BALTISTICA VII PRIEDAS 2011 103–128, 339–448 Mate KAPOVIĆ University of Zagreb HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF ADJECTIVE ACCENTUATION IN CROATIAN (SUFFIXLESS, *-ьnъ AND *-ъkъ ADJECTIVES) 1 Introduction2 The article deals with the historical development of the accentuation of suffixless (root), *-ьnъ and *-ъkъ adjectives. Their development is analyzed in detail from their Proto-Slavic origin to their modern reflexes in Štokavian, Čakavian and Kajkavian dialects.3 The dialectal data is taken from previously published dialectal descriptions, but also from the author’s own extensive and previously unpublished field data – mostly from Posavina4 and Vrgorska krajina. As we shall see, the analysis of the historical development of adjectival accentuation can provide us with interesting insights that go beyond the scope of adjectives. A careful historical study of adjectival accentuation reveals many interesting early changes and isoglosses in Štok/ Čak/Kajk., helps us understand the modern dialectal forms, which are then 1 The name Croatian is used because the article deals mostly with data from dia- lects spoken in Croatia. Of course, it goes without saying that the analysis of the devel- opments in Štokavian is valid not only for the dialects of Štokavian spoken in Croatia or by ethnic Croats but also for those spoken in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro. 2 I would like to thank Tijmen Pronk, Dijana Ćurković and especially Mikhail Os- lon for proofreading of the article. I also owe my gratitude to Misha Oslon for letting me use his Juraj Križanić database (material from Križanić’s texts that does not have an explicit reference stems from this database) and for helping me with it. 3 The separate treatment of Štokavian, Čakavian and Kajkavian should be regard- ed as provisory. The whole South Slavic territory is a prototypical example of a dialect continuum (cf. Ve r m e e r 1982; K a p o v i ć 2011d, 150–152). 4 The field material from Posavina often provides insights that cannot be found in the classical work of Ivšić’s (1913), where the information needed for this kind of studies is usually insufficient and sometimes even misguiding. 104 Mate Kapović far more useful from a comparative Slavic perspective and shed light on some important prosodic changes that occurred in the history of Štok/Čak/ Kajk., such as the ‘One mora law’ (cf. Kapović 2011b). The rest of the topics related to adjectives (i.e. adjectives with other suffixes, comparative and adverbs) will be analyzed in future works. Unlike nouns, where the accentual paradigm, if it changes at all, changes mostly in individual words as a result of which the descriptions of the history of noun accentuation deal mostly with paradigmatic accentuation,5 when dealing with adjectives the accentual paradigm is often changed in a whole class of adjectives or large groups of adjectives at once. That is why it is possible for all (or most) of the adjectives with a certain suffix and a specific number of syllables to shift entirely to another accentual paradigm, e.g. for -an adjectives to shift from a.p. A to a.p. C.6 Thus, the history of adjectival accentuation deals more with such interparadigmatic shifts than with intraparadigmatic changes, unlike the history of noun accentuation that deals mostly with intraparadigmatic changes (i.e. the changes of the accent in various cases in different accentual paradigms). This is also due to the fact that indefinite adjectives in Slavic mostly have the same declension as nouns, while the accentuation of the definite forms is constant in all cases, i.e. identical to the accentuation of the nominative. Of course, such paradigmatic shifts need not be marked in lists of adjectives.7 Another specific trait of adjective accentuation is the importance of analyzing all or most of the available examples. That is the only way to interpret the 5 Cf. for instance K a p o v i ć 2010. 6 We use a, b, c for Proto-Slavic accentual paradigms (a.p.) and A, B, C for modern, synchronic accentual paradigms. The semicolon (:) is used to mark the long variant of the synchronic accentual paradigms (like a.p. B: or C:). Other abbreviations include: sg. (singular), pl. (plural); nom. (nominative), gen. (genitive), dat. (dative), acc. (ac- cusative), voc. (vocative), loc. (locative), instr. (instrumental) (also N/G/D/A/V/L/I. and n/g/d/a/v/l/i. for sg. and pl. respectively in paradigms); m. (masculine), f. (femi- nine), n. (neuter); adj. (adjective); def. (definite), indef. (indefinite); dial. (dialect), Stand. (Standard); ct. (century); Croat. (Croatian), Štok. (Štokavian), Čak. (Čakavian), Kajk. (Kajkavian), Lith. (Lithuanian), Slv. (Slovene), OCS (Old Church Slavic), PSl. (Proto-Slavic), BSl (Balto-Slavic). The mark + is used for (dialectal) forms that are not directly attested in a given source but can be supposed as such according to the rules given in the description. 