# Common Slavic and modern Slavic languages



## jadeite_85

I didn't know if I had to post the question in this section or in the "other Slavic languages" one? I guess I'll become more practical with time.

I know it is a difficult question, but which Slavic language remained more similiar to Common Slavic in your opinion?

-in phonology it could be Slovene maybe?
-in grammar? Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian have 7 cases, aorist, imperfect and what about Sorbian has also the dual I think.
-in lexicon? Russian maybe?


----------



## sokol

Hello Jadeite,

and welcome to the forum!

There are several discussions in Slavic forum with similar topics but there's no reason why we shouldn't discuss this here in etymology too, with focussing not on comparative linguistics (that'd be Slavic) but etymology.

As for your question, there's no easy answer to it:

- Slovene and Sorbian have retained dual while other Slavic languages only have frozen dual forms which aren't interpreted as dual anymore (strangely, while in Slovene natural pairs - like your eyes, two of them - demands plural in Czech you use frozen dual forms to form the plural of eyes, if thought of them as pairs).

- Sorbian has retained imperfect and aorist (probably due to the bilingual situation, all Sorbians also speak German where they use preterite and perfect, and it seems that German preterite could have supported);
- also Resian dialects (considered to be Slovene by Slovenes but a separate language by Resians) have conserved a few aorist forms (if I remember correctly; I always forget if it was imperfect or aorist);
- Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian have retained aorist and imperfect but its use in everyday language varies greatly (vivid in some regions, rare in others);
- but only Bulgarian and Macedonian have retained aorist and imperfect more or less in its full functionality.

- Bulgarian and Macedonian have given up most of inflectional morphology and are sharply set apart by this from Old Slavonic.

- Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian have retained tonemic accent which however has developped away from the old (reconstructed) accent system: so even though this puts them somewhat closer to Old Slavonic it also sets them apart because.

- Slovene has retained quite some lexical and morphological (supine retained!) archaisms (and also has dual), especially if you also consider dialects; however there has been paradigmatic levelling on a big scale (e. g. with 1st person singular of verbs, but also declension paradigms), the loss of vocative and other changes setting them apart from Old Slavonic.

- Russian and Bulgarian are rich in Old Church Slavonic loans but else are both in their own way quite distinct from Old Slavonic.

- Polish has retained Old Slavonic nasal (some Slovene dialects too have), else however Polish is very distinct.

And the list could be continued.
So anyway, it would be impossible to claim that a single Slavic language would be the one "closest" to Old Slavonic.


----------



## koniecswiata

Based on the study of comparative texts between Slavic and Indoeuropean languages, Polish has this highest number of across-the-board etymological similarities.  This study was done in the late 90s by Witold Mañczak.  He argues that etymological comparison among vocabulary items is the most valid way to establish a historical relationship of relatedness, especially since grammar can change radically within a fairly (2,000 year) period.


----------



## clevermizo

koniecswiata said:


> Based on the study of comparative texts between Slavic and Indoeuropean languages, Polish has this highest number of across-the-board etymological similarities.  This study was done in the late 90s by Witold Mañczak.  He argues that etymological comparison among vocabulary items is the most valid way to establish a historical relationship of relatedness, especially since grammar can change radically within a fairly (2,000 year) period.



Doesn't such a method involve a lot of false positives or false negatives? Languages in proximity may have or lose certain reflexes or change their meaning, but then borrow them again from another language nearby or from a prestige dialect, thus obscuring the linear changes that have occurred. It seems like this would be more likely with individual items in the lexicon than with syntax/morphology although that too has its issues.

I suppose if you take a sample set that is large enough, you can overpower artificial data.


----------



## koniecswiata

The sample set used for all the comparisons was the Book of Genesis in the Bible.  I suppose that was in part to stick to a more "conservative" and somewhat basic vocabulary.  Eventhough, such a method cannot weed out similarities due to cultural influence, but then again, that COULD be an issue with even very old vocabulary where there is no more proof one way or the other.  His method's strength, I think, is that you focus on quantity.  He very much believes in not letting syntax and morphology (let's say "grammar") influence the reasons for categorizing languages.  For example, if we considered grammar more than vocabulary, we would obscure the direct relation between modern romance languages and Latin--a case where we know the answer, though if we looked at grammar, we could argue that Latin is closer to, Gothic, or Old Church Slavonic, than to Italian.


----------



## sokol

koniecswiata said:


> For example, if we considered grammar more than vocabulary, we would obscure the direct relation between modern romance languages and Latin--a case where we know the answer, though if we looked at grammar, we could argue that Latin is closer to, Gothic, or Old Church Slavonic, than to Italian.


Well actually Latin never could be closer to Old Church Slavonic than any modern Romance language if you compare only historical phonology, morphology and grammar in general (without including lexicon): there are just too many differencies.
And it is similar with Germanic language which are set apart by the Germanic sound shift, in historical phonology.

Apart from that you have a point (or say, Mañczak has ).
It may well be that if you compare basic lexicon Polish were closest to Old Church Slavonic.

However on probably almost all other levels of comparison (except for retaining old nasal vowels, and probably a few others) other Slavic languages have retained more features of Old Slavonic.
I do not hold with the method of mainly comparing lexicon - it is the one I grew up with (it is the preferred method in German dialectology, also very much preferred by more traditional Indoeuropean linguists), and over time I came to the conclusion that it has quite some shortcomings.


