Characteristics of East, West and South Slavic

[Delodephius]

East Slavic:

1. Purely East Slavic characteristics:
a) normal development of semi-vowels - ъ > o, ь > e - before Proto-Slavic sonants ṛ and ḷ like in: górlo, zernó;
b) unique development of Proto-Slavic groups tort, tert, tolt, telt; in East Slavic languages, and only in them, these groups transformed into torot, teret, tolot: Russ. voróna, béreg, molokó;
c) partly unique development of groups tj and dj; in all East Slavic languages they transformed into č or ž: Russ. svečá, mežá;

2. Common East Slavic and South Slavic characteristics:
a) Proto-Slavic groups kvě, gvě > cvě, dzvě (> zvě): Russ: cvet, zvezdá;
b) Proto-Slavic groups tl and dl simplified into l: Russ. górlo, plelá; here we find an exception in Serbo-Croatian and Old Novgorodian dialect where tl and dl are replaced by kl and gl in some words;
c) the so called epenthetic ľ in suffix syllables: Russ. zemľá, ľubľú;

3. Common East Slavic and West Slavic characteristics:
a) suffix -ъmь (> -om, -em) in Instrumental singular of the base -o- stem masculine and neuter (unlike in South Slavic which have -omь);
b) a former suffix -ě in Gentive singular, in Nominative-Accusative plural base -ia- stem and in Accusative plural base -io- stem masculine (unlike in South Slavic which once used the suffix -ę there);
c) vowel a and not u in Nom. sg. part. praep.

[Delodephius]

West Slavic:

a) Proto-Slavic tj, dj > c, dz (> z): Pol. świeca, miedza;
b) š and not s as a result of the second and third palatalisation: Cze. mouše, Češi, všecek;
c) the absence of the epenthetic ľ in suffix syllables: Pol. zemia, zabawiać;
d) the preservation of the groups tl, dl (sporadic preservation appears in Russian and Slovene in some places): Cze. rádlo, pletl;
e) the absence of palatalisation in groups kvě, gvě: Pol: kwiat, gwiazda.

[Delodephius]

South Slavic:

a) t(e), n(e) > te, ne, i.e. the Proto-Slavic palatalised consonants didnˈt transform into palatals (with an exception of some Bulgarian dialects);
b) o(n)rt, o(n)lt > rat, lat: Srbcro. rávan, rásti, lâkat; this trait - with fluctuation - can also be found in some Central Slovak dialects;
c) groups tort, tert, tolt, telt > trat, trět, tlat, tlět: Srbcro. vrȁna, brȉjeg, mlijèko; these are Czech and Slovak traits as well;
d) s < ch, and not š, according to the laws of the second and third palatalisation: OCS. musě, dusi, vьsь;
e) groups kvě, gvě > cvě, dzvě (> zvě): Srbcro. cvêt, zvézda; this is an East Slavic trait as well;
f) groups tl, dl simplified into l (with a small exception in Slovenian northern dialects): Srbcro. rȁlo, plèli; this is an East Slavic trait as well;
g) the epenthetic ľ in suffix syllables (with a small exception in some Bulgarian dialects): Srbcro. zèmlja, zàbavljati; the same in East Slavic;

[Delodephius]

I got this from a book that was printed in 2007, but it's author died in 1983. These informations are not really outdated but they are not complete and the author I think ignored Macedonian. We can start from here and ad more info as we go.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Excellent.

A question, did the silent vowel, according to the possible reconstructions made, exist in Proto-Slavic? Or is it a latter development which occured during the Old Slavonic period?

West Slavic and West Balkan doesn't seem to have it, whereas East Slavic does and East Balkan does. Where and when did the split or introduction take place (if it did at all)?

If the reconstruction of Proto-Slavic is deemed accurate, what is closest to it, East, West or South Slavic?

Is it accurate to say that Old (Church) Slavic is the intermediary between Proto-Slavic and the East, West, South branches? If so, this would make Old (Church) Slavic closer to Proto-Slavic than the rest, right?

I know in the past we have spoken about various dialect amalgamating, seperating, then coming together at various periods, is it truly accurate to speak of "Proto-Slavic" in an exclusive form?

Look forward to your answers, thanks Slovak.

[Delodephius]

A question, did the silent vowel, according to the possible reconstructions made, exist in Proto-Slavic? Or is it a latter development which occured during the Old Slavonic period?

