nope, U *žutu would be totaly incorrect* and u žutom correct because its lokative and not dative. And dative and locative have the same form only by nouns, not by adjctivs. It was this way also in Churchslavonic.


 
My grammar (Mihailo Stevanović, _Savremeni srpskohrvatski jezik I_, Naučna knjiga, Beograd, 1986) does not think so: it lists nom. zèlen, gen. zelèna, dat. zelènu, acc. zèlen, zelèna, voc. zèlenî, instr. zelènîm, *loc. zelènu*.

But that is quite off topic at the moment.


----------



## SweetCherry

phosphore said:


> My grammar (Mihailo Stevanović, _Savremeni srpskohrvatski jezik I_, Naučna knjiga, Beograd, 1986) does not think so: it lists nom. zèlen, gen. zelèna, dat. zelènu, acc. zèlen, zelèna, voc. zèlenî, instr. zelènîm, *loc. zelènu*.
> 
> But that is quite off topic at the moment.


Agree.
*Žut kaput* 
Žuta kaputa         
Žutu kaputu          
Žut kaput          
Žuti kapute        
Žutim kaputom       
Žut*u* kaputu

*Žuti kaput* 
Žutog kaputa
Žutom kaputu
Žutog kaputa
Žuti kapute
Žutim kaputom
Žut*om* kaputu


----------



## WannaBeMe

phosphore said:


> My grammar (Mihailo Stevanović, _Savremeni srpskohrvatski jezik I_, Naučna knjiga, Beograd, 1986) does not think so: it lists nom. zèlen, gen. zelèna, dat. zelènu, acc. zèlen, zelèna, voc. zèlenî, instr. zelènîm, *loc. zelènu*.
> 
> But that is quite off topic at the moment.



Hmmm yes I must agree too now. It sounds a little unusual but if he says so


----------



## Diaspora

Definiteness can also be expressed through declination. 

Example:

Možeš li usput kupiti kruha. (By the way can you buy some bread)-indefinite

Možeš li usput kupiti kruh. (By the way can you buy the bread)-definite


----------



## WannaBeMe

Diaspora said:


> Definiteness can also be expressed through declination.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Možeš li usput kupiti kruha. (By the way can you buy some bread)-indefinite
> 
> Možeš li usput kupiti kruh. (By the way can you buy the bread)-definite



Well, its called "the partitive Genitiv" and it inicate to non definite quantity of something.
And whats so definited at the second example?
Perhaps only quantity that its just one bred but it must not be so. It can also mean that you goes to by bred and not some other thing, and how much of bred its not so familiar.
So in your examples is not the word about definition but quantity.


----------



## Duya

WannaBeMe said:


> Well, its called "the partitive Genitiv" and it inicate to non definite quantity of something.
> And whats so definited at the second example?
> Perhaps only quantity that its just one bred but it must not be so. It can also mean that you goes to by bred and not some other thing, and how much of bred its not so familiar.
> So in your examples is not the word about definition but quantity.



I would argue that Diaspora has a point here; a case could be made that partitive genitive expresses indefiniteness and accusative does not. However, the nuance is really fine, and it most cases it doesn't matter. Thus, we could as well say that they're interchangeable (with verbs such as _imati _or_ doneti_).

For example, on another forum, I argued that:

_Imate li dece?

_expresses a genuine question about indefiniteness (Do you have _any_ children). The same question with accusative:

_Imate li decu?_

sounds unnatural (at least to me), and appears to refer to "The" children. But again, most speakers in most situations do not feel any difference in meaning between those two cases.


----------



## WannaBeMe

Duya said:


> I would argue that Diaspora has a point here; a case could be made that partitive genitive expresses indefiniteness and accusative does not. However, the nuance is really fine, and it most cases it doesn't matter. Thus, we could as well say that they're interchangeable (with verbs such as _imati _or_ doneti_).
> 
> For example, on another forum, I argued that:
> 
> _Imate li dece?
> 
> _expresses a genuine question about indefiniteness (Do you have _any_ children). The same question with accusative:
> 
> _Imate li decu?_
> 
> sounds unnatural (at least to me), and appears to refer to "The" children. But again, most speakers in most situations do not feel any difference in meaning between those two cases.



