All Slavic: Irregular changes of words across languages

[Karton Realista]

Hello
What I mean by the thread title is difference between the same (or similar in their etymology) words in two languages that's not regular in it's nature, for example:

1. Non-corresponding consonants or vovels
2. Different consonant order

1. Like in words grzbiet (pl) - chrbát (sk). Polish g and h (pronounced as ch, exists in loans) correlate with Slovak (and Czech, Sorbian) h (examples: vrah - wróg, hlava - głowa, etc.) But in this word it's for some reason ch, which is pronounced differently than h.

Róża (pl) - ruža (sk). Those words are identical when it comes to pronounciation (even the stress in on the same syllable), but they shouldn't be - Polish ó correlates with weird Czech u with circle above it and Slovak letters a, e, o and their longer versions. I saw that the name ruža exists also in some Southern Slavic languages.

2. Hmla (sk) - mgła (pl) - mlha (cz). This word also exists in Latvian as migla and in many Slavic languages, with m-gl- structure ('-' meaning vowel/s or nothing).
I don't really know what to think about this. It looks to me like Czechs and Slovaks just misspelled the word and it caught on.

Do you have another examples of such irregular change?

 

[bragpipes]

Yeah, that "fog, mist" one really takes the cake with variation. An imperfect examples:

Kashubian "rust" - dredza from (rъd-ja), not really a rearrangement of consonants (r*d = d*r*d), more of a gaining a new d at the start.

Some better ones:

From lьsk, lьšč (CS, OSC: lьšč-ati, etc): lesk, lesku, leskot, laštiti se, leščati se, etc. Polish: ślnić.

From lъž (spoon) - lъžica, ložka, lažica, etc. Czech: (dial) žlíce, Croatian: žlica.

mъg-ur (blink, flicker, eyelid) - miža, migla, etc. Slovak: žmúriť, BCS: žmuriti, Slovene: žmrkati, žmurka,

Fly: mucha, moucha, muva, etc. Upper Sorbian: šmica, Lower Sorbian: šmyca.

Heart, core, essential: strьža, srьdьce: srce, strýžeń, etc. Upper Sorbian: žro, Polish (arch) drzeń.

This one, I'm not sure of. It's the name of a plant, but it means different things in different languages (different plants)

Upper Sorbian: drost, Lower Sorbian: drest, Slovene: dresen, Belorussian: draśon, Ukrainian: dŕasen, Russian, Polish: rdest.

(The source I have does not show the words in Belorussian or Ukrainian. I don't know what ś or ŕ are in Cyrillic).

That last example is a word related to rust/red, so etymologically, r comes before d (rd, rьd), so this is one of the rare examples of a widespread "verlan."

 

[Karton Realista]

Polish (arch) drzeń.

I would associate that rather with current one, rdzeń.

From lьsk, lьšč (CS, OSC: lьšč-ati, etc): lesk, lesku, leskot, laštiti se, leščati se, etc. Polish: ślnić.

A similar change łza (pl) - slza (sk)

 

[Panceltic]

Polish żebro vs Slovene rebro. The root is *rebro.

If the Polish form were rzebro, everything would be perfect (pronounced the same anyway), but why "ż"?

 

[bragpipes]

Polish żebro vs Slovene rebro. The root is *rebro.

If the Polish form were rzebro, everything would be perfect (pronounced the same anyway), but why "ż"?

That's interesting. What's more curious is how Czech has žebro. I can only assume that it's borrowed from Polish. (Slovak has it as rebro).

 

[ilocas2]

2. Hmla (sk) - mgła (pl) - mlha (cz). This word also exists in Latvian as migla and in many Slavic languages, with m-gl- structure ('-' meaning vowel/s or nothing).
I don't really know what to think about this. It looks to me like Czechs and Slovaks just misspelled the word and it caught on.

In Czech there is also mha

 

[Panceltic]

It looks to me like Czechs and Slovaks just misspelled the word and it caught on.

Do you have another examples of such irregular change?

I don't think that misspelling can be the reason. Words existed in their forms long before they were written down - and I daresay the majority of Slavic speakers were illiterate well into the 18th century.

