Czech Language and Literature Old Church Slavonic Declension From

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Czech Language and Literature

Radek Johannes Kopečný

Old Church Slavonic declension from the perspective of paradigm geometry

Bachelor’s Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Pavel Caha, Ph. D.

2019

Hereby I declare that this paper is my own work, and all sources and literature used during my work are properly listed and cited.

Radek Johannes Kopečný

I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Mgr. Pavel Caha, Ph.D., for his boundless patience and guidance, invaluable advice and time spent on my bachelor’s thesis. I would also like to thank my friends who were always there to discuss. Last but not least, I thank God for the opportunity to study.

Annotation

This thesis deals with syncretisms of cases in Old Church Slavonic. The first part is devoted to a brief introduction to the language and its declensions. The second part is the main one – a successive analysis of all syncretisms in a systematic fashion with presenting relevant forms of nouns, pronouns and adjectives. In addition to that, the thesis also tries to arrive at a geometrical order of cases which would represent all paradigms with regards to found syncretisms. In the last part, the facts are compared with other proposals to see how the modeled order of cases for Old Church Slavonic interacts with other models.

Keywords

Old Church Slavonic, order of cases, syncretism of cases, paradigm

Anotace

Tato práce se zabývá synkretismy pádů ve staroslověnštině. První část je věnována stručnému úvodu do samotného jazyka a jeho deklinací. Druhá část je hlavní – postupná a systematická analýza všech synkretismů s prezentováním relevantních podob substantiv, pronomin a adjektiv. Nadto se práce ještě pokusí dopracovat ke geometrickému uspořádání pádů, jež by reprezentovalo všechna paradigmata s ohledem na nalezené synkretismy. V poslední části jsou fakta srovnána s dalšími návrhy, aby se zjistilo, jak navržené uspořádání pádů pro staroslověnštinu interaguje s dalšími modely.

Klíčová slova

Staroslověnština, uspořádání pádů, synkretismus pádů, paradigma

Contents 1 Introduction ...... 7 2 The Old Church Slavonic language ...... 7 3 The description of Old Church Slavonic nouns, pronouns and adjectives ...... 8 3.1 Nouns ...... 9 3.1.1 Vocalic stem classes ...... 10 3.1.2 Consonantal stem classes ...... 12 3.2 Pronouns ...... 13 3.2.1 Genderless pronouns ...... 13 3.2.2 Pronouns with gender ...... 14 3.2.3 Mixed declensions ...... 15 3.3 Adjectives ...... 16 3.3.1 Nominal adjectives ...... 16 3.3.2 Pronominal adjectives ...... 17 4 The analysis of syncretisms ...... 18 4.1 Nominative=accusative ...... 18 4.1.1 Nominative=accusative=vocative ...... 23 4.2 Nominative=vocative ...... 25 4.3 Accusative=vocative ...... 28 4.4 Nominative=instrumental ...... 31 4.4.1 Nominative=vocative=instrumental ...... 32 4.5 Vocative=instrumental ...... 33 4.6 Genitive=accusative ...... 34 4.6.1 Genitive=accusative=locative ...... 36 4.7 Genitive=locative ...... 36 4.7.1 Genitive=locative=dative=vocative ...... 41 4.8 Genitive=dative ...... 42 4.8.1 Genitive=dative=vocative ...... 43 4.9 Dative=vocative ...... 43 4.10 Genitive=vocative ...... 44 4.10.1 Genitive=vocative=locative ...... 45 4.11 Vocative=locative ...... 46 4.12 Dative=locative ...... 47 4.13 Dative=instrumental ...... 50 4.14 Accusative=instrumental ...... 53

4.15 Locative=instrumental ...... 54 4.16 Summary of the possible syncretisms ...... 55 4.16.1 Illustrative picture of syncretisms ...... 57 4.16.2 Linear sequence of syncretisms ...... 59 5 Comparing the sequence with other proposals ...... 60 5.1 The proposal by Jakobson ...... 60 5.2 The proposal by McCreight and Chvany ...... 62 5.3 The proposal by Caha ...... 64 6 Conclusion ...... 67 7 Bibliography ...... 69

1 Introduction

In this thesis, we are going to look at syncretisms in Old Church Slavonic declensions. Our goal will be to order the cells of a paradigm in a way that syncretisms are graphically captured by placing syncretic cells next to each other. This is trivially possible for each individual paradigm if looked upon in isolation. Our goal will be, however, to order all the paradigms in the same way. The ordering of cells in paradigms will be therefore of utmost importance for this work. This contrasts with traditional approaches, where paradigms, which subdivide the word classes of a language into further subclasses according to their surface morphology, were long ignored as superficial. At the same time, for instance, historical changes, attributed long ago to “paradigm pressure”, have not found alternative explanations (McCreight and Chvany, 1991).

This thesis therefore joins relatively recent work by linguists who have been challenging classical orders of cases across languages (no matter whether it is Czech or Greek), proposing orders which connect adjacent cases on the basis of possible syncretism. We will analyze in detail all syncretisms of Old Church Slavonic nouns, pronouns and adjectives and try to arrive at a possible order (or a geometrical representation) of cases with regards to the syncretisms. We will also try to compare our result with other theories. Our analysis will be challenged by the fact that Old Church Slavonic has a vocative case which is not taken into account in those theories.

We will be using two primary literary sources by Radoslav Večerka (2006) and Horace G. Lunt (2001) which describe the grammar of Old Church Slavonic.

2 The Old Church Slavonic language

Old Church Slavonic belongs to Slavic languages, particularly to the South Slavic group. To classify the period from Proto-Indo-European to the development of Slavic languages, we may use hypotheses (1) of A. Erhart and A. Lamprecht (Večerka, 2006).

(1) Proto-Indo-European period 3000 – 1500 BC

Proto-Balto-Slavic period 1500 – 700 or 500 BC 8

Pre-Proto-Slavic period 700 or 500 BC – 300 or 400 AD

Proto-Slavic period 300 or 400 AD – 1000 AD

During the Proto-Slavic period, dialectal differentiation occurred and led to the creation of Old Church Slavonic.

From the linguist typology perspective, Old Church Slavonic is an inflectional language. A single suffix usually contains all information – gender, number or case of the word.

Old Church Slavonic is the oldest Slavic standard language. It was used for the missionary needs of brothers Cyril and Methodius, who arrived in 863 to the Great Moravia. They devised the Glagolitic alphabet which was created to include even special phonemes of the Slavic language. Later, their disciples devised the Cyrillic alphabet, which in revised versions exists in some languages even today (for example, Russian). After the death of Methodius, his disciples were expelled from Great Moravia and Bulgaria became the main center of Old Church Slavonic. From that period, we have many manuscripts, for example – Kiev Missal, Codex Zographensis in the Glagolitic or Sava’s book and Codex Suprasliensis in the Cyrillic (Večerka, 2006).

In 1097, Old Church Slavonic was banned in Bohemia and by the beginning of 12th century, “the golden era of Bulgarian literature” in Old Church Slavonic ended because of the Byzantine influence (Večerka, 2006). Yet the language was able to get to other parts of Slavic territories and Old Church Slavonic entered to the history of Medieval European intelligence as the third international language after Latin and Greek (Večerka, 2006). Old Church Slavonic has survived in liturgy and is still being used in some churches today.

3 The description of Old Church Slavonic nouns, pronouns and adjectives

3.1 Nouns

Nouns in Old Church Slavonic consist of a stem and an inflectional suffix, see (2a). The stem itself consist of a root and may contain a derivational suffix. The stem may also contain a thematic suffix which is either a vowel or a consonant, see (2b).

(2) a. Noun = stem+inflectional suffix

b. Stem = root+derivational suffix+theme (derivational suffix and theme may be absent)

The system in (2) is an inheritance from Proto-Indo-European language but it is almost not present in Old Church Slavonic. For example, in the instrumental case, we can see the thematic vowel “o”. While in the nominative case, the thematic marker has been eliminated due to phonological changes (3).

(3)

The picture (3) shows nominative (abbreviated NOM) and instrumental (abbreviated INS) of two stem classes – o-stem and jo-stem. The difference between them is clear from the consonant before an inflectional suffix and the suffix itself – o-stem uses nouns with a hard consonant and jo-stem with a soft consonant. This leads to a phonological change in instrumental, where an expected form mǫž–o–mь changes to mǫž–e–mь, since when “o” follows a soft consonant, it changes to “e”. This and other similar changes are important to keep in mind when looking at noun classes and their thematic phonemes, and the thesis will discuss them.

The inflection of Old Church Slavonic is divided into classes, using the stem as the principle of organization (Večerka, 2006; Lunt, 2001). This principle classifies nouns on the basis of the thematic suffix. The stem classes may be divided into two main categories – vocalic 10 and consonantal, which depends on whether the thematic suffix is only a vowel or whether it also includes a consonant.

Within each stem class (whether vocalic or consonantal), we can further divide paradigms on the basis of a grammatical gender – feminine, masculine and neuter.1 The number of paradigms for each such gender is three, since Old Church Slavonic has three grammatical numbers – singular, plural and dual. The dual is much less frequent and therefore shows a regular syncretism. During a syncretism analysis, the thesis will include dual forms for the complete picture but will not discuss them in detail, for their repeating patterns. The complete division therefore may be illustrated as this (4).

(4)

We will now look at a brief overview of the stem system in Old Church Slavonic and how nouns are attributed to individual declensions. An in-depth analysis of syncretism in individual classes will follow.

3.1.1 Vocalic stem classes

O-stem, jo-stem; a-stem, ja-stem

There are three main vocalic stem classes – o-stem for masculine, o-stem for neuter and a-stem for feminine. Each of these classes has its subclass with an iota component, therefore called jo- stem and ja-stem. Furthermore, there are subclasses with “i” before the iota component called

1 Nevertheless, there is a stem which inflects words with more than one gender with the same inflection. A-stem with a paradigm žena (“woman”) for feminine forms, and vojevoda (“duke”) for masculine forms. Since they share the same inflectional suffixes, this further division is not necessary for a syncretism analysis. 11 ijo-stem and ija-stem. The jo/ja stems and ijo/ija stems have always the same endings and syncretisms, and they will be therefore grouped into a single paradigm, see (5).

(5)

gender masculine neuter feminine stem o-stem (i)jo-stem o-stem (i)jo-stem a-stem (i)ja-stem “slave” “man” “summer” “synagogue” “woman” “soul” NOM sg. rabъ mǫžь lěto sъnьmište žena duša GEN sg. raba mǫža lěta sъnьmišta ženy dušę INS sg. rabomь mǫžemь lětomь sъnьmištemь ženojǫ dušejǫ

To be able to classify a particular noun one needs to know the nominative and the genitive (abbreviated GEN) form – its principle parts (Finkel and Stump, 2007). These two forms are listed in the table above (5). The chart also includes the instrumental case for better illustration of the thematic vowels. The instrumental case shows how phonology affects morphology with a soft consonant in (i)jo and (i)ja stems, and in which case forms the thematic vowel may be discerned, see (6).

(6) INS sg. of man *2mǫž–o–mь → mǫž–e–mь

INS sg. of synagogue *sъnьmišt–o–mь → sъnьmišt–e–mь

INS sg. of soul *duš–o–jǫ → duš–e–jǫ3

The phonological change of “o” into “e” is recognizable among all paradigms with a soft consonant. It is a result of tendency to palatalization, which started when “k”, “g” and “ch” changed to “č”, “ž” and “š” in Proto-Slavic period.

The o-stem and jo-stem also shows another phonological change, happening after a soft consonant, where the back yer ъ changes to the front yer ь (7).

(7) ъ → ь rabъ, *mǫžъ → mǫžь

2 The * symbol means that the word is not attested but it is reconstructed and it will be used in these cases. 3 Although the thematic vowel is found in the nominative form, the soft consonant has the same effect in instrumental as in the masculine and neuter form. 12

I-stem and u-stem

The other two vocalic classes are masculine and feminine i-stem and masculine u-stem (8).

