Proto-Slavic accent

The accentual system of the Proto-Slavic language is diphthongs in Old Prussian.[4] However, critics of this in-
reconstructed as being free (i.e. phonologically unpre- terpretation claim that one can hardly derive the Serbo-
dictable, meaning that it can occur on any syllable in Croatian short falling tone ⟨ȍ⟩, shortness in Slovak, length
the word) and mobile (i.e. accent position could change in Czech and the rising intonation in Russian pleophony
place throughout the inflectional paradigm) pitch accent from the former long rising tone.[5] Some speculate that
system.[1] Proto-Slavic acute was phonetically in fact something en-
tirely different, e.g. a glottalized syllable comparable to
Proto-Slavic accent is closely related to the accen-
tual system of some Baltic languages (Lithuanian and stød in Danish, or something similar.
Latvian) with whom it shares many common innovations Short and long circumflex are traditionally marked with
that occurred in the Proto-Balto-Slavic period. Deeper, it two different symbols, even though we're dealing with
inherits from the Proto-Indo-European accent, which was the same prosodeme on short (*e, *o, *ь, *ъ) and long
also free and mobile, though the latter to a much lesser (*a, *i, *u, *y, *ě, *ę, *ǫ, *VR) syllables, respectively.[6]
extent. Circumflex occurred only on the absolute beginning of
In modern languages the prototypical accent is re- a phonetic word, and words with initial circumflex were
flected in East Slavic languages (Russian, Ukrainian and phonologically probably unaccented. That phonological
Belarusian) as stress position, in South Slavic languages unaccentedness was manifested as a falling tone (which
as pitch accent (Slovene and Serbo-Croatian) or stress po- is confirmed by Serbo-Croatian, Slovene and Russian re-
sition (Bulgarian), and in West Slavic languages as vowel flexes). On neocircumflex see below.
length. Short and long neoacute are also traditionally marked
with two different symbols, and we're also dealing with
the same prosodeme on short and long vowels. Neoacute
1 System is traditionally reconstructed as a rising intonation on the
basis of Slovene and Russian, and the description of di-
alectal Serbo-Croatian (Chakavian) ⟨õ⟩ as a rising tone.[7]
For Late Proto-Slavic (also known as Common Slavic) the
Short neoacute has a distinct reflex in Slovak and some
following prosodemes are traditionally reconstructed:[2]
Russian dialects.
• ⟨ő⟩ acute or old acute; e.g. *kőrva
• ⟨ȍ⟩ short circumflex; e.g. *slȍvo 2 Proto-Slavic accent paradigms
• ⟨ȏ⟩ long circumflex; e.g. *zȏlto
Since Stang (1957) three accent paradigms (or accent
• ⟨ò⟩ short neoacute; e.g. *bòbъ
types) are reconstructed for Proto-Slavic, traditionally
• ⟨õ⟩ long neoacute; e.g. *kõrljь marked with letters a, b and c. Their reflexes in individ-
ual Slavic languages are usually marked as A, B, C. Stang’s
• ⟨o̍ ⟩ general accent mark, usually on the last syllable original reconstruction was for nominals (nouns and ad-
where according to the traditional doctrine all of the jectives), and Dybo (1963) subsequently expanded these
historically long syllables where shortened to Proto-Slavic verbs as well.

Old acute could occur on any syllable of a word (*ba̋ba,
*lopa̋ta, *golva̋), but only on long syllable; i.e. on *a, *i,
*u, *y, *ě, *ę, *ǫ which are etymologically always long
and diphthongs of the type *VR: *ьr, *ъr, *ьl, *ъl, *er,
*or, *el, *ol which are as diphthongs always long. Pho-
netically it is traditionally reconstructed as a long rising
tone, according to the reflex in Slovene which is rising[3]
and the pleophonic reflex in Russian which has accent on
the second part (i.e. of VRV́ type). Within Balto-Slavic
framework this matches with rising intonation of the cog-
nate Latvian ⟨õ⟩ and length marks on the second part of
Accent paradigm a words have a fixed acute accent
on one of the syllables of the stem. Examples: *ba̋ba
(feminine noun), acc. *ba̋ bǫ; *ga̋dъ (masculine noun),
gen. *ga̋ da; *kopy̋to (neuter noun), gen. *kopy̋ ta;
*sъmь̋rtь (i-stem noun), gen. *sъmь̋rti; *sla̋bъ m (adjec-
tive), neuter: *sla̋bo; *pa̋titi (verb), second-person plural
present *pa̋tīte.
Accent paradigm b words have either a neoacute on the
final syllable of the stem (*bòbъ]], *võrtīte]]) or any ac-
̋
cent on the first syllable of the ending (*trāva̍ , *nositi).
Examples: *žena̍ (feminine noun), acc. *ženǫ̍ ; *pòpъ