----------



## Hulalessar

sokol said:


> I do not hold with the method of mainly comparing lexicon - it is the one I grew up with (it is the preferred method in German dialectology, also very much preferred by more traditional Indoeuropean linguists), and over time I came to the conclusion that it has quite some shortcomings.



I feel that must be right. I cannot speak for the Slavic languages, but in the case of the Romance languages if you ask how far any given language has moved away from Latin you get different results according to whether you concentrate on lexicon, phonology, morphology, syntax or semantics, none of which can necessarily be studied in isolation. Even if in any of these fields the distance could be measured, you would still have the problem of what weight to give to each over all. In the end I think that it has to come down to something like an intuitive assessment by those who have studied all the relevant languages in sufficient depth.


----------



## jadeite_85

sokol said:


> Hello Jadeite,
> 
> and welcome to the forum!
> 
> There are several discussions in Slavic forum with similar topics but there's no reason why we shouldn't discuss this here in etymology too, with focussing not on comparative linguistics (that'd be Slavic) but etymology.
> 
> As for your question, there's no easy answer to it:
> 
> And the list could be continued.
> So anyway, it would be impossible to claim that a single Slavic language would be the one "closest" to Old Slavonic.


 
Thanks sokol! 
The evolution of Slavic languages is really something that interests me.


----------



## jadeite_85

Are the Slovene forms *jaz grem, ti greš, on gre ... *(I go, you go, he goes ...) archaisms? The verb in the infinitive is *iti* (to go), similiar to Russian *idti* and BCS *ići*. But the latter two languages conjugate the verb differently (BCS:* idem*, *ideš*, *ide* ...)


----------



## sokol

jadeite_85 said:


> Are the Slovene forms *jaz grem, ti greš, on gre ... *(I go, you go, he goes ...) archaisms? The verb in the infinitive is *iti* (to go), similiar to Russian *idti* and BCS *ići*. But the latter two languages conjugate the verb differently (BCS:* idem*, *ideš*, *ide* ...)



No it isn't, in Old Church Slavonic "iti" is fairly regular (apart from past participles "šel" etc., OCS root "шьд-"), no suppletive stem like modern Slovene "grem" - I don't know where Slovene "grem" comes from, it could still be an old IE root, or alternatively a paradigm mixed in from another Slovene word, or a loan from another language.


----------



## Kanes

I can really speak only for Bulgarian. In many aspects is the close to Common Slavic, its descendant of OCS, but in others is has evolved the furthest. Loosing all cases but the vocative and few facilitated forms in pronouns. On other hand it kept all tenses and added few more, while other languages did the opposite, keeping the cases but losing tenses. I don't think there could be an answer as every language has kept and lost different things and it's hard to say which is more important. Maybe if we can construct a Common Slavic text and experiment who understands most of it? In the case of OCS we understand without problem, even the cases but they have fallen out of use. Church services are on it. Common Slavic is different matter.


----------



## radogost

sokol said:


> I don't know where Slovene "grem" comes from, it could still be an old IE root, or alternatively a paradigm mixed in from another Slovene word, or a loan from another language.


 
I'd say Slovene form "grem" could be linked to the root "gre/greb" such as Russian "грести, гребу, гребёшь" ("gresti, grebu, grebyosh") meaning "to row". The main meaning of the root is the movement, so it's quite plausible that in Pre-slavonic existed such a root meaning some general movement, and only later it got the specific meaning of "moving in the boat" in Russian.

Of course, this is merely a piece of speculation of mine, if anybody agrees/disagrees, the opinions are welcome! 



Kanes said:


> I don't think there could be an answer as every language has kept and lost different things and it's hard to say which is more important. Maybe if we can construct a Common Slavic text and experiment who understands most of it?


 
I absolutely agree with you as to this. All Slavic languages have changed in different aspects, so we could only give our opinions as to which of them remained closest to Common Slavic (or Pre-Slavic?) in certain aspect - in grammar (actually, in certain parts of grammar), phonetics, syntax or vocabulary. It seems to me that regarding phonetics, Polish evolved less of all the others, since it's the only one that detained the nasals. Further, as to the grammar, Russian and Czech reduced the conjugation system to three tenses, so they went farther from the basis. But we can say the same for Bulgarian and Macedonian, since they lost the declination system. So perhaps as to grammar, Serbo-Croat remained closest to Common Slavic with all 7 cases and complete conjugation system, at least according to grammar books (during the last century or so several tenses got the ancient air and practically are not in full spoken use for decades already). 

Any more opinions?


----------



## koniecswiata

The Slovene case of "grem" linking to the root "gre/greb" and not to "typical" go forms "iti, choditi, etc..." is a good example of how languages sometimes replace frequently used verbs with semantically related forms.  In this case a form that means "row" in Russian.  The English "went" replaced the form derived from "go" since "went" actually came from the verb "to wend", the same has happened in Romance Languages:  French "allez", Spanish "andar", and Romanian "merge" all are derived from other verbs--not from the Latin for go.


----------



## werrr

jadeite_85 said:


> -in lexicon? Russian maybe?


Czech is said to have the highest number of old Slavic stems still in use.


----------



## nose_bleed

radogost said:


> It seems to me that regarding phonetics, Polish evolved less of all the others, since it's the only one that detained the nasals.



Polish retained the nasals, yes, but Polish nasals are different from OCS nasals.

Furthermore, in speech, Polish nasal vowels are usually produced as a sequence of VOWEL + NASAL CONSONANT, not as truly nasalized vowels of the kind seen in Portuguese. The letter ę is also often pronounced as a simple e, without any sort of nasalization.

