Slovak: (na)ozaj <?= (na)o|zai[ste] pod|u|jat[’]|ie <?= jať

[Concise]

The more Slovak words I face the more requently I have a feeling that there may be some relationship between them. Until now I have not found a good source to check my etymological intuitions, so I listed two of them in the subject.

A)
So is it a correct intuition that the letter “j” is the remains of “iste” after a shortening of “iste” to “i” and the tranformation of “i” to “j”?

B)
Is it correct that the original verb behind the noun “podujatie” was “jať”? To be fair I found “jať” in some dictionary, but its various classification written in green “ink” confused me whether it is an arch Slovak verb, or just a fake one created “falsely” later from a verb like “ujať”,

see https://slovnik.juls.savba.sk/?w=jať&s=exact&c=bb63&cs=&d=kssj4&d=ogs&d=sssj&d=peciar&d=noundb&d=psken#

PS: I know very well that the level of my Slovak kmowledge is not high enough to speculate about this sort of

 

[Panceltic]

Regarding B), yes, jať is indeed a real verb (continuing the Proto-Slavic *ęti) although it does seem to have fallen out of use in modern Slovak. You can see examples of use in blue "ink" on the link you gave. By the way, it is the base verb for vziať as well.

 

[Concise]

By the way, it is the base verb for vziať as well.

You made me happy with this addition, because you referred to a transformation of “j” => “i”, so the direction is just the opposite than in my assumed transformation in item A).

 

[Panceltic]

You made me happy with this addition, because you referred to a transformation of “j” => “i”, so the direction is just the opposite than in my assumed transformation in item A).

It’s not that simple unfortunately The initial j- is a later addition (Slavic languages really don’t like vowel initials).

If you have a look at the link I gave, you will see *vъzęti and *sъnęti which resulted in vziať and sňať.

 

[vianie]

A)
So is it a correct intuition that the letter “j” is the remains of “iste” after a shortening of “iste” to “i” and the tranformation of “i” to “j”?

I've never thought about it that way. In my opinion, naozaj made up from na-o-za-iste would be indeed a very complex compound. Analogous "etymologies" are na-o-za-i and na-o-z-aj.

 

[Concise]

In the meantime I spotted

ozaj, ozajst čast skutočne, vskutku, naozaj: bol by si ozajst dosvedčil, že byl mníchom (ASL 1672); ozaist množj papessti mssenarie w swem domnelem panictwj Bohu služia, a nač by držali kucharky (TP 1691); či ozaj od velkího nášho Proroka je viučen (BR 1785); semsa doswedal, zdaliss ozag matkazahradu prodala (PUKANEC 18. st)

at
Slovenské slovníky

 

[Awwal12]

Slavic languages really don’t like vowel initials

Well, Russian has no major problem with initial vowels, but it wasn't always the case indeed. In particular, Old East Slavic has removed all initial /e/s at some point, turning them mostly into /o/ (hence also Helga >> Ol'ga) - and, of course, many word-initial vowels had become iotated already in proto-Slavic. Still, the eastern area of East Slavic languages (> Russian) subsequently proved to be much more friendly to word-initial vowels than the western one (cf. Slovak ovca, Rus. ovcá and Ukrainian vivc'á, or Slovak ulica, Rus. úlica and Belarusian vúlica).

 

[francisgranada]

... yes, jať is indeed a real verb (continuing the Proto-Slavic *ęti) although it does seem to have fallen out of use in modern Slovak ... By the way, it is the base verb for vziať as well.

I agree, of course.

I only want to add that the difference in spelling of e.g. podujať and vziať is only consequence of the rules of Slovak orthography. In theory, the word vziať could be spelled also "vzjať "... For example in Russian it is взять (= vzjať).

... many word-initial vowels had become iotated already in proto-Slavic ....

In general, in Slovak the initial -e and -a are typically (regularly) iotated, e.g. ja, jahňa, jablko, jarok, ... jeho, jemu, jeseň, jeleň, jeden ... (jarok is a borrowing from the Hungarian árok).

The initial -i instead, seems to be maintained, e.g. ich, im, istý, iný, iskra ... (but see the Czech jich, jim, jistý, jiný, jiskra ...)

Ukrainian vivc'á, ... Belarussian vúlica ...).

I think this is a different phenomenon. Something similar happens in spoken Czech, Eastern Slovak and Rusin (Ruthenian) dialects: E.g. von, vun, vin ... instead of "on", etc ...

In this case the prothetic consonant "v" probably serves to resolve the possible "unwanted" hiatus between words initiating originally in -o and the preceding words ending in a vowel. I don't know if it is a valid explanation, especially for Ukranian and Belarusian ...

 

[Awwal12]

In this case the prothetic consonant "v" probably serves to resolve the possible "unwanted" hiatus between words initiating originally in -o and the preceding words ending in a vowel.

But that seemingly was the main reason behind the early Slavic iotations as well. That's why some words (that usually occured in the absolute beginning or after pauses) managed to avoid it: *a, *azŭ etc.

 

[Panceltic]

I only want to add that the difference in spelling of e.g. podujať and vziať is only consequence of the rules of Slovak orthography. In theory, the word vziať could be spelled also "vzjať "... For example in Russian it is взять (= vzjať).

Maybe, but you also have sňať which, as far as I'm aware, couldn't be spelled "sniať" or "snjať", right? There is an underlying palatalisation there which, for want of any other possibility, is spelled "ia" after "z".

 

[francisgranada]

But that seemingly was the main reason behind the early Slavic iotations as well. That's why some words (that usually occured in the absolute beginning or after pauses) managed to avoid it: *a, *azŭ etc.