Another example of such change is mohyla/mogyła/могила vs gomila.

 

[Karton Realista]

I

I don't think that misspelling can be the reason. Words existed in their forms long before they were written down - and I daresay the majority of Slavic speakers were illiterate well into the 18th century.

Another example of such change is mohyla/mogyła/могила vs gomila.

I meant to say misspronouced.
*mogiła, not mogyła I assume it's Polish, after the latter ł has been used

 

[Panceltic]

Mogiła of course, my apologies.

 

[Karton Realista]

(The source I have does not show the words in Belorussian or Ukrainian. I don't know what ś or ŕ are in Cyrillic).

In Russian it is consonant + mjagkij znak сь, рь. I assume it's identical in Belorussian and Ukrainian.

 

[Panceltic]

In Russian it is consonant + mjagkij znak сь, рь. I assume it's identical in Belorussian and Ukrainian.

Yes, it is consonant + ь or "iotated" vowel.

It is the same for Russian, Belorusian and Ukrainian (except that there is no soft "r" phoneme in Belorusian).

 

[Karton Realista]

Yes, it is consonant + ь or "iotated" vowel.

Yep, didn't look at those words very close:

Belorussian: draśon, Ukrainian: dŕasen

Драсён, дрясен

 

[bragpipes]

I wasn't sure when (or if) Belorussian and Ukrainian would (ever) use:
1. сьа ся сья
2. сьо сё сьё
3. рьа ря рья

I think рьа and сьа are never used, but I did not know that seventh in Ukrainian is сьо́мий (Russian would use ё instead of ьо́) and I've seen the reflexive "сья" sometimes.

 

[Panceltic]

I think рьа and сьа are never used

Correct. ря and ся fulfill this need.

сьо сё сьё

In Russian, both сьо and сё are possible (e.g. компаньон and нёс). Ukrainian doesn't use ё, so their only option is ьо [same in Bulgarian]. Belarusian only uses ё, even in loanwords (e.g. Russian район vs Belarusian раён)

рьа ря рья

The same as above, except Belarusian has no need to use this combinations because their "r" is always hard.

I've seen the reflexive "сья" sometimes

Can you provide an example?

 

[bragpipes]

Correct. ря and ся fulfill this need.



In Russian, both сьо and сё are possible (e.g. компаньон and нёс). Ukrainian doesn't use ё, so their only option is ьо [same in Bulgarian]. Belarusian only uses ё, even in loanwords (e.g. Russian район vs Belarusian раён)



The same as above, except Belarusian has no need to use this combinations because their "r" is always hard.



Can you provide an example?

Thank you for the explanation.

I just google-searched "сья" but that finds it if it's a standalone word, and does not show partial matches (inside a word). I found this, which made me suspicious, because wiktionary says Ukrainian uses "ся". I should've looked more closely (it said it in the URL) - it's not standard Ukrainian, but Lemko. I don't know if Lemko makes a distinction between сья and ся in sound, or if it's just an orthographic convention. I know that phonetically, there can be levels of palatalization, but I don't know if any language in the world makes a distinction between soft (сь) and very soft (сьь?).

Russian has examples of this, I wouldn't call it redundancy (let's say the alphabet is less-phonetic than a purely phonetic one), but in a word like "варенья" (gen. sing) doesn't я already make the н > нь in pronunciation?

 

[Karton Realista]

word like "варенья" (gen. sing) doesn't я already make the н > нь in pronunciation?

варенья - Szukaj w Google
Варенье — Википедия

 

[Panceltic]

Ah, right, it may be something dialectal (Lemko). Not standard language, surely.

Well the difference between ся and сья is in the [j] sound. ся is pronounced [s'a] (that is, palatalized s + a), while сья is pronounced [s'ja] (palatalized s + j + a).

The third option [sja] is achieved with the hard sign: съя. Compare сесть [s'est'] = to sit down vs. съесть [sjest'] = to eat up.

 

[Karton Realista]

Well the difference between ся and сья is in the [j] sound. ся is pronounced [s'a] (that is, palatalized s + a), while сья is pronounced [s'ja] (palatalized s + j + a).

