# all Slavic: bez / brez



## Gavril

Hello,

Most Slavic languages seem to have a preposition *bez* meaning "without". But in modern Slovene, the word for "without" is *brez*, though there seem to be dialects of Slovene (or older forms of Slovene) that have *bez* instead.

Is Slovene the only Slavic language that has initial *br*- in this word? Where is the extra "r" thought to come from?

Thanks for any info


----------



## ahvalj

"Bez" is the original form, attested in Latvian ("bez") and Lithuanian ("be"). Outside Balto-Slavic, it is often compared with the Indo-Aryan "bahis", "outside", the IE proto-form thus being *bheg'h-.

I don't know about the origin of the Slovenian form, but may speculate it is a contamination of "bez" and "črez".


----------



## Gavril

ahvalj said:


> I don't know about the origin of the Slovenian  form, but may speculate it is a contamination of "bez" and  "črez".



Slovene *črez* seems to be a rare byform of _čez_ "across, over" (I'm not sure which form is the more original one).

Slovene has many common prepositions/prefixes beginning in _pr_- (_pred, pre-, pri, prek_)_,_ and it seems that these could have been an analogical basis for the -_r_- in both_ brez_ and _črez_ (assuming that the latter is more innovative than _čez_). Is there a reason why you think _črez_ specifically would have been an influence on the -_r_- of _brez_?


----------



## ahvalj

No, just because of the rhyme. Such paired words often influence each other.

"črez" in Slovenian is the original form (cp. East Slavic "čerez" with the pleophony)


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Some BCS dialects say brez.


----------



## klemen

ahvalj said:


> "Bez" is the original form, attested in Latvian ("bez") and Lithuanian ("be"). Outside Balto-Slavic, it is often compared with the Indo-Aryan "bahis", "outside", the IE proto-form thus being *bheg'h-.
> 
> I don't know about the origin of the Slovenian form, but may speculate it is a contamination of "bez" and "črez".


If there exist IE proto-form for word "bez", why is this word in germanic and romance languages so different?


----------



## ahvalj

klemen said:


> If there exist IE proto-form for word "bez", why is this word in germanic and romance languages so different?


The IE proto-form of the Balto-Slavic *beź had a different meaning, probably closer to that attested in Indo-Aryan, it is hard to tell now. 

The Latin form "sine" is traceable back to the IE "*sьni" with the same meaning, while the Balto-Slavic and some Germanic languages have replaced it with new words, which is a normal process of mutagenesis that occurs in any language: some percent of words always gets replaced with time. If we look at the Romance descendants of the Latin, "sine" has preserved e. g. in Spanish ("sin") and Portuguese ("sem"), partly augmented in French ("sans") and Italian ("senza") (from "sine" + some additional element), but replaced in Romanian ("fără"). Interestingly, "fără" comes from the Latin "foras", "outside" (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fără#Romanian), thus paralleling the semantical evolution of the Balto-Slavic "*beź" from the IE, though most probably independently and much later.

The Germanic forms for "without" are partly ancient ("ohne": http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ohne and traced back to another IE word with this meaning), and partly new ("without", "utan": http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/without with the same development "out-side">"with-out" we have met in BSl and Romanian).


----------



## Gavril

ahvalj said:


> "črez" in Slovenian is the original form (cp. East Slavic "čerez" with the pleophony)



It's interesting that Slovak has *cez *"through", also without the "r". Is it possible that the "Cr-/C-" alternation seen in these two words (_brez_ and _črez_) dates back to common Slavic?

On the other hand, it might be phonetically likely that the "r" would be lost after affricates like _č/ts__, _in which case Slovak _cez _and Slovene _čez_ could be independent developments.


----------



## ahvalj

The Slavic etymological dictionary (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJb3d4TU02aHdpNW8/edit?usp=sharing : pp. 76–77) suggests "*čersъ" as the original form and links it to the Lithuanian "skersas", "transverse", which is OK to me. The absence of s-mobile is characteristic of many Slavic words (cp. e. g. Slavic "čistъ" from "*keystås" with the Lithuanian "skaistas"). "Z" is explained by analogy with "*vъz", "*jьz" and "*niz". 

You can also find the list of forms across various languages there. "Čez" is listed for the Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian and Slovak. "Cez" — for Slovak. To me, "c" is obviously secondary (cp. SC "crn" from "čьrnъ") and, together with "čez", can be explained as a result of dissimilation of a tongue-twisting cluster "čr". Since this cluster results from the metathesis erC>rěC, it exists only on South and West Slavic languages: neither Common Slavic, nor the East Slavic have these troubles with "čr" and hence no reasons to do something with č and r that were/are separated by a vowel.


----------



## ahvalj

Now back to "bez" — here again the etymological dictionary (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJYXZmSHZ3ejg1MVE/edit?usp=sharing : pp. 7–). The form "brez" attested in various phonetic variants in Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Czech and Lower Lusatian — again, only languages with metathesis — is not discussed separately but mentioned on p. 10 as possible result of contamination with "prez".


----------



## ahvalj

By the way, Russian children have no troubles with the metathesized clusters in words of the Old Church Slavonic origin, except for this "čr-" in the prefix "črez-", which they tend to replace with the East Slavic "čerez-" («черезвычайный», «черезмерный» etc.).


----------



## Azori

The form "brez" is found in Slovak dialects, too.


----------