And if you look at palatalization then Polish is the most innovative of all the Slavic languages! This is one of my favorite things about Polish  Anyway, that's why modern Polish has such a rich inventory of palatal fricatives and affricates. 

This intra-Slavic correspondence illustrates some of what I mean:

Russian - река (river) /r/
Czech - řeka (river) /ř/ <-- trilled and palatalized; the palatalization is an innovation that did not occur in Russian
Polish - rzeka (river) /ʐ/ <-- originally pronounced identically to the Czech řeka (hence the digraph 'rz'), the initial was then even further palatalized until it lost its trilled quality completely and merged with ż.

This is why Polish rz will correspond with Russian p, and Polish ż will correspond with Russian ж, even though rz and ż are pronounced the same way.

жена
žena
żona


----------



## Christo Tamarin

radogost said:


> sokol said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where Slovene "grem" comes from, it could still be an old IE root, or alternatively a paradigm mixed in from another Slovene word, or a loan from another language.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say Slovene form "grem" could be linked to the root "gre/greb" such as Russian "грести, гребу, гребёшь" ("gresti, grebu, grebyosh") meaning "to row". The main meaning of the root is the movement, so it's quite plausible that in Pre-slavonic existed such a root meaning some general movement, and only later it got the specific meaning of "moving in the boat" in Russian.
> 
> Of course, this is merely a piece of speculation of mine, if anybody agrees/disagrees, the opinions are welcome!
Click to expand...

In Old Slavonic, there was a word *gręsti* (to go: *grędą*, *grędeşi, **grędeti*) with the same meaning as in Slovene.

Please note that *gresti* (to row: *grebą*, *grebeşi, **grebeti*) has a different radix.

The title of Henryk Sienkiewicz's book "*Quo Vadis?*" (From Latin: Where are you going?) is often translated into Russian or Bulgarian using the Old Slavonic form "*Камо грядеши?*". In Russian or Bulgarian, there are also some archaic words of the same radix: грядущее (the future to come).


----------



## Awwal12

Christo Tamarin said:


> In Old Slavonic, there was a word *gręsti* (to go: *grędą*, *grędeşi, **grędeti*) with the same meaning as in Slovene.
> 
> Please note that *gresti* (to row: *grebą*, *grebeşi, **grebeti*) has a different radix.
> 
> The title of Henryk Sienkiewicz's book "*Quo Vadis?*" (From Latin: Where are you going?) is often translated into Russian or Bulgarian using the Old Slavonic form "*Камо грядеши?*". In Russian or Bulgarian, there are also some archaic words of the same radix: грядущее (the future to come).


You're totally right.  In Russian, there is an archaic and poetic verb "грясти" (~to come forth {in future}, to be coming, - usually about events), which probably came from the Old Church Slavonic.
Грядёт великая эпоха. - A great age is coming.


----------



## radogost

Christo Tamarin said:


> In Old Slavonic, there was a word *gręsti* (to go: *grędą*, *grędeşi, **grędeti*) with the same meaning as in Slovene.
> 
> Please note that *gresti* (to row: *grebą*, *grebeşi, **grebeti*) has a different radix.
> 
> The title of Henryk Sienkiewicz's book "*Quo Vadis?*" (From Latin: Where are you going?) is often translated into Russian or Bulgarian using the Old Slavonic form "*Камо грядеши?*". In Russian or Bulgarian, there are also some archaic words of the same radix: грядущее (the future to come).


 
It didn't occur to me right away! Absolutely right!  
12 points from me!


----------



## mugibil

nose_bleed said:


> This intra-Slavic correspondence illustrates some of what I mean:
> 
> Russian - река (river) /r/
> Czech - řeka (river) /ř/ <-- trilled and palatalized; the palatalization is an innovation that did not occur in Russian
> Polish - rzeka (river) /ʐ/ <-- originally pronounced identically to the Czech řeka (hence the digraph 'rz'), the initial was then even further palatalized until it lost its trilled quality completely and merged with ż.



Just a minor note: One should distinguish between (A.) true palatalization in the phonetic synchronic sense and (B.) "palatalization" in the sense of "diachronic change (fricativization, affricatization) resulting from (A.) The [r] in Russian река _is_ a truly palatalized trill and nothing else. Czech [ř] in řeka is still a palatalized trill, but in addition it has become fricativized (as a further development of the palatalized pronunciation). Polish [ʐ] in rzeka has gone even farther, so that is no longer a trill at all, and is a 100% fricative; and in addition it is not palatalized at all any longer.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

radogost said:


> I'd say Slovene form "grem" could be linked to the root "gre/greb" such as Russian "грести, гребу, гребёшь" ("gresti, grebu, grebyosh") meaning "to row". The main meaning of the root is the movement, so it's quite plausible that in Pre-slavonic existed such a root meaning some general movement, and only later it got the specific meaning of "moving in the boat" in Russian.
> 
> Of course, this is merely a piece of speculation of mine, if anybody agrees/disagrees, the opinions are welcome!
> 
> Any more opinions?



"грести, гребу, гребёшь" ("gresti, grebu, grebyosh") meaning "to row" definitely does not have anything in common with the Slovene verb.
In Russian there is a very old and rarely used verb грясти (I wasn't even sure how to spell the infinitive, since I had never before seen it written), stressed on the last syllable, which means to approach, to draw near, to come: гряду, грядёшь. Probably the most actively used form of this verb is the verbal adjective грядущий. Perhaps the substantive гряда is etymologically related to it. Its first meaning is "row", especially of clouds; its second meaning is "flowerbed" or "vegetable patch".


