INTER}{ATIONAL JOURNAL

OF

SLAVIC LIhTGUISTICS

AND POETICS

xIx

LI SSE/NETIIERLANDSTHE PETER DE RIDDER PRESS

1975

COMMON SLAVIC *VbX- IN NORTHERN OLD RUSSIAN

DAVID SAVIGNACStanford UniversitY

Recent studiesl indicate that not only was the third (progressive)

palatalization of velars either unknown or resisted in some areas of

bo**on Slavic, but the second palatalization was as well' Evidence of

this is particularly striking in present day Pskov, Novgorod and other

North Russian dialects, where we find root morphemes unaffected by the

second palatalization in such items as rceduma (for qedumo), xeoxa (fot

4eoxa), xen (for 4en) arrd, in areas far temoved from West Slavic or

Ukrainian influence, xoem {for qeem)'z

In this paper I shall discuss one lexical item to which both the second

and tnirJ pabtalizations were applicable - CS *vbx' - and I shall

attempttoshowthatthiswordexisted,unaffectedbyeitherofthesesubstiiutive palatalizations, in Northern Old Russian dialects at least as

late as the XIV-XY centuries.s

It is important to keep in mind the fact that in early CS the endings of

this pronoun were those which were to develop into the "hard" pronominal

declension type. The later "soft" endings appearing in some forms of the

paradigm of *vrx- were either phonologically motivated or were the

."rrtt of morphological levelling' In this regard, trvo points need be

I zofraGluskina, ..o drugiej palatalizacjisp6lgiosek tylnojezykowych.w-rosyjskich

dialektach p6lnocno-zachd;i"i';, Sbvia brintilis XV (1966), pp' 47.5-4.82;.Zdzislavt

Stieber, "Nowe osi4gnie"l"-".,"i'rtr poro*na*c'"'1 jgzyk6w slowiariskjch"' Roczrik

slawistyczny XXVII, "r.

i'iSii),"i" particular pp. 16-19; Zdzisla:w.Stieber' "Druga

palatalizacla tvlnojervtoJvih ;'ili;[ athsu-dialekt6w rosvjskich na wsch6d od

Moskwy", Rocznik Slawisivcznv >o(D(/l (1968),. pp' 3-7: S.' M',Gluskila',i!*oroiiitJit{r."i zadrrcsazy&ilr;&rt;;sirom jazyre", pskovs kie govory II. (Pskov'

1968),pp.204!iZdzislastitl"i.., iarvsgramatykipirdwnawczejigzykdwslowiaiskich'Fonologia (W arrru*u, rsog;pp.-is--ii; ri*tt ieileu' "Cokan'e and the Palatalization

of Velars in East Slavig,, Sii"i, and East European Journaly1IV, #4 (1970), pp' 411'

422; Georyey' Strcvetov, i"as),i ona app'oters (Miinchen' 1971)' pp' 68-73' passim'

" Gluskinla (1968), pp. Zq-li. Sneako cii"s other words derived from the same roots'

3 By ..Northem oro nussian aiatects" we have in mind those dialects spoken north

of the Vitebsk-Polotsk-S;;i;;aii;", essentially the language of the descendents of

the Novgorod Slovenes and the KriviEi'

42 DAVID SAvIGNAC

clarified. The flrst is the [e] which appears in some of the desinences in

OR and OCS. Take, for example, the neuter nominative singular:

l. *r,r,x * *odyields *roxo (through the loss of final dentals), then

2. +uoro yields +va.fo (through the third palaralization), then

3. *ra.fo yields voie {vas'e) (through the demands of intra-syllabic

tonal harmony).This [e] was a final development, not a point of departure. Failure to

note this apparently caused Mikkola to assume that the [e] was present

early enough to effect a FIRsr palatalization, and thus he presents a

paradigm which includes such impossible CS forms as neut' nom' sg'

*vaie, mas.lneut. gen. sg. *vo1ego, fem. gen. sg. *wieig, etc.a

secondly, we might note that if we accept the hypothesis that the third

palatalizalion did not take place when the velar was i[rmediately followed

by a or or,5 then any changes in the mas. nom./ acc. sg. *vaxa or in the

Inas. acc. pl. and fem. nom.facc. pl. *voxar could have arisen only through

morphological levelling.

