# All Slavic: -stvo nouns from agent nouns/occupations ending in -ec/-ac, -ač



## bardistador

All Slavic languages have the ability to create abstract nouns from nouns.  (Brat > bratstvo)  

Sometimes this word is derived not from the root, but from the occupation - (BCS) šum (forest) > šumar (forester) > šumarstvo; kiparstvo, novinarstvo (journalism).   In Czech, jezdec (rider) creates jezdectvo (cavalry).   Yes in comparison, BCS has zero words that end in -*c*tvo (or -*č*tvo for that matter). 

Is verb*ac*+*stvo*=verba*ctvo* avoided for phonetic reasons?  Or is there a fundamental difference between verbac/verbač (pisac/letač) nouns/agent nouns/occupations on one side and verbar (šumar, stanar) on the other that makes the former less likely to form -stvo words?

Continuing the sound thread:

Pjesnik (writer) creates pjesništvo.  That š is a softened k (*k*stvo>*č*stvo>*š*tvo) since there are no words that end in -kstvo.    Or -gstvo.  Atheism (bez-bog-stvo) becomes bezboštvo.  Drug+stvo, as in many languages, becomes društvo.   Junak>junaštvo, mnogo-mnoštvo.   Jahač creates jahanje, but no -stvo word exists.   Jahaštvo exists only in Slovene.  

But what about ac/ač in BCS?  

It seems that unlike -ar (ribar) nouns, -stvo words formed out of -ac endings (sudac: judge) strip the ending and form the abstract noun out of the root.

riba (fish) > ribar (fisherman) > ribarstvo (fishing) *NOT* ribstvo
yet
sud (court) > sudac (judge) > sudstvo (judiciary) *NOT* sudacstvo

knjigove*z*ac > knjigove*š*tvo
zlatar > zlatarstvo

Nouns ending in -nik can go either way: poslanik > poslanstvo.   vlasnik > vlasništvo.  

So words like jezdec > jezdectvo, letec > letectvo are avoided.   There is the issue of sound, but there is a solution with the consonants being reduced to š  for -štvo, so that's not the real issue.  Unlike nouns ending in -ar, ones ending in -ac tend to drop the noun-creating suffix to create an abstract noun from the root itself.   Jahstvo sounds more natural than jahaštvo although both words don't exist.

How is it in other Slavic languages?

Is the noun-creating suffix stripped?  Or is there no issue at all in creating words like jezdectvo?  Is there an issue with sound with -stvo having an effect (-štvo) on the preceding consonants?  Or is -kstvo, -gstvo, -čstvo, -ctvo possible?


----------



## Karton Realista

In Polish :
Jeździectwo is a normal word, derived from "jeździec". There is also "jazda", but it is the core.


bardistador said:


> Atheism (bez-bog-stvo) becomes bezboštvo.


Bezbożnik - Bezbożnictwo, Bezbożność. It doesn't mean just atheism, it means godlessness (in a very negative sense). I've been called "bezbożnik" many times (Polish people are overtly religious).


bardistador said:


> letec > letectvo are avoided.


Lotnik - lotnictwo, source word - latanie, lot (flying, flight)

A weird example, when you compare it with the other ones: pija*k *(drunkard) - pija*ństwo*. (huge overuse of alcohol)



bardistador said:


> sud (court) > sudac (judge) > sudstvo (judiciary) *NOT* sudacstvo


Sąd - sąd*ownic*two. It takes form similar to other word from that family, sądowy (associated with court)



bardistador said:


> poslanik > poslanstvo. vlasnik > vlasništvo.


Posłannik - posłannictwo ; there aren't many words with - ik ending that create this form, or I'm not avare of them.

Łgarz (disgusting liar) - łga*rstwo*.
Rz to r seems to be the way here.

One vulgar example: k*rwa - *urewstwo (whore - whoredom)
Here we have an example of "ruchome e" (moving e), a phenomenon of e appearing in one form of word and not appearing in other.

Words with subject ending with 'w' : myśliwy (hunter, not thinker!) - myśli*stwo*.


----------



## Panceltic

Karton Realista said:


> Łgaż (disgusting liar) - łga*rstwo*.
> Ż to r seems to be the way here.



Is it possible that łgaż was really once łgarz? It would make sense given the derivation łgarstwo.


