Edinstveni Makedonski Zborovi - Unique Macedonian Words (postable)

[Daniel the Great]

Daniel
Ako gi fatam tolgai ke mo kazham fate!

LOL

The Albanian word (which itself may be a loan from a Romance or Latin language) is unrelated. The word 'фати' demonstrates the common Macedonian sound change хв > ф, which means that some time ago the word was pronounced as 'хвати', like it is in Croatian, Serbian and Bulgarian today. Other words that show this Macedonian sound change are 'фрли' instead of 'хврли' and 'фала' instead of 'хвала'.

Oh ok, great explanation. I new that the Macedonian word 'fala' (thanks) was in Serbo-Croatian pronounced 'hvala' but i never understood why the change between hv > f until now. Has there got any reason why the original spelling of the word didn't begin with 'F'? could the 'HV' in those words have changed from 'F'?

In my opinion, the Macedonian ways of saying those words you mentioned are much more better sounding.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Has there got any reason why the original spelling of the word didn't begin with 'F'? could the 'HV' in those words have changed from 'F'?

When you compare Macedonian to other Slavic languages you will find that the latter have 'хв' instead of 'ф' in such words, so it is most probable that a specific sound change took place in one language and region rather than several languages and regions. The natural evolution of Macedonian led to the disappearance of the 'х' and devoicing of the 'в', and this subsequently produced the 'ф' in such words. This is also evident in some cases where there is no 'х' in front of the 'в', like 'Делчев' being said (but not written) as 'Делчеф', 'здрав' as 'здраф', 'вторник' as 'фторник', 'втори' as 'фтори', etc. In such cases, the 'в' is obviously an older sound than the 'ф', and this can also be seen in Old/Church Macedonian.

Here is an example of this sound change (в > ф) in Macedonian from at least the 16th century. Words #40 'офци' instead of 'овци' and #74 'сфетници' instead of 'светници':

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3066&highlight=16th+century

[Soldier of Macedon]

Another word of interest is 'пак' (again). I think in Bulgarian one could use 'пък', whereas in Serbian it is 'опет'. Would like to know the origin of these words.

One more is 'како' which is used in south Slavic languages (including Old Macedonian). In both west and east (except Russian) Slavic languages it is said as 'јак', 'јако' or 'ако'. It would be good to know when the change between the two took place and if they are cognate with English 'how'.

[Дени]

The assimilation /hv/ → /f/ is a simple, diachronic sound change. The devoicing of /v/ is a synchronic one and related to the neutralization of phonemic contrasts of most obstruents (/z/ ~ /s/, /d/ ~ /t/, etc.). They are parallel, as far as we can tell from 16th-century texts (like the Macedonian translation of a Damascene manuscript), but not directly related to one another.

There's another parallel development where /f/ arose out of hyper-correction: so now some dialects have фнук instead of внук and so forth.

Another word of interest is 'пак' (again). I think in Bulgarian one could use 'пък', whereas in Serbian it is 'опет'. Would like to know the origin of these words.

There are two uses of the Macedonian пак: (1) an adverb meaning 'again', (2) a conjunction with various English translations depending on context.

Bulgarian only has the former use as пак.* Russian too has the former use but it is archaic. Serbian, Croatian and Ukrainian only have the latter use.

With the meaning 'again', Church Slavonic has паки (Old Church Slavonic has пакы):

• Вмалѣ, и ктому не видите менє: и паки вмалѣ, и ѹзрите мѧ, ѩкѡ иду ко ѻцу.

'A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.' (John 16:16)

It has been reconstructed to *pakŭ, also related to *opakŭ whence наопаку (the original use as an adjective наопак, наопака, наопако, наопаки etc. has been lost).

Опет with the meaning 'again' has been lost in Macedonian altogether, though most other Slavic languages have it in some derivative. It's reconstructed as *opętĭ. Curiously, OCS has въспѩть (i.e. *vŭz- + *pęta) while almost all Slavic languages including Church Slavonic have an *o(b)- prefix: Russian and Ukrainian опять, Czech opět, but: Slovene spet, zopet.

*The spelling пък is a common error based on the pronunciation of пак in compounds such as все пак ([фсепък]).

[Po-drum]

There's another parallel development where /f/ arose out of hyper-correction: so now some dialects have фнук instead of внук and so forth.
[/SIZE]

Why in some of the macedonian dialects there is "mn" instead of "vn"?

vnuk-mnuk
plevna-plemna
ramna-ravna
.....

What do you think about "zemna" from "zemja", "lamna" from "lamja"??