I dont see this like you two do although you might be right.
We speek here about definite and indefinite articles and posibility of expressing it in Serbian language. But the point is that the noun thus object should be concidered definite or indefinite but what you yre saying is definitness of quantity which is not the same.

"Imate li dece?" i "Imate li decu?" in none of those two cases the object noun is definite. 
If it would be a word of "hleb" or "voda" and the verb "doneti"
"Donesi mi vode" or "Donesi mi vodu" the first sentence doesnt say anything about definitness of which or how much. But the second could be concidered that the spaeker means the one bottle of water or a glas of water which is on the tabel or so but it must not be so. So its all depending on situation.
Its how I understand it.
Pozdrav


----------



## sokol

Mod note:

Split from the articles thread. Please concentrate here on definite adjectives only (you may of course also refer to the distinction of short/long adjectives in those languages where definitiveness was lost in the course of history).


----------



## Diaspora

Perhaps because I speak English and Spanish I am more sensitive toward "feeling" definiteness in Serbocroatian. Adding an -a to the ending of a word could be thought of as a indefinite partitive article  even though standard language treats it as a case ending, in fact Bulgarian adds an -a to some words to indicate definiteness whilist it got rid of declination.

 If somebody told me "Daj mi vodu" my mind would think "the water", "Daj mi vode" would be any water and undetermined amount. That's just my take on it.


----------



## WannaBeMe

Diaspora said:


> Perhaps because I speak English and Spanish I am more sensitive toward "feeling" definiteness in Serbocroatian. Adding an -a to the ending of a word could be thought of as a indefinite partitive article  even though standard language treats it as a case ending, in fact Bulgarian adds an -a to some words to indicate definiteness whilist it got rid of declination.


 
 I just think that there is no such feeling of definitennes in BCS like in English.
Definiteness is depending on imortance of the object to the subject.
If it is important for me I would accent it by adding a pronoun in front of the word or even behind of it. And if you notice we also use it mostly with the verbs expresing emotion.

Ta knjiga mi se tako dopada. Or even more emphisized: Kako volim knjigu tu.

We also use such emphasizing of the verb with "tako" although it doesnt say anything about the way we do it but only shows that our relation with it is more than normaly.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

cajzl said:


> I have found an interesting feature of the Slovene language:
> 
> Slovene also has definite and indefinite adjectives, for example:
> 
> *"Velik konj"* means _"*A* big horse"_, and *"dober clovek"* means _"*A* good person"_ but...
> *"Veliki konj"* means _"*THE* big horse"_, and *"dobri clovek"* means _"*THE* good person"_



In addition, at least one Slovenian adjective is completely different (in all genders and cases) depending on whether its definite or indefinite:

*mali* = small, little (def.)
*majhen* = small, little (indef.)

Examples:

*majhen avto* = a small car
*mali avto* = the small car

*majhna hiša = *a small house
*mala hiša* = the small house


----------



## Orion7

cajzl said:


> BTW it is not a theory, the demonstrative pronoun *jь, ja, je* existed in OCS (in some form; and in Old Czech: *jen, jě, je*) and meant *ten, ta, to* (this, the). Thus the Proto-Slavic *dobra-ja voda* meant _*the* good water_.


