¹ Others that should be mentioned are Jakobson, Roman, “Remarques sur l’évolution phonologique du russe comparée à celles des autres langues slaves,” reprinted in Selected Writings I, ‘s-Gravenhage, Mouton & Co., 1962, pp. 7–116 Google Scholar; and two recent works by scholars, Soviet, Ivanov, V. V., Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka, Moscow, “Prosveščenije,” 1963 Google Scholar, and Borkovskij, V. I. and Kuznecov, P. S., Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka, 2nd ed, Moscow, “Nauka,” 1965 Google Scholar.

² For an earlier disputation on this point, see Fairbanks, G. H., “The phonemic structure of Zographensis,” Lang. 28 (1952), pp. 360–365 Google Scholar and Lunt, Horace G., “Old Church Slavonic Phonemes,” Word 8 (1952), pp. 311–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ The facts involved are complex and an exact statement differs from stage to stage. Generally, the consonants affected are reflexes of PIE*/p b bh w m t d dh s ğ ğh l n r/ or equivalently early pre-Proto Slavic /p b w m t d s z l n r/. More exactly, for Old Russian the consonants involved are /p b v m t d/ with some palatalization before /i/, /æ/(< PIE*/ē/ and */oj/ before consonants and sometimes finally), /ĭ/, /e/ and /ä/ (< earlier Slavic /ẽ/). For Old Russian, Ivanov (p. 92) and Lunt (“On the Origins of Phonemic Palatalization in Slavic,” in For Roman Jakobson, ed. Halle et al., the Hague, Mouton & Co., 1956, pp. 310-11) consider /ä/ to contrast with /a/ with any palatalization of /p b v m t d/ before /ä/ as allophonic, although comparison of the modern East Slavic languages does not support this. If, conversely, /ä/ and /a/ have coalesced in Old Russian, then /p b v m t d/ contrast with their palatalized counterparts before /a/[ä a], and there can be no argument against palatalization being distinctive for these consonants. Thus anyone who adheres to the view that palatalization is nondistinctive for /p b v m t d/ must have the contrast /ä/:/a/.

Palatalized /ş ẓ ļ ņ Ŗ/ (< pre-Proto Slavic /š z lj nj rj/, respectively) may be considered to exist even if palatalization is ruled nondistinctive for /p b v m t d/. This is the opinion of Ivanov (pp. 103-104) and Borkovskij and Kuznecov (pp. 53-54). These are said to contrast with /s z 1 n r/ before front vowels and before /a/ and /u/. If palatalization for /ş ẓ ļ ņ Ŗ/ is ruled non-distinctive (and it can be), then one must add a fronted /ü/ to the vowel system to account for the following pair: Old Russian /koņa/ or /konü/ “horse (Dat. Sg.)” vs. /okŭnu/ “window (Dat. Sg.).” For this view, see again Lunt (p. 310) in whose analysis of Old Russian there is no distinctive palatalization at all for consonants. But in any case, the modern East Slavic languages do not support a distinction of /ş ẓ ļ ņ Ŗ/ (from the sources noted above) and /s z 1 n r/ before front vowels.

/s z 1 n r/ are said to be phonetically palatalized in the same environments as /p b v m t d/. If, as in the latter group, palatalization is taken as distinctive, then /ş ẓ ļ ņ Ŗ/ from front vowel palatalization are added to the /ş ẓ ļ ņ Ŗ/ from /š z lj nj rj/. Since in Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian there is a single set of reflexes of these consonants irrespective of source, there is asserted to be a single contrast /ş ẓ ļ ņ Ŗ/ vs. /s z l n r/ in Old Russian. The fact that /ş ẓ ļ ņ Ŗ/ come from two historically distinct sources gives these five a distribution different from , i.e., the former occur regularly before /u/[ü], and the latter do not.

⁴ Meillet, A., Le slave commun, Paris, Champion, 1965, p. 87 Google Scholar; Nachtigal, R., Die slavischen Sprachen, Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz, 1961, pp. 29–30 Google Scholar; Roman Jakobson, op. cit., p. 27; André Vaillant, Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, Paris, IAC, 1950, Vol. 1, p. 45; Bräuer, H., Slavisches Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter and Co., 1961, Vol. 1, pp. 184–185 Google Scholar; Rosenkranz, B., Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Altbulgarischen, Heidelberg, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1955, pp. 55–56 Google Scholar; Lunt, Horace G., “On the Origins …,” p. 309 Google Scholar; and Shevelov, G. Y., A Prehistory of Slavic, New York, Columbia University Press, 1965, p. 489 Google Scholar, all assert some degree of palatalization of labial and dental stops and spirants before front vowels in Common Slavic (pre-Proto Slavic). Only Nachtigal and Shevelov qualify their statements to the effect that these consonants were not completely palatalized. The others use such terms as “molle” (Meillet), “palatalise” (Jakobson), “palatal” (Brãuer), “weich” (Rosenkranz) or “sharp” (Lunt) to designate the phonetic quality of these consonants before front vowels.

