Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/němьčьskъ

I think this should be němьčьskъ with later regular -čs- > -c- Crom daba (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you give some more examples of -čs- > -c-? --WikiTiki89 12:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

w:History_of_Polish#Phonetic_processes_from_Proto-Slavic see under "Simplification of consonant clusters", generally sibilants and shibilants don't cluster in most Slavic languages. Generally the direction of the assimilation is regressive, but in sh we have čs -> š (junak + ьstvo = junaštvo). Also consonants produced by sibilantization are changed into their palatal equivalents before primary front vowels (see sh knez/kneže) as can be seen on this very page under OCS нѣмьчьскъ ‎ Crom daba (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This term (eventually) uses the suffix *-ьcь. How has the environment within this term changed such that the suffix goes from *-ьcь- to *-ьčь-? —JohnC5 14:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: In *-ьcь, the *-c- is the result of the progressive palatalization (i.e. caused by the preceding *ь: *-ьkъ > *-ьcь), while in *-ьčьskъ, the *-č- is the result of the earlier first regressive palatalization (i.e. caused by the following *ь: *-ьkьskъ > *-ьčьskъ). --WikiTiki89 14:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Why does the progressive palatalization occur in one case and the retrograde in the other? Also, @CodeCat, any thoughts? —JohnC5 14:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: The answer's there if you look carefully at what I said: *-ьcь used to be *-ьkъ (that is, ъ, not ь), so the environment was not there for retrograde palatalization. --WikiTiki89 14:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that ъ. Thanks! —JohnC5 14:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crom daba: Why doesn't SH have *n(j)emaški? --WikiTiki89 14:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspoke, SH actually assimilates to č, 'junaštvo' is due to čt > št (compare čьto > što), while junak + ьskъ(+ьjь) produces 'junački'.Crom daba (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crom daba: One more question: Should we say that Bulgarian немски (nemski) is not an actual descendant of *němьčьskъ, but rather a re-formation from the stem нем- (nem-) and suffix -ски (-ski)? Otherwise it should have been *немечки (*nemečki). --WikiTiki89 18:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with modern Bulgarian, but as far as I know *něm- came to mean 'silent' exclusively in all slavic languages, while only němьc- kept the meaning of 'German', so this re-formation would have to happen before this happened in Bulgarian. Phonologically speaking though, it appears that at least some Bulgarian words feature čsk -> šk, so even in the case of some weird development that causes both yers to be lost, I would expect *немшки instead of немски. Crom daba (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

What I meant is that when the word was re-formed, the suffix -ски (-ski) replaced the suffix -ец (-ec) instead of being attached after it. There are numerous cases of this in Slavic languages. --WikiTiki89 20:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)