----------



## Ben Jamin

nose_bleed said:


> Polish retained the nasals, yes, but Polish nasals are different from OCS nasals.


 This is true, but the articulation you describe is relatively new. Actors in Poland are still trained in the old pronuciation, more similar to the French or Portuguese one, so it is probably not more than 150 years old.


----------



## Homer MakeDonski

At Prespa lake area ,town Resen and surrounded villages in Macedonia today grem form   is still in using.
" -Mi great/greit decata na shkolo.." or  " My children are going to school .."
This grem form having an usage to describe a  movement .
When I have heard for very first time it was something what indeed  has surprised me .

Regards  

Regards


----------



## SkyScout

MOD EDIT: The following discussion has been moved here from THIS thread.



*vedeti* is actively used in Western Slavic Branches - Polish, Czech, Slovak & subsets (see below).
Slovenian and Belarus both appear to be "links" - with Slovenian words being similar at times to both Western and Southern Slavic, but also, oftentimes, to Northern and Southern word forms.
Belarus will have a mixture of Western and Eastern word forms.
Each also, I find, has its own creative word forms.

*BELARUSSIAN - ведаць*
*CZECH - vědět*
*SLOVAK - vedieť*
*SLOVENIAN - vedeti*
*KASHUBIAN - wiedzec*
*and*
*UPPER & LOWER SORBIAN - wědźeć & wěźeś*

Etymologically I believe all of the Slavic languages had three forms of "TO KNOW":

*umeti* -----------know how to do something
*vedeti* -----------possess information of, have in one's mind, being aware of 
*znati* ----------- know someone, have knowledge of

There are remnants of "vedeti", however, in HR/SR as well - but not as obvious - such as _"vještina - vičnost - vježbati - vještačenje - obaviješten - vještak_
A comment was made to me by a BCS speaker who wrote: _"BCS has no *vem, veš, ve or vim, viš, vi...* only very archaic *vedam, vedaš*."_

Croatian and Serbian are the two Slavic languages which have simplified themselves significantly over the millennia, losing many of what was once standard Slavic grammars and word forms. _(And, yes, of course, there is Bulgarian, which simplified its grammar perhaps the most of all!)_
Slovenian, interestingly, seems to have retained many forms - such as the "dual" case.
Polish still retains the "nasal" sounds which I don't think exist any longer in the remaining Slavic languages (please correct me if I am wrong).
At the same time, the other Slavic languages must certainly each retain elements of the Mother Source which the others do not.
That would be an interesting study and topic to reduce into a paper or article, no? 
_____________________________
*By the way: these posts regarding "vedeti" etc. - would they not be more appropriately located under an "etymological" heading, rather than a "Constructed Language" topic? *


----------



## DenisBiH

SkyScout said:


> Croatian and Serbian are the two Slavic languages which have simplified themselves significantly over the millennia, losing many of what was once standard Slavic grammars and word forms.




Eh? Your source for this is? Which particular grammar elements and which particular words and how are Croatian or Serbian different from other Slavic languages in terms of changes undergone? And which *millenia* exactly?

And I'm not sure what you say holds any weight even for Bulgarian. While (mostly) doing away with the case system can be termed a simplification, preserving verb forms not preserved in many, or rather most, other Slavic languages is actually conservative. And adding articles to the grammar is the opposite of simplification.

I think we should steer clear of these kinds of arguments, or at least we should use proper terminology. "Mother Source" is not proper terminology.




> Slovenian, interestingly, seems to have retained many forms - such as the "dual" case.
> Polish still retains the "nasal" sounds which I don't think exist any  longer in the remaining Slavic languages (please correct me if I am  wrong).


Yes, and interestingly standard BCS languages (and many dialects/vernaculars), as well as standard Slovenian preserve the Slavic tonemic accent system. To quote Ranko Matasović:



> U prozodiji, očuvanje slobodnog tonskog naglaska izrazito je arhaična crta koju hrvatski dijeli sa slovenskim, bez obzira na mnoge akcenatske promjene koje su hrvatski i slovenski govori pretrpjeli neovisno jedni o drugima.
> U areainom je smislu zapadnojužnoslavensko područje sa slobodnim tonskim naglaskom izolirano u Europi (sustavi s takvim naglascima u Europi se susreću još jedino na Baltiku).
> 
> In prosody, the preservation of free tonemic accent is a pronouncedly archaic trait which Croatian shares with Slovenian, no matter the many accentual changes that Croatian and Slovenian vernaculars underwent independently of each other.
> In areal terms, the West-South-Slavic area with the free tonemic accent is isolated in Europe (the only other place where systems with such accent can be found in Europe is the Baltic)


So, shall we trade? Three kilos of archaic tonemic accent for 3 kilos of archaic nasal vowels? I can also offer 2 kilos of freshly prepared Bosnian archaic aorist if you have something to trade for it. I'm sure that Bulgarians would be glad to offer some of their freshly prepared archaic imperfect, as we in the BCS area nowadays mainly use the canned variety.  I hope that sounds as nonsensical as I intended it to sound.


----------



## Istriano

SkyScout said:


> Polish still retains the "nasal" sounds



It does not. They're simply a sequence of slightly nasalized vowel + nasal consonant, just as nasal as  _bomba, sonda, samba  _in BSC.

Polish ''nasal vowel' of todau are  orthographical and morphological only.  


