- On the selection of criteria pertaining to different levels in establishing linguistic types, see the author's “On Discreteness and Continuity in Structural Dialectology,” Word, XIII (1957), 45.
- General problems of morphophonemics are discussed by R. Jakobson in “The phonemic and grammatical aspects of language in their interrelations,” Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Linguists, Paris (1949), pp. 5–18.
- Cf. N. Trubetzkoy, “Das morphonologische System der russischen Sprache,” TCLP, V: 2 (1934), 29ff. All contemporary Slavic forms are given in this article in phonemic transcription (in slants); alternating forms or phonemes are separated by a tilde; desinential suffixes are transcribed morphophonemically (preceded by a hyphen). The following additional marks have been used: ‘for stress,’ for rising pitch,' for palatal consonants,—for palatalized consonants, - for length. Dialectal and historical forms are cited in conventional spelling or in transliteration (from Cyrillic). The phonemic interpretation is that accepted by a majority of Slavists; for a survey of the Slavic phonemic systems, see my “Towards a Phonemic Typology of the Slavic Languages,” American Contributions to the Fourth International Congress of Slavicists (1958), pp. 301–319.
- Cf. S. Urbańczyk, Zarys dialektologii polskiej (1953), pp. 42–43.
- The consonantal alternations in Kashubian, which has no literary language, are ignored in this paper. For a description of its accentual patterns see Z. Topolińska's “L'état actuel de l'accent cachoubien,” Slavia, XXVII:3 (1958), pp. 381–395. For references to consonantal alternations in Slovenian dialects, cf. F. Ramovš, Morfologija slovenskego jezika (1952), pp. 44ff, 57ff. An historical survey of alternations in all Slavic languages (from a non-structural standpoint) is found in A. Vaillant's Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, 1–3, (1950–58), especially 1, pp. 284–308.
- Cf. P. Ivić, Die serbokroatischen Dialekte, ihre Struktur und Entwicklung, 1, (1958), pp. 215ff. Yugoslav dialectologists explain either morphophonemic development as the result of foreign influence. But even if one admits the existence of foreign influence, it is Significant that only one type of alternation is eliminated, and that in Serbo-Croatian this is generally the type with consonantal alternations.
- Cf. P. Diderichsen, TCLC, Recherches Structurales, V (1949), 145; J. Kurylowicz, L'accentuation des langues Indo-Européens, 2nd ed. (1958), pp. 215–216.
- The terms “generic” and “specific category” are defined by Hockett as follows: “a generic category is a whole system of classification”; “a specific grammatical category is an element in a system or a class in a classification.” Cf. C. F. Hockett, A Course in Modern Linguistics (1958), p. 231.
- For a history of accentual levelling in the Russian declension, cf. L. Tesniére, “L'opposition morphologique de l'accent dans le substantif russe,” Mélanges en l'honneur de Jules Legras (1937), p. 1ff.
- Op. cit., pp. 34–35.
- The C ~ C ' alternations in Eastern Ukrainian involve final stem consonants which were historically followed by /y/ and are hard vs. final stem consonants followed by /i/ which are presently soft; thus the soft consonant occurs in the loc. Sing. and in the gen. plur. (before the suffix -iv) of II declension substantives, and the hard consonant elsewhere; e.g. /j|avor⊃i, j|avor⊃, iv/ vs. nom. plur. /j|avori/, dat. plur. /j|avoram/; in the III declension the hard consonant occurs in the gen., vocative sing, and in the gen. plur. and the soft consonant elsewhere; e.g. gen. sing, /p|ov⊃isti/, gen. plur. /p|ov⊃istej/ vs. nom. sing. /p|ov⊃ist⊃, nom. plur. /p|ov⊃ist⊃i/; in the I and “mixed” declension, the soft consonant occurs only in the dat.-loc. sing, and the hard consonant elsewhere; e.g. dat.-Ioc. sing. /orl⊃|at⊃i/ vs. gen. sing. /orl⊃|ati/, nom. plur. /orl⊃|ata/.
- A more detailed treatment of this problem in Polish is given in my “Distribution of Morphemic Variants in the Declension of Polish Substantives,” Slavic Word IX (1955), 554ff.
- It must be remembered that gender is generally inherent in the stem of substantives, and that there are few examples in which gender is differentiated only through morphophonemic alternations.
- H. Paul, Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 1st ed. (1880), p. 208.
- V. M. Žirmunskij, “Vnutrennie zakony razvitija jazyka i problema grammatičeskoj analogii,” Trudy Instituta Jazykoznanija ANSSR, 4, (1954), pp. 74ff. Žirmunskij's article contains also an exhaustive survey of the history of the problem and a rich bibliography. For complementary bibliography and some comments on Žirmunskij's article, see L. A. Bulaxovskij, “Grammatičeskaja indukcija v slavjanskom sklonenii,” Voprosy Jazykoznanija, (1956), no. 4, 14fF., and idem, “Issledovanija v oblasti grammatičeskoj analogii i rodstvennyx javlenii,” Učenye Zapiski Xar⊃kovskogo Universiteta, XIX (1940), 1–31.
