Slavic liquid metathesis and pleophony

TheSlavic liquid metathesisrefers to the phenomenon ofmetathesisofliquid consonantsin theCommon Slavicperiod in theSouth SlavicandWest Slavicarea. The closely related corresponding phenomenon ofpleophony(also known aspolnoglasieorfull vocalization) occurred in parallel in theEast Slavic languages.

The change acted on syllables in which theProto-Slavicliquid consonants *rand *loccurred in acodaposition. The result of the change is dependent upon the phonological environment and accents, and it varies in different Slavic languages.

The change has been dated to the second half of the 8th century, before any Slavic languages were recorded in writing. Therefore, the change itself cannot be observed, but it can be inferred by comparing words in different Slavic languages. Evidence of the earlier state of affairs is also preserved inloanwordsinto and from Early Slavic as well as incognatesin otherIndo-European languages,particularlyBaltic languages.

Background

Environments of eliminated liquid codas
Traditional	Schenker	Holzer
oRT	ăRC	aRC
TeRT	CĕRC	CeRC
ToRT	CăRC	CaRC
TьRT	CĭRC	CiRC
TъRT	CŭRC	CuRC

During the Common Slavic period, a tendency, known as thelaw of open syllables,led to a series of changes that eliminated closed syllables. By theOld Church Slavonicperiod, every syllable, without exception, ended in a vowel. Such changes included:

monophthongizationof diphthongs,
loss of word-final consonants (PSl*vьlkъ<PBSl*wilkás< PIE*wĺ̥kʷos),
simplification of some medial consonant clusters (OCStonǫti< *topnǫti), and
formation of the nasal vowels *ǫ < *am/*an and *ę < *em/*en.

The change discussed here is part of this process, and it involved the liquid consonants, grouped under the cover symbolR,*l or *r in acodaposition, in environments that are traditionally designated as in the table on the right. The application of the law of open syllables in such environments had different results in different Slavic dialects, and it is some of the earliest evidence for differentiation into the multitude of Slavic languages.

In some, it is the metathesis of a sequence of liquid consonants followed by a vowel, and in others, it is an insertion of another vowel. In most cases, the effect was to eliminate the syllable-final consonants *l and *r so that the law of open syllables was maintained.

Reflexes in Slavic languages

oRT

Metathesis then occurred in all Slavic dialects. In South Slavic dialects (Slovene, Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, Bulgarian) as well in Czech and Slovak, the metathesized vowel was lengthened as well.

InEast Slavicand theLechiticbranch ofWest Slavic,the outcome was dependent upon theProto-Slavic accent:in acuted syllables, the output was the same as in South Slavic and Czech-Slovak, but on circumflexed syllables, the metathesized vowel did not lengthen.

Area	Acuted syllable		Circumflexed syllable
Area	Traditional	Schenker/Holzer	Traditional	Schenker/Holzer
South Slavic, Czech and Slovak	CSoRT >CSraT	PSl.aRC >PSl.*RāC >CSRaC	CSoRT >CSraT	PSl.aRC >PSl.*RāC >CSRaC
North Slavic	CSoRT >CSraT	PSl.aRC >PSl.*RāC >CSRaC	CSoRT >CSroT	PSl.aRC >PSl.*RaC >CSRoC

PSl.= Proto-Slavic proper, the stage before both the loss of distinctive vowel length and the change *a > *o

CS= Common Slavic, Late Proto-Slavic, the last reconstructable ancestor of all Slavic languages

Compare the following reflexes:

Accent	Proto-Slavic reconstruction	South Slavic, Czech and Slovak							North Slavic
Accent	Proto-Slavic reconstruction	OCS	Slovene	Serbo-Croatian	Bulgarian	Macedonian	Czech	Slovak	Russian	Belarusian	Ukrainian	Polish	Low. Sorbian	Upp. Sorbian
Acute	PSl. ardla > CSőrdlo"plough"	ralo	rálo	rȁlo / ра̏ло	ра́ло (rálo)	рало (ralo)	rádlo	radlo	ра́ло (rálo)	ра́ла (rála)	ра́ло (rálo)	radło	radło	radło
Circumflex	PSl.arstu >CSȍrstъ "growth"	rastŭ	rȃst	rȃst / ра̑ст	ръст (răst)	раст (rast)	růst	rast	рост (rost)	рост (rost)	ріст (rist)	wzrost		róst

If the syllable was not acuted, the metathesis in West and East Slavic occurred without the lengthening so EPSl. *a retains its short quantity and yields/o/;compare EPSl. *ȃlkъtь ‘elbow’ > Serbo-Croatianlȃkatbut Czechloket.

TeRT and ToRT

Word-medially, on the other hand, there were three primary outcomes:

In Czech, Slovak and South Slavic, the metathesis occurred with lengthening: Proto-Slavic (PS) CeRC CaRC > CRēC CRāC > Common Slavic (CS) CRěC CRaC.
In the rest of West Slavic, the metathesis occurred but without lengthening: PS CeRC CaRC > CReC CRaC > CS CReC CRoC.
In East Slavic, a vowel was inserted to break up the RC sequence (pleophony): PS CeRC CaRC > CeReC CaRaC > CS CeReC CoRoC.