This leads us to establish the history of the velar in this word, which,

as far as it goes, is probably valid for OCS and southern OR dialects,

where all three palatalizations apparently took place:6

l. Time of the first palatalization of velars: no change;

2. Time of the second palatalization of velars: d2 arises from [ai], [oi],

and *vax- becomes va.f- in the

a J. J. Mikkola, (Jrslavische grammatik lluHeidelberg, 1950), p. 20. This is not to be

coafused with Meillet's hypothesis {Le slave commun [Paris, 1934], p. 34) that

IE tsl ) ISj > txl after [k], [r], [u] and [i] before back vowels, but remained at the [5]

stage tetoie front vowels. In all forms of the paradigm of *rax-, IE [s] rvould have

become [x], even rvith Meillet's restrictions.rn pa.rit g we might note v. Madek's theory "Zur Erkliirung der sog. Baudouinschen

fatatalisiering irn- Stavischen uad im Baltischen", Cereetdri de lingvisticd lll,Supliment ttSJSl, pp. 329-33i,) that yosa goes back tolE *vi6-. The very existence of

forrns in *vax- is adequate proof that this theory could not possibly be correct.5 A. Beli6, ,,La troisleme ou la plus recente palatalisation des gutturales", Revue des

itudes slayes 8 (1923), pp. 57-53; T. Lehr-splawiiiski, "Nowsze poglqdy na niekt6re

zjawiska tzw. lI'palataizacji, Studia i szkice wybrane z jgzykoznawstwa slo_w-iaftskiego

1i1 lWarsrawa, teS4, p. 155; George Y. Shevelov, A Prehistorv of Slavic (New York'

iSOil, p. 344. This is at leait not in contradiction to F. Mare5, "Vznik slovansk6ho

fonoiogick6ho sist6mu a jeho vfvoj do konce obdobi slovansk6 jazykov6 jednoty",

Slavia XXV, #4 (1965), PP. 46s-466.5 SomeSlavists,ofcourse,holdthatthe"third" (prog essive) palatalization preceded

the second in time - cf. v. vondr6k, "o pozddjSich palatalisaclch v praslovan5tin6",

slaviall (1923-1924\; N. Troubetzkoy, "Essai sur la chronologie de certai-ns faits

phon6tiques du Siave commun", RES i (1922); R. Ekblom, Die Palatalisierung von K,

b, cft i* Slavischen (: Skrifter utgivna av K' Humanistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundet

i iJppsala,2g:5); MareS (1965)' p. 467, et al. Even should this be so' it in ao wav

affects the conclusions of this study.

COML{ON SLAVIC *VbX-

a. mas./neut. inst. sg-,

b. mas. nom. Pl.,c. gen., dat., loc., and instr. Pl'3 . Time of the third palatal iiation of velars : * vax- becomes va'{- in the

a. fem. nom. sg.,

b. fem. acc. sg.'

c. gen., dat., and loc. sg', all genders,

d. fem. inst. sg',

e. neut. nom.facc., sg. and Plural'4. Shortly after (or perhaps even sinultaneous with) the third

palalalization, *ror- becomes ro'f- through morphological levelling in the

a. mas. nom.facc. sg.,

b. mas. acc' Pi'c. fem. nom./acc. Pl.

If however, as appears to have been the case' the second and third

palatalizations did not affect alatge part of north East Slavic' then the

velar in this pronoun should have remained [x] in that area' There is

mounting evidence that this was so' and that *r'ox- survived to undergo

the reguLr phonetic and morphological changes internal to the dialects

of that area.

We will now examine seven possible instances of Old Russian vox-' all

associated rvith the Ncvgorod area, as lve1l as one possible remnant (now

a lexical item) in modern northern Russian dialects'

Novgorod Bhchbark #87

Found in stratiographic level 17, it dates from approximately ll77-1197

A.D. Paleographically, it is analogous to manuscripts of the XI-XII

centuries.? The text reads as follows:

0i Apovre 0 nana ribKJIaH'AHIle Ko AeMearoy II Kr,

MI{He r{ E:b BaHOyKOy a K"r', sbxe'Mo sar'Io AO6pe crBop'd

('From Drodka [and from?] the priest: obeisance to Demian and to Mina

and to Yanuk and to all of you doers of good")8

nbxe.Mois dative plural - CS *vixoimil- without the second palatal!

zation.

