# Old Church Slavonic: мьнѣ єстъ кънига



## muhahaa

Is мьнѣ єстъ кънига correct OCS for I have a book?


----------



## DenisBiH

muhahaa said:


> Is мьнѣ єстъ кънига correct OCS for I have a book?




I'm not sure if there are people here who are proficient in Old Church Slavonic, but an interesting question nevertheless. Perhaps this thread would benefit if a trace of it is left in EHL?


----------



## iobyo

But why not use the verb _имѣти_?


----------



## Sobakus

iobyo said:


> But why not use the verb _имѣти_?



Because the original I-E way of expressing posession is dative, at least that's what I read. "Mihi est liber" in Latin, "мьнѣ єстъ кънига" in OCS. I don't know for sure if the orthography is correct, but I think it's єст*ь*(instead of *ъ*).


----------



## muhahaa

I got the words from Wiktionary:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/азъ

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/бꙑти

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/кънига


----------



## Sobakus

Well, I'm wrong then. It's odd, if I remember correct the Old East Slavic, Proto-Slavic, Sanskrit and ultimately I-E 3d person have a "ti" at the end - esti, for example. Strange to see an "u" there.


----------



## DenisBiH

Sobakus said:


> Well, I'm wrong then. It's odd, if I remember correct the Old East Slavic, Proto-Slavic, Sanskrit and ultimately I-E 3d person have a "ti" at the end - esti, for example. Strange to see an "u" there.




Same here, but Ranko Matasović in his historical-comparative grammar of Croatian says the following:



> U 3. licu jd. svi su jezici sačuvali izvorni oblik, no u stsl. je nastavak *-ti zamijenjen nastavkom -tъ pod utjecajem tematske konjugacije. Podrijetlom je to najvjerojatnije pokazna zamjenica tъ < *tos. Staroruski još ima kod ovoga glagola očekivan nastavak -tь (jestь).


Roughly:



> In 3rd person singular all languages kept the original form, but in Old Church Slavonic the *-ti ending was replaced with the ending -tъ under the influence of thematic conjugation. Its origin is most likely from the demonstrative pronoun tъ < *tos. Old Russian still has the expected ending  -tь (jestь) for this verb.


----------



## Sobakus

DenisBiH said:


> In 3rd person singular all languages kept the original form, but in Old Church Slavonic the *-ti ending was replaced with the ending -tъ under the influence of thematic conjugation. Its origin is most likely from the demonstrative pronoun tъ < *tos. Old Russian still has the expected ending -tь (jestь) for this verb.



Thank you, and did that thematic conjugation have -tъ?


----------



## DenisBiH

Sobakus said:


> Thank you, and did that thematic conjugation have -tъ?




Yes in OCS, but according to what I'm reading, it's a more complicated story. I'll quote and translate the relevant parts below:



> TEMATSKA KONJUGACIJA PREZENTA
> ...
> U 3. licu jd. nastavak je isprva bio -0; taj je nastavak očuvan u litavskom, samo što u tom jeziku tematski samoglasnik uvijek dolazi u prijevojnom stupnju -a < ie. *o. Gr. pherei ima taj nastavak s dodatkom čestice *-i iz atematskih glagola...Lat. i skr. su iz atematske konjugacije poopćili nastavak *-ti, a u staroslavenskome je na očekivan oblik *bere dodana pokazna zamjenica *tos > *tus > -tъ. U hrvatskome i u zapadnoslavenskim jezicima oblici 3. l. jd. i mn. na -tъ nisu posvjedočeni
> ...
> U 3. l. jd. staroruski još ima nastavak *-tь (< ie. atematsko *-ti), no on se postupno, tijekom 12. i 13. st., zamjenjuje nastavkom -t (s »tvrdim« t od starijega *-tъ). Meko je -t' još očuvano u bjeloruskom, ukrajinskom i nekim ruskim govorima.


Roughly:



> THEMATIC CONJUGATION OF PRESENT
> ...
> In 3rd person singular the ending was originaly -0 [null, my remark, DenisBIH]; that ending is preserved in Lithuanian, except that in that language the thematic vowel always comes in the Ablaut grade -a < PIE *o. Greek pherei has that ending with the addition of the particle *-i from athematic verbs...Latin and Sanskrit generalized the ending -ti from the athematic conjugation, while in Old Church Slavonic the demonstrative pronoun *tos > *tus > -tъ was added to the expected form *bere. In Croatian and Western Slavic languages forms of 3rd person singular and plural on -tъ are not attested.
> ...
> In 3rd person singular Old Russian still has the ending *-tь (< PIE athematic *-ti), but it gradually, during the 12th and 13th century, was replaced with the ending -t (with "hard" t, from older *-tъ). The soft -t' is still preserved in Belorussian, Ukrainian and some Russian vernaculars.


Here are the forms for 3rd person singular that he gives.

From PIE **bher-e*



> PIE **bhere*
> Proto-Slavic **bereti (beretu)*
> OCS  *beretъ*
> Russian *berёt*
> Polish *bierze *
> Croatian *berē*


So the split in Slavic dialects between *-ti and *-tu for thematic conjugation 3rd person singular seems to have happened already during Proto-Slavic times, with OCS ending up with -tъ < *-tu.


----------



## Sobakus

Thanks very much, that clarifies things a lot! Quite a coincidence there with OCS!


----------