The definite and undefinite adjectives are not solely Slavic feature, it's a common Balto-Slavic feature. Moreover in Baltic languages this feature is preserved almost in its original stage.
The definitness of adjectives is made by adding personal pronouns _jis, jī/jā, jie, jās_ 'he, she, they, those' to the adjective; in Latvian for easier pronounceability the complex forms are later reduced, e.g.
_baltas + jis = balta|jis,-sis > baltais_ 'белый/the white (masc.)'
_baltā + jī/jā = baltā|jī,-jā > baltā_ 'белая/the white (fem.)'
_balt|ie,-ai + jie = balt|iejie,-ajie > baltie/baltajie_ 'белые/the whites (masc.)'
_baltās + jās = baltāsjās > baltās/baltajās_ 'белые/the whites (fem.)'

All forms ar fully declinable. E.g.
_baltamī + jamī > baltajamī > baltajā_ 'в белому/in the white'

Slavic forms are made in the same way.
_белый < бēлыйи < бēлэйис << бāлас йис_
_белая < бēлайа < бēлайā << бāлā йā_
_белые < бēлыйе < бēлэйiе << бāлаi йiе_
_белые < бēлыйе < бēлэйē << бāлāс йāс_
etc.


----------



## sokol

That's very interesting and enlightening, Orion7 (and welcome to the forum ). I didn't know that this is a common Balto-Slavic feature. However, and putting my mod-hat halfway on: if you want to discuss this in more detail (you're very welcome to do so ) then please our EHL forum would be the right place for that.


----------



## WannaBeMe

Orion7 said:


> The definite and undefinite adjectives are not solely Slavic feature, it's a common Balto-Slavic feature. Moreover in Baltic languages this feature is preserved almost in its original stage.
> The definitness of adjectives is made by adding personal pronouns _jis, jī/jā, jie, jās_ 'he, she, they, those' to the adjective; in Latvian for easier pronounceability the complex forms are later reduced, e.g.
> _baltas + jis = balta|jis,-sis > baltais_ 'белый/the white (masc.)'
> _baltā + jī/jā = baltā|jī,-jā > baltā_ 'белая/the white (fem.)'
> _balt|ie,-ai + jie = balt|iejie,-ajie > baltie/baltajie_ 'белые/the whites (masc.)'
> _baltās + jās = baltāsjās > baltās/baltajās_ 'белые/the whites (fem.)'
> 
> All forms ar fully declinable. E.g.
> _baltamī + jamī > baltajamī > baltajā_ 'в белому/in the white'
> 
> Slavic forms are made in the same way.
> _белый < бēлыйи < бēлэйис << бāлас йис_
> _белая < бēлайа < бēлайā << бāлā йā_
> _белые < бēлыйе < бēлэйiе << бāлаi йiе_
> _белые < бēлыйе < бēлэйē << бāлāс йāс_
> etc.



I completely agree! 
Only one little thing. The preslavic form wasnt _balas jis_ but 
beil-u(s) jis > belujis > bielij
beil-a ja > belaja > bielaja
beil-o je > beloje > bieloje
beil-ui(s) jes> belys je> bielyje

It would be also interesting if we would compare the whole declension of Baltic and Preslavic.


----------



## zdravkoskalarov

Здравейте,

I'm new to this forum but will try to fill the gap for the bulgarian language since this is my mother's language. 

Here is an example of how we use defined and undefined adjectives:

Млада жена -> A young woman
Младата жена -> The young woman
Жената е млада -> The woman is young

We have two forms for adjectives regarding to masculine nouns. Although we have no cases (der Fall / падеж) it is important whether the noun is in nominative or not:

Младият мъж пие ракия -> The young man drinks rakia (Schnapps / Rakija)
Двама другари дойдоха, за да пият с младия мъж -> Two friends came to drink with the young man
Жената на младия мъж е недоволна -> The wife of the young man is unhappy

This is from me for now. If u have more questions about bulgarian feel free to ask me.