K. Horálek, Uvod do studia slovanských jazyků, Prague, Československá akademia věd, 1962, p. 108, states that the presence of palatalization is probable (“pravděpodobné”) and if present, only partial (“polohová”).

For a more recent exchange on this point, see Bidwell, Charles E., “A Rejoinder to E. Stankiewicz’s Review,” SEEJ IX (1965), p. 428 Google Scholar and Stankiewicz, Edward, “Reply to Professor Bidwell’s Rejoinder,” SEEJ IX (1965), p. 432 Google Scholar. The latter denies the presence of any palatalization for the consonants in question.

⁵ While this is so, none of those who admit the requisite phonetic palatalization interpret it as distinctive, some saying that its presence is determined by a following front vowel (e.g., Vaillant and Bräuer): a purely historical argument that has nothing to do with the phonological system at that point.

⁶ The occurrence of [C-Ü] is uncertain. Historically, the sequence is not accounted for by regular phonetic change; however, a shifting of masculine ĭ-stem nouns (e.g., golubĭ) to the o/jo-stem class would result in a dative singular with the [C-Ü] sequence (e.g., gobub-ü), cf. Russian /gólubu/ “pigeon.” Those who interpret Old Russian without distinctive palatalization for [C.] could not account for such forms without admitting distinctive palatalization for [C.] or positing a /Ü/ (i.e., /ü/) contrasting with /U/ (i.e., /u/).

⁷ Here Fairbanks must assume that phonetically the reflex of Proto Slavic /ē/ has coalesced with /a/ after Y giving a single [YÄ]. Here Lunt (“On the Origins,” p. 311) agrees. The reflexes in Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian indicate this. Other interpretations assume two sequences [YÄ] and [YA], with the A here fronter than A in other positions, i.e., after C and K, but not phonetically identical with Ä. Cf. Ivanov, Istoričeskaja grammatika …, p. 95.

⁸ With these exceptions: /æ/ (<PIE */ē oj/) does not occur after /C K/, and /u/ occurs only rarely after of/ C • / while occurring regularly after /ş ẓ ļ ņ Ŗ/ of /C•/.

⁹ The /YA/ of this interpretation is based on the assumption of an [ä] and an [a] phonetically distinct after [Y]. Cf. note 7 above.

¹⁰ Cf. Lunt, “On the Origins …,” pp. 309-310.

¹¹ Wijk, Nicholas van, “L’étude diachronique des phénomènes phonologiques et extra-phonologiques,” TCLP VIII (1939), pp. 304–305 Google Scholar.

¹² Ivanov, Istoričeskaja grammatika …, p. 100.

¹³ Page 3.

¹⁴ Hockett, Charles F., A Course in Modern Linguistics, New York, The Macmillan Company, 1958, pp. 512–516 Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Page 78.

¹⁶ Page 79.

¹⁷ Fairbanks notes this but cannot take advantage of it, because to do so with his inventory of Proto East Slavic would produce an incorrect series of changes in pre-Ukrainian:

No [ĭ ŭ] is reflected as [i] in Ukrainian.

¹⁸ Trubetzkoy, N., “Zur allgemeinen Theorie der phonologischen Vokal-system,” reprinted in A Prague School Reader in Linguistics, ed. Vachek, Josef, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1964, p. 114ffGoogle Scholar. and Hockett, Charles F., A Manual of Phonology, Baltimore, Waverley Press, Inc., 1964, p. 83 Google Scholar.

¹⁹ For a division such as Fairbanks’, see Shakhmatov, A. A., Vvedenije v kurs istorii russkogo jazyka, Petrograd, Izdatel’skij komitet studentov I.F.F. Università, 1916, pp. 42–44 Google Scholar, and for an argument against, see Wijk, N. van, “Remarques sur le groupement des langues slaves,” Revue des Etudes Slaves, Vol. 4 (1924), pp. 5–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ The view which makes no attempt at subgrouping the three branches of Slavic is the usual Soviet one. Cf. Ivanov, Istoričeskaja grammatika …, pp. 75-78.

²¹ If one accepts /i u ọ o æ a/ as a possible vowel system for Proto East Slavic, then this series of forms presents a problem. The phonemic correspondence a—i—I, for example, occurs only in CR—C, where R = 1-1-1 or r-r-r, C = any other consonant and = any stressed vowel, and contrasts with /i/ (e.g., krilá—krilá—krllá “wings”), with /o/ (e.g., grazá-γrazá—hrozá “storm”), with /ọ/ (e.g., raška-rašká-rižká “small horn (Gen. Sg.)”), and with /a/ (e.g., vragá-vraγá-vrahá “enemy (Gen. Sg.)”). One solution to this problem is to phonemicize the sequences as CRC, where R = la—li—II or ra-ri-rl. This may be done since there is no contrasting CRC, where R = 1-1-1 or r-r-r. The word “bloody” would then be /krvávij/ as given. The alternative is to posit a vowel of very limited distribution. A similar argument applies to position after a palatalized consonant.

²² For comments on this problem, see Davis, P. W., “A Note on Language Split,” CJL 11 (1966), pp. 120–126 Google Scholar.

²³ Page 92.

²⁴ On pages 83 and 94.