[Soldier of Macedon]

Why in some of the macedonian dialects there is "mn" instead of "vn"?

vnuk-mnuk

I will have to double check, but I think Pulevski recorded the word 'manuka' for a 'man' in the Mijak dialect.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The assimilation /hv/ → /f/ is a simple, diachronic sound change. The devoicing of /v/ is a synchronic one and related to the neutralization of phonemic contrasts of most obstruents (/z/ ~ /s/, /d/ ~ /t/, etc.). They are parallel, as far as we can tell from 16th-century texts (like the Macedonian translation of a Damascene manuscript), but not directly related to one another.

There's another parallel development where /f/ arose out of hyper-correction: so now some dialects have фнук instead of внук and so forth.

There are two uses of the Macedonian пак: (1) an adverb meaning 'again', (2) a conjunction with various English translations depending on context.

Bulgarian only has the former use as пак.* Russian too has the former use but it is archaic. Serbian, Croatian and Ukrainian only have the latter use.

With the meaning 'again', Church Slavonic has паки (Old Church Slavonic has пакы):

• Вмалѣ, и ктому не видите менє: и паки вмалѣ, и ѹзрите мѧ, ѩкѡ иду ко ѻцу.

'A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.' (John 16:16)

It has been reconstructed to *pakŭ, also related to *opakŭ whence наопаку (the original use as an adjective наопак, наопака, наопако, наопаки etc. has been lost).

Опет with the meaning 'again' has been lost in Macedonian altogether, though most other Slavic languages have it in some derivative. It's reconstructed as *opętĭ. Curiously, OCS has въспѩть (i.e. *vŭz- + *pęta) while almost all Slavic languages including Church Slavonic have an *o(b)- prefix: Russian and Ukrainian опять, Czech opět, but: Slovene spet, zopet.

*The spelling пък is a common error based on the pronunciation of пак in compounds such as все пак ([фсепък]).

Thanks for that elaboration Deni. When you have a chance, can you please give us your opinion on the below:

One more is 'како' which is used in south Slavic languages (including Old Macedonian). In both west and east (except Russian) Slavic languages it is said as 'јак', 'јако' or 'ако'. It would be good to know when the change between the two took place and if they are cognate with English 'how'.

Дени, what is your opinion on the origin of the words змеј (dragon) and горд (proud)? Also, do the words јас (I) and сум (am) ultimately come from the same PIE root *eǵ’hom -> eź’ham, etc?

[Дени]

Why in some of the macedonian dialects there is "mn" instead of "vn"?

A short quote:

Групите -вн-, -бн- преминале во -мн-: одамна, рамнина, иѕемне, демне и сл. Поради недостатокот на податоци не може поблиску да се определи времето на оваа појава. Сепак знаеме дека името на селото Рамне (кај Охрид) во почетокот на 13 век се изговарало уште како Равне (сп. во записот на препишувачите во Бол. пс). Во Опш. деф. наоѓаме: Равне (денеска Рамне — Порече), Равни Габри, Равна Габри (денеска Рамни Габер — Скопско). Од друга страна, во натпис од 1607 г. наоѓаме веќе: Слимница (< Сливница) — име на село во Преспа. Во случајов имаме асимилација на усниот консонант под дејство на назалот. Промената се вршела само ако била ослабена етимолошката врска на дадениот збор со други зборови од истиот корен, во кои в и б се чуваат во инаква позиција. Така таа станала во огламник, гламна (раскината етимолошката врска со глава), но не во крвник (:крв), грабне (:граба) и сл. По дијалектите се јавуваат и извесни разлики што сведочат за потесното или за послабото асоцирање на одделни зборови од ист корен. Така во некои говори сč уште се чува изговорот плевна (не e раскината врската со зборот плева), додека во други имаме веќе изговор племна. Исто така како дијалектни варијанти се јавуваат: мнук — внук, нимниот — нивниот. Обратната замена на -мн- со -вн- ја познаваат малешевските говори: тевно, стовна, гувно.

What do you think about "zemna" from "zemja", "lamna" from "lamja"??

The PSl. reconstruction is *zemja. An epenthetic /l/ developed: *zemlʲa (and in many other words of the same type). The /l/ was then lost and the 'softness' shifted to the /m/, once again giving us /zemja/.

I'm not sure about ламја. You do mean the monster, right?

[Дени]

Thanks for that elaboration Deni. When you have a chance, can you please give us your opinion on the below:

I'm not quite sure, but I do remember reading something somewhere — I'll dig around. I think there was some syncretism, where *kakŭ (an interrogative pronoun) and *jakŭ (a relative indefinite pronoun) amalgamated, differently depending on language. Though don't take my word, or memory rather, for it.

Змеј < *zmĭjĭ (closely related to змија).

Горд < *grŭdŭ.