With the exception of - ся at the end of the word, when it means something like się /sa/se etc. And is pronounced in many ways
This conversation is off-topic, please move it to pms /another thread

 

[Panceltic]

варенья is thus pronounced [-n'ja]. *вареня would be [-n'a]. I believe East Slavic speakers would immediately hear the difference, others maybe less so.

About different levels of pronunciation, there is the "semisoft sign" Ҍ ҍ used in Kildin Sami language "where it indicates palatalization (sometimes also called "half-palatalization") of a preceding stop, /nʲ/, /tʲ/, or /dʲ/." (wikipedia) [Looks suspiciously similar to Old Slavic yat vowel Ѣ ѣ.]

Sorry for straying off-topic, will shut up now.

 

[Lubella]

I wasn't sure when (or if) Belorussian and Ukrainian would (ever) use:
1. сьа ся сья
2. сьо сё сьё
3. рьа ря рья

I think рьа and сьа are never used, but I did not know that seventh in Ukrainian is сьо́мий (Russian would use ё instead of ьо́) and I've seen the reflexive "сья" sometimes.

in Ukrainian ся, сьо, ря
волосся [- s'a]
варення [- n'a]
сьогодні [-s'o]
рябий [-r'a]

 

[francisgranada]

... 1. Like in words grzbiet (pl) - chrbát (sk). Polish g and h (pronounced as ch, exists in loans) correlate with Slovak (and Czech, Sorbian) h (examples: vrah - wróg, hlava - głowa, etc.) But in this word it's for some reason ch, which is pronounced differently than h.

I think this phenomenon occurs especially in case of clusters h+r/rz+consonant, especially at the beginning of some words (that might be difficult to pronounce "correctly/exactly"). In case of grzbiet/chrbát probably the Slovak version is unetymological, as in Slovak there is a verb hrbiť sa (to bow/cringe/crouch) that seems to be etymologically related to chrbát. Plus, in some Eastern Slovak dialects chrbát is hribet. But see also e.g. the Slovak hrdza and Polish rdza (Czech rez) meaning "rust" - another kind of non-correspondence between g and h.

Róża (pl) - ruža (sk).

The spelling of the Polish róża and the Czech růže seem to me perfectly etymological, even if loanwords (supposing they are "quite old"). In my opinion, this spelling cannot be compared directly with that of the (standard) Slovak without knowing when and from which languages were these words directly borrowed into the respective languages.

 

[Karton Realista]

In my opinion, this spelling cannot be compared directly with that of the (standard) Slovak without knowing when and from which languages were these words directly borrowed into the respective languages.

Well, I suspected something like that, the Slovak version being loaned from language that already had "u" pronounced in that word. The phenomenon is wider, it encompases Southern Slavic languages and non-Slavic languages. It seems pretty complicated, with a lot of factors in a lot of different places.

 

[Lisintin]

The first of all I appreciate for using word "similar etymology" and not only the same etymology because I think the latter is rather connected (according to some data) with the regular sound changes. Still according to some the other data Historical and Comparative Linguistics deals with sounds rather than with characters in defining any regular and irregular sound changes. These changes indicate (according to some Western linguists) that the some of the something similar words may be:
1)loanword; 2) Some words have no direct origin from the same ancestor of the same language ancestor in the same time as the others came from it; 3) Some words had strongly changed their structure under influence of these irregular sound changes in the roots or in affixes. The Eastern Slavic languages are rich of these irregularities. Here are some examples:

1) Loanwords - Russian colloquial or obsolete завсегда (always) and Ukrainian standart завжди (distant cognate which was borrowed from Polish

2) Not direct origin - Russian свет (light) on one side Ukrainian світло and Belarussian святла on the other side

3) a) Irregular changes in roots. Russian быть (to be) and Ukrainian бути (influenced by the future form буду). All words for "he" in three languages - Ru он Bel ён (influenced by genitive яго ) Ukr він (despite there are not small number words with irregular change between Russian and Belarussian "о" to Ukrainian "ві" in the roots (in the preffixes even more) this change is probably considered as irregular by the Ukrainian scientist Kostiantyn Tyshchenko.
b)Irregular changes in affixes. The words for lungs: Ru легкие Bel лёгкія but Ukr. легені. All words in three languages with irregular changes:
the words for possible: Ru возможный Bel магчымы Ukr можливий.