> _Polish nasal vowels are nasal in name only: as was mentioned in the preceding chapters on a few occasions, the traditional nasal vowels are complex structures with a possible nasal component. The nasal component is not necessary and, furthermore, some of the so-called nasal vowels are phonetically purely oral segments_.


Gussmann's ''The Phonology of Polish'' (Oxford Uni Press)

Even American English and BSC sound more nasal than Polish.
Polish does not sound like French, Hindi, and Portuguese, language with audible nasalization and pure nasal vowels.

There is morphologic nasalisation in čakavian too (mienso  for  meso *meat*)  but it's not ''real'' nasalization like French (_beau / bon_) or Portuguese (_vá / vã_ )


----------



## bibax

> I can also offer 2 kilos of freshly prepared Bosnian archaic aorist if you have something to trade for it.


Czech has something special for it, the pressent and past transgressives with three distinct forms. I remember that Russian has also transgressives, but only with one form for all genders and numbers.

Господь, *пришедши* в мир, указал людям другие сокровища, ...
Pán, *přišed* na svět, ukázal lidem jiné poklady, ...

Жена *пришедши* нажарила блинов.
Žena, *přišedši*, napekla lívanců.

К месту *пришедши*, уселись на гладко отесанных камнях.
*Přišedše* na místo, usedli na hladce otesané kameny.

*přišed, přišedši, přišedše* = *пришедши*

Similarly

*znaje, znajíc, znajíce* =  *зная*
*jda, jdouc, jdouce* = *пойдя*
...

Have BCS or Bulgarian the present and past transgressives with three distinct forms?


----------



## Orlin

bibax said:


> Czech has something special for it, the pressent and past transgressives with three distinct forms. I remember that Russian has also transgressives, but only with one form for all genders and numbers.
> 
> Господь, *пришедши* в мир, указал людям другие сокровища, ...
> Pán, *přišed* na svět, ukázal lidem jiné poklady, ...
> 
> Жена *пришедши* нажарила блинов.
> Žena, *přišedši*, napekla lívanců.
> 
> К месту *пришедши*, уселись на гладко отесанных камнях.
> *Přišedše* na místo, usedli na hladce otesané kameny.
> 
> *přišed, přišedši, přišedše* = *пришедши*
> 
> Similarly
> 
> *znaje, znajíc, znajíce* = *зная*
> *jda, jdouc, jdouce* = *пойдя*
> ...
> 
> Have BCS or Bulgarian the present and past transgressives with three distinct forms?


 
In fact Bulgarian and BCS have transgressives in only one form (Bulgarian only for inmperfective verbs - знаейки, BCS for both aspects with different formation and meaning: znajući, saznavši, quite rare in modern language though).


----------



## bibax

I see, thanks.

Present transgressive (derived from present stem):

*znajući = зная = znaje, znajíc, znajíce;*

Past transgressive (derived from the infinitive stem):

*saznavši = узнавши = seznav, seznavši, seznavše;*

It seems that only Czech preserved the three distinct forms (masc. sing. - fem.+neuter sing. - all genders plural).


----------



## DenisBiH

Orlin said:


> In fact Bulgarian and BCS have transgressives in only one form (Bulgarian only for inmperfective verbs - знаейки, BCS for both aspects with different formation and meaning: znajući, saznavši, quite rare in modern language though).




A correction: znajući and saznavši are fairly common in modern literary language (including newspaper articles and such) including more formal speech (at least znajući for the latter). In colloquial speech though, saznavši etc. is probably non-existent and znajući etc. rare.

We do have a certain number of what I presume are those same forms turned into real adjectives which have three genders:

sveznajući. sveznajuća, sveznajuće; other examples: svemogući, lutajući, dolazeći all make sense in three genders and singular/plural
bivši. bivša, bivše - I can't think of others

But where Czech is concerned, I'd be much more interested in purchasing some of that wonderful full declension of all numerals (if I remember correctly), that would indeed be very useful and I could sell it here at a very high price.


----------



## SkyScout

DenisBiH said:


> I hope that sounds as nonsensical as I intended it to sound.


Wow! I did not get "nonsensical" as much as "sarcastic".
Thank you, Sir!


----------



## Ben Jamin

Istriano said:


> It does not. They're simply a sequence of slightly nasalized vowel + nasal consonant, just as nasal as  _bomba, sonda, samba  _in BSC.
> 
> Polish ''nasal vowel' of todau are  orthographical and morphological only.
> ​Gussmann's ''The Phonology of Polish'' (Oxford Uni Press)
> 
> Even American English and BSC sound more nasal than Polish.
> Polish does not sound like French, Hindi, and Portuguese, language with audible nasalization and pure nasal vowels.
> 
> There is morphologic nasalisation in čakavian too (mienso  for  meso *meat*)  but it's not ''real'' nasalization like French (_beau / bon_) or Portuguese (_vá / vã_ )



This is not correct. The denasalization has ocurred with sounds in certain positions, but nasal sounds have been retained in other positions.


----------



## Istriano

Let's go away


_Gremo ća_. (Čakavian)
_Gremo/Pemo proć_ (Kajkavian)

PS
Štokavian has no word like English _away_, German _weg _or Portuguese _embora_
(is in _go away, weggehen, ir embora_).


----------



## Istriano

Ben Jamin said:


> This is not correct. The denasalization has ocurred with sounds in certain positions, but nasal sounds have been retained in other positions.



Sorry, but I am afraid I will believe the Oxford author and my ear over you.
Polish ę  sounds like [ɛn].


