Harvard University 15 Dec 2006

below that the length that regularly appears on the stem-final vowel of these verbs is a Slavic innovation one which offers insights into the prehistory of other verb formations, in particular the presents in *-i-ti.

Indo-European origins of the Slavic verb: stem-vowel lengthening in derived imperfectives

Ronald I. Kim Swarthmore College rkim2@swarthmore.edu

1. Introduction Within the Indo-European (IE) family, the Slavic languages are not especially renowned for their preservation of archaic vocalic (ablaut) alternations, in inflectional or derivational morphology. To be sure, numerous traces of well-established Proto-Indo-European (PIE) ablaut patterns may be found throughout the noun and verb. *o ~ *e in o-stems and simple thematic presents, e.g. *rab-u slave < *-os, voc. *rab-e O slave! < *-e. These had long since become opaque, probably already in late PIE. Old o-stem agent nouns with o-grade of the root, e.g. *grobu grave to *greb-e/o- dig, *vod leader (< *wod-yo-) to *ved-e/o- lead. Stem alternations between present and infinitive, e.g. *br-a-ti take, pres. *ber-e/o- or *ps-a-ti write, pres. *pis-e/o- (< *pis-je/o-). On this type, see 4.1 below. Verbal formations with o-grade, especially iterative-transitives such as *bud-i-ti awaken < *bowdh-ye/o- (cf. *blud-e/o- watch < *bewdhe/o-, *bud-e-ti be awake < *budh-h1-). Lengthened grade in the inherited category of sigmatic aorists, e.g. 1sg. *rexu, 3pl. *rese < *rek- to *rek-e/o- say.

2. Derived imperfectives with infinitive *-a-ti, present *-a-je/o2.1. The Slavic languages are well known for their systematic distinction of aspect in verbal morphology. Almost every verb has two verbal stems, corresponding to imperfective (continuous, repeated, habitual action and/or complex internal structure) and perfective (action/state without reference to internal structure) aspect. The formal relation between the stems falls into several patterns. An unprefixed imperfective may be perfectivized by a particular preverb, e.g. (aorist stems given) *lub-i- love > pfv. *vuz-lub-i-, *ps-a- write >pfv. *na-ps-a-, *sul-a- send > pfv. *po-sul-a-. Other compounds, also usually perfective, may be made imperfective by means of a suffix, e.g. *vuz-sta- recognize, *po-zor-i- observe > impfv. *vuz-sta-va-, *po-zor-ova-. Some verbs have a single stem for both imperfective and perfective; cf. most R verbs in -ovat. There are also a few suppletive verbs, e.g. *brati, pfv. *(vuz-)eti take; cf. modern examples such as R govorit ~ skazat speak, P wy-gldac ~ wy-jrzec appear, look.

2.2. Here we shall be concerned with those verbs whose imperfectives are derived from the perfective stem. Many such derived imperfectives take the suffix *-a- in the aorist stem, hence infinitive *-a-ti, and *-a-je/o- in the present. These fall into the following subtypes: 1. to root presents (inf. *-ti, pres. *-e/o-) *su-blud-a-je/o*su-blud-e/o*po-mag-a-je/o*po-mog-e/o*po-greb-a-je/o*po-greb-e/o*pad-a-je/o*pad-e/oguard help bury fall (NB: not prefixed)

All of these alternations are fossilized in the oldest recorded Slavic language, Old Church Slavonic (OCS), and had become so by the ProtoSlavic (PSl.) stage. They no longer belonged to any synchronic rule or process, but had to be learned as morphological exceptions, much like English sing, sang, sung and song... The one morphological category to exhibit productive ablaut in Slavic is the class of derived imperfectives in *-a-ti, pres. *-a-je/o-. I will argue

2. to presents in *-ne/o- < *-je/o- (Tedesco 1948) with inf. *-no-ti *u-gas-a-je/o*u-gas-je/ogo out *jz-gyb-a-je/o*jz-gub-je/operish