1
2 4 PROTO-SLAVIC LENGTH

(masculine noun), gen. *popa̍ ; *selo̍ (neuter noun), gen. its extremes.[11] This new length in West Slavic was lost
*sela̍ ; *ògnь (i-stem noun), gen. *ogni;̍ *dòbrъ m (adjec- during the 16th century in Polish and Sorbian, and is pre-
tive), neuter: *dobro̍ ; *nositi̋ (verb), second-person plural served only in Czech and Slovak. Length was phonemi-
present *nòsīte. cized in Serbo-Croatian and Slovene, depending on the
Accent paradigm c words have a mobile, free accent pitch. In standard Serbo-Croatian no pre-tonic lengths
(also known as lateral mobility) - either a circumflex on are allowed; i.e. with Neoštokavian retraction occurring
the first syllable (*rǭka̍ : acc. *rǫ̑ kǫ), an acute on a me- the length of old long accented syllables was retained as
dial syllable i.e. the penultimate syllable of the ending a post-tonic length. In Slovene, length is restricted to the
̋ or any accent on the final sylla- stressed position, with the exception of /ə/ which is al-
(instr. *rǫka̋ mi, *učiti)
ble (dat. *golsomъ̍, second-person plural present *učīte̍ ). ways short.
Initial circumflex always “jumps” to the preceding sylla- The Proto-Slavic three-way opposition of old acute, cir-
ble (a preposition or a conjunction) in a phonetic word; cumflex and neoacute was in its original form lost in all
e.g. *nȃ rǭkǫ (Serbo-Croatian: nȁ rūku). Similarly, if the Slavic languages. It was reworked into a two-way oppo-
circumflexed word is followed by a word lacking an ac- sition, in one of two typical ways:[12]
cent, the accent is transferred onto it: *rǭkǫ že̍ .[8] Exam-
ples: *nogà (feminine noun), acc. *nȍgǫ; *gȏlsъ (mas- 1. The opposition of the merger of old acute and neoa-
culine noun), gen. *gȏlsa; *zvȍno (neuter noun), gen. cute to the circumflex. In Czech, Slovene and Upper
*zvȍna; *gȏldь (i-stem noun), gen. *gȏldi; *dȏrgъ m Sorbian the new opposition become that of quantity
(adjective), neuter: *dȏrgo; *činiti̋ (verb), second-person (acute merger > long, circumflex > short). In East
plural present *činīte̍ ). Slavic, Bulgarian and Macedonian this new quanti-
tative opposition was subsequently lost, and some-
times reinterpreted as stress position (e.g. in the
3 Developments in Slavic lan- pleophonic reflex in East Slavic, with acute yielding
VRV́ and circumflex yielding V́RV)
guages
2. The opposition of the merger of the old acute and
circumflex to the neoacute. In Slovak, Polish and
The suprasegmental vowel features of modern Slavic lan-
Lower Sorbian the new opposition become that of
guages largely reflect the Proto-Slavic system, and are
quantity (neoacute > long, old acute and circumflex
summarized in the table below.[9]
> short). In Serbo-Croatian and Slovene the new
Proto-Slavic accent remained free and mobile in East opposition become that of pitch (neoacute > rising,
Slavic and South Slavic. The only exception in South old acute and circumflex > falling). Subsequently,
Slavic is Macedonian which has a fixed stress on the ante- Neoštokavian retraction in standard Serbo-Croatian
penultimate syllable in the standard language, with south- created new tonal oppositions (former pre-tonic >
ern and south-western Macedonian dialects exhibiting rising, former initially-stressed syllable > falling).
fixed penultimate stress, and eastern dialects exhibiting
free stress.[10] In many dialects the original Proto-Slavic Serbo-Croatian: ȍ = short falling, ȏ = long falling, ò =
accent position has changed its place; e.g. in literary short rising, ó = long rising, o = short vowel without dis-
Serbo-Croatian retracting by one syllable which yielded tinctive tone
the new rising pitch (the so-called Neoštokavian retrac- Slovene: ȏ = long falling, ó = long rising, ò = short rising,
tion), with old accent preserved in nonstandard dialects o = short vowel without distinctive tone
(Old Štokavian, Čakavian, Kajkavian). Beside phonolog- Czech and Slovak: ō = long vowel, o = short vowel, | | =
ical causes, position of Proto-Slavic accent was often lost either long or short vowel
due to the leveling out within the mobile paradigm. In
Slovene stress shifts occurred in both directions depend-
ing on the old pitch and vowel quantity, yielding tonal and 4 Proto-Slavic length
stress-based variants of modern literary Slovene. In West
Slavic, free accent is attested at the periphery in the north-
ern Kashubian dialects (including Slovincian, an archaic Beside the contrastive tone (rising vs. falling), the Late
dialect extinct since the 1940s) and Polabian (spoken on Proto-Slavic also had a vowel quantity (long vs. short)
Elbe in northern-central Germany, extinct since the 18th which was phonemically non-distinctive. Vowels were
century). predictably short and thus neutral with respect to length
in pretonic positions further away from the accent (stress)
Vowel length became distinctive (phonemic) in West and than the first pretonic syllable. In other words, long vow-
partially South Slavic. In West Slavic languages it became els could occur in:[13]
so at the expense of free stress, and was accompanied by
extensive contraction due to the loss of /j/, typically re- 1. the stressed syllable
sulting in a long vowel. This process was centered in the
Czech area, and covered Russian and Bulgarian areas at 2. posttonic syllables