 

[Awwal12]

Rus. ladо́n' (ладонь) "palm (of hand)" - cf. Ukr. dolо́n' (долонь), Bg. dlan (длан), Pol. dłoń etc. (an irregular metathesis, plus akanye invading the spelling)

 

[jasio]

Someone revived this old thread, and I came across your interesting question:

Polish żebro vs Slovene rebro. The root is *rebro.

If the Polish form were rzebro, everything would be perfect (pronounced the same anyway), but why "ż"?

Originally, I thought it was an arbitrary decision of a normalization body quite some time ago - I found this information in a book about the history of the Polish language. However, when I started digging, I found a few additional pieces of information:

1. PWN dictionary explains that it was a non-typical consonant development, bringing a dialectal form "ziobro" as an evidence. Dlaczego żebro, a nie rzebro? - Poradnia językowa PWN. I found the word in a dictionary of a dialect from nowadays' Eastern Poland (https://repozytorium.uwb.edu.pl/jsp...gwarowe_z_Polski_polnocno_wschodniej_cz_2.pdf), but it must have been quite spread as it's commonly used for artistic purposes in literature and cinema.
2. Another form, 'ziebro', is also quoted by dictionaries
3. Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego/ziobro - Wikiźródła, wolna biblioteka (actually, etymological dictionary by Brueckner, 1927) seems to blame the mazovian pronunciation for the consonant change
4. In "Pisownia Polska" from 1869 the "ż" spelling is criticized as non-etymological (Pisownia polska), along with quite many other spelling conventions which we use till this day. Anyway, apparently:
   1. the 'ź' spelling is older than 1869,
   2. around that time there was a debate on this topic.

So, apparently, the exact pronunciation differed in various regions, and by the time the spelling was decided, the 'rz' had already lost the trill anyway - at least in the dialects which were the foundation of the official pronunciation and spelling.

 

[pimlicodude]

In Russian "bear" is медведь. In Ukrainian, it is ведмiдь, although I understand in some Ukrainian dialects it it медвiдь. (The derivation is "honey eater" with a provective medial v, so the Russian is closer to the etymology.)

 

[dihydrogen monoxide]

In Russian "bear" is медведь. In Ukrainian, it is ведмiдь, although I understand in some Ukrainian dialects it it медвiдь. (The derivation is "honey eater" with a provective medial v, so the Russian is closer to the etymology.)

There is a folk etymology for bear in Slovene (medved), someone who knows where the honey is.

 

[Awwal12]

There is a folk etymology for bear in Slovene (medved), someone who knows where the honey is.

Sure, it was re-analyzed in Russian in the same manner.

 

[pimlicodude]

There is a folk etymology for bear in Slovene (medved), someone who knows where the honey is.

yes, there is the same folk etymology in Russian, but it is believed to be an incorrect folk theory. The original (presumed) etymology was from med+ed

 

[dihydrogen monoxide]

And then it is interesting in Montenegran variant where in medvjed, v-dropping occurs and then you have medjed and palatilization occurs and we have međed. V-dropping is most interesting here.

 

[Sobakus]

In case of grzbiet/chrbát probably the Slovak version is unetymological, as in Slovak there is a verb hrbiť sa (to bow/cringe/crouch) that seems to be etymologically related to chrbát. Plus, in some Eastern Slovak dialects chrbát is hribet.

This one is via confusion of the roots gъrb- "hump" (Ru. горб) and xrъb-, xrьb- "spine" (Ru. хребе́т). Czech and Polish took the consonant from "hump", while it appears that Western Slovak associated xrьbьtъ "spine" with gъrbatъ "humped, hump-backed" (Cz. hrbatý, Ru. горба́тый) to arrive at chrbát.

Those Eastern Slovak dialects seem to have gone the Czech and Polish way, only I'm not sure whether the -i- in those is regular or indicates more weirdness. It looks like hríb "mushroom" , but actually must be related to BCS hrȋb and Slovene hríb "hillock"... unless it's originally the same word!