?A.v'ArcixovskijinA.v.ArcixovskijandV.I,Borkovskij,Novgorodskiegramoty,o b"r"rr" (iz raskopok 1953-1954 eg) (Moskva' 1958)' p'12's For the meaning of aiipi ,-r"o"pa iee V. I. norkovikij in Arcixovskij-Borkovskij

(1958), pp. 134-135. L' ;:t.;;;;t" in Novgoradskie berestianve sramotv kak istori'

i"riii'itrit"i* (Moskva, 1969)' p' 327 gives a different interpretation'

43

44 DAvID SAvIGNAC

Arcixovskij states of this document: "Insofar as the unstressed o

changed to an alinnana,D.S'], the priest Drodka evidently was not from

Novjorod."n This implies akan'e' To nana lve can add noxtauauue'

which seems to show a reduction of the vowel in the first syllable'

CommentingontheseandothersimilarinstancesintheNovgorodbirchbarks, Filin suggests that this might rvell be akQtx'e' and notes

firrtherthatintheXl-XlllcenturiesNovgorodhadamixedpopulationwhich certainly must have included many people from the Pskov and

Smolensk areas.lo True, there are certain features in this document rvhich

seem to reflect the Novgorod dialect of the XII century (o for a in

6bxehto,6ahto;eforruinadesinence,i'e'auxetlo;rofotuinthegenitivesingularofo-stems(dpource)reflectingtheinfluenceofthesoftdeclensionon the hard), but such might also be found in a document originating

from,say,Smolensk'Inviewofthepossiblepresenceofakan'e'wesuggest tt ut ttt" writer might have come from an area to the west or to

the south of Novgorod.

The Donation of Varlaam of XutYn'

Presumably dating either aroun llg2 A'D'' rvhen the donation was

made to the monastery (cf. Novgorod 1st Chronicle' Synodal copy'

51r-51v) or around t2ti, the time of his death'11 The pertinent part of

the text reads as follows:

ce BbAare BapJIaMe cTMoy ctlcoy " ' 6XOy

xe roy 3eMJIro xoYruu(r)croYro

('Varlaam has given to Holy Savior "' all of the Xutyn'lands'')

The form in question is feminine accusative singular - CS *vixam -

without the third palatalization'

TothiscanbeaddedasimilarformrecentlydiscoveredbyV.V.Kolesov in the Noygorod stixirar'of 1157'1t63 A'D' (GPB' Sof' 384):

there, on 13(r?) the scribe has changed a form of vasa inlo vxu'72

Noting oxoy in the Donation of Varlaam, Matthews states that ..the

unusual form nxy may have been influenced by the syllable of the name

s Arcixovskij-Borkovskii (1958), p' l2'10 F. p. Filin, prrir*ri;r;;; ;;;;kogo, ukrainskogo i belorusskogo iazvkov $*ningrad,

1972), PP. 121-122.11 P. Ja. eernyx, Istorideskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka (Moskva, 1952), p. 53.

12 N. A. Mesierskij, iliiriiiit*t ri interpretacii novgorodskix be.restianyx.sramot.

programma i kratkoe ,oal"rirrii a"rtidov k- x nautno-rnetodiieskoi konferencii severo'

zapadnogo zonal'nogo ,t;;rii"irii" kafedr russ_kogo iazyka pedagogideskix institutor,

llii"iiJrr's'"d, 1t68), p. 62. cited in Filin (1e72)' p' 27e'

CoMMoN SLAVIC *vbx- 45

beginning with xy-, which must have been in the scribe's mind as he

**t. tt a passage. Nevertheless, we may posit an alternative form rrxr

for Bbcb."13

Commenting on this same word, Mare5 states: "In the OR nxoy

(: srcx) theie is probably a secondary, analogical ch'"ra Actually' this

form is not secondary, nor is any analogy needed to expiain its existence'

It is a simple phonetic developrnent "

*vixam ) *vaxp' which' in north

East Slavic, became vbxlt or, with the fall of the weak jet' txtt' The rx

instead of x which MareS cites in the OCS form does not so much

represent the influence of the "soft" pronominal declension as it does the

attempt on the part of the ocS scribes to reflect [vr59] or [vrs6] as

oppor"A to [vrsp]. The use of rN as opposed to x was the only rvay that

this could be done graphemically' Insofar as there were very few minimal

pairs in OCS which were determined by lsl: l5l' the distinction between

the two could have been ignored in practice aud' indeed' it was' There

arc maly examples of sacx instead of eoux in OCS'15

Novgorod 1st Chronicle

Synodal copy, 88r, under the yeat 672511217 ' Paleographic evidence

indicates that that section including 88r was written in the XIII century'l6

The segment of interest to us reads:

u noroPt Ao oY.{bHI4Ia rxe rrolrb

('and by midday the entire side [of Novgorod] burnt up'')

