The CBB

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?

Hm. Interesting question.
дуже цікаво…


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

No, it did not survive in any attested Balto-Slavic language.

Check out what follows below

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

Nice. Дуже добре.

---

*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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Should be "on chce tego" ("to" has to be in dative) and "to jest chciane przez niego" (dative again). That being said passive voice can't be used with certain verbs. I'd have to think about it/look it up but "chcieć" (want) sounds bad when used in passive voice probably because it's intransitive (at least in this context).


But beyond that - what are the characteristics of PIE passive that are missing from passive voice in Polish? Any resources would be interesting. :)