3. to *-e/o-presents with inf. *--ti *na-cin-a-je/o*na-cn-e/o *vuz-im-a-je/o*vuz-m-e/o4. to *-je/o- presents with inf. *--ti *u-mir-a-je/o*u-mr-e/o*na-kaz-a-je/o*na-kaz-e/o*otu-syl-a-je/o*otu-sl-e/o5. to i-presents with inf. *--ti *pri-xad-a-je/o*pri-xod-i*(vu-pras-a-je/o*vu-pros-i*tvar-a-je/o*tvor-i*rad-a-je/o*rod-i*pri-lag-a-je/o*pri-loz-i*o-pravd-a-je/o*o-pravd-i6. to i-presents with inf. *-e-ti *po-min-a-je/o*po-mn-i*vuz-zir-a-je/o*vuz-zr-i-

begin take up

die instruct send away

arrive ask create give birth attach justify

Leskien 1962:17-20 and Schmalstieg 1983:165-6 include this phenomenon under Ablaut, but make no reference to its prehistory. Similarly Shevelov 1965:97-8, Aitzetmller 1991:65-6. Vaillant 1963:313, 1966:478-9, Xaburgaev 1974:322, and Schenker 1995:134 simply note the length in their description of the inflectional type. Van Wijk 1931:160 sees this as the only IE ablaut productive in OCS, implying that it is in fact of pre-(Balto-)Slavic origin. Diels 1932:91 refers to Der jngere <<Dehnungsablaut>>, but says only that its origin is schwer erklrbar. Stang 1942:50 briefly mentions the [a]nalogische Weiterfhrung des fr diese Kategorie charakterischen langen Wurzelvokals (see below, 4.3), but says nothing about the origin of this vowel length. Townsend and Janda (1996:115): The so-called Slavic ablaut is just that, a development within Slavic, resulting at a relatively late period from vowel lengthening in derived imperfectives. It is not PIE ablaut; it is too late and too restricted for it.

What could the source of this lengthened grade be? remember look up The older view of Kurylowicz (1956:302-5) and Meillet/Vaillant (1934:301) holds that its origins go back to PIE, and compare Latin celre hide, sed-re sit (cf. oc-culere, sedere) and Baltic presents in oti, e.g. Lith. mynioja override. But *sed- is a Narten root, and celre may be denominative (LIV s.v. 1.*kel-; cf. cella?). Kurylowicz also adduces Gr. -av presents of the type of nvmv distribute, allot, pvtomai fly around (cf. nmv, ptomai), although for the latter cf. potomai fly here and there < *poth2eye/o- (LIV s.v. 2.*peth2-; pvtao- < *poth2-ye/o-??).

Cf. among others Meillet/Vaillant 1934:298ff., Leskien 1962:18-20, Vaillant 1963:312-4, 1966:476ff., Xaburgaev 1974:322-3, and Schenker 1995:135-7. All of these subtypes survive in the modern Slavic languages, although individual verbs have variously altered one or the other of their stems, or even shifted in aspect. (In particular, some derived imperfectives in *-a-ti have extended this stem with the infix *-yv- ~ *-uv-; see 4.3 below.) 2.3. The derived imperfectives in *-a-ti, pres. *-a-je/o- stand out in one important respect. Whereas the imperfective and perfective stem are otherwise identical for most (non-suppletive) verbs, derived imperfectives in *-a-je/o- regularly lengthen in pre-Proto-Slavic terms the vowel of the final stem syllable: *a, *e, *i, *u > *a, *e, * , *u, whence the alternations *o ~ *a, *e ~ *e, * ~ *i, *u ~ *y. The origin of this vowel length should be one of the great mysteries of Slavic historical morphology, but has received amazingly little attention in most historical grammars of OCS or Slavic.

I will rather argue that it originated in imperfectives derived from perfectives with inf. *--ti, pres. *--, which make up the majority of this type. Before we examine the phonological developments involved, let us review the prehistory of i-presents in Slavic.

3. The prehistory of Slavic presents in *-3.1. Slavic presents in *-- correspond to the following types of infinitive (aorist) stems: iterative-transitives in *--ti, many with stem vowel *o or *a < pre-PSl. *a < *o, e.g. *nos--ti carry, *pros--ti ask, *tvor--ti make, create; also *bud--ti wake (s.o.), *uc--ti teach, with PSl. *u < *ow. denominatives in *--ti, e.g. *gost--ti be (received) as a guest; receive (a guest). statives in *-e-ti, with aor. stem vowel *-e- < PIE stative *-eh1-, e.g. *bud-e-ti be awake, *vd-e-ti see. two isolated verbs in *--ti: *sup--ti sleep, *sc--ti piss

Jasanoff (1978:107ff.): PBS *-i- < perfect middle 3pl. *-i-ntai) Cowgill (1963:265-6) argued that PIE *-eh1-> *-h1-y/- underlies the Germanic Class III weak presents and Tocharian Class III/IV presents.