(8)

gender masculine feminine stem u-stem i-stem i-stem “son” “road” “bone” NOM sg. synъ pǫtь kostь GEN sg. synu pǫti kosti

These three stems do not have subclasses. The genitive forms exhibit the thematic vowels. The i-stem paradigm contains nouns, ending both in hard and soft consonants. The u-stem paradigm contains only words with a hard consonant ending because of the phonological system in Old Church Slavonic which generally avoids such combinations. And in fact, a phonological change from “ъ” to “ь” after a soft consonant would not allow for such a word to classify as u- stem to begin with.

3.1.2 Consonantal stem classes

There are six consonantal stem classes – n-stem for masculine; n-stem, (n)t-stem and s-stem for neuter; ъv-stem and r-stem for feminine, see (9).

(9)

gender masculine neuter feminine stem n-stem n-stem (n)t-stem s-stem ъv-stem r-stem “stone” “name” “child” “body” “church” “mother” NOM sg. kamy imę otročę tělo crьky mati GEN sg. kamene imene otročęte tělese crьkъve matere

Consonantal stems are much less productive than vocalic stems. They are already disappearing in Old Church Slavonic (for example, only two words are inflected as an r-stem), and, for example, when it comes to Czech language, only n(t)-stems have survived. Genitive forms show 13 little variation even across different grammatical genders – all forms end with a thematic consonant and “e”.

3.2 Pronouns

Pronouns allow for more than one classification – the main one is based on a grammatical gender. According to this classification, the main distinction is between: genderless pronouns and pronouns with the grammatical gender. The pronouns with the grammatical gender may be further divided into a soft, hard or mixed declension. The mixed declension is a combination of a nominal declension with pronominal or adjective declensions. There is also a special declension for the interrogative “what”. Just like nouns, pronouns are attested with singular, plural and dual forms and dual forms show highly regular syncretism. The presented forms in examples in this part will be nominative and genitive, too.

3.2.1 Genderless pronouns

Genderless pronouns consist of the first person and the second person pronouns and reflexive, see the table below (10). They are called genderless pronouns, because the forms do not distinguish masculine and feminine forms (hence, lack gender). The pronouns belonging to this category are reflexives and 1st/2nd person pronouns.

(10)

first person second person reflexive number singular plural singular plural singular NOM azъ my ty vy – GEN mene nasъ tebe vasъ sebe

Note that a reflexive pronoun does not have a nominative form and is used only in the singular number.

3.2.2 Pronouns with gender

The rest of the pronouns exhibit gender distinctions in one way or another. 3rd pronouns manifest inherent gender (referring to masculine, feminine or neuter antecedents). Demonstrative or possessive pronouns show gender due to agreement with the noun they modify. The declensions split into so-called a hard and soft declension type.

Hard declension

A large number of pronouns belong to this declension, see (11).

(11)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural singular plural singular plural NOM tъ “this” ti to ta ta ty GEN togo těchъ togo těchъ tojǫ těchъ

Apart from the accusative and nominative, plural forms share the same paradigm for all three genders in the other four cases. Pronouns that end with a hard consonant, featuring “ъ” in the masculine nominative form, are inflected according to the hard declension. For example, the interrogative kakъ “what kind of”, samъ “himself” or tъže “the same”. Note that words with a particle “že” have the inflectional suffix before the particle (12).

(12) NOM tъže taže tože

GEN togože tojǫže togože

Soft declension

The soft declension is also productive, see (13).

(13)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural singular plural singular plural NOM jь ji je ja ja ję GEN jego ichъ jego ichъ jeję ichъ

As in the hard declension, plural forms are the same for all genders in the relevant four cases. Pronouns that end in the masculine nominative form with “ь” after a soft consonant are inflected in accordance with this declension, for example mojь “my”, tvojь “your”, našь “our” etc. The soft declension clearly shows phonological shifts of phonemes “o” and “ъ” after the soft consonant, see (14).

(14) NOM *jъ → jь

GEN *jogo → jego

DAT *jomu → jemu

The phonological changes hence gave the shape of this declension for soft consonantal endings.

3.2.3 Mixed declensions

These declensions are rare and not productive and they are either combined with some endings from i-stem for nouns or from pronominal forms of adjectives. During the syncretism analysis, the thesis will call them the first mixed declension (15) and the second mixed declension (16).

(15) The first mixed declension

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural singular plural singular plural NOM sь “this” sьi se si si sьję GEN sego sichъ sego sichъ seję sichъ

(16) The second mixed declension

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural singular plural singular plural NOM kyi “who” cii koje kaja kaja kyję GEN kojego kyichъ kojego kyichъ kojeję kyichъ

Even these declensions share the same paradigm in plural cases except nominative and accusative. The kyi declension (16) has only one form of the dual attested – feminine nominative (cěi).

3.3 Adjectives

There are two types of declension of adjectives – nominal and pronominal. The nominal declension is older, developed from Proto-Indo-European language, while the pronominal declension is younger, dating to a period of the Balto-Slavic unity. Both of them can be further divided into a soft and hard declension.

3.3.1 Nominal adjectives

The nominal declension shares the paradigm with nouns – it uses the same suffixes. Because of this, they will not be mentioned during a syncretism analysis. The hard declension (17a) coincides with the nominal o-stem declension for masculine and for neuter. For feminine forms, it uses the a-stem declension.

(17a) NOM dobrъ rabъ “good slave” GEN dobra raba “of good slave” NOM dobro lěto “good summer”

GEN dobra lěta “of good summer”

NOM dobra žena “good woman” GEN dobry ženy “of good woman”

The soft declension (17b) uses jo-stem for masculine and neuter and ja-stem for feminine.

(17b) NOM ništь mǫžь “poor man”

GEN ništa mǫža “of poor man” NOM nište sъnьmište “poor synagogue”

GEN ništa sъnьmišta “of poor synagogue” NOM ništa duša “poor soul” GEN ništę dušę “of poor soul”

There are also ijo- and ija-stems adjectives which belong to the soft declension and they use the same suffixes as jo- and ja-stems. 17

Adjectives that used to belong to a different stem (u- and i-stem) no longer have their own declension. The u-stem was extended by a suffix -kъ, -ko, -ka and uses o- and a-stem declension, see (18).

(18) NOM of masculine “sweet” sladъ + kъ → sladъkъ

NOM of feminine “sweet” sladъ + ka → sladъka

The i-stem is preserved in a small group of non-inflective adjectives, for example isplьnь “full”.

3.3.2 Pronominal adjectives

The pronominal declension of adjectives is a combination of nominal forms + pronoun forms of a soft declension –jь, -je, -ja. This declension may be divided into a hard (19) and soft (20) as well.

(19) The hard declension:

NOM of masculine dobrъ + jь → dobryi

GEN of masculine dobra + jego → dobrajego

NOM of neuter dobro + je → dobroje

GEN of neuter dobra + jego → dobrajego

NOM of feminine dobra + ja → dobraja

GEN of feminine dobry + ję → dobryję

(20) The soft declension:

NOM of masculine ništь + jь → ništii

GEN of masculine ništa + jego → ništajego

NOM of neuter nište + je → ništeje

GEN of neuter ništa + jego → ništajego

NOM of feminine ništa + ja → ništaja 18

GEN of feminine ništę + ję → ništęję

Note the difference between a hard and soft declension, represented by a morphological and phonological change of a phoneme ъ into y and ь into i.

4 The analysis of syncretisms

This part will present all possible syncretisms of cases in Old Church Slavonic. The syncretisms will be analyzed successively from nominative to instrumental. The syncretisms will be presented in pairs of two cases and with regard to the extension of the syncretism, all relevant forms will be listed. Any possible syncretisms of more than two cases will also be presented.

4.1 Nominative=accusative

Nominative case is the subject case, while accusative (abbreviated ACC) is the direct-object case. Languages as English, express both cases by a particular word order, rather than any specific morphological marker (a case marker), see (21).

(21) a. Mary saw a dog.

b. The dog saw Mary.

The relatively strict word order subject-verb-object identifies the subject and the object. Changing the word order changes the meaning of the sentence. In (21a), the subject is Mary, while in (21b), the subject is the dog. Old Church Slavonic does not have a strict word order and expresses both cases by inflectional suffixes.

The syncretism between nominative and accusative can be found across many languages, from the ancient ones to those newly developed. Consider the following examples from Sanskrit, Old English and Old Norse (22a) in comparison with Czech, Russian and Swedish (22b). 19

(22a) Sanskrit NOM=ACC sg. āsyam “mouth” vā́ri “water” Old English NOM=ACC sg. engel “angel” scip “ship” Old Norse NOM=ACC sg gjǫf “gift” barn “baby”

(22b) Czech NOM=ACC sg. hrad “castle” město “city”

Russian NOM=ACC sg. filьm “movie” mesto “place” Swedish NOM=ACC sg. våg “wave” ros “rose”

The examples are from different sub-groups within the Indo-European language family, varying in gender as well, to demonstrate the extension of this syncretism.

Nouns

When it comes to the nouns, the syncretism nominative=accusative is attested in many paradigms. The thesis will illustrate the record of all relevant forms. The first table (23) lists the forms of masculine gender. In the first column, the syncretism is found in the singular form of o-stem (suffix –ъ). The second column shows the same syncretism for the singular form of related (i)jo-stem (suffix –ь). The third column shows the syncretism for singular of i-stem (sufix –ь). In the fourth column, the syncretism is found in singular of u-stem (sufix –ъ). Apart from these, all dual forms have the syncretism.

(23)

masculine-singular stem o-stem (i)jo-stem i-stem u-stem n-stem NOM rabъ mǫžь pǫtь synъ kamy “slave” “man” “road” “son” “stone” ACC rabъ mǫžь pǫtь synъ kamenь masculine-plural Stem o-stem (i)jo-stem i-stem u-stem n-stem NOM rabi mǫži pǫtьje synove kamene ACC raby mǫžę pǫti syny kameni

The second table (24) lists the forms of neuter gender. In the first column, the syncretism is found in both singular and plural forms of o-stem (suffix –o for singular, –a for plural). The second column shows the syncretism for singular and plural of the related (i)jo-stem (suffix –e for singular, –a for plural). The third column shows the syncretism in singular and plural of n- 20 stem (suffix –ę for singular, –ena for plural). In the fourth column, the syncretism is in the singular and plural of (n)t-stem (suffix –ę for singular, –ęta for plural). The last column shows the syncretism in the s-stem (suffix –o for singular, –esa for plural). The syncretism is also found in all forms of neuter dual forms.

(24)

neuter-singular stem o-stem (i)jo-stem n-stem (n)t-stem s-stem NOM. lěto sъnьmište imę otročę tělo “summer” “synagogue” “name” “child” “body” ACC lěto sъnьmište imę otročę tělo neuter-plural stem o-stem (i)jo-stem n-stem (n)t-stem s-stem NOM lěta sъnьmišta imena otročęta tělesa ACC lěta sъnьmišta imena otročęta tělesa

The third table (25) lists the relevant forms of feminine gender. In the first column, the syncretism is found in the plural forms of a-stem (suffix –y). The second column shows the syncretism for plural in the related (i)ja-stem (suffix –ę). The third column shows the syncretism in both singular and plural forms of i-stem (suffix –ь for singular, –i for plural). In the fourth column, the syncretism is found in plural forms of ъv-stem (suffix –i). The last column shows the syncretism for plural forms of r-stem (suffix –eri). The syncretism is also found in all feminine forms of dual.

(25)

feminine-singular stem a-stem (i)ja-stem i-stem ъv-stem r-stem NOM žena duša kostь crьky mati “woman” “soul” “bone” “church” “mother” ACC ženǫ dušǫ kostь crьkъvь materь feminine-plural stem a-stem (i)ja-stem i-stem ъv-stem r-stem NOM ženy dušę kosti crьkъvi materi ACC ženy dušę kosti crьkъvi materi

There are 45 possible paradigms of nouns, including singular, plural as well as dual number, and nominative=accusative is found in 35 of them.

