# BCS - nouns in -ak



## Tassos

So let's go for round 2.
The (polysyllabic) nouns in -ak are very interesting.
They combine two rules: Sibilarizacija *and* Nepostojano a
But there are a lot of them. 
So we have a lot of exceptions (literally a lot of exceptions of the exceptions )
What I know (or I think I know - you'll be the judge) so far...

1) These in -zak change -z to -s (dolazak, *dolaska*, *dolasci*, *dolascima*)
2) These in -tak "cut" the -t- from the assibilized forms. 
    Here is my first question: Does that always happen?
    Because wiktionary gives  *zadaci* , *zadacima* but also *podaci/podatci, podacima/podatcima*
3) These in -dak change the -d to -t and then cut it (napredak, *napretka, napreci, naprecima)*
    Here's my other question: 
    If there was a hypothetical noun in -bak (I don't know if there are any) would it change -b to -p?
4) These in -cak do not have assibilized forms. (natucak, *natucki*, *natuckima*)
    But these in -čak apparently do! Again wiktionary gives *doručci, doručcima* and *zaključci, zaključcima*
    (besides the fact that these look really odd, I can't begin to imagine how they are pronounced )
5) Then there are nouns who do not have nepostojano a like *junak*, *došljak* and *stručnjak* (I don't know if there is an  
    underlying rule here)
6) And finally mozak,*mozga,mozgovi *(clearly something you have to learn _napamet_)

That's everything I can think of right now.
Any help much appreciated.

(to the moderators: I know I wrote a lot but there are only two actual questions in here, so please don't break this thread. Thank you)


----------



## VelikiMag

Tassos said:


> 1) These in -zak change -z to -s (dolazak, *dolaska*, *dolasci*, *dolascima*)
> 
> Here is my first question: Does that always happen?


I can think of words _kozak_ and _brzak_. So I guess the answer would be: no, it doesn't always happen.



Tassos said:


> 2) These in -tak "cut" the -t- from the assibilized forms.
> Because wiktionary gives  *zadaci* , *zadacima* but also *podaci/podatci, podacima/podatcima*


It is usually without _t_. Because it is hard to pronounce _-tci_. Apparently, orthography allows both.



Tassos said:


> Here's my other question:
> If there was a hypothetical noun in -bak (I don't know if there are any) would it change -b to -p?


There is word _dubak_ and _b_ does change to _p_.
Word _tabak_ also comes to mind, but I see here that it doesn't follow the rule. Anyway, to my ear it sounds a bit odd.



Tassos said:


> 5) Then there are nouns who do not have nepostojano a like *junak*, *došljak* and *stručnjak* (I don't know if there is an
> underlying rule here)


If I remember correctly, when a word denotes a person, there isn't 'nepostojano a'. (I was wrong about this)
Words _došljak_ and _stručnjak_ do not have a vowel before _lj_ and _nj_, so it would be very hard to pronounce such words if _a _was missing.


----------



## Anicetus

Tassos said:


> 2) These in -tak "cut" the -t- from the assibilized forms.
> Here is my first question: Does that always happen?
> Because wiktionary gives  *zadaci* , *zadacima* but also *podaci/podatci, podacima/podatcima*



In speech yes, but the standard, at least the Croatian one, accepts both ways of spelling. This is supposedly to avoid ambiguities, such as _redci - reci_. However, _otac, sudac_ and _svetac_ must always drop their _t_ and _d_ (because those forms are already so common, I guess?). I know the suffix isn't _-ak_ here, but it's the same issue. The norm is not very systematic, as you can see...



> Here's my other question:
> If there was a hypothetical noun in -bak (I don't know if there are any) would it change -b to -p?



Yes, _b_ in general does devoice to _p_ in front of voiceless consonants.



> But these in -čak apparently do! Again wiktionary gives *doručci, doručcima* and *zaključci, zaključcima*
> (besides the fact that these look really odd, I can't begin to imagine how they are pronounced )



Yes, that's correct and they're pronounced just like that.  It doesn't usually present a problem for native speakers. But note that feminine nouns ending in _-čka_ aren't assibilated in dative/locative singular (_točki, mački_). 



> 5) Then there are nouns who do not have nepostojano a like *junak*, *došljak* and *stručnjak* (I don't know if there is an
> underlying rule here)



No definite rules, I'm afraid, they're simply two different suffixes. You're probably not aware of this difference if you're learning the language from books and the Internet (and it's probably hard for learners anyway, and not that important), but _a_ in _-ak_ which doesn't disappear is always long, while the other one is short. The "disappearing" _a_ comes from the old semi-vowels, which have different reflexes in different Slavic languages, while the long _a_ in _-ak_ reflects Common Slavic _a_. However, it's useful to just keep in mind what VelikiMag has said: _-ak_ with the long _a_ often denotes persons. Also note that the suffix with the non-disappearing _a_ has the variant _-jak_ as well (hence _struč*nj*ak, se*lj*ak, lu*đ*ak, trav*nj*ak, dim*nj*ak_...), while the one with the disappearing _a_ doesn't.