In any case, Jasanoff (1978:101-3) rightly notes that stative presents in Slavic could have adopted the suffix(es) of the iterative-causative and/or denominative presents with corresponding aorist stems in *--. 3.2. Any historical explanation of i-present inflection must account for the palatalization of the stem-final consonant in the 1sg. and the alternation of 1sg. *-o, 3pl. *-e-, and *-- elsewhere. The obvious PIE sources are PIE iterative-transitives in *-ye/o- with o-grade of the root, cf. Ved. Cl. X presents in -ya-, the Lat. moneo -type, etc.; and PIE denominatives in *-e-y/- to thematic nouns, cf. Ved. amitra-y-, the Gr. poiv-type, Lat. servre (also Tocharian Class IV subjunctives in *-y/-; R. Kim 2007:3).

The stem formation and accentuation of these presents is as follows: The stem vowel is *-- in all forms but the 1sg. and 3pl. In the 1sg., the ending *-o is preceded by yodization of the stem-final consonant. The 3pl. ends in *-et (OCS - etu), like the athematic presents dad-etu they give, ed-etu they eat, and ved-etu they know, and unlike the otu of e/o- and je/o-presents. Originally oxytonic or postaccenting i-presents (accentual paradigm (AP) b in the traditional classification) have undergone Stangs Law (Stang 1957, Garde 1976) in all forms but the 1sg.: stress is retracted from a non-acute (= circumflex or short) vowel in a non-final syllable. This alternation has been eliminated in South Slavic, but survives in e.g. Russian. PSl. *pros'o *prssi *prst *prset R pros prsis prsit prsjat P prosze prosisz prosi (prosz) SC (prosm) pross pros prose

Jasanoff (op. cit.) suggests that *-eye- first became *-ije-, and that the latter then contracted to *--. The only independent support for this change is the ending of masc. istems, e.g. *treyes > PSl. *trje 3, or masc. i-stem nom. pl. *-eyes > *-je in *ludje people, *potje paths. Lith. trys 3, masc. i-stem ak-ys eyes suggest that this may be of pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic date. Possibly *-eye- > *-ije-, and this was preserved in final position (after the loss of *-s), but contracted elsewhere? Probably not accentually conditioned as per Jasanoff: i-presents belong to all three accentual paradigms. The circumflex intonation of PSl. *--, if it reflects *-ye-, might imply that the denominatives adopted the accentuation of the iterativetransitives; cf. similar confusion of the two types in Anatolian (Melchert 1997). Pace Stang (1952, 1957:112-3), iteratives and causatives were not originally distinguished as belonging to AP b and c, respectively; see Garde 1976:158-62.

pre-PSl. 1sg. *pros'o 2 *prossi 3 *prost 3pl. * proset

The origin of the present suffix has been hotly debated for decades, and I will not go into the competing proposals here. In particular, the controversy over the prehistory of the stative presents may be safely left aside.

On the other hand, 1sg. PIE *-eyo > PBS *-ijo > *-ijomi must have lost its *i at an early date; the root-final consonant and *y then underwent the usual treatment, e.g. *sj > PSl. *s, *tj > PSl. *t, *nj > PSl. *n. As for 3pl. *-et, it may well go back to the PBSl. stative present *-i-nti (Jasanoff 1978:112). The development of the i-presents would then be as follows: PIE PBSl. 1sg. *pros-ey-o > *pras-ijo(mi) > *pras-yan 2 *pros-ey-e-si > *pras-ije-sey (?) > *pras--si 3 *pros-ey-e-ti > *pras-ije-ti > *pras--ti 3pl. *pros-ey-onti > *pras-inti pre-PSl. *pros'o *prossi *prost *proset

*po-loz-i- put > *po-lag-a-je/o*pri-stop-i- step into > *pri-stop-a-je/o*o-pravd-i- justify > *o-pravd-a-je/o-. (denominative, cf. *pravda rightness, truth) (On the vocalism of *po-lag-a-je/o-, see below.) Most perfective i-presents, however, added the suffix *-a- to the present stem when this was still at the stage *-eje/o- or *-ije/o-; the thematic vowel was dropped. *pros-eye/o- > *pras-ije/a- > *wort-eye/o- > *wart-ije/a- > impfv. *pras-ij-aimpfv. *wart-ij-a-

