Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/-ъ

This Proto-Slavic entry contains reconstructed terms and roots. As such, the term(s) in this entry are not directly attested, but are hypothesized to have existed based on comparative evidence.

Proto-Slavic

Alternative forms

• *-ь (soft declension)

Etymology 1

Since mid-19th century two scenarios for the development of Indo-European *-os in Slavic have been proposed, respectively deriving this desinence:

• immediately from Proto-Indo-European *-os with narrowing of the vowel in the final syllable.
• from the accusative, analogically after other stem classes (u- and i-stems), probably to avoid homonymy with the neuter ending *-o.

A variant of the former view first proposed by Zaliznyak, Dybo and Nikolayev holds that IE *-os became *-ə in Slavic, which developed into *-ъ in mainstream dialects but into -е (-e) in Old Novgorodian. In the latter view, the Old Novgorodian ending can be considered original, with generalisation of the front variant from the soft declension.

Some authors also speculated that *-os could have had both outcomes depending on some other factors, with subsequent generalisation of one or the other in different grammatical categories.

Alternative reconstructions

• *-ə

Suffix

*-ъ m

1. (diachronic) Nominative singular desinence for masculine o-stems.
2. (synchronic) Deverbative, in combination with o-grade of the root, forming nouns of the form *-CoC-ъ.

   *poteťi (“to elapse; start flowing”) → *potokъ (“brook, stream”)

   *teťi (“to flow (liquid); run (time) etc.”) → *tokъ (“flow, stream”)

   *gňiti (“to rot”) → *gnojь (“pus”)

   *vezti (“to drive, take, carry”) → *vozъ (“cart, wagon”)

Declension

Declension of *-ъ (hard o-stem)

	singular	dual	plural
nominative	*-ъ	*-a	*-i
genitive	*-a	*-u	*-ъ
dative	*-u	*-oma	*-omъ
accusative	*-ъ	*-a	*-y
instrumental	*-ъmь, *-omь*	*-oma	*-y
locative	*-ě	*-u	*-ěxъ
vocative	*-e	*-a	*-i

^* -ъmь in North Slavic, -omь in South Slavic.

Usage notes

• Usually verbs ending in -V- change: i→oj, u/y→ov/av (for a/ě see *-sъ/*-xъ, *-mę)

Related terms

• *-o (“ending for hypocoristic masculine names”) (argued to be the "real" reflex of PIE *-os)

Derived terms

Proto-Slavic terms suffixed with *-ъ

Descendants

• East Slavic:
  • Old East Slavic: -ъ (-ŭ)
    • Old Ruthenian: -ъ
    • Russian: -ъ (Pre-reform orthography (1918))
  • Old Novgorodian: -ъ (-ŭ), -е (-e)
• South Slavic:
  • Old Church Slavonic:

    Old Cyrillic script: -ъ (-ŭ)

    Glagolitic script: -ⱏ (-ŭ)

Etymology 2

Widely agreed to have been inherited from Proto-Indo-European *-om, itself composed from the thematic vowel *-o- and the accusative singular ending *-m. A small minority of researches instead argued for an extension of the u-stem ending.

Suffix

*-ъ

1. Accusative singular desinence for masculine o-stems

Descendants

• East Slavic:
  • Old East Slavic: -ъ (-ŭ)
    • Old Ruthenian: -ъ
    • Russian: -ъ (Pre-reform orthography (1918))
  • Old Novgorodian: -ъ (-ŭ), -е (-e)
• South Slavic:
  • Old Church Slavonic:

    Old Cyrillic script: -ъ (-ŭ)

    Glagolitic script: -ⱏ (-ŭ)

Etymology 3

From Proto-Indo-European *-us, itself composed from the final vowel of the stem and the nominative singular ending *-s.

Suffix

*-ъ

1. Nominative singular desinence for masculine u-stems

Descendants

• East Slavic:
  • Old East Slavic: -ъ (-ŭ)
    • Old Ruthenian: -ъ
    • Russian: -ъ (Pre-reform orthography (1918))
  • Old Novgorodian: -ъ (-ŭ), -е (-e)
• South Slavic:
  • Old Church Slavonic:

    Old Cyrillic script: -ъ (-ŭ)

    Glagolitic script: -ⱏ (-ŭ)

Etymology 4

From Proto-Indo-European *-um, itself composed from the final vowel of the stem and the accusative singular ending *-m.

Suffix

*-ъ

1. Accusative singular desinence for masculine u-stems

Descendants

• East Slavic:
  • Old East Slavic: -ъ (-ŭ)
    • Old Ruthenian: -ъ
    • Russian: -ъ (Pre-reform orthography (1918))
  • Old Novgorodian: -ъ (-ŭ), -е (-e)
• South Slavic:
  • Old Church Slavonic:

    Old Cyrillic script: -ъ (-ŭ)

    Glagolitic script: -ⱏ (-ŭ)

Etymology 5

Two sources have been proposed, depending on the reconstruction of the Indo-European ending:

• Proto-Indo-European *-ōm or *-oHom with some kind of shortening.
• Proto-Indo-European *-om, the supposed athematic genitive plural alongside thematic *-ōm < *-o-om. A variant of this view holds that also thematic stems had *-om without the thematic vowel in Proto-Indo-European.

Proponents of the former view have sometimes connected the neocircumflex intonation in Slovene, the stem short vowel in Czech and the Serbo-Croatian desinence -ā with the alleged Proto-Slavic length.

Suffix

*-ъ

1. Genitive plural desinence for hard stems of all classes.

Descendants

• East Slavic:
  • Old East Slavic: -ъ (-ŭ)
    • Old Ruthenian: -ъ
    • Russian: -ъ (Pre-reform orthography (1918))
  • Old Novgorodian: -ъ (-ŭ), -е (-e)
• South Slavic:
  • Old Church Slavonic:

    Old Cyrillic script: -ъ (-ŭ)

    Glagolitic script: -ⱏ (-ŭ)

Further reading

• Vermeer, Willem (1991) “The mysterious North Russian nominative singular ending -е and the problem of the reflex of Indo-European *-os in Slavic”, in Die Welt der Slaven, volume 36, pages 271-295
• Olander, Thomas (2015) Proto-Slavic Inflectional Morphology: A Comparative Handbook, Leiden/Boston: Brill, →ISBN