West Slavic and West Balkan doesn't seem to have it, whereas East Slavic does and East Balkan does. Where and when did the split or introduction take place (if it did at all)?

First of all, it is called semi-vowel or half-vowel, and there were two of them. One front semi-vowel called 'yeri' or 'thin yer' - ь, and one back semi-vowel called 'yeru' or 'wide yer' - ъ. They are in fact just short vowels which were pronounced normally in Proto-Slavic language as i and u. Way before Old Slavonic they were shortened and thus in transcription they are written as [ǐ] and [ǔ]. But about the time of OCS in some Slavic languages the distinction between them was fading as well as that they were falling out of usage in spoken form. In so called 'weak positions' they were dropped out while in 'strong positions' they evolved into [e] and [o] respectively. I think that only Slovenian and Bulgaro-Macedono-Torlakian (some dialects) preserve the one unified semi-vowel which was formed when the distinction between them was lost. This was happening as I said already during OCS period. For example: in OCS дьнь - 'day', the final ь is in weak position so it was dropped, while the first ь is in strong position so in most Slavic languages it transformed into /e/ (in Serbian /a/ - /dan/); however, because it is a front semi-vowel it also means it can cause palatalisation (which does not happen in South Slavic) and so in Slovak /den/ is in fact /ďeň/ [ɟɛɲ] (the /e/ also causes palatalisation).

In East Slavic languages the semi-vowel exists, but it is not written with 'yeru' - ъ like in Bulgarian. Yeru in East Slavic languages represents the 'hard sign', it is not even a vowel, but merely an indication that the consonant before it doesn't turn palatalised if a front vowel follows it, for example: де [ɟɛ] - дъе [djɛ]. I suggest you brush up on your IPA.

If the reconstruction of Proto-Slavic is deemed accurate, what is closest to it, East, West or South Slavic?

I don't think this can really be established because the Proto-Slavic is based solely on reconstructions. It depends what school you ask I think. Most will perhaps say East Slavic, but that is based on the Slav migration assumption.

Is it accurate to say that Old (Church) Slavic is the intermediary between Proto-Slavic and the East, West, South branches? If so, this would make Old (Church) Slavic closer to Proto-Slavic than the rest, right?

OCS is closer to the Proto-Slavic, but OCS is a South Slavic language, which was recognized a long time ago. By it's time the branches of the Slavic languages were already split and this can be seen from OCS texts that were not written in Macedonia, because on different language areas the authors added their own forms into the OCS.

I know in the past we have spoken about various dialect amalgamating, seperating, then coming together at various periods, is it truly accurate to speak of "Proto-Slavic" in an exclusive form?

I think it would be appropriate to say Proto-Slavic languages and dialects. However the written records from pre-OCS period are slim and not researched by proper linguists who keep saying such texts don't even exist. So the texts remain to be examined by semi-professionals.
Due to this at this moment we cannot say how different the Proto-Slavic languages were but it is safe to assume that for a very long period of time they were different.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Slovak, do you agree or disagree with Mario Allinei's assertion that South Slavic shares features with both West and East Slavic, and therefore is oldest of the three? Please give us your reasons either way.

Also, do you know when the definite article began to be incorporated in the Slavic dialects of Macedonia, Bulgaria and Southern Serbia? What is your opinion on how it came about?

[Risto the Great]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Also, do you know when the definite article began to be incorporated in the Slavic dialects of Macedonia, Bulgaria and Southern Serbia? What is your opinion on how it came about?

From the perspective of someone far from being a linguist. The definite article is a bloody useful thing that removes ambiguity from sequences of words. And would imagine it was viewed as an useful evolution in the Macedonian language.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The interesting thing Risto, other Balkan languages also share the definite article feature, such as Romanian and Albanian. This means that it spreads from the Adriatic across to the Black sea and down the Aegean, OCS does not have the definite article, it would be good to know how and when it came to be attached to our language. Macedonian is unique where it concerns the definite article because it has three types, related to distance (unspecified, near, far).

[Delodephius]

In OCS there exit words тъ, та, то which into English all three genders would simply be translated as "that". This words in it's three gender form evolved over time into the Macedonian and Bulgarian article. In other Slavic languages it remained a pronoun (in Slovak: ten, tá, to; in Serbian: taj, ta, to).