I'll have to get back to you on the PIE reconstructions as well.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Could змеј have developed from зем(л)ја, as a neologism or through some other process? They look almost the same as the equivalent Thracian words зум(л) and зем(e)ла. I haven't found another linguistic group with a similar word for snake or dragon. Do you know of any?

[Дени]

Could змеј have developed from зем(л)ја, as a neologism or through some other process? They look almost the same as the equivalent Thracian words зум(л) and зем(e)ла. I haven't found another linguistic group with a similar word for snake or dragon. Do you know of any?

Yes. Змеј, змија and земја are all ultimately derived from related PIE roots. I don't know about the depth of this relation into PSl. though.

In English, "dragon" once meant any large serpent. The same with Ancient Greek δράκων.

Also, here's the opinion of one Croatian Slavist:

No zadremo li malo u vremensku dubinu, pokazuje se još nešto. Praslavensko zmьjь ima sasvim nedvojbenu etimologiju. Izvodi se od zeml’a i znači ‘onaj koji pripada zemlji’. Te riječi nastavljaju indoeuropsko dhg’hemyā i s prijevojnom prazninom dhg’hmiyos, te se uklapaju u etimološku porodicu staroindijskoga kšam, grčkoga χθčn, latinskoga humus, sve ‘zemlja’. Jasno se razabire što se tu dogodilo. Demonska sila što pripada zemlji, opisana kao takva već u jeziku indoeuropskoga sakralnog pjesništva, dobila je u praslavenskoj obrednosti nov pjesnički opis, uz koji je dalje postojao i stariji, baštinjen iz dublje davnine. Otvara se tako uvid u dinamiku povijesti toga pjesničkog jezika. A što je ta sila koja pripada zemlji onda izjednačena s vragom, kršćanskim đavolom, to je tek recentnija interpretatio christiana, koja je popratila pokrštenje Slavena.

@Po-drum: I always thought our ламја was related to the Latin lamia and Greek λάμια. Many European countries' folklore have their own versions.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Yes. Змеј, змија and земја are all ultimately derived from related PIE roots. I don't know about the depth of this relation into PSl. though.

Thanks mate. I know that we have a difference of opinion where it concerns the relationship between Thracian and Slavic (< Balto-Slavic), but I think examples like this can be quite telling. Not only is the word unique in these two groups, but so is their development from the word for 'earth'. It suggests more than a mere coincidence in my opinion.

You may have missed this one or were intending to respond later, but just as a reminder:

Also, do the words јас (I) and сум (am) ultimately come from the same PIE root *eǵ’hom -> eź’ham, etc?

[Po-drum]

@Po-drum: I always thought our ламја was related to the Latin lamia and Greek λάμια. Many European countries' folklore have their own versions.

Yes.
And not only ламја, земја, but also гламја-гламна.
We have -mn not only on the place of -vn, but also on the place of -mj.
Do you think they are developed by analogy?

That's why I think there is eventual connection between ровја and гром, not only in their meaning but also in their origin, If we take into consideration following forms and the change of vn-mn, k-g:

rofja/rovja/grom(Mk.)
rrufe/rrufeja(Alb.)
kerauno/(ke)ravno(Gr.)

[Дени]

It suggests more than a mere coincidence in my opinion.

I'm only skeptical because I haven't ever seen any regular reflexes between PBSl. and Thracian glosses. Semantic similarities between IE languages go without saying...

You may have missed this one or were intending to respond later, but just as a reminder:

From *éǵh₂ and *h₁ésmi.

Do you think they are developed by analogy?

I'll do a bit of research, but you're most probably right; regularization (especially morphological) is one of the features ever-present in all Macedonian lexical categories.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I'm only skeptical because I haven't ever seen any regular reflexes between PBSl. and Thracian glosses.

Can you provide examples of where they are different?

Semantic similarities between IE languages go without saying...

I am not suggesting they are the same, but there appear to be far more Thracian cognates and semantic similarities with Balto-Slavic than any other IE linguistic group. The lexical parallels with Baltic in particular share many similarities in both stems and suffixes. There are signs which point to a common proto language well after PIE began to branch away.

From *éǵh₂ and *h₁ésmi.

See below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-B...lavic_language

On the basis of relative chronology of sound changes it has been ascertained that Winter's law acted rather late, after some other less prominent Balto-Slavic changes occurred, such as after the disappearance of laryngeals in prevocalic position. Compare:

PIE *eǵh₂om > PBSl. *eźHam (by Winter's law) *ēźHam > PSl. *jāzun (OCS azъ, Slovene jaz)

Therefore, the merger of PIE aspirated and plain velar stop series was one of the last common Balto-Slavic sound changes.

If in PSl. it was jāzun then that is a close cognate with Thracian asn, which would come from the earlier azn. It also shares the same changes: e > a and m > n.