> 6) And finally mozak,*mozga,mozgovi *(clearly something you have to learn _napamet_)



Pretty much. I don't know what the "official" explanation is, or if there are enough old inscriptions to definitely figure out "what happened", but _mozak_ clearly isn't a noun with a suffix. Perhaps the change spread from those dialects which devoice final consonants, or perhaps _-ag_ in nominative singular was confused with the suffix...




VelikiMag said:


> I can think of words _kozak_ and _brzak_. So I guess the answer would be: no, it doesn't always happen.



That's because those nouns have different suffixes and never drop the _a_, which is what Tassos' fifth point is concerned with. If _z_ happens to be in front of _c_, it does change to _s_.



> There is word _dubak_ and _b_ does change to _p_.
> Word _tabak_ also comes to mind, but I see here that it doesn't follow the rule. Anyway, to my ear it sounds a bit odd.



The _-ak_ in _tabak_ has nothing to do with Slavic suffixes, and the _a_ is therefore never lost.


----------



## Brainiac

Tassos said:


> 1) These in -zak change -z to -s (dolazak, *dolaska*, *dolasci*, *dolascima*)



There's _dolazaka_ too. _Način dolazaka turista prema vrstama....._ or _Manje dolazaka, više noćenja_



			
				Tassos said:
			
		

> 6) And finally mozak,*mozga,mozgovi *(clearly something you have to learn _napamet_)


The same with short words like rak, rakovi. (But đak, đaci). Like with other short words (voz, vrh, bik....)
Vosak, voskovi
Znak, znakovi/znaci
....


----------



## Tassos

Anicetus said:


> Yes, that's correct and they're pronounced just like that.  It doesn't usually present a problem for native speakers.


I secretly hoped there was a mistake there! 



Anicetus said:


> You're probably not aware of this difference if you're learning the language from books and the Internet (and it's probably hard for learners anyway, and not that important), but _a_ in _-ak_ which doesn't disappear is always long, while the other one is short.



Interesting to know, but judging from what I hear from youtube videos and HRT1 (the only BCS channel I can watch at home) I don't think I could spot the difference between long and short a's (that could happen if someone talked *really*  slow)



Anicetus said:


> Also note that the suffix with the non-disappearing _a_ has the variant _-jak_ as well (hence _struč*nj*ak, se*lj*ak, lu*đ*ak, trav*nj*ak, dim*nj*ak_...), while the one with the disappearing _a_ doesn't.



I was tempted to write that as a _possible_ rule, but then I saw _vijak, *vijka*_. I'll keep what VelikiMag said, it's virtually impossible to say stručnjka so the a stays where it is...



Brainiac said:


> There's _dolazaka_ too.


Of course, I know that - genitive plural, the only case that keeps it like the nominative 



Brainiac said:


> Vosak, voskovi


Interesting that one, thanks!


----------



## Anicetus

Tassos said:


> Interesting to know, but judging from what I hear from youtube videos and HRT1 (the only BCS channel I can watch at home) I don't think I could spot the difference between long and short a's (that could happen if someone talked *really*  slow)



Nah, I don't watch TV much, but I don't think I could hear them very well at HRT either. The thing is, the Zagreb dialect has lost all vowel lengths (as have many other dialects) and most presenters are from Zagreb. Of course presenters at the national TV have to pass through trainings in standard accentuation, but their lengths are certainly less pronounced than of those speakers who have actually kept the lengths in their dialects. Then again, I don't know how long a long vowel in the standard is. This all sounds quite absurd, I know... 



> I was tempted to write that as a _possible_ rule, but then I saw _vijak, *vijka*_.



That's not the same, _j_ is generally inserted between _i_ and _a_ (er, except in _iako_), and I guess it's even possible to consider _vijak_ is derived from _vijati_, as they both have a long rising accent, while _viti_ has a short falling one. _Seljak_ or _luđak_ have no such excuse.


----------



## Tassos

Just came across višak, *viška*, *višovi* (no k??), another of these words where no standard rule applies....


----------



## DenisBiH

Tassos said:


> Just came across višak, *viška*, *višovi* (no k??), another of these words where no standard rule applies....



It's _viškovi_, i.e. there is a -k-. What do you mean by "no standard rule applies"? Obviously you have _nepostojano a_ here as well.