Pronouns

The following tables will illustrate all relevant forms of pronouns. The first table (26) lists the genderless forms. The fifth column shows the syncretism for plural of the second person (vy). In the last column, the syncretism is found in dual of the second person (va).

(26)

first person second person number singular plural dual singular plural dual NOM azъ my vě ty vy va ACC mę ny na tę vy va

The second table (27) lists the hard declension and soft declension of pronouns that do show gender distinctions. In the first column, the syncretism is found in masculine singular forms (tъ and jь) The third column shows the syncretism for masculine dual forms (ta and ja). The fourth column shows the syncretism for neuter singular forms (to and je). The fifth column shows the syncretism for neuter plural forms (ta and ja). In the sixth column, the syncretism is found in neuter dual forms (tě and ji). The eighth column shows the syncretism for feminine plural forms (ty and ję). The last column shows the syncretism for feminine dual forms (tě and ji).

(27)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual NOM tъ ti ta to ta tě ta ty tě “this” ACC tъ ty ta to ta tě tǫ ty tě NOM jь ji ja je ja ji ja ję ji ACC jь ję ja je ja ji jǫ ję ji

The third table (28) lists the relevant forms of both mixed declensions. In the first column, the syncretism is found in masculine singular forms (sь and kyi). The third column shows the syncretism for masculine dual forms of the first mixed declension (sьja). The fourth column shows the syncretism for neuter singular forms (se and koje). In the fifth column, the syncretism is found in neuter plural forms (si and kaja). The sixth column shows the syncretism for neuter dual forms of the first mixed declension (si). The eighth column shows the syncretism for feminine plural forms (sьję and kyję). In the last column, the syncretism is found in feminine dual forms of the first mixed declension (si). 22

(28)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual NOM sь sьi sьja se si si si sьję si “this” ACC sь sьję sьja se si si sьjǫ sьję si NOM kyi cii – koje kaja – kaja kyję cěi “who” ACC kyi kyję – koje kaja – kǫjǫ kyję –

The special declension of interrogative “what” does have the nominative=accusative syncretism (čьto) as well.

There are 40 possible paradigms of pronouns (excluding the non-attested dual forms) and the syncretism is found in 26 of them.

Adjectives

The following table (29) lists the relevant forms of both the hard and soft pronominal declension of adjectives. In the first column, the syncretism is found in masculine singular (suffix –yi and –ii). The third column shows the syncretism for masculine dual (suffix –aja and –aja). The fourth column shows the syncretism for neuter singular (suffix –oje and –eje). In the fifth column, the syncretism is found in neuter plural (suffix –aja and –aja). The sixth column shows the syncretism for neuter dual (suffix –ěi and –ii). The eighth column shows the syncretism for feminine plural (suffix –yję and –ęję). In the last column, the syncretism is found in feminine dual (suffix –ěi and –ii).

(29)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual NOM dobryi dobrii –aja dobroje dobraja –ěi dobraja dobryję –ěi “good” ACC dobryi dobryję –aja dobroje dobraja –ěi dobrǫjǫ dobryję –ěi NOM ništii ništii –aja ništeje ništaja –ii ništaja ništęję –ii “poor” ACC ništii ništęję –aja ništeje ništaja –ii ništǫjǫ ništęję –ii

There are 18 possible paradigms of pronominal declension of adjectives and the syncretism is found in 14 of them.

In conclusion, the syncretism nominative=accusative is highly productive, there are 103 possible paradigms in total and this syncretism is found in 75 of them.

We will now turn to cases where the NOM=ACC syncretism extends also to the vocative.

4.1.1 Nominative=accusative=vocative

This part will illustrate all relevant forms of this syncretism. The first table (30) lists relevant forms of neuter gender. In the first column, the syncretism is found in singular and plural of o- stem (suffix –o and –a). The second column shows the syncretism for singular and plural of (i)jo-stem (suffix –e and –a). The third column shows the same syncretism for both singular and plural of n-stem (suffix –ę and –ena). In the fourth column, the syncretism is found in singular and plural of (n)t-stem (suffix –ę and –ęta). The last column shows the syncretism for singular and plural of s-tem (suffix –o and –esa). Dual forms of all stems have this syncretism.

(30)

neuter-singular stem o-stem (i)jo-stem n-stem (n)t-stem s-stem NOM. lěto sъnьmište imę otročę tělo “summer” “synagogue” “name” “child” “body” ACC lěto sъnьmište imę otročę tělo VOC lěto sъnьmište imę otročę tělo neuter-plural stem o-stem (i)jo-stem n-stem (n)t -stem s-stem NOM lěta sъnьmišta imena otročęta tělesa ACC lěta sъnьmišta imena otročęta tělesa VOC lěta sъnьmišta imena otročęta tělesa

The second table (31) lists relevant forms of feminine gender. In the first column, the syncretism is found in plural forms of a-stem (suffix –y). The second column shows the syncretism for plural of ja-stem (suffix –ę). In the third column, the syncretism is found in plural of i-stem (suffix –i). The fourth column shows the syncretism for plural of ъv-stem (suffix –ъvi). The last column shows the syncretism for plural of r-stem (suffix –eri). All feminine dual forms have 24 the syncretism. It needs to be mentioned, that also dual forms of masculine gender have this syncretism.

(31)

feminine-singular stem a-stem ja-stem i-stem ъv-stem r-stem NOM žena duša kostь crьky mati “woman” “soul” “bone” “church” “mother” ACC ženǫ dušǫ kostь crьkъvь materь VOC ženo duše kosti – mati feminine-plural stem a-stem ja-stem i-stem ъv-stem r-stem NOM ženy dušę kosti crьkъvi materi ACC ženy dušę kosti crьkъvi materi VOC ženy dušę kosti crьkъvi materi

The third table (32) lists all relevant forms of pronominal declensions of adjectives. In the first column, the syncretism is found in masculine singular forms (suffix –yi and –ii). The third column shows the syncretism for masculine dual (suffix –aja and –aja). The fourth column shows the same syncretism for neuter singular forms (suffix –oje and –eje).The fifth column shows the syncretism for neuter plural (suffix –aja and –aja). In the sixth column, the syncretism is found in neuter dual (suffix –ěi and –ii). The eighth column shows the syncretism for feminine plural forms (suffix –yję and –ęję). The last column shows the same syncretism for feminine dual (suffix –ěi and –ii).

(32)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual NOM dobryi dobrii –aja dobroje dobraja –ěi dobraja dobryję –ěi “good” ACC dobryi dobryję –aja dobroje dobraja –ěi dobrǫjǫ dobryję –ěi VOC dobryi dobrii –aja dobroje dobraja –ěi dobraja dobryję –ěi NOM ništii ništii –aja ništeje ništaja –ii ništaja ništęję –ii “poor” ACC ništii ništęję –aja ništeje ništaja –ii ništǫjǫ ništęję –ii VOC ništii ništii –aja ništeje ništaja –ii ništaja ništęję –ii

In sum, the syncretism nominative=accusative=vocative is attested in 44 paradigms. This leaves us with 31 paradigms where the NOM=ACC syncretism pertains only to the nominative and 25 the accusative. In these paradigms, the vocative is either different (in nominal paradigms) or absent altogether (in pronominal paradigms).

In discussing syncretism further, we shall focus on the vocative case. As we have seen, the vocative can be syncretic simultaneously with both nominative and accusative (i.e., in the triplet NOM=ACC=VOC). A question that arises in this context is whether the vocative can also be syncretic with each of these cases individually (i.e., VOC=NOM and VOC=ACC, without other cases involved). As we shall see, this is not the case. In the next sections, it shall be illustrated extensively that the syncretism of VOC=NOM is attested in isolation, but VOC=ACC is not.

4.2 Nominative=vocative

Vocative (abbreviated voc) case is used to identify a person which is being addressed. English language uses a comma for vocative expressions, see (33).

(33) a. I know Mary. I do not see Mary.

b. I know, Mary. Mary, I know. I do not see, Mary. Mary, I do not see.

In the first sentences without a comma (33a), Mary is the direct object of the verb. In the sentences with a comma (33b), Mary is the addressee and the position of the word in a sentence may be in the beginning. Old Church Slavonic inherited a vocative case from Proto-Indo- European for these expressions. During following development, some languages have lost the vocative case and use a nominative form. In others, the vocative case is still preserved even with the syncretism nominative=vocative (34).

(34) Polish NOM=VOC sg. dziecko “child”

Czech NOM=VOC sg. dítě “child” Croatian NOM=VOC sg. dijete “child”

It is necessary to say that Old Church Slavonic does not have a vocative case for pronouns.

Nouns

The syncretism nominative=vocative is attested in many forms. The first table (35) lists forms of masculine gender. In the first column, the syncretism is found in plural of o-stem (suffix –i). The second column shows the same syncretism for the plural of related (i)jo-stem (suffix –i). The third column shows the syncretism for the plural of i-stem (suffix –ьje). In the fourth column, the syncretism is found in the plural of u-stem (suffix –ove). All forms of dual have the same syncretism.

(35)

masculine-singular stem o-stem (i)jo-stem i-stem u-stem n-stem NOM rabъ mǫžь pǫtь synъ kamy “slave” “man” “road” “son” “stone” VOC rabe mǫžu pǫti synu kameni masculine-plural stem o-stem (i)jo-stem i-stem u-stem n-stem NOM rabi mǫži pǫtьje synove kamene VOC rabi mǫži pǫtьje synove –

The second table (36) lists relevant forms of neuter gender. In the first column, the syncretism is found in both singular and plural of o-stem (suffix –o for singular, –a for plural). The second column shows the syncretism for plural and singular of related i(jo)-stem (suffix –e for singular, –a for plural). The third column shows the same syncretism in singular and plural of n-stem (suffix –ę for singular, –ena for plural). In the fourth column, the syncretism is found in both singular and plural of (n)t-stem (suffix –ę for singular, –ęta for plural). The last column shows the syncretism in singular and plural of s-stem (suffix –o for singular, –esa for plural). All dual forms also have the syncretism.

(36)

neuter-singular stem o-stem (i)jo-stem n-stem (n)t-stem s-stem NOM. lěto sъnьmište imę otročę tělo “summer” “synagogue” “name” “child” “body” VOC lěto sъnьmište imę otročę tělo neuter-plural stem o-stem (i)jo-stem n-stem (n)t-stem s-stem NOM lěta sъnьmišta imena otročęta tělesa VOC lěta sъnьmišta imena otročęta tělesa

The third table (37) lists relevant forms of feminine gender. In the first column, the syncretism is found in plural forms of a-stem (suffix –y). The second column shows the same syncretism for plural forms of phonologically related (i)ja-stem (suffix –ę). The third column shows the syncretism for plural of i-stem (suffix –i). In the fourth column, the syncretism is found in plural of ъv-stem (suffix –i). The last column shows the syncretism for both singular and plural of r- stem (suffix –i for singular, –eri for plural). Apart from these, dual forms have the syncretism in all stems.

(37)

feminine-singular stem a-stem (i)ja-stem i-stem ъv-stem r-stem NOM žena duša kostь crьky mati “woman” “soul” “bone” “church” “mother” VOC ženo duše kosti – mati feminine-plural stem a-stem (i)ja-stem i-stem ъv-stem r-stem NOM ženy dušę kosti crьkъvi materi VOC ženy dušę kosti crьkъvi materi

There are 45 possible paradigms of nouns, including singular, plural and dual number, and the syncretism nominative=vocative is found in 35 of them.

Adjectives

The table (38) lists all relevant forms of both hard and soft pronominal declensions of adjectives. In the first column, the syncretism is found in masculine singular forms (suffix –yi and –ii). The second column shows the syncretism for masculine plural forms (suffix –ii and – ii). The third column shows the same syncretism for masculine dual forms (suffix –aja and – aja). In the fourth column, the syncretism is found in neuter singular forms (suffix –oje and – eje). In the fifth column, the syncretism is found in neuter plural forms (suffix –aja and –aja). The sixth column shows the syncretism for neuter dual (suffix –ěi and –ii). The seventh column shows the syncretism for feminine singular forms (suffix –aja and –aja). In the eighth column, the syncretism is found in forms of feminine plural (suffix –yję and –eję). The last column shows the syncretism for feminine dual forms (suffix –ěi and –ii).