- Op. cit., p. 110.
- On the difficulties of teleological explanations, cf. I. Scheffler, “Thoughts on Teleology,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, IX, 36 (1959), pp. 265–283; and in linguistics, E. Coseriu, Sincronia, Diacronía e Historia (1958), pp. 101 ff.
- J. Kurylowicz, “La nature des procés dits analogiques,” Acta Linguistica V (1951), 15fF.
- W. Mańczak, “Tendances générales des changements analogiques,” Lingua, VII (1958), 298ff.; 403ff.
- Op. cit., pp. 301ff.
- In most Slavic languages, the alternation /k, x/ ~ /č, š/ concerns residual forms: e.g. Ukr. /|oko, |uxo/ ‘eye, ear’ ~ /|oči, |uši/, Russ. and BR. /klok/ ‘tuft’ ~ /kl|očja/, resp. /kl|očča/.
- On the history of the consonantal alternations in Russian, see A. V. Isačenko, “Der grammatische Wechsel k/c, g/z im Russischen,” Slavia, XIV (1935–36), 43–44; L. A. Bulaxovskij, Istoričeskij kommentarij k russkomu literaturnomu jazyku, 5 ed. (1958), pp. 189ff.; P. Ja. Černyx, Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka (1954), pp. 139, 174–75.
- Cf. footnote 5.
- Cf. H. Rubenstein, A Comparative Study of Morphophonemic Alternations in Standard Serbo-Croatian, Czech and Russian (1950); A. Meillet and A. Vaillant, Grammaire de la langue Selbo-Croate, 6 ed. (1952), pp. 86 ff., A. Leskien, Grammatik der serbo-kroatischen Sprache (1914), p. 344; P. Ivič (op. cit.), esp. pp. 143, 192, 235, 259, 277, 297.
- R. Bernard, “Quelques observations sur la seconde palatalization en bulgare moderne,” Sbornik v čest na Aleksand⊃⊃r Teodorov-Balan (1956), pp. 85ff.; L. Beaulieux, Grammaire de la langue bulgare (1950), pp. 33ff.
- The oscillations in the Ukrainian consonantal alternations are briefly stated in J. Šerex's Narvs sučasnoji Ukrajins⊃koji literaturnoji movy (1951), pp. 191–192; for Byelorussian, cf. T. P. Lomtev, Grammatika belorusskogo jezyka (1956), pp. 67ff.; and for the history and dialects, M. A. Žydovič, “Da historyi sklanennja nazoŭnikaŭ u belaruskaj move,” Pracy Instituta Movazna˘stva ANBSSR, Vypusk III(1957), esp. pp. 3–31. In the case of Ukrainian and Byelorussian, the author profited greatly from native informants.
- Cf. F. T. Žylko, Narysy z dialektolohiji ukrajins'koji movy (1955), p. 153.
- F. T. Žylko (op. cit.), esp. pp. 165, 174.
- For a more detailed statement of the Polish consonantal alternations, see the author's “The Distribution…” (op. cit.). The history of the Polish declension and of its alternations are outlined in Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego, by Z. Klemen-siewicz, T. Lehr-Splawinski, S. Urbańczyk (1955), pp. 266ff.
- Cf. P. Wowčerk, Kurzgefasste obersorbische Grammatik (1954); B. Šẃela, Grammatik der niedersorbischen Sprache (1952). Neither grammar presents an adequate picture of the consonantal alternations in Lusatian.
- The animate/inanimate opposition is optional in the colloquial language, for the nom. plural and acc. plural of substantives may overlap; cf. M. Vey, Morphologie du Tchèque parlé, 1946, pp. 11, 29, 31.
- The state of flux in the Standard Czech alternations is described statistically by L. Klimeš, “Lokal singularu a pluralu vzoru ‘hrad’ a ‘mesto’,” Naše řeč XXXVI (1953), 212ff; cf. also H. Rubenstein (op. cit.); for the history and dialects, cf. K. Rocher, Gramatický rod a vývoj českých deklinaci jmenných (1934); T. Lehr-Spławinski, Z. Stieber, Gramatyka historyczna języka czeskiego, I, (1957), pp. 122ff.
- L. A. Bulaxovskij, “Voprosy indukcii grammatičeskix čisel v slavjanskoj morfologii,” Slavjanskaja Filologija, IV Meždunarodnyj S”ezd Slavistov, 1, (1958), pp. 111, 119.
- Cf. E. Pauliny, J. štolc, J. Ružička, Slovenská Grammatika (1955), pp. 134ff. The history of the declension (with scattered references to the consonantal alternations) is treated in J. Stanislav's Dejiny slovenského jazyka (1958), 2; cf. esp. pp. 58–68, 121–126, 145–150.
- Cf. B. Koneski, Gramatika na makedonskiot jezik (1952), 2, p. 73, and A. Vaillant (op. cit.), 2, p. 519
- Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
- Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
- Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
- Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research