Yes, I do agree. But the original question was about the standard Slovak, where the iotacism exists, but the "prothetic v" does not occure (at least as far as I know). That's why I've treated these two phenomena as "different".

Maybe, but you also have sňať which, as far as I'm aware, couldn't be spelled "sniať" or "snjať", right?

Right. The words written "sniať", "snjať", "sňať" should be each pronounced a bit differently... But maintaining the pronunciation of the actual sňať, in theory it could be spelled perhaps also "sňjať"... (of course, such spelling is now practically impossible in Slovak)

 

[Concise]

Although I got not a confirmation or a second opinion about whether “j” means “iste”/“isto” meaning sure(ly) in “ozaj”, your discussion compensated for it.

I just dont understand whether “o” in Olga is not the same sort of initial vowel by Russian standard like the original “e” in Helga?

See

Well, Russian has no major problem with initial vowels, but it wasn't always the case indeed. In particular, Old East Slavic has removed all initial /e/s at some point, turning them mostly into /o/ (hence also Helga >> Ol'ga)

 

[vianie]

In theory, the word vziať could be spelled also "vzjať "... For example in Russian it is взять (= vzjať).

Maybe, but you also have sňať which, as far as I'm aware, couldn't be spelled "sniať" or "snjať", right? There is an underlying palatalisation there which, for want of any other possibility, is spelled "ia" after "z".

I'd say that the Hungarian speakers of Slovakia have curiously maintained the correct "central Slovak" pronunciation of the Slovak diphthongs with a micro glottal stop between the two sounds and without any j-sound therefore.

Else, you may hear a j-sound in the 95 per cent of the cases there.

 

[Awwal12]

I just dont understand whether “o” in Olga is not the same sort of initial vowel by Russian standard like the original “e” in Helga?

Early Slavs interpreted Germanic voiceless [h] as the absence of sound, which means that for them 'Helga' started from /e-/. In the early East Slavic area word-initial /e-/ was usually shifting to /o-/ (which effectively was a way to avoid word-initial /e-/), though the nature of that shift still isn't quite clear (some scholars even doubted its existence, postulating that in all the affected Slavic words *o- is original and *(j)e- is secondary, though in that case examples like Ольга & Ольгъ need some alternative, non-phonetic explanation). The inconsistencies (Rus. ósen', olén', ózero, оl'xá vs. Rus. jel' (fir tree), jest' (is), jož* < jež) may come from some ancient interdialectal interference as well.

* that shift /e/ > /o/ occured later, had different conditions and is likely unrelated (a similar shift affected Polish as well)

 

[francisgranada]

I just dont understand whether “o” in Olga is not the same sort of initial vowel by Russian standard like the original “e” in Helga?

I don't know, but the initial -o seems to be conserved in Slavic, e.g. Russian ozero, oseň, ... , but not the initial -e,-a (e.g. Slovak jazero, jeseň).

In theory, Helga in Russian could be also **Jeľga, but not **Eľga ... For examle we have Jelena (<Helena) and not **Elena nor **Olena (as far as I know... )

 

[Awwal12]

For examle we have Jelena (<Helena) and not **Elena nor **Olena (as far as I know... )

Actually we (in the East Slavic area, that is) have both Jeléna and Oléna. The first is the standard form that has come through Church Slavonic; the second is an early East Slavic loan (apparently directly from Greek) that has been the folk version of the same name (though now it occasionally works as an independent name of its own). In Russian and Belarusian, Oléna has naturally produced Al'óna/Алёна (because of akanye and the mentioned labialization of /e/ before hard consonants that affect both languages in a similar fashion).

 

[francisgranada]

Actually we (in the East Slavic area, that is) have both Jeléna and Oléna. ...

Interesting, I didn't know it. Neverthless, the initial -o seems to be not iotated neither in Russian nor e.g. in Slovak.

 

[Awwal12]

Interesting, I didn't know it. Neverthless, the initial -o seems to be not iotated neither in Russian nor e.g. in Slovak.

Yes, of course. If o- takes some prothetic consonant, it's w > v. Russian seems to be partly affected too (восемь vósem' "eight", вот vot "here"); it seems Old East Slavic close /*o/ (but not open /*ɔ/) was mostly affected.

 

[francisgranada]

Yes, of course. If o- takes some prothetic consonant, it's w > v. Russian seems to be partly affected too (восемь vósem' "eight", вот vot "here"); it seems Old East Slavic close /*o/ (but not open /*ɔ/) was mostly affected.

Yes, indeed... It is interesting. In spoken (colloquial) Czech "eight" is vosm, but this is a general phenomenon, i.e. we have also vod, von, vona, vorel, etc ... instead of od, on, ona, orel, etc ...

(In these cases I cannot recognise if the vowel "o" was originally open or closed. In the Czech pronunciation I don't feel any difference)

****************
As to the Slavic initial u-, it seems that it is typically not preceded by j nor v, but in Polish we have e.g. wuj (=oncle, Slovak ujo), and in some Eastern Slovak dialects jutro (e.g. na jutre = tomorrow). These are the only words that come to my mind at the moment ...

In Russian the initial u- seems to be "intact" (eg. утро) ... Is it true in general?

 

[Awwal12]

In Russian the initial u- seems to be "intact" (eg. утро) ... Is it true in general?

Mostly. There are some exceptions. Some may be Church Slavonic loans (júnyj "young, adolescent"), in some /j-/ theoretically could be present from the start (jug "south"), but there still are some cases like júška "broth" vs. uxá "fish soup". Old interdialectal interference may be at play again, or we just don't understand the precise conditions of the prothesis; either way, most words don't seem affected.