----------



## ahvalj

There is a common mistake circulating in the general literature for many decades: the original compound adjectives being associated with the definiteness distinction as it exists in the modern Romance and Germanic languages (or in Bulgarian in the Slavic context). The reality is somewhat more complex: this particle jь/ja/je was not a demonstrative ("that", from IE is/is/id), but a relative ("which", from IE ios/iā/iod) pronoun, so that the meaning of e. g. "sin'e-je nebo" was not "the blue sky" as often assumed but "blue-which sky", "a/the sky that stands out in being blue" (cp. "Peter the Great"). That is pretty much the situation still found in the modern Lithuanian, and examples of this usage can be found in many manuals of the Old Slavonic. This also explains why this jь/ja/je was always attached to the adjective and never found together with a noun, which would be absolutely enigmatic be it a plain article. So, the additional meaning expressed by the compound adjectives (and by the original Germanic weak adjectives, by the way) was a special emphasis put on the adjective itself ("sin'e nebo": "a/the blue sky" vs. "sin'eje nebo": "a/the sky which is especially blue (today)"), and not a definiteness of a noun.


----------



## sesperxes

> I assume this would be in Serbian:
> mlad, mlada, mlado
> mladi, mlada, mlado (where feminine and neuter have different acentuation, but we do not WRITE accents).



Does it mean that "a" would be longer (mlaadi, mlaada, mlaado) instead of  mlad, mlada, mlado?

Hvala


----------



## ahvalj

Two references as an illustration to my post:

Ambrazas V, Geniušenė E, Girdenis A et al. · 2006 · Lithuanian grammar.pdf (31 MB)
http://yadi.sk/d/8oLrZezZ3lz4S
see pages 142–147

Хабургаев ГА · 1974 · Старославянский язык.pdf (88 MB)
http://yadi.sk/d/766-Wsmz3lz54
see page 229


----------



## Anicetus

sesperxes said:


> Does it mean that "a" would be longer (mlaadi, mlaada, mlaado) instead of  mlad, mlada, mlado?
> 
> Hvala



No, in this adjective, the _a_ in the stem is long in all the forms. The difference is in tone; feminine and neuter indefinite forms, _mláda_ and _mládo_ have a rising tone, while definite forms, _mlȃdā_ and _mlȃdō_ have falling tones. The definite forms also have a long vowel in their endings, hence the macron. The masculine adjective has a falling tone in its indefinite form (_mlȃd_) as well as its definite form (_mlȃdī_), because pronunciation units made up of a single syllable can have only falling tones.

When a syllable has a falling tone, that means it has both stress and the highest pitch in its pronunciation unit -- that one probably sounds more like an accent in Spanish, for example, would. A rising tone means that the syllable after the stressed one has the highest pitch in the unit (that's why single-syllable words can have only falling tones).

This probably sounds pretty abstract and confusing to you. Don't worry, BCS accents are rather complex but totally unimportant for communication, and that's why you shouldn't concern yourself with them too much. There are even native dialects in which these distinctions have been lost.


----------



## Azori

Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li! said:


> Remarkably, Slovak lost this distinction, and uses the long forms exclusively...


Even though Slovak doesn't have such distinction there are at least three adjectives with both a "short form" and a "long form":

*hoden / hodný* (worthy)
*dlžen / dlžný* (owed)
*vinen / vinný* (guilty)

They don't differ in meaning and the short ones (hoden, dlžen, vinen) are rather literary. I'm not sure how common the form vinen is as I don't think I've ever come across it. The short forms can be used only as a complement or a predicate, e.g. "Necítil sa vinen." - He did not feel guilty. / "Nie je nikomu nič dlžen." - He doesn't owe anything to anybody.





> (I believe this particular sentence would go, "voz bol pri havárii poškodený").


I think in this case I'd rather say: "Vozidlo sa pri havárii poškodilo."


----------



## qwqwqw

natasha2000 said:


> ovaj, ova, ovo
> taj, ta, to
> onaj, ona, ono



Could you tell me the difference between "ovaj" and "taj"?  Hvala.


----------



## Duya

qwqwqw said:


> Could you tell me the difference between "ovaj" and "taj"?  Hvala.



http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1836675


----------



## sesperxes

I think I've understood, thanks!


----------

