zompist bboard

Where can I find any info on how this mess is supposed to have arisen from the reconstructed Common Slavic paradigms a, b & c? E.g. my Russian pocket dictionary mentions like 9 different paradigms for nouns (this site lists 9, but they can't count and say there are 10 or I don't get something), which is an a little larger number... E.g. the paradigm of нога looks pretty much just like the PSl. paradigm c but others don't seem to fit any. Is it a result of different analogical levellings with some splits? Maybe someone knowledgeable is willing to describe a bit of it? Thanks :P

Ладно, я уже нашёл и скачал эту книгу, надеюсь, что мне удасться ею прочитать до коньца будущего года.

Piotr wrote:Ладно, я уже нашёл и скачал эту книгу, надеюсь, что мне удастся ее прочитать к концу следующего года.

(If you don't mind my corrections)



(Also, by the end of next year? Man, you sure schedule reading a long ways out...)

[EDIT: Well, on second thought, using "будущий" isn't wrong, though "следующий" is far more common]

Mecislau wrote: (If you don't mind my corrections)

Yeah, that was so на погибель російській of me!

(Also, by the end of next year? Man, you sure schedule reading a long ways out...)

t = (script coefficient) * (Slavic subgroup coefficient) * (non/inclusion into P-LC coefficient) * (unified laziness and distraction coefficient) * (exam coefficient) * (number of pages) / ((leafing through the dictionary rate) + (google translator helpfulness coefficient)) * (curiosity coefficient)

What's wrong with "до коньца"?

Io wrote:What's wrong with "до коньца"?

It would actually be до конца. But in Russian, when you want to express the need to do something by a certain time (like a due date), you use к rather than до.

Examples:
Мне надо к четвергу написать статью.
I have to write an article by Thursday.

Дым останется в Москве до четверга.
The smoke will remain in Moscow until Thursday.

I've looked up the rules of preservation of palatalization after a lost mobile vowel (е/ё) and they're a bit twisted: ь after н, л, р before к and only after л before ц.

Piotr wrote:I've looked up the rules of preservation of palatalization after a lost mobile vowel (е/ё) and they're a bit twisted: ь after н, л, р before к and only after л before ц.

I just did some comparison of genitive plural forms of nouns ending in -ня:
спальня - спален
башня - башен
басня - басен
песня - песен

But then there's
кухня - кухонь

I wonder if there's a rule for this, or if кухня is just irregular. Off of the top of my head I can't think of other words ending in -хня.

Silk wrote:I just did some comparison of genitive plural forms of nouns ending in -ня:
спальня - спален
башня - башен
басня - басен
песня - песен

But then there's
кухня - кухонь

I wonder if there's a rule for this, or if кухня is just irregular. Off of the top of my head I can't think of other words ending in -хня.

No, that's to be expected. Until fairly recently in Russian, if you had a choice between a back vowel and a front vowel after a velar, you always choose the back vowel, since historically velar + front vowel always resulted in palatalization of the velar.


If it's the soft sign you're referring to, it's probably just a combination of the recency of the word (Vasmer dates it to 1717) and the fact that due to the /o/, the palatalization of those final two consonants in all other forms has to marked somehow.

Mecislau wrote:

Silk wrote:I just did some comparison of genitive plural forms of nouns ending in -ня:
спальня - спален
башня - башен
басня - басен
песня - песен

But then there's
кухня - кухонь

I wonder if there's a rule for this, or if кухня is just irregular. Off of the top of my head I can't think of other words ending in -хня.

No, that's to be expected. Until fairly recently in Russian, if you had a choice between a back vowel and a front vowel after a velar, you always choose the back vowel, since historically velar + front vowel always resulted in palatalization of the velar.


If it's the soft sign you're referring to, it's probably just a combination of the recency of the word (Vasmer dates it to 1717) and the fact that due to the /o/, the palatalization of those final two consonants in all other forms has to marked somehow.

Yeah, it was the soft sign I was referring to. Do you know if there are other words that have this soft sign at the end because of the reason you mentioned?

Polish has that loss of (historical) palatalization in the genitive plural, too, in a few words, though often only optionally: stajnia > stajen or stajni, suknia > sukien or sukni, studnia > studzien or studni, przyjaciel > przyjaciół; przyjacielów is fairly strongly substandard. Personally, I would rather use the more regular palatalized forms except for przyjaciel. I've been always wondering how old this is, could those words possibly constitute some separate subdeclensions of jo-stems and ja-stems in Common Slavic?