(38)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual NOM dobryi dobrii –aja dobroje dobraja –ěi dobraja dobryję –ěi “good” VOC dobryi dobrii –aja dobroje dobraja –ěi dobraja dobryję –ěi NOM ništii ništii –aja ništeje ništaja –ii ništaja ništęję –ii “poor” VOC ništii ništii –aja ništeje ništaja –ii ništaja ništęję –ii

There are 18 possible paradigms of pronominal declension of adjectives and the syncretism nominative=vocative is attested in all 18 of them.

In conclusion, the syncretism nominative=vocative is highly productive, there are 63 possible paradigms in total and the syncretism is attested in 53 of them. Yet, considering the extension of the NOM=ACC=VOC, this leaves us with 9 paradigms with just nominative=vocative.

As an intermediate summary, we should point out that all the syncretisms we have seen up to now can be captured by assuming that syncretism in the three cases discussed so far (NOM, ACC, VOC) always targets linear segments in the ordering VOC—NOM—ACC. This statement first of all sums up the syncretisms that we have introduced so far, and it also expresses the fact that VOC=ACC is not found (except as a part of the syncretism VOC=NOM=ACC). This final statement will be illustrated in the next section.

4.3 Accusative=vocative

In Slavic languages, this syncretism is found (especially in nouns of neuter gender), see (39).

(39) Czech ACC=VOC sg. moře “sea” pl. města “cities”

Polish ACC=VOC sg. krzeslo “chair” pl. piwa “beers”

Croatian ACC=VOC sg. kòljeno “knee” pl. jèdra “cores” 29

However, as we will see, this is only the case when also the NOM case is the same as the NOM=VOC pair. To show that, I will first illustrate the paradigms where ACC=VOC is found, and then compare this record with NOM=ACC=VOC. What will emerge is that there is no instance of ACC=VOC that would not (at the same time) be an instance of NOM=ACC=VOC, which is an interesting fact.

Nouns

This part will present relevant forms of nouns in Old Church Slavonic. Since the syncretism accusative=vocative is not found in masculine gender (except for dual number), the first table (40) start with neuter nouns. In the first column, the syncretism is found in both singular and plural of o-stem (suffix –o and -a). The second column shows the same syncretism for related jo-stem (suffix –e and –a). The third column shows the syncretism for singular and plural of n- stem (suffix –ę and –ena). In the fourth column, the syncretism is found in singular and plural of (n)t-stem (suffix –ę and – ęta). The last column shows the syncretism for singular and plural of s-stem (suffix –o and –esa).

(40)

neuter-singular stem o-stem (i)jo-stem n-stem (n)t-stem s-stem ACC Lěto sъnьmište imę otročę tělo “summer” “synagogue” “name” “child” “body” VOC lěto sъnьmište imę otročę tělo neuter-plural stem o-stem (i)jo-stem n-stem (n)t -stem s-stem ACC lěta sъnьmišta imena otročęta tělesa VOC lěta sъnьmišta imena otročęta tělesa

The second table (41) lists relevant forms of feminine gender. In the first column, the syncretism is found in plural of a-stem (suffix –y). The second column shows the same syncretism for plural of related ja-stem (suffix –ę). In the third column, the syncretism is found in plural of i- stem (suffix –i). The fourth column shows the syncretism for plural of ъv-stem (suffix –ъvi). The last column shows the syncretism for plural of r-stem (suffix –eri). All dual forms of three genders have this syncretism.

(41)

feminine-singular stem a-stem ja-stem i-stem ъv-stem r-stem ACC žena duša kostь crьky mati “woman” “soul” “bone” “church” “mother” VOC ženo duše kosti – mati feminine-plural stem a-stem ja-stem i-stem ъv-stem r-stem ACC ženy dušę kosti crьkъvi materi VOC ženy dušę kosti crьkъvi materi

There are 45 possible paradigms of nouns, including singular, plural and dual number, and the syncretism accusative=vocative is found in 30 of them.

Adjectives

The following table (42) lists relevant forms of a soft and hard pronominal declension of adjectives. In the first column, the syncretism is found in masculine singular forms (suffix –yi and –ii). The third column shows the syncretism for masculine dual (suffix –aja and –aja). The fourth column shows the syncretism for neuter singular forms (suffix –oje and –eje). In the fifth column, the syncretism is found in neuter plural (suffix –aja and –aja). The sixth column shows the syncretism for neuter dual forms (suffix –ěi and –ii). The eighth column shows the syncretism for feminine plural (suffix –yję and –eję). In the last column, the syncretism is found in feminine dual (suffix –ěi and –ii).

(42)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual ACC dobryi dobrii –aja dobroje dobraja –ěi dobraja dobryję –ěi “good” VOC dobryi dobrii –aja dobroje dobraja –ěi dobraja dobryję –ěi ACC ništii ništii –aja ništeje ništaja –ii ništaja ništęję –ii “poor” VOC ništii ništii –aja ništeje ništaja –ii ništaja ništęję –ii

There are 18 possible paradigms of pronominal declensions of adjectives and the syncretism accusative=vocative is found in 14 of them. 31

In conclusion, the syncretism accusative=vocative is highly productive, there are 63 possible paradigms in total and the syncretism is found in 44 of them. Yet, considering the extension of the NOM=ACC=VOC discussed in Section 4.1, we realize that these are exactly the same 44 paradigms that exhibit ACC=VOC discussed in the current section. This leaves us with no other found paradigm of the syncretism ACC=VOC, and hence with the conclusion that we can so far maintain a syncretism sequence VOC—NOM—ACC.

4.4 Nominative=instrumental

In this section, we will continue investigating cases of syncretism that involve the nominative. We will see that there is an instance of the NOM=INS syncretism, but this syncretism will be treated as accidental in the sense that it is due to the phonology of the language, rather than due to its grammatical system.

Let us begin by defining the instrumental case. It is a case used to identify an instrument or means by which something is done. English uses words such as “with”, “by” etc. for expressing the instrument, see (43).

(43) Mary travelled by a car.

Mary went with John.

The syncretism nominative=instrumental is found in Czech paradigm of muž “a man” (44).

(44) Czech NOM=INS pl. muži “men”

This declension has developed from Old Church Slavonic masculine jo-stem. It is the only instance where this syncretism is found (see the column on the right). We may want to compare it with related o-stem for masculine (on the left), see (45).

(45)

masculine-plural stem o-stem jo-stem NOM rabi mǫži “slaves” “men” INS raby mǫži

The o-stem does not have the syncretism, using a different marker for instrumental – the hard “y” instead of soft “i”. The jo-stem does not show this difference, showing the syncretism instead. Interestingly, the NOM=INS syncretism is only found after a soft consonantal ending, which may be followed only by soft “i”.

This suggests a possible explanation of this syncretism as ‘accidental’. What this means is that morphologically speaking, the marker of the instrumental (also in the jo-stem) is -y, which is changed to -i after a soft consonant, a similar type of change that changes the back vowel -o to the front vowel -e. If that is so, the NOM=INS syncretism should not be counted as a feature of the morphological system of the language.

Due to the system of presentation (where we are focusing on all possible combinations of syncretic cases), the very same instance of the arguably accidental syncretism shows up at two more places in the grammar of Old Church Slavonic. I mention them here for completeness, although they will be ultimately irrelevant for the overall conclusions. The first instance to be looked at is where the NOM=INS syncretism extends to the vocative.

4.4.1 Nominative=vocative=instrumental

When it comes to this syncretism, it is the same case as with nominative=instrumental. Again, we may compare it with an o-stem, see (46)

(46)

masculine-plural stem o-stem jo-stem NOM rabi mǫži “slaves” “men” VOC rabi mǫži INS raby mǫži

Nominative=vocative in o-stem is not unusual, but it very rarely extends to the instrumental form. The only case where it does is the jo-stem, however, as we have argued in the preceding section, this is due to phonology.

In conclusion, the syncretism nominative=instrumental is a product of the phonological system of Old Church Slavonic. The syncretism NOM=VOC=INS is the same case. These 33 syncretisms should thus be considered rather accidental than relevant for the syncretism analysis.

Again, as a consequence of the data presentation, where all possible syncretisms are to be enumerated, the very same accidental syncretism has to be registered as a case of a vocative instrumental syncretism.

4.5 Vocative=instrumental

In Slavic languages, the syncretism may be found in Czech (47).

(47) Czech VOC=INS sg. muži “men”

This unusual syncretism, as we already expect, is found in one paradigm of Old Church Slavonic – masculine jo-stem. We may again want to compare it with related o-stem, see (48).

(48)

masculine-plural stem o-stem jo-stem VOC rabi mǫži “slaves” “men” INS raby mǫži

The o-stem does not have the syncretism, using a different marker in instrumental, namely –y. Since jo-stem is only for nouns with a soft consonant, the marker –y cannot be used here, and presumably changes to a soft “i”.

In conclusion, this syncretism is a product of the morphological system of Old Church Slavonic. It will therefore be treated as accidental rather than relevant for a syncretism analysis.

As an interim summary, consider where we stand. After dismissing the NOM=INS syncretism and its various instantiations as accidental, we are still operating with a system where syncretism targets adjacent cases in the sequence VOC—NOM—ACC. We will now move on to investigate syncretisms pertaining to the accusative.

4.6 Genitive=accusative

The genitive case is used to identify mostly possession, source or characteristics of something. In English, it is usually formed with an apostrophe “-’s” or a word “of”, see (49).

(49) a. That is a Mary’s car.

b. Mary is the girl of my dreams.

In (49a), the genitive is identifying Mary as the owner of “the car”. In (49b), two words in genitive “my” and “dreams” are identifying characteristics of “the girl”.

We will begin the investigation of the genitive by highlighting the fact that in several paradigms, the genitive is the same as the accusative. The syncretism has developed as a way of removing some problematic instances of syncretism between nominative and accusative. Since Old Church Slavonic has no strict word order, there is an ambiguity in meaning (50).

(50) znajetъ rabъ mǫžь

“knows a slave a man”

znajetъ mǫžь rabъ rabъ znajetъ mǫžь mǫžь znajetъ rabъ mǫžь rabъ znajetъ rabъ mǫžь znajetъ There are six possible sentences with these three words. In neither of them is it possible to decide which noun is a subject and which is an object. To eliminate this ambiguity, Old Church Slavonic has started to use genitive inflectional suffixes for the accusative, see (51).

(51) a. rabъ znajetъ mǫža “the slave knows a man” b. mǫžь znajetъ raba “the man knows a slave”

In (51a), it is now clear that the slave knows a man. In (51b), the man knows a slave. The change developed in masculine o-stem and (i)jo-stem, feminine ъv-stem and r-stem and in some cases 35 of pronouns (Večerka, 2006). In the development that followed, this has become a regular phenomenon in Slavic languages (52).

(52) Czech GEN=ACC sg. muže “man” Slovak GEN=ACC sg. chlapa “man” pl. chlapov “men” Russian GEN=ACC sg. muža “man” pl. “mužej” “men”

The following tables will now list all relevant forms of the syncretism genitive=accusative. The first table (53) lists nouns. In the first column, the syncretism is found in masculine o-stem (suffix –a). The second column shows the same syncretism for the related (i)jo-stem (suffix – a). In the third column, the syncretism is found in feminine ъv-stem (suffix –ъve). The last column shows the syncretism for feminine r-stem (suffix –ere).

(53)

stem o-stem (i)jo-stem ъv-stem r-stem GEN raba mǫža crьkъve matere “slave” “man” “church” “mother” ACC raba mǫža crьkъve matere

The second table (54) lists all relevant forms of genderless pronouns. In the first column, the syncretism is found in the singular forms of the first person (mene). The second column shows the syncretism for the plural forms of the first person (nasъ). The third column shows the same syncretism for singular of the second person (tebe). In the fourth column, the syncretism is found in the plural forms of the second person (vasъ). The last column shows the syncretism for the singular form of reflexive (sebe).