----------



## Sobakus

Istriano said:


> Sorry, but I am afraid I will believe the Oxford author and my ear over you.
> Polish ę  sounds like [ɛn].



That's ridiculous, anyone listening to Polish who doesn't have nasal vowels in their language instantly notices them. You don't need to even have  seen Oxford in a picture to tell them from the simple ones.


----------



## Gita-Etymology

> This is not correct. The denasalization has ocurred with sounds  in certain positions, but nasal sounds have been retained in other  positions.



I think such cases are the exceptions that prove the rule. An example sometimes given is _gęś_ "goose". However to my ear it is usually pronounced [gɛnś].

I think well-meaning but linguistically unaware teachers espouse a hypercorrect pronunciation, leading to confusion among native speakers and language learners.  I don't think that native speakers of Polish are able to differentiate between a theoretical [ę] and [ɛn], and that most are convinced that they pronounce [ę], when in fact a trained ear notes an obvious [ɛn] 99% of the time. 

Basically, what I'm saying is that the [ę] pronunciation is hypercorrect.


----------



## CapnPrep

Istriano said:


> Polish ę  sounds like [ɛn].


Only before some dental consonants (e.g. _pęd_). And word-finally, ‹ę› can just sound like [ɛ] (_piszę_). However, as Gussmann says in the book you cited, in some contexts, for example before spirants and word-finally in formal (some would say hypercorrect) speech, ‹ę› is pronounced as a diphthong consisting of an [ɛ] with negligible nasalization, followed by a nasalized bilabial semivowel, in other words [ɛw̃]. E.g. in _mięso_, _się_.

So you are right: Polish nasal vowels are not nasalized vowels of the French type. And (as nose_bleed and Ben Jamin already said above) they do not have the same phonetic realization as the nasal vowels of Common Slavic. However, they still have a clearly audible nasalized component in many contexts.


----------



## Gita-Etymology

Thanks for the thoughtful clarification, it shows that everyone was right, but that some were talking apples and others oranges.

I do disagree that 





> ‹ę› is pronounced as a diphthong consisting of an [ɛ] with negligible  nasalization, followed by a nasalized bilabial semivowel, in other words  [ɛw̃]. E.g. in _mięso_, _się_.



I think the above statement may have been historically correct, or be correct for stage actors, or be correct in some extremely formal situations. However, I think that it is incorrect descriptively. I think it is always a mistake to pronounce [ɛw̃] in Polish, unless it is for theatrical effect - like using "shall" in American English.

I do realize that prescriptively, [ɛw̃] is still recommended by high school teachers and teachers of Polish as a second language, even though it is descriptively incorrect. I don't know why this is the case. Maybe someone else knows the merits of nevertheless pronouncing /ę/ as [ɛw̃] and I am missing something, something sociolinguistic.


----------



## SkyScout

In the Polish I learned and speak today, along with my family, we clearly "nasalise" many vowels. For example:

*ręka - hand or arm
mięso - meat
są  - "they are"
skąd - "from where, whence"
kąpać - "to bathe"*

However, these ę's and ą's have different sounds in these different words.

The* "ę"* of *"mięso"* per IPA pronunciation symbols is * ε ɛɛɛɛ̃*/*(w̃)ɔɔ*
_(Note: I could not reproduce the actual Greek "eta" with the tilde crown here)_ 
Whereas the *"ę"* of *"ręka"* is pronounced symbolicaly per IPA as* "rε ɛɛ̃ŋka"*, which is definitely akin to the French velar nasal /ŋ/ sound.

The *"ą"* of* "są"* (_"they are"_) is absolutement akin to the French sound of _*"sont"*_ - as in _"ils sont"_.  The IPA is *" sɔͻw̃ "* versus *" sͻɔ̃ "* for_* "sont"*_.

However, the *"ą"* of* "skąd"* has a slightly different sound.  According to IPA it is represented by: * " s̪kͻɔ̃n̪t̪ "*.

And yet another nasalised sound for *"ą"* would be in "to bathe" = *"kąpać"* - the first syllable of which sounds like "kom", rather than "kon".  The IPA shows:  *"kɔm"*.

On the other hand, the word *"się" *(the verbal reflexive - _"oneself"_) is NOT pronounced with a nasal sound - at least in our modern Polish.
(interesting, however, is that my Great-Grandfather, who was born around 1900 south of Warsaw, would pronounce *"się"* with a clear nasalised ending sound.  (he would also pronounce "rz" with an clear "r" sound ~ "RŽ" while today we drop the "R" completely)

Clearly, my comments are not based upon studied phonology; they are the sounds I hear and speak and live - which I have been told that it is a mixture of "Mazowiecki" and "Malopolski" dialects.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Gita-Etymology said:


> Thanks for the thoughtful clarification, it shows that everyone was right, but that some were talking apples and others oranges.
> 
> I do disagree that
> 
> I think the above statement may have been historically correct, or be correct for stage actors, or be correct in some extremely formal situations. However, I think that it is incorrect descriptively. I think it is always a mistake to pronounce [ɛw̃] in Polish, unless it is for theatrical effect - like using "shall" in American English.
> 
> I do realize that prescriptively, [ɛw̃] is still recommended by high school teachers and teachers of Polish as a second language, even though it is descriptively incorrect. I don't know why this is the case. Maybe someone else knows the merits of nevertheless pronouncing /ę/ as [ɛw̃] and I am missing something, something sociolinguistic.