> > > >

4. Compensatory lengthening and morphologization 4.1. Having examined the prehistory of presents in *--, let us now return to the imperfective type in 2.2. Slavic imperfectives in *-a-ti go back to PIE iteratives in *-eh2-, with pres. *-eh2-ye/o-. (Earlier views that this was semithematic or athematic, e.g. Stang 1942:50, are now obsolete.) Pace Meillet/Vaillant 1934:302, these are to be kept separate from Slavic aorist stems in *-a- to presents in *-e/o- or *-je/o-, e.g. *br-a-ti take, *ps-a-ti write to pres. *ber-e/o-, *pis-e/o- (< pre-PSl. *pisje/o-). The latter are cognate with Baltic preterites in *-a- (Lith. -o-), and may go back to an aorist formation in *-h2-. (Cf. Jasanoff 1983, though the Tocharian preterite in *-a- is not comparable.) Alongside primary iteratives, such as the type of Lat. duc re, sedre (cf. d ucere lead, s eder e be seated), etc., there was also a derived type: cf. Lat. capt- r e, dic-t r e, built to the past participles captus, dictus. (These became productive in Late Latin, whence the familiar Romance type of e.g. Italian diventare become [beside divenire], raccattare pick up, occultare hide.)

What would these preforms have become in Proto-Slavic? I propose that the loss of *i in the complex suffix *-ij-a - was accompanied by compensatory lengthening of the preceding, i.e. stem-final vowel. *pras-ija- > *pr:s-ja- > *pr:s-a- > PSl. *prs-a*wart-ija- > *w:rt-ja- > *w:rt-a- > PSl. *wrt-aJudging from the evidence of modern languages such as SC, this development produced a long vowel with acute intonation: cf. SC zaprsati seek, vrcati. 4.2. If this is correct, the evolution of the 1sg. of the i-presents proposed above (3.2, end) has to be revised. These forms, like the derived imperfectives in *-iy-a-, should have undergone compensatory lengthening. 1sg. *pros-ey-o > *pras-ija(mi) > *pras-yon vs. 2 *pros-ey-e-si > *pras-ije-sei (?) > *pras--si 3 *pros-ey-e-ti > *pras-ije-ti > *pras--ti 3pl. *pros-ey-onti > *pras-inti > *pras'o > *prossi > *prost > * proset

The major innovation of (Balto-)Slavic was the formation of iteratives in *-- < PIE *-eh2- from various present stems. A few derived imperfectives in *-a-je/o- to perfective i-presents are formed to the root, e.g.

The resulting stem-vowel alternation was leveled within the paradigm of ipresents, giving PSl. *proso, *worto, etc.

4.3. In contrast, the compensatory lengthening of final stem vowels was preserved in the derived imperfectives in *-a-je/o-, where it occurred throughout the paradigm, in both aorist and present stems. In fact, stemvowel lengthening spread from these imperfectives (formed to perfectives in *-i-ti) to others in *-a-je/o-, in which there could not have been any compensatory lengthening. (For the numbering of the examples, see 2.2.) 1. *na-rek-e/o2. *jz-gub-ne/o3. *na-cn-e/o 4. *otu-sl-e/o5. *pri-lag-aj6. *vuz-zir-e*na-rek-a-je/o*jz-gyb-a-je/o*na-cin-a-je/o*otu-syl-aj*pri-loz-i*vuz-zir-ajcall perish begin send away attach look up

*skoc-i> *skak-e/o-, *skak-a*leg-e/o> *leg-e/o-, *leg-a(aor. *leg-e/o-, inf. *leti) Cf. Meillet/Vaillant 1934:301, Vaillant 1966:281-2.

jump lie down

3. Many derived imperfectives (to perfective a - or i-presents) are characterized by a complex suffix *-u-je/o-, aor. stem *-uv-a- or *-yv-a-. This type becomes increasingly popular in later Slavic: cf. R is-ptyvat try (pfv. is-pitt), SC is-pitvati look for (pfv. isptati), P za-trzymywac stop (pfv. za-trzymac), B kazvam call (pfv. kaza), etc. Note however, that R -yvat, P -ywac, SC -vati go back to *-yv-a-, but B -vam, aor. -vax to *-uv-a-!