(54)

first person second person reflexive number singular plural singular plural singular GEN mene nasъ tebe vasъ sebe ACC mene nasъ tebe vasъ sebe

Let us now embed the GEN=ACC syncretism in a larger perspective, because sometimes it only appears as a sub-syncretism of a larger pattern, where three cases exhibit syncretism.

4.6.1 Genitive=accusative=locative

With regard to the accusative using the inflectional suffix of an ambiguous genitive/locative, this syncretism is found in one paradigm – feminine singular of ъv-stem (suffix –ъve), see (55).

(55)

feminine-singular stem ъv-stem GEN crьkъve “church” ACC crьkъve LOC crьkъve

There are no more syncretisms involving the genitive/accusative pair. Hence, in conclusion, the syncretism genitive=accusative is a particular and not yet a fully developed phenomenon. What is meant by this is that in the 103 distinct paradigms in total, the syncretism is found only in 9 of them. The syncretism GEN=ACC=LOC is attested in one paradigm, which leaves us with 8 paradigms of only genitive=accusative.

As an interim summary of the empirical picture, it is time to point out that we have enlarged our initial set of the three original cases (VOC—NOM—ACC) by including the genitive, which, considering the three original cases, shows syncretism primarily with the accusative. That leads us to enlarging our syncretism sequence by the genitive in the following manner: VOC—NOM—ACC—GEN. We have also seen that the ACC=GEN syncretism may extend to the locative case, which is the next case that we will start looking at.

4.7 Genitive=locative

The locative case (abbreviated LOC) is generally used to identify a location. Certain prepositions may be used with locative to express other meanings. In English, locative is expressed by prepositions as “in”, “on”, “at”, “about” etc., see (56). 37

(56) a. Mary was on the street.

b. We talked about Mary.

In (56a), the preposition “on” is identifying a location “the street”. In (56b), the preposition “about” is identifying what we talked about – “Mary”. The GEN=LOC syncretism is very wide- spread across Slavic languages (57).

(57) Czech GEN=LOC sg. kosti “bone” sg. hradu “castle” Slovak GEN=LOC sg. kosti “bone” sg. gazdinej “housewife” Russian GEN=LOC sg. kosti “bone” sg. fotografii “photography” Polish GEN=LOC sg. kosti “bone” sg. kasi “mash”

Croatian GEN=LOC sg. kosti “bone” sg. soli “salt”

Nouns

The syncretism genitive=locative may is attested in many paradigms. In this section, the tables list all relevant forms of nouns. The first table (58) lists forms of masculine gender. In the third column, the syncretism is found in singular forms of i-stem (suffix –i). The fourth column shows the same syncretism for singular u-stem (suffix –u). The last column shows the syncretism for singular forms of n-stem (suffix –ene). All forms of dual have the same syncretism.

(58)

masculine-singular stem o-stem (i)jo-stem i-stem u-stem n-stem GEN raba mǫža pǫti synu kamene “slave” “man” “road” “son” “stone” LOC rabě mǫži pǫti synu kamene masculine-plural stem o-stem (i)jo-stem i-stem u-stem n-stem GEN rabъ mǫžь pǫtii synovъ kamenъ LOC raběchъ mǫžichъ pǫtьxъ synъchъ kamenьxъ

The second table (59) lists relevant forms of neuter gender. In the third column, the syncretism is found in singular of n-stem (suffix –ene). The second column shows the same syncretism for 38 singular of (n)t-stem (suffix –ęte). In the third column, the syncretism is found in singular forms of s-stem (suffix –ese). All dual forms have the syncretism.

(59)

neuter-singular stem o-stem (i)jo-stem n-stem (n)t-stem s-stem GEN lěta sъnьmišta imene otročęte tělese “summer” “synagogue” “name” “child” “body” LOC lětě sъnьmišti imene otročęte tělese neuter-plural stem o-stem (i)jo-stem n-stem (n)t-stem s-stem GEN lětъ sъnьmištь imenъ otročętъ tělesъ LOC lětěchъ sъnьmištichъ imenьchъ otročętьchъ tělesьchь

The third table (60) lists relevant forms of feminine gender. In the third column, the syncretism is found in singular of i-stem (suffix –i). The fourth column shows the same syncretism for singular forms of ъv-stem (suffix –ъve). All dual forms have the syncretism.

(60)

feminine-singular stem a-stem (i)ja-stem i-stem ъv-stem r-stem GEN ženy dušę kosti crьkъve matere “woman” “soul” “bone” “church” “mother” LOC ženě duši kosti crьkъve materi feminine-plural stem a-stem (i)ja-stem i-stem ъv-stem r-stem GEN ženъ dušь kostii crьkъvъ materъ LOC ženachъ dušachъ kostьchъ crьkъvachъ materьchъ

There are 45 possible paradigms of nouns, including singular, plural and dual number, and genitive=locative is found in 23 of them.

Pronouns

The tables in this section illustrate all relevant forms of pronouns. The first table (61) lists forms of genderless pronouns. In the second column, the syncretism is found in plural of the first person (nasъ). The third column shows the same syncretism for dual of the first person (naju). In the fifth column, the syncretism is found in plural of the second person (vasъ). The sixth column shows the syncretism for dual of the second person (vaju). 39

(61)

first person second person reflexive number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular GEN mene nasъ naju tebe vasъ vaju sebe LOC mьně nasъ naju tebě vasъ vaju sebě

The second table (62) lists relevant forms of hard and soft declensions. In the second column, the syncretism is found in masculine plural forms (těchъ and ichъ). The third column shows the same syncretism for masculine dual (toju and jeju). In the fifth column, the syncretism is found in neuter plural forms (těchъ and ichъ). The sixth column shows the syncretism for neuter dual (toju and jeju). The eighth column shows the syncretism for plural forms of feminine (těchъ and ichъ). In the last column, the syncretism is found in feminine dual (toju and jeju).

(62)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual GEN togo těchъ toju togo těchъ toju toję těchъ toju “this” LOC tomь těchъ toju tomь těchъ toju toi těchъ toju GEN jego ichъ jeju jego ichъ jeju jeję ichъ jeju LOC jemь ichъ jeju jemь ichъ jeju jei ichъ jeju

The third table (63) lists relevant forms of both mixed declensions. In the second column, the syncretism is found in masculine plural forms (sichъ and kyichъ). The third column shows the syncretism for masculine dual forms of the first mixed declension (seju). In the fifth column, the syncretism is found in neuter plural (sichъ and kyichъ). The sixth column shows the syncretism for neuter dual of the first mixed declension (seju). The eighth column shows the syncretism for feminine plural forms (sichъ and kyichъ). In the last column, the syncretism is found in feminine dual of the first mixed declension (seju).

(63)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual GEN sego sichъ seju sego sichъ seju seję sichъ seju “this” LOC semь sichъ seju semь sichъ seju sei sichъ seju GEN kojego kyichъ – kojego kyichъ – kojeję kyichъ – “who” LOC kojemь kyichъ – kojemь kyichъ – kǫjei kyichъ –

There are 40 possible paradigms of pronouns (excluding not attested dual forms) and the syncretism is found in 25 of them

Adjectives

The following table (64) lists all relevant forms of both hard and soft pronominal declensions of adjectives. In the second column, the syncretism is found in masculine plural forms (suffix –yichъ and –iichъ). The third column shows the syncretism for dual of masculine (suffix –uju and –uju).The fifth column shows the syncretism for neuter plural forms (suffix –yichъ and – iichъ). In the sixth column, the syncretism is found in neuter dual (suffix –uju and –uju). The eighth column shows the syncretism for feminine plural forms (suffix –yichъ and –iichъ). In the last column, the syncretism is found in dual forms of feminine (suffix –uju and –uju).

(64) gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual GEN dobrajego –yichъ –uju –ajego –yichъ –uju –yję –yichъ –uju “good” LOC –ějemь –yichъ –uju –ějemь –yichъ –uju –ěi –yichъ –uju GEN ništajego –iichъ –uju –ajego –iichъ –uju –ęję –iichъ –uju “poor” LOC –iimь –iichъ –uju –iimь –iichъ –uju –ii –iichъ –uju

There are 18 possible paradigms of pronominal declension of adjectives and the syncretism genitive=locative is attested in 12 of them.

In conclusion, the syncretism genitive=locative is very productive, there are 103 possible paradigms in total and the syncretism is attested in 60 of them. Considering the 41 syncretism GEN=ACC=LOC in ъv-stem (see 4.6.1), we are left with 59 paradigms of just genitive=locative. In two of these, as we shall now see, the syncretism of GEN=LOC extends further to a whole range of other cases. These two paradigms must be therefore also excluded from the total. Once they are deducted, the number of paradigms with GEN=LOC only falls to 57, which is still a significant number.

Let us now turn to the two paradigms just mentioned.

4.7.1 Genitive=locative=dative=vocative

In the masculine and feminine i-stem, the syncretism of GEN=LOC extends also to the vocative and the dative, see (65). In the first column, the syncretism is found in masculine singular (suffix –i). The second column shows the same syncretism for feminine singular (suffix –i).

(65)

gender masculine feminine number singular GEN pǫti kosti “road” “bone” DAT pǫti kosti VOC pǫti kosti LOC pǫti kosti

Leaving aside the vocative case for now, the existence of such paradigms suggests that our sequence (which so far has been VOC—NOM—ACC—GEN—LOC) should have the dative case after the locative. The fact that the vocative shows syncretism with GEN=LOC=DAT will turn out to be problematic in any attempt to place the vocative case on a certain fixed position in any conceivable linear sequence.

Now as a matter of presenting the attested syncretisms in a systematic fashion, the fact that we have two paradigms with the GEN=LOC=DAT=VOC syncretism will immediately lead to the conclusion that also any sub-set of these cases needs to be presented as showing syncretism. This is trivial. What is not trivial, however, will be to see if any other paradigms exhibit the relevant “sub-syncretisms.” We turn to this issue now.

4.8 Genitive=dative

I start from the observation that the genitive dative syncretism is, in fact, attested only for exactly the paradigms already discussed. This provides some support for the proposed ordering of cases (VOC—NOM—ACC—GEN—LOC—DAT), because in this sequence, the GEN=DAT syncretism should always include locative (which it does also empirically, since there is no GEN=DAT pairwise syncretism).

For completeness, since we are now introducing a new case in the discussion, let us describe it briefly. The dative (abbreviated DAT) case is used to identify an indirect object. In English, there are more possibilities. Dative may be expressed by putting a word at certain position in the sentence, using pronouns or prepositions like “for”, see (66).

(66) a. I told Mary the truth.

b. I bought a car for Mary.

In (66a), the direct object “the truth” is in accusative. Mary is the indirect object in the dative case to whom the truth was told. In (66b), there is also the direct object “a car” in accusative. The dative case is identifying the indirect object by the phrase “for Mary”.

As said, the syncretism of genitive and dative is rather unusual in Old Church Slavonic. This holds more generally in Slavic languages, where it is found only in paradigms which developed from Old Church Slavonic i-stem or when a certain stem borrowed an inflectional suffix from another stem, see (67).

(67) Czech GEN=DAT sg. kosti “bone” sg. hradu “castle” Slovak GEN=DAT sg. kosti “bone” sg. gazdinej “housewife” Russian GEN=DAT sg. kosti “bone” sg. fotografii “photography”

In Old Church Slavonic, this syncretism is found only in the i-stem of masculine and feminine gender under discussion. The following table (68) lists relevant forms. In the first column, the syncretism is found in masculine singular (suffix –i). The second column shows the same syncretism for feminine singular (suffix –i). 43

(68)

gender masculine feminine number singular GEN pǫti kosti “road” “bone” DAT pǫti kosti

In the conclusion, the syncretism genitive=dative seems to be a product of limited morphology of i-stem, there are 103 possible paradigms in total and the syncretism is attested in 2 of them.