The form here is masculine nominative singular - cs *vixos -

unaffected by morphological levelling'

The photoreproduction ofthis textl? shows that the x has been scraped

off and an c written over it' The presence of e for a in this word is

worthy of notice. Being in word-final position' this jer theoretically

should not have bee., r"piuced by a full vowel, but should it have occurred'

we would expect to nrra o, flot e' Briefly touching on.this word'

Saxmatov suggests Lhatooexe is in place of eeco under the influence of

*vxa, *vxo",18 in other words, through analogy to other forms of the

13 w. K, Matthews, Russian Historlcal Grammar (London, 1960)' p. 158.

la Mare3 (1965), P. 465, footnote 80'1u Ptd viets, itit irrne'nslavische grammatik (Heidelberg' 1963'z)' p' 143'

16 A. N. Nason .r, tlrrirrri,lio p""'j'' letopis' iatiego i mladiego izvodov

(Moskva, 1950), P' 5.1? M. N. Tixomirov, Novgorodskaja xaratejnaja /etopis'(Moskva,. 1964), p' 181'

18 A. A. Saxmato r, *r*iirtiriri"rAreijl risrkosi iazyka (Moskva, 1957)' p' 184

46 DAYID SAvIGNAC

nominative singular. If, however, the e were to represent this sort of

unulogy, then ii is diffi.cult to understand why it is in fact e.and not o'

What we are dealing with here is a phenomenon characieristic of the

Old Novgorod dialect: the replacement of o by e in word-finai position

of items capabre of flection. ihere has been a tendency to explain this

morphologically as an influence of the vocative form of o-stems'1e

More recent studies suggest that it is phonorogically motivated and is

connected with the fall oi the jers.z0 it remains, however, a yet unsolved

problem in Russian historical dialectology'

Novgorod Birchbatk #21 |

From stratiographic level 1 3, which dates it approxim ately 1268-128 1 A"D'

According to Arcixovski3, th"te is nothing in the paleographic evidence

to contradict this date'z1

Arcixovskij found it quite difficult to break the text down into separate

words, and therefor. off.,"d only a partial decipherment' Borkovskij,

however, has shed more light oo ih" subject by suggesting the following

interpretation: "". Ha ceJlo Bor€rur€xo BAarIo r€coMo :e: rprlBerro Bxo

(: so : B-b, ffoclte s audun ue 6yxoy x' a saqepKHymoe HanucaHue

,orrnu 6yrcaar.- B.E') to (: zodb' - B'E') coqxcoca (: co omroca' -B.E.) u 6 lrexe Aaxo caparl'r (: c"opamu' - B'B') florocr8 :B: rpI{BHI'{

Bo3ATI{ 6rrno" to whicliie adds' in a footnote' "the so eo might also be

read as eo zo,7ad{"22

Borkovskij's reading of the text seems quite reasonable except' in my

opinion, for one small sectiont 6xo zo coqKcoco'

First of all, it is ;;parent from the drawing of the birchbark by

M. N. Kislovzs that th; x in this word does not differ at all from the

other two instances of x in this document: there is no question of it being

a scratched out letter' Secondly' eo iot zodt or eotodz" though not

impossible,hasnotU"t"t"Ainanyotherbirchbark'andlsuspectitisq.ri," ,ur. in O1d Russian documents in general'

L. V. eerepnin, while not attempting to interpr et exoeo' does elucidate

"or1*roro. Uirconvinced of Borkovskij's interpretation of it as cb omKoca'

1e A. L Sobolevskii, Lekcii po istorii russkogo jazvka (Moskva' 1907a)' p' 192-193:'

L. P. Jakubinsu':, n"iiii*i"i"ii'rii"it'o"$iosrua 1es3)' p' 186'

20 L. P. Zukovskaja, fioii'i'oa'*i' b'i"ijont'.s;oiotv {fooskva 1959)' pp' 109-110'

See also V. I. norkovsliij';; n'-at"i*ouiti;-""4 v' i' notttovskri' Novsorodskie

prunntv na bereste t""'ir;)'i Dsiisy gs') (Moskva' 1963)' p' ztl'!i er.i*orttij-Borkovskii (1963)' p' 33'