 
One must hear the difference of the proninciation of nasals before stops as b, p, k, g, t, d, and sibilants s, z, sz, ż, ź. Before sibilants the nasals are retained as nasals. I never pronounce mięso as mienso, or wąż as wonsz. Actually, I have never heard such pronunciation.


----------



## SkyScout

Here is a reasonably excellent online text-to-speech program.
Listen to the pronunciation of the nasalised Polish word forms using the three different speakers under the "Polish" option.
Perhaps try "meat" first > *mięso* 

http://www.oddcast.com/home/demos/tts/tts_example.php?sitepal
or
*TEXT TO SPEECH*


----------



## Gita-Etymology

> One must hear the difference of the proninciation of nasals before stops as b, p, k, g, t, d, and sibilants s, z, sz, ż, ź. Before sibilants the nasals are retained as nasals.


I don't doubt that there is nasalization of the vowel, or that the place of articulation of the nasal stop changes depending on what consonant follows. It's the [w̃] sound that I have an issue with. 


> I never pronounce mięso as mienso, or wąż as wonsz. Actually, I have never heard such pronunciation.





> The* "ę"* of *"mięso"* per IPA pronunciation symbols is * ε ɛɛɛɛ̃*/*(w̃)ɔɔ*



Perhaps I should also "clean-up" my pronunciation. I'm used to hearing [mienso], not [miew̃so]. But perhaps the [miew̃so] pronunciation creates a better impression of the speaker, and will not leave the impression of being hypercorrect on the average listener. Maybe we would agree that pronouncing _się _as [śiew̃] is hypercorrect? Or would people think I was a classier guy if I pronounced [ew̃] word-finally?

I think that for the purposes of this thread, yes, Polish has retained the nasal vowels as phonemes.


> (as nose_bleed and Ben Jamin already said above) they do not have the  same phonetic realization as the nasal vowels of Common Slavic.


More interestingly, I would venture that oftentimes they have the same phonetic value as they did in Proto-Indo-European.


----------



## SkyScout

*SIĘ* - I don't think any contemporary Polish speaker pronounces this word in a nasalised sound.
As I noted above, my Great-Grandfather did nasalise this word - in part, I believe, because he was of a generation of proud Poles who chose to emulate the Polish "virtues" of old.  In other words, he was not alone in his pronunciations.  I was a very young boy, but I do remember asking my mother why my _*"pradziadek"*_ and his other "friends" spoke "funny" - and I remember my mother telling me that *"This is how Polish gentlemen and ladies of good education and status speak."*
The planned _"Revolution of the Common Man" _never was successful; rather, the *Media* was (in creating a watered-down common tongue).
 


Gita-Etymology said:


> I'm used to hearing [mienso], not [miew̃so]. But perhaps the [miew̃so] pronunciation creates a better impression of the speaker, and will not leave the impression of being hypercorrect on the average listener. Maybe we would agree that pronouncing _się _as [śiew̃] is hypercorrect? Or would people think I was a classier guy if I pronounced [ew̃] word-finally?


----------



## CapnPrep

Gita-Etymology said:


> More interestingly, I would venture that oftentimes they have the same phonetic value as they did in Proto-Indo-European.


What PIE nasal vowels (and what phonetic value) do you have in mind here?


----------



## ilocas2

DenisBiH said:


> A correction: znajući and saznavši are fairly common in modern literary language (including newspaper articles and such) including more formal speech (at least znajući for the latter). In colloquial speech though, saznavši etc. is probably non-existent and znajući etc. rare.



In Czech the transgressives are non-existent in spoken language, in literary language they are rare and appear mostly in books, not in newspapers and such. Overhelming majority of native speakers even doesn't know how to make them correctly for corresponding gender and number, although they are able to recognize their meaning in written text. There is couple of commonly used frozen forms of transgressives, but they work as adverbs or prepositions.


----------



## Ben Jamin

SkyScout said:


> *SIĘ* - I don't think any contemporary Polish speaker pronounces this word in a nasalised sound.
> As I noted above, my Great-Grandfather did nasalise this word - in part, I believe, because he was of a generation of proud Poles who chose to emulate the Polish "virtues" of old. In other words, he was not alone in his pronunciations. I was a very young boy, but I do remember asking my mother why my _*"pradziadek"*_ and his other "friends" spoke "funny" - and I remember my mother telling me that *"This is how Polish gentlemen and ladies of good education and status speak."*
> The planned _"Revolution of the Common Man" _never was successful; rather, the *Media* was (in creating a watered-down common tongue).


 
There are certainly different realizations of phonemes in so called rapid everyday speech, and in careful pronunciation. This is not the same as a hypercorrect pronunciation that may sound funny. For me, the Polish pronunciation produced with the synthetized speech softeware does not sound good, it is like a mixture of a careful and rather careless pronunciation of phonemes. The exclusion of nasals is one of the features that make it sound unpleasant.


----------



## Orlin

DenisBiH said:


> A correction: znajući and saznavši are fairly common in modern literary language (including newspaper articles and such) including more formal speech (at least znajući for the latter). In colloquial speech though, saznavši etc. is probably non-existent and znajući etc. rare.
> 
> We do have a certain number of what I presume are those same forms turned into real adjectives which have three genders:
> 
> sveznajući. sveznajuća, sveznajuće; other examples: svemogući, lutajući, dolazeći all make sense in three genders and singular/plural
> bivši. bivša, bivše - I can't think of others
> 
> But where Czech is concerned, I'd be much more interested in purchasing some of that wonderful full declension of all numerals (if I remember correctly), that would indeed be very useful and I could sell it here at a very high price.