Let us now turn to another “sub-syncretism” of the i-stem, namely:

4.8.1 Genitive=dative=vocative

This syncretism is also found only in the i-stem of masculine and feminine gender, see the table (69). The first column shows the syncretism for masculine singular (suffix –i). The second column shows the very same syncretism for feminine singular (suffix –i).

(69)

gender masculine feminine number singular GEN pǫti kosti “road” “bone” DAT pǫti kosti VOC pǫti kosti

Another “sub-syncretism” of the i-stem paradigm, which is not attested anywhere else, is the DAT=VOC syncretism.

4.9 Dative=vocative

In Slavic languages, this syncretism is found in paradigms which have developed from Old Church Slavonic i-stem (70).

(70) Czech DAT=VOC sg. kosti “bone” Croatian DAT=VOC sg. soli “salt” Polish DAT=VOC sg. miłości “love”

As previously mentioned, only i-stem has the syncretism, see (71). The first column shows the syncretism for masculine singular of i-stem (suffix –i). In the second column, the syncretism is found in feminine singular form of i-stem (suffix –i).

(71)

gender masculine feminine number singular DAT pǫti kosti “road” “bone” VOC pǫti kosti

In conclusion, the syncretism dative=vocative is rather a product of limited morphology of i- stem. There are 63 possible paradigms in total and the syncretism is attested in 2 of them. Considering the extension of the syncretism GEN=DAT=VOC=LOC in i-stem, dative=vocative is not attested anywhere else.

A more interesting case is provided by the GEN=VOC syncretism, which is discussed in the next section.

4.10 Genitive=vocative

In Slavic languages, this syncretism may be found in a few paradigms (72).

(72) Czech GEN=VOC sg. kosti “bone” sg. soudce “judge” Polish GEN=VOC sg. miłości “love”

Croatian GEN=VOC sg. soli “salt”

In Old Church Slavonic, the syncretism is found in three paradigms. The following table (73) lists relevant forms. In the first column, the syncretism is found in masculine singular of i-stem 45

(suffix –i). In the second column, the syncretism is found in masculine singular of u-stem (suffix –u). The last column shows the same syncretism in feminine singular of i-stem (suffix –i).

(73)

gender masculine feminine number singular stem i-stem u-stem i-stem GEN pǫti synu kosti “road” “son” “bone” VOC pǫti synu kosti

There are 63 possible paradigms in total and the syncretism is attested in 3 of them. In all three of them, this syncretism is a part of a larger GEN=VOC=LOC syncretism, a fact to be presented below.

4.10.1 Genitive=vocative=locative

The following table (74) lists relevant forms. In the first column, the syncretism is found in masculine singular of u-stem (suffix –u). The second column shows the same syncretism for masculine singular of i-stem (suffix –i). The third column shows the syncretism for feminine singular of i-stem (suffix –i).

(74)

gender masculine feminine number singular stem u-stem i-stem i-stem GEN synu pǫti kosti “son” “road” “bone” VOC synu pǫti kosti LOC synu pǫti kosti

There are 63 possible paradigms in total and the syncretism is attested in 3 of them.

In conclusion, considering the extension of the syncretism GEN=DAT=VOC=LOC in i-stem, and GEN=VOC=LOC in u-stem, the syncretism genitive=vocative is not found anywhere else.

To complete the picture, let us now present a trivial fact that since in u-stems and i- stems, we find GEN=LOC=VOC, we also expect to find VOC=LOC. The only interesting thing to see is if this syncretism is found in any other paradigm.

4.11 Vocative=locative

In Slavic languages, this syncretism is possible to find in paradigms which have developed from i-stem of Old Church Slavonic, see (75).

(75) Czech VOC=LOC sg. kosti “bone” Croatian VOC=LOC sg. soli “salt” Polish VOC=LOC sg. miłości “love”

The following table (76) lists relevant forms of the syncretism vocative=locative. In the first column, the syncretism is found in masculine singular of i-stem (suffix –i). The second column shows the same syncretism for masculine singular of u-stem (suffix –u). The third column shows the syncretism for feminine singular of i-stem (suffix –i).

(76)

gender masculine feminine number singular singular singular stem i-stem u-stem i-stem VOC pǫti synu kosti “road” “son” “bone” LOC pǫti synu kosti

There are 63 possible paradigms and the syncretism vocative=locative is attested in 3 of them.

In conclusion, however, considering the extensions of syncretism GEN=DAT=VOC=LOC in i-stem and GEN=VOC=LOC in u-stem, there are no other cases of the syncretism just VOC=LOC.

To sum up the discussion up to now, we have been following a possible arrangement of cases (VOC—NOM—ACC—GEN—LOC—DAT) such that only adjacent cases show syncretism. When confronted with the fact that i-stems show a four-case syncretism 47

(VOC=GEN=LOC=DAT), this linear statement faces a challenge about the placement of the vocative. Its syncretism with the GEN=LOC is also present in u-stems, and hence, it does not seem to be completely accidental, even if marginal.

Now the final “sub-syncretism” of the i-stem paradigm is a syncretism between the locative case and the dative case. This is the only syncretism that is relatively frequently attested also in other paradigms, and suggests that the position of the dative case after the locative (in the linear sequence established so far) is not accidental.

4.12 Dative=locative

In Slavic languages, this syncretism is wide-spread, see (77).

(77) Czech DAT=LOC sg. kosti “bone” sg. hradu “castle” Slovak DAT=LOC sg. hrdinovi “hero” sg. žene “woman” Russian DAT=LOC sg. kosti “bone” sg. fotografii “photography” sg. sg. Polish DAT=LOC “baby” “girl” niemowlęciu dziewczynie Croatian DAT=LOC sg. vojníku “soldier” sg. dȑvetu “wood”

Nouns

The table (78) lists relevant forms of nouns. In the first column, the syncretism dative=locative is found in singular of a-stem (suffix –ě). The second column shows the same syncretism for singular of related (i)ja-stem (suffix –i). The third column shows the syncretism for feminine singular i-stem (suffix –i). In the fourth column, the syncretism is found in singular of r-stem (suffix –eri). The fifth column shows the syncretism for masculine singular of i-stem (suffix – i). In the last column, the syncretism is found in masculine singular of u-stem (suffix –u).

(78)

feminine-singular masculine-singular stem a-stem (i)ja-stem i-stem r-stem i-stem u-stem DAT ženě duši kosti materi pǫti synu “woman” “soul” “bone” “mother” “road” “son” LOC ženě duši kosti materi pǫti synu feminine-plural masculine-plural stem a-stem (i)ja-stem i-stem r-stem i-stem u-stem DAT ženamъ dušamъ kostьmъ materьmъ pǫtьmъ synъmъ LOC ženachъ dušachъ kostьchъ materьchъ pǫtьchъ synъchъ

There are 45 possible paradigms of nouns, including singular, plural and dual number, and the syncretism dative=locative is found in 6 of them.

Pronouns

The following tables will illustrate all relevant forms. The first table (79) lists genderless pronouns. In the first column, the syncretism is found in singular of the first person (mьně). The fourth column shows the same syncretism for singular of the second person (tebě). In the last column, the syncretism is found in singular of reflexive pronoun (sebě).

(79)

first person second person reflexive number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular DAT mьně namъ nama tebě vamъ vama sebě LOC mьně nasъ naju tebě vasъ vaju sebě

The second table (80) lists forms of a hard and soft declension. In the seventh column, the syncretism is found in both hard and soft forms of feminine singular (toi and jei).

(80)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual DAT tomu těmъ těma tomu těmъ těma toi těmъ těma “this” LOC tomь těchъ toju tomь těchъ toju toi těchъ toju DAT jemu imъ ima jemu imъ ima jei imъ ima LOC jemь ichъ jeju jemь ichъ jeju jei ichъ jeju 49

The third table (81) lists relevant forms of both mixed declensions. In the seventh column, the syncretism is found in singular feminine of both declensions (sei and kojei).

(81)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual DAT semu simъ sima semu simъ sima sei simъ sima “this” LOC semь sichъ seju semь sichъ seju sei sichъ seju DAT kojemu kyimъ – kojemu kyimъ – kojei kyimъ – “who” LOC kojemь kyichъ – kojemь kyichъ – kǫjei kyichъ –

There are 40 possible paradigms of pronouns (excluding not attested dual forms) and the syncretism is found in 7 of them.

Adjectives

The following table (82) lists all relevant forms of pronominal declensions of adjectives. In the seventh column, the syncretism dative=locative is found in feminine singular of both hard and soft declensions (suffix –ěi and –ii).

(82)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual DAT dobrujemu –yimъ –yima –ujemu –yimъ –yima –ěi –yimъ –yima “good” LOC –ějemь –yichъ –uju –ějemь –yichъ –uju –ěi –yichъ –uju DAT ništujemu –iimъ –iima –ujemu –iimъ –iima –ii –iimъ –iima “poor” LOC –iimь –iichъ –uju –iimь –iichъ –uju –ii –iichъ –uju

There are 18 possible paradigms of pronominal declensions and the syncretism is found in 2 of them. 50

In conclusion, the syncretism dative=locative is relatively productive, there are 103 possible paradigms in total and the syncretism is found in 15 of them. Since we have the syncretism GEN=DAT=VOC=LOC in i-stem, we are left with 13 paradigms of syncretism just in dative=locative.

Considering our linear sequence so far (VOC—NOM—ACC—GEN—LOC—DAT), we are left with the instrumental case. In the following section, we will present paradigms which point out at a wide-spread syncretism between dative and instrumental, which suggests its position at the end of our sequence: VOC—NOM—ACC—GEN—LOC—DAT—INS.

4.13 Dative=instrumental

In Slavic languages, the syncretism is possible to find, see (83).

(83) Czech DAT=INS sg. jí “her”

Croatian DAT=INS pl. solima “salts” Russian DAT=INS sg. sta “hundred”

Nouns

Since this syncretism is found only in dual forms of nouns, this section will list them to illustrate. The first table (84) lists masculine forms. In the first column, the syncretism is found in o-stem (suffix –oma). The second column shows the same syncretism for related jo-stem (suffix –ema). The third column shows the syncretism for i-stem (suffix –ьma). In the fourth column, the same syncretism is found in u-stem (suffix –ъma). The last column shows the syncretism for n-stem (suffix –enьma).

(84)

masculine-dual stem o-stem (i)jo-stem i-stem u-stem n-stem DAT raboma mǫžema pǫtьma synъma kamenьma “slave” “man” “road” “son” “stone” INS raboma mǫžema pǫtьma synъma kamenьma

The second table (85) lists neuter dual forms. The first column shows the syncretism for o-stem (suffix –oma). In the second column, the syncretism is found in related (i)jo-stem (suffix –ema). The third column shows the same syncretism for n-stem (suffix –enьma). The fourth column shows the syncretism for (n)t-stem (suffix –ętьma). In the last column, the syncretism is found in s-stem (suffix –esьma).

(85)

neuter-dual stem o-stem (i)jo-stem n-stem (n)t-stem s-stem DAT lětoma sъnьmištema imenьma otročętьma tělesьma “summer” “synagogue” “name” “child” “body” INS lětoma sъnьmištema imenьma otročętьma tělesьma

The third table (86) lists relevant feminine forms of dual. In the first column, the syncretism is found in a-stem (suffix –ama). The second column shows the syncretism for related (i)ja-stem (suffix –ama). The third column shows the same syncretism for i-stem (suffix –ьma).

(86)

feminine-dual stem a-stem (i)ja-stem i-stem ъv-stem r-stem DAT ženama dušama kostьma – – “woman” “soul” “bone” INS ženama dušama kostьma – –

There are 45 possible paradigms of nouns, including singular, plural and dual number, and dative=instrumental is found in 13 of them.

Pronouns

The first table (87) lists relevant forms of genderless pronouns. In the third column, the syncretism is found in the first person of dual (nama). The sixth column shows the same syncretism for dual of the second person (vama).