" atci*ovstij-Borkovskii (1963)' p' 173'

tt ercixovskij-Borkovskij (1963)' p' 32'

COMMON SLAVIC *VbX- 4'I

he suggests another wotd, cot'Tttozoza (: comcrcoeo)' which is certainly

more probable. As it is, the word is quite garbled, but should it be

coqKoeo (graphemically, a is close to c, and a for o at the end of a

mas.fneut. gen. sg. adjective could represent some vowei reduction, as in

birchbark s87),thenwe are even cioser to understanding the text. I read

6xozo coqKoeo, with cotlKo?o used as a possessive adjective without a noun

specifically expressed. If this is so, and admittedly the point can be

argued, then we have here the masculine genitive singular - CS *vixogo

- without the third palatalization.

Novgorod Birchbark 1359

It was found in the 5th or 6th stratiographic level, which corresponds

to 1396-1422 A.D. Paleographic data likewise indicate that it belongs to

the XIY-XV centuries.2s The text reads:

noxJro 6 rap$tnua x yryMAHy oc[oAI'{He KaKo r€cbMb

rropaArlnece ral(o 11 xI{By a BacI{JIKe Ceno rrycrolxlr

Bexy cBe3Jie Aetpt .r. cBe3JIe a ceroaua sxbtxz) ce

rpo3lrrbqe y naAory 3BarI{ u.lcflo,{uue o Bctut roltouona6onlrce

This might be tentatively rendered into English as follows:

'Obeisance from Farfenij to the abbot. My lord, I am living in the

manner in which we have agreed upon. vasilke, of the village of PustoSi,

has removed the tent and three doors, and Silvana is threatening to

summon everyone to Ladoga. My lord, take care of all of this''

of all of the possible examples of yox- in oR, this is the most dubious.

However, Filin does mention it as a bonaflde example.26 and it is at least

worthy of discussion.

Bxutxo as a Novgorod reflex of CS *vt"xozxd (accusative plural animate

without the second palatalization) does not entail any particular problems'

In the Novgorod dialect, starting lrom the end of the XIII century,

impersonal pronouns of the "hard" variety began to be restructured

along the lines of the "hard" adjectives. How this developed and what

its limitations were is not our concern here. What is important here is

that in the gen., dat,, inst., and loc. plural these proncuns - when they

appear in those documents most Iikely to reflect the spoken language -2r eerepnin (1969), p. 207.25 A. V. Arcixovsk4, Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1958'1961 ss.)(Moskva, 1963), P. 54.c6 Filin (1972), p.279.

48 DAVID SAVIGNAC

REGULARLY show an al as the vowel phoneme ofthis desinence, and this

is what we find it exdtxo.

In order fot exotxa to be genitive plural, cetoaH& {: Cu'cueaHa) must

be in the nominative singular; otherwise it would read "Vasilka' of the

village of Pustosi, has removed the tent and three doors and is threatening

to Summon Silvan to Ladoga,,. I have not been able to find this name

with a nominative in -a in any Novgorod document' This' however' does

notmeanthatitdidnotexist:thereweredoubletssuchasfaepuu,la|faopuuttt. Another possibility is that it is a feminine form of the name'

The presenc e of ecro.ttt in this document itl no way diminishes the

possibiiity of exutxo being a form of the same rvord: in the Donation

tf Yarlaam we find ece together with oxoy; together with axe' the

Novgorod 1st Chronicle contains a large anrount of forms in euc,-|oc'.,

as does the Stixirar' of ll57-1163'27

On the other hand, eerepnin teads cetoauq sxbtxb as ceflaaqa6xbtxb'28

in other words,..Cl{Irnarrosltxr,,,,.the SonS,or.the men of Silvan,; in

thiscasethetextwouldread,"Yasilke"'threatenstosummonSilvan'ssons/men to Ladoga".

Asitstandsnow,nodeflnitesolutiontothisproblemcanbereached'eerepnin's reading requires a garbled spelling' but this is certainly not

out olthe question as far as birchbarks are concerned' If a nominative of

Silvana were to be attested, I would definitely favor regarding oxuxo as

accusative Plural animate.