----------



## Karton Realista

Panceltic said:


> Is it possible that łgaż was really once łgarz? It would make sense given the derivation łgarstwo.


No, łga_*rz*_ was always łga*rz*, it's my spelling mistake.

I'm very sorry
Already corrected.


----------



## francisgranada

bardistador said:


> ...
> riba (fish) > ribar (fisherman) > ribarstvo (fishing) *NOT* ribstvo ...


I think the reason is that _ribarstvo _refers to the _fishermen _and not to the _fish_.  *_Ribstvo_ could in theory mean something like *_fishdom or *fishness _in English (if such words existed ...). The same in case of _zlatarstvo  _etc. 





Karton Realista said:


> ... A weird example, when you compare it with the other ones: pija*k *(drunkard) - pija*ństwo*. (huge overuse of alcohol)


_Pija*ństwo *_surely derives from the form _pijan _as from _pijak _we should obtain _pijactwo_.  Does not exist _pijan _in modern Polish at all? (In Slovak this word exists).


----------



## marco_2

Yes, in Polish _pijany _is a participle which is used either as an atribute _(pijany człowiek = _a drunk man) or a part of predicate _(On jest pijany _= He's drunk).


----------



## DarkChild

In Bulgarian it seems such clusters are avoided.
Example:

ездач-> ездачество(not ездачство)
безбожник -> безбожничество (not безбожникство)
певец -> певачество* (not певецство)

*this is word has a sarcastic connotation. The "normal" word for "singing" is пеене.


----------



## ahvalj

This suffix originally existed in two forms, which in Old Church Slavonic looked like -_ств_-/_-stv-_ (_шьствиѥ/šьstvьje_) and -_ьств_-/_-ьstv-_ (_отьчьство/оtьčьstvo_), the former being residual. The _-ь-_ in the dominant variant of this suffix was phonetically weak and regularly dropped in all later Slavic dialects, producing various consonant clusters. In Russian, the regular outcome of _-ачьство/-ačьstvo_ is found in very few words of colloquial origin, like _хохляцтво/xoxlʲaʦtvo_ "the Ukrainian way of thinking and behaving" (pejorative), while the regular outcomes of _-ьчьство/-ьčьstvo _seem to be absent. Instead, under the Church Slavonic influence, Russian vocalizes the _ь_ in this suffix after the hushing consonants, which produces in particular the modern _-ачество_ (_чудачество/ʨudaʨestvo_) and -_ечество_ (_отечество/otʲeʨestvo_). Compare also _человечество/ʨelovʲeʨestvo, лесничество/lʲesnʲiʨestvo, множество/mnoʐestvo, пастушество/pastuʂestvo.
_
*P. S. *Since _ь_ in the beginning of this suffix was originally a front vowel (_*i_), velars underwent the First palatalization before it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_first_palatalization), where _*k>č, *g>ž_ and _*x>š,_ so _-k…stv-, -g…stv-_ and _-x…stv-_ became impossible after some moment (cp. Old East Slavic _человѣкъ/čelověkъ_ → _человѣчьство/čelověčьstvo, лѣсьникъ/lěsьnikъ → лѣсьничьство/lěsьničьstvo, мъного/mъnogo → мъножьство/mъnožьstvo _and_ пастѹхъ/pastuxъ → пастѹшьство/pastušьstvo_).

*P. P. S.* Occasionally, -_ьчьство/-ьčьstvo_ produces also _-∅чество/-∅ʨestvo,_ e. g. _отьчьство/otьčьstvo>отчество/otʨestvo_ (along with _отечество/otʲeʨestvo_) or _скопьчьство/skopьčьstvo>скопчество/skopʨestvo_.


----------



## ahvalj

I have failed to find other Russian examples with _ь_ of this suffix dropped before hushing consonants and am now inclined to think that the word _хохляцтво/xoxlʲaʦtvo _mentioned in #8 is actually a Ukrainian loanword — in that language such a development is regular: _чудак/ʧudak → чудацтво/ʧudaʦtvo, купець/kupeʦʲ → купецтво/kupeʦtvo,_ cp. also _чоловік/ʧolovʲik → чоловіцтво/ʧolovʲiʦtvo, лісник/lʲisnyk → лісництво/lʲisnyʦtvo._


----------