3. the first pretonic syllable
Old East Slavic and Old Polish loanwords in Finnish,
Karelian, Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian show that the
length of the originally long vowels in Slavic (*a, *ě, *i,
*u, *ǫ, *ę) is retained regardless of the intonation, the
position in the word or the number of syllables.[14] These
loanwords show no trace of the old nasality of *ę and *ǫ
which indicates that the original Proto-Slavic length was
preserved in all positions and conditions even after the
denasalisation of *ǫ and *ę.[15]
After surveying the data with respect to stress type (acute,
circumflex, neoacute), the number of the syllables in a
word, the position (stressed, pretonic or posttonic) and
the accentual paradigm (a, b or c), Kapović (2005) of-
fers the following reflexes for West Slavic, and Serbo-
Croatian, which have retained distinctive lengths:
5 See also
• Proto-Indo-European accent
• Proto-Balto-Slavic language
6 Notes
[1] Sussex & Cubberley (2011:151) “The late Proto-Slavic sit-
uation in regard to suprasegmental features was as follows:
stress was free and mobile..”
[2] Kapović (2008:2–3)
[3] The length is secondary.
[4] Kapović (2008:2)
[5] Kapović (2008:3)
[6] Kapović (2008:3)
[7] Kapović (2008:3)
[8] This is known as Vasiľev-Dolobko’s law and is attested in
Old East Slavic and Middle Bulgarian.
[9] After Sussex & Cubberley (2011:154).
[10] Sussex & Cubberley (2011:151)
[11] Sussex & Cubberley (2011:135)
[12] Sussex & Cubberley (2011:153)
[13] Vermeer (1986/2010:3)
[14] Stang (1957:52–55)
[15] Kapović (2005:3)
3
7 References
• Matasović, Ranko (2008), Poredbenopovijesna gra-
matika hrvatskoga jezika (in Croatian), Zagreb:
Matica hrvatska, ISBN 978-953-150-840-7
• Stang, Christian (1957), Slavonic accentuation,
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, ISBN 978-82-00-
06078-9
• Holzer, Georg (2011), Glasovni razvoj hrvatskoga
jezika (in Croatian), Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski
jezik i jezikoslovlje, ISBN 978-953-6637-46-1
• Kapović, Mate (2008), “Razvoj hrvatske akcen-
tuacije”, Filologija (in Croatian), Zagreb: Hrvatska
akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 51: 1–39
• Sussex, Roland; Cubberley, Paul (2011), The Slavic
Languages, New York City: Cambridge University
Press, ISBN 978-0-511-24204-5
• Dybo, Vladimir (1963), "О реконструкции
ударения в праславянском глаголе", Вопросы
славянского языкознания, 6: 3–26
• Vermeer, Willem (2010) [1986], “Some sandhi
phenomena involving prosodic features (vowel
length, stress, tone) in Proto-Slavic, Serbo-Croatian,
and Slovenian [revised version, 2010]" (PDF),
Sandhi Phenomena in the Languages of Europe,
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 577–603
• Kapović, Mate (2005), “The development of Proto-
Slavic quantity (from Proto-Slavic to modern Slavic
languages)" (PDF), Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch,
Zagreb: Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti,
51: 73–111, (link: “The Development of Croatian
Accentuation”)
4 8 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

8 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

8.1 Text
• Proto-Slavic accent Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic_accent?oldid=763575401 Contributors: BD2412, Hftf, Wikid77,
CodeCat, Cnilep, Ivan Štambuk, No such user, Erutuon, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Haaninjo, John of Reading, BattyBot, Benwing2 and Anony-
mous: 4

8.2 Images

8.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0