Novgorod Bir chbark f, 439

Arcixovskijdoesnotstatethestratiographiclevelofitsdiscovery(ifitwas determinable at a1l in the digging in which it was found)' but he

dates it as XIV-XV centuries, apparently on paleographic data'2e

The text reads as follows:

... rlHpoKoy oxe TH He Bo3allo Mareel(a rl{', BOJIOXI{ IO CO

npoycoMo (o MHe A3O TI{ OnoBo rlo[poAaJle rr cBI{HrIUe u

KJIeIIaHI{e6oxoay}KeMHeHeexaTl{BocoyxeAaJleBocKoyKoyriJIeEl,I .r. rru a ro6e noltrn coyAa Bonoxrl oJroBa co

qerl,Ipu 6esuene noJrorellqa co AoBa qepeneHaa a KoyHbI

npaBI'I CIIpocTa

sTCf.D.M.Abramovid,Zit6osvv.BorisaiGlebaisluZbyim'(Pg.,1916),pp.143.150.s8 eerepnin (1969)' P. 178'8e A. V. Arcixovsti.i, "S.it'tju'aja gramota No' 439"' Savetskaja arxeologija (1971)'

#3, p.266.

COMMON SLAVIC *VbX-

"[... to S]pirok. If Mateeka has not yet taken a/the head3o of wax, send

it tc me with Prus. I have sold the tin, the lead, and all of what has been

forged. I no longer have to go to Suzdal'. Three heads ofwax have been

bought. You are to come here. Send some of the tin from the ten pounds

of sheet tin and two [?] of red lead. Collect [or 'send' - D'S'] the money

quickly'.)Arcixovskij reads the word in question as sbxo. Judging from the line

drawing of the text presented with its publication, this is not the case: the

grapheme between the e and the x does not seem to differ from the o's

in the document. {Jnfortunately the document contains no a with which

it might be compared.

eoxo is neuter accusative singular - CS *vixo - without the third

palatalization.The presence of o for a in what is possibly the first syllable of a two

syllable word is difficult to justify phonetically. First of all, this jer

theoretically should have disappeared without becoming a full vowel.

Secondly, even if it were to have been vocalized, we would expect to find

[v'ox-] and not, apparently, [vox-].31 Actually, it is quite possible that

this form does not reflect any phonetic development of the jer: it may

have been written in anticipation of the o at the end of the word, or else

under the influence of the other insiances of an initial ao- sequence in

this documenl: oosa,to, lo/toutcu (twice), eo and rocKoy'

one possible instance of yox- in modern Russian dialects is ouzdi

{also oe)dfl, glossed in lhe Slovar' russkix narodnyx govorov as aezde'sz

This word has been noted in the present century in the Tverskaja,

Kaluzskaja and Penzenskaja oblasti. It has been suggested that auzde

goes back to *voxode,33 that is, to the masculine nominative singular

unaffected by morphological levelling' This is certainly a strong

possibility, but the possibility of its being a back formation modelled on

ede must not be discounted.3a

s0 I have accepted Arcixovskij's (1971, pp. 266-267) suggestion that_this word (mr)

was originally a Karelian word pii, rvhictt, with the greater stress failing_on.thefirst

.o*po,r]"nt oi the ia diphthong, was understood by Russian speakers as [pij. As far as

a pi'or ,,head,, of waxls conclrned, Arcixovskij further notes that wax was traded in

the form of large chunks or wheels - similar in shape to cheeses - and that these

could readily bo perceived as resembling a head'31 However, 4emsopmil (for [cetv'orty]) does appear in Novgorod btchbark #169,

which was apparently written about the same time as #439'tz Slovar' iusskix narotlnyx govorov, vyp. 4 (Leningrad, 1969), pp' 89'213'aB Shevelov (1965), p.339.3a One othet possibiereflex of an original v6'- may exist in modern Russian dialects:

this is eoxoeepimae and edxoeepmt, glossed in the Slovar' russkix narodnyx govorov

49

50 DAvID SAvIcNAC

Comments and Conclusions

To begin with the obvious, it is extremely hazardous to make linguistic

generalizations from a limited amount of data. I have presented here a

mere eight possible instances of yax- with an unchanged velar, and some

of these may well be spurious. Any deductions made from them niust

therefore be quite tentative.

As recently as 1958, Vaillant could claim that "alleged" examples of

an OR vbx- were "illusory".el This was certainly not an unreasonable

statement for the time: exoy in the Donation of Yarlaam might, as

(wp.5, 1970, pp. 164-165) as ".qorna, Aoqlrcra, BKoHeIr; corcelr"; likewise erixoeepu,

glossed as ,'oKou'ratelrso norepxno". A11 of these appear to be forms of one word,

and the Slovqr' indicates that they were ail recorded in the Vologodskaja oblast'-an area historically connected with the Novogorod dialect of Old Russian'

As an adverb, this could be of the derivational type of preposition * pronominal

adjective * noun, such as in CSR noceii,aac and in rnore or less set expressions as

(ciazamt) eo ,ceyclluwaHrze. Should this be the case, the word in question would go

back to *yz,-*vtxo*yert+bje. Phonologically, it would be reasonable to expect this

to develop inta *vovxover(e)r'le (tfuough pleophony and the replacement ol the jers),

and then into voxover{e)r'je as a result of the dissimilation of the second of three [v]'s.

A different, less likely development could have taken place if for some reason the

jer in *voxo rvere vocalized to [o]. This, with the regular disappearance of the otherjers, would yield *woxover(e)t'ie, the final stage being the simplificatioa of the initial

[v:] ilto [v]. Needless to say, this also requires the ioss of palatalization in the [v] ofihi original *yoxo. Should this rather unusual phonetic development have taken place,

then aitrong speculative argument can bo made for a connection between this word

andeoxoinNovgorodbirchbark #439. Aswehaveseen(footnoteS0),#439containsa word of presumably Kareliaa origin. It may be coincidence, but in the XIII century

so*" g.o,rpr of Karelians settled about the area of Lake Kubenskoe (cf. G. N. Makarov,

"Karel'skij jazyk", Jazyki narodov SSSR III' Moskva, 1966,p' 61), rvhich is not far

from that area of the Vologodskaja oblast' where voxoyer(e)t'je was noted. Too' as

A. I. Nikitskij points out {Istorija ikonomiieskogo byta Yelikogo Navgoroda [Moskva,1g931, pp. rci-1ee),Novgorod received its wax lrom areas to its south-east and north-

westt tG latter area would seem to coincide with the area where voxover(e)t'je vtas

noted. Taking all ofthis into account, one might reasonably suspect that a form such as

voxo might somehow have arisen through the influence of a Karelian substratum. As

one final note to this string of hypotheses, we might note that according to Makarov(1966, p. 64), present day Karelian lacks an lvl : lv'lopposition; it has only /v/''as-i

see--it, the main obstacle to accepting voxover(e)t'je as a derivation of*ya-1-vuxo*vert+bjeisoneof semantics. foIodernRussianreflexes of *vert+bje(and*vertloja) do exist, but they usually signify either a geographical point - such as an

elevated area in a swamp - or else crude woven material such as sackcloth (cf- Filin

L1g72), pp. 542-543, Slovar,, vw. 4). Arry relationship between these and the adverb in

q..".tioo l. unclear. J. Holub and Fr. Kopeini (Etymologick! slovnik jazyka ieskiho

lbraea, 19521, p- 424, .g,der viecko) suggest that CS *vert-ie signif,ed "that ,which is

contained, hidden, covered". This at least is more abstract, but it is still not clear how

it might be combined with the other derivational elements of voxover{e)t'je and have

the meaning ascribed to it.85 Vaiilani, Gramnraire comparde des langues slaves lI, pt. 2 (Paris, 1958)' p. 477.

COIUMON SLAVIC *V],X. 51

Matthews has suggested, have been the result of the anticipation of a

subsequeni word and axe in the Novgorod lst Chronicie might have been

a simple misspelling later corrected; all other instances of this word were

either unpublished or undiscovered. Since that time the meager lund of

these words has increased fourfold through the discovery of more birch-

barks and the publication of otherwise inaccessible dialectal materials:

l. exoy,1157-1164 A.D., Fem. acc. sg'

2. euxeua,ll7l'1197 A.D', Dat' Pl.

3. axoy, 1192-1211A.D., Fem. acc. sg.

4. exe, XIII centurY, Mas. nom. sg.

5. exozo, 1268-1281 A.D., Mas.ineut. gen. sg.

6. exotxo, 1396-1422 A.D., Acc. pl' animate.