(87)

first person second person reflexive number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular DAT mьně namъ nama tebě vamъ vama sebě INS mъnojǫ nasъ nama tobojǫ vasъ vama sobojǫ

The second table (88) lists relevant forms of a hard and soft declension. In the third column, the syncretism is found in masculine dual forms (těma and ima). The sixth column shows the syncretism for neuter dual (těma and ima). The last column shows the syncretism for feminine dual forms (těma and ima).

(88)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual DAT tomu těmъ těma tomu těmъ těma toi těmъ těma “this” INS těmь těmi těma těmь těmi těma tojǫ těmi těma DAT jemu imъ ima jemu imъ ima jei imъ ima INS imь imi ima imь imi ima jejǫ imi ima

The third table (89) lists forms of both mixed declensions. In the third column, the syncretism is found in masculine dual of the first mixed declension (sima). The sixth column shows the syncretism for neuter dual of the first mixed declension (sima). The last column shows the very same syncretism for feminine dual of the first mixed declension (sima).

(89)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual DAT semu simъ sima semu simъ sima sei simъ sima “this” INS simь simi sima simь simi sima sejǫ simi sima DAT kojemu kyimъ – kojemu kyimъ – kojei kyimъ – “who” INS kyjimь kyimi – kyjimь kyimi – kǫjejǫ kyimi –

There are 40 possible paradigms of pronouns (excluding not attested dual forms) and the syncretism is found in 11 of them.

Adjectives

The following table (90) lists relevant forms of both hard and soft pronominal declensions of adjectives. In the third column, the syncretism is found in masculine dual forms (suffix –yima and –iima). The sixth column shows the same syncretism for neuter dual (suffix –yima and – iima). The last column shows the syncretism for feminine dual forms (suffix –yima and –iima).

(90)

gender masculine neuter feminine number singular plural dual singular plural dual singular plural dual DAT dobrujemu –yimъ –yima –ujemu –yimъ –yima –ěi –yimъ –yima “good” INS –yimь –yimi –yima –yimь –yimi –yima –ojǫ –yimi –yima DAT ništujemu –iimъ –iima –ujemu –iimъ –iima –ii –iimъ –iima “poor” INS –iimь –iimi –iima –iimь –iimi –iima –ejǫ –iimi –iima

There are 18 possible paradigms of pronominal declensions and the syncretism is found in 6 of them.

In conclusion, the syncretism dative=instrumental is productive for all forms of dual number, there are 103 possible paradigms in total and the syncretism is found in 30 of them. The considerable extension of this syncretism validates the position of the instrumental case in our sequence (VOC—NOM—ACC—GEN—LOC—DAT—INS). However, there are two syncretisms left to discuss and one will turn out to be problematic. The first one is ACC=INS.

4.14 Accusative=instrumental

This rather rare syncretism is found in a couple of Czech paradigms, see (91).

(91) Czech ACC=INS pl. pány “lords” pl. hrady “castles” 54

These paradigms have developed from Old Church Slavonic o-stem which is the only case to find this syncretism. The following table (92) shows the syncretism for masculine plural of o- stem (suffix –y).

(92)

gender masculine number singular stem o-stem ACC raby “slave” INS raby

The syncretism is problematic as it suggests a position for accusative to be next to instrumental in our linear sequence. However, as we can see, it is a very weak evidence – it is found only in one paradigm in Old Church Slavonic and most Slavic languages have eliminated this syncretism. We will now look at the last syncretism: LOC=INS.

4.15 Locative=instrumental

In Slavic languages, this syncretism is possible to find in adjectives, see (93).

(93) Czech LOC=INS sg. masc. adj. jarním “vernal”

Polish LOC=INS sg. masc. adj. bogatym “rich” Croatian LOC=INS pl. masc. adj. lijepim “beautiful”

In Old Church Slavonic, there are two cases of this syncretism in the soft pronominal declension of adjectives, see (94). In the first column of the following able, the syncretism is found in masculine singular (suffix –iimь). The second column shows the same syncretism for neuter singular forms (suffix –iimь).

(94)

gender masculine neuter number singular LOC ništiimь ništiimь “poor” INS ništiimь ništiimь 55

The development of the pronominal declension (as described in 3.3.2) was such that an inflected nominal form was followed by a pronoun. In the existing forms, such neat decomposition is still visible in a couple of forms (e.g., dobr-u-jemu, lit. good-DAT-him-DAT). However, as Večerka points out (2006), we cannot surely explain the origin of all forms of pronominal declension of adjectives in one unitary way. This is also the case in the forms at hand, such a neat decomposition is impossible. As was said, they originated as a juxtaposition of the form of nominal adjective + pronoun. We know that these pronouns are different (jemь x imь), but somehow, in the interaction with the adjective form, this difference disappears. We do not know exactly why but we do know that there is some process involved. One possible hypothesis is depicted in (95), where the two pronouns contract with the base in a way that syncretism arises.

(95) LOC ništь + jemь → *ništьjemь → ništiimь

INS ništь + imь → ništiimь

However, the syncretism does not mean that locative and instrumental have the same form. This form is a result of the process which cannot be described at this moment but it cannot be denied neither. We will therefore treat this syncretism as accidental.

During the analysis, we have come to the final sequence VOC—NOM—ACC—GEN— LOC—DAT—INS. As we have found out, there are two problems to be dealt with and in the following summary, we will get to them again

4.16 Summary of the possible syncretisms

In the summary, we will now list all possible syncretisms and will try to arrive at the picture illustrating all of them. After that, we will look at our linear sequence and discuss the problematic syncretism. We start from listing syncretisms of two cases (96) and then go to three and four cases (97).

(96) Syncretism of two cases:

Nominative=accusative: 75 paradigms 56

Nominative=vocative: 53 paradigms

Genitive=dative: 2 paradigms

Genitive=accusative: 9 paradigms

Genitive=vocative: 3 paradigms

Genitive=locative: 63 paradigms

Dative=vocative: 2 paradigms

Dative=locative: 15 paradigms

Dative=instrumental: 30 paradigms

Accusative=vocative: 44 paradigms

Accusative=instrumental: 1 paradigm

Vocative=locative: 3 paradigms

There are also three syncretisms which are treated as accidental:

Nominative=instrumental: 1 paradigm

Vocative=instrumental: 1 paradigm

Locative=instrumental: 2 paradigms

(97) Syncretism of three and four cases:

Nominative=accusative=vocative: 44 paradigms

Genitive=dative=vocative: 2 paradigms

Genitive=accusative=locative: 1 paradigm

Genitive=vocative=locative: 3 paradigms

Genitive=dative=vocative=locative: 2 paradigms

There is also one accidental syncretism:

Nominative=vocative=instrumental: 1 paradigm 57

If we do not want to include syncretisms, which appear anywhere else, and also do not want to include those accidental, the list goes like this:

Nominative=accusative: 31 paradigms

Nominative=vocative: 9 paradigms

Genitive=accusative: 8 paradigms

Genitive=locative: 53 paradigms

Dative=locative: 13 paradigms

Dative=instrumental: 30 paradigms

Accusative=instrumental: 1 paradigms

Nominative=accusative=vocative: 44 paradigms

Genitive=accusative=locative: 1 paradigm

Genitive=vocative=locative: 1 paradigms

Genitive=dative=vocative=locative: 2 paradigms

4.16.1 Illustrative picture of syncretisms

Let us start with the non-linear picture that considers all possible syncretisms, see (96) and (97) for a complete list. A model of the declension which tries to include all these possibilities would look as follows (98)

(98)

This model captures all the attested pairs, and also allows us to see what is not attested. For instance, since DAT and ACC have no connecting line, this means that there is no paradigm where these two cases show syncretism.

While useful, the model is not very neat. It is hard to conclude anything about syncretism in general. This may very well be the case, but before we settle on this conclusion, let us consider a different type of model, namely one where not all syncretisms are represented by a line, but only those that are unique. What we mean by this can be best illustrated on the example of VOC—NOM—ACC. Recall from section 4.3 that while we do find paradigms where ACC=VOC (and hence, there is a connecting line between ACC and VOC in the model above), this only happens when NOM is the same as the two cases at hand. The model above does not allow us to see this interesting fact.

Therefore, we will now turn to a different type of a model, where two cases are connected only in such cases when their syncretism is not subject to additional constraints. For example, NOM=VOC syncretism is attested without the necessary participation of any other case, recall the discussion in section 4.3. In fact, we have been implicitly organizing our presentation of the facts using such a model, and the following section thus repeats the logic in a concentrated form.

4.16.2 Linear sequence of syncretisms

We started from the syncretism nominative=accusative and went on successively to the accidental locative=instrumental. During the analysis, we have come to the following linear sequence of cases (99).

(99) VOC—NOM—ACC—GEN—LOC—DAT—INS

This sequence links by dashes only cases which can be syncretic without any other case necessarily participating in the syncretism. The fact that VOC and ACC can be syncretic is captured by transitivity: since VOC is linked to NOM, and NOM to ACC, VOC is linked to ACC via NOM, which is what the facts indicate. While successful in bringing out such constraints, the model faces challenges of its own.

The first problem to discuss is the vocative case. The extension of the VOC=NOM=ACC and the fact that apart from this syncretism, vocative is found syncretic with only nominative in some cases, suggest a position of this case to the very beginning. However, the i-stems and u-stems have the syncretism of vocative with genitive and locative. Placing vocative near them creates even a bigger problem, see (100).

(100) NOM—ACC—VOC—GEN—LOC—DAT—INS

In (100), NOM=ACC=VOC is still preserved and the syncretism in i-stems and u-stems is now possible even with the vocative case. The thing is, ACC=GEN, which even has a special function, is now disrupted. Moving vocative further is not a solution, see (101).

(101) NOM—ACC—GEN—VOC—LOC—DAT—INS

In (101), we no longer preserve the very extensive VOC=NOM=ACC and we put vocative between cases, that are very syncretic (for example, GEN=LOC). Hence, the best option for us is to have the vocative case at the very beginning, but this, to repeat, fails to make justice to the syncretism found in i-stems and u-stems.

The second problem is the syncretism of the accusative and the instrumental. After discussing the vocative case, we have decided to preserve our sequence (102).

(102) VOC—NOM—ACC—GEN—LOC—DAT—INS 60

Considering the relatively large extension of DAT=INS, we do not want to move INS next to ACC. So in order to make justice to ACC=INS, we would have to put accusative at the very end of the sequence, see (103)

(103) VOC—NOM—GEN—LOC—DAT—INS—ACC

This move in (103), however, eliminates the possibility to capture the rather extensive syncretism VOC=NOM=ACC and ACC=GEN. Therefore, since rather unusual ACC=INS is found only in one paradigm and most Slavic languages eliminated this syncretism later, we will keep our linear sequence we came to during our analysis (104).

(104) The final sequence

VOC—NOM—ACC—GEN—LOC—DAT—INS

However, we do have to keep the two challenges in mind.

5 Comparing the sequence with other proposals

In this section, we will briefly introduce theory of Jakobson, McCreight & Chvany and Caha and try to compare our sequence VOC—NOM—ACC—GEN—LOC—DAT—INS with their proposals.

5.1 The proposal by Jakobson

Roman Jakobson’s work (1984) was dealing with Russian.4 He proposes three features to describe the Russian case system – quantified, directional and marginal. Each case was assigned the full set of these features specified either as – or +. For example, nominative is –marginal, – quantified –directional. He proposed “a grid” to organize cases based on these features (105)

(105)

NOM ACC GEN INS DAT LOC

4 Since Russian language does not have a vocative case, we will discuss this part without the vocative. 61

This grid also describes possible syncretisms in Russian – cases next to each other (both horizontally and vertically) may be syncretic. Consider the following example of the Russian word for “door” in (106).