Moram priznati da sam prevideo ove dobro poznate i meni činjenice o upotrebi glagolskih priloga u BCS i slažem se da im je upotreba ne tako retka nego prosto stilski obeležena. 
Drugo, BCS pridevi koje si naveo meni su mnogo bliži po etimologiji i značenju našim sadašnjim aktivnim participima (npr. знаещ, -а, -о, grade se od svih nesvršenih glagola i funkcioniraju kao pridevi, pretežno su formalnog stila, neki od njih su "pretvoreni" u "prave" prideve, mislim da ih ima u ruskom i u nekim drugim slovenskim jezicima) nego glagolskom prilogu знаейки.
Mislim da "puna" deklinacija brojeva postoji u svim zapadno- i istočnoslovenskim jezicima.
Na kraju, zamolio bih moderatore dopustiti ovu poruku kao post na temi. 

Dodajem prevod na engleski preko Google Translatora:


> I must admit that I overlooked the well-known facts about my use of verbal reports in the BCS and agree that their use is not so rare but simply marked stylistically.
> Second, the BCS adjectives you named me as much closer to the etymology and meaning of our present active participle (eg Znaes,-a,-on, built up from all the unfinished work as verbs and adjectives are mostly formal style, some of them are "converted" to "true" adjectives, I think there are in Russian and other Slavic languages​​) rather than participle Knowing.
> I think "full" number variation exists in all West- and East-Slavic languages.
> Finally, I asked the moderator to allow this as a post on the topic.


----------



## vianie

SkyScout said:


> *SIĘ* - I don't think any contemporary Polish speaker pronounces this word in a nasalised sound.


 
I heard a Polish priest on TV pronouncing that word.  It sounded somewhere in between Slovak "en" in "Trenčín" and "eň" in "deň" not being too close to either side. I venture to pinpoint that Slovak swallows its phones enough to use such a comparison.


----------



## vianie

vianie said:


> It sounded somewhere in between ...


 
I mean only the Ę part of the word, of course.


----------



## Istriano

SkyScout said:


> Here is a reasonably excellent online text-to-speech program.
> Listen to the pronunciation of the nasalised Polish word forms using the three different speakers under the "Polish" option.
> Perhaps try "meat" first > *mięso*
> 
> http://www.oddcast.com/home/demos/tts/tts_example.php?sitepal
> or
> *TEXT TO SPEECH*



* mięso 
*

*at*

http://www.forvo.com

does not sound nasal to my ears at all

(you can compare it to the very nasal *penso *pronounced by a speaker of Portuguese).


----------



## SkyScout

For whatever reason, I cannot access www.forvo.com.
For grins, go to the GOOGLE TRANSLATE WORD page and select
ENGLISH -> POLISH
Then enter under the ENGLISH side the following:
*mięso 
pięso*

On the Polish side, click "Listen".
I hear *pięso* as it if pronouncing "penso" in Portuguese.
And mięso is pronounced the same, except with an "m" of course.

Alternatively, change the "POLISH" side to "PORTUGUESE and enter:
*menso
penso*

The Polish version actually sounds more nasalised to me than the Portugese version.


----------



## Istriano

I don't think google translator uses the native speakers, i like forvo better.


----------



## SkyScout

Today I was able to access www.forvo.com and I listened to its pronunciation of mięso.
Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of static on the recording, and the female speaker is not dynamic at all - in contrast to the male speaker of the Portuguese word "penso" - who nearly "shouts" the word.
Nonetheless, I do hear the nasal "ę" in mięso.
Regardless, I know very well how I and other Poles pronounce this word - and it is definitely a nasalised sound akin to your Portuguese "penso".


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

WEND
Does anyone have any information on any WEND language still in existence - i.e. German Slavonic language (apart from Czech or Slovak)?


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Sorry, what is a "German Slavonic language" - a Slavic language spoken in  restricted region in Germany?


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

Sorry if I was not clear!  I refer here to the modern day Sorbs of the Lusatia region of Northern Saxony and their (still mainly Slavic) language.  Anyone shed any light on this?


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

This one exists in two varieties - Upper and Lower Sorbian. 
Wend (Wendisch in German) is an alternative name you can encounter e. g. in Ottfried Preußler's "Krabat", but it's use is minoritarian today, at least in Germany.
The German Wikipedia has an excellent article on the Sorbian languages and the articles on the Upper and Lower Sorbian are also quite good. The English articles are much less informative.


----------



## edwardtheconfessor

Thank you Angelo.  I am aware that the term 'Wend' (which also has its old Anglo-Saxon derivative, too - from which the English label 'Wend' comes) has, historically, meant a number of different things -for example; most Slavic speaking peoples within the Holy Roman Empire were, at different times, described as 'Wends'; as have also been (at certain times) some Scandinavian minorities. 

HOWEVER: What interests me here, in fact, is getting a _TRANSLATION_, from modern English, of a sentence which I have into Lusatian Sorb (whether Upper or Lower I am not overly concerned). I made this initial inquiry just to see if anyone on this site knew anything about these languages or, indeed, had any knowledge of anyone still speaking them (although I only seek a _written_ translation).
And now  (thanks to your replies) I see that there may be hope!
Any offers to help?


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

I think it will be difficult to help you unless we have any Sorbs or Germans with knowledge of one or both Sorb languages here, which I'm not aware of.
The Leipzig university has an institute for Sorbian studies: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~sorb/. I hope they can help you.


----------

