Цитата: GaLL от июля 29, 2009, 18:48Забыл проставить диакритику при правке распознанного текста: правильно «Czech hnědoš, křivoš, dlouhoš, běloš, hrdoš»
Czech hnedoš, krivoš, dlouhoš, beloš, hrdoš
Цитата: F. Kortlandt «On Final Syllables in Slavic», JIES, 1983
The fundamental article on *-os is by Leskien (1907). As he points out, the only piece of evidence which can be adduced for a development of -ъ < *-os is the //nom.sg. ending of the masc. o-stems, which is easily explained as an Innovation on the basis of the i- and w-stems.
<...>
The alleged raising in *-os is disproved by the nom. acc. sg. ending of the neuter i-stems, e.g. slovo, where the ending can hardly be analogical, and by the adverbial forms kamo, tamo, Gr. τῆμος, ἦμος. Berneker's main objection against the hypothesis that *-os yielded -o is nom. kъ- in kъto and kъžьdo, where the acc. form is kogo (1904: 371). It is probable, however, that the substitution of gen. kogo for the original acc. form is comparatively recent, as Berneker argues himself (ibidem: 376). Moreover, Rozwadowski has shown that the oldest form is kožьdo, not kъžьdo, and that the same form is attested in Old Polish koždy and Upper Sorbian kóždy (1914: 15f). As he points out, the ending -o < *-os was preserved not only in ko-, but also in OCS. rodosь, narodosь, to estь, Old Czech večeros, modern Bulgarian tozi. Before the enclitic article the ending *-os has been preserved in the suffix -oš, e.g. Czech hnedoš, krivoš, dlouhoš, beloš, hrdoš (Torbiornsson 1925: 278).
Страница создана за 0.058 сек. Запросов: 20.