As a result of dialect-specific changes occurring before and after the cluster resolution (metathesis/pleophony), the outcomes in various languages are diverse and complex. For example, in North-West Lechitic (northern Kashubian, Slovincian, Pomeranian and Polabian) and East Slavic, *CalC and *CelC merged into *CalC prior to cluster resolution:

In Polish and Sorbian, the metathesis occurred without lengthening: Polishbrzeg,mleko,groch,młotas opposed to OCSbrěgъ,mlěko,Slovenegràh,OCSmlatъ.
In North-West Lechitic, *CalC and *CelC yielded ClŭC (Polabian glåvă ‘head’, å < ъ), *CerC > CreC (without lengthening, as in Polish) while in *CarC, ar becomes ŭr, just like word-initially under acute (Polabian råmą ‘arm’ < *rъmę < *armę), but it did not undergo the metathesis. Compare Polabianporsą,Slovenepra sắcand Pomeriangard(often in toponymics likeBiałogard) to OCSgradъ(note that unchangedarin *gardŭ would have yieldedorin Pomeranian).
In Czech and Slovak, word-medial metathesis occurred with lengthening just like in South Slavic: Czechmlat,hrách,Polishmłot,grochwith an /o/.
The East Slavic languages have pleophonic *CarC > CoroC, *CerC > CereC and *CalC/*CelC > ColoC: Russiangórod,béreg,mólot,molokó.

TьRT and TъRT

Complete and incomplete metathesis

If the liquid metathesis is complete only if it occurred with the corresponding vowel lengthening, the metathesis occurred completely in South Slavic and partially in Slovak and in non-word-initial position in the whole Czecho-Slovak area. The complete metathesis has been operational in all Slavic languages for acuted syllables. For word-initial non-acuted syllables, there was no lengthening except in South Slavic and, partially, Slovak.

As mentioned, the complete metathesis occurred in South Slavic, in Czech and Slovak and in Polish and Sorbian, without lengthening. In North-West Lechitic, the metathesis did not occur even for *CarC syllables. In East Slavic, pleophony yielded *CVRC > CVRVC. The reflex of *l in North-West Lechitic and East Slavic is always "hard".

First and second metathesis

Since the reflexes of acuted word-initial *ar-and *al-are the same in all Slavic dialects, they must have changed before the syllables ending with a liquid, which have different reflexes.^[1]One can thus distinguish the first and the second metathesis of liquids.

Dating

From Slavic evidence alone, the change cannot be dated precisely because no Slavic languages had yet committed to writing. However, words may have been documented from contemporary non-Slavic languages, and words may also have been borrowed into Slavic from other languages. That makes it possible to narrow down the time that the change occurred.

The liquid metathesis occurred in the Common Slavic era. It took place after or was still productive until the end of the 8th century. The name ofCharlemagne,who died in 814, underwent the change:

Old High GermanKarl^{[note 1]}> PSl. *karl′u^{[note 2]}> Common Slavic *korl′ь > Russiankoról′,Polishkról,Slovakkráľ,Serbo-Croatiankrȃlj

On the other hand, the change had already been completed in the earliestOld Church Slavonicdocuments. That implies that the change was completed, at least in the dialects of Bulgaria and of Macedonia, in no later than the 9th century, when the documents were written. There are, however, some attested unmetathised words in OCS such asал(ъ)дии,a doublet of the metathisedладии.

There are also glosses of Slavic words in foreign-language sources. Earlier sources show no effect of liquid metathesis, such as when the late-8th-century Greek chroniclerTheophanes the Confessorwrites Slavic names asἈρδάγαστος(Ardágastos) andΔαργαμηρός(Dargamērós). Old Church Slavonic versions of the names, with the metathesis applied, would beRadogostъandDragoměrъ.Liquid metathesis is also seen in various borrowings preserved in toponymics; LatinArba> Serbo-CroatianRȃb,LatinAlbōna> Serbo-CroatianLàbīn,LatinScardōna> Serbo-CroatianSkràdīnetc.

Interpretation

It has been suggested^[2]that East Slavic preserved the actual state of affairs, that the vowel was inserted in Common Slavic and that it was only subsequently lost in all dialects except in East Slavic, preceding the liquid. The exact development would thus be in Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian as follows:

PSl. *bardā 'beard' > *Common Slavic *bar^adā (*bor^oda) > *b^aradā (*b^oroda) SCr.bráda,Blg.bradá.

Notes

^Karlis not only aproper nounbut also a common noun and then means "adult male". It is anormalisedform, based on the Old East Franconian dialect. The common noun is also attested ascharalin OldUpper German,with anepentheticvowel, for example in the OldAlemannicrendering of theRule of Saint Benedict.That may be the origin of the intrusive vowel inCarolus,the Latinised version of the name, but the Slavic process seems to be unconnected.
^The rendering of OHGlas PSl. *l′is regular; the reason is that PSl. plain *lwasdark,while OHGlwas a normal [l], which was identified with the PSl. palatalised liquid *l′.

References

^Holzer 2007:55-56
^Matasović 2008:150