7 If these were marked, almost all adjectives would be A/B/C, which would make the list practically useless. Historical development of adjective accentuation in Croatian... 105 development of the accentual pattern of a certain class of adjectives, since it is very common for the original pattern to be preserved in just one or a couple of words (for instance in gol ‘naked’, bos ‘barefoot’, bolan ‘painful’, tanak ‘thin’, gorak ‘bitter’, dobar ‘good’). Thus, it is useless just to analyze the accentual paradigms in general without paying attention to what happened to the adjectives that belonged to certain accentual patterns. In some cases, it is very difficult to establish a ‘common’ or ‘original’ accentual paradigm (even if the Proto-Slavic reconstruction is certain) so the grouping in the lists of adjectives should be regarded as provisional. Some of the changes are described in more than one place in the article – for instance, if there is an a.p. a > a.p. C shift, this can be analyzed both in the a.p. a or a.p. c section of the text. The text should be read as a whole since many parts are not repeated or are not repeated in detail – for instance, if some feature is analyzed in Štokavian, the same or a similar feature will not be analyzed in Čakavian or it will be analyzed in less detail; or – if the same process occurs in different adjectival groups (e.g. both in root and *-ьnъ adjectives), it will be dealt with when describing the accentuation of the first group and just be mentioned briefly elsewhere. The suffixless adjectives 1. a.p. a PROTO -SLAVIC indefinite adjectives definite adjectives m f n m f n *čı̋stъ ‘clean’ *čı̋sta *čı̋sto *čı̋stъjь *čı̋staja *čı̋stoje The a.p. a root (suffixless) adjectives had a constant acute on the stem in Proto-Slavic, either on the first (*čı̋stъ) or on any other syllable (*boga̋ tъ). The short syllable equivalent was the short neo-acute (*gotòvъ). The stress remains in the same position in definite adjectives. Cf. in Russian: paд – páдa – páдo In some adjectives in Russian, the root stress is preserved (a.p. A). But monosyllabic adjectives usually shift to a.p. C in short forms,8 cf. чист – 8 Cf. S t a n k i e w i c z 1993, 202. 106 Mate Kapović чистá – чи́стo (but both чи́сты and чисты́ in the plural). The original stress position is preserved in def. forms: чúстый – чúстaя – чúстoe. ŠTOKAVIAN indefinite adjectives definite adjectives m f n m f n čȉst čȉsta (čìsta) čȉsto (čìsto) čȉstī (čìstī) čȉstā (čìstā) čȉstō (čìstō) The original a.p. a adjectives have a constant ̏ on the stem in the clas- sical (Daničić-Vuk) literary Štokavian,9 i.e. their reflex is a.p. A. This is also the situation in many Štokavian dialects. However, the same kind of fixed root stress, i.e. the synchronic a.p. A, is seen in original short vowel a.p. b adjectives such as nȍv ‘new’, the one exception being the adjective gȏl10 ‘naked’, which remains in a.p. B.11, 12 Here, we can see a tendency of adjectives splitting into two classes based on the quantity of the root (something similar exists in *-ьnъ adjectives as well, see below). Thus, we have adjectives with a short root vowel (whether they are ultimately derived from the original a.p. a acute or from the original a.p. b short neo-acute) in a.p. A (except for gol and bos), while adjectives with a long root vowel belong to a.p. B: or a.p. C: (the B: vs. C: opposition is lost in many dialects). Thus in the East, a number of Štokavian dialects show a shift a.p. C: > B:, while a number of Western dialects, mostly Čakavian, have the opposite change in most adjectives – a.p. B: > C:. In classical literary Štokavian, one finds the system with all short vowel monosyllabic suffixless adjectives in a.p. A and all long vowel monosyllabic suffixless adjectives in a.p. B:, thus sȉt – sȉta – sȉto ‘satiated’ / nȍv – nȍva – nȍvo ‘new’ : žȗt – žúta – žúto ‘yellow’ / drȃg – drága – drágo ‘dear’.13 The merger of the original 9 Cf. for instance Д а н и ч и ћ 1925, 213. 10 The form gȏl in standard Croatian is secondary compared to gȏ. The length is due to the vocalization of the final l#- (gȍl > gȍo > gȏ → gȏl). 11 Similarly, the semantically close adjective bȏs ‘barefoot’ remains the only monosyllabic short vowel a.p. C adjective in many dialects. 12 Of course, all of this concerns the suffisuffixless xless adjectives alone. Cf. the preserva-preserva- tion of a.p. B in adjectives with suffixes likeširòko ‘wide’, zelèno ‘green’, debèlo ‘fat’, dòbro ‘good’, tòplo ‘warm’.