To our Serbian foreros, what is an inhabitant of Vršac called? Vrščanin? I'm trying to find a pair of words that are spelled the same, one in short -ak, one in long -ak, so _Vršak _would be helpful, but I doubt that's the term.


----------



## Tassos

DenisBiH said:


> It's _viškovi_, i.e. there is a -k-.



I wrote that there is no k because I saw that:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/višak




DenisBiH said:


> What do you mean by "no standard rule applies"?



I mean that you cannot treat this as a separate category (have in mind that when I wrote it I thought that it had no k). My English wording was unfortunate as ONE standard rule *does* apply, though the other does not (then it would be višci) .


----------



## DenisBiH

Tassos said:


> I wrote that there is no k because I saw that:
> 
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/višak



I would recommend using HJP either instead of or together with Wiktionary. It is really very good. It has declension / derived forms as well, which is not always 100% correct, but the main entry usually gives you all the forms you need, e.g. for višak:


> *víšak* _m_ 〈G -ška, N _mn_ -škovi〉


----------



## Anicetus

DenisBiH said:


> To our Serbian foreros, what is an inhabitant of Vršac called? Vrščanin? I'm trying to find a pair of words that are spelled the same, one in short -ak, one in long -ak, so _Vršak _would be helpful, but I doubt that's the term.



Vrščanin is at least what Google suggests.

_Levak_ and _levak_ are spelled the same in Ekavian, although, of course, the length of _e_ is also different (which is why they are _lijevak_ and _ljevak_ in (I)jekavian).




Tassos said:


> I mean that you cannot treat this as a separate category (have in mind that when I wrote it I thought that it had no k). My English wording was unfortunate as ONE standard rule *does* apply, though the other does not (then it would be višci) .



I don't want to bring even more confusion, but _višci_ doesn't sound wrong to me either, and Google confirms it isn't unheard of.


----------



## DenisBiH

Anicetus said:


> _Levak_ and _levak_ are spelled the same in Ekavian, although, of course, the length of _e_ is also different (which is why they are _lijevak_ and _ljevak_ in (I)jekavian).



 Thanks! 



Anicetus said:


> I don't want to bring even more confusion, but _višci_ doesn't sound wrong to me either,



Agreed. I wanted to mention that, but I wasn't sure whether it was only me.


----------



## Tassos

I know that HJP is better. The fact that people from all BCS republics are using it, is the biggest proof to its merit.
It contains the intonation to the word (very useful) and although it doesn't have declension tables it contains also the notable exceptions (for example for nauka it says* 〈D L -uci〉* etc).
The problem is that the vocabulary used to explain the words is a bit out of my league, for the time being ...
I understand that they have to explain what a word means without using the actual word but they are using many (at least to me) "formal" and "difficult" words so most of the times I put the translation through google ....



Anicetus said:


> I don't want to bring even more confusion, but _višci_ doesn't sound wrong to me either, and Google confirms it isn't unheard of.



To stay on topic, no this is not confusing at all (since Denis also finds it acceptable). Its good to know that the language is not so "rigid" and that saying what comes naturally from learning the rules does not make you sound ridiculous ...


----------



## Anicetus

Tassos said:


> It contains the intonation to the word (very useful) and although it doesn't have declension tables it contains also the notable exceptions (for example for nauka it says* 〈D L -uci〉* etc).



Actually, it does have inflectional tables -- you just have to click "Izvedeni oblici", on your left, while viewing an entry. However, as Denis has already said, they're not always correct.


----------



## Maja

DenisBiH said:


> what is an inhabitant of Vršac called? Vrščanin?


Vršlija?  Just kidding!
Never thought about it though... Probably Vrščanin as you suggested.


----------



## Duya

Anicetus said:


> _Levak_ and _levak_ are spelled the same in Ekavian, although, of course, the length of _e_ is also different (which is why they are _lijevak_ and _ljevak_ in (I)jekavian).


Good catch. More universally, we have _pétak_ 'Friday' and _pètâk_ 'fifth-grade student' (or '(gimme) five').


----------



## DenisBiH

Duya said:


> Good catch. More universally, we have _pétak_ 'Friday' and _pètâk_ 'fifth-grade student' (or '(gimme) five').



Thanks for this one too.  Shouldn't the second one be _pètāk_, though?


----------



## Duya

It should, if only my cell phone had an a-macron, so I had to improvize.


----------



## Милан

Tassos said:


> So let's go for round 2.
> 
> Because wiktionary gives  *zadaci* , *zadacima* but also *podaci/podatci, podacima/podatcima*


Serbian
podatci, podatcima 
podaci, podacima


----------