Especially in the case of classes 3 and 4 (*-e/o- and *-je/o- presents with inf. in *--ti), note that a long stem vowel would have provided a ready means for forming a distinct imperfective stem. Cf. na-zov-e/o- call, inf. na-zuv-a-ti (resultative ptcp. na-zuv-a-lu) vs. pfv. na-zyv-a-je/o-, inf. nazyv-a-ti (na-zyv-a-lu); d us- e/o- breathe, inf. dux-a-ti (d ux -a-l u ) vs. pfv. dyx-a-je/o-, inf. dyx-a-ti (dyx-a-lu).
Note that the type na-ric-a-je/o- call, u-zi-a-je/o- burn (up) (beside *na-rek-a-je/o-, u-zag-a-je/o-) is likely to be an innovation; cf. the variant pres. stems r c - e-, z z - e- for usual re c - e-, zez - e - . For the third palatalization of velars, cf. po-dvig-ne/o- move (inf. *po-dviti > SC podi ci, > OCS po-dvig-n o-ti), impfv. po-dvi -a-je/o-. (Cf. Vaillant 1966:479-81.)

It thus appears that we must reconstruct PSl. *-uv-a-, and conclude that the lengthening typical of such extended imperfectives had not yet spread to this type in the eastern South Slavic dialects. (The accentual pattern of these imperfectives also requires PSl. *-uv-a-; see Garde 1976.) 4.4. The developments presupposed here exemplify the tendency for firstand second-language learners to level synchronically unmotivated alternations within inflectional paradigms, but maintain and even generalize them in derivational categories. Stem-vowel length was eliminated in the 1sg. of i-presents, restoring paradigmatic uniformity. On the other hand, once length was interpreted as characteristic of a large class of derived imperfectives with inf. *-a-ti, pres. *-a-je/o- namely, those built to perfective i-presents it could be extended to other imperfectives of this inflectional type.

Several facts indicate that stem-vowel lengthening was still gaining ground at the time of the breakup of Proto-Slavic linguistic unity. 1. The productivity of this vowel alternation in particular that of o ~ a, which retains its transparency in all modern Slavic languages is also demonstrated by verbs with o not from PSl. *o (Shevelov 1965:97fn.7). Cf. R za-molct shut up (< PSl. *mulk-), impfv. za-mlcivat or P roz-mwic sie have a word (< PSl. *mulv-), impfv. roz-mawiac converse, chat. 2. The long final stem vowel of derived imperfectives in *-a-je/o- has spread to the handful of derived imperfectives in *-je/o-, inf. *--ti, e.g.

The lengthening of final stem vowels thus presents yet another example of originally phonological change which became opaque, reinterpreted as a derivational process.

For a parallel, cf. jer-loss and compensatory lengthening in many modern Slavic languages. This lengthening is still accentually conditioned in SC, affecting e.g. only masc. nom. sg. nouns of AP c (i.e. underlyingly unaccented), e.g. bg God, sn sleep vs. gen. b oga, sn-. However, Polish pochylenie (o ~ [u] < MidPol. o ~ o, and also e ~ < MidPol. * ~ *) has become phonologically and lexically opaque, to the point that its current grammatical status within the language is open to question (see Buckley 2000).

5. Baltic comparanda and conclusions 5.1. When we turn to Baltic, we find that Lithuanian and Latvian have a number of presents in *-a-ja, inf. *-a-ti with short stem vowels, e.g. Lith. kil-ti, 1sg. -jau, Latv. cilju lift (repeatedly, often), keep lifting. However, many iteratives are formed with the suffix *-ja-ja- AND acute intonation of the stem vowel, just as in Serbo-Croatian (Stang 1966:360). Examples: Lith. lndzioja, Latv. luzju < *lnd-aja- (cf. leda); Lith. pinioja (pna). This pattern has even been extended to presents in -e- with pret. stem vowel i, e.g. bridzioja to breda, pret. brdo. Cf. Slavic cases like OCS na-ric-a-je/o- (< *na-rek-a-je/o-; see above, 4.3.)

A few perfective i-presents form imperfectives in *-a-je/o- directly to the root, but most suffix *-a-je/o- to the stem: *-ije/o- > *-ij-a-je/o-, aor. stem *-ij-a-. Here as well, the *i was lost with compensatory lengthening, and the stem-final consonant and *j developed regularly (yodization). The resulting alternation was reinterpreted as a derivational process. The long vowel was eliminated in the 1sg. of i-presents, where it likewise arose by sound change. On the other hand, length was extended not only to other derived imperfectives in *-a-je/o-, but also to primary a-verbs with pres. *-je/o- (e.g. *skak-a-ti jump) and, in most Slavic languages, the extended type in *-uv-a- > *-yv-a-, pres. *-u-je/o-.

It thus appears that at least the development of derived imperfectives in *ija- (4) may be projected back to the pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic stage. Whether the same is true of the 1sg. of i-presents, i.e. of the leveling of stem vocalism after the rest of the paradigm, is unclear: prehistory of Lith. -au, ai, -o, etc.? 5.2. In conclusion, the regular stem-vowel lengthening of Slavic derived imperfectives with inf. *--ti, pres. *--je/o- does not go back to PIE, but has arisen in the prehistory of (Balto-)Slavic through compensatory lengthening. Old iterative-causative perfectives in inf. *--ti formed presents in *eye/o-, which became *-ije/a- in (pre-)Proto-Balto-Slavic. Whereas *ije- contracted to *--, *-ija- lost its first vowel, and the preceding (stem-final) vowel was lengthened and acquired acute intonation.

References
Aitzetmller, Rudolf. 1991. Altbulgarische Grammatik als Einfhrung in die slavische Sprachwissenschaft. 2., verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage. (Monumenta Linguae Slavicae Dialecti Veteris. Fontes et Dissertationes, Tom. XXX.) Freiburg i. Br.: Weiher. Buckley, Eugene. 2000. What should phonology explain? Linguistics Colloquium, State U. of New York at Buffalo. (available at http://babel.ling.upenn.edu/ ~gene/papers/buffalo.pdf) Cowgill, Warren. 1963. Review of Jaan Puhvel, Laryngeals and the Indo-European Verb. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, Vol. 21. Berkeley/Los Angeles: U. of California Press, 1960.) Language 39:2, 248-70. Diels, Paul. 1932. Altkirchenslavische Grammatik, mit einer Auswahl von Texten und einem Wrterbuch. (Sammlung Slavischer Lehr- und Handbcher, 1. Reihe: Grammatiken, Band 6.) Heidelberg: Winter. Garde, Paul. 1976. Histoire de laccentuation slave. (Collection de manuels de lInstitut dtudes Slaves, 7.) Paris: Institut dtudes Slaves. Jasanoff, Jay H. 1978. Stative and Middle in Indo-European. (Innsbrucker Beitrge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Band 23.) Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft. . 1983. The IE -preterite and related forms. IF 88, 54-83. Kim, Ronald I. 2007. Proto-Indo-European *-ye/o- presents in Tocharian. To appear in Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, 3-4 Nov 2006. Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1956. Lapophonie en indo-europen. (Prace Jezykoznawcze 9.) Wroclaw: Zaklad Imienia Ossolinskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Leskien, August. 1962. Handbuch der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen) Sprache. Grammatik, Texte, Glossar. 8., verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage. Heidelberg: Winter. LIV: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Primrstammbildungen. Unter Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer, bearbeitet von Martin Kmmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, Brigitte Schirmer. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kmmel und Helmut Rix. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2001. Meillet, Antoine and Andr Vaillant. 1934. Le slave commun. Seconde dition, revue et augmente. (Collection Linguistique de la Socit de Linguistique de Paris, XV.) Paris: Champion. Schenker, Alexander. 1995. The Dawn of Slavic: An Introduction to Slavic Philology. New Haven: Yale U. Press. Schmalstieg, William R. 1983. An Introduction to Old Church Slavic. 2nd ed., revised and expanded. Columbus: Slavica. Shevelov, George. 1965. A Prehistory of Slavic: The Historical Phonology of Common Slavic. New York: Columbia U. Press.

Stang, Christian S. 1942. Das slavische und baltische Verbum. (Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Hist.-Filos. Klasse, 1942, No. 1.) Oslo: Dybwad. . 1952. Sur laccentuation des verbes causatifs et itratifs en slave. NTS 16, 26370. . 1957. Slavonic Accentuation. (Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, Hist.Fil. Klasse, No. 3.) Oslo. (Republished 1965, Oslo/Bergen/Troms: Universitetsforlaget.) . 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo/Bergen/ Troms: Universitetsforlaget. Tedesco, Paul. 1948. Slavic ne-presents from older je-presents. Language 24:4, 346-87. Townsend, Charles E. and Laura A. Janda. 1996. Common and Comparative Slavic. Columbus: Slavica. Vaillant, Andr. 1963. Manuel du vieux slave. Tome I: Grammaire. Paris: Institut dtudes Slaves. . 1966. Grammaire compare des langues slaves. Tome III: Le verbe. Paris: Klincksieck. van Wijk, Nicholas (Nicolaas). 1931. Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache. Erster Band: Laut- und Formenlehre. (Grundri der slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte, v. 8.) Berlin/Leipzig: de Gruyter. Xaburgaev, Georgij A. 1974. Staroslavjanskij jazyk. Moscow: Prosvescenie.