7. eoxo, XIV-XV century, Neut. acc. sg.

8. *ebxo-, XX century dialect, Mas. nom. sg.

The XX century form is, of course, "fossilized" in a lexical item' It isimpossible to determine when this took place.

The existence of yax- in northern old Russian dialects can no longer be

seriously disputed. From the above it is clear that it functioned as a

living form at least through the XIV century and probably into the

XV century, if not later.It seems that at present yox- is nowhere to be found in Russian dialects

other than in "fossilized" forms. The velar has changed to a sibilant

everywhere. This can be attributed only to the influence of the literary

language, since, with the absence of the second and third palatalizations

in northern Old Russian dialects, the phonetic environment needed to

change the [x] into [s'] did not exist. vas'- must have been imported to

that area as a lexical item.

One might reasonably ask what caused vox- to be replaced by lrs'-

when other dialectal features, including the items cited at the beginning

of this article, resisted such a change. The answer is twofold. First of all,

words such as Ke6Ka, xen and redumo represent a part of the lexicon

pertaining to agriculture and were therefore less iikely to be influenced

by the language of literature or of "higher" forms of social intercourse.

Forms in ?bs'-, however, were in a word which was comruofl to both city

and country, were reinforced by usage in church Services, and to some

extent probably reflected a "prestige" pronunciation patterned on the

speech of Kiev, which for a long time was clearly the political, cultural

and religious center of Old Russia.

Secondly, the replacement of vax- by vbs' was facilitated by the fact

that it required no adjustment in the phonetic or phonemic structure of

52 DAvID sAvlGNAc

northern Old Russian dialects' It did not' for example' require the

introduction of the second or third palatahzations' On the other hand' a

dialectal feature ,,'"n uq 'uy

, cokin'e tended to be much more stable

since its abolishment *t"fi require both the introduction of a new

phoneme ldl andthe correct correlation of this phoneme with the lexicon'

In "formal" O1d Russian documents (i'e'' those which by their very

nature were lvritten to b" p,.,,,,ed), the form yax- does not appear later

than the XIII century' From this it appears that at least by that time

ybs'- was the norm in the cultural centers of northern Russia' Yax-

probably survived to a much later date in more remote areas' as its

;;;;;;; in birchbarks of the xlv-xv centuries sussests'

The instance, of 'o'- cited in this study must not be considered as

remoants of a synchronic paradigm' for there is a span of about two

and a half centuries t't*""' the o-ldest and the youngest - discounting'

of course, reflexes i' *od"tn dialects' Much more data is needed before

we can even begin to 'p""oiut"

on specific territorial and chronological

limits to its usage ot, 'iV,

to the actual phonetic realization of its velar'

Such data will doubtlel;;-; to lighi.through further archeorogical

discoveries and through a closer examtnation of knolvn documents

written in Old Russian'36

e6 The discovery of birchbark #49'l wasanlgyn3:{after this article had been set in

tvoe CV. L' Janir:, o' "'

*liit' i"p' r'stu'tij'-u' x' Atest<ovskij' "Novgorodskaja

atsoediciia", ,t,*"otosit"*;iili''i)sii t'a''rvr^o1tva' I973' pp' 46-47)' This birch-

bark contains a *wx- form:"t;;';:;*"';;ction of the text reads "r'cr eaEero conoBa

aoxu rreocraBlev{o" - "W"-*tf *li not forget your promise" ' eoxu is masc' nom' pl'

The resemblance between ';;;;;';;;' orii'"r'uutt #439 is strikins' but the writer

of #497 had a habit "t'lltffit?" *tt'-"19gicai o in consonant clusters (e'g'

EoNarIoHo, ropxropt', tt""',* tlioJu)'-rr'" tnoiog -' tt"t" it probably orthographic

for -ur (cf. r.ar'r for rar,r) ^"d;;;,'#';;;Jons wtrict' t cannot no* go i''to' a generalization

of the "soft" pronominal #t?#;;;;ph;1"tT ftn;; of thJ 6 of the fem' nom' pl'

and mas.-fem. u""' pl' Th;;;;;'ti";i['1?vei of the-Jiscoverv of this new birchbark

wasnotreported,t"t.i'Og-gitt'*itspaleographicandlinguisticcharacteristics'Iffild;;; a dating of"thJ latter part of the Xrv centurv'