The CBB

Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more!
It is currently Sat 23 Sep 2017, 06:43

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue 11 Jul 2017, 17:40 
rupestrian
rupestrian

Joined: Mon 23 Feb 2015, 21:18
Posts: 11
Hi.

Anyone ever thought how would a hypothetical passive voice look like in modern Slavic lanuages (or even Proto-Slavic), had it survived long enough?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 11 Jul 2017, 18:19 
earth
earth
User avatar

Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57
Posts: 7036
Hm. Interesting question. :wat:
:ukr: дуже цікаво

:idea:
Did a PIE PASS descendant survive in Lithuanian/Old Prussian/Baltic, I wonder?

:wat: :?:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 11 Jul 2017, 19:07 
rupestrian
rupestrian

Joined: Mon 23 Feb 2015, 21:18
Posts: 11
No, it did not survive in any attested Balto-Slavic language.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 11 Jul 2017, 19:33 
earth
earth
User avatar

Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57
Posts: 7036
Check out what follows below
[+1]


Last edited by Lambuzhao on Tue 11 Jul 2017, 23:27, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 11 Jul 2017, 22:33 
cuneiform
cuneiform

Joined: Wed 18 Jan 2017, 07:17
Posts: 188
Let me try. Balto-Slavic languages are closest related to Germanic and Indo-Iranian, which means they would probably have used *-oy rather than *-or for the passive endings. I’m not going to attempt the accent, though.

*h₁eǵh₂óm bhéroh₂ey > PBSl. *eʔźun beroʔai > *ēzu berōi > PSl. *(j)azъ bery
*tuH bhéreth₂ey > PBSl. *tuʔ beretai > PSl. *ty bereti
*so bhéretoy > PBSl. *tos beretoi > PSl. *tъ bereti
*weh₁ bhérowosdhh₂ > PBSl. *weʔ berowozd > PSl. *vě berovo ??? (Were final syllabic laryngeals simply deleted in PBSl.? I usually check the multiples of ten for evidence on that, but the Balto-Slavic languages remodelled them...)
*yuh₁/toh₁ bhéretr̥s (backformed from Skt. bharat(h)uḥ) > PBSl. *beretirs > PSl. *beretrь ??? (Not really sure how a final /rs/ cluster would have developed. I’d check the genitive of ‘brother’, but PBSl. seems to have remodelled it as well.)
*wes bhéromosdhh₂ > PBSl. *mes berowozd > PSl. *my beromo ??? (Same as for the 1.du.)
*yuHs bhéredhh₂we > PBSl. *juʔs beredwe > PSl. *vy beredve
*toy bhérontoy > PBSl. *toi berontoi > PSl. *ti berǫti

_________________
[ˈaʃt̪əɹ ˈbalɨˌnɛsʲtʲəɹ]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 11 Jul 2017, 23:26 
earth
earth
User avatar

Joined: Sun 13 May 2012, 01:57
Posts: 7036
Nice. Дуже добре.




Quote:
*yuh₁/toh₁ bhéretr̥s (backformed from Skt. bharat(h)uḥ) > PBSl. *beretirs > PSl. *beretrь ??? (Not really sure how a final /rs/ cluster would have developed. I’d check the genitive of ‘brother’, but PBSl. seems to have remodelled it as well.)


According to The Indo-European Languages chart 1.23 IE -r stems (singular)
https://books.google.com/books?id=4Av0D ... tr&f=false


And Wiktionary Proto Slavic declension reconstructions of r-stem nouns
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category ... stem_nouns

Looks like /s/ is lenited for that final cluster. *beret + /re/. Your reconstruction *beretrь looks as good as could be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 12 Jul 2017, 00:34 
cuneiform
cuneiform

Joined: Wed 18 Jan 2017, 07:17
Posts: 188
Lambuzhao wrote:
Looks like /s/ is lenited for that final cluster. *beret + /re/. Your reconstruction *beretrь looks as good as could be.


Wait... Sanskrit bharatuḥ is a dual perfect form, not a middle.

The endings of the 2.du.mid. and 3.du.mid are poorly attested, but based on Sanskrit -ithām, -itām and Greek -thon, -thēn, they could have been -HtHom and -Hteh₂m, respectively.

In Proto-Slavic, those would yield:
*bhéreHtHom > PBSl. *bereʔtun > PSl. *berětu
*bhéreHteh₂m > PBSl. *bereʔtanʔ > PSl. *berětǫ

_________________
[ˈaʃt̪əɹ ˈbalɨˌnɛsʲtʲəɹ]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 07 Sep 2017, 06:02 
rupestrian
rupestrian

Joined: Wed 30 Aug 2017, 02:56
Posts: 4
Maybe I'm missing something, but Polish most certainly has a passive voice.

Take this for example: https://polish-dictionary.com/polish-passive-voice

He wants that: On(He) chce(wants) to(that, well technically this)

That is wanted by him: To(that) jest(is) chciane(wanted) przez(by) go(him-ACC)

On chce to

To jest chciane przez go


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu 07 Sep 2017, 10:28 
mongolian
mongolian

Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27
Posts: 4157
Vai wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but Polish most certainly has a passive voice.

Take this for example: https://polish-dictionary.com/polish-passive-voice

He wants that: On(He) chce(wants) to(that, well technically this)

That is wanted by him: To(that) jest(is) chciane(wanted) przez(by) go(him-ACC)

On chce to

To jest chciane przez go

The question this thread is dealing with is the original PIE passive voices. The Polish example you describe is a much later development that occurred when the PIE passive was lost, and replaced with a more analytic construction.

_________________
Spoiler: show
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland

What is made of man will crumble away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue 12 Sep 2017, 19:14 
cuneiform
cuneiform

Joined: Mon 13 Sep 2010, 11:04
Posts: 165
The Proto-Slavic dialectal 3rd person ending -tъ might continue the PIE middle -to, depending on what you believe the Slavic outcome of PIE o# should be.

Quote:
Your reconstruction *beretrь looks as good as could be.


Not *beretьr, though? Proto-Slavic had things like *tьr, 2-3sg aorist of *terti, from *tr-s-s, tr-s-t I believe.

_________________
if you can't decline it or conjugate it, piss on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed 13 Sep 2017, 01:39 
cuneiform
cuneiform

Joined: Wed 18 Jan 2017, 07:17
Posts: 188
pittmirg wrote:
The Proto-Slavic dialectal 3rd person ending -tъ might continue the PIE middle -to, depending on what you believe the Slavic outcome of PIE o# should be.

Quote:
Your reconstruction *beretrь looks as good as could be.


Not *beretьr, though? Proto-Slavic had things like *tьr, 2-3sg aorist of *terti, from *tr-s-s, tr-s-t I believe.


It doesn't really matter, though. I later amended my original reconstruction because that *-trs ending belongs to the dual perfect active, not the middle voice. The actual dual middle-voice forms would be *berětu for the 2du. and *berětǫ for the 3du.

_________________
[ˈaʃt̪əɹ ˈbalɨˌnɛsʲtʲəɹ]


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.