(106)

NOM dverь ACC dverь GEN dveri INS dverьju DAT dveri LOC dveri

As we can see, the syncretism is found in nominative=accusative and then in genitive=locative=dative. Let us now compare Jakobson’s grid with our sequence NOM— ACC—GEN—LOC—DAT—INS. Although we use a linear sequence while Jakobson uses a grid, it is not difficult to see that our sequence is actually implicitly contained in the grid, in particular, when we first go left to right on the first line (NOM—ACC—GEN), then go down (GEN—LOC), and then to the right (LOC—DAT—INS). So Jakobson’s grid is in fact rather similar to the linear sequence, which is, however, as if “bent in the middle”.

Because of this similarity between the proposals, we may conveniently put our sequence on his grid and see how it interacts, trying some examples:

(107) Masculine singular of o-stem “slave”:

NOM rabъ ACC rabъ GEN raba INS rabomь DAT rabu LOC rabě

(108) After genitive accusative was developed:

NOM rabъ ACC raba GEN raba INS rabomь DAT rabu LOC rabě

(109) Feminine singular of ъv-stem “church” after genitive accusative:

NOM crьky ACC crьkъve GEN crьkъve INS crьkъvьjǫ DAT crьkъvi LOC crьkъve

(110) Feminine singular of i-stem “bone”:

NOM kostь ACC kostь GEN kosti INS kostьjǫ DAT kosti LOC kosti

As we can see, it does work conveniently. However, the same examples that are problematic for the linear sequence approach are also counterexamples for Jakobson, see (111).

(111) Masculine plural of o-stem “slaves”:

NOM rabi ACC raby GEN rabъ INS raby DAT rabomъ LOC raběchъ

The syncretism ACC=INS poses a problem for Jakobson’s grid. We may argue that during a later language development, Russian got rid of this syncretism just like most of Slavic languages. But for Old Church Slavonic, we have to bear it in mind.

It is also interesting to note that Jakobson’s grid allows for more syncretisms than the approach based on the linear sequence. That is because in the grid, ACC and DAT as well as NOM and INS are adjacent, and could be rightfully syncretic just like GEN and LOC. However, such syncretisms are not found in Russian. The syncretism of NOM=INS has been found in Old Church Slavonic (in the paradigm of the jo-stem “man”), but it has been treated as accidental.

In conclusion, we have 102 paradigms where our linear sequence NOM—ACC—GEN— LOC—DAT—INS does describe all syncretisms just as Jakobson’s grid does. There is one counterexample – the syncretism ACC=INS in the paradigm of the masculine plural o-stems.

5.2 The proposal by McCreight and Chvany

Katherine McCreight and Catherine V. Chvany (1991) propose that a case syncretism can be linearly modeled (cf. Plank 1991, Johnston 1996). They also suggest a linear sequence of cases for Russian: NOM–ACC–GEN–LOC–DAT–INS, which permits conflation of all syncretic forms within all paradigms. 63

During the syncretism analysis, we have arrived at a similar sequence (112).

(112) VOC—NOM—ACC—GEN—LOC—DAT—INS

Leaving the vocative case aside for now, there is only one counterexample for this hypothesis – the syncretism of accusative and instrumental in the paradigm of masculine plural o-stems, where the sequence is disrupted, see (113).

(113)

NOM rabi “slaves” ACC raby GEN rabъ LOC raběchъ DAT rabomъ INS raby

Although“slaves” McCreight and Chvany (1991) tell us that the distance between, in this case, accusative and instrumental is rather symbolic, other 102 paradigms suggest they simply do not belong next to each other. These paradigms also confirm the proposed sequence as working conveniently.

The problem arises when we accept the linear model which includes the vocative case. If we put vocative case at the beginning of the sequence, we found counterexamples, for example:

(114)

VOC NOM ACC GEN LOC DAT INS kosti “bone” kostь kostь kosti kosti kosti kostьjǫ

(115)

VOC NOM ACC GEN LOC DAT INS synu “bone” synъ synъ synu synu synovi synъmь

In both tables (114) and (115), the vocative is separated from its syncretic cases. The first look would suggest putting the vocative case after accusative, which eliminates the previous problem, see (116).

(116)

NOM ACC VOC GEN LOC DAT INS kostь “bone” kostь kosti kosti kosti kosti kostьjǫ

However, the move in (116) disrupts the sequence in paradigms with NOM=VOC and ACC=GEN, for example:

(117)

NOM ACC VOC GEN LOC DAT INS mati “mother” materь mati matere materi materi materьjǫ

(118)

NOM ACC VOC GEN LOC DAT INS rabъ “slave” raba rabe raba rabě rabu rabomь

Moving the vocative case further is not possible as these cases are very syncretic and does not allow any disruption. With regards to the proposal of McCreight and Chvany for linear sequence, we are not able to come to the sequence which would permit conflation of all syncretic forms within all paradigms. The best option for us is the linear sequence with the vocative case at the very beginning as it is the least problematic one with the least counterexamples – 99 paradigms are allowed by the theory vs 4 which are not.

5.3 The proposal by Caha

Pavel Caha (2009) proposes that non-accidental case syncretism targets contiguous regions in a sequence invariant across languages (hence, suitable even for Old Church Slavonic). He proposes the following sequence of cases: nominative—accusative—genitive—dative— instrumental—comitative5.

Although this sequence is without the locative case, he later, when relevant, incorporates it between the genitive and the dative. Putting aside the comitative and including the locative, the sequence is therefore NOM—ACC—GEN—LOC—DAT—INS.

He also gives us a set of expectations, when it comes to accidental syncretisms: they are limited to a single exponent and they are confined to a single paradigm.

5 The comitative case generally expresses accompaniment. Old Church Slavonic uses the instrumental case to express this function. 65

Leaving the vocative case for now, we may look at the following table of sample paradigms to get a general picture. In the table (119), we see the syncretisms NOM=ACC, ACC=GEN, GEN=LOC (GEN=LOC=DAT), LOC=DAT and DAT=INS. These syncretisms of adjacent cases work with the proposed sequence.

(119)

gender masculine feminine neuter number singular dual stem jo-stem o-stem i-stem r-stem o-stem NOM mǫžь “man” rabъ “slave” kostь “bone” mati “mother” lětě “summer” ACC mǫžь raba kostь materь lětě GEN mǫža raba kosti matere lětu LOC mǫži rabě kosti materi lětu DAT mǫžu rabu kosti materi lětoma INS mǫžemь rabomь kostьjǫ materьjǫ lětoma

Let us now look at the accidental syncretisms, which we have found during our syncretism analysis (section 4), and see if they meet the previously mentioned set of expectations for an accidental syncretism.

Nominative=instrumental (for details, see 4.4) – attested only for a single exponent (masculine, plural) and a single paradigm (jo-stem).

Nominative=vocative=instrumental (see 4.4.1) – attested only for a single exponent (masculine, plural) and a single paradigm (jo-stem)

Vocative=instrumental (see 4.5) – attested only for a single exponent (masculine, plural) and a single paradigm (jo-stem).

Therefore, we may conveniently treat these syncretisms as accidental, according to the set of expectations. There is one accidental syncretism, however, which needs to be discussed in details:

Locative=instrumental (for further details, see 4.15) – the first look suggests that the syncretism is attested for more than a single component (masculine, singular and neuter, singular) and more than one paradigm (masculine declension and neuter declension). We chose to analyze a 66 masculine and neuter declension separately as their paradigms have different forms in nominative and accusative. However, as the following table illustrates (120), all other forms are exactly the same (and this is a very wide-spread phenomenon that a neuter declension takes forms from a masculine declension in pronouns and adjectives).

(120)

number singular gender masculine neuter NOM ništii “poor” ništeje ACC ništii ništeje GEN ništajego LOC ništiimь DAT ništujemu INS ništiimь

As we can clearly see, apart from nominative and accusative, all other cases use the same form in the masculine and neuter grammatical gender. In light of this illustration, we may treat this syncretism as limited to only a single exponent (masculine, singular) and a single paradigm (masculine declension). Therefore, even this syncretism meets the set of expectations to be regarded as accidental.

There is, however, one syncretism which is problematic – ACC=INS. Although it is limited to a single exponent and paradigm, we have no phonological explanation, and therefore we must treat it as a counterexample to the proposal.

To see the distribution of syncretisms in numbers, we may use the following calculation (Caha, 2009), see (121).

(121) Old Church Slavonic system without the vocative case: 6 cases, 57 logically possible syncretisms

a. Contiguous syncretisms: 15 possible, 7 attested.

b. Non-contiguous syncretisms: 42 possible, 1 attested.

Universal Case Contiguity (Caha, 2009) predicts 42 syncretisms to be non-contiguous and only one of these is attested. On the other hand, out of 15 contiguous syncretisms, 7 are attested. 67

To sum up in our numbers, we have 102 paradigms allowed by Caha’s proposal and one counterexemplificative paradigm.

Although Caha’s sequence does not use the vocative case, we may still try how this calculation works with the sequence where the vocative is added. Let us remind that during our analysis, we have come to the following sequence: VOC—NOM—ACC—GEN—LOC—DAT—INS. Let us also remind, that apart from ACC=INS, we have found the following counterexemplificative syncretisms with the vocative: VOC=GEN, VOC=DAT, VOC=LOC, VOC=GEN=DAT, VOC=GEN=LOC and VOC=GEN=DAT=LOC. Now, we may proceed to the distribution of syncretisms in numbers, see (122).

(122) Old Church Slavonic system: 7 cases, 120 logically possible syncretisms.

a. Contiguous syncretisms: 21 possible, 9 attested

b. Non-contiguous syncretisms: 99 possible, 7 attested

While the ratio between possible contiguous syncretisms and those attested is similar to the system without the vocative case, the number of attested non-contiguous syncretisms grew considerably. However, when we consider contiguous syncretisms vs non-contiguous, it is still descriptive.

In conclusion, we were able to see that Universal Case Contiguity works conveniently with Old Church Slavonic. On the basis of the set of expectations for accidental syncretisms, we were able to confirm our findings. There is only one counterexample to the proposal, when we do not include the vocative case. By including the vocative, the number of counterexamples grows and it is harder to preserve a linear model.

6 Conclusion

The goal of the thesis was to arrive at a geometrical representation of paradigms in Old Church Slavonic with regards to found syncretisms. After a brief introduction to the language and its declensions, we started our analysis successively from the syncretism nominative=accusative to the syncretism locative=instrumental. We modeled a possible linear sequence of all seven 68 cases based on analyzed syncretisms. Among the syncretisms found, there were some accidental which we treated as arising due to phonology and therefore as irrelevant for our conclusions.

We faced a challenge to our linear sequence, when it came to the vocative case. Its syncretism with 5 cases was found problematic when we wanted to put it at a certain place. We basically had two options and putting the vocative case at the very beginning of our sequence turned out to be the better one based on counterexamples.

Apart from the vocative case, we found the problematic syncretism of accusative and instrumental. Because of the syncretic adjacent cases of accusative, we could not put the accusative next to the instrumental. We left this syncretism with an argument that there is only one instance and most Slavic languages have eliminated this problem during following development.

After that, we have discussed theories regarding syncretisms and a possible order of cases and compared their proposals with our sequence. Again, we have found the vocative case problematic. Leaving the vocative aside, our sequence worked conveniently with other proposals, facing only one counterexemplificative paradigm in comparison with 102 allowed paradigms.

7 Bibliography

Caha, P. (2009). The nanosyntax of case. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.

Finkel, R., & Stump, G. (2007). Principal Parts and Morphological Typology (Vol. 17, Morphology). Department of Computer Science: University of Kentucky.

Jakobson, R. (1984). Contribution to the General Theory of Case: General Meanings of the Russian Cases (Russian and Slavic Grammar Studies 1931–1981). Berlin: Mouton.

Johnston, J. (1996). Systematic Homonymy and the Structure of Morphological Categories. Some Lessons from Paradigm Geometry. Sydney: University of Sydney.

Lunt, H. G. (2001). Old Church Slavonic Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

McCreight, K., & Chvany, C. V. (1991). Geometric representation of paradigms in a modular theory of grammar (Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Plank, F. (1991). Rasmus Rask’s dilemma (Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Večerka, R. (2006). Staroslověnština v kontextu slovanských jazyků. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého.