Proto-Slavic Inflectional Morphology

Proto-Slavic Inflectional Morphology
Brill’s Studies in Indo-European

Languages & Linguistics
Series Editors
Craig Melchert (University of California at Los Angeles)

Olav Hackstein (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich)
Editorial Board
José-Luis García-Ramón (University of Cologne)

Andrew Garrett (University of California at Berkeley)
Stephanie Jamison (University of California at Los Angeles)
Joshua T. Katz (Princeton University)
Alexander Lubotsky (Leiden University)
Alan J. Nussbaum (Cornell University)
Georges-Jean Pinault (École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris)
Jeremy Rau (Harvard University)
Elisabeth Rieken (Philipps-Universität Marburg)
Stefan Schumacher (Vienna University)
VOLUME 14
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bsiel

Proto-Slavic Inflectional
Morphology
A Comparative Handbook
Βy
Thomas Olander
LEIDEN | BOSTON
Cover illustration: Novgorod birchbark letter no. 200 (c. 1240–1260). Drawing by 6- or 7-year old boy Onfim,
representing a horseman, the beginning of the Cyrillic alphabet and the boy’s name (Онфиме).
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Olander, Thomas, 1974–

Proto-Slavic inflectional morphology : a comparative handbook / by Thomas Olander.
pages cm. — (Brill’s studies in Indo-European languages & linguistics; 14)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-27049-7 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-27050-3 (e-book) 1. Proto-Slavic
language—Morphology. 2. Proto-Slavic language—Inflection. I. Title.
PG46.O73 2015
491.8—dc23
2015002197
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering
Latin, ipa, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities.
For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 1875-6328
isbn 978-90-04-27049-7 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-270503 (e-book)
Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and
Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Contents
Acknowledgements vii
Phonetic Developments from PIE to Slavic viii
Abbreviations, Symbols and Conventions x
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Aim 1
1.2 Scope 3
1.3 Justification and Perspectives 5
1.4 Methodological Considerations 8
1.5 Terminology and Definitions 15
1.6 Structure of the Study 31
2 Phonological Background 39
2.1 Introductory Remarks 39
2.2 Reconstructed Language Stages 39
2.3 Phonological Developments from PIE to Slavic 46
3 Nominal Inflection 68
3.2 Paradigm Types 69
3.3 Nominative(–Accusative) Singular 80
3.4 Accusative Singular 113
3.5 Genitive Singular 123
3.6 Dative Singular 144
3.7 Instrumental Singular 157
3.8 Locative Singular 168
3.9 Vocative Singular 180
3.10 Nominative–Accusative Dual 186
3.11 Genitive–Locative Dual 205
3.12 Dative–Instrumental Dual 213
3.13 Nominative(–Accusative) Plural 221
3.14 Accusative Plural 240
3.15 Genitive Plural 255
3.16 Dative Plural 267
3.17 Instrumental Plural 278
3.18 Locative Plural 286
vi contents
4 Verbal Inflection 296
4.2 Paradigm Types 298
4.3 Present First-Person Singular 303
4.4 Preterite First-Person Singular 309
4.5 (Thematic) Imperative First-Person Singular 311
4.6 Present Second-Person Singular 312
4.7 Preterite Second-Person Singular 318
4.8 Imperative Second-Person Singular 320
4.9 Present Third-Person Singular 324
4.10 Preterite Third-Person Singular 330
4.11 Imperative Third-Person Singular 335
4.12 First-Person Dual 338
4.13 Second-Person Dual 342
4.14 Third-Person Dual 346
4.15 First-Person Plural 348
4.16 Second-Person Plural 355
4.17 Present Third-Person Plural 360
4.18 Preterite Third-Person Plural 363
5 Concluding Remarks 366
Bibliography 369
Index 408
Acknowledgements
This study was for the most part written between October 2008 and December
2013 while I was employed at the research project “Roots of Europe—Language,
Culture, and Migrations” at the Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics,
University of Copenhagen. I am much indebted to my “Roots of Europe” col-
leagues, with whom I had many fruitful discussions: Adam Hyllested, Anders
Richardt Jørgensen, Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, Birgit Anette Olsen, Bjarne
Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen, Guus Kroonen, Jenny Helena Larsson, Jens
Elmegård Rasmussen and Oliver B. Simkin.
In May 2013 Jens Elmegård Rasmussen unexpectedly passed away. His influ-
ence will be perceived on most pages of this study.
I would like to express my gratitude to Oliver B. Simkin, who reviewed part
of the manuscript, and to Guus Kroonen, who reviewed the whole thing. Over
the years I have also benefitted greatly from daily discussions about linguistic
and non-linguistic matters with my office mate Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead.
The members of the advisory board of the “Roots of Europe” project—
Andreas Willi, Brent Vine, Douglas Q. Adams, Joshua T. Katz, Michael Janda
and Rosemarie Lühr—were very helpful when I took their function literally
and asked for their advice during the yearly board meetings.
I owe a special thank you to Henning Andersen for his willingness to discuss
whatever I asked him about, including a number of topics that were relevant
to this study.
I am grateful to the Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics for sup-
porting the entire endeavour, both morally and financially. Their financial sup-
port allowed for language revision which was meticulously carried out by Seán
Vrieland.
I am also indebted to the series editors of Brill’s Studies in Indo-European
Languages & Linguistics, Craig Melchert and Olav Hackstein, for accepting the
book in the series, and to Stephanie Paalvast at Brill for her patience. An anon-
ymous reviewer provided several useful comments and suggestions, many of
which have been incorporated in the text.
Finally, I wish to thank several other people who have contributed with
all kinds of useful input: Aigars Kalniņš, Aleksandar Loma, Andreas Øiestad,
Andrej Zaliznjak, Frederik Kortlandt, Holger Juul, Lars Brink, Marek Majer,
Martin Joachim Kümmel, Mate Kapović, Michaël Peyrot, Orsat Ligorio, Paweł
Nowak, Sofie Kluge, Stefan Jacobsson Schulstad, Thomas Hvid Kromann,
Tijmen Pronk, Tobias Mosbæk Søborg, Ursula Olander, Willem Vermeer and
Yoko Yamazaki.
Phonetic Developments from PIE to Slavic
From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Balto-Slavic
1 Loss of laryngeals (general) 47

2 Diphthongisation of syllabic sonorants (general) 48
3 Common Indo-European vowel contractions (general) 49
4 Mobility law (final) 49
5 Devoicing of word-final obstruents (final) 50
6 Winter’s law and deaspiration of voiced aspirated stops (general) 50
7 Delabialisation of *o to *a (general) 51
8 Assibilation of palatal stops (general) 51
9 Loss of word-final stops (final) 52
10 Diphthongisation of *ē̆ to *i̯ā̆ before tautosyllabic *u̯ (general) 52
11 Backing of *e to *a before *u̯ (general) 53
From Proto-Balto-Slavic to Proto-Slavic
12 Ruki change (general) 53

13 Dybo’s law and deglottalisation (general) 54
14 Labialisation of *i̯ to *u̯ after *ō (final?) 55
15 Delabialisation of *ō to *ā (general) 55
16 Loss of *n between a high vowel and word-final *s (final) 55
17 Loss of word-final fricatives, with centralisation of preceding *ā̆ to *ə̄ ̆
(final) 56
18 Loss of word-final dentals after long vowels, with raising of the vowel
(final) 57
19 Loss of word-final *m after short vowels, with rounding and raising of
preceding *a to *u (final) 58
Common Slavic Phonetic Developments
20 Fronting of non-front vowels after palatal consonants (general) 60

21 First palatalisation of velars (general) 62
22 Monophthongisation of oral diphthongs (general) 62
23 Second palatalisation of velars (general) 63
Phonetic Developments From Pie To Slavic ix
24 Raising of *e to *i before *i̯ (general) 64

25 Common Slavic vowel contractions 65
26 Elimination of post-consonantal *i̯ (general) 65
27 Backing of *ē to *ā after palatalised consonants (general) 66
28 Monophthongisation of nasal diphthongs (general) 66
29 Reinterpretation of vowel quantity as quality (general) 66
Abbreviations, Symbols and Conventions
Abbreviations
abl. ablative
acc. accusative
adess. adessive
adj. adjective
adv. adverb(ial)
Anat. Anatolian
aor. aorist
a.p. accent paradigm
Arm. Armenian
athem. athematic
Att. Attic
Bg. Bulgarian
BRu. Belarusian
BS Balto-Slavic
Čak. Čakavian
Cat. Catechism
com. common gender
CS Common Slavic
CS Cl “Classic” Common Slavic (i.e. excluding the Old Novgorod dialect)
CS N North Common Slavic (i.e. West and East Slavic)
CS S South Common Slavic
Cz. Czech
dat. dative
dial. dialect(al)
Dor. Doric Greek
du. dual
Elb. vocab. Elbing vocabulary
encl. enclitic
ESl. East Slavic
fem. feminine
gen. genitive
Gk. Greek
Gmc. Germanic
Go. Gothic
Hi. Hittite
Abbreviations, Symbols And Conventions xi
HLuv. Hieroglyphic Luvian

Hom. Homeric Greek
IIr. Indo-Iranian
ill. illative
inanim. inanimate
inf. infinitive
inscr. inscription(al)
instr. instrumental
interr. interrogative
Ion. Ionic
ipf. imperfect
ipv. imperative
Kash. Kashubian
La. Latin
Li. Lithuanian
loc. locative
LSorb. Lower Sorbian
Lv. Latvian
masc. masculine
MS Middle Script (Hittite)
neut. neuter
nom. nominative
NSl. North Slavic (i.e. West and East Common Slavic)
num. numeral
NWGmc. north-west Germanic
NWŽem. north-west Žemaitian Lithuanian
OAv. Old Avestan
obl. oblique
obs. obsolete
OCr. Old Croatian
OCS Old Church Slavonic
OCz. Old Czech
OEng. Old English
OHG Old High German
OIr. Old Irish
OLa. Old Latin
OLi. Old Lithuanian
OLv. Old Latvian
ONor. Old Norse
ONovg. Old Novgorod dialect
xii abbreviations, symbols and conventions
OPers. Old Persian

OPo. Old Polish
OPr. Old Prussian
opt. optative
ORu. Old Russian
OS Old Script (Hittite)
OSax. Old Saxon
Osc. Oscan
OSrb. Old Serbian
PAnat. Proto-Anatolian
pass. passive
PBalt. Proto-Baltic
PBS Proto-Balto-Slavic
PCelt. Proto-Celtic
pers. personal
pf. perfect
PGk. Proto-Greek
PGmc. Proto-Germanic
PIE Proto-Indo-European
PIIr. Proto-Indo-Iranian
pl. plural
Po. Polish
Polab. Polabian
poss. possessive
prep. preposition
pron. pronoun, pronominal
prs. present
prt. preterite
PS Proto-Slavic
ps. person
ptc. participle
ptcl. particle
refl. reflexive
Ru. Russian
RuCS Russian Church Slavonic
SCr. Serbo-Croatian
Serb. Serbian
sg. singular
Sln. Slovene
Slnc. Slovincian
Abbreviations, Symbols And Conventions xiii
SSl. South Slavic

Štk. Štokavian
subj. subjunctive
them. thematic
TochA Tocharian A
TochB Tocharian B
Umbr. Umbrian
Ved. Vedic Sanskrit (R̥ gveda)
voc. vocative
WGmc. West Germanic
WSl. West Slavic
YAv. Young Avestan
Žem. Žemaitian Lithuanian
Symbols
C consonant
Cn n or more consonants
D voiced stop
h consonantal laryngeal
R sonorant consonant (liquid, nasal or semivowel)
T unvoiced stop
V (short or long) vowel
V̆ short vowel
V̄ long vowel
V̰ acute (glottalised) vowel
*X reconstructed item, including transpositions
**X hypothetical result of a development that is not supposed to have
actually taken place
μ mora
ˈX high tone
ˌX low tone (redundantly written before phonologically unaccented
word-forms)
# word boundary
. syllable boundary
+ attested from this point onwards
> < phonetically regular change
→ ← morphological reshaping or replacement
<X> orthographic representation
xiv abbreviations, symbols and conventions
[X] in quotations from the Old Novgorod dialect: uncertain reading

/X/ phonological transcription
|| phonetically conditioned isogloss
– in tables: category does not exist
? in tables: form is not attested
X, Y in tables: (attested or reconstructed) variants with same function
X / Y in tables: alternative reconstructions
Conventions
– when not preceded and followed by spaces, the slash (/) and the isogloss
mark (||) apply to the immediately preceding and following character only
– cross references of the type “§ 1.2.3” refer to chapter 1, section 2, sub-
section 3
– the references “see above” and “see below” refer to text within a section or
subsection
– bold numbers in square brackets, e.g. [12], refer to the phonetic develop-
ments listed in §§ 2.3.2–2.3.4
– “general” and “final” in §§ 2.3.2–2.3.4 refer to sound changes that take place
in all positions of the word and such that apply only in final syllables,
respectively
– a Proto-Slavic reconstruction is usually accompanied by the corresponding
Common Slavic reconstruction in brackets, e.g. PS ā-stem nom. sg. *naˈgā
(CS *nogà); see § 1.5.5
– for conventions in the notation of attested and reconstructed forms see
§§ 1.5.3–1.5.5
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Aim
This study consists of a reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic inflectional system,

based on the evidence of the oldest attested Slavic dialects, and an analysis of
the relationship between the Proto-Slavic inflectional endings and their corre-
spondences in the other Indo-European languages. As a result of this, the study
provides discussions not only of the reconstructed Proto-Slavic endings, but
also of the corresponding Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-European end-
ings and the relationship between them. On a chronological axis leading from
Proto-Indo-European via Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Slavic to the attested
Slavic languages, the focal point of the study is on Proto-Slavic.
The method applied is historical–comparative: the Proto-Slavic endings are
established through a comparison of the oldest attested stages of the Slavic
languages, and they are compared with the corresponding endings of the
Baltic and other Indo-European languages. This results in a historical account
of the Slavic inflectional system as such and of the individual endings.
This study differs from most similar studies in at least three important ways:
1 The point of departure is Proto-Slavic in the strict sense, not the more
loosely defined linguistic system Common Slavic on which similar stud-
ies are based (see §§ 1.5.5 and 2.2.3);
2 the entire system of inflectional endings in Proto-Slavic is taken into
account, not only a subset of it;
3 the relative chronological order of all relevant sound changes from Proto-
Indo-European to Proto-Slavic is made explicit and referred to through-
out the study (see § 2.3).
As for (1), while we have a good understanding of the phonological appearance

of non-final syllables in Proto-Slavic, there are no comprehensive systematic
treatments of final syllables, where other factors—first of all the fact that this
is where inflection takes place in Indo-European and Slavic—are relevant. The
tables of Andersen (1998a) do provide much information, but only some of the
endings are discussed. The systematic reconstruction and analysis of the Proto-
Slavic inflectional endings in this study sheds new light on several problems
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004270503_002

2 chapter 1
that have not been solved in a satisfactory way by traditional approaches.

Moreover, this approach provides us with a better understanding of the later
dialectal developments of Slavic final syllables and thus gives a more solid
point of departure for the individual histories of the attested Slavic languages.
From the outset, (2) was a central part of the design of the study. In order
to give an adequate account of the phonetic changes that are relevant for the
reconstruction of Proto-Slavic, both the nominal and verbal systems have to
be analysed systematically. Moreover, the systematic inclusion of all Proto-
Slavic endings in the investigation has, perhaps not surprisingly, turned out
to be a fruitful approach in that it has forced me to consider even apparently
unproblematic endings which, then, have turned out to be more interesting
than expected.
It is not only for reasons of clarity that (3) is important. In most existing
publications on Slavic inflection the correspondences between the endings
of the attested Slavic languages (see § 1.5.5) are established together with a
proto-form; but the relevant phonetic changes leading from the proto-form to
the attested Slavic forms are often not stated explicitly. This clearly does not
imply that the relative chronologies underlying the scenarios proposed by the
authors of these works are insufficient or contradictory. However, it makes it
more difficult for the reader to fully understand the interaction between the
various proposed developments, and, consequently, to assess the quality of the
various scenarios.
The intended audience for this study is mainly Indo-Europeanists with
an interest in Slavic and Slavists interested in prehistoric Slavic. For Indo-
Europeanists who are not mainly concerned with Slavic the systematic treat-
ment of the Slavic, Baltic and extra-Balto-Slavic inflectional endings may be
convenient. The study may also be useful to researchers working with dia-
chronic inflectional morphology at a more theoretical level, including linguists
interested in the typology of morphological change. Since it has been my inten-
tion to make the study accessible to students and others with a basic knowl-
edge of the principles of historical linguistics and an interest in the history of
the Slavic languages, I have made an effort to define and explain non-trivial
concepts and to avoid writing in a more technical manner than necessary.
The study is designed to be used as a work of reference. Therefore the main
part of the study, chapters 3 and 4, is organised according to a rather strict
scheme: a presentation of the data from attested languages together with the
Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Slavic reconstructed end-
ings, followed by discussions of the various reconstructions.
introduction 3
1.2 Scope
Since the focus of the study is on the reconstructed Proto-Slavic language and
its prehistory, the post-Proto-Slavic history of Slavic is treated less systemati-
cally; readers primarily interested in the more recent history of the develop-
ment of the Slavic inflectional endings should consult the rich literature on
that subject. Among the works that treat the history of the inflectional systems
of all the Slavic languages are Bräuer 1969a and 1969b, Vaillant 1958 and 1966,
and Vondrák 1908/1928. There are also numerous studies of the inflectional
systems of the individual Slavic languages, as well as an abundant literature
treating special problems within one or more languages. As the main goal of
most of those studies is not to reconstruct Proto-Slavic and its prehistory, they
are not included in the systematic references to literature in chapters 3 and 4.
In keeping with the focus on Slavic in this study, endings and categories that
existed in Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Balto-Slavic are only included if
they are relevant for the discussion of Slavic.
As the centre of our attention is the reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic inflec-
tional endings and their prehistory, inflectional categories that have plausibly
arisen at later stages of Slavic are only taken into account insofar as they pro-
vide indispensable information about the Slavic proto-language. Thus a reader
looking for a discussion of topics like the spread of the u-stem ending PS *‑au̯ u
(CS *‑ovъ) to the o-stems in the genitive plural in a number of Slavic dialects, or
the inflection of the definite forms of the adjective, will return empty-handed.
The same limitation applies to the phonological level, for instance the rise of
new quantitative distinctions in final syllables in Slavic (see § 2.2.3). These
problems, in my opinion, belong to the separate histories of the individual
Slavic languages and are therefore outside the scope of this study.
The Proto-Slavic inflectional accent may be considered the result of the
prosodic properties of the morphemes (cf. Dybo 1981: 261–262 and passim, on
Proto-Balto-Slavic; Zaliznjak 1985: 121–125 and passim, on early Old Russian).
Accordingly, I specify the accentual property of an ending in Proto-Slavic
and Proto-Balto-Slavic reconstructions—that is, its accentedness or unac-
centedness in the mobile accent paradigm—whenever the material allows
it. Contrary to Dybo, Zamjatina and Nikolaev (1990: 107–108, on Proto-Balto-
Slavic), I do not think that the “prosodic properties” have direct phonetic cor-
respondences, such as high or low tones on each morpheme of a word-form;
the properties are the outcome of the linguist’s analysis of the position of the
accent in inflection and derivation. Since I have already analysed the Slavic
and Baltic systems of paradigmatic accentuation and presented my opinion
4 chapter 1
on the prehistory of the individual endings in my book Balto-Slavic accentual

mobility from 2009, to which I continuously refer in chapters 3 and 4, I shall
limit myself to discussing accentual phenomena only when they are relevant
to the reconstruction of the segmental appearance of an ending.
The present study is concerned with inflectional morphology, not with word
formation; a relatively narrow definition of inflection is employed (see § 1.5.1).
Moreover, we are primarily concerned with the history of the individual inflec-
tional endings, i.e. the interaction between the phonetic changes and analo-
gies that gradually alter the appearance of the endings. The structural changes
in the morphological system from Proto-Indo-European to Slavic play a minor
role in this study, as these changes affect derivation more than inflection.
Besides, many of the structural innovations that take place in the evolution
of the Proto-Indo-European inflectional system into that of Proto-Slavic are
the results of losses of categories, e.g. of the resultative aspect (“perfect”), or of
the distinction between an imperfective and a perfective preterite (see § 4.1).
In later, post-Proto-Slavic times structural changes come to play a much larger
role in the development of the inflectional systems, but at that point we have
moved outside the scope of the study.
That said, since the study aims at reconstructing all the inflectional end-
ings of Proto-Slavic, one of the results is a reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic
inflectional system as a synchronic system. This means that someone inter-
ested in the Proto-Slavic inflectional system and its evolution backwards (to
Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-European) and forwards (to the attested
Slavic languages) has a reconstruction of this system at his or her disposal.
Readers with a specific interest in the attested histories of the individual
Slavic languages may be disappointed by the comparatively small amount of
space dedicated to that aspect in the study. In general, only material from the
oldest attested Slavic dialects is taken into consideration. Younger stages of
Slavic are discussed when they supply additional information, directly or indi-
rectly, for the reconstruction of Proto-Slavic. The analyses are primarily based
on Old Church Slavonic (representing South Slavic), Old Russian and the Old
Novgorod dialect (representing East Slavic) and Old Czech (representing West
Slavic). This selection is due to the fact that the oldest Slavic dialects are lin-
guistically so close to Common Slavic and so well attested that there are only
few cases where younger stages of Slavic shed light on the reconstruction of a
given ending, at least when prosodic phenomena are not in the centre of atten-
tion, as in this study. The literature cited in chapters 3 and 4 should lead the
reader on to treatments of later stages of Slavic.
The study is concerned more with form than with function. For instance,
from a formal point of view the Proto-Slavic o-stem genitive singular ending
introduction 5
*‑ā (CS *‑a) matches the Proto-Indo-European ablative singular *‑ah₂ad per-
fectly, and this fact is sufficient for comparing the two forms. The fact that the
Proto-Slavic form has genitive function, whereas the Proto-Indo-European
form is an ablative, is not given much attention in the present study.
On a more practical note, I have considered it unnecessary to compile an
index of words for this study. The study is not about lexemes but about end-
ings, and the endings are presented systematically in the relevant chapters.
1.3 Justification and Perspectives
It may be relevant to ask what justifies a study like the present one. Of course,
those with a specific interest in Proto-Slavic inflectional morphology will not
question its relevance. Similarly, the subject of the study will be relevant to
most Indo-Europeanists, as well as to Slavists and general linguists interested in
historical morphology and phonology. But it is also worth considering whether
the study may be of interest to a broader audience. I think it may.
Like other historical disciplines—archaeology, human genetics, history of
religions etc.—historical linguistics provides us with insights about our past.
Elements of the history of a language may reveal something about the his-
tory of the speakers of that language and of the society in which they lived.
Correspondences between two or more languages reveal something about the
historical relationship between these languages and, accordingly, among the
speakers of the languages.
This is perhaps most obvious when we are dealing with the history of lex-
emes. Knowing, for instance, that most Indo-European languages (though not
Anatolian) share specific genealogically related words for ‘wheel’, ‘axle’ and
similar concepts, we may conclude that the speakers of the ancestor language
had wheeled vehicles (see e.g. Anthony 2007: 59–82; 2013: 3). Similarly, loan-
words may tell us something quite specific about the society of the speakers of
both the recipient and the donor language.
If it is clear that lexical reconstruction, or etymology, contributes to our
extra-linguistic knowledge of the past, then what about historical morphology,
i.e., in our case, the reconstruction of the inflectional endings of Proto-Slavic
and their prehistory? The extra-linguistic relevance of historical morphology
is less obvious than in the case of etymology, but this does not mean that his-
torical morphology is not of interest to non-linguists. The fact that the mor-
phological system of a given language, as opposed to its lexicon, is not directly
linked to real-world phenomena means that it preserves another, supplemen-
tary, kind of information about the past. The methods of lexical reconstruction
6 chapter 1
sometimes do not allow us to distinguish between shared lexicon and loan-

words. By contrast, historical morphology, together with historical phonology,
is generally assumed to be one of the most valuable indicators of linguistic
relatedness (see e.g. Meillet 1925: 22; Ringe, Warnow & Taylor 2002: 65: “mor-
phology and phonology provide better information about linguistic descent
[. . .] than lexical evidence”). When we reconstruct the morphological system of
a proto-language, we establish its relationship with the systems of its descen-
dants, and the internal relationship among the systems of the descendants.
Knowledge of the genealogical relationship among languages obtained
through the comparison of morphological systems leads to a better under-
standing of the relationship among the speakers of these languages. Combined
with lexical evidence and evidence from non-linguistic fields such as archae-
ology and ancient human genetics, reconstruction of morphological systems
contributes to our knowledge of human prehistory.
While this study may, as we have just seen, have some extra-linguistic rai-
son d’être, it is nevertheless clear that its main relevance lies within the strictly
linguistic domain. The reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic inflectional end-
ings on the basis of a comparison of the old Slavic dialects, and the analysis
of the relationship with the corresponding endings of Proto-Balto-Slavic and
Proto-Indo-European contribute to our knowledge not only of the evolution
of specific endings, such as the enigmatic ā-stem genitive singular ‑y found
in most Slavic dialects (§ 3.5.4), but also of the evolution of the Proto-Slavic
inflectional system as a whole. It adds to our understanding of the sound laws
that apply in word-final syllables from Proto-Indo-European to Slavic, and of
the morphological changes that have taken place in the same period of linguis-
tic evolution. Moreover, adding data to the pool of phonological and morpho-
logical developments may contribute to general theories of phonological and
morphological change.
The significance of Balto-Slavic for the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-
European is sometimes questioned, e.g. when Cowgill states that “[a]side from
Albanian [. . .] Balto-Slavic is the latest-attested branch of Indo-European [. . .].
We must never forget that. [. . .] I will therefore be brief with Balto-Slavic”
(1985a/2006: 105; cf. 2006: 549). All other things being equal, it is true that an
early attested language has more to say than a more recently attested related
language about their common ancestor. But all other things are not equal.
Languages develop at different paces, and the Slavic languages, together with
their Baltic relatives, are conservative, both phonologically and morphologi-
cally, compared to other Indo-European branches. Despite important restruc-
turings of the nominal and verbal systems (see Meillet 1923), the old Slavic
dialects to a considerable extent preserve the formal categories of Proto-
introduction 7
Indo-European and their expressions. The dialectal diversity of Slavic also

allows for a more solidly based internal reconstruction of the proto-language
than in the case of other Indo-European languages. And the intense linguis-
tic contacts between Slavic and neighbouring languages contribute signifi-
cantly to our knowledge of the prehistory of Slavic. When these circumstances
are taken into account, it is clear that the significance of Slavic—and Baltic,
which is also remarkably conservative—for the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-
European should not be underestimated just because the attestation of these
branches is late.
A review of Igartua’s valuable contribution Origen y evolución de la flexión
nominal eslava from 2005 finishes with the following words about the main
subject of the book: “And (with a dollop of cynicism) one is sometimes tempted
to think that perhaps, in this hugely well-researched area, there is, in the end,
not that much more to say anyway” (Townsend 2007: 173). Needless to say, if I
had agreed in that assessment, I would not have started writing this study; and
having now finished it, I have not changed my mind. It cannot be denied that
much has already been said about Slavic historical morphology, but there is
certainly still much to say—and I do not think that this contribution will be
the last word on any of the topics I discuss.
Most studies of Slavic historical morphology treat specific problems, like
the origin of the Old Church Slavonic masculine o-stem nominative singular
ending ‑ъ or of the present third-singular marker ‑tъ, corresponding to ‑tь in
Old Russian, etc. There are also studies that treat larger parts of the inflectional
system, like the inflection of nouns, pronouns or verbs. Few studies present a
coherent treatment of the whole inflectional system. I believe that very few
specific problems of Slavic historical morphology can be treated in isolation.
They are almost always better understood as parts of a larger picture, either for
phonological or morphological reasons. This is one of the reasons why I think
the present study has its legitimacy.
Another reason is one already mentioned, namely that the point of depar-
ture for the analyses carried out in this study is not Common Slavic, as in most
similar studies, but Proto-Slavic in the sense of the actual common ancestor of
the Slavic dialects (see §§ 1.5.2 and 1.5.5). In my opinion, the different point of
departure leads to a more correct understanding not only of the Slavic proto-
language from a synchronic point of view, but also of the phonetic and mor-
phological developments that link this language with its pre- and post-stages.
Other studies that implement a similar conception of the phonology of Proto-
Slavic are mainly concerned with root syllables, not so much with the final part
of the word, where inflection takes place (e.g. Holzer 2001; an exception is the
brief survey of Andersen 1998a). This contribution aims at filling this gap.
8 chapter 1
The present reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic inflectional system and its

historical background sums up a significant part of our knowledge about the
relationship between the inflectional systems of the ancient Indo-European
languages, from the point of view of the Slavic branch. This paves the ground
for a thorough investigation of the inflectional system of Proto-Indo-European
itself, where the internal relationship among the various branches, first of all
non-Anatolian Indo-European and Proto-Anatolian, is scrutinised. Such an
investigation should be considered for a future project.
1.4 Methodological Considerations
1.4.1 Sound Laws and Morphological Change

When reconstructing unattested linguistic matter on the basis of external com-
parison and internal reconstruction, we essentially build models of synchronic
language stages and of the phonetic and morphological developments leading
from one stage to another. While all scholars aim at putting forward the best
models of the stages and developments, I think that a good deal of the schol-
arly controversy about the subjects treated in this study may be traced back
to different ideals for the models, i.e. to the question of what makes a good
model. In view of the complexity of many of the problems of Slavic histori-
cal morphology and of the practically unlimited number of possible solutions,
the scenarios proposed by various scholars largely depend on their (usually
implicit) conception of a good model. In this subsection I shall discuss some
points where diverging conceptions of what a good model is may lead to rather
different results.
For a given reconstructed language, phonological and morphological
systems with varying numbers of oppositions are often posited by various
researchers. Broadly speaking, a reconstructed linguistic system with a high
number of phonological and morphological entities provides more possibilites
for accounting for the attested linguistic material, but from a methodological
point of view a simpler model with a lower number of entities is preferable.
To take a fairly straightforward example from the phonological system of
Proto-Indo-European, some scholars assume that the proto-language had only
one laryngeal (e.g. Szemerényi 1970/1990: 147 with references; Bammesberger
1984: 12–13; see Meier-Brügger 2003: 107). This makes a simple model possible,
with little apparent redundancy in the development of the laryngeals in the
daughter languages. On the other hand, it also creates significant problems in
the interpretation of the evidence from Anatolian, Greek and other branches.
Other scholars posit four laryngeals, assuming that two of them, *h₂ and *h₄,
introduction 9
are distinguished only in Anatolian (e.g. Mallory & Adams 2006: 55). This
model easily explains certain correspondences betwen non-Anatolian Indo-
European and Anatolian. However, the model has more entities and is thus
less simple. Today most scholars assume that the proto-language had three
laryngeals, which may be seen as a kind of compromise between simplicity
and explanatory power. A related problem, namely the possible effect of the
accent on the development of segments in the prehistory of Proto-Slavic, is
discussed in § 1.4.2, where it is argued that there probably was no such effect.
In the domain of inflectional morphology some scholars assume that Proto-
Indo-European possessed a paradigmatic allative case, preserved in Anatolian
(see Fortson 2004/2010: 113, 117). Again, this assumption allows for an easy
explanation of the Anatolian material, but at the expense of adding a new cat-
egory to the Proto-Indo-European inflectional system.
Similarly, the Leiden School reconstructs the Proto-Indo-European ā-stems
with an ablauting eh₂-suffix, showing forms like nom. sg. *‑h₂, acc. *‑eh₂‑m, gen.
*‑h₂‑os, gen. pl. *‑h₂‑om (e.g. Beekes 1995/2011: 200), whereas most other schol-
ars reconstruct a non-ablauting suffix *‑eh₂‑ throughout the paradigm. While
the alternations of the ā-stems as reconstructed by the Leiden School follow
the pattern of other hysterokinetic stems and in this sense can be regarded as
regular, the allomorphs provided by this system make it easy to explain many
apparent irregularities in the individual attested languages. For instance, the
unexpected short vowel of La. nom. sg. ‑a (not *‑ā) may directly reflect PIE
*‑h₂, whereas most other languages have introduced reflexes of the full-grade
allomorph *‑eh₂ in the nominative singular. Similarly, CS gen. pl. *‑ъ may
directly reflect PIE *‑h₂om, in contrast to the endings found in most other lan-
guages which point to *‑eh₂om or *‑āom, remade on the basis of the full-grade
variant *‑eh₂‑. As it is methodologically problematic to posit reconstructions
that can hardly be falsified, this type of reconstruction should be supported
by unambiguous evidence in order to be acceptable. In the case of the sup-
posed hysterokinetic paradigm of the ā-stems I do not think this is the case.
For methodological considerations of the same kind see Olander 2009: 212.
On a related note, Andersen (2009a: 7–8) observes that traditional inter-
pretations of morphological changes with reference to analogical relations in
the system are unsatisfactory, first because they are post hoc, second because
they do not pay sufficient attention to the relations between expression and
content. I feel that this point of criticism is also relevant to the present study.
In order to meet the criticism all morphological changes posited in the study
would have to be analysed from a different perspective. This would almost
undoubtedly lead to new insights into the more general lines of morphological
change relevant for the development of Proto-Indo-European into Proto-Slavic
10 chapter 1
and change our views on some of the morphological changes that are posited
in this study. Such an endeavour would also constitute a whole study in itself
and therefore cannot be undertaken here.
An important point where different methodological approaches may lead
to different analyses is the value ascribed to direct vs. indirect evidence. For
example, to some scholars an important argument in favour of the idea that
the regular reflex of PIE *‑os is CS *‑o (and not *‑ъ, as the competing view holds)
is that in i̯o-stems the inherited vocative singular form has been replaced with
the i̯u-stem form *‑ju. This replacement is easier to understand if the inherited
vocative form *‑je and the nominative ending *‑je < *‑jo < PIE *‑i̯os had merged,
leading to an inconvenient homophony between these forms (Vermeer 1991/
2009: 10). While I do understand the reasoning, I find it too indirect to be com-
pelling, and such arguments do not play any significant role in this study.
Although the main subject of this study is Slavic, I have tried to present and
briefly account for the most important problems pertaining to the inflectional
endings of the non-Slavic Indo-European languages. By doing so relatively sys-
tematically throughout the study, not leaving too many problems of the non-
Slavic languages aside, I hope to have avoided at least some potential cases of
Teeter’s law (“the language of the family you know best always turns out to be
the most archaic”, Watkins 1976/1994: 310).
A special subfield of historical phonology covers the Auslautgesetze, or laws
of final syllables. It is well known that a given sound or sequence of sounds
may have different developments in final syllables than in non-final syllables.
Although laws of final syllables do not constitute the centre of interest of this
study, it is evident that they play a significant role here as inflection takes place
at the end of the word in the languages dealt with in this study. I think it is
fair to say that laws of final syllables are, in most cases, more controversial
than general sound laws. As Pedersen commented more than a century ago,
it is “nicht verlockend, das gebiet der auslautsgesetze zu betreten, wo man
immer viel geschrei und wenig wolle findet” (1905a: 320–321; he did so anyway,
though).
There are at least three reasons why laws of final syllables are more difficult
to deal with than general sound laws (see also Holzer 1980: 7–9): (1) being by
definition restricted to a certain environment, laws of final syllables are rela-
tively specific already from the outset; (2) also because of the restricted envi-
ronment, the set of relevant instances is often small, in many cases limited to
a few ones; (3) since the majority of the instances of laws of final syllables con-
cern inflectional endings in the languages treated here, there is almost always
a potential alternative explanation in terms of analogy.
introduction 11
Despite these difficulties most historical linguists, including the author of

this study, acknowledge that word-final position is a relevant condition for
sound change in the prehistoric development of Slavic and many other lan-
guages. It may, however, be useful to mention some approaches that have a
somewhat different methodological basis.
An interesting approach is taken by Orr (2000: 52), who proposes “[a] frame-
work for handling the evolution of CSl [Common Slavic] declensional forms
with no appeal to ALG [Auslautgesetze]”. Similarly, Lüdtke (1966: 141) states,
regarding laws of final syllables in Slavic: “alle diese Probleme lassen sich
auch ohne Rückgriff auf qualitative Auslautgesetze lösen” (cf. the criticism of
Lüdtke’s view in Mańczak 1969). Acknowledging that the acceptance of laws of
final syllables for the prehistory of Slavic has certain advantages, Orr maintains
that alternative explanations are also viable and methodologically preferable
(2000: 15–54). While it is true that this approach allows Orr to avoid the dif-
ficulties with laws of final syllables mentioned above, it creates other and, in
my view, bigger problems in the explanations of individual endings that do
not develop in accordance with the general sound laws of Slavic, e.g. when
CS 1sg. pron. nom. *azъ is assumed to be a loanword from Iranian (Orr 1988:
57–58; 2000: 167–168, following a suggestion by Hamp 1983; see now also Hamp
2011), or when the genitive plural ending CS *‑ъ is traced back to a particle *u
attached to the root (Orr 1988: 55–56; 2000: 163–167).
Mańczak attributes the apparent irregularities of the development in final
syllables to the relative frequency of the forms in question (e.g. Mańczak 1969;
for further references see Orr 2000: 49–50). For instance, the development of
PIE o-stem non-neut. acc. sg. *‑om to CS *‑ъ is regarded as irregular, caused by
the relatively high frequency of the form; the regular outcome of the sequence
is seen in CS o-stem neut. nom.–acc. sg. *‑o. Although it cannot be excluded a
priori that frequency may be responsible for the development of final syllables
in some cases, the problem with this approach as a general framework is that it
is virtually unfalsifiable when applied to reconstructed linguistic systems (see
also Orr 1988: 50–51; 2000: 49–50).
Some scholars systematically refer to sandhi conditioning in order to explain
apparent irregularities in the prehistoric development of Slavic. For instance,
in a number of contributions Schmalstieg has provided rather extensive his-
torical interpretations of the inflectional endings of Slavic in terms of sandhi
(e.g. Schmalstieg 1965; for further references see Orr 2000: 50–52). As with fre-
quency, sandhi may be the historically correct factor in individual cases, but
as a general framework it should be based on more evidence than apparent
irregularities in the development of final syllables, which is what we have in
12 chapter 1
the case of Slavic; it is problematic that explanations with reference to sandhi

are to a large extent unfalsifiable (see also van Wijk 1925: 283; Galton 1956; Orr
1988: 51–52; 2000: 50–52).
To sum up, in many cases the historical linguist has to decide between, on
the one hand, assuming a law of final syllables based on few or in the extreme
cases only one instance and, on the other, positing a morphological replace-
ment with a motivation that is sometimes hard to discern. I do not think it is
possible to establish an objective and generally acceptable border between the
two explanatory strategies, but the historical linguist should aim at a reason-
able balance between simplicity and explanatory power when positing models
of prehistoric reconstructions and developments.
1.4.2 Accent and Tone

I have not found a single instance of a segmental change in the development
from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Slavic that is conditioned by accentual or
tonal factors. The reason for this is not that I do not believe in principle that
accent or tone may exert influence on segmental phonology. On the contrary,
there are plenty of unquestionable examples from the histories of other lan-
guages of such influence. From a methodological point of view, though, it is
clear that if tone or accent is used to explain segmental problems, the num-
ber of potential solutions is multiplied, making such explanations difficult to
falsify in practice. Accentual and tonal factors should therefore be invoked in
analyses of segmental change only if there is abundant and unequivocal evi-
dence that these factors did in fact play a role. In the prehistory of Proto-Slavic
this does not appear to be the case.
A case where reconstructed prosodic features have been used as a condi-
tioning factor of segmental developments is Hirt’s (1893) attempt at a solution
to the problem of the double reflex of PIE *‑om (and other sequences contain-
ing PIE *‑o‑ in a final syllable) in Slavic, where we find CS *‑o in the neuter
nominative–accusative singular, but *‑ъ in the masculine accusative singular.
According to Hirt, CS *‑o is the regular reflex of accented PIE *‑óm, whereas *‑ъ
reflects unaccented PIE *‑om. This idea has been accepted by other scholars,
e.g. Meillet (1897: 102–103; but cf. 1916: 284) and Illič-Svityč (1979: 114–116), but
I do not think that the actual evidence in favour of it outweighs the meth-
odological problems it creates (see Berneker 1904: 370–373 and Vermeer 1991/
2009: 276 for criticism of Hirt’s solution; cf. also Pedersen 1905a: 321).
Another case where, in my opinion, prosody has been misused, is the popu-
lar explanation of the development of PIE *‑oi̯ (and *‑ai̯), which seems to yield
*‑ě and *‑i in different endings in Slavic, e.g. OCS loc. sg. vlьcě, but nom. pl. vlьci.
The reflex *‑ě is explained as the result of a diphthong with circumflex tone
(cf. Gk. loc. adv. Ἰσθμοῖ), while *‑i is thought to reflect an acute diphthong
introduction 13
(cf. Gk. nom. pl. ἀγροί) (see e.g. Bräuer 1961: 104). While it cannot be entirely
excluded that this is the historically correct explanation, for the reasons just
mentioned it should only be accepted if there are no viable alternative expla-
nations that do not refer to alleged tonal characteristics of the elements in
question (for such alternatives see Olander 2009: 90 with references and an
explanation I no longer maintain; for my current view see Olander 2012: 332
and [17]).
1.4.3 The Comparative Method and Internal Reconstruction

A few words should be said about the two methods of linguistic reconstruction
applied in this study. The basic method of reconstruction is the comparative
method, which consists of a comparison of functionally similar morphemes in
related languages or dialects. The comparison leads to the establishment of the
proto-forms belonging to a common pre-stage of these linguistic systems, and
of the phonetic processes, or sound laws, leading from the common pre-stage
to the languages or dialects under consideration.
For instance, by comparing the verbal roots of Ru. prs. 1sg. nesú, Bg.
(do)nesắ and Po. niosę, all with the meaning ‘I carry’, we may reconstruct a
common preform *nes‑, which develops into nes‑ in Russian and Bulgarian,
and into nios‑ in Polish. Unlike the methods of many other disciplines of the
humanities, the comparative method has remained essentially unchanged
through the twentieth century, after having been refined during the nineteenth
century (for a history of the comparative method see e.g. Fox 1995: 17–33). In
general, the well-known parallelism in terminology and methodology between
comparative linguistics and the natural sciences is intriguing (see Koerner
1993), although, as pointed out by Andersen (2006), the fundamental differ-
ence between historical linguistics and a field like evolutionary biology should
not be ignored.
An important supplement to the comparative method is the method of
internal reconstruction. This method is based on a comparison of allomorphs
in only one (attested or reconstructed) linguistic system. As an example of
internal reconstruction we may take the final sound of the root morpheme of
OCS prs. 1sg. pekǫ, 2sg. pečeši, 3sg. pečetъ. From this limited sample it appears
that the final consonant of the root is k before a back vowel and č before a front
vowel. Since a development of *k to *č before a front vowel is typologically more
likely than a development of *č to *k before a back vowel, we may hypothesise
that at a pre-stage of Old Church Slavonic, *k became *č before front vowels, a
hypothesis which in this case is confirmed by external comparison.
The two methods are often combined. For the ending of the ā-stem dative
singular, for instance, by using the comparative method it is possible to estab-
lish that OCS ‑ě corresponds to Li. ‑ai, Gk. ‑ῇ, La. ‑ae and Go. ‑ai, which all point
14 chapter 1
to a proto-form *‑āi̯. Applying our knowledge that ā-stems show a suffix *‑ah₂‑
in Proto-Indo-European and that the dative singular marker is *‑ei̯ in other par-
adigms, we may, by using internal reconstruction, reconstruct an older stage
of that ending as *‑ah₂ai̯ (with colouring of *e to *a near *h₂). Whereas the
comparative method allows us to establish both regular and irregular forms in
reconstructed systems, internal reconstruction is suited to finding underlying
regularities.
There are cases where it is difficult to find the balance between the two
methods used in linguistic reconstruction. The following two examples dem-
onstrate how more emphasis put on either of the two methods may lead to
different reconstructions.
In the i-stem dative singular the Indo-Iranian material, e.g. Ved. ‑aye, points
to a Proto-Indo-European ending *‑ei̯ei̯ (see § 3.6.2). This form matches the
expectations we have on the basis of internal reconstruction, as it consists of
the i-stem suffix *‑ei̯‑ followed by the dative singular marker *‑ei̯. However, both
Italic and Balto-Slavic point to a shorter ending *‑ei̯. Thus internal reconstruc-
tion, supported by Indo-Iranian evidence, clearly points to *‑ei̯ei̯, yet it may be
argued that the actual proto-form is more likely to be *‑ei̯. The reason is that a
form *‑ei̯ei̯ may easily have replaced original *‑ei̯ in a pre-stage of Indo-Iranian
because it would fit better into the system. On the other hand, it is difficult to
imagine that *‑ei̯ei̯ was replaced with *‑ei̯ not only once, but twice, in branches
that do not otherwise have much in common, viz. Italic and Balto-Slavic.
In this case the result arrived at by internal reconstruction is less likely to be
correct precisely because of its internal transparency. This way of reasoning,
recognised already by Rasmus Rask in 1818 (see Morpurgo Davies 1998: 128),
is referred to as the principle of the forma difficilior. While there is disagree-
ment about the proto-form, most scholars would agree that the ending *‑ei̯ei̯
did exist at least at some pre-stage of the proto-language; the problem is a
chronological one. Here I should like to emphasise that the prehistory of the
Indo-European proto-language as such lies outside the scope of this study; the
only purpose of applying internal reconstruction to the proto-language is to
throw light on the inflectional endings of Proto-Indo-European itself, i.e. the
last common pre-stage of the Indo-European languages.
Another interesting example of incongruity between the results obtained
through the comparative method and through internal reconstruction is the
Proto-Indo-European thematic present second-person singular (see § 4.6). The
traditional reconstruction of the ending, PIE *‑esi, directly leads to the Indo-
Iranian, Italic and Germanic endings and is supported by internal reconstruc-
tion. The Balto-Slavic forms, however, are difficult to derive from this ending;
introduction 15
the Greek and Celtic evidence is ambiguous. This has led some scholars to
posit a Proto-Indo-European ending *‑ei̯ or *‑ehi, not supported by internal
reconstruction but directly yielding the Balto-Slavic endings. In this scenario
Indo-Iranian, Italic and Germanic would have normalised the ending on the
analogy of the athematic ending PIE *‑si.
Dilemmas like these are commonly encountered in the reconstruction of
inflectional endings and it is often difficult to find the right balance between
likely innovations and systematic reconstructions. The application of the prin-
ciple of the forma difficilior may sometimes be difficult to distinguish from the
fallacy of obscurum per obscurius.
The method that is most relevant for establishing Proto-Slavic is the com-
parative method. The Slavic proto-language is reconstructed primarily by
applying the comparative method to the attested Slavic languages and by tak-
ing into consideration loanword relations with neighbouring languages and
dialects. Evidence from related languages, first of all Baltic, may also contrib-
ute to clarifying the reconstruction of a Proto-Slavic form. For the reconstruc-
tion of pre-stages of Proto-Slavic, internal reconstruction only plays a minor
role because of the abundant comparative material available from Baltic and
the other Indo-European languages.
1.5 Terminology and Definitions
1.5.1 Morphological Terminology

The definitions given in this subsection primarily serve practical, descriptive
purposes. A more general introduction to morphological terminology is found
in e.g. Carstairs-McCarthy 2000 with references.
There are two subdisciplines of morphology: word formation and inflec-
tion. Word formation is concerned with the formative principles of lexemes,
whereas inflection deals with the different forms, with different grammati-
cal functions, that a single lexeme may display. In practice, there are cases
where it is difficult to draw a line between the two disciplines; in those cases
I prefer a narrow conception of inflection. Therefore I consider the suffix of
oblique forms of consonant stems, e.g. PS *‑ter‑ (CS *‑ter‑) in acc. sg. *ˈmāterin
(CS *ma̋ terь), as part of the stem, not of the ending (but cf. Bräuer 1969b, who
treats the oblique forms of Slavic n-, s-, r- and nt-stems as individual inflec-
tional types).
There are two basic categories of inflected words in the relevant languages:
(1) nominals, including nouns, adjectives, determiners, pronouns
16 chapter 1
and numerals; and (2) verbs. Nominal inflection is traditionally referred to

as declension, while verbal inflection is referred to as conjugation.
The stem is a part of a word-form that also appears in other inflectional
forms of the same lexeme. Some lexemes have only one stem, others have
two or more. The ending is the part of a word-form that follows the stem
(cf., somewhat differently, Olander 2009: 8). In some cases it is possible, and
even useful, to dissect the ending into an inflectional suffix, often with
a couple of allomorphs, and a case–number marker (in nominals) or
person–number marker (in verbs; short for “person–number–tense–
mood marker”).
A paradigm refers to the set of forms that a given lexeme may have (the
restriction mentioned in Olander 2009: 8 is practical when discussing the pros-
ody of verbs, but it is not relevant here). We may, for instance, speak of “the
paradigm of PS *naˈgā (CS *nogà)”. A paradigm may also refer to a specific set
of endings characterising a group of lexemes, e.g. “the ā-stem paradigm”. When
the inflections of two or more groups of lexemes differ systematically in a few
forms only, we speak of subparadigms. The subparadigms may be depen-
dent on grammatical features, as the Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Slavic
neuter subparadigm of the o-stem paradigm; or they may be purely formal, as
the Proto-Slavic ā-stem subparadigm with a nominative singular in *‑ī, i.e. the
type *baˈgūni̯ī (CS *bogy̋ n’i). The complex of paradigms formed from the same
lexeme may be referred to as a macroparadigm; in Proto-Slavic this is only
relevant in the verbal system (see below).
In the following I shall illustrate the practical implementation of these rather
abstract definitions in the analysis of the Proto-Slavic inflectional system.
A Proto-Slavic nominal word-form like ā-stem instr. pl. *naˈgāmī (CS
*noga̋ mi) consists of a stem *nag‑ and an instrumental plural ending *‑āmī.
The ending may be divided in an inflectional suffix *‑ā‑ and a case–number
marker *‑mī. A verbal form like PS *u̯ edeˈti (CS *vedètь) consists of a present
stem *u̯ ed‑, which contrasts with the aorist stem *u̯ ēs‑, and an ending *‑eti. The
ending contains an inflectional suffix *‑e‑ and a person–number marker *‑ti.
Proto-Slavic had five nominal paradigms, viz. consonant stems and i‑, u‑,
ā‑ and o-stems. Strictly speaking, from a Slavic point of view all nominal stems
are consonantal as the stem always ends in a consonant, e.g. PS o-stem acc. sg.
*ˌu̯ ilk‑u (CS *vь̑ lk‑ъ), ā-stem *ˌnag‑ān (*nȍg‑ǫ), i-stem *ˌgast‑i (*gȍst‑ь), u-stem
*ˌsūn‑u (*sy̑ n‑ъ), C-stem *ˌdukter‑i (*dъ̏t’er‑ь) (see Lunt 1955/2001: 53–54). The
traditional terms, including “ā-stems” for the more correct “ah₂-stems”, are
retained for practical reasons. In nouns and adjectives the endings are attached
to an invariable stem. The only exception is the nominative(–accusative) sin-
gular of consonant stems, which has a distinct, shorter form than the remain-
introduction 17
ing forms of the paradigm, e.g. nom. sg. *dukˈtī (*dъt’ì), with an oblique stem
*dukter‑ (*dъt’er‑).
The picture is quite different when we apply the same terminology to the
nominal system of the Indo-European proto-language. A word-form like PIE
�̥
nom. pl. *u̯ ĺkʷ‑o‑es �̥
consists of a stem *u̯ ĺkʷo‑, formed with a stem-forming suf-
fix *‑o‑ and an ending *‑es, which is also the case–number marker. Very early
in the prehistory of Slavic, however, the stem-forming suffixes and the endings
began a phonetically conditioned merging process in the o- and ā‑ stems and,
less pervasively, in the i- and u-stems. In the consonant stems, by contrast, the
consonant prevented a similar process, and one allomorph of the stem-form-
ing suffix was generalised in all forms.
The personal pronouns are characterised by stem suppletion between the
nominative and oblique forms of each number, and among the singular, dual
and plural forms. Alternatively, it is possible to regard the singular, dual and
plural forms as distinct lexemes, in which case there is a suppletive relation
only between the nominative and the oblique (see also § 3.2.7). In any case,
the singular, dual and plural forms have singular, dual and plural inflection,
respectively. The reflexive pronoun inflectionally groups with the singular of
the personal pronoun.
In the verbal system the situation is somewhat more complicated. Two sets
of endings are distinguished in the present, the preterite and the imperative
systems; these sets of endings are referred to as the thematic and athematic
endings. Most thematic endings are segmentable into an inflectional suffix
plus a person–number marker, e.g. PS prs. 3sg. *‑e‑ti; in these cases the person–
number marker is identical with the corresponding athematic ending, and the
two endings are treated together.
Verbal lexemes may combine a thematic present with either a thematic or
an athematic aorist, whereas an athematic present is always combined with
an athematic aorist, thus resulting in three verbal macroparadigms. I have
used third-plural forms to illustrate the macroparadigms, since this category
expresses the distinction between thematic and athematic endings both in the
present and in the aorist:
1 Thematic present with thematic aorist, e.g. PS prs. 3pl. *maˈganti (CS
*mògǫtь), aor. 3pl. *maˈgan (*mogǫ̀ );
2 thematic present with athematic aorist, e.g. PS prs. 3pl. *u̯ edanˈti (CS
*vedǫ́ tь), aor. 3pl. *u̯ ēsin (*věsę);
3 athematic present with athematic aorist, e.g. PS prs. 3pl. *dāˈde/inti (CS
*dádętь), aor. 3pl. *dāˈxin (*dašę̀).
18 chapter 1
The present and aorist stems are in some cases identical, as in PS *mag‑ (CS
*mog‑), but they may also be distinct, as in prs. *u̯ ed‑ (*ved‑) vs. aor. *u̯ ēs‑ (*věs‑).
The so-called ox-aorist, e.g. OCS 3pl. vedoxъ, is a post-Proto-Slavic innovation.
An interesting problem connected to the concept of a paradigm is the sta-
tus of the vocative form of nouns and adjectives. As recently emphasised by
Andersen (2012, esp. pp. 139–147) on the example of Russian, the vocative form
is not a declensional word-form but a derived form. Thus the vocative should
not, strictly speaking, be included in a treatment of inflectional morphol-
ogy like the present one. On the other hand, since the vocative has tradition-
ally been included in similar surveys and fits well into the general structure
of this study, it is treated on par with the proper inflectional forms. However,
the insight that the vocative form represents a derivation allows us to better
understand certain apparent irregularities related to it.
It is well known that vocative forms in Slavic and other languages have a
special prosodic behaviour. For instance, all forms of Čakavian (Novī) ženȁ are
accented on the second syllable, except the vocative forms sg. žȅno, pl. žȅne,
which have a falling tone on the first syllable. Data from the remaining Slavic
languages confirm that this pattern goes back to Proto-Slavic: PS *geˈnā (CS
*ženà) was accented on the second syllable in all forms except the vocative,
which was unaccented, e.g. voc. sg. *ˌgena (*žȅno) (§ 3.9.3). This puzzling pro-
sodic alternation becomes much easier to understand when it is realised that
the vocative was actually not part of the inflectional paradigm.
1.5.2 Proto-X, Pre-X, Common X

As the terminology regarding successive language stages is not used uniformly
by various scholars, I shall here give my definitions of the most important
terms (cf. e.g. van Coetsem 1956: 6, on “Urgermanisch” vs. “Gemeingermanisch”;
Anttila 1972: 274–275; Penzl 1972: 30–32; Marchand 1973: 648–654; Eichner
1988; Holzer 1996a: 17–18; Anthony 2007: 46; Olander 2009: 8–10; Rasmussen
forthc. b).
Ideally, the X proto-language, or Proto-X, is the last stage of a language X
before the earliest innovation not shared by all of its (known) descendant lan-
guages. Pre-Proto-X is a pre-stage of that proto-language. Common X refers to
already differentiated, but closely related linguistic systems that may still carry
out identical or similar linguistic changes; post-X is usually synonymous with
Common X. Thus Proto-X refers to a particular linguistic system at one specific
moment in the past, whereas Pre-Proto-X and Common X may apply to several
linguistic systems belonging to different chronological layers. This definition
of a proto-language implies that terms such as “early Proto-Slavic”, “late Proto-
Slavic” etc., which are very frequent in historical linguistics, cannot be used in
introduction 19
this study. In the following paragraphs I shall go into more detail with my view
on the concept of a proto-language. For the distinction between “Proto-Slavic”
and “Common Slavic” see § 1.5.5.
According to Antonsen (1994: 58), “a proto-language is by definition a
wholly reconstructed, unrecorded parent stage of a family of languages”
(see also Nielsen 2000: 32; Marchand 1973: 649–650). In my view nothing is
gained by not allowing, by definition, attested linguistic material to represent a
proto-language. A text that corresponds exactly to our expectations of a proto-
language may be regarded as a text in that proto-language.
It is useful to make a distinction between two types of proto-languages.
Some proto-languages, such as Proto-Indo-European, do not have any close
relatives and thus, in most respects, constitute the ending point of a proce-
dure of application of the comparative method; we may refer to such proto-
languages as primary proto-languages (Penzl 1972: 31, who also uses the term
“super-proto-languages”). Here the hypothesis of a genealogical relationship
between Indo-European and the Uralic languages should not be ignored (see
e.g. Pedersen 1933; 1931/1962: 336–338; Collinder 1934/1964: 3–4, 80–82 and pas-
sim; Schindler 1964, who proposes seven Indo-European–Uralic lexical cor-
respondences, albeit “[o]hne auf die umstrittene Frage des ‘Indo-Uralischen’
in extenso einzugehen” [p. 171], Cowgill 1974/2006: 32; Kortlandt 1990/2010a:
6; 2010b/2010a: 37; Comrie 2002: 412; Rasmussen 2005; Klingenschmitt 2005:
114–116; Kloekhorst 2008b; Hyllested 2009: 112–113; Kümmel forthc.: 8–9; cf.
the negative appraisal by Kessler & Lehtonen 2006: 39–40; Ringe & Eska 2013:
266, 276). But even if confirmed the relationship would be too distant, and the
reconstruction of the Indo-Uralic proto-language would be too fragmentary to
be relevant here; in practice, Proto-Indo-European is a primary proto-language.
Other proto-languages, such as Proto-Slavic, have close relatives and are
intermediate proto-languages between their descendant languages—in this
case, the Slavic languages—and the proto-language from which they them-
selves descend—namely Proto-Balto-Slavic, itself an intermediate proto-
language (see e.g. Holzer 1995a: 55; for the terminology cf. W. Hock 2006:
2–3 with n. 2). Another example of an intermediate proto-language is non-
Anatolian Indo-European (see § 1.5.3), which is a stage between between Proto-
Indo-European and Proto-Balto-Slavic, Proto-Indo-Iranian, Proto-Greek etc.
When analysing a group of related languages retrospectively, it is, to some
extent at least, possible to determine which developments have taken place in
the period between the disintegration of the common ancestor of those lan-
guages and each individual language, and to order those changes chronologi-
cally. The first innovation not shared by all descendant languages marks the
dissolution of the linguistic system we are interested in, i.e. the proto-language.
20 chapter 1
The proto-language itself was, by all probability, only one dialect among others
which have disappeared (cf. Holzer 1995a: 56–57).
It is obvious that a proto-language reconstructed by means of the com-
parative method does not provide a complete picture of the actually spoken
proto-language—just as even a comprehensive description of Upper Sorbian
or modern English only represents a fraction of the actual linguistic system
of Upper Sorbian or modern English. On the other hand, there can be no
doubt that historical linguistics does allow us to establish facts about proto-
languages and the world of their speakers (cf., however, the more sceptical
attitudes towards the reality of proto-languages expressed in Clackson 2007: 16
[criticised in Anthony 2013: 5] and Pulgram 1959, 1961). We should furthermore
be aware that in linguistic reconstruction it is often difficult, or impossible, to
determine the relative chronology between various innovations, for instance
between two phonological innovations, or between a phonological and a mor-
phological innovation.
A corollary of the definition of a proto-language given above—the last stage
before the first innovation not shared by all descendants—is that there is no
variation in a proto-language, i.e. that it has no dialects, sociolects, stylistic vari-
ation etc. (see e.g. Schlerath 1981: 180: “Es ist das Wesen jeder Rekonstruktion,
daß in ihr notwendigerweise alle diachronischen oder dialektischen oder sonst
irgendwie bedingten Unterschiede aufgehoben sind”; Eichner 1988: 11–20 with
references and discussion; Fox 1995: 133–136; Holzer 1995a: 56–57, 73, accord-
ing to whom variation in categories that are not reconstructed is irrelevant;
Weiss 2015: 138). In practice, however, the concept of a proto-language becomes
more useful, and closer to real languages, if we loosen that definition and
accept some variation in proto-languages (see e.g. Penzl 1972: 30; Rasmussen
forthc. b). It often makes sense to reconstruct two or more phonologically dis-
tinct variants of a morpheme, instead of choosing one of them as the original
one and the other one as an innovation, thereby projecting the origin of the
variation back to an earlier stage. The variants may, for instance, have been
stylistic variants that existed side by side in the proto-language.
Thus a reconstructed language stage may be considered a proto-language
even if it displays variation, although, strictly speaking, variation at one stage
of a language is the result of linguistic developments at earlier stages of that
language. The usefulness of allowing for variation in the definition of a proto-
language becomes especially relevant when we are dealing with intermedi-
ate proto-languages. It is sometimes the case that variation in what seems to
be a clear instance of an intermediate proto-language goes back to variation
already present in a higher-level proto-language. If a strict definition of a proto-
language is applied, this would mean that the intermediate proto-language in
introduction 21
question never existed, which is hardly a desirable situation for the historical
linguist. To mention a relevant example, certain dialectal differences among
the Slavic languages may go all the way back to Proto-Balto-Slavic (see § 1.5.4);
under a strict definition of a proto-language, with no variation, there would
have been no Proto-Slavic.
Accordingly, some variation—sporadic variation in specific morphemes—
should be permitted in the definition of a proto-language. When we are facing
more systematic variation, it is usually better to speak of a common language
and to place the proto-language further back in the relative chronology, to a
stage when the variation has not yet arisen. For instance, in the i̯ā-stem accu-
sative plural ending we find reflexes of *‑jě in West and East Slavic, but of *‑ję
in South Slavic. These endings should not be regarded as variants in a proto-
language, but we should establish one common proto-form since the variants
are not the result of sporadic developments; in this specific case, I reconstruct
PS *‑i̯ə̄n (see § 3.14.5).
In the following subsections I shall examine how the terminology presented
in this subsection is applied to the specific reconstructed language stages
dealt with in this study, viz. Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Balto-Slavic and
Proto-Slavic.
1.5.3 Proto-Indo-European
In accordance with the definitions given in § 1.5.2, Proto-Indo-European refers
to the last stage before the first innovation that did not affect all known descen-
dant languages. Because of the special position of the Anatolian branch it has
become increasingly clear that the traditional understanding of Proto-Indo-
European, as exposed in e.g. Brugmann’s classical Grundriss (second edition
published between 1897 and 1916), must be modified.
Most Indo-Europeanists currently agree with Sturtevant (e.g. 1962) that
Anatolian was the first branch to split off from the remaining Indo-European
languages (see Ringe 2006a: 5; for a notable recent exception cf. the polemic
statement by Tichy 2006: 16: “A current suggestion that Anatolian was the
first and Tocharian the second language to branch off, as compared with the
Neogrammarian tradition, partly has provoked and partly may be influenced
by Teeter’s Law”). The status of the relationship between Anatolian and the
non-Anatolian Indo-European branches is a matter of much debate, especially
when it comes to the degree of retention and innovation in the two branches
(see below). The Slavic language group belongs to the non-Anatolian branch
of Indo-European, variously referred to as “Core Indo-European” (thus e.g.
Melchert 2014: 257 n. 1 and passim), “IE Proper” (Cowgill 1985a/2006: 108),
“North Indo-European” (Ringe 2006a: 5–6), “non-Anatolian Indo-European”
22 chapter 1
(Kortlandt 2010d/2010a: 47) or “Proto-Indo-European” (contrasting with

higher-level “Proto-Indo-Hittite”, Kortlandt 1990/2010a: 6). In this study “non-
Anatolian Indo-European” is used.
A fundamental question in Indo-European comparative linguistics is
whether the earliest stage of the proto-language is most faithfully preserved
in the relatively simple morphological system of Anatolian or the more com-
plex system reconstructed on the basis of the other Indo-European languages,
primarily Vedic and Greek. According to some scholars, the Anatolian branch
is closer to the original state of affairs; most of the categories that are absent
from Anatolian—a prominent example is the feminine gender—are innova-
tions of non-Anatolian Indo-European. This view is sometimes referred to as
the Herkunfthypothese (see Luraghi 1998: 190–191). Others believe that despite
its early attestation, the Anatolian branch has been very innovative and most
of the inflectional categories not present in Anatolian have simply been lost
there; this is the so-called Schwundhypothese (represented by e.g. Pedersen
1938: 190–191; Eichner 1975: 71–74). Among recent discussions of the problem of
the position of Anatolian within the Indo-European language family are Bros
man 2002; Kloekhorst 2008a: 7–11; Rieken 2009; Melchert forthc.
I subscribe to the view—now rather widespread (Melchert forthc.: 5–8;
Ringe 2006a: 5; but cf. Watkins 1998: 31)—that the truth is somewhere between
the extreme variants of the Herkunfthypothese and the Schwundhypothese:
while Anatolian does preserve a number of archaisms and did not share cer-
tain phonological, morphosyntactic and lexical innovations of the remaining
Indo-European languages, there is reason to believe that certain categories
that were present in Proto-Indo-European were in fact lost in the Anatolian
branch. The difficult exercise is to point out which specific traits in Anatolian
and non-Anatolian Indo-European are archaisms and which ones are innova-
tions; on this point opinions are strongly divergent (see e.g. Rieken 2009).
We have much more solid knowledge about the details of the phonologi-
cal and morphological systems of non-Anatolian Indo-European than about
those pertaining to Proto-Indo-European, i.e. the actual ancestor of both the
Anatolian and the non-Anatolian Indo-European languages. In particular, the
reconstruction of the inflectional system of Proto-Indo-European is uncertain
in a number of respects, mainly with regard to which categories existed in the
proto-language, but also to some extent with regard to the shape of specific
endings. By contrast, the reconstruction of the non-Anatolian Indo-European
inflectional system is comparatively uncontroversial, although opinions still
differ on a number of points. Since this study is focused on the prehistory of
the Slavic branch of Indo-European, which belongs to the non-Anatolian Indo-
introduction 23
European group, the relationship between the Anatolian and non-Anatolian

branches is not of primary importance here.
If the focus of the study had been not on a particular branch like Slavic
but on the Indo-European proto-language itself, it would have been neces-
sary to distinguish strictly between Proto-Indo-European and non-Anatolian
Indo-European. In our case, however, where the details of the relationship
between Anatolian and non-Anatolian Indo-European are not in themselves
the main subject, we may operate with a more loose conception of Proto-Indo-
European (cf. Ringe 2006a: 5–6 for a similar approach in a historical treat-
ment of a Germanic language). Thus some of the reconstructions labelled
“Proto-Indo-European” in chapters 3 and 4 of this study are, strictly speaking,
non-Anatolian Indo-European. In many cases, however, the non-Anatolian
Indo-European and Proto-Indo-European reconstructions are identical.
It is often maintained that Tocharian was the next branch, after Anatolian,
to separate from the remaining languages (e.g. Winter 1998: 354–355; Ringe
2006a: 5 with references; Kortlandt 2010d/2010a; but cf. Ringe 1991, esp. pp.
122–123). Due to several circumstances, including their much later attestation,
the role played by the Tocharian languages for the reconstruction of Proto-
Indo-European and even non-Anatolian Indo-European is much less signifi-
cant than in the case of Anatolian. The question of the status of Tocharian is
therefore not of central relevance for this study.
Another question of only minor importance for this study is that of the loca-
tion in time and space of the “Indo-European homeland”, i.e. the place where
the speakers of the Indo-European proto-language lived. I adhere to what may
now be seen as the communis opinio among experts of Indo-European linguis-
tics, namely the “steppe hypothesis”: the spread of the Indo-European lan-
guages started around 4000 BC from the steppe area to the north of the Black
and Caspian Seas. The archaeological evidence of such a location of the Proto-
Indo-European homeland is presented in Mallory 1989: 262–265 and passim;
Anthony 2007: 83–101 and passim; for criticism see Heggarty 2013 with refer-
ences. The most important competing view, the “Anatolian hypothesis”, places
the Indo-European homeland in Anatolia around 6500 BC (see Renfrew 2003
with references; for criticism see Anthony 2007: 75–81; 2013: 2–6; Mallory 2013).
In the presentation of the various Proto-Slavic endings I systematically
refer to their cognates in the Baltic languages, i.e. Lithuanian, Latvian and Old
Prussian, and in non-Balto-Slavic Indo-European: Indo-Iranian (Vedic, Old
and Young Avestan), Greek, Italic (Latin), Germanic (Gothic) and Anatolian
(Hittite). The non-Balto-Slavic languages, to which I refer as the ancient Indo-
European languages, are the oldest attested stages of some morphologically
24 chapter 1
conservative Indo-European languages. When the branches that are not sys-
tematically represented here, viz. Celtic, Armenian, Albanian and Tocharian,
offer relevant material for the reconstruction of a Proto-Indo-European end-
ing, material from those branches is also presented and discussed.
1.5.4 Proto-Balto-Slavic
The Baltic branch of Indo-European comprises the two East Baltic languages,
Lithuanian and Latvian, and the extinct West Baltic language Old Prussian. For
the question of the reality of a Baltic branch see below in this subsection.
In the discussion of the subgrouping of the Indo-European language branches
the so-called Balto-Slavic question is one of the key issues: can the attested
Baltic and Slavic languages be traced back to a common post-Proto-Indo-
European—or, more precisely, post-non-Anatolian Indo-European—ances-
tor or not? I think the answer is that they can, and should, at least within the
framework of the present study. By tracing back the identical developments in
the two branches to a common ancestor we obtain the simplest model of the
relationship between Baltic and Slavic, without a notable loss of explanatory
power. In order to avoid misunderstandings I shall briefly elaborate on my con-
ception of the relationship between Baltic and Slavic (see also Olander 2009:
9–10; a very useful history of research is presented in W. Hock 2006; see also
Young 1994; Holzer 1995c: 305).
I assume that after the disintegration of non-Anatolian Indo-European
there was a period of development common to the later Baltic and Slavic
branches. The dialects of pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic were similar enough to each
other to carry out identical innovations shared by all dialects, for instance the
introduction of paradigmatic accentual mobility in vowel stems [4] and other
prosodic developments (see Olander 2009: 163 and passim; but cf. Andersen
2009b: 19: the loss of the ictus from a final high mora is “a contact innovation
[. . .] technically [it] is not a shared Slavic and Baltic innovation”). The traces
of pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic dialectal variation that are left in Proto-Balto-Slavic
are, as far as we can see, only sporadic. A number of innovations shared by all
Balto-Slavic languages may easily be regarded as older than the oldest non-
sporadic innovation not shared by all languages.
It seems clear, though, that there are cases of variation that cannot be
avoided in a reconstructed Balto-Slavic proto-language, such as the existence
of different lexemes for the same notion, or the existence of variants with ini-
tial *a or *e in the same lexeme in different areas (Andersen 1996: 206 and
passim). But these cases do not have a systematic character and are not signifi-
cant enough to outweigh the analytical advantages of positing a Balto-Slavic
introduction 25
proto-language in this investigation of the prehistory of the Slavic inflectional

system.
Another question that should be addressed here is that of the former exis-
tence of a Baltic proto-language (see Stang 1966: 1–13; Andersen 1996: 63–64,
187). While it is traditionally assumed that Proto-Balto-Slavic has a Baltic and
a Slavic branch, some scholars (Vjač. Vs. Ivanov & Toporov 1961: 303; Kortlandt
1977/2009: 5; Kim forthc. § 1; see also the references in W. Hock 2006: 3 n. 2)
have proposed to view Proto-Balto-Slavic as consisting of an East Baltic, a West
Baltic and a Slavic (or “South Baltic”; Kortlandt, pers. comm., 2011) branch. This
implies that there was no intermediate Baltic proto-language between Proto-
Balto-Slavic and the attested West and East Baltic languages.
The problem of a Baltic linguistic unity resembles that of a Balto-Slavic lin-
guistic unity. After the dissolution of Proto-Balto-Slavic, the Baltic languages
were close enough to each other to carry out identical innovations, but certain
old isoglosses separating the Baltic dialects from each other are also present
(see Andersen 1996: 187, following Stang 1966: 13). Some of the shared innova-
tions are non-trivial, however, and since the variation is sporadic, I am more
inclined to posit a Proto-Baltic branch as a sister branch of Proto-Slavic than to
derive East Baltic, West Baltic and Slavic directly from one Proto-Balto-Slavic
node. An example of a striking shared innovation of all the Baltic languages is
the generalisation of the third-person singular ending in all third-person forms
(see § 4.17); such innovations are best viewed as having been carried out at a
common pre-stage of the Baltic languages, viz. Proto-Baltic. For practical pur-
poses it would be possible to reconstruct a Baltic proto-language (thus also
Andersen 1996: 187), but since Proto-Baltic, unlike Proto-Balto-Slavic, is only of
minor relevance to the reconstructions and developments assumed here, I do
not systematically provide Proto-Baltic reconstructions.
1.5.5 Proto-Slavic
The Slavic languages are traditionally divided into a South Slavic, an East
Slavic and a West Slavic group. The South Slavic group includes Slovene, Serbo-
Croatian, Bulgarian and Macedonian and is represented here by Old Church
Slavonic. East Slavic comprises Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian and is rep-
resented by Old Russian and the Old Novgorod dialect. West Slavic includes
Czech, Slovak, Upper and Lower Sorbian, Polish, Kashubian and the extinct
Polabian language and is represented by Old Czech. It is sometimes useful to
have a distinction between North Slavic, comprising West and East Slavic, and
South Slavic. Furthermore, in this study a distinction is made between the Old
Novgorod dialect on the one hand and Classic Common Slavic, comprising
26 chapter 1
the remaining Slavic dialects, on the other; for the term “Common Slavic”
see below.
The Old Novgorod dialect is attested in birchbark letters from the Novgorod–
Pskov area, the earliest of which date back to the eleventh century (see, also
for the following remarks, Zaliznjak 1988: 164). The birchbark letters represent
some of the oldest written attestations of Slavic. The Old Novgorod dialect is
particularly important because it differs from the remaining Slavic dialects by
exhibiting phonological archaisms not preserved elsewhere (Zaliznjak 1991;
but cf. Bjørnflaten 1990). Moreover, the texts represent the vernacular of the
time and thus give a welcome counterweight to other early Slavic texts, which
are mostly translations with religious content. Although the first birchbark let-
ters were discovered in Novgorod in the early 1950s, the significance of the evi-
dence from this dialect has only been fully acknowledged in the last decades.
The material has not yet been taken systematically into account in compre-
hensive treatments of Slavic inflectional morphology, although various parts of
the system have been handled in separate studies. This study aims at attaching
due weight to the evidence from the Old Novgorod dialect.
The terminology regarding reconstructed stages of Slavic is heterogeneous
(see Andersen 1985; Mareš 1986; Lunt 1997; Feeney 2003: 42–43). The different
use of the terms makes it difficult to compare various researchers’ conceptions
of the prehistoric development of Slavic. Since Proto-Slavic constitutes the
point of reference in this study, a precise understanding of the use of the term
will be appropriate.
In accordance with the general definitions given in § 1.5.2, Proto-Slavic is
defined in terms of the relative chronology of linguistic changes: it is the last
stage of Slavic before the earliest innovation that is not shared by all Slavic
dialects (similarly e.g. Lindstedt 1991: 112; Holzer 2004: 50: “the last common
ancestral form of all Slavic languages and dialects”); cf. the alternative defini-
tions of Proto-Slavic, e.g. “the earliest specifically Slavic systems” (Lunt 1981:
41), “the initial stage of Slavic” (Andersen 1985: 81) or “the earliest stage of
Slavic that can be reached by means of the retrospective methods we use in
comparative and internal reconstruction” (Andersen 1996: 183; similarly Lunt
1981: 41; Igartua 2005a: 89–93). While Holzer’s Proto-Slavic linguistic system is
approximately the same as the one referred to in the present study, he consid-
ers it impossible to establish the relative chronology between the oldest iso-
gloss separating Slavic from the remaining Indo-European languages and the
oldest isogloss within Slavic, but he adduces external evidence—from histori-
cal sources, dialect geography and loanword relations—for a uniform Slavic
proto-language (Holzer 1995a: 58–73). Like any proto-language by the defini-
tion of § 1.5.2, Proto-Slavic denotes a specific linguistic stage here, not a period
introduction 27
of development (thus also e.g. Holzer 2007: 15; but cf. e.g. Trubeckoj 1922/1988:
218: “La période protoslave, durant laquelle le slave commun n’était qu’un dia-
lecte indo-européen conservant encore avec les dialects voisins des relations
assez intimes” [emphasis as in original]). In contrast to the question of the
existence of a Balto-Slavic or even a Baltic proto-language (see § 1.5.4), hardly
anyone doubts there to have been a Slavic proto-language (see e.g. Stang 1966:
12; Holzer 1995a).
There was some sporadic variation in the Slavic proto-language, e.g. in the
initial vocalism (Andersen 1996: 9–19) and, as we shall see in this study, in the
inflectional endings. Holzer, to whom variation in proto-languages is only rel-
evant in so far as it concerns the reconstructed categories (see § 1.5.2), aims at
reconstructing a uniform Proto-Slavic (1995a: 73). This may be practicable in
some respects, but it is difficult to do consistently when dealing with inflec-
tional morphology.
In order to establish which chronological stage in the development of Slavic
should be labelled Proto-Slavic, the first step is to identify the oldest innova-
tion that was not common to all Slavic dialects, in accordance with the defi-
nition of a proto-language given in § 1.5.2 (see also Holzer 1995b: 247: “Die
Einheitlichkeit des Urslavischen ist mit der ersten Innovation, die nur von
einem Teil des Slavischen durchgeführt wurde, zerfallen”). It is not as easy as
it sounds to pin down this innovation, however (cf. Holzer 1995a: 59: “welche
die älteste Isoglosse [ist], die es zwischen slavischen Sprachen gibt [. . .], wissen
wir nicht”). In the following paragraphs I shall examine the evidence for the
chronology of the changes that took place in the critical phase of the disinte-
gration of the Slavic proto-language.
A candidate for the first non-shared innovation is the second palatalisation
[23], which undoubtedly has partly different scopes and outcomes in the Slavic
dialects. If the second palatalisation is the first post-Proto-Slavic innovation, it
follows that Proto-Slavic is the language stage immediately after the monoph-
thongisation of diphthongs [22], which, in turn, followed the first palatalisa-
tion [21]. However, another candidate comes in as a possible and, I believe,
more appropriate marker of the beginning of the post-Proto-Slavic period: the
fronting of non-front vowels after palatal consonants [20].
The fronting of non-front vowels [20] differs from the other changes relevant
to the discussion of the dissolution of Proto-Slavic by apparently not being a
single event in the history of Slavic, but rather a phonotactic rule that was valid
for an extended period of time, during which other changes took place (Meillet
1900: 8–9; Vermeer 2008b: 519–520 with further references). Vowel fronting
was active when oral diphthongs were monophthongised [22], since the out-
comes of PS *ē and *ai̯ are distinct after *i̯ in Slavic. On the other hand, forms
28 chapter 1
like PS o-stem neut. nom.–acc. sg. *ˌsirdika > *ˌsirdica [23] > *ˌsirdice [20] (CS
*sь̑ rdьce [29]) show that vowel fronting also operated after the second pala-
talisation [23], which must have been posterior to the monophthongisation
of dipthongs. Since at least the end of the process of vowel fronting belongs to
the post-Proto-Slavic period (see also the external evidence adduced in Holzer
1998a: 61), it seems justified, at least from a practical perspective (see below),
to operate with a Proto-Slavic system where the process had not started yet.
As for the place of the first palatalisation [21] in the relative chronology rel-
evant for the identification of the first post-Proto-Slavic innovation, the cru-
cial point is that the distinction between the non-palatalised and palatalised
variants of */k g x/ was not phonemicised until *ā̆i ̯ merged with *ē [22], i.e. a
stage when vowel fronting [20] was already active. Consequently, if we accept
that vowel fronting was a post-Proto-Slavic process, the first palatalisation also
belongs to post-Proto-Slavic (cf. the discussion in Vermeer 2014: 186–187).
While the relative chronology of Slavic sound changes makes it clear that
the monophthongisation of oral diphthongs [22] cannot have preceded
vowel fronting [20] and the first palatalisation [21], the external evidence for
such a chronology is less conclusive. Certain Slavic loanwords in Baltic have
been mentioned as evidence in favour of the view that the monophthongisa-
tion of *i̯- and *u̯ -diphthongs is post-Proto-Slavic, e.g. Lv. krìevs ‘Russian’, cf.
the East Slavic tribe name Kríviči, with original *ei̯ (see Holzer 1998a: 39–41;
1998b: 61–62). I do not find this argument compelling, however, since Lv. ie may
reflect Slavic monophthongised *ẹ̄ as well as older *ei̯; besides, the borrowing
need not be from Proto-Slavic, but may be from a pre-stage of Proto-Slavic.
Similarly, the Russian river name Luga, a borrowing from Finnic (cf. Finnish
Laukaanjoki), does not necessarily show that the borrowing took place before
the monophthongisation of diphthongs (thus Holzer 2006: 135). A foreign
diphthong *au̯ may have been borrowed into Slavic as *ō or *ū (corresponding
to CS *u) long after the monophthongisation ceased to be active because a syl-
lable-final *u̯ was incompatible with Slavic phonotactics (thus also Moszyński
1972: 59, according to whom the monophthongisation of *au̯ , *eu̯ belongs to
pre-Proto-Slavic, whereas that of *ai̯, *ei̯ was a later process; Stang 1969a: 26–30
assumes that all diphthongs ending in a semivowel had been monophthon-
gised in Proto-Slavic).
It should be acknowledged that the Slavic evidence could also fit with a
phonetically more advanced proto-language where the fronting of non-front
vowels [20], the first palatalisation [21] and the monophthongisation of oral
diphthongs [22] had already been carried out, if it is accepted that the front-
ing of non-front vowels applied again in post-Proto-Slavic, after the second
introduction 29
palatalisation [23]. However, as it is simpler and, as far as I can see, it does not
create problems to regard the fronting of non-front vowels as a post-Proto-
Slavic change, I find it reasonable to use the term Proto-Slavic to refer to a
relatively conservative stage in the development of Slavic.
A further argument for identifying a conservative phonological stage as
Proto-Slavic is that positing a phonologically more advanced proto-language
carries a higher risk of being incorrect. For instance, a Proto-Slavic system
that included the monophthongisation of oral diphthongs would be histori-
cally incorrect if new or overlooked evidence turned out to prove that the
monophthongisation was in fact a post-Proto-Slavic change (such a hypoth-
esis has indeed been advanced; see [22]). But if, conversely, evidence that was
neglected here would show that the monophthongisation was actually a pre-
Proto-Slavic development, a more conservative reconstruction that did not
include the monophthongisation would still be an actual pre-stage of all Slavic
languages, even if not strictly Proto-Slavic. Similarly, if the view should turn
out to be correct according to which the (earlier) “third” and (later) “second”
palatalisations were separated by the fronting of non-front vowels and the
monophthongisation of oral diphthongs, a conservative Proto-Slavic phono-
logical system would need no or less adjustment than a more advanced recon-
struction (for references to literature supporting this chronology see [20]).
On a more practical level, regarding the fronting of non-front vowels as a
post-Proto-Slavic process has the advantage that the o- and i̯o-stems and the
ā‑ and i̯ā-stems have not yet split into distinct inflectional paradigms. At this
stage the inflectional system is considerably simpler than after the fronting of
non-front vowels.
Common Slavic refers to the Slavic dialect continuum during the period after
the dissolution of the Slavic proto-language (c. 600 AD) until the loss of the
weak jers (c. 1200 AD) (Trubeckoj 1922/1988: 218; Andersen 1985: 75; Lindstedt
1991: 112; Holzer 1995a: 57). Unlike Proto-Slavic, which is a specific language
stage, Common Slavic subsumes a number of developments that affected all,
or most, Slavic dialects after the dissolution of Proto-Slavic. The evidence of
relative chronology and of loanword relations between Slavic and non-Slavic
languages makes evident that the Common Slavic reconstructions are anach-
ronistic in a number of respects (see Lindstedt 1991; Andersen 1998a: 421–422;
Holzer 1995a: 79; Marchand 1973: 653).
For instance, reconstructed word-forms of the type *stornà, *bȇrgъ, usually
so presented in handbooks of Slavic as the ancestral form of OCS strana, brěgъ,
Ru. storoná, béreg, Po. strona, brzeg etc., do not belong to the Slavic proto-lan-
guage proper. The South Slavic forms are better explained if we assume that
30 chapter 1
*a had not yet become *o at the time of the metathesis of liquids: thus OCS
strana, brěgъ derive from *starˈnā, *ˌbergə through a stage *strāˈnā, *ˌbrēgə with
retention of the original two morae of the root syllable (Lindstedt 1991: 114–115;
Holzer 1995a: 79; 1995b: 250). Among the many loanwords from Slavic into non-
Slavic languages, Holzer (1995a: 79; 1995b: 250) knows of no instance pointing
to *CoRC, i.e. with o-vocalism before the metathesis. Now if South Slavic and
loanword relations point to original *ar, there is no reason to assume Proto-
Slavic ever had *or. This makes it likely that PBS *a was still *a in all positions
in Proto-Slavic, although attested Slavic dialects show o in most positions.
All this being said, as long as one is aware of the theoretical and practical
problems related to the reconstructions referred to as Common Slavic, the
traditional notation is a useful tool in the historical study of the Slavic lan-
guages and their prehistory for at least two reasons: (1) Common Slavic recon-
structions are graphically closer to the attested Slavic languages, making their
identification easier; (2) they constitute the point of reference in almost all
handbooks (see also § 2.2.3). Therefore, most Slavic forms discussed in this
study are presented both in their Proto-Slavic shape (e.g. *starˈnā, *ˌbergə) and
in Common Slavic notation (*stornà, *bȇrgъ).
In the majority of cases it is possible to transpose a Proto-Slavic inflectional
ending into Common Slavic notation (see also Lunt 1985: 191 n. 21). In a few
instances, however, it is not possible to provide a uniform Common Slavic end-
ing due to phonological developments (cf. Krajčovič 1974: 99–101; Le Feuvre
2007: 17). An example is the i̯ā-stem accusative plural ending, mentioned in
§ 1.5.2, where South Slavic has *‑ę while North Slavic points to *‑ě; neither form
can be derived from the other. Likewise, the Old Novgorod dialect has an end-
ing ‑e in the o-stem nominative singular, whereas Classical Common Slavic has
*‑ъ; again, there is no chance of deriving one of the endings from the other (at
least phonetically). Such cases of Common Slavic dialectal differentiation are
presented as CS S *‑ę || CS N *‑ě in the i̯ā-stem accusative plural (see § 3.14.4),
and as CS Cl *‑ъ || ONovg. ‑e (see § 3.3.14) in the masculine o-stem nominative
singular.
On the morphological level there are cases where a Proto-Slavic ending can-
not be inferred by comparing the Slavic languages only, but where evidence
from Balto-Slavic or other Indo-European languages is decisive. For instance,
in the o-stem instrumental singular South Slavic has *‑omь and North Slavic
*‑ъmь. It is often stated that the former ending is the original one and that North
Slavic has introduced the u-stem ending secondarily. It is more likely, however,
that Proto-Slavic had preserved the expected ending *‑ā, reconstructed on the
basis e.g. of Li. ‑u, from PBS *‑ō̰, and that South and North Slavic replaced the
introduction 31
inherited ending with different innovations. Since there are almost no traces
of the original ending, the Common Slavic form is presented as CS S *‑omь, CS N
*‑ъmь (§ 3.7.5).
In accordance with the definitions given in § 1.5.2, speakers of the Common
Slavic dialects were able to carry out similar or identical innovations; since
these innovations were carried out after the first change that set the Slavic
dialects apart, they are post-Proto-Slavic. An example of a Common Slavic
phonetic innovation is the change of *a to *o, part of a radical reshaping of
the vowel system in prehistoric Slavic [29]; another is the loss of jers in weak
position. On the morphological level, all attested Slavic dialects have replaced
the thematic vowel PS *‑a‑, from PIE *‑o‑, with ‑e‑ under the influence of the
i̯e-verbs, in which *‑i̯a‑ became *‑i̯e‑ by the fronting of non-front vowels [20],
a process that, in this study, is assigned to the Common Slavic period (see the
discussion above).
Loanword relations show that the Slavic language spoken at the time of the
Slavic expansions in the early centuries AD was comparatively uniform from
a phonological point of view (see Lunt 1985: 203 with n. 45; Kortlandt 1990/
2010a: 3; Holzer 1995a; 2002: 552–553). The evidence from loanword relations
indicates that the language spoken at the time of the maximum expansion of
Slavic-speaking tribes around 600 AD was very similar to the last stage of Slavic
before the first innovation that was not shared by all dialects, i.e. Proto-Slavic.
The problem of the original location of the speakers of Slavic before the
expansions is not relevant to the present study (for discussions see Mallory
1989: 76–81; Nichols 1993; Holzer 1995a: 59; 2002: 551–553; 2007: 15; Andersen
1998a: 415–417, with maps).
1.6 Structure of the Study
1.6.1 Overview
The present study consists of five chapters:
1 an introduction providing the general framework of the study;

2 a presentation of (1) the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European, Proto-
Balto-Slavic and Proto-Slavic phonological systems that serve as points of
reference in the historical analyses of the inflectional morphology of
Proto-Slavic; and of (2) the relative chronology of phonetic developments
leading from Proto-Indo-European through Proto-Balto-Slavic to Proto-
Slavic and Common Slavic;
32 chapter 1
3 a historical analysis of the nominal endings of Proto-Slavic;

4 a historical analysis of the verbal endings of Proto-Slavic;
5 concluding remarks.
In the main part of the study—chapter 3 on nominal inflection and chapter 4

on verbal inflection—a level-2 heading corresponds to a grammatical category,
e.g. § 3.5 on the genitive singular, or § 4.7 on the preterite second-person sin-
gular. Level-3 headings correspond to the various forms of the grammatical
category, e.g. § 3.5.1 on the consonant-stem genitive singular and § 3.5.2 on the
i-stem genitive singular, or § 4.7.1 on the athematic preterite second-person
singular and § 4.7.2 on the thematic preterite second-person singular. In cases
where a category has different forms in two or more subparadigms, the level-3
heading includes reference to the subparadigm, e.g. § 3.10.6 on the masculine
(as opposed to neuter) o-stem nominative–accusative dual.
In the Slavic nominal system there has been a significant amount of fusion
between the original Proto-Indo-European stem-suffix and case–number
marker, although there are exceptions, e.g. the dative–instrumental dual and
dative plural. I have generally analysed the case–number marker expressing
a given category under the consonant-stem ending. In the verbal system, on
the other hand, the fusion between stem-suffix and person–number marker
is less pervasive. This has made it convenient to treat the athematic and the-
matic endings together, for instance in the present third-person singular. In
all persons of the dual and in the first- and second-person forms of the plural
the endings are so clearly segmentable from the stem that the present, preter-
ite and imperative forms—athematic as well as thematic—have received one
joint treatment.
The above-mentioned measures eliminate some redundancy from the pre-
sentations of individual inflectional endings. However, the fixed structure of
the main part of the study may have the effect that some information given in
the treatment of one ending is sometimes repeated in the analysis of another.
This is a consequence of the design of the study, where clear structure has high
priority. I have tried to remediate the problem by collecting as much informa-
tion as possible in one place and providing cross references when needed.
The same organisational principles applied to the Proto-Slavic nominal and
verbal systems lead to rather different-looking results. In the nominal system
there are often many subparadigms belonging to one paradigm, leading to
many individual analyses, e.g. of a number of different consonant-stem nomi-
native singular endings. In the verbal system, by contrast, person–number
markers are often identical across paradigms (thematic vs. athematic) and
introduction 33
grammatical categories (present vs. preterite vs. imperative), leading to fewer

individual analyses. For instance, the person–number marker of the second-
person plural is the same, PS *‑te (CS *‑te), in all paradigms of all categories.
Thanks to the comparatively conservative nature of the Slavic branch, both
phonologically and morphologically, it makes sense to retain the designations
traditionally used with reference to the Proto-Indo-European inflectional sys-
tem. I thus speak of o-stems and ā-stems, thematic and athematic presents, etc.
As mentioned in § 1.5.5, the Proto-Slavic i̯o- and i̯ā-stems (“soft stems”) did
not yet constitute their own inflectional paradigms distinct from those of the
o- and ā-stems (“hard stems”) (Holzer 2008: 208). The establishment of sepa-
rate hard and soft paradigms was a result of the vowel fronting after palatal
consonants [20], which took place during the Common Slavic period, i.e. after
the dissolution of Proto-Slavic. Accordingly, i̯o‑ and i̯ā-stem endings are not
included separately in the study, but are referred to under the corresponding
o- and ā-stems.
As for the selection criteria for the endings included in the study, I have
aimed at treating any ending that occurs in any Proto-Slavic nominal or verbal
paradigm. Thus the ending of the inanimate interrogative pronoun nomina-
tive–accusative singular, PS *ˌ‑i (CS *‑ь), is included in the survey although it
only occurs in the word PS *ˌki (CS *čь̏ ), attested e.g. in OCS čьto. In cases where
I have not been able to decide which of two or more possible proto-forms is
most likely to be correct, variant reconstructions are given (see § 1.5.2 for the
problem of variation in proto-languages). For instance, in the dative–locative
of the second-person singular personal pronoun it is difficult to determine if
the Proto-Slavic form was *teˈbāi̯ (CS *tebě̀) or *taˈbāi̯ (*tobě̀); consequently
both forms are reconstructed for the proto-language, even though it is possible
that one of them arose later.
1.6.2 Endings
In chapters 3 and 4 of the study each ending is treated according to a fixed
pattern consisting of a table with the linguistic material, followed by a survey
of the literature and a discussion of the ending. The table contains a recon-
structed Proto-Slavic word-form containing the ending under discussion,
together with the corresponding Common Slavic word-form; the Proto-Balto-
Slavic and Proto-Indo-European reconstructions of the ending; and attested
Slavic, Baltic and non-Balto-Slavic Indo-European word-forms containing the
ending. In the Proto-Slavic and Proto-Balto-Slavic reconstructions the accen-
tual properties of the ending are noted: endings that are accented in mobile
paradigms are marked with “ˈ”, e.g. PS ā-stem nom. sg. *‑ˈā, whereas unaccented
34 chapter 1
endings are marked with “ˌ”, e.g. PS ā-stem acc. sg. *ˌ‑ām. Whenever possible, I
have chosen Proto-Slavic example words with a mobile accent paradigm.
As already mentioned, in certain cases two or more endings are sufficiently
transparent morphologically that they may be treated together, e.g. the pres-
ent third-person singular endings athematic PS *‑ti (CS *‑tь) and thematic *‑eti
(*‑etь).
The material presented in the tables is not exhaustive, but is meant to rep-
resent the forms that are most relevant to our purposes. This means that more
conservative forms are given precedence over innovations, although the most
frequently used form of a paradigm is generally also presented, even if an inno-
vation. If there are no formal traces of an ending in a language, either because
the category has been lost or the paradigm no longer exists, I write a dash (“–”),
e.g. in the Lithuanian ū-stem nominative singular (§ 3.3.1). Since the primary
and secondary endings (see § 4.1) have merged in the Baltic languages and the
preterite has been remade, Baltic verbal endings are only given in the present
and imperative systems. The symbol “→” before an ending or a word-form indi-
cates a morphological reshaping or replacement of the original ending, not
taking into account prosodic factors, e.g. the analogical introduction of final
accentuation in Li. athem. prs. 2sg. esì (§ 4.6). Material from languages other
than the ones presented systematically, e.g. Čakavian, Oscan or Old Norse, is
given in cases where they provide additional information of relevance for the
reconstructions.
The linguistic data are taken from standard handbooks, including Diels
1932–1934/1963 for Old Church Slavonic, Gebauer 1896 and 1898 and, occa-
sionally, Trávníček 1935 for Old Czech. Data from the Old Novgorod dialect are
quoted from Zaliznjak 1995/2004; late attestations from this dialect are marked
as such. Old Lithuanian forms are from Mikalojus Daukša’s writings unless oth-
erwise noted. Hittite forms are generally quoted in broad transcription from
Hoffner & Melchert 2008 (see there p. 11). Forms attested in the Old Hittite
period are marked with “OS”, for “Old Script”; unmarked forms are only attested
in later stages of the language.
Each table is followed by an overview of the assessment of the ending in
selected publications, mostly handbooks, dealing with the relevant language
groups. After the overview of the literature I present my analysis of the devel-
opment of the ending from Proto-Indo-European via Proto-Balto-Slavic to
Proto-Slavic and further into the attested Slavic languages. In the analysis of
the ending I refer systematically to the phonetic changes leading from one lan-
guage stage to the next. This yields the following scheme:
introduction 35
Table 1 Overview of material
Reconstructed Proto-Slavic Reconstructed Reconstructed Proto-Indo-

(and Common Slavic) form Proto-Balto-Slavic European ending
ending
Attested Slavic forms: Old Attested Baltic forms: Attested Indo-European

Church Slavonic; Old Russian Lithuanian; Latvian; forms: Vedic; Old and Young
and the Old Novgorod Old Prussian Avestan; Greek; Latin;
dialect; Old Czech Gothic; Hittite
PIE An overview of opinions presented in selected publications dealing with

Proto-Indo-European and non-Balto-Slavic Indo-European languages;
for the selection criteria see § 1.6.3.
PBS As above, for Proto-Balto-Slavic and the Baltic languages.
PS As above, for Proto-Slavic and the Slavic languages.
PIE Discussion of the Proto-Indo-European reconstruction, based on

attested forms in the ancient Indo-European languages, taking internal recon-
struction of the proto-language into account. Discussion of problems pertain-
ing to the non-Balto-Slavic forms.
PBS Discussion of the Proto-Balto-Slavic reconstruction, based on attested

forms in the Baltic and Slavic languages, taking the Proto-Indo-European
shape of the ending into account. Presentation of phonological developments
(numbered according to the relative chronology in § 2.3.2) leading from the
Proto-Indo-European ending to the Proto-Balto-Slavic ending. Discussion of
problems pertaining to the Baltic forms.
PS Discussion of the Proto-Slavic reconstruction and its Common Slavic

counterpart, based on attested forms in the Slavic languages, taking the Proto-
Balto-Slavic shape of the ending into account. Presentation of phonetic devel-
opments (numbered according to the relative chronology in §§ 2.3.3 and 2.3.4)
leading from the Proto-Balto-Slavic ending to the Proto-Slavic and Common
Slavic endings. Discussion of problems pertaining to the Slavic forms.
36 chapter 1
1.6.3 References to Standard Works

The tables presenting the material are followed by references to selected works
treating the ending under discussion. While it is obvious that hardly anybody
would agree on which works should and should not be included in the survey,
I have found certain selection criteria to be useful.
First, the works that are included in the survey give a systematic treatment
of the nominal, the pronominal, or the verbal system, or a combination of the
three. Special studies of specific endings are referred to in the running text. It
should be noted that works which only include a subset of the inflectional sys-
tem, for instance the inflection of nouns, are less useful when it comes to estab-
lishing the relative chronology of sound changes from Proto-Indo-European to
Slavic. In general, noun inflection has received more attention in the literature
than the inflection of other word classes, although there are exceptions, e.g.
Stang’s treatment of the Slavic and Baltic verbal systems (1942) and Kapović’s
dissertation on Baltic and Slavic personal pronouns (2006a).
Second, only works that systematically present arguments in favour of the
reconstructions are referred to. Thus textbooks such as Schmitt-Brandt 1998,
Meier-Brügger 2003, Fortson 2004/2010 and Clackson 2007, which present
reconstructed paradigms but do not give systematic analyses and discussions
of the endings, are not included. Similarly, Boutkan 1995 does not treat pro-
nouns systematically and is thus only referred to when dealing with nouns
and verbs.
My representation of the views found in the literature focuses on the Proto-
Indo-European and Proto-Balto-Slavic reconstructions relevant to the Slavic
development, as well as on the solutions to the Slavic problems. When the
opinion expressed in a cited work is of potential interest to the reader, a brief
report of it is presented. When an author gives purely descriptive statements
and there is no or almost no controversy on the reconstruction and develop-
ment of an ending, only the page numbers referring to the treatment of that
ending are given. This also applies if an author does not express an opinion on
the controversial points. In case an ending is not mentioned by an author, I
write a dash (“–”).
The works systematically referred to throughout this study are the following:
Proto-Indo-European and the non-Balto-Slavic languages
– Brugmann 1909–1911, 1913–1916: Indo-European (except Anatolian and

Tocharian) nouns, pronouns, verbs
– Beekes 1995/2011: Indo-European nouns, pronouns, verbs
introduction 37
– Rasmussen forthc. a: Indo-European nouns, pronouns; forthcoming mono-

graph based on handouts and notes to Rasmussen’s lectures from 1977 to
2013
– Schmidt 1978: Indo-European pronouns
– Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: Vedic nouns, pronouns
– Rix 1976/1992: Greek nouns, pronouns, verbs
– Sihler 1995: Greek and Latin nouns, pronouns, verbs
– Weiss 2009/2011: Latin nouns, pronouns, verbs
– Krahe 1942/1967: Germanic nouns, pronouns, verbs
– Seebold 1984: Germanic pronouns
– Boutkan 1995: Germanic nouns, verbs; focusing on laws of final syllables in
Germanic, the study also provides a systematic treatment of Germanic
inflectional endings
– Kloekhorst 2008a: Hittite nouns, pronouns, verbs; including a brief intro-
ductory section on historical grammar as well as entries for inflectional
endings
Proto-Balto-Slavic and the Baltic languages
– Olander 2009: Balto-Slavic nouns, verbs; focuses on the inflectional accent

– Kortlandt 1979b/2009: Balto-Slavic verbs
– Kapović 2006a: Balto-Slavic pronouns; focuses on accentuation
– Endzelīns 1971: Baltic nouns, pronouns, verbs
– Stang 1942: Baltic verbs
– Stang 1966: Baltic nouns, pronouns, verbs
– Otrębski 1956: Lithuanian nouns, pronouns, verbs
– Endzelīns 1923: Latvian nouns, pronouns, verbs
Proto-Slavic and the Slavic languages
– Vondrák 1908/1928: Slavic nouns, pronouns, verbs; includes the develop-

ment from Common Slavic to the individual Slavic languages
– Hujer 1910: Slavic nouns
– Meillet 1924/1934: Slavic nouns, pronouns, verbs
– Stang 1942: Slavic verbs
– Vaillant 1958: Slavic nouns, pronouns; includes the development from
Common Slavic to the individual Slavic languages
38 chapter 1
– Vaillant 1966: Slavic verbs; includes the development from Common Slavic
to the individual Slavic languages
– Bräuer 1969a, 1969b: Slavic nouns; includes the development from Common
Slavic to the individual Slavic languages
– Arumaa 1985: Slavic nouns, pronouns, verbs
– Igartua 2005a: Slavic nouns
– Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: Old Church Slavonic nouns, pronouns, verbs
In Stang 1942 the Baltic and Slavic verbal systems are treated separately;
accordingly, I have regarded that monograph as two independent works, on
Baltic and Slavic, respectively.
I silently normalise attestations and reconstructions from other publica-
tions (except in direct quotations). The most important changes are: Proto-
Indo-European H₁, H₂, H₃, ə̯₁ ə̯₂ ə̯₃ and ʔ ʕ ʕʷ > h₁ h₂ h₃; H and hₓ > h; y w > i̯ u̯ ; ḱ ǵ
ǵʰ and k̂ ĝ ĝʰ > k̑ g̑ g̑ ʰ; ku > kʷ; bh dh gh g̑ h > bʰ dʰ gʰ g̑ ʰ; Slavic ĭ ŭ > ь ъ; Old Norse
unaccented e o > i u. In quotations from Olander 2009, V̄ ˀ has been changed
to V̰̄ . Obvious spelling mistakes in forms quoted are corrected. Breves above
short vowels are removed. Asterisks are added to reconstructed forms. I do not
(re)syllabify quoted reconstructions, nor is laryngeal colouring applied in
reconstructions that are not mine. I leave out hyphens denoting morpheme
boundaries unless they are important for the discussion. When appropriate,
I have adapted the terminology found in other publications to that used in this
book.
Chapter 2
Phonological Background
2.1 Introductory Remarks
This chapter introduces the phonological background on which the Proto-

Slavic inflectional system is analysed in chapters 3 and 4. First I shall give an
outline of the synchronic phonological systems of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-
Balto-Slavic and Proto-Slavic as defined in §§ 1.5.3, 1.5.4 and 1.5.5, respectively.
Then I shall present a relative chronology of the relevant phonological changes
that took place between Proto-Indo-European and the Common Slavic period.
2.2 Reconstructed Language Stages
2.2.1 The Proto-Indo-European Phonological System

The Proto-Indo-European phonological system serving as the point of depar-
ture in this study is rather mainstream, corresponding, apart from a few
details, to that presented in Mayrhofer 1986 (similar systems are found in text-
books such as Meier-Brügger 2003: 71; Fortson 2004/2010: 53–68; Tichy 2006: 27;
Clackson 2007: 34; cf. the more conservative system of Szemerényi 1996/1999:
69–70; and the alternative system of Beekes 1995/2011: 119; see also Kortlandt
2010d/2010a for a far-reaching reinterpretation of the phonological system of
Proto-Indo-European).
At the time immediately before the first development that was not com-
mon to all later branches of Indo-European, the consonant system comprised
15 stops, *p b bʰ, *t d dʰ, *k ̑ g̑ g̑ ʰ, *k g gʰ and *kʷ gʷ gʷʰ; a series of phonologically
relevant unvoiced aspirated stops has also traditionally been posited (see the
discussions in Mayrhofer 1986: 91–99; Rasmussen 1989a). There were four frica-
tives, *s h₁ h₂ h₃, two liquids, *r l, two nasals, *m n, and two semivowels, *i̯ u̯ . For
the phonological status of the syllabic liquids, nasals and laryngeals see below.
The Proto-Indo-European vowel system comprised five short vowels, *i e a
o u, and five long vowels, *ī ē ā ō ū. If we leave out cases of laryngeal colour-
ing, there were only few instances of *a; likewise, original *ī ā ū were very rare
(Mayrhofer 1986: 168–172; Watkins 1998: 46–47, 50; Meier-Brügger 2003: 75–84;
cf. Beekes 1995/2011: 120, who does not accept the phonemes *ā̆ ī ū at all for
Proto-Indo-European). Since laryngeal colouring seems to have applied already

40 chapter 2
in the proto-language, I consistently apply laryngeal colouring in this study: I

write *ah₂, not *eh₂ etc. (cf., on the other hand, Lubotsky 1990, who assumes a
distinction between *h₃e og *ho in Proto-Indo-European; Strunk 2006: 78–79).
Proto-Indo-European had a free accent, which was probably marked by
high pitch. There were no syllabic tones (Olander 2009: 85–91).
It is possible that the distinction between unvoiced and voiced stops was
neutralised in favour of the latter in word-final position (Szemerényi 1973/1991;
Cowgill 1975/2006: 52–53: neutralisation of final voiced and unvoiced stops in
Indo-European; Watkins 2001/2006: 52; Ringe 2006a: 20, on word-final dentals;
Kümmel 2007: 301–303; cf. also Boutkan 1995: 57–58; Weiss 2015: 139). If this
is correct, it is more precise to write e.g. PIE prs. inj. 3sg. *u̯ édʰed instead of
traditional *u̯ édʰet, and I shall do so in this study. In any case, final stops were
devoiced at an early stage of pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic [5].
There was a positionally determined interdependency between the high
vowels *i u and their non-syllabic counterparts *i̯ u̯ , and between the liquids
and nasals *r l m n and their syllabic counterparts *r̥ l ̥ m̥ n̥ . According to the
general rule formulated by Schindler, sonorants were syllabic between non-
syllabic segments (or between a non-syllabic segment and a word boundary);
the rule was applied to the segments of the word from right to left (Schindler
1977: 56; see also Kümmel 2007: 18; cf. Byrd 2010: 33–37).
The rules for the syllabification of sonorants were probably still synchron-
ically active processes in Proto-Indo-European. There are, however, sets of
correspondences across language branches indicating that in certain cases
the processes may have been overruled by morphological constraints in the
proto-language (Schindler 1977: 56–57; Tichy 2006: 28–29 with references;
Kümmel 2007: 16–20; Byrd 2010: 34–35). A famous example is the nasal present,
where the infixal *-n‑ was apparently not vocalised e.g. in prs. 3pl. *i̯ungénti
(> Ved. yuñjánti, La. iungunt), not *iu̯ n̥génti as predicted by the rules. Similarly,
the non-neuter accusative singular of the i- and u-stems seems to have been
PIE *‑im, *‑um in contradiction to the general rule, showing that there were
also exceptions to the rule in inflectional endings. Such examples suggest that
the syllabification of the sonorants in at least some cases had been established
already in the proto-language, and, accordingly, that there was a phonologi-
cally relevant distinction between non-syllabic and syllabic sonorants.
It is possible, however, that the syllabification rules were exceptionless in
the proto-language and that the corresponding sets of exceptions mentioned
above belong to Common Indo-European, a period with parallel develop-
ments in already differentiated Indo-European branches, or are the results of
parallel innovations; in that case the non-syllabic and syllabic variants may
have been allophones of a single phoneme in Proto-Indo-European. As long
Phonological Background 41
as the issue has not been settled, and also for the sake of clarity, it seems most
reasonable to mark the syllabicity of sonorants in Proto-Indo-European recon-
structions (see also Kümmel 1997: 118; 2007: 16–20; cf. Mayrhofer 1986: 158–160
[liquids and nasals], 160–163 [semivowels]; cf. also the practice of the Leiden
School with no phonologically relevant distinction between syllabic and non-
syllabic sonorants, explicitly stated in e.g. Beekes 1995/2011: 120 and Kortlandt
2010c/2010a: 62, with criticism of the standard system). Accordingly, I follow
the tradition of writing PIE *i u vs. *i̯ u̯ , and *r l m n vs. *r̥ l ̥ m̥ n̥ .
The syllabification of the laryngeals seems to have taken place according
to different rules in the individual daughter languages; for instance, a word-
initial laryngeal followed by a consonant was vocalised in Greek but not in
Indo-Iranian (cf., however, Rasmussen 1994: 434: “the syllabification rules
themselves must have operated in the protolanguage already”).
2.2.2 The Proto-Balto-Slavic Phonological System

The Proto-Balto-Slavic consonant system was simpler than its Proto-Indo-
European predecessor, comprising six stops, *p t k (from PIE *p t k⁽ʷ⁾) and *b d
g (from PIE *b d g⁽ʷ⁾ and *bʰ dʰ g⁽ʷ⁾ʰ [6]), as well as three fricatives, *s ś ź (from
PIE *s k ̑ g̑ ⁽ʰ⁾ [8]); the phoneme */s/ had an allophone *[ʂ] after *i u r k [12].
There were two liquids, *r l, and two nasals, *m n.
The vowel system comprised four short vowels, *i e a u, and five long vowels,
*ī ē ā ō ū. The semivowels *i̯ u̯ were probably allophones of the high vowels
*i u next to syllabic segments.
Syllables containing a long vowel or a diphthong were either acute (from
PIE *Vh and *VRh [1] and via Winter’s law [6]), written *V̰̄ and *V̰ R in this study,
or circumflex, written *V̄ and *VR; short monophthongs were always circum-
flex. Acute syllables were prosodically distinct from circumflex syllables, most
likely by being glottalised (Vaillant 1936: 114–115; Stang 1966: 137; Kortlandt
1978/2011a: 96–97; 1983/2011a: 121; 2004/2009; Jasanoff 2004: 251; Olander 2009:
145–148; Kim forthc. § 4).
In acute monophthongs quantity was not distinctive; they were always long.
There probably was no phonologically relevant distinction between short and
long vowels followed by a tautosyllabic sonorant. As pointed out to me by
Tobias Mosbæk Søborg (pers. comm., 2013), the available Balto-Slavic evidence
seems to suggest that acute syllables containing a vowel plus a tautosyllabic
sonorant are reflected with the quality of a short vowel before the sonorant
(cf. the treatment of the problem in Stang 1975: 46). The only vowel to show us
this is PIE *o, the short and long variants of which were differentiated quali-
tatively in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic by the delabialisation of the short variant to
*a [7]. For instance, Lv. smar̂ds from PBS *ˌsma̰ rdas reflects *ˌsmo̰ rdos from PIE
42 chapter 2
*smordós with lengthening by Winter’s law [6]; and Li. málti, Lv. mal̃t reflect
PBS *ˈma̰ ltēi̯ from *mo̰ ltēi̯ < PIE *molhtēi̯ with an acute syllable caused by the
laryngeal [1]. That we have a-timbre in these cases is not simply because the
delabialisation of *o to *a [7] took place before Winter’s law [6]; this is shown
by the PBS *ō-vocalism of examples like Li. núogas (a.p. 3), Lv. nuôgs from PBS
*ˌnō̰gas < PIE *nogʷós [4|6|7].
Proto-Balto-Slavic had a free accent, the accented syllable probably being
marked by high pitch. Certain lexical word-forms only contained syllables with
low pitch; they had become phonologically unaccented through an accent loss
in certain final syllables [4] (Olander 2009: 144–145).
2.2.3 The Proto-Slavic Phonological System

An important prerequisite for a good understanding of the Proto-Slavic inflec-
tional system is a solid knowledge of the Proto-Slavic phonological system. As
already mentioned, the phonological system used as the point of reference in
this study differs from the systems on which most similar studies are based
(see § 1.5.5 and below). In this study insights from loan relations between non-
Slavic languages and unattested stages of Slavic languages play an important
role. Proto-Slavic phonological systems similar to the one assumed here are
postulated in e.g. Bidwell 1961; 1963; Jakobson 1963/2002, treating only vowels
and prosody; Stieber 1969–1973/1989: 17–91; Lindstedt 1991; Andersen 1996: 182–
187; 1998a: 423–428; Holzer 1998a: 27–28; 1998b: 57–58 with references; 2001;
2002: 553–554; 2003; 2004; 2008. These authors also present arguments against
the traditional system.
While evidence from external relations is very useful when establishing the
relative (and absolute) chronology of Slavic sound changes, the decision as to
which stage should be considered Proto-Slavic must still be made on inter-
nal grounds, by comparing the Slavic dialects. The Slavic language spoken at
the time of the maximal expansion of Slavic around 600 AD is not necessar-
ily Proto-Slavic (cf. Holzer 2002: 551–552); that language may just as well have
been a stage of pre- or post-Proto-Slavic.
Proto-Slavic is the last stage of Slavic before the first development not shared
by all dialects, except sporadic changes (§ 1.5.2). As I have argued in § 1.5.5, I
find it useful to regard the fronting of non-front vowels following palatal conso-
nants as the first non-shared development, in the strict sense, of Slavic. By this
definition, the Proto-Slavic phonological system to a large degree resembles
that of Proto-Balto-Slavic (§ 2.2.2). None of the various processes of palatalisa-
tion (vowel fronting after palatal consonants [20], first [21] and second [23]
palatalisations of velars, elimination of post-consonantal *i̯ [26]) common to
all or most attested Slavic dialects had been phonemicised in Proto-Slavic.
The obstruent system comprised six stops, *p t k b d g, and two fricatives, *s

(from PBS *s ś) and *x (from PBS *s; originally only after *i u r k [12], but with
subsequent analogical spread). As in Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Balto-
Slavic, there were two liquids, *r l, and two nasals, *m n. The velar obstruent
phonemes */k g x/ probably had two markedly distinct allophones each, being
realised as *[č ž š] before front vowels and *i̯, and as *[k g x] elsewhere. This is
the allophonic result of the 0f the first palatalisation of velars [21], which was
phonemicised with the monophthongisation of PS *åāi̯ to *ē [22].
The vowel system comprised five short vowels, *i e a u ə, and five long vow-
els, *ī ē ā ū ə̄ (*ā reflecting the merger of PBS *ā and *ō [15]). The vowels *ə
and *ə̄ (from pre-PS *a and *ā in final syllables closed by a fricative [17]) may
have been realised as [ə əː] or [ɨ ɨː] and were found in final syllables only. In
a few positions the semivowels *i̯ u̯ contrasted with the short vowels *i u; the
semivowels should thus be regarded as independent phonemes (Holzer 2003:
34–35; cf. Andersen 1998a: 423).
The subsequent development of Slavic shows that oral diphthongs were
formed by *åē åā ə followed by the semivowels *i̯ u̯ (no examples of *əu̯ are
found), and by *åē åā ī� ̆ åū followed by the liquids *l r (cf. Stieber 1969–1973/1989:
23–25; Holzer 1998b: 61–63 and, slightly modified, 2001: 39–40 with n. 16; note
that, as mentioned in § 1.5.5, Moszyński 1972 concluded that diphthongs in *u̯
had been monophthongised in Proto-Slavic, whereas those in *i̯ had not; and
according to Stang 1969a: 26–30, all diphthongs ending in *i̯ and *u̯ had been
monophthongised in Proto-Slavic). Nasal diphthongs were formed by *ī � ̆ åē åā åū
ə̄ ̆ followed by *n (similarly e.g. Lunt 1997: 20; cf. Jakobson 1963/2002: 666, who
does not reconstruct *ī�n̆ ū̆n for Proto-Slavic).
The accent of Proto-Slavic was free; it was marked by high pitch on the
accented syllable. Word-forms with no high pitch were phonologically unac-
cented (Olander 2009: 128). At a pre-stage of Proto-Slavic there had been an
accent advancement from an accented non-glottalised syllable to a following
syllable (Dybo’s law [13]). Since Proto-Slavic acute syllables may be interpreted
as syllables containing a long vowel or a long diphthong, there was no pho-
nological distinction between glottalised and non-glottalised syllables after
Dybo’s law (Olander 2009: 140–143, 148; cf., however, Holzer 2009: 154).
Proto-Slavic long vowels in final syllables were generally shortened in
Common Slavic. However, in some Slavic dialects certain final syllables con-
tain a long vowel or traces of one, e.g. Čak. (Novī) neut. nom.–acc. pl. nebesá vs.
drvȁ (cf. Stang 1957/1965: 36–40, 48–52; Dybo 2000: 37–43). This quantitative
distinction in original long vowels must have arisen after the Common Slavic
reinterpretation of the vowel system [29], which disconnected vowel quality
44 chapter 2
from vowel quantity. The retention of length probably depended on the num-
ber of syllables in the word, with various subsequent levellings in the Slavic
dialects (see Kapović forthc.; I am grateful to Mate Kapović for sharing his
thoughts on this problem with me). Likewise, the distinction between the long
final vowel of OPo. i̯ā-stem nom. sg. wolå and the short final vowel of ā-stem
woda is of post-Proto-Slavic date (see Fecht 2010 and Andersen 2014: 79–99
for two recent treatments of this problem). An analysis of the origin of these
quantitative distinctions is outside the scope of this study.
As mentioned in § 1.5.5, the Proto-Slavic phonological system of this study
differs significantly from the traditional system. The present system is based
on the chronology suggested by internal evidence from Slavic and by external
relations between Slavic and non-Slavic languages. The external evidence for
the Proto-Slavic phonological system assumed here comes from the languages
that Slavic was in contact with at the end of the Slavic expansions, culminat-
ing around 600 AD: Finnic, Baltic, Germanic, Romance, Greek, Albanian and
Hungarian. The relative chronology is complicated and there is substantial dis-
agreement on the evaluation of the material.
It should be noted that some scholars have been sceptical about the evi-
dence provided by external relations. Trubeckoj (1922/1988: 219–221) maintains
that Proto-Slavic did not have *a but rather *o in a word like *bobъ, despite the
fact that it is rendered papu in Finnish (similarly Vasmer 1907: 157–164, on the
Greek evidence for the early Slavic vowel system). This point of view is diffi-
cult to reconcile with the facts (see Vermeer 2008a: 538–539; Mareš 1969/1999:
26–27).
Language-external relations only rarely provide information on endings
(Holzer 1980: 9). An interesting positive example is the phrase Tagazino ‘his
son’ attested in an Austrian charter from 827, written in Latin. The phrase
approximately represents *[taga sɨːnu] from PS *taga sūnu (CS *togo synъ)
(Holzer 1998b: 64; 2004: 54, 59). This shows that the delabialisation of PS *ū to
*[ɨ̄] was earlier than the development of PS *a to *o. In general, however, it is
clear that what loanwords relations allow us to establish for roots and suffixes
is also likely to be relevant for endings. If, for instance, it can be shown that
the root-vowel of OCS neut. nom.–acc. sg. kolo reflects PS *a (not *o), we may
assume that the vowel of the ending also reflects PS *a.
The notational system referred to as Common Slavic in this study (see
§ 1.5.5) is, in most practical respects, identical to Old Church Slavonic, except
for the palatalisations of dentals [26], the metathesis of liquids and a few other
modifications (Lunt 1985: 190–191; Lindstedt 1991: 113; Holzer 2002: 554). To take
an example from a standard handbook, the chapter on “Proto-Slavonic” in
The Slavonic languages (Schenker 1993/2002) refers to a “Late Proto-Slavonic”
stage, defined as “the period encompassing the beginning of dialect differ-
entiation within Slavonic” (p. 61), i.e. corresponding roughly to the Common
Slavic period of the present study. The “Late Proto-Slavonic” phonological sys-
tem (p. 82) comprises eleven short vowels, *o a e ě ь i u ъ y ę ǫ, and nine long
vowels, *ō ā ē ě̄ ī ū ȳ ę̄ ǭ. The consonant system includes eight stops, *p b t d t´
d´ k g, eight fricatives, *v s z š ž s´ z´ x, three affricates, *c ʒ č, three nasals, *m
n n´, and four liquids, *r l r´ l´. While the author acknowledges that this lan-
guage stage is not ante-dialectal (in the sense of our “Proto-Slavic”), the stage is
used as the point of reference in the following sections on (inflectional) mor-
phology, syntax and lexicon (although, for some reason, without indication of
vowel quantity). Other studies have systems that differ in the details, but the
basic appearance is the same; for examples see the literature mentioned under
“Proto-Slavic and the Slavic languages” in § 1.6.3.
The reason why most treatments of the Slavic inflectional system, its prehis-
tory and its further development have referred to a phonological system close
to that of Old Church Slavonic is obvious: a large part of the linguistic devel-
opments that took place after the break-up of Proto-Slavic, including those
that gave the Slavic dialects their new, Common Slavic look, took place in the
entire Slavic-speaking territory with only few or no dialectal differences. At
first glance, this system does seem to be Proto-Slavic.
The traditional system works fine for a description of the derivational mor-
phology, syntax and lexicon of Slavic, where phonological details often do not
play a decisive role. But when it comes to a precise understanding of the Proto-
Slavic inflectional system, where phonological accuracy matters more than
elsewhere, it is a problem that the traditional system is far from the one recon-
structed on the basis of loanword relations between Slavic and neighbouring
non-Slavic languages. In the traditional framework, analyses of the inflectional
system may become imprecise, for instance by blurring an actual distinction
between two endings. An imprecise description of the synchronic system, in
turn, has direct bearings on the diachronic interpretation of the system, both
backwards (towards Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-European) and for-
wards (towards the attested Slavic languages). A well-founded interpretation
of the diachronic relationship between two (or more) stages of development of
a language presupposes precise descriptions of the synchronic stages involved.
Impreciseness on a limited scale would have little significance, and there are
no reconstructed systems for which absolutely precision can be claimed. But in
the case of Proto-Slavic we know that so many things happened in the few cen-
turies between the break-up of the Slavic proto-language and the first direct
written attestations that analyses may yield quite different results depending
on which system they are based on.
46 chapter 2
2.3 Phonological Developments from PIE to Slavic
2.3.1 Introductory Remarks

In this section I present an overview of the phonological changes that are rele
vant for the development of the inflectional endings analysed in the main part
of the study, plus a few changes that indirectly help us to establish the relative
chronology of these changes. Changes that are not relevant for the inflectional
system are not included.
When the relative chronology between two or more changes cannot be
established, they are presented in the order which seems most likely. The actu-
ally assumed relative chronology among the developments may thus not be
inferred directly from their order of appearance in the overview, but the text
provides information about the relative chronology (the same procedure is
applied in Holzer 2001: 35–36).
While it is often possible to establish the chronology of phonetic changes
relative to each other in the history of a language, morphological changes are
more difficult to order since they are, by their nature, not general, but specific.
Besides, as the evidence from loanwords is only very modestly informative
about inflectional morphology, in practice this source of information is not
available for the reconstruction of the relative chronology of changes in the
Slavic inflectional system. When Baltic evidence is included, though, it is usu-
ally possible to see which morphological changes belong to pre-Proto-Balto-
Slavic and which ones are later, specifically Slavic changes.
Most of the phonetic changes in this section may be seen as one-time events
that have taken place between two other changes. However, phonetic changes
may also result in phonotactic rules that are active for a longer period wherein
several other changes could take place. This is the case with the post-Proto-
Slavic fronting of non-front vowels [20], which was active before oral diph-
thongs were monophthongised [22] but also affected the results of the second
palatalisation [23].
In a few cases uncertainty about the Indo-European proto-forms, combined
with a low number of instances of the relevant phonetic surroundings, has
led me to postulate one or more phonetic changes whose precise formulation
and position in the relative chronology should not be taken too literally. This
applies, for instance, to the pre-Proto-Slavic development of *ē ō to *ī ū before
word-final dentals, which were subsequently lost [18]. This change only affects
pre-PS r-stem nom. sg. *‑ēr > PS *‑ī (CS *‑i) and pre-PS n-stem nom. sg. *‑ōn >
PS *‑ū (CS *‑y). If alternative explanations of these endings are preferred, the
proposed development would have to be reformulated or dismissed. Most of
the developments presented in this section, however, rest on safer ground than
this example.
An interesting general observation that can be made on the prehistoric pho-
netic development of Slavic is that when word-final consonants are lost, they
tend to leave a trace on the preceding vowel. Final stops are apparently lost
without a trace [9] in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic, but at a later stage the loss of
final fricatives leads to centralisation of a preceding vowel [17], the loss of final
dentals leads to raising of a preceding long vowel [18], and the loss of final *‑m
causes rounding and raising of a preceding *a to *u [19].
The overview presented in the following subsections is not the first attempt
at establishing the relative chronology of sound changes from Proto-Indo-
European to Slavic. Most studies are specialised and only treat a subset of the
relevant phonetic changes; a typical example is Olander 2010, treating only the
development of endings containing a word-final nasal. Some studies, however,
present a more or less systematic treatment of the relative chronology of the
major part of the sound laws relevant for the development of the inflectional
system from Proto-Indo-European to Slavic (e.g. Trubeckoj 1922/1988; Jakobson
1929/1971; Milewski 1932; van Wijk 1950; Ebeling 1963; Shevelov 1964, with an
overview of sound changes pp. 633–634; Mareš 1969/1999; Holzer 1980 and,
quite differently, 1998b and 2001; Kortlandt 2011c [originally published in 1989];
Matasović 2005; Carrasquer Vidal 2011).
In the following overview all changes are marked as either “general” (apply-
ing in all positions of the word) or “final” (applying only in final syllables). A
comma between two or more items in curly brackets indicates parallel behav-
iour of the items; for instance “_{C, #}” means “before a consonant or word
boundary”.
2.3.2 From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Balto-Slavic
1 Loss of laryngeals (general)
h>∅/ { } _V
i̯_C₀#
Vh > V̰̄ / _{C, #}
VRh > V̰ R / _{C, #}
As in all the other non-Anatolian languages, consonantal laryngeals are lost. A

preceding tautosyllabic vowel is lengthened and receives a prosodic marking,
thereby contrasting with later long vowels from contractions [3] and, probably,
48 chapter 2
with original long vowels. Sequences of vowel, sonorant and laryngeal are
also marked prosodically, contrasting with sequences of vowel and sonorant
with no following laryngeal; for the resulting vowel quantity in original *VRH
sequences see § 2.2.2. The most likely phonetic candidate for the prosodic
marking is glottalisation (see § 2.2.2 with references).
A special case is the loss of laryngeals after *i̯ in final syllables (cf. the dif-
ferent analysis in Hoffmann 1976a: 615 n. 12, followed by Mayrhofer 1986: 131).
This rule accounts for the short vowel of the second- and third-person singular
optative in Proto-Balto-Slavic, viz. PIE 2sg. *‑oi̯h₁s, 3sg. *‑oi̯h₁d > PBS *‑ˈai̯s, *‑ˈai̯
[1|5|7|9]. The second- and third- person forms yielded PS ipv. *‑ˈəi̯ [12|17] (CS *‑i
[22|29]) and Li. permissive 3sg. ‑iẽ, respectively.
When accented, the new long vowels are realised with high pitch on the first
mora. The same applies to original long vowels, as in PIE *dʰugh₂tḗr. The pitch
contour becomes phonologically distinctive when the vowel contractions [3]
take place, yielding long vowels with high pitch on the second mora.
The loss of laryngeals is probably earlier than the vowel contractions [3],
which presuppose hiatuses created by the loss of intervocalic laryngeals. It is
also earlier than the delabialisation of *o to *a [7] since PIE *‑oh yields *‑ō̰.
Apart from the loss of laryngeals after *i̯, which is limited to final syllables, the
development applies in all positions of the word.
2 Diphthongisation of syllabic sonorants (general)
R̥ > iR (occasionally uR)
The Proto-Indo-European syllabic sonorants *r̥ l ̥ m̥ n̥ are diphthongised to *ir

il im in and, more rarely and under somewhat unclear circumstances, to *ur ul
um un (see W. Hock 2004: 6–7 with references; Matasović 2004). In our context
it is interesting to note that in inflectional morphemes *R̥ always yields *iR,
never *uR (Andersen 1996: 107).
If PBS *‑ām and *‑āns in the ā-stem accusative singular and plural reflect the
expected proto-forms PIE *‑ah₂m̥ and *‑ah₂n̥ s (see the discussions in §§ 3.4.4
and 3.14.4), this may indicate that the prop vowel went through a stage *ə (i.e.
PIE *‑ah₂m̥ > *‑am̥ [1] > *‑aəm > PBS *‑ām [3] and acc. pl. *‑ah₂n̥ s > *‑an̥ s [1]
> *‑aəns > PBS *‑āns [3]) before becoming *i or *u. In that case the diphthon-
gisation of syllabic sonorants takes place before the vowel contractions [3];
details concerning both the proto-forms and the changes involved are, how-
ever, uncertain.
3 Common Indo-European vowel contractions (general)
V[–high]V[–high] > V̄
Two non-high vowels in hiatus contract to a plain long vowel. If one of the
vowels is accented, the new long vowel receives high pitch on the second mora,
i.e. a rising tone. This rising tone contrasts with the falling tone of original long
vowels and long vowels from laryngeal contraction [1]. Note that these tones
are unrelated to the opposition between acute and circumflex syllables in
Baltic and Slavic, which are conditioned by the original presence or absence
of a laryngeal. The prosodic situation at this stage is comparable to that of
Attic Greek, where the distinction between rising and falling tones is largely
restricted to the last syllable of the word. When the mobility law [4] eliminates
rising tone from final syllables, the tonal distinction disappears.
These vowel contractions take place after the loss of laryngeals [1] and
before the mobility law [4]. Also, the fact that PIE o-stem dat. sg. *‑oei̯ con-
tracted to PBS *‑ōi̯, not *‑āi̯, as indicated by PS *ˌ‑āu̯ [14|15] (CS *‑u [22|29]) and
Li. ‑ui, shows that the vowel contractions took place before the delabialisation
of *o to *a [7]; PBS *‑āi̯ yielded *‑āi̯ in Proto-Slavic and ‑ai in Lithuanian, e.g. PS
ā-stem dat. sg. *ˌ‑āi (CS *‑ě [22|29]), Li. gálvai.
It is possible that in sequences of a high vowel followed by a non-high vowel
(after the loss of intervocalic laryngeals [1]) a glide was inserted, e.g. PIE i-stem
loc. du. *‑ihou̯ > *‑iou̯ [1] > *‑ii̯ou̯ [3] > PBS gen.–loc. du. *‑ii̯au̯ [7] > PS *‑ii̯au̯
(CS *‑ьju [22|29]).
4 Mobility law (final)
μ́ > μ / _C₀#
High pitch on a final mora in the phonological word (including clitics)

becomes low. The prerequisites for this prosodic law are (1) that the reflexes of
Proto-Indo-European accented short vowels were realised with high pitch on
the only mora (μ́ ), (2) that the reflexes of Proto-Indo-European accented plain
long vowels and long vowels from contraction with a syllable-final laryngeal
were realised with high pitch on the first mora (μ́ μ) [1], and (3) that the reflexes
of accented long vowels resulting from contraction of two contiguous vowels
were realised with high pitch on the second mora (μμ́ ) [3] (see Olander 2009:
166–198 and passim for a detailed analysis of the Baltic and Slavic material).
The hypothesis of a pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic loss of accent in order to explain
the paradigmatic accentual mobility in Balto-Slavic was first put forward in
50 chapter 2
Olander 2006 (see also 2007b; for a critical assessment and elaboration of
this first version of the sound law see Andersen 2009b; see also Holzer 2009:
154; and the rejection in Kortlandt 2009/2009). In my monograph Balto-Slavic
accentual mobility from 2009 I proposed a revised version of the sound law,
identical to the one presented here (for the reception of the revised version
see the reviews: Fecht 2009; Kim 2010; Oslon 2010; Rinkevičius 2010; Petit 2011,
2013; Bichlmeier 2013; D. Birnbaum 2013; and the extensive review-like article
Kortlandt 2010c/2010a).
The mobility law took place after the vowel contractions [3] (and, conse-
quently, after the loss of laryngeals [1]). Apart from that, the loss of accent is
difficult to place in the relative chronology, except that it is very likely to belong
to the pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic period (see Olander 2009: 163; but cf. Andersen
2009b: 19).
5 Devoicing of word-final obstruents (final)
D > T /_#
Word-final obstruents are devoiced. This change takes place before Winter’s
law [6]; otherwise we would have a long vowel in Li. 1sg. pron. nom. àš (OLi.,
dial. eš), Lv. es from PIE *h₁ég̑ , and in PIE pron. o-stem neut. nom.–acc. sg.
*‑od > PBS *ˌ‑a [4|5|7|9] > PS *ˌa (CS *‑o [29]) (see Matasović 2005: 151; and cf.
Kapović 2009: 64–65; in Kortlandt 2013: 6, however, the Baltic forms are traced
back to *eś with “secondary shortening”). If all word-final stops were voiced in
Proto-Indo-European by the rule mentioned in § 2.2.1, forms like PS aor. 3sg.
*ˌu̯ ede (not **ˌu̯ edē) from PIE *‑ed would confirm this chronology.
6 Winter’s law and deaspiration of voiced aspirated stops (general)
1 V > V̰̄ / _D
VR > V̰ R / _D
2 Dʰ > D
Vowels are lengthened and glottalised before a voiced unaspirated stop, also
with an intervening sonorant. Subsequently voiced aspirated stops lose their
aspiration and merge with plain voiced stops. There probably were some fur-
ther conditions restricting the domain of Winter’s law, but despite several
attempts no entirely satisfactory formulation has been found yet (see Olander
2009: 150–151 with references).
This lengthening takes place after the devoicing of word-final obstruents

[5]. It is earlier than the delabialisation of *o to *a [7] since we have Li. núogas
(a.p. 3), Lv. nuôgs from PBS *ˌnō̰gas (not **ˌnā̰gas) < PIE *nogʷós.
Winter’s law is also earlier than the assibilation of Proto-Indo-European
palatal stops [8], unless one prefers to operate with a lengthening before all
voiced unaspirated obstruents, not only stops. In that case we would not be
able to establish the chronological order between Winter’s law and the assibi-
lation of the palatal stops, which would mean that the loss of word-final stops
[9] (which is later than the assibilation) might have predated Winter’s law.
Nothing seems to be gained by the alternative chronology, though.
7 Delabialisation of *o to *a (general)
o>a
Proto-Indo-European *o becomes *a in all positions of the word. Note that the

delabialisation also affects acute syllables containing *o followed by a sonorant,
e.g. PIE *smordós > *ˌsmo̰ rdos [4|6] > PBS *ˌsma̰ rdas [7] > Lv. smar̂ds; and PIE
*molhtēi̯ > *mo̰ ltēi̯ [1] > PBS *ˈma̰ ltēi̯ [7] > Li. málti, Lv. mal̃t (see § 2.2.2).
PBS *a is retained as PS *a (CS *o [29]) except before word-final consonants,
where it undergoes various modifications [17|19]. As for the Baltic languages,
PBS *a is mostly preserved as a in Lithuanian; in Žemaitian, Latvian and partly
in Old Prussian, *a is lost in final syllables (see Stang 1966: 116–118).
The delabialisation of *o to *a takes place after the loss of laryngeals [1],
after the vowel contractions [3], and after Winter’s law [6]. It is difficult to
determine which changes this change must have preceded.
8 Assibilation of palatal stops (general)
k ̑ g̑ > ś ź
The reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European palatal stops *k ̑ g̑ ⁽ʰ⁾ are assibilated to
*ś ź, perhaps through an intermediate stage as affricates (*ć ʒ́). In pre-Proto-
Slavic, after the ruki change [12] has stopped working, *ś becomes *s, merging
with original *s; in Lithuanian, *ś is reflected as š, merging with the ruki variant
of *s. The voiced counterpart *ź becomes z in Slavic and ž in Lithuanian. The
assibilation may have taken place after Winter’s law [6] (where reservations
concerning the relative chronology are presented) and before the loss of word-
final stops [9].
52 chapter 2
As pointed out to me by Guus Kroonen (pers. comm., 2013), it has been sug-
gested that words like Po. dzwon, Ukr. dzvín, Mac. dzvonec indicate that Proto-
Indo-European palatal stops (or perhaps rather affricates) were preserved into
“Early Slavic” (Kortlandt 2008/2009: 43). This question does not seem to be rel-
evant for the present study.
9 Loss of word-final stops (final)
T > ∅ /_#
Proto-Indo-European stops disappear in word-final position. This change is

later than the assibilation of *k ̑ g̑ to *ć ʒ́ or *ś ź [8], as seen by the preserva-
tion the final consonant in Li. 1sg. pron. nom. àš, Lv. es from PIE *h₁ég̑. In PIE
prs. act. ptc. masc. nom. sg. *‑onts the *t is apparently preserved directly in
OPr. ‑ānts; and indirectly in Li. ‑ą̃ s, where the *t seems to have prevented the
development of pre-Li. *Vns to *V̰s (see §§ 3.3.6 and 3.14.5). If that is the case,
only stops in absolute word-final position were lost. In both Old Prussian and
Lithuanian, analogical remodellings on the basis of the stem *‑ant‑ are not dif-
ficult to imagine, however. The alleged evidence for preservation in Slavic of a
difference between *‑(i̯)ons and *‑(i̯)onts is discussed in § 3.3.6. According to
Stang (1966: 114), final dentals were preserved in Proto-Baltic, but the evidence
on which this conclusion is based is very scant.
In most chronologies of Slavic the final stop is made directly or indirectly
responsible for the loss of the nasal in PS them. prt. 1sg. *‑u (CS *‑ъ) from PIE
*‑om, versus its preservation in forms like 3pl. *‑an (CS *‑ǫ) from PIE *‑ont. If,
on the other hand, such cases are explained as the result of a loss of original
final *m in contrast to the retention of final *n in pre-Proto-Slavic [19] (Olander
2010), the chronology between the loss of final *m and the loss of final stops
cannot be directly established. However, it is reasonable to assume that final
stops were lost only once, in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic. This renders this devel-
opment chronologically earlier than the loss of final *m, which only affected
Slavic.
10 Diphthongisation of *åē to *i̯åā before tautosyllabic *u̯ (general)
åē > i̯åā / _u̯ .
Tautosyllabic *åēu̯ becomes PBS *i̯åāu̯ (see Pedersen 1935; Stang 1966: 74; Kortlandt
1979a/2009: 33; Holzer 2001: 37–38). For instance, the Proto-Indo-European
root *leu̯ dʰ‑ > *leu̯ d‑ [6] becomes PBS, PS *li̯au̯ d‑ [10] (CS *l’ud‑ [22|26|29]), Li.
liáudis (a.p. 1); and PIE *kéu̯ d‑ > *ˈkēu̯ d‑ [6] becomes PBS, PS *ˈki̯āu̯ d‑ [10] (CS
*čűd‑ [21|22|26|29]).
In endings the effects of this change were reverted by analogy with endings
which had regularly preserved *åēu̯ (i.e. before a vowel) or its later reflex *åāu̯
[11]. This applies to PBS u-stem gen. sg. *‑au̯ s, loc. sg. *‑āu̯ and voc. sg. *‑au̯
(not *‑i̯au̯ s, *‑i̯āu̯ and *‑i̯au̯ as expected). For the latter two forms we could
assume that the change did not take place in absolute final position; however,
as the forms can easily be analogical, I prefer the more general formulation
of the change according to which any tautosyllabic PIE *åēu̯ is reflected as
PBS *i̯åāu̯ .
The change is earlier than the more general change of *eu̯ to *au̯ [11].
11 Backing of *e to *a before *u̯ (general)
e > a / _u̯
Short *e is backed to *a before *u̯ , e.g. PIE u-stem nom. pl. *‑eu̯ es > PBS *‑au̯ es
[11] > PS *‑au̯ e [17] (CS *‑ove [29]) (Mikkola 1913: 44; Hamp 1976; Kortlandt
1979a/2009: 33; Kapović 2006b: 116–118 with a useful treatment of the problem).
According to a widespread view, the change did not take place before front
vowels (e.g., for Baltic, Endzelīns 1911/1974: 82–84; 1971: 32; Stang 1966: 32–33,
73–74, following Endzelīns; for Balto-Slavic, Vaillant 1950: 110; Bräuer 1961: 73;
Holzer 2001: 38). In that case PIE u-stem dat. sg. *‑eu̯ ei̯ and nom. pl. *‑eu̯ es >
*‑eu̯ e cannot regularly have yielded PS *‑au̯ ei̯ (CS *‑ovi [22|29]) and *‑au̯ e (CS
*‑ove [29]). I find the solution more likely to be that *eu̯ becomes *au̯ before
any vowel, as well as before consonants and in word-final position.
The position of this change relative to other sound changes is difficult to
determine, except that it postdates the change of tautosyllabic *åēu̯ to *i̯åāu̯
[10]; the change may have taken place in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic (thus Kapović
2006b: 116), or it may be a later, parallel change in Slavic and Baltic.
2.3.3 From Proto-Balto-Slavic to Proto-Slavic
12 Ruki change (general)
1 s > x / {å ī, i̯, åū, u̯ , r, k }_{ V, # }

2 ś ź > s z
In Proto-Balto-Slavic the phoneme */s/ had two main allophones, *[ʂ] after *ī � ̆ i̯
åū u̯ r k, and *[s] elsewhere. In pre-Proto-Slavic the ruki variant is phonemicised
54 chapter 2
and retracted to PS *x unless followed by a stop, where it becomes *s, merging

with original *s (Andersen 1968; 1970: 14–16; 1998a: 423–424). Subsequently *ś ź
(from PIE *k ̑ g̑ ⁽ʰ⁾ [8]) become *s z.
In Lithuanian, *[ʂ] yields š, merging with the reflex of PIE *k ̑. The ruki devel-
opment has a close parallel in Indo-Iranian (see e.g. Mayrhofer 1989: 8–9; for a
similar development in Armenian see Olsen 1999: 809–810).
While a retracted allophone of *s may have existed already in early post-
Proto-Indo-European dialects and almost certainly was a feature of Proto-
Balto-Slavic, it does not become a phoneme distinct from unretracted *s in
pre-Proto-Slavic until the reflex of PIE *k ̑ merges with the reflex of unretracted
*s [12], leading to the occurrence of *[s] and *[ʂ] in identical environments
(Andersen 1968: 190). In pre-Proto-Slavic the reflex of ruki *s spread analogi-
cally to non-ruki positions, e.g. in pre-PS ā-stem loc. pl. *‑ˈāsu → PS *‑ˈāxu
(§ 3.18.4). As the ruki change does not affect the reflex of of PIE *k ̑ , it is earlier
than the merger of *k ̑ and unretracted *s [12].
Since it is most likely that word-final *‑s is also affected by the ruki develop-
ment as in Indo-Iranian, I refer to the ruki change in such cases in the analyses
of the endings in chapters 3 and 4, although the evidence for this position was
eliminated by the pre-Proto-Slavic loss of word-final fricatives [17].
13 Dybo’s law and deglottalisation (general)
1 ˈV[−glott]C₀V > VC₀ˈV

2 V̰̄ > V̄
V̰ R > V̄ R
The accent is advanced from an accented non-acute syllable to a follow-

ing (acute or non-acute) syllable, e.g. pre-PS ā-stem nom. sg. *ˈgenā̰, acc. sg.
*ˈgenām > PS *geˈnā [13], *geˈnān [13|19] (CS *ženà [21|29], *ženǫ̀ [21|28|29]).
From this point onwards Slavic does not distinguish between glottalised and
non-glottalised long monophthongs. If we interpret the reflexes of Proto-Balto-
Slavic glottalised diphthongs as consisting of a long vowel plus a sonorant,
glottalisation is concomitant with length and becomes a redundant feature; a
syllable is now acute if it contains a long vowel or a long diphthong (Olander
2009: 140–143 with references; see also § 2.2.3; but cf. Holzer 2009: 154).
Since Dybo’s law does not affect Lithuanian, it must be post-Proto-Balto-
Slavic. As it only affects the prosodic level, it is difficult to place more precisely
in the relative chronology of Slavic sound changes.
14 Labialisation of *i̯ to *u̯ after *ō (final?)
i̯ > u̯ / ō_C₀#
Proto-Balto-Slavic *ōi̯ becomes *ōu̯ in final syllables (see also Pedersen 1905a:
323–325; Meillet 1915: 5; 1924/1934: 153–154; 1963: 31; Kortlandt 1979/2011a: 103;
1983/2011a: 175). I am unaware of any examples or counterexamples in non-
final syllables. The clearest example of this development is PIE o-stem dat. sg.
*‑oei̯ > PBS *ˌ‑ōi̯ [3|4] > *ˌ‑ōu̯ [14] > PS *ˌ‑āu̯ [15] (CS *‑u [22|29]). The develop-
ment also takes place in PIE o-stem instr. pl. *‑ōi̯s > PBS *‑ˈōi̯s > *‑ˈōi̯x [12] >
*‑ˈōu̯ x [14] > *‑ˈāu̯ x [15] > PS *‑ˈū [17] (CS *‑y [22|29]).
This development is later than the contraction of vowels [3] and, since it
does not affect Lithuanian and, apparently, Old Prussian (Stang 1966: 71–72,
181–182), it belongs to the post-Proto-Balto-Slavic period. It obviously predates
the delabialisation of *ō to *ā [15].
15 Delabialisation of *ō to *ā (general)
ō>ā
The long vowel *ō becomes *ā, e.g. PBS o-stem masc. nom.–acc. du. *ˌ‑ō̰ > PS
*ˌ‑ā [13|15] (CS *‑a [29]), merging with PBS ā-stem nom. sg. *‑ˈā̰ > PS *‑ˈā [13]
(CS *‑a [29]).
The merger of *ō and *ā is post-Proto-Balto-Slavic as the two vowels remain
distinct in Baltic; cf. the corresponding forms Li. lángu, def. adj. mažúoju, and
galvà, def. adj. mažóji. The delabialisation of *ō is later than the change of *ōi̯
to *ōu̯ [14].
16 Loss of *n between a high vowel and word-final *s (final)
V[+high]n > V̄ [+high] / _s#
In word-final sequences of a high vowel (*i or *u) plus *ns (in the relevant cases
reflecting PIE *‑ms; see § 3.14.1), the *n is lost with compensatory lengthening
of the vowel (thus also Bräuer 1961: 106; similarly Kortlandt 1979/2011a: 103). The
only two examples of this development are PIE i-stem acc. pl. *‑ims > *‑ins >
*ˌ‑īs [4|16] > PS *ˌ‑ī [17] (CS *‑i [29]) and PIE u-stem acc. pl. *‑ums > *‑uns > *ˌ‑ūs
[4|16] > PS *ˌ‑ū [17] (CS *‑y [29]).
Since word-final *‑s is a conditioning factor, the development must have
preceded the loss of word-final fricatives [17].
56 chapter 2
17 Loss of word-final fricatives, with centralisation of preceding *ā̆ to *ə̄ ̆

(final)
1 ā̆ > ə̄ ̆ / _(R)S#
2 S > ∅ / _#
In word-final syllables closed by a fricative, *a ā become *ə ə̄, and the fricative

is lost (see Olander 2012 for a detailed study of the development). The change
affects a number of endings, e.g. PIE o-stem masc. nom. sg. *‑os > PBS *ˌ‑as
[4|7] > PS *ˌ‑ə [17] (CS Cl *‑ъ || ONovg. ‑e [29]) and PIE ā-stem gen. sg. *‑ah₂s >
PBS *‑ˈā̰s [1] > PS *‑ˈə̄ [13|17] (CS Cl *‑y || ONovg. ‑ě [29]). The change of *a ā to
*ə ə̄ before word-final fricatives and further into e ě in parts of the Slavic dialect
area has a striking parallel in Iranian (Olander 2012: 336).
The quality of the centralised vowel written *ə̄ ̆ here may have been *[ɨ] or
*[ʊ] in Proto-Slavic. Its pronunciation may thus have been close to that of its
reflexes in Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian (cf. Olander 2012: 335; Lunt
1955/2001: 24; Andersen 1996: 15). When non-front vowels were fronted after
palatal consonants [20], the quality of the non-fronted and fronted reflexes of
*ə̄ ̆ may have been *[ʊ] and *[ɪ], respectively.
The idea that a final fricative has effects on a preceding vowel in Slavic is old
(see Vermeer 1991/2009: 5–6). There are several variants of the hypothesis. The
one given here, first presented in Olander 2012, is perhaps the most comprehen-
sive one, assuming that both long and short vowels are affected, and that they
are affected independently of the presence or absence of a sonorant between
the vowel and the fricative. If this variant of the hypothesis is accepted, a num-
ber of problematic individual Slavic endings find a straightforward explana-
tion, including prominent forms like the nominative singular of the masculine
o-stems and the genitive singular and nominative plural of the ā-stems. Also,
the apparent double outcome PIE *oi̯ and *ai̯ in final syllables is understand-
able if we accept different outcomes of pre-PS *‑ai̯ and *‑ai̯s (as mentioned in
Olander 2012: 332 n. 89, I no longer maintain the view put forward in 2009: 90).
The loss of word-final fricatives, which did not apply in Baltic, took place
after the loss of *n between high vowels and word-final *s [16]. It was earlier
than the monophthongisation of oral diphthongs [22]; otherwise a sequence
*‑ai̯s, as in the second-person singular of the optative, would have yielded **‑ēs
[22] > PS **‑ē [17] (CS **‑ě [29]), not the actual PS *‑əi̯ [17] (CS *‑i [22|29]).
In parallel with the relationship between PS *‑əi̯ and CS *‑i it is conceiv-
able that the sequence pre-PS *‑au̯ s > PS *‑əu̯ [12|17] would show up as CS *‑y
[22|29]. In the u-stem genitive singular ending, however, PBS *ˌ‑au̯ s corre-
sponds to PS *ˌ‑au̯ (CS *‑u [22|29]). Expected pre-PS *‑əu̯ was probably replaced
with PS *ˌ‑au̯ (CS *‑u [22|29]) by analogy with the case endings that contained
*au̯ . Note that the problem does not arise if we assume that the backing of
*eu̯ to *au̯ [11] was later than the centralisation of *a to *ə, which, however,
would separate the former change from the similar development in Baltic. The
analogical replacement assumed here is similar to the one mentioned under
the diphthongisation of tautosyllabic *åēu̯ to *i̯åāu̯ in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic [10],
which affected the same ending.
At an early stage pre-PS *-āu̯ s > *ə̄u̯ was apparently assimilated to PS *ū,
as in PBS instr. pl. *‑ˈōi̯s > *‑ˈāu̯ s [14|15] > *‑ˈə̄u̯ > PS *‑ˈū [17] (CS *‑y [29]). This
minor sound law is required to generate the correct output in the i̯o-stem
instrumental plural ending PIE *‑ˈi̯ōi̯s > *‑ˈi̯āu̯ s [14|15] > *‑ˈi̯ə̄u̯ > PS *‑ˈi̯ū [17] (CS
*‑ji [20|29]). In my article on the development of *‑os and *‑ās in Slavic I had
overlooked this problem (2012: 333, where “*‑i̯ə̄i”̯ should be corrected to “*‑i̯əi̯”).
18 Loss of word-final dentals after long vowels, with raising of the vowel
(final)
V̄ C[+dental] > V̄ [+high] / _#
The sequences *‑ēr and *‑ōn become *‑ī and *‑ū word-finally. The sound law
has an ad hoc flavour to it, since it only affects two endings, viz. PIE r-stem
nom. sg. *‑ēr > PS *‑ˈī [18] (CS *‑i [29]) and PIE n-stem nom. sg. *‑ō → pre-PS
*‑ōn > PS *‑ū [18] (CS *‑y [29]). The change does not affect word-final *‑V̄ m, as
seen in PBS ā-stem acc. sg. *‑ām > PS *‑ān [19] (CS *‑ǫ [28]; *‑jǫ [20|27|28]); and
by PBS 1sg. pron. acc. *mēm, 2sg. *tēm, refl. *sēm > PS *mēn, *tēn, *sēn [19] (CS
*mę, *tę, *sę [28]).
As shown by the corresponding Lithuanian endings ‑ė̃ and ‑uõ, the raising
does not apply in Baltic and is therefore post-Proto-Balto-Slavic. If the formu-
lation given here is correct, this change is later than the loss of word-final *‑s
[17], or at least later than the change of *‑s to *‑x or *‑h, if that was an interme-
diate stage in the process (cf. Olander 2012: 335–336). The change precedes the
merger of word-final *‑m and *‑n [19].
According to Kortlandt (1983/2011a: 126–127 and passim), any word-final
sonorant caused raising. While this view accounts nicely for OCS mati and
kamy, it meets difficulties in the accusative singular forms of the personal and
reflexive pronoun mentioned above. These forms may be saved by the further
condition that raising only took place in non-initial syllables (Kortlandt, pers.
comm., 2014).
58 chapter 2
19 Loss of word-final *m after short vowels, with rounding and raising of

preceding *a to *u (final)
1 a > u / _m#
2 m > ∅ / V̆ _#
In word-final syllables ending in *‑m, *a becomes *u; subsequently word-final

*‑m is lost after short vowels, e.g. PIE o-stem masc. acc. sg. *‑om > PBS *‑am [7]
> PS *‑u [19] (CS *‑ъ [29]). Word-final *‑n, on the other hand, is preserved in
Proto-Slavic in endings like PIE n-stem neut. nom.–acc. sg. *‑n̥ > PBS, PS *‑in
[2] (CS *‑ę [28]) and them. aor. 3pl. PIE *‑ond > PBS, PS *‑an [5|7|9] (CS *‑ǫ
[28]). After the loss of word-final *‑m after short vowels, syllable-final *m and
*n are no longer distinguished in Slavic; I write the merger of the two nasals in
this position as *n.
Thus according to the hypothesis presented here, the different outcome of
PIE *‑V̆ m and *‑V̆ n(d) in Slavic is conditioned by the place of articulation of
the nasal; final stops were lost in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic already. As pointed out
to me by Aigars Kalniņš (pers. comm., 2013), this hypothesis receives further
support from the fact that the two nasals are still distinguished in syllable-final
position before stops in Baltic. In the following paragraphs I shall briefly sketch
the problem and two alternative approaches to it (for a thorough discussion of
the problem see Olander 2010; the idea of different outcomes in Slavic of PIE
*‑V̆ m and *‑V̆ n(d) has been criticised by Hill 2013: 172 n. 7).
It is almost universally accepted that the regular reflex of PIE *‑om in
Common Slavic is *‑ъ (see Orr 1988 for an exception), whereas PIE *‑ond is
reflected as *‑ǫ. According to the traditional view, the reason for the preserva-
tion of the nasal in the Slavic reflexes of PIE *‑ond vs. the loss in reflexes of final
*‑om is the final stop in the former form. This implies that the loss of word-final
stops did not take place in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic, but was a parallel yet identi-
cal development in Baltic and Slavic. The traditional solution does not provide
a straightforward answer to the question of why PIE *‑n̥ in the nominative–
accusative singular of neuter n-stems is reflected as *‑ę in Common Slavic.
An alternative chronology has been suggested by Kortlandt (e.g. 1978/
2009: 116–118), who assumes that PIE *‑om was narrowed to *‑uN already in
pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic, whereas *‑ont became *‑oN. At a later stage word-final
nasals were lost after *u in Slavic, while *‑oN yielded CS *‑ǫ. According to this
view, the a-vocalism of the Baltic masculine accusative singular forms and, I
assume, that of the Old Prussian neuter nominative–accusative singular, e.g.
asseran, has been introduced from the nominative singular by analogy with
the relationship between the nominative and accusative singular in the i- and
u-stems (*‑is : *‑im and *‑us : *‑um). Note in this context that the Latvian pro-
nominal form tùo cannot reflect PBS *‑um but must go back to *‑am, *‑ām or
*‑ōm (I am grateful to Aigars Kalniņš for drawing my attention to the relevance
of this form). If I understand it correctly, Kortlandt’s view implies that the ana-
logical replacement of *u with *a in the accusative singular has taken place
independently in East and West Baltic, as Kortlandt does not operate with a
Baltic proto-language after Proto-Balto-Slavic (see Kortlandt 1977/2009: 5).
An argument in favour of a pre-PBS change *‑om > *‑um is, in Kortlandt’s
view, the genitive plural ending, which he reconstructs as PIE *‑om and consid-
ers to be the ancestor not only of Slavic ‑ъ but also of the Baltic forms, viz. Li.
‑ų, Lv. ‑u and OPr. pron. ‑on. Kortlandt does not seem to mention the Latvian
pronominal genitive plural form tùo (see Endzelīns 1923: 295; Stang 1966: 184),
which, like the homophonous accusative singular form mentioned above,
points to PBS *‑ōm or *‑am (or *‑ām), not *‑um (thus also Jasanoff 1983a: 142 n.
9; cf. the discussion in Hill 2013: 166–167). Since it is likely that an ending *‑ōm
(from PIE o-stem *‑o‑om, ā-stem *‑ah₂‑om) existed in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic
and that it would have regularly yielded Li. ‑ų, Lv. ‑u, OPr. ‑on anyway (Stang
1966: 184), the Baltic genitive plural endings hardly constitute a convincing
argument for Kortlandt’s hypothesis.
The most promising material for Kortlandt’s idea of an early narrowing of
*‑om to *‑uN is constituted by Old Prussian accusative singular forms. Here we
find ‑on in certain cases where most scholars expect ‑an from PIE *‑om, e.g. in
the passive participle accusative singular. According to Kortlandt, OPr. ‑on is
the regular outcome of PIE *‑om in these cases. However, I find it more attrac-
tive to assume that ‑on is the result of an analogical introduction of u-stem
endings in original o-stem paradigms. Consequently, the evidence from Baltic
pointing to PBS *‑am, not *‑um, as the outcome of PIE *‑om should be taken at
face value (see also Olander 2010: 90–91).
2.3.4 Common Slavic Phonological Developments

The period following the dissolution of the Slavic proto-language is character-
ised by a number of developments common to most or all Slavic languages.
During this period the phonological systems of the emerging Slavic dialects
are drastically reshaped. As mentioned in § 2.2.3, it is difficult in practice to
determine the last pre-Proto-Slavic and the first post-Proto-Slavic change; in
this study the fronting of non-front vowels [20] is regarded as the first post-
Proto-Slavic change, although admittedly it would be possible to draw the line
at a later stage.
In accordance with the definition of a proto-language as the last stage
of a language before the first change that does not affect the entire speech
60 chapter 2
community (§ 1.5.2), linguistic changes are regarded as belonging to a post-

proto-language if they are not identical and/or do not take place in the same
chronological order in all the individual descendants of that proto-language.
However, taking into account the difficulties in determining exactly which
stage in the development of the Slavic branch should be regarded as Proto-
Slavic, it may be useful to give an overview of some of the most significant
developments in the Common Slavic period that were shared by all or most
dialects with only minor differences.
This overview aims at presenting the sound changes that lead from the
Proto-Slavic phonological system applied in this study to the traditional
Common Slavic system. As explained in § 1.5.5, the latter system is, to some
extent, anachronistic. For instance, certain developments that belong to the
Common Slavic period, such as the metathesis of liquids, are not included in
the overview, although they precede some of the developments included. Even
more than the pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic and pre-Proto-Slavic sound changes
presented in §§ 2.3.2 and 2.3.3, the relative chronology between the Common
Slavic changes should not be taken too literally unless explicitly mentioned.
Many of the changes referred to in this section are treated in detail in Vermeer
2014.
20 Fronting of non-front vowels after palatal consonants (general)
{a > e; ā̄ > ē; u > ü; ū > ǖ; ə > ɪ; ə̄ > ɪ̄ } / C[+front]_
In a process sometimes referred to as (progressive) umlaut, the non-front vow-

els *a ā̄ u ū ə ə̄ are fronted to *e ē ü ǖ ɪ ɪ̄ after palatal consonants, e.g. PS i̯o-stem
neut. nom.–acc. sg. *‑i̯a > *‑i̯e (CS *‑je [29]), PS i̯o-stem gen. sg. *‑i̯ā > *‑i̯ē (CS
*‑ja [27|29]), PS i̯o-stem masc. acc. sg. *‑i̯u > *‑i̯ü (CS *‑jь [29]), PS i̯o-stem masc.
nom. sg. *‑i̯ə > *‑i̯ɪ (CS *‑jь [29]), PS i̯ā-stem gen. sg. *‑i̯ə̄ > *‑i̯ɪ ̄ (CS *‑jě [29]), PS
i̯o-stem instr. pl. *‑i̯ū > *‑i̯ǖ (CS *‑ji [29]).
This reshaping of the Slavic vowel system had drastic effects on the nomi-
nal inflectional system, where the o-stems and ā-stems acquired distinct hard
and soft declensions. In the verbal system, conversely, the alternations created
by the vowel fronting were soon eliminated. In the third-person plural of the
i̯e-present, PIE i̯e-prs. *‑i̯onti > PS *‑i̯anti [7] > *‑i̯enti was replaced with *‑i̯anti
(CS *‑jǫtь [28|29]) by analogy with e-prs. PS *‑anti. In the first-person plural of
the thematic present, PIE *‑omos > PS *‑amə [7|17] was replaced with *‑emə
in all Slavic dialects by analogy with i̯e-prs. PS *‑i̯amə > *‑i̯emə. Since this end-
ing shows the results of the first palatalisation [21] in the Slavic dialects, e.g.
OCS možemъ, it is likely that the replacement of *‑amə with *‑emə took place
between the beginning of vowel fronting [20] and the first palatalisation [21],
thereby indicating that the former sound change precedes the latter. It is also
thinkable, though, that the whole stem was replaced, i.e. that *maže- replaced
*maga‑; in that case the analogical substitution may have taken place after the
first palatalisation [21].
The fronting of non-front vowels was an active process before the monoph-
thongisation of oral diphthongs [22], as shown by the fact that PS *ē and *ā̆i ̯
are distinguished after palatal consonants, e.g. PS inf. *staˈi̯ētēi̯ (CS *stoja̋ ti
[22|27|29]) vs. PS i̯o-stem loc. pl. *‑i̯ai̯xu > *‑i̯ei̯xu > *‑i̯īxu [22] (CS *‑jixъ [26|29])
(see e.g. Holzer 1998b: 61; 2001: 39). On the other hand, non-front vowels were
also fronted after consonants fronted by the second palatalisation [23]. It thus
seems that for an extended period of time there existed a phonotactic rule
according to which palatal consonants could only be followed by front vowels.
The process was no longer active when *ē was backed to *ā after palatal con-
sonants [27].
The results of the fronting of PS *‑ə and *‑ə̄ are less secure than in the case
of the other vowels (see Olander 2012: 333–334). On the basis of the available
evidence it seems that the different outcomes of non-fronted *‑ə ‑ə̄ in Classic
Common Slavic (*‑ъ ‑y) and the Old Novgorod dialect (‑e ‑ě) are not paralleled
by different outcomes of fronted *‑ə ‑ə̄, which apparently merge with *‑i ‑ē,
yielding *‑ь ‑ě in the entire Slavic dialect continuum. In the case of fronted *‑ə,
however, the material does not allow us to establish the only relevant ending,
the masculine i̯o-stem nominative singular, with certainty in the Old Novgorod
dialect (see Olander 2012: 328, with references in n. 62). Due to the replace-
ment of the endings of the i̯ā-stem genitive singular and nominative plural in
South Slavic with that of the accusative plural ending PS *‑i̯ə̄n̆ (CS S *‑ję || CS N
*‑jě; see § 3.5.4), the regular result of fronted *‑ə̄ is unknown here, but it is rea-
sonable to assume that it was *‑ě as in the remaining dialects.
Since the attested reflexes of PS *‑i̯ə̄n̆ (CS S *‑ję || CS N *‑jě [20|28|29], e.g. OCS
‑ję, ORu. ‑jě) differ from those of PS *‑i̯an, *‑i̯en (CS *‑ję [20|28], e.g. OCS ‑ję,
ORu. ‑ja) and PS *‑i̯ān (CS *‑jǫ [20|27|28], e.g. OCS ‑jǫ, ORu. ‑ju), I assume that
palatalised *ə ə̄ did not directly merge with *i ē but passed through an inter-
mediate stage *ɪ ɪ̄. It is possible that the unfronted and fronted reflexes of PS *ə̄ ̆
at this point were realised phonetically as *[ʊ̄̆ ] and *[ɪ̄]̆ , respectively (see [17]),
but for the sake of clarity I write the former variant as *ə̄.̆ The merger of *ɪ ɪ̄ and
*i ē [29] took place after the monophthongisation of nasal diphthongs [28].
This vowel fronting is later than the change of *a to *u before word-final *‑m
[19], as shown by e.g. i̯o-stem masc. acc. sg. PIE *‑i̯om > *‑i̯am [7] > PS *‑i̯u [19]
> *‑i̯ü [20] (CS *‑jь [29]).
62 chapter 2
The chronology between vowel fronting and the second palatalisation of

velars [23] is debated. A prominent alternative view operates with the follow-
ing chronology: (1) “third palatalisation” (i.e. the progressive part of [23]), (2)
vowel fronting, (3) monophthongisation of oral diphthongs, (4) “second pal-
atalisation” (i.e. the regressive part of [23]) (implied in Pedersen 1905a: 385;
explicit e.g. in Holzer 2001: 39–40; see Vermeer 2008b: 524–525 with further ref-
erences). This chapter in Slavic historical phonology is treated in much detail
by Vermeer (2000, 2003a, 2006), who argues convincingly, in my view, for the
chronology presented here.
21 First palatalisation of velars (general)
{ k > č; g > ž; x > š } / _[+front]
The velars *k g x are palatalised to *č ž š before front vowels and *i̯. It is often
assumed that *g is palatalised to *ǯ (parallel to *k > *č) before being lenited to
*ž, but it is also possible that palatalised *ǵ was first lenited to *γ́ , which is then
palatalised to *ž (Andersen 1969: 553).
The first palatalisation is later than the ruki change [12] since only ruki *x,
not non-ruki *s, is palatalised before front vowels. Phonetically, the process of
palatalisation may have started already in pre-Proto-Slavic, but it is only when
original *ē merges with *ē from *ā̆i ̯ [22] (Bidwell 1961: 107 n. 4), when *i̯ is lost
after consonants [26] (Schenker 1993/2002: 69) or when *ē and *ā merge after
palatal consonants [27] (van Wijk 1950: 304; Stieber 1969–1973/1989: 66–67;
Kortlandt 2011c/1989: 164) that the distinctions that had arisen as a result of
the first palatalisation become phonologically relevant. In this study these pro-
cesses, including the first palatalisation, are relegated to the post-Proto-Slavic
period (see §§ 1.5.5 and 2.2.3). Thus in Proto-Slavic, *[č ž š] were allophones of
*/k g x/ (thus also Holzer 2003: 32–33 with n. 39; 2008: 201–202; for the sugges-
tion in Holzer 1998b: 65 n. 20 that a split into */k/ and */č/ was introduced in
pre-Proto-Slavic with loanwords, see Holzer 2006). The first palatalisation is
probably later than the fronting of vowels after palatal consonants ([20], with
discussion). It is earlier than the metathesis of liquids, since PS *kerˈdā yields
*čerˈdā [21] > *črēdā > OCS črěda (Holzer 2001: 39).
22 Monophthongisation of oral diphthongs (general)
{åāi̯ > ē; åāu̯ , åēu̯ > ō; åēi̯ > ẹ̄; əi̯, ɪi̯ > ī } / _.
The oral diphthongs *åāi̯ åāu̯ åēu̯ åēi̯ əi̯ ɪi̯ are monophthongised to *ē ō ō ẹ̄ ī ī in a
process labeled “the First CS Vowel Shift” by Andersen (1985: 73; 1998b: 239;
1998a: 429). The diphthong *ə̄u̯ had been eliminated early on [17], and *əu̯
and *ə̄i ̯ never existed; original *eu̯ had become *au̯ [11], but a new diphthong
*eu̯ had arisen from the fronting of non-front vowels [20]. The diphthongs *əi̯
and *ɪi̯ had played marginal roles in the system, being only represented in the
o- and i̯o-stem nominative plural (§ 3.13.7) and in the imperative second- and
third-person singular forms of the e- and i̯e-verbs (§§ 4.8.2 and 4.11.2).
This monophthongisation is later than the beginning of the fronting of
non-front vowels [20]. It is earlier than the second palatalisation [23] which
requires *ā̆i ̯ to have become a front vowel. Since monophthongised *åēi̯, as
opposed to original *ī, apparently does not trigger palatalisation of a following
velar [23], the diphthong probably went through a stage *ẹ̄ before becoming
*ī [29] (Kortlandt 2011c/1989: 165; Kallio 2006: 155, on Karelian viehkuŕi from
a pre-stage of ORu. vixъrь). For the intermediate stage *ō (CS *u [29]) as the
outcome of PS *åāu̯ åēu̯ , see Holzer 2001: 39–40 (where n. 16 mentions Holzer’s
earlier view that *ō was the Proto-Slavic stage, advanced in e.g. Holzer 1998b:
62–65).
According to a hypothesis put forward by Vermeer (1986/2013, 2000: 17–22),
in the Novgorod–Pskov area the monophthongisation of oral diphthongs
is later than the second palatalisation (the idea is supported by Kortlandt
1989/2011a: 188; see also Zaliznjak 1995/2004: 45; for criticism see the references
in Vermeer 2000: 20; and Dombrowski 2006 § 3).
23 Second palatalisation of velars (general)

{
{ k > c; g > ʒ; x > s||š } / _(u̯ )V[+front]
å ī(n)_V[–high]
}
The velar consonants *k g x are palatalised to *c ʒ s||š in two environments:
(1) before front vowels, possibly preceded by *u̯ , and (2) between *ī,� ̆ possibly
followed by *n, and *åā or *ə̄ ̆ (the only non-high vowels that occurred after
velars at that point). The outcome of the palatalisation of *x is *s in South and
East Slavic, but *š in West Slavic, e.g. PS ā-stem dat. sg. PS *ˈmāu̯ xāi̯ (CS *műsě
|| *műšě) > OCS musě, ORu. musě vs. Cz. mouše, Po. musze.
The second palatalisation is later than the monophthongisation of oral
diphthongs [22]. The results of the second palatalisation become phonologi-
cally relevant either when *ī�n̆ merges with *åēn [28], or when *ü and *ǖ, *åēi̯
merge with *i and *ī, respectively [29] (cf. Andersen 1998c: 591).
Opinions are divided as to whether we are dealing with two distinct pro-
cesses, viz. “second palatalisation” and “third palatalisation”, taking place at
separate times in different environments (e.g. Jagić 1901: 128; Pedersen 1905a:
385; Holzer 2001: 39–40), or they are two sides of the same process (see above
64 chapter 2
all Andersen 1998c: 588–589; also e.g. Andersen 1969: 554 n. 5; Vaillant 1950:
55; Kortlandt 1979/2011a: 266; 2011c/1989: 165; Vermeer 1986/2013, 2000, 2003b,
2006, 2008a). As stressed by Andersen (1998c: 588), since the outcomes of the
progressive and regressive changes are identical in the individual dialects, it
is considerably more attractive to assume that we are dealing with one single
change. A corollary of this view is that vowel fronting [20] was an active pro-
cess for an extended period of time (see the discussion in § 2.2.3). The history
of research on the second palatalisation of velars in Slavic is documented by
Vermeer in the publications just mentioned.
The second palatalisation has its maximal extension in South Slavic and the
major part of East Slavic. In West Slavic and some East Slavic areas, especially
in the Novgorod–Pskov region, there are certain restrictions (see also Andersen
1998c; Zaliznjak 1995/2004: 42–47):
1 In the Novgorod–Pskov area there is no regressive palatalisation, e.g.

pron. adj. kěle ‘whole’ from PS *ˌkai̯lə;
2 also in this area, there is no progressive palatalisation of *x, e.g. pron.
voxь (i.e. vъxe) ‘all’ < *vьxe from PS *u̯ iˈxə; and perhaps not of *g;
3 before *u̯ followed by a front vowel there is no palatalisation in West
Slavic and the Novgorod–Pskov area, and only partly in the remaining
East Slavic dialects, e.g. Cz. květ, Ukr. kvít (alongside cvít) from PS *ˌku̯ ai̯tə.
The different results and domains of the second palatalisation in different

parts of the Slavic-speaking area show that the change was post-Proto-Slavic
(similarly Vermeer 1986/2013; Zaliznjak 1991: 218–228; but cf. Bjørnflaten 1990;
Le Feuvre 1998b: 378–379; 1998a: 243–244).
24 Raising of *e to *i before *i̯ (general)
e > i / _i̯
The short vowel *e is raised to *i before *i̯, e.g. PIE, PBS i-stem masc. nom. pl.
*‑ei̯es > PS *‑ei̯e [17] > *‑ii̯e [24] (CS *‑ьje [29]; cf. [25]). The nature and chronol-
ogy of the change is disputed, as is the relationship of the Slavic change with
the similar change in Baltic (see e.g. W. Hock 1995: 76–80 with references). Ras
mussen (1993: 476–477) suggests that the change is regular only in the begin-
ning of the word, whereas in other positions *ei̯e yields CS *i. According to
Andersen (2014), this change is the first in a series of sound changes that even-
tually led to vowel contraction (“monosyllabication”) in post-Proto-Slavic [25].
It is difficult to place this change within the relative chronology of Slavic

sound changes. While it bears some structural affinity to the backing of *e to
*a before *u̯ [11], which may be pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic or later, Andersen’s idea
that the change is related to the Common Slavic vowel contractions suggests
a relatively late, post-Proto-Slavic date. As implied by Andersen (2014: 61–63),
the development of PS ei̯e-verb prs. 3pl. *‑ei̯anti > *‑ei̯enti [20] > *‑ii̯enti [24] >
*‑īnti [25] > *‑ęti [28] (CS *‑ętь [29]) indicates that the rasing of *e to *i took
place after the fronting of non-front vowels after *i̯.
25 Common slavic vowel contractions
1 j > ∅ / V_V
2 VV > V̄
In a series of sound changes beginning with the loss of intervocalic *j two adj
acent vowels contract. For a thorough investigation of the Common Slavic
vowel contractions see Andersen 2014.
The process remains active over an extended period of time, with partly
different results in the Slavic dialects. The chronology of the changes involved
also depends on factors such as the presence or absence of morpheme bound-
aries between the vowels.
26 Elimination of post-consonantal *i̯ (general)
Ci̯ > Cʲ
By this change *i̯ is absorbed by a preceding consonant, which becomes pala-

talised; in sequences of a labial consonant plus *i̯, an epenthetic *l’ is inserted
after the consonant. Thus *či̯ ži̯ ši̯ ti̯ di̯ si̯ zi̯ ni̯ li̯ ri̯ pi̯ bi̯ mi̯ u̯ i ̯ become *č ž š t’ d’ š
ž n’ l’ r’ pl’ bl’ ml’ u̯ l’. The development of *ki̯ gi̯ xi̯ to *č ž š (via [21|26]) is often
separated from the general loss of post-consonantal *i̯ (e.g. Holzer 2001: 43),
but it is simpler to assume a general loss of *i̯ after consonants (cf. van Wijk
1950: 305).
The place of this change within the relative chronology is difficult to deter
mine. Because of the Austrian place name Flättach from Slavic *ˈblāti̯āxu < PS
*ˈbālti̯āxu, Holzer (1996b: 93; 1998b: 67; 2001: 42) places the change after the
metathesis of liquids.
66 chapter 2
27 Backing of *ē to *ā after palatalised consonants (general)
ē > ā / C[+front]_
After palatalised consonants, *ē becomes *ā, e.g. PS *ˈgēli > *ˈžēli [21] > *ˈžāli
[27] (CS *ža̋ lь [29]).
This change takes place after the first palatalisation [21]; otherwise *ē would
have been retained in the example just mentioned. Since the back vowel *ā
now occurs after palatalised consonants, the fronting of non-front vowels after
palatalised consonants [20] is no longer an active process at this point. The
change is later than the monophthongisation of oral diphthongs since e.g. PS
i̯ā-stem loc. sg. *‑i̯āi̯ > *‑i̯ēi̯ [20] yields *‑i̯ẹ̄ [22] (CS *‑ji [29]), unaffected by the
backing of *ē to *ā. Had the backing been earlier than the monophthongisa-
tion, *‑i̯āi̯ > *‑i̯ēi̯ [20] would have yielded **‑i̯āi̯ [27] > **‑i̯ē [22] (CS *‑jě [29]). As
Proto-Slavic probably also had non-final diphthongs with a long first part (see
§ 2.2.3), the change must be posterior to the metathesis of liquids, e.g. PS inf.
*gērˈtēi̯ > *žērˈtēi̯ [21] > *žērˈtẹ̄ [22] (CS *žertì [29]) > OCS žrěti (not **žrati). The
change is earlier than the monophthongisation of nasal diphthongs because of
PS i̯e-prs. 1sg. *‑i̯ān > *‑i̯ēn [20] > *‑i̯ān [27] (CS *‑jǫ [28]).
28 Monophthongisation of nasal diphthongs (general)
{ ī ̆n, åēn > ę; åān, åūn > ǫ; ə̄n̆ > ū||ē; ɪ̄n̆ > ę||ē } / _.
The nasal diphthongs *ī�n̆ åēn and *åān åūn are monophthongised to *ę and *ǫ in
all Slavic dialects. The reflex of *ə̄n̆ is *ū > y [29] everywhere except in the Old
Novgorod dialect, which has *ē > ě [29], e.g. PS ā-stem acc. pl. *‑ə̄n > OCS ‑y,
ONovg. ‑ě. Another isogloss is delineated by the outcome of *ɪ̄n̆ , which is ę in
South Slavic and *ē > ě [29] in West and East Slavic, e.g. PS i̯ā-stem acc. pl. *‑i̯ə̄n
> *‑i̯ɪn̄ [20] > OCS ‑ję, ORu. ‑jě. The cases that involve PS *ə̄ ̆ are treated in more
detail in Olander 2012.
This change is later than the backing of *ē to *ā after palatalised consonants
[27]. It is earlier than the merger of *ɪ ɪ̄ with *i ē into *ь ě [29].
29 Reinterpretation of vowel quantity as quality (general)
a i, ü, ɪ > ь; e > e; a > o; u > ъ; ə > ъ||e

b ī, ẹ̄, ǖ > i; ē, ɪ̄ > ě; ā > a; ō > u; ū > y; ə̄ > y||ě
By the “Second CS Vowel Shift” (Andersen 1985: 73; 1998b: 239; 1998a: 429) the
old quantitative vowel distinctions are reinterpreted as qualitative distinc-
tions. The short vowels *i ü ɪ merge as *ь, and *e a u become *e o ъ in all Slavic
dialects. As for the long vowels, *ī ẹ̄ ǖ merge as *i; *ē ɪ̄ merge as ě; and *ā ō
ū become *a u y. The development of the central vowels marks an isogloss
that separates the Old Novgorod dialect, where *ə ə̄ merge with *e ē as e ě,
from the remaining Slavic dialect area, where *ə ə̄ merge with *u ū as ъ y (see
Olander 2012). After a labial the development of *ə ə̄ to ъ y seems to be pan-
Slavic, as in PBS dat. pl. *‑mas > PS *‑mə [17] (CS *‑mъ [29]) > OCS, ONovg. ‑mъ
and PBS 2pl. pron. encl. acc.–dat. *u̯ ōs > PS *u̯ ə̄ [15|17] (CS *vy [29]) > OCS vy,
ONovg. vy (Olander 2012: 335, where the pronominal forms are not taken into
consideration).
The reinterpretation of the vowel system is, in many dialects, accompanied
by the rise of new long vowels as the results of contractions, compensatory
lengthening etc. In some instances it seems that originally long vowels pre-
serve their quantity in Slavic dialects (see § 2.2.3).
This change includes three mergers: that of *i, *ü and *ɪ into *ь; that of *ī,
*ẹ̄ and *ǖ into *i; and that of *ē and *ɪ̄ into *ě. The rounded front vowels *ü ǖ
and the closed mid vowel *ẹ̄ were posited in order to explain why there is no
second palatalisation after PS *i̯åū and *åēi̯ [23], and the centralised front vow-
els *ɪ ɪ̄ were required to explain the distinct reflexes of PS *i̯ə̄n̆ in the Slavic
dialects [20|28|29]. Accordingly, the reshaping of the vowel system postdates
these changes. It should be noted that in the actual course of events, both the
remaking of the vowel system and the various mergers have probably taken
place in parallel and at different times in different Slavic dialects.
Chapter 3
Nominal Inflection
Proto-Slavic inherited three nominal inflectional categories from the Indo-

European proto-language, viz. case, number and gender. Proto-Slavic nouns
are inflected for case and number. Adjectives, non-personal pronouns and
some numerals are inflected for case, number and gender. Personal pronouns
are inflected for case and, depending on interpretation (see § 3.2.7), number.
This section gives an overview of the different Proto-Slavic stem-types with
paradigms showing the actual inflectional endings of each type.
Proto-Indo-European nominal paradigms basically had the same set of end-
ings attached to the stem; only the o-stems had partly differing endings. Based
on the position of the accent and the ablaut grades of root, suffix and ending,
inflected lexemes belonged to one of five ablaut types: an acrostatic (immobile
root-accent), a proterokinetic (root-accent alternating with suffixal accent),
an amphikinetic (root-accent alternating with desinential accent), a hystero-
kinetic (suffixal accent alternating with desinential accent) and a mesostatic
(immobile suffixal accent) paradigm (see e.g. Szemerényi 1996/1999: 161–162;
Clackson 2007: 79–86; Olander 2009: 91–92). The accent–ablaut paradigm of a
lexeme determined the suffix-ending structure of the word-forms of that lex-
eme. For instance, the genitive singular of a proterokinetic i-stem was *‑éi̯‑s,
whereas that of a hysterokinetic i-stem was *‑i̯‑ó/és.
It is likely that the clear-cut distinction between the various ablaut types
was already disappearing in the stages leading up to Proto-Indo-European; in
Proto-Slavic there is no such distinction. In each paradigm one suffix-ending
structure has been generalised in a given case–number form; for instance, in
the i-stem genitive singular the Proto-Indo-European proterokinetic ending
*‑ei̯s > PS *‑ei̯ [17] (CS *‑i [22|29]) was generalised. In the Proto-Indo-European
reconstructions in this study only limited attention is paid to the original affili-
ation of a given ending to one accent-ablaut paradigm or the other.
Proto-Indo-European nominal word-forms ended in an optional stem-
forming suffix followed by a case–number marker. In the i-, u‑, ā- and o-stems
the stem-suffix (*‑i‑/*‑ei̯‑, *‑u‑/*‑eu̯ ‑, *‑ah₂‑, *‑o‑) and the case–number marker
fused in pre-Proto-Slavic and are best analysed as one indivisible ending in
Proto-Slavic. In the consonant stems, on the other hand, the morphological
boundary between the consonantal stem-suffix and the case–number marker

Nominal Inflection 69
is still perceivable in Proto-Slavic. This means that all Proto-Slavic declensional

stems end in a consonant (Lunt 1955/2001: 222). In order to avoid repeating
myself more than necessary, the case–number markers are analysed under the
consonant stems in this chapter.
A remark on the status of the vocative is appropriate here (see also § 1.5.1).
In Vedic, vocative forms are accented on the first syllable if they are in the
beginning of a sentence or a verse; otherwise they are unaccented (see e.g.
Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 27). Accentuation of the initial sylla-
ble is also found in Greek forms such as o-stem ἄδελφε vs. nom. sg. ἀδελφός,
and r-stem πάτερ vs. nom. sg. πατήρ. In Slavic, lexemes with fixed accent on
the first syllable of the ending, e.g. o-stem PS *sakaˈlə (CS *sokòlъ||e), ā-stem
*geˈnā (*ženà), *sesˈtrā (*sestrà), form an unaccented vocative, e.g. PS *ˌsakalə
(CS *sȍkole) > Štk. sȍkole, *ˌgena (*žȅno) > Štk. žȅno, *ˌsestra (*sȅstro) > Štk.
sȅstro, Ukr. séstro. Combined with the unaccentedness of the vocative in Vedic,
this indicates that the vocative form was unaccented in Proto-Indo-European
(Andersen 2012: 149–150).
The accentuation of vocative forms may seem to constitute an exception
to otherwise exceptionless statements that we can make about paradigmatic
accentuation in Proto-Indo-European, Vedic or Slavic—for instance, that any
Vedic o-stem is accented on the same syllable counting from the beginning of
the word: nom. sg. deváḥ, acc. devám, gen. devásya etc., but voc. deva or déva.
This peculiarity has a natural explanation when we realise that the vocative
is not a case, but a derivational form (Andersen 2012: 137–147); differences in
accentuation between a base word and a derived form are only to be expected.
As mentioned in § 1.5.1, vocative forms are included here since they are tradi-
tionally regarded as inflectional forms and formally fit well into the study.
3.2 Paradigm Тypes
3.2.1 Consonant Stems

The Proto-Slavic consonant stems have two main subtypes: (1) non-neuter
(masculine-feminine) stems and (2) neuter stems. Both non-neuter and neu-
ter stems display several different nominative formations. The endings of the
non-neuter stems are distinct from those of the neuters in the nominative and
accusative of all numbers; in the remaining forms the endings of all genders
are identical. From a synchronic point of view the nominative(–accusative)
singular of consonant stems consists of a short variant of the stem used in the
remaining forms; for instance, to the stem PS *dukter‑ (CS *dъt’er‑) a nomina-
tive singular *dukˈtī (*dъt’ì) is formed. Outside the nominative(–accusative)
70 Chapter 3
singular the boundary between the consonantal stem-suffix and the case–
number marker is still clearly seen in Proto-Slavic consonant stems, as men-
tioned in § 3.1. Accordingly, apart from the different nominative(–accusative)
formations, only one set of endings is treated in this study.
Like the i- and u-stems, the Proto-Indo-European consonant stems showed
an alternation between long grade, full grade and zero grade in the stem-form-
ing suffix, e.g. non-neut. r-stem nom. sg. *‑ēr, acc. sg. *‑er‑m̥ , gen. sg. *‑r‑os. The
suffix had e-timbre in some paradigm types and o-timbre in others. In Slavic
it is generally the e-timbre that survives; in the nominative singular ending of
n-stems, however, the o-timbre is preserved. The vocative form had full grade
of the stem, e.g. PIE *dʰugh₂ter > Ved. duhitar, Gk. ϑύγατερ. In Slavic consonant
stems the nominative singular was used as the vocative form (by conversion;
see Andersen 2012: 147–148).
The nominative(–accusative) singular of the various consonant stems has
the following forms in Proto-Slavic (and Common Slavic):
ū-stems fem. *su̯ eˈkrū (*svekrỳ)

r-stems fem. *dukˈtī (*dъt’ì)
n-stems masc. *ˈkāmū (*ka̋ my)
neut. *u̯ ermin (*vermę)
nt-stems neut. *teˈlin (*telę̀)
(o)nt-stems masc. *u̯ edən (masc.-neut. *vedy; *pišę||ě)
neut. *u̯ edan (masc.-neut. *vedǫ; *pišę)
(u)s-stems masc.-neut. *u̯ edu (*vedъ)
s-stems neut. *ˌslau̯ a (*slȍvo)
The remaining consonant-stem forms are shown in table 2.
Table 2 Inflection of Proto-Slavic consonant stems
singular dual plural
non-neut. nom. (see above) *dukterī (*dъt’eri) *duktere (*dъt’ere)

neut. nom.–acc. (see above) *slau̯ esī (*slovesi, *slau̯ eˈsā (*slovesà);
→*slovesě) num. *keˈtūrī (*čety̋ ri)
non-neut. acc. *ˌdukteri (*dъ̏t’erь) *dukterī (*dъt’eri) *ˌdukterī (*dъ̏t’eri)
gen. *duktere (*dъt’ere) *dukterau̯ (*dъt’eru) *dukteru (*dъt’erъ)
dat. *dukterei̯ (*dъt’eri) *dukterimā *duktermə (*pol’amъ,

(*dъt’erьma) →*dъt’erьmъ,
→*dъt’eromъ)
instr. *duktermi (masc.-neut. *dukterimā *duktermī (*pol’ami,
→*ka̋ menьmь; fem. (*dъt’erьma) →*dъt’erьmi,
→*dъt’erьjǫ) →*dъt’ery)
loc. *dukteri (→*dъt’ere, *dukterau̯ (*dъt’eru) *dukterxu (*pol’asъ,
→*dъt’eri) →*dъt’erьxъ,
→*dъt’erěxъ)
In the oldest attested stages of the Slavic dialects consonant stems constitute a
separate declension, but they tend to merge with other stems, often i-stems, a
tendency which, in the case of many lexemes, was probably completed already
in pre-Proto-Slavic. A similar tendency is seen in the Baltic languages (Stang
1966: 219), and it is probable that the beginnings of the process go back to the
common ancestor of the two branches.
The formation of consonant stems in Slavic is treated by Vondrák 1906/1924:
658–669; Vaillant 1958: 165–181; Arumaa 1985: 13–49, 63–68. For Proto-Indo-
European see Olsen forthc. chapters 2, 5 and 7–11.
3.2.2 i-Stems
The Proto-Slavic i-stems probably did not have separate masculine and femi-
nine subparadigms yet, but in Common Slavic the two genders received
distinct forms in the instrumental singular and the nominative plural. The
Proto-Indo-European neuter subparadigm of the i-stems had almost com-
pletely disappeared, the only clear remnant of a neuter form being the nom-
inative-accusative plural ending found in the numeral PS *ˌtrī (CS *trȋ) from
PIE *tríh₂.
Two forms of the inanimate interrogative pronoun are sometimes regarded
as i-stems, viz. PS nom.–acc. *ˌki (CS *čь̏ ) (§ 3.3.16) and gen. *kesa (*česo, *čьso)
(§ 3.5.7). From a Slavic viewpoint these forms do not belong to the i-stem
paradigm, but since they may historically be related to the i-stems, they are
included in the table below.
72 Chapter 3
Table 3 Inflection of Proto-Slavic i-stems
non-neut. nom. *ˌgasti (*gȍstь) *ˌgastī (*gȍsti) *ˌgastei̯e (masc.

(→)*gȍstьje; fem.
→*kȍsti)
neut. nom.–acc. pron. *ˌki (*čь̏ ) – num. *ˌtrī (*trȋ)
non-neut. acc. *ˌgasti (*gȍstь) *ˌgastī (*gȍsti) *ˌgastī (*gȍsti)
gen. *ˌgastei̯ (*gȍsti); pron. *gastii̯au̯ (*gostьju) *gasteˈi̯u (*gostь̀ jь)
*kesa (*česo, *čьso)
dat. *ˌgastei̯ (*gȍsti) *gastimā (*gostьma); *gastiˈmə (*gostь̀ mъ)
*aˈkīmā (*oči̋ma)
instr. *gastiˈmi (masc. *gastimā (*gostьma); *gastiˈmī (*gostьmì)
*gostь̀ mь; fem. *aˈkīmā (*oči̋ma)
→*kostьjǫ̀ )
loc. *gasˈtēi̯ (*gostì) *gastii̯au̯ (*gostьju) *gastiˈxu (*gostь̀ xъ)
voc. *ˌgastei̯ (*gȍsti) – –
The Proto-Indo-European i-stem endings contained a suffix in the full grade

(*‑ei̯‑) or the zero grade (*‑i‑) followed by the case–number marker in the zero
or full grade.
The Proto-Slavic i-stem paradigm is shown in table 3.
For the formation of i-stems in Slavic see Vondrák 1906/1924: 639–656;
Vaillant 1974: 22–33; Arumaa 1985: 49–56. For Proto-Indo-European see Olsen
forthc. chapter 4.
3.2.3 u-stems
The u-stem declension still constitutes a separate paradigm in the oldest Slavic
languages, but tends to merge with the o-stems in most dialects. Slavic u-stems
are always masculine. The Indo-European proto-language also had feminine
u-stems, traces of which may be preserved in Baltic, and neuter u-stems; the
latter are preserved in Old Prussian, e.g. pecku, meddo, but have become mas-
culine in East Baltic and Slavic (see Stang 1966: 213–214; Vaillant 1958: 113–114;
Arumaa 1985: 58–59). Since adjectives preserve the old inflection more faith-
fully than nouns in Greek, the adjective ἡδύς is used as the example word in
the tables.
Table 4 Inflection of Proto-Slavic u-stems
nom. *ˌsūnu (*sy̑ nъ) *ˌsūnū (*sy̑ ny) *ˌsūnau̯ e (*sy̑ nove)
acc. *ˌsūnu (*sy̑ nъ) *ˌsūnū (*sy̑ ny) *ˌsūnū (*sy̑ ny)
gen. *ˌsūnau̯ (*sy̑ nu) *sūnau̯ au̯ (*synovu) *sūnaˈu̯ u (*synòvъ)
dat. *sūnaˈu̯ ei̯ (*synovì) *sūnumā (*synъma) *sūnuˈmə (*synъ̀mъ)
instr. *sūnuˈmi (*synъ̀mь) *sūnumā (*synъma) *sūnuˈmī (*synъmì)
loc. *sūˈnāu̯ (*synù) *sūnau̯ au̯ (*synovu) *sūnuˈxu (*synъ̀xъ)
voc. *ˌsūnau̯ (*sy̑ nu) – –
The Proto-Indo-European u-stems, like the i-stems (see § 3.2.2), had a suffix
in the full grade (*-eu̯ -) or the zero grade (*-u-) followed by the case–number
marker in the zero or full grade.
The Proto-Slavic u-stems are inflected as shown in table 4.
The Slavic languages show traces of i̯u-stems, e.g. OCS mǫžь from PS *ˌmangi̯u
(CS *mǫ̑žь), although they tend to be incorporated into the i̯o-stem declension
from an early stage (Meillet 1918a; 1924/1934: 415; Igartua 2005a: 276–280 with
references). To the extent that i̯u-stems exist as a distinct type in Proto-Slavic,
their inflection is identical to that of u-stems until the fronting of non-front
vowels [20] in post-Proto-Slavic. The i̯u-stems are therefore not analysed sepa-
rately in this chapter.
For the formation of (i̯)u-stems in Slavic see Vondrák 1906/1924: 656–658;
Vaillant 1958: 117–121; Arumaa 1985: 56–63. Proto-Indo-European u-stems are
treated in Olsen forthc. chapter 4.
3.2.4 ā-stems
The Proto-Slavic ā-stems have three subparadigms: (1) nouns and adjectives
with a nominative singular in PS *‑ā (CS *‑a), (2) nouns with a nominative
singular in *‑ī (CS *‑i) and (3) pronouns. Type (2) characterises a small group of
nouns, the *baˈgūni̯ī (CS *bogy̋ n’i) type. In Proto-Indo-European this type, the
so-called devī� ́ type, constituted a separate paradigm, but in Proto-Slavic the
type is inflected as a (i̯)ā-stem with the exception of the nominative singular.
Pronominal forms are treated individually only when they are substantially
different from the corresponding noun endings, not when they differ only by
the presence of the interfix PS *‑ai̯‑ (see § 3.2.6). The Slavic ā-stem nouns are
74 Chapter 3
mostly feminine, but masculine ā-stems designating male persons occur, e.g.
OCS sluga ‘servant’ (type 1), sǫdьji ‘judge’ (type 2).
According to the standard view, the Proto-Indo-European ā-stems con-
tained a suffix *‑ah₂‑ to which the consonant-stem case–number markers were
attached (see e.g. Clackson 2007: 96; cf. Beekes 1995/2011: 199–201 for a different
view). The only exception is the vocative singular, which seems to end in *‑a
with no laryngeal.
Although the ā-stems seem to have been productive in most Indo-European
branches except Anatolian, it is difficult to find ā-stem cognates that indis-
putably go back to the proto-language. According to one view, ā-stems with a
non-ablauting suffix *‑ah₂‑ never existed in the common ancestor of Anatolian
and the remaining Indo-European languages (cf. e.g. Beekes 1995/2011: 199–
201; and the discussions of feminine stems in *‑h₂ in Clackson 2007: 104–112;
Melchert 2014: 259; forthc. § 3.3.1.1). What matters for our purposes is that we
can quite safely reconstruct an ā-stem paradigm at least for non-Anatolian
Indo-European (see § 1.5.3).
Table 5 presents the Proto-Slavic ā-stem paradigm.
Table 5 Inflection of Proto-Slavic ā-stems
nom. *naˈgā (*nogà; *dušà); *ˌnagāi̯ (*nȍʒě; *dȗši) *ˌnagə̄ (*nȍgy||ě; *dȗšě)
*baˈgūni̯ī (*bogy̋ n’i)
acc. *ˌnagān (*nȍgǫ; *dȗšǫ) *ˌnagāi̯ (*nȍʒě; *dȗši) *ˌnagə̄n (*nȍgy||ě;
*dȗšę||ě)
gen. *naˈgə̄ (*nogỳ||ě̀; *dušě̀) *nagāu̯ (*nogu; *dušu) *naˈgu (*nògъ; *dúšь)
dat. *ˌnagāi̯ (*nȍʒě; *dȗši) *naˈgāmā (*noga̋ ma; *naˈgāmə (*noga̋ mъ;
*duša̋ ma) *duša̋ mъ)
instr. noun *nagān (*nogǫ, *naˈgāmā (*noga̋ ma; *naˈgāmī (*noga̋ mi;
→*nogojǫ̀ ; *dušǫ, →*dušejǫ̀ ); *duša̋ ma) *duša̋ mi)
pron. *taˈi̯ān (*tojǫ̀ ; *jejǫ̀ )
loc. *naˈgāi̯ (*noʒě̀; *dušì) *nagāu̯ (*nogu; *dušu) *naˈgāxu (*noga̋ xъ;
*duša̋ xъ)
voc. *ˌnaga (*nȍgo; *dȗše) – –
In parallel with the relationship between o- and i̯o-stems, the Proto-Slavic ā‑

and i̯ā- stems have the same set of endings, which only become differentiated
by the fronting of non-front vowels [20] in post-Proto-Slavic. Words belong-
ing to the so-called *vòl’a type, e.g. PS *u̯ aˈlei̯ā (CS *vòl’a), probably ended in
PS *‑ei̯ā and were normal i̯ā-stems in Proto-Slavic (Andersen 2014: 79–99; cf.
Kapović 2007; Fecht 2010); the *vòl’a type is not treated separately in this study.
For the formation of (i̯)ā-stems in Slavic see Vondrák 1906/1924: 494–639;
Vaillant 1974: 20–22, 513–524; Arumaa 1985: 74–79, 91–92. For the Proto-Indo-
European situation see Olsen forthc. chapter 3.
3.2.5 o-stems
The Proto-Slavic o-stem declension comprises four subparadigms: (1) mas-
culine nouns and adjectives, (2) neuter nouns and adjectives, (3) masculine
non-personal pronouns and (4) neuter non-personal pronouns. The subpara-
digms only differ in a few forms and may conveniently be grouped together
in one paradigm. Regarding the selection criteria for pronominal endings see
§ 3.2.6. Whereas Proto-Indo-European had a few feminine o-stem nouns such
as *snusó‑ ‘daughter-in-law’, Proto-Slavic o-stems are invariably masculine; for
practical reasons I generally refer to Proto-Indo-European non-neuter o-stems
as masculine.
In Proto-Indo-European the o-stems, or thematic stems, contained the
thematic suffix *e/o—almost invariably *o—followed by the case–number
marker. The timbre of the thematic vowel was apparently determined by the
voicedness of the following segment in pre-Proto-Indo-European: *o before
voiced segments, *e elsewhere (Rasmussen 1989b: 139). In nouns there was a
tendency to replace the e-timbre with the more common o-timbre. Most case–
number markers of the o-stems were identical to those of the consonant stems,
but in some forms they differed, e.g. o-stem abl. sg. *‑h₂ad vs. C-stem gen.–abl.
sg. *‑e/os. The o-stem paradigm is relatively well preserved in Proto-Slavic.
Table 6 shows the Proto-Slavic o-stem paradigm.
From an inflectional point of view there is no i̯o-stem paradigm distinct
from the o-stem paradigm in Proto-Slavic; all endings of the o- and i̯o-stems
are identical. With the fronting of non-front vowels [20] in the Common Slavic
period do most endings develop two allomorphs, depending on the absence or
presence of a stem-final *‑i̯‑. The masculine i̯o-stem vocative singular form in
*‑i̯e is replaced with the reflex of the i̯u-stem form PS *‑i̯au̯ (CS *‑ju) in Common
Slavic.
76 Chapter 3
Table 6 Inflection of Proto-Slavic o-stems
masc. nom. *ˌtakə (*tȍkъ||e; *gȍjь) *ˌtakā (*tȍka; *gȍja) *ˌtakəi̯ (*tȍk||ci; *gȍji)
neut.
nom.–acc. *ˌsuta (*sъ̏to; *pȍl’e) *ˌsutai̯ (*sъ̏tě; *pȍl’i)
*sutˈā (*sъtà; *pol’à)
masc. acc. *ˌtaku (*tȍkъ; *gȍjь) *ˌtakā (*tȍka; *gȍja)
*ˌtakə̄n (*tȍky||ě;
*gȍję||ě)
gen. noun *ˌtakā (*tȍka; *gȍja); *takāu̯ (*toku; *goju) noun *taˈku (*tòkъ;
pron. *taˈga (*togò; *jegò) *gòjь); pron. *tai̯ˈxu
(*tě́xъ; *jíxъ)
dat. *ˌtakāu̯ (*tȍku; *gȍju) *takamā (*tokoma; *takaˈmə (*tokòmъ;
*gojema) *gojèmъ)
instr. *taˈkā (→*tȍkomь, *takamā (*tokoma; *taˈkū (*tokỳ; *gojì)
→*tȍkъmь; →*gȍjemь, *gojema)
→*gȍjьmь)
loc. noun *ˌtakai̯ (*tȍk||cě; *takāu̯ (*toku; *goju) *takai̯ˈxu (*tok||cě́xъ;
*gȍji); pron. *taˈmi (*tòmь; *gojíxъ)
*jèmь)
voc. *ˌtake (*tȍče; →*gȍju) – –
For the formation of (i̯)o-stems in Slavic see Vondrák 1906/1924: 494–639;

Vaillant 1974: 19–20, 508–513; Arumaa 1985: 68–74, 86–90. The formation of
Proto-Indo-European o-stems is analysed in Olsen forthc. chapters 3 and 6.
3.2.6 Non-Personal Pronouns

The endings of the non-personal pronouns are identical to those of the o-
and ā-stems in the nominative and accusative of all numbers. In most of the
remaining forms the Proto-Slavic pronouns contain an interfix *‑ai̯‑ (before
consonants: CS *‑ě‑ [22|29], *‑ji‑ [20|22|29]; before vowels: CS *‑oj‑ [29], *‑jej‑
[20|29]) (see Andersen 2009a: 4). The interfix is followed by the noun ending
or the case–number marker, e.g. PS fem. dat. sg. *‑ai̯āi̯ (CS *‑oji; *‑eji), dat. pl.
*‑ai̯mə (*‑ěmъ; *‑jimъ). A few pronominal forms contain another interfix, PS
*‑am‑ (CS *‑om‑ [29]; *‑jem‑ [20|29]), e.g. masc.–neut. dat. sg. *‑amāu̯ (*‑omu;
*‑jemu).
Historically, the Proto-Slavic interfixes *‑ai̯‑ and *‑am‑ seem to reflect ear-
lier *‑osi̯‑ and *‑osm‑, cf. Ved. fem. dat. sg. tásyai, masc.–neut. tásmai (see e.g.
Arumaa 1985: 173–174 with references). It is unclear if the loss of the *s in Slavic
is phonetically or morphologically conditioned (Matzinger 2001: 196–198;
a morphological solution is preferred by e.g. Brugmann 1909–1911: 360, 362;
Vaillant 1958: 369–370).
In this study specifically pronominal endings are only analysed when they
differ from the corresponding noun endings by more than the addition of an
interfix; for instance, PS masc.-neut. gen. sg. *‑aga (CS *‑ogo; *‑jego) and masc.–
neut. loc. sg. *‑ami (*‑omь; *‑jemь) are included. Pronominal endings contain-
ing an interfix PS *‑ai̯‑ or *‑am‑ plus a noun ending or case–number marker are
not treated; for examples see above.
3.2.7 Personal and Reflexive Pronouns

Personal pronouns are funny little characters. They differ in a non-systematic
way from other nominal forms, their formation is often irregular and based
on different stems, they often show special syntactic behaviour and are usu-
ally relatively short (cf. Sihler 1995: 370–371). Interacting not only with each
other but also with other parts of the nominal system and even with verbal
endings, they present special diachronic challenges. It is no wonder that the
reconstruction of the prehistory of the personal pronouns is among the more
difficult exercises of Indo-European comparative linguistics. The treatment of
the Proto-Slavic personal pronouns—especially their prehistory and relations
to the pronouns of the other Indo-European branches—rests on somewhat
less safe ground than the other parts of the study.
While it is true, as Meillet said, that “[latin] nōs signifie ‘moi et d’autres’,
et non plusieurs ‘moi’” (1903/1973: 333), it is reasonable to assume that from
a Proto-Slavic point of view the singular, dual and plural personal pronouns
were conceived of as having not only case but also number. As pointed out
by Rasmussen, from an inflectional point of view “the [Proto-Indo-European]
dual and plural pronouns must be the duals and p[l]urals of something”
(1987b/1999: 265 [emphasis as in original]; see also forthc. b; cf. Szemerényi
1996/1999: 217; Katz 1998: 29). The same is valid for Proto-Slavic, where many—
but not all—oblique singular, dual and plural forms of the personal pronouns
have endings that are similar or identical to those of the corresponding num-
bers of the remaining nominals.
Each of the personal pronouns possesses different stems to which the end-
ings are attached. The six attested Proto-Slavic nominative forms cannot be
segmented into a stem and an ending: 1sg. *ˈēzu (CS *ja̋ zъ, *já), 2sg. *ˌtū (*ty̑ ),
1du. *u̯ ē (*vě), 2du. *u̯ ā (*va), 1pl. *ˌmū (*my̑ ), 2pl. *ˌu̯ ū (*vy̑ ); accordingly, they
are treated individually in this study. Apart from the nominative, the first-
person singular forms are based on the stems *m‑, *men‑, *mun‑ (CS *m‑, *men‑,
78 Chapter 3
*mъn‑). Those of the second-person singular are based on *t‑, *teb‑, *tab‑ (CS
*t‑, *teb‑, *tob‑); a parallel situation is found in the reflexive pronoun, which
has the stems *s‑, *seb‑, *sab‑ (CS *s‑, *seb‑, *sob‑). There is much less allomor-
phy in the dual and plural forms: the oblique first-person dual and plural forms
are based on a stem PS *n‑ (CS *n‑), while the second-person dual and plural
are based on *u̯ ‑ (CS *v‑).
The inflection of the first- and second-person pronouns and the reflexive
pronoun in Proto-Slavic is presented in tables 7–9.
Table 7 Inflection of Proto-Slavic first-person sg., du. and pl. pronouns
nom. *ˈēzu (*ja̋ zъ; *já) *u̯ ē (*vě) *ˌmū (*my̑ )

acc. *mēn (*mę) encl. *nā (*na) encl. *nə̄ (*ny)
gen. *ˌmene (*mȅne) *ˈnāi̯āu̯ (*na̋ ju) *ˈnāsu (*na̋ sъ)
dat. tonic *muˈnāi̯ (*mъně̀); tonic *ˈnāmā (*na̋ ma); tonic *ˈnāmə (*na̋ mъ);
encl. *mei̯ (*mi) encl. *nā (*na) encl. *nə̄ (*ny)
instr. *muˈnai̯ān / *munaˈi̯ān *ˈnāmā (*na̋ ma) *ˈnāmī (*na̋ mi)
(*mъnòjǫ / *mъnojǫ̀ )
loc. *muˈnāi̯ (*mъně̀) *ˈnāi̯āu̯ (*na̋ ju) *ˈnāsu (*na̋ sъ)
Table 8 Inflection of Proto-Slavic second-person sg., du. and pl. pronouns
nom. *ˌtū (*ty̑ ) *u̯ ū (*vy) *ˌu̯ ū (*vy̑ )

acc. *tēn (*tę) encl. *u̯ ā (*va) encl. *u̯ ə̄ (*vy)
gen. *ˌtebe (*tȅbe) *ˈu̯ āi̯āu̯ (*va̋ ju) *ˈu̯ āsu (*va̋ sъ)
dat. tonic *te/aˈbāi̯ (*te/obě̀); tonic *ˈu̯ āmā (*va̋ ma); tonic *ˈu̯ āmə (*va̋ mъ);
encl. *tei̯ (*ti) encl. *u̯ ā (*va) encl. *u̯ ə̄ (*vy)
instr. *taˈbai̯ān / *tabaˈi̯ān *ˈu̯ āmā (*va̋ ma) *ˈu̯ āmī (*va̋ mi)
(*tobòjǫ / *tobojǫ̀ )
loc. *te/aˈbāi̯ (*te/obě̀) *ˈu̯ āi̯āu̯ (*va̋ ju) *ˈu̯ āsu (*va̋ sъ)
Table 9 Inflection of Proto-Slavic reflexive pronoun
(no number)
nom. –
acc. *sēn (*sę)
gen. *ˌsebe (*sȅbe)
dat. tonic *se/aˈbāi̯ (*se/obě̀̀); encl. *sei̯ (*si)
instr. *saˈbai̯ān / *sabaˈi̯ān (*sobòjǫ / *sobojǫ̀ )
loc. *se/aˈbāi̯ (*se/obě̀)
The stem variants have mixed origins. Some of them are inherited from Proto-
Indo-European, others have arisen by sound changes in the prehistory of Slavic,
and still others are the results of analogical developments. While a treatment
of the stem variants as such is outside the scope of this study, the forms of
the personal pronoun that present diachronic interest for the analysis of the
inflectional system are included here. For the variation between *men‑ and
*mun‑ and between *teb‑, *seb‑ and *tab‑, *sab‑ see §§ 3.5.8 and 3.6.6.
As for the notoriously unstable quantity of the vowel of the (usually mono-
syllabic) nominative forms of the personal pronoun in Indo-European, the
Baltic languages do not seem to show a clear pattern. Lithuanian points mostly
to originally short forms: 1sg. àš, 2sg. tù (NWŽem. tọ̀), 1du. Žem. vẽdọ, 2du. jùdu,
1pl. mẽs (dial. mès, mė̃s); but long 2pl. jū̃s. A similar pattern is observable in
Latvian: es, tu, mẽs (dial. mes), jũs. Old Prussian has as / es, tu / tū / toū, mes,
ioūs, with long vowels in the second-person forms. Proto-Slavic, on the other
hand, invariably has a long vowel: 1sg. *ˈēzu (CS *ja̋ zъ, *já), 2sg. *ˌtū (*ty̑ ), 1du.
*u̯ ū (*vy), 2du. *u̯ ē (*vě), 1pl. *ˌu̯ ū (*vy̑ ), 2pl. *ˌmū (*my̑ ).
There is no general agreement as to whether the long vowels reflect Proto-
Indo-European long vowels or short vowels followed by a laryngeal. Taken at
face value, however, the acute tone of the Latvian and Old Prussian long forms
point to the earlier presence of a laryngeal (see also the discussion in Kortlandt
2013). The forms with short vowels attested in Baltic and the remaining Indo-
European languages may result from a loss of the final laryngeal in pausa (cf.
Rix 1976/1992: 75, 178), a hypothesis which is supported by the fact that in the
one form that clearly has not been shortened in Baltic, viz. Li. 2pl. jū̃s, Lv. jũs,
OPr. ioūs, the laryngeal was in a closed syllable. It is also very likely that at least
some of the short forms found in Indo-European languages are the results of
80 Chapter 3
later shortenings, typologically common in pronominal forms. In accordance

with these considerations, the Proto-Indo-European nominative forms with
long and short reflexes are presented as though they originally had a short
vowel followed by a laryngeal; it should be kept in mind that the original situa-
tion may not have been so simple.
Discussions of the stems of the Slavic personal pronouns from a diachronic
point of view are found in Vondrák 1908/1928: 70–74; Hujer 1912, Vaillant 1958:
441–456; Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 107–113; Arumaa 1985: 157–171; Kapović 2006a
(including Baltic). For Baltic see Stang 1966: 247–257, esp. 251–253; for Proto-
Indo-European see Katz 1998.
3.3 Nominative(–Accusative) Singular
3.3.1 Consonant Stems: (Feminine) ū-Stem Nominative Singular
PS *su̯eˈkrū (CS *svekrỳ) PBS *‑ˈṵ̄s PIE *‑uhs
OCS svekry Li. – Ved. śvaśrū́ḥ

ORu. svekry; ONovg. (late) cьrky Lv. – OAv. →fsǝratuš; YAv. →tanuš
OCz. →svekrev, OPo. świekry OPr. – Gk. ὀφρῦς
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 130: PIE *‑ūs | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 201: PIE
*‑uh | Rasmussen forthc. a: – | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/
1975: 187 | Rix 1976/1992: 71: Gk. ‑ῦς goes back to PIE *‑uhs | Sihler
1995: 327–328: Gk. ‑ῡ�ς́ is probably from PIE *‑uh₂s | Weiss 2009/
2011: 253: Ved. śvaśrū́‑, OCS svekry reflect PIE *‑uh₂s; La. socrus
has been reshaped on the model of the u-stems | Krahe 1942/
1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 168 | Endzelīns 1971: – | Stang 1966: – | Otrębski
1956: – | Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 2 (1906/ 1924: 658–659) | Hujer 1910: 9–12:
Slavic ‑y reflects PIE *‑ūs with acute tone | Meillet 1924/ 1934:
429 | Vaillant 1958: 263: PIE *‑ūs | Bräuer 1969a: 179: CS *‑y goes
back to PIE *‑ūs | Arumaa 1985: 63–65 | Igartua 2005a: 303–304:
PIE *‑uh₂s | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 102: OCS ‑y reflects PIE *‑ūs
PIE The nominative singular of the Proto-Indo-European ū-stems was

*‑uhs, consisting of the stem-suffix *‑uh‑ followed by the nominative singular
marker *‑s. Outside Balto-Slavic the ending is preserved in Vedic and Greek;
the Avestan ending ‑uš seems to be taken from the u-stems (de Vaan 2003: 233).
For the accentuation of Gk. ὀφρῦς see Liddell et al. 1843/1996: 1279; Olander
2007c: 2.
PBS PIE *‑uhs regularly yielded PBS *‑ˈṵ̄s [1|4]. The ending is not preserved
in Baltic.
PS PBS *‑ˈṵ̄s is regularly reflected as PS *‑ˈū [12|13|17] (CS *‑y [29]), which is
relatively well attested in the old Slavic dialects. In most cases the ending was
replaced with other formations, as in Old Czech svekrev which has the accusa-
tive ending PS *‑uu̯ i (CS *‑ъvь [29]) (but cf. Kortlandt 1997a/2009: 132–133, who
assumes that the original accusative singular ending in Slavic is ‑ovь from PIE
*‑eu̯ hm̥ ). The ū-stems had a certain productivity in loanwords at a late stage
of Common Slavic, e.g. CS *bűky ‘letter’ from PGmc. *bōk‑ (see Pronk-Tiethoff
2013: 80–81).
3.3.2 Consonant Stems: (Feminine) r-Stem Nominative Singular
PS *dukˈtī (CS *dъt’ì) PBS *‑ˈēr PIE *‑ēr
OCS dъšti Li. →duktė̃ Ved. →duhitā́

ORu. dъči; ONovg. doci Lv. →mãte OAv. →dugǝdā; YAv. →duγδa
OCz. dci OPr. →duckti Gk. θυγάτηρ
La. pater
Go. dauhtar
Hi. keššar (OS), →ḫašterza
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 125–127: PIE *‑ḗr, *‑ē ̃ | Beekes 1995/2011: 195:
PIE (hysterodynamic) *‑ḗr | Rasmussen forthc. a § 9: PIE (hysterody-
namic) *‑ēr | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 203 (Wackernagel
1896: 108): PIE *‑ē (perhaps originally preconsonantal variant) and
*‑ēr | Rix 1976/1992: 150: PIE *‑ē(r) | Sihler 1995: 290–291: PIE *‑ēr;
*‑r was deleted in IIr. and BS by analogy with n-stem nom. sg. | Weiss
2009/2011: 198–200: PIE *‑ēr < *‑ers | Krahe 1942/1967: 38–39: PIE
*‑ḗr | Boutkan 1995: 269–273: PIE *‑ēr | Kloekhorst 2008a: 108,
326: Hi. ḫašterza probably represents PIE *h₂stḗr plus *‑s
82 Chapter 3
PBS Olander 2009: 168 | Endzelīns 1971: 161–162 | Stang 1966: 219–220:

Li. ‑ė is from PIE *‑ē, not from *‑ēr | Otrębski 1956: 51–52: original
ending was *‑ēr; Li. circumflex tone is perhaps the result of the loss of
*‑r | Endzelīns 1923: 324
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2 (1906/1924: 661): Slavic ‑i goes back to *‑ḗr | Hujer
1910: 56–62: Slavic ‑i is from *‑ē̃, not from its variant *‑ēr and not from
bogyn’i type | Meillet 1924/1934: 149, 427: PIE *‑ē; development of PIE
*‑ē to Slavic ‑ě or ‑i perhaps depends on tonal differences | Vaillant
1958: 256–257: PIE *‑ē(r); CS *‑i is *‑ī from ī-stems | Bräuer 1969b: 71
(1961: 103): CS *‑i is not from PIE *‑ēr, but may be a secondary extension
in *‑ī | Arumaa 1985: 39–40, 103: CS *‑i is perhaps from ī-stems; Li. ‑ė̃ is
perhaps from ė-stems | Igartua 2005a: 322–329: PIE *‑ēr; CS *‑i is from
*bogyn’i type | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 100: PIE *‑ēr; OCS ‑i is from
other fem. stems (mlьni, bogyn’i types)
PIE The Indo-European languages allow us to reconstruct the nominative

singular of the r-stems as *‑ēr, also preserved in TochB tkācer. In Indo-Iranian
the final *‑r was dropped by analogy with the n-stem nominative singular; the
remaining branches retained the original form. The ending *‑ēr is probably the
result of a pre-Proto-Indo-European development of *‑VRs to PIE *‑V̄ R, a pro-
cess referred to as Szemerényi’s law (e.g. Collinge 1985/1996: 237–238; see also
Szemerényi 1996/1999: 115–116; and cf. the development of pre-PIE *‑VRh₂ to
PIE *‑V̄ R in § 3.13.2).
PBS PIE *‑ēr was preserved as *‑ˈēr in Proto-Balto-Slavic. In Baltic the final

*‑r was dropped by analogy with the endingless nominative singular of the
n-stems (cf. Kortlandt 1983/2011a: 176, stating that “[t]he secondary loss of the
final *r in Baltic does not seem to pose a serious problem”). The Latvian form
in ‑e led to a transfer of the r-stems to the ē-stems, which had a homophonous
nominative singular.
PS Some authors (e.g. Vaillant loc. cit., Igartua loc. cit.) consider Slavic *‑ī for
expected *‑ē to be analogical from the type CS *bogy̋ n’i (§ 3.3.13). In an early
study Meillet explained CS *‑i as the result of *‑ēs, consisting of original *‑ē
plus an analogical *‑s (1897: 105). Because of the morphologically isolated
status of the form, however, it is difficult to find a reasonable analogical
model and to imagine a motivation for a replacement of the ending with a
form from another paradigm. Therefore I find it more reasonable to assume
the form is phonetically regular. The most straightforward explanation of
PS *‑ˈī (CS *‑i [29]) is to assume *ē was raised to *ī before final *‑r, which then
disappeared [18]. The ending is preserved in the old Slavic dialects.
3.3.3 Consonant Stems: Masculine n-Stem Nominative Singular
PS →*ˈkāmū (CS *ka̋my) PBS *‑ˈō PIE *‑ō
OCS nom.–acc. kamy (Codex Li. armuõ Ved. áśmā

Suprasliensis), →kamenь Lv. →akmens, OLv. OAv. aⁱriiə̄mā; YAv. asma
ORu. nom.–acc. →kamenь; RuCS. →akmuons Gk. →ἀγών
kamy; ONovg. ? OPr. →kērmens La. homō
OCz. nom.–acc. →kámen; Slnc. Go. guma
ką̃ mä, ką̃ m, →ką̃ mjeń Hi. →ḫāraš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 125–126 (1897: 392): OCS ‑y < *‑ū < *‑ų̄ < *‑ūn < PIE
*‑ṓn, alongside *‑ō̃ | Beekes 1995/2011: 194: PIE *‑ōn | Rasmussen
forthc. a § 8: Slavic ‑y reflects PIE *‑ō̃ or *‑ons | Debrunner &
Wackernagel 1930/1975: 270–271: PIE form did not end in *‑n; *‑n was ana-
logically reintroduced in various branches | Rix 1976/1992: 145: PIE
*‑ō(n) | Sihler 1995: 290: PIE *‑ō < pre-PIE *‑ons; Gk. added ‑ν by anal-
ogy with r-stem nom. sg. | Weiss 2009/2011: – | Krahe 1942/1967:
44: ONor. hani and probably also Go. hana are from PIE *‑ēn, alongside
*‑ẽ; WGmc. forms reflect PIE *‑õ, alongside *‑ōn | Boutkan 1995: 278–
279, 281–282: PIE, PGmc. *‑ōn is preserved only in Go. | Kloekhorst
2008a: 108, 302, 589: Hi. ḫāraš is from PIE *‑ōn plus *‑s
PBS Olander 2009: 168 | Endzelīns 1971: 161–162 | Stang 1966: 219–220:
Li. ‑uõ reflects PIE *‑ō, not *‑ōn | Otrębski 1956: 56: original ending
was *‑ōn | Endzelīns 1923: 321–322
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2 | Hujer 1910: 36–41: Slavic ‑y is from *‑ṓn; Li.
‑uõ is from *‑ō̃ | Meillet 1924/1934: 425–426: Slavic ‑y is from *‑ō plus
*‑s | Vaillant 1958: 204–206: Slavic *‑y does not reflect PIE *‑ō but rep-
resents analogical *‑ōns or *‑ōn | Bräuer 1969b: 8 (1961: 105): CS *‑y <
*‑ūn reflects PIE acute *‑ōn | Arumaa 1985: 103–106: development of
*‑ō to *‑ū > CS *‑y is unclear | Igartua 2005a: 322–329: PIE *‑ōn; CS *‑y
reflects *‑ōn plus secondary nom. sg. marker *‑s | Aitzetmüller 1978/
1991: 93–94: OCS ‑y, Li. ‑uõ are from PIE *‑ōn
PIE The Proto-Indo-European form ended in *‑ō, regularly reflected in Indo-

Iranian, Latin, Celtic (e.g. Celtiberian personal name Melmu; see McCone
1996: 60), Germanic and Lithuanian. The ending had probably arisen from pre-
PIE *‑ōn as a result of a loss of *‑n after a long vowel (Schindler 1974: 5); pre-PIE
*‑ōn, in turn, probably reflects *‑ons via Szemerényi’s law (§ 3.3.2). In Greek
84 Chapter 3
the *n from the remaining forms was added to the nominative singular on the
pattern of the r-stems; the same restitution of *‑n apparently took place in
Slavic (see below).
PBS PIE *‑ō regularly yielded PBS *‑ˈō, preserved in Li. ‑uo. In Latvian the
n-stems have joined the i-stem paradigm and the ending has been normalised
as ‑ns, as in Old Prussian; the original vocalism of the nominative singular is
preserved in OLv. akmuons.
PS By analogy with the relationship in the r-stems between nom. sg.
*‑ēr and the stem *‑er‑, PBS *‑ˈō was remade to pre-PS *‑ōn > PS *‑ū [18] (CS
*‑y [29]) with *‑n from the stem *‑en‑. The ending has disappeared in most of
the attested Slavic dialects, but is preserved in e.g. OCS (Codex Suprasliensis)
kamy, Polab. komoi, Slnc. ką̃ mä, ką̃ m (see Lorentz 1903: 245; for further traces of
the type in Slavic see Pronk 2009: 107 with n. 14). The length of Cz. kámen possi-
bly preserves a trace of an originally disyllabic form, viz. *kámy (Trávníček 1935:
250). ORu. kamy, plamy belong to the literary language (Gorškova & Xaburgaev
1981: 155). In Old Russian, Old Czech and other dialects, the original form was
substituted with one based on the stem PS *ˈkāmen‑ (CS *ka̋ men‑) etc. with
addition of the i-stem ending PS *‑i (CS *‑ь); cf. the similar process in Latvian.
It is often assumed that korę, attested as a nominative-accusative form in
Old Church Slavonic and Russian Church Slavonic, reflects the Proto-Indo-
European n-stem type with a nominative singular in *‑ēn represented by Gk.
ποιμήν (Hujer 1910: 40; Meillet 1924/1934: 149, 425–426; Mikkola 1950: 47; Vaillant
1950: 216; 1958: 195–196; Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 93–94; Igartua 2005a: 327–328;
for discussions of the form see also Vaillant 1932b: 32–36; Arumaa 1985: 103–
106; Havlová & Erhart 1996: 338–339; Pronk 2009: 109–110 with n. 19). While this
type certainly did exist in Proto-Indo-European (although *‑ēn for *‑ē is prob-
ably a later analogical creation), I do not consider it to be directly reflected in
Slavic korę since the combined evidence of PS *dukˈtī (CS *dъt’ì) from pre-PS
*‑ēr and PS *ˈkāmū (CS *ka̋ my) from pre-PS *‑ōn points to a general loss of
word-final dentals after the mid vowels *ē ō in pre-Proto-Slavic [18]. Thus pre-
PS *‑ēn would probably have yielded PS **‑ī (CS **‑i).
The form korę may be an innovation, replacing kory (also attested in OCS)
by analogy with the nominative singular of the neuter n-stems (§ 3.3.4; see
Bräuer 1969b; Lunt 1955/2001: 226 n. 48 considers korę to be a “local innova-
tion”; Derksen 2008: 237 reconstructs CS *kory; but cf. Havlová & Erhart 1996:
339; Trubačёv 1985: 65). The instance of korę in an Old Church Slavonic man-
uscript found in 1975 is regarded by Mareš (1993: 129) as a neuter, occurring
alongside masc. kory (for the manuscript see also H. Birnbaum & Schaeken
1997: 32–33, 147).
3.3.4 Consonant Stems: Neuter n-Stem Nom.–Acc. Singular
PS *u̯ermin (CS *vermę) PBS *‑in PIE *‑n̥
OCS vrěmę Li. – Ved. kárma

ORu. verem’a; ONovg. ? Lv. – OAv. ą̇ nmā; YAv. nąma
OCz. rámě OPr. →semen Gk. ὄνομα, →ἄρσεν
La. nōmen
Go. →hairto
Hi. lāman
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 145–146 (1897: 392): PIE *‑n̥ , *‑ḗn, *‑ē̃; OCS ‑ę is from
*‑ḗn, not from *‑n̥ | Beekes 1995/2011: 205: PIE *‑n̥ | Rasmussen
forthc. a § 8: PIE *‑n̥ ; Slavic ‑ę < *‑en is analogical from inflected
forms | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 271–273: Ved. ‑a reflects
PIE *‑n̥ ; Ved. variant ‑ā is metrically lengthened and does not corre-
spond to Go. ‑o, and probably not to OCS ‑ę | Rix 1976/1992: 144,
152: PIE *‑n̥ | Sihler 1995: 297: PIE *‑n̥ | Weiss 2009/2011: 313: PIE
*‑n̥ | Krahe 1942/1967: 46: Go. ‑o points to PIE *‑õ; other Gmc. lan-
guages point to PIE *‑ōn; perhaps the form was originally a collective
with lengthened grade, like Gk. ὕδωρ | Boutkan 1995: 285–286: PIE
*‑n̥ > PGmc. *‑uN was replaced with forms based on nom.–acc. pl. in the
Gmc. dialects | Kloekhorst 2008a: 108, 518: Hi. ‑an reflects PIE *‑n
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 162 | Stang 1966: 225: OPr.
‑en and OCS ‑ę reflect *‑en, not *‑n̥ | Otrębski 1956: – | Endzelīns
1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2 (1906/1924: 660–661): Slavic ‑ę is from *‑n̥ t | Hujer
1910: 49–50: Slavic ‑ę reflects PIE *‑ḗn, alongside *‑n̥ | Meillet 1924/
1934: 426: PIE *‑n̥ ; Slavic ‑ę is from *‑ēn, perhaps reflecting neut. nt-stem
ending *‑ēnt | Vaillant 1958: 204–205: CS *‑ę is not from PIE *‑n̥ , but
from new ending *‑ēn, analogical from neut. nt-stem ending | Bräuer
1969b: 25–26: CS *‑ę is not from PIE *‑en, but perhaps from PIE *‑ent
or *‑n̥ t | Arumaa 1985: 107: CS *‑ę does not reflect PIE *‑n̥ , but
goes back to *‑en introduced from oblique cases; there is no evidence
for acute *‑ḗn | Igartua 2005a: 331–334: PIE *‑n̥ could not yield CS
*‑ę | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: PIE *‑n̥ ; OCS ‑ę is from secondary *‑ēn
PIE The form, which ends in the suffix in the zero grade with a zero case–
number marker, is preserved in most branches of Indo-European. In Germanic
86 Chapter 3
it was remade with the long vowel of the nominative-accusative plural (Lane
1963: 163–164; Boutkan loc. cit.).
PBS PIE *‑n̥ regularly yielded PBS *‑in [2]. Since PBS *‑im is reflected as OPr.
‑in in the accusative singular of the i-stems, it seems natural to assume that
PBS *‑in would also yield OPr. ‑in. In that case, ‑en in semen would have to
be secondary, probably taken from the word-internal variant of the suffix, not
attested in Old Prussian but reconstructable as PBS *‑en‑ (see Olander 2010: 93
with n. 21). It cannot be excluded, though, that ‑en is the phonetically regular
reflex of PBS *‑in and that i-stem acc. sg. ‑in has its vowel from other forms of
the paradigm.
PS While final *‑m disappeared after short vowels in pre-Proto-Slavic [19],

*-n was retained; thus PBS *‑in yielded PS *‑in (CS *‑ę [28]). For criticism of
alternative explanations of the ending, including the older view that the accen-
tuation of the neuter n-stems points to *‑ēn with a long vowel, see Orr 2000: 26
with n. 34 and Olander 2010: 88–89. The accentuation of mobile n-stems in
Slavic is difficult to establish (see the discussion in Pronk 2009). The old Slavic
dialects show the regular reflexes of PS *‑in.
3.3.5 Consonant Stems: (Neuter) nt-Stem Nom.–Acc. Singular
PS *teˈlin (CS *telę̀) PBS *‑in PIE *‑n̥d
OCS ovьčę Li. – Ved. áśvavat

ORu. tel’a; ONovg. vyžl’a Lv. – OAv., YAv. astuuat̰
OCz. kuřě, kuře OPr. – Gk. →ἑκόν
La. →ferēns
Go. –
Hi. (→)ḫūman (OS)
PIE
Brugmann 1909–1911: 147 | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 197: PIE
*‑nt | Rasmussen forthc. a: – | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/
1975: 262: PIE *‑n̥ t | Rix 1976/1992: 144: ending of Gk. ἑκόν replaces *‑α
< PIE *‑n̥ t | Sihler 1995: 615 | Weiss 2009/2011: – | Krahe 1942/
1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: 183–184: Hi. ‑an goes
back to *‑ant
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 128 | Stang 1966: 227: suffix

of OPr. smunents corresponds to Slavic ‑ęt‑ | Otrębski 1956: – |
Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 2 (1906/1924: 665) | Hujer 1910: 50–52: suf-
fix *‑ent‑ also appears in OPr. smunents; Slavic ‑ę is from *‑ent with
analogical acute tone from n-stem ‑ę < *‑ḗn | Meillet 1924/1934:
428 | Vaillant 1958: 253–255: the form is originally the present par-
ticiple of stative verbs | Bräuer 1969b: 83 (1961: 105–106): CS *‑ę
is from *‑ent | Arumaa 1985: 107: Slavic ‑ę is from *‑n̥ t, less likely
́
from *‑ent, *‑ḗnt, *‑ī�nt | Igartua 2005a: 331–334: CS *‑ę is from PIE
*‑n̥ t | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 99: OCS ‑ę probably reflects *‑ēnt
PIE It is not entirely clear what the Proto-Indo-European ancestor of the

Slavic nt-stems may have been; they seem to be related to the n-stems (Hujer
loc. cit.; Meillet 1924/1934: 367; Bräuer 1969b: 80–82; cf. also Olsen 2004). At
least formally the Slavic ending may correspond to the ending *‑n̥ d in the
athematic active present participle. Phonetically the Slavic ending may also
reflect PIE *‑n̥ or *‑ē̆n(d). Also, the acute tone of the suffix in Slavic (Stang 1957/
1965: 93–94; Dybo 1981: 142–143), taken at face value, points to the presence of
a laryngeal, but the non-Slavic languages do not seem to provide any evidence
for a laryngeal.
In Indo-Iranian *‑at from PIE *‑n̥ d we find the zero grade of the suffix. Greek
has generalised the o-grade of the suffix in the athematic present participle,
e.g. ἑκόν. That the original shape of the ending was ‑α in the nt-stems is sug-
gested by the inclusion of the n-stems in the nt-stem declension, e.g. ὄνομα,
gen. sg. ὀνόματος, remade from PIE *‑mn̥ , *‑mnos. This is understandable if we
assume that at a pre-stage of Greek the nominative-accusative singular of both
forms ended in *‑a from PIE *‑n̥ d and *‑n̥ . In Latin the original masculine form
functions as a neuter (see Meiser 1998/2006: 151). In Hittite it is possible that
the thematic suffix *‑ont‑ was introduced in athematic stems, but PIE *‑n̥ d
would probably have also yielded ‑an.
PBS PIE *‑n̥ d regularly yielded PBS *‑in [2|5|9]. A neuter ending is not pre-
served in the Baltic languages, but it is possible that its masculine counterpart
is attested in OPr. smunents, which seems to point to full grade of the suffix.
PS The ending is preserved as PS *‑in (CS *‑ę [28]), with regular reflexes in
the old Slavic dialects.
88 Chapter 3
3.3.6 Consonant Stems: Masculine (o)nt-Stem Nominative Singular
PS *u̯edən (CS Cl masc.–neut. *vedy, ONovg. PBS *‑an(t)s PIE *‑onts

→‑ja; CS S *pišę || CS N *‑ě)
OCS masc.–neut. bery; def. beryi, Li. suką̃ s Ved. bháran, ‑aṃs (t‑)
→grędęi, →živǫi; pišę Lv. →vȩr̂duošs; OLv. OAv. saošiiąs; YAv.
ORu. masc.–neut. →veda, →ved’a; →piša; sargus saošiiąs, barō
ONovg. masc. →priěd’a; →promyšlaja OPr. skellānts Gk. →φέρων
OCz. masc.–neut. →nesa; tešě La. →ferēns
Go. bairands
Hi. kunanza
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 130–131 (1897: 392): OCS ‑y, ‑ję reflect PIE
*‑(i̯)onts; Gk. ‑ων is analogical from n-stems | Beekes 1995/2011: 197:
PIE *‑nt(s) | Rasmussen forthc. a: – | Debrunner & Wackernagel
1930/1975: 261: Ved. ‑an, Av. ‑ąs are from PIE *‑Vnts; Gk. ‑ων perhaps reflects
PIE s-less ending | Rix 1976/1992: 150, 234: PIE *‑onts is preserved in
ὀδούς; Gk. ‑ων is perhaps from n-stem nom. sg. | Sihler 1995: 616: PIE
*‑ōn (< pre-PIE *‑onts) is only preserved in Gk.; other languages, includ-
ing OCS, reflect recomposed form *‑onts | Weiss 2009/2011: 436: PIE
*‑onts | Krahe 1942/1967: 79 | Boutkan 1995: 366 | Kloekhorst
2008a: 109, 183–184: Hi. ‑anza is from *‑ent(s), remade from PIE *‑nt(s)
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 253 | Stang 1966: 113, 263–265: Li.
‑ą̃ s goes back to PIE *‑onts | Otrębski 1956: 250: Li. ‑ąs, OCS ‑y reflect
*‑onts | Endzelīns 1923: 719–721: OLv. ‑us, Li. ‑ą̃ s reflect PIE *‑onts
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2, 56–57, 138–139: OCS ‑y, ‑ję reflect *‑on(t)s, *‑i̯on(t)s;
Ru. nesa is analogical based on soft kryja | Hujer 1910: 42–46 (follow-
ing Zubatý): OCS ‑y, ‑ję reflect PIE *‑(i̯)ṓn, also in Gk. ‑ων; ORu. ‑a, OCz.
‑a reflect PIE variant *‑ō̃ | Meillet 1924/1934: 152, 430: ‑y, ‑ję are from
PIE *‑(i̯)onts | Vaillant 1958: 544–545, 548–549: OCS ‑y, ‑ję, Lv. ‑us
reflect PBS *‑ans < PIE *‑ō̆nts; Li. ‑ą̃ s is from *‑ants with reintroduced *‑t‑;
ORu. nesa, nes’a have ‑( j)a from i̯e-prs. piša, i-prs. nos’a, where reflexes
of *‑ę for regular *‑ě are due to influence from oblique cases; similarly
in NSl. | Bräuer 1969a, 1969b:—(1961: 107): OCS ‑y reflects *‑on(t)s;
OCS ‑ję, Ru. ‑ja go back to CS *‑ję < *‑i̯on(t)s | Arumaa 1985: 107 (1964:
117): Slavic ‑y reflects *‑on(t)s or *‑ṓn; soft ‑ję is from *‑(i̯)onts; NSl. forms
in ‑a perhaps show early loss of *n before *‑s in sandhi | Igartua
2005a: 359–362: OCS ‑y is from PIE masc. *‑ons < *‑onss < *‑onts; OCS ‑ǫ
perhaps reflects PIE neut. *‑ont; ORu. ‑a, OCz. ‑a are from soft ending
*‑ję | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 236–237: OCS ‑y is from *‑on(t)s or *‑ōn;
soft ‑ję is from *‑(i̯)onts
PIE The shape of the ending in Proto-Indo-European is disputed. Some

authors take the Greek form to be original and reconstruct PIE *‑ō(n), pos-
sibly from pre-PIE *‑onts (Szemerényi 1996/1999: 117; Olsen 2001: 71–72). Others
reconstruct PIE *‑onts on the basis of the remaining languages. While the
reconstruction *‑ō(n) is more in harmony with the principle of the forma diffi-
cilior, the form *‑onts is found in so many branches that it is difficult to dismiss
as secondary everywhere. If Gk. ‑ων is not old, it may have been taken from
the n-stems (τέκτων); original *‑nts is preserved in the noun ὀδούς and in syn-
chronic participles of athematic verbs such as δούς < *dh₃ónts (Rix loc. cit.). The
vocalism of La. ‑ēns, gen. sg. ‑entis was introduced from the athematic verbs,
where the full grade of the suffix, PIE *‑ent‑, and the zero grade, PIE *‑n̥ t‑, had
merged in ‑ent‑ (see e.g. Meiser 1998: 226). The Hittite nt-participle, which has
both active and passive meaning (Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 339), is most likely
to be genealogically identical to the active participle of non-Anatolian Indo-
European and probably reflects PIE *‑ont‑ (see Melchert 1994: 135, 146–147; but
cf. Kloekhorst loc. cit., who traces the Hittite suffix back to PIE *‑ent‑).
PBS It is unclear if PIE *‑onts yielded PBS *‑ants [7] or *‑ans [7|9] (see the
discussion in [9]). The latter possibility is indicated by OPr. ‑ānts, but the *t
may easily have been reintroduced under the influence of the oblique stem
*‑ant‑ (Stang 1966: 265; Zucha 1986: 134). Alternatively, the Old Prussian ending
may reflect *‑antis, a new form created on the analogy of the i-stems (Leskien
1876: 21; Endzelīns 1923: 719; 1944: 98). Latvian ‑uošs reflects *‑anti̯as, consisting
of the suffix *‑anti̯‑ and the o-stem nominative ending *‑as. OLv. ‑us preserves
the regular outcome of PBS *‑ants.
PS The attested forms of the masculine nominative singular of the present

active participle in the Slavic dialects are not easily explained. This is primar-
ily due to the fact that the correspondences among the attested forms in the
Slavic dialects do not form a clear pattern. Also, as we have seen above, the
Proto-Indo-European ending was probably *‑onts, with a phonological struc-
ture that does not occur in other endings.
In order to understand the reflexes of PIE *‑(i̯)onts > PS *‑(i̯)ən in the old
Slavic dialects it may be useful to have an overview of the attested forms.
The masculine and neuter forms are identical in the old texts. In Old Church
90 Chapter 3
Slavonic the normal reflexes are ‑y in e-presents and ‑ę in i̯e-presents. The defi-
nite form appears not only as ‑yi as expected, but also as ‑ęi and, less frequently,
as ‑ǫi. In some manuscripts the ę of ‑ęi is written with a special sign in this form
(see e.g. Diels 1932–1934/1963: 232–233; Vaillant 1948/1964: 30, 127; Ferrell 1971:
88–89).
In Old Russian we find ‑a in the e-present and ‑( j)a in the i̯e-present. From
the eleventh century e-present forms like nes’a become increasingly frequent
(Ferrell 1965a: 15–16 with n. 3). In the Novgorod area participles are not inflected
for case; here we only find forms in ‑ja, even in the oldest texts (Zaliznjak 1995/
2004: 134).
In Old Czech we find ‑a in the e-present and ‑ě in the i̯e-present. Old Polish
has forms like biorø in the e-present and piszø in the i̯e-present, ø representing
the merger of the Common Slavic nasal vowels *ę and *ǫ in early Polish. In an
Old Polish manuscript, the Kazania Świętokrzyskie from the fourteenth cen-
tury, there are five instances of rzeka (written <reca>), apparently functioning
as a particle, which seems to contain the present active participle ending. In
this manuscript the form rzeka is attested alongside one occurrence of rzekø,
which is also found in other Old Polish texts.
In the oblique stem of the active participle of the i̯e-present we expect
PIE *‑i̯onti̯‑ > PS *‑i̯anti̯‑ [7] to be reflected as CS *‑jęt’‑ [20|26|28], but the old
Slavic dialects point to *‑jǫt’‑ with generalisation of the suffix of the e-present
(Vaillant 1950: 192).
As for the diachronic interpretation of the material, the Old Church
Slavonic forms ‑y and ‑ję are in line with what we expect from PIE *‑onts and
*‑i̯onts, since ‑y and ‑ję are also found in the phonologically similar structures
in the accusative plural of the ā- and o-stems. There we see that PIE *‑(i̯)ahm̥ s >
*‑(i̯)ahn̥ s merged with *‑(i̯)ōms > *‑(i̯)ōns into pre-PS *‑(i̯)āns (through [1|2|3]
and [15], respectively) > PS *‑(i̯)ə̄n [17] (CS Cl *‑y || ONovg. ‑ě [28|29]; CS S *‑ję
|| CS N *‑jě [20|28|29]). If the o-stem ending had an original short *o (see the
discussion in § 3.14.5), the structure would be even closer to that of the parti-
ciple, viz. PIE *‑(i̯)oms > *‑(i̯)ons > pre-PS *‑(i̯)ans [7] > PS *‑(i̯)ən [17] (CS Cl *‑y
|| ONovg. ‑ě [28|29]; CS S *‑ję || CS N *‑jě [20|28|29]). The problematic forms are
the North Slavic ones in *‑( j)a.
Some authors derive these forms directly from PIE *‑ō, a variant of the
ending *‑ōn seen in Gk. ‑ων (Zubatý 1893: 504; Lamprecht 1987: 95; Hujer
loc. cit.; Trávníček 1935: 342). The fact that an ending containing a nasal is
needed anyway for the form in ‑ę in the OCS i̯e-verbs, combined with the mea-
gerness of the evidence for this Proto-Indo-European shape (see above), ren-
ders this view unattractive (see also Ferrell 1971: 86).
It is also tempting to connect the North Slavic reflexes of PIE *‑(i̯)onts with
the *t of the Proto-Indo-European form, especially in view of the fact that the *t
may have been preserved in Baltic, indicating that it was still present in Proto-
Balto-Slavic (such a stance is taken by Kortlandt 1979/2011a: 105; 1983/2011a:
128–129; cf. also van Wijk 1925: 283–284). However, since I find it difficult to see
how the presence of *t phonetically could lead to a merger of pre-PS *‑ants and
*‑ā in CSN *‑a, I regard this idea as unlikely (see also Ferrell 1967b: 71).
In the following paragraphs I shall present my own interpretation of the
attested forms. It takes as its point of departure the hypothesis that pre-PS *ā̆
was centralised to PS *ə̄̆ in final syllables closed by a fricative [17] (see also
Olander 2012: 333–334), although I must admit that this hypothesis does not
shed significantly more light on the particular problem of the participle than
already existing explanations do. My interpretation of the material is in line
with those of Torbiörnsson 1921, 1923a, 1923b and Ferrell 1965a, 1967b, 1971;
Ferrell also treats the motivational factors behind the morphological changes
in the Slavic dialects.
It is, in my opinion, a priori most reasonable to assume that the phonetically
regular reflex of PIE *‑onts > PBS *‑an(t)s [7|9] is PS *‑ən [17] (CSCl *‑y [28|29] ||
ONovg. *‑ě [28|29]; CS S *‑ję [20|28] || CS N *‑jě ([20|28|29]), parallel to the accu-
sative plural forms mentioned above. The Old Church Slavonic forms ‑y, ‑ję
are the direct reflexes of PS *‑ən, *‑i̯ən. The ending ‑ę(i) has been transferred
from the ei̯e-present (thus also e.g. Stang 1942: 95). The variant ‑ǫ(i) may either
represent the original neuter form PS *‑an (CS *‑ǫ [28]) < PIE *‑ond ([5|7|9])
(Igartua 2005a: 362–364; but cf. p. 360) or it may be analogical based on the
oblique stem ‑ǫšt‑ < PS *‑anti̯‑ (CS *‑ǫt’‑ [26|28]) < PIE *‑onti̯‑ ([7]) (Vaillant
1948/1964: 127).
In Old Russian and Old Czech expected CS *‑y in hard stems and CS N *‑jě in
soft stems have been replaced with the reflexes of *‑a or *‑ę in both hard and
soft stems. It would theoretically be possible to postulate a phonetic change of
(short) PS *‑(i̯)ən to CS N *‑( j)ę > ‑( j)a, since there are no counterexamples, at
least if the masculine o-stem accusative plural had an original long *ō. Since
such a development is not supported by other pieces of evidence, it is purely
ad hoc. More importantly, a change of non-palatalised *‑ən to CS N *‑ę > ‑( j)a
does not seem to fit into the general development of Slavic final syllables. It
seems more reasonable to look for an analogical explanation.
The ending ‑a of Old Russian and Czech hard stems is often explained as
analogically introduced from the soft stems, where it is regarded as regular (e.g.
Torbiörnsson 1923b: 123). However, as mentioned above, the masculine ending
PIE *‑i̯onts would most likely yield PS *‑i̯ən > CS N *‑jě, which is incompatible
92 Chapter 3
with ORu. ‑( j)a. Accordingly, ‑( j)a cannot be phonetically regular in the mas-
culine nominative singular of the i̯e-present active participle.
The form in ‑( j)a may have originated in the ei̯e-verbs, where ‑( j)a is prob-
ably the regular outcome of both PS masc. *‑ei̯ən (CS *‑ę [20|25|28]) and neut.
*‑ei̯an (CS *‑ę [20|25|28]); or in the original neuter form of the i̯e-present, viz.
PS *‑i̯an (CS *‑ję [20|28]) from PIE *‑i̯ond (via [5|7|9]). In Czech, ‑( j)ě in the
i̯e-present may be the regular reflex of PS *‑i̯ən (CS N *‑jě [20|28|29]) from PIE
*‑i̯onts (via [7|9|17]). In order to explain the Czech ending ‑a in the e-present,
we may assume that *‑ę had become *‑a at the stage when the ending was
introduced here from the i̯e- and ei̯e-verbs. Subsequently *‑a became ‑ě after
palatalised consonants in the i̯e- and ei̯e-verbs, but remained ‑a after non-
palatalised consonants in the e-verbs.
OPo. rzeka is too sparsely attested to build any hypotheses on; it may be
a dialectal form (Ferrell 1971) or a borrowing from Old Czech (see Šaxmatov
1915/2002: 111; Stang 1969b: 160), or it may have lost the nasal through an allegro
development (Jakobson 1929/1971: 32 n. 21). The more widespread Old Polish
ending ‑ø, a nasal vowel reflecting the merger of *‑ę and *‑ǫ, probably does not
reflect PS *‑ən or *‑i̯ən, which would more likely have yielded *‑y, *‑je as shown
by the development of the parallel structures in the masculine o- and i̯o-stem
accusative plural, e.g. zęby and męže. Instead, OPo. ‑ø may represent the mas-
culine and neuter ending of the ei̯e-verbs or the neuter ending of the e- and i̯e-
presents, viz. PS *‑(i̯)an (CS *‑( j)ę), or it may have been taken from the oblique
stem of the e- or i̯e-present, viz. PS *‑(i̯)anti̯‑ (CS *‑( j)ǫt’‑).
3.3.7 Consonant Stems: Neuter (o)nt-Stem Nom.–Acc. Singular
PS * u̯edan (CS masc.–neut. nom. PBS *‑an PIE *‑ond

*vedǫ; *pišę)
OCS masc.–neut. nom. →vedy; def. Li. nom.–acc. sg., Ved. →bhárat
→vedyi, →grędęi, živǫi; pišę masc.(-fem.) nom. pl. suką̃ OAv. yasō.x́ iiə̄n;
ORu. masc.–neut. nom. →veda, Lv. dial. masc. nom. pl., YAv. ?
→ved’a; piša; ONovg. masc. masc.–fem. nom. sg. ȩsu Gk. φέρον
nom. sg. →priěd’a; masc. nom. OPr. enterpon(́?) La. →ferēns
sg. promyšlaja Go. →bairando
OCz. masc.–neut. nom. →nesa; tešě Hi. ḫūman (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 147: OCS ‑y is masc. ending | Beekes 1995/

2011: – | Rasmussen forthc. a: – | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/
1975: 262: Ved. ‑at, Av. ‑at̰ reflect PIE *‑n̥ t; Gk. ‑ον is from *‑ont | Rix 1976/
1992: – | Sihler 1995: 615: PIE *‑n̥ t; Gk. ‑ον is from *‑ont with analogical
o-grade | Weiss 2009/2011: – | Krahe 1942/1967: 79 | Boutkan
1995: 366 | Kloekhorst 2008a: 183–184: Hi. ‑an reflects *‑ant
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 253 | Stang 1966: 263–265: Li. ‑ą̃
is from PIE neut. nom.–acc. sg. form ending in *‑nt | Otrębski 1956:
250: Li. ‑ą reflects nom.–acc. sg. *‑ont | Endzelīns 1923: 720–721: Lv. ‑u,
Li. ‑ą̃ are probably from PIE *‑ont
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 56–57, 138–139 | Hujer 1910: 47–49: OCS ‑y, ORu.,
OCz. ‑a are from masc.; OCS ‑ję is from PIE *‑i̯n̥t or *‑i̯ont | Meillet
1924/1934: 431: Slavic ‑y is from masculines | Vaillant 1958: 545: PIE
*‑n̥ t or *‑ont; masc. ending ‑y was transferred to neuters in Slavic by anal-
ogy with phonetically regular merger of masc. and neut. in i̯e-prs. (‑ję
< *‑i̯ons, *‑i̯ont) and i-prs. (‑ę < *‑īn(t)s, *‑īnt) | Bräuer 1969b: – |
Arumaa 1985: 108: Li. ‑ą̃ is from *‑ont; Slavic ‑y is probably masc. end-
ing | Igartua 2005a: 362–364: OCS ‑y is from masc.; OCS ‑ǫ is perhaps
from neut. *‑ont; OCS ‑ę reflects *‑n̥ t | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 236–
237: OCS ‑y is not the regular result of *‑ont; soft ‑ję reflects *‑i̯ont
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending is reconstructed with o-grade or zero

grade (or both) by various authors. Greek, Avestan and Baltic point to the for-
mer option, whereas Vedic points to the latter. From the point of view of inter-
nal reconstruction we expect the o-grade of the thematic suffix plus the zero
grade of the participial suffix, i.e. *‑o‑nd. As the Vedic zero-grade ending is not
difficult to understand as analogical to athematic presents, it is most economi-
cal, and in accordance with what we expect from the present stem of thematic
verbs, to assume that the Proto-Indo-European form ended in *‑ond.
PBS PIE *‑ond > PBS *‑an [5|7|9] is preserved in Lithuanian suką̃ and in the
Latvian dialect form ȩsu.
PS The expected reflex of PBS *‑an is PS *‑an (CS *‑ǫ [28]; *‑ję [20|28]). In
e- and i̯e-presents the neuter form was distinct from the masculine form in
Proto-Slavic; in ei̯e-verbs, on the other hand, PBS *‑ei̯an yielded PS *‑ei̯an (CS
*‑ę [20|25]), merging with masc. *‑ei̯ən (CS *‑ę [20|25|28]) at an early stage of
Common Slavic. This fact, together with other changes such as the merger of
PS neut. *‑i̯an and masc. *‑i̯ən in *‑ję in South Slavic, led to the eventual disap-
pearance of the distinction between neuter and masculine forms in the short
participle, which has distinct nominative and accusative singular forms even
in the neuter. The earliest attested stages of the Slavic dialects do not seem to
distinguish the two genders formally from each other.
94 Chapter 3
3.3.8 Consonant Stems: (Masc.–Neut.) (u)s-Stem Nominative Singular
PS masc.–neut. →*u̯edu (CS *vedъ) PBS *‑u̯ōs(?) PIE masc. *‑u̯ ōts
OCS vedъ Li. →atvẽdęs Ved. →vidvā́n

ORu. vedъ; ONovg. šьdъ Lv. →licis OAv. vīduuā̊, →vīduš; YAv.
OCz. ved OPr. →sīdons vīδuuā̊
Gk. εἰδώς
La. –
Go. ‑weitwods
Hi. –
PBS →*‑us PIE neut. *‑u̯od
Li. neut., masc. nom. pl. Ved. vidvát

→atvẽdę OAv. ?; YAv. ?
Lv. – Gk. →εἰδός
OPr. – La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 128, 149 (1906: 563, 571–574): PIE had masc. *‑u̯ ōs
and *‑us, the latter preserved in Ved. ‑úḥ, Av. ‑uš, PBS *‑us > OCS ‑ъ;
PIE neut. form was *‑u̯ os, perhaps also *‑us > OCS ‑ъ | Beekes 1995/
2011: 198, 279: PIE masc. *‑uōs | Rasmussen forthc. a § 10: PIE masc.
*‑u̯ ōts, neut. *‑u̯ ot; weak stem *‑us‑ was generalised in BS; Gk. neut. ‑ός is
based on analogy with masc. | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975:
300: Ved. ‑vān is “nasale Erweiterung” of PIIr. *‑vās < PIE *‑u̯ ōs; alleged
masc. nom. sg. in ‑úḥ is “nicht gesichert” | Rix 1976/1992: 235: PIE
masc. *‑u̯ ōs, neut. *‑u̯ os | Sihler 1995: 619–621: PIE masc. *‑u̯ ōs, neut.
*‑u̯ os | Weiss 2009/ 2011: – | Krahe 1942/ 1967: – | Boutkan
1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 256–257: Baltic masc. forms reflect
*‑u̯ ēs (also in IIr.), with secondary *n; Li. neut. ‑ę is analogical from
masc. | Stang 1966: 265–267: PIE masc. *‑u̯ ōs; OPr. ‑uns, ‑ons reflect
*‑u̯ ōns with nasal from prs. ptc.; Li. masc. ‑ęs, Lv. ‑is have nasal from prs.
ptc. and e-grade from acc. sg. and perhaps loc. sg.; Li. neut. ‑ę is second-
ary | Otrębski 1956: 257–258: Li. ‑ęs, Lv. ‑is reflect *‑ēns, originally ptc.
of ē-prt., created on the pattern of prs. ptc. ‑ą̃ s; Li. pl. ‑ę is analogical to
prs. ptc. ‑ą; Slavic masc.–neut. ‑ъ reflects neut. ending *‑us | Endzelīns
1923: 727–728: Li. and Lv. masc. endings are from PBalt. *‑u̯ ēns with nasal
from prs. ptc.; earlier *‑u̯ ēs is perhaps identical to Av. ending
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2 (1906/1924: 668) | Hujer 1910: 52–54, 56: Slavic
masc. ‑ъ reflects *‑us, replacing *‑u̯ ōs; neut. ‑ъ is from PIE *‑us, along-
side *‑u̯ os > Gk. ‑ος | Meillet 1924/1934: 430–431: Slavic ‑ъ reflects *‑us
with generalised zero grade | Vaillant 1958: 554–556: PIE *‑u̯ ōs was
replaced with PBS *‑us (neut. nom.–acc. sg. ending and oblique stem)
> CS *‑ъ | Bräuer 1969b: – | Arumaa 1985: 106, 108: Slavic masc.
‑ъ represents generalised zero grade *‑us; Slavic neut. ‑ъ is zero grade
*‑us | Igartua 2005a: – | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 241: OCS ‑ъ has
generalised zero-grade form *‑us from fem.
PIE In Proto-Indo-European the masculine ending of the perfect active par-

ticiple is usually reconstructed as *‑u̯ ōs (e.g. Szemerényi 1967/1991; 1996/1999:
319–320 with references), although some researchers assume an original form
*‑u̯ ōts (Rasmussen loc. cit.; 1978/1999: 32–33). The ending consisted of the long
o-grade of the suffix *‑u̯ et/s‑ followed by the nominative marker *‑s. The end-
ing is preserved in Avestan and Greek, but was remade elsewhere. The original
shape of the neuter ending is disputed; it was probably *‑u̯ od (cf. Rasmussen
loc. cit.) or *‑u̯ os (e.g. Rix loc. cit., Sihler loc. cit.).
PBS Due to the analogical restructuring of the endings of the masculine and

neuter perfect participle forms in Baltic and Slavic it is difficult to determine
the Proto-Balto-Slavic forms. It is likely, though, that zero-grade *‑us had been
introduced in the neuter nominative-accusative singular. In Baltic the endings
were remade on the pattern of the present active participle.
PS At a pre-stage of Slavic the zero-grade ending *‑us > PS *‑u [17] (CS *‑ъ
[29]) was also introduced in the masculine form, leading to a merger of the
masculine and neuter forms in Proto-Slavic. The ending was retained in the
old Slavic dialects.
96 Chapter 3
3.3.9 Consonant Stems: (Neuter) s-Stem Nom.–Acc. Singular
PS →*ˌslau̯a (CS *slȍvo) PBS *‑as PIE *‑os
OCS slovo Li. →debesìs Ved. śrávaḥ

ORu. slovo; ONovg. slovo Lv. →debess OAv. nəmə̄, nəmas-cā;
OCz. slovo OPr. – YAv. nəmō, nəmasə(.tē)
Gk. κλέος
La. genus
Go. →riqis; ONor. røkkr
Hi. →nē ̆piš (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 148–149 | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 204: PIE *‑os

was replaced with *‑es in Hi. and Go. | Rasmussen forthc. a
§ 9 | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 288 | Rix 1976/1992:
144 | Sihler 1995: 306 | Weiss 2009/ 2011: 200 | Krahe 1942/
1967: 42–43: ONor. røkkr contains PGmc. *‑az < PIE *‑os | Boutkan
1995: 266–267: ONor. o-stem røkkr preserves old ending; Go. and WGmc.
have analogical e-grade | Kloekhorst 2008a: 106, 604: Hi. has analogi-
cal e-grade; Anat. shows traces of *‑os
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 122 | Stang 1966:
224 | Otrębski 1956: – | Endzelīns 1923: 324
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2 (1906/1924: 666) | Hujer 1910: 34: Slavic ‑o is
from PIE *‑os | Meillet 1924/1934: 427–428 | Vaillant 1958: 231–232
(1950: 210): CS *‑o goes back to PIE *‑os | Bräuer 1969b: 53 (1961: 103):
CS *‑o is not from PIE *‑os but analogical from neut. pronouns in *‑o <
*‑od | Arumaa 1985: 108: Slavic ‑o is from PIE *‑os | Igartua 2005a:
331–334: CS *‑o is from PIE *‑os | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 97: OCS ‑o
reflects PIE *‑os
PIE PIE *‑os, consisting of the o-grade of the suffix and a zero ending, is pre-
served directly in Greek and Latin. In Indo-Iranian the different outcomes of
the velar consonant in OAv. nom.–acc. aogō vs. instr. sg. aojaŋhā also point
to an o-vowel in the nominative-accusative singular (see e.g. Martínez & de
Vaan 2014: 29). In Gothic, PGmc. nom.–acc. *‑az from PIE *‑os was replaced
with ‑iz under the influence of the weak stem; the same process took place in
West Germanic, e.g. OEng. lemb from PGmc. *lambiz. ONor. røkkr from PGmc.
*rekʷaz preserves the old form, but the word is declined as an o-stem. Expected
Proto-Germanic *‑az seems to be preserved in the loanword lammas in Finnish

(Meid 1967: 132–133; Boutkan loc. cit.). A normalisation of the paradigm also
took place in Hittite, where we find ‑iš for expected *‑aš.
PBS PIE *‑os regularly yielded PBS *‑as [7]. The type has not been preserved
in Baltic; Li. debesìs, Lv. debess from PBS *nebas are now i-stems, although the
words preserve traces of consonant-stem inflection.
PS The expected outcome of PBS *‑as is PS *‑ə [17] (CS Cl *‑ъ || ONovg. ‑e [29];
CS *‑jь [20|29]), as in the masculine o-stem nominative singular. The actual
ending PS *‑a (CS *‑o [29]) ultimately stems from the pronominal inflection,
where it is the regular outcome of PBS *‑a < PIE *‑od [7|9] (see e.g. Fortunatov
1888: 572 n. 1; 1897: 164 n. 1; Gălăbov 1973: 8–9; Matzinger 2001: 191; Olander 2012:
322). It is likely that the pronominal ending PIE *‑od > PBS *‑a first spread to
adjectives, then to o-stem nouns and finally to s-stems.
The replacement of pre-PS *‑ə with *‑a may seem trivial at first sight, but—
as Tijmen Pronk reminds me (pers. comm., 2012)—a proportional analogy
of the type *lēt‑ : *lēta :: *nebes‑ : X would have led to X = PS **nebesa (CS
**nebeso), and a generalisation of the suffixal vowel would have led to **nebe.
Such creations are indeed attested in more recent times, e.g. Cz. koleso and
nebe. In order to understand why the neuter o-stem ending *‑a was introduced
in the s-stems one should bear in mind the special status of the consonant-
stem nominative(–accusative) singular in Proto-Slavic. Unlike the other forms
of the paradigm (e.g. gen. sg. *slau̯ ese), this form was not analysable in terms of
a stem (*slau̯ es‑) plus an ending (*‑e). In my view it was the isolated status of
the form that cleared the way for the introduction from the o-stems of the most
common neuter ending *‑a, possibly by the process referred to as “syntagmatic
assimilation” by Andersen (1980: 16–18 and pers. comm., 2013).
3.3.10 i-Stem Nominative Singular
PS *ˌgasti (CS *gȍstь) PBS *ˌ‑is PIE *‑is
OCS gostь Li. mintìs Ved. śúciḥ

ORu. putь; ONovg. xudostь Lv. avs OAv. aṣ̌iš; YAv. gaⁱriš
OCz. host OPr. assis (Elb. vocab.) Gk. πόλις
La. turris
Go. gasts; Early Runic
hlewagastiz
Hi. ḫalkiš
98 Chapter 3
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 129 | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 203 | Rasmussen

forthc. a § 6 | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/ 1975: 144–145 |
Rix 1976/1992: 151 | Sihler 1995: 311, 315–316 | Weiss 2009/2011:
242–244 | Krahe 1942/ 1967: 26 | Boutkan 1995: 240–243 |
Kloekhorst 2008a: 105
PBS Olander 2009: 167 | Endzelīns 1971: 152 | Stang 1966:
206 | Otrębski 1956: 39–40 | Endzelīns 1923: 314
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2 | Hujer 1910: 5 | Meillet 1924/1934: 418 |
Vaillant 1958: 133 | Bräuer 1969a: 155 | Arumaa 1985: 122–123 |
Igartua 2005a: 246–247 | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 73
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending *‑is, preserved in all old Indo-

European languages, is made up by the zero grade of the i-stem marker and the
non-neuter nominative singular marker *‑s also found in other stems.
PBS PIE *‑is yielded PBS *ˌ‑is [4]. The ending is preserved in the Baltic lan-
guages; the final accentuation in Lithuanian is analogical from the ā‑, ē‑ and
consonant stems (Olander loc. cit.).
PS PBS *ˌ‑is is reflected as PS *ˌ‑i [12|17] (CS *‑ь [29]), preserved in the old
Slavic dialects.
3.3.11 u-Stem Nominative Singular
PS *ˌsūnu (CS *sy̑nъ) PBS *ˌ‑us PIE *‑us
OCS synъ Li. sūnùs Ved. mádhuḥ

ORu. synъ; ONovg. polъ Lv. tìrgus OAv., YAv. aŋhuš
OCz. syn OPr. dangus Gk. ἡδύς
La. tribus
Go. sunus
Hi. idāluš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 129–130 | Beekes 1995/2011: 203 | Rasmussen

forthc. a § 6 | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/ 1975: 144–145 |
Rix 1976/1992: 151 | Sihler 1995: 322 | Weiss 2009/2011: 249–250 |
Krahe 1942/1967: 32 | Boutkan 1995: 253–254 | Kloekhorst 2008a:
105
PBS Olander 2009: 167 | Endzelīns 1971: 157 | Stang 1966: 213–
214 | Otrębski 1956: 47 | Endzelīns 1923: 326
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2 | Hujer 1910: 5 | Meillet 1924/1934: 411, 413 |
Vaillant 1958: 109 | Bräuer 1969a: 146 | Arumaa 1985: 122–123 |
Igartua 2005a: 280–281 | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 70
PIE The original ending PIE *‑us, consisting of the zero grade of the u-stem
suffix *‑u‑ followed by the nominative singular marker *‑s, is preserved in all
old Indo-European languages.
PBS PIE *‑us is retained as PBS *ˌ‑us [4], preserved in Baltic with secondary
non-initial accentuation in Lithuanian by analogy with the nominative singu-
lar forms of other stems (Olander loc. cit.).
PS The regular reflex of PBS *ˌ‑us is PS *ˌ‑u [12|17] (CS *‑ъ [29]), preserved in
3.3.12 ā-Stem Nominative Singular (*‑ā)
PS *naˈgā (CS *nogà; *dušà) PBS *‑ˈā̰ PIE *‑ah₂
OCS glava; duša Li. galvà; def. adj. Ved. jihvā́

ORu. žena; zeml’a; ONovg. grivьna; mažóji OAv. daēnā; YAv. daēna
zeml’a Lv. gal̂va Gk. φυγή
OCz. ryba; duša, ‑ě, ‑e OPr. mensā La. (→)uia; Osc. víú
Go. giba
Hi. –
100 Chapter 3
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 122–124: PIE acute *‑ā́ | Beekes 1995/2011: 200:

original PIE ending was perhaps not *‑eh₂ but *‑h₂, preserved in La.
‑a | Rasmussen forthc. a § 5: PIE *‑ah₂ | Debrunner & Wackernagel
1930/1975: 114–115 | Rix 1976/1992: 130: PIE *‑eh₂‑∅ | Sihler 1995:
78–79, 266–268: La. ‑a is the regular reflex of PIE *‑eh₂ | Weiss
2009/2011: 229, 232: PIE *‑eh₂; La. ‑a may be voc. sg. | Krahe 1942/
1967: 20 | Boutkan 1995: 225–226: PIE *‑h₂ was remade to pre-PGmc.
*‑eh₂ | Kloekhorst 2008a: 107: Hi. ḫ-stem erḫaš < *‑os is remade from
PIE *‑h₂(s)
PBS Olander 2009: 167: PBS *‑ˈā̰ reflects PIE *‑áh₂ | Endzelīns 1971:
142 | Stang 1966: 197 | Otrębski 1956: 24: PIE acute *‑ā́ |
Endzelīns 1923: 304
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2 | Hujer 1910: 1–5: PIE acute *‑ā | Meillet
1924/1934: 397 | Vaillant 1958: 80, 86: Slavic ‑ja for ‑jě in soft stems is
based on analogy with hard stems | Bräuer 1969a: 103, 125: PIE *‑ā; CS
*‑ja may reflect PIE secondary ending *‑i̯ā (replacing *‑i̯ə, *‑ī) and perhaps
partly PIE *‑i̯ē | Arumaa 1985: 146–148 | Igartua 2005a: 192–193: CS
*‑a is from PIE *‑ā < *‑eh₂; soft ‑ja for ‑( j)ě is based on analogy with hard
stems | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 86, 89: OCS soft ending ‑ja seems to be
a Slavic innovation, based on analogy with ā-stems, for original *‑ī, *‑i̯ə
PIE The form ended in *‑ah₂, consisting of the stem-suffix *‑ah₂‑ and a

zero case–number marker. The ending is preserved in the old Indo-European
languages. The short Latin ‑a is difficult to explain historically; I find it hard
to believe that it is the vocative form used in nominative function (thus e.g.
Klingenschmitt 1992: 92–93; Meiser 1998/2006: 132; Weiss loc. cit.). Sabellic
shows clear reflexes of a long vowel. It is possible that La. ‑a is the result of a
regular shortening of PItal. *‑ā (Sihler loc. cit.), although this view faces phono-
logical difficulties. Alternatively, ‑a may have replaced regular *‑ā in Latin by
analogy with the short vowel of acc. sg. ‑am.
PBS PIE *‑ah₂ regularly yielded PBS *‑ˈā̰ [1]. In Lithuanian the ending was
shortened by Leskien’s law; the original long vowel is seen in the definite adjec-
tive mažóji. In Latvian the short ending is a result of the general shortening of
final long vowels.
PS The regular reflex of PBS *‑ˈā̰ is PS *‑ˈā [13] (CS *‑a [29]; *‑ja [20|27|29]),
preserved in the old Slavic dialects.
3.3.13 ā-Stem Nominative Singular (*‑ī)
PS →*baˈgūni ̯ī (CS *bogy̋n’i) PBS *‑ˈḭ̄ PIE *‑ih₂
OCS bogyn’i Li. patì Ved. devī ́

ORu. bogyni; ONovg. gospodyni Lv. pati OAv. nāⁱrī; YAv. nāⁱri
OCz. hospodyni OPr. – Gk. πότνια
La. –
Go. mawi
Hi. –; Cuneiform Luvian com.
→ādduwališ(?)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 124–125, 139–140: PIE acute *‑ī�;́ Gk. ‑ια is analogical
based on acc. sg. ‑ιαν < PIE *‑(i)i̯m̥ | Beekes 1995/2011: 201, 204: OCS
ladii is from PIE *‑ih; OCS ‑ǫšti is from *‑ih₂ | Rasmussen forthc. a
§ 5: PIE *‑ih₂ | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 167 | Rix
1976/1992: 131: Gk. ‑ια reflects PIE *‑ih₂‑∅ | Sihler 1995: 275–278:
PIE *‑ih₂ | Weiss 2009/2011: 305–306 | Krahe 1942/1967: 23–25:
Go. bandi is from PIE *‑i̯ə or *‑ī | Boutkan 1995: 231–235: PGmc. *‑ja
reflects *‑i̯h̥ from PIE *‑ih₂ | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 167 | Endzelīns 1971: 142 | Stang 1966: 197 |
Otrębski 1956: 31 | Endzelīns 1923: 396
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2 (1906/1924: 513): PIE *‑ī | Hujer 1910: 6–9: PIE
́
acute *‑ī� | Meillet 1924/1934: 400 | Vaillant 1958: 96–99 | Bräuer
1969a: 139–140 | Arumaa 1985: 80–86, 146–148 | Igartua 2005a:
194–196 | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 89
PIE The so-called devī� ́ type, which in Indo-Iranian still constitutes a sepa-

rate inflectional paradigm, is only distinguished from the i̯ā-stem type in the
nominative singular in Slavic. The Proto-Indo-European ending was *‑ih₂, con-
sisting of the zero grade of the stem-suffix without an ending. PIE *‑ih₂ regu-
larly yielded PGk. *‑i̯a (see e.g. Sihler 1995: 46–47). For the existence of reflexes
of PIE *‑ih₂ in Anatolian see the discussion in Melchert forthc. § 3.3.1.1 with
references.
PBS PIE *‑ih₂ is reflected as PBS *‑ˈī�̰ [1], preserved in East Baltic.

102 Chapter 3
PS The regularly reflex of PBS *‑ˈī�̰ is PS *‑ī [13] (CS *‑i [29]). Correspondences
such as OCS prs. act. ptc. fem. nom. sg. vedǫšti, ORu. nesuči and OCz. nesúci
show that *‑ī was replaced with *‑ˈi̯ī under the influence of the remaning
forms of the paradigm, which was inflected as a *i̯ā-stem paradigm. Since all
Slavic languages point to *‑i̯ī (CS *‑i), I assume the replacement took place in
pre-Proto-Slavic.
3.3.14 Masculine o-Stem Nominative Singular
PS *ˌtakə (CS Cl *tȍkъ || ONovg. ‑e; PBS *ˌ‑as PIE *‑os

CS *gȍjь)
OCS plodъ; kon’ь Li. lángas Ved. deváḥ, índraś ca

ORu. stolъ; konь; ONovg. xlěbe; mužь Lv. tȩ̃vs OAv. ahurō, kāϑə̄, gaiias‑cā; YAv.
OCz. chlap; oráč OPr. deiws ahurō
Gk. ἀγρός
La. lupus; OLa. placentios
Go. dags
Hi. attaš (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 128–129 | Beekes 1995/2011: 212: Slavic ‑ъ reflects

pre-Slavic *‑us, replacing *‑os from PIE *‑os by analogy with PBS acc.
sg. *‑um < PIE *‑om | Rasmussen forthc. a § 4: Slavic ‑ъ reflects PIE
*‑os | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 90 | Rix 1976/1992:
138 | Sihler 1995: 256 | Weiss 2009/2011: 200, 220–221 | Krahe
1942/1967: 9 | Boutkan 1995: 171–173 | Kloekhorst 2008a: 104
PBS Olander 2009: 166–167 | Endzelīns 1971: 134 | Stang 1966:
181 | Otrębski 1956: 13: Slavic ‑ъ reflects PIE *‑os | Endzelīns 1923:
292
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2 | Hujer 1910: 12–34: regular reflex of PIE *‑os is
‑o in Slavic; attested ending ‑ъ has arisen by analogy with acc. sg., imitat-
ing identical nom. sg. and acc. sg. of i- and u-stems; ‑jь of i̯o-stems also
played a role, being phonetically regular in many cases, either as a reflex
of *‑jus (in i̯u-stems, which joined the i̯o-stems) or as a reflex of original
*‑is (in certain i̯o-stems); also important are the pronouns sь and jь from
PIE *k̑is and *is | Meillet 1924/1934: 405–406: PIE *‑os (and *‑om)
yielded Slavic ‑o (e.g. s-stem neut. nom.–acc. nebo) and, in other cases,
‑ъ (e.g. o-stem masc. nom. sg. vlьkъ); the former reflex is found in cases
where the pronunciation was “relativement nette et lente, [. . .] dans les
mots principaux de la phrase”, whereas the latter reflex is found in cases
where the pronunciation was “trouble et rapide, [. . .] dans des mots plus
ou moins accessoires”; one variant or the other was generalised in dif-
ferent forms of the paradigm | Vaillant 1958: 29 (1950: 210): OCS ‑ъ
is either analogical based on the acc. sg., imitating the pattern of i- and
u-stems, which had identical nom. and acc. sg.; or from PIE *‑os “avec
une réduction spéciale de la finale”, via PBS *‑as > Slavic *‑əs > *‑ъ; the
merger of the reflexes of *ə and *u is later than beginning of second
palatalisation because *ə does not prevent palatalisation of PBS *‑ikas
to Slavic ‑ьcь | Bräuer 1969a: 20–21, 73 (1961: 103): CS *‑ъ is either
directly from *‑ъ(s) < *‑əs or *‑us < PIE *‑os, or it is due to influence from
u-stems | Arumaa 1985: 130–131: pre-Slavic *‑o is from PIE *‑os; CS *‑ъ
is u-stem nom. sg. | Igartua 2005a: 100–110: PIE *‑os yielded pre-Slavic
*‑o, substituted with CS *‑ъ from acc. sg. by analogy with identical nom.
and acc. sg. in u- and i-stems; ONovg. ‑e was introduced from i̯o-stems,
which had PIE *‑i̯os > *‑je (following Krys’ko, Vermeer); ending *‑je is per-
haps preserved in some ONovg. i̯o-stems | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 76,
83: OCS ‑ъ < *‑us has *u for expected *o from acc. sg. *‑um < *‑om by anal-
ogy with identical vowels in i-and u-stem nom. sg. *‑is, *‑us, acc. sg. *‑im,
*‑um; i̯o-stem ‑jь < *‑i̯is < *‑i̯us has replaced regular *‑i̯os
PIE The ancient Indo-European languages point to a Proto-Indo-European

ending *‑os, consisting of the thematic vowel *o and the nominative singular
marker *‑s. If the assumption is correct that the thematic vowel was *e in front
of unvoiced segments (§ 3.2.5), an ending *‑os is unexpected (see Rasmussen
1989b: 142 for a possible explanation).
PBS PIE *‑os yielded PBS *ˌ‑as [4|7], preserved in the Baltic languages.
PS The nominative singular of the masculine o-stems is perhaps the single

most debated ending in Slavic historical morphology. I assume that PBS *ˌ‑as
regularly yielded PS *ˌ‑ə [12|17] (CS Cl *‑ъ || ONovg. ‑e [29]; CS *‑jь [20|29]). The
development is part of the general centralisation of pre-PS *ā̆ in word-final
syllables closed by a fricative [17]. PS *‑ə is attested as ‑ъ or its later reflex ‑∅ in
almost all Slavic dialects; only in the Old Novgorod dialect the reflex is ‑e. I shall
here only briefly sketch the main points of disagreement; for a detailed discus-
sion of the problem and references to competing views see Olander 2012.
104 Chapter 3
A number of scholars assume that the regular reflex of PIE *‑os is CS *‑o
(see e.g. Vermeer 1991/2009). The most important arguments in favour of this
view are constituted by certain Slavic personal names ending in ‑o, such as
ORu. Ivanъko, and the neuter s-stem nominative-accusative singular ending
PIE *‑os, which seems to have yielded CS *‑o, e.g. in OCS slovo. These forms
allegedly preserve the phonetically regular reflex of PIE *‑os.
An alternative view holds that PIE *‑os yielded CS *‑ъ. This view is mainly
based on the form under consideration here. It is argued that while it is pos-
sible to set up a formally perfect proportion leading to the replacement of the
inherited o-stem ending *‑o with the u-stem ending *‑ъ by analogy with the
accusative forms *‑ъ (from *‑om) and *‑ъ (from *‑um), it is unlikely that such
an analogy would ever be set up because of the essential role of the opposition
between the nominative and accusative singular forms in Slavic. Accordingly,
the phonetically regular ending must be *‑ъ.
Both views are challenged by the Old Novgorod ending ‑e, which clearly
cannot reflect CS *‑o, nor *‑ъ (for the characteristics of the ending see Zaliznjak
1995: 99–104; Le Feuvre 1998b: 213–284). Proponents of the view that PIE *‑os
yielded CS *‑o have assumed that ONovg. ‑e is the vocative form (e.g. Kwon
2009), or that it represents the original i̯o-stem ending *‑je from *‑jo < PIE *‑i̯os
(e.g. Vermeer 1991/2009; Krys’ko 2007: 99–114).
If it is accepted that the general reflex of PIE *‑os in Slavic is *‑ъ, however,
another possibility appears, namely that PIE *‑os had two reflexes in Slavic:
‑e in the Old Novgorod dialect and *‑ъ everywhere else (Zaliznjak, Dybo and
Nikolaev apud Zaliznjak 1988: 170; Olander 2012: 330–331). Apart from giving
a straightforward explanation of the masculine o-stem nominative singular
forms, this hypothesis also receives support from the genitive singular and
nominative plural of the ā-stems, where PIE *‑ah₂s and *‑ah₂as merge in pre-
PS *‑ās and show up as ‑ě in the Old Novgorod dialect and ‑y in the other Slavic
dialects. The development of pre-PS *‑ās to ‑ě in the Old Novgorod dialect
(merging with PS *‑ē) and to ‑y in other dialects (merging with PS *‑ū) is an
exact parallel to the situation in the masculine nominative singular, where PIE
*‑os > pre-PS *‑as [7] yields ‑e in Novgorod (merging with PS *‑e) and ‑ъ (merg-
ing with PS *‑u) elsewhere. In both cases it is likely that the loss of word-final
*‑s in pre-Proto-Slavic caused centralisation of a preceding *ā or *a to PS *ə̄ or
*ə [17].
As for the apparent counterexamples to the hypothesis that PIE *‑os is
reflected as CS Cl *‑ъ, ONovg. ‑e, the Common Slavic neuter s-stem nominative-
accusative singular *‑o is treated in § 3.3.9. The ‑o of personal names of the
type Ivanъko is slightly more difficult to explain; as I see it, ‑o is most likely to
be the neuter o-stem ending, originally used with hypocoristic function (see
Olander 2012: 322–323, with references in fn. 21).
3.3.15 Neuter o-Stem Nom.–Acc. Singular
PS *ˌsuta (CS *sъ̏to; *pȍl’e) PBS pron. *ˌ‑a (noun *ˌ‑am) PIE pron. *‑od (noun *‑om)
OCS město; pol’e Li. adj. šálta Ved. pron. tát (noun yugám)
ORu. lěto; pole; ONovg. Lv. adv. maz OAv., YAv. pron. tat̰ (noun
selo; vъzgolovьje OPr. pron. sta xšaϑrəm)
OCz. město; moře (noun asseran) Gk. pron. τό (noun ζυγόν)
La. pron. istud (noun iugum)
Go. pron. →þata (noun
barn); ONor. pron. þat (noun
barn)
Hi. pron. apāt (noun pedan;
adj. dannattan, dannatta)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 149–150 (1897: 391) (noun), 358 (pron.): OCS ‑o
reflects accented PIE *‑óm | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 212 (noun), 226
(pron.) | Rasmussen forthc. a § 4: Slavic ‑o, Li. ‑a reflect PIE pron.
*‑od | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/ 1975: 90 (noun), 496–497
(pron.) | Rix 1976/ 1992: 138 (noun), 184 (pron.) | Sihler 1995:
258 (noun), 385 (pron.) | Weiss 2009/ 2011: 200, 225 (noun), 335
(pron.) | Krahe 1942/1967: 12 (noun), 62 (pron.): PGmc. pron. was
*þat, preserved in ONor. and WGmc., from PIE *tod | Boutkan 1995:
174–175 (noun), 300 (pron.) | Kloekhorst 2008a: 104, 172 (noun), 799
(pron.)
PBS Olander 2009: 167 | Endzelīns 1971: 134 (noun), 192 (pron.), 260
(adv.) | Stang 1966: 187–188 (noun), 241–242 (pron.): Li. adj. ‑a, OCS to
reflect PIE *tod/t; OPr. sta, wissa, Li. vìsa, kìta reflect PIE *‑od/t; tataĩ pre-
serves *‑t before ptcl. ‑ai | Otrębski 1956: 13 (noun), 123–125 (pron.): Li.
‑a < PIE *‑od | Endzelīns 1923: 464–465 (adv.)
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2: Slavic ‑o is from pronouns | Hujer 1910: 34–36:
Slavic ‑o is from PIE pron. *‑od and neut. s-stem *‑os; Slavic ‑je is the
regular outcome of PIE *‑i̯om | Meillet 1924/1934: PIE *‑os, *‑om
yielded Slavic ‑o, ‑ъ; ‑o became neut. ending under the influence of pron.
*tot | Vaillant 1958: 43–44: Slavic ‑o is from PIE pron. *‑od | Bräuer
1969a: 63, 93: Slavic ‑o is from PIE pron. *‑od | Arumaa 1985: 131–132:
Slavic ‑o is from PIE *‑o, variant of *‑om | Igartua 2005a: 116–123:
Slavic ‑o reflects archaic PIE o-stem neut. ending *‑o; Slavic masc. ‑ъ
partly reflects recent PIE o-stem neut. ending *‑om (dvorъ type) |
106 Chapter 3
Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 84–85: OCS ‑o, ‑je are taken from PIE pron. *‑od, to
a lesser extent from neut. s-stem *‑os
PIE The ending found in Slavic reflects the Proto-Indo-European pronomi-

nal ending *‑od. This ending is preserved in most of the ancient Indo-European
languages. Within Germanic it is usually assumed that ONor. þat, OEng. þæt,
OHG daʒ directly reflect PIE *tód, whereas Go. þat‑a has been extended by a
particle (Krahe loc. cit.; Boutkan 1995: 57–59; Ringe 2006a: 143–144). It is also
possible, though, that the North and West Germanic forms were extended by
a particle which later disappeared through apocope. In that case we could
assume, contrary to the communis opinio (e.g. Krahe 1942/1966: 125), that
Proto-Indo-European final stops were lost both in polysyllabic and in mono-
syllabic words in pre-Proto-Germanic, and to derive Go. ƕa ‘what’ not from
PIE *kʷóm, but from *kʷód (thus also Rasmussen forthc. a; I am grateful to
Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen for pointing this out to me). This view,
however, would also mean that Early Runic ek could not go directly back to PIE
*h₁ég̑ , but must reflect a disyllabic form.
PBS The Proto-Indo-European noun ending *‑om > PBS *ˌ‑am [4|7] is pre-
served in Old Prussian, especially in the Elbing vocabulary, e.g. asseran, dalp-
tan. In East Baltic the neuter gender has been lost, but Lithuanian predicative
adjectives, e.g. šálta, and pronouns like kìta, vìsa preserve the PBS pronominal
ending *ˌ‑a < PIE *‑od [4|5|7|9]. A useful discussion of the development of the
neuter o-stems in Baltic and Slavic is found in Derksen 2011. Petit 2010: 140–204
contains an overview of the fate of the neuter gender in the Baltic languages.
PS The Proto-Balto-Slavic pronominal ending *ˌ‑a yielded PS *ˌ‑a (CS *‑o

[29]; *‑je [20|29]), which in pre-Proto-Slavic spread from pronouns to adjec-
tives (as in pre-Lithuanian) and nouns (Schelesniker 1964: 56; cf. Kortlandt
1975/2011a: 43), leaving no traces of the original noun ending *‑om in neuters.
Certain Slavic masculine words correspond to neuters in other Indo-
European languages, e.g. OCS dvorъ vs. Ved. dvā́ra‑ neut. (Brāhmaṇas+), La.
forum (for this problem see Illič-Svityč 1979: 114–116; Igartua loc. cit.; Kortlandt
1975/2011a: 43–44). Such masculines sometimes appear side by side with neuter
variants of the same lexeme, e.g. CS masc. *tь́ rnъ in Štk. tȓn vs. CS neut. *tьrnò
in Čak. (Hvar) tōrnȍ. Words of this type usually have a.p. b in Slavic, which
points to Proto-Indo-European non-final accentuation. It has been argued that
the fact that it is primarily neuters with original non-final accentuation that
become masculine in Slavic indicates that the change of PIE *‑om to CS *‑ъ
only took place in unaccented syllables; in accented syllables PIE *‑om yielded
CS *‑o (Illič-Svityč 1979: 115).
In my opinion, the fact that neuters with root-accent often turn up as mas-
culine words in Slavic does not show that accented and unaccented *‑om had
different reflexes in Slavic. It may simply be a tendency that evolved on the
basis of formal and/or semantic similarities between masculine nouns and
existing neuters that happened to be root-accented. There are alternative
sources for the attested differences in gender, such as independent themati-
sations of athematic nouns in the individual branches of Indo-European, or
simply occasional changes in gender triggered by the identical masculine and
neuter endings in all forms except the nominative singular and the nominative
and accusative dual and plural.
3.3.16 Inanimate Interrogative Pronoun Nom.–Acc. Singular
PS *ˌki (CS *čь̏ ) PBS neut. *ˌ‑i PIE neut. *‑id
OCS čьto, ničьže Li. adv. daũg; OLi. adv. daugi Ved. →kím; →idám; ptcl. ‑cit
ORu. čьto; ONovg. čьto Lv. adv. daũdz OAv. īt̰; YAv. cit̰
OCz. ‑č OPr. – Gk. τί
La. quid
Go. →ita, OEng. hit
Hi. kuit (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 358: PIE *‑id | Beekes 1995/2011: 230 |

Rasmussen forthc. a: – | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/ 1975:
496, 559–562 | Rix 1976/ 1992: 187: PIE *‑íd | Sihler 1995: 385,
391–392, 397, 399 | Weiss 2009/2011: 348–350 | Krahe 1942/1967:
56 | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: 799
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 173 | Stang 1966: 242, 260–261:
OLi. daugi, Lv. daũdz are old neut. i-stem forms; *-t is preserved in Li.
dial. interjection šìtai | Otrębski 1956: 153: Li. šìtas, dial. ìtas perhaps
preserve *‑i < *‑id, plus pron. tàs | Endzelīns 1923: 464–465: the idea
that Lv. daudz reflects i-stem neut. nom.–acc. sg. is “durchaus möglich”
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 90 | Hujer 1910: – | Meillet 1924/1934: 442–
443 | Vaillant 1958: 405 | Bräuer 1969a, 1969b: – | Arumaa
1985: 55, 183: OLi. daugi, Lv. daudz go back to neut. i-stem form; Slavic čьto
is from PIE neut. *kʷi‑ | Igartua 2005a: 243–244: there are traces of
neut. i-stems in Slavic | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 123
108 Chapter 3
PIE Formally, the Slavic form may correspond to Ved. interr. pron. kím, to the
neuter noun i-stem ending PIE *‑i and to the ending *‑id found in the inter-
rogative pronoun in most ancient Indo-European languages except Vedic. It is
most likely that it is the latter form that is continued in Slavic. PIE *‑id contains
the pronominal neuter nominative-accusative singular marker *‑d.
PBS PIE *‑id yielded PBS *ˌ‑i [4|5|9]. The ending is probably preserved in
Baltic in the adverb OLi. daugi ‘much’, Li. daũg ‘much’, Lv. daũdz ‘much’. It is
also possible that the Lithuanian interjection dial. šìtai ‘look!’ preserves the
ending including the final stop (cf. Stang loc. cit.).
PS PBS *ˌ‑i is only preserved in the inanimate form of the interrogative pro-
noun, PS *ˌki (CS *čь̏ [29]) (for the lack of a gender distinction in this pronoun
see H. Birnbaum & Schaeken 1997: 75–76). The pronoun was extended with
an article to CS *čь̏ ‑to, preserved in Old Church Slavonic and East Slavic. The
unextended version is seen in e.g. OCz. pro‑č, where it is preceded by a preposi-
tion (Gebauer 1896: 464–465).
3.3.17 First-person Singular Pronoun Nominative
PS *ˈēzu (CS *ja̋zъ, *já) PBS *ˈeś, →*ˈēźam PIE *h₁ég̑
OCS azъ Li. àš; OLi., dial. eš Ved. →ahám

ORu. jazъ, ja; ONovg. jazъ, ja Lv. es OAv. →azə̄m, as-cīt̰ 1 ×; YAv.
OCz. jáz, já OPr. as 46 ×, es 2 × →azəm
Gk. →ἐγώ, Hom. →ἐγών
La. →ego, OLa. →egō
Go. (→)ik; Early Runic ek, ik,
encl. →‑(e)ka
Hi. →ūk (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 382, 409–410: Slavic azъ has perhaps arisen through
contraction of conjunction a and pron. *ezъ | Beekes 1995/2011: 232:
PIE *h₁eg̑ , with *ō or *‑e/oh added in some languages, *‑(h)om in others; Hi.
u-vocalism is from acc.–dat. ammuk; OCS azъ for *jazъ reflects *ēg(h)om
with Winter’s lengthening (“Winter–Kortlandt’s law”) | Rasmussen
forthc. a § 13: PIE *ég̑ ; Hi. ūk has u from *tu; PBS *eź; Slavic azъ per-
haps consists of conjunction a plus pron. *ez plus paragogic vowel
‑ъ | Schmidt 1978: 21–47, 109: PIE *eg̑ , *eg̑ hom, *eg̑ hō(m), perhaps also
*eg̑ h; Go. ik, ONor. ek, OEn. ic may reflect PIE *eg̑ hom or *eg̑ ; Runic ek is not
from PIE *eg̑ hom, perhaps from *eg̑ ; Hi. uk has u from 2ps.; Slavic jazъ, ja
are from PIE *eg̑ (h)om, *eg̑ ; length in Slavic ja < *( j)ē is analogical after ty
< PIE *tū | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 453–455: Ved. ahám
goes back to PIE | Rix 1976/1992: PIE *ég̑oh₂ is reflected in Gk. ἐγώ, La.
egō̆; PIE *eg̑ h₂‑óm is seen in Gk. Hom., Dor. ἐγών (with ō from ἐγώ), Ved.
ahám etc. | Sihler 1995: 369–372, 375: PIE *eg̑oh, but reconstruction is
difficult | Weiss 2009/2011: 326: OCS azъ, IIr. and Gmc. forms are from
PIE *h₁eg̑ h₂óm; other forms point to *h₁ég̑oh₂, *h₁ég̑ h₂; Hi. has u from 2sg.
*tu; OLi. eš, Lv. es are problematic | Krahe 1942/1967: 50: Baltic forms
are from PIE *eg̑ ; IIr. and Gmc. forms go back to PIE *eg̑ (ʰ)om; Gk. and La.
forms are from PIE *eg̑ō | Seebold 1984: 20–24: early East Nordic ek/ik
reflects PIE simple *eg̑ (ʰ); early East Nordic ‑(e)ka is from PIE conjunctive
*eg̑ (ʰ)om; OHG ihha perhaps reflect PIE emphatic *eg̑ō | Kloekhorst
2008a: 111–115, 912: PIE *h₁eg̑ h; PAnat. *ʔúǵ has *u from oblique forms, not
from ‘you’
PBS Kapović 2006a: 16–37, 159: CS *ja̋ goes back to PIE *ég̑ ; CS *jázъ is from PIE
*eg̑ hóm; Li. àš, OLi. eš represent PIE sandhi variant *ék̑ | Endzelīns
1971: 186: Common Baltic form was probably *ež, but Li. dial. õš may have
different origin | Stang 1966: 247: Baltic forms point to *ež, possibly
originally followed by one more syllable | Otrębski 1956: 135: Li. àš,
OLi. eš go back to *ež | Endzelīns 1923: 372
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 70: Slavic jazъ perhaps reflects *i̯ēzъ with compensa-
tory lengthening; loss of *j‑ in OCS may be due to sentence-initial posi-
tion | Meillet 1924/1934: 84, 105, 452: Slavic form is “énigmatique”,
seems to reflect *a‑ > ja‑; forms without ‑z(ъ) are secondary; ‑ъ may cor-
respond to Ved. ‑ám | Vaillant 1958: 443 (1950: 183): PBS *ež reflects
*eg; Slavic *( j)azъ contains paragogic vowel; Slavic long vowel may
have arisen in variant where *‑ž was lost; or Slavic ja‑ is perhaps from
*ē‑ with “allongement secondaire expressif de *e‑ [. . .] et sur le modèle
de ty” | Arumaa 1985: 158–159: PIE *eg̑; it is possible that both *( j)
azъ and *( j)az existed in PS | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 107–108: OCS
azъ (with paragogic vowel and loss of *‑i̯) and ja found in other Slavic
languages reflect *i̯āz, corresponding, apart from quantity, to Baltic *ež
PIE The word for ‘I’ was *h₁ég̑ (or *ég̑ ) in the proto-language (for the question
of an initial *h₁ see Katz 1998: 22–23; Kapović 2006a: 159). The original form is
presumably preserved in the Old Avestan hapax as-cīt̰ (Mayrhofer 1986–2001,
1: 155), in Baltic and perhaps in Germanic. The remaining languages, including
Slavic, show *h₁ég̑ followed by some additional element. The Indo-Iranian
forms probably reflect *h₁eg̑‑hóm, where *hom (or *h₁em, as in La. idem; cf.
110 Chapter 3
Meiser 1998/2006: 161; Weiss 2009/2011: 342) is the emphasising particle also
found in other pronominal forms, e.g. Ved. 1sg. pron. nom. tuvám, dem. pron.
masc. nom. sg. ayám, neut. nom.–acc. sg. idám, 1sg. pron. dat. máhyam, 2sg.
túbhyam. Examples such as PIE neut. nom.–acc. sg. *még̑ h₂ > Ved. máhi, Gk.
μέγα show that *g̑ h merged with *g̑ ʰ in Indic, yielding Vedic h, at least in the
case of *h₂ (cf. Hoenigswald 1965: 95). This laryngealist solution seems more
economical to me than the widespread assumption of influence from the
dative of the first-person singular pronoun máhyam (e.g. Meillet 1894: 282;
cf. the discussions in Mayrhofer 1986–2001, 1: 155 and Schmidt 1978: 21–22).
The *‑ō found in Greek and Italic probably represents the ending of the first-
person singular of thematic verbs, which was added to the pronoun in the two
branches; it is less likely that it reflects a deictic element similar in function
to *hom. Hom. ἐγών (used before vowels) may contain the particle *hom and
have secondary ω from ἐγώ (Rix loc. cit.). In Germanic, Early Runic tonic ek may
preserve PIE *h₁ég̑ (thus e.g. Seebold loc. cit.; cf. § 3.3.15), whereas encl. ‑eka
points to PIE *h₁ég̑ plus *hom (similarly e.g. Kroonen 2013: 116, on the evidence
of the breaking in East Nordic, e.g. Old Swedish iak). Due to the reduction of
final syllables in Germanic, Go. ik, ONor. ek, OEng. ic etc. are ambiguous (see
e.g. Ernout & Meillet 1932/1951: 343; Schmidt 1978: 24–25; Sihler 1995: 369). The
u-vocalism of Anatolian was probably imported from the nominative of the
second-person singular pronoun; the accusative-dative form ammuk may also
have played a role.
PBS PIE *h₁ég̑ regularly yielded PBS *ˈeś [5|8], preserved in the Baltic lan-
guages. As shown by the Slavic evidence, Proto-Balto-Slavic must also have
known a variant *ˈḛ̄źam from *h₁eg̑ hóm [1|6|7|8], consisting of PIE *h₁ég̑ and
the particle *hom that was also appended to this pronoun in Indo-Iranian and
Germanic. Much of the discussion of the Slavic form has concerned the length
of the initial vowel, but this problem was solved with the discovery of Winter’s
law, as seen by Winter himself (1978: 433; see also Kortlandt 1997b/2009: 29;
Kapović 2009). The existence of a monosyllabic form without lengthening in
Baltic and a disyllabic form with lengthening in Slavic suggests that the devoic-
ing of word-final obstruents [5] took place before Winter’s law [6] in pre-Proto-
Balto-Slavic. The Slavic form with lengthening also suggests that PIE *Dh and
*Dʰ did not merge in Balto-Slavic—unless, of course, the univerbation of *h₁ég̑
and *hom happened after the loss of laryngeals [1], but earlier than the devoic-
ing of word-final *g̑ [5] seen in Baltic, which is likely anyway.
PS In my view the best diachronic explanation of the attested Slavic forms
assumes that PBS *ˈḛ̄źam, consisting of the same elements as the Indo-Iranian
forms and Early Runic encl. ‑(e)ka, yielded PS *ˈēzu [13|19]; the older variant
PBS *ˈeś < PIE *ég̑ disappeared in Slavic. With an automatic prothetic *i̯ PS
*ˈēzu became *ˈi̯ēzu (CS *ja̋ zъ [27|29]). The reflexes of CS *ja‑ found in most
Slavic dialects are the regular outcome of PS *ē‑, but the a‑ of Old Church
Slavonic (and Bulgarian) is unexpected. Instead of assuming a PIE form with
o-grade (Ernout & Meillet 1932/1951: 343; Meillet 1903/1973: 333: Slavic forms
require PIE *ō [or *ā]; Andersen 1996: 148–149; cf. also Sobolevskij 1908: 204:
OCS azъ cannot contain *ē‑), unattested outside Slavic, I am inclined to agree
with the authors who assume that post-PS *ˈi̯ēzu > *ˈi̯āzu [27] became *ˈāzu >
OCS azъ by a sporadic loss of *i̯ in certain East South Slavic dialects (Kapović
2006a: 24–27; see also H. Birnbaum & Schaeken 1997: 73).
The Common Slavic form *já, widely reflected in the Slavic dialects, is, in
my opinion, most economically seen as a shortened version of PS *ˈēzu (CS
*ja̋ zъ), perhaps under the influence of the monosyllabicity of the nominative
form of all other personal pronouns, viz. PS 2sg. *ˌtū, 1du. *u̯ ē, 2du. *u̯ ū, 1pl.
*ˌmū, 2pl. *ˌu̯ ū (CS *ty̑ , *vě, *vy, *my̑ , *vy̑ ). The rough correlation of reflexes of
a disyllabic form with acute accentuation (e.g. Sln. jàz) on the one hand and
reflexes of a monosyllabic form with neoacute accentuation (e.g. Slnc. jǻu̯) on
the other indicates that the reflexes of neoacute accentuation found in various
Slavic dialects may be due to this shortening (cf. Kortlandt 2009/2009: 108; and,
against this view, Kapović 2006a: 34–37, with an overview of the forms; 2009).
If the acute accentuation is old in Slavic, this points to root-accented PBS
*ˈḛ̄źam. The alternative view, namely that the Slavic neoacute is old, would
mean that the word had final accentuation in Proto-Balto-Slavic, i.e. *ḛ̄ˈźam.
The accentual implications for the Proto-Indo-European reconstruction are
unclear as we do not know at which stage the univerbation of *ég̑ and *hom
took place (see above), and which prosodic effects it had. All we can say is that
if the form with neoacute is old (which it is probably not), the form *ḛ̄ˈźam
with final accent must have arisen after the mobility law [4]; otherwise the
form would have become unaccented.
3.3.18 Second-Person Singular Pronoun Nominative
PS *ˌtū (CS *ty̑) PBS *ˈtṵ̄, *ˈtu PIE *túh
OCS ty Li. tù; NWŽem. tọ̀ Ved. →tvám

ORu. ty; ONovg. ty Lv. tu OAv. →tuuə̄m, tū; YAv. →tūm
OCz. ty OPr. tu, tū, toū Gk., Ion. σῠ́; Dor. τῠ́; Hom. τῡ́νη
La. tū
Go. þu; ONor. þú
Hi. →zik (OS), →zīk (OS)
112 Chapter 3
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 383, 410: PIE *tū, *tu | Beekes 1995/2011:

233–234: PIE *tuh; Hi. zīk reflects *tih, possibly the original PIE
form | Rasmussen forthc. a § 13: PIE *tú, *tū́; Anat. ti‑ is perhaps the
phonetically regular reflex of PIE *tū; ‑k probably from 1ps. | Schmidt
1978: 113–119, 121–122, 143: PIE *tuh, *tuhom; Hi. zik is originally the acc.
form | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 453–455 | Rix 1976/
1992: 178: Gk. Att., Ion. σῡ� ́ [sic (long υ)] (with σ‑ from acc.), Dor. τῡ� ́ [sic
(long υ)], La. tū, Go. þu, Li. tù, OCS ty reflect PIE *túh₂, *tú(h₂) | Sihler
1995: 372, 375: PIE *tī� ̆ is preserved in Anat., but replaced with *tū̆ else-
where | Weiss 2009/2011: 328: PIE form was probably *tuh; Hi. zik con-
tains *ti̯ū < *tū | Krahe 1942/1967: 52: PIE *tū; Gmc. short reflexes have
arisen in unaccented position | Seebold 1984: 24–25: PIE had *tu, with
lengthened variant *tū; PIE reconstruction *ti, based on Anat., is possible
but less likely | Kloekhorst 2008a: 111–115: PIE *tih₁ was preserved
́ *tī�g̑́ , where the final velar reflects either an “element *-ge”
in PAnat. *tī�g,
or *‑g̑ from 1sg.; non-Anat. IE languages have *tuh₁ based on oblique stem
tu-
PBS Kapović 2006a: 38, 94, 102, 114, 147–148, 158, passim: CS *tȋ; East Baltic forms
reflect *tù; OPr. has both long and short variants; PBS *tū́, *tù; PIE *tú,
(with monosyllabic lengthening) *tū́ | Endzelīns 1971: 186 | Stang
1966: 247–248: OPr. points to long vowel; Lv. and NWŽem. point to short
vowel; either PIE double forms, or shortening or lengthening in individ-
ual languages | Otrębski 1956: 135 | Endzelīns 1923: 372
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 70 | Meillet 1924/ 1934: 452 | Vaillant 1958:
443–444: PIE *tū, *tu | Arumaa 1985: 162–163 | Aitzetmüller 1978/
1991: 110–111: PIE short variant was originally probably enclitic
PIE Like in other monosyllabic forms (see § 3.2.7), here the Indo-European

languages show reflexes of both a long and a short variant even within closely
related dialects, e.g. Hom. τῡ�ν́ η with a long vowel vs. Att., Ion. (including Hom.)
σῠ�,́ Dor. τῠ� ́ with a short vowel (see e.g. Chantraine 1945/1984: 136–137). In Indo-
Iranian the pronoun was extended by the particle *hom also found in other
pronominal forms; the original form is preserved in Old Avestan (for the par-
ticle Ved. tú, tū́, OAv., YAv. tū see Mayrhofer 1986–2001, 1: 651). Some authors
maintain that the front vowel of the Hittite form represents the original state
of affairs (Sturtevant & Hahn 1933/1951: 102–103; Cowgill 1965/2006: 169 n. 56;
Sihler loc. cit.; Kloekhorst loc. cit.; 2008b: 93; cf. Klingenschmitt 1994: 241–242,
who reconstructs PIE *tú [yielding the non-Anatolian IE forms] alongside
*t(u̯ )éi̯ [yielding PAnat. *tī]). This hypothesis is unnecessary if we accept the
idea that the front vowel is the regular result of a phonological development of
PIE *ū to *ī in Anatolian (Melchert 1983 with an overview of hypotheses; 1994:
84; Katz 1998: 23 n. 35; a different explanation of the Anatolian form as innova-
tory is given in Rieken 2009: 40–41 with further references).
PBS In Balto-Slavic PIE *túh yielded *ˈtṵ̄ [1], preserved in Slavic and in OPr.
toū. Taken at face value the Old Prussian variant tu points to a Proto-Balto-
Slavic short variant, but we may also be dealing with a later syntactically con-
ditioned shortening (Endzelīns 1944: 129–130 suggests that the omission of
the macron is a graphical matter; Stang’s formulation [loc. cit.] also seems to
indicate that he assumes the Old Prussian forms reflect an original long form).
Short variants are found in Latvian tu and in NWŽem. tọ̀ (Zinkevičius 1966:
298; Stang loc. cit.); standard Li. tù is ambiguous as PBS *tṵ̄ would have been
shortened by Leskien’s law.
PS The long variant PBS *ˈtṵ̄ yielded PS *ˌtū [13] (CS *ty̑ [29]), preserved in all
Slavic languages.
3.4 Accusative Singular
3.4.1 Non-Neuter Consonant-Stem Accusative Singular
PS *ˌdukteri (CS *dъ̏t’erь) PBS *ˌ‑im PIE *‑m̥
OCS dъšterь, →dъštere Li. dùkterį Ved. →áśmānam

ORu. dъčerь; ONovg. (na) docerь Lv. akmeni OAv. →aⁱriiamanəm; YAv.
OCz. dceř OPr. smunentin →asmanəm
Gk. ποιμένα
La. hominem
Go. guman
Hi. →kiššeran
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 141–144 | Beekes 1995/2011: 187: PIE *‑m; Ved.

‑am for *‑a has ‑m from other stems | Rasmussen forthc. a § 2 |
Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 31–32, 203–204: Ved ‑m is from other
stems | Rix 1976/1992: 151–152 | Sihler 1995: 284: Ved. ‑am is proba-
bly the regular reflex of PIE *‑m̥ | Weiss 2009/2011: 199, 201 | Krahe
1942/1967: 35, 39, 45 | Boutkan 1995: 260, 273–274 | Kloekhorst
2008a: 107–110, 591: Hi. o-stem ending ‑an < PIE *‑om has replaced
expected C-stem ending *‑un from *‑m̥
114 Chapter 3
PBS Olander 2009: 193–194: accentuation of Li. dùkterį is not in accordance

with mobility law, but that of šùnį is | Endzelīns 1971: 163 | Stang
1966: 220 | Otrębski 1956: 52, 56 | Endzelīns 1923: 322
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 3 | Hujer 1910: 94–97 | Meillet 1924/ 1934:
422 | Vaillant 1958: 183 | Bräuer 1969b: 8, 71 | Arumaa 1985:
108–109 | Igartua 2005a: 330–331 | Aitzetmüller 1978/ 1991: 94,
100–101
PIE The ending was the pure case–number marker, *‑m̥ , the reflexes of
which are preserved in most Indo-European languages. PIIr. *‑am is usually
thought to contain a nasal analogically transferred from the vowel stems (e.g.
Wackernagel loc. cit.), but some authors assume that it is the regular outcome
of PIE *‑m̥ (Sihler loc. cit.). The latter view allows us to view both this form and
the secondary athematic ending of the first-person singular of the verbs, Ved.
‑am and OAv. ‑əm from PIE *‑m̥ , as phonetically regular. However, the cardi-
nal numbers PIIr. *saptá ‘seven’ (Ved. saptá, YAv. hapta), from PIE *septḿ̥, and
*dáća ‘ten’ (Ved. dáśa, OAv. dasā, YAv. dasa), from *dék̑m̥, contradict this view;
and while *dáća may perhaps be remade from *dáćat from PIE *dék̑m̥t (Sihler
1995: 416–417), this explanation does not work for *saptá (not discussed in this
context by Sihler).
Hi. ‑an is probably the o-stem ending, as PIE *‑m̥ would have yielded *‑un
(Melchert 1994: 181; Kloekhorst loc. cit.).
PBS The Proto-Indo-European ending *‑m̥ regularly yielded PBS *ˌ‑im [2],

preserved in the Baltic languages with the expected phonetic changes.
PS PBS *ˌ‑im yielded PS *ˌ‑i [19] (CS *‑ь [29]). The ending is preserved in the
3.4.2 i-Stem Accusative Singular
PS *ˌgasti (CS *gȍstь) PBS *ˌ‑im PIE *‑im
OCS gostь Li. miñtį Ved. śúcim

ORu. putь; ONovg. věstь Lv. avi OAv. aṣ̌īm; YAv. gaⁱrīm
OCz. host OPr. nautin Gk. πόλιν
La. turrim, →mortem
Go. gast
Hi. ḫalkin
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 140 | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 203 | Rasmussen

forthc. a § 6 | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/ 1975: 145 | Rix
1976/1992: 151 | Sihler 1995: 65, 316: La. ‑em, not ‑im, is the regular
reflex of PIE *‑im | Weiss 2009/2011: 242, 244: La. ‑im reflects PIE *‑im;
‑em is from C-stem ending *‑m̥ | Krahe 1942/1967: 27 | Boutkan
1995: 244 | Kloekhorst 2008a: 105
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 3 | Hujer 1910: 91 | Meillet 1924/ 1934:
418 | Vaillant 1958: 133 | Bräuer 1969a: 155 | Arumaa 1985:
123 | Igartua 2005a: 248–250 | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 74
PIE PIE *‑im, consisting of the stem suffix *‑i‑ and the accusative singular
marker *‑m, is preserved in the old Indo-European languages. For the pho-
notactically unexpected syllabification of the sequence *‑im see § 2.2.1. It is
most likely that La. ‑im reflects the Proto-Indo-European i-stem ending *‑im,
whereas ‑em originates in the consonant-stem ending *‑m̥ (cf., however, Sihler
loc. cit.).
PBS PIE *‑im is preserved as PBS *ˌ‑im [4], with the expected reflexes in the
Baltic languages.
PS PBS *ˌ‑im yields PS *ˌ‑i [19] (CS *‑ь [29]), preserved in the old Slavic
dialects.
3.4.3 u-Stem Accusative Singular
PS *ˌsūnu (CS *sy̑nъ) PBS *ˌ‑um PIE *‑um
OCS synъ Li. sū́nų Ved. mádhum

ORu. synъ; ONovg. polъ Lv. tìrgu OAv., YAv. ahūm
OCz. syn OPr. sunun Gk. ἡδύν
La. tribum
Go. sunu
Hi. idālun
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 140–141 | Beekes 1995/2011: 203 | Rasmussen

forthc. a § 6 | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 145 | Rix 1976/
116 Chapter 3
1992: 151 | Sihler 1995: 323 | Weiss 2009/2011: 249, 251 | Krahe

1942/1967: 32 | Boutkan 1995: 255 | Kloekhorst 2008a: 105
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 3 | Hujer 1910: 91 | Meillet 1924/ 1934: 411,
413 | Vaillant 1958: 109 | Bräuer 1969a: 146 | Arumaa 1985:
123 | Igartua 2005a: 282–283 | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 70
PIE The ending contained the zero grade of the stem suffix, *‑u‑, followed
by the accusative singular marker *‑m (for the vocalisation of *‑um see § 2.2.1).
The ending is preserved in the old Indo-European languages. The form was
also used for deverbal formations, e.g. Ved. inf. ‑tum and La. supine ‑tum.
PBS PIE *‑um became PBS *ˌ‑um [4], preserved in the Baltic languages.
Outside the u-stem paradigm the form is preserved in the East Baltic and Slavic
supine, e.g. Li. vèstų, Lv. dial. ȩ̂stu, PS *ˌnestu (CS *nȅstъ), and in Old Prussian
infinitives, e.g. boūton.
PS PBS *ˌ‑um regularly yielded PS *ˌ‑u [19] (CS *‑ъ [29]), preserved in the old
Slavic dialects.
3.4.4 ā-Stem Accusative Singular
PS *ˌnagān (CS *nȍgǫ; *dȗšǫ) PBS *ˌ‑ām PIE *‑ah₂m̥ , *‑ah₂m
OCS glavǫ; dušǫ Li. gálvą Ved. jihvā́m

ORu. ženu; zeml’u; ONovg. grivьnu; Lv. gal̂vu OAv., YAv. daēnąm
neděl’u OPr. gennan Gk. φυγήν
OCz. rybu; dušu La. uiam; Osc. víam
Go. giba
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 139: PIE acute *‑ā́m | Beekes 1995/2011: 200:

PIE *‑eh₂m | Rasmussen forthc. a § 5: PBS *‑ā̃n reflects disyllabic
PIE *‑ah₂m̥ ; monosyllabic *‑ām in e.g. Gk. θεᾱ� ν́ is from prevocalic san-
dhi variant *‑ah₂m | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 115: Ved.
‑ām (no certain examples of disyllabic scansion) is from PIE *‑ām, prob-
ably with circumflex tone | Rix 1976/1992: 75, 131: PIE *‑ām reflects
pre-PIE *‑eh₂m̥ | Sihler 1995: 268: Gk. ‑ᾱ� ν́ , ‑ήν go back to PIE *‑eh₂m,
not *‑eh₂m̥ , for which there is no evidence in any IE language; La. ‑am was
regularly shortened from PItal. *‑ām with secondarily reintroduced long
vowel | Weiss 2009/2011: 229, 232–233: pre-PIE *‑eh₂m yielded PIE
*‑ām, not *‑eh₂m̥ ; shortening in La. ‑am is regular | Krahe 1942/1967:
21: PIE *‑ām | Boutkan 1995: 226: PIE *‑ehm | Kloekhorst 2008a:
107: Hi. ḫ-stem arḫan has *‑om, remade from PIE *‑éh₂m
PBS Olander 2009: 169: BS unaccented form points to PIE disyllabic *‑ah₂m̥ ;
Gk. acute tone points to sandhi variant *‑ah₂m | Endzelīns 1971:
143–144: Baltic forms reflect ‑an < *‑ān (also in OCS ‑ǫ) from PIE *‑ām;
PIE acute tone, preserved in Gk., was replaced with circumflex tone in
Baltic and Slavic, probably by analogy with o‑, i- and u-stems; shorten-
ing of *‑ān to *‑an in Baltic is shown by OPr. rānkan | Stang 1966: 39,
199: Baltic tone does not correspond to Gk. tone, perhaps due to different
development of *‑VhN sequences; in OPr., stems ending in a velar show
rounding, pointing to *‑ān, in Cat. I and II; in Cat. III the stem has been
restored | Otrębski 1956: 25: Li. ‑ą < *‑an reflects *‑ān | Endzelīns
1923: 305–306
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 3 (1906/1924: 150): Slavic and Baltic endings do not
match Gk. ending [with respect to tone]; Slavic ‑ǫ is from originally
acute *‑ām, with circumflex tone from i- and u-stems | Hujer 1910:
92–94 | Meillet 1924/ 1934: 397–398 | Vaillant 1958: 80, 87: BS
and Gk. tones do not match; i̯ā-stem ending ‑jǫ is analogical based on
ā-stems | Bräuer 1969a: 104, 127: CS *‑ǫ reflects PIE *‑ām; CS *‑jǫ
reflects PIE *‑i̯ām, alongside *‑i̯əm, *‑īm | Arumaa 1985: 148: PIE
acute *‑ām; BS circumflex is perhaps analogical from other vocalic
stems | Igartua 2005a: 197–199: CS *‑ǫ < PIE *‑ām < *‑eh₂m; CS *‑jǫ
is analogical for *‑ję | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 87, 90: OCS ‑ǫ reflects
*‑ām; i̯ā-stem ending ‑jǫ has replaced regular *‑ję by analogy with hard
stems
PIE PIE *‑ah₂m̥ consists of the ā-stem suffix *‑ah₂‑ and the accusative singu-
lar marker *‑m. Balto-Slavic points to a disyllabic ending *‑ah₂m̥ , first because
the ending does not trigger Saussure’s and Leskien’s laws in Lithuanian, second
because the form became unaccented in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic by the mobil-
ity law [4]. By contrast, the Greek acute tone points to a monosyllabic ending
PIE *‑ah₂m. The most likely explanation of this discrepancy is that Greek has
generalised the antevocalic sandhi variant. In Latin ‑am the vowel was short,
as in all other word-final sequences of a vowel plus *‑m (Allen 1965/1978: 74).
PBS PIE *‑ah₂m̥ is reflected as PBS *ˌ‑ām [1|2|3|4], with the expected reflexes
in East Baltic. The normal ending in Old Prussian is ‑an. In the Third Catechism
118 Chapter 3
this ending is also found after velars, e.g. rānkan, which seems to point to short
a since long ā is rounded after velars in Old Prussian (Hill 2013: 170–171). In the
First and Second Catechisms, however, we find <‑uan>, <‑wan>, <‑un>, <‑on>
after velars, which are more likely to reflect long PBalt. *‑ān than short *‑an.
Forms like rānkan have been normalised under the influence of other forms
of the paradigm (Stang 1930/1970: 121–124; loc. cit.; Kortlandt 1988/2009: 192).
PS PBS *ˌ‑ām yielded PS *ˌ‑ān [19] (CS *‑ǫ [29]; *‑jǫ [20|27|28]), preserved in
the old Slavic dialects. Since I consider the shortening of long diphthongs to be
a relatively late process in Slavic, I consider CS *‑jǫ to be the regular correspon-
dence of PS *‑i̯ān, whereas PS *‑i̯an became *‑ję [20|28] (cf., however, Vaillant
loc. cit.; Aitzetmüller loc. cit.; Igartua loc. cit.).
3.4.5 Masculine o-Stem Accusative Singular
PS *ˌtaku (CS *tȍkъ; *gȍjь) PBS *ˌ‑am PIE *‑om
OCS gradъ; kon’ь Li. lángą Ved. devám

ORu. stolъ; konь; ONovg. Lv. noun tȩ̃vu; pron. OAv., YAv. ahurəm
dvorъ; konь masc.–fem. tùo Gk. ἀγρόν
OCz. chlap; oráč OPr. tāwan La. lupum; OLa. OINO(M)
Go. dag; Early Runic staina
Hi. attan (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 138–139 (1897: 391): OCS ‑ъ is from PIE unac-
cented *‑om | Beekes 1995/2011: 212: Slavic ‑ъ reflects PBS *‑um < PIE
*‑om; expected Baltic *‑ų has been replaced with ‑ą | Rasmussen
forthc. a § 4 | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 90: PIE *‑om
or *‑on | Rix 1976/ 1992: 138 | Sihler 1995: 258 | Weiss
2009/2011: 201, 221 | Krahe 1942/ 1967: 10 | Boutkan 1995: 174–
175 | Kloekhorst 2008a: 104
PBS Olander 2009: 168–169 | Endzelīns 1971: 134: Li. ‑ą, Lv. ‑u, OPr. ‑an
reflect PIE *‑om | Stang 1966: 182: Li. ‑ą, Lv. ‑u, OPr. ‑an reflect PBalt.
*‑an | Otrębski 1956: 14: Li. ‑ą, OPr. ‑an go back to *‑om | Endzelīns
1923: 292, 387: Lv. noun ending ‑u is from *‑uo, corresponding to Li. ‑ą,
OPr. ‑an, Slavic ‑ъ etc.; Lv. pron. masc.–fem. tùo corresponds to Li. tą̃
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 3: OCS ‑ъ, Li. ‑ą reflect PIE *‑om | Hujer 1910: 92:
Slavic ‑ъ, Li. ‑ą reflect PIE *‑om | Meillet 1924/1934: 404–405: Slavic ‑ъ is
from *‑on, which is also reflected as Slavic ‑o under certain circumstances

[see masc. nom. sg., § 3.3.14] | Vaillant 1958: 29–30 (1950: 215): OCS
‑ъ is from PBS *‑an < PIE *‑on, *‑om; OCS *‑jь reflects *‑i̯on | Bräuer
1969a: 23, 74: CS *‑ъ, *‑jь reflect PIE *‑om, *-i̯om | Arumaa 1985: 132:
Slavic ‑ъ, ‑jь reflect PIE *‑(i̯)om | Igartua 2005a: 113–116: CS *‑ъ is from
PIE *‑om; CS *‑jь probably represents i̯u-stem ending *‑i̯un, since PIE
*‑i̯om would have yielded CS *‑je | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 80, 83: OCS
‑ъ, ‑jь go back to *‑(i̯)um < PIE *‑(i̯)om
PIE The ending *‑om consisted of the thematic vowel *o, as expected before
a voiced segment (§ 3.2.5), and the accusative marker *‑m. The ending is
preserved with the regular phonetic changes in the ancient Indo-European
languages.
PBS It is generally assumed, correctly I believe, that PIE *‑om yielded PBS
*ˌ‑am [4|7], which was preserved in the Baltic languages with the regular pho-
netic changes (cf. [19] for an alternative view).
PS All Slavic dialects point to an ending *ˌ‑u (CS *‑ъ [29]; *‑jь [20|29]), the
expected reflex of PBS *ˌ‑am [19]. For a discussion of the chronology of
the raising of PIE *o to *u before a word-final nasal see [19]. For the view
that the regular reflexes of PIE *‑om, *‑i̯om are CS *‑ǫ, *‑ję, which were replaced
with the (i̯)u-stem endings *‑ъ, *‑jь (Orr 2000: 134–137; for the i̯o-stem ending
also Igartua loc. cit.), see § 1.4.1.
3.4.6 1sg., 2sg. and Reflexive Pronoun Accusative
First-person singular pronoun accusative
PS *mēn (CS *mę) PBS →*mēm PIE *mé; encl. *me
OCS mę, →mene Li. →manè; dial. Ved. →mā́m; encl. mā

ORu. →mene; encl. m’a; →manì, →manę̃ OAv. ?; YAv. →mąm; OAv., YAv. encl. mā
ONovg. →mene; encl. m’a Lv. →mani Gk. →ἐμέ; encl. με
OCz. mě; OPo. mię, →mie OPr. mien; encl. ? La. →mē, OLa. →mēd
Go. →mik
Hi. acc.–dat. →ammuk (OS); encl.
→‑mu (OS)
120 Chapter 3
Second-person singular pronoun accusative
PS *tēn (CS *tę) PBS →*tēm PIE *tu̯é; encl. *te
OCS tę, →tebe Li. →tavè; dial. →tavì, Ved. →tvā́m; encl. →tvā
ORu. →tebe; encl. t’a; ONovg. →tavę̃ OAv., YAv. →ϑβąm; encl. OAv.,
(late) →tebe; encl. t’a Lv. →tevi YAv. →ϑβā
OCz. tě; OPo. cię, →cie OPr. tien; encl. tin Gk. (Att., Ion.) σέ; Dor. τέ; encl.
Att. →σε
La. →tē; OLa. →tēd
Go. →þuk, ONor. →þik
Hi. acc.–dat. →tuk (OS); encl.
→‑ta (OS)
Reflexive pronoun accusative
PS *sēn (CS *sę) PBS →*sēm PIE *su̯é; encl. *se
OCS sę, →sebe Li. →savè; dial. →savì, Ved. –

ORu. →sebe; encl. s’a; ONovg. →savę̃ OAv., YAv. –
(late) →(pro) sebe; encl. s’a Lv. →sevi Gk. (Hom.) sg. ἕ; dial.
OCz. sě; OPo. się, →sie OPr. sien; encl. ‑sin (Pamphylian) ϝhε; encl. ἑ
La. 3ps. →sē; OLa. →sēd
Go. 3ps. →sik
Hi. encl. ptcl. →‑z(a) (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 383, 413–415: OCS mę, tę, sę reflect PIE *‑ēm, along-
side *‑ē, *‑e | Beekes 1995/2011: 232–234: PIE 1sg. *h₁mé, *h₁me; Go.
mik, Hi. ammuk (‑u‑ from 2sg. acc. sg. tuk) have ‑k from nom. sg.; Gk. 2sg.
σέ is from PIE *tué | Rasmussen forthc. a § 13: PIE tonic *mé (*mḗ?),
*t(u̯ )é (*t(u̯ )ḗ?), *s(u̯ )é, encl. *me, *t(u̯ )e, *s(u̯ )e; PBS *mēn, *tēn, *sēn have
been normalised from PIE *mē, *tē, *sē; PGmc. *mek has *‑k from nom.
*‑ek; PGmc. *þek is analogical after *mek; /‑ug/ of Hi. ammuk is perhaps
from 1sg. nom. and 2sg. acc. | Schmidt 1978: 48–64, 109–112, 120–127,
143–152: PIE 1sg. *(e)me, *mē; OCS mę, OPr. mien reflect *mēm, consist-
ing of *mē plus acc. marker *‑m; PIE 2sg. *tu is represented by Gk. (Dor.,
Phocian) nom.–acc. τύ, Go. þuk, Hi. tuk, OIr. suffixed pron. ‑t; encl. form
was *te; *tu̯ e, *tu̯ ē, *te are post-PIE forms; OCS tę, OPr. tien reflect *tu̯ ē
(with analogical loss of *u̯ ) plus acc. marker *‑m; PIE refl. *ti is preserved
in Anat. | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 457–458, 475–476:
Ved. mā́m, tvā́m, corresponding to OAv., YAv. ϑβąm and OCS mę, tę,
perhaps consist of form without final nasal plus pron. ‑am; Ved. encl.
mā, tvā may reflect originally tonic forms | Rix 1976/1992: 177–178:
PIE tonic *mḗ, *tḗ or *méh₁, *téh₁, encl. *me, *te; Gk. ἐμέ (with *e‑ from
nom.), σέ (from *tu̯ ‑ with *u̯ from nom. *tuh₂) reflect PIE encl. forms *me,
*te | Sihler 1995: 372–374, 378–379: PIE tonic *mé, *tu̯ é, *su̯ é, encl. *me,
*te, *se; Ved mā́m, tvā́m are from *ma‑ám, *tva‑ám; La. mē, tē, sē < mēd,
tēd, sēd perhaps contain some ptcl. | Weiss 2009/2011: 326–328, 333:
PIE tonic *mé, encl. *me; initial vowel of Gk. ἐμέ, Hi. ammuk may stem
from nom. sg.; OLa. mēd is from *me plus *(‑)Vd, probably a ptcl.; IIr. and
BS have added the acc. marker of nouns; 2sg. forms pointing to *tu̯ e may
have *u̯ from nom. | Krahe 1942/1967: 51–54: Gmc. forms reflect PIE
*me, *te with ‑k from nom. | Seebold 1984: 34–37, 57–58: Gmc. *mik,
*þik go back to PIE *me‑g̑ (e), *te‑g̑ (e); *g̑e is also seen in Gk. ἐμέγε, Hi.
ammuk | Kloekhorst 2008a: 111–115, 1019: non-Anat. IE languages have
*h₁mé, *mē(?), *tué, *tuē(?) from PIE obl. *h₁men‑/*‑h₁mn‑, *teu‑/*tu‑; Hi.
ammuk reflects PIE *h₁mn‑ plus *u from acc. *tu‑; Hi. ammuk, tuk have
been extended by an element *‑ge or by *‑g̑ from 1sg. nom.; Hi. refl. ptcl.
‑z reflects PAnat. *‑ti
PBS Kapović 2006a: 81–82, 94–96, 113, 115, 149, 158, 160–161: CS *mę̑, *tę̑, Li.
manè, tavè, OPr. mien, tien point to PBS *mḗn, *tḗn; OPo. mie, cie are not
archaisms but reflect CS *mę, *tę with denasalisation by analogy with
gen.; Li. manè reflects *manḗn, a contamination of gen. (used as acc.)
*mane or stem *man‑ and acc. *mḗn; PIE had tonic *mé, *tu̯ é and, with
monosyllabic lengthening, *mḗ, *tu̯ ḗ; PBS encl. forms were perhaps *mei̯,
*tei̯, replacing PIE *mē̆, *tē̆ | Endzelīns 1971: 185–187: Li. manè, tavè,
savè reflect PIE *mene, *teu̯ e, *seu̯ e, with a from dat.; Li. manę̃, tavę̃, savę̃,
Lv. mani, tevi, sevi have been extended by acc. ending *‑n; OPr. mien, tien
or tin, sien or ‑sin (to be read mīn, tīn, sīn) and OCS mę, tę, sę reflect *mēn,
*tēn, *sēn | Stang 1966: 248–250: OPr. mien, tien, sien reflect *mēn, tēn,
*sēn, also in OCS mę, tę, sę; the forms have perhaps been extended by acc.
marker *‑m; Li. manè, tavè, Lv. mani, tevi perhaps reflect ‑ę̃ with irregular
shortening | Otrębski 1956: 137: Li. manè, tavè, savè are old gen. forms;
OLi. acc. manę, tawę́, sawę́ reflect *‑en, consisting of gen. *‑e plus acc.
*‑n; Li. dial. manì, tavì, savì, Lv. mani, tevi, sevi are perhaps from *manį
etc. with i-stem ending | Endzelīns 1923: 373, 376: Lv. mani, tevi, sevi
122 Chapter 3
reflect either *‑en (gen. *mene plus acc. ending *‑n), *‑ēn (contamination
of e.g. gen. *teve and *tēn, also in OCS tę, probably in OPr. tien), or *‑in
(from i-stems)
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 71–72: OCS mę, tę reflect *mēm, *tu̯ ēm; OPo. mie, cie,
sie go back to mię, cię, się | Meillet 1924/1934: 453: CS *mę etc. (origi-
nally tonic) correspond to Ved. mā́m etc.; CS *me etc. (originally atonic),
reflected in OPo., Kash., Slnc. and Polab., correspond to Gk. με etc.; nasal of
*mę etc. is an old ptcl. | Vaillant 1958: 444–445: OPo. mie, cie, sie may
be analogical from tonic acc.–gen. mnie etc.; PIE had tonic and atonic
*me, *t(u̯ )e, *s(u̯ )e; the tonic variants tended to be lengthened to *mē etc.
and to be extended by the acc. marker, as in tonic PBS *mēn etc. from
*mēm etc. | Arumaa 1985: 159–160, 163, 165: OCS mę, tę, sę from *mēm,
*tēm, *sēm probably reflect PIE *mē, *tu̯ ē, *sē (with variants in *‑e) plus
acc. ending *‑m from nouns and non-pers. pronouns | Aitzetmüller
1978/1991: 108, 111, 113: Li. manè consists of stem man‑ plus the same end-
ing as OPr. mien; OCS mę, tę, sę reflect *mēm, *tēm, *sēm, consisting of
encl. *mē, *tē, *sē plus acc. *‑m; loss of nasal in OPo., Po. dial. mie is due to
analogy with mnie
PIE The plethora of variants in the Indo-European languages make the

reconstruction of the forms of the accusative singular of the personal and
reflexive pronouns difficult. It is possible that the proto-language had tonic
1sg. *mé (from pre-PIE *m‑mé), 2sg. *t‑u̯ é, 3sg. *s‑u̯ é, containing a suffix
*‑m/u̯ é; and enclitic *me, *te, *se (thus Cowgill 1965/2006: 169–170; Sihler loc.
cit.; Katz 1998: 89–99). The long-vowel variants found in the daughter lan-
guages may have arisen separately in the individual branches (see Katz 1998:
82 n. 78 with references).
The Indo-Iranian tonic forms in *‑ām probably contain the particle *hom,
frequent in pronominal forms in this branch. The Germanic forms end in *‑k,
which may reflect a particle, like Gk. ἐμέγε, or be analogical from the nomi-
native singular; in the Gothic second-person singular form, u has been intro-
duced from nom. sg. þu. Likewise, Hi. ammuk, tuk have been influenced by 1sg.
nom. ūk. The ‑d found in Latin is more likely to be some particle (e.g. Weiss loc.
cit.) than to be related to the old ablative form (e.g. Meiser 1998/2006: 157–158).
PBS Old Prussian and Slavic point to PBS *mēm, *tēm, *sēm. Since the latter
two forms do not contain *u̯ , the Balto-Slavic forms seem to be based on the
original enclitic forms PIE *me, *te, *se. The long vowel, shown by the diph-
thongisation in Old Prussian and by the preservation of the nasal in Slavic
(cf. [19]), may have arisen by a (sporadic or regular) vowel lengthening in
monosyllabic words or when the forms became accented, or a combination

of the two. Furthermore, the forms were characterised by the accusative sin-
gular marker *‑m found in the masculine and feminine accusative singular of
nouns and non-personal pronouns. Since the particle PIE *hom is not nearly as
frequent in Balto-Slavic as in Indo-Iranian pronouns, I consider the interpreta-
tion of the Balto-Slavic final nasal as an accusative marker more likely than the
idea according to which it reflects the particle like in Indo-Iranian (cf., how-
ever, Meillet loc. cit.; 1903/1973: 334).
The East Baltic forms are derivable from *maˈnēn, *taˈvēn, *saˈvēn. These
forms are based on PBS *mēm, *tēm, *sēm with introduction of the “stems”
*man‑, *tav‑, *sav‑ found in the genitive singular.
PS PBS *‑ēm yielded PS *‑ēn [19] (CS *‑ę [28]). In Old Church Slavonic the
personal pronouns mę and tę still occur in accented position, but in the early
history of the Slavic languages the reflexes of *mēn, *tēn, *sēn came to be used
as enclitics, and the original genitive forms *mene, *tebe, *sebe took over the
role of the tonic accusative. The accentuation of the forms in Slavic is uncer-
tain (Kapović 2006a: 81–82 reconstructs CS *mę̑, *tę̑; but cf. Vaillant 1958: 444).
According to some authors, Common Slavic had preserved an enclitic vari-
ant *me alongside tonic *mę (Meillet loc. cit.; cf. also Havránek 1928: 47–79;
Andersen 1998a: 441). Since the reflexes of *me have a limited distribution in
the Slavic languages and are easy to explain as the results of influence from the
original genitive forms, it is more likely that the forms are secondary (see e.g.
Vaillant loc. cit.).
3.5 Genitive Singular
3.5.1 Consonant-Stem Genitive Singular
PS *duktere (CS *dъt’ere) PBS *ˌ‑es PIE gen.–abl. *‑e/os (*‑s)
OCS dъštere, →dъšteri Li. akmeñs, OLi. Ved. áśmanaḥ

ORu. dъčere, →dъčeri; ONovg. ákmenes OAv. mąϑrānō; YAv. tašnō
(otъ) matere Lv. akmens Gk. ποιμένος
OCz. dceře, →dceři OPr. kermenes La. hominis; OLa. Apolones,
nominus
Go. gumins
Hi. kiššaraš
124 Chapter 3
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 158–161: PIE *‑es, *‑os, *‑s | Beekes 1995/2011:

187: most languages point to PIE *‑os; reflexes of *‑es in La. and BS
may be secondary | Rasmussen forthc. a §§ 2, 8: PIE gen. *‑os, abl.
*‑es | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 37–38: Ved. ‑aḥ goes back
to PIE *‑es (La. ‑is, Slavic ‑e, Gmc.) or *‑os (Gk. ‑ος, OLa. ‑us, Celtic) | Rix
1976/1992: 153–154: Gk. ‑ος reflects PIE *‑os, alongside *‑es, *‑s | Sihler
1995: 285–286: PIE *‑es is reflected in Italic, Gmc., BS; PIE *‑os is reflected
in Celtic, Italic and Gk. | Weiss 2009/2011: 199, 202–203: PIE *‑es is
preserved in La., OCS; PIE *‑os is preserved in La., Gk. | Krahe 1942/
1967: 35, 39, 44–45: Go. ‑s is from PIE *‑es or *‑os | Boutkan 1995: 258,
260–261, 267–268, 274, 282–284: OEng. bēc, ONor. merkr point to PGmc.
*‑es, corresponding to La. ‑is, OLi. ‑es, OCS ‑e; other Gmc. forms reflect
PGmc. *‑as < PIE *‑os | Kloekhorst 2008a: 105, 213–214: Hi. ‑aš is from
PIE *‑os, imported from o-stems and hysterodynamic C-stems
PBS Olander 2009: 193: final accentuation of Li. šuñs, dukter̃s from PIE *‑ós may
be due to analogy with ā-stems; accentuation of ORu. dóčeri, Štk. dćȅri
may be regular | Endzelīns 1971: 162–163: PIE *‑es or *‑os | Stang
1966: 220: OLi., Li. dial. ‑es, Lv. ‑s, OCS ‑e, La. ‑is go back to PIE *‑es; Gk. ‑ος,
OLa. ‑us, OIr. ‑as are from PIE *‑os | Otrębski 1956: 52: Li. ‑s, OLi., Li.
dial. ‑es, OCS ‑e reflect *‑es | Endzelīns 1923: 322: Lv. ‑s corresponds to
Li. ‑es
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2–3: OCS ‑e is from PIE *‑es, alongside *‑s | Hujer
1910: 117–118: Slavic ‑e is from PIE *‑es, alongside *‑s, *‑os | Meillet 1924/
1934: 389–390, 424–425: OCS ‑e, OLi. ‑es, La. ‑is reflect PIE *‑es, alongside
*‑os, *‑s | Vaillant 1958: 183: Slavic ‑e, OPr. ‑es, OLi., Li. dial. ‑es reflect
PIE *‑es, alongside *‑os | Bräuer 1969b: 8, 53, 71, 83: CS *‑e is from PIE
*‑es, alongside *‑os | Arumaa 1985: 109–110: OCS ‑e is from PIE *‑es,
alongside *‑os, *‑s | Igartua 2005a: 335–336: Slavic ‑e, OLi. ‑es are from
PIE *‑es, as against *‑os, *‑s in remaining languages | Aitzetmüller
1978/1991: 94, 98, 100, 102: OCS ‑e from *‑es
PIE The case–number marker PIE *‑es, attested in Germanic, Balto-Slavic

and Italic, had an apparent allomorph *‑os, reflected in Greek, Celtic, Tocharian,
Anatolian and, again, Italic. A third allomorph, *‑s, which is not preserved in
the Slavic consonant stems, was the originally unaccented variant. The original
distribution of *‑es and *‑os is not clear. It has been suggested that they repre-
sent the ablative and genitive singular markers, respectively (Rasmussen 1999,
loc. cit.; but cf. Beekes loc. cit., who considers the possibility that *‑es does not
belong to the proto-language). The question of the original distribution of the
endings is not relevant for the purposes of the present study.
PBS The Proto-Balto-Slavic genitive ending *ˌ‑es continues the Proto-Indo-

European variant *‑es [4]. The ending is preserved in Old Prussian ‑es and in
Lithuanian ‑s from ‑es, attested in old texts and in dialects. In Latvian the end-
ing survives as the i-stem genitive singular ending.
PS PBS *ˌ‑es regularly yielded PS *‑e [17] (CS *‑e [29]). The ending is pre-
served in the old Slavic dialects, but there is a tendency everywhere to replace
it with the corresponding endings of the vocalic stems.
3.5.2 i-Stem Genitive Singular
PS *ˌgastei ̯ (CS *gȍsti) PBS *ˌ‑ei ̯s PIE gen.–abl. *‑ei ̯s
OCS gosti Li. mintiẽs Ved. śúceḥ

ORu. puti; ONovg. soli Lv. →avs; OLv., OAv., YAv. ārmatōiš
OCz. hosti dial. ‑is Gk. gen. →πόλεως; Hom. →πόληος
OPr. ? La. gen. →turris; Osc. aeteis
Go. gen. masc. →gastis; fem. (→)anstais;
OSax. masc. →gastes; fem. ensti
Hi. gen. →ḫalki(y)aš (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 155–158: PIE *‑eĩs, *‑oĩs | Beekes 1995/2011: 203:

PIE *‑ois [implicit from u-stems] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PIE *‑ei̯s >
PGmc. *‑īz is preserved in WGmc., e.g. OSax. fem. ensti; PGmc. *‑ai̯z in Go.
fem. ‑ais has analogical o-grade from type with nom. pl. in *‑oi̯es; Baltic
and Slavic forms reflect PBS *‑ei̯s | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/
1975: 150–151: Ved. ‑eḥ is either from PIE *‑ei̯s, as in Osc. ‑eis, Li. ‑iẽs(?), or
from PIE *‑oi̯s, as in Go. ‑ais | Rix 1976/1992: 153–154: Gk. ‑εως, Hom.
‑ηος have generalised long grade | Sihler 1995: 316–317: Go. ‑ais points
to PIE *‑oi̯s; La. ‑is < ‑es is not PIE C-stem ending *‑es, but reflects *‑i̯es,
also in Ved. ávyaḥ | Weiss 2009/2011: 242, 245: PIE *‑is, *‑eis, *‑i̯o/es;
La. ‑is is from C-stems | Krahe 1942/1967: 30: Go. ‑ais reflects PIE *‑oĩs;
WGmc. forms in ‑i have probably been analogically shortened from *‑ī <
*‑īz < *‑eiz < PIE *‑eĩs, also in Osc. ‑eis | Boutkan 1995: 236, 240, 244–
246: PGmc. *‑ais is from PIE *‑ois; WGmc. forms in ‑i are the regular out-
comes of *‑aiz | Kloekhorst 2008a: 105: Hi. adj. ḫargaš is from *‑eios,
replacing PIE *‑eis
126 Chapter 3
PBS Olander 2009: 171–172: PIE *‑éi̯s yielded unaccented PBS *ˌ‑ei̯s seen in Slavic;
Li. accented ‑iẽs is based on analogy with ā- and ē-stems | Endzelīns
1971: 152: original ending was preserved in OLv., Lv. dial. ‑is; Lv. ‑s is from
C-stems | Stang 1966: 206–207: Go. ‑ais points to o-grade; Lv. ‑s is from
C-stems, but ‑is is preserved in OLv., Lv. dial. | Otrębski 1956: 40: Li.
‑iẽs reflects *‑eis, also in Osc. ‑eis, OCS ‑i | Endzelīns 1923: 314–315: Li.
‑ies, OLv., Lv. dial. ‑is reflect PIE *‑eis; Lv. ‑s is C-stem ending
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2: PIE *‑oĩs or *‑eĩs (?) | Hujer 1910: 68, 118: Go. ‑ais
is from PIE *‑ois; Slavic ‑i reflects *‑eis or, more likely, *‑oĩs | Meillet
1924/1934: 418: Slavic ‑i is from *‑ois or *‑eis | Vaillant 1958: 133: PIE
*‑ei̯s is preserved in WGmc.; Go. ‑ais has analogical a from dat. sg. ‑ai,
which is taken from the ā-stems | Bräuer 1969a: 155: CS *‑i reflects PIE
*‑ei̯s, alongside *‑oi̯s attested in Go. ‑ais | Arumaa 1985: 124: CS *‑i, Li.
‑iẽs reflects *‑eis; Go ‑ais goes back to *‑ois | Igartua 2005a: 250–251:
CS *‑i, Li. ‑iẽs reflect PIE *‑ei̯s; Gmc. points to PIE *‑oi̯s | Aitzetmüller
1978/1991: 73
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending is reconstructed as *‑ei̯s or *‑oi̯s, con-

sisting of the full grade or the o-grade of the i-stem suffix followed by the zero
grade of the genitive singular marker (cf. the parallel situation in the u-stem
genitive singular discussed in § 3.5.3). Since the evidence for suffixal o-grade
outside the nominative and accusative in i- and u-stems is very limited, it is
most likely that the original ending was *‑ei̯s (Rasmussen 1983/1999: 88 n. 10;
Hansen 2014). This reconstruction is confirmed by Osc. ‑eis and probably by
the West Germanic forms in ‑i. The Indo-Iranian material may reflect either
*‑ei̯s or *‑oi̯s. The same is true for East Baltic, where *ei̯ and *ai̯ merge (Stang
1966: 57), and for Slavic, where CS *‑i may correspond to both PS *‑ei̯ and *‑əi̯
([22|29]) from PBS *‑ei̯s and *‑ai̯s (via [12|17]). The only evidence for o-grade is
found in Germanic.
The Germanic masculine endings are imported from the o-stems, but the
Gothic and Old Norse feminine endings ‑ais and ‑ar seem to point to PGmc.
*‑aiz from PIE *‑oi̯s. However, the a-vowel may have been imported from the
feminine dative singular, e.g. Go. anstai, which probably reflects PIE loc. sg. *‑ēi̯
(thus Bammesberger 1990: 126; but cf. Vaillant loc. cit., who takes Go. ‑ai to be
the ā-stem dative singular ending; and Rasmussen loc. cit., who assumes that it
reflects an innovation *‑oi̯ei̯). Another possibility is that PGmc. *‑aiz is based
on analogy with u-stem gen. sg. *‑auz (Rasmussen 1983/1999: 88 n. 10), if this
form is the phonetically regular outcome of PIE *‑eu̯ s (see § 3.5.3). PGmc. *‑aiz
may also simply be the phonetically regular outcomes of PIE *‑ei̯s (Hansen
2014: 160–168). Whatever the correct solution of the apparent o-vocalism in

Germanic dialects is, there is no need to trace it back to the proto-language.
In Greek the original ending was replaced with *‑ēi̯os, consisting of the long
stem-vowel imported from the locative singular and the o-grade of the case–
number marker. La. ‑is does not reflect PIE *‑ei̯s but is probably taken from the
consonant stems. The Hittite ending has also been remade.
PBS PIE *‑ei̯s is reflected as PBS *ˌ‑ei̯s [4], yielding Li. ‑iẽs and OLv., Lv. dial.
‑is. Standard Latvian ‑s has been imported from the consonant stems. In Old
Prussian there are no certain attestations of this ending.
PS PBS *ˌ‑ei̯s became PS *ˌ‑ei̯ [12|17] (CS *‑i [22|29]), preserved in the old
Slavic dialects.
3.5.3 u-Stem Genitive Singular
PS →*ˌsūnau (CS *sy̑nu) PBS →*ˌ‑au̯s PIE gen.–abl. *‑eu̯s
OCS synu Li. sūnaũs Ved. mádhoḥ

ORu. synu; ONovg. (bes) polu Lv. tìrgus OAv., YAv. aŋhə̄uš
OCz. dolu OPr. →soūnas Gk. →ἡδέος
La. tribūs
Go. sunaus
Hi. →idālawaš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 155–158: PIE *‑eũs, *‑oũs | Beekes 1995/2011: 203:

BS, Hi. and Go. point to PIE *‑ous | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: OCS ‑u, Li.
‑aus, Lv. ‑us reflect PBS *‑au̯ s < PIE *‑eu̯ s | Debrunner & Wackernagel
1930/1975: 150–151: Ved. ‑oḥ, Go. ‑aus, Li. ‑aus reflect PIE *‑ous | Rix
1976/1992: 153–154: Gk. ‑έως, Hom. ‑ῆος have long grade from loc.
sg. | Sihler 1995: 324: La. ‑ūs, OLa. ‑ous reflect PIE *‑ou̯ s, clearly seen in
Go. ‑aus | Weiss 2009/2011: 249, 251: PIE *‑eu̯ s | Krahe 1942/1967:
32: PIE *‑eũs or *‑oũs | Boutkan 1995: 250, 253, 256: PGmc. *‑aus goes
back to PIE *‑ous | Kloekhorst 2008a: 97, 105: Hi. ‑awaš is from *‑euos,
replacing PIE *‑eus
PBS Olander 2009: 169, 172: PIE *‑éu̯ s yielded PBS *ˌ‑au̯ s, preserved in Slavic;
accent of Li. ‑aũs is analogical from ā- and ė-stems | Endzelīns 1971:
128 Chapter 3
157 | Stang 1966: 214: Li. ‑aũs, Lv. ‑us from PIE *‑ous; OPr. soūnas is
remade on the model of the o-stems | Otrębski 1956: 47: Li. ‑aus
reflects PIE *‑eus or *‑ous | Endzelīns 1923: 326: Lv. ‑us is from PBalt.
*‑aus
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2: OCS ‑u, Li. ‑aus, Go. ‑aus reflect PIE *‑oũs | Hujer
1910: 118: Li. ‑aus, Go. ‑aus, Slavic ‑u point to PIE *‑oũs rather than
*‑eus | Meillet 1924/1934: 413: Slavic ‑u is from *‑ous | Vaillant
1958: 109: Slavic ‑u, Li. ‑aus, Lv. ‑u are from PIE *‑ous | Bräuer 1969a:
146: CS *‑u reflects PIE *‑ou̯ s | Arumaa 1985: 124 | Igartua 2005a:
283–284: Slavic ‑u reflects PIE *‑o/eus | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 70:
OCS ‑u is from PIE *‑ous rather than *‑eus
PIE The u-stem ending represented in Slavic consists of the e- or o-grade of

the u-stem suffix followed by the zero grade of the case–number marker. Since
we do not expect o-grade of the suffix outside the nominative and accusative
in the proto-language, the most likely proto-form is PIE *‑eu̯ s (cf. § 3.5.2 on
the corresponding i-stem ending). The Gothic ending ‑aus, which appears to
point to PIE *‑ou̯ s rather than *‑eu̯ s, may be the regular outcome of PIE *‑eu̯ s
(Rasmussen 1983/1999: 88 n. 10; 1996/1999: 579 n. 1; Hansen 2014). The evidence
of the remaining languages is compatible with either sequence. In Greek the
original ending was recomposed with the more overt genitive marker *‑os, viz.
*‑eu̯ os > ‑εος. A similar process operated in Hittite, where ‑awaš may reflect
*‑eu̯ os (Kloekhorst loc. cit.).
PBS PIE *‑eu̯ s yielded pre-PBS *ˌ‑i̯au̯ s [4|10]. By analogy with other forms of
the paradigm the *i̯ was eliminated, resulting in PBS *ˌ‑au̯ s. The ending is pre-
served in East Baltic, whereas in Old Prussian the o-stem ending is used. While
the form remained unaccented in Slavic, in Lithuanian it received final accen-
tuation in the mobile paradigms by analogy with the ā- and ė-stems.
PS PBS *ˌ‑au̯ s would probably yield PS *ˌ‑əu̯ [12|17] (CS *‑ju [22|29]), although
the sequence is only found here. The attested Slavic languages point to PS *ˌ‑au̯
(CS *‑u [22|29]). The ending, with its aberrant *ə, was normalised to *‑au̯ under
the influence of the other forms of the paradigm and the corresponding i-stem
ending PS *‑ei̯.
3.5.4 ā-Stem Genitive Singular
PS *naˈgə̄ (CS Cl *nogỳ || ONovg. ‑ě; CS *dušě)̀ PBS *‑ˈā̰s PIE gen.–abl. *‑ah₂s
OCS glavy; →dušę Li. galvõs Ved. →jihvā́yāḥ

ORu. ženy; zemlě; ONovg. grivьně; t’ažě Lv. gal̂vas OAv. daēnaiiā̊; YAv.
OCz. ryby; dušě, ‑e OPr. ālgas daēnaiiā̊s-ca
Gk. gen. φυγῆς
La. →uiae; OLa. gen. uiās
Go. gen. gibos
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 152–155: PIE *‑ā̃s; OCS ‑y, ‑ję represent n-stem gen.
sg. *‑ons; WSl. and ESl. ‑( j)ě is unexplained, perhaps based on ī-stem end-
ing *‑i̯e(s) | Beekes 1995/2011: 200: PIE *‑h₂os; OCS ‑y may be from
nom. pl. | Rasmussen forthc. a § 5: PIE *‑ah₂os; OCS ‑y is from acc.
pl. | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 38–39, 119–121: old ending
*‑ās is preserved in Ved. gnā́s‑páti‑, jā́s‑pati‑; PIE circumflex tone, seen in
Gk. and Li., probably results from contraction of *‑āes or *‑āos; IIr. ‑āy‑
was probably introduced on the pattern of devī-stems | Rix 1976/1992:
132: PIE *‑eh₂s; Gk. circumflex tone is taken from dat. sg., gen. pl. and dat.
pl.; Li. circumflex tone is obligatory in a long final syllable; a proto-form
PIE *‑eh₂es with two full grades is unlikely | Sihler 1995: 269–270: Gk.
ending is “easiest to explain” from PIE *‑éh₂os/es; La. ending is remade
after o-stem ending | Weiss 2009/2011: 229, 234: PIE *‑eh₂es; La. ‑ae
< ‑āī is based on analogy with o-stem ending | Krahe 1942/1967: 21:
PGmc. *‑ōz goes back to PIE *‑ãs | Boutkan 1995: 225–227: PGmc. *‑ōs
< *‑ās is remade from PIE *‑h₂os | Kloekhorst 2008a: 107: Hi. ḫ-stem
arḫaš reflects PIE *‑h₂ós
PBS Olander 2009: 170–171: PBS *‑ˈā̰s is the regular reflex of PIE *‑áh₂s; Gk.
and Li. circumflex tones are independent analogical innovations |
Endzelīns 1971: 142–143: PIE *‑āe/os; OPr. ‑as after g or w points to short
a, which is analogical from o-stems | Stang 1966: 197–198: Gk. and
Li. circumflex tones point to *‑eh₂e/os; OPr. ‑as for *‑ūs after labials and
velars, not attested in Cat. I and II, is based on analogy with acc. sg. |
Otrębski 1956: 25: PIE *‑ās | Endzelīns 1923: 304
130 Chapter 3
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 2 (1906/1924: 151–152): OCS ženy is from n-stem *genons,

with subsequent spread of ‑y | Hujer 1910: 110–112: Slavic ‑y, ‑ję repre-
sent n-stem ending *‑ōns; NSl. i̯ā-stem ‑jě goes back to *‑i̯ā̃s | Meillet
1924/1934: 398: Slavic ‑y reflects *‑ās; i̯ā-stem ending OCS ‑ję is modelled
on alternation between ‑y and ‑ję in acc. pl. and prs. act. ptc. masc. nom.
sg. | Vaillant 1958: 80–81, 87–88: PIE *‑ās; Slavic ‑y and SSl. ‑ję, NSl.
‑jě are ultimately from acc. pl. on the model of the i-stems | Bräuer
1969a: 103–104, 126: PIE *‑ā̃s would have yielded Slavic *‑a; Slavic hard
*‑y and soft *‑ję (SSl.), *‑ję (WSl., ESl.) may be analogical from nom.–acc.
pl. based on the model of the i-stems; *‑ję is not from PIE loc. *‑i̯ōm, and
*‑jě does not reflect PIE *‑i̯ās | Arumaa 1985: 147, 149–151: PIE acute
or circumflex *‑ās | Igartua 2005a: 199–212: PIE *‑ās < *‑eh₂s; CS *‑y is
from acc. pl. on the pattern of the i-stems; CS *‑jě, preserved in WSl. and
ESl., is from acc. pl. or from gen. sg. *‑i̯ās; OCS ‑ję reflects PIE C-stem loc.
sg. *‑i̯ōm; OPr. galwas is based on analogy with acc. sg. | Aitzetmüller
1978/1991: 86–87, 89–90, 115: PIE *‑ās; OCS ‑y, SSl. ‑ję are identical to end-
ing of Ved. devī-stem loc. patnyām < *‑i̯ōm; NSl. ‑jě is from PIE *‑i̯ās
PIE The reconstruction of the genitive-ablative singular in Proto-Indo-Euro

pean was easier in the pre-laryngealist days, where most authors agreed on cir-
cumflex PIE *‑ā̃s, whatever its ultimate origin. The introduction of laryngeals
in the reconstructions raised the question of the precise make-up of the end-
ing in the proto-language (for discussion and references see Olander loc. cit.). A
commonly found reconstruction is *‑ah₂as, from *‑eh₂es, consisting of the suf-
fix *‑ah₂‑ plus the full grade of the genitive-ablative marker. The reconstruction
of the full grade of the marker is based on the circumflex tones of Gk. φυγῆς
and Li. galvõs, both pointing to a disyllabic ending. Internal reconstruction,
on the other hand, requires zero grade of a case–number marker following an
accented full-grade suffix. Opinions are divided as to the question of whether
the substitution of zero grade with full grade in the case–number suffix was a
pre-Proto-Indo-European development or took place independently in Greek
and Lithuanian. A different approach is that of Beekes (loc. cit.), whose frame-
work predicts PIE *‑h₂os with zero grade of the suffix; this reconstruction does
not seem to be supported by the material.
In my view the decisive argument in favour of a reconstruction of monosyl-
labic PIE *‑ah₂s in harmony with what we expect from internal recontruction
is the desinential accent of the form in the Balto-Slavic mobile paradigm, e.g.
Li. galvõs, PS *naˈgə̄ (CS Cl *nogỳ). Since the mobility law [4] would produce
non-desinential accentuation in forms with endings originally containing a
hiatus, the ending must have been monosyllabic *‑ah₂s in the proto-language.
In Indo-Iranian the ending has been extended by *‑āy‑ as in the dative and
locative endings.
PBS PIE *‑ah₂s yielded PBS *‑ˈā̰s [1]. The regular outcomes of this ending in
Lithuanian would have been *‑às when accented and *‑as when unaccented,
by Leskien’s law. The ending would also have attracted the accent in a.p. 2, e.g.
*rankàs, by Saussure’s law. Since the ending does not show the effects of any of
these processes, it must have been non-acute in pre-Lithuanian. I assume that
at some point in the prehistory of Lithuanian, inherited PBS *‑ā̰s was replaced
with non-acute *‑ās under the combined influence of the dative singular
of the ā‑stems and the genitive singular of the remaining paradigms, above
all the ė‑stems, where the circumflex tone of Li. ‑ė̃s probably arose as a result
of the contraction of *‑iˈi̯ā̰s. Since neither the other Baltic languages nor Slavic
allows us to see whether this ending was acute or not in Proto-Balto-Slavic, the
best indication of the chronology of the change is the assumption that it was
facilitated by the circumflex tone of the ė-stem ending. As the contraction of
*‑iˈi̯ā̰s to Li. ‑ė̃s with circumflex tone is probably an internal Baltic process, it is
likely that the replacement of *‑ā̰s with *‑ās took place after the dissolution of
Proto-Balto-Slavic.
Old Prussian forms like ālgas, with ‑as following a velar or a labial, cannot
regularly reflect *‑ās. Instead, they have probably been remade after forms like
the accusative singular (Stang loc. cit.)
PS PBS *‑ˈā̰s regularly yielded PS *‑ˈə̄ [13|17] (CS Cl *‑y || ONovg. ‑ě [29]; CS *‑ě
[20|29]). The hard ending is preserved in most old Slavic dialects. In Serbo-
Croatian the soft ending seems to have replaced the hard ending already in the
earliest documents (Svane 1958: 64) and it prevails in most modern dialects;
the length of the ending in many dialects is often explained as the result of the
influence from the pronominal form, CS *‑oję (e.g. Bräuer 1969a: 111; Vaillant
1958: 93; for an alternative interpretation of the length see Kapović forthc. with
an overview of the quantity of the ending in various dialects). The soft ending
has also replaced the hard ending in Slovene.
In the soft stems reflexes of PS *‑i̯ə̄ (CS *‑jě) appear as expected in West and
East Slavic. In South Slavic we find reflexes of *‑ję. The most reasonable expla-
nation of the South Slavic ending is that it ultimately stems from the ā-stem
accusative plural, where *‑ję is the regular reflex of PS *‑i̯ə̄n [20|28] < PBS *‑i̯āns
[17]. We are dealing with a proportional analogy on the pattern of the ā- and
i-stems. The fact that the genitive singular and nominative plural were (seg-
mentally) identical to the accusative plural in the hard ā-stems (merging in
‑y) and in the i-stems (merging in ‑i) provided a catalyst for a transfer of the
132 Chapter 3
i̯ā-stem accusative plural form to the genitive singular and nominative plural
(similarly Tedesco 1951: 173). Because of this analogy in the genitive singular
and nominative plural of the i̯ā-stems, the phonetically regular reflex of PS *‑i̯ə̄
is not preserved in Old Church Slavonic, but it is likely that it would have been
*‑jě as in the remaining Slavic dialects.
In the Old Novgorod dialect the ending ‑ě is regular in both hard and soft
stems in the earliest birchbark letters; the ending ‑y is rare. It is clear from the
attestations that ‑y does not originally belong to the inflectional system of the
Old Novgorod dialect, but has intruded from standard Old Russian (Zaliznjak
1995/2004: 97). The most plausible explanation of this situation is that ‑( j)ě is
simply the phonetically regular merger of PS *‑ə̄ and *‑i̯ə̄ from pre-PS *‑ās and
*‑i̯ās in this dialect (see Olander 2012: 334–335).
Together with the ā-stem nominative plural, the ā-stem genitive singular
ending is the main argument in favour of the old, but never particularly popu-
lar view that CS *‑y is the regular outcome of pre-PS *‑ās (see Olander 2012:
331–332, with references in n. 85). Scholars who are reluctant to accept a pho-
netic development of *‑ās to *‑y in Slavic have put forward alternative expla-
nations of the genitive singular and nominative plural of the ā-stems. In the
following paragraphs I shall present some of these explanations and the objec-
tions that may be raised against them (see also the overviews in Hujer loc. cit.;
Igartua loc. cit.; 2005b: 282–290).
According to one view, quite popular in the older literature, OCS ‑y and ‑ję
reflect an n-stem ending PIE *‑ō̆ns also found in Germanic, e.g. Go. ōn-stem
gen. sg. qinons (e.g. Mikkola 1897: 249–250; Brugmann loc. cit.; Hujer loc. cit.;
V. Kiparsky 1967: 83). As noted by Igartua (2005a: 201–202; 2005b: 284, both
with references), this view is implausible as there are no other traces of this
inflection in Slavic; the ōn-stems are very likely to be a Germanic innovation.
Besides, as Guus Kroonen reminds me (pers. comm., 2014), PIE *‑ōns would
yield **‑os in Gothic, not ‑ons.
Other authors believe that ‑y and ‑ję in the ā- and i̯ā-stems reflect the origi-
nal accusative plural ending, which was transferred to the nominative plural
and from there to the genitive singular by analogy with the i-stems, where the
three endings had merged by way of phonetic developments (Ljapunov 1905:
36; Vaillant loc. cit.; Mareš 1962b: 19; 1966: 168; Bräuer loc. cit.; Kortlandt 1975/
2011a: 45; Rasmussen loc. cit.; Igartua loc. cit.; 2005b; see also already Scherer
1868: 291, 474–475).
This explanation is similar to the one I have put forward above in order to
account for the introduction of the accusative plural ending in the nominative
plural and genitive singular of the South Slavic i̯ā-stems. There are, however,
two significant differences between the two explanations. First, I assume that
the i̯ā-stem genitive singular and accusative plural were influenced primarily
by the closely related ā-stems, which had the phonetically regular endings,
and only possibly by the i-stems as well. Second, I assume that the process
took place at a relatively late stage, affecting only South Slavic. By contrast,
the explanation of the genitive singular and accusative plural endings of both
the ā- and i̯ā-stems as analogical presupposes that the decisive influence came
from the more remotely related i-stems; and that the process took place at an
early stage, since it affected all Slavic dialects.
In the first place I find the idea unlikely that the ā- and i̯ā-stems, which
played a prominent role in Slavic morphology, should have used the more
marginal i-stems as a model here for such a significant remodelling of the
paradigms. Accordingly, even if it were possible to set up a perfect propor-
tional analogy for the transfer of the ending of the accusative plural endings
of the ā- and i̯ā-stems to the genitive singular and nominative plural on the
model of the i-stems, it is improbable that such an analogy would ever be
operationalised.
Furthermore, a closer inspection reveals that the necessary proportional
analogy is not even as good as it seems. In order for the analogy to work, the
three i-stem forms involved must be identical. The genitive singular reflects
PIE *‑ei̯s and the accusative plural reflects *‑ins; the origin of the feminine
nominative plural is less obvious, but it is most likely that the ending has been
transferred from the accusative plural and thus also reflects *‑ins (see § 3.13.3).
Thus the forms only merged when *ei̯ (from *‑ei̯s) merges with *ī (from *‑ins).
Since original *ī triggers the progressive part of the second palatalisation while
*ei̯ does not, this means that the merger is later than the second palatalisation.
As we have seen in the chronology of Slavic sound changes (§ 2.3), the second
palatalisation [23] is a rather late, post-Proto-Slavic, process, with partly dif-
ferent results in the Slavic languages. Thus the prerequisite for an analogical
substitution of the ending of the ā-stem genitive singular with that of the accu-
sative plural is in place at such a late point in time that the Slavic dialects were
already beginning to diversify. It is therefore surprising that all Slavic dialects
seem to have carried out this—to put it mildly—non-trivial innovation in a
completely uniform manner; we would expect to find at least some traces of
different strategies for the replacement of the expected endings CS **‑a, **‑ja
from pre-PS *‑ās.
Those who divide the second palatalisation into two processes, an (earlier)
progressive and a (later) regressive one, may assume that the merger of *ei̯ and
*ī was completed already in pre-Proto-Slavic. This allows for a scenario where
the analogical replacement of the genitive singular with the accusative plural
was also a pre-Proto-Slavic development. However, there is reason to believe
that the second palatalisation was one single process (see [23]), which rules
out this scenario.
134 Chapter 3
3.5.5 o-Stem Νoun Genitive Singular
PS *ˌtakā (CS *tȍka; *gȍja) PBS *ˌ‑ā PIE abl. *‑ah₂ad
OCS grada; kon’a Li. lángo Ved. devā́t

ORu. stola; kon’a; ONovg. Lv. tȩ̃va OAv., YAv. dūrāt̰
otroka; kon’a OPr. →deiwas Gk. adv. →τῶ; Delphian →ϝοικω
OCz. chlapa La. →lupō; OLa. →POPLICOD; Osc.
→sakaraklúd, →dolud
Go. adv. galeiko
Hi. →attaz (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 163–167 (1897: 152): PIE *‑ēd̃ /t or *‑ōd̃ /t; Li. ‑o, OCS
‑a are from word-final *‑ōd | Beekes 1995/2011: 212–213: *‑ād replaces
*‑ōd < *‑oh₁ed in BS | Rasmussen forthc. a §§ 2, 4: PBS *‑ā̃ probably
goes back to PIE *‑oat; OPr. ‑as is probably abl. ending plus *‑s from other
paradigms | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 37, 94–95: Ved. ‑āt,
Gk. dial. adv. ϝοικω, Li. ‑o, Lv. ‑a, Slavic ‑a reflect PIE *‑ōd, *‑ēd | Rix
1976/1992: 170: Gk. adv. τῶ is from *‑ō̃t < PIE *‑oet, also in OLa. ‑ōd, Ved.
‑āt | Sihler 1995: 250–251, 258–259, 269: OLa. ‑ōd, Gk. Dor. adv. ὄπω
reflect PIE *‑ōt; Li. ‑o points to *‑āt; *‑t is probably related to Hi. instr. ‑at,
abl. ‑az(a) | Weiss 2009/2011: 202, 222: perhaps PIE *‑oh₂Vd (in OLa.
‑ōd), *‑eh₂Vd (in PBS *‑ād > Li. ‑o) | Krahe 1942/1967: 83–84: Go. galeiko
is from PIE abl. *‑õd; OEng. wīde is from variant PIE *‑ẽd | Boutkan
1995: 181–182, 378–381: Go. adv. jaiþro goes back to PIE *‑ōt; there was no
PIE abl. ending *‑ēt | Kloekhorst 2008a: 104, 231–232: Hi. ‑az is from
PIE *‑oti
PBS Olander 2009: 169–170: PBS *ˌ‑ā is from PIE *‑ó(h)at with regular loss of
accent | Endzelīns 1971: 134: East Baltic and Slavic endings reflect
*‑āt < abl. *‑o‑at; OPr. ‑as is probably related to OEng. gen. dōmæs [i.e.
from PIE gen. *‑e/oso] | Stang 1966: 181: Li. ‑o, Lv. ‑a, OCS ‑a reflect
PIE *‑oat or *‑oh₂et; OPr. ‑as from PIE *‑os(i̯)o | Otrębski 1956: 13–14:
Li. ‑o, Lv. ‑a, Slavic ‑a represent unclear innovation *‑ā, not found in
OPr. | Endzelīns 1923: 292: Lv. ‑a, Li. ‑o, Slavic ‑a may reflect old abl.
ending in *‑t or *‑d
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 3: OCS ‑a, Li. ‑o, Ved. ‑ād, OLa. extrād, Go. ƕaþro
reflect PIE *‑ād | Hujer 1910: 114–117: Slavic ‑a, Li. ‑o (from *ō̃ in an
open final syllable), La. ‑ō(d), Gk. adv. ‑ῶ(ς) are from PIE *‑ō̃d/t, along-
side *‑ēd̃ /t | Meillet 1924/1934: 389 | Vaillant 1958: 30, 48 (1950:
112): Slavic ‑a, Li. ‑o, Lv. ‑a reflect PIE *‑ōd/t; OPr. ‑as is from *‑ā plus *‑s
from other paradigms; Li. ‑o, Lv. ‑a point to *‑ād/t, with a-vocalism from
other forms; Slavic ‑ja for expected ‑jě in soft stems, attested in Glagolitic
OCS and OCz., is based on analogy with hard stems | Bräuer 1969a:
21–22, 73: gen. case is recent, perhaps not even PIE; CS *‑a < PIE abl.
*‑ōd < *‑oad | Arumaa 1985: 134–136: Slavic ‑a is probably from
PIE *‑ō̃d/t | Igartua 2005a: 123–133: Slavic ‑a, Li. ‑o, Lv. ‑a reflect
PIE *‑ō/ād; Slavic ‑ja for expected *‑jě is based on analogy with hard
stems | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 76–78, 83: OCS ‑a results from merger
of PIE abl. *‑ō/ād and loc. *‑ō; Slavic ‑ja in soft stems is based on analogy
with hard stems
PIE In Proto-Indo-European nouns the genitive and ablative singular were

distinguished from each other in the o-stems only. The distinction is preserved
in Indo-Iranian, e.g. gen. Ved. devásya, OAv. ahuraiiā, YAv. ahurahe vs. abl. Ved.
devā́t, OAv., YAv. dūrāt̰. Greek has lost the original ablative as a paradigmatic
case, but the form apparently survives in adverbs like dial. ϝοικω ‘from home’;
the same holds true for Germanic forms such as Go. galeiko ‘similarly’. In Latin
the ablative has merged with the dative in the singular of the o-stems, but in
inscriptions the difference between dat. sg. ‑ōi and abl. sg. ‑ōd is preserved.
Celtiberian probably also preserves an ablative singular in ‑ūz from *‑ōd (Villar
1995: 14–16, 24, 29–32; McCone 1996: 62). Hi. ‑aš is often taken to represent an
archaism, but it may also simply reflect the consonant-stem ending PIE *‑os
imported into the o-stems (see the discussion in Melchert 2012: 276–284; cf.
also forthc. § 3.3.1.4).
As for the form of the ending, o-stem dat. sg. PIE *‑oei̯ > PBS *‑ōi̯ shows that
Common Indo-European vowel contractions [3] take place before the dela-
bialisation of *o to *a in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic [7]. Therefore the East Baltic
vocalism, if old, requires an original *a in the ending, i.e. post-laryngeal *‑aad
or *‑oad. The idea that *‑ā has replaced *‑ō in East Baltic by analogy with forms
with a-vocalism is less appealing than it may seem at first sight since several
other o-stem forms containing *ō were not replaced. While Gk. ‑ω and La. ‑ō(d)
cannot reflect *‑aad directly, they may be the regular outcomes of *‑o(h₂)ad.
It also possible, however, that the o-vocalism was introduced by analogy with
other forms of the paradigm in these languages. Taken at face value Oscan
forms like sakaraklúd point to *‑ād < *‑ah₂ad like Lithuanian; but when the
Latin alphabet is used, we find Osc. ‑ud pointing to *‑ōd, and ‑úd may be a
purely orthographical matter (Weiss 2009/2011: 222 n. 35).
The former presence of a laryngeal in the case–number marker may be indi-
cated by the fact that Ved. 1sg. pron. abl. mát, 2sg. tvát, corresponding to OAv.,
YAv. mat̰, ϑβat̰, sometimes count as disyllabic (Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/
136 Chapter 3
1975: 460). Against the presence of *h₂ speaks the hypothesis that the thematic
vowel was *o only before voiced segments. However, the *o may have been
introduced secondarily, either in pre-Proto-Indo-European or, more likely, at a
pre-stage of Latin and, perhaps, Greek. Thus all in all the combined evidence
of Balto-Slavic and internal reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European speaks
slightly in favour of a proto-form *‑ah₂ad.
PBS The Proto-Indo-European ablative ending *‑ah₂ad became PBS gen. *ˌ‑ā

[1|3|4|5|9], preserved in Lithuanian and Latvian. In Old Prussian the ending
was extended by the *‑s found in the genitive singular of all the other noun
paradigms (thus e.g. Vaillant loc. cit.; Kortlandt 1975/2011a: 45; 1988/2009: 192
with references; Rasmussen loc. cit.). It seems more reasonable to assume that
all Balto-Slavic forms are based on the same ending than to trace back the
Old Prussian ending ‑as to the Proto-Indo-European genitive ending *‑os(i̯)o
(thus e.g. Stang loc. cit.; Endzelīns 1971: 134). By not deriving OPr. ‑as from PIE
*‑os(i̯)o the cladistic problem discussed by Ringe, Warnow & Taylor (2002: 92
n. 20) is avoided.
PS PBS *ˌ‑ā was retained as PS *ˌ‑ā (CS *‑a [29]; *‑ja [20|27|29]), preserved in
3.5.6 o-Stem Pronoun Genitive Singular
PS →*taˈga (CS *togò; *jegò) PBS *‑as(i ̯)a (*‑es(i ̯)a) PIE noun, pron. *‑os(i ̯)o (*‑es(i ̯)0)
OCS togo; jego Li. →tõ Ved. tásya

ORu. togo; jego; ONovg. Lv. →tà OAv. yehiiā; YAv. yeŋ́ he, aētahe
togo, →toga; jego OPr. (→)stesse, Gk. τοῦ; Hom. τοῖο
OCz. toho; jeho →stessei La. →huius; OLa. valesiosio
Go. þis; OEng. þæs
Hi. noun (→)attaš; pron. →apēl (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 358–360: Ved. tásya, OAv. kahiiā, cahiiā, YAv.
aētahe, Hom. τοῖο, ἐμεῖο, OPr. stesse reflect PIE pron. *‑e/osi̯o, alongside
*‑e/oso | Beekes 1995/2011: 226, 228, 230–231: PIE *(to)si̯o, interr. adj.
*kʷoso; OCS form is unexplained; Go. ‑is from *‑eso is an original pron.
ending | Rasmussen forthc. a § 14: PIE *kʷósi̯o; Slavic *koγo is perhaps
from *koso by imitation of interr. pron. *[tʃeso], where the second syllable
begins with a weakened variant of the first consonant | Debrunner &

Wackernagel 1930/1975: 502: Ved. ‑sya, OAv. ‑hiiā, YAv. ‑he are from PIE
*‑si̯o (also in Arm. ‑oy, Gk. ‑οιο), alongside *‑so | Rix 1976/1992: 138–
139, 182–183: PIE noun ending was *‑os, preserved in Hi. ‑as; Hom. τοῖο
preserves dem. pron. ending PIE *‑osi̯o; Gk. τοῦ reflects interr. pron. end-
ing PIE *‑oso | Sihler 1995: 259–260, 387–389, 397–398: Gk. τοῖο, τοῦ
are from dem. pron., interr. adj. PIE *‑osi̯o; La. cuius is from *kʷosi̯o plus
gen. marker *‑s | Weiss 2009/2011: 202–204, 222, 337–338, 340–341,
351: PIE *‑o/es(i̯)o; OCS togo is unexplained; La. eius is from *esi̯o plus
*‑s | Krahe 1942/1967: 60–61: Go. þis, OSax. thes, OHG des go back to
PGmc. *þes/z(a) < PIE *‑eso, also in OCS česo, Gk. τέο; OEng. þæs is from
PGmc. *þas < PIE variant *toso | Boutkan 1995: [see inanim. interr.
pron., § 3.5.7] | Kloekhorst 2008a: 213–214, 240: Hi. noun ending ‑aš is
from PIE gen. sg. *‑os; Hi. pron. ‑ēl is unclear
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: [see inanim. interr. pron.,
§ 3.5.7] | Stang 1966: 239–240: OPr. stesse(i) is reminiscent of Ved.
tásya, Gk. τοῦ, Hom. τοῖο, Go. þis, OCS česo, but the details are unclear; Li.
tõ, Lv. tà are probably remade on the model of the nouns | Otrębski
1956: 141 | Endzelīns 1923: 386, 398
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 75: Slavic togo is from *ta plus emphatic ptcl. *‑go and
subsequent remodelling on dat. tomu, loc. tomь | Hujer 1910: – |
Meillet 1924/1934: 434–435: Slavic togo is from *tago (with o for *a from
dat. tomu, loc. tomь and perhaps original gen. *toso), based on gen.–abl.
*ta plus a ptcl.; Slavic togo probably also reflects acc. *to (from *ton)
plus ptcl. | Vaillant 1958: 367–369: Slavic ‑ogo somehow contains an
emphatic ptcl. *g(e), perhaps via *tas‑ga from *tasa‑ge, reflecting PBS
*‑a/esa; OPr. ‑se, ‑sei, ‑si are taken from pers. pron. dat. tebbe, tebbei; Li.
‑o, Lv. ‑a have the noun ending | Bräuer 1969a, 1969b: – | Arumaa
1985: 175, 183–184: Slavic togo is old abl. form plus ptcl. *‑go; *tosi̯o con-
sists of original form *tos plus adj. suffix *‑ii̯o‑ | Igartua 2005a: – |
Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 114–115: PIE *‑si̯o or *‑so; Slavic *‑go is unex-
plained, but may be related to the general loss of *s in the paradigm
PIE The ancient Indo-European languages point to PIE *‑osi̯o and *‑oso; these
forms are obviously related to *‑esi̯o and *‑eso, the latter of which is reflected
in the inanimate interrogative pronoun in Slavic, OCS česo (see § 3.5.7). The
historical relationship between the four variants, found both in nouns and pro-
nouns in the various languages, is difficult to determine; I shall not speculate
about it here (see e.g. Rasmussen 1987a/1999: 122–124 for an overview). While
*‑o/es(i̯)o is usually regarded as having a pronominal origin, it became a noun
138 Chapter 3
ending at an early stage, probably before the breakup of the non-Anatolian

Indo-European languages. The forms may somehow be related to the Hittite
noun ending ‑aš from PIE *‑os (cf. Melchert 2012 and forthc., pointing to traces
in Anatolian of PIE *‑oso and *‑osi̯o). For a recent attempt at explaining the
puzzling Hittite pronominal ending ‑ēl see Rieken 2008 with references to
older views. The Latin forms huius and cuius reflect PIE *‑osi̯o with addition of
the genitive marker *‑s.
PBS Baltic shows no traces of forms in *‑os(i̯)o and *‑eso. For OPr. stesse see
§ 3.5.7. The Slavic forms may point to the existence of PBS *‑as(i̯)a from PIE
*‑os(i̯)o [7].
PS The Proto-Slavic ending is *‑aga (CS *‑ogo [29]). It it still to a large extent
true what Leskien wrote about the ending: “Der Slavische Genitiv sing. togo ist
einer der schwierigsten Casus der indogermanischen Declination und daher
den mannichfachsten Erklärungsversuchen ausgesetzt gewesen, die nach
meiner Meinung alle zu nichts geführt haben oder sehr unsicher sind” (1876:
109 [emphasised in original]). Indeed, the form is difficult; see the useful over-
view of the literature provided by Matzinger (2001: 200–206). Matzinger him-
self puts forward a hypothesis according to which Slavic *‑ogo and *‑ovo reflect
uninflected adjective formations, *to‑u̯ o(‑d) (in Russian and Kashubian) and
*to‑gʰo(‑d) (elsewhere) (see also Andersen 1998a: 441); but this solution is not
very attractive. According to a more popular hypothesis, *‑ogo contains a par-
ticle, an idea which goes back to Miklosich and Maretić (see Berneker 1904: 374;
cf. Pedersen 1905b: 223 and the elaborate scenarios proposed by Meillet loc. cit.
and Vaillant loc. cit.). While this view perhaps cannot be dismissed, it requires
a number of additional hypothetical steps and is thus rather uncertain.
Since we find an unambiguous reflex of an original pronominal genitive
ending in PS *kesa (CS *česo), it is to begin with more likely that PS *‑aga (CS
*‑ogo) also somehow reflects a pronominal genitive ending. I am therefore
more inclined to think that PS *‑aga reflects an irregular phonetic develop-
ment of PBS *‑asa, perhaps caused by the fact that the ending contains two
identical vowels (cf. the different scenario assumed by Rasmussen 1987a/1999:
122–124). This development is similar to the Russian development of g to v in
the ending ‑ogo, with a parallel in Slovincian, which is due to a late weaken-
ing of [ɡ] to [γ] to [v] between two identical vowels (Stang 1969a: 75–76). It is
evident, however, that the explanation by a sporadic sound change is purely
ad hoc.
The ending was preserved in the old Slavic dialects.
3.5.7 Inanimate Interrogative Pronoun Genitive Singular
PS *kesa (CS *česo, *čьso) PBS *‑es(i ̯)a PIE *‑es(i ̯)o (*‑os(i ̯)0)
OCS česo, čьso Li. →kõ Ved. kásya

ORu. česo, →čego, →čьsogo; Lv. →kà OAv. cahiiā, kahiiā; YAv. kahe, kaŋ́ he
ONovg. →čego, →čega OPr. (→)stesse, Gk. τοῦ; Hom. τέο
OCz. čso, →čeho →stessei La. →eius; →cuius
Go. ƕis
Hi. noun →attaš; pron. →apēl (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 358–360: Hom. τέο, Att. τοῦ, Go. ƕis, OCS česo reflect
PIE pron. *kʷeso, alongside *‑e/osi̯o; OCS čьso represents *‑so transferred
to the i-stems | Beekes 1995/2011: 230–231: OCS and Gk. point to PIE
*kʷeso, alongside adj. PIE *kʷoso | Rasmussen forthc. a § 14: PIE
masc.–neut. *tési̯o; OCS česo < *keso is from *kʷesi̯o, perhaps with *s from
gen. pl. | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 502: OCS česo, Gk. τέο,
Go. ‑is contain PIE *‑so, alongside *‑si̯o | Rix 1976/1992: 187: inanim.
interr. PIE *kʷéso (vs. animate *kʷóso) is preserved in Gk. τοῦ, Hom. τέο,
OAv. cahiiā (with *‑si̯o from dem. pron.), Go. ƕis, OCS česo | Sihler
1995: 259–260, 387–388, 397–399: OAv. cahiiā, Hom. τέο, Att. τοῦ are from
PIE interr. pron. *kʷesi̯o, also in Go. ƕis (which is not from *‑eso) and
OCS česo (which may have resulted from contamination with kogo,
togo) | Weiss 2009/2011: [see o-stem pron., § 3.5.6] | Krahe 1942/
1967: [see o-stem pron., § 3.5.6] | Boutkan 1995: 175–181: Hi. points
to PIE noun ending *‑os, while other languages point to *‑osi̯o; Gk. τέο,
OCS česo, Go. ‑is, OHG ‑es reflect pron. *‑eso; OEng. þæs shows secondary
introduction of *a | Kloekhorst 2008a: [see o-stem pron., § 3.5.6]
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 192, 195–196: Li. kõ, Lv. kà have noun
endings | Stang 1966: [see o-stem pron., § 3.5.6] | Otrębski 1956:
141 | Endzelīns 1923: 386, 398
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 90–91 (1906/1924: 62): OCS česo, Go. þis, OHG des
have *‑so for *‑si̯o; ь in OCS čьso arose in unaccented position in e.g.
ničьso | Hujer 1910: 112–113: PIE *‑si̯o, secondarily *‑so; OCS česo is per-
haps from *kʷoso | Meillet 1924/1934: 443–444: Hom. τέο, OHG hwes
reflect PIE *kʷeso; Slavic česo was reduced to čьso, facilitated by nom.–
acc. čьto | Vaillant 1958: 372, 405: OCS česo reflects PBS *‑esa from
PIE *‑eso; OCS čьso is modelled on čьto | Bräuer 1969a, 1969b: – |
140 Chapter 3
Arumaa 1985: 175, 183–184: OCS česo, čьso preserve old pron. end-
ing | Igartua 2005a: 126: Slavic česo, čьso reflect *kʲeso, perhaps dis-
similated from *kʲesi̯o | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 123: OCS česo is from
*kʷeso; *‑eso is also found in Go. þis, OHG des; OCS čьso has ь from nom.–
acc. čьto
PIE The ancestor of PS *‑esa (CS *‑eso) is PIE *‑eso (or *‑esi̯o), a variant of
which is probably also reflected in PS *‑aga (CS *‑ogo); for problems connected
with these variants and their reflexes in the other Indo-European languages
see § 3.5.6.
PBS Lithuanian and Latvian employ the ending of the noun, which ulti-
mately goes back to the Proto-Indo-European ablative form. In Old Prussian
the genitive singular of the demonstrative pronoun, definite article and third-
person pronoun is stesse (alongside stessei and other variants), which may
reflect PIE *‑esi̯o, but this is uncertain (cf. the discussion in Stang loc. cit. with
Endzelīns 1944: 111–114). On the basis of the Old Prussian form and PS *‑esa we
may reconstruct PBS *‑es(i̯)a from PIE *‑es(i̯)o [7].
PS The Proto-Balto-Slavic variant *‑esa was preserved as PS *‑esa (CS *‑eso

[29]). The ending is preserved in the old Slavic dialects. The variant CS *čьso
may have its *ь analogically from nom. *čьto, but it is more likely to be a
reduced form of *česo. The new variant represented by ORu. čego and OCz.
čeho is remade on the normal pronominal ending PS *‑aga (CS *‑ogo).
3.5.8 1sg, 2sg. and Reflexive Pronoun Genitive
First-person singular pronoun genitive
PS *ˌmene (CS *mȅne) PBS *mene PIE *méne
OCS mene Li. →manę̃s; dial. Ved. máma; encl. me

ORu. mene; ONovg. mene →manę̃ OAv. mə̄.nā; YAv. mana; encl. OAv. mōi;
OCz. →mne Lv. →manis YAv. mē
OPr. ? Gk. →ἐμοῦ; Hom. →ἐμέο; encl. →μου; Hom.
→μευ
La. →meī
Go. →meina
Hi. →ammel (OS), →ammēl
First-person singular pronoun genitive
PS →*ˌtebe (CS *tȅbe) PBS *tau̯e PIE *téu̯e
OCS tebe Li. →tavę̃s; dial. Ved. táva; encl. tve

ORu. tebe; ONovg. (u) →tavę̃ OAv. tauuā; YAv. tauua; encl. OAv. tōi, tē;
tebe Lv. tevis YAv. tē
OCz. tebe OPr. ? Gk. →σοῦ; Hom. →σέο; encl. →σου; Hom.
→σεο
La. →tuī
Go. →þeina
Hi. →tuē̆l (OS)
Reflexive pronoun genitive
PS →*ˌsebe (CS *sȅbe) PBS *sau̯e PIE *séu̯e
OCS sebe Li. →savę̃s; dial. Ved. –

ORu. sebe; ONovg. →savę̃ OAv. –; YAv. →xᵛahe(?)
(u) sebe Lv. →sevis Gk. Hom. sg. →ἕο; encl. Hom. sg. →ἑο
OCz. sebe OPr. ? La. →suī
Go. →seina
Hi. ptcl. →‑z(a) (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 383, 415–416: PIE *mene, *teu̯ e, *seu̯ e; OCS tebe, sebe
are remade after dat.–loc. tebě, sebě | Beekes 1995/2011: 232–235: PIE
*h₁méne, *teue, *seue; OCS has ‑b‑ from dat. | Rasmussen forthc. a
§ 13: PIE *méne, *téu̯ e, *séu̯ e; OCS mene, tebe, sebe are from PBS *mené,
*tåu̯ é, *såu̯ é, with ‑eb‑ for *‑ov‑ in 2sg. and refl. by analogy with dat.; Li.
manę̃s etc., Lv. manis etc. are acc. forms plus gen. ending ‑s | Schmidt
1978: 87–93, 109–110, 136–144, 154–156, 165–166: 1sg. PIE *(e)menē̆ (origi-
nally gen.–abl.); 2sg. gen.–dat. *teu̯ (originally loc.), with *‑e from 1sg. in
Slavic and IIr.; refl. gen.–abl. *sē̆nē̆; Ved. máma has arisen by assimilation
from PIIr. *mana; Slavic tebe, sebe have ‑b‑ from dat. | Debrunner &
Wackernagel 1930/1975: 461: Ved. máma is from *áma (> Gk. ἐμ‑, Arm. im),
142 Chapter 3
with m‑ from other case forms; Ved. táva goes back to PIE *teu̯ e | Rix
1976/1992: 177–178, 180: PIE tonic *méne, *téu̯ e; attested Gk. forms are
based on acc. stem | Sihler 1995: 372–373, 375–377: PIE tonic *méme
(with dissimilation in Av. and BS), *téu̯ e, *séu̯ e; Gk. 1sg. forms are based
on *éme (based on PIE *méme, altered under the influence of the nom.
form); Gk. 2sg. and refl. forms are based on acc.; La. meī, tuī, suī are masc.
gen. sg. of poss. pron. meus, tuus, suus | Weiss 2009/2011: 327, 329: PIE
*méne, *teu̯ e; Ved. máma has arisen by assimilation; La. meī is gen. sg. of
poss. pron. meus | Krahe 1942/1967: 50, 52–54: Go. meina, þeina, seina
are forms of the possessive pron., perhaps neut. acc. pl. | Seebold
1984: 47–51: Gmc. *mīnē < *meinē is based on PIE *mene under the influ-
ence of loc. / possessive stem *mei‑; 2sg. Gmc. *þīnē and refl. *sīnē are
based on 1sg. | Kloekhorst 2008a: 240: Hi. ‑ēl is unclear
PBS Kapović 2006a: passim; 80, 94–96, 100, 113–114, 158–159: PIE *méne, *téu̯ e;
PBS *mène, *tàu̯ e; CS *mȅne, *tȅbe; East Baltic forms are based on the
acc. plus gen. marker ‑s; circumflex Li. ‑ę̃s is analogical from gen. of
nouns | Endzelīns 1971: 186–187: PIE *mene (indicated by OCS mene,
YAv. mana), *teu̯ e (indicated by Ved. táva, YAv. tauua; OCS has b for *v by
analogy with dat. tebě), *seu̯ e; Li. dial. manè, tavè, savè reflect PIE forms,
with a from dat.; the new acc. forms Li. manę̃, tavę̃, savę̃ were used with
gen. function and received an ‑s; Lv. dial. mani, tavi, sevi may correspond
to Li. forms in ‑ę̃; Lv. ‑is may correspond to Li. ‑ę̃s | Stang 1966: 250–
251: PBalt. *mene, *teve, *seve were altered to East Baltic *manes, *teves,
*seves with *‑s from nouns; forms in *‑ę̃s have nasal from acc.; forms in
‑ę̃ are original acc. forms | Otrębski 1956: 135–136: forms ended origi-
nally in *‑e, as in Li. dial. manè, tavè, savè; in Li. manę̃s, tavę̃s, savę̃s, *‑e
was first replaced with *‑es from C-stems, then the ending was nasalised
under the influence of the acc.; *man‑ has a for *e under the influence
of poss. pron. mãnas | Endzelīns 1923: 372–374: original *mene, *teu̯ e,
*seu̯ e are preserved in Li. dial. manè, tavè, savè (with a from dat.), Lv. dial.
man, tev, sev; Li. dial. manę̃, tavę̃, savę̃ have nasal from acc.; Li. dial. manès,
tavès, savès and Li. manę̃s, tavę̃s, savę̃s, Lv. manis, tevis, sevis are based on
*mane etc. and *manen etc., respectively, plus gen. marker *‑s
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 70–71: OCS mene is inherited; OCS tebe, sebe reflect
*teu̯ e, *seu̯ e with b from dat. | Meillet 1924/1934: 454: Slavic mene cor-
responds to YAv. mana; Slavic tebe, sebe reflect *teve, *seve with b from
dat.–loc. tebě, sebě | Vaillant 1958: 445–446: PIE *mene, *teu̯ e, *seu̯ e;
Slavic has b from stem te/ob‑, se/ob‑ in other oblique cases | Arumaa
1985: 160–161, 163: Slavic mene is from PIE *mene; Slavic tebe, sebe are from
*teu̯ e, *seu̯ e, with *b from dat. | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 108, 111, 113:
PIE *mene, *teu̯ e, *seu̯ e; OCS tebe, sebe have b from dat.
PIE Iranian and Balto-Slavic point to 1sg. PIE *méne, with assimilation to

máma in Vedic (see Katz 1998: 39 with n. 65). The second-person singular and
reflexive pronouns may be reconstructed as PIE *téu̯ e and *séu̯ e, the former
preserved in Indo-Iranian and both living on, with a new medial consonant, in
Balto-Slavic. In Greek the forms were remodelled on the basis of the accusa-
tive singular forms. The Latin and Germanic forms are based on the possessive
pronouns. The Hittite forms are unexplained.
PBS The Proto-Indo-European first-singular form was continued as PBS

*mene, directly preserved in Slavic. The second-person singular pronoun *téu̯ e
and the reflexive pronoun *séu̯ e yielded *tau̯ e and *sau̯ e [11]. In Baltic, *mene
was replaced with *mane with the vowel of the second-person singular and
reflexive forms. This situation is reflected in Li. man‑, tav‑, sav‑. In Latvian and
in Lithuanian dialects, tev‑, sev‑ have taken over the vowel of the original dat.
forms, *teb‑, *seb‑ (similarly Kapović 2006a: 116, 125; but cf. the traditional view
represented in e.g. Stang 1966 32).
As for the final part of the pronouns, it is not easy to establish the details of
the scenario which led to the attested Baltic forms. It is probable that the nasal
vowel reflected in Lithuanian ‑ę̃s is due to influence from the accusative, and
that the final ‑s has arisen by analogy with the genitive singular of the nouns.
Genitive singular forms of the personal and reflexive pronouns are probably
not attested in Old Prussian (Endzelīns 1944: 130; Stang 1966: 249).
PS PBS *mene, *tebe, *sebe yielded Proto-Slavic *ˌmene, *ˌtebe, *ˌsebe (CS
*mȅne, *tȅbe, *ˌsebe), preserved in South and East Slavic. In Old Czech and
generally in West Slavic, the stem *men‑ has been replaced with mn‑ from the
dative, instrumental and locative singular.
144 Chapter 3
3.6 Dative Singular
3.6.1 Consonant-Stem Dative Singular
PS *dukterei ̯ (CS *dъt’eri) PBS *‑ei ̯ PIE *‑ei̯
OCS dъšteri Li. fem. →dùkteriai; masc. Ved. áśmane

ORu. dъčeri; ONovg. (kъ) →ãkmeniui; OLi., dial. OAv. haxmaⁱnē; YAv. tašne
materi →ãkmeni; OLi. akmenie; Gk. →ποιμένι; Corinthian Διει;
OCz. dceři dial. sẽserie Myc. po-me-ne /poimenei/
Lv. →akmenim, La. hominī; OLa. MARTEI
→akmeńam Go. →gumin
OPr. gerund giwāntei Hi. dat.–loc. →taknī, →tāgan (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 172–174: OCS ‑i is from PIE *‑ai or from possible
i-stem ending *‑ī | Beekes 1995/2011: 186–187, 194–195: PIE *‑(e)i |
Rasmussen forthc. a §§ 2, 8: OCS ‑i is from PIE non-ablauting *‑ei̯ |
Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 36–37: Ved. ‑e goes back to PIE *‑ai
or *‑ei | Rix 1976/1992: 154: Gk. ‑ι is loc. sg.; PIE *‑ei̯ is preserved in Myc.
po-me-ne, Gk. dial. Διει, OLa. ‑ei | Sihler 1995: 284–285: La. ‑ī, OLa. ‑ei,
Osc. ‑eí, Myc. po‑de are from PIE *‑ei̯ | Weiss 2009/2011: 199, 201–202:
La. ‑ī, OLa. ‑ei, Myc. ma-te-re reflect PIE *‑ei | Krahe 1942/1967: [see
loc. sg., § 3.8.1] | Boutkan 1995: [see loc. sg., § 3.8.1] | Kloekhorst
2008a: 376: Hi. ‑i is the regular reflex, after certain consonants, of PIE dat.
sg. *‑i (alongside *‑ei, not preserved in Hi.)
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 163: Li. dial. dùkter(i) is from
*‑ie | Stang 1966: 208, 220: PIE dat. *‑i is preserved in Li. ‑i, Gk. ποδί;
variant *‑ei is reflected in Li. dial. ‑ei, OPr. ‑ei, Ved. ‑e, OLa. ‑ei | Otrębski
1956: 53, 57: OLi., Li. dial. ‑i may correspond to Gk. μητέρι; OLi., Li. dial. ‑iẽ
is from PIE *‑ei, also in OLa. ‑ei | Endzelīns 1923: 322: Lv. akmenim,
akmeńam have i̯o-stem ending; old ending is preserved in Li. dial.
ãkmen(i)
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 3: OCS ‑i is from PIE *‑aí | Hujer 1910: 124–127:
Li. ‑i, Gk. ‑ι are from loc. *‑i; Slavic ‑i is from PIE acute *‑ai | Meillet
1924/1934: 390, 422: PIE *‑e/oi | Vaillant 1958: 185: Slavic ‑i, OLi., Li.
dial. ‑i go back to PIE *‑ei, also in OLa. ‑ei, Osc. ‑ei, Ved. ‑e | Bräuer
1969b: 8, 53, 71, 83: CS *‑i is from PIE *‑ei̯ or *‑ai̯ | Arumaa 1985: 110–111:
Slavic ‑i is from PIE *‑ei | Igartua 2005a: 336–337: Slavic ‑i is from PIE
*‑ei | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 94, 98, 100, 102: OCS ‑i is from PIE *‑ei
PIE The case–number marker of the Proto-Indo-European dative singular

was *‑ei̯, unambiguously preserved in Italic and Balto-Slavic and also indicated
by Greek dialectal material, including Mycenaean. Outside Mycenaean the
original dative ending was replaced with loc. *‑i in Greek. As the Germanic
forms cannot contain an original diphthong *‑ei̯, they reflect the locative end-
ing *‑i.
The reflexes of PIE *‑i found in the dative singular in Greek, Germanic, Baltic
and Anatolian are sometimes taken as evidence of a Proto-Indo-European zero-
grade variant *‑i of the dative singular marker (e.g. Meillet 1906: 37; Chantraine
1945/1984: 46; Stang loc. cit.; Beekes loc. cit.; Kloekhorst loc. cit.). However, the
fact that a dative ending *‑i is found only in languages where the locative was
lost or recreated suggests that we are dealing with original locative forms. Also,
if the case–number marker was capable of ablaut, it is unclear why we find
the full-grade, not the zero-grade, in the o-stem ending *‑oei̯. The reconstruc-
tion PIE *‑ai̯, often found in the older literature, is not compatible with CS *‑i,
which would show *‑ě (cf. the criticism in Meillet 1906: 36).
PBS The outcome of PIE *‑ei̯ was PBS *‑ei̯, preserved in Old Lithuanian forms
like akmenie and OPr. giwāntei. As in the Greek and Germanic endings dis-
cussed above, Lithuanian forms in ‑i probably reflect the locative singular end-
ing PIE *‑i. Lv. akmenim and akmeńam are the i̯o-stem endings.
PS PBS *‑ei̯ yielded PS *‑ei̯ (CS *‑i [22|29]), preserved in the old Slavic dialects.
3.6.2 i-Stem Dative Singular
PS *ˌgastei ̯ (CS *gȍsti) PBS *ˌ‑ei ̯ PIE *‑ei ̯
OCS gosti Li. fem. →miñčiai; Ved. →śúcaye

ORu. puti; ONovg. (kъ) masc. →žvė�riui; OAv. →axtōiiōi; YAv. →anumatə̄e,
rъži OLi. Wieszpatie; dial. →anumataiiaē(‑ca)
OCz. hosti ãvie Gk. →πόλει; Hom. →πόληϊ, →πόλεϊ
Lv. →avij; OLv., dial. ‑i La. turrī
OPr. nautei Go. →gasta, fem. →anstai; OHG gaste
Hi. dat.–loc. →ḫalkiya (OS), →ḫalki
(OS), →ḫalkī; adj. šallai, šalli
146 Chapter 3
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 170–172: PIE had *‑(i)i̯ai, *‑ei̯ai, perhaps also *‑ī > OCS
‑i; or OCS ‑i is from C-stems | Beekes 1995/2011: 203: PIE *‑eii [implicit
from u-stems] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PBS *‑ei̯ei̯ | Debrunner
& Wackernagel 1930/1975: 149–150 | Rix 1976/1992: 154: Gk. endings
reflect PIE loc. sg. | Sihler 1995: 314, 316: PIE *‑ei̯ei̯ yielded La. ‑ī and
perhaps Hom. ‑εϊ; [see also loc. sg., § 3.8.2] | Weiss 2009/2011: 242,
244–245: PIE *‑ei̯ei > *‑ei; the haplology took place “perhaps already in
Italo-Celtic” | Krahe 1942/1967: 30 [see loc. sg., § 3.8.2] | Boutkan
1995: 246–248 [see loc. sg., § 3.8.2] | Kloekhorst 2008a: 105, 376: Hi. ‑ai
is from PIE [loc.] *‑eii
PBS Olander 2009: 173–174: PBS *ˌ‑ei̯ from PIE *‑éi̯ has regular loss of
accent | Endzelīns 1971: 152: Lv. ‑ij is based on analogy with ā- and
ē-stems | Stang 1966: 136, 207–208: Li. dial. ‑ie, Lv. dial. ‑i, OCS ‑i, La. ‑ī
reflect *‑ei̯, from *‑ei̯ei̯ through haplological shortening; OLi. ‑i represents
PIE *‑i, the zero grade of dat. sg. *‑ei̯ | Otrębski 1956: 40: Li. ‑ie, OCS ‑i
are from *‑ei̯ | Endzelīns 1923: 315–317: OLv. ‑i is from *‑ei̯, also in Li.
‑ie, OPr. ‑ei, OCS ‑i; Lv. ‑ij perhaps replaced ‑i on the analogy of ā-stem ‑ai,
ē-stem ‑ei
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 3 | Hujer 1910: 127–128: Slavic ‑i goes back to
C-stem *‑ai or to i-stem loc. sg., imitating identical ā-stem dat. and loc. sg.
forms | Meillet 1924/1934: monosyllabic ending of Slavic, Osc., La., Li.
(Žem.) may point to PIE haplology | Vaillant 1958: 133–134: PIE *‑i̯ei
was replaced with athem. *‑ei̯in Slavic and other IE languages | Bräuer
1969a: 155: CS *‑i reflects *‑ei̯, perhaps the result of haplology | Arumaa
1985: 124–125: OCS ‑i < *‑ei reflects *‑ei̯ei̯, partly under the influence of
C-stems, partly by haplology; shortening process has started already in
PIE | Igartua 2005a: 251–256: Slavic ‑i is from PIE *‑ei̯ (pure stem);
forms pointing to PIE *‑ei̯ei̯ are secondary | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991:
73–74: OCS ‑i is from *‑ei, which is either the C-stem ending or based on
analogy with the loc. sg.
PIE We expect an ending *‑ei̯ei̯ or *‑i̯ei̯, consisting of the full or zero grade
of the i-stem suffix and the dative singular marker *‑ei̯. The expected ending is
found in Indo-Iranian. The Balto-Slavic endings apparently reflect *‑ei̯, which
is most likely the result of a haplological shortening of *‑ei̯ei̯. Judging from the
fact that Italic also points to *‑ei̯ we may surmise that the haplology had already
taken place in pre-Proto-Indo-European and that the Indo-Iranian ending is a
more recent analogical creation (similarly Meillet 1913b).
The Greek forms are most likely innovations based on loc. sg. PIE *‑ēi̯ (but
cf. Sihler loc. cit.). La. ‑ī reflects PIE *‑ei̯ rather than *‑ei̯ei̯ (Meiser 1998/2006:
138; but cf. again Sihler loc. cit. and Weiss loc. cit.). The Gothic masculine end-
ing ‑a is imported from the o-stems, while the feminine ending ‑ai probably
reflects the i-stem locative singular ending *‑ēi̯. According to the hypothesis
put forward by Hansen (2014: 160–168), Go. ‑ai may also represent the phonetic
outcome of PIE *‑ei̯, though he finds it more likely that Go. ‑ai goes back to PIE
loc. sg. *‑ēi̯. In Hittite, the adjective ending ‑ai reflects the locative ending *‑ēi̯.
The fact that the Balto-Slavic ending is unaccented in the mobile paradigm
indicates that *‑ei̯ei̯ had already been haplologically shortened to *‑ei̯ when
the mobility law took place in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic [4]. The i-stem dative sin-
gular thus coincided with the corresponding consonant-stem ending, consti-
tuting one of the points of intersection between the two stem-types, together
with the accusative singular and plural endings.
PBS PIE *‑ei̯ yielded PBS *ˌ‑ei̯ [4]. In Lithuanian the original ending was
replaced with the ā-stem ending in feminine i-stems (miñčiai) and by the i̯o-
stem ending in masculines (žvė�riui). In Old Lithuanian and in dialects the
original ending is preserved as ‑ie (see Stang loc. cit.; Zinkevičius 1966: 230). A
similar situation is found in Latvian, where the standard ending ‑ij is remade
after the ā- and ē-stem endings ‑ai and ‑ei (Endzelīns loc. cit.; Stang loc. cit.;
Forssman 2001: 129), but the original ending is preserved in dialectal forms in
‑i. Old Prussian also preserves the old ending.
According to Klingenschmitt (1992: 105–107), the Baltic and Slavic end-
ings cannot reflect PIE *‑ei̯, which would yield acute *‑i in Lithuanian and
final accent in Slavic (see also W. Hock 1995: 79). This view depends on
Klingenschmitt’s ideas about Balto-Slavic accentology, which I have criticised
in Olander 2009: 43–45.
PS The regular reflex of PBS *ˌ‑ei̯ is PS *ˌ‑ei̯ (CS *‑i [22|29]), preserved in the
3.6.3 u-Stem Dative Singular
PS *sūnaˈu̯ei ̯ (CS *synovì) PBS *‑ˈau̯ei ̯ PIE *‑eu̯ei ̯
OCS synovi Li. →sūń ui Ved. mádhave

ORu. synovi; ONovg. (po) →polu Lv. →tìrgum OAv. vaŋha(o)uuē; YAv. daŋ́ hauue
OCz. synovi OPr. ? Gk. →ἡδέϊ, →ἡδεῖ
La. tribuī; OLa. senatvei
Go. →sunau
Hi. dat.–loc. →idālawi
148 Chapter 3
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 170–172: PIE *‑(u)u̯ ai, *‑eu̯ ai; OCS ‑i is from *‑ai or
from possible i-stem ending *‑ī | Beekes 1995/2011: 203: PIE *‑eui; CS
*‑ov‑ is from *‑eu‑ | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: OCS ‑ovi reflects PBS *‑au̯ ei̯
< PIE *‑eu̯ ei̯ | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 148–150: Ved. ‑ave,
OCS ‑ovi are from PIE *‑eu̯ a/ei̯ | Rix 1976/1992: 154: Gk. endings reflect
PIE loc. sg. | Sihler 1995: 323: Ved. ‑ave, OCS ‑ovi, OLa. ‑uei, La. ‑uī go
back to PIE *‑eu̯ ei̯, probably also in Myc. i‑je‑we /hujjewei/ | Weiss
2009/2011: 249, 251: La. ‑uī reflects PIE *‑eu̯ ei̯ | Krahe 1942/1967: 32:
Gmc. uses loc. ending | Boutkan 1995: 256–257: Gmc. dat. is histori-
cally a loc. | Kloekhorst 2008a: 105, 376: Hi. dat.–loc. ‑awi reflects PIE
*‑eui
PBS Olander 2009: 173–174: PBS *‑ˈau̯ ei̯ is from PIE *‑éu̯ ei̯; expected desinential
accentuation is perhaps preserved in Ru. adv. domój, dolój, Ukr. domív,
dolív | Endzelīns 1971: 157: Lv. ‑um has ‑m from o-stems | Stang
1966: 214–215: Ved. ‑ave, OCS ‑ovi reflect PIE *‑e/ou̯ ei; Li. ‑ui is o-stem end-
ing; Lv. ‑um is based on analogy with o-stem ending ‑am | Otrębski
1956: 47: Li. ‑ui is from o-stems | Endzelīns 1923: 326: Lv. ‑um is based
on analogy with masc. i-stem ‑im
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 3: OCS ‑ovi, Ved. ‑ave go back to PIE *‑eu̯ ai | Hujer
1910: 126–127: Slavic ‑ovi, Ved. ‑ave, La. ‑uī are from PIE *‑eu̯ ai | Meillet
1924/1934: 414 | Vaillant 1958: 110: Slavic ‑ovi is from PIE *‑eu̯ ei (with
secondary ‑o‑) or *‑ou̯ ei | Bräuer 1969a: 146: PIE *‑eu̯ ai̯ | Arumaa
1985: 124–125: OCS ‑ovi goes back to *‑eu̯ ei; ORu. adv. dolovь, domovi,
domovь are old dat. forms, not loc. | Igartua 2005a: 284–286: Slavic
‑ovi reflects *‑e/ou̯ ei, perhaps consisting of loc. ending *‑ou plus dat.
marker *‑ei̯ | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 70
PIE PIE *‑eu̯ ei̯ consists of the full grade of the u-stem suffix followed by the
dative ending *‑ei̯. The ending is preserved in Indo-Iranian and Italic. In Greek,
Gothic and Hittite it was replaced with the locative ending.
PBS PIE *‑eu̯ ei is continued as PBS *‑ˈau̯ ei̯ [11]. The ending is not represented
in Baltic, where Lithuanian uses the o-stem ending, and the Latvian ending
is based on analogy with the o-stem ending ‑am, which originates in the pro-
nouns. The ending is not attested in Old Prussian.
PS PBS *‑ˈau̯ ei̯ is retained as PS *‑aˈu̯ ei̯ [13] (CS *‑ovi [22|29]), preserved in the
old Slavic dialects except in the Old Novgorod area. Here the o-stem ending
was generalised, a tendency also seen elsewhere.
3.6.4 ā-Stem Dative Singular
PS *ˌnagāi ̯ (CS *nȍʒě; *dȗši) PBS *ˌ‑āi ̯ PIE *‑ah₂ai ̯
OCS glavě; duši Li. gálvai Ved. →jihvā́yai

ORu. ženě; zemli; ONovg. (kъ) ženě; Lv. →gal̂vai; adv. pa rùoki OAv., YAv. →daēnaiiāi
(k) Sъfii, →Isuxiě OPr. perdāsai Gk. φυγῇ
OCz. rybě; duši La. uiae
Go. gibai
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 167–169: PIE *‑āĩ | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 200:

PIE *‑h₂ei > *‑ai, replaced with *‑āi | Rasmussen forthc. a § 5: PIE
*‑ah₂ai̯ | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 119–121: IIr. ‑āy‑ was
probably introduced on the pattern of devī-stems | Rix 1976/1992:
132–133: PIE *‑eh₂ei̯ | Sihler 1995: 268–269: PIE *‑eh₂ei̯ | Weiss
2009/2011: 229, 233: La. ‑ae < *‑āi reflects PIE *‑eh₂ei | Krahe 1942/1967:
21: PIE *‑ãi | Boutkan 1995: 223, 227: PGmc. *‑ōi is from *‑āi, remade
from PIE *‑h₂ei | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 173: PBS *ˌ‑āi̯ from PIE *‑áh₂ai̯ is regular | Endzelīns
1971: 143: Slavic ‑ě, Li. ‑ai, OPr. ‑ai, Lv. ‑i (in old texts, folk songs, fixed
expressions) go back to PIE *‑āei; Lv. ‑ai is from monosyllabic pro-
nouns | Stang 1966: 198–199: PBalt. *‑āi reflects *‑eh₂ei; Lv. ‑ai is from
pronouns | Otrębski 1956: 25: Li. ‑os reflects PIE *‑ās | Endzelīns
1923: 304–305: Lv. ‑ai is from pronouns
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 3: PIE *‑āi | Hujer 1910: 128–129: Slavic ‑ě reflects
*‑āi, from *ā plus *ai | Meillet 1924/1934: 398: Slavic ‑ě with circum-
flex tone corresponds to Li. circumflex ‑ai, Gk. circumflex ‑ᾳ | Vaillant
1958: 81–82: Slavic circumflex ‑ě is from contracted PIE *‑āi | Bräuer
1969a: 104, 127: PIE *‑āi̯ | Arumaa 1985: 151–152: PIE circumflex
*‑āi < *‑ā‑ plus *‑ei | Igartua 2005a: 213–215: PIE *‑āi or *‑āī <
*‑eh₂ei̯ | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 87, 90: OCS ‑ě, ‑ji reflect *‑āi < *‑ā‑ei
PIE Most of the old Indo-European languages point to a Proto-Indo-European

ending *‑ah₂ai̯, consisting of the stem-suffix *‑ah₂‑ and the ending *‑ei̯, which
always appears in the full grade in Proto-Indo-European (Rasmussen 1989b:
251 n. 5). In Indo-Iranian the ending has been extended by the same element
*‑āi̯‑ as the genitive and locative.
150 Chapter 3
PBS PIE *‑ah₂ai̯ regularly yielded PBS *ˌ‑āi̯ [1|3|4]. Lithuanian and Old
Prussian preserve the original ending, whereas Latvian ‑ai represents a gen-
eralisation of the diphthong from monosyllabic pronouns such as tài, šài. The
expected Latvian ending ‑i is found in Old Latvian and in dialects, as well as in
adverbial expressions like pa rùoki ‘convenient’.
PS The ending is retained as PS *ˌ‑āi̯ (CS *‑ě [22|29]; *‑ji [20|22|29]). The end-
ing is preserved intact in the old Slavic dialects except in the Novgorod–Pskov
area, where the soft ending has been replaced with the hard one. The non-desi-
nential accentuation has been analogically replaced with desinential accen-
tuation in most of the Slavic-speaking area; traces of the original accentuation
are preserved in various Slavic dialects (see Olander loc. cit. with references).
3.6.5 o-Stem Dative Singular
PS *ˌtakāu̯ (CS *tȍku; *gȍju) PBS *ˌ‑ōi ̯ PIE *‑oei ̯
OCS gradu; kon’u Li. lángui Ved. →devā́ya

ORu. stolu; kon’u; ONovg. bratu; Lv. →tȩ̃vam OAv. ahurāi, →ahurāi.ā; YAv. ahurāi
(kъ) G’urьg’u OPr. wirdai, Gk. ἀγρῷ
OCz. chlapu; oráču griku La. lupō; OLa. DVENOI; Osc. húrtúi
Go. →daga; ONor. degi
Hi. →atti, →labarnai
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 168: PIE *‑ōĩ; OCS ‑u is unclear | Beekes 1995/2011:

213: PIE *‑ōi reflects *‑oei, with addition of a ptcl. in Vedic | Rasmussen
forthc. a §§ 2, 4: development of OCS ‑u from PBS *‑ō̃i ̯ < PIE *‑õi̯ < *‑oei̯
is unclear | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 92–94: Av. ‑āi, Gk.
‑ῳ, La. ‑ō, Li. ‑ui reflect PIE *‑ōi, perhaps a pron. ending; Ved. ‑āya, OAv.
‑āi.a may represent original noun ending | Rix 1976/1992: 139: Gk. ‑ῳ
is from PIE *‑ōi̯ < *‑oei̯ | Sihler 1995: 258: Gk. ‑ῳ, PItal. *‑ōi̯ reflect PIE
*‑ōi̯ < *‑oei̯ | Weiss 2009/2011: 222: La. ‑ō < ‑ōi goes back to *‑oei; OCS ‑u
is perhaps from *‑ou < *‑ọ̄ < *‑ōi | Krahe 1942/1967: 9–10: Go. ‑a is instr.
ending PIE *‑ē; PIE *‑ōi is preserved in West and North Gmc. | Boutkan
1995: 167, 182–186: ONor. degi, OSax. ‑a, ‑e are from PIE dat. *‑ōi < *‑o(h₁)ei;
Go. ‑a is from PGmc. pron. instr. *‑ē | Kloekhorst 2008a: 104, 376: rare
Old Hi. ending ‑ai perhaps reflects PIE *‑ōi (*‑oei); Hi. ‑i is from C-stems
PBS Olander 2009: 173: PBS *ˌ‑ōi̯ from PIE *‑óei̯ is regular | Endzelīns 1971:
134: Li. ‑ui is from *‑ōi̯ < *‑oei; Lv. ‑am is from pronouns | Stang 1966:
181–182: Li. ‑ui, dial. ‑ai reflect *‑uoi < PBalt. *‑ōi, also in OPr. ‑u (after velars
and labials), ‑ai (elsewhere); Lv. ‑am is from pronouns | Otrębski 1956:
14: Li. ‑ui < *‑uoi is from PIE *‑ōi, also in Gk. ‑ῳ | Endzelīns 1923: 292:
Lv. ‑am is from pronouns
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 3: Li. ‑ui, Gk. ‑ῳ reflect PIE *‑ōĩ; OCS ‑u is
unclear | Hujer 1910: 129–135: Slavic ‑u is certainly not from PIE dat.
*‑ō̃i, but perhaps from o-stem loc. *‑oũ | Meillet 1924/1934: 407–408:
Slavic ‑u goes back to PIE *‑ōi, also in Li. ‑ui, Gk. ‑ῳ | Vaillant 1958: 31:
Slavic ‑u, Li. ‑ui reflect PIE circumflex *‑ōi | Bräuer 1969a: 22, 73: PIE
*‑ōei̯ > *‑ōi̯ is perhaps regularly reflected in CS *‑u, which is not from stem
*‑o plus loc. ptcl. *‑u | Arumaa 1985: 136–137: Slavic ‑u, ‑ju are not from
PIE *‑ōi, but more likely from CS u-stem loc. *‑u; accent of u-stem loc.
does not fit | Igartua 2005a: 133–140: Slavic ‑u is probably from u-stem
dat.–loc. *‑ō̆u | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 78–80, 83: OCS ‑( j)u does not
reflect PIE *‑ōi, but a u-stem loc. form
PIE The Proto-Indo-European form was *‑oei̯, consisting of the o-grade of

the thematic vowel and the dative singular marker *‑ei̯, also found in the other
paradigms. In Vedic, and occasionally in Old Avestan, the ending is extended
with a short vowel of unknown timbre; the reflex of PIE *‑oei̯ is preserved in
pronouns such as tásmai. In Hittite the expected outcome of PIE *‑oei̯ is ‑ai;
such an ending is indeed found, but only rarely and never in texts written in
Old Script, so it probably represents an innovation (Neu 1979: 188; Melchert
1984: 185 with references; Kimball 1999: 229; Hoffner & Melchert 2008:
70 n. 25, 74).
PBS PIE *‑oei̯ contracted to PBS *ˌ‑ōi̯ [3|4], with regular loss of accent. The
ending is preserved as ‑ui in Lithuanian. In Old Prussian it became ‑u after
velars and labials and ‑ai elsewhere, but the former ending spread at the
expense of the latter. In Latvian, *‑ōi̯ was replaced with the pronominal ending.
PS PBS *ˌ‑ōi̯ developed into *ˌ‑ōu̯ [14] > PS *ˌ‑āu̯ [15] (CS *‑u [22|29]; *‑ju
[20|22|29]), preserved in the old Slavic dialects.
152 Chapter 3
3.6.6 Tonic 1sg., 2sg. and Reflexive Pronoun Dat.–Loc.
Tonic first-person singular pronoun dative-locative
PS →*muˈnāi ̯ (CS *mъně)̀ PBS →*me/uni PIE dat. *még̑ʰi
OCS mьně Li. →mán; OLi. mániġ; Ved. →máhya(m)

ORu. mъně; ONovg. mъně dial. mùnī OAv. →maⁱbiiā, →maⁱbiiō; YAv.
OCz. mně Lv. →man →māuuōiia, →māuuaiia‑ca
OPr. →mennei Gk. →ἐμοί
La. →mihi: OLa. →mihī, →MIHEI
Go. →mis
Hi. dat.–loc. →ammuk (OS)
Tonic second-person singular pronoun dative-locative
PS →*te/aˈbāi ̯ (CS *te/obě)̀ PBS *tebi PIE dat. *tébʰi
OCS tebě Li. →táu; OLi. táwi; dial. tàvī Ved. →túbhya(m)
ORu. tobě; ONovg. tobě Lv. →tev OAv. →taⁱbiiā, →taⁱbiiō; YAv. ?
OCz. tobě OPr. →tebbei Gk. →σοί, →τοί
La. →tibi; OLa. →tibī, →TIBEI
Go. →þus
Hi. dat.–loc. →tuk (OS)
Tonic reflexive pronoun dative-locative
PS →*se/aˈbāi ̯ (CS *se/obě)̀ PBS *sebi PIE dat. *sébʰi
OCS sebě Li. →sáu; OLi. sawi; Ved. –

ORu. sobě; ONovg. sobě dial. sàvī OAv. –; YAv. dat.–abl. →huuāuuōiia
OCz. sobě Lv. →sev Gk. →οἷ
OPr. →sebbei La. →sibi; OLa. →sibī, →SIBEI
Go. →sis
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 382, 417–418 | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 232, 234–

235: PIE dat. *h₁még̑ ʰio, *tébʰio, *sébʰio; Ved. ‑ya points to PIE *‑io
or *‑ie | Rasmussen forthc. a § 13: PBS dat. *menéi̯, *tebéi̯, *sebéi̯
reflect PIE *még̑ ʰi, *tébʰi, *sébʰi with *‑ei̯ from encl. *mei̯ etc., replac-
ing PIE *moi̯ | Schmidt 1978: 65–74, 109–110, 127–136, 144, 152–154,
164, 166: PIE dat. *(e)meg̑ ʰi, *tubʰei̯, *sbʰei̯, *sebʰi; Slavic ‑ě is from 2sg.
loc. *‑oi̯ | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 459–462: Ved. dat.
máhyam, túbhyam replace older máhya, túbhya; IIr. ‑ya is probably an
innovation | Rix 1976/1992: 178: PIE *meg̑ ʰei̯, *meg̑ ʰi̯om are preserved
in La. mihī�,̆ Ved. máhyam; PIE *tebʰei̯, *tebʰi̯om are preserved in La. tibī�,̆
Ved. túbhyam | Sihler 1995: 377–378: Gk. ἐμοί, σοί are reaccented
enclitics; La. mihi, tibi, sibi < mihī, tibī, sibī < *meg̑ ʰei̯, *tebʰei̯, *sebʰei̯, with
renewed dat. ending *‑bʰei̯ from PIE *‑bʰi; Italic, Iranian *meg̑ ʰi are from
*mebʰi by dissimilation | Weiss 2009/2011: 327–329: PIE *meg̑ ʰ(e)i is
preserved in OLa. MIHEI; PBS *mnei is remodelled after gen. sg. *mene;
OLa. TIBEI, OPr. tebbei reflect *tebʰei from *tebʰi (containing an adv. suf-
fix *‑bʰi), with *‑ei̯ from athem. dat.; OCS tebě contains ā-stem dat. sg.
ending | Krahe 1942/1967: 50–52, 54: Go. mis, þus, sis, ONor. mér, þér,
sér etc. consist of stems *me‑, *te‑ (Go. u is from nom.), *se‑ plus unclear
*‑s | Seebold 1984: 44–46, 57–58: Gmc. *‑z is from an ending *‑s
also found in Hi. and originally used for both acc. and dat. of all num-
bers | Kloekhorst 2008a: [see acc. sg., § 3.4.6]
PBS Kapović 2006a: 80, 96, 100, 103, 113–115, 158, 160–161, passim: PIE dat. *még̑ ʰi,
*tú/ébʰi; PBS dat. *mù/èni, *tè/ùbi; East Baltic forms have *‑i from C-stem
loc. sg.; OPr. ‑ei has dat. ending; CS *mь/ъně̍, *te/obě̍; Slavic *‑ě represents
either ā-stem ending or o-stem loc. PIE *‑oi̯ | Endzelīns 1971: 187–188:
OPr. mennei, tebbei, sebbei have same dat. ending as Li. dial. manie, tavie,
savie; Li. mán, táu, sáu, Lv. man, tev, sev are original loc. forms | Stang
1966: 248, 251: OPr. ‑ei is from C‑, i-stems; Slavic ‑ě is either from ā-stems
or from PIE *‑oi̯; PIE 1ps. contains ptcl. *‑g̑ ʰ(i), lost in BS; Li. mán, táu,
sáu, Lv. man, tev, sev contain C-stem ending | Otrębski 1956: 136–137:
Li. mán, táu, sáu go back to mani, tavi, savi, with the same ending as in
C-stem OLi., Li. dial. dukteri | Endzelīns 1923: 374–376: Lv. man, tev,
sev Li. mán, táu, sáu perhaps reflect loc. *‑i; OPr. ‑ei preserves original dat.
ending
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 71: Slavic mьně, tebě may have been modelled on
ā-stems | Meillet 1924/ 1934: 453–454 | Vaillant 1958: 447–450:
OPr. ‑bei is from *‑bʰi, with *‑ei from encl. forms; Slavic ‑bě is due to influ-
ence from ā-stems; OPr. mennei, OLi. mani, OCS mьně have been remade
based on gen. *mene | Arumaa 1985: 161, 163–164: PIE *meg̑ ʰi, *tebʰi;
154 Chapter 3
CS *‑ě is from ā-stems | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 108: OCS ‑ě is from

ā-stems
PIE The original forms of the dative singular of the personal and reflexive
pronouns were reshaped in all branches of Indo-European, but the evidence of
Indo-Iranian, Latin and Balto-Slavic allows us to reconstruct PIE *még̑ ʰi, *tébʰi,
*sébʰi. In Indo-Iranian the forms were extended by a Proto-Indo-Iranian *‑a of
unclear origin, perhaps identical to the one found in o-stem dat. sg. ‑āya; the
forms in PIIr. *‑i̯a were preserved in Avestan and to some extent in Indic, where
they competed with the more widespread forms in ‑yam, probably containing
the pronominal element PIE *hom (§ 3.3.17). In Latin, as in Old Prussian and
dialectally in Lithuanian, the ending *‑ei̯ of the consonant stems and i-stems
was imported. The Germanic forms contain an unclear *‑s. There probably
were no locative forms of the personal and reflexive pronouns in the proto-
language (see e.g. Kapović 2006a: 161).
PBS OPr. mennei, tebbei, sebbei and Li. dial. mùnī, tàvī, sàvī (from *‑ie) con-
tain the reflex of the i- and consonant-stem ending PBS *‑ei̯. The Lithuanian
and Latvian standard forms have PBS *‑i, which is usually not regarded as old,
but identified with the dialectal dative singular ending ‑i, which probably
reflects the original consonant-stem locative singular ending (§ 3.6.1).
In pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic the first-person singular form was remade to
*meni by analogy with the genitive singular; some East Baltic dialects point to
a variant *mun‑ also found in Slavic, with an unclear vowel. In East Baltic the
consonant *u̯ of the genitive singular was introduced in the dative forms of the
second-person singular and reflexive pronouns. Moreover, the stem-vowel *a,
phonetically regular in PBS gen. sg. *tau̯ e, *sau̯ e from PIE *téu̯ e, *séu̯ e [11], was
introduced in the first-person singular form in East Baltic, and in some dialects
also in the second-person singular and the reflexive pronoun.
PS The Slavic languages point to PS *‑ai̯ or *‑āi̯; PS *‑ē would also be pho-
netically possible, but is not very feasible from a morphological point of view.
While PS *‑ai̯ could represent PIE *‑oi̯, found in the o-stem locative singular
and perhaps in the enclitic dative of the personal and reflexive pronouns, PS
*‑āi̯ could represent the merger of ā-stem dat. sg. *‑ah₂ai̯ and loc. sg. *‑ah₂i.
Since the instrumental forms of the personal and reflexive pronouns are based
on the corresponding ā-stem form, it seems reasonable to assume that this
applies to the dative-locative singular as well.
In the first-person singular pronoun the variant PBS *mun‑ is reflected in PS

*muˈnāi̯ (CS *mъně̀), preserved in East Slavic. In Old Church Slavonic, *ъ was
fronted to *ь because of the *ě of the following syllable (see e.g. van Wijk 1931:
199 and the discussion in Kapović 2006a: 69–70).
In the second-person singular and reflexive pronouns, PS *teb‑, *seb‑ (CS
*teb‑, *seb‑) go directly back to PBS *teb‑, *seb‑ from PIE *tebʰ‑, *sebʰ‑ (via [6]).
PS *tab‑, *sab‑ (CS *tob‑, *sob‑), on the other hand, owe their vocalism to the
genitive singular forms PBS *tau̯ e, *sau̯ e from PIE *téu̯ e, *séu̯ e (via [11]). For
the distribution of the variants in the Slavic dialects see Kapović 2006a: 71–74.
3.6.7 Enclitic 1sg, 2sg. and Reflexive Pronoun Dative
Enclitic first-person singular pronoun dative
PS *mei ̯ (CS *mi) PBS *mei ̯ PIE gen.–dat. *me/oi ̯
OCS mi OLi. ‑mi; OLi., dial. Ved. me

ORu. mi; ONovg. mi acc.–dat. ‑m OAv. mōi; YAv. mē
OCz. mi Lv. – Gk. dat. μοι
OPr. – La. poss. pron. voc. mī, OLa. MEI
Go. –
Hi. acc.–dat. →‑mu (OS)
Enclitic second-person singular pronoun dative
PS *tei ̯ (CS *ti) PBS *tei ̯ PIE gen.-dat. *te/oi ̯
OCS ti OLi. ‑ti; OLi., dial. acc.– Ved. te

ORu. ti; ONovg. ti dat. ‑t OAv. tōi, tē; YAv. tē
OCz. ti Lv. – Gk. dat. →σοι; Hom., Dor., Lesb. τοι
OPr. – La. –; OLa. gen. →tīs
Go. –
Hi. acc.–dat. →‑ta (OS), ‑du (OS)
(rare)
156 Chapter 3
Reflexive pronoun dative
PS *sei ̯ (CS *si) PBS *sei ̯ PIE gen.–dat. *se/oi ̯
OCS si Li. refl. ptcl. ‑s; OLi. Ved. –; Prākrit anaphoric pron. se
ORu. si; ONovg. ? acc.–dat. ‑si OAv. dem. pron. hōi; YAv. hē, šē
OCz. si Lv. refl. ptcl. ‑s Gk. dat. οἱ
OPr. acc. ‑si(?), →‑sin La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 407–408: PIE *moi, *toi, *soi and *mei, *tei,
*sei | Rasmussen forthc. a § 13: PIE *moi̯, *t(u̯ )oi̯, *s(u̯ )oi̯; OCS mi, ti, si
have *-ei̯ with *e from loc. | Beekes 1995/2011: 233–235: PIE gen. and
dat. 1sg. *h₁moi, 2sg. *toi; but refl. gen. *sei (in OCS si and Go. poss. pron.
seina), dat. *soi | Schmidt 1978: 73–79, 109, 135, 144, 164: OCS 1sg. mi
may reflect PIE *mei̯ and (acute) *moi̯; Gk. shows that the latter form is
original; 2sg. *toi̯ has replaced PIE *teu̯ by analogy with 1sg.; refl. *se/oi̯ is
an old analogical formation to 1sg. *moi̯ | Debrunner & Wackernagel
1930/1975: 473–475, 484–485: Prākrit se corresponds to Gk. οἱ | Rix
1976/1992: 177–178: PIE dat. *moi̯, *toi̯, gen. *mei̯, *tei̯ | Sihler 1995:
372, 376–377: PIE 1sg. mei̯, moi̯(?), 2sg. *tei̯, *toi̯, refl. *soi̯ | Weiss 2009/
2011: 327, 329: La. voc. sg. mī < OLa. MEI is from *moi̯ (or *mei̯); OLa.
tīs is from PIE *toi̯ plus gen. sg. marker *‑s | Krahe 1942/1967: – |
Seebold 1984: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: 584–585, 802–803: Hi. encl. 1ps.
acc.–dat. -mu is from PIE encl. dat. *moi, acc. *mē̆; -u is from 2ps. encl.
acc.–dat. -ttu; Hi. 2ps. acc.–dat. ‑tta, ‑ttu is related to PIE encl. dat. *toi,
acc. *tuē̆
PBS Kapović 2006a: 91, 113, 157: PIE *me/oi̯, *te/oi̯; PBS *mei̯, *tei̯; CS *mi,
*ti | Endzelīns 1971: 187: Li. ‑mi, ‑ti, ‑si, Lv. ‑si‑ go back to *mie, *tie, *sie,
reflecting *mei, *tei, *sei | Stang 1966: 253–254: Li. ‑mi, ‑ti, ‑si reflect
*‑mie, *‑tie, *‑sie from PIE *moi, *toi, *soi or *mei, *tei, *sei; Li. forms in ‑m,
‑t, ‑s may partly reflect acc. *‑me, *‑te, *‑se; Li. ‑i may reflect acute and per-
haps also circumflex *‑ie | Otrębski 1956: 136–137: OLi., Li. dial. ‑m(i),
‑t(i), Li., OLi. ‑s(i) correspond to OCS mi, ti, si, reflecting PIE *moi, *toi,
*soi or *mei, *tei, *sei | Endzelīns 1923: 705–708: Lv. and Li. reflexive
particles reflect *sie < PIE *sei, also in OCS si; OPr. -si is from *sē
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 71: Slavic mi, si, ti go back to PIE *moi, *soi,
*toi | Meillet 1924/1934: 452 | Vaillant 1958: 446–448: OCS mi, si,
ti reflect PIE *mei, *sei, *tei | Arumaa 1985: 162, 164, 165: OCS mi, ti, si
reflect *moi, *toi (*tu̯ ei/oi), *soi | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 108, 111, 113:
OCS mi does not reflect *moi; OCS si is from *sei
PIE The forms were *moi̯, *toi̯, *soi̯ or *mei̯, *tei̯, *sei̯ in the proto-language.
Greek points to the former reconstructions, while Slavic points to the latter;
PIE *‑oi̯ would have yielded PS **‑ai̯ [7] (CS **‑ě [22|29]). The evidence of the
remaining languages is inconclusive. The Latin possessive pronoun vocative
form mī (OLa. PATER MEI) may reflect PIE *moi̯ or *mei̯. The Old Latin second-
person pronoun genitive form tīs goes back to PIE *toi̯ or *tei̯ plus the geni-
tive singular marker *‑s (for an alleged parallel first-person form mīs see Weiss
2009/2011: 327 n. 7).
PBS The forms found in Balto-Slavic may all reflect PIE *‑ei̯. The Old
Lithuanian forms ‑mi, ‑si, ‑ti for expected *‑mie, *‑sie, *‑tie have probably arisen
as the result of a syntactically conditioned reduction (similarly Stang loc. cit.).
PS PBS *mei̯, *tei̯, *sei̯ were retained as PS *mei̯, *tei̯, *sei̯ (CS *mi, *ti, *si
[22|29]), preserved in the old Slavic dialects.
3.7 Instrumental Singular
3.7.1 Consonant-Stem Instrumental Singular
PS *duktermi (CS masc.-neut. PBS →*‑mi PIE *‑eh₁, *‑h₁

→*ka̋menьmь; fem. →*dъt’erьjǫ)
OCS masc.–neut. →kamenьmь, Li. →dukterimì, Ved. áśmanā

→kamenemь; fem. →dъšterьjǫ →dùkteria →ãkme- OAv. aⁱriiamnā; YAv. bar ǝšna
ORu. masc.–neut. →kamenьmь; niu, OLi. wandemi Gk. –; Myc. po-de /podē̆/
fem. →dъčerьju; ONovg. (so) Lv. →akmeni La. abl. →homine
→plemenemo; →dět’atiju OPr. – Go. –
OCz. masc.–neut. →kamenem; Hi. sg.–pl. →lamnit
fem. →dceřú, →dceřiú
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 186–188: Li. ‑imi, OCS ‑ьmь are from
i-stems | Beekes 1995/2011: 187: PIE *‑eh₁ | Rasmussen forthc. a
§ 2: PIE *‑V́ h₁, *‑h₁ | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 34–36, 205:
158 Chapter 3
Ved. ‑ā for expected short vowel is o-stem ending | Rix 1976/1992: 154:

PIE instr. *‑(e)h₁ is perhaps preserved in Myc. po-de | Sihler 1995: 248,
253, 285: PIE *‑(e)h₁ is preserved in Gk. adverbs and in Myc. forms like
e‑re‑pa‑te with ‑e or ‑ē from *‑h₁ or *‑eh₁; La. ‑e may represent the merger
of instr. *‑(e)h₁ and loc. *‑i | Weiss 2009/2011: 199, 201, 204, 211: PIE
*‑h₁, often replaced with *‑eh₁; La. ‑e is original loc. ending PIE *‑i; Li. ‑mì
reflects *‑mī with length from pl. or from instr. suffix *‑h₁ | Krahe 1942/
1967: – | Boutkan 1995: 270–271: PIE *‑eh₁ | Kloekhorst 2008a: 799:
Hi. ‑it, ‑et reflect PIE *‑t, related to Hi. abl. ending ‑(ā)z
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 163–164: Lv. ‑i is acc. end-
ing | Stang 1966: 220–221: Li. ‑imi, Slavic ‑ьmь are i-stem endings;
́
OLi. forms like wandemi reflect older *‑enmī� | Otrębski 1956: 53,
57 | Endzelīns 1923: 322: Lv. ‑i is acc. sg. ending
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 5 | Hujer 1910: 150: relationship between
*‑mi, found in Baltic and Slavic, and *‑bʰi, found in Gk. and Arm., is
unclear | Meillet 1924/1934: 422–423 | Vaillant 1958: 185–186: BS
does not preserve original ending; IIr. has generalised ‑ā from o- and
ā-stems | Bräuer 1969b: 9, 53, 72, 83: Slavic and Baltic point to PIE
*‑mi, vs. *‑ō in other languages; CS *‑ьmь has *‑ь‑ from i-stems; Slavic *‑ьjǫ
is from i-stems | Arumaa 1985: 111–112: PIE ending was perhaps *e/o
or *ē/ō | Igartua 2005a: 337–338: PIE *‑ē, *‑ō from *‑eh₁, less likely
*‑eh₃ | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 94, 98: PIE ending is uncertain; Baltic
and Slavic replaced *‑mi with i-stem ending *‑imi in order to avoid two
adjacent nasals in n-stems
PIE The Proto-Indo-European instrumental singular marker had two allo-

morphs, *‑eh₁ and *‑h₁, which were probably originally distributed according
to paradigm type. In stems ending in a consonant only reflexes of the full-grade
variant *‑eh₁ are attested in the Indo-European languages. It is preserved in
Indo-Iranian and perhaps in Mycenaean forms like po-de, although here we
may also be dealing with a dative singular in /‑ei/ (Ventris & Chadwick 1956/
1973: 345). The Latin ablative ending ‑e continues the Proto-Indo-European
locative ending *‑i (Meiser 1998/2006: 138; Weiss loc. cit.; but cf. Sihler loc. cit.,
who suggests that La. ‑e may reflect the merger of PIE loc. sg. *‑i and instr.
sg. *‑(e)h₁). The Hittite singular and plural ending *‑t is of unclear origin (see
Kloekhorst loc. cit.).
Alongside the paradigmatic case–number markers Proto-Indo-European
also had an element *bʰi that became a case–number marker in Armenian and,
with the replacement of *bʰ with *m (§ 3.16.1), in Balto-Slavic. The element
*bʰi, which is related to the instrumental plural marker *‑bʰi(h)s, had case-like
functions in Greek as well. The Armenian ending is seen in e.g. r-stem instr. sg.
harb from PIE *ph₂tr̥bʰi; the final vowel *‑i is indicated by the adverb iwik‘ ‘in
some way’, where the vowel was preserved before the particle ‑k‘ (Schmitt 1981/
2007: 73, 112–113). Greek ‑φι from *bʰi, with instrumental, ablatival and locatival
functions (Schwyzer 1939/1968: 551), is attested in e.g. ὄρεσφι ‘on the mountains’.
PBS The original ending was replaced with an ending consisting of the

instrumental singular marker *‑mi in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic. The ending was
originally attached directly to the stem, but in the attested Baltic and Slavic
languages there was a strong tendency to replace the original ending with the
i-stem ending *‑ˈimi, along with other formations based on more productive
stems. As shown by dialectal and Old Lithuanian forms like wandemi from
*‑enmī�,̰ the original consonant-stem ending was still preserved in Proto-Balto-
Slavic (see the discussion in Stang loc. cit.).
Lithuanian dialect forms like NWŽem. ‑mi indicate that pre-Lithuanian had
introduced an acute final *‑ī�̰ in this ending (Stang loc. cit.; Zinkevičius 1966:
230). This vowel was probably introduced from the instrumental plural marker
PBS *‑mī�s̰ . Latvian ‑i is the ending of the accusative singular (see § 3.7.2).
PS The expected outcome of PBS *‑mi is PS *‑mi; forms where the ending is
attached directly to the stem are not attested in Slavic. In masculine and neuter
nouns the ending was replaced with the i-stem ending PS *‑imi (CS *‑ьmь [29]),
whereas in feminines the new feminine i-stem ending based on the ā-stems, PS
*‑ii̯ān (CS *‑ьjǫ [20|27|28|29]), was introduced. It is unclear if the introduction
of new gender-based endings found in the attested dialects had already been
carried out in Proto-Slavic, or if Proto-Slavic still had the original ending *‑mi.
3.7.2 i-Stem Instrumental Singular
PS *gastiˈmi (CS masc. *gostь̀ mь; PBS →*‑ˈimi PIE *‑ih₁, *‑i ̯eh₁
fem. →*kostьjǫ̀)
OCS masc. gostьmь, (→)gostemь; Li. fem. →mintimì, Ved. śúcyā; fem. śúcī; masc.–
fem. →kostьjǫ masc. →žvė�riu neut. →śúcinā
ORu. masc. putьmь; fem. Lv. →avi OAv. aṣ̌ī; YAv. paⁱti, ārmaⁱti(‑ca),
→kostьju; ONovg. masc. OPr. – haš́a
putemъ; fem. →vьrьšьju Gk. –
OCz. masc. hostem; fem. →kosťú, La. abl. →turrī, →turre; OLa.
→‑iú →OPID; Osc. →slaagid
Go. –; OEng. masc. (→)wini;
OSax. masc. (→)hugi
Hi. sg.–pl. →ḫalkit
160 Chapter 3
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 187–188, 191–193: PIE *‑ī; OCS ‑mь reflects *‑mi,
alongside *‑bʰi; OCS fem. noštьjǫ is probably based on *nošti on the
model of ā-stem ‑ojǫ | Beekes 1995/2011: 203: PIE *‑ih₁ [implicit
from u-stems] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PIE *‑i̯eh₁, *‑ih₁; PBS
*‑imi | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 145–148: Ved. ‑ī is the old
ending | Rix 1976/1992: – | Sihler 1995: 311–312, 317: PIE *‑i̯eh₁, *‑ih₁;
La. ‑ī < OLa. ‑īd is based on analogy with o-stem abl. sg. | Weiss 2009/
2011: 242, 244: PIE *‑ih₁, not preserved in La. | Krahe 1942/1967: – |
Boutkan 1995: 236, 240, 248: PIE *‑ih₁ may be preserved in OEng. masc. ‑i,
OSax. masc. ‑i | Kloekhorst 2008a: [see C-stems, § 3.7.1]
PBS Olander 2009: 176: PIE *‑íh₁, *‑i̯éh₁ were replaced with *‑ˈimi in pre-
PBS | Endzelīns 1971: 153: Lv., OLi., Li. dial. ‑i may correspond to
Ved. ‑ī, but may also have arisen analogically | Stang 1966: 209: Li.
‑imi from *‑imī�;́ Lv. ‑i is taken from the acc. sg. by analogy with the o‑,
ā‑ and ē-stems | Otrębski 1956: 40–41: Li. ‑imi corresponds to OCS
‑ьmь | Endzelīns 1923: 317–318: Lv., Li. dial. ‑i may correspond to Ved.
‑ī, but they may also be the result of the introduction of the acc. sg. end-
ing by analogy with the o‑, ā‑ and ē-stems
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 5: Slavic and Li. forms reflect *‑mi | Hujer 1910: 150:
fem. ‑ьjǫ is from ā-stems | Meillet 1924/1934: 419: fem. ‑ьjǫ is modelled
on ā-stem ‑ojǫ | Vaillant 1958: 134–135: PIE *‑ī is preserved in OLi. and
Li. dial. ‑ì, Lv. ‑i, ORu. conj. či; Slavic ‑jǫ is from i̯ā-stems; Slavic ‑mь is the
characteristic masc.–neut. ending | Bräuer 1969a: 155: CS fem. *‑ьjǫ
is based on analogy with ā-stems | Arumaa 1985: 125–126: form with
*‑mi is the older one in Slavic and Baltic | Igartua 2005a: 256–258: PIE
*‑ī from *‑ih₁ may be preserved in OCS adv. radi, ORu. ptcl. / conj. či; Slavic
pron. *‑ijǫ replaces *‑ьmь in fem. nouns | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 74:
OCS fem. ‑ьjǫ is from (i̯)ā-stems
PIE Two different i-stem instrumental singular endings are attested in the

Indo-European languages, originally belonging to different paradigm types.
The ending *‑ih₁ consisted of the zero grade of both the i-stem suffix and the
case–number marker, while *‑i̯eh₁ was formed with the full grade of the marker.
Vedic and Avestan preserve both variants. The Latin ending ‑ī from OLa. ‑īd is
based on analogy with the ablative singular of the o-stems. In Greek and prob-
ably in Germanic the instrumental singular of the i-stems is not preserved (for
possible traces in West Germanic see Boutkan loc. cit.).
In Armenian the paradigmatic i-stem instrumental singular baniw is formed
with an element reflecting PIE *‑ibʰV; the final vowel was probably *‑i (see
§ 3.7.1). The same element seems to have taken over the function of the instru-
mental singular in Balto-Slavic and is also attested in Greek (see § 3.7.1).
PBS The Proto-Indo-European instrumental singular ending *‑ih₁ was lost in

Balto-Slavic as a paradigmatic case–number marker. It is possible that traces of
*‑ih₁ are found in Baltic and Slavic (Vaillant loc. cit.; but cf. Endzelīns loc. cit. on
the Baltic material). PBS *‑ˈimi reflects a form *‑ibʰi, with the usual substitution
of *m with *bʰ (see § 3.16.1 on the consonant-stem dative plural). For the acute
final vowel of Lithuanian see § 3.7.1. Latvian introduced an ending identical to
the accusative singular ending by analogy with the merger of the accusative
and instrumental endings in the o‑, ā‑ and ē-stems.
PS PBS *‑ˈimi is preserved in masculine words as PS *‑iˈmi [13] (CS *‑ьmь

[29]). In feminine words *‑iˈmi was replaced with a new form *‑eˈi̯ān (CS *‑ьjǫ
[20|24|27|28|29]), created on the pattern of the ā-stem ending. The old Slavic
dialects show the regular reflexes of both endings. In Old Church Slavonic the
masculine variant ending ‑emь at least partly represents the i̯o-stem ending
(van Wijk 1931: 175).
3.7.3 u-Stem Instrumental Singular
PS *sūnuˈmi (CS *synъ̀mь) PBS →*‑ˈumi PIE *‑uh₁, *‑u̯eh₁
OCS →synomь Li. →sūnumì Ved. mádhvā, masc.–neut. →mádhunā

ORu. synъmь; ONovg. Lv. →tìrgu OAv. xratū, xraϑβā; YAv. pouruua
[s] yn[ъ]mь OPr. – Gk. –
OCz. synem La. abl. →tribū; OLa. →MAGISTRATUD
Go. –; OEng. (→)duru
Hi. sg.–pl. →idālawit
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 187–188, 191–193: PIE *‑ū; OCS ‑mь is from *‑mi,
alongside *‑bʰi; OCS ‑omь for *‑ъmь is o-stem ending | Beekes 1995/
2011: 203: PIE *‑uh₁ | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PIE *‑u̯ eh₁, *‑uh₁; PBS
*‑umi | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 145–148: old ending is
Ved. ‑ū, not attested as a paradigmatic case ending | Rix 1976/1992: – |
Sihler 1995: 321, 323–324: PIE *‑u̯ eh₁(?), *‑uh₁(?); La. ‑ū may reflect PIE
*‑uh₁, remade *‑ūd or loc. *‑ēu̯ , *‑eu̯ i | Weiss 2009/2011: 249, 252:
162 Chapter 3
PIE *‑uh₁; La. abl. ‑ū < OLa. ‑ūd is modelled on o-stems | Krahe

1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: 250, 253, 257: OEng. ‑u preserves PIE
*‑uh₁ | Kloekhorst 2008a: [see C-stems, § 3.7.1]
PBS Olander 2009: 176–177: PIE *‑úh₁, *‑u̯ éh₁ were replaced with *‑ˈumi in
pre-PBS | Endzelīns 1971: 157–158: Li. dial. ‑ù, Lv. ‑u are based on
analogy with the acc. sg. on the pattern of the i‑ and ā-stems | Stang
1966: 215: Li. ‑umi goes back to *‑umī�;́ OLi., Li. dial., Lv. ‑u is o-stem end-
ing | Otrębski 1956: 47 | Endzelīns 1923: 326: Lv. ‑u is based on
cases where acc. and instr. forms merge
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 5: Slavic and Li. forms reflect *‑mi | Hujer 1910:
150 | Meillet 1924/1934: 414 | Vaillant 1958: 110–111: PIE *‑ū was
replaced with ‑ъmь in Slavic, ‑umi in Li. | Bräuer 1969a: 146: PIE
*‑umi | Arumaa 1985: 125–126 | Igartua 2005a: 286–288: PIE end-
ing was perhaps *‑ū from *‑uh₁ | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 70
PIE Like in the i-stems there were two different endings in the Proto-Indo-
European u-stems, originally belonging to different paradigm types. We find
reflexes of PIE *‑uh₁, with zero grade of both stem-suffix and case–number
marker, as well as PIE *‑u̯ eh₁, with full grade of the marker. The latter ending is
represented in both Vedic and Avestan, whereas the former is not preserved in
Vedic (Boutkan loc. cit. leaves open the possibility that the Old English variant
‑u also goes directly back to PIE *‑uh₁). La. ‑ū may continue PIE *‑uh₁, but the
situation in other stems suggests that the ending rather reflects the merger of
loc. sg. *‑ēu̯ and early La. ‑ūd, created analogically on the model of the o-stem
ablative singular (cf. Meiser 1998/2006: 146; Sihler loc. cit.). In Greek there is
no trace of the original locative singular form. Armenian has an instrumental
singular in ‑u, e.g. zgestu, possibly from *‑ubʰi, similar to the ending found in
Balto-Slavic.
PBS The original Proto-Indo-European endings are not continued in Balto-

Slavic, where we find PBS *‑ˈumi, apparently from *‑ubʰi; for the substitution of
*bʰ with *m see § 3.16.1. The apparent reflexes of *‑uh₁ in Baltic are more likely
to be recent innovations. For Li. ‑umì from *‑ˈumī�̰ with an acute final vowel see
§ 3.7.1.
PS PBS *‑ˈumi yields PS *‑uˈmi [13] (CS *‑ъmь [29]), regularly preserved in
East and West Slavic. In the Old Church Slavonic manuscripts the u-stem end-
ing has been replaced with the new o-stem ending ‑omь (see § 3.7.5).
3.7.4 ā-Stem Noun and Pronoun Instrumental Singular
ā-stem noun instrumental singular
PS *nagān (CS *nogǫ, →*nogojǫ̀; *dušǫ, PBS →*ˌ‑ā̰N PIE *‑ah₂(a)h₁

→*dušejǫ̀)
OCS glavǫ, →glavojǫ; dušǫ, →dušejǫ Li. gálva; def. adj. Ved. →jihvayā́; adv. doṣā́
ORu. →ženoju; →zemleju; ONovg. (sъ) mažą́ ja; East Li. dial. OAv. daēnā, →daēnaiiā;
→Lukoju; (sъ) →bratьjeju runkù YAv. daēna, →daēnaiia
OCz. →rybú, →‑au, →‑ou; →dušú, →‑iú Lv. gal̂vu; def. adj. Gk. adv. κρυφῆ
mazuõ La. abl. →uiā; OLa.
OPr. – →PRAIDAD
Go. –; ONor. dat. skǫr
Hi. –
ā-stem pronoun instrumental singular
PS *taˈi ̯ān (CS *tojǫ̀; *jejǫ̀) PBS →*‑ai ̯ā̰N PIE pron. *‑oi ̯ah₂(a)h₁
OCS tojǫ; jejǫ Li. →tà Ved. táyā

ORu. toju; jeju, ONovg. (late) [t]voje[i]; ? Lv. →tuõ OAv. ōiiā; YAv. aētaiia
OCz. adv. mezi-tojí, tú; jí OPr. – Gk. –
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 190–191, 366: PIE *‑ā, possibly also *‑ām reflected
in BS; OCS ‑ǫ corresponds to Li. ‑ą, dial. ‑u, Lv. ‑u; OCS ‑ojǫ is pron. end-
ing | Beekes 1995/2011: 200, 228: PIE noun ending is *‑h₂eh₁; PIE pron.
ending is *‑oi(?); OCS ‑ojǫ is from pronouns | Rasmussen forthc. a
§ 5: Li. ‑à reflects PBS *‑ā́n, with reduced form of *‑mi from PIE *‑ah₂h₁
(following Vaillant); OCS ‑ojǫ is pron. ending; old noun ending is perhaps
preserved in def. adj. ‑ǫjǫ | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975:
115–119, 504: Ved. ‑ā is original noun ending, from PIE *‑ā, probably from
164 Chapter 3
stem-suffix *‑ā‑ plus ending *‑V̄ ; ‑ayā is pron., inherited from PIE; Slavic
‑ojǫ is pron. ending; ‑ǫ is noun ending but is strongly in retreat | Rix
1976/1992: – | Sihler 1995: 268: proto-form is unclear | Weiss 2009/
2011: 229: PIE *‑eh₂eh₁ | Krahe 1942/1967: 21: PIE instr. *‑ā is reflected
in ONor. dat. skǫr < *‑u and WGmc. ‑u | Boutkan 1995: 225, 228:
PIE *‑h₂eh₁ yielded PGmc. *‑ō, preserved as dat. ending in NGmc. and
WGmc. | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 175–176: PIE *‑ah₂(a)h₁; Gk. κρυφῆ may point to disyl-
labic ending; BS has nasal of uncertain origin; PS *‑ai̯ān is of pron. ori-
gin | Endzelīns 1971: 144, 193: Li. ‑a, East Li. ‑u, Lv. ‑u reflect *‑ā́n; it
is unclear whether OCS rǫkǫ is contracted from rǫkojǫ | Stang 1966:
199, 245: Li. and Lv. forms go back to *‑ā́n; the nasal is characteristic of
BS | Otrębski 1956: 25, 151: Li. ‑a, East Li. ‑u reflect *‑ā́n/m; reflexes of
older pron. form tą́ are found in dialects | Endzelīns 1923: 306: Lv. ‑u
is from PBalt. *‑ān
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 5: OCS rǫkǫ may correspond to Ved. ‑ā (with loss
of ‑n), but rǫkojǫ is more frequent and required by other Slavic lan-
guages | Hujer 1910: 157–160: IIr. and Gmc. point to *‑ā́; Baltic forms
reflect *‑ā́m; Slavic proto-form in nouns was a pronominal form *‑ojǫ, not
*‑ǫ | Meillet 1924/1934: 398, 435: Slavic noun ending ‑ǫ is an archaism,
corresponding to Baltic endings; pron. ending ‑ojǫ is old | Vaillant
1958: 82, 373–374: PIE *‑ā is preserved in Ved. and Gk., where ‑ῆ has cir-
cumflex tone from dat. sg.; PBS *‑ān is a reduced form of *‑āmi; pron. ‑ojǫ
has replaced older ending ‑ǫ in nouns; Slavic pron. ‑ojǫ, with ‑ǫ replacing
*‑ā, corresponds to Ved. ‑ayā | Bräuer 1969a: 104–105, 127: PIE ending-
less form was replaced with *‑ā́m in PBS; this ending is generally replaced
with pron. *‑ojǫ in Slavic, but preserved in Slavic def. adj., e.g. OCS dobrǫjǫ;
forms like OCS rǫkǫ are probably shortened from *‑ojǫ | Arumaa
1985: 152, 177: original ending is contracted from *‑ā‑ and *‑e; Slavic and
Baltic endings reflect *‑ā́n with unclear nasal; CS *‑ojǫ is pron. end-
ing | Igartua 2005a: 215–220: PIE *‑ā; Slavic ‑ǫ < *‑ām; Slavic ‑ojǫ is
pron. ending | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 87, 90, 115: OCS noun ending ‑ǫ
is probably contracted from ‑ojǫ, which has been introduced due to influ-
ence from pron. ending; Baltic preserves original ending *‑ām
PIE The expected Proto-Indo-European noun ending was *‑ah₂h₁, consist-

ing of the ā-stem suffix *‑ah₂‑ and the zero grade of the instrumental singular
marker, *‑h₁. The pronoun had an interfix *‑oi̯‑ before the ending (see § 3.2.6).
The original noun ending is attested as a paradigmatic ending in Avestan,
alongside more frequent ‑aiiā̆, which, like its Vedic counterpart ‑ayā, has arisen
by analogy with the devī-inflection and the pronominal ending (see Lühr 1991
with references). In Vedic, ‑ā is found in adverbs and occasionally as a para-
digmatic case ending. Certain Greek adverbs seem to be petrified instrumen-
tal forms, e.g. κρυφῆ ‘secretly’. In Latin and Germanic there are no forms that
directly continue the old instrumental singular ending.
If original, the circumflex of Gk. adv. κρυφῆ points to an earlier disyllabic
noun ending, which would most likely reflect PIE *‑ah₂ah₁, with the full grade
of the marker imported from paradigms where it was stressed. If we depart
from a Proto-Indo-European disyllabic ending, a Balto-Slavic unaccented
form, as in Li. gálva, is expected via the mobility law [4]. Since the ending was
remade in Balto-Slavic, however, the accentual evidence from this branch is
not cogent.
PBS PIE *‑ah₂(a)h₁ yielded pre-PBS *‑ā̰ [1|3], to which a nasal of unclear ori-
gin was added, yielding PBS *ˌ‑ā̰N. Some authors (e.g. Vaillant loc. cit.) explain
the nasal as a reduced form of *‑mi, which marks the instrumental singular in
the Balto-Slavic consonant, i- and u-stems. It is indeed possible to assume a
regular loss of word-final *‑i after syllables containing a long vowel, but there
would be no other positive examples of the development. It is more likely, I
believe, that PS prs. 1sg. *‑ān (CS *‑ǫ) does not reflect pre-PBS *‑ō̰mi, corre-
sponding to Ved. ‑āmi, since Li. ‑u shows that Proto-Balto-Slavic had inherited
the unextended ending *‑ō̰ from the proto-language (see § 4.3.3). In the pro-
nouns PIE *‑oi̯ah₂(a)h₁ yielded PBS *‑ai̯ā̰ [1|3|7].
The noun ending was preserved in East Baltic, yielding Li. ‑à (def. adj.
mažą́ ja, East Li. ‑ù) and Lv. ‑u (def. adj. mazuõ). The pronominal ending was
replaced with the noun ending. In Old Prussian the instrumental case was lost.
PS The expected outcome of the noun ending PBS *‑ā̰N is PS *‑ān [13] (CS
*‑ǫ [28]; *‑jǫ [20|27|28]). In the pronouns PBS *‑ai̯ā̰N yielded PS *‑ai̯ān [7|13]
(CS *‑ojǫ [20|27|28|29]; *‑jejǫ [20|27|28|29]). The noun ending may be directly
attested in certain Old Church Slavonic manuscripts, where ‑ǫ, ‑jo are less fre-
quent variants of ‑ojǫ, ‑ejǫ. Many authors, however, assume that ‑( j)ǫ represents
a shortened version of the pronominal ending (e.g. Hujer loc. cit.; Tedesco 1951:
173). Outside Old Church Slavonic, positive evidence for the original noun end-
ing seems to be lacking, although the material is not entirely clear (for the gen-
eral situation in the Slavic languages see Hujer loc. cit.; for Old Church Slavonic
see van Wijk 1931: 179–180; Diels 1932–1934/1963: 175; Vaillant 1948/1964: 98;
for Czech and Slovak see Trávníček 1935: 66–67; according to Holzer 1997: 98,
166 Chapter 3
following Popović 1960: 39–40, 353, reflexes of *‑ǫ are found in western dialects
[Czech, Polish, Slovene, Kajkavian, West Čakavian], while eastern dialects [Old
Church Slavonic, Russian, East Čakavian, Old Serbian] reflect *‑ojǫ).
It is probable that at least some of the instances of ‑jǫ in Old Church Slavonic,
as well as some of the corresponding forms in the other Slavic dialects, are
direct reflexes of the old noun ending PS *‑ān. While this does not necessarily
mean that Proto-Slavic still distinguished a noun ending *‑ān from a pronoun
ending *‑ai̯ān, it is not implausible that this was the case.
3.7.5 o-Stem Instrumental Singular
PS *taˈkā (CS S →*tȍkomь, CS Ν PBS *‑ō̰ PIE *‑o/eh₁ / *‑oeh₁(?)

→*tȍkъmь; CS S →*gȍjemь, CS Ν
→*gȍjьmь)
OCS →gradomь; →kon’emь Li. lángu; def. adj. Ved. yajñā́, →devéna
ORu. →stolъmъ; →konьmь; ONovg. mažúoju OAv. yasnā; YAv. yasna
(sъ) →Asafъmъ; →bьzumьjemь Lv. tȩ̃vu; def. adj. Gk. –; Dor. (Thera) adv. τεδε
OCz. →chlapem; →oráčem mazuõ La. –
OPr. – Go. dat. daga, ƕammeh; adv.
ƕe; OSax. instr. dagu; OHG
instr. tagu
Hi. sg.–pl. →antuḫšet
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 188–190 | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 213: PIE

*‑oh₁ | Rasmussen forthc. a § 4: Li. ‑ù is from PIE *‑oh₁, levelled from
*‑eh₁, which is preserved in pronouns; OCS ‑omь is based on analogy
with i- and u-stems | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 90–92:
Ved. ‑ā is from PIE *‑ē or *‑ō; Ved. ‑ena is from pronouns | Rix 1976/
1992: – | Sihler 1995: 257–258: PIE *‑eh₁ or *‑oh₁; disputed if Myc.
i-qo has /‑ō/ | Weiss 2009/2011: 201: PIE *‑oh₁; Gk. circumflex tone
in σοφῶς points to PIE *‑óeh₁ or is analogical | Krahe 1942/1967:
9–10: Go. ‑a, adv. ƕe reflect PIE *‑ē, alongside *‑ō in OSax. dagu, OHG
tagu | Boutkan 1995: 186–187, 301: OHG. ‑u reflects PIE *‑oh₁; Go. ‑a
is from pron. *‑eh₁ | Kloekhorst 2008a: 104: Hi. instr. sg.–pl. ‑it is from
C-stems
PBS Olander 2009: 174–175: PBS unaccented *ˌ‑ō̰ perhaps reflects PIE *‑óeh₁,
alongside *‑eh₁ | Endzelīns 1971: 134: Li. ‑u, Lv. ‑u reflect PIE acute
*‑ō | Stang 1966: 182: Li. ‑u, Lv. ‑u are from *‑úo < PIE *‑ō, also in OHG
tagu; divergence between SSl. ‑omь vs. WSl., ESl. ‑ъmь may point to origi-
nal Slavic *‑a from *‑ō | Otrębski 1956: 14: Li. ‑u is from acute *‑uo <
*‑ō, also in Ved. ‑ā | Endzelīns 1923: 293: Lv. ‑u, Li. ‑u reflect *‑uo < PIE
*‑ṓ, also in Ved. ‑ā
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 5: Li. ‑ù, ‑úo‑ point to PIE *‑ṓ, perhaps also in CS
*vьčerà; Slavic ‑mь is based on analogy with u-stems | Hujer 1910:
150–151: original ending *‑omь is preserved in SSl., replaced with u-stem
ending *‑ъmь in NSl. | Meillet 1924/1934: 391, 408: PIE *‑ō (as in Li.
‑ù) or *‑ē (as in Ved. paścā́ and perhaps OCS adv. dobrě) | Vaillant
1958: 31–33; 121–122: PIE *‑ē (as in YAv. pasča) or *‑ō; SSl. ‑omь, NSl. ‑ъmь
replace PBS *‑ō, preserved in Li. ‑ù, ‑úo‑, Lv. ‑u and perhaps in OCS adv.
vьčera | Bräuer 1969a: 23, 74: PBS *‑mi is an innovation compared to
instr. endings with *‑bʰi or vowel lengthening; original ending *‑ō per-
haps preserved in OCS adv. vьčera | Arumaa 1985: 137–138: PIE *‑ō,
*‑ē | Igartua 2005a: 140–143: PIE *‑ō/ē from *‑o/eh₁ was replaced with
‑omь in SSl. and by ‑ъmь in WSl. and ESl. | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 80,
83: Li. ‑ù, Ved. ‑ā reflect PIE *‑ō, replaced in Slavic with ‑omь, ‑ъmь
PIE Internal reconstruction predicts PIE *‑eh₁, consisting of the e-grade of

the thematic vowel followed by the unvoiced instrumental singular marker
*‑h₁. Reflexes of an ending *‑eh₁ are indeed found, e.g. in Go. dat. ƕammeh, adv.
ƕe ‘(with) what’, Gk. Dor. adv. τεδε ‘here’. Meillet (loc. cit.) has put forward the
idea that Slavic adverbs in CS *‑ě, e.g. OCS dobrě, contain the old instrumental
ending *‑ē (thus also Weiss loc. cit.). This is unlikely in view of the fact that
*‑ě triggers the second palatalisation of a preceding velar [23], e.g. OCS tęžьcě,
instead pointing to an old diphthong (thus already Karstien 1936: 111–112).
The existence of a variant *‑oh₁ is indicated by the Lithuanian instrumen-
tal ending ‑ù, ‑úo‑ and by Germanic instrumental forms like OHG tagu. It is
doubtful whether Myc. i-qo represents an original instrumental singular form
/hikʷkʷō/ (Sihler loc. cit.).
A third variant found in the literature is *‑oeh₁, consisting of the o-grade of
the thematic vowel and the full grade of the instrumental ending *‑eh₁ (Weiss
loc. cit., on the basis of Greek; Olander loc. cit., on the basis of Balto-Slavic).
This sequence would explain why the ending is unaccented and acute in
Lithuanian. Speaking against this reconstruction is the fact that a full grade of
an ablauting case–number marker is unexpected in an o-stem form; the end-
ing *‑oeh₁ would thus have to be created analogically at an early stage.
PBS PIE *‑oh₁ or, less likely, *‑oeh₁ yielded PBS *‑ō̰ [1|3], preserved in East
Baltic. Lithuanian points to an unaccented ending, which could only be the
regular result of the mobility law [4] if the point of departure was PIE *‑oeh₁;
168 Chapter 3
otherwise it must be secondary. In Slavic the relic form *u̯ ikeˈrā (CS *vьčerà)
points to final accentuation (Vasmer 1924: 179–180), which is the expected out-
come of the most plausible proto-form, PIE *‑oh₁. Stang (1964/1970: 111), how-
ever, regards forms like Ru. górodom, SCr. grȃdom as indications of earlier initial
accentuation in the o-stem instrumental singular in Slavic, as in Lithuanian.
PS PBS *‑ō̰ yielded PS *‑ˈā [13|15], which was lost as a paradigmatic ending in
the attested Slavic languages. In South Slavic a new ending *‑omь, soft *‑jemь,
was created on the basis of the analogy of the u- and i-stem endings *‑ъmь and
*‑ьmь. In West and East Slavic the u-stem ending *‑ъmь, soft *‑jьmь, directly
replaced the original ending.
Some scholars assume that the OCS ‑omь represents the Proto-Slavic ending
and that West and East Slavic have replaced this ending with *‑ъmь (e.g. Hujer
loc. cit.; Holzer 1997: 98). I find it more likely that the inherited ending PS *‑ā
was replaced directly with *‑omь in the south and by *‑ъmь in the north (thus
also Karstien 1936: 110–111; Vaillant loc. cit.; Stang 1964/1970: 110; loc. cit.; 1969b:
28–29; Kortlandt 1982/2011a: 148; Igartua loc. cit.). As suggested by Vasmer (1924:
179–180), the original instrumental singular is probably preserved in the adverb
*u̯ ikeˈrā ‘yesterday’ (CS *vьčerà [21|29]) (thus also e.g. Karstien 1936, with addi-
tional possible examples; Andersen 1998a: 437; but cf. Jakobson 1971: 631, who
supports the old view that Ru. včerá is an original genitive form). If the general
substitution of PS *‑ā with *‑omь and *‑ъmь was a post-Proto-Slavic process,
though, it is somewhat surprising that there are so few traces of the original
ending left.
3.8 Locative Singular
3.8.1 Consonant-Stem Locative Singular
PS *dukteri (CS →*dъt’ere, PBS *‑i PIE *‑∅, *‑i

→*dъt’eri)
OCS →dъštere, →dъšteri Li. →akmenyjè; dat. Ved. áśmani, áśman

ORu. →kamene, →kameni, ãkmeni(?); dial. OAv. dąm; YAv. dąmi
→dъčeri; ONovg. →dni adess. →šùnip Gk. dat. ποιμένι
OCz. fem. →dceři; masc.–neut. Lv. →akmenī La. abl. homine
→kameně, →kamenu; (ve) →dne OPr. – Go. dat. gumin; ONor. dat. feðr
Hi. dat.–loc. taknī, tāgan (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 177–179, 183–185: OCS kamene reflects PIE zero end-
ing followed by the same postposition *‑e as in Li. rañkoje; OCS ‑i is from
i-stems | Beekes 1995/2011: 187: PIE loc. *‑i and dat. *‑éi originally
reflect one case; PIE also had a loc. with full or long grade of the stem-
suffix and no ending | Rasmussen forthc. a §§ 2, 8: PIE loc. form had
no ending but an accent shift to the final stem-vowel; PBS loc. consisted
of the stem plus a ptcl. | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 41–44,
207, 273–275: PIE *‑i, *‑∅; endingless form is preserved in Ved., Av. n-stem
forms and OCS n-stem ‑ene, where ‑e is a postposition | Rix 1976/1992:
154 | Sihler 1995: 248, 253, 285: PIE *‑i, *‑∅; La. ‑e is from PIE loc. *‑i,
perhaps also from instr. *‑(e)h₁; OCS ‑e may be gen. ending | Weiss
2009/2011: 199, 202, 204: La. ‑e reflects PIE *‑i, alongside *‑∅ | Krahe
1942/1967: 35, 39, 45: ONor. feðr, OEng. mēder point to PIE ending
*‑i | Boutkan 1995: 258, 261–262, 265, 268–271, 274, 278: PIE, PGmc. *‑i
is seen in ONor. feðr | Kloekhorst 2008a: 860: Hi. tagān reflects PIE
endingless *dʰg̑ ʰṓm; [see also dat. sg., § 3.6.1]
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 163–164: Lv. ‑ī, Li. ‑yjè are i-stem
forms | Stang 1966: 221–222: PIE loc. sg. *‑i is preserved in Li. dial.
šùnip | Otrębski 1956: 53–54: Li. ‑yjè is i-stem ending | Endzelīns
1923: 323: Lv. forms are modelled on the i-stems
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 4 | Hujer 1910: 135, 145–146: Slavic kamene, slovese
are remade from *kame, *slove, going back to endingless forms *kamen,
*sloves, with introduction of *‑en‑, *‑es‑ from other forms | Meillet
1924/1934: 125: Slavic form reflects endingless loc. plus postposition
‑e | Vaillant 1958: 184–185: BS *‑e replaces inherited *‑i by analogy
with gen. sg. *‑es on the pattern of the relationship between i- and u-stem
loc. sg. *‑ēi, *‑ōu and gen. sg. *‑eis, *‑ous | Bräuer 1969b: 9, 54, 72, 83:
Slavic ‑e is probably an endingless loc. form with a postposition; other IE
languages point to *‑i | Arumaa 1985: 112–113: Slavic ‑e did not arise
in *slove from endingless *sloves | Igartua 2005a: 338–341: PIE *‑i
was replaced with gen. ending *‑e in Slavic | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991:
94–95: OCS ‑e either replaced *‑i or was added to an endingless form; ‑e
may be imported from gen. sg. by analogy with identical gen. and loc.
endings in i‑ and u-stems
PIE Proto-Indo-European consonant stems formed the locative singular

either without an ending or with the ending *‑i. The locative singular seems to
have had full grade of the stem-suffix, e.g. *ph₂tér(i). Clear remnants of both the
endingless form and the form with *‑i are found in Indo-Iranian and Anatolian,
whereas the other languages have tended to generalise the form with *‑i. In
170 Chapter 3
Germanic, where the dative historically represents the locative, the umlaut in
ONor. feðr, OEng. mēder indicates the former presence of a front vowel.
PBS Proto-Balto-Slavic inherited the form in *‑i, preserved in Lithuanian

dialect forms like adess. šùnip and perhaps in dative singular forms in ‑i. In
Latvian and Old Prussian the old form is not preserved.
PS PBS *‑i would have yielded PS *‑i (CS *‑ь [29]), merging with the non-neu-
ter accusative singular. This ending is sometimes assumed to have survived into
attested Slavic dialects, e.g. ORu. nočь ‘by night’ (see Ferrell 1967a: 659–661).
The paradigmatic locative singular forms have the rather unclear ending CS
*‑e or the ending CS *‑i, which seems to be the i-stem locative singular ending
(cf. below for an alternative view). The ending *‑e is often considered to reflect
a postposition *‑en, perhaps also seen in the Baltic locative marker reflected
as Li. ‑e in o-stem langè, ā-stem galvojè etc. However, the Baltic marker has an
acute tone and thus seems to reflect PBS *‑ḛ̄n, which would yield PS *‑ēn [13]
(CS *‑ę [28]). Even if we assume a Proto-Balto-Slavic short-vowel ending *‑en,
the result would be PS *‑en (CS *‑ę [28]), providing only PBS *m, not *n, was
lost after short vowels [19]. Moreover, the development of a postposition into a
case marker in Slavic, in contrast to Baltic, would be unique; in all other stems
the locative singular directly reflects the Indo-European proto-form (similarly
Ferrell 1967a: 658; Orr 1984: 201–202).
A more plausible alternative is that the genitive singular ending CS *‑e <
pre-PS *‑es replaced the original locative singular ending by analogy with the
identical genitive and locative endings of the i‑ and u-stems, CS *‑i and *‑u,
respectively (Vaillant loc. cit.; Ferrell 1967a: 658–659; Kortlandt 1983/2011a: 127;
Aitzetmüller loc. cit.; Orr 1984; Igartua loc. cit. [where “Desinencia protoesl.: *‑e
(< *‑en)” on p. 339 must be a lapsus]; Le Feuvre 2011: 346–347). This replace-
ment was possible only after the monophthongisation of oral diphthongs [22]
or, in other frameworks, after the merger of short and long diphthongs (but cf.
Vaillant loc. cit.); that is, it took place in post-Proto-Slavic. This may explain the
variety of allomorphs found in the Slavic dialects; note the contrast with the
ā-stem genitive singular ending CS *‑y, for which the limited variation makes
it hard to believe that it is the result of a post-Proto-Slavic analogical change
(see § 3.5.4).
As for the alternative locative singular ending CS *‑i, some scholars con-
sider it to be the result of an analogical development similar to the one just
mentioned but based on another proportion, namely the identical forms of
the dative and locative singular in the ā-stems (CS *‑ě) and in the i-stems (CS
*‑i), which led to the introduction of the dative singular ending (CS *‑i) in the
locative singular of the consonant stems as well (see Orr 1984: 205–206).
However, in view of the general tendency of the consonant stems to take over
endings from the i-stems, I find it more likely that we are simply dealing with a
simple transfer of the i-stem ending CS *‑i to the consonant stems.
3.8.2 i-Stem Locative Singular
PS *gasˈtēi ̯ (CS *gostì) PBS *‑ˈēi ̯ PIE *‑ēi ̯
OCS gosti Li. →mintyjè; Žem. →àkie; Ved. śúcā, →śúcau

ORu. puti; ONovg. OLi. →nakteie OAv. gərəzdā; YAv. gara
(na) soli Lv. →avĩ; dial. →‑ē, →‑ei Gk. dat. →πόλει; Hom. →πόληϊ,
OCz. hosti OPr. – →πόλεϊ
La. abl. →turrī, →turre; OLa.
→OPID; Osc. →slaagid
Go. fem. dat. anstai
Hi. adj. dat.–loc. →šallai, →šalli
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 175–176, 182: OCS ‑i reflects PIE *‑ēi, *‑ē or *‑ei,
alongside *‑ei̯i | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 203: PIE *‑ēi [implicit from
u-stems] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PBS *‑ei̯ | Debrunner &
Wackernagel 1930/1975: 152–157: PIE *‑ēi perhaps preserved in Go. ‑ai,
Ved. Agnāy‑ī ‘Gattin des Agni’; sandhi variant PIE *‑ē represented by
Ved. ‑ā; Ved. ‑au is taken from u-stems, perhaps already in PIIr., but not
in PIE | Rix 1976/1992: 154: Gk. ‑ει for Old Att. ‑ηι has /e/ from gen. sg.
‑εως | Sihler 1995: 311, 313–314: Hom. dat. ‑ηϊ, Att. inscr. ‑ηι reflect PGk.
*‑ēi̯i, consisting of PIE *‑ēi̯ (< *‑ei̯i) and analogical *‑i; Osc. dat. fuutreí con-
tinues old loc. form | Weiss 2009/2011: 242, 245: PIE *‑ēi is not preserved
in La. | Krahe 1942/1967: 30: Go. ‑ai is from PIE loc. *‑ēi | Boutkan
1995: 246–248: Go. dat. ‑ai is from loc. *‑ēi | Kloekhorst 2008a: 105,
376: Hi. adj. ‑ai is from PIE *‑eii
PBS Olander 2009: 177–178: PBS *‑ˈēi̯ goes back to PIE *‑ḗi̯ | Endzelīns 1971:
153: Lv., Li. endings are based on analogy with loc. pl.; Lv. dial. forms in ‑ie
contain PIE *‑ēi with *‑je from ā- and ē-stem loc. | Stang 1966: 195–197,
209–211: Li. ‑yje, Lv. ‑ĩ from *‑īję́ are analogical creations; Žem. ‑ie, OLi. ‑eie,
Lv. dial. ‑ē, ‑ei reflect *‑ēi̯en, containing PIE ending *‑ēi, also in OCS kosti,
plus postposition *en | Otrębski 1956: 41: OLi., Li. dial. forms reflect-
ing ‑ėje contain *‑ēi (also in OCS ‑i) plus postposition *‑ę | Endzelīns
172 Chapter 3
1923: 303, 318: Lv. ‑ī, Li. ‑yje have replaced *‑ie < *‑ē(i̯); Lv. ‑ē, ‑ei are either
based on analogy with ē-stems or reflect old *‑ē or *‑ēi̯
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 4: OCS ‑i is from *‑ēi | Hujer 1910: 142: Slavic
‑i reflects PIE *‑ēi, alongside *‑ē̃ | Meillet 1924/1934: Slavic ‑i goes
back to *‑ēi | Vaillant 1958: 133: PIE *‑ēi | Bräuer 1969a: 156: PIE
*‑ēi̯ | Arumaa 1985: 126–127: OCS ‑i reflects *‑ēi | Igartua 2005a:
258–260: Slavic ‑i is from PIE *‑ēi | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 74: OCS ‑i is
from *‑ēi
PIE In place of the expected ending PIE *‑ei̯i, consisting of the full grade
of the i-stem suffix plus the locative singular marker *‑i, we find *‑ēi̯, which is
probably simply the result of a pre-Proto-Indo-European sound change *‑ei̯i >
*‑ēi̯ (see e.g. Szemerényi 1996/1999: 118). PIE *‑ēi̯ is preserved in Germanic, e.g.
Go. fem. dat. anstai, and in Balto-Slavic.
PIIr. *‑ā represents a sandhi variant of PIE *‑ēi̯. Vedic ‑au is not original; it
was probably copied from the u-stems (see Debrunner & Wackernagel loc. cit.).
In Greek, where the locative function was taken over by the dative, inherited
*‑ēi̯ was recharacterised by the locative marker *‑i, yielding *‑ēi̯i, attested in
Hom. πόληϊ (see Chantraine 1945/1984: 88). Some scholars assume that PIE *‑ēi̯
was preserved in Latin in adverbial expressions like rūrī ‘in the country’ and
temperī ‘early’ (e.g. Meiser 1998/2006: 139); but since most of the examples with
‑ī are old consonant stems, not i-stems, they hardly preserve an archaism, and
it is more likely that the ‑ī was imported from the o-stems (cf. also Leumann
1926–1928/1977: 426–427, 431; Weiss 2009/2011: 214). The paradigmatic ablative
endings OLa. ‑īd, La. ‑ī are based on analogy with the corresponding o-stem
ending ‑ōd (see § 3.5.5). On the other hand, PIE *‑ēi̯ is preserved in the Gothic
feminine dative ending ‑ai. The Hittite adj. dative-locative ending ‑ai is traced
back to PIE loc. *‑ōi by some (e.g. Weitenberg 1984: 381; Kimball 1999: 229 with
references) and to *‑eii by others (Kloekhorst loc. cit.).
PBS Judging from the Slavic evidence, the Proto-Indo-European ending

*‑ēi̯ was preserved as *‑ˈēi̯ in Proto-Balto-Slavic. The Lithuanian and Latvian
standard forms exhibit an ending remade by analogy with the ā- and ē-stems.
OLi. (Mažvydas) ‑eie, Žem. ‑iẽ, Lv. dial. ‑ē, ‑ei probably contain the ending *‑ēi̯
followed by a postposition (§ 3.8.1). Due to the addition of the postposition
and the subsequent vowel contractions in modern dialects such forms do not
contribute much to the reconstruction of the shape of the Proto-Balto-Slavic
ending.
PS PBS *‑ˈēi̯ is preserved as PS *‑ˈēi̯ (CS *‑i [22|29]). The ending is retained in
the old Slavic dialects, also in the infinitive marker PS *‑tēi̯ (CS *‑ti).
3.8.3 u-Stem Locative Singular
PS *sūˈnāu (CS *synù) PBS →*‑ˈāu̯ PIE *‑eu̯i, *‑ēu̯
OCS synu Li. →sūnujè; Žem. Ved. mádhau: masc.–neut. mádhavi;

ORu. synu; ONovg. (vъ) →tọ̃rgộu neut. →mádhuni
domu Lv. →tìrgū; dial. OAv., YAv. vaŋhāu
OCz. synu →tìrguo, →‑ui Gk. dat. ἡδέϊ, ἡδεῖ
OPr. – La. abl. →tribū; OLa. →MAGISTRATUD;
adv. diū
Go. dat. sunau
Hi. dat.–loc. idālawi
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 176–177, 182: OCS ‑u goes back to PIE *‑ēu or *‑eu, or
perhaps *‑eu̯ i, which may be preserved in ORu. adv. domovь | Beekes
1995/2011: 203: PIE *‑ēu | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PBS *‑au̯ , PIE
*‑eu̯ (i) | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 152–157: Ved. ‑au, La.
abl. noctū, Go. ‑au, OCS ‑u probably reflect PIE *‑ēu; unclear if Ved. ‑avi
reflects PIE *‑eu̯ i or is an Indic innovation | Rix 1976/1992: 154: Gk.
βασιλεῖ for Hom. βασιλῆϊ has /e/ from gen. sg. ‑έως | Sihler 1995: 321,
324: La. ‑ū is perhaps from PIE *‑eu̯ i, possibly also in Ved. ‑avi and Gk.
‑ει, or from *‑ēu̯ ; [see also instr. sg., § 3.7.3] | Weiss 2009/2011: 249,
252: Ved. ‑au, Go. ‑au reflect PIE *‑ēu; La. diū is from *‑eu̯ (i) | Krahe
1942/1967: 32: Go. ‑au, ONor. ‑i go back to PIE *‑ēu; OEng. ‑a, OSax. ‑0 per-
haps reflect PIE variant *‑ōu | Boutkan 1995: 250, 253, 256–257: Go.
‑au, ONor. ‑i, OEng. ‑a, OSax. ‑o reflect PGmc., PIE *‑ēu | Kloekhorst
2008a: 105: Hi. ‑awi is from PIE *‑eu̯ i
PBS Olander 2009: 177–178: PBS *‑ˈāu̯ reflects PIE *‑ḗu̯ , alongside
*‑éu̯ i | Endzelīns 1971: 158: Li. ‑ūje, Lv. ‑ū, Lv. dial. ‑ui are modelled
on i-stems; Li. dial. ‑uo( je), Lv. dial. ‑uo reflect old loc. sg. followed by *j
and a postposition | Stang 1966: 215–216: Slavic ‑u, Ved. ‑au are from
PIE *‑ō(u); this ending may be preserved in Žem. ‑ọu, ‑ū, which perhaps
also reflects *‑uoję, like Lv. dial. ‑uo; Li. ‑uj(e) < *‑uję is based on analogy
with i-stems | Otrębski 1956: 47: Li. ‑uje contains *‑ę; [see also i-stems,
§ 3.8.2] | Endzelīns 1923: 327: Ved. ‑au, OCS ‑u are from PIE *‑ō(u̯ ); Lv.
‑ū, Lv. dial. ‑ui, Li. ‑ūje are innovations on the model of the i-stem loc. sg.;
an older stage is preserved in Lv. dial. ‑uo, Li. dial. ‑uo( je)
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 4: OCS ‑u, OLi. ‑uo, Ved. ‑au reflect *‑ōu, probably
also in OCS doma | Hujer 1910: 138–141: Slavic ‑u may reflect PIE
174 Chapter 3
*‑ē̆u (with *‑u for *‑ju due to influence of other forms of the paradigm)
or *‑ō̆u; Slavic adv. doma reflects variant PIE *‑ō̃u; Slavic adv. domovь,
dolovь reflect variant PIE *‑eu̯ i | Meillet 1924/1934: 414: accentua-
tion of Ru. sadú etc. shows that Slavic ‑u is from long *‑ōu; Slavic doma
is from variant *‑ō | Vaillant 1958: 109–110: Slavic ‑u reflects PBS, PIE
*‑ōu | Bräuer 1969a: 146: CS *‑u reflects PIE acute *‑ṓu̯ , alongside PIE
*‑ēu̯ attested in OHG suniu | Arumaa 1985: 126–127: OCS ‑u reflects
*‑ēu or *‑ō[u] | Igartua 2005a: 288–289: Slavic ‑u is from PIE *‑ōu or
*‑ēu | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 70–71: OCS ‑u is from *‑āu, with long-
grade vowel shown by the accentuation of e.g. Ru. na beregú
PIE The expected ending PIE *‑eu̯ i was formed by the full grade of the u-stem
suffix followed by the locative singular marker *‑i; this ending is reflected in
Ved. ‑avi, Gk. ‑εϊ, ‑ει and Hi. ‑awi. Another ending PIE *‑ēu̯ is represented by
the Vedic variant ‑au, by Avestan ‑āu, by Germanic forms like Go. ‑au and by
Balto-Slavic. The variant *‑ēu̯ was probably created already in pre-Proto-Indo-
European by analogy with the corresponding i-stem ending *‑ēi̯ < *‑ei̯i. The
Vedic neuter variant in ‑uni is a more recent creation based on analogy with
the n-stems. Latin ‑ū is ambiguous; it may represent the merger of the inno-
vated ablative ending OLa. ‑ūd and the old locative ending *‑ēu̯ or *‑eu̯ i (Sihler
loc. cit.).
PBS The regular reflex of PIE *‑ēu̯ would be *‑ˈi̯āu̯ [10] in Balto-Slavic. The
ending was altered to *‑ˈāu̯ by analogy with the forms of the paradigm that
contained PIE *eu̯ > PBS *au̯ [11]. It is more economical to assume that this
analogy took place in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic than individually in Baltic and
Slavic, but the latter scenario cannot be excluded. In East Baltic the ending was
modified by the addition of a postposition (see § 3.8.1); it is likely that Žem. ‑ộu
also contains the postposition (cf. Stang loc. cit.). The ending is not preserved
in Old Prussian.
PS PBS *‑ˈāu̯ is retained as PS *‑ˈāu̯ (CS *‑u [22|29]), preserved in the old
Slavic dialects. The Common Slavic adverbs *domovь ‘homeward’, *dolovь
‘downward’, which are sometimes taken to reflect Proto-Indo-European u-stem
locative singular forms in *‑eu̯ i (e.g. Hujer 1909, loc. cit. with discussion and
references), reflect shortened dative singular forms in PS *‑au̯ ei (CS *‑ovi) (see
e.g. Vasmer 1964/1986: 525, 528 with references).
3.8.4 ā-Stem Locative Singular
PS *naˈgāi ̯ (CS *noʒě ̀; *dušì) PBS *‑ˈa̰i ̯ PIE *‑ah₂i, *‑ah₂i ̯
OCS glavě; duši Li. →galvojè; OLi. Ved. →jihvā́yām

ORu. ženě; zemli, ONovg. adess. →żmonáip OAv. ?; YAv. →grīuuaiia
(vъ) Rusě; (na) →Prokopьě Lv. →gal̂vã Gk. adv. πάλαι(?); Boeotian dat.
OCz. rybě; duši OPr. – ταμίη(?)
La. Rōmae; OLa. ROMAI; Osc. víaí
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 180–182: PIE *‑āĩ | Beekes 1995/2011: 200: PIE

*‑eh₂i; Li. ‑oje contains a ptcl. *‑en | Rasmussen forthc. a § 5: OCS
‑ě, ‑ji reflect PBS *‑ā́i ̯ < PIE *‑ah₂i; Li., Lv. forms have been extended by
a postposition *en | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 43–44,
119–121: Ved. ‑ām is related to Iranian ‑ā, originally a postposition; IIr. ‑āy‑
probably introduced on the pattern of devī-stems | Rix 1976/1992: 133:
Gk. Boeotian ταμίη < *‑eh₂i | Sihler 1995: 270: PIE *‑eh₂i is probably
preserved in Gk. adv. πάλαι; La. ‑ae reflects *‑āi̯, for *‑ai̯ with reintroduced
*ā | Weiss 2009/2011: 229, 235: La. ‑ae is from PIE *‑eh₂i, either by
generalisation of prevocalic sandhi variant or by analogy with nom. sg.
‑a | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 177–178: PS desinential accentuation reflects PIE pre-
vocalic variant *‑ahi̯ | Endzelīns 1971: 144: old ending *‑āi̯ is pre-
served in Li. adess. mergaip | Stang 1966: 199: Li., Lv. forms are
from *‑āi with a postposition *‑en; original ending is preserved in
OLi. adess. żmonáip | Otrębski 1956: 25: Li. ‑oje contains old end-
ing *‑āi plus postposition *‑en; old ending is preserved in OLi. adess.
żmonáip | Endzelīns 1923: 306: Lv. ‑ā is from old loc. ending *‑āi̯ and
postposition
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 4 | Hujer 1910: 135–138: original *‑ā̃i yields Slavic
‑ě, with analogical acute tone from i-stem loc. sg.; Li. ‑oje is from *‑āi
and postposition *‑e | Meillet 1924/1934: 398: Slavic ‑ě is acute |
Vaillant 1958: 81: Slavic ‑ě, ‑ji reflect *‑āi with acute tone, which may be
analogical from i- and u-stems; Li. adess. ‑aip is from *‑āi or *‑ai; PIE had
*‑āi or *‑ai | Bräuer 1969a: 105, 127: PIE *‑ā plus *‑i | Arumaa 1985:
152–153: PIE *‑āi | Igartua 2005a: 220–222: Slavic ‑ě, ‑ji go back to PIE
*‑āi < *‑eh₂i | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 87, 90: OCS ‑ě, ‑ji reflect acute *‑āi
176 Chapter 3
PIE The expected Proto-Indo-European ending is *‑ah₂i, consisting of the

suffix *‑ah₂‑ and the locative singular marker *‑i. In Indo-Iranian the ending
has been extended with ‑ām (Vedic) and *‑ā̆ (Avestan) of unclear origin. In the
proto-language we expect the final *‑i to be vocalic since it follows a conso-
nant. A proto-form *‑ah₂i is in harmony with the Greek adverb πάλαι ‘long ago’,
if originally the locative singular of an ā-stem (Sihler loc. cit.), which is dubi-
ous; Boeotian ταμίη also seems to point to *‑ah₂i (Rix loc. cit.; Seržant 2004: 59).
Latin Rōmae from *‑āi̯ (not from *‑ai̯, which would have yielded *‑ī) may have
imported *ā from other case forms at some point. The reconstruction of an
antevocalic variant *‑ah₂i̯ is suggested by the final accentuation of the form in
Slavic, which points to a monosyllabic ending (via [4]), and by the Lithuanian
evidence.
PBS In the Baltic languages the original locative ending is not preserved
directly. In the East Baltic paradigmatic locative form a postposition (see
§ 3.8.1) has been added to the ending, yielding Li. ‑ojè, Lv. ‑ã. The Lithuanian
ending ‑ojè, with its long o, points to PBS *‑ˈa̰ i ̯ from PIE *‑ah₂i̯ [1], rather than
to PBS *‑ai̯ from PIE *‑ah₂i [1] (see Seržant 2004: 59–60). Traces of the old loca-
tive ending are also found in Old Lithuanian adessive forms like żmonáip. The
adessive ending ‑aip may likely go back to either *‑ah₂i̯ or *‑ah₂i.
PS PBS *‑ˈa̰ i ̯ regularly yielded PS *‑ˈāi̯ [13] (CS *‑ě [22|29]; *‑ji [20|22|29]), pre-
served in the old Slavic dialects. In the Old Novgorod dialect there are only
few attestations of the original soft ending ‑i, which has in most cases been
replaced with the hard ending ‑ě (Zaliznjak 1995/2004: 98).
3.8.5 o-Stem Noun Locative Singular
PS *ˌtakai ̯ (CS *tȍk||cě; *gȍji) PBS *ˌ‑ai ̯ PIE *‑oi̯
OCS gradě; kon’i Li. →langè; adv. namiẽ; Ved. devé

ORu. stolě; koni; ONovg. dial. adv. vãkarie; OLi., OAv. xšaϑrōi, marəkaē-cā; YAv.
(na) otrokě dial. adess. →dievíep(i) xšaϑrē, aspaē-ca
OCz. chlapě; oráči Lv. →tȩ̃vã; adv. vakar(?) Gk. adv. οἴκοι; Arcadian dat. εργοι
OPr. adv. bītai(?) La. adv. (→)humī; OLa.
(→)LADINEI; Osc. →comenei
Go. adv. uta(?)
Hi. →anni
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 180–181: PIE *‑eĩ and *‑oĩ; OCS ‑ě reflects PIE
*‑oi̯ | Beekes 1995/2011: 212–213: PIE *‑oi; Celtiberian, Osc. *‑ei may be
from pronouns | Rasmussen forthc. a § 4: OCS ‑ě, Li. adv. namiẽ, OPr.
bītai reflect PBS *‑ai from PIE noun ending *‑oi̯ with “heavy prosodics”,
alongside pron. *‑ei̯; Li. ‑e perhaps consists of loc. *‑ẹ̄ plus postposition
*en | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 96: Ved. ‑e is from PIE
*‑oi or *‑ei, which were probably originally the unaccented and accented
forms, respectively | Rix 1976/1992: 139: Gk. dial. (Arcadian) dat. εργοι,
Gk. adv. οἴκοι, Ἰσθμοῖ, Ved. ‑e, OCS ‑ě go back to PIE *‑oi̯; Gk. circumflex
tone is secondary | Sihler 1995: 260–261: Italic forms reflect PIE *‑ei̯ or
*‑oi̯ | Weiss 2009/2011: 223: La. ‑ī is from OLa. ‑ei, reflecting PIE *‑ei̯ or
*‑oi̯ | Krahe 1942/1967: 10: OEng. ‑e probably reflects *‑ī < PIE *‑ei, also
in Gk. adv. ἐκεῖ, Osc. comenei | Boutkan 1995: 184–186, 381–382: PIE
*‑oi is preserved in Gmc., e.g. Go. adv. uta; PIE variant *‑ei is preserved in
e.g. OEng. (on) bergi | Kloekhorst 2008a: 376: Hi. ‑i is C-stem dat. sg.
PBS Olander 2009: 177: PS *ˌ‑āi (CS *‑ě) goes back to PBS *ˌ‑ai̯ (the regular out-
come of PIE *‑ói̯), with analogical length | Endzelīns 1971: 134–135:
OPr. adv. bītai is perhaps from PIE *‑oi, also in Gk. adv. οἴκοι, OCS ‑ě; Li.
namiẽ goes back to *‑ei, also in Gk. dial. adv. οἴκει; Li. ‑e is from acute
*‑en | Stang 1966: 182–183: OPr. adv. bītai is perhaps old o-stem loc. sg.;
Li. adv. namiẽ etc. preserves PIE *‑oi, also in Slavic ‑ě, Gk. adv. οἴκοι, Ved.
‑e, La. adv. domī; Li. ‑e is from *‑ę́ (with obscure acute tone), containing
the old loc. ending plus a postposition *en | Otrębski 1956: 14: Li. adv.
namiẽ reflects PIE *‑oi or *‑ei, also in Gk. adv. οἴκοι, οἴκει; Li. ‑e contains
*‑en | Endzelīns 1923: 293: Lv. ‑ā is from ā-stems; older form seen in
Lv. dial. adv. vakar with *‑i < *‑ie corresponding to Li. ‑ie or ‑ę̀
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 4: OCS ‑ě, ‑ji, Li. adv. namiẽ, Gk. οἴκοι etc. reflect PIE
circumflex *‑oi | Hujer 1910: 73–74, 135: Slavic ‑ě, ‑ji go back to PIE cir-
cumflex *‑oĩ | Meillet 1924/1934: 408: OCS ‑ě, ‑ji reflect PIE *‑oi, along-
side forms with *e-vocalism | Vaillant 1958: 30–31: Slavic ‑ě, ‑ji are
from PIE *‑oi, also in OPr. adv. schai, Li. adv. namiẽ, OLi., Li. dial. dieviẽpi,
and in adverbs of the type OPr. labbai, Li. labaĩ, OCS dobrě | Bräuer
1969a: 23–24, 74: CS *‑ě reflects PIE circumflex *‑õi̯ | Arumaa 1985:
138–139: CS *‑ě is from PIE *‑oi̯, alongside *‑ei | Igartua 2005a: 143–145:
Slavic ‑ě, ‑ji reflect PIE *‑oi, alongside *‑ei | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 81,
84: OCS ‑ě, ‑ji are from *‑ai̯ < loc. *‑oi, perhaps a regional innovation of IIr.,
Slavic and probably Baltic
178 Chapter 3
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending *‑oi̯ consisted of the o-grade of the

thematic vowel followed by the locative singular marker *‑i. A variant in *‑ei̯ is
also continued in the Indo-European languages; it may originally belong to the
pronominal paradigm. It is sometimes assumed that the Proto-Indo-European
ending was disyllabic *‑oi (e.g. Mayrhofer 1986: 161 with n. 267), but I find this
reconstruction implausible since it contradicts the Proto-Indo-European pho-
notactic rules (cf. Strunk 2006: 76–78; see also Olander 2009: 68 with n. 39). The
difference in Greek between the acute tone in nom. pl. ἀγροί and the circumflex
tone in loc. sg. Ἰσϑμοῖ is probably the result of sandhi variation combined with
analogical pressure from related case forms (see Olander 2009: 66–69 with ref-
erences; but cf. Probert 2012: 174–178 for a different analysis). The Greek dis-
tinction is historically unrelated to the apparently different outcomes of PIE
*‑oi̯ in Slavic, where the difference between OCS loc. pl. vlьcě and nom. pl. vlьci
is caused by an earlier presence of a final *‑s in the latter form (see § 3.13.7).
In Hittite the original ending was replaced with the corresponding
consonant-stem ending. In Attic Greek and Latin the ending disappeared as
a paradigmatic ending but was preserved in adverbial expressions and in dia-
lects in Greek (Schwyzer 1939/1968: 556 with references; Buck 1955/1973: 88;
Rix loc. cit.).
PBS PIE *‑oi̯ regularly yielded PBS *ˌ‑ai̯ [4|7], which is only fragmentarily
attested in Baltic. In Lithuanian the ending was replaced with a new, etymo-
logically unclear ending ‑è, also in OLi. dangujęjis, probably from *‑ḛ̄n. This
ending may consist of the inherited ending *‑ẹ̄ from PBS *‑ai̯, followed by a
postposition (see § 3.8.1). The original ending is preserved in adverbs such as
namiẽ ‘at home’ and dialectal vãkarie ‘in the evening’, oriẽ ‘in the air’ (see Stang
loc. cit.; Zinkevičius 1966: 403). The Latvian ending ‑ã is taken from the ā-stems,
where it is of analogical origin (see § 3.8.4); it is possible that the adverb vakar
‘yesterday’ preserves the original locative singular form. OPr. adv. bītai ‘at night’
shows the expected form (see e.g. Endzelīns 1944: 86), but it is uncertain if the
word is an o-stem (Stang loc. cit.).
PS PBS *ˌ‑ai̯ was regularly retained as PS *ˌ‑ai̯ (CS *‑ě [22|29]; *‑ji [20|22|29]).
Note that I no longer find it necessary to assume that the vowel was analogi-
cally lengthened in Slavic (in contrast to Olander loc. cit.), since I now consider
any word-final PBS *‑ai̯ to be reflected as CS *‑ě. The ending causes the second
palatalisation [23] of a preceding velar outside the Old Novgorod dialect, e.g.
PS *ˌtakai (CS *tȍk||cě) > OCS tocě. The ending is preserved in the old Slavic
dialects. In the otьcь type with c resulting from the second palatalisation [23]
the locative form otьci is analogical for expected *otьcě (see Vermeer 2006: 230
with references in n. 4).
3.8.6 o-Stem Pronoun Locative Singular
PS *taˈmi (CS *tòmь; *jèmь) PBS *‑sm‑i PIE *‑sm‑i
OCS tomь; jemь Li. →tamè; OLi. adess. Ved. →tásmin

ORu. tomь; jemь; ONovg. (vъ) →tamp(i) OAv. ahmī; YAv. ahmi
tomь; (na) nemь Lv. masc.–fem. →tài; dial. Gk. –; Cretan dat. οτιμι
OCz. tom, →tomu, →tem; jím →tajā, →tanī, tamī La. –; Umbr. →esme(?);
OPr. – South Picene →esmín
Go. –
Hi. dat.–loc. →apedani (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 363: OCS tomь is probably related to Li. dial. tami,
tami‑pe, reflecting *‑(s)mi or *‑(s)min | Beekes 1995/2011: 228–230,
294: PIE *tosmi, *h₁ésmi; Umbr. esmik is from PIE *h₁ésmi plus deictic
*k̑e | Rasmussen forthc. a § 14: PIE *tésmi, *tésmei̯; Ved. tásmin is from
PIE *tésmi plus ptcl. *‑n; Umbr. esme goes back to *ésmei̯; OCS tomь is from
PBS *‑åsmi | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 501: Ved. ‑smin
may reflect original *‑smi plus *n, zero grade of the PIE prep. *en; Ved.
metre may point to earlier *‑smi | Rix 1976/1992: – | Sihler 1995:
377–378, 386–387: PIE *tosmi | Weiss 2009/2011: 337–338, 340: PIE
*tó/ésmi | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst
2008a: 426
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 193 | Stang 1966: 241, 246–257:
Li. tamè probably reflects *tami plus *en and corresponds to OCS tomь,
YAv. ahmi; Lv. tài is from fem.; other Lv. forms are also secondary; OLi.
adess. tamp(i) probably reflects old loc. ending *‑ami plus pi; OLi. adess.
tamip(i) may contain old form *tami, but may also be modelled on pers.
pron. manip, tavip, savip | Otrębski 1956: 142–143, 147, 151: Li. jame is
from *jami, preserved in OLi. adess. jam(i)p(i) and corresponding to OCS
jemь | Endzelīns 1923: 387–389: Lv. tai is originally fem. form; Lv. dial.
tajā, dial. tanī are the results of contamination; Lv. dial. tamī and other
forms reflect *tami with ‑ī from the nouns; original form ended in *‑in, as in
Ved. tásmin, OLi. iamimp(i), or in *‑i, as in YAv. aētahmi, Gk. dial. οτιμι, OCS
tomь (which may also go back to *‑in), OLi. iamip (which may be secondary)
180 Chapter 3
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 78 | Hujer 1910: – | Meillet 1924/1934: 435:

Slavic tomь may be compared to Ved. tásmin | Vaillant 1958: 369–370:
East Baltic points to *‑ami | Bräuer 1969a, 1969b: – | Arumaa 1985:
153: Slavic tomь is probably related to Ved. asmín, YAv. ahmi | Igartua
2005a: – | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 115: OCS tomь may be compared to
Ved. tásmin, OLi. adess. tamip
PIE Avestan and Slavic point to a proto-form in *‑e/osmi, containing the pro-

nominal interfix *‑e/osm‑ (see § 3.2.6). In Vedic and South Picene the origi-
nal form has been extended by a postpositional element; metrical evidence in
Vedic points to the existence of an ending without the final *‑n (Wackernagel
& Debrunner loc. cit.). The Cretan Greek dative form οτιμι ‘to whomever’ may
reflect *‑kʷismi. The interpretation of the Umbrian locative form written
<fsme> is difficult; it is usually thought to represent esme, which may reflect
*‑smei̯ with the normal Sabellic locative ending (note that Untermann 1999:
356 emends <fsme> directly to esmei). The makeup of the Hittite pronominal
forms in ‑edani is unclear (see Kloekhorst loc. cit.).
PBS PIE *‑e/osm‑i was probably preserved as PBS *‑e/asm‑i. In the interfix,

*s was lost in East Baltic and Slavic but preserved in Old Prussian. The end-
ing is probably reflected in OLi. adessive forms like tamp(i), which have been
extended with the postposition ‑pi (cf. the discussion in Stang loc. cit.).
PS PBS *‑e/asm‑i yielded PS *‑e/am‑i (CS *‑e/om‑i [29]; *‑jem‑i [20|29]), with
the usual Slavic loss of *s in the interfix. Since PIE *‑Vn sequences seem to have
yielded a nasal vowel in Slavic [19], PS *‑sm‑i cannot correspond directly to
Ved. ‑sm‑in (but cf. Ivšić 1970: 223; Holzer 1980: 10).
3.9 Vocative Singular
3.9.1 i-Stem Vocative Singular
PS *ˌgastei ̯ (CS *gȍsti) PBS *ˌ‑ei ̯ PIE *‑ei ̯
OCS gosti Li. mintiẽ Ved. śúce

ORu. puti; ONovg. ospodi Lv. →avs OAv. bərəxδē; YAv. daēne
OCz. hosti OPr. ? Gk. →πόλι
La. →turris
Go. masc. →juggalaud
Hi. adj. GAL‑li (šalli)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 135–136, 289: PIE *‑i, alongside *‑oi or *‑ei | Beekes
1995/2011: 203: PIE *‑ei [implicit from u-stems] | Rasmussen forthc. a
§ 6: PBS, PIE *‑ei̯ | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 157–158: Ved.
‑e, YAv. ‑e, Li. ‑iẽ, OCS ‑i probably reflect PIE *‑oi; Gk. ‑ι, Go. ‑i may have
been modelled on nom. | Rix 1976/1992: 152: Gk. ‑ι has replaced PIE
*‑oi̯ | Sihler 1995: 311, 315–316: PIE *‑e/oi̯; Gk. ‑ι is analogical, but it is
not clear from where; in La. the nom. is used | Weiss 2009/2011: 242,
244: PIE *‑ei is not preserved in La. | Krahe 1942/1967: 27: Go. gast,
Gk. μάντι go back to PIE *‑i | Boutkan 1995: 236, 240, 243–244: per-
haps PIE *‑(e)i, PGmc. *‑ei; Go. ‑∅ for expected *‑i may be o-stem end-
ing | Kloekhorst 2008a: 376–377 [see o-stems, § 3.9.4]
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 153: Li. ‑ie is from *‑ei | Stang
1966: 211: Li. ‑iẽ, OCS ‑i, Ved. ‑e reflect PIE *‑ei | Otrębski 1956: 41: Li. ‑ie,
OCS ‑i reflect *‑ei | Endzelīns 1923: 314: old voc. is not preserved in Lv.,
except perhaps in asini ‘blood’, possibly with ‑i < *‑ie corresponding to Li.
‑iẽ, OCS ‑i, Ved. ‑e
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 4: OCS ‑i, Li. ‑iẽ, Ved. ‑e, ‑i reflect PIE *‑oi or
*‑ei | Hujer 1910: 90: Slavic ‑i, Li. ‑ie reflect PIE *‑ei; forms pointing
to PIE *‑i are innovations | Meillet 1924/1934: 418 | Vaillant 1958:
135: PIE *‑ei; Gk. ‑ι points to a variant *‑i | Bräuer 1969a: 156: PIE
*‑ei̯ | Arumaa 1985: 124: OCS ‑i goes back to *‑ei | Igartua 2005a:
247–248: Slavic ‑i is from PIE *‑ei | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 74
PIE The i-stem vocative singular form ended in *‑ei̯ in the proto-language.

As for the vowel of the ending, Slavic points unambiguously to *e, not *o; this
reconstruction is not contradicted by the other branches. The Greek form in ‑ι
is remade after the nominative form; the original ending *‑ei̯ may be preserved
in the name of the god Ποσειδῶν, Hom. Ποσειδάων, but this is uncertain. The
zero ending found in Go. juggalaud may be analogical from the o-stems. In
Latin the vocative form has been replaced with the nominative. Hi. ‑i may be
the regular outcome of PIE *‑ei̯ (see Kimball 1999: 213–215 with references).
PBS PIE *‑ei̯ is preserved as *ˌ‑ei̯ in PBS, yielding Li. ‑iẽ. Latvian has no special
vocative form in the i-stems. The form is not attested in Old Prussian.
PS PBS *ˌ‑ei̯ is continued as PS *ˌ‑ei̯ (CS *‑i [22|29]), preserved in the old Slavic
dialects.
182 Chapter 3
3.9.2 u-Stem Vocative Singular
PS *ˌsūnau̯ (CS *sy̑nu) PBS →*ˌ‑au̯ PIE *‑eu̯
OCS synu Li. sūnaũ Ved. mádho

ORu. synu; ONovg. sunu Lv. Miku OAv. ?; YAv. mańiiō
(read synu) OPr. ? Gk. →ἡδύ
OCz. synu La. →tribus
Go. sunau, →sunu
Hi. →lugal‑ui (ḫaššui), →šarku
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 135–136, 290: PIE *‑u, alongside *‑ou or

*‑eu | Beekes 1995/2011: 203: PIE *‑eu | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6:
PBS *‑au̯ , PIE *‑eu̯ | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 157–158:
Ved., YAv. ‑o, Li. ‑aũ, Go. ‑au, OCS ‑u probably from PIE *‑ou; Gk. ‑υ, Go. ‑u
may have been modelled on nom. | Rix 1976/1992: 152: Gk. ‑υ replaces
PIE *‑ou̯ | Sihler 1995: 321–322: Go. ‑au points to PIE *‑ou̯ ; Gk. ‑υ is
based on analogy with nom.; in La. the nom. is used | Weiss 2009/2011:
249, 251: PIE *‑eu lost in La., where nom. ending is used | Krahe 1942/
1967: 33: Go. sunu, Gk. ‑υ from PIE *‑u, alongside *‑ou seen in Li. ‑aũ, Ved.
‑o, Go. variant ‑au | Boutkan 1995: 250, 253–255: Go. ‑au from PGmc.
*‑ou [i.e. *‑au?] points to PIE *‑ou; Go. ‑u is secondary | Kloekhorst
2008a: 376–377 [see o-stems, § 3.9.4]
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 158: Li. ‑au corresponds to OCS ‑u,
Ved. ‑o; unclear if Lv. Miku has *‑au | Stang 1966: 216: PIE ending is
preserved in Baltic | Otrębski 1956: 48: Li. ‑au corresponds to OCS ‑u,
Ved. ‑o | Endzelīns 1923: 326: Lv. Miku may reflect PBalt. *‑au
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 4: OCS ‑u, Li. ‑aũ, Ved. ‑o, ‑u from PIE *‑ou | Hujer
1910: 90: Slavic ‑u, Li. ‑au probably from PIE *‑ou or, with analogical ‑u for
‑ju, from *‑eu; forms pointing to PIE *‑u are innovations | Meillet 1924/
1934: 413: Slavic ‑u from PIE *‑eu or *‑ou | Vaillant 1958: 111: PIE *‑ou,
*‑eu, *‑u | Bräuer 1969a: 147: PIE *‑ou̯ | Arumaa 1985: 124 |
Igartua 2005a: 281–282: Slavic ‑u, PIE *‑e/ou, *‑u | Aitzetmüller 1978/
1991: 76
PIE It is likely that the u-stem vocative form ended in *‑eu̯ , parallel to the
i-stem form in *‑ei̯. The comparative evidence alone allows a reconstruc-
tion *‑eu̯ or *‑ou̯ . Go. ‑au, usually taken to point unambiguously to *‑ou̯ , may
perhaps also reflect PIE *‑eu̯ (Hansen 2014). Taken at face value the Balto-Slavic
material points to PIE *‑ou̯ rather than *‑eu̯ , but it may easily be explained ana-
logically (see below).
The Gothic variant in ‑u, mostly attested in Greek names, is not original
(Boutkan loc. cit.; Hansen 2014: 159 n. 16). Gk. ‑υ is an innovation based on the
nominative singular. In Latin the nominative form is used. The Hittite form in
‑u is ambiguous; the form in ‑ui may have be remodelled on the o-stems (see
Eichner 1974a: 40–41).
PBS PIE *‑eu̯ would probably have yielded pre-PBS *ˌ‑i̯au̯ [10]. The attested
Baltic and Slavic languages point to PBS *ˌ‑au̯ , which may have arisen in the
individual branches or in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic by analogy with the forms of
the u-stems where *eu̯ yielded *au̯ [11] (similarly Kortlandt 1983/2011a: 128). The
form in *‑au̯ is regularly continued as Li. ‑au and probably Lv. ‑u. Old Prussian
does not show attestations of u-stem vocative forms.
PS PBS *ˌ‑au̯ is retained as PS *ˌ‑au̯ (CS *‑u [22|29]), preserved in the old
Slavic dialects.
3.9.3 ā-Stem Vocative Singular
PS *ˌnaga (CS *nȍgo; *dȗše) PBS *ˌ‑a PIE *‑a
OCS glavo; duše Li. gálva Ved. →príye

ORu. ženo; zemle; ONovg. Mil’ato; Lv. sìev OAv. →bərəxδē; YAv. →daēne
gospože OPr. ? Gk. →φυγή; Hom. νύμφα
OCz. rybo; duše La. →fēmina; Umbr. Tursa
Go. ?
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 134–135; 284: PIE form unclear | Beekes 1995/

2011: 200: PIE *‑h₂e(?) | Rasmussen forthc. a § 5: OCS ‑o, Li. ‑a go
back to PBS *‑a < PIE *‑a < *‑ah₂ < *‑eh₂; PIIr. *‑ai̯ consists of stem-
suffix *‑ā‑ plus devī-stem ending *‑ī | Debrunner & Wackernagel
1930/1975: 121–123: Gk., Umbr., OCS endings reflect *‑ə; origin of Ved. ‑e
is unclear | Rix 1976/1992: 131–132: Gk. ‑ᾱ, ‑η reflect PIE *‑eh₂; Gk. ‑α,
Umbr. ‑a, OCS ‑o reflect *‑eh₂ with loss of *h₂ in pausa | Sihler 1995:
268: Gk. ‑α, Umbr. ‑a, OCS ‑o reflect PIE *‑eh₂ with loss of *h₂ without
184 Chapter 3
lengthening; La. ‑a for expected *‑e is nom. ending | Weiss 2009/2011:

229, 232: PIE *‑(e)h₂; PIE *‑a is from *‑ah₂, with loss of laryngeal in pausa,
yielding Gk. ‑α, Umbr. ‑a, OCS ‑o | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan
1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 144 | Stang 1966: 199: PBalt. *‑a,
Slavic ‑o, Gk. ‑α are from PIE *‑ə₂ | Otrębski 1956: 24–25: Li. ‑a, Slavic
‑o reflect *‑ə | Endzelīns 1923: 307
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 4: OCS ‑o, Gk. ‑α reflect *‑a; Vondrák 1906/1924:
109 | Hujer 1910: 89–90: Slavic ‑o, ‑e, Gk. ‑α, Umbr. ‑a are from *‑a or
*‑ə | Meillet 1924/1934: 397 | Vaillant 1958: 82–83: IIr. ‑e < *‑ei is
taken from i-stems | Bräuer 1969a: 105, 127: PIE *‑ə or *‑a | Arumaa
1985: 148: CS *‑o is from *‑a | Igartua 2005a: 196–197: Slavic ‑o, ‑e reflect
PIE *‑a < *‑h₂ | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 87, 90: OCS ‑o, ‑je are from PIE
*‑a or *‑ə
PIE The vocative singular form of the ā-stems was somewhat peculiar in

Proto-Indo-European as it did not contain the stem-suffix *‑ah₂‑ but, appar-
ently, consisted only of *‑a or *‑h₂. According to a widespread hypothesis, the
vocative form originally ended in *‑ah₂, but in pausa *‑h₂ was lost (Kuiper
1947: 210 with n. 53; 1961/1997: 18–19; Rix loc. cit.; Sihler loc. cit.; Ringe 2006a:
21; Weiss loc. cit.). It should be noted that if *‑a from *‑ah₂ is the Proto-Indo-
European form, then laryngeal colouring must have taken place already in pre-
Proto-Indo-European (see Ringe 2006a: 21). In Indo-Iranian an *i was added to
the reflex of *‑a(h₂), perhaps from the devī type (Schindler 1989: 14).
For the accentuation of the vocative form in the proto-language see §§ 1.5.1
and 3.1.
PBS Proto-Balto-Slavic preserves the vocative ending as *ˌ‑a, regularly

reflected in Lithuanian and Latvian. In Old Prussian no ā-stem vocative form
is attested.
PS PBS *ˌ‑a yielded PS *ˌ‑a (CS *‑o [29]; *‑je [20|29]), preserved in the old
Slavic dialects.
3.9.4 o-Stem Vocative Singular
PS *ˌtake (CS *tȍče; →*gȍju) PBS *ˌ‑e PIE *‑e
OCS grade; →kon’u Li. lánge, →Jõnai Ved. deva, déva

ORu. stole; →konju; ONovg. brate; ? Lv. tȩ̀v OAv. ahurā; YAv. ahura
OCz. chlape; →oráču OPr. deiwe Gk. λύκε
La. lupe
Go. þiudan
Hi. →atta, atti
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 134: OCS ‑e reflects PIE *‑e; in i̯o-stems, OCS
‑ju, Li. ‑jau, Lv. ‑’u are from u-stems | Beekes 1995/2011: 212: PIE
*‑e | Rasmussen forthc. a § 4: OCS ‑e is from PIE *‑e | Debrunner
& Wackernagel 1930/1975: 96–97: Ved. ‑a, Gk. ‑ε, La. ‑e, OCS ‑e go back to
PIE *‑e | Rix 1976/1992: 138: Gk. ‑ε is from PIE *‑e | Sihler 1995: 256,
258: Gk. ‑ε, La. ‑e, BS endings reflect PIE *‑e | Weiss 2009/2011: 200, 221:
La. ‑e is from PIE *‑e | Krahe 1942/1967: 10: Gk. ‑ε, La. ‑e, Go. dag reflect
PIE *‑e | Boutkan 1995: 174: Go. þiudan is from PIE *‑e | Kloekhorst
2008a: 376–377: Hi. ‑i is from accented pre-Hi. *‑é < PIE *‑e
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 135: Lv. tȩ̀v may be from *tēve |
Stang 1966: 183: OPr., Li. ‑e, Lv. tȩ̀v are from PIE *‑e | Otrębski 1956:
14–15: Li. ‑ai is an old emphatic ptcl. | Endzelīns 1923: 293–295: Lv.
cìlvȩ̃k probably reflects *‑e, also in OPr. ‑e, OCS ‑e and most likely Li. ‑e
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 4: OCS ‑e is from PIE *‑e; OCS ‑ju is from i̯u-stems |
Hujer 1910: 88–89: Slavic ‑e is from PIE *‑e; Li. ‑e, apparently with acute
tone, is puzzling | Meillet 1924/1934: 404 | Vaillant 1958: 33: BS
*‑e is from PIE *‑e | Bräuer 1969a: 24, 74: PIE *‑e; CS i̯o-stem end-
ing *‑ju is from i̯u-stems | Arumaa 1985: 132: PIE *‑e; CS *‑ju is from
u-stems | Igartua 2005a: 111–113: Slavic ‑e reflects PIE *‑e; Slavic ‑ju is
from i̯u-stems | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 80, 83: OCS ‑e is from *‑e; OCS
‑ju has ‑u from u-stems
PIE The masculine o-stem vocative singular form ended in *‑e in the proto-
language, which is the e-grade of the thematic vowel. The form is well pre-
served in the ancient Indo-European languages.
186 Chapter 3
As for the Hittite form in ‑i (see Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 75 for attesta-
tions), I find it more attractive to assume that the preservation of PIE *‑e as
Hi. ‑i is due to the special prosody of the vocative form than to derive ‑i from
umlaut in forms like atti(me) or from an analogical process (Eichner 1974a: 39,
72 n. 21), or from accented pre-Hi. *‑é (Kloekhorst loc. cit.). The special develop-
ment in a vocative form is reminiscent of the situation in modern Bulgarian,
where only vocative forms are excepted from the general reduction of unac-
cented /o/ towards [ʊ], e.g. žéno [ˈʒeno] (see e.g. Maslov 1982: 52, 156). For the
special status of the vocative form in general see §§ 1.5.1 and 3.1.
PBS The old vocative is regularly reflected as PBS *ˌ‑e, which yields Li. ‑e and
OPr. ‑e and is probably also reflected in Lv. tȩ̀v. The Lithuanian form in ‑ai is a
more recent formation.
PS PBS *ˌ‑e is continued as PS *ˌ‑e (CS *‑e [29]); the ending causes first pala-
talisation of a preceding velar consonant [21], e.g. PS *ˌbage (CS *bȍže). The
i̯o-stem ending PS *‑i̯au̯ (CS *‑ju [20|22|29]) originates in the i̯u-stems (see
§ 3.9.2). As observed by Meillet (1918a), OCS mǫžь, used as the example of a i̯o-
stem in many expositions, still preserves traces of earlier i̯u-stem inflection in
Old Church Slavonic texts. An adjective i̯o-stem form buje from bujь ‘foolish’ is
attested in the Codex Zographensis (see Diels 1932–1934/1963: 190).
3.10 Nominative–accusative Dual
3.10.1 Non-Neuter Consonant-Stem Nom.–Acc. Dual
PS →*dukterī (CS *dъt’eri) PBS *ˌ‑e PIE *‑h₁e
OCS kameni Li. masc. →ãkmeniu; fem. Ved. →áśmānā, →mātárau,

ORu. cьrkъvi; ONovg. →dùkteri; OLi. (du) żmûne mātara-pitarau
polъti (2) Lv. – OAv. amərətātā; YAv. rasmana
OCz. dceři OPr. – Gk. ποιμένε
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 200–201: PIE *‑e; OCS ‑i is from i-stems | Beekes

1995/2011: 216–217: Li. ‑e is from PIE *‑h₁e | Rasmussen forthc. a § 2:
PIE *‑e | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 45–51: the PIE C-stem
ending *‑e, preserved in Gk. and Li., was replaced with the o-stem
ending in Vedic; the original ending is preserved in the first part of the
Ved. dvandva compound mātara-pitarau | Rix 1976/1992: 159–160:
Gk. ‑ε is from PIE *‑h₁, probably not from *‑e; Li. dùkteri, OCS jeleni, OIr.
carait have *‑ī from neut. nom.–acc. du. *‑ih₁ | Sihler 1995: 255–256:
Ved. ‑a, OLi. ‑e, OIr. front vowel point to PIE *‑e; i- and u-stems point to
PIE *‑h₁ | Weiss 2009/2011: 199, 209: PIE *‑h₁e is preserved in Gk. ‑ε,
OLi. žmûne | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst
2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 165: Li. masc. and fem. words
have (i)i̯o- and i-stem ending, respectively; OLi. preserves the old end-
ing ‑e | Stang 1966: 222: old form is preserved in OLi. żmûne, Li. dial.
prt. ptc. act. áuguse | Otrębski 1956: 84: Li. uses i̯o-stem ending in
masculines, i-stem ending in feminines; old ending ‑e is preserved in
OLi. | Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 5: Slavic ‑i is from i-stems | Hujer 1910: 85–86: PIE
ending was perhaps *‑e; Slavic ‑i is from i-stems | Meillet 1924/1934:
424: Slavic ‑i is from i-stems | Vaillant 1958: 189–190: original C-stem
ending has been lost in IE languages; Slavic ‑i is from i-stems; Li. ‑e, Gk. ‑ε
are innovations based on nom. pl. *‑es | Bräuer 1969b: 9, 72: PIE *‑e;
CS *‑i is from i-stems | Arumaa 1985: 118–119: PIE *‑e is preserved in
Gk. and Li.; Slavic ‑i from *‑ī may be from i-stems; this also applies to Li.
‑i, OIr. carait < *‑ī | Igartua 2005a: 341–343: Gk. ‑ε, Li. ‑e reflect *‑e, per-
haps from *‑h₁; Slavic *‑i is from *‑ih₁, possibly under the influence of the
i-stems | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: PIE ending was perhaps *‑i [*‑ī(?)];
OCS ‑i < *‑ī may originate in i-stems
PIE The reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European nominative-accusative

dual marker is difficult (see the overviews in Oettinger 1988; Nussbaum 1986:
281–285; Rasmussen 2003). The i- and u-stem endings seem to contain a
laryngeal attached to the weak stem, pointing to a case–number marker *‑h.
The ā-stems employ the neuter ending *‑ih₁. The precise form of the o-stem
ending in the proto-language is unclear, the most likely candidate being
*‑oh₁ (see § 3.10.6). Thus on the basis of internal reconstruction we expect an
ending *‑h₁ in the consonant stems. This proto-form would indeed yield the
ending ‑ε found in Greek, which, however, may also reflect *‑(h₁)e. The latter
188 Chapter 3
reconstruction is supported by OLi. ‑e, which excludes a proto-form *‑h₁, and

perhaps by Old Irish, where the palatalisation in caraitL indicates the former
presence of a front vowel. Forms like TochB paine, TochA peṃ from Proto-
Tocharian *‑ä followed by an element *nV also point to *‑(h₁)e rather than *‑h₁
(Oettinger 1988: 355–356; see also Klingenschmitt 1975: 161 n. 21; Eichner 1982:
35–36 n. 3; Rasmussen 2003: 82). In Vedic the o-stem endings are used. This
probably applies to the Avestan endings as well, although they may also reflect
PIE *‑(h)a/e/o.
Since I find it difficult to see how OLi. ‑e may be secondary (pace Vaillant
loc. cit.), I reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European consonant-stem ending as
*‑h₁e. It is possible that *‑h₁e represents the full grade of the case–number
marker, whereas the *‑h₁ apparently found in the o‑, i- and u-stems is the zero-
grade variant (similarly e.g. Eichner 1982: 35–36 n. 3). However, a full-grade
ending in a nominative-accusative form presupposes that the vowel is “ablaut
resistant” and never appears in the zero grade, such as e.g. PIE nom. pl. *‑es
(see Rasmussen 1989b: 136 n. 17, 270); but in that case we expect the full grade
in the o‑, i- and u-stems as well. One may speculate, together with Oettinger
(1988: 358–359), that the full-grade variant of the nominative-accusative dual
marker is due to analogy with the nominative plural marker *‑es (cf. Malzahn
1999: 209–210).
Thus the reconstruction of ablauting *‑h₁e and *‑h₁ is not entirely satis-
factory, but I find it more compelling than the alternatives, such as a proto-
form *‑eh₁ (considered by Nussbaum 1986: 285), possibly ablauting with *‑h₁
(Malzahn 1999: 210–211). That reconstruction does not give a satisfactory expla-
nation of the Old Lithuanian ending ‑e, which can hardly have arisen from
*‑eh₁ in pausa (Nussbaum) or as a result of Leskien’s law (Malzahn).
Rasmussen (1989b: 129 n. 7; 2003: 84) maintains that the non-neuter nom-
inative-accusative dual marker did not contain an initial *h₁ since there is
Brugmann’s lengthening in Ved. svásārā, svásārau. However, the long vowel
may have been introduced by analogy with the nominative and accusative sin-
gular and plural, which all had a long vowel in Vedic. It is also possible that the
substitution of the consonant-stem ending with the o-stem ending took place
before Brugmann’s law (cf. Oettinger 1988: 357 n. 11). According to Eichner
(1982: 35–36 n. 3), the reconstruction with an initial *h₁ was proposed by him-
self and by Hoffmann (1976a: 561 n. 2).
PBS As shown by the Old Lithuanian ending ‑e, PIE *‑h₁e became *ˌ‑e in Proto-
Balto-Slavic. Later the consonant-stem ending was replaced with the i̯o-stem
ending in masculines and the (i̯)ā-stem ending in feminines in Lithuanian. The
ending is not preserved in Latvian and Old Prussian, where the dual category
was lost.
PS Slavic does not show any traces of the original ending *ˌ‑e, which was
replaced with the i-stem ending PS *‑ī (CS *‑i [29]). This ending is preserved in
3.10.2 Neuter Consonant-Stem Nom.–Acc. Dual
PS *slau̯esī (CS *slovesi, →*slovesě) PBS *‑ī ̰ PIE *‑ih₁
OCS tělesi, →slovesě Li. fem. akì Ved. kármaṇī

ORu. slovesi, →slovesě; ONovg. ? OLv. fem. (abi) aci OAv. manahi(‑ca); YAv. aši
OCz. rameni, →rameně OPr. – Gk. →ὀνόματε; Hom. ὄσσε
La. num. uīgintī
Go. –
Hi. sg. mēni(?)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 202–203: PIE *‑ī, alongside *‑i | Beekes 1995/

2011: 216–217: IIr. ‑ī points to PIE *‑ih₁; Gk. γένει < *‑ese has *‑e from masc.–
fem.; Gk. ὄσσε may reflect *okʷi̯e < *‑ih₁ | Rasmussen forthc. a § 2, 8:
PIE *‑ih₁; OCS ‑i is from PBS *‑ī | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975:
51–53, 275–276: Ved. ‑ī is from *‑ī, also in OCS ‑i, YAv. ‑i | Rix 1976/1992:
160: PIE *‑ih₁ is preserved in Ved. ‑ī, OCS ‑i and Gk. ὄσσε < *oki̯e < *h₃okʷih₁,
which also yielded OCS oči, TochB eś; other Gk. neuters use the masc. end-
ing ‑ε < *‑h₁, e.g. γένει < *‑ese < *‑esh₁ | Sihler 1995: 46, 287: Gk. ὄσσε is
from *okʷi̯e < *h₃ekʷih₁; elsewhere, Gk. ‑ε is from PIE *‑e or *‑h₁ | Weiss
2009/2011: 195, 199, 209: La. uīgintī preserves PIE *‑ih₁ | Krahe 1942/
1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: 240, 577: Hi. ēlzi,
mēni perhaps contain *‑ih₁
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971:—[see i-stems, § 3.10.3] | Stang
1966: – | Otrębski 1956: – | Endzelīns 1923: – [see i-stems, § 3.10.3]
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 5: OCS ‑i, La. num. uīgintī, Ved. ‑ī go back to PIE *‑ī;
OCS ‑ě is from o-stems | Hujer 1910: 86–87: Slavic ‑i (also in oči, uši),
Ved. ‑ī, Av. ‑i, La. num. uīgintī are from PIE *‑ī; Slavic ‑ě is from o-stems; Gk.
ὄσσε (with ‑ε from masc.–fem.) has replaced *ὄσσα < *‑i̯ə | Meillet 1924/
1934: 424: Slavic ‑i preserves PIE *‑ī; Slavic ‑ě is from o-stems | Vaillant
1958: 189–190, 244–247: OCS ‑ě is from o-stems; Slavic oči, Li. akì reflect
PIE *okʷī�;̆ Gk. ὤσσε [sic] is from *okʷi̯‑ plus new du. ending ‑ε | Bräuer
1969b: 26, 54, 83: CS *‑i is from PIE *‑ī or transferred from masc. nom.–acc.
du. | Arumaa 1985: 119: OCS oči, Li. aki, OPr. nozy, Ved. akṣī�,́ Av. asi
reflect PIE *‑ī, laryngealist *‑iə₁ [sic] | Igartua 2005a: 341–343: OCS ‑i is
190 Chapter 3
from PIE *‑ih₁ | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 97–98: OCS ‑ě is from o-stems;

‑i is either inherited or from i-stems
PIE The Proto-Indo-European neuter nominative-accusative dual marker

was *‑ih₁, preserved as a paradigmatic marker in Indo-Iranian and Slavic con-
sonant stems. The word for ‘(two) eyes’, PIE *h₃(o)kʷih₁, preserves the dual
marker *‑ih₁ in a number of languages, including YAv. aši, Gk. ὄσσε, Arm. ač‘k‘,
TochB eś, Li. akì and PS *ˌakī (CS *ȍči) (for Armenian see Olsen 1999: 171; for
Tocharian see Winter 1965: 201–202; Hilmarsson 1987: 45 n. 2; 1989: 118; Witczak
2011: 124; but cf. Kortlandt 1991/2010a: 156, according to whom the Tocharian
forms point to original PIE *‑i, not *‑ih₁; for a discussion of the Proto-Indo-
European word and its reflexes, with focus on Greek, see Forssman 1969). The
marker is also preserved in the Latin numeral uīgintī and probably in Hittite
forms like sg. mēni (see Rieken 1994: 52–53; Zeilfelder 2001: 226–228; Kloekhorst
loc. cit.). According to Kroonen (2013: 110), the neuter gender of ONor. pl. dyrr
‘door’ may indicate that the Germanic plural forms of this word are based on
the old neuter dual form *dʰurih₁; the forms are usually traced directly back to
a plural form *dʰures (e.g. Krahe & Meid 1967/1969: 58).
As for Gk. ὄσσε, often treated as a plural in Homer, but certainly an origi-
nal dual form (Forssman 1969: 39), the old explanation that it reflects *okʷī
followed by the dual marker *‑e is perhaps morphologically tolerable, but the
phonetic details of the development of *okʷī plus *e to ὄσσε are problematic.
It is therefore likely that ὄσσε reflects PIE *h₃(o)kʷih₁ directly (Forssman 1969:
40–41, 46; see also Rasmussen 1989b: 128 n. 7; cf. Olsen 2009: 348 n. 4 and, some-
what differently, 1999: 171). This also establishes the laryngeal as *h₁, which
may be related to the *h₁ found in the non-neuter nominative-accusative dual
marker.
PBS PIE *‑ih₁ yielded PBS *‑ī�̰ [1]. The Lithuanian dual forms akì, ausì, syn-
chronically i-stems, may reflect PIE *h₃okʷih₁, *h₂au̯ sih₁ directly, and it is pos-
sible that the same ending is preserved in Lv. abi aci found in old texts (see
Mühlenbach 1903: 20). Since the non-neuter dual i-stem ending was also *‑ih₁
in Proto-Indo-European, however, the question of which ending is reflected in
Baltic is perhaps only of academic interest.
As for the accentual evidence, Lithuanian is ambiguous since both PBS
*aˈkī�̰ and *ˌakī�̰ would result in akì, the former form directly, the latter by
Saussure’s law. In Slavic the form is unaccented, but this accentuation cannot
be original since it requires an accented ending with hiatus in Proto-Indo-
European (see [4]).
PS PBS *‑ī�̰ regularly yielded PS *‑ī [13] (CS *‑i [29]). This ending is attested in
the old Slavic dialects alongside PS *‑ai̯ (CS *‑ě), which is the o-stem ending.
According to Hirt (1893: 357) the OCS ‑i may reflect unaccented *‑ě, but I con-
sider this solution unattractive (see § 1.4.2).
The ending *‑ī is also preserved in the dual forms of PS *ˌaka ‘eye’ and *ˌau̯ xa
‘ear’ (CS *ȍko, *ȗxo), viz. *ˌakī, *ˌauxī (CS *ȍči, *ȗši). These nouns are neuter in
the singular but feminine in the dual in Old Church Slavonic (Vaillant 1948/
1964: 112). At an older stage, perhaps still in Proto-Slavic, they were neuter. The
evidence from non-Slavic languages suggests that the words should be regarded
as consonant stems, at least from a historical point of view (see the discussion
in Hujer loc. cit. and, for the Proto-Indo-European situation, Forssman 1969:
42; but cf. Aitzetmüller 1978: 76 n. 107, who considers the words to be neuter
i-stems originally).
3.10.3 i-Stem Nom.–Acc. Dual
PS *ˌgastī (CS *gȍsti) PBS *ˌ‑ī ̰ PIE *‑ih₁
OCS gosti Li. mintì Ved. śúcī

ORu. puti; ONovg. (2) OLv. (devińi) nakti OAv. xvīti(‑cā) ə̄nəⁱtī; YAv. aēϑra‑paⁱti
cetverti OPr. nozy(?) Gk. →πόλει
OCz. hosti La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
́
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 200: PIE *‑ī� | Beekes 1995/2011: 216–217: PIE *‑ih₁
[implicit from u-stems] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PBS *‑ī is PIE neut.
ending | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 49–51: Ved. ‑ī etc. prob-
ably result from pre-PIE contraction of stem-suffix *‑i‑ and du. marker
*‑e | Rix 1976/1992: 159: Gk. ‑ει is from *‑ei̯e < PIE *‑ei̯h₁; Ved. ‑ī, Li. ‑i,
OCS ‑i reflect PIE *‑ih₁ | Sihler 1995: 256, 314: Gk. ‑ει is from *‑εε, with
‑ε‑ for *‑ι‑ | Weiss 2009/2011: – | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan
1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 180: accentuation of PBS *ˌ‑ī�̰ < PIE *‑ih₁ is based on analogy
with ā-stem du. and nom. and acc. pl. of all stems | Endzelīns 1971:
154–155: original ending is preserved in Li. ‑ì, Lv. abi ausi, perhaps also
́
OPr. nozy | Stang 1966: 211: Li. ‑ì is from *‑ī� | Otrębski 1956: 83–84:
192 Chapter 3
́
Li. ‑i is from *‑ī� | Endzelīns 1923: 333: traces of du. ending ‑i are pre-
served in Lv. (abi) ausi, (pìeci) asi
́
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 5: OCS ‑i, Li. ‑i, Ved. ‑ī are from *‑ī� | Hujer 1910:
84–85: Slavic ‑i, Li. ‑i, Ved. ‑ī, Av. ‑i are from PIE *‑ī�,́ which has arisen by
analogy with o-stem ending | Meillet 1924/1934: 420 | Vaillant
1958: 137: PIE *‑ī | Bräuer 1969a: 156: PIE *‑ī | Arumaa 1985: 129–
130: OCS ‑i goes back to acute *‑ī�,́ either from *‑i‑ plus laryngeal or from
*‑i‑ plus du. ending *‑e | Igartua 2005a: 260: OCS ‑i, Li. ‑i, Ved. ‑ī, Av. ‑i
reflect PIE *‑ih₁ | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 76: OCS ‑i is from *‑ī
PIE PIE *‑ih₁ consisted of the zero grade of the stem-suffix followed by the
zero grade of the case–number marker (see § 3.10.1 for the problems related to
the marker). The ending is preserved in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic. Greek
‑ει cannot reflect *‑ih₁, but may possibly continue *‑ei̯e, a recomposed form
containing the full-grade variant of the stem-suffix, *‑ei̯‑, followed by *‑e from
the consonant stems.
PBS PIE *‑ih₁ is reflected as PBS *ˌ‑ī�̰ [1]. In the mobile paradigm the form
became unaccented by analogy with the corresponding ā-stem and neuter
o-stem form and with the nominative and accusative plural forms of all stems.
The ending is preserved in Lithuanian. In Latvian it can be seen after quantifi-
ers in old texts, e.g. devińi nakti ‘nine nights’ (Mühlenbach 1903: 9). It is possible
that OPr. nozy represents an i-stem dual form (Endzelīns 1971: 154–155), but
other interpretations are possible (Mažiulis 2004: 54 considers it an ī/i̯ā-stem).
PS PBS *ˌ‑ī�̰ yielded PS *ˌ‑ī [13] (CS *‑i [29]), preserved in the old Slavic dialects.
3.10.4 u-Stem Nom.–Acc. Dual
PS *ˌsūnū (CS *sy̑ny) PBS *ˌ‑ṵ̄ PIE non-neut. *‑uh₁
OCS syny Li. sū́nu Ved. mádhū

ORu. syny; ONovg. (vъ) poly Lv. – OAv. mańiiū; YAv. dax́ iiu
OCz. syny OPr. – Gk. →ἡδεῖ; Hom. →ἡδέε
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 200: PIE *‑ū́ | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 216–217:

PIE *‑uh₁ | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PBS *‑ū is PIE neut. end-
ing | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 49–51: Ved. ‑ū etc. prob-
ably result from pre-PIE contraction of stem-suffix *‑u‑ and du. marker
*‑e | Rix 1976/1992: 159: Gk. ‑ει, Hom. ‑εε reflect *‑eu̯ e < PIE *‑eu̯ h₁; Ved.
‑ū, Li. ‑u, OCS ‑y are from PIE *‑uh₁ | Sihler 1995: 256 | Weiss 2009/
2011: – | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: 174: PIE ending was
perhaps *‑uh | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 180: PBS unaccented *ˌ‑ṵ̄ < PIE *‑uh₁ is based on anal-
ogy with ā-stem du. and nom. and acc. pl. of all stems | Endzelīns
1971: 159 | Stang 1966: 211: Li. ‑ù from *‑ū́ is identical to OCS ‑y, Ved.
‑ū | Otrębski 1956: 83–84: Li. ‑u is from *‑ū́ | Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 5: OCS ‑y, Li. ‑u, Ved. ‑ū go back to *‑ū́ | Hujer 1910:
84–85: Slavic ‑y, Li. ‑u, Ved. ‑ū, Av. ‑u reflect PIE *‑ū́, which has arisen by
analogy with o-stem ending | Meillet 1924/1934: 414 | Vaillant
1958: 112: PIE *‑ū | Bräuer 1969a: 147: PIE *‑ū | Arumaa 1985:
129–130: OCS ‑y reflects acute *‑ū́, either from *‑u‑ plus laryngeal, or from
*‑u‑ plus du. ending *‑e | Igartua 2005a: 289: OCS ‑y reflects PIE *‑ū <
*‑uh₁ | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 76: OCS ‑y is from *‑ū
PIE The ending *‑uh₁, preserved in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, contained

the zero-grade variant of the u-stem-suffix and the case–number marker (see
§ 3.10.1 for the problems related to the marker). The Greek ending ‑ει and the
older form ‑εε attested in Homer reflect PGk. *‑eu̯ e. This is either the direct
reflex of a full-grade variant PIE *‑eu̯ h₁, or, if there was no such variant in the
proto-language, it may be a remade form containing the full grade of PGk.
nom. pl. *‑eu̯ es followed by the consonant-stem dual ending *‑e.
PBS PIE *‑uh₁ becomes PBS *ˌ‑ṵ̄ [1], with loss of accent by analogy with the
ā-stems and neuter o-stem forms and with the nominative and accusative plu-
ral forms of all paradigms. Among the Baltic languages the ending is preserved
only in Lithuanian.
PS PBS *ˌ‑ṵ̄ is continued regularly as PS *ˌ‑ū [13] (CS *‑y [29]), preserved in
194 Chapter 3
3.10.5 ā-Stem Nom.–Acc. Dual
PS *ˌnagāi ̯ (CS *nȍʒě; *dȗši) PBS *ˌ‑a̰i ̯ PIE *‑ah₂ih₁
OCS glavě; duši Li. gálvi; def. adj. Ved. jihvé

ORu. ženě; zemli, ONovg. (2) mažíeji OAv. ?; YAv. uruuaire
grivьně; (2) svinьi Lv. dial. abi kãji Gk. →φυγᾱ́; pron. →τώ; Myc.
OCz. rybě; duši OPr. – →to‑pe‑zo /torpezō/; masc.
→e‑qe‑ta‑e /hekʷetae/
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 198–199: PIE acute *‑aí (or *‑oí) | Beekes 1995/
2011: 216–217: PIE *‑eh₂ih₁ | Rasmussen forthc. a § 5: OCS ‑ě, ‑ji, Li. ‑ì,
‑íe‑ are from PBS *‑ā́i ̯ < PIE *‑ah₂ih₁, also in Ved. ‑e | Debrunner &
Wackernagel 1930/1975: 51: Ved. ‑e, OAv. ‑ē, YAv. ‑e, Li. ‑ì, ‑íe‑, OCS ‑ě, OIr.
i-mutation reflect PIE (acute) *‑ai, probably with the same *‑ī as the neu-
ters | Rix 1976/1992: 135: Ved. ‑e, OCS ‑ě go back to PIE *‑eh₂ih₁; Gk.
‑ō is from o-stems, and later ‑ā is based on analogy with nom. pl.; Myc.
‑a‑e is perhaps from *‑eh₂‑ih₁ | Sihler 1995: 272–273, 275: expected
PIE ending is *‑eh₂h₁ or *‑eh₂(h₂)e, but perhaps the ā-stems had no dis-
tinctive du.; Hom. masc. ‑ᾱ is from *‑αε, preserved in Myc. | Weiss
2009/2011: 229 (366): La. ‑ae phonologically or analogically continues PIE
*‑eh₂ih₁ | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst
2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 179–180: unaccented PBS *‑ā̰i ̯ is the regular reflex of
PIE *‑áh₂ih₁ | Endzelīns 1971: 145–146: Li. ‑i, ‑ie‑, Lv. ‑i reflect *‑ei,
different from Slavic ‑ě | Stang 1966: 199: Li. ‑i, ‑íe‑ reflect PIE
*‑eh₂ī | Otrębski 1956: 84: Li. ‑i probably reflects *‑ai, corresponding
to OCS ‑ě, Ved. ‑e | Endzelīns 1923: 332–333: Lv. ‑i, Li. ‑i, ‑ie‑ are from
*‑ei, also in Welsh dwy; OCS ‑ě is from *‑ai or *‑oi
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 5: OCS ‑ě, Li. ‑i, ‑ie‑, Ved. ‑e are from *‑ai | Hujer
1910: 82–84: Slavic ‑ě, ‑ji go back to circumflex *‑ai < *‑əi; acute tone of Li.
‑ì, ‑íe‑ is analogical from nom.–acc. du. of other paradigms | Meillet
1924/1934: 399 | Vaillant 1958: 84–85: acute tone of Li. ‑ì, ‑íe‑ is perhaps
analogical from i- and C-stems; IIr. points to *‑ai; long vowel of PBS *‑āi is
perhaps due to generalisation of stem-vowel *‑ā | Bräuer 1969a: 105,

127: CS *‑ě, *‑ji reflect PIE *‑ai̯, from *‑a plus *‑ī | Arumaa 1985: 155: CS
*‑ě is from PIE *‑oi | Igartua 2005a: 222–223: Slavic ‑ě, ‑ji are from PIE
*‑āī < *‑eh₂ih₁; Li. ‑i, ‑ie‑ reflect *‑ai | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 88, 91:
OCS ‑ě, ‑ji reflect PIE *‑ai
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending *‑ah₂ih₁ consisted of the stem-suffix

*‑ah₂‑ and a dual marker *‑ih₁ usually identified with the marker of the neuter
nominative-accusative dual (see the discussion in Nussbaum 1986: 130–132). It
is not obvious why feminines and neuters would share a case–number marker
in the nominative-accusative, contrasting with the masculines. In any case, a
reconstruction *‑ah₂ih₁ relatively unproblematically yields the expected out-
comes in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic. In Greek the ending ‑ᾱ, used almost
exclusively with masculine nouns in Homer, reflects earlier *‑ae. The uncon-
tracted ending, which was presumably created by adding the ending *‑e from
the consonant stems to a stem in *‑a‑, is still found in Mycenaean. The ending
‑ω was introduced from the masculine o-stems.
PBS The reflex of PIE *‑ah₂ih₁ was PBS *ˌ‑a̰ i ̯ [1|3|4]. Lithuanian shows the
glottalisation in forms like rankì (a.p. 2) from *ˈranka̰ i ̯ and in the definite adjec-
tive mažíeji. Endzelīns (1923: 332) reports that Latvian has retained the old dual
form in expressions like abi kãji atspêries ‘mit beiden Füßen sich stemmend’.
PS PBS *ˌ‑a̰ i ̯ is reflected as PS *ˌ‑āi̯ [13] (CS *‑ě [22|29]; *‑ji [20|22|29]), pre-
served in the old Slavic dialects.
3.10.6 Masculine o-Stem Nom.–Acc. Dual
PS *ˌtakā (CS *tȍka; *gȍja) PBS *ˌ‑ō̰ PIE *‑oh₁(?)
OCS grada; kon’a Li. lángu; def. adj. mažúoju Ved. devā́, deváu
ORu. stola; kon’a; ONovg. OLv. acc. divu dārzu OAv. spādā; YAv. zasta
(g)ospodina; kon’a OPr. – Gk. ἀγρώ
OCz. oráčě, ‑e La. num. pl. duo, ambō
Go. –
Hi. –
196 Chapter 3
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 196–198: PIE *‑ōu and acute *‑ṓ | Beekes

1995/2011: 217: Li. acute tone and C-stem ending ‑e point to PIE
*‑oh₁ | Rasmussen forthc. a §§ 2, 4: Li. ‑u, OCS ‑a go back to PIE *‑ō,
alongside *‑ōu̯ < *‑oe | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 45–51:
Vedic suggests older distribution with ‑ā before consonant, ‑āv before
vowel, perhaps ‑au (and possibly ‑ā) in pausa; Gk. ‑ω, Li. ‑ù, ‑úo‑ reflect
PIE *‑ṓ, alongside *‑ōu̯ originating in PIE *du̯ ōu̯ (alongside *du̯ ō̆ ‘2’) and
*ok̑tṓu̯ (alongside *ok̑tṓ) ‘8’ | Rix 1976/1992: 141: Gk. ‑ω, Ved. ‑ā, Li. ‑u,
OCS ‑a, La. ambō contain PIE *‑oh₁ | Sihler 1995: 255–256, 265: Ved. ‑ā,
Li. ‑u, OCS ‑a, Gk. ‑ω, La. ambō, duo are from PIE *‑oh₁ or *‑o(h₁)e; Ved. ‑au
is an Indic innovation | Weiss 2009/2011: 195, 209, 365–367: PIE *du̯ oh₁
or *du̯ ōu from *d(u)u̯ oh₁e (“Jasanoff’s Law”) | Krahe 1942/1967: – |
Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 179–180: PIE *‑óh₁ or *‑ṓ; BS unaccented form may be ana-
logical | Endzelīns 1971: 137: Lv. acc. divu dārzu corresponds to Li. ‑u
from acute *‑uo | Stang 1966: 183: Li. ‑u, ‑uo‑ from *‑úo corresponds
to Gk. ‑ω, OCS ‑a, Ved. ‑ā | Otrębski 1956: 83–84: Li. ‑u is from *‑uo <
*‑ō | Endzelīns 1923: 331–332: Li. ‑u, OCS ‑a, Ved. ‑ā(u), Gk. ‑ω reflect
PIE *‑ōu̯ , also preserved in Lv. dial. ‑u
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 5: OCS ‑a, Li. ‑u, ‑uo‑, Gk. ‑ω reflect PIE *‑ṓ | Hujer
1910: 78–81: Slavic ‑a, La. ‑o, Gk. ‑ω, Ved. ‑ā, Li. ‑u go back to PIE *‑ṓ;
Ved. ‑au, Go. ahtau preserve older ending *‑ōu | Meillet 1924/1934:
410 | Vaillant 1958: 38, 48: Slavic ‑a, Li. ‑u, Lv. dial. -u, Ved. ‑ā, Gk. ‑ω
are from PIE *‑ō, alongside *‑ōu in Ved. ‑au; Slavic ‑ja for expected ‑jě
in soft stems, attested in Glagolitic OCS and OCz., is analogical from
hard stems | Bräuer 1969a: 24, 74: CS *‑a reflects PIE *‑ō, alongside
*‑ōu̯ | Arumaa 1985: 145–146: Slavic ‑a etc. reflect PIE *‑ṓ | Igartua
2005a: 145–147: Slavic ‑a is from PIE *‑ō < *‑oh₁/h₃ | Aitzetmüller 1978/
1991: 82, 84: OCS ‑a, Li. ‑u, Ved. ‑ā, Gk. ‑ω reflect PIE *‑ō; OCS ‑ja in soft
stems is analogical from hard stems
PIE The original shape of the ending in Proto-Indo-European is disputed.

Among the suggested reconstructions are *‑ō, *‑oe, *‑oh₁, *‑oh₃ and *‑oeh₁.
While each of these reconstructions is favoured by part of the evidence
from the Indo-European languages, none of them is compatible with all the
evidence.
From the point of view of internal reconstruction we expect the ending
to consist of the thematic vowel followed by the masculine nominative-
accusative dual marker. This marker seems to be *‑h₁ in i- and u-stems but *‑h₁e
in consonant stems (see § 3.10.1). If the o-timbre of the thematic vowel requires
a following voiced segment (§ 3.2.5), then the ending was *‑oe, *‑oh₃ or *‑oeh₁
in the proto-language. The acute tone of Gk. ἀγρώ points to a monosyllabic

ending, i.e. PIE *‑ō or *‑oh, whereas the Lithuanian acute tone seen clearly in
words like alkù (a.p. 2) points to the former presence of a word-final laryngeal,
i.e. PIE *‑oh or *‑oeh. The form is unaccented in Balto-Slavic, which indicates
a Proto-Indo-European ending containing a hiatus, i.e. *‑oe or *‑oeh in accor-
dance with the mobility law [4].
Perhaps the most likely reconstruction is PIE *‑oh₁, which is often found in
the literature (see e.g. Fritz 2011: 200–203). This is in harmony with the evidence
of internal reconstruction and with the Greek and Lithuanian acute tones. The
o-timbre before an unvoiced segment may have been introduced secondarily,
as it happened elsewhere in o-stem nouns (see § 3.2.5), and the unaccented-
ness of the form in Balto-Slavic may be secondary. An idea that seems to enjoy
some popularity says that PIE *‑oh₁ resulted by regular apocope from pre-PIE
unaccented word-final *‑oh₁e (e.g. Melchert 1994: 51–52; Weiss 2009/2011: 114;
Kim 2012 § 1; all scholars refer to Jasanoff 1988: 73–74 n. 10, where, as far I can
see, it is only suggested that pre-PIE accented word-final *‑óhe yielded PIE
*‑óhu).
PBS PIE *‑oh₁ is reflected as PBS *ˌ‑ō̰ [1]. According to the mobility law [4],
a Proto-Indo-European ending consisting of an accented vowel followed by a
laryngeal would retain the accent in Proto-Balto-Slavic. The unaccented form
in Lithuanian and Slavic may be due to the influence of the corresponding
ā-stem and neuter o-stem forms and of the nominative and accusative plural
of all stems. In Baltic the dual is preserved as a paradigmatic category only in
Lithuanian dialects, which show ‑ù, def. adj. ‑úoju. Traces of old dual forms are
found in Latvian dialects as well, especially after the numerals ‘two’ to ‘nine’
e.g. acc. divu dārzu (see Endzelīns loc. cit.).
PS PBS *ˌ‑ō̰ yielded PS *ˌ‑ā [13|15] (CS *‑a [29]; *‑ja [20|27|29]). The ending
was preserved in the old Slavic dialects.
3.10.7 Neuter o-Stem Nom.–Acc. Dual
PS *ˌsutai ̯ (CS *sъ̏tě; *pȍl’i) PBS *ˌ‑ai ̯ PIE *‑oi ̯h₁
OCS sъtě; pol’i Li. – Ved. śr̥ ṅ́ ge

ORu. lětě; poli; ONovg. →lukna; →kletišča Lv. – OAv. š́iiaoϑnōi; YAv. saite
OCz. městě; moři OPr. – Gk. →ζυγώ
La. –
Go. –; OSax. num. twē
Hi. –
198 Chapter 3
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 201: Ved. ‑e, YAv. ‑e, OCS ‑ě, ‑ji reflect PIE *‑oi, which
was probably acute; *‑oi is perhaps also preserved in OEng. num. twā, Gk.
δύο from sandhi variant *‑o[i̯], La. uīgintī | Beekes 1995/2011: 217: PIE
*‑oih₁ | Rasmussen forthc. a §§ 2, 4: Ved., YAv. ‑e, OCS ‑ě go back to PIE
*‑oi̯h₁ | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 51–53: Ved. ‑e consists
of *‑a‑ plus *‑ī | Rix 1976/1992: 141: in Gk. the masc. ending replaces
*‑oe < *‑oi̯e < PIE *‑oi̯h₁, preserved in Ved. yugé, OCS iʒ[ě] | Sihler
1995: 265: Ved. ‑e, OCS ‑ě are from PIE *‑oi̯h₁; Gk. ‑ω is probably masc. end-
ing | Weiss 2009/2011: 209: PIE *‑oih₁ | Krahe 1942/1967: 86: OHG
neut. zwei may reflect PIE *du̯ ai, also in Ved. dvé, OCS dъvě | Boutkan
1995: 306: OHG zwei contains *‑oi | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 180: PS *ˌ‑āi̯ is from PIE *‑ói̯h₁, with analogical loss of
accent | Endzelīns 1971: – | Stang 1966: – | Otrębski 1956:
– | Endzelīns 1923: 332, 357–358: Lv. divi dar̃bi may reflect neut.
o-stem ending PBalt. *‑ei or *‑ai; Lv. dial. num. dui̯ may reflect fem. and
neut. form *duvi
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 5: OCS ‑ě, Ved. ‑e are from PIE *‑oi | Hujer
1910: 81–82: Slavic ‑ě, Ved. ‑e, YAv. ‑e reflect PIE *‑oi, consisting of
*‑o‑ plus *‑ī | Meillet 1924/1934: 410: Slavic ‑ě, ‑ji are from *‑oi or
*‑ai | Vaillant 1958: 45 | Bräuer 1969a: 63, 93: CS *‑ě reflects PIE
*‑oi̯ < *‑o‑ plus *‑ī | Arumaa 1985: 146: OCS ‑ě is from PIE *‑oi < *‑o
plus *‑ī | Igartua 2005a: 147–148: Slavic ‑ě, OPr. num. dwai contain PIE
*‑oī < *‑oih₁ | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 85: OCS ‑ě, ‑ji are from PIE *‑oi or
from ā-stems
PIE Internal evidence suggests a Proto-Indo-European ending *‑oi̯h₁, consist-

ing of the o-grade of the thematic vowel followed by the neuter nominative-
accusative dual marker *‑ih₁ (see § 3.10.2). The expected ending is found in
Indo-Iranian and Slavic; it is also likely that West Germanic forms such as OSax.
neut. nom.–acc. twē and OEng. twā go back to PIE *‑oi̯h₁ (Cowgill 1985b/2006:
19; Ringe 2006a: 286; cf. also Boutkan loc. cit., Krahe loc. cit.). In Greek the mas-
culine ending has been generalised.
PBS PIE *‑oi̯h₁ regularly yielded PBS *ˌ‑ai̯ [1|4|7], preserved in Slavic. Note
that the chronology given here, with early loss of word-final laryngeals after *i̯,
produces a result that is in harmony with the mobility law, in contrast to what
I believed earlier (Olander loc. cit.). The ending has not survived in Baltic. It is
sometimes maintained that OPr. num. masc. acc. pl. dwai is an original neuter
dual (Igartua 2005a: 148), but it is more likely that it is simply the nominative
plural ending (cf. Stang 1966: 277; for alleged traces of the neuter nominative-
accusative dual ending in East Baltic see Fraenkel 1928: 20).
PS The regular reflex of PBS *ˌ‑ai̯ is PS *ˌ‑ai̯ (CS *‑ě [22|29]; *‑ji [20|22|29]).
This ending has regular reflexes in the old Slavic dialects. In the Old
Novgorod area the neuter ending has been replaced with the masculine end-
ing (see Zaliznjak 1995/2004: 111), a tendency observable in other dialects
as well.
3.10.8 First-Person Dual Pronoun Nominative
PS *u̯ē (CS *vě) PBS *u̯ḛ̄, *u̯e PIE *u̯éh₁
OCS vě Li. masc. nom.–acc. →mùdu; Ved. →vā́m; Saṃhitā-prose+ →āvám

ORu. vě; ONovg. ? fem. →mùdvi; Žem. masc. OAv. vā; YAv. ?
OCz. vě, →va →vẽdọ; fem. →vẽdvi Gk. nom.–acc. →νώ; Hom. →νῶϊ
Lv. – La. –
OPr. – Go. →wit
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 383–384, 412: PIE *u̯ ē, *u̯ e | Beekes 1995/2011: – |
Rasmussen forthc. a § 13: OCS vě, Li. dial. vèdu from PIE *u̯ ḗ, along-
side *u̯ é | Schmidt 1978: 168–176, 205–206: Go. wit, Žem. vẽdọ point
to PIE *u̯ e; OCS vě points to *u̯ ē, which may have been lengthened by
analogy with 2du. *i̯uh; Ved. vā́m is from PIIr. *vā̆‑am | Debrunner
& Wackernagel 1930/1975: 462–464 | Rix 1976/1992: [see encl. 1du.
and 2du. acc.–dat., § 3.10.10] | Sihler 1995: 373, 375, 381–382: OCS vě is
from PIE *u̯ éh₁; Ved. vā́m is from *vā̆‑ám; Ved. āvám has ā‑ from oblique
stem; [see also encl. 1du. and 2du. acc.–dat., § 3.10.10] | Weiss 2009/
2011: 332: PIE *u̯ eh₁ | Krahe 1942/1967: 51: Go. wit etc. reflect PIE
*u̯ e‑d‑ | Seebold 1984: 25–26: Gmc. forms may point to *wit from PIE
*u̯ e‑de, alongside *u̯ e | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Kapović 2006a: 91, 113, 148: CS *vě ̑, Av. vā point to PIE *u̯ ḗ; Go. wit points to
PIE *u̯ é | Endzelīns 1971: 189: Žem. vèdu preserves the original form;
Li. mùdu, Lv. dial. mũdui̯ have been remodelled on pl. forms | Stang
1966: 257: Žem. vẽdọ points to PIE *u̯ e; OCS vě points to PIE *u̯ ē; Li. mu‑
is remade based on 2du. ju‑ | Otrębski 1956: 139: ve‑ in Li. dial. masc.
200 Chapter 3
vẽdu, fem. vẽdvi corresponds to OCS vě | Endzelīns 1923: 381: Lv. dial.
mũdui̯ corresponds to Li. mùdu
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 73–74: Slavic vě is from *u̯ ē̆, also in Li. vèdu, Go.
wit | Meillet 1924/ 1934: 454–455 | Vaillant 1958: 454–455: PBS
acute *u̯ ē goes back to PIE *u̯ ē̆ | Arumaa 1985: 169–170: PIE *u̯ ē or
*u̯ e | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 110: OCS vě points to *u̯ ē‑; Go. wit points
to *u̯ e‑; Li. is ambiguous
PIE With the variation in vowel quantity also seen in other monosyllabic

pronouns (see § 3.2.7), we find reflexes of PIE *u̯ é in Germanic and Žemaitian
and of *u̯ éh₁ or *u̯ ḗ in Slavic; I assume that the Proto-Indo-European point of
departure was *u̯ éh₁ (for Germanic cf. Eichner 1982: 74–88; Kroonen 2013: 276).
According to Hilmarsson (1989: 44, followed by Katz 1998: 169–170 with n. 42),
the long form attested in Slavic may represent an emphatically lengthened
variant of the short form. The Indo-Iranian hapaxes Vedic vā́m, probably from
*u̯ ā̆‑am, and OAv. vā are inconclusive as to the quantity of the vowel (see Katz
1998: 203–206 for a useful discussion of the Vedic form). The later Indic form
āvám is based on acc. pl. āvā́m from PIE *n̥ hu̯ é plus *‑óm, with short ‑am intro-
duced from 1sg. ahám, 2sg. t(u)vám (thus also e.g. Katz 1998: 201–202 n. 17). The
Tocharian B first-person dual form wene may be based on the plural form (Katz
1998: 169–171).
PBS PIE *u̯ éh₁ is reflected as PBS *u̯ ḛ̄ [1], preserved in Slavic. A shortened vari-
ant PBS *u̯ e is found in Žem. masc. vẽdu, fem. vẽdvi. The standard Lithuanian
forms mùdu, mùdvi have mu‑ from the oblique first-person plural stem; the
second-person dual form jù‑ may also have played a role. In Lithuanian the
numeral ‘two’ has been attached to the forms.
PS PBS *u̯ ḛ̄ yields PS *u̯ ē [13] (CS *vě [29]), preserved in the old Slavic dialects.
3.10.9 Second-Person Dual Pronoun Nominative
PS →*u̯ū (CS *vy) PBS *i ̯ṵ̄, *i ̯u(?) PIE *i ̯úh
OCS vy, →va Li. masc. nom.–acc. Ved. →yuvám

ORu. vy; ONovg. vy →jùdu; fem. →jùdvi OAv. ?; YAv. ?
OCz. vy Lv. – Gk. nom.–acc. →σφώ; Hom. →σφῶϊ
OPr. – La. –
Go. ?; OEng. →git; OSax. →git; ONor. →it
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 384–385, 409, 412: PIE *i̯ū, *i̯u; Gk. νώ, σφώ, OCS va
are PIE encl. acc. (and gen.–dat.) *u̯ ō used as nom. | Beekes 1995/2011:
– | Rasmussen forthc. a § 13: OCS vy, Li. jùdu are from PBS, PIE *i̯ū́,
alongside *i̯ú | Schmidt 1978: 207–212, 245–246: Ved. yuvám reflects
PIE *i̯uh plus PIIr. ptcl. *‑am; Gmc. forms with *i for *u modelled on
1du.; OCS vy reflects *i̯ū, with v‑ from oblique forms | Debrunner &
Wackernagel 1930/1975: 462–464 | Rix 1976/1992: [see encl. 1du. and
2du. acc.–dat., § 3.10.10] | Sihler 1995: 373, 381–382: PIE *yuh₁, *yūh₁(?);
[see also encl. 1du. and 2du. acc.–dat., § 3.10.10] | Weiss 2009/2011:
332: PIE *i̯uhh₁ | Krahe 1942/1967: 53: Gmc. *jit reflects *jut with *i
from 1du. *wit | Seebold 1984: 26: Gmc. *jit is perhaps from PIE *i̯u‑de,
with *i for *u by analogy with 1du. *wit | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Kapović 2006a: 77–78, 91, 98–99, 113, 148–149, passim: CS *vy̑ reflects
pre-PS *i̯ū, with *u̯ ‑ from oblique forms; PBS *i̯ū́, *i̯ù(?) go back to PIE
*i̯ū́, *i̯ú | Endzelīns 1971: 189: Li. jùdu, Lv. dial. jũdui̯ have been
remodelled on pl. forms | Stang 1966: 257: Li. jùdu, jùdvi continue
*i̯ū́ | Otrębski 1956: 139 | Endzelīns 1923: 381: Lv. dial. jũdui̯ corre-
sponds to Li. jùdu
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 73–74: Glagolitic manuscripts use pl. vy for va, origi-
nally an acc. form | Meillet 1924/1934: 455: Slavic does not have
reflexes of *i̯ū, but uses the acc. form va | Vaillant 1958: 454–455:
Slavic vy reflects PIE *i̯ū, with v‑ for *j‑ as in nom. pl.; nom. function of va
is secondary | Arumaa 1985: 170 | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 112: Li.
jùdu reflects *i̯ū́; in Slavic *i̯‑ was replaced with *u̯ ‑
PIE Vedic, Balto-Slavic and, indirectly, Germanic, point to PIE *i̯úh. In Vedic

the form was extended by the particle *hom also found in other pronouns.
This form of the pronoun is not attested in Gothic; the other Germanic lan-
guages have replaced the reflexes of expected *i̯uta with reflexes of *i̯ita by
analogy with the first-person dual, e.g. Go. wit (cf. Eichner 1982: 74–88; Kroonen
2013: 276).
PBS PIE *i̯úh yielded PBS *i̯ṵ̄ [1]. It cannot be established whether Li.
masc. jùdu, fem. jùdvi go directly back to PBS *i̯ṵ̄ or if they reflect a shortened
variant *i̯u.
PS PBS *i̯ṵ̄ is reflected as PS *u̯ ū [13] (CS *vy [29]), with *u̯ ‑ from the oblique
forms of the paradigm (Vaillant loc. cit., Schmidt loc. cit., Kapović loc. cit.). I find
it less plausible that vy does not continue the dual form, but represents the
plural form, which replaced older va in certain dialects (thus e.g. Meillet
1918b; loc. cit.; Vondrák loc. cit.; van Wijk 1931: 198; Vaillant 1948/1964: 148–149).
202 Chapter 3
In some Old Church Slavonic traditions the inherited form vy was replaced
with acc. va in order to reestablish the distinction between the nominative
forms of the dual and plural.
It is sometimes stated that Old Russian had va in both the nominative and
accusative (e.g. Černyx 1952/1954: 203; Matthews 1960: 118). However, it seems
that vy is the normal form for the nominative and accusative in Old Russian;
the few instances of va, always in accusative function, occur only in religious
texts (Gadolina 1963: 112–113; see also the interesting observations on the use of
this pronoun in old East Slavic documents by Zaliznjak 1995/2004: 131).
3.10.10 Enclitic 1du. and 2du. Pronoun Acc.–Dat.
Enclitic first-person dual pronoun accusative-dative
PS *nā (CS *na) PBS *nō̰ PIE encl. obl. *noh₃ (tonic acc. *n̥h₃u̯é)
OCS acc. na, →ny; Li. – (masc. nom.– Ved. encl. acc.–gen.–dat. →nau (tonic
encl. dat. ChSl. na acc. →mùdu; fem. Brāhmaṇa+ →āvā́m)
ORu. acc. na, →ny; →mùdvi) OAv. encl. gen. nā (tonic ?); YAv. encl. ?
ONovg. ? Lv. – (tonic ?)
OCz. acc. →ny OPr. – Gk.—(nom.–acc. →νώ; Hom. →νῶϊ)
La. –
Go.—(acc.–dat. →ugkis)
Hi. –
Enclitic second-person dual pronoun accusative–dative
PS *u̯ā (CS *va) PBS *u̯ō̰ PIE encl. obl. *u̯oh₃ (tonic acc. *uh₃u̯é)
OCS acc. va, →vy; Li.–(masc. nom.– Ved. encl. acc.–gen.–dat. →vām (tonic
encl. dat. va acc. →jùdu; fem. →yuvā́m)
ORu. acc. va, →vy; →jùdvi) OAv. encl. ? (tonic ?); YAv. encl. ? (tonic ?)
ONovg. acc. ?; Lv. – Gk.—(nom.–acc. →σφώ; Hom. →σφῶϊ)
encl. dat. va OPr. – La. –
OCz. acc. →vy Go.—(acc.–dat. →igqis)
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 383–386, 409, 412: Gk. νώ, σφώ, OCS na, va
reflect PIE encl. acc. (and gen.–dat.) *nō, *u̯ ō | Beekes 1995/2011:
– | Rasmussen forthc. a § 13: OCS na, va reflect PBS *nō, *u̯ ō < PIE
acc.–gen.–dat. *noh₃, *u̯ oh₃ | Schmidt 1978: 182–189, 205–206, 225–
233, 245–246: 1du. PIE acc. *noh, gen., loc. *nohhu, encl. dat. *noh; 2du. PIE
acc. *sgʷʰes, post-PIE *u̯ oh (> PIIr. *vā, OCS va), gen.(‑loc.?) *i̯uheh₂qʷhu,
encl. dat. *u̯ oh | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 477: Ved. vām
has ‑m from forms like tonic acc. du. yuvā́m; expected vā seems to be
attested once | Rix 1976/1992: 179: Gk. σφώ is isolated | Sihler 1995:
373, 381–382: Gk. 1du. νώ, Ved. nāu, OAv. nā continue PIE encl. acc. *nō̆h₁;
2du. PIE encl. acc. *u̯ ō̆h₁; Gk. forms with σφ‑ are obscure | Weiss 2009/
2011: 332: PIE acc. *noh₁, *u̯ oh₁ | Krahe 1942/1967: 51, 53: Gmc. 1du.
*un‑ is from PIE *n̥ ‑, also in Gk. νώ, Ved. nau; Gmc. *k is from acc. sg.; Go.
ugkis, ONor. okr have taken the ending of 1sg. mis, mér; Go. 2du. igqis is
based on 1du., with *i‑ from nom. du. *jit, acc.–dat. pl. Go. izwis etc.; *‑iz
is from acc.–dat. pl. *(u̯ )izu̯ iz | Seebold 1984: 37–39: PIE probably had
encl. 1du. *nō, 2du. *u̯ ō; PGmc. *ink‑, *unk‑ are from PIE *n̥ əu̯ ‑, *iməu̯ ‑ (by
dissimilation from *iu̯ əu̯ ‑) | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Kapović 2006a: 91, 99, 115, 130, 132, 150: CS *nȃ, *vȃ reflect PIE encl. acc.–
gen.–dat. *noh₁, *u̯ oh₁ | Endzelīns 1971: 189: Li. dial. nuodu may be
compared with OCS na, Gk. νώ | Stang 1966: 257: Li. dial. nuodu attests
stem *nō‑ | Otrębski 1956: 139: Li. dial. nuodu contains nuo‑ corre-
sponding to OCS na, Gk. νώ, Ved. nau | Endzelīns 1923: [see 1du. nom.,
§ 3.10.8; 2du. nom., § 3.10.9]
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 73: Slavic acc., encl. dat. na reflects *nō | Meillet
1924/1934: 455 | Vaillant 1958: 455: PIE, PBS encl. 1du. *nō, 2du.
*u̯ ō | Arumaa 1985: 170: Slavic va is from *u̯ ō | Aitzetmüller 1978/
1991: 110, 112: OCS 1du. na may be compared to νώ, Av. nā, Ved. nau; OCS
2du. va, which may have replaced vy, is based on na or num. dъva
PIE The Slavic accusative dual forms of the personal pronoun reflect Proto-
Indo-European enclitic oblique forms, 1du. *noh₃ and 2du. *u̯ oh₃. According to
Katz (1998: 38–39, 40–41, 198 n. 9 and passim), the Proto-Indo-European oblique
pronominal forms functioned not only as accusatives, but also as other non-
nominative cases, at least in the dual and plural. The reconstruction PIE *‑oh₃
instead of *‑ō or *‑oh₁/h₂ is based not on external comparison, but on internal
structural arguments, since *noh₃, *u̯ oh₃ can then be connected directly with
the tonic oblique forms *n̥ h₃u̯ é, *uh₃u̯ é (cf. e.g. Cowgill apud Klein 1988: 267
n. 14; Katz 1998: 65–66). The Greek and Germanic forms most likely represent
204 Chapter 3
the old tonic forms (see e.g. Katz 1998: 206–224; for Germanic cf. also Kroonen
2013: 276, 589).
The enclitic pronouns were preserved directly only in Slavic and, for the
second-person dual, probably in Avestan nā (see, however, Katz 1998: 66 with
n. 40). The Vedic forms 1du. nau, 2du. vām clearly contain the same material
as the Slavic and Avestan forms, but the ‑u and the ‑m are not immediately
comprehensible; they may be interpreted as na‑u and *u̯ ā-u (> vām by dissimi-
lation), containing a dual marker *u (Katz 1998: 198 with n. 7).
In two Old Avestan passages, some manuscripts have a variant vā where
most manuscripts have vā̊. The variant vā is sometimes thought to be an accu-
sative dual and to reflect PIE *u̯ oh₃ directly (e.g. Meillet 1920: 209; Schmidt
1978: 228). It is likely, however, that the correct reading is vā̊, an accusative plu-
ral form (Klein 1988: 267 n. 14; Katz 1998: 198 n. 8).
PBS PIE *noh₃, *u̯ oh₃ yielded PBS *nō̰, *u̯ ō̰ [1]. The forms are not preserved
in Baltic.
A Lithuanian dialect form acc. nuodu is often adduced as evidence of the
existence of the stem *nō‑ in Lithuanian (e.g. Otrębski 1956: 139; Stang loc. cit.;
Zinkevičius 1966: 306; Endzelīns loc. cit.). As Sabaliauskas (1976) reports, how-
ever, the form is a typographical error for mudu (see also Kapović 2006: 99).
PS The regular reflexes of PBS *nō̰, *u̯ ō̰ are PS *nā, *u̯ ā [13|15] (CS *na, *va
[29]). The use of na, va as enclitic dative forms is attested in Church Slavonic
texts; that of va also in the Codex Suprasliensis and in the Old Novgorod dialect
(see Dolobko 1925; Vaillant loc. cit.; Kapović 2006: 79; and, for the Old Novgorod
material, Zaliznjak 1995/2004: 722). In some Old Church Slavonic manuscripts,
na and va are used as accusative forms. More commonly, however, we find
ny and vy in this function; ny is originally the first-person plural accusative,
while vy represents the merger of the second-person dual nominative and first-
person plural nominative and accusative. Old Russian shows examples of 1du.
na and ny in accusative function, but in the second-person dual, vy has almost
completely replaced va, which is found only in texts with religious content
(Gadolina 1963: 112–113). In some Slavic dialects, e.g. Old Czech, only the new
forms ny, vy are found.
3.11 Genitive–Locative Dual
3.11.1 Consonant-Stem Gen.–Loc. Dual
PS *dukterau̯ (CS *dъt’eru) PBS gen.–loc. *‑au̯ PIE loc. *‑hou̯ (gen. *‑hohs)
OCS kamenu, →kameniju Li. – Ved. gen.–loc. →kármaṇoḥ

ORu. materu; ONovg. – Lv. – OAv. loc. ? (gen. ?); YAv. loc. ?
OCz. →ramenú OPr. – (gen. cašmanā̊)
Gk. gen.–dat. →ποιμένοιν
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 206–210, 294, passim: PIE gen. *‑ous, loc.
*‑ou | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 216–217: PIE had gen. *‑h₁e/ohs(?), loc.
*‑h₁ou | Rasmussen forthc. a § 2: PIE gen. *‑oh₃s, loc. *‑oh₃u are
original o-stem endings that have been generalised | Debrunner &
Wackernagel 1930/1975: 55–58: Ved. ‑oḥ, OCS ‑u may reflect PIE gen.–loc.
du. *‑ous; Av. ‑ō, Li. ‑au may point to PIE s-less form; it is unclear if there
were different endings in gen. and loc. | Rix 1976/1992: 160: Gk. *‑oi̯ii̯ n
is taken from o-stems | Sihler 1995: [see o-stems, § 3.11.5] | Weiss
2009/2011: 209–210: PIIr. gen.–loc. or loc. marker *‑hau(s) matches PBS *‑ou
in OCS ‑u, Li. adv. ‑au | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – |
Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: – | Stang 1966: – | Otrębski
1956: [see ā-stems, § 3.11.4] | Endzelīns 1923: [see ā-stems, § 3.11.4]
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 5–6: the original gen. was perhaps *‑ous, the loc.
was *‑ou | Hujer 1910: 119–120: Slavic ‑u represents merger of PIE
gen. *‑ous (> Li. adv. dvíejaus, Ved. gen.–loc. ‑oḥ) and loc. *‑ou (> Li. adv.
dvíejau, Av. loc. ‑ō; lost in Ved.); Av. gen. ‑ā̊ < *‑ōs is remade based on
nom. | Meillet 1924/1934: 396–397, 399: unclear whether an *‑s has
been lost in Slavic ‑u | Vaillant 1958: 190 | Bräuer 1969b: 9, 54, 72,
83: CS *‑u goes back to PIE *‑ou̯ (s); CS *‑ьju is from i-stems | Arumaa
1985: 119: Baltic-Slavic *‑ou(s) may be an adverbial formation | Igartua
2005a: 343: PIE gen. *‑o(u)s, loc. *‑ou | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 96, 98,
101, 104: OCS ‑u is original or from o-stems; [see also u-stems, § 3.11.3]
206 Chapter 3
PIE While Vedic and Slavic have only one case–number marker for the geni-
tive and locative dual, Avestan presents two different markers, e.g. u-stem gen.
du. ahuuā̊ vs. loc. du. aŋhuuō. Most scholars assume that the Avestan situa-
tion is more original than that of the other languages (cf., however, Fritz 2011:
100–101, 200, who reconstructs PIIr. gen.–loc. *‑h‑au from PIE *‑h₁‑ou̯ ). The
Avestan genitive marker ‑ā̊ points to PIIr. *‑ās, while loc. ‑ō points to PIIr. *‑au̯ .
Ved. gen.–loc. ‑oḥ, on the other hand, reflects PIIr. *‑au̯ š. If the hypothesis is
accepted that a final *s centralises a preceding *ā̆ in pre-Proto-Slavic, then CS
gen.–loc. *‑u from PS *‑ā̆u̯ is most straightforwardly explained as the reflex of
an ending that does not end in *‑s; PBS *‑āu̯ s and *‑au̯ s would yield PS **‑ū
and **‑əu̯ [12|17] (CS **‑y and, probably, **‑y [22|29]). Li. pusiaũ, pusiáu and
Lv. pušu (original i̯ā-stem forms) support an s-less reconstruction PBS *‑ā̆u̯; as
pointed out by Vaillant (1958: 38–39; see also Forssman 2001: 146), Li. dvíejaus, a
variant of dvíejau, may have required its final ‑s by analogy with other adverbs
ending in ‑aus. The marker has been remade in Greek (see e.g. Rix 1976/1992:
141; Eichner 1982: 132–138).
With all the caveats that surround the reconstruction of an oblique dual
ending in Proto-Indo-European, we may assume, mainly on the basis of the
Avestan evidence, that the Proto-Indo-European case–number marker was
*‑hohs in the genitive dual and *‑hou̯ in the locative dual (similar reconstruc-
tions are given by Eichner 1982: 10–12, 41–42; Beekes loc. cit.; Rasmussen loc.
cit.). A reconstruction *‑(h)ohu with a laryngeal between *‑o‑ and *‑u (Eichner
1982: 42; Rasmussen loc. cit.) seems to be excluded by PS *‑au̯ (CS *‑u) and PIIr.
*‑au̯ , not PS **‑au̯ u [1|3|7] (**‑ovъ), PIIr. **‑au̯ u. The reflexes of PIIr. *‑ās and
*‑au̯ are preserved in Avestan, whereas in Indic the markers were contami-
nated to *‑au̯ š > Ved. ‑oḥ (Bartholomae 1882: 83; 1895: 218 n. 4; Mayrhofer 1989:
18; Martínez & de Vaan 2014: 44; Rasmussen forthc. a § 4). Balto-Slavic pre-
served the original locative marker only, which took over the functions of the
genitive.
It is possible that the Proto-Indo-European case–number markers are the
original o-stem endings that had spread to the other paradigms already in the
proto-language (e.g. Eichner 1982: 42; Rasmussen loc. cit.). An argument against
this view is the fact that the i-, u- and consonant-stem endings have disyllabic
scansion in Vedic (Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 56–57). This is more
easily understandable if we assume that the case–number markers had an ini-
tial laryngeal, i.e. PIE i-stem *‑i‑hohs, loc. *‑i‑hou̯ (see Hoffmann 1976b: 561 n. 2;
Schindler 1989: 25; Weiss 2009/2011: 209–210).
PBS Only the original locative singular form *‑hou̯ survived in Proto-Balto-

Slavic, yielding *‑au̯ [1|3|7]. The ending is not preserved in Baltic consonant
stems.
PS The Proto-Balto-Slavic ending is preserved as PS *‑au̯ (CS *‑u [22|29]),

with the regular reflexes in most of the old Slavic dialects. In Old Czech the
length of the ending is analogical from pron. tú < PS *tai̯au̯ (CS *toju) etc. (see
Trávníček 1935: 294 n. 1).
3.11.2 i-Stem Gen.–Loc. Dual
PS *gastii ̯au̯ (CS *gostьju) PBS gen.–loc. *‑ii ̯au̯ PIE loc. *‑ihou̯ (gen. *‑ihohs)
OCS gostьju Li. – Ved. →śúcyoḥ

ORu. putьju; ONovg. (iz) ocьju Lv. – OAv. loc. ? (gen. haxtiiā̊); YAv.
OCz. hosťú, ‑iú OPr. – loc. ? (gen. ?)
Gk. gen.–dat. →πολέοιν
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 206–210, 288: PIE gen. *‑(i)i̯ous, loc. *‑(i)i̯ou |
Beekes 1995/2011: [see C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Rasmussen forthc. a: [see
C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/ 1975: 56–57:
disyllabic scansion of Ved. i-stem ‑yoḥ, u-stem ‑voḥ is older than mono-
syllabic form, which is modelled on gen. pl.; Avestan monosyllabic writ-
ing may be “defektive Schreibweise”; OCS ‑ьju, ‑ovu do not prove PIE
strong stem; [see also C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Rix 1976/1992: [see C-stems,
§ 3.11.1] | Sihler 1995: [see o-stems] | Weiss 2009/2011: [see C-stems,
§ 3.11.1] | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst
2008a: –
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: [see C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Hujer 1910: 119–120:
Ved. ávyoḥ shows suffixal zero grade; Slavic ‑ьju has full grade from
gen. pl. ‑ьjь; [see also C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Meillet 1924/ 1934: [see
C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Vaillant 1958: 137 | Bräuer 1969a: 156: PIE
*‑(i)i̯ou̯ (s) | Arumaa 1985: 130 | Igartua 2005a: 260–261: if the dis-
tinction between PIE gen. *‑ious and loc. *‑iou is old, the two forms have
merged in Slavic, where ‑ьju seems to reflect *‑eijou(s) | Aitzetmüller
1978/1991: 76: OCS ‑ьju from *‑ei̯‑; [see also u-stems, § 3.11.3]
208 Chapter 3
PIE The Proto-Indo-European endings of the i-stem genitive and locative

dual were constituted by the i-stem suffix followed by the genitive dual marker
*‑hohs and locative dual marker *‑hou̯ , respectively (see § 3.4.4 for the recon-
struction of the case–number markers). Indo-Iranian points to suffixal zero
grade, i.e. *‑ihohs, *‑ihou̯ ; Slavic is ambiguous in this respect, due to the merger
of *e and *i before *i̯ [24]. Avestan may have preserved the two endings, but
the attested evidence is limited to the genitive dual. In Vedic the endings were
contaminated to a genitive-locative ending *‑ii̯au̯ š > ‑(i)yoḥ, with disyllabic
scansion (see § 3.4.4).
PBS In pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic the original genitive ending was lost, being

replaced with the locative ending PIE *‑ihou̯ > PBS *‑ii̯au̯ [1|3|7]. The ending
has not been preserved in Baltic.
PS PBS *‑ii̯au̯ is retained as PS *‑ii̯au̯ (CS *‑ьju [22|29]). The ending is pre-
3.11.3 u-Stem Gen.–Loc. Dual
PS →*sūnau̯au̯ (CS *synovu) PBS gen.–loc. *‑uu̯au̯ PIE loc. *‑uhou̯ (gen. *‑uhohs)
OCS synovu Li. – Ved. gen.–loc. →mádhvoḥ

ORu. synovu; ONovg. ? Lv. – OAv. loc. aŋhuuō (gen. ahuuā̊);
OCz. →synú OPr. – YAv. loc. ? (gen. pasuuā̊)
Gk. gen.–dat. →ἡδέοιν
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 206–210, 290: PIE gen. *‑(u)u̯ ous, loc. *‑(u)u̯ ou |
Beekes 1995/ 2011: [see C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Rasmussen forthc. a:
[see C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: [see
i-stems, § 3.11.2; C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Rix 1976/ 1992: [see C-stems,
§ 3.11.1] | Sihler 1995: [see o-stems, § 3.11.5] | Weiss 2009/ 2011:
[see C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – |

PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: [see C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Hujer 1910: 119–120:
Ved. sūnvóḥ shows suffixal zero grade; Slavic ‑ovu has full grade from
gen. pl. ‑ovъ; [see also C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Meillet 1924/1934: [see
C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Vaillant 1958: 113 | Bräuer 1969a: 147: PIE
*‑eu̯ ou̯ (s) | Arumaa 1985: 130 | Igartua 2005a: 290: PIE gen. *‑o(u)s,
loc. *‑ou; ‑ov‑ in Slavic ‑ovu serves to distinguish gen.–loc. du. ending from
sing. forms | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 72: Ved. ‑voḥ is from *‑u̯ ous; Av.
loc. ‑ō, apparently from PIE *‑ou, may point to a distinction between gen.
and loc.; Li. adv. pusiáu is not loc. du.
PIE Like in the corresponding form of the other paradigms, the Avestan for-
mal distinction between a genitive and a locative dual suggests that the Indo-
European proto-language also possessed this distinction. The ending consisted
of the stem-forming suffix of the u-stems followed by the case–number marker
(for which see § 3.11.1). Indo-Iranian points to zero-grade of the suffix, while
Slavic points to full grade. Both ablaut grades are easily explained as analogical
from other endings of the paradigm. I assume that Indo-Iranian preserves the
original situation and Slavic replaced the aberrant allomorph *‑uu̯ ‑ < *‑uh‑(V)
with the allomorph *‑au̯ ‑ found in other forms of the u-stem paradigm.
PBS The Proto-Indo-European locative dual ending *‑uhou̯ yielded PBS

*‑uu̯ au̯ [1|7], which was subsequently lost in Baltic. The original genitive dual
form was lost in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic and its functions taken over by the loca-
tive form.
PS In pre-Proto-Slavic the ending *‑uu̯ au̯ was remade to PS *‑au̯ au̯ (CS *‑ovu
[22|29]) by analogy with the forms of the paradigm that had original full grade.
The ending is preserved in Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian. In the Old
Novgorod dialect the ending is not attested, while in Old Czech the o-stem
form ‑ú is used.
210 Chapter 3
3.11.4 ā-Stem Gen.–Loc. Dual
PS *nagāu̯ (CS *nogu; *dušu) PBS gen.–loc. *‑āu̯ PIE loc. *‑ah₂hou̯ (gen. *‑ah₂hohs)
OCS glavu; dušu Li. adv. pusiáu; dial. Ved. gen.–loc. →jihváyoḥ
ORu. ženu; zeml’u; ONovg. adv. pusiaũ OAv. loc. ? (gen. ?); YAv. loc. ?
(bьz dovu) nogutu (read Lv. adv. pušu (gen. →uruuaraiiā̊)
nogatu); ? OPr. – Gk. gen.–dat. →φυγαῖν; Arcadian
OCz. →rybú; →dušú, →‑iú →κραναιυν; Myc. dat. →wa‑na‑so‑i
/wanassojin/(?)
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 206–208: OCS ‑u perhaps reflects PIE gen.

*‑aus, *‑ous, loc. *‑au, *‑ou | Beekes 1995/ 2011: [see C-stems,
§ 3.11.1] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 5: OCS ‑u is from PBS *‑aũ̯(s) < PIE loc.
*‑ah₂h₃u, perhaps contaminated with gen. du. *‑ah₂h₃s | Debrunner &
Wackernagel 1930/1975: [see C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Rix 1976/1992: 135:
Gk. endings are modelled on o-stems | Sihler 1995: 273: Gk. endings
are modelled on o-stems; PIE forms are enigmatic | Weiss 2009/
2011: [see C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995:
– | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 149: Li. pusiaũ, Lv. pušu are old loc.
du. forms | Stang 1966: 76, 277: Li. dvíejau(s), pusiaũ preserve loc.
du. ending | Otrębski 1956: 85: Slavic ‑u either goes with Li. ‑au from
*‑ou or with Ved. ‑oḥ from *‑ous | Endzelīns 1923: 333–339: loc. du.
ending is preserved in Lv. pušu, Li. pusiaũ; there are further traces of gen.
and loc. du. forms in Lv.
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: [see o-stems, § 3.11.5] | Hujer 1910: [see C-stems,
§ 3.11.1] | Meillet 1924/1934: [see C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Vaillant 1958:
85 [see o-stems, § 3.11.5] | Bräuer 1969a: 106, 127: PIE *‑ou̯ (s) |
Arumaa 1985: 155 | Igartua 2005a: 223–224: PIE *‑(oi)ous; Baltic and
Slavic endings probably originate in the o-stems | Aitzetmüller 1978/
1991: 88, 91 [see u-stems, § 3.11.3]
PIE In the ā-stems we may reconstruct PIE gen. du. *‑ah₂hohs and loc. du.
*‑ah₂hou̯ , consisting of the suffix *‑ah₂‑ and the case–number marker (for
which see § 3.11.1). In Indo-Iranian the element *‑ai̯‑ was inserted before the
ending, as in the o-stems (see § 3.11.5). It is unclear if Myc. wa‑na‑so‑i should be

interpreted as a dual form /wanassojin/ or not (see the discussion in Eichner
1982: 114–115; cf. Bartoňek 2003: 166); in any case, the Greek forms have been
remade (see § 3.11.1).
PBS The original genitive ending was lost in Balto-Slavic and its functions
were taken over by the locative PIE *‑ah₂hou̯ > PBS *‑āu̯ (or perhaps *‑ā̰u̯) [1|3].
The Baltic languages do not have a separate paradigmatic genitive or locative
(or genitive-locative) form in the dual, but the original ā-stem locative dual
ending is preserved in the adverb Li. pusiáu, dial. pusiaũ, Lv. pušu, originally
belonging to the paradigms of Li. pusė, Lv. puse.
PS PBS *‑āu̯ was retained as *‑āu̯ in Proto-Slavic (CS *‑u [22|29]; *‑ju
[20|22|29]). The ending is preserved in the old Slavic dialects, with secondary
length in Old Czech (cf. § 3.11.1).
3.11.5 o-Stem Gen.–Loc. Dual
PS *takāu̯ (CS *toku; *goju) PBS gen.–loc. *‑āu̯ PIE loc. *‑ohou̯ (gen. *‑ohohs)
OCS gradu; kon’u Li. – Ved. gen.–loc. →deváyoḥ

ORu. stolu; kon’u; ONovg. Lv. – OAv. loc. →zastaiiō (gen.
(na duvu [read “dovu”]) OPr. – →ąsaiiā̊); YAv. loc. ? (gen.
bьrьkъvьsku; kolьc’u →vīraiiā̊)
OCz. →chlapú; →oráčú, →‑iú Gk. gen.–dat. →ἀγροῖν; Arcadian
→Διδυμοιυν
La. –
Go. num. gen. pl. →twaddje;
ONor. tveggia
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 206–208: PIE gen. *‑ous (or *‑aus), loc. *‑ou (or
*‑au) | Beekes 1995/ 2011: [see C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Rasmussen
forthc. a § 4: PIE gen. *‑oh₃s, loc. *‑oh₃u are preserved in Av.; the two
cases have been contaminated to one in Ved. and Slavic; Slavic ‑u is
from PIE loc. *‑oh₃u; Li. dvíejaus is a contamination of the gen. and
loc. forms | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/ 1975: [see C-stems,
§ 3.11.1] | Rix 1976/1992: 141: Gk. *‑oi̯ii̯ n < *‑oi̯sin may be based on
dat.–loc. pl. *‑oi̯si and instr.(?) du. PIE *‑o(i)bʰim | Sihler 1995: 265:
212 Chapter 3
proto-form is unclear; Gk. perhaps introduced the o-stem ending in the

i‑, u‑ and C-stems | Weiss 2009/2011: [see C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Krahe
1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: [see C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Hujer 1910: Ved. o-stem
‑ayoḥ is pron. ending; [see also C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Meillet 1924/1934:
[see C-stems, § 3.11.1] | Vaillant 1958: 38–39: PBS had an ending *‑au; a
second ending *‑aus is only theoretically possible, since the Li. variant in
‑s is insignificant due to the frequent adv. suffix ‑aus | Bräuer 1969a:
24, 74: CS *‑u goes back to PIE *‑ou̯ (s), also in Ved. ‑oḥ; perhaps originally
gen. *‑ou̯ s vs. loc. *‑ō̆u̯ | Arumaa 1985: 146 | Igartua 2005a: 148–150:
PIE distinction between gen. *‑ous and loc. *‑ou is preserved in Av.; Slavic
‑u is from *‑ou | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 83–84: Ved. ‑ay‑ in ‑ayoḥ is
from pronouns; [see also u-stems, § 3.11.3]
PIE The genitive and locative dual endings consisted of the o-grade of the
thematic vowel followed by the case–number marker, i.e. gen. *‑ohou̯ and loc.
*‑ohohs; for the reconstruction of the markers see § 3.11.1.
In Indo-Iranian the expected endings *‑āu̯ and *‑ās have been replaced with
*‑ai̯au̯ and *‑ai̯ās, containing an element *‑ei̯‑ or *‑oi̯‑ before the case–number
marker. This element may be of pronominal origin or it may stem from the
numeral ‘2’ (Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 99–100 with references;
but cf. Sihler loc. cit.), or it may originate in the neuter nominative-accusative
dual (Brugmann loc. cit.). For the Greek forms see § 3.11.1. The Germanic forms
reflect original dual forms, but the endings have been remade (see e.g. Eichner
1982: 10–11, 29–30).
PBS The genitive dual ending disappeared in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic (see

§ 3.11.1) and was replaced with the locative dual ending PIE *‑ohou̯ > PBS *‑āu̯
[1|3|7]. The o-stem ending has not been preserved in Baltic.
PS PBS *‑āu̯ was retained as PS *‑āu̯ (CS *‑u [22|29], *‑ju [20|22|29]), pre-
served in the old Slavic dialects except Old Czech, where it acquired analogical
length (cf. § 3.11.1).
3.12 Dative–Instrumental Dual
3.12.1 Consonant-Stem Dat.–Instr. Dual
PS *dukterimā (CS *dъt’erьma) PBS →*‑imā̰ PIE dat.–abl.–instr. *‑bʰi ̯ah₂
OCS kamenьma Li. dat. akmenìm; instr. Ved. →pitŕ̥bhyām

ORu. kamenьma; ONovg. ? akmenim̃ OAv. ?; YAv. amər ətat̰biia
OCz. zvěřatma, →ramenoma, Lv. dat.–instr. pl. Gk. gen.–dat. →ποιμένοιν
→ramenama →akmeńiem La. –
OPr. – Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 203–206 | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 216–217: PIE

*‑me/oh(??) | Rasmussen forthc. a § 2: PIE ending is unclear |
Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 54–55: Ved. ‑bhyām, Av. ‑biiā̆ reflect
PIIr. *‑bhi̯ā(m); PIE form is unclear | Rix 1976/1992: 160; [see also
o-stems, § 3.12.5] | Sihler 1995: – | Weiss 2009/2011: 209: original
ending *‑bʰō < *‑bʰoh₁e(?) | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – |
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 165 | Stang 1966: – | Otrębski
1956: 84–85: Li. ‑m reflects *‑mV̄ ̆ | Endzelīns 1923: 323: Lv. dat.–instr.
pl. ‑iẽm is taken from i̯o-stems; [see also o-stems, § 3.12.5]
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 6 | Hujer 1910: 153–154: Baltic and Slavic case–
number marker may reflect *‑mā̆ or *‑mō̆ | Meillet 1924/1934: 397,
422–423 | Vaillant 1958: 191; [see also o-stems, § 3.12.5] | Bräuer
1969b: 9, 54, 72, 83 | Arumaa 1985: 119–120: Slavic and Li. case–number
markers reflect *‑mō [“‑mo” must be a misprint] | Igartua 2005a: 343–
344: PIE reconstruction is difficult: *‑bʰim or *‑bʰi̯ōm | Aitzetmüller
1978/1991: 96, 99, 101, 104; [see also u-stems, § 3.12.3]
PIE The dative-ablative-instrumental marker is difficult to reconstruct

(see Eichner 1982: 13–14 for an overview of potential proto-forms and their pos-
sible attested reflexes). It is conceivable that the three cases had individual
markers and that the daughter languages continue different markers, or that
the form was not yet established as a fixed paradigmatic form when the proto-
language split up. While in Old Irish the dative dual of nouns does not show
214 Chapter 3
nasalisation in sandhi, the numeral dat. du. dibN points to the former pres-
ence of a final nasal (Lewis & Pedersen 1937/1989: 114). A nasal is also found
in Vedic, but it is excluded by the Avestan and Balto-Slavic forms. Slavic has
a long vowel, whereas Latvian points to a short vowel; the Indo-Iranian and
Lithuanian evidence is ambiguous in this respect. For the recurring problem
concerning *m (Balto-Slavic and Germanic) vs. *bʰi̯ (Indo-Iranian) vs. *bʰ
(elsewhere) see § 3.16.1.
Admittedly slightly biased by the Slavic perspective of this study, I tenta-
tively reconstruct the dative-ablative-instrumental marker as PIE *‑bʰi̯ah₂. The
reconstruction of a-timbre of the vowel is based only on the Baltic evidence,
which is very insecure (see below). The ending is preserved in Avestan and
Balto-Slavic, whereas in Vedic and Celtic it has been extended by a nasal; the *i
pointed to by the Celtic ending may be due to influence from the instrumental
plural.
PBS In Baltic and Slavic the original consonant-stem ending was replaced
with that of the i-stems. Whether this change took place already in Proto-
Balto-Slavic or in the separate histories of the two branches is difficult to say,
but here I assume that the event was pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic. Thus PIE *‑bʰi̯ah₂
yielded pre-PBS *‑mā̰ [1], which was reshaped to PBS *‑imā̰.
As a Proto-Balto-Slavic final *‑m was not preserved as a consonantal seg-
ment in Lithuanian, the Lithuanian case–number marker ‑m must have been
followed by a vowel at an earlier stage. And indeed, in old texts and dialects we
find the endings ‑ma, ‑mu and ‑mi, with plural function in systems where the
dual has been lost (see Zinkevičius 1966: 205–206, 233–234). What the origi-
nal vowel was cannot be clearly seen from the Lithuanian facts. Most authors
regard ‑ma as the oldest ending, as it may reflect *‑mā and correspond to CS
*‑ma (Arumaa 1933: 78; Vaillant 1958: 39; Zinkevičius 1966: 206; Kazlauskas 1968:
132, 172; 1970: 90; but cf. Mažiulis 1966: 44–45). In any case, a vowel that was sub-
ject to apocope in Lithuanian was probably originally short, either reflecting a
Proto-Balto-Slavic short vowel or a long acute vowel. Only the latter option is
compatible with the Slavic evidence.
In Latvian the original dative–instrumental dual endings are used in the
corresponding plural forms (see e.g. Endzelīns 1923: 298–299). Taken at face
value, the Latvian case–number marker ‑m points to a Proto-Balto-Slavic final
short vowel other than *‑u, since long vowels are reflected as short vowels and
*u is preserved in final syllables (see e.g. Endzelīns 1923: 49–50). It is possible,
however, and in harmony with the Slavic evidence, that a Proto-Balto-Slavic
long vowel was first shortened according to the general Latvian sound laws
and then, at a later stage, underwent apocope, parallel to the apocope that
affected the corresponding Lithuanian form. Since *u seems to be more resis-

tant to apocope in Latvian than other short vowels, it is slightly more likely
that the vowel that was lost was not *u (from PBS *‑ō̰), but *a (from PBS *‑ā̰).
This is the only argument we have for a-timbre, as opposed to o-timbre, of the
Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-European dative-ablative-instrumental
dual marker.
To sum up, we may assume that the Proto-Balto-Slavic case–number marker
*‑mā̰ became ‑ma in Lithuanian by Leskien’s law and was subsequently apoco-
pated to ‑m in most dialects. In Latvian, expected *‑ma was apocopated to ‑m
before the beginning of the written tradition.
Lithuanian words with mobile accentuation are reported to show a pro-
sodic distinction between the dative and instrumental dual in all paradigms,
with the dative endings pointing to earlier *‑ˈamV̄ ̆ (o-stems), *‑ˈāmV̄ ̆ (ā-stems),
*‑ˈimV̄ ̆ (i- and consonant stems), *‑ˈumV̄ ̆ (u-stems) and the instrumental end-
ings reflecting *‑aˈmV̄ ̆ , *‑āˈmV̄ ̆ , *‑iˈmV̄ ̆ , *‑uˈmV̄ ̆ . This distinction may have arisen
at a recent stage on the model of the relationship between the accentuation
of the dative and instrumental plural, viz. e.g. i-stem dat. pl. *‑ˈimas vs. instr.
pl. *‑iˈmī�s̰ (see e.g. Vaillant 1958: 39; note that Brugmann loc. cit. casts doubt on
the authenticity of the distinction between the dative and instrumental dual
forms). The Latvian tonal variants found in different dialects may have origi-
nated in different accent paradigms.
PS PBS *‑imā̰ yielded PS *‑imā [13] (CS *‑ьma [29]), preserved in the old
Slavic dialects except Old Novgorod, where it is not attested. For PS *aˈkīmā
‘eyes’ and *au̯ ˈxīmā ‘ears’ (CS *oči̋ma, *uši̋ma) see under the i-stems (§ 3.12.2).
3.12.2 i-Stem Dat.–Instr. Dual
i-stem dative–instrumental dual
PS *gastimā (CS *gostьma) PBS *‑imā̰ PIE dat.–abl.–instr. *‑ibʰi ̯ah₂
OCS gostьma Li. dat. mintìm; instr. Ved. →śúcibhyām

ORu. putьma; ONovg. ? mintim̃ OAv. ?; YAv. ?
OCz. hostma Lv. dat.–instr. pl. →avīm; Gk. gen.–dat. →πολέοιν
dial. avim La. –
OPr. – Go. –
Hi. –
216 Chapter 3
i-stem dative–instrumental dual (*‑ī‑)
PS *aˈkīmā (CS *oči ̋ma) PBS *‑ˈīmā̰ PIE dat.–abl.–instr. *‑ihbʰi ̯ah₂
̃
OCS očima Li. dat. akìm; instr. akim̃ Ved. →akṣī ́bhyām
ORu. očima; ONovg. ? Lv. dat.–instr. pl. acīm; OAv. aṣ̌ibiiā; YAv. ušibiia
OCz. očima dial. →acim Gk. –
OPr. – La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 204–206: Ved. akṣī�bhyām,́ OCS očima are based
on nom.–acc. du. | Beekes 1995/ 2011: [see C-stems, § 3.12.1] |
Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PIIr. *‑ibʰi̯a(‑am) from PIE *‑ibʰ . . . m |
Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: [see C-stems, § 3.12.1] | Rix
1976/1992: 160; [see also o-stems, § 3.12.5] | Sihler 1995: – | Weiss
2009/2011: [see C-stems, § 3.12.1] | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan
1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 155 | Stang 1966: 211; [see also
o-stems, § 3.12.5; ā-stems, § 3.12.4] | Otrębski 1956: [see C-stems,
§ 3.12.1] | Endzelīns 1923: 319–320: Lv. dat.–instr. pl. ‑im is older than
‑īm, which has long ī from loc. pl. by analogy with ā- and ē-stems; ‑im is
probably originally a du. ending; [see also o-stems, § 3.12.5]
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 6 | Hujer 1910: 153–154; [see also C-stems,
§ 3.12.1] | Meillet 1924/ 1934: 397, 420 | Vaillant 1958: 137; [see
also o-stems, § 3.12.5] | Bräuer 1969a: 156: PIE *‑imā | Arumaa
1985: 130; [see also C-stems, § 3.12.1] | Igartua 2005a: 261–262: PIE
*‑ibʰ(i̯)ām | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 76; [see also u-stems, § 3.12.3]
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending *‑ibʰi̯ah₂ consisted of the zero grade

of the i-stem suffix followed by the dative–ablative–instrumental dual marker
(see § 3.12.1).
The words for ‘eye’ and ‘ear’ seem to have contained *‑ih‑ before the case–
number marker, as in Ved. akṣī�bhyāḿ and the Slavic forms (for which see
below; Avestan is ambiguous on this point). These words were probably con-
sonant stems in the proto-language (Forssman 1969: 43–44; see also § 3.10.2;
according to Leskien 1909/1919: 119, the Old Church Slavonic forms belong to
the i-stems and have ‑i‑ for *‑ь‑ from the nominative-accusative dual; see also
Brugmann loc. cit.).
The endings were retained in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic.
PBS PIE *‑ibʰi̯ah₂ yielded PBS *‑imā̰ [1], and *‑ihbʰi̯ah₂ yielded *‑ˈī�m ̰ ā̰ [1].
The endings underwent syncope in Lithuanian and Latvian (see § 3.12.1).
The ending with short *‑i‑ was preserved in Latvian dialects as the dative–
instrumental plural form. Li. ‑im may represent the merger of PBS *‑imā̰ and
*‑ˈī�m
̰ ā̰. Similarly, the standard Latvian ending ‑īm, usually regarded as based on
analogy with the ā- and ē-stems (Endzelīns 1923 loc. cit.), may in fact directly
reflect the ending *‑ī�m ̰ ā̰ of the words for ‘eye’ and ‘ear’. As the dual forms of
these words must have been prominent, it is not surprising that their ending
could be generalised.
PS PBS *‑imā̰ yielded PS *‑imā [13] (CS *‑ьma [29]), and *‑ˈī�m ̰ ā̰ yielded *‑ˈīmā
[13] (CS *‑ima [29]). The former ending is preserved in the old Slavic dialects as
the paradigmatic i-stem form, and the latter is continued in the synchronically
irregular words for ‘eye’ and ‘ear’, PS *aˈkīmā and *au̯ ˈxīmā (CS *oči̋ma, *uši̋ma).
3.12.3 u-Stem Dat.–Instr. Dual
PS *sūnumā (CS *synъma) PBS *‑umā̰ PIE dat.–abl.–instr. *‑ubʰi ̯ah₂
OCS synъma Li. dat. sūnùm; instr. sūnum̃ Ved. →mádhubhyām

ORu. synъma; ONovg. ? Lv. dat.–instr. pl. →tìrgūm; dial. OAv. ahubiiā; YAv. pasubiia
OCz. →synoma ragum Gk. gen.–dat. →ἡδέοιν
OPr. – La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 205–206 | Beekes 1995/ 2011: [see C-stems,

§ 3.12.1] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PIIr. *‑ubʰi̯a(‑am) from PIE
*‑ubʰ . . .m | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/ 1975: [see C-stems,
§ 3.12.1] | Rix 1976/1992: 160; [see also o-stems, § 3.12.5] | Sihler
1995: – | Weiss 2009/2011: [see C-stems, § 3.12.1] | Krahe 1942/1967: –
| Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 159 | Stang 1966: 216; [see also
o-stems, § 3.12.5; ā-stems, § 3.12.4] | Otrębski 1956: [see C-stems,
§ 3.12.1] | Endzelīns 1923: 330: long ū of Lv. dat.–instr. pl. ‑ūm is from
ū-stems; or it is analogical, like the ī of i-stems; [see also i-stems, § 3.12.2;
o-stems, § 3.12.5]
218 Chapter 3

§ 3.12.1] | Meillet 1924/1934: 397, 415 | Vaillant 1958: 113; [see also
o-stems, § 3.12.5] | Bräuer 1969a: 147: PIE *‑umā | Arumaa 1985:
130; [see also C-stems, § 3.12.1] | Igartua 2005a: 290–291: PIE recon-
struction is difficult | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 72–73: Li. case–number
marker ‑m was originally followed by a vowel
PIE The ending *‑ubʰi̯ah₂ consisted of the zero grade of the stem-suffix fol-
lowed by the case marker (see § 3.12.1). The ending is preserved in Indo-Iranian
and Balto-Slavic.
PBS PIE *‑ubʰi̯ah₂ became PBS *‑umā̰ [1]. The ending was preserved in East
Baltic, with apocope of the final vowel (see § 3.12.1). In most Latvian dialects,
including the standard language, a long stem-vowel was introduced on the pat-
tern of the ā- and ē-stems, but the original short vowel is preserved in the dia-
lectal ending ‑um.
PS PBS *‑umā̰ yielded PS *‑umā [13] (CS *‑ъma [29]). The ending is preserved
in Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian. In Old Czech the o-stem form is used.
3.12.4 ā-Stem Dat.–Instr. Dual
PS *naˈgāmā (CS *noga̋ma; PBS *‑ā̰mā̰ PIE dat.–abl.–instr. *‑ah₂bʰi ̯ah₂

*duša̋ma)
OCS galvama; dušama Li. dat. galvóm; instr. Ved. →jihvā́bhyām

ORu. ženama; zeml’ama; galvõm OAv. ?; YAv. vąϑβābiia
ONovg. ?; ? Lv. dat.–instr. pl. Gk. gen.–dat. →φυγαῖν; Arcadian
OCz. rybama; dušěma gal̂vām →κραναιυν; Myc. dat.
OPr. – →wa‑na‑so‑i /wanassojin/(?)
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 205 | Beekes 1995/ 2011: [see C-stems,

§ 3.12.1] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 5: PIIr. *-ābʰi̯a; PBS *‑ā́mV contains
PIE *‑ah₂bʰ‑ and an unclear final vowel; OCS ‑ama perhaps has ‑a from
o-stem ending ‑oma, where it may originate in o-stem masc. nom.–
acc. du. ‑a | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/ 1975: [see C-stems,

§ 3.12.1] | Rix 1976/1992: 135; [see also o-stems, § 3.12.5] | Sihler
1995: – | Weiss 2009/2011: [see C-stems, § 3.12.1] | Krahe 1942/1967:
– | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 146 | Stang 1966: 199: unclear
which vowel was lost in Li. dat. ‑óm, instr. ‑õm | Otrębski 1956: [see
C-stems, § 3.12.1] | Endzelīns 1923: 307–308: Lv. dat.–instr. pl. ‑ām is
likely to be an original du. ending; [see also o-stems, § 3.12.5]
§ 3.12.1] | Meillet 1924/ 1934: 397, 399 | Vaillant 1958: 85; [see
also o-stems, § 3.12.5] | Bräuer 1969a: 106, 127 | Arumaa 1985:
155–156; [see also C-stems, § 3.12.1] | Igartua 2005a: 225–226:
Slavic ending reflects *‑eh₂moh₁; PIE reconstruction (insecure):
*‑eh₂m/bʰo(m) | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 88, 91; [see also u-stems,
§ 3.12.3]
PIE The ending *‑ah₂bʰi̯ah₂ consisted of the stem-suffix *‑ah₂‑ followed by

the dative-ablative-instrumental dual marker (see§ 3.12.1). It is preserved in
Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic.
PBS PIE *‑ah₂bʰi̯ah₂ is regularly reflected as PBS *‑ā̰mā̰ [1]. The ending is pre-
served in East Baltic and Slavic.
PS The reflex of PBS *‑ā̰mā̰ is PS *‑āmā [13] (CS *‑ama [29]; *‑jama [20|27|29].
The ending is not attested in the Old Novgorod dialect, but is preserved in the
remaining old Slavic dialects.
3.12.5 o-Stem Dat.–Instr. Dual
PS *takamā (CS *tokoma; PBS *‑amā̰ PIE dat.–abl.–instr. *‑obʰi ̯ah₂

*gojema)
OCS gradoma; kon’ema Li. dat. langám; instr. Ved. devā́bhyām

ORu. stoloma; konema; langam̃ OAv. →zastōibiiā; YAv. →zastaēibiia;
ONovg. ?; ? Lv. dat.–instr. pl. OPers. →dastaibiyā
OCz. chlapoma; oráčoma, →tȩ̃viem Gk. gen.–dat. →ἀγροῖν, Arcadian
‑ěma, ‑ema OPr. – →Διδυμοιυν
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
220 Chapter 3
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 204–205 | Beekes 1995/ 2011: [see C-stems,

§ 3.12.1] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 4: PIE *‑obʰim, *‑obʰi̯ōm; Ved. long
stem-vowel probably goes back *‑oh₃‑; Iranian has *‑ai̯‑ from pl.; Slavic ‑oma
is from PBS *‑amV, perhaps with ‑a from nom.–acc. du. | Debrunner
& Wackernagel 1930/1975: 54, 98: Ved. stem-final ‑ā‑ is nom.–acc. du. end-
ing; [see also C-stems, § 3.12.1] | Rix 1976/1992: 141: PIE *‑bʰim, origi-
nally an instr. ending; [see also o-stem gen.–loc. du., § 3.11.5] | Sihler
1995: – | Weiss 2009/2011: [see C-stems, § 3.12.1] | Krahe 1942/1967:
– | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 137 | Stang 1966: 183: unclear
which vowel was lost in Li. dat. ‑óm, instr. ‑õm | Otrębski 1956: [see
C-stems, § 3.12.1] | Endzelīns 1923: 295–299: Lv. dat.–instr. pl. ‑iem is
from pron.; Lv. forms in ‑m are originally du. forms; a vowel has been lost
after ‑m
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 6 | Hujer 1910: 154: Ved. ‑ābhyām shows that
the ending was based on the nom.–acc. du.; Slavic ‑oma and Li. ‑am
have taken the stem-vowel from dat. pl. ‑omъ, ‑ams; [see also C-stems,
§ 3.12.1] | Meillet 1924/1934: 397, 410 | Vaillant 1958: 39–40: PBS
case–number marker was *‑mā | Bräuer 1969a: 24–25, 74: CS *‑ma
is from *‑mā/ō | Arumaa 1985:—[see C-stems, § 3.12.1] | Igartua
2005a: 150–153: Slavic ending reflects *‑omoh₁/h₃; reconstruction based
on other languages (insecure): *‑obʰim or *‑obʰi̯ōm | Aitzetmüller
1978/1991: 83–84; [see also u-stems, § 3.12.3]
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending *‑obʰi̯ah₂ consisted of the o-grade of

the thematic vowel (see § 3.2.5) followed by the dative-ablative–instrumental
marker *‑bʰi̯ah₂ (see § 3.12.1). The long stem-vowel of Vedic could be taken
as evidence of a case–number marker with one initial consonant, i.e. PIE
*‑bʰos or *‑mos, via Brugmann’s law. Ved. ‑ā‑ is more likely to be second-
ary, however; according to an old idea, it represents the o-stem nominative-
accusative dual ending (e.g. Brugmann loc. cit.; Debrunner & Wackernagel
loc. cit.).
In Avestan we find reflexes of PIE *‑oi̯‑ before the case–number marker. The
same element is found in the Indo-Iranian o-stem dative–ablative plural end-
ing PIIr. *‑ai̯bʰi̯as and in the secondary Vedic o-stem instrumental plural end-
ing ‑ebhiḥ. It is likely that the element *‑oi̯‑ originates in the pronouns and
has spread to the nouns in Indo-Iranian (thus e.g. Debrunner & Wackernagel
1930/1975: 108; also Brugmann 1909–1911: 259 on the dative–ablative plural;
but p. 205 he assumes that YAv. dat.–abl.–instr. ‑aēibiia is based on the neuter
nominative–accusative dual).
PBS PIE *‑obʰi̯ah₂ yielded PBS *‑amā̰ [1|7]. The ending is preserved, with
apocope of the final vowel, in Lithuanian and, as the dative-instrumental plu-
ral ending, in Latvian. In the latter language the stem-vowel *‑a‑ was replaced
with ‑ie‑ from the pronominal inflection. See § 3.12.1 for details concerning the
development of the case–number marker.
PS PBS *‑amā̰ yielded PS *‑amā [13] (CS *‑oma [29]; CS *‑jema [20|29]). The
ending is not attested in the Old Novgorod dialect, but it is preserved in the
other old Slavic languages.
3.13 Nominative(–Accusative) Plural
3.13.1 Non-Neuter Consonant-Stem Nominative Plural
PS *duktere (CS *dъt’ere) PBS *ˌ‑es PIE *‑es
OCS dьne, →kamenьje →dъšteri Li. →ãkmenys, Ved. áśmānaḥ

ORu. kamene, →kamenije, →akmeniaĩ; dial. OAv., YAv. uruuąnō
→dъčeri; ONovg. xotyn’ane ãkmen(e)s; OLi. Gk. ποιμένες
OCz. →kamenie, nom.–acc. dceře móteres La. →hominēs; Osc. humuns
Lv. →akmeńi Go. gumans
OPr. – Hi. adj. →ḫūmanteš (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 217–220 | Beekes 1995/2011: 188: PIE *‑es; La.

‑ēs continues i-stem ending *‑eies | Rasmussen forthc. a § 2, pas-
sim | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/ 1975: 58–59, 208 | Rix
1976/1992: 155 | Sihler 1995: 286: La. ‑ēs is from i-stems | Weiss
2009/2011: 205: La. ‑ēs continues i-stem ending *‑ei̯es | Krahe 1942/
1967: 35, 39–40, 45 | Boutkan 1995: 261, 275 | Kloekhorst 2008a:
105, 249–250: Hi. ‑eš reflects i-stem ending *‑eieš
PBS Olander 2009: 193–194: accentuation of Li. dùkteres is not in accordance
with mobility law; accentuation of šùnes is regular | Endzelīns 1971:
164: inherited ending was preserved in Li. ‑(e)s, but replaced with i- and
(i)i̯o-stem endings in Li. dialects and Lv. | Stang 1966: 222: PIE *‑es is
preserved in OLi. and Li. dial. ‑es; Li. ‑ys and ‑’ai are i- and ii̯o-stem end-
ings | Otrębski 1956: 52: PIE *‑es is preserved in Li. ‑(e)s, alongside
forms with i-stem ending; OCS ‑i is acc. ending | Endzelīns 1923: 323:
Lv. ‑’i, Li. ‑’aĩ are i̯o-stem endings; Lv. ‑is, Li. ‑ys are i-stem endings
222 Chapter 3
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 6 | Hujer 1910: 62–63 | Meillet 1924/ 1934:

424 | Vaillant 1958: 186: Slavic fem. ‑i is acc. ending; ‑ьje is i-stem
ending | Bräuer 1969b: 9–10, 72: Slavic ‑i is acc. ending | Arumaa
1985: 113: PIE *‑es is preserved in Slavic ‑e, OLi. ‑es, Hi. ‑ēš | Igartua
2005a: 344–345: Slavic ‑e is from PIE *‑es; Slavic ‑i is due to influence from
i-stems | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 95, 101, 103: OCS ‑ьje is i-stem end-
ing in dьnьje, but collective suffix in kamenьje, korenьje; OCS ‑i is from
i-stems
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending *‑es is preserved in most language

branches, but in Latin and Hittite it was replaced with the i-stem ending *‑ei̯es
(for Hittite see Melchert 1984: 121–122; Kloekhorst loc. cit.).
PBS PIE *‑es remained as PBS *ˌ‑es, preserved in old and dialectal Lithuanian.
In standard Lithuanian the ending was replaced with the i-stem ending ‑ys
(§ 3.13.3) or the ii̯o-stem ending ‑iai (see on the o-stems, § 3.13.7). In Latvian
and Old Prussian the i̯o-stem ending was introduced.
PS Proto-Slavic inherited PBS *ˌ‑es as *‑e [17] (CS *‑e [29]). The ending is pre-
served in the old Slavic dialects, but with a restricted distribution. In feminines
the accusative ending PS *‑ī (CS *‑i) was usually employed, and n-stems often
formed the plural by a collective in PS *‑ii̯e (CS *‑ьje [29]), e.g. OCS kamenьje,
OCz. kamenie.
3.13.2 Neuter Consonant-Stem Nom.–Acc. Plural
PS →*slau̯eˈsā; num. *keˈtūrī PBS →*‑ˈī ̰ PIE *(‑V̄ R)‑∅, *(‑VC)‑h₂

(CS *slovesà; *čety̋ri)
OCS slovesa; num. četyri Li. – Ved. kármā, →kármāṇi, →kárma,

ORu. slovesa; num. četyri; ONovg. Lv. – →mánāṁsi
sěm’ana; num. ? OPr. – OAv. →dāmąn, →afšmānī, →manā̊; YAv.
OCz. ramena; num. čtyři →dunmąm, →cinmāni, →manā̊,
→manā̊s-ca
Gk. ὀνόματα
La. genera
Go. →hairtona; OHG →lembir
Hi. wid/tār (OS); adj. →ḫūmant/da (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 235–238: OCS ‑a reflects *‑ā, replacing PIE *‑ə, along-
side other endings | Beekes 1995/2011: 186, 188: PIE endings *‑h₂, *‑∅
are originally sg., collective forms; *h₂ is the nom. sg. of a derived h₂-stem;
*‑∅ with lengthening of preceding vowel is the nom. sg. of an animate,
hysterodynamic variant of a neut., proterodynamic stem | Rasmussen
forthc. a § 2: PIE *‑h₂ (*‑ə₂ after consonants) lengthens preceding vowel
and is sometimes lost | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 61–66:
Ved. ‑i, Gk. ‑α go back to PIE *‑ə; Go. ‑a, OCS ‑a and probably La. ‑a con-
tinue o-stem ending; Ved. and Av. long stem-vowel goes back at least to
PIIr. | Rix 1976/1992: 156: Gk. ‑α is from PIE *‑h₂; La., Gmc., Slavic *‑ā
are from o-stem ending *‑eh₂; a PIE variant with long grade and zero end-
ing, e.g. Av. s-stem manā̊ < *‑ōs, found in s‑, r‑ and n-stems, was replaced
with *‑(e)h₂ in most IE languages | Sihler 1995: 286, 290: Ved. ‑i, Gk.
‑α are from PIE *‑h̥ ₂; La. ‑a < *‑ā continues o-stem ending; Ved. n-stem
nā́mā, OAv. nāmą[m] reflect PIE *‑ōn < pre-PIE *‑onh₂ | Weiss 2009/
2011: 199, 210: PIE ending was *‑h₂; after a sonorant *‑h₂ was lost with
lengthening of preceding vowel; vowel lengthening was generalised in
other stems | Krahe 1942/1967: 46: n-stem Gmc. *‑ōnō goes back to
PIE *‑ōnə, with *‑ō from o-stems | Boutkan 1995: 264, 268, 278, 284–
286: OHG s-stem lembir < *‑iru < *‑ezō reflects PIE *‑esh₂ plus new ending
PGmc. *‑ō; PGmc. n-stem *‑ōnō is from PIE *‑ō̄nh₂ plus new ending PGmc.
*‑ō < *‑eh₂ | Kloekhorst 2008a: 105, 161–162: Hi. ‑a is from o-stems
1956: – | Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 6: OCS ‑a is o-stem ending *‑ā́ | Hujer 1910: 76–78:
IIr. ‑i reflects PIE *‑ə; Slavic ‑a is from o-stems | Meillet 1924/1934:
392–393 [see neuter o-stems, § 3.13.8] | Vaillant 1958: 44–45, 186–187:
original ending was replaced in Slavic or BS with *‑ī from i-stems, traces
of which are preserved in Slavic; Slavic ‑a is from o-stems | Bräuer
1969b: 26, 54–55, 83: CS *‑a reflects PIE o-stem ending *‑ā | Arumaa
1985: 113–114: Slavic ‑a is o-stem ending; PIE ending is preserved in
IIr. and Gk. | Igartua 2005a: 346–347: PIE *‑h₂; Slavic ‑a is from
o-stems | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 97–98: OCS ‑a is o-stem ending
PIE The marker of the neuter nominative–accusative plural was *‑h₂ in the

proto-language, reflexes of which are preserved in Indo-Iranian, Greek and
perhaps Latin. Another formation is indicated by Indo-Iranian and Anatolian,
which point to the existence of forms with lengthened grade of the stem-
suffix and no ending. This formation probably originates in stems ending in a
consonantal sonorant, resulting from a development of pre-PIE *‑VRh₂ to PIE
224 Chapter 3
*‑V̄ R (Ringe 2006a: 20–21, 42; Weiss loc. cit.), preserved in e.g. Hi. wid/tār, OAv.
dāmąn; this process is reminiscent of Szemerényi’s law (see § 3.3.2). When
the sonorant was vocalic, the laryngeal was retained and subsequently caused
long reflexes of the sonorant in the daughter languages, e.g. Ved. kármā < *‑n̥ h₂.
After other consonants the laryngeal had vocalic reflexes, becoming ‑i in Vedic,
‑α in Greek and, perhaps, ‑a in Latin.
The original distribution was largely lost in the daughter languages; for
instance, OAv., YAv. manā̊ < *‑ōs is based on analogy with the type in PIE *‑ōR <
pre-PIE *‑oRh₂. In Greek and Latin the form reflecting *‑h₂ was generalised and
also spread to the o-stems. In Germanic and Slavic, on the other hand, the orig-
inal consonant-stem formations were replaced with the o-stem ending *‑ah₂.
PBS The original neuter consonant-stem endings have not survived in

Baltic and Slavic. In Slavic most neuter consonant stems show the o-stem end-
ing PBS *‑ˈā̰ from PIE *‑ah₂, but the Slavic evidence suggests that the original
consonant-stem ending was first replaced with the neuter i-stem ending PBS
*‑ī�̰ from PIE *‑ih₂ (see below).
PS The old Slavic dialects show reflexes of the original neuter ending PS *‑ī
(CS *‑i [29]) from PBS *‑ī�̰ [13] in certain forms, viz. the active present participle,
the comparative and the numeral PS *keˈtūrī (CS *čety̋ ri) (see Vaillant loc. cit.).
This suggests that the consonant-stem ending was not replaced directly with
the neuter o-stem ending, but that in an intermediate period the neuter i-stem
ending was in use (see above). In consonant-stem nouns the neuter o-stem
ending *‑ˈā (CS *‑a [29]) from PBS *‑ˈā̰ [13] had probably already been gener-
alised in Proto-Slavic, as indicated by the unanimous evidence in the old Slavic
dialects.
3.13.3 Non-Neuter i-Stem Nominative Plural
PS *ˌgastei ̯e (CS masc. (→)*gȍstьje; PBS *ˌ‑ei ̯es PIE *‑ei ̯es
fem. →*kȍsti)
OCS masc. (→)gostьje; fem. →kosti Li. →miñtys Ved. śúcayaḥ

ORu. masc. (→)putьje; fem. →kosti; Lv. →avis OAv. ārmataiiō; YAv. garaiiō
ONovg. masc. (→)l’udьje, →l’udi; OPr. →ackis Gk. πόλεις; Cretan τρεες; Hom.
fem. →dvьri →πόληες
OCz. masc. (→)hostie; fem. →kosti La. turrēs
Go. gasteis
Hi. →ḫalkiēš, →ḫalkiaš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 215–217: OCS ‑ьje goes back to PIE *‑ei̯es; OCS fem.
‑i is acc. ending | Beekes 1995/2011: 203: PIE *‑eies [implicit from
u-stems] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PIE *‑ei̯es; PBS reconstruction is
insecure | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 158–159: Ved. ‑ayaḥ,
OCS ‑ьje, Go. ‑eis, Gk. ‑εες, ‑εις are from PIE *‑ei̯es | Rix 1976/1992: 155:
Gk. ‑εις, Ved. ‑ayaḥ, La. ‑ēs, Go. ‑eis reflect PIE *‑ei̯es | Sihler 1995: 314:
Hom. ‑ηες, Gk. dial. ‑εες are from remodeled *‑ēi̯es; Gk. dial. ‑εες may also
represent original ending *‑ei̯es; La. ‑ēs is from PIE *‑ei̯es | Weiss 2009/
2011: 242, 245: La. ‑ēs, Osc. trís go back to PIE *‑ei̯es | Krahe 1942/1967:
27: Go. ‑eis, ONor. ‑ir, OSax. ‑i, OHG ‑i are from PIE *‑ei̯es | Boutkan
1995: 236, 240, 248–249: Go. ‑eis, ONor. ‑ir, OEng. ‑i, ‑e, OSax. ‑i are from
PGmc., PIE *‑eies | Kloekhorst 2008a: 249: Hi. ‑eš is from PIE *‑eies;
plene writing does not point to a long vowel but denotes hiatus
PBS Olander 2009: 181–182: development of the form in BS is unclear; if
from PIE *‑éi̯es, PBS unaccented *ˌ‑ei̯es may be due to analogy with o-
and ā-stem forms | Endzelīns 1971: 153: Baltic forms reflect *‑ii̯es,
with analogical *i for *e | Stang 1966: 189–190, 211–212: Ved. ‑ayaḥ,
La. ‑ēs, Gk. ‑εις, OCS ‑ьje, Go. ‑eis are from PIE *‑ei̯es; Li. ‑ys, Lv. ‑is, OPr.
‑is have either been modelled on ā- and ė-stems or reflect *‑ii̯es with
analogical *i | Otrębski 1956: 41: Li. ‑ys is perhaps from *‑ii̯es, also
in OCS ‑ьje | Endzelīns 1923: 318: Lv. ‑is, Li. ‑ys and probably OPr. ‑īs
reflect PBalt. *‑ii̯es, corresponding to OCS ‑ьje, Gk. dial. ‑ιες; *‑ii̯es has
replaced original *‑ei̯es under the influence of ī-stems and other forms
containing ‑i‑
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 6: OCS masc. ‑ьje is from *‑ei̯es; OCS fem. ‑i is acc. end-
ing | Hujer 1910: 62–63: Slavic masc. ‑ьje is from *‑ei̯es; fem. ‑i possibly
reflects *‑īs by analogy with acc. pl. *‑ins on the pattern of ā-stem nom.
pl. *‑ā̃s, acc. pl. *‑ans | Meillet 1924/1934: 419: Slavic masc. ‑ьje, Ved.
‑ayaḥ, Gk. ‑εις, La. ‑ēs, Arm. erek‘ go back to PIE *‑ei̯es; Slavic fem. ‑i is
the acc. pl. ending modelled after the ā-stems | Vaillant 1958: 135–136:
Slavic masc. ‑ьje reflects *‑ii̯es, with generalised *‑i‑ from PIE *‑ei̯es; fem.
‑i is acc. ending | Bräuer 1969a: 156–157: CS masc. *‑ьje is from PIE
*‑ei̯es; CS fem *‑i is acc. ending | Arumaa 1985: 127: CS *‑ьje goes back
to *‑ii̯es, replacing *‑ei̯es, with analogical *i from other forms | Igartua
2005a: 262–266: Slavic masc. ‑ьje is from *‑ii̯es < *‑e[i̯]es, with analogical
*i from other forms of the paradigm; perhaps *‑ei̯es is itself analogical for
*‑eis, preserved in fem. ending ‑i | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 74–75: OCS
masc. ‑ьje is from PIE *‑ei̯es; OCS fem. ‑i reflects acc. ending *‑īs
226 Chapter 3
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending was made up of the full grade of the

i-stem suffix, *‑ei̯‑, followed by the nominative plural marker *‑es. Regular
reflexes of PIE *‑ei̯es are preserved in the ancient Indo-European languages.
In Hittite PIE *‑ei̯es yielded *‑ēš, which replaced the inherited nominative plu-
ral forms in the other paradigms; in the i-stems the semivowel i̯ was reintro-
duced by analogy with other forms of the paradigm (Melchert 1984: 121–122; cf.
Kloekhorst loc. cit., who assumes that the Hittite ending was short ‑eš and that
the plene writing denotes a hiatus).
PBS The ending was retained as PBS *ˌ‑ei̯es. The unaccentedness of the form
pointed to by Lithuanian and Slavic is not in accordance with the mobility law
[4]; it may analogical from the nominative plural of the o- and ā-stems. The
endings found in Baltic do not reflect PBS *‑ei̯es but imitate the relationship
between the nominative and accusative plural in the ā‑stems, e.g. pre-Li. acc.
*‑ā̰ns : nom. *‑ās :: acc. *‑ī�n̰ s : nom. X, where X = *‑īs > Li. ‑ys, Lv. ‑is, OPr. ‑is.
PS PBS *ˌ‑ei̯es is reflected as PS *ˌ‑ei̯e [17] (CS *‑ьje [24|29]) in masculine

words. The further development of PS *‑ei̯e > *‑ii̯e [24] to CS *‑i by the Common
Slavic vowel contractions [25] was prevented by the fact that *‑ii̯‑ alternated e.g.
with *‑i‑ in loc. pl. *‑ixu (Andersen 2014: 62). The feminine ending CS *‑i may in
theory represent the undisturbed development of PS *‑ei̯e (thus Jasanoff 1978:
102 with n. 15), but since *‑ii̯‑ had the same alternations here as in the mascu-
line ending, it is more likely that CS *‑i represents the accusative plural ending.
Parallel to what happened in Baltic, the accusative plural ending was trans-
ferred to the nominative by analogy with the ā-stems, where the nominative
and accusative plural merged phonetically in all Slavic dialects, e.g. nom.–acc.
pl. OCS ‑y, ORu. ‑y, ONovg. ‑ě, OCz. ‑y.
3.13.4 Neuter i-Stem Nominative–Accusative Plural
PS num. *ˌtrī (CS *trȋ) PBS *‑ī PIE *‑ih₂

̃
OCS tri Li. num. trýlika Ved. trī,́ →trīṇ́ i

ORu. tri; ONovg. tri Lv. – OAv. –; YAv. ϑrī
OCz. tři OPr. – Gk. τρία
La. →tria; trīgintā
Go. →þrija; OEng. →speru
Hi. mekkī(?) (OS), ḫuwašiḪI.A (?)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 232, 234–235: OCS tri, pron. si, Ved. trī�,́ YAv. ϑrī, Alb.
fem. tri, La. trīgintā, OIr. trí reflect PIE *‑ī (probably acute) from *‑i plus *‑ə;
Gk. ‑α is from C-stems; Italic *‑ā, Gmc. forms are from o-stems; origin of Li.
trýlika is uncertain | Beekes 1995/2011: 237: PIE *trih₂ | Rasmussen
forthc. a § 16: OCS tri reflects PIE *trih₂ | Debrunner & Wackernagel
1930/1975: 63–64, 160–162, 346: Ved. trī�,́ YAv. ϑrī, La. trīgintā, OIr. trí,
OCS tri are inherited; Ved. ‑īni is based on analogy with o-stem ending
‑āni | Rix 1976/1992: 156: Gk. τρία, Ved. trī� ́ reflect PIE *trih₂; La. tria,
Go. þrija are from *‑eh₂ | Sihler 1995: 315, 317: Gk. τρία, Ved. trī�,́ OCS tri
reflect PIE *trih₂; La. tria is from *trīā, replacing expected *trī | Weiss
2009/2011: 210, 367–368: PIE *trih₂ is preserved in OCS tri, La. trī(gintā)
and probably Gk. τρία; La. tria replaces expected *trī | Krahe 1942/
1967: 29, 87: Go. þrija is perhaps from PIE *trii̯ā; OEng. speru, OSax.
aldarlagu have o-stem ending | Boutkan 1995: 239–240, 249: PGmc.
*‑iō; PIE *‑ieh₂ is not preserved in Gmc.; OEng. speru etc. use o-stem end-
ing | Kloekhorst 2008a: 162: PIE *‑ih₂ is perhaps preserved in Hi. pron.
forms in ‑e and Middle Hi. (MS) adj. par‑ku‑e
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 182: Li. trýlika probably preserves
neut. form, also in OCS tri, Ved. trī�,́ La. trīgintā | Stang 1966: 280: first
part of Li. trýlika is identical with OCS tri, Ved. trī�,́ OAv. ϑrī | Otrębski
1956: 166: Li. trý‑ is not clear in all details | Endzelīns 1923: –
́
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 6: OCS tri retains old ending, also in Ved. trī� | Hujer
1910: – | Meillet 1924/1934: 419, 432, 440: original ending is preserved
in Slavic in num. tri, in comparatives and in dem. pron. si | Vaillant
1958: 186–187, 545–546, 562, 627: traces of i-stem ending *‑ī are preserved
in Slavic prs. act. ptc., in comparative forms and in numerals | Bräuer
1969a: 156–157: Slavic tri, Ved. trī� ́ reflect PIE *‑ī | Arumaa 1985: 190:
OCS tri is from PIE *trī | Igartua 2005a: 244, 266: OCS tri is from PIE
*‑trih₂ | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 97, 136: traces of original ending are
preserved in OCS prs. act. ptc., in comparatives and in num. četyri; num.
tri “(mit demselben ‑i wie in oči, uši [. . .])” [but those are du. forms] cor-
responds to Li. trýlika, Ved. trī�,́ Av. ϑrī
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending *‑ih₂ consisted of the zero grade of the

i-stem-suffix followed by the neuter nominative-accusative plural marker *‑h₂.
PIE *‑ih₂ was preserved as a general ending in Indo-Iranian and perhaps Hittite
(see Watkins 1982/1994), whereas in the other branches it is best preserved in
the numeral ‘three’.
228 Chapter 3
PBS PIE *‑ih₂ yielded PBS *‑ī�̰ [1]. In Baltic the ending was only preserved as
the first part of Li. num. trýlika ‘13’.
PS PBS *‑ī�̰ is continued as PS *ˌ‑ī [13] (CS *‑i [29]) in the numeral PS *ˌtrī
(CS *trȋ), in the demonstrative pronoun *sī (CS *si [29]) and perhaps in a few
other formations (see Vaillant loc. cit.). The old Slavic dialects show the regular
reflexes of *ˌtrī.
3.13.5 u-Stem Nominative Plural
PS *ˌsūnau̯e (CS *sy̑nove) PBS *‑eu̯es PIE *‑eu̯es
OCS synove Li. →sūń ūs; dial. sūnaus Ved. mádhavaḥ

ORu. synove; ONovg. ? Lv. masc. →tìrgi; fem. OAv. xratauuō; YAv. vaŋhauuō,
OCz. →synové, Cz. dial. ‑ove →dzir̃nus vaŋhauuas(-ca)
OPr. ? Gk. ἡδεῖς; Hom. ἡδέες; Myc.
pa-ke-we /pakʰewes/
La. (→)tribūs
Go. sunjus
Hi. adj. →idālaweš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 215–217: OCS ‑ove reflects PIE *‑eu̯ es | Beekes
1995/2011: 203 | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: OCS ‑ove is from PBS *‑au̯ es <
PIE *‑eu̯ es | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 158–159: Ved. ‑avaḥ,
OCS ‑ove, Go. ‑jus, Gk. ‑εες, ‑εις are from PIE *‑eu̯ es | Rix 1976/1992: 155:
Gk. ‑εις, Ved. ‑avaḥ, Go. ‑jus go back to PIE *‑eu̯ es | Sihler 1995: 321, 325–
326: Gk. dial. ‑εες, Myc. pa‑ke‑we /pakʰewes/, Ved. ‑avaḥ, OCS ‑ove, Go. ‑jus
are from PIE *‑eu̯ es; La. ‑ūs is either regular by early syncope of the final
vowel or imported from the acc. pl. by analogy with the C-stems | Weiss
2009/2011: 249, 252: La. ‑ūs reflects PIE *‑eu̯ es | Krahe 1942/1967: 33:
Ved. ‑avaḥ, OCS ‑ove, Gk. ‑εις, Go. ‑jus, ONor. ‑ir, OSax. ‑i, OHG ‑i reflect PIE
*‑eu̯ es; OEng. ‑a perhaps reflects PIE variant *‑ou̯ es | Boutkan 1995:
83–86, 250, 257: Go. ‑jus, ONor. ‑ir, OSax. ‑i, OHG. ‑i, OEng. ‑a go back to
PGmc. *‑ewes from PIE *‑eu̯ es | Kloekhorst 2008a: 249–250: Hi. ‑aweš
< *‑eu̯ ēs reflects PIE *‑eu̯ es, with long *ē from i-stems
PBS Olander 2009: 181–182: PBS *ˌ‑eu̯ es is from PIE *‑éu̯ es with analogical
unaccentedness from o- and ā-stems | Endzelīns 1971: 158: Li. ‑ūs, Lv.
‑us reflect Common Baltic *‑uu̯ es with analogical *u, replacing *‑au̯ es pre-
served in Li. dial. ‑aus, ‑ous, OCS ‑ove; *a and *o in Baltic *‑au̯ es, Slavic ‑ove
may stem from gen. pl. | Stang 1966: 189–190, 216–217: Li. dial. ‑aus
reflects PIE *‑e/ou̯ es; Li. ‑ūs, Lv. ‑us are based on acc. pl. by analogy with
ā-stems; Lv. ‑i is o-stem ending | Otrębski 1956: 48: Li. ‑ūs may go back
to *‑uu̯ es; Li. dial. ‑aus is gen. sg. ending | Endzelīns 1923: 328–329: Lv.
‑us, Li. ‑ūs are modelled on i-stem ending or reflect ū-stem ending *‑uu̯ es,
also in CS *‑ъve, Ved. ‑uvaḥ, Gk. ‑υες; Li. dial. ‑ous preserves PBalt. *‑au̯ es,
identical with Slavic ‑ove
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 6: OCS ‑ove, Go. ‑jus, Gk. ‑εες, ‑εις, Ved. ‑avaḥ continue
PIE *‑eu̯ es | Hujer 1910: 63: Slavic ‑ove corresponds to Ved. ‑avaḥ,
Gk. ‑εες, Go. ‑jus | Meillet 1924/1934: 412, 414: Slavic ‑ove, with o for
expected *e before a front vowel, is due to influence from other forms, e.g.
gen. pl. ‑ovъ | Vaillant 1958: 111: Slavic ‑ove goes back to PIE *‑eu̯ es or
*‑ou̯ es | Bräuer 1969a: 147: PIE *‑eu̯ es; Slavic ‑o‑ is analogical from gen.
pl. | Arumaa 1985: 127: CS *‑ove reflects *‑eu̯ es, with regular develop-
ment *eu > *ou in Slavic | Igartua 2005a: 291–293: Slavic ‑ove, Li. dial.
‑aus reflect *‑ou̯ es from PIE *‑eu̯ es, with *o from gen. pl.; Li. ‑ūs is from
*‑uu̯ es with *u from remaining pl. forms | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 71
PIE The ending consisted of the full grade of the stem-suffix, *‑eu̯ ‑, followed
by the nominative plural marker *‑es. The ending is preserved in Indo-Iranian,
Greek, Germanic and perhaps Latin (for Latin see Sihler loc. cit.; Meiser 1998/
2006: 146; Weiss loc. cit.). The Hittite ending was remodelled on the i-stems.
PBS PIE *‑eu̯ es is reflected as PBS *ˌ‑au̯ es [11], preserved as ‑aus, ‑ous in

Lithuanian dialects. The mobility law [4] predicts an accented ending; the
unaccentedness indicated by the attested Balto-Slavic languages may stem
from the o- and ā-stems. Standard Li. ‑ūs and Lv. fem. ‑us are remade from the
accusative plural based on the model provided by the nominative and accusa-
tive plural of the ā-stems (see § 3.13.3 on the i-stems, where the same analogy
operated). Lv. masc. ‑i is the o-stem ending.
PS PBS *ˌ‑au̯ es yielded PS *ˌ‑au̯ e [17] (CS *‑ove [29]), preserved in the old
Slavic dialects. The long final vowel of Old Czech is taken from the i-stems, the
original short vowel being preserved in dialects (see Trávníček 1935: 297–298
with n. 84).
230 Chapter 3
3.13.6 ā-Stem Nominative Plural
PS *ˌnagə̄ (CS Cl *nȍgy || ONovg. PBS *ˌ‑ās PIE *‑ah₂as

‑ě; CS *dȗšě)
OCS galvy; →dušę Li. gálvos Ved. jihvā́ḥ, →jihvā́sāḥ

ORu. ženy; zemlě; ONovg. kělě; Lv. gal̂vas OAv. daēnā̊; YAv. zaoϑrā̊,
věveričě OPr. madlas, lauxnos uruuarā̊s-ca
OCz. ryby; dušě, ‑e (Elb. vocab.) Gk. →φυγαί
La. →uiae; Umbr. aasas
Go. gibos
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 213–214: PIE *‑ā̃s; OCS ‑y, ‑ję have acc. ending |
Beekes 1995/2011: 200: PIE *‑eh₂es; Gk. and La. forms are due to influence
of pron. o-stem ending *‑oi̯; Slavic ‑y is acc. form | Rasmussen forthc.
a § 5: La. ‑ae is modelled on pron. o-stem ending; PIE *‑ah₂as is not pre-
served in Slavic, where ‑y is from acc. pl. | Debrunner & Wackernagel
1930/1975: 123: PIE *‑ā̃s goes back to *‑ā plus *‑es; Ved. variant ‑āsaḥ is
from o-stems | Rix 1976/1992: 133: PIE *‑eh₂es; Gk. and La. endings are
from pron. | Sihler 1995: 271: PIE *‑eh₂es was replaced with ‑αι in Gk.
and with *‑āi̯ > ‑ae in La. | Weiss 2009/2011: 229, 235: PIE *‑eh₂es; La.
‑ae is modelled on o-stem ending ‑oi (> ‑ī) | Krahe 1942/1967: 21–22:
PIE *‑ãs | Boutkan 1995: 228–229: PIE *‑eh₂es yielded PGmc. *‑ōs; [see
also ā-stem acc. pl., § 3.14.4] | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 182: loss of accent in PBS *ˌ‑ās < PIE *‑áh₂as is regu-
lar | Endzelīns 1971: 144: PIE *‑āes | Stang 1966: 200: PBalt. *‑ā̃s
reflects *‑eh₂es | Otrębski 1956: 25–26: PIE *‑ās | Endzelīns 1923:
307
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 6: Slavic ending is probably acc. pl. | Hujer 1910:
74–76: PIE circumflex *‑ās; Slavic ‑y is acc. pl. ending, based on the pat-
tern of the i-stems | Meillet 1924/1934: 151, 398: Slavic ‑y is from *‑ū <
*‑ās | Vaillant 1958: 83, 87–88: PIE *‑ās; Slavic ‑y, SSl. ‑ję, NSl. ‑jě are
from acc. pl. | Bräuer 1969a: 106, 127: PIE *‑ās was replaced with acc.
pl. in Slavic; PIE soft *‑i̯ās or *‑i̯ēs is not preserved in Slavic; CS *‑ję, *‑jě
are taken from acc. pl. | Arumaa 1985: 153: PIE *‑ā̃s goes back to *‑ā‑
plus *‑es; OCS ‑y, ‑ę are probably from acc. | Igartua 2005a: 226–228:
PIE *‑ās; in Slavic the acc. pl. ending ‑y was introduced by analogy with
fem. i-stems | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 88, 90: OCS ‑y is from acc. pl.,
not from PIE *‑ās; OCS ‑ję is from acc. pl.; ORu. ‑jě, OPo. ‑ie are from
PIE *‑i̯ās
PIE The nominative plural ending, consisting of the stem-suffix *‑ah₂‑ and

the marker *‑es, was preserved in most Indo-European branches. Gk. ‑αι and
La. ‑ae are usually regarded as remodelled on the pronominal o-stem ending
*‑oi̯. For La. ‑ae, however, Hackstein (2012a: 161–164 and pers. comm., 2014) sug-
gests a relationship with the complex suffix PIE *‑eh₂‑i(‑t‑) found in Luvian and
Tocharian.
PBS PIE *‑ah₂as regularly yielded PBS *ˌ‑ās [1|3|4], unaccented in Proto-

Balto-Slavic in accordance with the mobility law. The ending is preserved in
Baltic. In Old Prussian PBS *‑ās is reflected as ‑as in the catechisms, whereas
the development of *ā to o in the Elbing vocabulary leads to an ending ‑os
(Stang loc. cit.).
PS PBS *ˌ‑ās yielded PS *ˌ‑ə̄ [17] (CS Cl *‑y || ONovg. ‑ě [29]; CS *‑jě). In hard
stems the phonetically regular reflex of PS *‑ə̄ is ‑y everywhere except in the Old
Novgorod dialect, where it is ‑ě (see Olander 2012: 331 and passim). Although
the evidence is less clear than in the case of the ā-stem genitive singular, the
ending ‑ě seems to be the original one in the Old Novgorod dialect, whereas ‑y
is a borrowing from standard Old Russian (see the material in Zaliznjak 1995/
2004: 98–99). In Serbo-Croatian and Slovene the replacement of the hard with
the soft ending can be observed already at the time of the earliest attestations
(Svane 1958: 66–67).
The regular outcome of PS *‑i̯ə̄ in the soft stems is *‑jě in all Slavic dialects.
Reflexes of this ending have been preserved in West and East Slavic. In South
Slavic soft stems the endings of the genitive singular and nominative plural
have been replaced with acc. pl. ‑ję on the pattern of the phonological merger
in ‑y of the genitive singular and the nominative and accusative plural forms of
the hard ā-stems and the i-stems (see § 3.5.4).
232 Chapter 3
3.13.7 Masculine o-Stem Nominative Plural
PS →*ˌtakəi ̯ (CS *tȍk||ci; *gȍji) PBS noun *ˌ‑ai ̯ PIE pron. *‑oi ̯ (noun *‑oes)
OCS gradi; kon’i Li. langaĩ; adj. Ved. té (devā́ḥ, →devā́saḥ)

ORu. stoli; koni; ONovg. gerì; def. adj. OAv. tōi, taē‑cā; YAv. tē, taē‑ca
otroki; (3) jarci geríeji; pron. tiẽ (OAv. →maṣ̌iiā; YAv. →maṣ̌iia,
OCz. chlapi; oráči Lv. tȩ̃vi →maṣ̌iiā̊ŋhō)
OPr. wijrai Gk. noun/pron. ἀγροί, τοί
La. noun/pron. lupī, istī; OLa. VIREI;
Osc. Núvlanús, pús
Go. þai (dagōs)
Hi. com. kē (OS) (com. →antuḫšeš)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 211–213: PIE nom. *‑ō̃s; OCS ‑i is from PIE
pron. *‑oí | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 212–213: BS has pron. ending *‑oi;
PIE *‑ōs is from *‑oes; older variant *‑oses is preserved in IIr. and
Gmc. | Rasmussen forthc. a §§ 2, 4: PIE noun ending was *‑ōs < *‑oes,
replacing older *‑oi̯ preserved in pronouns; OCS ‑i, OPr. ‑ai, Lv. ‑i, Li. adj. ‑ì,
‑íe‑ are from pron. PIE *‑oi̯, with acute tone as in Gk. ‑οί | Debrunner
& Wackernagel 1930/1975: 100–102, 497–498: Ved. ‑āḥ, Osc. ‑ús, OIr. voc.
firu reflect PIE *‑ōs < *‑oes; Av. ‑ā̆ is not neut. pl. ending; PIIr. *‑āsas prob-
ably consists of old ending *‑ōs plus *‑es; Ved. pron. te corresponds to
OAv. tōi, YAv. te, Gk. τοί, Go. þai, Li. tiẽ, OCS ti | Rix 1976/1992: 140: Gk.
‑οι, La. ‑ī, OLa. ‑oe, TochB yakwi, OIr. fir, Li. ‑ai, OCS ‑i go back to PIE pron.
*‑oi; original noun ending PIE *‑ōs < *‑oes is preserved in Ved. ‑āḥ, Go. ‑os,
Osc. ‑ús, Hi. arunaš, OIr. voc. firu | Sihler 1995: 261: PIE noun ending
was *‑ōs, pron. ending was *‑oi̯ | Weiss 2009/2011: 205, 223–224: noun
ending was *‑ōs < *‑oes; La. ‑ī < ‑ẹ̄ < ‑ei reflects PIE pron. *‑oi | Krahe
1942/1967: 11, 63: Gmc. noun forms in *‑ōs and *‑ōz reflect PIE *‑ōs; Go.
pron. þai is from PIE *toi | Boutkan 1995: 187–191, 305–306: Ved. ‑ās
is from PIE *‑ōs, alongside *‑oses seen in IIr. and Gmc. | Kloekhorst
2008a: 249–250: Hi. ‑eš is from i-stem ending PIE *‑eies
PBS Olander 2009: 181: Slavic unaccented form from PIE *‑ói̯ is regu-
lar | Endzelīns 1971: 135–136: OPr., Li. ‑aĩ, OCS ‑i (< *‑oi) are modelled
on adjectives; Lv. ‑i is identical with Li. adj. ending ‑i | Stang 1966:
66–68, 184, 242: Li. ‑ai, adj. ‑ì, ‑íe‑, pron. ‑iẽ, Lv. ‑i, OPr. ‑ai are from PIE
*‑oi | Otrębski 1956: 3–4, 15: Li. adj. ‑ie‑, ‑i reflect PIE *‑oi; Li. ‑aĩ is based
on collective form *‑ā influenced by masc. ending *‑oí | Endzelīns

1923: 295: Lv. ‑i does not correspond to Li. noun ending ‑ai but to adj. end-
ing ‑i < *‑ie < *‑ei
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 6: OCS ‑i is from PIE pron. *‑oi | Hujer 1910: 63–74:
Slavic ‑i, Li. adj. ‑ì, ‑íe‑ are from PIE *‑oí; Li. noun ending ‑aĩ is from pron.
neut. pl. *‑ā̃i, or from *‑ā plus ptcl. *‑i | Meillet 1924/1934: 408–409:
Slavic ‑i is from PIE demonstrative ending *‑oi, alongside noun ending
*‑ōs; Li. ‑ai has different origin | Vaillant 1958: 33–34, 611–612: Slavic
‑i for *‑ě is i̯o-stem ending; Slavic ending and Li. ‑ai, ‑ie reflect PBS *‑ai <
PIE pron. *‑oi; acute tone of Li. adj. ending is regular before an enclitic in
the def. form ‑íe‑ and analogical in the indef. form ‑ì | Bräuer 1969a:
25, 74: CS *‑i reflects PIE pron. acute *‑ói̯; PIE noun ending *‑ōs < *‑oes
was lost in Slavic | Arumaa 1985: 139–140: PIE noun ending was *‑ōs;
CS *‑i is probably i̯o-stem ending, replacing *‑ě < PIE pron. *‑oi; CS *‑i is
not from *‑oi plus *‑s | Igartua 2005a: 153–158: Slavic ‑i reflects i̯o-stem
ending *‑joi | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 81–82, 84: PIE noun ending was
*‑ōs, pron. ending was *‑oi; OCS ‑i for regular *‑ě is probably pron. i̯o-stem
ending
PIE The masculine o-stem nominative plural had different endings for nouns
and pronouns in Proto-Indo-European. Nouns ended in *‑oes, containing the
thematic vowel followed by the nominative plural marker *‑es. The compo-
nents of the pronominal ending *‑oi̯ are less clear; perhaps *oi̯ was an originally
pronominal plural morpheme (Rasmussen loc. cit.). The original distribution
of the endings was preserved in Indo-Iranian, Germanic and, in modified form,
in Anatolian. In other branches one variant or the other was generalised.
In Avestan the noun ending ‑ā̆ is probably a collective formation in PIE
*‑ah₂ (see e.g. Hoffmann 1958/1975: 70; Eichner 1985: 153–157; Mayrhofer 1989:
18; Kellens 1989: 46; Hoffmann & Forssman 1996: 120; but cf. Debrunner &
Wackernagel loc. cit.). The Hittite noun ending ‑eš is from the i-stems, going
back to PIE *‑ei̯es (Melchert 1984: 121–122; Kloekhorst loc. cit.).
PBS The Old Prussian and Latvian endings may reflect PBS *ˌ‑ai̯, the expected
outcome of PIE *‑oi̯ [4|7]. Lithuanian presents different variants of this ending:
nouns have ‑aĩ, adjectives have ‑ì (with the word-internal alternant ‑íe‑ in the
definite form), and pronouns have ‑iẽ. Only the pronominal form corresponds
unambiguously to our expectations. Since PBS *ai̯ in certain cases does seem
to yield Li. ai (see the discussion in Stang 1966: 52–68), the Lithuanian noun
ending ‑aĩ may go directly back to PBS *‑ai̯. However, the final accentuation of
the form in mobile paradigms is not compatible with a short diphthong; it is
234 Chapter 3
perhaps most likely that Li. ‑aĩ represents the old neuter ending PIE *‑ah₂, with
regular final accentuation in Lithuanian by the mobility law [4], later extended
by a somewhat obscure element *‑i (see e.g. Hujer loc. cit.; Olander loc. cit.; and
the overview in Eichner 1985: 157–161).
The acute tone of the adjective ending ‑ì, ‑íe‑ is supported by Lv. pron. tiẽ
and points to the former presence of a laryngeal. The source of this laryngeal is,
however, very difficult to determine; Kortlandt (1993/2009: 148) assumes that
the neuter form “*taʔ was disambiguated to nom. *taʔi and acc. *taʔns”.
PS The expected outcome of PBS *ˌ‑ai̯ in Proto-Slavic is *ˌ‑ai̯ (CS *‑ě [22|29]),
which is not attested anywhere in Slavic. Inherited *ˌ‑ai̯ was apparently altered
to *ˌ‑ai̯s in pre-Proto-Slavic due to the influence of the nominative plural forms
of the other paradigms, possibly including the reflex of the original o-stem
noun ending PIE *‑oes, although it is more likely that this ending had disap-
peared in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic already. A similar development took place in
Old Norse pron. masc. nom. pl. þeir from PGmc. *þai plus *‑r from the other
paradigms (see e.g. Krahe loc. cit.; and cf. Kroonen 2010: 23, who traces ONor.
þeir back to PGmc. *þai + *‑iz). Similarly, an Old Latin nominative plural end-
ing ‑eis is attested in pronouns and in nouns modified by pronouns, e.g. heisce
magistreis (Weiss loc. cit.). The ending was probably formed by adding the
original nominative plural marker of nouns, *‑s, to the pronominal ending ‑ei
< *‑oi̯.
Pre-PS *ˌ‑ai̯s regularly yielded PS *ˌ‑əi̯ [12|17] (CS *‑i [22|29]; *‑ji [20|22|29)
(see Olander 2012: 332, with references to similar solutions in n. 89). The end-
ing is reflected regularly in the old Slavic dialects, where it invokes the second
palatalisation [23] of stems ending in a velar (except in the Old Novgorod dia-
lect), e.g. PS *ˌtakəi̯ (CS *tȍk||ci) > OCS toci etc.
3.13.8 Neuter o-Stem Νominative–Accusative Plural
PS *suˈtā (CS *sъtà; *pol’à) PBS *‑ˈā̰ PIE *‑ah₂
OCS města; pol’a Li. num. keturiólika Ved. havyā́, →havyā́ni

ORu. lěta; pol’a; ONovg. lěta; ? Lv. – OAv. uxδā; YAv. uxδa
OCz. města; mořě, ‑e OPr. slayo Gk. →ζυγά
La. (→)iuga; Osc. prúftú
Go. waurda; pron. þo
Hi. dannatta
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 232–234: OCS ‑a reflects PIE acute

*‑ā́ | Beekes 1995/2011: 213: La. and Gk. point to PIE *‑h₂, not an
o-stem form | Rasmussen forthc. a § 4: PIE *‑ah₂; Ved. ‑āni is
from n-stems; La. ‑a has either arisen by iambic shortening or is from
C-stems | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 61–64, 103–105: PIE
*‑ā; Ved. ‑āni is analogical from n-stems | Rix 1976/1992: 140: PIE *‑eh₂;
Gk. ‑α is from C-stems | Sihler 1995: 263: La. ‑a is the regular outcome of
PIE *‑eh₂; Gk. ‑α is C-stem ending | Weiss 2009/2011: 210–211, 225: PIE
*‑eh₂; La. ‑a is either phonologically regular or from C-stems | Krahe
1942/1967: 12–13: PGmc. *‑ō is from PIE *‑ā; Gk. ‑α has short ablaut grade;
La. ‑a shows secondary shortening | Boutkan 1995: 171, 198: PGmc. *‑ō
goes back to PIE *‑eh₂ | Kloekhorst 2008a: 105, 161–162: Hi. ‑a reflects
PIE *‑eh₂
PBS Olander 2009: 181–182: PS accented *‑ˈā is the regular reflex of PIE
*‑áh₂ | Endzelīns 1971: 136: OPr. (Elb. vocab.) ‑o and OCS ‑a are from
*‑ā | Stang 1966: 188, 280: PBalt. *‑ā́ is preserved in Li. keturiólika,
ill. namõn and OPr. slayo, austo | Otrębski 1956: 3–4: Li. masc. pl. in
‑(i̯)aĩ incorporates original collective ending *‑(i̯)ā | Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 6: OCS ‑a reflects *‑ā́ | Hujer 1910: 76–78: Slavic
‑a etc. are from PIE *‑ā; Gk. ‑α is from PIE *‑ā shortened before a fol-
lowing vowel, supported by C-stem ending; La. ‑a may be C-stem end-
ing | Meillet 1924/1934: 392–393: PIE collective neut. nom.–acc. sg. *‑ā
and *‑ə are preserved in Slavic ‑a, Ved. ‑ā and Gk. ‑α, La. ‑a | Vaillant
1958: 44–45, 48: Slavic ‑a is from PIE *‑ā; Gk. ‑α, La. ‑a are from C-stem end-
ing *‑h; Slavic ‑ja for expected ‑jě in soft stems, attested in Glagolitic OCS
and OCz., is based on analogy with hard stems | Bräuer 1969a: 63–64,
93: PIE *‑ā | Arumaa 1985: 140–141: CS *‑a is from PIE them. vowel
plus *‑ə₂ | Igartua 2005a: 163–164: Slavic ‑a, OPr. warto, Li. keturiólika
contain PIE *‑ā < *‑eh₂, alongside PIE *‑a < *‑h₂ | Aitzetmüller 1978/
1991: 85: OCS ‑a, ‑ja are from PIE *‑ā
PIE Most languages point to PIE *‑ah₂ from *‑eh₂, consisting of the e-grade
of the thematic vowel and the marker of the neuter nominative-accusative
plural, *h₂. In Greek the consonant-stem ending was generalised. Latin ‑a may
be the outcome of a regular shortening of *‑ā, preserved in other Italic lan-
guages (Sihler loc. cit.), or it may be the old consonant-stem ending. The Vedic
variant ‑āni has arisen by analogy with the n-stems.
236 Chapter 3
PBS PIE *‑ah₂ regularly yielded PBS *‑ˈā̰ [1]. The ending is probably attested
in OPr. slayo, which may represent the plural of slayan. In Lithuanian, numer-
als like keturiólika seem to preserve the old neuter ending in its word-internal
variant ‑ó‑ and its word-final variant ‑a, both from PBS *‑ˈā̰, the latter with
Leskien’s shortening.
PS The Slavic languages point to PS *‑ˈā (CS *‑a [29]; *‑ja [20|27|29]), the
regular outcome of PBS *‑ˈā̰ [13].
3.13.9 First-Person Plural Pronoun Nominative
PS →*ˌmū (CS *my̑) PBS →*ˈmei̯(?) PIE *u̯éi ̯
OCS my Li. →mẽs; dial. →mès, →mė̃s Ved. →vayám

ORu. my; ONovg. my Lv. →mẽs; dial. →mes OAv., YAv. →vaēm
OCz. my OPr. →mes Gk. →ἡμεῖς; Aeol. (Hom., Alcaeus)
→ἄμμες
La. →nōs
Go. →weis; ONor. →vér
Hi. →wēš (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 383, 386–387, 410–412: IIr. forms point to PIE *u̯ ei;
Li. mẽs, OPr. mes, OCS my have m‑ from 1sg. forms; OCS my has ‑y from
acc. ny | Beekes 1995/2011: 233–234: PIE *uei; OCS my has m‑ from ver-
bal 1pl. ending and ‑y from 2pl. vy | Rasmussen forthc. a § 13: OCS my,
with ‑y from ny, goes back to PBS *mḗs, which has *m‑ from 1sg., *‑ē‑ from
du. and *‑(e)s from pl.; PIE form was *u̯ éi̯ | Schmidt 1978: 167–176,
178–180, 204–206: PIE *u̯ ei̯, alongside older *mes; OCS my reflects acc.
form *mōns, also in Li. mùs, OPr. mans | Debrunner & Wackernagel
1930/1975: 466–467: Ved. vayám, Go. weis point to PIE *u̯ ei̯ | Rix 1976/
1992: 178–179: Go. weis, Hi. wēš point to PIE *u̯ éi̯s; Gk. ἡμεῖς and Aeol. ἄμμες
reflect *n̥ smees and *n̥ smes, based on the acc. form | Sihler 1995:
373, 380: PIE *u̯ ei; Gk. forms are based on acc.; La. nōs reflects the encl.
acc. form | Weiss 2009/2011: 330: Hi., Gmc. and IIr. point to PIE *u̯ ei̯‑,
whereas BS and Arm. point to a proto-form beginning with *m‑; La. nōs is
the acc. form | Krahe 1942/1967: 51: Go. weis goes back to PGmc. *u̯ īz,
PIE *u̯ ei̯es; PGmc. *u̯ iz in ONor. vér, OEng. wē̆ etc. has been shortened
in unaccented position | Seebold 1984: 27–30: IE languages point to
*u̯ ei and a younger form *mes, probably from *u̯ es; Go. and Old Swedish
point to PGmc. *wīz or *weiz from PIE *u̯ ei plus *‑s, while West Nordic
and WGmc. point to PGmc. *wiz or *wez from PIE *u̯ es, alongside more
recent *mes; Slavic form has acc. ending | Kloekhorst 2008a: 115–116,
1004: Hi. wēš reflects PIE *uei(e)s, *uei
PBS Kapović 2006a: 56, 75, 87–90, 154–155, 158, 161: Armenian and BS point to
PIE *més, alongside *wéi̯, perhaps also *wéi̯(e)s; CS *my̑ is modelled on
2pl. *vy̑ | Endzelīns 1971: 188: long vowel of Lv. mẽs, Li. mẽs, dial. mė̃s
is analogical from 2pl.; original short vowel is preserved in OPr. mes, Lv.
dial. mes; *m‑ may have replaced original *u̯ ‑ by analogy with 1pl. ending
of verbs | Stang 1966: 254–255: OPr. mes, Li. mẽs, Lv. dial. mes point to
PBalt. short *e; Lv. mẽs with long *ē may be due to influence from 2pl., or
it may be the result of emphatic lengthening; PIE *mes is also found in
Arm. mek‘ and Slavic my, where ‑y is from 2pl. vy; Ved. and Gmc. point to
PIE *u̯ ei | Otrębski 1956: 137–138: Li. mẽs, dial. mė̃s, Lv. mẽs have long
vowel from 2pl. jū̃s; OPr. mes, Lv. dialects preserve short vowel, which is
modelled on C-stems | Endzelīns 1923: 377–378: Lv. mẽs, Li. mẽs have
long vowel from 2pl.; short vowel is preserved in OPr. mes, Lv. dial. mes;
Slavic my is remodelled on vy; Baltic, Slavic, Arm. *m‑ for *u̯ ‑ is probably
from 1pl. ending of verbs
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 72–73: Slavic my is perhaps remade based on acc.
ny | Meillet 1924/1934: 454: Ved. vayám, Go. weis point to PIE *u̯ ei; Li.
mẽs, Arm. mek‘ point to *mes, also in Slavic my, with ‑y from 2pl. vy and
ā-stem nom. pl. | Vaillant 1958: 451–452: IIr., Hi., Go. point to PIE *u̯ ei‑;
Arm. *m‑ is from 1sg. pron. stem im < *(e)me; BS *mēs from *u̯ ēs by anal-
ogy with verbal 1pl. ending; *u̯ ēs is from *u̯ eis with *ē from 1du. pron. *u̯ ē;
Slavic my has ‑y from vy | Arumaa 1985: 166–167: PIE *u̯ ei; Slavic my
may reflect acc. pl. *mons (also in OPr. mans) from *nons with *m‑ from
pron. obl. sg.; *nons replaces older *nos | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 109:
Ved. vayám, Go. weis, Hi. wēš reflect PIE *u̯ ei‑; OCS my has ‑y from 2pl. vy;
OCS m‑, also in Baltic and Arm., may be due to influence from 1pl. ending
of verbs, or it may be old
PIE There are two main candidates for the original nominative form of the
second-person plural pronoun: *u̯ ei̯ and *mes. While the former seems to be
continued in Anatolian, Tocharian, Indo-Iranian and Germanic, the latter is
found in Balto-Slavic and Armenian. Since plausible secondary sources of
*m‑ do exist, it is likely that *u̯ ei̯ is the original form. In Hittite and Germanic
a pluralic *‑(e)s was added to the form, and in Indo-Iranian the particle
*hom was added. TochB nom.–acc. wes, TochA was from *u̯ os may have been
238 Chapter 3
influenced by the enclitic oblique form PIE *nos (see e.g. Adams 1988: 154;
Pinault 1989: 111; 2008: 535–536; Rasmussen loc. cit.). The Greek and Latin forms
are based on the tonic accusative and the enclitic oblique forms, respectively.
In Armenian the inital *m‑ may stem from the first-person plural ending of the
verbs or it may be due to influence from the oblique forms of the first-person
singular pronoun (see e.g. Matzinger 1997: 87–88, who seems to prefer the
latter solution).
PBS The initial *u̯ ‑ of the Proto-Indo-European form was replaced with *m‑
in Proto-Balto-Slavic, most likely due to the influence of the first-person plural
ending of the verbs. At a common pre-stage of the Baltic languages the final
part of the pronoun was replaced with *‑es by analogy with the consonant
stems. The replacement of *ˈmei̯ with *ˈmes may have taken place in pre-Proto-
Balto-Slavic or in pre-Proto-Baltic. The form *ˈmes was preserved in OPr. mes,
Li. mẽs, Li. dial. mès and Lv. dial. mes. In Li. dial. mė̃s and standard Lv. mẽs,
*ˈmes was lengthened by analogy with 2pl. pron. PBS *ˈi̯ṵ̄s (Endzelīns loc. cit.;
for other variants of the form in Lithuanian dialects see Zinkevičius 1966: 302
and passim).
PS In Slavic, the vocalism of the pronoun was changed to *‑ū by analogy with
2pl. pron. *u̯ ū, where *‑ū reflects PBS *‑ūs. PS *ˌmū (CS *my̑ [29]) is preserved
in all old Slavic dialects.
3.13.10 Second-Person Plural Pronoun Nominative
PS →*ˌu̯ū (CS *vy̑) PBS *ˈi ̯ṵ̄s PIE *i ̯úhs
OCS vy Li. →jū᷑s Ved. →yūyám

ORu. vy; ONovg. vy Lv. jũs OAv. yūš, →yūžə̄m; YAv. →yūžəm
OCz. vy OPr. ioūs Gk. →ῡ̔μεῖς; Aeol. (Hom., Sappho) →ὔμμες
La. →uōs
Go. jus; ONor. →ér
Hi. →šumeš (OS), →šumēš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 384–385, 410–412: PIE *i̯ūs; OCS vy has ‑y from
acc. vy | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 233–234: PIE *iuh | Rasmussen
forthc. a § 13: OCS vy regularly reflects PBS, PIE *i̯ū́s | Schmidt 1978:
207–212, 243, 245: PIE *i̯uhs; OCS vy reflects acc. *u̯ ō̆ns, with secondary
*‑n‑ | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 466–467: Ved. yūyám,

replacing *yūrám, is modelled on 1pl. vayám | Rix 1976/1992: 178–179:
Av. yūš, Go. jus, Li. jū̃s point to PIE *i̯úhs; Gk. ῡ�μ̔ εῖς and Aeol. ὔμμες reflect
*usmees and *usmes, based on the acc. form | Sihler 1995: 373, 380–
381: PIE *i̯ūs, *i̯uhs(?); Gk. forms are based on acc.; La. uōs reflects the
encl. acc. form | Weiss 2009/2011: 331: PIE *i̯uhs is continued in IIr.,
Baltic and Gmc.; La. uōs is from obl. stem | Krahe 1942/1967: 53: Go.
jus is from PIE *i̯ū plus *‑s; ONor. ér, OEng. gē̆ etc. have been remodelled
on 1pl. PGmc. *u̯ īz | Seebold 1984: 30–31: PIE *i̯ū̆s, *i̯ui; Go. jū̆s reflects
PGmc. *jū̆z; other Gmc. languages have remade the form to *jiz, *jīz on
the model of 1pl. | Kloekhorst 2008a: 115–116, 779–780: Hi. šumeš is
unclear; it has not arisen by metathesis from *usme, since *‑me is a Gk.–
IIr. innovation
PBS Kapović 2006a: 56, 75, 148, 158: PIE *i̯ū́s; CS *vy̑ < *u̯ ūs reflects *i̯ūs, with
*u̯ ‑ from oblique cases | Endzelīns 1971: 188: Li. jū̃s, Lv. jū̃s, OPr. ioūs
correspond to OAv. yūš | Stang 1966: 255: Li. jū̃s, Lv. jũs, OPr. ioūs cor-
respond to OAv. yūš, YAv. yūžəm, Go. jus | Otrębski 1956: 137: Li. jū̃s,
Lv. jũs, OPr. ioūs correspond to OAv. yūš; Li. form has circumflex tone by
metatony in monosyllabic words | Endzelīns 1923: 378: Lv. jũs corre-
sponds to Li. jũs (from acute *jús), OPr. ioūs, OAv. yūš, Go. jus
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 72–73: Slavic vy is perhaps remade based on acc.
vy | Meillet 1924/1934: 454: the old form is represented by OAv. yūš,
Go. jus, Li. jū̃s; Slavic vy may correspond to La. uōs or it may reflect a
variant *ūs without *i̯ | Vaillant 1958: 452: Slavic vy, La. uōs are acc.
forms | Arumaa 1985: 168–169: IIr., Gmc., Baltic point to PIE *i̯ūs; Slavic
vy may reflect encl. *u̯ ōs, with o-stem acc. pl. ending | Aitzetmüller
1978/1991: 111: Go. jus, OAv. yūš, Li. jū̃s, OPr. ioūs reflect PIE *i̯ūs; OCS vy has
replaced *i̯ with *u̯ from acc. vy
PIE Avestan, Gothic and Balto-Slavic point to a Proto-Indo-European form

*i̯úhs; the reconstruction of *uh instead of *ū is due to the acute tone found
in Latvian and Old Prussian. In Vedic we expect *yūrám from PIIr. *yūžám
corresponding to OAv. yūžə̄m, YAv. yūžəm (see Wackernagel 1896: 336;
Debrunner & Wackernagel loc. cit.), with the usual postpositional particle
*hom. The attested form Ved. yūyám may be the result of an assimilation
from *yūrám or, more likely, through the influence of 1pl. vayám (thus also
Debrunner & Wackernagel loc. cit.). Like in the first-person plural, the Greek
form is based on the tonic accusative, the Latin one on the enclitic oblique.
The Hittite form is difficult to explain, although it probably reflects the
tonic accusative plural form; the idea of a metathesis of acc. *usmé to šume‑ is,
240 Chapter 3
however, phonologically unappealing (see the discussion in Katz 1998: 138–141

with references).
PBS PIE *i̯úhs is reflected as PBS *ˈi̯ṵ̄s [1], directly preserved in Lv. jũs and
OPr. ioūs, with regular acute tone. Li. jū̃s may have circumflex tone from the
first-person pronoun (cf. Rasmussen 1992b/1999: 481 and 1992c/1999: 542, who
assumes Balto-Slavic métatonie douce in monosyllabic words).
PS The expected Proto-Slavic outcome of PBS *i̯ṵ̄s is *i̯ū [12|13]), but the *i̯‑
was replaced with *u̯ ‑ from the oblique forms in pre-Proto-Slavic, resulting in
PS *ˌu̯ ū (CS *vy̑ [29]).
3.14 Accusative Plural
3.14.1 Non-Neuter Consonant-Stem Accusative Plural
PS *ˌdukterī (CS *dъ̏t’eri) PBS *ˌ‑ins PIE *‑m̥ s
OCS dъšteri Li. ãkmenis Ved. áśmanaḥ

ORu. dъčeri; ONovg. (ty) dni(?), (pro) Lv. →akmeńus; OAv., YAv. urunō, urunas-cā̆
→gorodišč’ane (/‑e/ or /‑ě/) OLv. akmenis Gk. ποιμένας; Cretan
OCz. →dceře, →kameny OPr. swīrins →ϑυγατερανς
La. hominēs
Go. fadruns, →gumans
Hi. memii̯anuš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 220–221, 227–231: PIE *‑n̥ s | Beekes 1995/2011:

188: PIE *‑ns; Hi. ‑us from *‑ms and *‑oms shows that the ending consisted
of the acc. sg. morpheme followed by pl. *‑s | Rasmussen forthc. a
§§ 2, 8: PIE *‑m̥ s or *‑n̥ s; Hi. ‑uš is from PIE *‑m̥ s; PBS *‑ins | Debrunner
& Wackernagel 1930/1975: 59–61, 208–209, 276: Ved. ‑aḥ, Gk. ‑ας go back
to PIE *‑n̥ s; relationship of *‑n̥ s to acc. sg. *‑m̥ and a pl. marker *‑s is
“ganz unsicher”; IIr. masc. r-stem *‑r̥ ns is based on analogy with i- and
u-stem endings *‑ins, *‑uns, with secondary length in Ved. ‑r̥ n̄ (s) from
o-stem ending ‑ān(s) | Rix 1976/1992: 155–156: Gk. ‑ας is from PIE
*‑n̥ s | Sihler 1995: 248, 254, 286: Gk. ‑ας, La. ‑ēs, Osc. ‑s, Umbr. ‑f reflect
PIE *‑m̥ s | Weiss 2009/2011: 199, 206: La. ‑ēs, Gk. ‑ας, Ved. ‑aḥ, Li. ‑is,
Go. ‑uns reflect *‑n̥ s; Hi. ‑uš points to earlier *‑m̥ s | Krahe 1942/1967:
40, 46: r-stem Go. fadruns is from PIE *‑n̥ s; NGmc. and WGmc. r-stems
use nom. pl. form; n-stem forms Go. hanans, ONor. hana are perhaps by
haplology from PGmc. *‑anuns < PIE *‑onn̥ s | Boutkan 1995: 259, 271,
275, 278–281: r-stem forms Go. broþruns, OEng. ‑ru reflect PGmc. *‑runs
< PIE *‑rn̥ s; n-stem forms Go. ‑ans, ONor. ‑a are either analogical or have
resulted by haplology; elsewhere in Gmc. the nom. pl. form is widely
used | Kloekhorst 2008a: 928–929: Hi. ‑uš points to PIE *‑ms, not *‑ns
PBS Olander 2009: 193–194: accentuation of Li. dùkteris, ORu. dóčeri, dščéri
is not original | Endzelīns 1971: 165: Li. ‑is, OLv. ‑is, OPr. ‑ins, OCS ‑i
reflect PIE *‑n̥ s; Lv. ‑’us is modelled on (i)i̯o-stems | Stang 1966: 223:
Li. ‑is, Lv. ‑is reflect PBalt. *‑ins < PIE *‑n̥ s, also in Ved. ‑aḥ, Gk. ‑ας, La. ‑ēs,
OCS ‑i; Lv. ‑’us is from (i)i̯o-stems | Otrębski 1956: 53, 57: Li. ‑is, OCS ‑i
are from *‑ins < PIE *‑n̥ s | Endzelīns 1923: 323–324: OLv. ‑is reflects
PIE *‑n̥ s; Lv. ‑’us is i̯o-stem ending
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 7: OCS ‑i reflects *‑ins < PIE *‑n̥ s | Hujer 1910:
109–110: Slavic ‑i most likely reflects PIE *‑n̥ s | Meillet 1924/1934: 422:
OCS ‑i is from PIE *‑n̥ s | Vaillant 1958: 186: Slavic ‑i, OPr. ‑ins, Li., OLv.
‑is are from PIE *‑n̥ s | Bräuer 1969b: 10, 72 | Arumaa 1985: 114–115:
Slavic ‑i is either from *‑n̥ s (probably from older *‑m̥ s) or is taken over
from i-stems | Igartua 2005a: 345: OCS ‑i, Li. ‑is go back to PIE *‑n̥ s <
*‑m̥ s | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 95, 101, 103: OCS ‑i is from PIE *‑n̥ s or
from i-stems
PIE The consonant-stem ending is traditionally reconstructed as PIE *‑n̥ s,

the post-consonantal variant of the accusative plural marker *‑ns. The marker
is often derived from pre-PIE *‑ms, consisting of an accusative marker *m, also
found in the non-neuter singular, and a plural marker *‑s (e.g. Meier-Brügger
2003: 163; Kortlandt 2010b/2010a: 48; cf., however, the skepticism of Debrunner
& Wackernagel loc. cit.). Outside Anatolian the accusative plural marker of all
the old Indo-European languages may be derived from PIE *‑ns.
It is now a widespread view that the Hittite ending ‑uš positively points
to PIE *‑m̥ s, whereas it cannot reflect *‑n̥ s (e.g. Weiss loc. cit.; Kloekhorst loc.
cit.; Kim 2012 § 3; see also Melchert 1994: 182 with references). This view is not
accepted by all scholars, however; according to Kimball (1999: 251 with refer-
ences and discussion, 327), Hi. ‑uš reflects the u-stem ending PIE *‑uns.
It should be noted that, at least taken at face value, words like Li. tamsà
(a.p. 4), tamsùs (a.p. 2→4) from PIE *toms‑ with laryngeal loss by Saussure’s
rule (Rasmussen 1989b: 183, 204), suggest that PIE *ms was retained as such
in Baltic; the same is implied, for Germanic, by Go. neut. acc. sg. mimz from
242 Chapter 3
PIE *mē̆msó‑. Since the accusative plural marker is not *‑ms in Baltic and
Germanic, this might then be taken as evidence that the marker could not have
been *‑ms in the proto-language. However, it is not difficult to imagine a regu-
lar change of *‑ms to *‑ns in final syllables at some point in the development of
Proto-Indo-European to East Baltic and Germanic. Accordingly, the accusative
plural marker is reconstructed as *‑ms here, with the postconsonantal variant
*‑m̥ s appearing regularly in consonant stems (note that Eichner apud Griffith
2006: 44 n. 1 reconstructs PIE *‑m̥ s after consonants but *‑ns after vowels).
PBS PIE *‑m̥ s > *‑n̥ s regularly yielded PBS *ˌ‑ins [2|4], preserved as OPr.
‑ins, Li. ‑is and OLv. ‑is. The modern Latvian form akmeńus is taken from the
(i)i̯o-stems.
The acute tone of the Lithuanian accusative plural ending in all paradigms
constitutes a problem, as there is no indication of the presence of a laryngeal
in the accusative plural marker in Proto-Indo-European (see also the discus-
sion in § 3.14.5 on the o-stem ending). According to Kortlandt (1975/2011a:
44; 2005: 23; 2006/2009: 100), the Balto-Slavic languages point to an accusa-
tive plural in *‑hNs, where the acute tone was generalised from the ā-stems
(see also Pronk 2012: 213 fn. 4). In my view, however, *VhR sequences did not
become glottalised in Balto-Slavic unless followed by a vowel, cf. e.g. Li. ā-stem
acc. sg. ‑ą from PBS *‑ām < PIE *‑ah₂m̥ . I find it more likely that we are dealing
with a phonetic change in a pre-stage of East Baltic where a vowel was glot-
talised when followed by word-final *‑ns (cf. Olander loc. cit.; but see Kim 2012
§ 4.2).
The accentuation of monosyllabic stems like šunìs, by Saussure’s law
from pre-Li. *ˈšunī�s̰ , is regular, in contrast to that of polysyllabic stems like Li.
dùkteris for expected *dukterìs < pre-Li. *dukˈterī�s̰ from *‑érn̥ s < PIE *-érm̥ s
(Olander loc. cit.).
PS PBS *ˌ‑ins yielded PS *ˌ‑ī [16|17] (CS *‑i [29]). The ending is preserved in
Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian. In the Old Novgorod dialect, dni may also
preserve the original form, although the ending ‑y of the preceding demonstra-
tive pronoun ty points to a non-dialectal form (cf. Zaliznjak 1995/2004: 394). In
the form (pro) gorodišč’ane, ‑e may denote either the o-stem accusative plural
ending /‑ě/, or the consonant-stem nominative plural ending /‑e/ (Zaliznjak
1995/2004: 448). In Old Czech the original ending has been replaced with
the consonant-stem nominative plural ending in feminine words and by the
o-stem accusative plural in masculines.
3.14.2 Non-Neuter i-Stem Accusative Plural
PS *ˌgastī (CS *gȍsti) PBS *ˌ‑ins PIE *‑ims
OCS gosti Li. mintìs Ved. masc. →śúcīn, →‑īm̐ ś (ca); fem.
ORu. gosti; ONovg. sani Lv. avis →śúcīḥ
OCz. hosti OPr. ackins OAv. aṣ̌īš; YAv. gaⁱrīš
Gk. →πόλεις; num. τρῖς; Hom. πόλῑς;
Cretan πολινς
La. →turrēs, turrīs
Go. gastins
Hi. →ḫalkiuš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 222–225: OCS ‑i reflects PIE *‑ins, modelled on

o-stems, alongside more original *‑(i)i̯n̥s | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 203:
PIE *‑ins [implicit from u-stems] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: OCS
‑i from PBS *‑ins, PIE *‑ins; IIr. endings are analogical: Ved. masc. ‑īn
reflects PIIr. *‑īnṣ; Ved. fem. ‑īḥ, YAv. ‑īš reflect PIIr. *‑īṣ | Debrunner
& Wackernagel 1930/1975: 59–60, 159–160: PIE *‑ins was remodelled to
Ved. fem. ‑īḥ by analogy with inherited masc. o-stem *‑ans, fem. ā-stem
*‑ās (thus pp. 59–60), or by analogy with new masc. ‑īn on the model
of new masc. o-stem ‑ān, fem. ā-stem ‑āḥ (thus pp. 159–160); Ved. masc.
‑īn(s) has arisen by analogy with new o-stem ending ‑ān(s); Av. ‑ī�š̆ may
directly reflect PIE *‑ins | Rix 1976/1992: 155: Hom. ‑ῑς, Gk. dial. ‑ινς,
La. ‑īs, Go. ‑ins continue PIE *‑ins; Gk. ‑εις < *‑ens is based on analogy
with nom. | Sihler 1995: 313–315, 317: Gk. τρῖς, Gk. dial. ‑ινς, La. ‑īs are
from PIE *‑ins; Gk. ‑εις reflects *‑ens with analogical *e | Weiss 2009/
2011: 242, 245: PIE *‑ins | Krahe 1942/1967: 28: Gk. dial. ‑ινς, Go. ‑ins
reflect PIE *‑ins | Boutkan 1995: 236, 249: Go. ‑ins is from PGmc., PIE
*‑ins | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 185: PBS *ˌ‑ins regularly reflects PIE *‑íns | Endzelīns
̆ or *‑īs | Stang 1966: 213: OPr.
1971: 154: Li., Lv. endings go back to *‑ī�ns
‑ins corresponds to Go. ‑ins, Gk. dial. ‑ινς, La. ‑īs; Li. ‑is, Lv. ‑is probably
reflect *‑íns, perhaps with acute tone from o- and ā-stems; Li., Lv. fem.
words may reflect *‑ī�ś by analogy with ā-stems | Otrębski 1956: 42:
original ending was *‑ins, preserved in OPr. ‑ins; Li. ‑is is probably mod-
elled on nom. pl. ‑ys on the analogy of ā-stem acc. ‑as vs. nom. ‑os, or
u-stem acc. ‑us vs. nom. ‑ūs | Endzelīns 1923: 320–321: Lv., Li. ‑is go
back to PIE *‑ī�ns̆ (probably also in Slavic ‑i) or to *‑īs
244 Chapter 3
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 7; Vondrák 1906/ 1924: 151: OCS ‑i reflects PIE
*‑ins | Hujer 1910: 108–109: Slavic ‑i reflects PIE *‑ins | Meillet
1924/1934: 392, 419: OCS ‑i reflects *‑ins | Vaillant 1958: 136: Slavic ‑i is
from *‑ins; Li. acute tone is from o- and ā-stem acc. pl. | Bräuer 1969a:
157 | Arumaa 1985: 128: CS *‑i reflects PIE *‑ins (alongside *‑i̯n̥s) or
perhaps corresponds to IIr. *‑īs in fem. i-stems and ī-stems | Igartua
2005a: 266–268: Slavic ‑i is from PIE *‑ins | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 75:
OCS ‑i in fem. and probably also in masc. words is from fem. *‑īs, also in
Ved. fem. ‑īḥ, Li. ‑ìs
PIE PIE *‑ims consists of the zero grade of the i-stem suffix followed by the
accusative plural marker (see § 3.14.1). The ending is preserved in Cretan Greek
dialect forms like ‑ινς, in La. ‑īs, in Germanic and in Balto-Slavic. The Avestan
ending most likely also reflects PIE *‑ims (Debrunner & Wackernagel loc. cit.;
Hoffmann & Forssman 1996: 89); it cannot be excluded, however, that it is iden-
tical to Ved. fem. ‑īḥ, which is modelled on the ā-stem ending ‑āḥ. Ved. masc.
‑īn(s) is modelled on the o-stem ending ‑ān(s). La. ‑ēs is the consonant-stem
ending, while the Attic Greek form in ‑εις goes back to *‑ens, with *e imported
from other case forms. The Hittite ending ‑iuš has been recomposed by the
stem-vowel ‑i‑ and the ending ‑uš from the consonant stems and o-stems.
PBS PIE *‑ims > *‑ins regularly yielded PBS *ˌ‑ins [4]. The ending is preserved
unaltered in Old Prussian. At a pre-stage of Lithuanian and Latvian, *‑ins
became glottalised *‑ḭns (see § 3.14.1), eventually yielding ‑is in both languages.
PS PBS *ˌ‑ins yielded PS *ˌ‑ī [16|17] (CS *‑i [29]), preserved in the old Slavic
dialects.
3.14.3 u-Stem Accusative Plural
PS *ˌsūnū (CS *sy̑ny) PBS *ˌ‑uns PIE non-neut. *‑ums, *‑u̯m̥s
OCS syny Li. sū́nus Ved. masc. →mádhūn, →‑ūm̐ ś (ca);

ORu. syny; ONovg. dary Lv. tìrgus fem. →mádhūḥ; mádhvaḥ
OCz. syny OPr. ? OAv. xratūš; YAv. bāzū̆š, pasuuō
Gk. →ἡδεῖς; Cretan υιυνς
La. tribūs
Go. sununs
Hi. lugal.meš‑uš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 222–225: OCS ‑y reflects PIE *‑uns, modelled on

o-stems, alongside more original *‑(u)u̯ n̥s | Beekes 1995/2011: 203: PIE
*‑uns | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: OCS ‑y reflects PBS *‑uns, PIE *‑uns,
alongside *‑u̯ m̥s in Ved. paśváḥ, YAv. pasuuō; remaining IIr. endings are
analogical: Ved. masc. ‑ūn is from PIIr. *‑ūnṣ, and Ved. fem. ‑ūḥ, OAv. ‑ūš are
from PIIr. *‑ūṣ | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 59–60, 159–160
[parallel with i-stems; see § 3.14.2] | Rix 1976/1992: 155: Hom. πολῡ�ς́ ,
Gk. dial. (Cretan) ‑υνς, La. ‑ūs, Go. ‑uns reflect PIE *‑uns; Gk. ‑εις < *‑ens is
modelled on nom. | Sihler 1995: 326: Gk. dial. ‑υνς, ‑ῡς, La. ‑ūs reflect
PIE *‑uns; Gk. ‑εις is from *‑ens, with *e from nom. | Weiss 2009/2011:
249, 252: La. ‑ūs goes back to PIE *‑uns | Krahe 1942/1967: 33–34: Go.
‑uns, Gk. dial. ‑υνς, La. ‑ūs are from PIE *‑uns | Boutkan 1995: 250, 253,
257: Go. ‑uns goes back to PGmc., PIE *‑uns | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 185: PBS *ˌ‑uns is the regular outcome of PIE
*‑úns | Endzelīns 1971: 159: Li. ‑us is from ‑uns; Lv. ‑us is from *‑ūs, as
in Ved. fem. ‑ūḥ, or from *‑ū̆ns | Stang 1966: 218: Li. ‑us, Lv. ‑us, OCS
‑y, Go. ‑uns, Gk. dial. ‑υνς reflect PIE *‑uns | Otrębski 1956: 48: Li. ‑us
is not necessarily the direct reflex of PIE *‑uns found in Go. ‑uns, OCS
‑y | Endzelīns 1923: 330: Lv. ‑us, Li. ‑us reflect PIE *‑uns or *‑ūs
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 7; Vondrák 1906/ 1924: 151: OCS ‑y is from PIE
*‑uns | Hujer 1910: Slavic ‑y is from PIE *‑uns | Meillet 1924/1934:
392, 414: OCS ‑y is from *‑uns | Vaillant 1958: 111: Slavic ‑y reflects *‑uns;
Li. acute tone is from o-stem acc. pl. | Bräuer 1969a: 147 | Arumaa
1985: 128: CS *‑y goes back to PIE *‑uns, alongside *‑u̯ n̥s | Igartua
2005a: 293: Slavic ‑y is from PIE *‑uns | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 72: OCS
‑y is from *‑uns
PIE PIE *‑ums consisted of the zero grade of the u-stem suffix followed by
the accusative plural marker *‑ms (§ 3.14.1); Indo-Iranian also shows reflexes
of an ending with the expected vocalisation *‑u̯ m̥s (cf. § 2.2.1). The ending
*‑ums is preserved in Greek dialects, Latin, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Anatolian
(Weitenberg 1984: 375; Kimball 1999: 251, 327) and probably Avestan (Debrunner
& Wackernagel loc. cit.; Hoffmann & Forssman 1996: 89). Ved. fem. ‑ūḥ is mod-
elled on the ā-stem ending ‑āḥ. The Vedic masculine ending ‑ūn(s) is based on
analogy with the o-stem ending ‑ān(s). Attic Gk. ‑εις < *‑ens has *e from other
forms of the paradigm.
PBS PIE *‑ums > *‑uns was retained as *ˌ‑uns [4] in Proto-Balto-Slavic. In

Lithuanian the ending attracted the accent by Saussure’s law and was short-
ened by Leskien’s law, which points to an ending with acute tone. The acute
246 Chapter 3
tone seems to have arisen phonetically at a pre-stage of Lithuanian and Latvian

in word-final structures in *‑ns (see § 3.14.1).
PS PBS *ˌ‑uns is reflected as PS *ˌ‑ū [16|17] (CS [29]), preserved in the old
Slavic dialects.
3.14.4 ā-Stem Accusative Plural
PS *ˌnagə̄n (CS Cl *nȍgy || ONovg. PBS *ˌ‑āns PIE *‑ah₂m̥ s

‑ě; CS S *dȗšę || CS N *‑ě)
OCS glavy; dušę Li. gálvas; def. adj. Ved. jihvā́ḥ

Ru. ženy; zemlě; ONovg. kuně; mažą́ sias; East Li. OAv. daēnā̊, daēnā̊s-ca;
vъže →mergàs YAv. zaoϑrā̊, zaoϑrā̊s-ca
OCz. ryby; dušě, ‑e Lv. →gal̂vas Gk. φυγάς; Cretan τιμανς
OPr. rānkans La. uiās
Go. gibos
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 225–226: PIE *‑ās; OCS ‑y, ‑ję reflect *‑ans (perhaps
from *‑āns), also found in other branches, which is probably modelled
on o-, i‑, u-stems | Beekes 1995/2011: 200: PIE *‑eh₂ns | Rasmussen
forthc. a § 5: Li ‑às, East Li. ‑às, Lv. ‑as reflect PBS *‑ā́s < PIE *‑ās; Li. def.
adj. ‑ą́ sias indicates that PBS def. adj. contained a nasal; OCS ‑y, ‑ję are
from *‑(i̯)āns | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 123–124: PIE
*‑ās is from earlier *‑āns; languages pointing to *‑āns, *‑ans have reintro-
duced the nasal | Rix 1976/1992: 133: PIE *‑ās < *‑eh₂n̥ s; nasal of PGk.
*‑āns is taken from o-stem acc. pl. | Sihler 1995: 254, 271: Gk. and Italic
forms reflect *‑ans < *‑āns < *‑eh₂ms, for expected *‑eh₂m̥ s; the loss of the
nasal after a long vowel may have happened independently in the various
branches | Weiss 2009/2011: 229, 235–236: La. ‑ās directly reflects PIE
*‑ās < pre-PIE *‑eh₂ns | Krahe 1942/1967: 22–23: PGmc. *‑ōz is from
PIE *‑ās < *‑āns | Boutkan 1995: 141–142, 225, 229: PGmc. *‑ōns reflects
PIE *‑eh₂ns (following Kortlandt); the difference between PGmc. nom.
pl. *‑ōs and acc. pl. *‑ōns is retained in OEng. nom.–acc. pl. doublets ‑e,
‑a; Go. ‑os regularly reflects PGmc. *‑ōns < PIE *‑eh₂ns | Kloekhorst
2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 184: PBS *ˌ‑ās reflects PIE *‑áh₂m̥ s with regular loss of
accent | Endzelīns 1971: 145: it is doubtful if East Li. ‑às, Lv. ‑as are
inherited from PIE | Stang 1966: 200: East Li. ‑as, Lv. ‑as are from PIE
*‑ās; Li. def. adj. ‑ą́ s, OPr. ‑ans reflect new formation *‑āns | Otrębski
1956: 26: Li. points to *‑ās and (expected) *‑ans; *‑ās may have arisen
when a new loc. pl. was created on the basis of the acc. pl. | Endzelīns
1923: 308: Lv. ‑as, East Li. ‑as reflect PBalt. *‑ās, alongside *‑āns
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 7: Slavic ‑y, ‑ję/ě go back to *‑(i̯)ons < *‑(i̯)ans, ana-
logically shortened from *‑(i̯)āns | Hujer 1910: 98–104: PIE *‑ās from
pre-PIE *‑āns; an ending *‑āns was recreated on the analogy of the other
stems in PIE or in the individual daughter languages; East Li. ‑as, Lv. ‑as
reflect *‑ās; Slavic ‑y, ‑ję are from *‑(i̯)āns, but ‑jě is from *‑i̯ās | Meillet
1924/1934: 398–399: PIE *‑ās; Slavic ‑y, ‑ję are from *‑ons < *‑āns with
reintroduced nasal | Vaillant 1958: 83–84, 87–88: Slavic ‑y is from
*‑āns; SSl. ‑ję, NSl. ‑jě reflect *‑i̯āns; Li., Lv. endings reflect *‑āns and *‑ās;
BS also had *‑āns and *‑ās | Bräuer 1969a: 106–107, 127: CS *‑y goes
back to PIE *‑āns, perhaps via shortened *‑ans; CS *‑ję and *‑ě go back
to *‑jens from *‑i̯ons or *‑i̯ans, corresponding to *‑i̯ās or *‑i̯ans, both
from *‑i̯āns, in other languages | Arumaa 1985: 153–154: PIE *‑āns
reflects *‑ā‑ or *‑eə₂‑, plus *‑ns; Slavic ‑y is not from *‑āns; ‑ję is hardly
from *‑i̯āns | Igartua 2005a: 228–235: Slavic ‑y, ‑ję reflect PIE *‑ā̆ns <
*‑e(h₂)ms | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 88, 91: PIE *‑āns, *‑ās would yield
PS *‑ā(s); OCS ‑y, ‑ję represent masc. (i̯)o-stem ending *‑(i̯)ons, which in
pronouns was masc. and fem.; ESl., WSl. ‑jě reflects *‑i̯ons
PIE From a structural point of view we expect a Proto-Indo-European end-

ing *‑ah₂m̥ s (yielding *‑ah₂n̥ s in non-Anatolian Indo-European), consisting of
the stem-suffix *‑ah₂‑ followed by the accusative plural marker *‑m̥ s (for which
see § 3.14.1). In most pre-laryngealist studies it is assumed that pre-PIE *‑āns
yielded PIE *‑ās; this ending was remade to *‑āns either in the proto-language
or in some of the daughter languages. This solution lives on in a laryngeal-
ist reinterpretation saying that *‑ah₂n̥ s (or *‑eh₂n̥ s) yielded PIE *‑ah₂s or *‑ās,
which could be remade to *‑āns (for references see Olander loc. cit. n. 85).
However, the laryngeal theory opens up for a more elegant solution. As
noted already by Kuryłowicz (1927: 222–223), the Indo-Iranian forms may
directly reflect the expected ending PIE *‑ah₂m̥ s, which would also yield the
Greek, Italic and, partly, Balto-Slavic forms (for Italic, however, cf. Weiss loc.
cit.: “[PIE] *‑ās is directly continued by La. ‑ās, which did not lose its n in Italic”
[emphasis as in original]). Germanic forms such as Go. ‑os may be the regular
248 Chapter 3
outcome of PIE *‑ah₂m̥ s, perhaps via *‑ōuns (Guus Kroonen, pers. comm., 2014;
cf., somewhat differently, Boutkan loc. cit.). Alternatively, they may represent
the nominative used for the accusative on the model of the identical nomina-
tive and accusative singular forms in ‑a (Rasmussen 1992a/1999: 507 n. 2). In
fact, the only evidence indisputably pointing to a proto-form without a nasal is
provided by Lithuanian dialects and Latvian, for which see below.
PBS PIE *‑ah₂m̥ s regularly became *ˌ‑āns in Proto-Balto-Slavic [1|2|3|4]. This

ending is preserved in Li. def. adj. ‑ą́ sias and Old Prussian ‑ans. Lithuanian dia-
lects (see Zinkevičius 1966: 291–292) and Latvian, on the other hand, point to
*‑ā̰s without a nasal; standard Li. ‑as is ambiguous. It seems most likely that the
Baltic forms pointing to a proto-form without a nasal have arisen at a relatively
late stage, as the result of an East Baltic loss of *n between a long vowel and a
final *s; a similar solution has been proposed by Mathiassen (1989), who does
not, however, mention the Latvian ending. Lv. ‑as may also simply be the result
of an analogical imitation of the i-stems, where the accusative ending is identi-
cal to that of the nominative (cf. Rasmussen 1992a/1999: 507 n. 2). For the acute
tone of Lithuanian see § 3.14.1 on the consonant-stem ending.
PS PBS *ˌ‑āns became *ˌ‑ə̄n in Proto-Slavic [17] (CS Cl *‑y || ONovg. ‑ě [28|29];
CS S *dȗšę || CS N *‑ě [20|28|29]). The ending is generally well preserved in the
old Slavic dialects; for the isogloss separating the Old Novgorod dialect, with
‑ě, from the remaining Slavic dialects, with ‑y, see Olander 2012: 333–335 and
passim. In Serbo-Croatian and Slovene the hard ending was replaced with the
soft ending. In South Slavic soft ā-stems, the accusative plural ending spread
to the genitive singular and nominative plural by imitation of the (segmental)
syncretism between the three endings in the hard ā-stems (see § 3.5.4).
3.14.5 Masculine o-Stem Accusative Plural
PS *ˌtakə̄n (CS Cl *tȍky || ONovg. PBS *ˌ‑ōns PIE *‑ōms

‑ě; CS S *gȍję || CS N *‑ě)
OCS grady; kon’ę Li. lángus; def. adj. Ved. devā́n, devā́m̐ś (ca)
ORu. stoly; koně; ONovg. kolotokě, mažúosius; Žem. OAv. maṣ̌iiə̄ṇg, maṣ̌iiąs(‑cā);
(late) (pro) →sigy; koně def. adj. gerū́sius, YAv. haomą, haomąs(-ca)
OCz. chlapy; oráčě, ‑e gerúnsius Gk. ἀγρούς; Cretan ελευθερονς
Lv. tȩ̃vus; def. adj. La. lupōs
mazuõs Go. dagans
OPr. deiwans Hi. antuḫšuš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 221–225 (1897: 392): PIE *‑ons is more likely
than *‑ōns; OCS ‑y, ‑ję reflect *‑ǭs, *‑ę̄s < *‑ų̄ s, *‑ę̄s from “Urslav.” *‑ons,
*‑ens | Beekes 1995/2011: 212–213: Av. points to PIE *‑ons; long vowel
of Ved. ‑ān may stem from nom. pl.; Li. ‑ùs points to *‑ohns, perhaps
with *h from laryngeal stems | Rasmussen forthc. a § 4: Li. ‑ùs, ‑úos‑,
Lv. ‑us, OPr. ‑ans, ‑ons, OCS ‑y reflect PBS *‑ṓns from PIE *‑ōns, per-
haps from pre-PIE pron. *‑oi̯ms; Hi. ‑uš is probably from C-stem ending
*‑m̥ s | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 59–60, 102: PIE ending
was probably *‑ons; Ved. ‑ān has long vowel from nom. pl. ‑āḥ | Rix
1976/1992: 140: Gk. ‑ους, dial. ‑ονς reflect PIE *‑ons | Sihler 1995: 262–263:
Gk. ‑ους, dial. ‑ονς, Osc. ‑úss, La. ‑ōs are from PIE *‑ons < *‑oms | Weiss
2009/2011: 206, 224: OCS ‑y goes back to *‑ūns < *‑ōns < PIE *‑ons; some
languages point to *‑ōns | Krahe 1942/1967: 11–12: Go. ‑ans, ONor.,
OHG ‑a reflect PIE *‑ons | Boutkan 1995: 167, 170, 191–194: Go. ‑ans,
NWGmc. forms in ‑a reflect PGmc. *‑ans < PIE *‑ons | Kloekhorst
2008a: 928–929: Hi. ‑uš is from o-stem ending *‑oms, merging with C-stem
ending *‑ms
PBS Olander 2009: 183: PBS *ˌ‑ans is the regular outcome of PIE noun ending
*‑óns, alongside pron. *‑ōns, represented by Ved. ‑ān; East Baltic reflexes of
*‑V̰̄ (n)s are the results of a vowel lengthening before *‑ns | Endzelīns
1971: 136–137: Li. ‑us, Lv. ‑us are from *‑ōns | Stang 1966: 186: Li. ‑us,
‑úos‑, Lv. ‑us point to *‑úons < *‑ōns, corresponding to Ved. ‑ān; OPr. ‑ans,
Gk. dial. ‑ονς, Go. ‑ans reflect *‑ons, shortened from *‑ōns | Otrębski
1956: 15: Li. ‑us is from *‑ōns, corresponding to Ved. ‑ām̐ ś ca | Endzelīns
1923: 299: Li. ‑us, Lv. ‑us reflect *‑uons < PIE *‑ōns, perhaps also in Ved. ‑ān
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 7 (1906/ 1924: 151–152): OCS ‑y is from PIE
*‑ons | Hujer 1910: 104–106: Slavic ‑y, ‑ję reflect PIE *‑ons; Baltic *‑ṓs
has arisen by analogy with nom. pl. *‑ō̃s on the model of ā-stem nom.
*‑ā̃s, acc. *‑ā́s; Ru., Po., Cz., Sorb. *‑jě is taken from i̯ā-stems | Meillet
1924/1934: 152, 392, 409: OCS ‑y is from PIE *‑ons | Vaillant 1958:
34–35, 48–49: Li. ‑us, Lv. ‑us is from *‑uons from remade ending *‑ōns;
OPr. ‑ans, Slavic ‑y, ‑ję || ‑jě reflect stem-vowel *a plus acc. pl. marker
*‑ns | Bräuer 1969a: 27, 74–75: CS *‑y reflects *‑ūs < *‑uns < PIE *‑ons;
South CS *‑ję, West and East CS *‑jě reflect PIE *‑i̯ons | Arumaa 1985:
141: PIE *‑ons; Baltic *‑ōns has long vowel from nom. pl. *‑ōs; [explanation
of CS *‑y, *‑ę is unclear] | Igartua 2005a: 158–163: CS *‑y, *‑ję reflect
PIE *‑o/ōns | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 82, 84: OCS ‑y, ‑ję reflect PIE
*‑ons, *‑i̯ons; Li. ‑us < *‑ōs is from *‑ons
PIE On structural grounds we expect an ending *‑oms, consisting of the

o-grade of the thematic vowel followed by the accusative plural marker *‑ms
250 Chapter 3
(for the marker see § 3.14.1). While most languages are compatible with the
reconstruction of an ending containing a short vowel, and some even seem to
require it, certain pieces of evidence make it more likely that the ending was
in reality *‑ōms (see Kim 2012 for a clear and comprehensive overview of the
problem). According to Rasmussen (1989b: 139 with n. 21), the proto-language
had *‑ons in nouns and *‑ōns < pre-PIE *‑oi̯ms in pronouns.
While the long vowel of Ved. ‑ān, ‑ām̐ ś ca may have been introduced ana-
logically from the nominative plural, it is more straightforward to assume that
it is the direct reflex of a Proto-Indo-European long vowel. Note, incidentally,
that the proportion set up by Debrunner & Wackernagel (loc. cit.)—“‑āns zu
‑ās nach Sg. ‑am zu ‑as”—would rather lead to acc. pl. *‑ām than *‑āns. The
prehistory of the Gaulish and OIr. accusative plural forms is also less complex
when departing from *‑ōns with a long vowel (see Griffith 2006: 50–63; Kim
2012 § 4.3). A third argument in favour of an original long vowel is constituted
by Li. ‑ùs, ‑úos‑, which is difficult to reconcile with a proto-form containing
a short form (I am grateful to Tobias Mosbæk Søborg, pers. comm., 2013, for
directing my attention to this fact). I think the Lithuanian ending does point
to a long vowel, though somewhat more indirectly than it appears at first sight
(see below).
The branches that are more straightforwardly accounted for on the basis
of a proto-form containing a short rather than a long vowel are Avestan,
Tocharian and, for accentual reasons, Balto-Slavic. The Avestan forms have
been analysed as the direct reflexes of *‑āns (Kümmel 2013b; see also Kim 2012
§ 4.1), but it is also not difficult to imagine that the long vowel was replaced
with a short vowel under the influence of the accusative plural of the other
paradigms. The latter explanation may also account for TochB ‑eṃ, TochA adj.
‑es (Kim 2012 §§ 2.1 and 4 with references). In Balto-Slavic an ending contain-
ing a long vowel should not have lost its accent by the mobility law [4]; how-
ever, the form may relatively easily have become unaccented by analogy with
the accusative plural forms of all the other paradigms (note that this account
of the facts differs from the one given in Olander loc. cit.).
In Anatolian, Hi. ‑uš may reflect either PIE *‑ōms or *‑oms (see Kim 2012
§§ 3 and 4.4; both Melchert 1994: 185–186 [with references] and Kloekhorst loc.
cit. depart from short *‑oms).
PBS Li. ‑ùs, def. adj. ‑úos‑, Žem. gerū́sius, gerúnsius (Zinkevičius 1966: 212;
1980: 211–212), point to an ending containing a long acute vowel, whereas Lv.
‑us, ‑uõs may reflect either *‑ō̰(n)s or *‑a̰ ns. The Old Prussian ending ‑ans is
immediately derivable from *‑ans, but it cannot be ruled out that it may also
reflect *‑ō̰ns or *‑ōns (Stang loc. cit.). It is tempting to relate the Lithuanian long
vowel to the Lithuanian and Latvian acute tone, and this is routinely done.
However, since Proto-Balto-Slavic acute diphthongs consisting of an original
o-vowel and a sonorant seem to be show up with a in the Baltic languages
(see § 2.2.2), it is probable that a pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic sequence *‑ō̰ns would
have been reflected as PBS **‑a̰ ns > Li. **‑às, **‑ą́ s‑. I therefore assume that
the development was PIE *‑ōms to (non-acute) *ˌ‑ōns in Proto-Balto-Slavic;
this is in accordance with the view, not generally accepted, that PIE plain long
vowels receive a non-acute tone in Proto-Balto-Slavic (see Olander 2009: 146–
148 with references; and cf. the discussion in Villanueva Svensson 2011 with
the responses by Kortlandt 2012b and Pronk 2012). When final sequences of
a nasal plus *s led to glottalisation of a preceding vowel at a pre-stage of East
Baltic—a development already required in order to explain the acute tone of
the Lithuanian accusative plural in the other paradigms (see § 3.14.1)—the
sequence PIE *‑ōms > PBS *‑ōns became *‑ō̰ns, yielding the attested Lithuanian
and Latvian outcomes.
As noted above, the derivation of the Balto-Slavic forms from PIE *‑ōms
with a long vowel implies that the unaccentedness of the form in Proto-Balto-
Slavic is secondary.
PS PBS *ˌ‑ōns is reflected as PS *ˌ‑ə̄n [15|17] (CS Cl *‑y || ONovg. ‑ě [28|29]; CS S

*‑ę || CS N *‑ě [20|28|29]). The ending is preserved in the old Slavic dialects. In
the Old Novgorod dialect the normal ending is ‑ě (see Olander 2012: 333 and
passim); occurrences of ‑y are due to influence from other dialects, including
standard Old Russian.
3.14.6 Enclitic 1pl. and 2pl. Pronoun acc.–dat.
Enclitic first-person plural pronoun accusative-dative
PS *nə̄ (CS *ny) PBS *nōs PIE encl. obl. *nō̆s (tonic acc. *n̥smé)
OCS ny Li. acc. →mùs Ved. encl. acc.–gen.–dat. naḥ (tonic →asmā́n)
ORu. ny; Lv. acc. →mũs OAv. encl. acc. nā̊; gen.–dat. nə̄ (tonic acc. ə̄hmā);
ONovg. →ny OPr. acc. →mans YAv. encl. acc.–gen.–dat. nō (tonic ahma)
OCz. ny Gk.—(→ἡμᾶς; Hom. →ἡμέας; Aeol. [Hom.,
Sappho] ἄμμε)
La. acc. nōs
Go.—(acc.–dat. →uns, →unsis)
Hi. encl. acc.–dat. ‑naš (OS) (tonic acc.–dat.–loc.
→anzāš)
252 Chapter 3
Enclitic second-person plural pronoun accusative-dative
PS *u̯ə̄ (CS *vy) PBS *u̯ōs PIE encl. obl. *u̯ō̆s (tonic acc. *usmé)
OCS vy Li. acc. →jùs Ved. encl. acc.–gen.–dat. vaḥ (tonic →yuṣmā́n)
ORu. vy; Lv. acc. →jũs OAv. encl. acc. vā̊, gen.–dat. və̄ (tonic acc. ?);
ONovg. vy OPr. acc. →wans YAv. encl. acc.–gen.–dat. vō (tonic acc. ?)
OCz. vy Gk.—(→ῡ̔μᾶς; Hom. →ῡ̔μέας; Aeol. [Hom.,
Pindarus] ὔμμε)
La. acc. uōs
Go.—(acc.–dat. →izwis)
Hi. encl. acc.–dat. →‑šmaš (OS) (tonic acc.–dat.–
loc. →šumāš)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 383–385, 408–409, 419–420: PIE tonic acc. *n̥ sme,
*usme; encl. and tonic acc.–gen.–dat. *nē̆s, *nō̆s, *u̯ ē̆s, *u̯ ō̆s; OPr. mans,
wans, Li. mùs, jùs, OCS ny, vy go back to *‑ns | Beekes 1995/2011: 233–
234: PIE encl. acc. *nōs, *uōs, gen. *nos, *uos, dat. *ns (> Go. uns, Hi. tonic
stem anz‑) | Rasmussen forthc. a § 13: PIE *nos, *u̯ os; long vowel of
OAv. nā̊, vā̊ is analogical from ā-stem acc. pl.; long vowel of La. nōs, uōs is
either the result of monosyllabic lengthening, analogy with o-stem nom.
and acc. pl., or influence from corresponding du. forms; PGmc. 1pl. *uns
has arisen by contamination of tonic PIE *n̥ smé and encl. *nos; PGmc.
2pl. *izwiz has arisen by assimilation from *uzwiz < *usu̯ és, a contamina-
tion of PIE *usmé and *u̯ os; OCS ny, vy reflect PBS *nṓns, *u̯ ṓns from PIE
*nos, *u̯ os, with introduction of o-stem ending | Schmidt 1978: 172–
173, 177–181, 204–205, 212–233, 243: PIE 1pl. tonic *mōs, encl. acc.–gen.–
dat. *m/nos; Slavic ny is from *nō̆ns, with secondary acc. marker *‑n‑; PIE
2pl. tonic *usme, later *u̯ ōs, encl. gen.–dat.–instr. *u̯ os(?) | Debrunner
& Wackernagel 1930/1975: 477–478: Ved. encl. naḥ, vaḥ, correspond-
ing to OAv. nə̄, və̄, are old in gen.–dat. function, but have replaced acc.
*nāḥ, *vāḥ, corresponding to OAv. nā̊ | Rix 1976/1992: 179: Ved. naḥ,
vaḥ reflect PIE encl. *nos, *u̯ os | Sihler 1995: 379, 381: Ved. nas, vas,
Hi. ‑naš go back to PIE encl. acc. *nos, u̯ os; La. nōs, uōs, OAv. nā̊, vā̊, OCS
ny, vy reflect alternative PIE forms *nōs, *u̯ ōs | Weiss 2009/2011:
329–331: La., BS, OAv. (encl. acc.) point to PIE *nōs; IIr., perhaps Hi. point
to *nos | Krahe 1942/1967: 52–53: Gmc. 1pl. forms are from PIE zero
grade *n̥ s; Ved. naḥ is from full grade *nes; La. nōs is from long grade *nōs;
Go. izwis has arisen by dissimilation from *uiz‑u̯ iz, a reduplicated form
based on shortened *u̯ iz | Seebold 1984: 39–44: Go. uns goes back to
*unss from PIE *n̥ sés or *n̥ sós, also in Hi. anzāš; Go. izwis is perhaps from
*izg̑ ʰu̯ o/es | Kloekhorst 2008a: 115–116, 596, 770: Hi. encl. ‑naš is from
PIE encl. *nos; Hi. ‑šmaš is identical to dat.–loc. pl. of encl. pron. ‑a; the
final part ‑aš is probably the dat.–loc. ending ‑aš
PBS Kapović 2006a: 76, 91, 98, 101, 104, 113, 132, 158: CS encl. acc.–dat. *ny̑ , *vy̑ ,
OPr. mans (with m‑ from nom. or by dissimilation from *nans), wans
reflect *nōns, *u̯ ōns from PIE encl. acc.–gen.–dat. *nōs, *u̯ ōs (alongside
*nos, *u̯ os) with secondary acc. marker *‑n‑; Li. mùs, jùs, Lv. mũs, jũs reflect
*mū́ns, *i̯ū́ns, which have arisen either by analogy with u-stems or on the
basis of nom. pl. *i̯ū́s with secondary acc. marker *‑n‑ | Endzelīns
1971: 189: OPR. mans (< *nans), wans correspond to OCS ny, vy; Lv. mũs,
jũs, Li. mùs, jùs reflect *mū̆ns, *jū̆ns or, by analogy with u-stems, *mùns,
*jùns | Stang 1966: 255–256: OPR. wans is remade from *u̯ ō̆s on the
basis of acc. forms of nouns and pronouns; OPr. mans has m‑ for *n‑ from
nom. pl. mes; Li. mùs, jùs, Lv. mũs, jũs probably reflect *múns, *júns, based
on nom. 2pl. form | Otrębski 1956: 138: Li. mùs is modelled on jùs,
which has ‑us from u-stems | Endzelīns 1923: 380–381: Lv. mũs, jũs, Li.
mùs, jùs (with shortening in unaccented position) reflect *mū̆ns, *jū̆ns,
modelled on u-stems; OPr. mans, wans, OCS ny, vy are remade from *nōs,
*u̯ ōs on the model of *tōns etc.
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 72–73: Slavic my, vy correspond to La. nōs, uōs or OPr.
mans, wans | Meillet 1924/1934: 455: Slavic ny, vy may reflect *nōs,
*u̯ ōs directly, or they may contain acc. marker *‑ns, as does OPr. mans,
wans | Vaillant 1958: 452–453: Slavic ny, vy, OPr. mans, wans reflect PIE
*nes, *u̯ es, with masc. and fem. endings -y, ‑ans | Arumaa 1985: 166–
169 | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 109, 111–112: OCS ny, vy, OPr. mans, wans
go back to *nōns, *u̯ ōns, replacing *nōs, *u̯ ōs, preserved in La. nōs, uōs
PIE The Slavic accusative-dative forms of the first- and second-person plu-

ral pronouns go back to the Proto-Indo-European oblique enclitic forms *nōs,
*u̯ ōs, also reflected in OAv. acc. nā̊, vā̊ and La. nōs, uōs. Variants with short vow-
els are found in Ved. naḥ, vaḥ, OAv. gen.–dat. nə̄, və̄, YAv. nō, vō and Hi. ‑naš,
‑šmaš. It is possible that the Old Avestan distribution of long and short variants
is an archaism (Debrunner & Wackernagel loc. cit.; apparently also Beekes loc.
cit.), but the Old Avestan accusative form may also have its long vowel from the
corresponding ā-stem form (Rasmussen loc. cit.).
254 Chapter 3
The reflexes found in the remaining languages are based on the tonic
forms, although the prehistory of the Germanic forms is not clear, especially
the second-person plural, e.g. Go. izwis (for discussions see Katz 1998: 107–133;
Kroonen 2008).
PBS The long variants PIE *nōs, *u̯ ōs were retained as PBS *nōs, *u̯ ōs. In pre-
Proto-Baltic a nasal was introduced on the pattern of the accusative plural
ending of nouns and non-personal pronouns, and the first-person plural pro-
noun received an *m‑ by analogy with the nominative form PBalt. *ˈmes. PBalt.
*mōns, *u̯ ōns are regularly reflected as OPr. mans, wans. At a pre-stage of East
Baltic the second-person plural pronoun also introduced the initial consonant
of the nominative form, resulting in Li. mùs, jùs, Lv. mũs, jũs. For the acute tone
of the East Baltic forms see § 3.14.5; if one assumes that Proto-Indo-European
plain long vowels regularly become acute in Proto-Balto-Slavic, the East Baltic
forms may directly reflect PIE *‑ōs.
PS The Slavic forms are usually traced back to *nō̆ns, *u̯ ō̆ns, with second-
ary adaption of the forms to the general accusative plural marker *‑ns. If this
reconstruction is correct, the Slavic material would correspond exactly to OPr.
mans, wans, except that Slavic preserves the original consonant in the first-
person plural. However, as pointed out by Meillet (1897: 96; see also Kapović
2006: 76; and cf. Rasmussen loc. cit.), the fact that OCS ny, vy etc. are not
restricted to the accusative but also serve as dative forms can hardly be seen as
anything but an archaism, corresponding to the use of naḥ in Vedic as a more
general oblique form. In that case I find it hard to the understand—contrary
to Kapović and Rasmussen, but in agreement with Meillet—why an accusa-
tive ending would have been introduced in a form that had (at least) accusa-
tive and dative function. The straightforward solution is to assume that PIE,
PBS *nōs, *u̯ ōs are directly reflected as PS *nə̄, *u̯ ə̄ [17] (CS Cl *ny; CS *vy [29])
(similarly Meillet 1897: 96; loc. cit.; Vondrák 1906: 108; 1908: 87; but cf. Hujer 1910:
75–76 n. 1; Arumaa 1985: 131; and the hesitation of Vondrák loc. cit.). This solu-
tion obviously only works if one accepts the view that PIE *ō > pre-PS *ā had
a special treatment before word-final *s in Slavic. The expected Old Novgorod
first-person form *ně was replaced with ny by analogy with 2pl. vy, where the
development PS *‑ə̄ > ‑y is regular after a labial (see [29]).
Another indication that the reflexes of PIE *nōs, *u̯ ōs did not yet have a nasal
in pre-Proto-Slavic is the fact that the remaining oblique forms are based on
the stems *nās‑, *u̯ ās‑ in Slavic, e.g. PS gen.–loc. *ˈnāsu (CS *na̋ sъ) from pre-PS
gen. *ˈnās‑am, loc. *ˈnās-su (Meillet 1897: 96). Note that the acute is probably
not regular here; it may have been introduced by analogy with the dual forms.
3.15 Genitive Plural
3.15.1 Consonant-Stem Genitive Plural
PS *dukteru (CS *dъt’erъ) PBS *‑am PIE *‑(h)om
OCS dъšterъ Li. →akmenų̃ Ved. →áśmanām

ORu. dъčerъ; ONovg. (u) Lv. →akmeńu; dial. OAv., YAv. →bar ǝzīmanąm
kotor’anъ →akmanu Gk. →ποιμένων
OCz. dcer, →dceř, →dceří OPr. – La. hominum
Go. →gumane; OHG nahto
Hi. patān (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 244–247: OCS ‑ъ reflects PIE *‑ōm̃ | Beekes 1995/
2011: 188: PIE *‑om, originally an adjectival form, is preserved in Umbr.,
Celt. and BS; IIr. endings reflect remade *‑ahom or *‑oom | Rasmussen
forthc. a § 2: PIE *‑õm or *‑oom | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/
1975: 67–69, 71–72: Ved., Av., Gk., Li. have generalised original o-stem end-
ing PIE *‑ō̃m; short vowel of Slavic and Celtic points to generalisation of
pure case–number marker *‑om | Rix 1976/1992: 156–157: Gk. ending
reflects o-stem ending PIE *‑ōm, which largely replaced original *‑om,
preserved in OCS ‑ъ | Sihler 1995: 254–255: PIE marker was perhaps
*‑om, contracting with the stem-vowel to *‑ōm in o-stems, with differ-
ent generalisations in various languages | Weiss 2009/2011: 199, 208:
PIE *‑ohom; there is no evidence for *‑om | Krahe 1942/1967: 35, 40,
45: PIE *‑ōm | Boutkan 1995: 140, 259, 262, 268, 275: PIE reconstruc-
tion *‑om is supported by BS and probably also by Toch., Arm., Iranian,
Anat.; Go. ‑e is i-stem ending *‑eiom; expected Gmc. ending *‑aN is not
preserved | Kloekhorst 2008a: 105, 172: Hi. ‑an reflects PIE *‑om, also
in OCS ‑ъ, Li. ‑ų̃ , OIr. ferN; Ved. ‑ām, Gk. ‑ων are generalised o-stem endings
PBS Olander 2009: 185: PIE case–number marker was *‑om | Endzelīns
1971: 164–165: C-stem ending is preserved in certain Li. and Lv.
words | Stang 1966: 222–223: Li. ‑ų̃ , Lv. ‑u reflect PBalt. *‑ōn, cor-
responding to Ved. ‑ā́m, Gk. ‑ῶν, La. ‑um | Otrębski 1956: 56: Li. ‑ų <
*‑uon goes back to PIE *‑ōm | Endzelīns 1923: 323: Lv. akmeńu has
i-stem ending; old ending is preserved in Lv. dial. akmanu
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 6 (1906/1924: 264–270): the form is based on the nom.
pl. stem; Slavic ‑ъ is from *‑ō̃m with shortening and compensatory length-
256 Chapter 3
ening | Hujer 1910: 120–124: all stems had PIE *‑ōm ̃ , regularly yield-
ing Slavic ‑ъ, ‑jь (whereas acute *‑ṓm/n yielded Slavic ‑y) | Meillet
1924/1934: 393–394, 422: PIE had a form with *ō and a form with *o; the
latter is required by Slavic, OPr., Umbr., Irish | Vaillant 1958: 187:
Slavic ‑ъ is from *‑on, but Li. ‑ų̃ , Lv. dial. ‑u reflect *‑ōn; [see also o-stem
nouns, § 3.15.5] | Bräuer 1969b: 10, 55, 72, 83: CS *‑ъ reflects PIE
*‑om, alongside PIE *‑ōm in other languages; [see also o-stem nouns,
§ 3.15.5] | Arumaa 1985: 115: IIr., Gk., Li. point to PIE *‑ō̃m; Slavic,
OIr. point to short ending; Slavic may also have late shortening of *‑ōn
to *‑on, which would explain metatony in e.g. Čak. nom. sg. krȁva, gen.
pl. krȃv | Igartua 2005a: 347–348: it seems preferable to assume
a short ending *‑om or *‑on, directly reflected in Slavic, Sabellic and
Celtic | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 95, 98, 101, 103: OCS ‑ъ from is *‑om;
[see also u-stems, § 3.15.3]
PIE The original shape of the genitive plural marker is a matter of much

debate. According to a widespread view, the marker itself was long, viz. PIE
*‑ō̃m or, in laryngealist terms, *‑o(h)om. Authors who hold this view usually
explain the apparent short reflexes found in some branches, including Slavic,
as the phonological reflexes of *‑ōm (e.g. Streitberg 1892; Brugmann loc.
cit.; Pedersen 1905a: 302; Hujer loc. cit.; van Wijk 1915: 37; 1923/1958: 146–147;
Stang 1957/1965: 96; 1966: 185; Jasanoff 1983a: 142–144; 1983b; 2013; Rasmussen
1992b/1999: 486–487; loc. cit.; Ringe 2006b: 169; Weiss loc. cit.; Kümmel 2013a;
Hill 2013).
An alternative view reconstructs a short marker *‑(h)om in the proto-
language, primarily on the basis of the Slavic evidence (e.g. Osthoff 1878: 207
and passim; Meillet 1915: 7–8; 1922; loc. cit.; Stang 1930/1970: 122; Debrunner &
Wackernagel loc. cit.; Vaillant 1935; Rix loc. cit.; and researchers working within
the framework of the Leiden School, e.g. Kortlandt 1978/2009; Beekes loc. cit.;
Boutkan loc. cit.; Kloekhorst loc. cit.; a short genitive plural marker is also recon-
structed by e.g. Klingenschmitt 1992: 91, 94 and passim; Meiser 1998/2006: 34,
131 and passim; see also the references in Kümmel 2013a: 195 n. 7). Most adher-
ents of this view explain the unquestionable reflexes of a long vowel found in
Indo-Iranian, Greek etc. as the results of a generalisation of the o-stem end-
ing *‑o(h)om and the ā-stem ending *‑ah₂(h)om. Conversely, the short endings
found in o- and ā-stems in Slavic and possibly in other languages are usually
regarded as the results of the introduction of the case–number marker *‑om
from the i‑, u‑ and consonant stems. A differring view is that of Beekes and
Kortlandt, who reconstruct the o- and ā-stem endings as PIE *‑om and *‑h₂om,
postulating that they were replaced in the individual languages with remade
long endings of the type *‑oom, *‑ah₂om.
In Celtic, Old Irish has the reflex of a short vowel in the genitive plural, e.g.
o-stem ferN, pointing to *‑om (I am grateful to Anders Richardt Jørgensen for
his input concerning the Celtic material). The explanation of the Old Irish
form as the result of an early shortening of *‑ōm to *‑om is contradicted by
Celtiberian, where e.g. o-stem alizokum shows that *‑ōm became *‑ūm by
the pre-Proto-Celtic development of *ō to *ū; and an ending *‑ūm would
have resulted in OIr. **fiurN. This situation is most easy to understand if we
assume that Proto-Celtic had two endings, *‑om in consonant stems and
*‑ūm in o- and ā-stems, corresponding to the Proto-Balto-Slavic situation (see
Gorrochategui 1994: 326–327). In Old Irish the short ending was generalised,
whereas Celtiberian generalised the long ending. Alternative explanations are
proposed by McCone (1996: 57–58, 61), who reconstructs an intermediate stage
PCelt. *‑ọm, and by Eska (2006), according to whom the change of *ō to *ū took
place in Common Celtic after the shortening of *‑ōm to *‑om, which did not
affect Hispano-Celtic.
While it is true that most Indo-European branches point to a long case–
number marker in the genitive plural, the supposed shortening of *‑ōm to *‑ъ
in Slavic is quite implausible. I agree with Meillet’s (1922: 258) criticism of the
idea of such a shortening: “En slave, le ‑ŭ de vlĭkŭ, slovesŭ ne peut être rapporté
à une ancienne longue que par des hypothèses arbitraires et contraires à tout
le traitement des longues en slave”. As I see it, the most important point in
Meillet’s criticism is the latter part, namely the fact that the shortening would
go against the otherwise exceptionless preservation of the distinction between
Proto-Indo-European final syllables containing long and short vowels in Slavic
(see also Meillet 1915: 7). It only adds to the point that the assumed shortening
is ad hoc in a Slavic context (as admitted by Jasanoff 1983a: 144).
Since a case–number marker *‑ōm or *‑o(h)om has an atypical structure
for Proto-Indo–European, and since the generalisation of the ending of the o-
and ā-stems in most Indo-European branches is quite easily understandable,
I assume that the Proto-Indo-European genitive plural marker was *‑(h)om. In
Slavic the marker, still clearly seen in the i‑, u‑ and consonant stems in attested
Slavic dialects, spread analogically to the o- and ā-stems where it replaced the
inherited endings.
PBS PIE *‑(h)om is continued as PBS *‑am [1|7]. In East Baltic the ending was
replaced with the ō- and ā-stem ending PBS *‑ōm < PIE *‑o(h)om, *‑ah₂(h)om
(see §§ 3.15.4 and 3.15.5). At a later, partly historical stage, a number of conso-
nant stems took over the i-stem ending (§ 3.15.2), e.g. Li. dial. akmenių̃ . While
it is formally possible to derive Lv. ‑u from PBS *‑am, it is more likely that it
should be identified with Li. ‑ų from PBS *‑ōm. The genitive plural of conso-
nant stems is not preserved in Old Prussian.
258 Chapter 3
PS PBS *‑am is reflected as PS *‑u [19] (CS *‑ъ [29]), preserved in the old
Slavic dialects. The ending spread from the consonant stems and the i- and
u-stems to the o- and ā-stems.
3.15.2 i-Stem Genitive Plural
PS *gasteˈi ̯u (CS *gostь̀ jь) PBS *‑ˈei ̯am, *ˌ‑i ̯am PIE *‑ei ̯(h)om, *‑i ̯om / *‑ihom
OCS gostii Li. →minčių̃ , →trijų̃ Ved. →śúcīnām

ORu. putii, putьi; ONovg. Lv. →avju OAv. ?; YAv. →gaⁱrinąm, →kaoiiąm
(otъ) deti ( jego) OPr. ? Gk. →πόλεων, →τριῶν
OCz. hostí La. turrium
Go. gaste, þrije
Hi. →šallayaš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 242–244: PIE *‑(i)i̯ōm; OCS ‑ьjь is from *‑ejъ |
Beekes 1995/2011: 203: PIE *‑eiom [implicit from u-stems; see also C-stems,
§ 3.15.1] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PBS *‑i̯ōn | Debrunner &
Wackernagel 1930/1975: 71–72, 162–163: OCS ‑ьjь, Go. þrije point to PIE
*‑ei̯‑; Ved., Av. forms with ‑n‑ are modelled on o-stems; [see also C-stems,
§ 3.15.1] | Rix 1976/1992: 157: Att. ‑εων replaces ‑ιων (preserved in Ionic)
by analogy with gen. sg. ‑εως | Sihler 1995: 314–315, 318: PIE *‑i̯ō̆m is pre-
served in La. ‑ium | Weiss 2009/2011: 242, 246: La. ‑ium reflects *‑i̯ōm <
PIE *‑i̯ohom | Krahe 1942/1967: 27–28: Gk. dial. ‑ιων, La. ‑ium point to
PIE *‑i(i̯)ōm, on which OSax. gestio, OHG gestio are based | Boutkan
1995: 140, 249–250: Go. ‑e is from *‑eiom; WGmc. may show indirect traces
of hysterodynamic *‑iom | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 185–186: CS *‑ь̀ jь is the regular reflex of PIE *‑éi̯om |
Endzelīns 1971: 153–154 | Stang 1966: 212–213: Slavic ‑ьjь points to
*‑ii̯ōn or *‑ei̯ōn; Baltic forms are unclear | Otrębski 1956: 42: Li. ‑’ų̃ is
from *‑i̯ōm | Endzelīns 1923: 318–319: Lv. ‑’u, Li. ‑’ų̃ are from PIE *‑i̯õm
or *‑ii̯õm, also in OCS ‑ьjь, Gk. dial. ‑ιων
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 6: the form is based on nom. pl. stem; [see also
C-stems, § 3.15.1] | Hujer 1910: 123–124: Slavic ‑ьjь is from *‑ei̯ōm; [see
also C-stems, § 3.15.1] | Meillet 1924/1934: 419: Slavic ‑ьjь is from *‑ei̯‑
plus ending | Vaillant 1958: 136–137: PIE *‑(i)i̯ō̆n; Gk. ‑εων reflects
*‑ei̯ōn with analogical *‑ei̯‑ from nom. pl. | Bräuer 1969a: 157: CS *‑ьjь
is from PIE variant *‑ei̯om; [see also o-stem nouns, § 3.15.5] | Arumaa
1985: 128–129: CS *‑ьjь goes back to *‑ii̯ōm | Igartua 2005a: 268–269:

PIE *‑(e)i̯ōm | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 75: OCS ‑ьjь is from *‑ei̯‑ plus
ptcl. *‑om; [see also u-stems, § 3.15.3]
PIE Proto-Indo-European had two endings, *‑ei̯(h)om and *‑i̯(h)om, with full

or zero grade of the i-stem suffix followed by the case–number marker (for
which see § 3.15.1). The two variants originally belonged to different ablaut
paradigms (see § 3.1). The former ending is presumably seen in Slavic (since
the corresponding u-stem ending had full grade; see § 3.15.3), while the latter
is found in Avestan and Latin and perhaps also in Baltic and Gk. ‑ιων, with the
usual substitution of *‑om with *‑ōm. Gk. πόλεων, with antepenultimate accen-
tuation by analogy with gen. sg. πόλεως < πόληος, may directly reflect PIE *‑éi̯(h)
om (again with *‑ōm for *‑om), but it could also be a more recent formation
(thus e.g. Rix loc. cit.; Sihler loc. cit.). In Indo-Iranian a new ending *‑īnaam was
created. It is possible that Kortlandt (1978/2009: 119–120; 2007/2009) is right in
assuming that Go. ‑e is the regular reflex of PIE *‑ei̯(h)om in the i-stems, from
which it spread to the other stems (see also Kroonen 2013: xxiv; but cf. Eichner
1982: 188–189 with discussion and references). The original ending was lost in
Hittite.
PBS Both PIE *‑ei̯(h)om and *‑i̯(h)om appear to have been preserved in

Balto-Slavic, yielding PBS *‑ˈei̯am [1|7] and *ˌ‑i̯am [1|4|7] (or *‑ˈii̯am, which is
the likely outcome of PIE *‑ihom [1|3|7]). The former ending survives in Slavic,
the latter in Baltic, with substitution of *‑am for *‑ōm from the o- and ā-stems.
PS PBS *‑ˈei̯am yielded PS *‑eˈi̯u [13|19] (CS *‑ьjь [20|24|29]). The ending is
3.15.3 u-Stem Genitive Plural
PS *sūnaˈu̯u (CS *synòvъ) PBS *‑ˈau̯am, *ˌ‑u̯am PIE *‑eu̯(h)om, *‑u̯om / *‑uhom
OCS synovъ Li. sūnų̃ Ved. →mádhūnām

ORu. synovъ; ONovg. bobrovъ Lv. tìrgu OAv. →dax́ iiunąm; YAv. →pasuuąm,
OCz. synóv OPr. ? →dax́ iiunąm
Gk. →ἡδέων
La. tribuum
Go. →suniwe
Hi. lugal‑an (ḫaššuwan) (OS);
adj. →idālawaš
260 Chapter 3
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 242–244: PIE *‑(u)u̯ ōm; OCS ‑ovъ reflects
*‑evъ | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 203: PIE *‑euom; [see also C-stems,
§ 3.15.1] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PBS *‑u̯ ōn / *‑au̯ ōn | Debrunner
& Wackernagel 1930/1975: 71–72, 162–163: OCS ‑ovъ, Go. ‑iwe, Gk. ‑έ(ϝ)ων
point to PIE *‑eu̯ ‑; Ved., Av. forms with ‑n‑ are modelled on o-stems; [see
also C-stems, § 3.15.1] | Rix 1976/1992: – | Sihler 1995: 327: PIE
form is uncertain, but probably contained *‑eu̯ ‑; Gk. ‑εων shows generali-
sation of ε | Weiss 2009/2011: 249, 252: PIE *‑u̯ ohom yielded La. ‑uum,
which may also continue PIE variant with e-grade of suffix | Krahe
1942/1967: 33: Gk. ‑εων is from PIE *‑eu̯ ōm; Go. ‑iwe replaces PGmc.
*‑iwō | Boutkan 1995: 258: Go. ‑iwe is from PIE *‑eu̯ om with second-
arily introduced i-stem ending ‑e | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 185–186: CS *‑òvъ is the regular reflex PIE
*‑éu̯ om | Endzelīns 1971: 158 | Stang 1966: 217–218: OCS ‑ovъ,
Go. ‑iwe point to PIE *‑eu̯ ōm; Baltic endings are perhaps taken from
o-stems | Otrębski 1956: 48: Li. ‑ų̃ , Av. ‑uuąm go back to PIE *‑u̯ ōm;
Slavic ‑ovъ is from PIE *‑eu̯ ōm | Endzelīns 1923: 329–330: Lv. ‑u, Li. ‑ų̃
perhaps reflect PBalt. *‑u̯ õn
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 6: the form is based on nom. pl. stem; [see also
C-stems, § 3.15.1] | Hujer 1910: 123–124: Slavic ‑ovъ is from *‑eu̯ ōm;
[see also C-stems, § 3.15.1] | Meillet 1924/ 1934: 414 | Vaillant
1958: 111–112: PIE *‑(u)u̯ ōn | Bräuer 1969a: 147: PIE *‑eu̯ om; [see also
o-stem nouns, § 3.15.5] | Arumaa 1985: 128–129: CS *‑ovъ goes back
to *‑ou̯ ōm | Igartua 2005a: 294–295: PIE *‑e/ou̯ ōm | Aitzetmüller
1978/1991: 71: OCS ‑ovъ is from full grade of u-stem suffix followed by ptcl.
*‑om, also found in OIr.; *‑ōm found in other languages reflects *‑oom,
*‑āom
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending consisted of full grade *‑eu̯ ‑ or zero

grade *‑u‑ of the stem-suffix followed by the genitive plural marker *‑(h)om
(see § 3.15.1); the variants of the suffix originally belonged to different ablaut
paradigms (see § 3.1). Latin ‑uum may reflect *‑eu̯ (h)om and *‑u̯ (h)om. In Indo-
Iranian we find the usual introduction of *‑n‑, except in a few relic forms like
YAv. pasuuąm < PIIr. *‑u̯ aam, reflecting PIE *‑u̯ (h)om with substitution of *‑am
with *‑ām. Greek ‑έων may reflect the original full-grade variant of the suffix,
but the ‑ε‑ may also have been introduced at a later stage. Go. ‑iwe points to
*‑eu̯ (h)om with addition of ‑e, which perhaps originated in the i-stems (see
§ 3.15.2). Hi. lugal‑an (ḫaššuwan), possibly a plural form, may reflect PIE
*‑u̯ om (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 73, 98 n. 89; Laroche 1965: 36–37).
PBS PIE *‑eu̯ (h)om yielded PBS *‑ˈau̯ am [1|7|11], unambiguously reflected in

Slavic. Since the Baltic languages seem to continue PIE *‑i̯om in the i-stems, it
is possible that PIE *‑u̯ om > PBS *ˌ‑u̯ am [4|7] is reflected in Li. ‑ų̃ , Lv. ‑u, with
substitution of *‑om with *‑ōm from the o- and ā-stems and analogical intro-
duction of final accentuation in Lithuanian; if the marker originally contained
a laryngeal, we would probably have PIE *‑uhom > PBS *‑ˈuu̯ am [1|3|7], but
reflexes of this ending are not attested. The Baltic endings may also simply
reflect the o-stem endings.
PS PBS *‑ˈau̯ am is continued as PS *‑aˈu̯ u [13|19] (CS *‑ovъ [29]), preserved in

the old Slavic dialects. In many dialects reflexes of PS *‑au̯ u tend to replace the
inherited o-stem ending.
3.15.4 ā-Stem Genitive Plural
PS →*naˈgu (CS *nògъ; *dúšь) PBS *‑ˈōm PIE *‑ah₂(h)om
OCS glavъ; dušь Li. galvų̃ , pron. tų̃ Ved. →jihvā́nām

ORu. ženъ; zemlь; ONovg. Lv. gal̂vu, pron. tùo OAv., YAv. →gaēϑanąm
kunъ; věveričь OPr. menschon (Cat. I) Gk. →φυγῶν; Hom. →θεᾱ́ων; Myc.
OCz. ryb, rýb; duš, dúš →te‑re‑ta‑o /telestāōn/
La. →uiārum
Go. gibo
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 241–242 (1897: 152–153, 391–392): IE proto-form was

perhaps *‑ōm̃ ; OCS ‑ъ reflects *‑oñ < circumflex *‑āñ or *‑ōñ | Beekes
1995/2011: 200: PBS *‑um reflects PIE *‑h₂om, replaced with *‑eh₂‑om
elsewhere; [see also C-stems, § 3.15.1] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 5:
OCS ‑ъ, ‑jь, Li. ‑ų̃ reflect PBS *‑ō̃n < PIE *‑ah₂ōm | Debrunner &
Wackernagel 1930/1975: 69–71, 124–125: Ved. ‑ānām perhaps reflects PIE
form with *n, also seen in Gmc., replacing pre-PIE *‑ā‑ō̆m; [see also
C-stems, § 3.15.1] | Rix 1976/1992: 133–134: PIE *‑eh₂om; PGk. *‑āsōn
is from pron. | Sihler 1995: 254–255, 272: PIE *‑eh₂ō̆m; in Gk., pron.
*‑āhōm and noun *‑ā̆ōm were levelled to *‑āhōm; in Italic the pron.
ending was transferred to the nouns | Weiss 2009/2011: 229, 236–
237: PIE *‑(e)h₂ohom | Krahe 1942/1967: 22: PGmc. *‑ōn is from PIE
262 Chapter 3
*‑õm or *‑ãm; Ved. ‑ānām and Gmc. forms like OHG ‑ōno are analogi-
cal from fem. n-stems | Boutkan 1995: 140, 229: PGmc. *‑ōan is from
PIE *‑h₂om, with introduction of *‑ō‑ < *‑eh₂‑; Gmc. ‑(e)na is taken from
n-stems | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 185–186: PBS *‑ˈōn reflects PIE *‑áh₂om, with analogical
final accent; CS *‑ъ represents generalisation of case–number marker
*‑om from i‑, u‑, C-stems | Endzelīns 1971: 144 | Stang 1966: 200: Li.
‑ų̃ , Lv. ‑u go back to PBalt. *‑ōn < PIE *‑ōm | Otrębski 1956: 26: Li. has
generalised ‑ų in all paradigms | Endzelīns 1923: 307: Lv. ‑u, Li. ‑ų̃ are
from PBalt. *‑õn
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: [see C-stems, § 3.15.1] | Hujer 1910: 122–123: Slavic
‑ъ, ‑jь probably go back to *‑ō̃m, less likely to *‑ā̃m; [see also C-stems,
§ 3.15.1] | Meillet 1924/1934: 399: Slavic ‑ъ is from zero grade of suf-
fix, *‑ə‑, followed by *‑on | Vaillant 1958: 84: PIE *‑ōn/m is from *‑ā‑
plus *‑ō̆n/m; [see also o-stem nouns, § 3.15.5] | Bräuer 1969a: 106, 127:
Slavic ‑ъ reflects unclear *‑om; other IE languages point to *‑ōm, perhaps
from *‑ā plus *‑ōm; CS *‑jь < *‑jъ reflects PIE *‑i̯om, alongside *‑i̯ōm or
*‑i̯ām in other languages [see also o-stem nouns, § 3.15.5] | Arumaa
1985: 154: CS *‑ъ is from *‑om, shortened from *‑ō̃m | Igartua 2005a:
235–238: PIE *‑ōm < *‑eh₂om; Slavic ‑ъ reflects *‑om found in the other
paradigms | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 88, 90: OCS ‑ъ, ‑jь reflect ptcl. *‑om
added directly to the root; [see also C-stems, § 3.15.1; u-stems, § 3.15.3]
PIE The ending consisted of the stem-suffix *‑ah₂‑ followed by the genitive

plural marker *‑(h)om (see § 3.15.5). In Indo-Iranian the original ending was
replaced with an unclear ending *‑ānaam. In Greek and Latin the pronominal
ending *‑ah₂s(h)om was imported into the nouns.
PBS PIE *‑ah₂(h)om yielded pre-PBS *ˌ‑ōm [1|3|4], which was remade to PBS
*‑ˈōm with final accentuation by analogy with the i- and u-stems. The ending,
which merged with the o-stem ending *‑o(h)om, is preserved in East Baltic,
where it was extended to the genitive plural of all paradigms. In Old Prussian
PBS *‑ōm yielded ‑on in menschon (Cat. I).
PS In Slavic the expected ending PBS *‑ˈōm > PS *‑ˈān [15|19] was replaced
with the reflex of PBS *‑am from the i‑, u‑ and consonant stems, i.e. PS *ˈ‑u [19]
(CS *‑ъ [29]; *‑jь [20|29]). The endings of the hard and soft stems are preserved
in the old Slavic dialects. The Serbo-Croatian ending ‑ā may be based on anal-
ogy with a genitive plural ending ‑ī, which arose in the i-stems (Johnson 1972:
356; Kortlandt 1978/2009: 115–116 with references); subsequently ‑ā spread from
the ā-stems to the other stems.
3.15.5 o-Stem Noun Genitive Plural
PS →*taˈku (CS *tòkъ; *gòjь) PBS *‑ˈōm PIE *‑o(h)om
OCS gradъ; kon’ь Li. langų̃ ; def. adj. mažų̃ jų; Ved. devā́ñ (jánma),
ORu. stolъ; konь; ONovg. (u) pron. tų̃ →devānām
vežьnikъ; mužь Lv. tȩ̃vu; def. adj. mazuõ; OAv. →yasnanąm; YAv.
OCz. chlap; oráč pron. tùo →š́iiaoϑnanąm
OPr. grecon, grecun, Gk. ἀγρῶν
→swintan La. →lupōrum, deum; Osc.
Núvlanúm
Go. →dage; ONor. daga
Hi. →antuḫšaš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 238–241 (1897: 391): IIr. *‑nām has *n from n-stems;
OCS ‑ъ reflects PIE circumflex *‑ōm̃ | Beekes 1995/2011: 212–213: PIE
*‑om is preserved in BS and Old Irish; other languages have innovated;
[see also C-stems, § 3.15.1] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 4: PIIr. *‑ānām
represents dissimilated *‑āmōm; Baltic forms, OCS ‑ъ are from PBS
*‑ō̃n < PIE *‑õm | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/ 1975: 70–71:
Ved. ‑ānām reflects a PIIr. innovation for PIE *‑ō̃m, perhaps by analogy
with ā-stems; [see also C-stems, § 3.15.1] | Rix 1976/1992: 140–141:
PIE *‑ōm < *‑oom; [see also C-stems, § 3.15.1] | Sihler 1995: 264–265:
PIE *‑ōm; La. ‑ōrum is modelled on ā-stem ‑ārum < pron. *‑ah₂sōm; [see
also C-stems, § 3.15.1] | Weiss 2009/2011: 208, 224: OLa. ‑um < *‑ōm <
PIE *‑ohom; La. ‑ōrum is modeled after ‑ārum, of pron. origin | Krahe
1942/1967: 11: PIE *‑ōm (< *‑o‑ plus *‑ōm) is preserved in ONor. and
WGmc.; Go. ‑e perhaps reflects *ō after *i̯ | Boutkan 1995: 194–196:
ONor., WGmc. endings do not reflect *‑ōm but ā-stem ending *‑ōan; Go.
‑e represents i-stem *‑eian | Kloekhorst 2008a: 104: Hi. ‑an goes back
to PIE *‑oom
PBS Olander 2009: 185–186: PBS *‑ˈōn reflects PIE *‑óom, with analogical final
accent; CS *‑ъ results from generalisation of case–number marker *‑om
from i‑, u‑, C-stems | Endzelīns 1971: 136: Li. ‑ų, Lv. ‑u go back to PIE
*‑ōm; OPr. ‑an, OCS ‑ъ probably reflect PIE *‑om | Stang 1966: 184–185:
Li. ‑ų̃ , Lv. ‑u reflect *‑uõn < *‑ōn; OPr. grecon, grekun, griquan are from
*‑ōn; swintan apparently reflects *‑an; Slavic ‑ъ reflects *‑ōn | Otrębski
1956: 15: Li. ‑ų̃ reflects *‑un < *‑uon < *‑ōn < PIE *‑ōm | Endzelīns 1923:
295: Lv. ‑u, pron. ‑uo, Li. ‑ų̃ are from PBalt. *‑ōn [i.e. *‑õn]
264 Chapter 3
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: [see C-stems, § 3.15.1] | Hujer 1910: [see C-stems,

§ 3.15.1] | Meillet 1924/1934: 409; [see C-stems, § 3.15.1] | Vaillant
1958: 35–36: Li. ‑ų̃ reflects PIE *‑ōn/m < *‑oon, originally the o-stem ending;
Slavic ‑ъ reflects PIE *‑on/m from other stems | Bräuer 1969a: 25–26,
74: CS *‑ъ in o-stems is not from PIE *‑ōm, but from *‑om, a possessive suf-
fix preserved as an archaism in Slavic; other IE languages have generalised
PIE *‑ōm (from *‑āom, *‑oom) | Arumaa 1985: 141–142: CS *‑ъ goes
back to *‑om, a relatively late shortened variant of PIE *‑ō̄m | Igartua
2005a: 164–171: PIE *‑o/ōm | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 82, 84: OCS ‑ъ, ‑jь
reflect *‑om, replacing *‑ōm in o- and ā-stems in Slavic; [see also u-stems,
§ 3.15.3]
PIE PIE *‑o(h)om consists of the o-grade of the thematic vowel followed by

the genitive plural marker *‑(h)om (see § 3.15.1). This ending is preserved in
most Indo-European languages, but not in Slavic.
In Indo-Iranian a new ending *‑ānaam of unclear origin was introduced;
the original ending is preserved in Vedic in the fixed expression devā́ñ jánma.
In Latin an ending ‑ōrum was created on the pattern of the pronominal ā-stem
ending ‑ārum < PIE *‑ah₂som; the original o-stem ending *‑o(h)om is preserved
in nouns like deum, nummum. Go. ‑e may represent the original i-stem ending
(§ 3.15.2). The Hittite genitive plural ending ‑aš is secondary, but it is unclear
whether it represents the dative-locative plural or the genitive singular (see
Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 73).
PBS PIE *‑o(h)om yielded pre-PBS *ˌ‑ōm [1|3|4], but the form was altered to
PBS *ˈ‑ōm with final accentuation by analogy with the i- and u-stems. In East
Baltic PBS *‑ōm yielded Li. ‑ų, Lv. ‑u; an intermediate stage is preserved in Lv.
pron. tùo (see Endzelīns 1923: 295; Stang loc. cit.), which rules out a Balto-Slavic
proto-form *‑um as assumed by Kortlandt (e.g. 1978/2009: 116). The East Baltic
development PBS *‑ōm > *‑uon > *‑un > Li. ‑ų, Lv. ‑u is paralleled by that of
o-stem dat. sg. *‑ōi > *‑uoi > ‑ui (Kümmel 2013a: 199).
The o-stem ending, which merged with the corresponding ā-stem ending,
was generalised in East Baltic, replacing the reflex of PIE *‑om in the i‑, u‑ and
consonant stems. The Old Prussian material points to both *‑ōn and *‑an, the
former reflecting the Proto-Balto-Slavic o-stem ending *‑ōm < PIE *‑o(h)om
and the latter reflecting the consonant-stem ending *‑am < PIE *‑(h)om (simi-
larly Meillet 1922: 258; Endzelīns 1944: 87; see also Stang 1966: 184–185).
Thus while East Baltic witnessed a spread of the long ending PBS *‑ōm < PIE
*‑o(h)om (and *‑ah₂(h)om), Slavic generalised the short ending PBS *‑am < PIE
*‑om from the consonant stems; Old Prussian shows both endings.
PS In Slavic the consonant-stem ending PBS *‑am > PS *‑ˈu [19] (CS *‑ъ [29];
*‑jь [20|29]), also appearing in the i- and u-stem endings *‑eˈi̯am, *‑aˈu̯ am, was
introduced in the o-stems, as well as in the ā-stems. The ending is preserved in
the old Slavic dialects, but at a later stage there was a tendency in masculine
nouns to replace the original ending PS *‑ˈu > ‑∅ with the reflexes of the cor-
responding u-stem ending PS *‑aˈu̯ u, in order to avoid a zero ending that was
homonymous with the nominative singular. For SCr. ‑ā see § 3.15.4.
3.15.6 o-Stem Pronoun Genitive Plural
PS →*tai ̯ˈxu (CS *tě ́xъ; *jíxъ) PBS *‑ˈai ̯s‑am, *‑ˈei ̯s‑am PIE *‑oi ̯s‑om, *‑ei ̯s‑om
OCS těxъ; jixъ Li. →tų̃ Ved. →téṣām

ORu. těxъ; jixъ; ONovg. →tixъ; Lv. →tùo OAv., YAv. →auuaēšąm
ixъ OPr. stēison Gk. →τῶν; adj. →τοίων(?)
OCz. těch, →tech, →tych, →tých; La. →istōrum; Osc. →eisunk
jich, →jích Go. →þize; adj. →godaize;
ONor. →þeira
Hi. →kinzan (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 369–370: OCS těxъ, jixъ, ONor. þeira, Ved. téṣām,
reflect PIE *‑oisōm, alongside *‑eisōm (*‑sōm̃ ) in Ved. eṣā́m, Osc. eisunk,
OPr. stēison | Beekes 1995/2011: 227: PIE form was perhaps *toisom,
but Go. þize points to *‑es‑; Hi. kēnzan reflects *‑ns‑om with unex-
plained *n | Rasmussen forthc. a § 14: PIE *‑oi̯sõm | Debrunner
& Wackernagel 1930/1975: 503: Ved. téṣām corresponds to OPr. steison,
OCS těxъ | Rix 1976/1992: 182–183, 185: Ved. téṣām, ONor. þeira go
back to PIE *toi̯sōm; Gk. τῶν has noun ending; Gk. adj. τοῖος is prob-
ably based on gen. pl. τοίων < PIE *tó-isōm | Sihler 1995: 389, 391:
PIE *toi̯sō̆m, *ei̯som | Weiss 2009/2011: 336–338, 340: PIE *toi‑s‑ohom
(*tóisōm), *(h₁)eisohom; diphthongal stem *toi‑ was originally a collec-
tive | Krahe 1942/1967: 63: ONor. þeira goes back to PGmc. *þaizō(m);
Go þize has ‑i‑ from gen. sg., and ‑e under the influence of noun ending
‑e | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: 426–427: Hi. ‑nzan, Lyc.
gen. pl. ebẽhẽ reflect *‑nhsom, with *‑som as in Ved. téṣām, La. eōrum, OCS
těxъ
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 193–194: OPr. steison is reminiscent
of OCS těxъ, Ved. téṣām, ONor. þeira | Stang 1966: 243: OPr. stēison
266 Chapter 3
has *ei in contrast to OCS, Gmc. | Otrębski 1956: 151: Li. tų̃ has noun
ending | Endzelīns 1923: 390: Lv. tùo corresponds to Li. tų̃ , Gk. τῶν
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 79: OCS těxъ is from stem *toi̯‑ plus pron. ending
*‑sōm | Hujer 1910: – | Meillet 1924/1934: 436 | Vaillant 1958:
375: Slavic ‑ěxъ reflects PIE *‑oison, alongside *‑oisōn; OPr. ‑eis‑ results
from contamination of sg. ‑es‑ and pl. *‑ais‑; *‑ois‑ is also preserved in
ONor. ‑eir‑, OEng. ‑ār‑, Go. adj. gen. pl. blindaiz[e]; Go. þiz‑ has *‑es‑
from sg. | Bräuer 1969a, 1969b: – | Arumaa 1985: 176: Slavic
těxъ reflects *toisōm, also in Ved. téṣām; unclear if lack of separate
feminine form in Slavic is an archaism or an innovation | Igartua
2005a: – | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 116: OCS těxъ goes back to PIE
*toisō̆m, also in Ved. téṣām, ONor. þeira; lack of separate feminine form in
Slavic is probably an archaism
PIE Ved. téṣām, OAv., YAv. auuaēšąm, ONor. þeira and the Balto-Slavic evi-
dence point to an ending *‑oi̯som, with the usual substitution of the genitive
marker *‑om with *‑ōm in Indo-Iranian and Germanic (see § 3.15.1). It is pos-
sible that the paradigm of the Greek adjective τοῖος ‘such’ is based on the geni-
tive plural form τοίων, which could reflect the ending *‑oi̯sōm. From the stem
with e-grade Oscan has eisunk, reflecting PIE *ei̯som plus a particle.
The existence of a separate feminine form PIE *‑ah₂som has been
questioned on the basis of Slavic, which has one form for all three genders
(Aitzetmüller loc. cit.; cf. Vaillant 1958: 374; Arumaa loc. cit.). The problem is
difficult to solve.
PBS PIE *‑oi̯som yielded PBS *‑ˈai̯sam [7], preserved in Slavic. The e-grade
variant *‑ei̯som > PBS *‑ˈei̯sam [7] is continued in OPr. stēison.
PS PBS *‑ˈai̯sam is reflected as PS *‑ai̯ˈxu [12|13|19] (CS *‑ěxъ [22|29]; *‑jixъ

[20|22|29]). The hard and soft endings are generally preserved in the old Slavic
dialects. In the Novgorod area, however, the hard ending was replaced with the
soft already in the oldest texts (Zaliznjak 1993: 225–226). In several dialects the
form was replaced with the ending of the definite adjective, e.g. OCz. tych, tých
(see e.g. Vondrák loc. cit.).
3.16 Dative Plural
3.16.1 Consonant-Stem Dative Plural
PS *duktermə (CS *pol’amъ, →*dъt’erьmъ, PBS *ˌ‑mas PIE dat.–abl. *‑bʰi ̯os
→*‑omъ)
OCS →kamenьmъ, →dъšteremъ; OSrb. Li. →akmenìms Ved. áśmabhyaḥ

dubrovьčamь Lv. dat.–instr. OAv. duuąnmaⁱbiias-cā;
ORu. Vavilon’amъ, →kamenьmъ; ONovg. →akmeņiem YAv. dāmabiiō
(kъ) →sel’anomъ OPr. – Gk. dat. →ποιμέσι
OCz. →dceřem, →dceřím, →kamenóm La. →hominibus
Go. dat. gumam, fadrum
Hi. dat.–loc. →lamnaš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 119–120, 257–262: PIE form is unclear; Li. ‑mus, OPr.
‑mans are perhaps based on analogy with acc. pl. | Beekes 1995/2011:
188–189: Slavic ‑mъ, OLi. ‑mus point to PIE *‑mus; other languages have
introduced *bʰ from instr. *‑bʰi | Rasmussen forthc. a §§ 2, 4, 5: PIE
*‑bʰi̯os; Gmc. and BS *m is perhaps from pronouns like *tésmõi̯; Li. ‑mus,
OPr. ‑mans may have been influenced by acc. pl. *‑ōns | Debrunner &
Wackernagel 1930/1975: 13, 66–67, 75, 209: relationship between *bʰ and
*m is uncertain | Rix 1976/1992: 117: PIE ending was *‑bʰos, perhaps
originally *‑mos, preserved in OCS ‑mъ, OLi. ‑mus; *‑bʰos may have been
remade based on instr. *‑bʰi; IIr. *i̯ is from instr. pl. *‑bʰi; [see also loc. pl.,
§ 3.18.1] | Sihler 1995: 248, 251–252, 286: PIE *‑bʰos, *‑mos; forms with
*bʰ and *m are not related | Weiss 2009/2011: 199, 207–208: *‑bʰos
(outside IIr.) reflects *‑bʰi̯os, either phonologically or analogically; BS and
Gmc. forms continue *‑mos | Krahe 1942/1967: 40: Gmc. forms reflect
instr. pl. PIE *‑mis | Boutkan 1995: 259, 261–262, 264, 269–271, 275, 278:
PIE, PGmc. *‑mus; [see also o-stems, § 3.16.5] | Kloekhorst 2008a: 105,
214: Hi. dat.–loc. ‑aš is from PIE *‑os(?)
PBS Olander 2009: 188–189: reflex of expected unaccented C-stem form is
perhaps preserved in ORu. zvěŕ em, Ru. détjam | Endzelīns 1971: 165:
Baltic and Slavic endings are modelled on i-stems | Stang 1966: 223:
Li. ‑i‑ is from i-stems; [see also o-stems, § 3.16.5] | Otrębski 1956: 53,
268 Chapter 3
57; [see also o-stems, § 3.16.5] | Endzelīns 1923: 323: Lv. form is from
i̯o-stems
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 7 | Hujer 1910: 16–18, 147–150, 154–155: Li. ‑ms
reflects *‑mas < PIE *‑mos; Slavic ‑mъ is from *‑mon < PIE *‑mom, a vari-
ant of *‑bʰ(i̯)om found in Ved. dat. sg. túbhyam, pl. yuṣmábhyam; Li. ‑mus,
OPr. ‑mans reflect *‑mons, a contamination of *‑mon and *‑mos; vari-
ants with *bʰ and *m existed side by side in PIE | Meillet 1924/1934:
394–395: Slavic ‑mъ goes back to *‑mus or *‑mos | Vaillant 1958: 187–
189: variation in Slavic points to recent substitution of inherited C-stem
ending by o- and i-stem endings; [see also o-stems, § 3.16.5] | Bräuer
1969b: 10, 55, 72, 83 | Arumaa 1985: 115–117: origin of *m is uncertain;
original form was probably *‑bʰos | Igartua 2005a: 348–349: PIE
*‑bʰ/mos; [see also o-stems, § 3.16.5] | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 95, 98,
101; [see also u-stems, § 3.16.3]
PIE In Proto-Indo-European the dative and ablative plural were not distin-
guished formally. This situation is preserved in Indo-Iranian. In consonant
stems the ending was the dative-ablative plural marker attached directly to the
stem-final consonant.
The Hittite dative-locative marker ‑aš has been traced back to a Proto-
Indo-European o-stem locative plural ending *‑osu with apocope of *‑u (e.g.
Kammenhuber 1969: 305; Sihler 1995: 253; but cf. Melchert 1994: 182 with refer-
ences). It is more likely, however, that the Hittite marker reflects an element
*‑os, perhaps the original Proto-Indo-European dative-ablative plural ending
(e.g. Jasanoff 2009a: 140–141). The Greek form continues the locative plural
form. In Latin the i-stem ending has been introduced. The Germanic forms
may contain the dative-ablative plural ending *‑mos < PIE *‑bʰi̯os or the instru-
mental plural ending *‑bʰis. Evidence for one of the endings is limited to OEng.
dem. pron. þǣm, num. tvǣm, where the umlauted vowel points to PGmc. *‑miz
from PIE *‑bʰis (see e.g. Kroonen 2013: 529). In other instances it is likely that
the Germanic forms simply represent the merger of the dative-ablative and
instrumental plural endings (thus also e.g. Brugmann loc. cit.).
There are two main problems concerning the reconstruction of the case–
number marker of the dative-ablative plural in Proto-Indo-European: the ini-
tial consonantism and the vocalism of the marker. While the latter problem is
relevant only for the dative-ablative plural marker, the former also applies to
other markers.
As for the initial consonant, it is an old and well-known problem that the
various Indo-European branches seem to disagree about the initial consonan-
tism of the case–number markers of the dative-ablative-instrumental dual,
the dative-ablative plural and the instrumental plural. Some branches point to
PIE *bʰi̯ (Indo-Iranian), others to *bʰ (Italic, Celtic, Armenian, Greek) and still
others to *m (Balto-Slavic, Germanic). The Anatolian and Tocharian evidence
(see Katz 1998: 248–250) is too meagre to contribute decisively in solving the
question.
Various hypotheses have been advanced to solve the apparent discrep-
ancy among the branches (see e.g. Brugmann loc. cit.; Matzinger 2001: 188).
A currently widespread view holds that in Proto-Indo-European the dative-
ablative plural marker contained *m, while the instrumental plural marker
contained *bʰ. After the dissolution of the proto-language *m was generalised
in some branches, *bʰ in others (Hirt 1895; Hoffmann apud Eichner 1974b: 29
n. 9a; Rix loc. cit.; Beekes 1985: 143–144; loc. cit.; Katz 1998: 248–249, following
Beekes; Meier-Brügger 2003: 197; cf. the criticism in Matzinger 2001: 189; Hill
2012: 179–181). Other authors trace the *m of Balto-Slavic and Germanic back
to pronominal forms like PIE dat. sg. *te/osmōi̯ or dat. pl. *smos (preserved in
Hi. ‑šmaš, TochB ‑me), whence it spread to other case forms in these branches
(Matzinger 2001: 193–194; Jasanoff 2009a: 140–141; Rasmussen loc. cit.; cf. the
criticism in Melchert & Oettinger 2009: 65). Hill (2012: 186–192), on the other
hand, assumes that the starting point of the alternation between *m and *bʰ
was a pre-Proto-Indo-European development of *‑n̥ m‑ to *‑n̥ bʰ‑ in the n-stems,
from which *bʰ subsequently spread (for a recent assessment of this idea see
Vijūnas 2013: 95–96).
While these hypotheses are theoretically imaginable, I do not find them
convincing. First of all, the choice of *bʰ or *m in the individual branches
seems to be arbitrary. Also, the presence of *i̯ in the dative-ablative plural and
dative-ablative-instrumental dual in Indo-Iranian requires additional hypoth-
eses, for instance that *i̯ was introduced from the instrumental plural (thus
e.g. Kümmel 1997: 118; Meier-Brügger 2003: 197). Alternatively, PIE *‑bʰi̯os,
retained in Indo-Iranian, was remade to *‑bʰos by analogy with instr. pl. *‑bʰis
(Rasmussen 1989b: 139 n. 22). In Jasanoff’s (2009a) view, the non-Anatolian
Indo-European dative plural *‑bʰ(i̯)os consisted of an adverbial form *bʰi fol-
lowed by the original dative plural marker *‑os, preserved in Hi. dat.–loc. pl.
‑aš (followed by Melchert & Oettinger 2009: 63–64; Weiss loc. cit.; see also Neu
1991: 14).
A straightforward solution to the problem is to assume that PIE *bʰi̯ was
retained in Indo-Iranian, developed into *bʰ in Italic, Celtic, Armenian and
Greek, and became *m in Balto-Slavic and Germanic. The idea of a regular
development of *bʰi̯ to *bʰ is sometimes found in the literature (e.g. Hackstein
2012b: 112; according to Weiss 2009/2011: 207 n. 10, “[i]t is not clear whether this
development was phonological or analogical”; see also Jasanoff 2009a: 141 n. 6).
270 Chapter 3
As for the idea of a change *bʰi̯ > *m in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic and pre-Proto-

Germanic, Henning Andersen suggests (pers. comm., 2013) that the reflexes
pointing to *m may be the results of a posttonic development similar to the
one by which La. Iacobus turns up as Italian Giàcomo, Old French Jacmes etc.,
and Hispano-Latin cannabum (from Gk. κάνναβις) has become Spanish cáñamo
(for the Romance development see Rohlfs 1966: 293; Corominas & Pascual
1980/1984: 824). A related view has been put forward by Mańczak (1977), who
assumes an irregular development of *bʰ to *m due to frequency (Mańczak
1998, however, reconstructs PIE dat.–abl. pl. *‑mbʰi̯os, instr. pl. *‑mbʰis etc.; I am
grateful to Henning Andersen for drawing my attention to Mańczak’s ideas).
Since the proposal of a development *bʰi̯ > *m is only tentative, I do not
refer to it in the overview of pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic sound laws in § 2.3.2. When
the alternation between reflexes of *bʰi̯, *bʰ and *m in various Indo-European
language branches is referred to as a sound law in this study, it should not be
taken too literally. It cannot be excluded that one of the above-mentioned
alternatives is correct, e.g. that we are dealing with a generalisation of conso-
nants originally belonging to different morphemes.
If, as I propose, none of the involved inflectional endings contained *m in
Proto-Indo-European, alleged traces of *m outside Balto-Slavic and Germanic
must have a different origin (see Hajnal 1995: 336; but cf. Katz 1998: 248–249).
Furthermore, since *bʰ was retained in other positions in Balto-Slavic and
Germanic, the *bʰ of PS 2sg. pron. dat.–loc. *te/aˈbāi̯ (CS *te/obě̀), OPr. dat.
tebbei simply represents a retention of the original consonant. The *m of the
instrumental plural in Balto-Slavic and Germanic, which corresponds to *bʰ
in the other branches, is perhaps not phonetically regular but may have been
introduced by analogy with the dative-ablative-instrumental dual and dative-
ablative plural.
With regard to the vowel of the dative plural marker in Proto-Indo-European,
most authors assume, on the basis of the evidence of Indo-Iranian, Messapic,
Italic including Venetic, and Celtic that the marker was *‑bʰi̯os, leaving aside
here the different views on the initial consonantism (among more recent pub-
lications may be mentioned Rasmussen 1989b: 139 with n. 22; Hajnal 1995: 327–
328; Matzinger 2001: 186 with nn. 27–29; Meier-Brügger 2003: 197; Olander 2005;
Jasanoff 2009a: 138–139 and passim; Melchert & Oettinger 2009: 64 and passim;
Weiss loc. cit.; Hill 2012: 179 and passim).
A minority view, based exclusively on Old Lithuanian and Slavic, holds that
the Proto-Indo-European dative plural marker was *‑mus, with *u (Endzelīns
1911/1974: 152–158; Kortlandt 1975/2011a: 48; 1983/2011a: 132; Beekes loc. cit.). This
view is dependent on the assumption that the regular reflex of PIE *‑os is *‑o in
Slavic, thus excluding the reconstruction of an *o in the Proto-Indo-European

dative-ablative plural.
Since I assume that the regular reflex of PIE *‑bʰi̯os is CS *‑mъ (for the vocal-
ism see [17|29] and Olander 2012: 335), that OLi. ‑mus, Li. ‑ms may reflect PBS
*‑mas and that OLv. ‑ms cannot reflect PBS *‑mus (see below and Olander
2005), I reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European dative-ablative plural marker as
*‑bʰi̯os.
PBS In the attested Baltic and Slavic languages the consonant-stem ending
PIE *‑bʰi̯os > PBS *ˌ‑mas [4|7] has largely been replaced with the i-stem ending
PBS *‑imas < *‑ibʰi̯os; in Latvian the i̯o-stem ending is used. This process may
have already started in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic, but there are indications in both
Baltic and Slavic that the original ending without *i survived until a relatively
late stage, at least in some cases. Archaic-looking accentuations such as ORu.
zvěŕ em, Ru. détjam may preserve a trace of the original consonant-stem end-
ing; in root nouns, where the ending was attached directly to the root, a form
ending in *‑bʰi̯ós would become unaccented by the mobility law [4] (Olander
2007a, loc. cit.). A more direct trace is constituted by the dative plural forms in
PS *‑āmə (CS *‑amъ) from pre-PS *‑ānmas; see below.
In Lithuanian the case–number marker PBS *‑mas was reduced to ‑ms,
an intermediate stage being attested in OLi. ‑mus (Ferrell 1965b: 98–99 n. 6;
Kazlauskas 1970, whose view is accepted by Stang 1975: 49; Olander 2005, also
for the following discussion). The usual Latvian dative-instrumental plural
marker ‑m is historically the dative-instrumental dual form, but in old texts
and (rarely) in dialects the original dative plural marker is preserved as ‑ms
(Mühlenbach 1903: 70–72; Endzelīns 1923: 296–298). Since PBS *u is preserved
in final syllables in Latvian, this form cannot reflect *‑mus (cf., however,
Endzelīns 1923: 296, who suggests that *u was lost in long adjective forms of
the type *labiemus-jiemus). Old and dialectal Latvian ‑ms therefore supports
the reconstruction PBS *‑mas.
Old Prussian has two different dative plural markers: ‑mans in nouns such as
waikammans, mergūmans and in pronouns such as 1pl. noūmans, 2pl. ioūmans;
and ‑mas, which is restricted to personal pronouns, e.g. 1pl. noūmas, 2pl.
ioūmas. The latter ending probably reflects PBS *‑mas, although, admittedly, a
reduced form *‑ms would perhaps be more in accordance with the general Old
Prussian phonological development (cf. Stang 1966: 119). The former ending
may have its ‑n‑ from the accusative plural ‑ans (thus e.g. Brugmann loc. cit.;
Berneker 1896: 196–197; Ferrell 1965b: 98; Kortlandt 1975/2011a: 48; Rasmussen
272 Chapter 3
loc. cit.; but cf. Endzelīns 1944: 87: “die alten Preussen haben doch ihre Sprache
nicht aus einer Grammatik erlernt, wo auf den Dativ der Akkusativ folgt”).
PS PBS *ˌ‑mas yielded PS *‑mə [17] (CS *‑mъ [29]); for the development of
PS *‑mə to ONovg. ‑mъ, not *‑me, see [29] and Olander 2012: 335. The origi-
nal ending was in most instances replaced with the i-stem ending PS *‑imə
(CS *‑ьmъ [29]), as in OCS ‑ьmъ, ORu. ‑ьmъ, or by the o-stem ending PS *‑amə
(CS *‑omъ [29]), as in ONovg. ‑omъ, OCz. ‑óm.
In the attested Slavic languages only the type formed with the suffix ‑jan‑,
referring to inhabitants of a place, preserves the original ending, e.g. ORu.
Vavilon’amъ, OSrb. dubrovьčamь, reflecting PS *‑ām‑ (CS *‑am‑) from *‑ānm‑
(Brugmann 1897: 387; Meillet 1924/1934: 423; Shevelov 1982: 370; Igartua loc. cit.;
for the Old Serbian ending see Loma 2013: 260; Vaillant loc. cit. 216–219).
3.16.2 i-Stem Dative Plural
PS *gastiˈmə (CS *gostь̀ mъ) PBS *‑ˈimas PIE dat.–abl. *‑ibʰi ̯os
OCS gostьmъ, gostemъ Li. mintìms Ved. śúcibhyaḥ

ORu. putьmъ; ONovg. (kъ) Lv. dat.–instr. →avīm; dial. OAv. ?; YAv. gaⁱribiiō
dětьmъ →avim; OLv. loudims Gk. dat. →πόλεσι
OCz. hostem OPr. →crixtiānimans La. turribus
Go. dat. gastim
Hi. dat.–loc.
→ḫalḫaltumarii̯aš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 259–260; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Beekes

1995/2011: 203: PIE *‑imus [implicit from u-stems] | Rasmussen
forthc. a § 6: PIE *‑ibʰi̯os; PBS *‑imas; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] |
Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 162; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] |
Rix 1976/1992: 158 [see loc. pl., § 3.18.2] | Sihler 1995: 318; [see also
C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Weiss 2009/2011: 242, 246: PIE *‑ibʰos; [see also
C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Krahe 1942/1967: 28: Go. ‑im, OHG ‑im reflect PIE
instr. pl. *‑imis | Boutkan 1995: 240, 249: PGmc., PIE *‑imus; [see also
o-stems, § 3.16.5] | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 188–189: PBS *‑ˈimas reflects PIE *‑ímos | Endzelīns
1971: 154: Lv. dat.–instr. ‑ims in texts from 16th and 17th c. preserves
original ending; [see also o-stems, § 3.16.5] | Stang 1966: 213: Lv. ‑ī‑
alongside older ‑i‑ is due to influence from ā- and ē-stems; [see also o-stems,
§ 3.16.5] | Otrębski 1956: 42; [see also o-stems, § 3.16.5] | Endzelīns
1923: 319–320: Lv. ‑īm for ‑im is based on analogy with ā- and ē-stems; [see
also o-stems, § 3.16.5]
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 7 | Hujer 1910:—[see C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Meillet
1924/1934: 419–420; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Vaillant 1958: 137: OCS
variant ‑emъ is taken from i̯o-stems; [see also o-stems, § 3.16.5] | Bräuer
1969a: 157: PIE *‑imos or *‑imus | Arumaa 1985: 129 | Igartua
2005a: 270: PIE *‑ibʰ/mos; CS *‑ьmъ reflects *‑imon; [see also o-stems,
§ 3.16.5] | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 75; [see also u-stems, § 3.16.3]
PIE The i-stem dative plural was *‑ibʰi̯os in the proto-language, consisting

of the zero grade of the stem-suffix, *‑i‑, followed by the dative-ablative plural
marker *‑bʰi̯os (see § 3.16.1 for the marker). The ending is preserved in Indo-
Iranian and Latin and perhaps Germanic, although the Germanic forms may
also reflect the instrumental plural ending *‑ibʰis. The Greek dative is a remade
form based on the old locative plural. The Hittite ending contains the dative-
locative plural marker ‑aš, apparently from *‑os.
PBS PIE *‑ibʰi̯os regularly yielded PBS *‑ˈimas [7], preserved in Li. ‑ims and in
Old Latvian dat.–instr. forms like loudims. The remaining Latvian forms have
been remade according to existing patterns, the variants ‑īm and ‑im being
original dative-instrumental dual forms. Old Prussian has imported an n from
the accusative plural, as in the other paradigms (see § 3.16.5).
PS The old ending PBS *‑ˈimas yielded PS *‑ˈimə [17] (CS *‑ьmъ [29]), pre-
served in the old Slavic dialects. The Old Church Slavonic variant ‑emъ partly
originates in the i̯o-stems (cf. van Wijk 1931: 175).
3.16.3 u-Stem Dative Plural
PS *sūnuˈmə (CS *synъ̀mъ) PBS *‑ˈumas PIE dat.–abl. *‑ubʰi ̯os
OCS →synomъ Li. sūnùms; OLi. Ved. mádhubhyaḥ

ORu. synъmъ; ONovg. (late) sunúmus OAv. ?; YAv. daŋ́ hubiiō
sinъ|(mъ) Lv. dat.–instr. Gk. dat. →ἡδέσι
OCz. →synóm →tìrgūm La. tribibus; OLa. TREBIBOS
OPr. ? Go. dat. sunum
Hi. adj. dat.–loc. →idālawaš
274 Chapter 3
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 259–260; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Beekes 1995/

2011: 203: PIE *‑umus; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Rasmussen forthc. a
§ 6: PIE *‑ubʰi̯os; PBS *‑imas; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Debrunner
& Wackernagel 1930/ 1975: 162; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Rix
1976/1992: 158 [see loc. pl., § 3.18.3] | Sihler 1995: 326–327; [see also
C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Weiss 2009/2011: 249, 252: La. ‑ibus < PIE *‑ubʰos;
[see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Krahe 1942/1967: 33: Gmc. forms are from
PIE instr. pl. *‑umis | Boutkan 1995: 250, 258: PIE, PGmc. *‑umus; [see
also o-stems, § 3.16.5] | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 189: PBS *‑ˈumas reflects PIE *‑úmos | Endzelīns 1971:
159; [see also o-stems, § 3.16.5] | Stang 1966: 218; [see also o-stems,
1923: 330: Lv. ‑ūm for ‑um is either from ū-stems or modelled on ī-stems;
[see also o-stems, § 3.16.5]
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 7 | Hujer 1910:—[see C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Meillet
1924/1934: 414; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Vaillant 1958: 112: Slavic
‑omъ is from o-stems | Bräuer 1969a: 147: PIE *‑umos or *‑umus |
Arumaa 1985: 129 | Igartua 2005a: 295–296: PIE *‑ubʰ/mos; CS *‑ъmъ
reflects *‑umon; [see also o-stems, § 3.16.5] | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991:
71–72: OCS ‑mъ is probably not from *‑mos
PIE The expected ending *‑ubʰi̯os consisted of the zero grade of the u-stem
suffix followed by the dative plural marker *‑bʰi̯os (see § 3.16.1 for the marker).
The ending is preserved in Indo-Iranian and Latin. In Germanic the attested
forms may reflect the dative or instrumental plural. The Greek form is based
on the locative plural. In Hittite the dative-locative marker ‑aš is added to the
stem.
PBS PIE *‑ubʰi̯os yielded PBS *‑ˈumas [7], reflected in OLi. ‑umus and Li. ‑ums
(see § 3.16.5). The Latvian dative-instrumental plural is originally the dative-
instrumental dual form; I have not found any examples of the expected Old
and dialectal Latvian ending *‑ums.
PS PBS *‑ˈumas is regularly reflected as PS *‑uˈmə [17] (CS *‑ъmъ [29]).

An ending ‑ъmъ is attested in Old Russian alongside more frequent ‑omъ, but
it is unclear if these endings represent the old o-stem ending PS *‑amə or
u-stem *‑umə, or both (see Val. V. Ivanov 1995: 186–187). In Old Church Slavonic
and Old Czech the original ending has been replaced with the o-stem ending.
The apparent attestation of ‑ъmъ in the Old Novgorod dialect is based on a
(well-founded) conjecture synъmъ, where only the first ‑ъ‑ is actually preserved
in the document; ‑ъmъ in this text would represent actual ‑omъ, which may
reflect PS *‑umə or *‑amə (cf. Zaliznjak 1995/2004: 113, 548).
3.16.4 ā-Stem Dative Plural
PS *naˈgāmə (CS *noga̋mъ; PBS *‑ˈā̰mas PIE dat.–abl. *‑ah₂bʰi ̯os

*duša̋mъ)
OCS glavamъ; dušamъ Li. galvóms; OLi. ‑omus Ved. jihvā́bhyaḥ

ORu. ženamъ; zeml’amъ; Lv. dat.–instr. →gal̂vām; OAv. daēnābiiō; YAv. gaēϑāuuiiō,
ONovg. kunamъ; ? OLv. ‑āms uruuarābiias(‑ca)
OCz. rybám; dušiem, ‑ím OPr. gennāmans Gk. dat. →φυγαῖς; Hom. →φυγαῖσι
La. →uiīs
Go. dat. gibom
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 259; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Beekes 1995/

2011: 200: PIE *‑h₂mus was replaced with *‑eh₂mus; [see also C-stems,
§ 3.16.1] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 5: PIE *‑ah₂bʰos; OCS ‑amъ is from
PBS *‑ā́mas; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Debrunner & Wackernagel
1930/1975: 124; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Rix 1976/1992: 134–135
[see loc. pl., § 3.18.4] | Sihler 1995: 272 [see instr. pl., § 3.17.4; loc. pl.,
§ 3.18.4] | Weiss 2009/2011: 229, 236: PIE *‑eh₂bʰ(i̯)os is not preserved
in La., where ‑īs is analogical from o-stem instr. pl. ending | Krahe
1942/1967: 22: Gmc. forms are from PIE instr. pl. *‑āmis | Boutkan
1995: 225, 229: PIE *‑h₂mus → PGmc. *‑ōmus; [see also o-stems,
§ 3.16.5] | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 187: PBS *‑ˈā̰mas reflects PIE *‑áh₂mos | Endzelīns
1971: 144–145: OLv. ‑āms perhaps reflects *‑āmis; [see also o-stems,
§ 3.16.5] | Stang 1966: 200: Lv. ‑ãm is from du.; [see also o-stems,
1923: 307–308: OLv. ‑āms is from [dat. pl.] *‑āmus or [instr. pl.] *‑āmis;
[see also o-stems, § 3.16.5]
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 7 | Hujer 1910:—[see C-stems, § 3.16.1] |
Meillet 1924/1934: 399; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Vaillant 1958: 84;
[see also o-stems, § 3.16.5] | Bräuer 1969a: 106, 127: CS *‑( j)amъ
reflects *‑āmos or *‑āmus | Arumaa 1985: 154: CS *‑mъ is from
*‑mus | Igartua 2005a: 238–239: PIE *‑ābʰ/mos; Slavic points to
276 Chapter 3
*‑āmon; [see also o-stems, § 3.16.5] | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 88, 90;

PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending consisted of the stem-suffix *‑ah₂‑ and

the dative-ablative plural marker *‑bʰi̯os (for which see § 3.16.1). The ending is
preserved in Indo-Iranian. Greek and Latin present remade forms based on the
ā-stem locative plural and o-stem instrumental plural endings, respectively.
The Germanic forms may reflect an original dative plural in pre-PGmc. *‑āmas
(cf. Boutkan loc. cit.) or an instrumental plural in *‑āmis (Krahe loc. cit.).
PBS PIE *‑ah₂bʰi̯os yielded PBS *‑ˈā̰mas [1|7]. The original ending is pre-
served in Lithuanian and Old Latvian (see § 3.16.1). As in the other stems, the
ending has been replaced with the dative-instrumental dual ending in modern
Latvian, and the n of the accusative plural has been introduced in Old Prussian.
PS The reflex of PBS *‑ˈā̰mas is PS *‑ˈāmə [13|17] (CS *‑amъ [29]; *‑jamъ
[20|27|29]). The ending is preserved in the old Slavic dialects.
3.16.5 o-Stem Dative Plural
PS *takaˈmə (CS *tokòmъ; PBS *‑ˈamas PIE dat.–abl. *‑obʰi ̯os

*gojèmъ)
OCS gradomъ; kon’emъ Li. langáms; OLi. wiramus Ved. →devébhyaḥ

ORu. stolomъ; konemъ; Lv. dat.–instr. →tȩ̃viem; OAv. →uxδōibiiō,
ONovg. (ot)[r]okomъ; ? OLv. (thems) →bhernems →dātōibiias-cā; YAv.
OCz. chlapóm, chlapom; OPr. pron. noūmas; noun →daēuuaēibiiō,
oráčém, oráčem, →waikammans →mazdaiiasnaēibiias-cit̰
→oráčóm, →oráčom Gk. dat. →ἀγροῖς; Hom.
→ἀγροῖσι; Myc. dat.–loc.
→te‑o‑i /tʰe(h)oihi/
La. →lupīs; Ven. louderobos
Go. dat. dagam
Hi. dat.–loc. →antuḫšaš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 259: PIIr. *‑ai‑ for PIE *‑o‑ is from pronouns; [see
also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Beekes 1995/2011: 212: PIE *‑omus; [see also
C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Rasmussen forthc. a § 4: PIE *‑oi̯bʰi̯os; OCS ‑mъ
goes back to *‑amas < *‑obʰos; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Debrunner

& Wackernagel 1930/1975: 108: PIE *‑obʰ(i̯)os; Ved. ‑ebhyaḥ has *‑oi‑ from
pronouns; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Rix 1976/1992: 140–141 [see
instr. pl., § 3.17.5; loc. pl., § 3.18.5] | Sihler 1995: 263–264 [see instr.
pl., § 3.17.5; loc. pl., § 3.18.5] | Weiss 2009/2011: 207–208, 224: PIE
*‑obʰos; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Krahe 1942/1967: 11: Gmc. forms
are from instr. pl. PIE *‑omis | Boutkan 1995: 196–198: PIE dat. pl.
*‑mus was preserved in PGmc.; instr. pl. *‑bʰi was reshaped after dat. pl.
to PGmc. *‑mis; one of the two endings was generalised in various par-
adigms | Kloekhorst 2008a: 104: Hi. dat.–loc. ‑aš is taken over from
C-stems
PBS Olander 2009: 187: PBS *‑ˈamas reflects PIE *‑ómos | Endzelīns 1971:
136: OLi. ‑mus is probably identical with OCS ‑mъ; OLv., Lv. dial. ‑ms prob-
ably go back to *‑mus; Lv. ‑iem is from pron. du. declension | Stang
1966: 185–186: Lv. ‑iem is from pron. du.; OPr. ‑mans was influenced by
acc. pl., but not OLi. ‑mus, because of the accent; Slavic ‑mъ may go
back to *‑mos or *‑mus | Otrębski 1956: 15: Li. ‑ms, OLi. ‑mus reflect
*‑mus, probably also in OCS ‑mъ | Endzelīns 1923: 295–299: Lv. ‑iem
is from pronouns; OLv. case–number marker ‑ms represents merger of
dat. pl. *‑mas (as in OPr. ‑mas) or *‑mus (as in OLi. ‑mus, Slavic ‑mъ) and
instr. pl. *‑mis
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 7 | Hujer 1910:—[see C-stems, § 3.16.1] |
Meillet 1924/1934: 409–410; [see also C-stems, § 3.16.1] | Vaillant 1958:
36–37: Baltic forms reflect *‑mus; OPr. ‑mans is influenced by acc. pl.; OPr.
‑mas has perhaps been remade on the model of dat.–instr. du. ‑ma; Gmc.
forms reflect *‑mis | Bräuer 1969b: 26–27, 74: CS *‑mъ reflects *‑mos
or *‑mus | Arumaa 1985: 142: CS *‑mъ is from *‑mus | Igartua
2005a: 171–176: PIE case–number marker was *‑bʰ/mos; PBS *‑mon/m
yielded Slavic ‑mъ and, with the addition of a pl. marker *‑s, the Baltic
forms | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 82, 84; [see also u-stems, § 3.16.3]
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending consisted of the o-grade of the the-

matic vowel followed by the case–number marker *‑bʰi̯os (see § 3.16.1). In
pronouns the case–number marker was preceded by *‑oi̯‑. The distinction
between the noun ending *‑obʰi̯os and pronominal *‑oi̯bʰi̯os was preserved in
Balto-Slavic, e.g. Li. langáms vs. tíems, OCS gradomъ vs. těmъ; cf. also Go. dagam
vs. þaim. In Indo-Iranian, pronominal *‑oi̯‑ was introduced in the nouns. The
Greek forms are not historically dative forms; ‑οις is the original instrumental
plural, and ‑οισι reflects the locative plural. La. ‑īs contains the instrumental
and perhaps the locative form (see §§ 3.17.5 and 3.18.5). The Hittite dative–
278 Chapter 3
locative marker ‑aš seems to go back to PIE *‑os, which some authors regard as
the original dative plural marker (see § 3.16.1).
PBS PIE *‑obʰi̯os regularly yielded PBS *‑ˈamas [7]. The ending was preserved
in Baltic, with the usual changes in the case–number marker (see § 3.16.1). In
Latvian the reflex of the thematic vowel was replaced with ‑ie‑ from the pro-
nominal declension, and in most dialects ‑ms was substituted with ‑m from the
dative-instrumental dual (see § 3.16.1).
PS PBS *‑ˈamas regularly yielded PS *‑aˈmə [13|17] (CS *‑omъ [29]; *‑jemъ
[20|29]), preserved in South and West Slavic. In East Slavic the historical rela-
tionship between frequent ‑omъ and rare ‑ъmъ is not clear (see § 3.16.3 on the
u-stems). Old Czech attestations of expected ‑ém etc. in the soft stems are
rare; the more common endings ‑óm etc. are imported from the hard stems
(Trávníček 1935: 41–42, 299).
3.17 Instrumental Plural
3.17.1 Consonant-Stem Instrumental Plural
PS *duktermī (CS *pol’ami, PBS *‑ˈmīs PIE *‑bʰi(h)s

̃
→*dъt’erьmi, →*‑y)
OCS →kameny, →kamenьmi, Li. →akmenimìs, OLi. Ved. áśmabhiḥ

→dъšterьmi akmemis OAv. mazⁱbīš, azdⁱbīš-cā; YAv.
ORu. Pol’ami, →dъčerьmi, Lv. dat.–instr. dāmə̄bīš
→slovesy; ONovg. (late) →akmeņiēm Gk. dat. →ποιμέσι; Myc. instr.
→xrestijany OPr. – po‑pi /poppʰi/
OCz. →dceřmi, →kameny La. dat.–abl. →hominibus
Go. dat. gumam, fadrum
Hi. sg.–pl. →lamnit
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 262–267: Ved. ‑bhiḥ, Av. ‑bī�š,̆ Arm. ‑bk‘, ‑wk‘ and
probably OIr. ‑b point to PIE marker *‑bʰis; Gmc. *‑mz probably reflects
*‑mis, but may also contain *‑mos; Li. ‑mis, dial. ‑mi, Lv. ‑mis, ‑mi, OCS ‑mi
point to PBS *‑mīs, *‑mī | Beekes 1995/2011: 187, 189: PIE instr. pl. *‑bʰi
is preserved in Hom. ναῦφι | Rasmussen forthc. a § 2: PIE *‑bʰis; [see
also ā-stems, § 3.17.4] | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 66–67:

PIE *‑bʰis | Rix 1976/1992: 157–159: Gk. ‑σι is based on loc. pl.; Myc.
/‑pʰi/, Gk. ‑φι are from PIE instr. pl. *‑bʰi, also in Ved. ‑bhiḥ, Av. ‑biš, with
*‑s from dat.–abl.; [see also ā-stems, § 3.17.4] | Sihler 1995: 248, 252:
PIE *‑bʰis, *‑mī�s;̆ BS points to *‑mīs; Go. ‑m points to *‑mi without *‑s;
281: PIE *‑bʰi(?) | Weiss 2009/2011: 199, 206–207: PIE *‑bʰis; BS *‑mīs
may reflect *‑mins with *‑n‑ from acc. pl. | Krahe 1942/1967: 40, 45:
PIE *‑mis | Boutkan 1995: 259, 264 and passim: PIE, PGmc. *‑mus;
[see also o-stems, § 3.17.5] | Kloekhorst 2008a: [see instr. sg., § 3.7.1]
PBS Olander 2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 165: Baltic and Slavic endings are
modelled on i-stems | Stang 1966: 221, 223: original C-stem ending
is preserved in OLi.; [see also ā-stems, § 3.17.4] | Otrębski 1956: 53,
57 | Endzelīns 1923: 323 [see dat. pl., § 3.16.1]
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 8 | Hujer 1910: 151–153: Slavic ‑mi goes back to *‑mī
or *‑mīs | Meillet 1924/1934: 394–395 | Vaillant 1958: 187–189: vari-
ation in Slavic points to recent substitution of inherited C-stem ending by
o- and i-stem endings | Bräuer 1969b: 10, 55, 73, 83 | Arumaa 1985:
́
117–118: Slavic and Baltic forms reflect *‑mī�s | Igartua 2005a: 349–350:
PIE *‑bʰ/mis; [see also ā-stems, § 3.17.4] | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 95,
98, 101; [see also u-stems, § 3.17.3]
PIE The Proto-Indo-European instrumental plural marker cannot be recon-

structed with certainty. The initial consonantism of the marker has been dis-
cussed in § 3.16.1. As for the vowel of the marker, Vedic, Celtic (OIr. feraib) and
probably Germanic point to short *i. Av. ‑bīš, usually regarded as a reflex of PIE
*‑bʰis, may also, and more straightforwardly, reflect *‑bʰihs or *‑bʰīs (cf. the dis-
cussion in de Vaan 2003: 271–272). PS *‑mī goes back to *‑bʰihs or *‑bʰīs, but the
latter reconstruction is excluded by Lithuanian ‑mis (see below). Gk. ποιμέσι is
a new form based on the locative plural, and in Latin the original instrumental
plural marker has been replaced with that of the dative-ablative plural ending.
For Germanic see § 3.16.1 on the dative plural.
PBS PIE *‑bʰihs yielded PBS *‑mī�s̰ [1]; for the replacement of *bʰ with *m,
which may be analogical, see § 3.16.1. Seen in isolation, standard Li. ‑mis is
inconclusive with respect to the quantity of the vowel. However, Žemaitian
‑mis points to a long vowel since PBS *‑mis would have yielded **‑mẹs (Stang
loc. cit., 128; Olander 2005: 277 with further references). This means that stan-
dard Li. ‑mis is the result of a shortening by Leskien’s law, showing that we are
dealing with a form containing a laryngeal after the vowel, viz. PBS *‑mī�s̰ . This
reconstruction is supported by the circumstance that the marker attracted the
280 Chapter 3
accent by Saussure’s law in words with mobile accentuation, e.g. Li. mintimìs
from PBS *minˈtimī�s̰ (Olander 2004: 409–410).
Judging from Old Lithuanian forms like akmemis < from *‑enmī�s̰ , presenting
an ending without *‑i‑ before the marker, the original consonant-stem ending
was preserved in Proto-Balto-Slavic (Stang loc. cit.). At a later stage the conso-
nant-stem ending was substituted with the i-stem ending ‑imis in Lithuanian.
In Latvian the i̯o‑stem ending is used.
PS PBS *‑mī�s̰ yielded PS *‑mī [12|13|17] (CS *‑mi [29]). The old ending was
replaced almost everywhere with the i-stem ending PS *‑imī (CS *‑ьmь), e.g.
OCS masc. kamenьmi, fem. materьmi, or with the o-stem ending PS *‑ū (CS *‑y),
e.g. OCS neut. slovesy. As pointed out by Vaillant (loc. cit.), the variation found
in Slavic may indicate that the proto-language had still preserved the conso-
nant-stem ending. This ending is indeed still found in the ‑jane type, where e.g.
ORu. pol’ami from *‑āmī reflects *‑ān‑mī (cf. § 3.16.1).
3.17.2 i-Stem Instrumental Plural
PS *gastiˈmī (CS *gostьmì) PBS *‑ˈimīs PIE *‑ibʰi(h)s

̃
OCS gostьmi Li. mintimìs Ved. śúcibhiḥ

ORu. putьmi; ONovg. (sъ) Lv. dat.–instr. →avīm; dial. OAv. ?; YAv. ?
dětьmi →avim; OLv. loudims Gk. dat. →πόλεσι; Ion. →πόλισι;
OCz. hostmi OPr. – Myc. instr. po‑ti‑pi /portipʰi/
La. dat.–abl. →turribus
Go. dat. gastim
Hi. sg.–pl. →ḫalkit (OS)

1995/2011: 203: PIE *‑ibʰi [implicit from u-stems] | Rasmussen forthc.
a § 6: PIE *‑ibʰis; PBS *‑imis; [see also ā-stems, § 3.17.4] | Debrunner &
Wackernagel 1930/1975: 162; [see also C-stems, § 3.17.1] | Rix 1976/
1992: 158: Gk. ‑εσι, dial. (Ion.) ‑ισι are based on loc. pl. | Sihler 1995: 311:
PIE *‑ibʰ‑; [see also C-stems, § 3.17.1] | Weiss 2009/2011: 242, 246: PIE
*‑ibʰis is not preserved in La. | Krahe 1942/1967: 28: Go. ‑im is from
instr. PIE *‑imis | Boutkan 1995: 240, 249: Goth. ‑im is from PIE dat.
pl. *‑imus; [see also o-stems, § 3.17.5] | Kloekhorst 2008a: [see C-stem
instr. sg., § 3.7.1]
PBS Olander 2009: 191: PBS *‑ˈimī�s̰ is from PIE *‑íbʰi(h)s with regular retention
of the accent | Endzelīns 1971: 154 [see dat. pl., § 3.16.1] | Stang
1966: 213; [see also ā-stems, § 3.17.4] | Otrębski 1956: 42 | Endzelīns
1923: 319–320 [see dat. pl., § 3.16.1]
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 8 | Hujer 1910: 151–153 [see C-stems, § 3.17.1] |
Meillet 1924/ 1934: 419–420 | Vaillant 1958: 137 | Bräuer 1969a:
157: PIE *‑imīs | Arumaa 1985: 129: OCS ‑mi is from *‑mīs, also in
Baltic forms | Igartua 2005a: 271: PIE *‑ibʰ/mis; [see also ā-stems,
§ 3.17.4] | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 75; [see also u-stems, § 3.17.3]
PIE The ending PIE *‑ibʰi(h)s consisted of the zero grade of the stem-suffix
followed by the instrumental plural marker. The details of the marker are dis-
cussed in § 3.17.1. The ending is well preserved in the old Indo-European lan-
guages. In Latin, dat.–abl. ‑ibus reflects the dative plural ending.
PBS The Proto-Indo-European variant *‑ibʰihs yielded PBS *‑ˈimī�s̰ [1] (for the
substitution of *bʰ with *m see § 3.17.1). This ending is preserved in Lithuanian,
which shows regular shortening of the acute *ī�̰ by Leskien’s law and, in words
with mobile accentuation, advancement of the accent from the first to the sec-
ond syllable of the ending by Saussure’s law (see § 3.17.1). In standard Latvian
the original dative-instrumental dual is used as the plural; the ending ‑ims
found in Old Latvian reflects the dative plural ending PBS *‑imas. A form aci-
mis, with a reflex of the original instrumental plural ending *‑imī�s̰ , is report-
edly found in the dialect of Rucava near the border to Lithuania (Endzelīns
1923 loc. cit.).
PS PBS *‑ˈimī�s̰ is regularly reflected as PS *‑iˈmī [12|13|17] (CS *‑ьmi [29]), pre-
3.17.3 u-Stem Instrumental Plural
PS *sūnuˈmī (CS *synъmì) PBS *‑ˈumīs PIE *‑ubʰi(h)s

̃
OCS synъmi Li. sūnumìs Ved. mádhubhiḥ

ORu. synъmi; ONovg. →bebry Lv. dat.–instr. →tìrgūm OAv. ?; YAv. auuaŋhūīš
OCz. →syny OPr. – Gk. dat. →ἡδέσι
La. →tribibus; OLa. →TREBIBOS
Go. dat. sunum
Hi. adj. sg.–pl. →idālawit
282 Chapter 3

1995/2011: 203: PIE *‑ubʰi | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PIE *‑ubʰis;
PBS *‑umis; [see also ā-stems, § 3.17.4] | Debrunner & Wackernagel
1930/1975: 162; [see also C-stems, § 3.17.1] | Rix 1976/ 1992: 158:
Gk. ‑εσι is based on loc. pl. | Sihler 1995: 321: PIE *‑ubʰ‑; [see also
C-stems, § 3.17.1] | Weiss 2009/2011: 249, 252: PIE *‑ubʰis is not pre-
served in Italic | Krahe 1942/1967: 33: Gmc. forms reflect instr. PIE
*‑umis | Boutkan 1995: 250, 253, 258: PIE, PGmc. dat. pl. *‑umus;
[see also o-stems, § 3.17.5] | Kloekhorst 2008a: [see C-stem instr. sg.,
§ 3.7.1]
PBS Olander 2009: 191: PBS *‑ˈimī�s̰ is from PIE *‑úbʰi(h)s with regular retention
of the accent | Endzelīns 1971: 159 [see dat. pl., § 3.16.3] | Stang
1966: 218; [see also ā-stems, § 3.17.4] | Otrębski 1956: 48 | Endzelīns
1923: 330 [see dat. pl., § 3.16.3]
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 8 | Hujer 1910: 151–153 [see C-stems,
§ 3.17.1] | Meillet 1924/1934: 414 | Vaillant 1958: 112 | Bräuer
1969a: 148: PIE *‑umīs | Arumaa 1985: 129: OCS ‑mi reflects *‑mīs, also
in Baltic forms | Igartua 2005a: 296–297: PIE *‑ubʰ/mis; [see also
ā-stems, § 3.17.4] | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 72: Baltic and Slavic case–
number markers go back to *‑mīs
PIE The ending PIE *‑ubʰi(h)s consisted of the zero grade of the stem-suffix
followed by the instrumental plural marker (see § 3.17.1). The ending is pre-
served in the old Indo-European languages. In Germanic the instrumental plu-
ral merged with the dative plural. La. ‑ubus reflects the dative plural ending.
PBS PIE *‑ubʰihs yielded PBS *‑ˈumī�s̰ [1], with the usual substitution of *bʰ
with *m (see § 3.17.1). The ending is preserved in Lithuanian, while in Latvian
the original dual form is used.
PS PBS *‑ˈumī�s̰ is reflected as PS *‑uˈmī [12|13|17] (CS *‑ъmi [29]). The end-
ing is preserved in Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian, whereas in the Old
Novgorod dialect only the o-stem ending is attested. Gebauer (1896: 325)
assumes that forms like *synmi have been replaced with o-stem forms of the
type syny in Old Czech. According to Trávníček (1935: 322), on the other hand,
forms in ‑mi existed in Old Czech but were not attested in the texts.
3.17.4 ā-Stem Instrumental Plural
PS *naˈgāmī (CS *noga̋mi; *duša̋mi) PBS *‑ˈā̰mīs PIE *‑ah₂bʰi(h)s

̃
OCS glavami; dušami Li. galvomìs Ved. jihvā́bhiḥ

ORu. ženami; zeml’ami; ONovg. Lv. dat.–instr. OAv. daēnābīš; YAv. gaēϑābiš
kunami; věvericami →gal̂vām, OLv. Gk. dat. →φυγαῖς; Myc. instr.
OCz. rybami; dušěmi, ‑emi ‑āms →a‑ni‑ja‑pi /hāniāpʰi/; Hom. adv.
OPr. – →βίηφι
La. dat.–abl. →uiīs
Go. dat. gibom
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 264: PIE *‑ā‑bʰ‑, *‑ā‑m‑; [see also C-stems,
§ 3.17.1] | Beekes 1995/2011: 200: PIE *‑h₂bʰi | Rasmussen forthc.
a § 5: PBS *‑ā́mis; PIE probably *‑ah₂bʰis; length of Slavic ‑ami is prob-
ably from i̯o-stem ending *‑i̯õi̯s | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/
1975: 124; [see also C-stems, § 3.17.1] | Rix 1976/1992: 135: instr. Myc.
/‑āpʰi/ reflects PGk. *‑āpʰi < PIE *‑eh₂bʰi; OCS ‑ami has *m from dat.
pl. *‑mos; [see also C-stems, § 3.17.1] | Sihler 1995: 272: Gk. ‑αις, La.
‑īs are innovations based on o-stem instr. pl. | Weiss 2009/2011: 229:
PIE *‑eh₂bʰis | Krahe 1942/1967: 22: Gmc. forms reflect instr. PIE
*‑āmis | Boutkan 1995: 225, 229: Gmc. dat. pl. forms reflect *‑ōmus;
[see also o-stems, § 3.17.5] | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 190–191: PBS *‑ˈā̰mī�s̰ is from PIE *‑áh₂bʰi(h)s with reg-
ular retention of the accent | Endzelīns 1971: 145 [see dat. pl.,
§ 3.16.4] | Stang 1966: 200–201: Li. ‑omis is from *‑āmī�s;́ original long
*ī is shown by NWŽem. dial. ‑mis (not *‑mẹs) | Otrębski 1956: 26–27:
Li. ‑omis perhaps contains *ī | Endzelīns 1923: 307–308 [see dat. pl.,
§ 3.16.4]
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 8 | Hujer 1910: 151–153 [see C-stems,
§ 3.17.1] | Meillet 1924/1934: 399 | Vaillant 1958: 84 | Bräuer
1969a: 107, 127: CS *‑( j)ami reflects *‑(i̯)āmīs | Arumaa 1985: 154:
CS *‑mi is from *‑mis [read “*‑mīs”] | Igartua 2005a: 239–241:
PIE *‑ābʰ/mis; Baltic and Slavic marker perhaps reflects *‑mih₁s or
*‑min/ms | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 88, 91; [see also u-stems, § 3.17.3]
284 Chapter 3
PIE The ā-stem ending consisted of the suffix *‑ah₂‑ and the instrumental
plural marker *‑bʰi(h)s (see § 3.17.1). The ending is preserved in Indo-Iranian.
In Mycenaean Greek the original ending lives on in instrumental plural forms
like a‑ni‑ja‑pi /hāniāpʰi/, although the absence of a final *‑s shown by Hom.
adv. βίηφι ‘by might’ does not match the evidence of the other languages. The
Attic dative plural form φυγαῖς is based on analogy with the o-stem instrumen-
tal plural. The same goes for the Latin ablative in ‑īs, OLa. ‑eis. In Germanic the
instrumental plural of the ā-stems merged with the dative plural.
PBS The reflex of *‑ah₂bʰihs was *‑ˈā̰mī�s̰ [1] in Proto-Balto-Slavic. In

Lithuanian the ending was shortened to ‑omìs by Leskien’s law; for the unex-
pected apparently circumflex first syllable of the ending see Olander loc. cit. In
Old Latvian the dative-instrumental plural ending ‑ams reflects the dative plu-
ral ending PBS *‑ā̰mas (see § 3.16.1), while the modern form in ‑am is originally
a dual form. Possible traces in Latvian dialects of an ending ‑āmis reflecting the
instrumental plural ending *‑ā̰mī�s̰ are mentioned by Endzelīns (1923 loc. cit.).
PS PBS *‑ˈā̰mī�s̰ became PS *‑ˈāmī [12|13|17] (CS *‑ami [29]; *‑jami [20|27|29]),
3.17.5 o-Stem Instrumental Plural
PS *taˈkū (CS *tokỳ; *gojì) PBS *‑ˈōi ̯s PIE *‑ōi ̯s
OCS grady; kon’i Li. langaĩs Ved. deváiḥ, →devébhiḥ

ORu. stoly; koni; ONovg. (sъ) Lv. dat.–instr. OAv., YAv. š́iiaoϑnāiš
blizokъ (i.e. ‑ky); ? →tȩ̃viem, adv. viênis Gk. dat. ἀγροῖς; Hom. →ἀγροῖσι;
OCz. chlapy; oráči pràtis Myc. instr. ku‑ru‑so /kʰrūsōis/
OPr. adv. (sen) La. dat.–abl. lupīs; OLa. FACTEIS,
swaieis SOKIOIS; Osc. Núvlanúis
Go. –
Hi. sg.–pl. →antuḫšet
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 267–269: OCS ‑y, ‑ji are not from PIE *‑ōĩs, but
from u-stem ending PIE *‑ūs | Beekes 1995/2011: 212: PIE *‑ōis <
*‑oh₁eis < *‑o‑eis(?) | Rasmussen forthc. a § 4: Li. ‑aĩs, Slavic ‑y reflect
PIE *‑ō̃is̯ | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 66, 105–108: Ved.
‑áiḥ is from PIE *‑ōis (with uncertain vocalism), perhaps also in Slavic
‑y | Rix 1976/1992: 140–141: Gk. ‑οῖς reflects PIE *‑ōi̯s < pron. *‑ooi̯s;
Gk. dial. ‑οῖσι is loc. ending | Sihler 1995: 263–264: Gk. ‑οις, La. ‑īs are
from PIE *‑ōi̯s with “enigmatic” internal structure; Italic endings may also
reflect loc. *‑oi̯su | Weiss 2009/2011: 206–208, 224: La. ‑īs < OLa. ‑eis <
‑ois reflects instr. *‑ōis (and perhaps loc. *‑oisu), also in OCS ‑y | Krahe
1942/1967: 11: Gmc. forms reflect instr. PIE *‑omis | Boutkan 1995: 196–
198: PGmc. instr. pl. *‑mis (not dat. pl. *‑mus) is seen in OEng. pron. þǣm,
twǣm; in masc. o-stems we expect generalisation of dat. pl. *‑amus; [see
also dat. pl., § 3.16.5] | Kloekhorst 2008a: [see C-stem instr. sg., § 3.7.1]
PBS Olander 2009: 190: Li. ‑aĩs, PS *‑ˈū reflect PIE *‑ṓi̯s without hia-
tus | Endzelīns 1971: 137: Li. ‑ais, Lv. dial. ‑is correspond to Ved. ‑āiḥ;
standard Lv. uses the dat. form | Stang 1966: 65, 70, 186: Li. ‑aĩs, Lv. ‑is,
OCS ‑y go back to PIE *‑ōis; Li. ‑ais shows early shortening of *ōi before
*‑s; Lv ‑iem is of same origin as dat. ending | Otrębski 1956: 16: Li. ‑ais
reflects PIE *‑ōís [read “*‑ōis”?] with shortening | Endzelīns 1923:
295–299 [see dat. pl., § 3.16.5]
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 7 | Hujer 1910: 160–164: Slavic ‑y is not from
PIE *‑ō̃is but has replaced expected *‑i with back formation from i̯o-
stem ‑ji < PIE *‑i̯ōis | Meillet 1924/1934: 410: Slavic ‑y < *‑ū reflects
*‑ōis | Vaillant 1958: 37–38: Slavic ‑y reflects PBS *‑uois < PIE *‑ōis <
*‑oīs, containing instr. sg. *‑ō followed by *‑ī�s;̆ East Baltic endings reflect
*‑ais with *a from other case endings | Bräuer 1969a: 27, 75: CS *‑y,
*‑ji perhaps reflect PIE *‑ōi̯s regularly; CS *‑y is not neut. u-stem instr. pl.
*‑ūs | Arumaa 1985: 142–144: PIE *‑ōis | Igartua 2005a: 176–184: PS
*‑ū perhaps reflects PIE *‑ōis | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 82, 84: OCS ‑y,
‑ji are unclear; ‑y is neither from PIE *‑ōis, nor based on analogy with i̯o-
stem ending
PIE Despite its aberrant form, the reconstruction of the o-stem instrumen-

tal plural ending in Proto-Indo-European rests on relatively safe ground. The
ancient Indo-European languages all point to PIE *‑ōi̯s, except Hittite, where
an ending of unclear origin is found (cf. Kloekhorst 2008a: 798). That the vowel
was long is shown directly by Indo-Iranian. It is required by Slavic *‑ū, and it
is further shown indirectly by the fact that the ending does not lose its accent
through the pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic mobility law [4]; short *‑ói̯s would have
yielded unaccented *ˌ‑ai̯s. For the internal, pre-Proto-Indo-European struc-
ture of the ending see the recent contributions by Jasanoff 2009a (p. 143: PIE
*‑ōi̯s from pre-PIE pronominal plural stem *‑oi̯‑ plus instr. pl. *‑is) and Hill
286 Chapter 3
2012 (pp. 172–173: PIE *‑ōi̯s from pre-PIE *‑omis, following Cowgill 1985a: 108),
both with references to earlier literature; Hill’s proposal has been criticised by
Vijūnas 2013: 95–96.
PBS PIE *‑ōi̯s is retained as PBS *‑ˈōi̯s. Li. ‑aĩs and Lv. ‑is are probably the
result of a shortening of the long diphthong before a word-final consonant
(Stang loc. cit.; Kortlandt 1975/2011a: 48; 2012a: 256). The Latvian paradig-
matic dative-instrumental plural ending is originally a pronominal dative-
ablative-instrumental dual form; the old ending is preserved in adverbial
expressions like viênis pràtis ‘(of the) same opinion’. In Old Prussian the instru-
mental was perhaps no longer used in nouns, but the expression sen wissan
swaieis ‘with all one’s own people’ seems to preserve the original form (Stang
1966: 178).
PS PBS *‑ˈōi̯s yielded PS *‑ˈū [12|14|15|17] (CS *‑ỳ [29]; *‑jì [20|29]), with the
early development of pre-PS *‑i̯ə̄u̯ to PS *‑ū mentioned in [17]. The ending is
3.18 Locative Plural
3.18.1 Consonant-Stem Locative Plural
PS *dukterxu (CS *pol’asъ, PBS *ˌ‑su PIE *‑su

→*dъt’erьxъ, →*dъt’erěxъ)
OCS →kamenьxъ, →dъšterexъ; Li. →akmenysè Ved. (Atharva-Veda) áśmasu

OSrb., OCr. →děčaxь Lv. →akmeńuos OAv. nāšu, nafšu-cā; YAv.
ORu. →Pol’axъ, →kamenьxъ, OPr. – dāmōhu
→kameněxъ, →kamenixъ; Gk. dat. →ποιμέσι; Myc. dat.–loc.
ONovg. (na) pogoščaxъ, (late) te‑u‑ke‑pi /teukʰespʰi/
(v) →gorodiščanьx La. dat.–abl. →hominibus
OCz. Dolas, →dceřech, →dceřích, Go. –
→ramenech, →kameniech Hi. dat.–loc. →lamnaš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 254–257: PIE *‑su, perhaps also *‑si | Beekes

1995/2011: 189: Li. ‑se contains the same ptcl. as the sg. | Rasmussen
forthc. a § 2 | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/ 1975: 72–73: PIE
*‑su | Rix 1976/1992: 113, 157–158: Gk. ‑σι is from PIE *‑su, with ‑i
from dat. sg. and instr. pl. ‑φι; *s was reintroduced by analogy with
s-stems and stems ending in a stop | Sihler 1995: 253: Gk. *‑si is from
*‑su, with ‑i from loc. sg. | Weiss 2009/2011: 199, 208 | Krahe 1942/
1967: – | Boutkan 1995: 270–271 | Kloekhorst 2008a: 214: Hi ‑aš is
not related to loc. pl. PIE *‑su; [see also dat. pl., § 3.16.1]
PBS Olander 2009: 188–189, 193: ORu. o zvěŕ ’ax, Ru. détjax may preserve
reflex of expected unaccented root-noun form | Endzelīns 1971:
165: Baltic and Slavic endings are modelled on i-stems | Stang
1966: 223: Li. ‑yse is modelled on i-stems; Lv. ‑’uos stems from (i)i̯o-
declension | Otrębski 1956: 54 | Endzelīns 1923: 323: Lv. ‑’uos is
based on i̯o-stems
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 7: old C-stem ending is preserved in Slavic n-stems
such as ORu. Pol’axъ, OCz. Dol’as | Hujer 1910: 146–147: original Slavic
‑sъ is preserved in C-stems like OCz. Dol’as; Slavic ‑jasъ (for *‑jǫsъ?) from
*‑i̯ōnsu is analogical to endings beginning with a vowel | Meillet
1924/1934: 395–396, 324: Slavic *‑sъ is preserved in C-stems like OCz.
Pol’as; *‑jasъ may be the regular result of *‑jęsъ < *‑jans in OCz., ORu.,
Čak., but is analogical in OSrb. and Sln. | Vaillant 1958: 187–189: varia-
tion in Slavic points to recent substitution of inherited C-stem ending
with o- and i-stem endings; original *‑sъ is preserved in OCz. Dol’as,
v Polas | Bräuer 1969b: 10, 55, 73, 83 | Arumaa 1985: 118 | Igartua
2005a: 350–353 | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 95, 98, 101, 104–105; [see also
u-stems, § 3.18.3]
PIE The Proto-Indo-European locative plural marker was *‑su, preserved

in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic. In Greek, *‑u was replaced with *‑i from the
locative singular, giving rise to a new locative plural marker *‑si (originally
only after obstruents) with the variant *‑hi (elsewhere). While both variants
are still preserved in Mycenaean, in the remaining Greek dialects the former
was generalised under the influence of instr. pl. ‑οις. The Latin ending reflects
the dative-ablative plural form.
PBS As in the dative and instrumental plural, Lithuanian and the Slavic lan-
guages show the reflex of the i-stem ending PIE *‑isu > PBS *‑ˈisu in the con-
sonant stems. However, in a few instances the original i-less ending is found
in Slavic (see below), indicating that the introduction of the i-stem ending
was independent innovations in Baltic and Slavic. This assumption is compat-
ible with the idea that i-stem forms with an unaccented ending such as ORu.
o zvěŕ ’ax, just like the corresponding dative plural forms, reflect original root
288 Chapter 3
nouns ending in *‑sú, which regularly became unaccented by the mobility law
[4] (Olander 2007a, loc. cit.). The Latvian ending is that of the i̯o-stems.
PS In the attested Slavic languages PBS *‑su was replaced with the i-stem
ending reflecting PS *‑iˈxu (CS *‑ixъ [29]) or, as in Old Czech, the o-stem ending
PS *‑ai̯ˈxu (CS *‑ěxъ [22|29]).
In a marginal case, the type in *‑jane (see § 3.16.1 on the dative plural), there
are traces of *‑su and, with analogical *x from the o‑, i‑ and u-stem ending,
*‑xu (see e.g. Węglarz 1933 and the above-mentioned literature). For instance,
preserved *‑sъ is found in Old Czech place names like Dolas, Brěžas (see e.g.
Gebauer 1896: 19, 77–78; Čornejová 2007); the quantity of the a in Old Czech is
uncertain (Zubatý 1893: 498 n. 2; Węglarz 1933: 34 n. 1 with references). Reflexes
of *‑xъ are found in ORu. Pol’axъ, ONovg. (na) pogoščaxъ, OSrb., OCr. děčaxь. CS
*‑asъ cannot reflect *‑ansu, which would yield **‑ǫsъ, but *a was introduced by
analogy with the dative and instrumental plural endings *‑amъ, *‑ami, which
show regular reduction of *‑ānm‑ to *‑ām‑ (see Brugmann 1897: 441–442 and
§ 3.16.1; cf., on the one hand, Zubatý 1902: 227 and Hujer loc. cit., who regard
*‑amъ, *‑ami as analogical; and, on the other, Meillet loc. cit., according to
whom *‑asъ may be regular in some Slavic dialects; and different still Węglarz
1933: 40, who assumes replacement of *‑i̯ǫm‑, *‑i̯ǫs‑ by *‑’anm‑, *‑’ans‑, which
then yielded *‑’am‑, *‑’as‑).
3.18.2 i-Stem Locative Plural
PS *gastiˈxu (CS *gostь̀ xъ) PBS *‑ˈisu PIE *‑isu
OCS gostьxъ, (→)gostexъ Li. →mintysè; dial. Ved. śúciṣu

ORu. putьxъ; ONovg. (o) dětьxъ akisù OAv. ?; YAv. ?
OCz. hostex Lv. →avîs Gk. dat. →πόλεσι; Ion. →πόλισι
OPr. – La. dat.–abl. →turribus
Go. –
Hi. dat.–loc. →ḫalḫaltumarii̯aš;
HLuv. adv. tara/i‑su-u
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 253: PIE *‑isu, perhaps also *‑isi | Beekes 1995/
2011: 203 | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PBS *‑iṣu, PIE *‑isu | Debrunner
& Wackernagel 1930/1975: 72, 162 | Rix 1976/1992: 157–158: Gk. ‑εσι for
dial. ‑ισι has suffix-vowel of gen. sg.; [see also C-stems, § 3.18.1] | Sihler
1995: 311, 314–315: PIE *‑isu; Gk. ‑εσι for dial. ‑ισι has new stem-vowel *e;
[see also C-stems, § 3.18.1] | Weiss 2009/2011: 242, 246: PIE *‑isu is not
preserved in La. | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: 240: PIE
*‑isu | Kloekhorst 2008a: 873: HLuv. adv. tara/i‑su-u and Milyan adv.
trisu may correspond directly to Ved. triṣú, Li. dial. adv. trisù
PBS Olander 2009: 191, 193: PBS *‑ˈisu reflects PIE *‑ísu | Endzelīns 1971:
154: Li. ‑yse probably consists of acc. pl. plus a postposition; Lv. forms in
‑îs correspond to Li. forms in ‑yse or ‑ysu | Stang 1966: 213: Li. akisù
preserves original *‑isu, also in Ved. ‑iṣu, OCS ‑ьxъ; Li. ‑yse has long vowel
from ill. ‑ysna and ā-stem ‑ose, ė-stem ‑ėse | Otrębski 1956: 42: Ved.
‑iṣu, OCS ‑ьxъ reflect *‑isu, preserved in Li. dial. forms like avisù; Li. ‑yse
has long vowel by analogy with other paradigms | Endzelīns 1923: 321:
Lv. ‑îs is either acc. pl. plus postposition or an old form in *‑u
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 7 | Hujer 1910: 146–147: Slavic ‑ьxъ is from PIE
*‑isu | Meillet 1924/1934: 419–420: Slavic ‑ьxъ reflects PIE *‑isu |
Vaillant 1958: 137: Slavic ‑ьxъ reflects PIE *‑isu; OCS ‑exъ is from i̯o-stems;
Li. ‑yse, Lv. ‑îs have ī from loc. sg. | Bräuer 1969a: 157 | Arumaa
1985: 129 | Igartua 2005a: 271–272: Slavic ‑ьxъ reflects PIE *‑isu; Li. ‑yse
is from acc. pl. *‑īs plus postposition *en | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 75;
PIE The expected ending *‑isu, consisting of the stem-suffix *‑i‑ and the loc-
ative plural marker *‑su, is attested in Vedic and Balto-Slavic. In Attic Greek
the ending has been recomposed by the new stem-vowel ‑ε‑ and the remade
locative plural marker ‑σι (see § 3.18.1). The Latin ending ‑ibus continues the
dative plural. Hittite does not preserve the ending. According to Kloekhorst
(loc. cit.), HLuv. adv. tara/i‑su-u ‘three times’ and Milyan adv. trisu ‘three times’
may be equated with Ved. triṣú and Li. dial. adv. trisù ‘by threes’. Eichner (1992:
61–62, 73–74), on the other hand, traces these and other Anatolian forms back
to *‑is‑wé, “an endingless locative [. . .] of a ‑wo-derivative”.
PBS PIE *‑isu is continued as PBS *‑ˈisu, preserved directly in a few i-stems

in Lithuanian dialects, e.g. akisù, širdisù (see Zinkevičius 1968: 71). In standard
Lithuanian and in Latvian the ending has been remade analogically; for the
new locative plural marker see § 3.18.4. The long stem-vowel is due to analogy
with the (now obsolete) illative forms in ‑ysna and the ā- and ē-stem locative
plural endings ‑ōse, ‑ėse.
PS The regular result of PBS *‑ˈisu is PS *‑iˈxu [12|13] (CS *‑ьxъ [29]). The
ending is preserved in the old Slavic dialects. It is likely that in at least some
instances the e of the Old Church Slavonic variant ‑exъ has been introduced
through analogical levelling with the new instrumental singular and dative
290 Chapter 3
plural forms ‑emь, ‑emъ (cf. van Wijk 1931: 175, whose proportion “‑ьmь : ‑emь,
‑ьmъ : ‑emъ = ‑ьxъ : x” does not work as it is based on two distinct chronological
layers, namely the old i-stem forms ‑ьmь, ‑ьmъ and the new forms ‑emь, ‑emъ).
3.18.3 u-Stem Locative Plural
PS *sūnuˈxu (CS *synъ̀xъ) PBS *‑ˈusu PIE *‑usu
OCS →synoxъ Li. →sūnuosè; dial. Ved. mádhuṣu

ORu. synъxъ; ONovg. ? →sūnūsè, →sūnusè; OAv. pourušū; YAv. vaŋhušu
OCz. (late) synech, →syniech OLi. (Mažvydas) Gk. dat. →ἡδέσι
dangusu(?) La. dat.–abl. →tribubus
Lv. →tìrguôs, →pęlū̂s Go. –
OPr. – Hi. adj. dat.–loc. →idālawaš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 253: PIE *‑usu, perhaps also *‑usi | Beekes

1995/2011: 203 | Rasmussen forthc. a § 6: PBS *‑uṣu, PIE
*‑usu | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 72, 162 | Rix 1976/
1992: 157–158: Gk. ‑εσι for *‑u(s)i has suffix-vowel of gen. sg.; [see also
C-stems, § 3.18.1] | Sihler 1995: 321, 326–327: PIE *‑usu; Gk. ‑υσι is
preserved in ū-stems | Weiss 2009/2011: 249, 252: PIE *‑usu is not
preserved in La. | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: 253: PIE
*‑usu | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 191, 193: PBS *‑ˈusu reflects PIE *‑úsu | Endzelīns 1971:
159: Li. ‑ūsè is the acc. pl. form plus a postposition; Li. ‑uose is analogical
from o-stems; Li. ‑use represents a contamination of ‑ūse and the original
ending *‑usu, also in OCS *‑ъxъ, Ved. ‑uṣu; Lv. ‑ū̂ s may reflect an original
ū-stem loc. pl. or consist of the acc. pl. plus a postposition | Stang
1966: 218–219: *‑usu is perhaps preserved in OLi. (Mažvydas) dangusu; Li.
‑ūsè has long vowel from i-stems and probably from ill. ‑ū́sna; Li. ‑uose
is o-stem ending; Lv. ‑ūs may be parallel with Li. forms or originate in
ū-stems | Otrębski 1956: 49: Ved. ‑uṣu, OCS ‑ъxъ reflect PIE *‑usu; Li.
‑ūse has long vowel by analogy with other paradigms; Li. ‑uose is analogi-
cal from o-stems | Endzelīns 1923: Lv. ‑ûs is either acc. pl. plus postpo-
sition or an old form in *‑u
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 7 | Hujer 1910: 146–147: Slavic ‑ъxъ is from
PIE *‑usu | Meillet 1924/ 1934: 414: Slavic ‑ъxъ goes back to PIE
*‑usu | Vaillant 1958: 112: Slavic ‑ъxъ, only preserved in ORu., has been
replaced with ‑oxъ in other dialects with o from nom. ‑ove, gen. ‑ovъ; Lv.
‑ûs has been influenced by loc. sg. | Bräuer 1969a: 148 | Arumaa
1985: 129 | Igartua 2005a: 297–298: Slavic ‑ъxъ reflects PIE *‑usu |
Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 72: Li. ‑se for OLi. ‑su is due to influence from loc.
sg.; Gk. ‑σι for *‑su has been remade on the model of dat.–loc. sg. in ‑ι; OCS
‑oxъ has o from nom. ‑ove, gen. ‑ovъ
PIE The ending, consisting of the zero grade of the stem-suffix followed by

the locative plural marker *‑su, is preserved in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic.
In Greek it was recomposed by a full-grade stem ‑ε‑ followed by the new loca-
tive plural marker ‑σι (§ 3.18.1). The Latin dative-ablative plural is based on the
old dative ending (see § 3.16.3). In Hittite the ending is not preserved.
PBS As shown by Slavic, the Proto-Indo-European ending was preserved as

PBS *‑ˈusu. It may still be represented by the Old Lithuanian (Mažvydas) form
dangusu (Stang loc. cit.), but elsewhere it was replaced in both Lithuanian
and Latvian with innovations similar to those introduced in the i-stems (see
§ 3.18.2). Standard Li. ‑uose is the o-stem ending.
PS PBS *‑ˈusu yielded PS *‑uˈxu [12|13] (CS *‑ъxъ [29]), preserved in Old
Russian and probably in Czech, though not in the earliest texts (Trávníček 1935:
322; but cf. Gebauer 1896: 325); the usual Old Czech ending ‑iech is that of the
o-stems. Old Church Slavonic ‑oxъ has o from nom. ‑ove, gen. ‑ovъ.
3.18.4 ā-Stem Locative Plural
PS →*naˈgāxu (CS *noga̋xъ; PBS *‑ˈā̰su PIE *‑ah₂su

*duša̋xъ)
OCS glavaxъ; dušaxъ Li. →galvosè; OLi. Ved. jihvā́su

ORu. ženaxъ; zeml’axъ; maldasu; Li. dial. OAv. gaēϑāhū; YAv. uruuarāhu
ONovg. (na) rybaxъ; šakā̊sù Gk. dat. →φυγαῖς; adv. →Ἀθήνησι;
(na) Sopšaxъ Lv. →gal̂vâs Myc. dat.–loc. →ku‑na‑ke‑ta‑i
OCz. rybách; dušiech, ‑ích OPr. – /kunāgetāhi/
La. dat.–abl. →uiīs; Osc. →deivinais
Go. –
Hi. –
292 Chapter 3
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 252: PIE *‑āsu, perhaps also *‑āsi | Beekes

1995/2011: 200–201: PIE *‑h₂su; La. ‑īs < *‑ais and Gk. ‑ῃσι, ‑αις are mod-
elled on o-stems | Rasmussen forthc. a § 5: Gk. ‑αις, ‑αισι are mod-
elled on o-stems; Myc. ‑a‑i represents /‑āhi/ or /‑aihi/; Li. dial. ‑āsù,
OCS ‑axъ (with x for *s from i-, u- and o-stems) reflects PBS *‑ā́su < PIE
*‑ah₂su | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 124 | Rix 1976/
1992: 134–135: Ved. ‑āsu, OCS ‑axъ are from PIE *‑eh₂su; PGk. *‑āsi is
preserved in Myc. ‑āhi and, with reintroduced s, in Old Attic ‑āsi, ‑ēsi;
other Gk. endings have been influenced by o-stems; [see also C-stems,
§ 3.18.1] | Sihler 1995: 272: Gk. ‑αις, PItal. *‑ā̆is̯ are modelled on o-stem
instr. pl.; older ending *‑āsi, with reintroduced *s, is preserved in Old Attic
dat. δικεσι (i.e. δίκησι) | Weiss 2009/2011: 229: PIE *‑eh₂su | Krahe
1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 191–192: PBS *‑ˈā̰su is from PIE *‑áh₂su | Endzelīns 1971:
145: old ending is preserved in OLi., Li. dial. ‑osu; Lv. ‑âs may correspond
to Li. ‑ose or ‑osu | Stang 1966: 201: *‑āsu is preserved in OLi., e.g.
(Mažvydas) maldasu, and in Li. dial., e.g. šakā̊sù; Li. ‑ose has ‑e < *‑ę́ from
sg.; Lv. ‑âs reflects *‑āsu or *‑āsę | Otrębski 1956: 27: Li. ‑ose, OLi. ‑osę
from *‑āsę is acc. pl. ending plus postposition ‑ę; an older ending is pre-
served in Li. dial. ‑āsu, identical with OCS ‑axъ, Ved. ‑āsu | Endzelīns
1923: 308–309: Lv. ‑âs reflects a form ending in *‑u, or a postposition
attached to the acc. pl. ending
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 7 | Hujer 1910: 146–147: Slavic ‑axъ has x for *s
from o‑, i‑ and u-stems | Meillet 1924/1934: 395–396, 399: Slavic
‑axъ has x for *s | Vaillant 1958: 84: Slavic ‑axъ from *‑āsu has x for
*s | Bräuer 1969a: 107, 127: CS *‑( j)axъ < PIE *‑(i̯)āsu has analogi-
cal *x | Arumaa 1985: 154–155: CS *‑axъ reflects PIE *‑āsu, with *‑x‑
from i- and u-stems | Igartua 2005a: 241–243: Slavic ‑axъ reflects
PIE *‑āsu < *‑eh₂su; soft ending ‑jaxъ is analogical for expected *‑jě‑ <
*‑jā‑ | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 88, 91: OCS ‑axъ has x for *s by analogy
with o‑, u- and i-stems; [see also u-stems, § 3.18.3]
PIE The ending *‑ah₂su consists of the suffix *‑ah₂‑ and the locative plural
marker *‑su. The regular reflexes of the ending are preserved in Indo-Iranian
and Balto-Slavic. The Attic ending ‑αῖς is modelled on the instrumental plural
of the o-stems. The old locative plural ending was reshaped to *‑āsi in Greek
(§ 3.18.1), preserved in Old Attic with dative plural function, e.g. δικεσι /‑ɛ̄si/,
and in Attic in the adverb Ἀθήνησι ‘at Athens’. An earlier stage /‑āhi/ is likely
to be represented by Myc. ku‑na‑ke‑ta‑i (Hajnal 1995: 21). In Latin, where the
original locative plural ending was lost, ‑īs < *‑ai̯s is modelled on the o-stem
instrumental plural.
PBS PIE *‑ah₂su yielded PBS *‑ˈā̰su [1]. The original ending is preserved in
Old Lithuanian and in dialects, e.g. East Li. šakā̊sù. In standard Lithuanian a
new case–number marker ‑se was created by replacing the inherited ‑u with
the locative marker ‑e found in the singular (see § 3.8.5). The Latvian locative
plural marker cannot go back to *‑su since PBS *‑u is preserved in Latvian. It is
unclear which short vowel has been lost in the Latvian form.
PS PBS *‑ˈā̰su is continued as PS *‑ˈāxu [13] (CS *‑axъ [29]; *‑jaxъ [20|27|29]),
with *x for regular *s by analogy with the o‑, i‑, u‑stems and certain consonant
stems. The ending is preserved in the old Slavic dialects.
3.18.5 o-Stem Locative Plural
PS *takai ̯ˈxu (CS *tok||cěx́ ъ; PBS *‑ˈai ̯su PIE *‑oi ̯su
*gojíxъ)
OCS graděxъ; kon’ixъ Li. →languosè; OLi. Ved. devéṣu

ORu. stolěxъ; konixъ; (Mažvydas) →war- OAv. maṣ̌iiaēšū; YAv. aspaēšu
ONovg. (vo) xlostěxo; gusu; Žem. adv. Gk. dat. →ἀγροῖς; Hom., dial. →ἀγροῖσι;
Šidovicixъ pẹnkẹisu Myc. dat.–loc. →te‑o‑i /tʰe(h)oihi/
OCz. chlapiech; oráčích Lv. →tìrguôs La. dat.–abl. lupīs; OLa. FACTEIS,
OPr. – SOKIOIS; Osc. Núvlanúis
Go. –
Hi. dat.–loc. →antuḫšaš
PIE Brugmann 1909–1911: 251–252: PIE *‑oisu, perhaps also *‑oisi; *‑oi‑ origi-
nally belongs to pronouns | Beekes 1995/2011: 213: PIE *‑oisu has
*oi from pronouns | Rasmussen forthc. a § 4: OCS ‑ěxъ reflects PBS
*‑ai̯ṣu < PIE *‑oi̯su; OLi. ‑uosu has vocalism of acc. pl.; Li. ‑uosè has ‑è from
sg. | Debrunner & Wackernagel 1930/1975: 109–110: Ved. ‑eṣu, YAv.
‑aēšu, OCS ‑ěxъ go back to PIE *‑oisu, originally a pron. ending | Rix
1976/1992: 140–141: Ved. ‑eṣu, YAv. ‑aēšu, OCS ‑ěxъ reflect PIE pron. ending
*‑oi̯su; Myc. ‑oi̯hi and Gk. (Hom., dial.) ‑οισι (with reintroduced *s) have ‑i
for *‑u; Gk. ‑οις is instr. pl. ending; [see also C-stems, § 3.18.1] | Sihler
294 Chapter 3
1995: 253, 263–264: Gk. dial. ‑οισι, Myc. ‑oihi are from PIE pron. ending
*‑oi̯su with ‑i for *‑u from sg.; Hi. ‑aš is from original noun ending *‑osu
with apocope; Gk. ‑οις is instr. pl. ending; Italic endings perhaps represent
merger of instr. *‑ōi̯s and loc. *‑oi̯su | Weiss 2009/2011: 206–208, 224;
[see instr. pl., § 3.17.5] | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – |
Kloekhorst 2008a: 104; [see dat. pl., § 3.16.5]
PBS Olander 2009: 191–192: PBS *‑ˈai̯su is from PIE *‑ói̯su | Endzelīns 1971:
137: OCS ‑ěxъ reflects PIE *‑oisu; Li. ‑uose, Žem. ‑unsi are from acc. ending
plus a postposition | Stang 1966: 186–187: Li. ‑uose reflects OLi. ‑uosu,
with ‑e from sg.; Li. ‑uo‑, Lv. ‑uo‑ have been introduced from ill. pl. ‑uosna
by analogy with ā-stems; Žem. ‑ẹisu reflects *‑oisu | Otrębski 1956: 16:
Ved. ‑eṣu, OCS ‑ěxъ are from PIE *‑oisu; Li. ‑uose, Li. dial. ‑unse contain
acc. pl. ‑uons plus postposition *en | Endzelīns 1923: 300: Li., Lv. loc.
pl. forms reflect acc. pl. and postposition
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 7: OCS ‑ěxъ, Ved. ‑eṣu are from PIE *‑oisu, with *‑oi‑
originating in pronouns | Hujer 1910: 146–147: Slavic ‑ěxъ reflects
PIE pron. ending *‑oisu, replacing *‑osu | Meillet 1924/1934: 410: OCS
‑ěxъ, ‑jixъ corresponds to Ved. ‑eṣu | Vaillant 1958: 36: Slavic ‑ěxъ, ‑jixъ
from PBS *‑aišu, PIE *‑oisu, with *oi from pron. inflection or from loc.
sg.; Li., Lv. forms are remade on the model of ill. pl. | Bräuer 1969a:
27–28: PIE *‑oi̯‑ for *‑o‑ is pron. stem; 74 | Arumaa 1985: 144–145: PIE
*‑oisu, originally pron. ending | Igartua 2005a: 184: CS *‑ěxъ from PIE
*‑oisu | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 82, 84: OCS ‑ěxъ, ‑jixъ from PIE *‑oisu
with *oi from pronouns or from loc. sg.; [see also u-stems, § 3.18.3]
PIE The Proto-Indo-European locative plural ending was *‑oi̯su, originally a

pronominal ending consisting of the pronominal suffix *‑oi̯‑ followed by the
case–number marker *‑su. The ending is preserved in Indo-Iranian and Balto-
Slavic. With the usual substitution of *‑u with ‑i in Greek (§ 3.18.1) we find Myc.
dat.–loc. te‑o‑i /‑oihi/ and, with restored ‑s‑, Gk. (Hom., dial.) ‑οισι; Myc. instr.
ku‑ru‑so /‑ōis/ and Gk. ‑οις, on the other hand, reflect the instrumental ending
(for Mycenaean see Lejeune 1969). The Italic dative-ablative plural in *‑oi̯s (La.
‑īs, OLa. ‑eis, ‑ois, Osc. ‑úis) probably reflects the merger of loc. pl. *‑oi̯su and
instr. pl. *‑ōi̯s (Meiser 1998/2006: 136; Sihler loc. cit.; Weiss loc. cit.). For Hi. dat.–
loc. ‑aš see § 3.16.1 on the consonant-stem dative plural ending.
PBS PIE *‑oi̯su is reflected as PBS *‑ˈai̯su [7]. In Baltic the ending is preserved
in a few relics such as Žem. adv. pẹnkẹisu ‘by fives’ from *‑íesu with secondary
acute tone. Elsewhere in East Baltic the ending has been reshaped under the
influence of the illative plural in ‑uosna and with replacement of ‑u with the
‑e of the locative singular (see § 3.8.5 and Stang 1966: 186–187). In Old Prussian
the form was lost.
PS PBS *‑ˈai̯su regularly yielded PS *‑ai̯ˈxu [12|13] (CS *‑ěxъ [22|29]; *‑jixъ
[20|22|29]). The ending is preserved in the old Slavic dialects. In stems end-
̆
ing in PS *ī�(n)k/g/x, where the velar was palatalised by the preceding *ī� ̆ in the
second palatalisation [23], the soft ending CS *‑ixъ replaced the phonetically
regular reflex *‑ěxъ, e.g. OCS otьcixъ. The expected reflex is preserved in the
pronouns OCS gen.–loc. sicěxъ, vьsěxъ (Vermeer 2003a: 411–414 and 2003b: 383,
both with references and discussion).
Chapter 4
Verbal Inflection
According to the traditional view, the Proto-Indo-European verbal system is

most faithfully represented by Greek and Indo-Iranian (see e.g. Hoffmann 1970/
1976: 41; Eichner 1975: 74; Rix 1977: 132 and passim; Meier-Brügger 2003: 163). The
correctness of this view has often been questioned and more weight is attached
to evidence from other branches, especially Anatolian (e.g. Watkins 1969, Cowgill
1979/2006, Jasanoff 2003; and, somewhat vaguely, Beekes 1995/2011: 251–252).
The question of the original structure of the Proto-Indo-European verbal
system is outside the scope of this study. The reconstruction of the Proto-
Indo-European inflectional endings—as opposed to the verbal system
itself—and their reflexes in Slavic in most respects does not depend on the
legitimacy of the “Graeco-Aryan” model of the Proto-Indo-European ver-
bal system. Furthermore, as mentioned in § 1.5.3, tracing the Slavic endings
back to non-Anatolian Indo-European—and not necessarily to Proto-Indo-
European—is what we are aiming at in this study. Therefore, the introduc-
tory remarks in this section apply primarily to non-Anatolian Indo-European;
depending on the actual degree of divergence between Anatolian and non-
Anatolian Indo-European, they may apply to Proto-Indo-European as well.
The verbal system taken as the point of departure here corresponds, with some
modifications, to the system found in Rix 1976/1992: 190–194, 197–198 (see also
Rix 1977; Rix et al. 1998/2001: 10; Meier-Brügger 2003: 164–167.
Proto-Indo-European had a rather complex verbal system compared to most
of the daughter languages. Finite verbs were inflected for aspect (imperfective
or “present”, perfective or “aorist”, resultative or “perfect” or “stative”), tense–
mood (present, preterite, injunctive, imperative, subjunctive, optative), voice
(active, middle) and person–number. Nominal forms of the verb consisted of
the adjectival active and middle participles.
As for the morphological means of expressing the categories of the finite
verb, the aspect stem (“primary stem”) indicated the aspect and was character-
ised by (a) a specific ablaut pattern, (b) a prefix (i.e. reduplication of the root),
(c) a suffix or (d) an infix; a suffix following the aspect stem indicated tense–
mood (subjunctive and optative); the inflectional endings indicated voice,
person–number and tense–mood (injunctive, present, imperative); the pre-
fixed augment indicated tense–mood (preterite) (cf. Ringe 2009).

Verbal Inflection 297
This system was significantly simplified in Slavic (cf. Andersen 2013: 19–20;
Ackermann 2014: 253–256). The original imperative and subjunctive forms
disappeared completely, as did the middle voice. The Proto-Indo-European
optative forms became the Slavic imperative. The old resultative aspect (the
“perfect”) is represented by a single form, PS prs. 1sg. *ˈu̯ āi̯dai̯ (CS *vě̋ dě). While
the imperfective present was preserved, the perfective and imperfective pret-
erite forms (which were augmentless, thus formally injunctives) merged into
a preterite commonly referred to as the aorist; the non-present forms that
survive in Slavic are the Proto-Indo-European sigmatic perfective preterite
(“sigmatic aorist”) and the thematic imperfective preterite (“thematic imper-
fect”). At a later stage, when the inherited preterite formations had merged
functionally to a general preterite, a new imperfective preterite was created,
containing a string of suffixes followed by the endings of the thematic pret-
erite (Andersen 2013: 30–31). Several non-finite forms are formed from the
verb in Proto-Slavic, including active and passive participles, an infinitive and
a supine.
The categories of the Slavic finite verb, at a stage before the periphrastic
forms had become an integrated part of the verbal system, were tense (present
vs. preterite), mood (indicative vs. imperative), aspect (imperfective vs. perfec-
tive) and person–number. From a morphological point of view, the root shape
in some verbs indicated tense (e.g. *ber‑ designating present and *bira‑ desig-
nating non-present); the suffix indicated aspect; and the inflectional endings
indicated tense, mood and person–number.
Most of the Proto-Indo-European person–number markers had an initial
consonant. Therefore, less fusion has taken place between the marker and a
preceding suffix in the development of the Proto-Indo-European verbal sys-
tem into Proto-Slavic. From this point of view the verbal system has retained
a more conservative character in Proto-Slavic than the nominal system, where
the border between the desinential suffix and the case–number marker is pre-
served intact across the various stem-types in the dative–instrumental dual
and in the dative and locative plural only.
The relatively clear-cut border between suffix and marker in the verbal
system has some bearings for the structure of this chapter. It is often possible
to treat two or more endings together, for instance the athematic and thematic
third-person singular endings PS*‑ti (CS *‑tь) and *‑eti (CS *‑etь). In the dual
and first- and second-person plural all endings (athematic and thematic pres-
ent, preterite, imperative) may be treated together, e.g. PS athem. prs. 2pl. *‑te
(CS *‑te), them. prs. *‑ete (*‑ete), athem. prt. *‑te, them. prt. *‑ete, athem. ipv.
*‑īte, them. ipv. *‑āi̯te. This leads to a simpler and clearer overview with less
repetition of references and analyses.
298 chapter 4
I assume that, from an inflectional point of view, ei̯e-verbs—the type PS prs.

3sg. *naˈsei̯eti (CS *nòsitь)—did not constitute a special class in Proto-Slavic;
it was only with the post-Proto-Slavic vowel contractions [25] that a new class
was established. Accordingly, ei̯e-verbs are not included in the overview. The
ne-verbs have the same inflection as e-verbs in Proto-Slavic, as they still do in
attested Slavic languages, and also do not require separate treatment here. Like
in the nominal part of this study, representatives of soft stems are included
for Common Slavic and the attested Slavic languages for the sake of illustra-
tion. Since we are only concerned with endings, periphrastic verbal forms such
as the perfect consisting of the l-participle plus forms of the verb PS *ˈbūtēi̯
(CS *by̋ ti) ‘to be’ are not considered.
Proto-Slavic had six sets of endings, one for each of the following categories:
athematic present, thematic present, athematic preterite, thematic preterite,
athematic imperative and thematic imperative.
4.2 Paradigm Types
4.2.1 Athematic Present

The athematic present faithfully continues the Proto-Indo-European athe-
matic present, in which the person–number markers were attached directly
to the root.
Table 10 Inflection of Proto-Slavic athematic present
̋
1 *esˈmi (*jèsmь); *ˈu̯ āi̯dai̯ (*vě dě) *esu̯ ā (*jesva, *esˈmə (*jèsmъ, →*jesmè,
→*jesvě) →*jesmò)
̆
2 *eˈsi (*jèsь), *eˈsī / *eˈsēi ̯ (*jesì) *estā (*jesta) *esˈte (*jestè)
3 *esˈti (*jèstь) *este (*jeste) *sanˈti (*sǫ́ tь), *dāˈde/inti
(*dádętь)
4.2.2 Thematic Present

The relationship between the thematic present in Proto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-
European is controversial. There are two fundamentally different conceptions
of the original relationship between the primary athematic and thematic
endings. The most widespread view, to which I also subscribe, holds that,
with the exception of the first-person singular, the thematic endings consist
of the thematic vowel followed by the same markers as in the athematic conju-
gation (e.g. Szemerényi 1996/1999: 236–238; Cowgill 1985a/2006; 2006; Kümmel
1997: 120–122). According to a group of alternative views, there was no or only
a very limited overlap between the primary athematic and thematic end-
ings in Proto-Indo-European. This view is represented by e.g. Watkins (1969),
Kortlandt (1979b/2009, 1979/2007, 1997/2007) and Beekes (1995/2011: 258–261:
“The primary endings of these two systems were totally different”; for further
references see Szemerényi 1996/1999: 237 n. 2).
According to the standard view, the Proto-Slavic thematic present directly
reflects the corresponding Proto-Indo-European category. The Proto-Indo-
European thematic endings consisted of the thematic vowel followed by the
person–number marker. The first-person singular had a peculiar form in *‑oh
for expected *‑omi.
The primary thematic endings were preserved in Slavic with minor modifi-
cations (cf. the radically different view of Watkins 1969: 218: “Außer der 2. Pl.
‑ete kann man keine der aksl. Formen mit den entsprechenden Paradigmen
Skt. vahāmi, lat. uehō, got. ‑wiga usw. gleichsetzen”). Note that the Proto-Slavic
first-person dual and plural endings are reconstructed with the original vowel
timbre *‑a‑ here, reflecting PIE *‑o‑ (1du. *u̯ edau̯ ā, 1pl. *u̯ edaˈmə), although all
attested Slavic languages show ‑e‑. The reason for this reconstruction is that
the analogical replacement of *‑a‑ with *‑e‑ most likely took place after the
fronting of non-front vowels [20] in the i̯e-present (see §§ 4.12 and 4.15), a pro-
cess belonging to the post-Proto-Slavic period.
Table 11 Inflection of the Proto-Slavic thematic present
1 *ˌu̯ edān (*vȅdǫ; pišǫ̀ ) *u̯ edau̯ ā (→*vedeva, *u̯ edaˈmə (→*vedèmъ,
→*vedevě; *píševa, →*vedemè, →*vedemò;
→*piševě) *píšemъ, →*píšeme,
→*píšemo)
2 *u̯ edeˈxi (*vedèšь; *píšešь), *u̯ edetā (*vedeta; *u̯ edeˈte (*vedetè; *píšete)
*u̯ edeˈxī / *u̯ edeˈxē̆i ̯ *pišeta)
(*vedešì; *píšeši)
3 *u̯ edeˈti (*vedètь; *píšetь) *u̯ edete (*vedete; *u̯ edanˈti (*vedǫ́tь; →*píšǫtь)
*pišete)
300 chapter 4
4.2.3 Athematic Preterite

The Proto-Indo-European perfective and the imperfective preterites—
traditionally referred to as the aorist and the imperfect—merged functionally
to a general preterite in pre-Proto-Slavic, and Proto-Slavic shows formal reflexes
of both formations (see Andersen 2013). Slavic, like Proto-Indo-European,
employs the secondary endings in the preterite. Reflexes of athematic endings
are preserved in the sigmatic aorist and, in the second- and third-person sin-
gular, also in original root-aorist forms (see § 4.10.1). In the second- and third-
person singular of roots synchronically ending in a consonant in Slavic, the
athematic forms have been replaced with thematic formations even in other-
wise athematic paradigms, leading to what Andersen (2013: 25–30) refers to as
the “heteroclitic preterite paradigms”. Thematic endings are also found in the
thematic aorist and in the Slavic imperfect. In the first person of all numbers
only thematic forms are found (Andersen 2013: 26).
Table 12 Inflection of the Proto-Slavic athematic preterite
1 *u̯ ēˈsu (*vě ́sъ) *u̯ ēsau̯ ā (*věsova, *u̯ ēsame (→*věsomъ, *věsome,
→*věsově) →*věsomo)
2 *ˈbēi̯ / *ˈbī (*bi̋ ), *ˌmer *u̯ ēstā (*věsta) *u̯ ēste (*věste)
(*mȇr), *ˌbū (*by̑ )
3 *ˈbēi̯ / *ˈbī (*bi̋ ), *ˌmer *u̯ ēste (*věste) *u̯ ēsen (*věsę)
(*mȇr), *ˌbū (*by̑ )
While the original Proto-Slavic athematic preterite paradigm is still clearly vis-
ible in Old Church Slavonic texts, the paradigm has largely been remade in
most Slavic languages by the introduction of a suffix CS *‑ox/s/š‑ or *‑ex/s/š‑
before the ending, e.g. ORu. aor. 1sg. vedoxъ, OCz. vedech corresponding to OCS
věsъ (alongside vedoxъ). In noting which forms preserve the regular reflexes I
have not taken this suffix into account. This means that the above-mentioned
forms are considered regular since they do, in fact, preserve the original ending.
4.2.4 Thematic Preterite

The Slavic thematic preterite reflects the Proto-Indo-European thematic
imperfective preterite; there were probably very few thematic perfective
preterites in Proto-Indo-European (see Watkins 1969: 63–64, 100; cf. Szemerényi
1996/1999: 281 with references in n. 7 on p. 283). In the first-person dual and
plural the original o-timbre of the thematic vowel is preserved in the attested
Slavic dialects, in contrast to the corresponding present forms, where CS *‑e‑
was introduced (see § 4.2.2).
Table 13 Inflection of the Proto-Slavic thematic preterite
1 *ˈsēdu (*sě ̋dъ) *sēdau̯ ā (*sědova, ̋

*ˈsēdame (→*sě domъ,
→*sědově) *sě ̋dome, →*sědomo)
̋
2 *ˈsēde, *ˌu̯ ede (*sě ̋de, *vȅde) *sēdetā (*sědeta) ̋
*ˈsēdete (*sědete)
3 *ˈsēde, *ˌu̯ ede (*sě ̋de, *vȅde) *sēdete (*sědete) ̋
*ˈsēdan (*sě dǫ)
The Proto-Slavic thematic preterite paradigm is formed from a small group of

roots ending in an obstruent in Old Church Slavonic. Thematic endings are
also used in the Slavic imperfect, e.g. OCS 3pl. veděaxǫ, ORu. vedjaxu, OCz.
vediechu. I consider these forms as regular continuants of the Proto-Slavic the-
matic preterite.
4.2.5 Athematic Imperative

The Slavic imperative formally continues the Proto-Indo-European optative,
which employed the secondary endings. Verbs with athematic inflection in
the present also have athematic inflection in the imperative. It is possible that
athematic verbs had forms for the first-person singular and the third-person
dual and plural imperative, but since such forms are not attested in the Slavic
dialects, they are not included in the present survey.
302 chapter 4
Table 14 Inflection of the Proto-Slavic athematic imperative
1 – *dādīu̯ ā (*dadiva, →*dadivě) *dādīme (→*dadimъ, *dadime,

→*dadimo)
2 *dādi̯i (*dad’ь) *dādītā (*dadita) *dādīte (*dadi̋te)
3 *dādi̯i (*dad’ь) – –
4.2.6 Thematic Imperative

Verbs with a thematic present have a thematic imperative. The first-person
singular and third-person dual and plural imperative forms are only sparsely
attested in the Slavic dialects (for the material see Vaillant 1930).
The third-person plural form, only attested in the verb OCS bǫdǫ, most likely
reflects an original injunctive form in PIE *‑ont (Stang 1942: 240; Watkins 1969:
219; Arumaa 1985: 310–311; but cf. Vondrák 1908/1928: who considers bǫdǫ to be
an original subjunctive form; bǫdǫ is traced back to an optative form *‑oin(t)
by Vaillant 1930: 246; 1966: 16–17; Mareš 1962a). It is therefore formally identical
to the thematic preterite in PS*‑an (CS *‑ǫ) (§ 4.18).
Table 15 Inflection of the Proto-Slavic thematic imperative
1 *u̯ edāi̯mi (*veděmь; ?) *u̯ edāi̯u̯ā (*veděva, *u̯ eˈdāi̯me (→*vedě mъ,̋ *veděme,
̋
→*veděvě; *pišiva, ̋
→*vedě mo; →*piši̋mъ, *piši̋me,
→*pišivě) →*piši̋mo)
2 *u̯ eˈdəi̯ (*vedì; *pišì) *u̯ edāi̯tā (*veděta; ̋ *piši̋te)
*u̯ eˈdāi̯te (*vedě te;
*pišita)
3 *u̯ eˈdəi̯ (*vedì; *pišì) – *ˈbūndan (*bǫ̋ dǫ)
Among the non-finite forms the Proto-Slavic infinitive formally reflects a Proto-
Indo-European i-stem locative singular (§ 3.8.2), while the supine is identical
to a u-stem accusative singular (§ 3.8.3). The masculine and neuter forms of
the present participle are inflected as (o)nt-stems (§§ 3.3.6 and 3.3.7), while
the feminine is inflected as an ī-stem (§ 3.2.4). The preterite active participle

formed with the suffix *‑us‑ is an (u)s-stem (§ 3.3.8). The present passive par-
ticiple in *‑am‑, the preterite active participle in *‑l‑ and the preterite passive
participles in *‑(e)n‑ and *‑t‑ are inflected as o-/ā-stems (§§ 3.2.4 and 3.2.5).
4.3 Present First-Person Singular
4.3.1 Athematic Present First-Person Singular (*‑mi)
PS *esˈmi (CS *jèsmь) PBS *‑mi PIE *‑mi
ocs jesmь, jesmъ Li. →esù; OLi. ésmi, essmí; Ved. ásmi
ORu. jesmь, jesmъ; refl. →důmies OAv. ahmī; YAv. ahmi
ONovg. jesmь Lv. →ȩsmu Gk. εἰµί; Lesbian ἔµµι
OCz. jsem OPr. →asmai, →asmu 2 × La. sum; OLa. ESOM;
South Picene esum
Go. im; ONor. em
Hi. ēšmi
PIE Brugmann 1913–1916: 595–603: OCS ‑mь etc. reflect PIE *‑mi | Beekes
1995/2011: 259: PIE *‑mi | Rix 1976/1992: 250: PIE *‑mi | Sihler 1995:
458–459: OCS ‑mь is from PIE *‑mi, probably also in La. sum | Weiss
2009/2011: 384–385: La. sum, OLa. ESOM reflect PIE *h₁ésmi; OLi. ‑mì,
refl. ‑mies corresponds to OPr. asmai, reflecting PBalt. *‑mai, possibly
the result of contamination with middle endings | Krahe 1942/1967:
135–136: PIE *ésmi is preserved in Go. im | Boutkan 1995: 373–374:
Go. im etc. reflect *‑mi; loss of *‑i in Runic em is due to lack of sentence
stress | Kloekhorst 2008a: 578: Hi. ‑mi partly reflects PIE primary end-
ing *‑mi, partly PIE secondary ending *‑m plus present marker *‑i
PBS Olander 2009: 136: PS*esˈmi goes back to PIE *h₁ésmi | Kortlandt
1979b/2009: 155: Slavic ‑mь reflects PIE *‑mi; Li. ‑mì has acute tone from
2sg. ending; OPr. asmai reflects *‑moʔi | Endzelīns 1971: 202: OCS ‑mь
is from PIE *‑mi; Li. ‑mi, ‑mies reflects *‑mie < *‑mei, based on analogy
with 2sg. *‑ei; OPr. ‑mai may be from contamination of endings of pf.
*vaidai and *vai(d)mi; OPr. asmu, Li. dial. esmù, Lv. dial. ȩsmu have been
influenced by them. forms | Stang 1942: 225, 1966: 406–407: Li. ‑mi,
‑miesi < *‑míe and OPr. asmai reflect PBalt. *‑mái, originally a middle
304 chapter 4
ending, perhaps remade from *‑ai; PBalt. *‑mái may also represent con-
tamination of pf. *‑ai and athem. prs. *‑mi | Otrębski 1956: 180–181:
OLi. ‑mi is not from PIE *‑mi, but from *‑mie, based on analogy with 2sg.
*‑sie | Endzelīns 1923: 545–546: Lv. ‑mu has ‑u from them. stems
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 111: CS *‑mь is from PIE *‑mi | Meillet 1924/1934:
309–310: Slavic ‑mь is from PIE *‑mi | Stang 1942: 213: OCS ‑mь reflects
PIE *‑mi | Vaillant 1966: 8: Slavic ‑mь is from PIE *‑mi | Arumaa
1985: 268–271: Slavic ‑mь reflects PIE *‑mi | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991:
176: OCS ‑mь is from PIE *‑mi
PIE The first part of *‑mi is the first-person singular active marker *‑m‑, also
found in the secondary ending. The second part is the hic et nunc marker *‑i,
which also appears in other, but not all, present forms of the verb. The ending
*‑mi is preserved in the old Indo-European languages.
PBS The Slavic evidence shows that PIE *‑mi was preserved in Proto-Balto-
Slavic. In Baltic the ending was altered in various ways.
OLi. ‑mi is usually taken together with the reflexive form, e.g. OLi. důmies;
by internal reconstruction, this leads to pre-Li. *‑mḛ̄, shortened in final posi-
tion according to Leskien’s law, but preserved when followed by an enclitic. It
seems to me, however, that in this case the application of internal reconstruc-
tion leads in the wrong direction. It leads to a better solution if we assume that
OLi. ‑mi directly reflects PBS, PIE *‑mi and that the reflexive form arose by a
proportional analogy of the type them. non-refl. vedù : refl. vedúos(i) :: athem.
non-refl. dúomi : refl. X, where X = dúomies(i).
The assumption that Li. ‑mi directly reflects PBS *‑mi < PIE *‑mi has the
advantage of explaining why these forms usually have initial accentuation in
Daukša’s Postilė (see Specht 1922: 30–31; Hirt 1929: 304). In the copula there are
six instances of initial accentuation but only two instances of final accentua-
tion (for the material see Skardžius 1935: 192, who regards the forms with initial
accent as secondary). If ‑mi reflected acute *‑mḛ̄, we would expect the first-
person singular to have final accentuation by Saussure’s law. While the forms
with final accent may easily have arisen by analogy with the thematic verbs,
those with initial accent are more difficult to explain as secondary (see e.g.
Senn’s attempt at doing so in 1935: 95, referring to 1929/1974: 257; and Skardžius
1935: 193).
OPr. asmai is likely to be based on original *‑mi. It is not clear what ‑ai is,
but Endzelīns (1944: 156; 1971: 202) may be on the right track when he identi-
fies it with the ‑ě of OCS vědě, which reflects the Proto-Indo-European perfect
ending *‑h₂a plus the particle *‑i (§ 4.3.2; see also Jasanoff 2003: 75 n. 20). It is
possible that the first-person singular is the locus of the creation of the Old
Prussian present marker ‑ai, found in all persons outside the third person (this
is implied in Endzelīns 1944: 157–160; see also van Wijk 1918: 61).
The rarely attested form OPr. asmu may represent the same innovation as Li.
dial. esmù, Lv. ȩsmu, viz. a contamination of the old athematic ending *‑mi and
the thematic ending *‑oh (Endzelīns 1944: 156–157; 1971: 202); after a labial, ‑u
from unaccented *‑ō seems to be regular in Old Prussian (Stang 1966: 49–50).
Alternatively, ‑mu may be a phonetically conditioned variant of ‑mai (Cowgill
1985a/2006: 107; 2006: 562).
PS PBS *‑mi was retained as PS*‑mi (CS *‑mь [29]), preserved in the old
Slavic dialects.
4.3.2 Athematic Present First-Person Singular (*‑ai̯)
PS *ˈu̯āi ̯dai ̯ (CS *vě ̋dě) PBS →*‑ai ̯ PIE pf. *‑h₂a
OCS vědě Li. – Ved. véda

ORu. ptcl. vědě; ONovg. Lv. – OAv. vaēdā; YAv. dādar əsa
vědě OPr. →asmai, Gk. οἶδα
OCz. vědě →asmu 2 × La. →uīdī; OLa. →FECEI; Fal. →peparai
Go. prs. wait
Hi. prs. →dāḫḫe (OS); →dāḫḫi (OS)
PIE Brugmann 1913–1916: 491, 595–603: Ved. ‑a, Gk. ‑α, Gmc. ‑∅ reflect PIE
*‑a; La. uīdī, OCS vědě have pf. middle ending | Beekes 1995/2011:
265–266: Ved. ‑a, Gk. ‑α go back to PIE *‑h₂e; OCS vědě, La. ‑ī, probably
also Old Hi. ‑ḫe reflect *‑a plus *‑i | Rix 1976/1992: 256: Gk. ‑α, Ved. ‑a,
Luvian ‑ḫa reflect PIE *‑h₂e; La. uīdī, OCS vědě are from *‑ai | Sihler
1995: 570–571, 587: PIE *‑h₂e; La. ‑ī < *‑ai, Hi. ‑ḫi, OCS vědě contain inher-
ited *‑a plus primary tense marker *‑i | Weiss 2009/2011: 392: Gk. ‑α,
Ved. ‑a go back to PIE *‑hxe; La. uīdī, OCS vědě contain PIE *‑h₂e and hic
et nunc ptcl. *‑i, also in Hi. primary ḫi-conjugation | Krahe 1942/1967:
102: Gmc. ‑∅ reflects PIE *‑a | Boutkan 1995: 332–334: Gmc. dialects
have ‑∅ from PGmc. *‑a < PIE *‑h₂e | Kloekhorst 2008a: 341–342: Hi.
306 chapter 4
‑ḫḫi, older ‑ḫḫe reflects *‑h₂e‑i, containing PIE pf. 1sg. ending *‑h₂e, also
in Ved. ‑a, Gk. ‑α, Go. -∅
PBS Olander 2009: – | Kortlandt 1979b/2009: 154: Slavic vědě contains old
pf. form plus *‑i from athem. primary endings | Endzelīns 1971: 202:
OCS vědě is old pf. *vaidai | Stang 1942: –, 1966: 406–407 | Otrębski
1956: – | Endzelīns 1923: 697–698: OCS vědě is old middle form
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 215: OCS vědě contains old pf. middle ending *‑ai, cor-
responding to Ved. tutude, La. tutudī | Meillet 1924/1934: 310: Slavic ‑ě,
Ved. ‑e are from PIE pf. middle ending *‑ai | Stang 1942: 214: vědě is
an old pf. form containing the middle ending *‑ai, also in Ved. pf. middle
vidé, La. uīdī | Vaillant 1966: 6, 76: Slavic vědě has ‑ě from pf. middle
*‑ai, also in Ved. ‑e, La. ‑ī | Arumaa 1985: 315–316: Slavic vědě reflects
old middle form *‑ai, comparable to La. uīdī | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991:
233: ending of OCS vědě may be related to ‑ě‑ of prt. stem
PIE The only finite ending of the Proto-Indo-European perfect system that

survived into Slavic was the first singular. While in most of the older litera-
ture the reflexes of *‑ai̯ in the Indo-European languages are traced back to
a middle form, the majority of current scholars hold that the original Proto-
Indo-European perfect ending *‑h₂a, preserved in Indo-Iranian, Greek and
Germanic, was extended by the present marker *‑i in Latin, Hittite and Slavic
(e.g. Beekes loc. cit.; Sihler loc. cit.; Weiss loc. cit.; Kortlandt loc. cit.; see also
Stang 1966: 406–407; and cf. 1942: 214).
PBS By analogy with the first-, second- and third-person singular and third-
person plural of the present the element *‑i was added to PIE *‑h₂a, yielding
PBS *‑ai̯ [1]. The ending is not preserved directly in Baltic, but it is possible that
it appears in OPr. 1sg. asmai (see § 4.3.1).
̋
PS PBS *‑ai̯ was retained as PS*‑ai̯ (CS *‑ě [22|29]). PS*ˈu̯ āi̯dai̯ (CS *vědě)
is preserved as a paradigmatic form in Old Church Slavonic, Old Slovene, the
Old Novgorod dialect and Old Czech. In Old Russian the form functions as a
particle. The old form was replaced with the synchronically more regular form
CS *vě̋mь in the Slavic languages.
4.3.3 Thematic Present First-Person Singular
PS →*ˌu̯edān (CS *vȅdǫ; *pišǫ̀) PBS *‑ˈō̰ PIE *‑oh
ocs vedǫ; pišǫ Li. vedù; refl. Ved. →bhárāmi

ORu. vedu; pišu; ONovg. idu; sъl’u vedúos(i) OAv. spasiiā, →auuāmī; YAv.
OCz. vedu; píšu Lv. vȩ̀lku; refl. →barāmi
ceļ̂uôs Gk. φέρω
OPr. crixtia(?) La. legō
Go. baira; Early Runic gibu
Hi. →daškēmi(?) (OS),
→ḫandāišqami(?)
PIE Brugmann 1913–1916: 540, 595–603: PIE *‑ō; OCS ‑ǫ goes back to *‑ōⁿ,
reflecting *‑ō plus nasal from prt. *‑om | Beekes 1995/ 2011: 260:
PIE *‑oh | Rix 1976/1992: 250: Gk. ‑ω is from PIE *‑ō or *‑oh₂; Ved.,
YAv. ‑āmi, OCS ‑ǫ, Hi. tiyami may reflect more original ending PIE
*‑omi | Sihler 1995: 458–459: PIE *‑oh₂; OCS ‑ǫ < *‑ōm has nasal from
PIE secondary ending *‑om | Weiss 2009/2011: 395: Li. acute ‑ù points
to PIE *‑oh₂, from *‑oh₂e by “Jasanoff’s law” | Krahe 1942/1967: 96: Go.
‑a etc. reflect PIE *‑ō | Boutkan 1995: 308–310: Go. ‑a etc. are from PIE
*‑oh | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 195: Li. acute tone points to PIE *‑oh; the ending
became unaccented in Slavic when the secondary ending *‑m was
imported | Kortlandt 1979b/2009: 154–156: Li. ‑ù, Lv. ‑u reflect PIE
*‑oh; OPr. ‑a reflects PIE *‑oh₁; Slavic ‑ǫ is from *‑am, consisting of pf.
ending *‑a plus secondary ending *‑m | Endzelīns 1971: 201: OPr.
girdiu, Li. ‑ù, Lv. ‑u reflect PIE *‑ō | Stang 1942: 225, 1966: 406: Li. ‑u,
refl. ‑úos(i), Lv. ‑u, refl. ‑uôs, go back to *‑úo < PIE *‑ō; OPr. crixtia probably
reflects *‑ō | Otrębski 1956: 180: Li. ‑u is from *‑úo < *‑ō | Endzelīns
1923: 545: Lv. ‑u, ‑uôs is from *‑uo < PIE *‑ṓ
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 111: Li. ‑u is from PIE *‑ō; CS *‑ǫ perhaps reflects subj.
*‑ām, also in La. agam | Meillet 1924/1934: 310–312: Slavic ‑ǫ reflects
PIE *‑ō plus secondary ending *‑m | Stang 1942: 213–214: OCS ‑ǫ < *‑ān
reflects *‑ā from PIE *‑ō, plus *‑n from *mogъn or *mogon | Vaillant
1966: 8: Slavic ‑ǫ is from *‑ōm, a reduced form of *‑ōmi, corresponding to
Ved., YAv. ‑āmi, Hi. ‑aḫmi | Arumaa 1985: 268–271: PIE *‑ō; Slavic ‑ǫ
has not been explained satisfactorily, but may be based on an interplay
between primary and secondary endings | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991:
308 chapter 4
176, 210: OCS ‑ǫ is from *‑ā (< PIE *‑ō) plus secondary ending *‑m; soft ‑( j)ǫ
for *‑( j)ę < *‑i̯ām is based on analogy with e-verbs
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending is normally reconstructed as *‑oh (usu-

ally with *‑h₂) or *‑ō (also in laryngealistic studies). Since a Lithuanian acute
final vowel requires a Proto-Indo-European vowel followed by a laryngeal,
the reconstruction with a laryngeal is preferable (see Olander 2009: 114–115;
Villanueva Svensson 2013: 341). From the point of view of internal reconstruc-
tion we expect *‑o‑mi, consisting of the thematic vowel followed by the ending
of the first-person singular found in the athematic stems. Such an ending does
indeed seem to be directly reflected in Indo-Iranian and, possibly, Anatolian
(see Oettinger 1979: 315; Rix loc. cit.), but since most other branches reflect the
structurally deviating ending *‑oh or *‑ō, there is general agreement that at
least the Indo-Iranian ending is an innovation. Attempts have been made to
derive PIE *‑oh or *‑ō from earlier *‑o‑mi (e.g. Cowgill 1985a/2006: 108, accord-
ing to whom Hittite may reflect the earlier form; Hill 2012) or, within a different
framework, from *‑o‑h₂e (Jasanoff 1988: 63; Weiss loc. cit.). The prehistory of
the ending is not important for our purposes, but a pre-Proto-Indo-European
development of *‑omi to PIE *‑oh would account for the Proto-Indo-European
situation.
PBS pie *‑oh is reflected as PBS *‑ˈō̰ [1], which yielded Li. ‑ù, refl. ‑úos(i), Lv.
‑u, refl. ‑uôs, with regular acute tone reflecting the word-final laryngeal.
PS The expected outcome of PBS *‑ˈō̰ is PS*‑ˈā [13|15] (CS *‑a [29]; *‑ja
[20|27|29]), but this ending is not attested in the Slavic languages. According
to the standard explanation, the *‑m of the secondary ending was attached to
*‑ā at a pre-stage of Slavic (before [19], where *‑m was lost in the secondary
ending; see § 4.4), yielding PS*ˌ‑ān [19] (CS *‑ǫ [28]; *‑jǫ [20|27|28]).
Vaillant (loc. cit.) has suggested that Slavic ‑ǫ reflects * ‑ōm from *‑ōmi, in
parallel to ā-stem instr. sg. *‑ǫ from *‑ān < *‑āmi (see also H. H. Hock 2007;
Hill 2013: 173–175). As mentioned in § 3.7.4, I do not think it is possible to
view them. prs. 1sg. ‑ǫ and ā-stem instr. sg. ‑ǫ as the outcomes of the same
apocope of final *‑i, since the former form acquired its *‑i after the dissolu-
tion of Proto-Balto-Slavic, whereas the latter ending had lost its *‑i already in
Proto-Balto-Slavic. In order to make the chronology work, we would have to
assume that Proto-Balto-Slavic had both original *‑ō̰ and innovated *‑ō̰m (from
*‑ō̰mi) in thematic verbs, which is not attractive. Such a chronological problem
does not seem to be addressed by the proponents of the apocope hypothesis.
However, the two views on the prehistory of PS 1sg. *ˌ‑ān may perhaps be
combined. We may assume that the athematic ending *‑mi was added to the
pre-Proto-Slavic thematic ending *‑ā, as in Indo-Iranian, yielding pre-ps *‑āmi.

Independent evidence from early Slavic shows that in certain speech styles
final *‑i was dropped; cf. the partly irregular reflexes in the Slavic dialects of
PIE *‑eti, *‑onti in the third-person singular and plural of the thematic pres-
ent (§§ 4.2 and 4.17). Two factors could have contributed to the spread of the
form without *‑i in the present first-person singular, in contrast to the present
third-person singular and plural: first, *‑m was an acceptable final consonant
in pre-Proto-Slavic (until it merged with *‑n [19]), unlike *‑t in the third-person
forms; and second, final *‑m already existed (until [19]) as a first-person singu-
lar marker in the preterite forms of the verb. The unaccentedness of the form
in mobile accent paradigms may have been imported from the preterite end-
ing (Olander loc. cit.; see also the suggestive remarks by Holzer 2009: 157).
4.4 Preterite First-Person Singular
Athematic preterite first-person singular
̋
ps aor. *u̯ēˈsu (CS *věsъ) pbs →*‑am pie prt., inj. *‑m̥
ocs věsъ, vedoxъ Li. – Ved. aor. inj. →yeṣam

ORu. rěxъ; ONovg. (late) Lv. – OAv. prs. inj. →grabəm; YAv. prs.
daxo OPr. – inj. →mraom
OCz. řěch Gk. aor. ἔλῡσα
La. ipf. dūcēbam
Go. –
Hi. ešun
Thematic preterite first-person singular
̋
ps *ˈsēdu (CS *sě dъ) pbs *‑am pie prt., inj. *‑om
ocs sědъ Li. – Ved. prs. inj. cyávam

ORu. vъzmogъ; ONovg. Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. aor. inj. fra‑uuaocəm
vozyvaxo (t’a) OPr. – Gk. ipf. ἔφερον
OCz. sěd La. –
Go. –
Hi. →dašganun
310 chapter 4
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 595–596 (1897: 391): Gk. athem. ‑α is from PIE *‑m̥ ;
Ved. them. ‑am, Gk. ‑ον reflect PIE *‑om; OCS ‑ъ is from PIE unaccented
*‑om | Beekes 1995/2011: 260, 264: Gk. athem. ‑α reflects *‑m̥ ; OCS ‑ъ
is from PIE them. *‑om | Rix 1976/1992: 242–243: Gk. ‑ον, Ved. ‑am,
OCS ‑ъ reflect PIE them. *‑om | Sihler 1995: 458 | Weiss 2009/2011:
386–388 | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst
2008a: 609: Hi. ‑(n)un reflects PIE secondary ending (vocalic) *‑m
PBS
Olander 2009: 137–138 | Kortlandt 1979b/2009: 155: Slavic ‑ъ from
early BS *‑um < *‑om represents secondary them. ending, replacing
original athem. ending | Endzelīns 1971: – | Stang 1942: –, 1966:
– | Otrębski 1956: – | Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 119: OCS ‑ъ is from *‑om | Meillet 1924/1934: 323:
Slavic them. ‑ъ corresponds to Ved. ‑am, Gk. ‑ον; athem. PIE *‑m̥ was
replaced with them. ending in Slavic | Stang 1942: 213: OCS ‑ъ corre-
sponds to Gk. ‑ον, Ved. ‑am, ending in PIE *‑m/n | Vaillant 1966: 15–16:
Slavic ‑ъ corresponds to PIE them. *‑om and athem. *‑m, *‑m̥ | Arumaa
1985: 268: Slavic ‑ъ is from PIE them. *‑om; sigm. ending Slavic ‑sъ goes
back to *‑som, remade from *‑sm̥ | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 179–180:
OCS ‑ъ is from *‑om
PIE Only the thematic secondary ending *‑om is reflected in Slavic,

where it replaced the athematic ending *‑m̥ of the Proto-Indo-European
sigmatic aorist. The thematic ending *‑om consists of the o-grade of the the-
matic vowel followed by the first-person singular marker *‑m. The appar-
ent development of PIE *‑m̥ to PIIr. *‑am has a parallel in the non-neuter
accusative singular of the consonant stems (§ 3.4.1), but is probably not pho-
netically regular. It is likely that Hi. ‑un is the regular reflex of Proto-Indo-
European word-final *‑m̥ (Melchert 1994: 181 with discussion and references;
Kloekhorst loc. cit.).
PBS The Proto-Indo-European thematic ending PIE *‑om yielded PBS *‑am

[7]. As both the athematic and thematic endings have disappeared in Baltic,
we cannot know if the replacement of the former with the latter happened in
pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic or at a later, pre-Proto-Slavic stage.
PS The regular reflex of PBS *‑am is PS*‑u [19] (CS *‑ъ [29]), preserved in the
4.5 (Thematic) Imperative First-Person Singular
ps *u̯edāi ̯mь (CS *veděmь; ?) pbs →*‑a̰i ̯mi pie opt. *‑oi ̯h₁m̥
ocs otъpaděmь; ? Li. – Ved. →bhareyam

ORu. –; ONovg. – Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. ?
OCz. – OPr. – Gk. →φέροιµι; Arcadian
→εξελαυνοια
La. –
Go. bairau
Hi. –
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 557–558: PIE *‑oi̯m̥; Ved. ‑eyam for *‑ayam is based
on analogy with 2sg. ‑eḥ etc.; Gk. dial. ‑οια replaces *‑οα; Go. ‑au reflects
subj. *‑ō plus ptcl. *‑u | Beekes 1995/2011: 275: Go. ‑au is from *‑ajun
< PIE *‑oih₁m | Rix 1976/1992: 262: PIE *‑oi̯h₁m̥ is preserved in Ved.
‑eyam, Gk. dial. εξελαυνοια < *‑oi̯ia̯ ; Gk. ‑οιµι has introduced primary end-
ing *‑mi | Sihler 1995: 596–598: PIE *‑oi̯m̥; Gk. dial. ‑οια shows ana-
logical retention of *i̯; Ved. ‑eyam is analogical for *‑āyam | Weiss
2009/2011: 417: Ved. ‑eyam, Gk. dial. εξελαυνοια, Go. ‑au reflect PIE *‑oih₁m̥ ,
possibly with syllabic suffix *‑ih₁‑ | Krahe 1942/1967: 108: Ved. ‑eyam
(for *‑ayam), Gk. dial. εξελαυνοια, Go. ‑au, ONor. ‑a reflect PIE *‑oi̯m̥,
alongside *‑oim > PGmc. *‑ai(n) seen in WGerm. ‑e | Boutkan 1995:
321–323: PIE *‑oih₁m is preserved in Go. ‑au, ONor. ‑a; WGmc. forms are
analogical | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS
Olander 2009: – | Kortlandt 1979b/2009: – | Endzelīns 1971:
– | Stang 1942: –, 1966: – | Otrębski 1956: – | Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 120 | Meillet 1924/1934: 266, 310: use of primary
ending in Slavic and Greek is not original | Stang 1942: 239–240:
Slavic ‑ěmь with primary ending has replaced expected *‑ojь from
PIE *‑oi̯m̥ | Vaillant 1966: 16: Slavic ‑ěmь contains primary ending,
replacing *‑ǫ < *‑oin < *‑oi̯m̥ | Arumaa 1985: – | Aitzetmüller
1978/1991: 192: Slavic has replaced secondary ending with primary
ending
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending *‑oi̯h₁m̥ is probably preserved in

Go. ‑au. In Greek expected *‑οα was remade to ‑οια in the Arcadian dialect
312 chapter 4
form εξελαυνοια; in the usual form ‑οιµι the primary ending has been
added to the stem, like in Slavic. Similarly, in Vedic expected *‑aya has
been remade to ‑eyam, which has ‑e‑ from 2sg. ‑eḥ, 3sg. ‑et etc. (e.g. Sihler
loc. cit.) and ‑m from first-person singular forms with consonantal *‑m.
Hoffmann’s (1976a: 615 n. 12) suggestion that the suffix *‑ih₁‑ was always
syllabic, contrary to the Proto-Indo-European phonotactic rules, is in my
view considerably less attractive than assuming analogical developments
in Vedic and Greek (cf. also the elaboration of Hoffmann’s suggestion in
Jasanoff 2009b).
PBS The original ending *‑oi̯h₁m̥ is not preserved in Balto-Slavic. At some

time between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Slavic the primary ending *‑mi
was added to the optative suffix PIE *‑oi̯h₁‑ > PBS *‑a̰ i‑̯ [1]. If this change was
pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic, the resulting form was PBS *‑a̰ im̯ i.
PS PBS *‑a̰ im ̯ i yielded PS*‑āi̯mi [13] (CS *‑ěmь [22|29]), preserved in OCS
otъpaděmь and in Croatian Church Slavonic, e.g. mozěm (see Vaillant 1930:
241–243). There are no clear attestations of the corresponding athematic form
(for an attempt at identifying reflexes of CS *‑jamь < *‑i̯ēmi in Croatian texts
see Vaillant 1930: 250–251).
4.6 Present Second-Person Singular
Athematic present second-person singular
ps *eˈsi (CS *jèsь), →*eˈsī / →*eˈsēĭ ̯ (*jesì) pbs *‑si pie *‑si
ocs jesi Li. esì; OLi. éssi, essí; Ved. ási

ORu. jesi; ONovg. jesi with ptcl. →eͣssiégu; OAv. ahī; YAv. ahi
OCz. jsi refl. →desies Gk. εἶ; Hom. →ἐσσί
Lv. →esi La. es
OPr. assai, assei Go. is
Hi. ešši
Thematic present second-person singular
PS *u̯edeˈxi (CS *vedèšь; *píšešь), PBS *‑ˈesi PIE *‑esi

→*u̯edeˈxī / →*u̯edeˈxēĭ ̯ (*vedešì; *píšeši)
OCS vedeši; pišeši Li. →vedì; refl. Ved. bhárasi

ORu. vedeši, (later) prětъknešь; pišeši, (later) →vedíes(i) OAv. vaēnahī; YAv.
tružaješь; ONovg. ideši, (later) vozemeše (i.e. Lv. →vèlc, barahi
vozьmešь); (ne) prisъleši, (later) vědaješь →mir̃sti; refl. Gk. →φέρεις
OCz. vedeš; píšeš →cel̂iês La. legis
OPr. →giwassi, Go. bairis; ONor.
→gīwasi berr; OEng. bires
Hi. →akkuškē̆ši
(OS)
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 582, 603–610: CS *‑šь reflects PIE *‑si, with *‑š‑ from
forms in *‑išь; OCS ‑ši has ‑i from athematic variant ‑si; PIE had a special
2sg. form in *‑ei, preserved in Li. ‑ì, Gk. Dor. ipv. ἄγει, Gk. ind. ‑εις (with ana-
logical ‑ς) | Beekes 1995/2011: 259–260: PIE athem. *‑si, them. *‑eh₁i;
Slavic athem. ‑si has been contaminated with them. ending; Slavic ‑ši
contains *‑eh₁i; Gk. them. ‑εις has added ‑ς from athem. ending | Rix
1976/1992: 250–251: athem. PIE *‑si; them. Gk. ‑εις has probably arisen by
metathesis from PIE *‑esi, seen in Ved. ‑asi, YAv. ‑ahi, Go. ‑is, OIr. biri, La.
‑is, Hi. tiyaši | Sihler 1995: 459–460: PIE *‑si is preserved in Hi. ‑ši, IIr.
*‑si; OCS ‑ši, containing *‑ī or a diphthong, is enigmatic; Gk. ‑εις reflects
*‑ει from *‑esi, plus ‑ς from secondary endings | Weiss 2009/2011:
384–385, 395: PIE athem. *‑si; OLi. esì probably reflects PBalt. *‑sei, which
seems to agree with OCS jesi; La. ‑is is from PIE them. *‑esi | Krahe
1942/1967: 96, 135–136: WGmc. forms point to PGmc. *‑is(i), while ONor.
berr points to *‑iz(i), both from PIE them. *‑esi; Go. is reflects PIE athem.
*esi | Boutkan 1995: 308, 310–313: PIE them. *‑eh₁i and athem. *‑si
merged to them. *‑esi in Gmc.; ohg ‑s, OSax. ‑is, OEng. ‑(e)s reflect *‑ési;
ONor. nemr reflects *´‑ezi | Kloekhorst 2008a: 751–752: Hi. ‑ši is from
PIE primary athem. *‑si and from athem. secondary *‑s plus present
marker *‑i
PBS
Olander 2009: 196: final accent in Slavic, e.g. ORu. živeší, is the regular out-
come of PIE them. *‑ési | Kortlandt 1979b/2009: 156–157: Li. ‑ì reflects
PIE them. *‑eh₁i, also found in Gk. and Celtic; when copula *esi was
314 chapter 4
replaced with *eseʔi in BS, the ending spread to other verb classes; Slavic
originally had four endings, ‑si in the copula, ‑sь in other athem. verbs,
‑ši in i-verbs, ‑šь in them. verbs.; the Slavic dialects generalised different
endings | Endzelīns 1971: 202–203: Baltic and Slavic athem. *‑sei may
be due to influence of them. *‑ei | Stang 1942: 225–230, 1966: 407–409:
Li. ‑i, refl. ‑íes(i), Lv. ‑i, refl. ‑iês from *‑íe may reflect *‑éi or *‑ái; OPr. ‑sei
may be a contamination of athem. *‑si and them. *‑ē̆i | Otrębski 1956:
181–182: Li. ‑i is from acute *‑ie < *‑ei; Li. ‑si is from *‑sie, also in OPr. waisei,
OCS věsi | Endzelīns 1923: 546–549: Lv. esi, Li. esì reflect *esíe, also in
OPr. assei, OCS jesi; Li. ‑i, Lv. ‑i may go back to PIE *‑ē̆i
PS
Vondrák 1908/1928: 112–113: CS *‑si reflects middle ending *‑sai, also in
OPr. assai ‘you (sg.) are’; Slavic (outside OCS) ‑šь reflects *‑si, with ‑š‑ <
*‑x‑ from verbs like *xvalisь, *vidisь; OCS ‑ši reflects *‑šь influenced by
*‑si | Meillet 1924/1934: 316–318: OCS postvocalic variant ‑š‑ for *‑s‑
has been introduced from verbs of the type *prosišь; ending of bereši,
prosiši may have arisen by contamination of them. *beri (with *‑i from
*‑ē̆i) and athem. *prosišь; it is possible that reflexes of *‑šь found in Slavic
dialects outside OCS represent a shortening of *‑ši | Stang 1942: 214–
215: OCS bereši has probably arisen by contamination of them. *beri (from
PIE *‑ē̆i, also in East Baltic *‑íe) and *prosišь, *jesь (from *‑si); Slavic forms
in ‑š have been shortened from ‑ši | Vaillant 1966: 8–10: Slavic ‑si, ‑ši
reflect *‑sēi, consisting of PIE athem. *‑si plus them. *‑ēi, still preserved
in East Baltic; Slavic ‑š‑ has been generalised from i-presents; apparent
Slavic reflexes of *‑šь are the results of a reduction of *‑ši | Arumaa
1985: 271–273: Baltic and Slavic point to (acute) *‑sei | Aitzetmüller
1978/1991: 176: PIE *‑si; Baltic and Slavic forms reflect *‑sei with *‑ei of
unclear origin, probably not reflecting alleged PIE them. *‑ei; Slavic ‑š‑
has been generalised from i-presents
PIE The Proto-Indo-European athematic ending *‑si consisted of the active

second-person singular marker *‑s‑ followed by the hic et nunc marker *‑i. In
the thematic ending, *‑si was preceded by the e-grade of the thematic vowel.
The endings are relatively well preserved in the old Indo-European languages.
It is possible that the Greek thematic present ‑εις, for expected *‑ει < *‑ehi < PIE
*‑esi, has its final *‑s from the secondary ending (e.g. Sihler loc. cit.). We may
also imagine, perhaps more plausibly, that the entire ending was replaced with
‑εις, remade after the new present third-person singular ending ‑ει by analogy
with the secondary endings 2sg. ‑ες, 3sg. ‑ε (from *‑et) (Hoenigswald 1986; 1998:
254; Rasmussen 1987a/1999: 118, 145; Kümmel 1997: 121). An attestation of the
thematic second-person singular ending in Mycenaean would shed light on
the question, as a disyllabic form would favour the former view, whereas a
monosyllabic ending would favour the latter. I prefer an analogical solution

to the assumption of a metathesis of word-final *i and a preceding dental, as
assumed by P. Kiparsky (1967: 112) in order to account both for this form and for
the third-person singular (see also Rix loc. cit.).
A number of scholars posit a Proto-Indo-European primary thematic end-
ing *‑ē̆i ̯ or *‑eh₁i (e.g. Brugmann loc. cit.; van Wijk 1916; Meillet loc. cit.; Beekes
loc. cit.; Kortlandt loc. cit.), allowing for a more straightforward explanation of
the Baltic ending and, less directly, OCS ‑si, ‑eši and Gk. ‑εις. As mentioned
above, however, Gk. ‑εις can be explained on the basis of an ending *‑esi, and,
as we shall see below, the Slavic material does not provide a good argument for
this reconstruction either.
Thus we are left with the Baltic ending as the only real evidence of PIE them.
*‑ē̆i ̯ or *‑ehi. Since regular reflexes of them. *‑esi, the ending expected on the
basis of internal reconstruction, are attested in a number of languages, I find it
unattractive to assume an additional primary thematic ending (or set of end-
ings) in order to explain only the Baltic material (see also e.g. Hilmarsson 1978:
20–21; Cowgill 1985a/2006: 107; 2006: 553–554; Rasmussen 1987a/1999: 118–122;
Szemerényi 1996/1999: 236–238).
PBS PIE athem. *‑si, them. *‑esi yielded PBS *‑si, *‑ˈesi. The athematic end-
ing is perhaps preserved in OLi. éssi, with initial accentuation indicating a
non-acute short final syllable (see below). The thematic ending is most likely
reflected in PS*‑exi (CS *‑ešь), with secondary *x (see below). Both Baltic and
Slavic show several remade variants of the inherited endings. The most difficult
problems in Baltic and Slavic are, as I see it, the final diphthong found in the end-
ing in Old Prussian and perhaps in Slavic, and the ending without *s in East Baltic.
Old Prussian shows the thematic ending in the forms giwassi 2 ×, gīwasi 1 ×,
where the inherited thematic vowel *‑e‑ has been replaced with ‑a‑, as in the
third-person form (§ 4.9). The final vowel ‑i probably represents a diphthong
(Stang 1966: 408), also found in OPr. athem. assai, assei. The Old Prussian end-
ing is usually identified with OCS athem. ‑si, them. ‑eši (see below), but in my
view it is more likely that the diphthong arose in the prehistory of Old Prussian,
perhaps originating in the first-person singular (see § 4.3.1).
As for the lacking *‑s in the East Baltic thematic ending, I noted above
that, difficult as the Baltic ending may be, I do not think it justifies the
reconstruction of an additional ending in Proto-Indo-European. The idea
has been put forward that the starting point was the second-person singu-
lar of the verb ‘to be’, *ˈesi, which was reinterpreted as *ˈes‑i, leading to the
replacement of the thematic ending *‑e‑si with *‑e‑i (Rasmussen 1987a/1999:
118–122; Kümmel 1997: 121 n. 13; Petit 2010: 243); the suggestion also works if
one assumes that *‑a‑si, with analogical o-grade in Baltic as seen in OPr. ‑asi,
316 chapter 4
was replaced with *‑a‑i. While Rasmussen regards this as a pre-Proto-Balto-

Slavic process, it is more probable that it took place at a later, post-Proto-
Baltic pre-stage of East Baltic—first, because there are no traces of the s-less
ending in West Baltic and Slavic; and second, because it is more likely that
PS them. *‑exi (CS *‑ešь) and OPr. ‑asi are based on PIE *‑esi rather than on
an intermediate, Proto-Balto-Slavic ending *‑ei̯. It is not clear whether the
acute tone of the ending, shown by Li. refl. vedíes(i), arose when the ending
was remade, or if it was introduced by analogy with the thematic first-person
singular ending.
While the idea of a reanalysis perhaps does not put an end to the discussion,
it does at least provide an internal East Baltic explanation that is preferable to
projecting the problem back to the Indo-European proto-language. An alter-
native—though in my opinion less plausible—internal East Baltic solution
has been suggested by Hilmarsson (1978), who assumes that reflexive second-
person singular forms with secondary endings such as *vedes‑si > *vedesi were
reanalysed as *vede‑si and subsequently extended with *‑i from the present of
the verb ‘to be’.
As mentioned above, Old Lithuanian forms like éssi point to a non-acute
ending in the athematic form; essí, eͣssiégu are likely to be secondary, like refl.
vedíes(i) (see above); cf. the parallel discussion of OLi. 1sg. ésmi (see § 4.3.1, also
for references).
From the preceding paragraphs it should be clear that I consider the final
diphthongs found in Baltic to be independent innovations of East and West
Baltic, respectively. This means that the vocalism of OCS ‑si, ‑ši does not neces-
sarily reflect a diphthong *‑ē̆i,̯ as is usually believed, but may instead go back
to *‑ī.
PS On the basis of the attested Slavic material we may reconstruct PSathem.
*‑si (CS *‑sь [29]), and *‑sī (*‑si [29]) or *‑sē̆i ̯ (*‑si [22|29]); them. *‑eˈxi (CS
*‑ešь [21|29]; *‑ješь [21|29]), and *‑eˈxī (*‑eši [21|29]; *‑ješi [21|29]) or *‑eˈxē̆i ̯
(*‑eši [21|22|29]; *‑ješi [21|22|29]). The ending presents several difficulties.
Regarding the quantity of the final vowel, it is unclear if the apparent
reflexes of CS *‑ь are old or if they represent late shortenings of CS *‑i. The
long vowel is attested in early South and East Slavic texts, including the Old
Novgorod dialect (Stang 1969b: 133–134; Zaliznjak 1995/2004: 136, 138); it is also
found in modern Slavic dialects, mainly in the copula. Elsewhere reflexes of CS
*‑ь are found. Some authors assume that all instances of ‑ь have been short-
ened from ‑i (thus e.g. Meillet loc. cit.; Vaillant loc. cit.; Stieber 1969–1973/1989:
203–204; Mareš 1978: 204–205); Meillet adduces the apparently parallel loss of
unaccented ‑i attested in Ru. inf. být’, ipv. bud’ vs. nestí, nesí. I do not consider
this scenario more attractive than assuming that at least some instances of
final ‑ь reflect PS*‑i from PBS, PIE *‑i, a view that is also quite widespread in
the literature.
While the short vowel PS*‑i (CS *‑ь) historically presents no problems, the
long vowel or diphthong of the variant PS*‑ī or *‑ē̆i ̯ (CS *‑i) is enigmatic. CS
*‑i is usually connected with the final diphthong of OPr. ‑sai, ‑sei. However, as
seen above, Old Prussian also shows a diphthong in the first-person singular
and in the first- and second-person plural. The Old Prussian diphthong has,
in my opinion, most likely arisen in the first-person singular (§ 4.3.1), whence
it may have spread to the other persons and numbers. There is therefore no
particular reason to look for a historical connection between the diphthong in
the Old Prussian second-person singular ending and the possible diphthong of
the corresponding Slavic ending.
Before we dismiss the connection entirely, however, we ought to have a look
at the possibilities for an inherited diphthongal ending in the second-person
singular of the thematic present in Balto-Slavic. The first possibility is that
Proto-Indo-European had a primary thematic second-person singular ending
*‑ē̆i ̯ or *‑eh₁i. As noted above, evidence for a Proto-Indo-European primary the-
matic second-person singular ending *‑ē̆i ̯ or *‑eh₁i hardly exists outside Baltic.
Even if Proto-Balto-Slavic did have a thematic ending *‑ē̆i,̯ whether inherited
from Proto-Indo-European or created analogically in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic,
the contamination of this ending with the inherited athematic ending *‑si to
*‑sē̆i ̯ does not seem particularly straightforward.
Even less attractive is the proposal that the Baltic and Slavic second-per-
son singular ending reflects a middle ending *‑sai̯ (e.g. Milewski 1932: 21) or
*‑soi̯ (e.g. Cowgill 1985a/2006: 107; 2006: 554–555). The idea is unacceptable for
at least two reasons (see also Meillet 1908: 412; Kuznecov 1961: 92): first, the
middle endings have been lost everywhere in Balto-Slavic, and—in contrast
to the retention of a perfect ending in the first-person singular, which makes
good sense from a functional point of view (§ 4.3.2)—there is no reason why
a middle form should be preserved in the present second-person singular and
nowhere else. And second, Proto-Indo-European final *‑a/oi̯ in all probability
yielded PS*‑ai̯ [7] (CS *‑ě [22|29]) > OCS etc. ‑ě, not **‑i.
As there is no comparative evidence from outside Slavic for the final vowel
of the person–number marker CS *‑si, we can do no better than to reconstruct
a Proto-Slavic athematic ending *‑sī or *‑sē̆i,̯ and thematic *‑exī or *‑exē̆i ̯ along-
side inherited *‑si, *‑exi. I have not been able to find a plausible source of *‑ī or
*‑ē̆i,̯ nor a motivation for the partial substitution in Slavic of inherited *‑i with
a long vowel or diphthong.
Another irregularity appears in the thematic ending, where the ruki out-
come of *x cannot be regular. If it is correct that the contraction of *‑ei̯e‑ to *‑ī‑
[24|25] in Slavic ei̯e-verbs was a significantly later process than the ruki change
318 chapter 4
[12], it follows that the *x of Slavic is regular only in originally athematic verbs
whose root ended in *ī� ̆ i̯ ū̆ u̯ r k (similarly Kortlandt 1979b/2009: 157). When
these verbs were thematicised, *x was retained and spread to the other the-
matic verbs; only the few remaining athematic verbs retained old *s.
4.7 Preterite Second-Person Singular
4.7.1 Athematic Preterite Second-Person Singular
ps *ˈbēi ̯ / *ˈbī (CS *bi ̋ ), *ˌmer (*mȇr), pbs *ˌ‑s pie prt., inj. *‑s
*ˌbū (*by̑)
OCS bi, umrě, →umrětъ, by, →bystъ Li. – Ved. aor. inj. gāḥ
ORu. bi, ja, →jatъ, by, →bystь; ONovg. by Lv. – OAv. prs. inj. mraoš; YAv. ?
OCz. kry, mřě, by OPr. – Gk. aor. ἔβης
La. –
Go. –
Hi. →ēšta
PIE Brugmann 1913–1916: 408, 425–426, 609–610: OCS da, ję go back to *da‑s,
*jęs‑s; OCS 2sg. forms in ‑(s)tъ are from 3sg. | Beekes 1995/2011: 264:
OCS děla contains *‑ās | Rix 1976/1992: 243: Gk. ‑ς, Ved. ‑ḥ, Hi. ‑š are
from PIE *‑s | Sihler 1995: 459: Gk. ‑ς, Ved. ‑ḥ reflect PIE *‑s | Weiss
2009/2011: 386–387: La. ‑s, Gk. ‑ς are from PIE *‑s | Krahe 1942/1967:
– | Boutkan 1995: 361–362: Gmc. forms reflecting *dēs correspond to
Ved. root aor. ádhāḥ, with *‑si from prs. | Kloekhorst 2008a: 687: Hi.
‑š, found after vowels, reflects PIE *‑s; Hi. ‑tta, found after consonants, is
from ḫi-conjugation
PBS Olander 2009: – | Kortlandt 1979b/2009: 159: Slavic ‑tъ is originally
an enclitic ptcl. | Endzelīns 1971: 202–203: Li. ‑aĩ, Lv. ‑i replace earlier
*‑ās | Stang 1942: –, 1966: – | Otrębski 1956: 184: Li. vilkaĩ, Lv. vìlki
have been remade from *‑ās | Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 126: OCS 2–3sg. ‑tъ is due to influence from prs.
3sg. | Meillet 1924/ 1934: 322–323 | Stang 1942: 64–73, 219–223:
OCS 2–3sg. pitъ, bystъ are old root. aor. or ipfv. forms, perhaps contain-
ing pf. 2sg. ending PIE *‑to or *‑tos, also in Ved. véttha, Gk. οἶσθα, Go.
waist | Vaillant 1966: 54–56: 2sg. forms are from 3sg. | Arumaa
1985: 271–273, 276: Slavic da, bě reflect root or sigmatic aorists; forms like
OCS pětъ, dastъ may be from 3sg. | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 180, 185–

186: Slavic 2sg. forms are from 3sg.
PIE It is unclear if the Slavic athematic aorist formally continues Proto-Indo-

European root preterites or sigmatic aorists. It seems most likely, though, that
it continues both (see § 4.10.1). The Proto-Indo-European secondary athematic
second-person singular ending *‑s is preserved in Indo-Iranian and Greek.
PBS PIE *‑s was retained in Proto-Balto-Slavic, but is not preserved in the

Baltic languages.
PS PBS *‑s yielded PS*‑∅ [17]. The form with a zero ending is preserved in
the old Slavic dialects. The loss of word-final *‑s entailed the merger of the
preterite second-person singular forms with the third-person singular forms,
which had lost their *‑t in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic [9]. From this point onwards
the second- and third-person singular forms of the preterite have a common
development, most clearly seen in the addition of a new ending ‑tъ, originat-
ing in the present third-person singular. The second- and third-person singular
forms are treated together in § 4.10.1.
4.7.2 Thematic Preterite Second-Person Singular
ps *ˈsēde, *ˌu̯ede (CS *sě̋de, *vȅde) pbs *ˌ‑es pie prt., inj. *‑es
ocs sěde Li. – Ved. prs. inj. cáraḥ

ORu. sěde; ONovg. mъlvl’aše Lv. – OAv., YAv. prs. inj. jasō
OCz. sěde OPr. – Gk. ipf. ἔφερες
La. –
Go. –
Hi. daškeš
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 610: OCS ‑e is from *‑es | Beekes 1995/2011:
260: PIE *‑es | Rix 1976/1992: 243: Gk. ‑ες, Ved. ‑aḥ, OCS ‑e, Hi. daškeš
reflects PIE *‑es | Sihler 1995: 456, 459: Gk. ‑ες, Ved. ‑aḥ reflect PIE
*‑es | Weiss 2009/2011: 387: Ved. ‑aḥ is from PIE *‑es | Krahe
1942/1967: 102–103: OEng. bǣre, OSax. bāri, ohg bāri may reflect PIE
*‑es | Boutkan 1995: 334–335: WGmc. *‑i is from PIE them. aor. end-
ing *‑es or represents Gmc. pluperfect ending | Kloekhorst 2008a:
687–688
320 chapter 4
PBS Olander 2009: 197: unaccented PBS *ˌ‑es reflects PIE *‑és | Kortlandt
1979b/2009: 156: Slavic ‑e is from PIE *‑es | Endzelīns 1971:
202–203 | Stang 1942: –, 1966: – | Otrębski 1956: – | Endzelīns
1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 119: Slavic ‑e is from *‑es | Meillet 1924/1934:
322 | Stang 1942: 64: OCS ‑e reflects *‑es | Vaillant 1966: 16: Slavic
‑e is from *‑es | Arumaa 1985: – | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 179: OCS
‑e is from *‑es
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending *‑es consisted of the thematic vowel

followed by the second-person singular active secondary ending *‑s. The end-
ing is preserved in the old Indo-European languages that retain the secondary
endings.
PBS PIE *‑es is reflected as PBS *ˌ‑es [4]. The ending was lost in Baltic.
PS PBS *ˌ‑es yielded PS*ˌ‑e [17] (CS *‑e [29]), retained in the old Slavic dia-
lects. That the form was unaccented in Proto-Slavic cannot be seen in the par-
adigm of the thematic aorist, which only comprised immobile verbs (accent
paradigms a and b; see Dybo 1961: 37; Ackermann 2014: 23–24). In the para-
digm of the sigmatic aorist, however, the thematic second-person singular
form *ˌu̯ ede (CS *vȅde) makes this accentuation clear. This also applies to the
third-person singular form.
4.8 Imperative Second-Person Singular
4.8.1 Athematic Imperative Second-Person Singular
ps →*dādi ̯i (CS *dad’ь) pbs *‑i ̯ḛ̄s pie opt. *‑i ̯eh₁s
ocs daždь Li. – Ved. syā́ḥ

ORu. dažь; ONovg. vъdažь Lv. – OAv. x́ iiā̊; YAv. janiiā̊
OCz. věz OPr. →jeis Gk. εἴης
La. subj. →sīs; OLa. siēs
Go. prs. ind. →wileis
Hi. –
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 545–552: OCS ‑ždь somehow reflects PIE ipv. *‑dʰi
and opt. marker *‑i̯ē‑, perhaps originally in the verb daždь | Beekes
1995/2011: 275: PIE *‑i̯éh₁s | Rix 1976/ 1992: 261 | Sihler 1995:
552–553, 596: OLa. siēs, Gk. εἴης reflect PIE *‑i̯éh₁s; in later La., sī‑ was
generalised | Weiss 2009/2011: 416–417: OLa. siēs, Gk. εἴης reflect PIE
*‑i̯éh₁s | Krahe 1942/1967: 107, 110, 137, 141: Germ. has generalised *‑ī‑
from pl. | Boutkan 1995: 337–338, 463: Go. ‑eis reflects *‑ih₁s with
generalised zero grade | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS
– | Stang 1942: 247, 1966: 439: Li. dial. duõ is an old formation, perhaps
reflecting a PIE aor. ipv. | Otrębski 1956: – | Endzelīns 1923: 686: it
is very questionable if Lv. duod, Li. dial. dúodi reflect PIE *dōdʰi
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 120: OCS daždь has replaced *dadi̯ā | Meillet 1924/
1934: 331: it is unclear how PIE *ēdi̯ēs has resulted in CS *ědjь | Stang
1942: 241–242: OCS daždь for expected *‑i from PIE opt. *‑i̯ēs, *‑i̯ēt is
perhaps due to contamination of *‑’i and ‑ьjь, reflecting alternative opt.
endings PIE *‑i̯ēs and *‑ei̯əs; or it may be a contamination of *‑ždi and
*‑zdь from opt. *‑di̯ēs and ipv. *‑d‑dʰi | Vaillant 1966: 35–36: OCS ‑ždь
goes back to ‑ždi, with *‑ji (for *‑jě, *‑ja) from pl. forms | Arumaa 1985:
309–311: Slavic forms are unclear | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 193
PIE The Proto-Indo-European ending consisted of the full grade of the opta-

tive suffix *‑i̯éh₁‑ followed by the secondary second-person singular ending
*‑s. The ending is preserved in Indo-Iranian and Old Latin; in later Latin and
Germanic the zero grade *‑ih₁‑, originally appearing in the dual and plural, was
introduced in the singular.
PBS pie *‑i̯eh₁s yielded PBS *‑i̯ḛ̄s [1]. The ending is not preserved in Baltic.
PS The reflex of postconsonantal *i̯ in the attested Slavic forms of the athe-
matic imperative second- and third-person singular forms indicates that the
inherited alternation between PIE *‑i̯eh₁‑ in the singular and *‑ih₁‑ in the dual
and plural was preserved until a relatively late stage. However, the expected
reflex of PBS *‑i̯ḛ̄s, PS*‑i̯ē [13|17] (CS *‑ja [27|29]) is not found. Brugmann’s idea
(loc. cit.) that OCS daždь has arisen by contamination of PIE opt. *‑i̯eh₁‑s and
ipv. *‑dʰi is perhaps possible, but it requires that we assume that the imperative
existed alongside the optative until a late point in the prehistory of Slavic; how-
ever, we do not find any other indications of retention of the original impera-
tive formation in Slavic.
322 chapter 4
I find Vaillant’s solution (loc. cit.) more attractive. The inherited second- and
third-person singular form *dādi̯ē (or, depending on the relative chronology,
2sg. *dādi̯ēs, 3sg. *dādi̯ē) was first remade to *dādi̯ī (or 2sg. *dādi̯īs, 3sg. *dādi̯ī)
by analogy with the dual and plural marker *‑ī‑. Subsequently, and certainly
after the loss of word-final *‑s, the final vowel underwent shortening to *‑i (cf.,
somewhat differently, Vaillant 1930: 254–256). The irregular shortening, strictly
speaking, of a final vowel in the imperative form in pre-Proto-Slavic has a par-
allel in dialectal Lithuanian imperative forms like ím, as compared with refl.
iḿiẽs pointing to original *‑iẽ. The shortening in pre-Proto-Slavic did not have
any consequences for the morphological system. At the stage when *‑i̯ī was
shortened to *‑i̯i in the athematic imperative form, the imperative second- and
third-person singular forms of thematic presents still ended in a diphthong
*‑əi̯ (or the older form *‑ai̯ in the third-person singular), which could not be
shortened.
In this scenario all Slavic imperative forms may be derived from old optative
forms. It is not because of analogy that the second- and third-person singular
forms of the athematic imperative are identical in Slavic; these forms merged
phonologically. The drawback, of course, is that this requires the assumption
of an irregular shortening of final *‑ī to PS *‑i.
4.8.2 Thematic Imperative Second-Person Singular
ps *u̯eˈdəi̯ (CS *vedì; *pišì) pbs *‑ˈai ̯s pie opt. *‑oi ̯h₁s
ocs vedi; piši Li. dial. →ím(?); dial. Ved. bháreḥ

ORu. vedi; piši; ONovg. refl. →iḿiẽs(?) OAv. rapōiš; YAv. vī-δāraiiōiš
vъzьmi; vъdai Lv. →lìec(?) Gk. φέροις
OCz. vedi, ved’; piši, piš OPr. wedais, wedeys La. –
Go. bairais
Hi. –
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 557–561: Gk. φέροις, Ved. bháreḥ, Slavic beri
reflect PIE *‑ois | Beekes 1995/2011: 275: PIE *‑oih₁s | Rix 1976/
1992: 261 | Sihler 1995: 596–597: PIE *‑oi̯s | Weiss 2009/2011:
– | Krahe 1942/1967: 108: Go. ‑ais reflects PGmc. *‑aiz (> ONor. ‑ir, OEng.
‑e) or *‑ais (> OSax. ‑es, ohg ‑ēs), both from PIE *‑ois | Boutkan 1995:
321, 324: Go. ‑ais, ONor. ‑ir reflect PGmc. *‑ais < PIE *‑oih₁s | Kloekhorst
2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 198: PS*‑ˈai̯ reflects PBS *‑ˈais, the regular outcome of
PIE *‑ói̯h₁s | Kortlandt 1979b/2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 203:
OPr. immais, weddeis preserve old opt. form | Stang 1942: 247, 1966:
423–425, 434–440: OPr. wedais, Gk. ‑οις, Go. ‑ais, Ved. ‑eḥ reflect PIE opt.
*‑ois, also partly preserved in Li. dial. ím, refl. iḿiẽs, Lv. lìec | Otrębski
1956: 227: OLi., Li. dial. ipv. ‑i, OLi. refl. kęlieś may represent prs. 2sg.
form | Endzelīns 1923: 686: Lv. ved may represent PBalt. ipv. *vede
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 119–120: Slavic ‑i reflects *‑ois, with regular reflex of
*oi in final syllable closed by consonant | Meillet 1924/1934: 329–
330: Slavic ‑i is from *oi in final syllable | Stang 1942: 239: OCS ‑i is
from opt. *‑ois | Vaillant 1966: 35–36: Slavic 2–3sg. ‑i for *‑ě is from
athem. verbs | Arumaa 1985: 309–311: Slavic ‑i probably reflects PIE
*‑ois, with secondary acute tone; or it may be due to influence from i̯e-
verbs | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 192: OCS ‑i (for *‑ě) from *‑ois is due to
levelling with the types znaji and nosi
PIE pie *‑oi̯h₁s was made up by the thematic vowel *‑o‑, the optative suffix
*‑ih₁‑ and the secondary ending *‑s. While the laryngeal of the thematic opta-
tive suffix does not surface in any Indo-European language, its former presence
is made apparent by the acute tone of the suffix in the plural in Slavic, e.g. Čak.
(Novī) pecȉte (see Hollifield 1980: 27; Rasmussen 1989b: 223–225; cf. the differ-
ent approach of Jasanoff 2009b).
PBS pie *‑oi̯h₁s yielded PBS *‑ˈai̯s [1|7], preserved in OPr. wedais and in
Slavic. For the accentuation of the form see the third-person singular ending
(§ 4.11.2). It is questionable if the Latvian imperative and the Lithuanian k-less
imperative continue the old optative form (thus e.g. Stang loc. cit.); if they
do, the process by which final *‑s disappeared is unclear, as it is generally in
the East Baltic second-person singular forms. The Latvian imperative forms
are sometimes thought to reflect the original Proto-Indo-European thematic
imperative in *‑e (e.g. Forssman 2001: 212), but I agree with Stang (1966: 435–
436) that this is not likely.
PS pbs *‑ˈai̯s yielded PS*‑ˈəi̯ [12|17] (CS *‑i [22|29]; *‑ji [20|22|29]), preserved
in the old Slavic dialects. The ending triggers the second palatalisation [23]
of a stem-final velar outside the Old Novgorod dialect, e.g. PS*peˈkəi̯ (CS
*pek||cì [22|23|29]) > OCS pьci, showing that the ending did indeed contain a
diphthong.
324 chapter 4
4.9 Present Third-Person Singular
Athematic present third-person singular
PS *esˈti (CS *jèstь) PBS *‑ti PIE *‑ti
ocs jestъ, jestь (rare), je Li. 3ps. ẽsti; OLi. refl. Ved. ásti
ORu. jestь, je; ONovg. jestь, je důstis OAv. astī; YAv. asti
OCz. jest, je; OPo. (rare) jeść Lv. 3ps. iêt Gk. ἐστί
OPr. 3ps. ast, 3sg. La. est
→astits Go. ist
Hi. →ēšzi, ēšza (OS) (rare)
Thematic present third-person singular
ps *u̯edeˈti (CS *vedètь; *píšetь) pbs *‑ˈeti pie *‑eti
ocs vedetъ, pridetь (rare), bǫde Li. 3ps. →vẽda; refl. Ved. bhárati
(rare); pišetъ, bьjetь (rare), igraje →vẽdas(i) OAv. baraⁱtī; YAv. baraⁱti
(rare) Lv. 3ps. →vȩ̀lk; refl. Gk. →φέρει; Myc. →e‑ke
ORu. vedetь; pišetь; ONovg. →ceļ̂as /ekʰei/
poidetь, poide; šletь, prisъle OPr. 3ps. →senrīnka La. legit
OCz. vede; píše Go. bairiþ
Hi. →daškizzi
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 582, 610–616: PIE athem. *‑ti, them. *‑eti are pre-
served in ORu. ‑tь, ‑etь; in Baltic, ‑a reflects old inj. sg. form, with vocalism
from 1pl. Li. ‑ame; Gk. ἄγει is created on the analogy of 2sg. ἄγεις | Beekes
1995/2011: 259–260: PIE athem. *‑ti; PIE them. *‑e was preserved in ORu. ‑e
and enlarged by a ptcl. ‑tъ in ocs; Gk. them. ‑ει contains *‑e plus primary
*‑i | Rix 1976/1992: 251: Gk. athem. ‑σι, ‑τι are from PIE *‑ti; Gk. them.
‑ει probably reflects *‑ei̯t by metathesis from PIE *‑eti | Sihler 1995:
461–463: OCS ‑tъ is unexpected for ‑tь from PIE *‑ti; OCS ‑e, Baltic forms,
Gk. ‑ει point to PIE them. t-less ending, alongside *‑eti | Weiss 2009/
2011: 385: athem. ORu. jestь reflects PIE *‑ti; OCS ‑tъ and Slavic endingless
forms are unclear, but may be due to an early loss of ‑ь followed either
by loss of ‑t or addition of a paragogic vowel ‑ъ | Krahe 1942/1967: 96,

135–136: OEng. ‑eð, OSax. ‑iđ reflect PGmc. *‑iþ(i), while Go. ‑iþ, OSax. ‑id,
ohg. ‑it reflect PGmc. *‑iđ(i), both from PIE *‑eti; Go., OSax., ohg ist
reflect PIE athem. *ésti | Boutkan 1995: 308, 310–313: PIE them. *‑e
and athem. *‑ti merged to them. *‑eti in Gmc.; OEng., OSax. reflect *‑éti,
whereas ohg, Go., ONor. reflect *´‑eti | Kloekhorst 2008a: 1035: occa-
sional Hi. ‑za /‑tˢ/ reflects PIE *‑ti, whereas Hi. ‑zi shows reintroduced ‑i
PBS
Olander 2009: 196: PS them. *‑eˈti has arisen by Dybo’s law from PBS *‑ˈeti
< PIE *‑éti | Kortlandt 1979b/2009: 157–160: CS had *‑e(tъ) in e-prs.,
*‑ītъ in ei̯e-prs., *‑tь in athem. prs.; CS *‑e directly reflects PIE them.
*‑e; *‑tъ is an encl. ptcl.; *‑ti reflects PIE athem. *‑ti; Baltic them. 3ps.
‑a represents merger of 3pl. *‑a < PIE *‑o with 3sg., where *‑a replaced
PIE *‑e | Endzelīns 1971: 203–204: Baltic 3ps. ending continues 3sg.
ending; OPr. ast, astits, Li. ẽst, Lv. iêt, Slavic jestь reflect *‑ti; OPr. polīnka,
Li. juñta, Lv. jū̀t, refl. jū̀tas, OCS sęde have secondary ending *‑t | Stang
1942: 230–234, 1966: 409–416: Li. ‑ti, Lv. ‑t, OPr. ‑t, ‑tits go back to PIE
*‑ti; Baltic them. forms reflect PIE secondary active ending *‑t; OPr.
‑ts is pron. *tas | Otrębski 1956: 183–184: Li. 3ps. forms reflect 3sg.
forms | Endzelīns 1923: 549–551, 652: PIE athem. *‑ti is preserved in
Lv. iêt, OLi. eĩti, OPr. ēit, Slavic jestь, Ved. éti, Gk. ἔστι; Lv. mȩt, refl. mȩtas,
Li. mẽta, OPr. polīnka have *‑a for *‑e by analogy with other forms; *‑e cor-
responding to OCS prs. sęde, OIr. ·beir reflects PIE 3sg. secondary ending
*‑et; 3pl. form was lost in Baltic because it was homonymous with act. ptc.
neut. nom. sg.
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 113–115: CS *‑tь from *‑ti is preserved in ORu. and in
OPo. jeść; OCS ‑tъ is the result of an early hardening of *‑tь | Meillet
1924/1934: 319–320: ORu. ‑tь preserves the original ending; with the
weakening of the jers, *‑tь became OCS ‑tъ or disappeared together with
*‑t‑ | Stang 1942: 215–219: Ru. estь, ORu., Ru. dial. ‑etь, ‑itь preserve PIE
ending; Slavic *beretь was shortened irregularly to *beret, yielding *bere in
most dialects with loss of *‑t, but beretъ in OCS with addition of *‑ъ; OCS
athem. presents showing ‑tь have probably preserved original ending in
disyllabic forms | Vaillant 1966: 10: Slavic ‑tъ and ‑∅ have arisen by a
reduction of *‑ti to *‑t, with subsequent addition of a vowel or loss of *‑t;
Baltic ‑a represents a reduction of *‑eti, with a-vocalism from 1pl. ‑am‑,
3pl. *‑anti | Arumaa 1985: 273–277: PIE *‑ti yielded CS *‑tь; Slavic ‑∅,
‑tъ have arisen as a result of the weakening of final *‑ь | Aitzetmüller
1978/1991: 177: ORu. ‑tь, OPo. jeść reflect PIE *‑ti; OCS ‑tъ is the regular
result of the hardening of ‑t’ь, influenced by the secondary ending *‑t
326 chapter 4
PIE The Proto-Indo-European athematic ending *‑ti consisted of the active

third-person singular marker *‑t‑ and the hic et nunc marker *‑i. In Hittite the
regular reflex of PIE *‑ti was /‑tˢ/, written ‑za; this ending is preserved in a few
instances. In most cases ‑i was reintroduced by analogy with the remaining
forms of the present paradigm (Kloekhorst loc. cit.; Melchert 1994: 183).
The thematic ending was *‑eti, preserved in Indo-Iranian, Latin, Old Irish
(berid), Germanic and Slavic. In Greek, original *‑eti was replaced with ‑ει, Myc.
/‑ei/ by an analogical development: inj. (ipf.) 2sg. *(e)pʰeres : 3sg. *(e)pʰere ::
prs. 2sg. *pʰeresi : 3sg. X, where X = *pʰerei (Hoenigswald 1986; 1998: 254; see
also Kümmel 1997: 121–122). Attempts have been made to explain Gk. ‑ει as the
phonetically regular outcome of PIE *‑eti (P. Kiparsky 1967; Rix loc. cit. [but cf.
Beekes 1990b: 325: “Rix has told me that he no longer holds this view.”]; Cowgill
1985a/2006: 100–103; 2006: 536–545; Rasmussen 1987a/1999: 145, accepting
Cowgill’s view; Willi 2012); Cowgill (1985a/2006: 100), for instance, assumes that
“voiceless [. . .] dental stops, aspirated or not, preceded by a short, unaccented,
non-high, non-nasal vowel and followed by word-final ‑i disappeared in the
prehistory of all Greek dialects”. The ad hoc character of this sound law is evi-
dent. While the possibility of such a development perhaps cannot be ruled out,
I find it more attractive to assume an analogical process.
According to some researchers, there was no thematic ending *‑eti in the
proto-language; the ending instead was *‑e (Toporov 1961: 66–67; Watkins 1969:
213–214, 218–219; 1970: 169 [PIE *‑e alongside *‑o, preserved in Baltic]; Kortlandt
loc. cit.; 1997/2007: 108–109; Beekes 1981: 23–24; loc. cit.; Boutkan loc. cit.; Sihler
1995: 461–463 reconstructs PIE them. *‑ei̯). The original ending survives in the
Slavic present third-person singular forms in ‑e. In Greek a present marker *‑i
was added, yielding ‑ει. Celtic and Tocharian material is also adduced as evi-
dence of an original ending *‑e. According to this view, the primary and sec-
ondary athematic endings and the secondary thematic endings were part of
one system, to which the primary thematic endings did not belong. This view
contrasts with the traditional view, where the system is to a high degree sym-
metrical, the single exception being athem. 1sg. *‑mi vs. them. *‑oh.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with this assumption, positing
an extra set of endings should be very well supported by the data in order to
be justified. However, such a view implies that at least Indo-Iranian, Latin,
Germanic and some Slavic dialects carried out an identical, non-trivial innova-
tion, viz. the conflation of thematic *‑e and athematic *‑ti to thematic *‑eti, not
only in the third-person singular, but also, mutatis mutandis, in the second-
person singular and third-person plural. I find this assumption highly unlikely
compared to the traditional Proto-Indo-European reconstructions, 2sg. *‑esi,
3sg. *‑eti, 3pl. *‑onti. For Celtic and Tocharian see Cowgill 1985a/2006: 103–105;
2006: 546–548.
PBS PIE athem. *‑ti, them. *‑eti remained *‑ti, *‑ˈeti in Proto-Balto-Slavic. As

for the athematic ending, it is preserved as ‑ti in Lithuanian, e.g. ẽsti. Latvian
has a remnant of *‑ti in iêt ‘goes, go’. Old Prussian preserves the athematic end-
ing in the words ast (and, with an enclitic, astits), ēit, dāst.
The Baltic thematic third-person form in -a reflects the thematic third-per-
son singular secondary ending *‑ed, with regular loss of *‑d and replacement of
the thematic vowel with *‑a‑ by analogy with the endings of the first dual, the
first plural, and, possibly, the original third plural.
PS PBS athem. *‑ti, them. *‑ˈeti were retained as PS*‑ti (CS *‑tь [29]),
*‑eˈti [13] (CS *‑etь [29]; *‑jetь [29]). The original forms are preserved in
East Slavic, including Old Russian, and in the rare Old Polish variant jeść,
alongside jest. They are sporadically found in the Old Church Slavonic texts,
especially in athematic verbs (see Diels 1932–1934/1963: 227; cf., however, Vaillant
1948/1964: 227).
However, we also find two unexpected sets of endings: ‑tъ, ‑etъ in Old
Church Slavonic and ‑∅, ‑e in all of West Slavic as well as in South and East
Slavic dialects. For the distribution of the endings see Miller 1988: 8–16. The
situation in the present third-person singular is paralleled by the one observ-
able in the third-person plural, where we find reflexes of PS*‑inti, *‑anti in East
Slavic, but ‑ętъ, ‑ǫtъ in Old Church Slavonic and *‑ę, *‑ǫ in various dialects.
The following discussion of the third-person singular forms is also relevant
for the third-person plural forms.
As for the Slavic thematic short ending ‑e, the idea that it is simply an archa-
ism preserving the original Proto-Indo-European ending, represented by e.g.
Watkins, Kortlandt and Beekes, has been criticised above.
An alternative view points to the interaction between primary and second-
ary endings observable in other verbal endings, tracing the short ending back
to the Proto-Indo-European secondary ending (e.g. Fortunatov 1908: 29–32;
Kul’bakin 1929: 307; 1961: 102–103; apparently also Belić 1932 [see Vaillant 1932a:
243] in a publication that was not accessible to me). A related view maintains
that in certain North-West Russian dialects there is a semantic difference in
the third-person singular and plural between a “current present” (“актуальное
настоящее”) in ‑t and a “not current present” (“неактуальное настоящее”) in
‑∅ (Ryko 2000). A similar phenomenon has been observed in Old Novgorod
texts, where short forms are found mainly in conditional and final clauses
(Zaliznjak 1995/2004: 137). Since the function of the “not current” forms resem-
ble that of the Indo-Iranian injunctive, it is suggested that there is a relation-
ship between the Slavic short forms and a Proto-Indo-European injunctive
form in *‑∅ or *‑t (Ryko 2000: 129–132; Zaliznjak 1995/2004: 137 refers to this
suggestion as an attractive idea [“привлекательная идея”]). To me, however, it
328 chapter 4
seems more likely that the distribution of forms in ‑t and ‑∅ in Russian dialects
is secondary.
The zero ending has also been explained as the direct reflex of PIE *‑ti,
through an apocope of *‑i and then, since final stops were not allowed at this
stage, loss of *‑t (e.g. Meillet loc. cit.; Stang 1942: 218; 1969b: 136–139; loc. cit.;
Cowgill 2006: 550–551). I find this hypothesis most attractive. In general, older
Slavic texts present forms with ‑t, whereas the short forms are found at younger
stages. While the language of the Old Church Slavonic texts usually has forms in
‑tъ, the dialects most closely related to Old Church Slavonic, namely Bulgarian
and Macedonian, usually show the short forms. Likewise, while forms in ‑tь
are dominant in Old Russian, the short forms are found in modern Russian
dialects. Even in dialects where no direct traces of PS*t are found in the third-
person forms, the former presence of an additional syllable is indicated by the
quantity of the final vowel in forms like Štk. prs. 3sg. nèsē, prs. 3pl. nèsū, Po.
wiodą, OCz. vedou (Meillet 1913a: 235; Kümmel 1997: 121 n. 14; Cowgill 2006: 551;
see also Kortlandt loc. cit., on Čak. [Vrgada] ‑ẽ, Slk. ‑ie pointing to a lost jer; but
cf. Vondrák 1908/1928: 113 and Endzelīns 1931/1979: 582–583, according to whom
the long vowel in the singular is analogical from the plural). As pointed out by
Stang (1969b: 138) the loss of *‑ti was facilitated by the fact that the forms were
undoubtedly very frequent and often relatively long, and that even the short-
ened third-person endings were easily recognisable by the speakers.
The hypothesis of a sporadic development of PS*‑ti to *‑t to ‑∅ in the third-
person singular and plural forms of the present in Slavic is not unproblem-
atic. The details of the development and the scenario in which it took place
are most conveniently treated together with the Old Church Slavonic reflex of
PS*‑ti, viz. ‑tъ, in these forms.
The endings found in Old Church Slavonic are athem. ‑tъ, them. ‑etъ, along-
side less common instances of ‑tь, ‑etь and ‑∅, ‑e. There is no agreement on
the origin of the element ‑tъ, usually thought to be identical with the ‑tъ found
in certain monosyllabic aorist second- and third-person singular forms in
Old Church Slavonic (see § 4.10.1). In the following I shall give an overview of
the most important approaches to the problem (see also Stang 1942: 216–217;
Kuznecov 1961: 94–96; Miller 1988: 16–19).
Fortunatov (1908) identifies OCS ‑tъ with OPr. ‑ts, e.g. in astits, tracing it
back to a Proto-Balto-Slavic demonstrative pronoun *tas which was added as
an enclitic to the secondary ending in Slavic (see also van Wijk 1916: 116, who
thinks that “Fortunatov in der guten Richtung gesucht hat”). However, it is dif-
ficult to understand why, in Fortunatov’s scenario, secondary endings should
be used in the present tense. Besides, the use of ‑tъ not only in the singular but
also in the plural in Slavic requires additional hypotheses which make the idea
less attractive; note that in Old Prussian, ‑ts is only used with singular subjects.
There is also no good evidence for the enclitic use of pronouns at the relevant
pre-stage of Slavic. Further criticism of the hypothesis has been adduced e.g.
by Meillet (1913a: 234–235), van Wijk (1918: 112–114), Stang (1942: 216: “unhalt-
bar”, 219; 1969b: 135), Obnorskij (1953: 117–118) and Cowgill (1985a/2006: 106;
2006: 551–552).
According to a related view, OCS ‑tъ in the present third-person singular
and plural and the aorist second- and third-person singular is an enclitic par-
ticle *tu ‘then’, apparently also seen in OPr. tīt ‘thus’ and stwi ‘here’ (Kortlandt
1979b/2009: 159; 1998/2009: 285; in 1979b: 62 Kortlandt followed Fortunatov, but
see Kortlandt 1985: 113 n. 1 [removed in 1985/2009: 52]). In OPr. ‑ts the particle
had been reanalysed as a pronoun and received an additional *‑s. As long as
the existence of such a particle is not confirmed by more transparent evidence,
and its function and the motivation for its introduction in third-person forms
only have not been established, this hypothesis is difficult to accept.
Phonetically, OCS ‑tъ may reflect PIE ipv. 3sg. *‑tu, e.g. Ved. ástu (Forssman
1981; cf. Hackstein 2007: 147 n. 40, who suggests that the Old Church Slavonic
reflex ‑tъ from PIE *‑ti may be partly due to influence from the imperative
ending). However, it is hard to believe that an imperative form would be used
in the present indicative (see also Stang 1942: 216).
Finally, several scholars have advanced hypotheses wherein OCS ‑tъ directly
reflects PIE *‑ti. Some scholars are not concerned with the details of this
development, e.g. Berneker (1904: 370–371) and Pedersen (1905a: 322). Others
are more explicit, e.g. Aitzetmüller (1978/1991: 177), who maintains that *‑t’ь
was depalatalised to ‑tъ, a development also suggested by others, e.g. Vondrák
(1908: 135). This development is difficult to understand if ь was still a real
(front) vowel at the relevant time; and it certainly was, since the change must
have been carried out before the earliest attested Old Church Slavonic texts.
Lekov (1934: 85–86) has suggested that the substitution of the palatalised *t in
the primary ending *‑tь with the unpalatalised *t in the secondary ending *‑t
entailed a change of *‑ь to *‑ъ (Lekov’s publication is not accessible to me, but
see Stang 1942: 217, also with criticism of the view). I do not find this morpho-
logical development realistic.
Among the views that ‑tъ somehow reflects *‑ti, a more fruitful approach
is taken by Stang (1942: 217–219; 1969b: 134) and Vaillant (1950: 207–208; loc.
cit.), elaborating on Meillet’s views (Meillet 1913a, loc. cit.; see also Cowgill
2006: 550–551). According to these scholars, inherited *‑tь was shortened to
*‑t, which yielded either ‑∅ or, with a paragogic vowel, ‑tъ. As pointed out by
Stang (1942: 217–218), the further history of the form shows that it was subject
to irregular treatment in the individual Slavic languages. Although the hypoth-
esis of an irregular loss of *‑i is not without its weaknesses, it is, in my opinion,
the one that most convincingly accounts for the facts.
330 chapter 4
One problematic aspect of this view is that the assumed loss of the final
vowel created a closed syllable at a time where only open syllables were
allowed (Aitzetmüller loc. cit.). To overcome this difficulty we must imagine
a scenario where the reflexes of Proto-Slavic final *‑u, *‑i, *‑ə could be omit-
ted in informal speech but were preserved in neutral speech. Subsequently the
informal endings entered into the neutral register. Due to the restriction on
word-final consonants in this register, final *‑t either developed into *‑∅ or, as
in Old Church Slavonic, received a paragogic vowel ‑ъ. I find it unlikely that it
was original forms in PIE *‑t which received a paragogic vowel, as suggested by
Andersen (1998a: 445); the forms in *‑t had already disappeared in pre-Proto-
Balto-Slavic [9].
Apparent reflexes of earlier *‑tъ are also found in East Slavic, e.g. modern
Russian nesët. These forms are the relatively recent results of a phonetic hard-
ening of older ‑t’ and are thus not genealogically identical to the Old Church
Slavonic forms in ‑tъ (see e.g. Kuznecov 1956: 175–178; Stang 1969b: 135; cf.
V. Kiparsky 1967: 189–190 with an overview of hypotheses). The hardening of
ORu. ‑tь > ‑t’ to Ru. ‑t is sometimes mentioned as a parallel to the development
of CS *‑tь to OCS ‑tъ (e.g. Berneker 1904: 370–371). In my view, however, we are
dealing with two different types of processes: in the case of Old Church Slavonic,
an irregular loss of a final vowel followed by the addition of a paragogic vowel;
in the case of the Russian development, a depalatalisation of final ‑t’.
4.10 Preterite Third-Person Singular
4.10.1 Athematic Preterite Third-Person Singular
ps *ˈbēi̯ / *ˈbī (CS *bi ̋ ), *ˌmer (*mȇr), *ˌbū (*by̑) pbs *ˌ‑∅ pie prt., inj. *‑d
ocs bi; umrě, →umrětъ; by, →bystъ Li. – Ved. aor. inj. gā́t
ORu. bi; ja, →jatъ; by, →bystь; ONovg. by Lv. – OAv., YAv. prs. inj. mraot̰
OCz. kry; mřě; by OPr. – Gk. aor. ἔβη
La. –
Go. –
Hi. →ēšta (OS)
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 408, 425–426, 615–616: OCS ję reflects *jęs‑t; OCS
umrětъ from older umrě has ‑tъ from prs. | Beekes 1995/2011: 264: OCS
děla reflects *‑āst | Rix 1976/1992: 243: Gk. ‑∅, Ved. ‑t, Hi. ‑t reflect
PIE *‑t | Sihler 1995: 460–461: Gk. ‑∅ reflects PIE *‑t, preserved in

IIr. and Hi. | Weiss 2009/2011: 386–387: Gk. ‑∅, Ved. ‑t are from PIE
*‑t | Krahe 1942/ 1967: – | Boutkan 1995: 361–362: Gmc. forms
reflecting *dēþ correspond to Ved. root aor. ádhāt, with *‑þ for *‑t from
prs. *‑þ(i) | Kloekhorst 2008a: 800–801: Hi. postconsonantal ‑tta
reflects PIE middle ending *‑to
PBS
Olander 2009: – | Kortlandt 1979b/2009: 159: Slavic ‑tъ is originally
an enclitic ptcl. | Endzelīns 1971: 203–204 | Stang 1942: –, 1966: –
| Otrębski 1956: 184: Li. bùvo is from *‑āt | Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: – | Meillet 1924/1934: 322–323 | Stang 1942:
64–73, 219–222: Slavic 3sg. ending ‑tъ is from 2sg. | Vaillant 1966:
54–56: Slavic ‑tъ reflects secondary ending *‑t | Arumaa 1985: 276–
277: Slavic da reflects sigm. aor. *dast; forms like OCS pětъ, dastъ have
‑(s)tъ from prs. | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 180, 185–186: OCS ‑tъ reflects
*‑t plus paragogic vowel; long vowel of SCr. pȋ points to *‑t or ‑tъ; OCS
dastъ is prs. form; OCS by, da reflect root aor. *bʰūt, *dāt
PIE While Slavic verbal roots ending in an obstruent have thematic forms

in the second- and third-person singular, stems ending in a vowel or a sono-
rant have athematic forms in Old Church Slavonic, ending either in ‑∅, e.g. bi,
umrě, by, or in ‑tъ, ‑stъ, e.g. umrětъ, bystъ. Due to the loss of word-final obstru-
ents [9|17] it cannot be determined with certainty if the Slavic athematic aorist
forms reflect original root preterites or sigmatic aorists. That we are dealing
with sigmatic aorists is suggested by the remaining forms of the paradigm in
Slavic, where we find clear remnants of *‑s‑, e.g. 1sg. OCS bixъ, umrěxъ, byxъ.
On the other hand, most Slavic athematic aorists seem to correspond to root
aorists in other Indo-European languages; it is easy to imagine that the merger
of the root and sigmatic aorists in the second- and third-person singular forms
led to the generalisation of the latter type in the remaining forms of the aorist
paradigm.
Stang (loc. cit.) argues in favour of the idea that Old Church Slavonic ath-
ematic aorist third-person singular forms ending in ‑tъ reflect old root preter-
ites, whereas forms in ‑∅ reflect old sigmatic aorists. This view may be correct,
although I do not see any fully conclusive evidence in the material. Since the *s
of the sigmatic aorist may have been conceived as a suffix in Proto-Slavic and
certainly was one in Proto-Indo-European, the question of whether the Slavic
forms reflect original root preterites or sigmatic aorists is not strictly relevant
to a discussion of Proto-Slavic inflectional endings.
The Proto-Indo-European secondary ending was *‑d, the pure person–
number marker, which was preserved in Indo-Iranian and regularly lost in final
position in Greek.
332 chapter 4
PBS pie *‑d was lost in Proto-Balto-Slavic [5|9]. The athematic ending is not
preserved in Baltic.
PS PBS *‑∅ is continued as PS*‑∅. The zero ending is found in the type
PS*ˈbēi̯ / *ˈbī (CS *bi̋ ), which has an accented acute root-syllable, as shown by
Štk. bȉ (cf. van Wijk 1926; Stang 1957/1965: 134–135). This type may most likely
be traced directly back to a Proto-Indo-European sigmatic aorist *bʰḗi̯hst, and
does not have a variant form in ‑tъ in Old Church Slavonic.
By contrast, the aorist of verbs like OCS umrěti usually presents a second-
and third-person singular ending ‑tъ in conservative Old Church Slavonic man-
uscripts, viz. umrětъ; these forms were unaccented in Proto-Slavic, as shown by
Štk. mrȉje, ȕmrije. Less conservative Old Church Slavonic texts and the remain-
ing Slavic languages, including the Old Novgorod dialect, generally do not pre-
serve the ending ‑(s)tъ, e.g. OCS (Codex Suprasliensis) umrě and the Štokavian
form ȕmrije mentioned above. A variant of the umrětъ type is constituted by
the athematic verbs OCS byti, dati, jasti, which have aorist second- and third-
person singular forms in ‑stъ (bystъ, dastъ, jastъ) and in ‑∅ (by, da); these forms
are also unaccented, cf. e.g. Štk. bȋ, dȍbī. Тhe ‑s‑ appearing before ‑tъ in these
forms has probably been introduced by analogy with the present forms OCS
jestъ, dastъ, jastъ. Similarly, the Old Russian variants bystь, dastь etc. formed
from athematic verbs have ‑stь from the present forms.
Stang (1942: 67, 73) argues against regarding the variants without ‑tъ, i.e. the
type OCS umrě, by, as old. Instead he considers them to be more recent forms
that have arisen under the influence of the type OCS bi (see also e.g. Vaillant
loc. cit.; Rix et al. 1998/2001: 99 n. 10). It should not be forgotten, however, that
the forms without ‑(s)tъ are attested all over the Slavic world, whereas the ‑(s)
tъ forms find only limited support outside Old Church Slavonic. This fact lends
more weight to the view that regards the forms without ‑(s)tъ as the more
original ones. I do not agree with Vaillant (loc. cit.) and Aitzetmüller (loc. cit.)
that the accentuation of SCr. 2–3sg. pȋ (cf. 1sg. pȉh) presupposes the presence
of a final syllable *‑tъ. While it is true that Proto-Slavic final long vowels are
shortened in Serbo-Croatian, this does not hold true for monosyllables, cf. for
instance 2sg. pron. nom. SCr. tȋ from PS*ˌtū, where there is no reason whatso-
ever to assume a late loss of a final syllable.
As for the etymological substance of the element *‑tu/ə, several proposals
have been advanced. The idea that OCS ‑tъ reflects a perfect ending *‑to or
*‑tos (Meillet 1902: 139–142; Stang loc. cit.) is unlikely, first because the reflex
of a Proto-Indo-European perfect ending would be unique in a Slavic preterite
form; second, while *‑tos would indeed yield OCS ‑tъ [7|17|29] (whereas *‑to
would yield *‑to [7|29]), the reconstruction of this form requires an additional
hypothesis, namely the analogical addition of the secondary ending *‑s to the
original form. Third, we would have to assume that the second-person singular
ending spread to the third person, which is less probable than a spread in the
opposite direction.
According to an alternative view (Vaillant loc. cit.; Aitzetmüller loc. cit.), OCS
‑tъ represents the preservation of the secondary ending *‑t, which would have
been lost by [9]. What makes this view difficult to accept is that it presupposes
a phonetic development, the retention of a PIE word-final stop in Slavic, that
runs counter to what we can observe elsewhere. It is true that sound change
is not always regular, but such scenarios are less attractive than ones operat-
ing with regular sound change or well-motivated analogical developments.
Vaillant’s implication that the retention of *‑t depended on sandhi conditions
is ad hoc. Furthermore, the choice of the vowel ‑ъ in order to preserve *‑t would
be thinkable in late Common Slavic dialects such as Old Church Slavonic, where
the realisation of ‑ъ was [ʊ] or [ə]. However, in my view the loss of word-final
*‑t already took place in pre-Proto-Balto-Slavic; I do not agree with Vaillant’s
view that “[l]’amuïssement des consonnes finales, dont ‑t, n’est pas ancien en
slave”. At that time the only word-final vowel to show up as ‑ъ in Old Church
Slavonic was *‑u; but I do not see why the speakers would chose precisely *‑u as
a paragogic vowel at this point, rather than *‑a, *‑e or *‑i. This is not accounted
for in Vaillant’s explanation.
Some authors have connected OCS ‑tъ in the second- and third-person singu-
lar forms of the aorist with the homophonous element found in the third-person
singular of the present, e.g. vedetъ (e.g. Fortunatov 1908: 27–28; Vondrák loc. cit.;
Kortlandt loc. cit.; 1998: 285; cf., however, the criticism of Vondrák’s view in Stang
loc. cit.; and see Ackermann 2014: 133–135). While I basically believe this con-
nection to be valid, I explain OCS ‑tъ differently from these authors (see § 4.9).
In order to understand how the present third-person singular ending ‑tъ
came to be used as an aorist second- and third-person singular ending at a
pre-stage of Old Church Slavonic, we may imagine a scenario where the pres-
ent third-person singular ending PS*‑(e)ti was shortened to *‑(e)t in informal
speech (see § 4.9). When informal *‑(e)t was imported into the neutral register,
the word-final stop was not tolerated and was either lost or received a para-
gogic vowel ‑ъ ([ʊ] or [ə]). Subsequently the stylistic alternation between ‑tъ
and ‑∅ in the third-person singular of the present was transferred to certain
monosyllabic aorist third-person singular forms and, since the second- and
third-person singular forms where identical everywhere outside the present,
also to the second-person singular.
334 chapter 4
It remains to be explained why ‑tъ was added to the second- and third-
person singular forms in verbs with originally a root aorist, but not in verbs
with a sigmatic or thematic aorist. This may be due to the fact that Proto-Slavic
root aorists contained a short vowel, e.g. PS2–3sg. *ˌmer (CS *mȇr), whereas
sigmatic aorists had a synchronic long vowel, e.g. *ˈbēi̯ / *ˈbī, *ˈkrū (CS *bȉ,
*kry̏ ). The forms of the sigmatic aorist, with their long vowel, had enough
phonological weight already. By contrast, the nucleus of the root-aorist forms
contained only a short vowel; by adding the new ending ‑tъ to the forms,
the speakers obtained a more harmonious system. This hypothesis may find
some support in the fact, noted already by Wiedemann (1886: 14, 21), that Old
Church Slavonic forms without ‑tъ are found predominantly in compound aor-
ist forms, e.g. priję (Zographensis). The Serbo-Croatian reflexes mrȉje and bȉ,
with the opposite quantitative distribution of that found in pre-Proto-Slavic,
are the results of later developments. The explanation presented here of the
Old Church Slavonic aorist second- and third-person singular forms in ‑tъ is
related to the one given by Kuryłowicz (1964: 157).
4.10.2 Thematic Preterite Third-Person Singular
ps *ˈsēde, *ˌu̯ede (CS *sě̋de, *vȅde) pbs *ˌ‑e pie prt., inj. *‑ed
ocs sěde Li. – Ved. prs. inj. bhárat

ORu. sěde; ONovg. [vь]l’ašь (i.e. vel’aše) Lv. – OAv. ipf. abauuat̰; YAv. prs.
OCz. sěde OPr. – inj. auuazat̰
Gk. ipf. ἔφερε
OLa. FECED
Go. –
Hi. zikkēt (OS)
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 611: Ved. ‑at, Gk. ‑ε, Osc. kúmbened, OIr. prs. ‑beir,
OCS ‑e go back to PIE *‑et | Beekes 1995/2011: 260: PIE *‑et | Rix
1976/1992: 243: Gk. ‑ε, Ved. ‑at, OCS ‑e, Hi. ‑et reflect PIE *‑et | Sihler
1995: 456, 460–462: Gk. ‑ε is from PIE *‑et or *‑e | Weiss 2009/2011:
387: OLa. FECED preserves secondary ending | Krahe 1942/1967:—
| Boutkan 1995: – | Kloekhorst 2008a: 800: Hi. postvocalic ‑t reflects
PIE *‑t
PBS
Olander 2009: 197: PBS unaccented *ˌ‑e reflects PIE *‑ét | Kortlandt
1979b/2009: 159: Slavic ‑e is from PIE *‑et | Endzelīns 1971: [see prs.,
§ 4.9] | Stang 1942, 1966: [see prs., § 4.9] | Otrębski 1956: [see prs.,
§ 4.9] | Endzelīns 1923: [see prs., § 4.9]
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 119: Slavic ‑e is from *‑et | Meillet 1924/1934:
322 | Stang 1942: 64: OCS ‑e is from *‑et | Vaillant 1966: 16: Slavic ‑e
is from *‑et | Arumaa 1985: 276 | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 179: OCS
‑e is from *‑et
PIE The ending *‑ed consisted of the e-grade of the thematic vowel followed
by the active third-person singular ending *‑d. The ending was preserved in the
ancient Indo-European languages.
PBS PIE *‑éd yielded PBS *ˌ‑e [4|5|9]. For the Baltic reflexes of this ending
see § 4.9.
PS PBS *ˌ‑e was retained as PS*ˌ‑e (CS *‑e [29]), preserved in the old Slavic
dialects. As shown by forms like Štk. aor. plȅte, zȁplete from PS*ˌplete (CS
*plȅte), the form was unaccented in Proto-Slavic, like the corresponding
second-person form.
4.11 Imperative Third-Person Singular
4.11.1 Athematic Imperative Third-Person Singular
ps →*dādi ̯i (CS *dad’ь) pbs *‑i ̯ḛ̄ pie opt. *‑i ̯eh₁d
ocs daždь Li. – Ved. syā́t

ORu. dažь; ONovg. ? Lv. – OAv. x́ iiāt̰; YAv. hiiāt̰
OCz. věz OPr. – Gk. εἴη
La. subj. →sīt, →sit; OLa. →siēt, SIED
Go. prs. ind. →wili
Hi. –
336 chapter 4
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 545–552: Slavic ‑ždь is from 2sg. | Beekes 1995/
2011: 275: PIE *‑i̯éh₁t | Rix 1976/1992: 231, 261: Gk. εἴη, Ved. syā́t, OLa.
SIED reflect PIE *‑i̯éh₁t | Sihler 1995: 552–553, 596: OLa. SIED , Gk. εἴη,
Ved. syā́t are from PIE *‑i̯éh₁t; in later La., sī‑ was generalised | Weiss
2009/2011: 416–417: OLa. SIED , Gk. εἴη reflect PIE *‑i̯éh₁t | Krahe 1942/
1967: 107, 110, 137, 141: Germ. has generalised *‑ī‑ from pl. | Boutkan 1995:
337–338, 464: Go. ‑i is from *‑īt < PIE *‑ih₁t, with generalised zero grade
and shortening of a high vowel after loss of *‑t | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS
– | Stang 1942: 244–245, 1966: 425–426, 439: OLi. tedůd, tedůdi
may contain shortened reflex of PIE athem. opt. *‑ī‑; [see also 2sg.,
§ 4.8.1] | Otrębski 1956: – | Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/ 1928: 120; [see 2sg., § 4.8.1] | Meillet 1924/ 1934: –
| Stang 1942: 241–242: Slavic 3sg. is probably analogical from
2sg. | Vaillant 1966: 35–36; [see 2sg., § 4.8.1] | Arumaa 1985: 309–
311; [see 2sg., § 4.8.1] | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 193
PIE The Slavic athematic imperative ending probably reflects a Proto-Indo-

European optative form in *‑i̯éhd, consisting of the full grade of the optative
suffix followed by the active secondary third-person singular ending *‑d. The
form was preserved in most ancient Indo-European languages. As in the cor-
responding second-person singular form, in Germanic and classical Latin the
zero grade of the optative suffix was introduced in the singular from the plural
(and dual).
PBS pie *‑i̯éh₁d yielded PBS *‑i̯ḛ̄ [1|5|9]. The ending was not retained in Baltic.
PS The regular reflex of PBS *‑i̯ḛ̄ would have been PS*‑i̯ē [13] (CS *‑ja [27|29]);
however, the endings actually found in Slavic should probably be traced back
to PS*‑i̯i. I assume that the third-person singular form underwent the same
development as the second-person singular form, with which it merged after
the loss of word-final *‑s in pre-Proto-Slavic [17]: pre-Proto-Slavic *‑i̯ē was
replaced with *‑i̯ī by analogy with the dual and plural forms, and *‑i̯ī was
shortened to PS *‑i̯i.
4.11.2 Thematic Imperative Third-Person Singular
ps →*u̯eˈdəi ̯ (CS *vedì; *pišì) pbs *‑ˈai̯ pie opt. *‑oi ̯h₁d
ocs vedi; piši Li. permissive tevediẽ Ved. bháret

ORu. vedi; piši; ONovg. budi; jemli Lv. – OAv., YAv. jasōit̰
OCz. vedi, ved’; piši, piš OPr. – Gk. φέροι
OLa. →OPETOIT(?)
Go. bairai
Hi. –
PIE Brugmann 1913–1916: 557–561: Slavic vedi, Li. tevediẽ reflect PIE
*‑oit | Beekes 1995/2011: 275: PIE *‑oih₁t | Rix 1976/1992: 231, 261: Gk.
‑οι, Ved. ‑et, Go. ‑ai are from PIE *‑oi̯h₁t | Sihler 1995: 596–597: Gk. ‑οι,
Ved. ‑et, Go. ‑ai reflect PIE *‑oi̯t | Weiss 2009/2011: 417: them. opt. was
eliminated in Italic and Celtic, possibly except OLa. OPETOIT | Krahe
1942/1967: 108: Go. ‑ai goes back to PIE *‑oit | Boutkan 1995: 321, 323:
Go. ‑ai reflects PGmc. *‑ai < PIE *‑oih₁t, with retention of the diphthong
before original *‑t | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS Olander 2009: 198: PS*‑ˈai̯ reflects PBS *‑ˈai < PIE *‑ói̯h₁t | Kortlandt
1979b/2009: – | Endzelīns 1971: 243 | Stang 1942: 243–244, 1966:
422: Li. tenešiẽ, Gk. ‑οι, Go. bairai, Ved. ‑et reflect PIE *‑oit | Otrębski
1956: 227–228: Li. tedirbiẽ reflects PIE *‑oit | Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 119–120: Slavic ‑i is from *‑oit, with regular reflex
of *oi in a final syllable closed by a consonant | Meillet 1924/
1934: 329–330; [see 2sg., § 4.8.2] | Stang 1942: 239: OCS ‑i is from
*‑oit | Vaillant 1966: 35–36; [see 2sg., § 4.8.2] | Arumaa 1985: 309–
311 | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 192: OCS ‑i (for *‑ě) from *‑oit is due to
levelling with the types znaji and nosi
PIE The Proto-Indo-European form was *‑oi̯h₁d, consisting of the o-grade of

the thematic vowel, the zero grade of the optative suffix *‑ih₁‑ and the active
secondary third-person singular ending *‑d. The form is generally preserved
in the ancient Indo-European languages. For the possible retention in Latin
of an old optative form in ‑oit, which would have replaced expected *‑oid, see
Eichner 1988–1990: 213–214 with p. 231 n. 68.
PBS PIE *‑oi̯h₁d became PBS *‑ˈai̯ [1|5|7|9], preserved in the Lithuanian

permissive form and in the Slavic imperative. I find it difficult to maintain
my earlier explanation of the combination of final accentuation and a short
338 chapter 4
diphthong in Li. permissive tesukiẽ as phonologically regular (Olander loc. cit.),

since the loss of laryngeals [1] is more likely to be older than the mobility law [4].
It is possible that the third-person (and second-person) singular imperative
forms received desinential accentuation by analogy with the plural forms,
where the accent remained on the suffix, e.g. 2pl. PIE *‑ói̯h₁te > PBS *‑ˈa̰ it̯ e [1|7]
> PS*‑ˈāi̯te [13] (CS *‑ě̋te [22|29]).
PS PBS *‑ˈai̯ would have yielded PS*‑ˈai̯ (CS *‑ě [22|29]; *‑ji [20|22|29])
according to the sound laws [22|29], but at some point in the prehistory of
Proto-Slavic the second-person singular ending PS*ˈ‑əi̯ (CS *‑i; *‑ji) was taken
over by the third-person singular, perhaps by analogy with the corresponding
athematic forms which had been identical since the loss of word-final frica-
tives [17]. The old Slavic dialects retain the ending.
4.12 First-Person Dual
Athematic present first-person dual
PS *esu̯ā (CS *jesva, →*jesvě) PBS →*‑u̯ā̰ PIE *‑u̯e/os
OCS →jesvě; OSrb. sva Li. eivà Ved. ?

ORu. →jesvě; ONovg. →jesvě Lv. – OAv. →usuuahī; YAv. ?
OCz. →jsvě, jsva; OPo. jeswa OPr. – Gk. –
La. –
Go. →siju
Hi. pl. →ešuwani
Thematic present first-person dual
PS →*u̯edau̯ā (CS →*vedeva, PBS →*‑au̯ā̰ PIE *‑ou̯e/os

→*vedevě; *piševa, →*piševě)
OCS →vedevě; →piševě Li. vẽdava; refl. Ved. cárāvaḥ

ORu. →vedevě; →piševě; ONovg. →rinevь vẽdavos(i) (Taittirīya-Saṃhitā)
(i.e. ‑vě) (?); ? Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. ?
OCz. →vedevě, →vedeva; →píševě, OPr. – Gk. –
píševa; OPo. →będziewa; napijewa La. –
Go. →bairos
Hi. pl. →daškēweni (OS)
Athematic preterite first-person dual
PS →*u̯ēsau̯ā (CS *věsova, →*věsově) PBS *‑u̯ā̰ PIE prt., inj. *‑u̯ah₂
OCS →věsově, →vedoxově Li. – Ved. ?

ORu. →vedoxově; ONovg. →posъlaxově Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. ? (cf. prs.
OCz. →vedechově, vedechova OPr. – subj. juuāuua)
Gk. –
La. –
Go. –
Hi. pl. →ešuen
Thematic preterite first-person dual
ps *sēdau̯ā (CS *sědova, →*sědově) pbs *‑au̯ā̰ pie prt., inj. *‑ou̯ah₂
ocs →sědově Li. – Ved. ?

ORu. →ved’axově; ONovg. →posъlaxově Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. ?
OCz. →sědově, sědova OPr. – Gk. –
La. –
Go. –
Hi. pl. →ušgawen
Athematic imperative first-person dual
PS *dādīu̯ā (CS *dadiva, →*dadivě) PBS *‑ḭ̄u̯ā̰ PIE opt. *‑ih₁u̯ah₂
OCS →dadivě Li. – Ved. aor. opt. →yujyāva

ORu. dadivě; ONovg. ? Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. ?
OCz. ? OPr. – Gk. –
La. –
Go. ?
Hi. –
340 chapter 4
Thematic imperative first-person dual
PS *u̯edāi ̯u̯ā (CS *veděva, →*veděvě; pbs *‑ō̰i ̯u̯ā̰ pie opt. *‑oi ̯h₁u̯ah₂
*pišiva, →*pišivě)
ocs →veděvě; →pišivě Li. – Ved. vr̥heva

ORu. ?; ?; ONovg. ei̯e-verb →ladivěs’a(?) Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. ?
OCz. jděva, →jděvě, →ved’vě, →ved’va; →píšvě, OPr. – Gk. –
→píšva La. –
Go. bairaiwa
Hi. –
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 638–639: PIE primary *‑u̯ e/os(i), secondary
*‑u̯ ē̆/ō̆; Slavic ‑vě was probably influenced by 1du. pron. vě; Slavic ‑va may
be modelled on 2du. ‑ta or on nominal masc. nom.–acc. du. ‑a | Beekes
1995/2011: 271: PIE primary *‑u̯ es, secondary *‑u̯ e; Slavic ‑ě is analogi-
cal from pronouns; Hi. ‑wen(i) may originate in du. | Rix 1976/1992:
– | Sihler 1995: 454: PIE primary *‑u̯ os, secondary *‑u̯ ē̆ | Weiss
2009/2011: 384, 386: PIE primary *‑u̯ os; CS *‑va is from PIE secondary
ending *‑u̯ oh₁; vowel of OCS ‑vě is modelled on pron. vě | Krahe 1942/
1967: 97: Go. bairos reflects PIE *‑ou̯ es (“obwohl die lautliche Entwicklung
[. . .] nicht ganz klar ist”) | Boutkan 1995: 319–320, 324–325, 337: PIE
primary *‑ues, secondary *‑ue; Go. ‑os is not the direct reflex of *‑owes,
but perhaps of remade *‑ōwes; Go. secondary ending ‑wa may repre-
sent *‑ueh₁, replacing PIE *‑ue by analogy with 1du. pron.; Go. ‑u may
go directly back to PIE *‑ue | Kloekhorst 2008a: 1001; [see 1pl., § 4.15]
PBS
205 | Stang 1942: 236, 1966: 419–420: Li. ‑va, refl. ‑vos(i), reflects *‑vā́,
perhaps also in Slavic ‑va; BS *‑vā́ may have been influenced by 2du.
*‑tā́ | Otrębski 1956: 185–186: Li. ‑va, refl. ‑vos(i), is related to OCS
‑vě | Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 115, 120: Slavic ‑vě is probably modelled on 1du.
pron. | Meillet 1924/1934: 325: CS *‑va corresponds to Li. ‑va, refl.
‑vos(i) | Stang 1942: 223: Slavic ‑vě may correspond to Ved. secondary
‑va, with lengthening of the vowel, or it may have been influenced by
1du. pron. ‑vě; Slavic ‑va may have been influenced by 2du. ‑ta, or it could
correspond to Li. ‑va < *‑vā́ | Vaillant 1966: 14–15: CS *‑va seems sec-
ondary, *‑vě is “évidemment analogique” based on pron. *vě | Arumaa

1985: 282: CS *‑va is directly related to Li. ‑va, refl. ‑vos(i) | Aitzetmüller
1978/1991: 179: Slavic ‑va is probably identical to Li. ‑va, refl. ‑vos(i); OCS ‑vě
has been influenced by pron. vě
PIE Indo-Iranian points to a primary marker PIE *‑u̯ e/os, with the pres-
ent marker *‑i added in Avestan. In Hittite there is no dual category, but the
first-person plural endings prs. ‑weni, prt. ‑wen seem to contain the same *‑u̯ ‑ as
the dual endings in the remaining Indo-European languages (see e.g. Eichner
1975: 87; Kloekhorst loc. cit.; Melchert forthc. § 3.3.4.1). The n of the Hittite end-
ings is reminiscent of that of Gk. 1pl. ‑µεν, but the role it plays in the verbal
system is unclear.
The reflex of a primary thematic ending *‑ou̯ es is probably found in Gothic
‑os, although the match is possibly not perfect (see the discussion in Boutkan
1995: 319–320; cf. also Kroonen 2013: xxvi, who suggests a thematic first-person
dual ending PIE *‑oh₁u̯ es, yielding *‑ōwiz > *‑ōiz > Go. ‑os). It is likely that the
endings found in Balto-Slavic are the original secondary endings. The long
vowel of PBS *‑u̯ ā̰ is incompatible with the short vowel of Ved. ‑va, however;
Avestan is inconclusive in this respect. While the Gothic optative ending ‑aiwa
points to a final long vowel as in Balto-Slavic, Go. prt.-prs. magu and Early
Runic prt. waritu fit Ved. ‑va, if the forms are derived from PIE *‑u̯ e/o.
Since the Germanic preterite system generally reflects the original perfect
endings whereas the optative retains the Proto-Indo-European secondary end-
ings, we may perhaps speculate that Go. ‑u originally belonged to the perfect
system, and that ‑wa was the secondary ending. In that case we may reconstruct
a Proto-Indo-European secondary ending *‑u̯ ah₂ on the basis of Go. ‑wa and
PBS *‑u̯ ā̰, and a perfect ending *‑u̯ e/o preserved in Go. ‑u and Ved. ‑va (attested
both as a secondary ending and, in post-Saṃhitā texts, as a perfect ending).
It should be clear, however, that the paucity of attested forms in Indo-
Iranian, Germanic and Balto-Slavic, the unsettled status of the Anatolian evi-
dence and the loss of all first dual forms in the other Indo-European branches
make these reconstructions uncertain.
PBS There are no traces of the Proto-Indo-European primary endings in

Balto-Slavic. The secondary endings *‑u̯ ah₂, *‑ou̯ ah₂, *‑ih₁u̯ ah₂, *‑oi̯h₁u̯ ah₂
yielded PBS *‑u̯ ā̰ [1], *‑au̯ ā̰ [1|7], *‑ī�ṵ ̯ ā̰ [1], *‑a̰ iu̯ ̯ ā̰ [1|7]. The marker is preserved
in Li. ‑va, refl. ‑vos(i), where the alternation between ‑a (accented in athem.
eivà) and ‑o‑ points to an originally acute *‑ā̰ that was shortened in final posi-
tion by Leskien’s law.
342 chapter 4
PS PBS *‑u̯ ā̰, *‑au̯ ā̰, *‑ī�ṵ ̯ ā̰, *‑a̰ iu̯ ̯ ā̰ are reflected as PS*‑u̯ ā [13] (CS *‑va [29]),
*‑au̯ ā [13] (*‑ova [29] → *‑eva; *‑jeva [20|29]), *‑īu̯ ā [13] (*‑iva [29]), *‑āi̯u̯ā [13]
(*‑ěva [22|29]; *‑jiva [20|22|29]). Alongside PS*‑u̯ ā, attested in West Slavic,
Old Serbian and, rarely, Old Russian (V. Kiparsky 1967: 191), the Slavic dialects
present more widespread reflexes of a person–number marker CS *‑vě (for the
distribution of the markers see Meillet loc. cit.). Solely on the basis of the dis-
tribution of the markers one would perhaps trace both *‑va and *‑vě back to
Proto-Slavic, or even only the latter (cf. Vaillant loc. cit.). However, the compar-
ison with Lithuanian ‑va, refl. ‑vos(i), makes it plausible that the more original
form was CS *‑va. The reflexes of CS *‑vě may have arisen due to influence from
the first-person dual pronoun PS*u̯ ē (§ 3.10.8).
While the preterite preserves the reflex of the thematic o-vowel, the present
ending underwent the same generalisation of the e-vowel as in the first-person
plural (§ 4.15).
4.13 Second-Person Dual
Athematic present second-person dual
PS *estā (CS *jesta) PBS →*‑tā̰ PIE *‑th₁es
OCS jesta Li. eità Ved. stháḥ

ORu. jesta; ONovg. jesta Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. ?
OCz. jsta OPr. – Gk. →ἐστόν
La. –
Go. ?
Hi. –
Thematic present second-person dual
PS *u̯edetā (CS *vedeta; *pišeta) PBS →*‑etā̰ PIE *‑eth₁es
OCS vedeta; pišeta Li. →vẽdata; refl. Ved. bhárathaḥ

ORu. vedeta; pišeta; ONovg. ?; →vẽdatos(i) OAv. ?; YAv. ?
vědajeta Lv. – Gk. →φέρετον
OCz. vedeta; píšeta OPr. – La. –
Go. →bairats
Hi. –
Athematic preterite second-person dual
ps →*u̯ēstā (CS *věsta) pbs →*‑tā̰ pie prt., inj. *‑tom
ocs věsta, vedosta Li. – Ved. ipf. ā́stam

ORu. vedosta; ONovg. ? Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. ?
OCz. vedesta, vedešta OPr. – Gk. aor. ἐλῡ́σατον
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
Thematic preterite second-person dual
PS *sēdetā (CS *sědeta) PBS →*‑etā̰ PIE prt., inj. *‑etom
OCS sědeta Li. – Ved. ipf. ábhavatam

ORu. →ved’asta; ONovg. ? Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. ?
OCz. sědeta OPr. – Gk. ipf. ἐφέρετον
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
Athematic imperative second-person dual
PS *dādītā (CS *dadita) PBS →*‑ḭ̄tā̰ PIE opt. *‑ih₁tom
OCS dadita Li. – Ved. →syātam

ORu. ?; ONovg. ? Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. ?
OCz. ? OPr. – Gk. εἶτον, →εἴητον
La. –
Go. →wileits
Hi. –
344 chapter 4
Thematic imperative second-person dual
PS *u̯edāi ̯tā (CS *veděta; *pišita) PBS →*‑a̰i ̯tā̰ PIE opt. *‑oi ̯h₁tom
OCS veděta; pišita Li. – Ved. tiretam

ORu. veděta; pišita; ONovg. Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. ?
→[b]erita; solita OPr. – Gk. φέροιτον
OCz. jděta, →ved’ta; →píšta La. –; Umbr. ipv. 2pl. →etato
Go. →bairaits
Hi. –
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 639–642: PIE primary *‑to/es or *‑tʰo/es is reflected
in Ved. ‑thaḥ, Go. ‑ts; PIE secondary *‑tom is reflected in Ved. ‑tam, Gk.
‑τον (where it was also used as the primary ending); relationship of BS
endings to other languages is unclear | Beekes 1995/2011: 271: PIE pri-
mary *‑the/os, perhaps with *h₁; PIE secondary *‑tom | Rix 1976/1992:
245, 252–253: Ved. ‑thaḥ, Go. ‑ts reflect PIE primary ending *‑tos; Gk. ‑τον
is from PIE secondary ending *‑tom | Sihler 1995: 454, 470, 605: PIE
*‑th₁es is not attested in Gk., where -τον corresponds to PIE secondary
ending *‑tom > Ved. ‑tam; Umbr. ipv. 2pl. etato < PItal. *‑tā is probably
original du. ending corresponding to OCS ‑ta, Li. ‑ta | Weiss 2009/
2011: 384, 386, 387: PIE primary *‑th₂es; South Picene videtas ‘you (pl.)
see’ may reflect primary 2du. *‑teh₂s, based on secondary *‑teh₂ reflected
in Umbr. ipv. 2pl. ‑to, Li. 2du. ‑ta, OCS ‑ta; but Ved. ‑tam, Gk. ‑τον point to
PIE *‑tom | Krahe 1942/1967: 97: Go. bairats is from PIE *‑et/tʰes, with
analogical ‑a‑ for *‑i‑ and regular development of *‑þs to ‑ts | Boutkan
1995: 319–320, 325, 337: PIE primary *‑the/os; Go. them. vowel ‑a‑ is ana-
logical; Go. ‑ts from PGmc. *‑þs may be analogical or regular; Ved. ‑tam,
Gk. ‑τον reflect PIE secondary *‑tom | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS
205 | Stang 1942: 236, 1966: 420: Li. ‑ta, refl. ‑tos(i), from Proto-Li. *‑tā́
is identical to CS *‑ta | Otrębski 1956: 186: Li. ‑ta, refl. ‑tos(i), is from
*‑tā, also in OCS ‑ta | Endzelīns 1923: 554: Lv. 2pl. ‑t, ‑tās may repre-
sent original 2du. ending, corresponding to Li. ‑ta, Slavic ‑ta, or it may
have been remade on the model of 1pl. ‑mās
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 115, 120: OCS ‑ta, Li. ‑ta go back to *‑tā | Meillet
1924/1934: 325–327: Li. ‑ta and CS *‑ta correspond to secondary Ved. ‑tām,
Gk. ‑τᾱν, minus “la nasale finale inorganique”; oldest (pie) form of sec-
ondary ending was *‑tā | Stang 1942: 223: OCS ‑ta corresponds to Li.
‑ta | Vaillant 1966: 15: PBS *‑tā | Arumaa 1985: 282: BS forms may
be related to PIE ending *‑tām | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 179
PIE Vedic and Gothic point to a Proto-Indo-European primary marker

*‑thV̆ s. For convenience and because of the apparently parallel marker in the
second-person plural, which I reconstruct as *‑th₁e, I assume here that the
marker was *‑th₁es, although *‑th₁os or *‑th₂a/os would probably also be viable
alternatives (cf. the discussion in § 4.16). Since we expect the thematic vowel
to be *‑e‑ before an unvoiced segment, the o-grade of Go. ‑ats is likely to be
analogical from other forms of the paradigm (see e.g. Krahe loc. cit.; Krause
1953/1968: 261; Boutkan loc. cit.); Vedic ‑athaḥ is equivocal in this respect as
Brugmann’s law would not cause lengthening of *o in a syllable closed by a
laryngeal. Go ‑ts may be the regular outcome of PIE *‑tV̆ s (see e.g. Brugmann
loc. cit.; Szemerényi 1970/1990: 235, with references on p. 236 n. 11; Ringe 2006a:
237; cf. the discussion in Boutkan loc. cit.). In Greek the primary marker was
given up in favour of the secondary marker.
As for the secondary marker, Vedic and Greek point to PIE *‑tom, whereas
Balto-Slavic points to *‑tah₂, which could also underlie Umbrian ipv. 2pl. etato,
if this continues the dual marker. While it is difficult to find a good pattern for
the creation of *‑tom in Vedic and Greek, Balto-Slavic (and perhaps Italic) may
have remade the inherited marker on the secondary first-person dual marker
*‑u̯ ah₂. It is therefore, in my view, slightly more plausible that the Proto-Indo-
European secondary marker was *‑tom.
PBS The Proto-Indo-European primary marker *‑th₁es and the secondary

marker *‑tom were replaced with *‑tā̰ in Proto-Balto-Slavic, probably by anal-
ogy with the secondary first-person dual marker PBS *‑u̯ ā̰ < PIE *‑u̯ ah₂. The
Lithuanian thematic form vẽdata show the usual Baltic generalisation of the
o-grade in the thematic vowel.
PS PBS *‑tā̰, *‑etā̰, *‑ī�t̰ ā̰, *‑a̰ it̯ ā̰ yielded PS*‑tā [13] (CS *‑ta [29]), *‑etā [13]
(*‑eta [29]; *‑jeta [29]), *‑ītā [13] (*‑ita [29]), *‑āi̯tā [13] (*‑ěta [22|29]; *‑jita
[20|22|29]). To the extent that the forms are attested in the Slavic languages,
they generally preserve the original endings.
346 chapter 4
4.14 Third-Person Dual
Athematic present third-person dual
PS *este (CS *jeste) PBS *‑tes PIE *‑tes
OCS jeste, →jesta Li. – Ved. staḥ

ORu. →jesta; ONovg. ? Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. stō
OCz. →jsta OPr. – Gk. →ἐστόν
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
Thematic present third-person dual
PS *u̯edete (CS *vedete; *pišete) PBS *‑etes PIE *‑etes
OCS vedete, →vedeta; pišete, →pišeta Li. – Ved. bhárataḥ

ORu. →vedeta; →pišeta; ONovg. Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. baratō
→dělajeta OPr. – Gk. →φέρετον
OCz. →vedeta; →píšeta La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
Athematic preterite third-person dual
ps →*u̯ēste (CS *věste) pbs →*‑tes pie prt., inj. *‑tah₂m
ocs věste, →věsta, vedoste, Li. – Ved. ipf. ā́stām

→vedosta Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. ipf. →auuāitəm
ORu. →vedosta; ONovg. ? OPr. – Gk. aor. ἐλῡσάτην; Dor. ανεθεταν
OCz. →vedesta, →vedešta La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
Thematic preterite third-person dual
PS *sēdete (CS *sědete) PBS →*‑etes PIE prt., inj. *‑etah₂m
OCS sědete, →sědeta Li. – Ved. ipf. avardhatām

ORu. →ved’asta; ONovg. ? Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. prs. inj. →jasatəm
OCz. →sědeta OPr. – Gk. ipf. ἐφερέτην
La. –
Go. –
Hi. –
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 639–642: PIE primary ending was probably *‑tes,
reflected in Ved. ‑taḥ, OCS ‑te; PIE secondary ending *‑tām is seen in
Ved. ‑tām, Gk. ‑την, Dor. ‑τᾱν; Gk. ‑τον is originally secondary 2du. end-
ing | Beekes 1995/2011: 271: Ved. ‑taḥ, OCS ‑te reflect PIE primary *‑tes;
Gk. ‑την, Dor. ‑τᾱν reflect secondary *‑teh₂m | Rix 1976/1992: 252–253:
‑τον is originally secondary 2du. ending | Sihler 1995: 454, 470: PIE
*‑tes was lost in Gk., which employs 2du. secondary ending | Weiss
2009/2011: 384, 387: PIE primary *‑tes; Ved. ‑tām, Gk. ‑την reflect PIE sec-
ondary *‑teh₂m | Krahe 1942/1967: – | Boutkan 1995: 319–320: PIE
*‑tes | Kloekhorst 2008a: –
PBS
205 | Stang 1942: –, 1966: – | Otrębski 1956: – | Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 115–116: OCS ‑te is perhaps from *‑tes, also in Ved.
‑taḥ; OCS variant ‑ta probably has ‑a from nominal masc. nom.–acc.
du. | Meillet 1924/1934: 325–327: CS *‑te and perhaps also *‑ta are
old | Stang 1942: 223–224: OCS *‑ta may be old, *‑te was perhaps orig-
inally the primary ending | Vaillant 1966: 15: OCS ‑te may go back to
PIE *‑tes (as in Ved. ‑taḥ) or to PIE *‑te; the Slavic variant ‑ta partly shows
the introduction of the general du. marker ‑a (as in 1du. ‑va, on the model
of 2du. ‑ta) and partly influence from nominal dual forms | Arumaa
1985: 283: OCS ‑te is replaced with ‑ta in other Slavic languages; both ‑te
and ‑ta are isolated in the IE languages | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991: 179:
PIE primary *‑tes or *‑tos, as in Ved. ‑taḥ; Gk. ‑τον may point to *‑te/o, with
secondary ‑ν; Ved. ‑tām, Gk. ‑την point to secondary *‑tām; OCS variant
‑ta has analogical ‑a
348 chapter 4
PIE Indo-Iranian and Slavic point to a Proto-Indo-European primary marker

*‑tes. When the secondary marker PIE *‑tom began to be used in primary sec-
ond-person dual forms in Greek (see § 4.13), the marker also spread to the pri-
mary third-person dual.
The secondary marker may be reconstructed as *‑tah₂m on the basis of
Vedic and Greek. YAv. ‑təm continues the secondary second-person dual end-
ing PIE *‑tom. For the Tocharian B third-person dual active primary ending
‑teṃ see Hackstein 1993: 50–55.
PBS In Balto-Slavic only the primary marker *‑tes survived, yielding PBS
*‑tes. The marker is not preserved in Baltic, where a reshaped version of the
third-person singular is used for in all third-person forms (§ 4.9).
PS PBS primary and secondary *‑tes, *‑etes are continued as PS*‑te [17] (CS
*‑te [29]), *‑ete [17] (*‑ete [29]; *‑jete [29]). The original ending is preserved
only in Old Church Slavonic texts, alongside a new ending ‑ta also found in the
remaining Slavic dialects (for the attestations in Old Church Slavonic see Diels
1932–1934/1963: 228). The final vowel of ‑ta was introduced by analogy with
PS1du. *‑u̯ ā and 2du. *‑tā, and partly also by analogy with the nominal mascu-
line nominative–accusative dual ending PS*‑ā (CS *‑a).
4.15 First-Person Plural
Athematic present first-person plural
PS *esˈmə (CS *jèsmъ, PBS *‑mas PIE *‑mos

→*jesmè, →*jesmò)
OCS jesmъ; Štk. →jèsmo Li. →ẽsam(e); OLi. Ved. →smási, smáḥ
ORu. jesmъ, →jesmy; →ésme, →esmé; refl. OAv. →mahī; YAv. →mahi
ONovg. →jesme; Ukr. (ne) →důdameś Gk. →ἐσµέν; Ion. →εἰµέν; Dor.
→damó Lv. →ȩsam →εἰµές
OCz. →jsme, →jsmy OPr. →asmai La. sumus
Go. →sijum; ONor. →erum
Hi. →ešuwani
Thematic present first-person plural
ps *u̯edaˈmə (CS →*vedèmъ, →*vedemè, pbs *‑ˈamas pie *‑ómos

→*vedemò; *píšemъ, →*píšeme, →*píšemo)
ocs →vedemъ; pišemъ; Štk. →nesémo, Li. →vẽdam(e); refl. Ved. →bhárāmasi,
→nèsēmo →vẽdamės bhárāmaḥ
ORu. →vedemъ; pišemъ; ONovg. Lv. →vȩ̀lkam; refl. OAv. →sə̄ṇghāmahī;
→možemъ; (ne) znajemo (i.e. ‑mъ); →ceļ̂amiês; dial. YAv. →barāmahi
Ukr. →vedemó; →píšemo →‑me; refl. →‑mēs Gk. →φέροµεν; Dor.
OCz. →vedem, →vedeme, →vedemy; OPr. →giwammai →φέροµες
píšem, →píšeme, →píšemy; Slk. dial. La. legimus
→budemo Go. bairam
Hi. →daškēweni (OS)
Athematic preterite first-person plural
ps *u̯ēsame (CS →*věsomъ, *věsome, →*věsomo) pbs *‑me pie prt., inj. *‑me
ocs →věsomъ, →vedoxomъ Li. – Ved. ipf. ápāma

ORu. →vedoxomъ; ONovg. →[pos]laxomъ Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. ?
OCz. →vedechom, vedechome, →vedechomy OPr. – Gk. aor. →ἐλῡ́σαµεν; Dor.
→ἐστᾱ́σαµες
La. –
Go. –
Hi. →ešuen
350 chapter 4
Thematic preterite first-person plural
PS *ˈsēdame (CS →*sě̋domъ, *sě̋dome, PBS *‑ame PIE prt., inj. *‑ome
→*sě̋domo)
OCS →sědomъ Li. – Ved. ipf. átakṣāma

ORu. →ved’axomъ; ONovg. →[pos]laxomъ Lv. – OAv. aor. inj. āuuaocāmā; YAv. ?
OCz. →sědom, →sědechom, sědechome, OPr. – Gk. ipf. →ἐφέροµεν; Dor. →ἐφέροµες
→sědechomy La. –
Go. –
Hi. →ušgawen
Athematic imperative first-person plural
PS *dādīme (CS →*dadimъ, PBS *‑ḭ̄me PIE opt. *‑ih₁me

*dadime, →*dadimo)
OCS →dadimъ Li. – Ved. →syā́ma

ORu. →dadimъ; ONovg. ? Lv. – OAv. →x́ iiāmā; YAv. aor. opt. →buiiama
Cz. dial. →vězmy; dial. →vězma OPr. – Gk. →εἶµεν, →εἴηµεν
La. →sīmus
Go. →wileima
Hi. –
Thematic imperative first-person plural
PS *u̯eˈdāi ̯me (CS →*vedě̋mъ, *vedě̋me, PBS *‑ˈa̰i ̯me PIE opt. *‑oi ̯h₁me
→*vedě̋mo; →*piši ̋mъ, *piši ̋me, →*piši ̋mo)
OCS →veděmъ; →pišimъ Li. dial. pašã̊,kme; Ved. bhárema

ORu. →veděmъ; →pišimъ; ONovg. ?; ?; refl. →sėʒ́iẽmės OAv. srāuuaiiaēmā;
Ukr. →vedímo Lv. – YAv. jasaēma
OCz. →veděm, veděme, →veděmy, OPr. – Gk. →φέροιµεν; Dor.
→ved’me, →ved’my; →žebřěm, →žebřěme, →φέροιµες
→žebřěmy, →píšme, →píšmy La. –
Go. →bairaima
Hi. –
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 616–623: PIE primary *‑me/os, continued in Ved.
‑maḥ, Gk. Dor. ‑µες, La. ‑mus, OIr. ‑beram; PIE *‑me/osi, continued in
Ved. ‑masi, OIr. ammi, bermai; secondary *‑me/o, *‑mē/ō, continued
in Ved. ‑ma, ‑mā, Go. ‑um, ‑aima; Li. ‑me perhaps represents merger of
PIE *‑me and *‑mē; Slavic ‑mъ is unclear; ‑me may reflect *‑mes or *‑me;
‑mo may reflect *‑mos or *‑mo; ‑my has arisen under the influence of
1pl. pron.; in Slavic the them. vowel was replaced with *‑e‑ in them. prs.
vedemъ by analogy with other persons and i̯e-prs. znajemъ | Beekes
1995/2011: 259–261: PIE primary athem. *‑mes, secondary *‑me; primary
them. *‑omom, secondary *‑omo/e; OCS ‑mъ reflects PIE primary them.
ending *‑mom | Rix 1976/1992: 243–244, 251–252: Gk. ‑µεν, Hi. ‑wen
(with ‑w‑ from 1du. *‑u̯ e) are from PIE secondary ending *‑me plus *‑m
from 1sg.; Gk. Dor. ‑µες reflects PIE primary ending *‑mes | Sihler
1995: 463–464, 465: PIE primary ending *‑mos, secondary *‑me; OCS
‑mъ reflects PIE *‑mos; Li. ‑me represents secondary ending; Gk. ‑µεν is
secondary ending plus obscure nasal element; Gk. Dor. ‑µες represents
contamination of primary and secondary endings | Weiss 2009/2011:
385–386: PIE had accented *‑mes vs. unaccented *‑mos; Slavic ‑me is
either inherited or based on analogy with 2pl.; Li. ‑me, refl. ‑mės(i), reflects
*‑mē | Krahe 1942/1967: 97, 136: Go. ‑am reflects PGmc. *‑om(i)z
from PIE them. *‑omes; ONor. erum < PGmc. *ezum‑ reflects *ezm̥ ‑; Go.
sijum contains si‑ from 3pl. and ‑um from preterite | Boutkan 1995:
308, 313–317, 324: PIE primary them. *‑omo(m), athem. *‑mes; Go. ‑am,
ONor. ‑um contain contaminated *‑omes; Go. opt. ‑ma < *‑mē perhaps has
*‑ē from du. pron. *u̯ eh₁ | Kloekhorst 2008a: 1000–1001: Hi. prs. ‑weni,
prt. ‑wen may be related to 1du. ending of other IE languages
PBS
Olander 2009: 196: PBS *‑ˈamas reflects PIE *‑ómos | Kortlandt
1979b/2009: 160–161: Li. ‑me is from PIE *‑me, the acute of the reflex-
ive form being taken from sg.; OPr. ‑mai is from PIE *‑mo plus *‑i from
sg.; Slavic ‑my has arisen under the influence of 1pl. pron.; Slavic ‑me
reflects secondary athem. ending *‑me; Slavic ‑mo reflects PIE primary
athem. ending *‑mo, *‑mos; Slavic ‑mъ reflects PIE primary them. end-
ing *‑omom | Endzelīns 1971: 204–205: Li. ‑m(e), ‑mės(i), reflects *‑mē,
perhaps corresponding to Go. ‑ma, Ved. ‑mā; OPr. ‑mai probably has ‑ai
from 1sg. | Stang 1942: 234–235, 1966: 416–417: Li. ‑me, refl. ‑mės(i),
(from proto-Li. *‑mḗ) and Lv. dial. refl. ‑mēs reflect old secondary end-
ing, related to Ved. ‑ma (rarely ‑mā), Go. opt. bairaima; Lv. refl. ‑mies may
be analogical; OPr. ‑mai may be a new middle ending, or it may consist
of *‑ma or *‑mā plus ptcl. *‑i | Otrębski 1956: 184–185: Li. ‑me, refl.
‑mės(i), dial. ‑ma, refl. ‑mos(i), point to *‑mē, *‑mā, also reflected in Lv.
refl. ‑mēs, ‑mās; OLi. ‑mi, Lv. ‑m, refl. ‑miês, reflect *‑mie | Endzelīns
352 chapter 4
1923: 551–553, 689–690: oldest Lv. ending is ‑me from *‑mē, identical with
Li. ‑me; this may be the inherited secondary ending, perhaps identical
with Go. ‑ma and Ved. ‑mā
PS
Vondrák 1908/1928: 116–117, 120: Slavic ‑mъ is ambiguous; ‑me may corre-
spond to Li. ‑me and Gk. ‑µεν (or Dor. ‑µες); ‑my is based on analogy with
1pl. pron.; ‑mo may be old pf. ending *‑mo | Meillet 1924/1934: 313–316,
330–331: reconstruction of PIE ending is difficult; Li. ‑me, ‑mės reflects
long vowel; them. vowel *‑o‑ was replaced with *‑e‑ in them. present by
analogy with i̯e-present | Stang 1942: 222–223, 240–241: Slavic ‑mъ and
‑mo reflect PIE *‑mos or *‑mon or secondary ending *‑mo; Slavic ‑me is
from *‑mes or secondary ending *‑me, or it is based on analogy with 2pl.
*‑te; Slavic ‑my is perhaps modelled on 1pl. pron.; all Slavic endings may
reflect PIE *‑mos or *‑mon | Vaillant 1966: 11–12, 32–34: Slavic ‑my is
taken from 1pl. pron.; Slavic ‑me is modelled on 2pl. ‑te; Slavic ‑mъ reflects
PIE *‑mos, also in Ved. ‑maḥ, La. *‑mos; Slavic ‑mo reflects old pf. ending,
also in Ved. ‑má; Li. ‑me, refl. ‑mės(i), is modelled on 2pl. ‑te, refl. ‑tės(i);
OPr. ‑mai has ‑ai from 2sg. or from nom. pl. | Arumaa 1985: 278–279,
311: Slavic ‑my is influenced by 1pl. pron.; ‑me may be inherited as such or
go back to *‑mes as in Gk. Dor. ‑µες; ‑mo may reflect *‑mos, as in La. ‑mus,
or correspond to Baltic forms without *‑s | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991:
178, 192–193: OCS ‑mъ is either from PIE *‑mos (if development of PIE
*‑os > ‑ъ is accepted) or *‑mon; Slavic ‑mo either reflects (1) PIE secondary
ending (Ved. ábharāma) or pf. ending (vidmá), or (2) PIE *‑mos; Slavic
‑me was either influenced by 2pl. ‑te or inherited from PIE *‑mes > Gk.
Dor. ‑µες; Slavic ‑my has arisen under the influence of 1pl. pron.
PIE The primary marker may be reconstructed as PIE *‑mos on the evidence

of Indo-Iranian, Latin, Celtic and Slavic. Indo-Iranian and Celtic (OIr. ammi,
bermai) have a variant in *‑i, introduced by analogy with other primary forms
ending in *‑i. The secondary marker was PIE *‑me, preserved in Indo-Iranian
and Balto-Slavic. In thematic formations the thematic vowel was *‑o‑.
The ending ‑µες found in Doric Greek may represent a contamination
of primary *‑mos and secondary *‑me. The final nasal of Greek ‑µεν has not
found a good explanation, but is perhaps related to the one that appears in Hi.
‑we/an(i) (see § 4.12 on the first-person dual). The final long vowel reflected
in Go. opt. ‑aima may have been introduced from 1du. ‑aiwa. In Tocharian we
find B ‑mə, A ‑mäs in both the present and the preterite; the former ending
may reflect the secondary ending *‑me, while the latter may reflect contami-
nated *‑mes (as in Doric) in the position before an enclitic (cf. Peyrot 2013:
413–414).
PBS While it is likely that Slavic shows reflexes of both the Proto-Indo-

European primary marker *‑mos and the secondary marker *‑me, in Baltic only
the latter is represented. Since different forms in a given linguistic system are
usually also characterised by a functional difference, it is probable that Proto-
Balto-Slavic had preserved the difference between primary *‑mas and sec-
ondary *‑me in the first-person plural. Accordingly, the Proto-Indo-European
endings *‑mos, *‑omos, *‑me, *‑ome, *‑ih₁me, *‑oi̯h₁me thus yielded PBS *‑mas
[7], *‑ˈamas [7], *‑me, *‑ˈame [7], *‑ī�m
̰ e [1], *‑ˈa̰ im
̯ e [1|7].
Seen in isolation the final vowel of Li. ‑me may reflect an original short vowel
or an acute long vowel shortened by Leskien’s law. The reflexive marker ‑mės(i)
suggests that it was an originally long vowel which was shortened, which is
also the standard view. However, the evidence outside Baltic for a long final
vowel is more or less limited to Gothic, where it may be secondary. I therefore
assume that the length found in the Lithuanian reflexive first-person plural
form ‑mės(i) has arisen by analogy with the alternation seen in 1sg. ‑u, 1du. ‑va,
2du. ‑ta and the corresponding reflexive forms ‑uos(i), ‑vos(i), ‑tos(i) (similarly
Kuryłowicz 1952/1958: 208; Schmalstieg 1961: 371–372). In these cases the recon-
struction of original long final vowels is supported by the external evidence
of Slavic and other Indo-European languages. I also assume that the a similar
mechanism was responsible for the long vowel of the reflexive markers in the
Lithuanian second-person plural form (see § 4.16). Li. dial. ‑ma has been influ-
enced by the dual forms (e.g. Stang loc. cit.).
The Latvian situation is parallel to that of Lithuanian. The marker ‑m may
preserve original PBS *‑me, although the form is usually derived from a form
ending in a long vowel. The reflexive forms ‑mies, dial. ‑mēs are explainable
along the same lines as the Lithuanian reflexive forms, as based on analogy
with forms ending in an original long vowel which was shortened in final posi-
tion, but preserved before the reflexive particle.
In Old Prussian we find ‑mai. As in the remaining endings outside the third
person, the original final vocalism has been replaced with a diphthong (§ 4.3.1).
In the thematic optative the tone and vocalism of the ‑iẽ‑ of Li. dial.
(Tverečius) refl. sėʒ́iẽmės have probably arisen by analogy with the second-
and third-person endings, although it is not entirely clear what the regular out-
come of preconsonantal PIE *‑oi̯h‑ is in Baltic (see Stang 1966: 70–73).
PS The Proto-Balto-Slavic primary endings prs. *‑mas, *‑ˈamas and the sec-
ondary endings prt. *‑me, *‑ˈame, opt. *‑ī�m
̰ e, *‑ˈa̰ im
̯ e yielded PS prs. *‑mə [17]
(CS *‑mъ [29]), *‑aˈmə [13|17] (*‑omъ [29] → *‑emъ; *‑jemъ [20|29]), prt. *‑me
(*‑me [29]), *‑ame (*‑ome [29]), *‑īme [13] (*‑ime [29]), *‑ˈāi̯me [13] (*‑ě̋ me
[22|29]; *‑i̋me [20|22|29]). Although no attested Slavic dialect preserves the
354 chapter 4
original distribution of the primary and secondary marker, we may hypothe-

sise that at least remnants of the old distribution were retained in Proto-Slavic
and were only given up after the dissolution of the proto-language. The alter-
native scenario, according to which the distribution had already been given
up in pre-Proto-Slavic, requires us to assume that two variant endings existed
side by side with no functional difference; such a scenario is possible, but less
plausible than the former.
It has been claimed that Slavic ‑me is an innovation based on the second-
person plural ending ‑te and does not reflect PIE *‑me (or *‑mes) (Vaillant loc.
cit.; Andersen 1998a: 445; Reinhart 2012: 290). However, since the Baltic lan-
guages point to PBS *‑me, I find it more attractive to assume that Slavic also
inherited *‑me from Proto-Balto-Slavic.
Apart from inherited PS*‑mə and *‑me, two other markers are found in
Slavic: CS *‑my, a recent innovation based on 1pl. pron. my, and *‑mo, for which
see below (for the distribution of the markers see Vondrák loc. cit.; Meillet loc.
cit.). The spread of the secondary marker *‑me and the rise and spread of CS
*‑my and *‑mo are probably connected with the loss of the final syllable in the
primary ending PS*‑mə (CS *‑mъ), leading to a merger with athem. 1sg. *‑mi
(CS *‑mь) (cf. Mareš 1978: 202–204).
Reflexes of the form CS *‑mo are found in Serbo-Croatian, Slovene, Slovak
and Ukrainian. It is possible, of course, to say that this form simply goes back
to a Proto-Indo-European form *‑mo (e.g. Vaillant loc. cit.; Aitzetmüller loc. cit.;
Kortlandt loc. cit.). However, as there is no good evidence for an ending PIE
*‑mo in other Indo-European branches, this solution, though very widespread,
is not satisfactory. The suggestion by Pedersen (1905a: 321) that ‑mo arose pho-
netically in Ukrainian and spread to other Slavic dialects from there is quite
unlikely. In Cowgill’s view, Slavic ‑mo may represent a contamination of pri-
mary *‑mos and secondary *‑me to *‑mo (1985a/2006: 107–108; but cf., more
inconclusively, 2006: 555). In my opinion, though, it is not realistic that the
new ending should have coexisted for a considerable amount of time—at
least since the loss of word-final *s [17]—with the two endings from which it
was contaminated, with no discernible function distinguishing it from the two
competing endings. Reinhart’s idea (2012: 293) that Slavic ‑o is an “echo-forma-
tion” based on the particle bo is hard to believe. Likewise, the suggestion that
‑mъ reflects PIE unaccented *‑mos whereas ‑mo reflects accented *‑mós (see
Feuillet 1988: 13) is unsupported by the facts. According to Andersen (1998a:
445), Late CS *‑mъ alongside *‑mo suggests the earlier existence of analogical
*‑max (> CS *‑mъ) alongside unaltered *‑mas (> CS *‑mo) from PIE *‑mos;
even if it is accepted that the regular reflex of PIE *‑os was CS *‑o, a view with
which I do not agree (see Olander 2012: 322–325), it is not clear what the source
for the analogical *‑x would have been.
Thus despite a high number of hypotheses on the background of the
Common Slavic variant *‑mo, the problem has not found a convincing solution
yet. As mentioned above, however, it seems relatively clear that the ending
arose after the dissolution of Proto-Slavic as a reaction to the loss of the final
jer in the original primary ending PS*‑mə.
In the present first-person dual and first-person plural the reflex of the the-
matic vowel PIE *‑o‑ has been replaced with *‑e‑ in the attested Slavic dia-
lects, in contrast to the preterite where the original o-vocalism was preserved,
e.g. OCS prs. vedemъ, aor. věsomъ, sědomъ. The introduction of e-vocalism in
the present is usually explained as analogical based on the i̯e-present, where
PS*‑i̯a‑ became *‑i̯e‑ [20] (see Ul’janov 1888: 21; Brugmann loc. cit.; Meillet loc.
cit.; Stang 1942: 236 n. 2). Since I assume that the fronting of non-front vow-
els after palatal consonants [20] took place after the dissolution of the Slavic
proto-language (see the discussion in § 1.5.5), it follows that the replacement
of thematic *‑a‑ with *‑e‑ in the first-person dual and first-person plural of the
present tense had not yet been carried out in Proto-Slavic but was a Common
Slavic process.
4.16 Second-Person Plural
Athematic present second-person plural
ps *esˈte (CS *jestè) pbs *‑te pie *‑th₁e
ocs jeste Li. →ẽsat(e); OLi. éste, esté Ved. sthá, →sthána
ORu. jeste; ONovg. jeste Lv. →ȩsat OAv. stā, spašnuϑā; YAv. ?
OCz. jste OPr. →asti, →astai, →estei Gk. ἐστέ
La. →estis
Go. →sijuþ
Hi. →paitteni, →esteni
356 chapter 4
Thematic present second-person plural
ps *u̯edeˈte (CS *vedetè; *píšete) pbs *‑ˈete pie *‑eth₁e
ocs vedete; pišete Li. →vẽdat(e); Ved. bháratha, →vádathana

ORu. vedete; pišete; ONovg. idete; refl. →vẽdatės OAv. xšaiiaϑā; YAv. ?
dělajete Lv. →vȩ̀lkat; refl. Gk. φέρετε
OCz. vedete; píšete →ceļ̂atiês; dial. La. →legitis; ipv. legite
refl. →‑tēs, →‑tās Go. bairiþ, qiþid-uh
OPr. →immati Hi. →daškitteni, →daškatteni,
→akkuškittani
Athematic preterite second-person plural
PS *u̯ēste (CS *věste) PBS *‑te PIE prt., inj. *‑te
OCS věste, vedoste Li. – Ved. ipf. abravīta, →ábravītana

ORu. vedoste; ONovg. ? Lv. – OAv. prs. inj. mraotā; YAv. ?
OCz. vedeste, vedešte OPr. – Gk. aor. ἐλῡ́σατε
La. –
Go. prt. beruþ
Hi. →ēšten
Thematic preterite second-person plural
PS *ˈsēdete (CS *sě̋dete) PBS *‑ete PIE prt., inj. *‑ete
OCS sědete Li. – Ved. ipf. ábhavata

ORu. →ved’aste; ONovg. ? Lv. – OAv. ?; YAv. prs. inj. tauruuaiiata
OCz. sědete OPr. – Gk. ipf. ἐφέρετε
La. –
Go. –
Hi. ?
Athematic imperative second-person plural
PS *dāˈdīte (CS *dadi ̋te) PBS *‑ˈī ̰te PIE opt. *‑ih₁te
OCS dadite Li. – Ved. →syā́ta, →syā́tana

ORu. dadite; ONovg. Lv. – OAv. →x́ iiātā; YAv. aor. opt. →buiiata
vъdadite OPr. →seīti Gk. εἶτε, →εἴητε
OCz. →vězte La. →sītis
Go. wileiþ
Hi. –
Thematic imperative second-person plural
ps *u̯eˈdāi ̯te (CS *vedě̋te; *piši ̋te) pbs *‑ˈa̰i ̯te pie opt. *‑oi ̯h₁te
ocs veděte; pišite Li. dial. pašã̊,kťe; Ved. tireta

ORu. veděte; pišite; ONovg. refl. →sėʒ́iẽťės OAv. ?; YAv. frāϑβər əsaēta
→mogite; napišite Lv. ind., ipv. lìeciẽt Gk. φέροιτε
OCz. jděte, →ved’te; žebřete, →pište OPr. immaiti La. –
Go. bairaiþ
Hi. –
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 623–626: PIE *‑te is found in Gk. ‑τε, La. ‑tis (with
analogical ‑s), ipv. ‑te, OIr. ‑d, ‑th, Li. ‑te, OCS ‑te; primary ‑tha of IIr. may
be an innovation; Li. refl. ‑tės(i) is modelled on 1pl. ‑mės(i) | Beekes
1995/2011: 259–260: PIE had primary athem. *‑th₁e, them. *‑eth₁e, and
secondary athem. *‑te, them. *‑ete | Rix 1976/ 1992: 252: postu-
lated PIE primary ending *‑tes (> La. ‑tis) is doubtful | Sihler 1995:
464–465: PIE primary and secondary endings were *‑te; La. ‑tis is from
2du. *‑th₁es | Weiss 2009/2011: 386: La. ‑tis reflects PIE primary end-
ing *‑tes; aspiration in Vedic is taken from 2du.; PIE secondary ending
was *‑te; Li. ‑te, refl. ‑tės(i), reflects long vowel | Krahe 1942/1967: 97,
103, 109: Ved. ‑tha, Gk. ‑τε, PGmc. *‑þ(i), *‑ð(i) reflect PIE *‑t/tʰe; Go. prt.
‑uþ perhaps reflects PIE aor. ending, with u from 1 and 3pl. | Boutkan
1995: 308, 317–318, 321, 336, 338: Go. ‑iþ is from PIE primary *‑eth₁e; Gmc.
358 chapter 4
prt. ending represents athem. secondary ending *‑te | Kloekhorst

2008a: 866: PIE primary ending *‑th₁e, secondary *‑te
PBS
Olander 2009: 196–197: PBS *‑ˈete goes back to PIE *‑éte | Kortlandt
1979b/2009: 161: Li. ‑te and Slavic ‑te have resulted from merger of PIE
primary *‑th₁e, secondary *‑te; OPr. ‑ti is from *‑te plus analogical *h from
them. sg. forms; OPr. ‑tei contains ptcl. *‑i; OPr. ‑tai is based on analogy
with 2sg. and 1pl. in ‑ai | Endzelīns 1971: 205: Li. ‑te, refl. ‑tės(i), Lv.
‑t(e), dial. refl. ‑tēs, perhaps also OPr. ‑ti go back to *‑tē, with ‑ē from 1pl.
*‑mē; OPr. ‑tei is analogical from 2sg. | Stang 1942: 227–228, 235–236,
241, 1966: 417–419: Li. ‑te, refl. ‑tės(i), goes back to *‑tḗ; OPr. ‑ti from *‑tē is
identical to Li. ending; OPr. ‑tei consists of *‑tē plus ptcl. *‑i; OPr. ‑tai was
influenced by 2sg. and 1pl. | Otrębski 1956: 185: Li. ‑t(e), Lv. ‑t(e) reflect
PIE *‑te, also in La. ipv. ‑te, Gk. ‑τε, OCS ‑te | Endzelīns 1923: 553–554,
687–689: Lv. ‑t from ‑te (attested in dialects) reflects *‑tē, also in Li. ‑t(e);
Baltic length is perhaps from 1pl. *‑mē; Lv. ‑t may also reflect ‑ti (attested
in dialects) from *‑tie from *‑tei (remade on the model of 2sg. *‑(s)ei), also
in OPr. ‑tei; Lv. prs. indic. (OLv. ipv.) ‑iet, ā-verb ‑ait, Li. dial. ‑ait(e) reflect
PIE opt. ending
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 117, 119–120: OCS ‑te, Li. ‑te are from *‑te | Meillet
1924/1934: 318–319, 330–331: Slavic ‑te corresponds to Gk. ‑τε, Go. ‑þ,
but also to primary Ved. bháratha and secondary bhárata, as well as
La. ‑tis | Stang 1942: 223, 240–241: Slavic ‑te reflects PIE *‑the or
*‑te | Vaillant 1966: 12, 32–34 | Arumaa 1985: 279–280, 311: Slavic
‑te, Gk. ‑τε, Li. ‑te, refl. ‑tės(i), La. ipv. ‑te reflect PIE *‑te | Aitzetmüller
1978/1991: 178, 192–193
PIE All branches except Indo-Iranian point to a Proto-Indo-Euro pean

person–number marker *‑te in both the primary and secondary endings (for
Tocharian see Peyrot 2013: 414–415). In Indo-Iranian, however, we find a dis-
tinction between primary *‑tʰa and secondary *‑ta. The aspiration in Indo-
Iranian is usually thought to have entered the second plural by analogy with
the primary marker of the second dual PIE *‑th₂as, where *h₂ aspirated the
preceding stop. However, if we assume that *h₁ also aspirated a preceding stop
in Indo-Iranian and disappeared without a trace in the remaining branches,
we may reconstruct the primary marker as *‑th₁e (thus also Kortlandt loc. cit.;
Beekes 1988: 63, 72; loc. cit.; but cf. Kümmel 2000: 295; Rix et al. 1998/2001: 478
n. 5; and, on *Ch₁ in general, Mayrhofer 1986: 135 n. 158, where *h₁ is thought not
to yield aspiration in Indo-Iranian). On the other hand, if Olsen (1988: 92–93)
is correct in implying that *th₁ yielded an aspirated stop in both Indo-Iranian
and Greek, the Greek second-person plural marker ‑τε would have to be traced
back to PIE *‑te, either because the Proto-Indo-European primary marker was
*‑te after all, or because the primary marker was replaced with the secondary
marker *‑te in Greek.
Here I have tentatively reconstructed *‑th₁e for the proto-language. In any
case, the question of the origin of the aspiration in Indo-Iranian does not have
any significance for the analysis of the Balto-Slavic material.
In the thematic present and preterite the marker was preceded by the
thematic vowel *‑e, in the athematic optative by the optative suffix *‑ih₁‑,
and in the thematic optative by the thematic vowel *‑o‑ and the optative
suffix *‑ih₁‑.
PBS PIE primary *‑th₁e yielded *‑te in Proto-Balto-Slavic [1], merging with

the secondary marker PIE, PBS *‑te. In the optative, PIE athem. *‑ih₁te, them.
*‑oi̯h₁te are reflected as PBS *‑ˈī�t̰ e [1], *‑ˈa̰ it̯ e [1|7].
The marker *‑te is preserved as ‑te in Lithuanian and as ‑t in Latvian in the
non-reflexive forms. In the reflexive forms Li. ‑tės(i), Lv. ‑ties, dial. ‑tēs, ‑tās
the long vowels have arisen as the results of analogical processes parallel to the
ones described under the first-person plural (§ 4.15).
In Old Prussian the marker is ‑ti, alongside less frequent ‑tei, ‑tai and rarely
‑te. The variants in a diphthong contain the same final diphthong as the other
first and second persons (see § 4.3.1). The variant ‑ti is usually thought to con-
tain earlier *‑ē, corresponding to the long *‑ē‑ of Li. refl. ‑tės(i), Lv. dial. refl. ‑tēs.
However, I assume that the long variants arose independently in Lithuanian
and Latvian.
It has been argued that OPr. ‑ti may be a reduced variant of ‑tei (van Wijk
1918: 61, who also keeps the possibility open that OPr. ‑ti corresponds to Li. ‑te,
refl. ‑tės(i); see also Stang 1966: 408, who adduces examples of OPr. ‑e and ‑i
from ‑ei). An argument against this idea is that it cannot explain why 2pl. ‑ti is
more than ten times as common as ‑tei and ‑tai taken together, whereas 2sg. ‑si
is much less frequent than ‑sei and ‑sai (see Endzelīns 1944: 157, 159). However,
judging from the attestations, it seems that forms containing a diphthong are
generally found in disyllabic words, whereas forms ending in ‑i are often found
in longer words. Accordingly, we may assume that there was an ongoing pro-
cess of shortening ‑ei to ‑i which was more advanced in longer word-forms.
The ‑ei of 2pl. ‑tei may be historically the same as that of 2sg. ‑sei, and the ‑ai
of ‑tai is probably related to the diphthong found in 1sg. ‑mai, 2sg. ‑sai and 1pl.
‑mai. It is possible that the diphthong originated in the first-person singular of
athematic verbs (see § 4.3.1).
360 chapter 4
In the Baltic thematic present the inherited e-grade of the thematic vowel
was replaced with o-grade. The tone and vocalism of Li. dial. (Tverečius) ‑iẽ‑ in
refl. sėʒ́iẽťės are probably analogical, as in the first plural (see § 4.15).
PS PBS athem. prs. *‑te and them. prs. *‑ˈete yielded PS*‑te (CS *‑te [29]), *‑eˈte
[13] (*‑ete [29]; *‑jete [29]). Likewise, the preterite endings PBS athem. *‑te and
them. *‑ete yielded PS*‑te (CS *‑te [29]), *‑ete (*‑ete [29]). In the imperatives,
PBS *‑ī�t̰ e, *‑ˈa̰ it̯ e yielded PS*‑īte [13] (CS *‑ite [29]), *‑ˈāi̯te [13] (*‑ě̋ te [22|29];
*‑ji̋te [20|22|29]). The endings are preserved in the old Slavic dialects.
4.17 Present Third-Person Plural
Athematic present third-person plural
PS →*sanˈti (CS *sǫ́tь); *dāˈde/inti PBS *‑enti, *‑inti PIE *‑enti, *‑n̥ti
(CS *dádętь)
OCS sǫtъ; dadętъ Li. – Ved. sánti

ORu. sǫtь; dad’atь; ONovg. su, sutь; Lv. – OAv. həṇtī; YAv. həṇti
vъdad’atь (ti ju), (oti) otъdad’a OPr. – Gk. εἰσί; Dor. ἐντί; Myc.
OCz. sú, jsú; dadie, dadí e-e-si /ehensi/
La. →sunt; Umbr. sent
Go. sind
Hi. ašanzi
Thematic present third-person plural
PS *u̯edanˈti (CS *vedǫ́tь; →*píšǫtь) PBS *‑ˈanti PIE *‑onti
OCS vedǫtъ; →pišǫtъ Li. – Ved. bháranti

ORu. vedutь; →pišutь; ONovg. budu, Lv. – OAv. marəṇtī; YAv. marəṇti
budutь; →or’utь, (late) →bьju OPr. – Gk. φέρουσι; Dor. φέροντι;
OCz. vedú; →píšú, →píší Myc. e‑ko‑si /ekʰonsi/
La. legunt
Go. bairand; ONor. bera
Hi. daškanzi
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 626–637: OCS jadętъ, RuCS sǫtь go back to PIE
athem. *‑e/onti; RuCS dadętь has athem. *‑n̥ ti; RuCS ‑ǫtь reflects them.
*‑onti | Beekes 1995/2011: 234: PIE athem. ending was *‑nti; them.
ending was *‑o, preserved in Li., but elsewhere largely replaced with ana-
logical *‑onti | Rix 1976/1992: 252: Gk. εἰσί, Myc. e‑e‑si, Dor. ἐντί reflect
PIE athem. *h₁senti; Gk. ‑ουσι, Myc. e‑ko‑si, Dor. ‑οντι reflect PIE them.
*‑onti | Sihler 1995: 465–470, 549–550: La. them. ‑unt reflects PIE pri-
mary *‑onti; Sabellic distinguishes primary ‑nt from secondary ‑(n)s; Gk.
εἰσί for *εἱσί is analogical, Myc. e‑e‑si showing the expected form; La. sunt
reflects PIE *h₁sonti | Weiss 2009/2011: 386–387: La. has generalised
PIE primary *‑onti; La. sunt, OCS sǫtъ have arisen through contamination
of athem. PIE *‑enti and them. *‑onti | Krahe 1942/1967: 97–98, 136:
Go. sind goes back to PIE athem. *senti; PIE *‑onti is reflected in Gmc.
*‑anđ(i) (> Go. ‑and, ohg. ‑ant) and *‑anþ(i) (ONor. ‑a) | Boutkan
1995: 308: PIE them. *‑o(?), athem. *‑enti; Gmc. them. endings are based
on reshaped *‑onti | Kloekhorst 2008a: 189–190: Hi. ‑anzi replaces
more original ‑anza, with ‑i from other present endings; Hi. ‑anza repre-
sents athem. PIE *‑énti and them. *‑ónti
PBS
Olander 2009: 194, 197: PBS *‑ˈanti reflects PIE *‑ónti | Kortlandt
1979b/2009: 161–162: them. 3pl. PIE *‑o is preserved in Baltic, merging
with them. 3sg. PIE *‑e → *‑o; Slavic *‑ǫtь contains them. *‑o plus athem.
*‑nti | Endzelīns 1971: 203–204; [see 1923] | Stang 1942: 233–234,
1966: 411–412; [see 3sg., § 4.9] | Otrębski 1956: 183–184; [see 3sg.,
§ 4.9] | Endzelīns 1923: 549–551; [see 3sg., § 4.9]
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 117–119; 212–219: CS *‑ǫtь reflects PIE *‑onti; OCS
dadętъ is from *‑n̥ ti, jadętъ is from *‑enti | Meillet 1924/1934: 320–322:
‑tъ, ‑∅ have arisen through reduction of ‑tь; athem. sǫtъ reflects PIE *‑onti,
also in La. sunt | Stang 1942: 215–219: Slavic ‑tъ, ‑∅ through reduction
of ‑tь | Vaillant 1966: 12–14: ‑tъ, ‑∅ result from reduction of ‑tь; appar-
ent athem. variant PIE *‑enti is not original | Arumaa 1985: 280–281:
PIE *sonti is preserved in La. sunt and ORu. sutь | Aitzetmüller 1978/
1991: 177–178, 210: OCS ‑tъ has replaced ‑tь through hardening; athem. sǫtъ
has taken over them. ending; soft ‑( j)ǫ‑ for *‑( j)ę‑ < *‑i̯an‑ is analogical
from e-verbs
PIE The athematic endings, accented *‑énti and unaccented *‑n̥ ti, consisted
of the third plural active marker *‑(e)nt‑ followed by the hic et nunc marker *‑i.
In thematic forms the zero grade of the ending was preceded by the o-grade of
the thematic vowel.
362 chapter 4
In Latin sunt the original athematic ending was replaced with the thematic
ending; Umbr. sent shows that the original ending was preserved in Proto-Italic.
PBS PIE athematic *‑n̥ ti, *‑enti yielded PBS *‑inti [2], *‑enti. Since the forms
have disappeared in Baltic and syllable-final *en and *in merge in Slavic by
[28], we cannot know whether both athematic endings or only one of them
survived into Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Slavic; I have presented both end-
ings here. The reflex of PIE thematic *‑onti is PBS *‑ˈanti [7].
In the Baltic languages only one form for the third-person singular, dual and
plural is found in all verbal categories; the only exception is the clearly second-
ary Old Prussian facultative marking of the singular form through the element
‑ts of pronominal origin (see Stang 1966: 410–411 for a possible corresponding
plural form). According to the most widespread view, the Baltic third-person
forms historically reflect the third-person singular, which was generalised in
the dual and plural. Although the motivation for this constitutive development
of Baltic remains unclear, I still consider it the most plausible scenario.
An alternative view regards the Proto-Baltic third plural ending *‑a as the
direct reflex of a Proto-Indo-European primary thematic third plural ending
*‑o (Kortlandt loc. cit.; Beekes loc. cit.). In this scenario the analogical substitu-
tion of the thematic third singular ending *‑e with *‑o > *‑a in Baltic resulted in
a merger of the singular and plural forms, which was subsequently generalised
to the entire verbal system. The obvious drawback of this view is that it requires
the reconstruction of a Proto-Indo-European ending *‑o on the basis of only
one language branch, with very indirect support from other branches (see also
the criticism of Cowgill 1985a/2006: 106; 2006: 556; Villanueva Svensson 2010:
361–362; and cf. Kortlandt 2011b). I also find it implausible that the third sin-
gular ending *‑e would have been replaced analogically with *‑a when this led
to a merger of the third singular and plural forms; one would rather expect
the speakers of the language to try to avoid such merger. Kortlandt’s assump-
tion that the merger started as a phonetic process in i̯e/o-verbs does not sig-
nificantly improve the idea. In fact, this hypothesis amounts to assuming
that the thematic third singular was replaced with the third plural in Baltic, a
view which is considerably less plausible than the more widespread scenario,
according to which the replacement took place in the opposite direction.
PS The reflexes of the athematic endings PBS *‑inti, *‑enti are PS*‑inti, *‑enti
(both corresponding to CS *‑ętь [28|29]). As mentioned above, we cannot
know whether both endings were preserved in Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-
Slavic. It is not unlikely that one of the endings had been generalised in pre-
Proto-Slavic. In the third plural of the verb ‘to be’ the thematic ending was
introduced, as in Latin. In thematic presents PBS *‑ˈanti yielded PS*‑anˈti [13]

(CS *‑ǫ́ tь [28|29]; *‑jętь [20|28|29] → *‑jǫtь). In the i̯e-present expected CS *‑jętь
[20|28|29] was generally replaced with reflexes of CS *‑jǫtь by analogy with the
e-present (Vaillant loc. cit.; Aitzetmüller loc. cit.).
The expected endings are found in East Slavic, whereas the predominant
forms in Old Church Slavonic are ‑ętъ, ‑ǫtъ. All major Slavic dialect areas
present reflexes of *‑ę, *‑ǫ; however, as mentioned under the present third-
person singular (§ 4.9), the monosyllabic endings point to the former presence
of an additional syllable, e.g. SCr. nèsū, Po. wiodą, OCz. vedou (see e.g. Meillet
1913a: 235; loc. cit.; Vaillant loc. cit.; Cowgill 2006: 551).
4.18 Preterite Third-Person Plural
Athematic preterite third-person plural
PS *u̯ēsin (CS *věsę) PBS *‑in PIE prt., inj. *‑end, *‑n̥d
OCS věsę, vedošę Li. – Ved. aor. →ábhārṣur; ipf. ā́san

ORu. vedoša; ONovg. – Lv. – OAv. aor. inj.uruuāxšat̰, gəmən; YAv. ipf.
OCz. →vedechu OPr. – ādadat̰, prs. inj. viṇdən
Gk. aor. →ἔλῡσαν; Dor. ipf. 3pl. ἦν; Hom.
ipf. 3sg. ἦεν; Att., Ion. ipf. 3sg. ἦν
La. –
Go. prt. nemun
Hi. →ešer (OS)
Thematic preterite third-person plural
PS *ˈsēdan (CS *sě̋dǫ) PBS *‑an PIE prt., inj. *‑ond
OCS sědǫ Li. – Ved. ipf. ábhavan

ORu. mogu, →ved’axutь; ONovg. ? Lv. – OAv. ipf. dabən; YAv. ipf. jasən
OCz. sědu, →sědú OPr. – Gk. ipf. ἔφερον
La. –; Faliscan [fi]fiqod
Go. –
Hi. →daškēr (OS)
364 chapter 4
PIE
Brugmann 1913–1916: 626–637: OCS věsę reflects PIE athem. *‑n̥ t, alongside
*‑e/ont; OCS nesǫ is from PIE them. *‑ont | Beekes 1995/2011: 259–261,
263–264: Slavic ‑ę is from PIE athem. *‑n̥ t, alongside *‑ent; Ved. ‑ur is from
pf.; PIE them. ending was *‑ont | Rix 1976/1992: 244–245: Gk. athem.
‑αν (for *‑α), OAv. ‑at̰ are from PIE *‑n̥ t; Gk. (Hom., Dor.) athem. ἔβαν is
from PIE *egʷh₂ent; Gk. (Hom.) 3sg. ἦεν is from PIE 3pl. *eh₁sent; Gk.
them. ‑ον, Ved. ‑an, OIr. ‑at, OCS ‑ǫ reflect PIE *‑ont | Sihler 1995: 465–
470: Gk. ‑αν is perhaps analogical for *‑α from PIE *‑n̥ t, with ‑ν from them.
verbs or from e.g. ἔβαν < PIE *egʷh₂ent; Dor. 3pl. ἦν, Att., Ion. 3sg. ἦεν, ἦν
reflect PIE 3pl. *eh₁sent, also in Ved. 3pl. ā́san; Gk. ‑ον, OCS ‑ǫ directly
reflect PIE *‑ont | Weiss 2009/2011: 386–387: La. ‑nt reflects primary
ending | Krahe 1942/1967: 103–104: Gmc. ‑un reflects PIE secondary
ending *‑n̥ t | Boutkan 1995: 336–337: PIE *‑n̥ t yielded PGmc. *‑unt (>
Go. ‑un) | Kloekhorst 2008a: 244–245: Hi. ending is ‑er, not ‑ir, and
reflects pf. ending PIE *‑ēr; PIE *‑ent is preserved in Luvian ‑anta
PBS
Olander 2009: – | Kortlandt 1979b/2009: 162: athem. Slavic ‑ę is
from PIE *‑ent; Slavic them. ‑ǫ is from PIE *‑ont | Endzelīns 1971:
– | Stang 1942: –, 1966: – | Otrębski 1956: – | Endzelīns 1923: –
PS Vondrák 1908/1928: 119: Slavic ‑ę, ‑ǫ reflect PIE *‑n̥ t, *‑ont | Meillet
1924/1934: 323–324: OCS ‑ę, Av. ‑at̰, Gk. ‑αν (with analogical ‑ν from ἔφερον)
reflect PIE *‑n̥ t; OCS ‑ǫ, Ved. ‑an, Gk. ‑ον go back to PIE *‑ont | Stang
1942: 213: OCS ‑ǫ corresponds to Gk. ‑ον, Ved. ‑an from PIE *‑nt | Vaillant
1966: 16–17: Slavic ‑ę, OAv. ‑at̰ are from PIE *‑n̥ t, also in Gk. ‑αν with ‑ν from
them. ‑ον; Slavic ‑ǫ, Ved. ‑an, Gk. ‑ον reflect PIE *‑ont | Arumaa 1985:
280–281: Slavic ‑ę, ‑ǫ reflect PIE *‑n̥ t, *‑ont | Aitzetmüller 1978/1991:
179–180
PIE The Proto-Indo-European person–number marker *‑(e)nt‑ surfaced as

athematic *‑end when accented and *‑n̥ d when unaccented. The thematic end-
ing was *‑ond. The full-grade variant of the athematic ending is preserved in
Ved. ipf. ā́san and OAv. aor. inj. gəmən; the zero-grade variant is seen in Avestan
‑at̰, in Germanic preterite forms like Go. nemun and, most likely, in the Slavic
sigmatic aorist. In the Vedic athematic inflection and in Hittite a form ending
in *‑r was imported from the perfect paradigm. In Latin the primary ending
was generalised, but Faliscan [fi]fiq‑od ‘they fashioned’ preserves the second-
ary ending. The distinction between Proto-Indo-European secondary *‑nd and
primary *‑nti is also preserved in Sabellic.
PBS PIE athem. *‑n̥ d and them. *‑ond yielded PBS *‑in [2|5|9] and *‑an
[5|7|9]. The endings were lost in Baltic.
PS PBS *‑in, *‑an were retained as PS*‑in (CS *‑ę [28]), *‑an (CS *‑ǫ [28]). As
noted in § 4.2.6 the imperative third-person plural form OCS bǫdǫ historically
contains the thematic secondary ending.
I assume that pre-PS word-final *‑n from PIE *‑n(d) was preserved in Proto-
Slavic, in contrast to the reflex of PIE *‑m, which was lost, e.g. PIE, PBS i-stem
acc. sg. *‑im > PS*‑i [19] and PIE o-stem masc. acc. sg. *‑om > PBS *‑am [7] >
PS*‑u [19] (Olander 2010 with discussion of alternative solutions; see also the
proposal of Villanueva Svensson 2010: 362–363; and cf. Kortlandt 2011b).
The endings were generally preserved in the old Slavic dialects. In Old
Russian the variant in ‑utь is remade on the model of the present form.
Chapter 5
Concluding Remarks
In this study I have set out to reconstruct the inflectional endings of Proto-
Slavic and to discuss their historical background. In chapter 1, the introduc-
tion, I discuss some methodological and terminological issues of importance
for the rest of the study, including the concept of a proto-language, which I
define as the stage of a language just before the earliest innovation not shared
by all of its daughter languages, allowing for some variation. I touch upon the
relationship between Anatolian and non-Anatolian and conclude that in many
cases the reconstructions referred to as Proto-Indo-European in this study are
strictly speaking non-Anatolian Indo-European. Proto-Slavic is defined as the
stage of Slavic spoken immediately before the fronting of non-front vowels
after palatal consonants [20].
In chapter 2, devoted to a discussion of the phonological background of
the study, I present my views on the Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Balto-Slavic
and Proto-Slavic phonological systems. As a consequence of the definition
of Proto-Slavic given in the preceding chapter, the latter system still had oral
diphthongs, and there was no phonologically relevant opposition between
non-palatalised and palatalised consonants. This chapter also contains a rela-
tive chronology of the phonological developments leading from Proto-Indo-
European to Slavic.
The main part of the study comprises chapter 3 on the nominal system and
chapter 4 on the verbal system. For each Proto-Slavic ending I first reconstruct
the Proto-Indo-European form on the basis of the old Indo-European lan-
guages. I then establish the Proto-Balto-Slavic reflex of the ending on the basis
of the Balto-Slavic languages and of the Proto-Indo-European reconstruction.
Finally the Proto-Slavic ending is reconstructed on the basis of the attested
old Slavic languages and of the reconstructed Balto-Slavic form. In each of the
three steps—the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Balto-
Slavic and Proto-Slavic endings—I discuss problematic forms in the relevant
languages and point out possible solutions.
I must admit that a few Slavic inflectional forms are not satisfactorily
accounted for in this study. Interestingly, two of the diachronically most dif-
ficult inflectional forms belong to the verbal system. The first one is the present
second-person singular marker PS *‑sī or *‑sē̆i ̯ (CS *‑si), with a variant *‑xī or
*‑xē̆i ̯ (*‑ši), in which the long vowel or diphthong remains unexplained (§ 4.6).

Concluding Remarks 367
The second one is the first-person plural marker -mo found in Serbo-Croatian,
Slovene, Slovak and Ukrainian, with a vowel that does not seem to be inher-
ited, yet is difficult to explain within Slavic (§ 4.15).
The study differs from other studies treating the same subject due to a com-
bination of several design choices. First, the study focuses on Proto-Slavic in
the strict sense, not on a more loosely defined Common Slavic (see § 1.5.5).
Second, all relevant phonological changes from Proto-Indo-European to Slavic
have been formulated explicitly and ordered chronologically (§ 2.3), and refer-
ence is made to them throughout in the treatment of the individual endings.
Third, the study treats all inflectional endings of Proto-Slavic, not only a subset
(chapters 3 and 4).
These design choices, I hope, have led to a more complete, coherent and
accessible presentation of the prehistory of the Proto-Slavic inflectional sys-
tem than what has previously been made available. On the other hand, they
have also exposed problems that would perhaps not have been revealed oth-
erwise, such as the complex of problems related to the loss of laryngeals [1],
the Common Indo-European vowel contractions [3], the rise of Balto-Slavic
accentual mobility [4] and the delabialisation of PIE *o [7].
Among the most important specific results of the study I shall emphasise
two. A long-standing chronological problem in the development of Slavic final
syllables may be solved if it is assumed that Slavic retained the distinction
between PIE *m and *n after short vowels in final syllalbes, e.g. PIE prt. 1sg.
*‑om > PS *‑u [7|19] (CS *‑ъ [29]) vs. 3pl. *‑ont > PS *‑an [7|9] (CS *‑ǫ [28]) (see
§§ 4.4 and 4.18 as well as Olander 2010).
Another problem, or rather complex of problems, concerns the outcome
of pre-PS *‑ā̆(R)s. Elaborating on and expanding existing ideas by scholars
such as Meillet and Zaliznjak, I have put forward the hypothesis that pre-PS *ā̆
was centralised to *ə̄ ̆ in final syllables closed by an obstruent. This hypothesis
explains a number of controversial forms, including OCS o-stem masc. nom. sg.
‑ъ from PS *‑ə (via [29]) < PBS *‑as (via [17]) < PIE *‑os (via [7]) and OCS ā-stem
nom. pl. ‑y < PS *‑ə̄ (via [29]) < PBS *‑ās (via [17]) < PIE *‑ah₂as (via [1|3]).
Moreover, it also accounts for the corresponding forms in the Old Novgorod
dialect, ‑e and ‑ě, in addition to several endings with a similar structure (see,
among others, §§ 3.3.14, 3.5.4, 3.13.6, 3.13.7, 3.14.4, 3.14.5 and 4.8.2; Olander 2012).
The solutions proposed here would probably not have arisen if the point of
departure had been the traditional Common Slavic system, if the phonologi-
cal developments had not been ordered in a rigorous chronological order, or if
only the apparently relevant endings had been included in the analyses.
Bibliography
In reprinted publications with indication of the original pagination the page numbers
referred to in the main text are the original ones.
Ackermann, Katsiaryna. 2014. Die Vorgeschichte des slavischen Aoristsystems: mit der
kommentierten Belegsammlung der Aoristformen und Formen des präteritalen passi-
ven Partizipiums im Altkirchenslavischen (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages
& Linguistics 10). Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Adams, Douglas Q. 1988. Tocharian historical phonology and morphology (American
Oriental Series 71). New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.
Aitzetmüller, Rudolf. 1978. Altbulgarische Grammatik als Einführung in die slavische
Sprachwissenschaft (Monumenta Linguae Slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et disser-
tationes 12). Freiburg i. Br.: Weiher. (2., verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage
(Monumenta Linguae Slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et dissertationes 30), 1991.)
Andersen, Henning. 1968. IE *s after i, u, r, k in Baltic and Slavic. Acta Linguistica
Hafniensia 11. 171–190.
———. 1969. Lenition in Common Slavic. Language 45. 553–574.
———. 1970. On some old Balto-Slavic isoglosses. In Velta Rūķe-Draviņa (ed.), Donum
Balticum. To Professor Christian S. Stang on the occasion of his seventieth birthday 15
March 1970, 14–21. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
———. 1980. Morphological change: Towards a typology. In Jacek Fisiak & Werner
Winter (eds.), Historical morphology (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs
17), 1–50. The Hague, Paris & New York: Mouton.
———. 1985. Protoslavic and Common Slavic: Questions of periodization and termi-
nology. In Michael S. Flier & Dean S. Worth (eds.), Slavic linguistics, poetics, cultural
history: In honor of Henrik Birnbaum on his sixtieth birthday, 13 December 1985
(International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 31–32), 67–82. Columbus,
OH: Slavica.
———. 1996. Reconstructing prehistorical dialects: Initial vowels in Slavic and Baltic
(Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 91). Berlin & New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
———. 1998a. Slavic. In Paolo Ramat & Anna Giacalone Ramat (eds.), The Indo-
European languages, 415–453. London & New York: Routledge. English version of
“Le lingue slave”, in Le lingue indoeuropee, Bologna: il Mulino, 1993, 441–479.
———. 1998b. The Common Slavic vowel shifts. In American contributions to the
Twelfth International Congress of Slavists, Cracow, Aug.–Sept. 1998. Literature.
Linguistics. Poetics, 239–249. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.
———. 1998c. Диалектная дифференциация общеславянского языка: Парадокс
общих тенденций развития с раз личными локальными результатами. In
370 Bibliography
Robert A. Maguire & Alan Timberlake (eds.), American contributions to the Twelfth
International Congress of Slavists, Cracow, Aug.–Sept. 1998. Literature. Linguistics.
Poetics, 565–600. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.
———. 2006. Synchrony, diachrony, and evolution. In Ole Nedergaard Thomsen (ed.),
Competing models of linguistic change: Evolution and beyond. Vol. 279 (Amsterdam
Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series 4: Current Issues in
Linguistic Theory 279), 59–90. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
———. 2009a. Noget om analogi. In Rita Therkelsen & Eva Skafte Jensen (eds.),
Dramatikken i grammatikken: Festskrift til Lars Heltoft, 1–10. Roskilde: Institut for
Kultur og Identitet, Roskilde Universitet.
———. 2009b. The satem languages of the Indo-European Northwest. First contacts?
In Angela Marcantonio (ed.), The Indo-European language family: Questions about
its status (Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph Series 55(2)), 1–31.
Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
———. 2012. The new Russian vocative: Synchrony, diachrony, typology. Scando-
Slavica 58. 122–167.
———. 2013. On the origin of the Slavic aspects: Aorist and imperfect. Journal of Slavic
Linguistics 21. 17–43.
———. 2014. Early vowel contraction in Slavic: 1. i-verbs. 2. The imperfect. 3. The vòlja/
súša nouns. Scando-Slavica 60. 54–107.
Anthony, David W. 2007. The horse, the wheel, and language: How Bronze-Age riders
from the Eurasian steppes shaped the modern world. Princeton, NJ, & Oxford:
Princeton University Press.
———. 2013. Two IE phylogenies, three PIE migrations, and four kinds of steppe pas-
toralism. Journal of Language Relationship / Вопросы языкового родства 9. 1–21.
Antonsen, Elmer H. 1994. The earliest attested Germanic language, revisited. North-
Western European Language Evolution 23. 41–68.
Anttila, Raimo. 1972. An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics.
New York: Macmillan; London: Collier-Macmillan.
Arumaa, Peeter. 1933. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der litauischen Personalpronomina
(Eesti vabariigi Tartu Ülikooli toimetused / Acta et commentationes Universitatis
Tartuenis (Dorpatensis), B. Humaniora 32(2)). Tartu: Mattiesen.
———. 1964. Urslavische Grammatik. Einführung in das vergleichende Studium der sla-
vischen Sprachen. Vol. 1. Einleitung. Lautlehre (I. Teil: Vokalismus, II. Teil: Betonung).
Heidelberg: Winter.
vischen Sprachen. Vol. 3. Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
Bammesberger, Alfred. 1984. Studien zur Laryngaltheorie (Ergänzungshefte zur
Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 33). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Bibliography 371
———. 1990. Die Morphologie des urgermanischen Nomens (Untersuchungen zur

vergleichenden Grammatik der germanischen Sprachen 2). Heidelberg: Winter.
Bartholomae, Christian. 1882. Arische forschungen. Vol. 1. Halle: Niemeyer.
———. 1895. Arica VI. Indogermanische Forschungen 5. 215–230.
Bartoňek, Antonin. 2003. Handbuch des mykenischen Griechisch. Heidelberg: Winter.
Beekes, Robert S.P. 1981. The subjunctive endings of Indo-Iranian. Indo-Iranian Journal
23. 21–27.
———. 1985. The origins of the Indo-European nominal inflection (Innsbrucker Beiträge
zur Sprachwissenschaft 46). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der
Universität Innsbruck.
———. 1988. Laryngeal developments: A survey. In Alfred Bammesberger (ed.), Die
Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formen
systems, 59–105. Heidelberg: Winter.
———. 1990a. Vergelijkende taalwetenschap. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
———. 1990b. The historical grammar of Greek: A case study in the results of com-
parative linguistics. In Philip Baldi (ed.), Linguistic change and reconstruction meth-
odology (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 45), 305–329. Berlin & New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
———. 1995. Comparative Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. English transla-
tion of Beekes 1990a by Paul Gabriner. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. (2nd
ed., revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan, 2011.)
Belić, Aleksandar. 1932. Словенски инјунктив у вези са постанком словенског
глаголског вида (Глас Српске Краљевске Академије 148, Други разред, 76. [non
uidi]
Bendiks, H., A. Bergmane, A. Blinkena, L. Ceplītis, V. Dambe, R. Grabis, T. Jakubaite,
M. Rudzīte & E. Šmite (eds.). 1979. Jānis Endzelīns: Darbu izlase / Янис Эндзелин:
Избранные труды / Jānis Endzelīns: Ausgewählte Werke. Vol. 3(1). Rīga: Zinātne.
Bendiks, H., A. Bergmane, V. Dambe, R. Grabis, T. Jakubaite, M. Rudzīte, E. Šmite &
D. Zemzare (eds.). 1974. Jānis Endzelīns: Darbu izlase / Янис Эндзелин: Избранные
труды / Jānis Endzelīns: Ausgewählte Werke. Vol. 2. Rīga: Zinātne.
Berneker, Erich. 1896. Die preussische Sprache. Strassburg: Trübner.
———. 1904. Der genetiv-accusativ bei belebten wesen im Slavischen. Zeitschrift für
vergleichende Sprachforschung 37. 364–386.
Bichlmeier, Harald. 2013. Review of Olander 2009. Das Altertum 58. 75–78.
Bidwell, Charles E. 1961. The chronology of certain sound changes in Common Slavic as
evidenced by loans from Vulgar Latin. Word 17. 105–127.
———. 1963. Slavic historical phonology in tabular form. The Hague.
Birnbaum, David J. 2013. Review of Olander 2009. Scando-Slavica 59. 250–255.
Birnbaum, Henrik & Jos Schaeken. 1997. Das altkirchenslavische Wort (Slavistische
Beiträge 348). München: Sagner.
372 Bibliography
Bjørnflaten, Jan Ivar. 1990. The birch bark letters redeemed. Russian Linguistics 14.
315–338.
Boutkan, Dirk. 1995. The Germanic “auslautgesetze” (Leiden Studies in Indo-
European 4). Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
Bräuer, Herbert. 1961. Slavische Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 1. Einleitung, Lautlehre
(Sammlung Göschen 1191/1191a). Berlin: de Gruyter.
———. 1969a. Slavische Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 2. Formenlehre (1. Teil) (Sammlung
Göschen 1192/1192a/1192b). Berlin: de Gruyter.
———. 1969b. Slavische Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 3. Formenlehre (2. Teil) (Sammlung
Göschen 1236/1236a). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Brosman, Paul. 2002. Evidence in support of “Proto-Indo-Hittite”. Folia Linguistica
Historica 23(1–2). 1–21.
Brugmann, Karl. 1897. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen. 2. Bearbeitung. Vol. 1. Einleitung und Lautlehre. Strassburg: Trübner.
———. 1906. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen. 2. Bearbeitung. Vol. 2: Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch, 1.
Teil. Allgemeines; Zusammensetzung (Komposita); Nominalstämme. Strassburg:
Trübner.
———. 1909–1911. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen. 2. Bearbeitung. Vol. 2: Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch, 2.
Teil, 1. Lieferung: Zahlwörter. Die drei Nominalgenera. Kasus- und Numerusbildung
der Pronomina; 2. Lieferung: Bedeutung der Numeri beim Nomen und Pronomen.
Bedeutung der Kasus. Das Adjektivum. Die Adverbia nach Form und Gebrauch. Die
Präpositionen nach Form und Gebrauch. Strassburg: Trübner.
———. 1913–1916. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen. 2. Bearbeitung. Vol. 2. Lehre von den Wortformen und ihrem Gebrauch, 3.
Teil, 1. Lieferung: Vorbemerkungen. Verbale Komposita. Augment. Reduplizierte
Verbalbildungen. Die Tempusstämme im Allgemeinen. Präsens und starker Aorist.
Die s-Aoriste. Das Perfekt und sein Augmenttempus; 2. Lieferung: Zusammengesetzte
(periphrastische) Tempusbildungen. Die Modusbildungen. Die Personalendungen.
Der Gebrauch der Formen des Verbum finitum. Der Gebrauch der Formen des
Verbum infinitum. Partikeln im einfachen Satz. Strassburg: Trübner.
Buck, Carl Darling. 1955. The Greek dialects. Chicago & London: University of Chicago
Press. (Reprint, 1973.)
Byrd, Andrew. 2010. Reconstructing Indo-European syllabiﬁcation. PhD dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Carrasquer Vidal, Miguel. 2011. Syllables, intonations and Auslautgesetze. In Tijmen
Pronk & Rick Derksen (eds.), Accent matters: Papers on Balto-Slavic accentology
(Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 37), 19–57. Amsterdam & New York:
Rodopi.
Bibliography 373
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2000. 62. Lexeme, word-form, paradigm. In Geert Booij,

Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphology: An international
handbook on inflection and word-formation / Morphologie: Ein internationales
Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. Vol. 1 (Handbücher zur Sprach- und
Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of linguistics and communication
science 17(1)), 595–607. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.
Černyx, Pavel Jakovlevič. 1952. Историческая грамматика русского языка.
Москва: Государственное учебно-педагогическое издательство Министерства
Просвещения РСФСР. (Издание второе, 1954.)
Chantraine, Pierre. 1945. Morphologie historique du grec (Nouvelle collection à
l’usage des classes 34). Paris: Klincksieck. (2e édition revue et augmentée, 1961; 5e
tirage, 1984.)
Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
van Coetsem, Frans. 1956. Das System der starken Verba und die Periodisierung im älte-
ren Germanischen (Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van
Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkund, Nieuwe reeks 19(1)). Amsterdam: N.V. Noord-
Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.
Collinder, Björn. 1934. Indo-uralisches Sprachgut: die Urverwandtschaft zwischen der
indoeuropäischen und der uralischen ( finnischugrisch-samojedischen) Sprachfamilie.
Uppsala: Lundequist. (Collinder 1964, 17–132.)
———. 1964. Sprachverwandtschaft und Wahrscheinlichkeit: Ausgewählte Schriften neu
veröffentlicht zum 70. Geburtstag des Verfassers 22. Juli 1964 zusammen mit einer
Bibliopraphie der Werke von Björn Collinder 1921–1964 (Studia Uralica et Altaica
Upsaliensia 1). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Collinge, Neville E. 1985. The laws of Indo-European (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory
and History of Linguistic Science, Series 4: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 35).
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. (2nd printing (Benjamins Paperbacks 2),
1996.)
Comrie, Bernard. 2002. Farming dispersal in Europe and the spread of the Indo-
European language family. In Peter Bellwood & Colin Renfrew (eds.), Examining the
farming / language dispersal hypothesis, 409–419. Cambridge: McDonald Institute
for Archaeological Research.
Considine, P. & J.T. Hooker (eds.). 1987. Oswald Szemerényi: Scripta minora:
Selected essays in Indo-European, Greek, and Latin. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur
Sprachwissenschaft 53). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität
Innsbruck. (2nd printing, 1991.)
Čornejová, Michaela. 2007. Studie k dokladům českých místních jmen na ‑any v 11.–13.
století. Linguistica Online 6. Czech version of “Tschechische Bewohnernamen auf
‑any im 11.–13. Jahrhundert”, Österreichische Namenforschung 34 (2006). 27–40.
374 Bibliography
Corominas, Joan & José E. Pascual. 1980. Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e his-
pánico. Vol. 1. A–Ca (Biblioteca románica hispánica 5, diccionarios 7). Madrid:
Gredos. (1a reimpressión, 1984.)
Cowgill, Warren. 1965. Evidence in Greek. In Werner Winter (ed.), Evidence for laryn-
geals (Janua linguarum. Series maior 11), 142–180. The Hague: Mouton. (Klein 2006,
137–171.)
———. 1974. Indo-European languages. In The New Encyclopædia Britannica:
Macropædia (15th ed.). Vol. 9, 431–438. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica. (Klein
2006, 19–36.)
———. 1975. The origins of the Insular Celtic conjunct and absolute verbal endings.
In Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung: Akten der V. Fachtagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Regensburg, 9.–14. September 1973, 40–70.
Wiesbaden: Reichert. (Klein 2006, 299–322.)
———. 1979. Anatolian hi-conjugation and Indo-European perfect: Instalment II.
In Erich Neu & Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch: vergleichende
Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der
indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur
Sprachwissenschaft 25), 25–39. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der
Universität Innsbruck. (Klein 2006, 53–67.)
———. 1985a. The personal endings of thematic verbs in Indo-European. In Bernfried
Schlerath & Veronica Rittner (eds.), Grammatische Kategorien, Funktion und
Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin,
20.–25. Februar 1983, 99–108. Wiesbaden: Reichert. (Klein 2006, 69–76.)
———. 1985b. PIE *duu̯ o ‘2’ in Germanic and Celtic, and the nom.–acc. dual of non-
neuter o-stems. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 46. 13–28. (Klein 2006,
433–444.)
———. 2006. The personal endings of thematic verbs in Indo-European. In Klein
2006, 535–567. Longer version of Cowgill 1985a.
Debrunner, Albert & Jacob Wackernagel. 1930. Altindische Grammatik. Vol. 3.
Nominalflexion. Zahlwort. Pronomen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
(Unveränderter Nachdruck der 1. Auflage von 1929/1930, 1975.)
Derksen, Rick. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon
(Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 4). Leiden & Boston: Brill.
———. 2011. The fate of the neuter o-stems in Balto-Slavic. In Tijmen Pronk & Rick
Derksen (eds.), Accent matters: Papers on Balto-Slavic accentology (Studies in Slavic
and General Linguistics 37), 59–66. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
Diels, Paul. 1932–1934. Altkirchenslavische Grammatik. Vol. 1–2. Heidelberg: Winter.
(2. Ausg., 1963.)
Dolobko, Milij Gerasimovič. 1925. Die enklitischen Formen des Pronomens der 1. und
2. Person im Dativus dualis des Urslavischen. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 1.
336–442.
Bibliography 375
Dombrowski, Quinn. 2006. Palatalizations in the Old Novgorod dialect: Comparing the-
ory and data. BA thesis, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University
of Chicago.
Dybo, Vladimir Antonovič. 1961. Ударение славянского глагола и формы старосла-
вянского аориста. Краткие сообщения Института славяноведения АН СССР
30. 33–38.
———. 1981. Славянская акцентология: опыт реконструкции системы акцент-
ных парадигм в праславянском. Москва: Наука.
———. 2000. Морфонологизованные парадигматические акцентные системы.
Типология и генезис. Vol. 1. Москва: Языки русской культуры.
Dybo, Vladimir Antonovič, Galina Igorevna Zamjatina & Sergej L’vovič Nikolaev. 1990.
Основы славянской акцентологии. Москва: Наука.
Ebeling, Carl L. 1963. Questions of relative chronology in Common Slavic and Russian
phonology. In Dutch contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavicists
(Slavistische drukken en herdrukken 45), 27–42. The Hague: Mouton.
Eichner, Heiner. 1974a. Untersuchungen zur hethitischen Deklination. Inaugural-
Dissertation der Philosophischen Fakultät der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität zu
Erlangen-Nürnberg (Teildruck).
———. 1974b. Zu Etymologie und Flexion von vedisch strī ́ und púmān. Die Sprache 20.
26–42.
———. 1975. Die Vorgeschichte des hethitischen Verbalsystems. In Helmut Rix (ed.),
Flexion und Wortbildung: Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen
Gesellschaft, Regensburg, 9.–14. September 1973, 71–103. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
———. 1982. Studien zu den indogermanischen Numeralia: Rekonstruktion des urindo-
germanischen Formensystems und Dokumentation seiner einzelsprachlichen Vertre
tung bei den niederen Kardinalia ‘zwei’ bis ‘fünf’. Habilitationsschrift, Universität
Regensburg.
———. 1985. Das Problem des Ansatzes eines urindogermanischen Numerus
‘Kollektiv’ (‘Komprehensiv’). In Bernfried Schlerath & Veronica Rittner (eds.),
Grammatische Kategorien, Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 20.–25. Februar 1983, 134–169. Wiesbaden:
Reichert.
———. 1988. Sprachwandel und Rekonstruktion: Prinzipielles zur indogermanisti-
schen Rekonstruktion. In Christian Zinko (ed.), Akten der 13. Österreichischen
Linguistentagung, Graz 25.–27. Oktober 1985 (Arbeiten aus der Abteilung “Verglei
chende Sprachwissenschaft” Graz 1), 10–40. Graz: Leykam.
———. 1988–1990. Reklameiamben aus Roms Königszeit (Erster Teil). Die Sprache 34.
206–238.
———. 1992. 3. Anatolian. In Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European numerals
(Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monograph 57), 29–96. Berlin & New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
376 Bibliography
Endzelīns, Jānis. 1911. Славяно-балтiйскiе этюды. Харьковъ. (Bendiks et al. 1974,

167–354.)
———. 1923. Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.
———. 1931. Zur slavisch-baltischen Konjugation. Archivum Philologicum 2. 38–46.
(Bendiks et al. 1979, 579–587.)
———. 1943. Senprūšu valoda. Rīga: Universitātes apgāds.
———. 1944. Altpreussische Grammatik. German translation of Endzelīns 1943. Riga:
Latvju Grāmata.
———. 1948. Baltu valodu skaņas un formas. Rīga: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība.
———. 1971. Comparative phonology and morphology of the Baltic languages. English
translation of Endzelīns 1948 by William R. Schmalstieg & Benjamiņš Jēgers.
(Slavistic Printings and Reprintings 85). The Hague & Paris: Mouton.
Ernout, Alfred & Antoine Meillet. 1932. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue
latine. Paris: Klincksieck. (3. édition, revue, corrigée et augmentée d’un index, 1951.)
Eska, Joseph F. 2006. The genitive plural desinence in Celtic and dialect geography. Die
Sprache 46. 229–235.
Fecht, Rainer. 2009. Review of Olander 2009. Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie 66(2).
459–464.
———. 2010. Neoakut in der slavischen Wortbildung: Der volja-Typ (Münchener Studien
zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft 24, Neue Folge). Dettelbach: Röll.
Feeney, Matthew Edward. 2003. Can proto-languages have dialects? A critique of recent
Russian approaches to the historical reconstruction of Proto-Slavic. PhD dissertation,
University of Kansas.
Ferrell, James O. 1965a. A note on the history of the form of the Russian gerund in ‑a.
Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 12. 13–17.
———. 1965b. Some observations on the form of the nominative and vocative singular
of the o- and i̯o-stems in Common Slavic. Scando-Slavica 11. 93–109.
———. 1967a. On the prehistory of the locative singular of the Common Slavic conso-
nant stems. In To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth
birthday, 11 October 1966. Vol. 1 (Janua linguarum, Series major 31), 654–661. The
Hague & Paris: Mouton.
———. 1967b. The nominative singular masculine of the present participle active in
the Kazania Świętokrzyskie. Rocznik Slawistyczny 28. 69–78.
———. 1971. On the Slavic nom. sg. masculine and neuter of the present active parti-
ciple and the problem of ě tertium. In Bohuslav Havránek (ed.), Studia Palaeoslo
venica, 85–93. Praha: Academia.
Feuillet, Jack. 1988. Quelques problèmes de morphologie historique slave. Révue des
études slaves 60(1). 7–13.
Forssman, Bernhard. 1969. Nachlese zu ὄσσε. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft
25. 39–50.
Bibliography 377
———. 1981. Der Auslaut von altkirchenslavisch jestŭ, sǫtŭ. In H. Riggenbach (ed.),
Colloquium Slavicum Basiliense: Gedenkschrift für Hildegard Schroeder (Slavica
Helvetica 16), 145–151. Bern, Frankfurt am Main & Las Vegas, NV: Lang.
Forssman, Berthold. 2001. Lettische Grammatik (Münchener Studien zur Sprachwis
senschaft, Beih. 20). Dettelbach: Röll.
Fortson, Benjamin W., IV. 2004. Indo-European language and culture: An introduction
(Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 19). Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.
Fortunatov, Filipp Fëdorovič. 1888. Phonetische Bemerkungen, veranlasst durch
Miklosich’s Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen. Archiv für sla
vische Philologie 11. 561–575.
———. 1895. Объ удареніи и долготѣ в балтійскихъ языкахъ. I. Удареніе въ прус-
скомъ языкѣ. Русскій филологическій вѣстникъ 33. 252–297. [non uidi]
———. 1897. Ueber accent und länge in den baltischen sprachen. Beiträge zur Kunde
der indogermanischen Sprachen 22. 153–188. German version of Fortunatov 1895.
———. 1908. Старославянское ‑тъ въ 3-мъ лицѣ глаголовъ. Извѣстія Отдѣленія
русскаго языка и словесности Императорской Академіи Наукъ 13(2). 1–44.
Fox, Anthony. 1995. Linguistic reconstruction: An introduction to theory and method.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fraenkel, Ernst. 1928. Zur baltischen Morphologie. In Symbolae grammaticae in hono-
rem Ioannis Rozwadowski. Vol. 2, 19–25. Cracovia: Gebethner & Wolff.
Fritz, Matthias. 2011. Der Dual im Indogermanischen: Genealogischer und typologischer
Vergleich einer grammatischen Kategorie im Wandel. Heidelberg: Winter.
Gadolina, Margarita Anatol’evna. 1963. История форм личных и возвратного
местоимений в славянских языках. Москва: Издательство Академии наук
СССР.
Gălăbov, Ivan. 1973. Urslavische Auslautprobleme. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 18.
5–17.
Galton, Herbert. 1956. Did sandhi exist in Old Slav? Indogermanische Forschungen 62.
167–176.
Gebauer, Jan. 1896. Historická mluvnice jazyka českého. Vol. 3. Tvarosloví, 1: Skloňování.
Praha & Vídeň: Tempský.
———. 1898. Historická mluvnice jazyka českého. Vol. 3. Tvarosloví, 2: Časování. Praha
& Vídeň: Tempský.
Gorrochategui, Joaquín. 1994. La declinación céltica de los temas en -ā y los datos his-
panos. In Roland Bielmeier & Reinhard Stempel (eds.), Indogermanica et Caucasica:
Festschrift für Karl Horst Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag (Untersuchungen zur indoger-
manischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft, NF 6), 316–330. Berlin & Boston: de
Gruyter.
Gorškova, Klavdija Vasil’evna & Georgij Aleksandrovič Xaburgaev. 1981. Историческая
грамматика русского языка. Москва: Высшая школа.
378 Bibliography
Griffith, Aaron. 2006. *‑n(C)s in Celtic. Die Sprache 45 [2005] (1–2). 44–67.
Hackstein, Olav. 1993. On the prehistory of dual inflection in the Tocharian verb. Die
Sprache 35. 47–70.
———. 2007. Ablative formations. In Alan J. Nussbaum (ed.), Verba Docenti: Studies
in historical and Indo-European linguistics presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by students,
colleagues, and friends, 131–153. Ann Arbor, MI: Beechstave Press.
———. 2012a. Collective and feminine in Tocharian. In Olav Hackstein & Ronald I.
Kim (eds.), Multilingualism and history of knowledge. Vol. 2. Linguistic developments
along the Silkroad: Archaism and innovation in Tocharian (Österreichische Akademie
der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 834; Irani
sche Onomastik 12), 143–177. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
———. 2012b. Review of Weiss 2009. Kratylos 57. 109–115.
Hafner, Stanislaus, František Václav Mareš & Manfred Trummer (eds.). 1988.
N.S. Trubetzkoy: Opera Slavica minora linguistica (Sitzungsberichte der Öster
reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philoso phisch-historische Klasse).
Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Hajnal, Ivo. 1995. Studien zum mykenischen Kasussystem (Untersuchungen zur indo-
germanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft, Neue Folge 7). Berlin & New York:
de Gruyter.
Halla-aho, Jussi. 2006. Problems of Proto-Slavic historical nominal morphology (Slavica
Helsingiensia 26). Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Hamp, Eric P. 1976. On Slavic ev < *eu̯ . Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku
19(2). 13–14.
———. 1983. ja = Runic ek. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 27. 11–13.
———. 2011. Indo‑European ‘ego’, Slavic ja = Runic ek, and Celtic Ø. Slavia Centralis
4(1). 5–13.
Hansen, Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard. 2014. The outcome of PIE *‑ē ̆i(̯ C)# and *‑ē ̆u̯(C)#
in Germanic. North-Western European Language Evolution 67. 149–172.
Havlová, Eva & Adolf Erhart (eds.). 1996. Etymologický slovník jazyka staroslověnského.
Vol. 6. klęti – kuditi. Praha: Academia.
Havránek, Bohuslav. 1928. Genera verbi v slovanských jazycích. Vol. 1 (Rozpravy Královské
české společnosti nauk. Třída filosoficko-historicko-jazykozpytná, nová řáda (8) 2).
Praha: Česká společnost nauk.
Heggarty, Paul. 2013. Europe and Western Asia: Indo-European linguistic prehistory.
In Immanuel Ness & Peter Bellwood (eds.), The encyclopedia of global human migra-
tion, 157–167. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. (Preprint version.)
Hill, Eugen. 2012. Hidden sound laws in the inflectional morphology of Proto-Indo-
European: A phonological account for the primary first singular of thematic verbs
and the instrumental of thematic nouns and adjectives. In Benedicte Nielsen,
Thomas Olander, Birgit Anette Olsen & Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (eds.), The Sound
Bibliography 379
of Indo-European: Proceedings of the conference on Indo-European linguistics held at

Copenhagen University 16–19 April 2009 (Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European 4),
169–207. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.
———. 2013. Historical phonology in service of subgrouping. Two laws of final
syllables in the common prehistory of Baltic and Slavonic. Baltistica 48. 161–204.
Hilmarsson, Jörundur. 1978. On the Baltic 2d sg. thematic ending. Baltistica 14. 20–26.
———. 1987. Stray notes on the interrogative pronominal stems in Tocharian.
Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 1. 40–48.
———. 1989. The dual forms of nouns and pronouns in Tocharian (Tocharian and Indo-
European Studies, Supplementary Series 1). Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla
Íslands.
Hirt, Hermann. 1893. Zu den slavischen Auslautgesetzen. Indogermanische Forschungen
2. 337–364.
———. 1895. Über die mit -m- und -bh- gebildeten Kasussuffixe. Indogermanische
Forschungen 5. 251–255.
———. 1929. Indogermanische Grammatik. Vol. 5. Der Akzent. Heidelberg: Winter.
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2007. Morphology and i-apocope in Slavic and Baltic. In Karlene
Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe & Miriam Robbins Dexter (eds.),
Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles,
November 3–4, 2006 (selected papers) (Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph
Series 53), 65–76. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
Hock, Wolfgang. 1995. Die slavischen i-Verben. In Heinrich Hettrich, Wolfgang Hock,
Peter-Arnold Mumm & Norbert Oettinger (eds.), Verba et structurae. Festschrift
für Klaus Strunk zum 65. Geburtstag (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissen
schaft 83), 73–89. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität
Innsbruck.
———. 2004. Baltoslavisch, I. Teil: Phonologie. Kratylos 49. 1–32.
———. 2006. Baltoslavisch, III. Teil: Die baltoslavische Sprachgemeinschaft,
Nachträge. Kratylos 51. 1–24.
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1965. Indo-Iranian evidence. In Werner Winter (ed.),
Evidence for laryngeals (Janua linguarum. Series maior 11), 93–99. The Hague:
Mouton.
———. 1986. Some considerations of relative chronology: The Greek thematic pres-
ent. In Annemarie Etter (ed.), o-o-pe-ro-si: Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75.
Geburtstag, 372–375. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.
———. 1998. Greek. In Paolo Ramat & Anna Giacalone Ramat (eds.), The Indo-
European languages, 228–260. London & New York: Routledge. English version of
“Greco”, in Le lingue indoeuropee, Bologna: il Mulino, 1993, 255–288.
Hoffmann, Karl. 1958. Altiranisch. In Bertold Spuler (ed.), Handbuch der Orientalistik.
Vol. 1, 4. Iranistik, 1. Linguistik, 1–19. Leiden: Brill. (Photomechanischer Nachdruck,
1967; Narten 1975–1976, 58–76.)
380 Bibliography
———. 1970. Das Kategoriensystem des indogermanischen Verbums. Münchener

Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 28. 19–41. (Narten 1975–1976, 523–540.)
———. 1976a. Präteritaler Optativ im Altiranischen. In Narten 1975–1976, 605–619.
———. 1976b. RV. X 32,3 adhī ́yati. In Narten 1975–1976, 560–561.
Hoffmann, Karl & Bernhard Forssman. 1996. Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre
(Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 84). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprach
wissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
Hoffner, Harry A., Jr & H. Craig Melchert. 2008. A grammar of the Hittite language.
Vol. 1. Reference grammar (Languages of the Ancient Near East 1(1)). Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns.
Hollifield, Patrick Henry. 1980. The phonological development of final syllables in
Germanic, 1. Die Sprache 26. 19–53.
Holzer, Georg. 1980. Die urslavischen Auslautgesetze. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch
26. 7–27.
———. 1995a. Die Einheitlichkeit des Slavischen um 600 n. Chr. und ihr Zerfall. Wiener
slavistisches Jahrbuch 41. 55–89.
———. 1995b. Die ersten nachurslavischen lautlichen Innovationen und ihre relative
Chronologie. Linguistica Baltica 4. 247–256.
———. 1995c. Review of Poljakov 1995. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 41. 304–310.
———. 1996a. Das Erschließen unbelegter Sprachen (Schriften über Sprachen und
Texte 1). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
———. 1996b. Zu Lautgeschichte und Dialekten des mittelalterlichen Slavischen in
Österreich. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 42. 81–110.
———. 1997. Zum gemeinslavischen Dialektkontinuum. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch
43. 87–102.
———. 1998a. Urslavisch und Baltisch. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 44. 27–56.
———. 1998b. Zur Rekonstruktion urslavischer Lautungen. In Jerzy Rusek & Wiesław
Boryś (eds.), Prasłowiańszczyzna i jej rozpad, 57–72. Warszawa: Energeia.
———. 2001. Zur Lautgeschichte des baltisch-slavischen Areals. Wiener slavistisches
Jahrbuch 47. 33–50.
———. 2002. Urslawisch. In Miloš Okuka (ed.), Lexikon der Sprachen des europäischen
Ostens (Wieser Enzyklopädie des europäischen Ostens 10), 551–557. Klagenfurt:
Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt.
———. 2003. Urslavische Phonologie. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 49. 23–40.
———. 2004. Proto-Slavic: Historical setting and linguistic reconstruction. East Central
Europe / L’Europe du Centre Est 31(1). 49–59.
———. 2006. Methodologische Überlegungen zur Auswertung der slavisch-baltischen
und slavisch-finnischen Lehnbeziehungen für die slavische Siedlungs- und
Lautgeschichte. In Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.), The Slavicization of the Russian North:
Mechanisms and chronology / Die Slavisierung Nordrusslands: Mechanismen und
Bibliography 381
Chronologie / Славянизация Русского Севера: механизмы и хронология (Slavica

Helsingiensia 27), 128–139. Helsinki: Dept. of Slavonic and Baltic Languages and
Literatures.
———. 2007. Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen: Einleitung und Lautgeschichte
der Standardsprache (Schriften über Sprachen und Texte 9). Frankfurt am Main:
Lang.
———. 2008. Strukturelle Besonderheiten des Urslavischen. In Alexander M. Lubotsky,
Jos Schaeken & Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.), Evidence and counter-evidence: Essays in
honour of Frederik Kortlandt. Vol. 1. Balto-Slavic and Indo-European linguistics
(Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 32), 201–212. Amsterdam & New York:
Rodopi.
———. 2009. Urslavische Prosodie. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 55. 151–178.
Hujer, Oldřich. 1909. Slav. domovь, dolovь. Indogermanische Forschungen 23. 152–158.
———. 1910. Slovanská deklinace jmenná (Rozpravy České akademie Císaře Františka
Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění. Třída 3). Praha: Česká akademie císaře Františka
Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění.
———. 1912. Zur Deklination der Personalpronomina. Indogermanische Forschungen
30. 49–54.
Hyllested, Adam. 2009. Internal reconstruction vs. external comparison: the case of the
Indo-Uralic laryngeals. In Jens Elmegård Rasmussen & Thomas Olander (eds.),
Internal reconstruction in Indo-European: Methods, results, and problems: Section
papers from the XVI International Conference on Historical Linguistics, University of
Copenhagen, 11th–15th August, 2003 (Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European 3), 111–
136. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.
Igartua Ugarte, Iván. 2005a. Origen y evolución de la flexión nominal eslava (Filología y
lingüística 11). Bilbo / Bilbao: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea / Universidad del País
Vasco.
———. 2005b. Structural analogy and the inflectional fate of the Slavic *ā-stems.
Indogermanische Forschungen 110. 282–307.
Illič-Svityč, Vladislav Markovič. 1963. Именная акцентуация в балтийском и
славянском. Москва: Академия наук СССР.
———. 1979. Nominal accentuation in Baltic and Slavic. English translation of Illič-
Svityč 1963 by Richard L. Leed & Ronald F. Feldstein. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT
Press.
Ivanov, Valerij Vasil’evič (ed.). 1995. Древнерусская грамматика XII–XIII вв. Москва:
Наука.
Ivanov, Vjačeslav Vsevolodovič & Vladimir Nikolaevič Toporov. 1961. К постановке
вопроса о древнейших отношениях балтийских и славянских языков. In Nikita
Il’ič Tolstoj (ed.), Исследования по славянскому языкознанию, 273–305. Москва:
Издательство АН СССР.
382 Bibliography
Ivšić, Stjepan. 1970. Slavenska poredbena gramatika. Zagreb: Skolska knjiga.

Jagić, Vatroslav. 1901. Einige Streitfragen. Archiv für slavische Philologie 23. 113–129.
Jakobson, Roman. 1929. Remarques sur l’évolution du russe comparée à celle des autres
langues slaves (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 2). Prague: Fleischer.
(Jakobson 1962/2002, 7–116)
———. 1962. Selected writings. Vol. 1. Phonological studies. ’s Gravenhage: Mouton.
(3rd edition, with a new introduction by Linda R. Waugh & Monique Monville-
Burston, Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.)
———. 1963. Опыт фонологического подхода к историческим вопросам славян-
ской акцентологии: поздний период славянской языковой праистории.
In American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, Sofia 1963.
Vol. 1, 153–178. The Hague: Mouton. (Jakobson 1962/2002, 664–687.)
———. 1971. While reading Vasmer’s dictionary. In Roman Jakobson: Selected writings.
Vol. 2. Word and language, 620–649. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.
Jasanoff, Jay H. 1978. Stative and middle in Indo-European (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur
Sprachwissenschaft 23). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität
Innsbruck.
———. 1983a. A rule of final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11.
139–149.
———. 1983b. Reply to Schmalst[ie]g and Kortlandt. Journal of Indo-European Studies
11. 187–190.
———. 1988. The sigmatic aorist in Tocharian and Indo-European. Tocharian and
Indo-European Studies 2. 52–76.
———. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford & New York: Oxford University
Press.
———. 2004. Acute vs. circumflex: Some notes on PIE and post-PIE prosodic phonol-
ogy. In Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Jenny Helena Larsson &
Thomas Olander (eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos: studia Indogermanica in honorem
Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV (Innsbrucker
Beiträge zur Sprach wissenschaft 112), 247–255. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
———. 2009a. *‑bhi, *‑bhis, *‑ōis: following the trail of the PIE instrumental plural. In
Jens Elmegård Rasmussen & Thomas Olander (eds.), Internal reconstruction in Indo-
European: Methods, results, and problems: Section papers from the XVI International
Conference on Historical Linguistics, University of Copenhagen, 11th–15th August,
2003. Vol. 3 (Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European 3), 137–149. Copenhagen:
Museum Tusculanum.
———. 2009b. Notes on the internal history of the PIE optative. In Kazuhiko Yoshida
& Brent Vine (eds.), East and West: Papers in Indo-European studies, 47–68. Bremen:
Hempen.
Bibliography 383
———. 2014. A note on the Slavic genitive plural. In David Birnbaum, Michael S. Flier
& Cynthia M. Vakareliyska (eds.), Philology broad and deep: In memoriam Horace G.
Lunt, 143–150. Bloomington, IN: Slavica. (Quoted from preprint version.)
Johnson, D.J.L. 1972. The genesis of the Serbo-Croatian genitive plural in ‑ā. The Slavonic
and East European Review 50(120). 333–358.
Kallio, Petri. 2006. On the earliest Slavic loanwords in Finnic. In Juhani Nuorluoto (ed.),
The Slavicization of the Russian North: Mechanisms and chronology / Die Slavisierung
Nordrusslands: Mechanismen und Chronologie / Славянизация Русского Севера:
механизмы и хронология (Slavica Helsingiensia 27), 154–166. Helsinki: Dept. of
Slavonic and Baltic Languages and Literatures.
Kammenhuber, Annelies. 1969. Hethitisch, Palaisch, Luwisch und Hieroglyphen
luwisch. In Bertold Spuler (ed.), Handbuch der Orientalistik. Vol. 1. Abt.: Der nahe
und der mittlere Osten, 2. Bd.: Keilschriftforschung und alte Geschichte Vorderasiens,
1. und 2. Abschn.: Geschichte der Forschung, Sprache und Literatur, Lief. 2:
Altkleinasiatische Sprachen, 119–357. Leiden & Köln: Brill.
Kapović, Mate. 2006a. Reconstruction of Balto-Slavic personal pronouns: With emphasis
on accentuation. PhD dissertation, University of Zagreb.
———. 2006b. The development of Proto-Slavic quantity (from Proto-Slavic to mod-
ern Slavic languages). Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 51. 71–111.
———. 2007. The *vòl’ā-type accent in Slavic. In Mate Kapović & Ranko Matasović
(eds.), Tones and Theories: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Balto-Slavic
Accentology, Zagreb, 1–3 July 2005, 89–104. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i
jezikoslovlje.
———. 2009. The accent of Slavic *ja(zъ) ‘I’. In Thomas Olander & Jenny Helena
Larsson (eds.), Stressing the past: Papers on Baltic and Slavic accentology (Studies in
Slavic and General Linguistics 35), 53–73. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
———. Forthc. Povijest hrvatske akcentuacije. Fonetika. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.
Karstien, Hans. 1936. Slavische Instrumentalformen auf -a. Zeitschrift für slavische
Philologie 13. 109–128.
Katz, Joshua T. 1998. Topics in Indo-European personal pronouns. PhD dissertation,
Harvard University.
Kazlauskas, Jonas. 1968. Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. Vilnius: Mintis.
———. 1970. On the Balto-Slavic dative plural and dual. In Thomas F. Magner &
William R. Schmalstieg (eds.), Baltic linguistics, 87–91. University Park, PA & London:
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Kellens, Jean. 1989. Avestique. In Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium linguarum
Iranicarum, 32–55. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Kessler, Brett & Annukka Lehtonen. 2006. Multilateral comparison and significance
testing of the Indo-Uralic question. In Peter Forster & Colin Renfrew (eds.),
384 Bibliography
Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, 33–42. Cambridge: McDonald

Institute for Archaeological Research.
Kim, Ronald I. 2010. Review of Olander 2009. Linguist List 21. 1909.
———. 2012. The PIE thematic animate accusative plural revisited. In Roman Sukač &
Ondřej Šefčík (eds.), The sound of Indo-European 2: Papers on Indo-European
phonetics, phonemics and mophophonemics (LINCOM Studies in Indo-European
Linguistics 41), 144–158. Munich: LINCOM.
———. Forthc. The phonology of Balto-Slavic. In Matthias Fritz & Jard Klein (eds.),
Handbook of comparative Indo-European linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://
www.academia.edu/382815/The_phonology_of_Balto-Slavic.
Kimball, Sara E. 1999. Hittite historical phonology (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprach
wissenschaft 95). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität
Innsbruck.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1967. A phonological rule of Greek. Glotta 44. 109–134.
Kiparsky, Valentin. 1967. Russische historische Grammatik. Vol. 2. Die Entwicklung des
Formensystems. Heidelberg.
Klein, Jared S. 1988. Proto-Indo-European *gʷiH₃‑ ‘live’ and related problems of laryngeals
in Greek. In Alfred Bammesberger (ed.), Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des
Indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems, 257–279. Heidelberg: Winter.
———. (ed.). 2006. The collected writings of Warren Cowgill. Ann Arbor, MI & New
York: Beech Stave.
Klingenschmitt, Gert. 1975. Tocharisch und Urindogermanisch. In Helmut Rix (ed.),
Flexion und Wortbildung: Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesell
schaft, Regensburg, 9.–14. September 1973, 148–163. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
———. 1992. Die lateinische Nominalflexion. In Oswald Panagl & Thomas Krisch
(eds.), Latein und Indogermanisch. Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen
Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23.–26. September 1986 (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprach
wissenschaft 64), 89–135. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität
Innsbruck.
———. 1994. Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. In
Jens Elmegård Rasmussen & Benedicte Nielsen (eds.), In honorem Holger Pedersen.
Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25.–28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen,
235–251. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
———. 2005. Sprachverwandtschaft in Europa. In Günter Hauska (ed.), Gene, Sprachen
und ihre Evolution. Wie verwandt sind die Menschen—wie verwandt sind ihre
Sprachen? (Schriftenreihe der Universität Regensburg 29), 100–132. Regensburg:
Universitätsverlag Regensburg.
Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008a. Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon (Leiden
Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 5). Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Bibliography 385
———. 2008b. Some Indo-Uralic aspects of Hittite. Journal of Indo-European Studies

36(1–2). 88–95.
Koerner, Konrad. 1993. The natural science background to the development of
historical-comparative linguistics. In Henk Aertsen & Robert J. Jeffers (eds.),
Historical linguistics 1989: Papers from the 9th International Conference on
Historical Linguistics, Rutgers University, 14–18 August 1989 (Amsterdam Studies
in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 106), 1–24. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 1975. Slavic accentuation: A study in relative chronology. Lisse: de
Ridder. (Kortlandt 2011a, 1–49.)
———. 1977. Historical laws of Baltic accentuation. Baltistica 13. 319–330. (Kortlandt
2009, 1–12.)
———. 1978. On the history of Slavic accentuation. Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung 92. 269–281. (Kortlandt 2011a, 87–97).
———. 1978. On the history of the genitive plural in Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and Indo-
European. Lingua 45. 281–300. (Kortlandt 2009, 111–123).
———. 1979. On the history of the Slavic nasal vowels. Indogermanische Forschungen
84. 259–272. (Kortlandt 2011a, 99–109.)
———. 1979. The Old Irish absolute and conjunct endings and questions of relative
chronology. Ériu 30. 35–53. (Kortlandt 2007, 1–23.)
———. 1979a. Three problems of Balto-Slavic phonology. Зборник за филологију и
лингвистику 22(2). 57–63. (Kortlandt 2009, 33–38.)
———. 1979b. Toward a reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic verbal system. Lingua 49.
51–70. (Kortlandt 2009, 151–165).
———. 1982. Early dialectal diversity in South Slavic I. In Adrian A. Barentsen,
R. Sprenger & M.G.M. Tielemans (eds.), South Slavic and Balkan linguistics (Studies
in Slavic and General Linguistics 2), 177–192. Amsterdam: Rodopi. (Kortlandt 2011a,
147–155.)
———. 1983. On final syllables in Slavic. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11. 167–185.
(Kortlandt 2011a, 119–133.)
———. 1985. Long vowels in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica 21. 112–124. (Kortlandt 2009,
51–60.)
———. 1988. Van Wijk’s Altpreussische Studien revisited. In Ben M. Groen, Jan Paul
Hinrichs & Willem R. Vermeer (eds.), Nicolaas van Wijk (1880–1941). A collection of
essays on his life and work (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 12), 89–97.
Amsterdam: Rodopi. (Kortlandt 2009, 189–194.)
———. 1989. On methods of dealing with facts and opinions in a treatment of the
progressive palatalization of Slavic. Folia Linguistica Historica 9(2). 3–12. (Kortlandt
2011a, 185–192.)
386 Bibliography
———. 1990. The spread of the Indo-Europeans. Journal of Indo-European Studies 18.
131–140. (Kortlandt 2010a, 1–6.)
———. 1991. A note on the Tocharian dual. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 5.
5–10. (Kortlandt 2010a, 155–157.)
———. 1993. Tokie šalti rytai. Baltistica 28. 45–48. (Kortlandt 2009, 147–149.)
———. 1997. Thematic and athematic verb forms in Old Irish. In Alexander M.
Lubotsky (ed.), Sound law and analogy: Papers in honor of Robert S.P. Beekes on
the occasion of his 60th birthday, 133–137. Amsterdam: Rodopi. (Kortlandt 2007,
107–111.)
———. 1997a. Baltic ē- and ī/jā-stems. Baltistica 32. 157–163. (Kortlandt 2009,
129–135.)
———. 1997b. PIE lengthened grade in Balto-Slavic. In Douglas Q. Adams (ed.),
Festschrift for Eric P. Hamp. Vol. 2 (Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph
Series 25), 26–31. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man. (Kortlandt 2009,
61–64.)
———. 1998. The Old Prussian preterit. In A.A. Gippius, L.G. Nevskaja, T.M. Nikolaeva
& T.V. Civ’jan (eds.), Πολύτροπον: К 70-летию Владимира Николаевича Топорова,
144–147. Москва: Индрик. (Kortlandt 2009, 283–285.)
———. 2004. Balto-Slavic accentuation: Some news travels slowly. Baltistica 39. 13–17.
(Kortlandt 2009, 81–84.)
———. 2005. Holger Pedersen’s Études lituaniennes revisited. Baltistica 6 priedas. 151–
157. (Kortlandt 2009, 21–26.)
———. 2006. Balto-Slavic accentual mobility. Baltistica 41. 359–369. (Kortlandt 2009,
93–101.)
———. 2007. Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language
(Leiden Studies in Indo-European 11). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
———. 2007. Gothic gen.pl. -e. Historische Sprachforschung 120. 237–240. (Kortlandt
2009, 125–127.)
———. 2008. Balto-Slavic phonological developments. Baltistica 43. 5–15. (Kortlandt
2009, 43–50.)
———. 2009. Baltica & Balto-Slavica (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 16). Amsterdam
& New York: Rodopi.
———. 2009. Accent retraction and tonogenesis. In Thomas Olander & Jenny Helena
Larsson (eds.), Stressing the past (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 35),
75–82. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. (Kortlandt 2009, 103–109.)
———. 2010a. Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic (Leiden Studies in
Indo-European 17). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
———. 2010b. An outline of Proto-Indo-European. In Kortlandt 2010a, 37–45.
———. 2010c. Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 56.
61–81. (Kortlandt 2010a, 341–360.)
Bibliography 387
———. 2010d. Schleicher’s fable. In Kortlandt 2010a, 47–50.

———. 2011a. Selected writings on Slavic and general linguistics (Studies in Slavic and
General Linguistics 39). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
———. 2011b. Balto-Slavic reconstruction: A clarification. Baltistica 46. 39–42.
———. 2011c. From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic. In Kortlandt 2011a, 157–176. English
version of “Od praindoevropskog jezika do slovenskog (fonološki razvoj)”, Zbornik
za filologiju i lingvistiku 32(2): 41–58, 1989.
———. 2012a. Dominance and monophthongization: Method versus insight. Baltistica
47. 255–259.
———. 2012b. The early chronology of long vowels in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica 47.
249–254.
———. 2013. Balto-Slavic personal pronouns and their accentuation. Baltistica 48.
5–11.
Krahe, Hans. 1942. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 1. Einleitung und Lautlehre
(Sammlung Göschen 238). Berlin: de Gruyter. (Sechste Auflage, 1966.)
———. 1942. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 2. Formenlehre (Sammlung
Göschen 780). Berlin: de Gruyter. (Sechste Auflage, 1967.)
Krahe, Hans & Wolfgang Meid. 1967. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 3.
Wortbildungslehre (Sammlung Göschen 1218/ 1218a/1218b). Berlin: de Gruyter.
(7. Auflage bearbeitet von Wolfgang Meid (Sammlung Göschen 2234), de Gruyter:
Berlin & New York, 1969.)
Krajčovič, Rudolf. 1974. Slovenčina a slovanské jazyky. Vol. 1. Praslovanská genéza
slovenčiny. Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladateľstvo.
Krause, Wolfgang. 1953. Handbuch des Gotischen. München: Beck. (Dritte, neubearbei
tete Auflage, 1968.)
Kroonen, Guus. 2008. The origin of Gothic izwis. North-Western European Language
Evolution 53. 3–11.
———. 2010. Faroese ta and its relevance to the Germanic Auslautsgesetze.
Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 66. 21–28.
———. 2013. Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic (Leiden Indo-European
Etymological Dictionary Series 11). Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Krys’ko, Vadim Borisovič. 2007. К происхождению и истории древненовгородской
флексии ‑e в Nom. sg. masc. *o-склонения. In Vadim Borisovič Krys’ko (ed.),
Очерки по истории русского языка, 83–114. Москва: Гнозис.
Kuiper, Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus. 1947. Traces of laryngeals in Vedic Sanskrit. In
India antiqua: A volume of Oriental studies, presented by his friends and pupils to Jean
Philippe Vogel on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of his doctorate, 198–212.
Leyden: Brill / Kern Institute.
———. 1961. Zur kompositionellen Kürzung im Sanskrit. Die Sprache 7. 14–31. (Kuiper
1997, 359–376.)
388 Bibliography
———. 1997. Selected writings on Indian linguistics and philology (Leiden Studies in
Indo-European 8; Kern Institute miscellanea 2). Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
Kul’bakin, Stepan M. 1929. Le vieux slave (Collection de manuels publiée par l’Institut
d’études slaves 5). Paris: H. Champion.
Kümmel, Martin Joachim. 1997. Review of Beekes 1995. Philologia Fenno-Ugrica 2–3.
113–125.
———. 2000. Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen: eine Untersuchung der Form und Funktion
einer ererbten Kategorie des Verbums und ihrer Weiterentwicklung in den altindoira-
nischen Sprachen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
———. 2007. Konsonantenwandel: Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und
ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
———. 2013a. Zur Endung des Genitivs Plural im Indoiranischen. Indogermanische
Forschungen 118. 193–211.
———. 2013b. The Iranian reflexes of Proto-Iranian *ns. Orientalia Suecana 61.
138–145.
———. Forthc. Verwandte des Indogermanischen? Zur Frage des ‘Eurasiatischen’
und anderer Makrofamilien. https://www.academia.edu/342156/Verwandte_des_
Indogermanischen_Zur_Frage_des_Eurasiatischen_und_anderer_Makrofamilien.
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1927. Les effets du ə en indoiranien. Prace filologiczne 11. 201–243.
———. 1952. L’accentuation des langues indo-européennes (Polska akademia umiejęt-
ności. Prace Komisji językowej 37). Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. (2e
édition, Polska akademia nauk. Komitet językoznawcze. Prace językoznawcze 17,
Wrocław & Kraków: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1958.)
———. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.
Kuznecov, Petr Savvič. 1956. К истории форм 3-го лица настоящего времени гла-
гола в русском языке. Slavia. Časopis pro slovanskou filologii 25(2). 175–183.
———. 1961. Очерки по морфологии праславянского языка. Москва: Академия
наук СССР.
Kwon, Kyongjoon. 2009. The early development of animacy in Novgorod: Evoking the
vocative anew. In Vit Bubenik (ed.), Grammatical change in Indo-European lan-
guages (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 305), 43–53. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Lamprecht, Arnošt. 1987. Praslovanština (Spisy University v Brně. Filosofická fakulta,
266). Brno: Univerzita J.E. Purkyně.
Lane, George Sherman. 1963. Bimoric and trimoric vowels and diphthongs: laws of
Germanic finals again. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 62. 155–170.
Laroche, Emmanuel. 1965. Études de linguistique anatolienne. Revue hittite et asia-
nique 23. 33–54.
Le Feuvre, Claire. 1998a. Études linguistiques sur les documents de Novgorod: leur
apport à la grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Revue des études slaves 70(1).
241–248.
Bibliography 389
———. 1998b. Études linguistiques sur les documents de Novgorod: leur apport à la
grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Thèse de doctorat, École pratique des
hautes études, IVe Section (Sciences historiques et philologiques).
———. 2007. 1. Vieux russe. LALIES: Actes des sessions de linguistique et de littérature
27. 5–112.
———. 2011. Mécanismes de réaffectation désinentielle et hiérarchie des oppositions
casuelles en slave. In Michèle Fruyt, Michel Mazoyer & Dennis Pardee (eds.),
Grammatical case in the languages of the Middle East and Europe: Acts of the
International colloquium Variations, concurrence et evolution des cas dans divers
domaines linguistiques, Paris, 2–4 april 2007 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization
64), 345–358. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Lejeune, Michel. 1969. Essai de philologie mycénienne. XI. L’instrumental pluriel thé-
matique. Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes 42. 219–229.
(Lejeune 1972, 253–266.)
———. 1972. Mémoires de philologie mycénienne. Vol. 3. 1964–1968 (Incunabula Graeca
43). Paris: Edizioni dell’Ateneo Roma.
Lekov, Ivan. 1934. Праславянскитѣ глаголни форми и отраженията имъ въ днѣш-
ните славянски езици (Списание на българската академия на наукитѣ 50.
Клонъ историко-филологиченъ и философско-общественъ 24). София:
Придворна печатница. [non uidi]
Leskien, August. 1876. Die Declination im Slavisch-Litauischen und Germanischen.
Leipzig: S. Hirzel.
———. 1909. Grammatik der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen) Sprache.
Heidelberg: Winter. (2. und 3. Auflage, 1919.)
Leumann, Manu. 1926–1928. Lateinische Grammatik. Vol. 1. Lateinische Laut- und
Formenlehre (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, Abt. 2, Teil 2, Band 1).
München: Beck. (Neuausgabe, 1977.)
Lewis, Henry & Holger Pedersen. 1937. A concise comparative Celtic grammar.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (3rd ed., 2nd impression with the supplement
of 1961 by Henry Lewis, 1989.)
Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones & Roderick McKenzie. 1843. A
Greek–English lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon. (9. ed., with a revised supplement,
1996.)
Lindstedt, Jouko. 1991. The notational fallacy in CS phonology. Scando-Slavica 37.
108–122.
Ljapunov, Boris Mixajlovič. 1905. Формы склоненiя въ старословянскомъ языкѣ.
Vol. 1. Склоненiе именъ. Одесса: “Экономическая” типографiя.
Loma, Aleksandar. 2013. Топономија бањске хрисовуље: Ка осмишљењу старо-
српског топономастичког речника и бољем познавању општесловенских
именославних образаца (Библиотека ономатолошки прилога 2). Београд:
Српска академија наука и уметности.
390 Bibliography
Lorentz, Friedrich. 1903. Slovinzische Grammatik. St. Petersburg: Изданiе Второго

Отдѣленiя Императорской Академiи Наукъ.
Lubotsky, Alexander M. 1990. La loi de Brugmann et *H₃e-. In La reconstruction des
laryngales (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de
Liège 253), 129–136. Liège & Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Lüdtke, Helmut. 1966. Gibt es urslavische Auslautgesetze? Istituto universitario orien-
tale. Annali. Sezione slava 9. 117–141.
Lühr, Rosemarie. 1991. Analogische “formae difficiliores”. Historische Sprachforschung
104. 170–185.
Lunt, Horace Gray. 1955. Old Church Slavonic grammar (Slavistic Printings and
Reprintings 3). ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton. (7., rev. ed., Berlin & New York: Mouton de
Gruyter, 2001.)
———. 1981. The progressive palatalization of Common Slavic. Skopje: Macedonian
Academy of Sciences and Arts.
———. 1985. Slavs, Common Slavic, and Old Church Slavonic. In Johannes Reinhart
(ed.), Litterae Slavicae Medii Aevi Francisco Venceslao Mareš Sexagenario oblatae,
185–204. München: Sagner.
———. 1997. Common Slavic, Proto-Slavic, Pan-Slavic: What are we talking about? I.
About phonology. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 41. 7–67.
Luraghi, Silvia. 1998. The Anatolian languages. In Paolo Ramat & Anna Giacalone
Ramat (eds.), The Indo-European languages, 169–196. London & New York:
Routledge. English version of “L’anatolico”, in Le lingue indoeuropee, Bologna: il
Mulino, 1993, 197–223.
Mallory, James P. 1989. In search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, archaeology, and
myth. London: Thames & Hudson.
———. 2013. Twenty-first century clouds over Indo-European homelands. Journal of
Language Relationship / Вопросы языкового родства 9. 145–154.
Mallory, James P. & Douglas Q. Adams. 2006. The Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-
European and the Proto-Indo-European world. Oxford & New York: Oxford University
Press.
Malzahn, Melanie. 1999. Die nominalen Flexionsendungen des idg. Duals. Historische
Sprachforschung 112. 204–226.
Mańczak, Witold. 1969. Le problème de “Auslautgesetze” en slave commun. Canadian
Slavonic Papers 11. 56–65.
———. 1977. Alternance *bh/*m dans les désinences indo-européennes. Kwartalnik
Neofilologiczny 24. 339–342.
———. 1998. Origine des désinences en *‑m‑ en balte, slave et germanique. Baltistica 5
priedas. 165–168.
Marchand, James W. 1973. Proto-, pre-, and common: A problem in definition. In Braj B.
Kachru, Robert B. Lees, Yakov Malkiel, Angelina Pietrangeli & Sol Saporta (eds.),
Bibliography 391
Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, 644–657. Urbana,
IL, Chicago & London: University of Illinois Press.
Mareš, František Václav. 1962a. The Slavic verbal forms of the 3rd person plural bǫdǫ
and bǫ. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 5. 28–30.
———. 1962b. Ранний период морфологического развития славянского склоне-
ния (общая характеристика). Вопросы языкознания 1962(6). 13–21.
———. 1966. The Proto-Slavic and Early Slavic declension system. Travaux linguis-
tiques de Prague 1. 163–172.
———. 1969. Diachronische Phonologie des Ur- und Frühslavischen (Slavistische
Beiträge 40). München. (Mareš 1999, 17–100.)
———. 1978. Das slavische Konjugationssystem des Präsens in diachroner Sicht.
Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 24. 175–209.
———. 1986. Vom Urslavischen zum Kirchenslavischen. In Peter Rehder (ed.),
Einführung in die slavischen Sprachen, 1–19. Darmstadt.
———. 1993. Význam staroslověnských rukopisů nově objevených na hoře Sinaj. K hla-
holským rukopisům 3/N a 4/N. Slavia 62. 125–130.
———. 1999. Diachronische Phonologie des Ur- und Frühslavischen (Schriften über
Sprachen und Texte 4). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Martínez, Javier & Michiel de Vaan. 2001. Introducción al avéstico. Madrid: Ediciones
Clásicas.
———. 2014. Introduction to Avestan. English translation of Martínez & de Vaan 2001
by Ryan Sandell (Brill Introductions to Indo-European Languages 1). Leiden &
Boston: Brill.
Maslov, Jurij Sergeevič. 1981. Грамматика болгарского языка. Москва: Высшая
школа.
———. 1982. Граматика на българския език. Bulgarian translation of Maslov 1981 by
Blažo Blažev. София: Наука и изкуство.
Matasović, Ranko. 2004. The Proto-Indo-European syllabic resonants in Balto-Slavic.
———. 2005. Toward a relative chronology of the earliest Baltic and Slavic sound
changes. Baltistica 40. 147–157.
Mathiassen, Terje. 1989. Nochmals der Akk. Pl. der ā-Stämme im Ostbaltischen.
Baltistica 25. 123–125.
Matthews, W.K. 1960. Russian historical grammar. London: Athlone Press.
Matzinger, Joachim. 1997. Zu armenisch mek‘ ‘wir’. Historische Sprachforschung 110.
82–92.
———. 2001. Die ‘m-Kasus’ des Balto-Slawischen und Germanischen. In Heiner
Eichner, Peter-Arnold Mumm, Oswald Panagl & Eberhard Winkler (eds.), Fremd
und eigen: Untersuchungen zu Grammatik und Wortschatz des Uralischen und
Indogermanischen in memoriam Hartmut Katz, 183–208. Wien: Edition Praesens.
392 Bibliography
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986. 2. Lautlehre: Segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen.

In Indogermanische Grammatik. Vol. 1, 73–177. Heidelberg: Winter.
———. 1986–2001. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Vol. 1–3.
Heidelberg: Winter.
———. 1989. Vorgeschichte der iranischen Sprachen; Uriranisch. In Rüdiger Schmitt
(ed.), Compendium linguarum Iranicarum, 4–24. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
———. 2004. Die Hauptprobleme der indogermanischen Lautlehre seit Bechtel. Wien:
Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Mažiulis, Vytautas. 1966. К балто-славянской форме датива (мн. и дв. ч.). Baltistica
2. 43–53.
———. 2004. Historical grammar of Old Prussian. Translation from Lithuanian and
comments by Dr. Letas Palmaitis. http://donelaitis.vdu.lt/prussian/mazgr.pdf.
McCone, Kim. 1996. Towards a relative chronology of ancient and medieval Celtic sound
change (Maynooth Studies in Celtic Linguistics 1). Maynooth: Department of Old
Irish, St. Patrick’s College.
Meid, Wolfgang. 1967. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. Vol. 3. Wortbildungslehre
(Sammlung Göschen 1218/1218a/1218b). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2002. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 8., überarb. und
erg. Aufl. der früheren Darstellung von Hans Krahe. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.
———. 2003. Indo-European linguistics. English translation of Meier-Brügger 2002 by
Charles Gertmenian. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.
Meillet, Antoine. 1894. De quelques difficultés de la théorie des gutturales indo-
européennes. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 8. 277–304.
———. Recherches sur l’emploi du génitif-accusatif en vieux slave (Bibliothèque de
l’École des hautes études, Sciences philologiques et historiques 115). Paris: Bouillon.
———. 1900. Notes sur quelques faits de morphologie. Mémoires de la Société de
Linguistique de Paris 11. 6–21.
———. 1902. Études sur l’étymologie et le vocabulaire du vieux slave. Vol. 1. Paris: Émile
Bouillon.
———. 1903. Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Paris:
Hachette. (8e éd., 1937; reprint, University of Alabama Press, 1964 (Alabama
Linguistic & Philological Series 3); fifth printing, 1973.)
———. 1906. De quelques innovations de la déclinaison latine. Paris: Klincksieck.
———. 1908. À propos de v. irl. beri. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 14.
412–415.
———. 1913a. La désinence ‑tŭ du vieux slave. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de
Paris 18. 232–238.
———. 1913b. Le datif singulier des thèmes en -i- en slave et en italique. Mémoires de
la Société de Linguistique de Paris 18. 378–379.
———. 1915. De quelques finales slaves. Rocznik Slawistyczny 7. 1–8.
Bibliography 393
———. 1916. Sur le traitement de o en syllabe finale slave. Mémoires de la Société de

———. 1918a. Les vocatifs slaves du type mǫžu. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique
de Paris 20. 95–102.
———. 1918b. Vieux slave ny et vy au duel. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris
21(1). 26–27.
———. 1920. Le pronom duel vā dans l’Avesta. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique
de Paris 21. 208–209.
———. 1922. La forme du génitif pluriel en ombrien. Mémoires de la Société de
———. 1923. Les formes nominales en slave. Revue des études slaves 3. 193–204.
———. 1924. Le slave commun (Collection de manuels publiée par l’Institut d’Études
Slaves 11). Paris: Champion. (Seconde édition revue et augmentée avec le concours
de A. Vaillant (Collection Linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de
Paris 15), 1934.)
———. 1925. La méthode comparative en linguistique historique. Oslo: Aschehoug.
Meiser, Gerhard. 1998. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. (Zweite Auflage, 2006.)
Melchert, H. Craig. 1984. Studies in Hittite historical phonology (Ergänzungshefte zur
Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 32). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
———. 1994. Anatolian historical phonology (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 3).
Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
———. 2012. Genitive case and possessive adjective in Anatolian. In Vincenzo Orioles
(ed.), Per Roberto Gusmani: Studi in ricordo. Vol. 2. Linguistica storica e teorica, 1,
273–286. Udine: Forum.
———. 2014. PIE *-eh₂ as an “individualizing” suffix and the feminine gender. In
Roland Schuhmann & Sergio Neri (eds.), Studies on the collective and feminine in
Indo-European from a diachronic and typological perspective (Brill’s Studies in Indo-
European Languages & Linguistics 11), 257–271. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
———. Forthc. The position of Anatolian. In Michael Weiss & Andrew Garrett (eds.),
Handbook of Indo-European studies. Oxford University Press. http://www.linguistics
.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/The%20Position%20of%20AnatolianRevised3.pdf.
Melchert, H. Craig & Norbert Oettinger. 2009. Ablativ und Instrumental im
Hethitischen und Indogermanischen: Ein Beitrag zur relativen Chronologie.
Incontri linguistici 32. 53–73.
Mikkola, Jooseppi Julius. 1897. Baltische etymologien. Beiträge zur Kunde der indoger-
manischen Sprachen 22(3/4). 239–255.
———. 1913. Urslavische Grammatik. Vol. 1. Lautlehre, Vokalismus, Betonung.
Heidelberg: Winter.
394 Bibliography
vischen Sprachen. Vol. 3. Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
Milewski, Tadeusz. 1932. Rozwój fonetyczny wygłosu prasłowiańskiego. Slavia 11. 1–32,
225–264.
Miller, Raymond H. 1988. The third person present tense and Common Slavic dialectol-
ogy. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 37. 7–33.
Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1998. History of linguistics. Vol. 4: Nineteenth-century linguis-
tics. London & New York: Longman.
Moszyński, Leszek. 1972. О времени монофтонгизации праславянских дифтонгов.
Вопросы языкознания 1972(4). 53–67.
Mühlenbach, Karl. 1903. О слѣдахъ двойственнаго числа въ латышскомъ языкѣ.
Извѣстія Отдѣленія русскаго языка и словесности Императорской Академіи
Наукъ 8(1). 7–80.
Narten, Johanna (ed.). 1975–1976. Karl Hoffmann: Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik. Vol. 1–2.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Neu, Erich. 1979. Einige Überlegungen zu den hethitischen Kasusendungen. In Erich
Neu & Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch: vergleichende Studien
zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indo
germanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissen
schaft 25), 177–196. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität
Innsbruck.
———. 1991. Etruskisch—eine indogermanische Sprache Altanatoliens? Historische
Nichols, Johanna. 1993. The linguistics geography of the Slavic expansion. In Robert A.
Maguire & Alan Timberlake (eds.), American contributions to the Eleventh
International Congress of Slavists, 377–391. Columbus, OH: Slavica.
Nielsen, Hans Frede. 2000. The early runic language of Scandinavia: Studies in Germanic
dialect geography. Heidelberg: Winter.
Nielsen Whitehead, Benedicte, Thomas Olander, Birgit Anette Olsen & Jens Elmegård
Rasmussen (eds.). 2012. The sound of Indo-European: Phonetics, phonemics, and mor-
phophonemics (Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European 4). Copenhagen: Museum
Tusculanum.
Nussbaum, Alan J. 1986. Head and horn in Indo-European (Untersuchungen zur indo-
germanischen Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 2). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Obnorskij, Sergej Petrovič. 1953. Очерки по морфологии русского глагола. Москва:
Академия наук СССР.
Oettinger, Norbert. 1979. Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums (Erlanger Beiträge
zur Sprach- und Kunstwissenschaft 64). Nürnberg: Carl.
———. 1988. Der indogermanische Nominativ Dual aus laryngalistischer Sicht. In
Alfred Bammesberger (ed.), Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indoger-
manischen Laut- und Formensystems, 355–359. Heidelberg: Winter.
Bibliography 395
Olander, Thomas. 2005. The dative plural in Old Latvian and Proto-Indo-European.
———. 2006. Accentual mobility: The prehistory of the Balto-Slavic mobile accent para-
digms. PhD dissertation, University of Copenhagen.
———. 2007a. Once more on desinential accent in Balto-Slavic mobile paradigms.
Baltu filoloģija 16(1–2). 81–85.
———. 2007b. The Balto-Slavic mobile accent paradigms. In Mate Kapović & Ranko
Matasović (eds.), Tones and Theories: Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Balto-Slavic Accentology, Zagreb, 1–3 July 2005, 1–14. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik
i jezikoslovlje.
———. 2007c. The accentuation of Greek monosyllabic words. In Coulter George,
Matthew McCullagh, Benedicte Nielsen, Antonia Ruppel & Olga Tribulato (eds.),
Greek and Latin from an Indo-European perspective, 1–8. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
———. 2009. Balto-Slavic accentual mobility (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and
Monographs 199). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
———. 2010. Proto-Indo-European final nasals in Slavic. Scando-Slavica 56. 84–98.
———. 2012. Proto-Indo-European *‑os in Slavic. Russian Linguistics 36. 319–341.
Oliver, Lisi (ed.). 1994. Calvert Watkins: Selected writings. Vol. 1. Language and linguis-
tics. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 80). Innsbruck: Institut für
Olsen, Birgit Anette. 1988. On the interpretation of four Vedic verbs: irajyáti and irad-
hanta—badhnā́ti and ubhnā́ti. Arbejdspapirer udsendt af Institut for Lingvistik,
Københavns Universitet 7. 85–100.
———. 1999. The noun in Biblical Armenian (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and
Monographs 119). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
———. 2001. Verb or noun? On the origin of the third person in IE. In Martin E. Huld,
Karlene Jones-Bley, Angela Della Volpe & Miriam Robbins Dexter (eds.), Proceedings
of the Twelfth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference (Journal of Indo-European
Studies, Monograph Series 40), 65–79. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of
Man.
———. 2004. The complex of nasal stems in Indo-European. In James Clackson &
Birgit Anette Olsen (eds.), Indo-European word formation (Copenhagen Studies in
Indo-European 2), 215–248. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.
———. 2009. The conditioning of laryngeal breaking in Greek. In Rosemarie Lühr &
Sabine Ziegler (eds.), Protolanguage and prehistory: Akten der XII. Fachtagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, vom 11. bis 15. Oktober 2004 in Krakau, 348–365.
———. Forthc. An outline of Indo-European nominal derivation.
Orr, Robert. 1984. The locative singular of the consonant stems in Slavic: A new
approach. Canadian Slavonic Papers 26(2–3). 201–206.
396 Bibliography
———. 1988. A phantom sound-change: CS *-ŎM# > *-Ŭ#. Canadian Slavonic Papers
30. 41–61.
———. 2000. Common Slavic nominal morphology: A new synthesis. Bloomington, IN:
Slavica.
Oslon, Michail V. 2010. Review of Olander 2009. Вопросы языкознания 2010(2).
141–146.
Osthoff, Hermann. 1878. Kleine beiträge zur declinationslehre der indogermanischen
sprachen, I. In Hermann Osthoff & Karl Brugmann (eds.), Morphologische
Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen. Vol. 1, 207–290.
Leipzig: Hirzel.
Otrębski, Jan. 1956. Gramatyka języka litewskiego. Vol. 3. Nauka o formach. Warszawa:
Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Pedersen, Holger. 1905a. Die nasalpräsentia und der slavische akzent. Zeitschrift für ver-
gleichende Sprachforschung 38 (Neue Folge 18). 297–421.
———. 1905b. Zur armenischen sprachgeschichte. Zeitschrift für vergleichende
———. 1924. Sprogvidenskaben i det 19. aarhundrede: metoder og resultater. København:
Gyldendal.
———. 1931. Linguistic science in the nineteenth century: Methods and results. English
translation of Pedersen 1924 by John Webster Spargo. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press. (Midland Book Edition, by arrangement with Harvard University
Press, 1962.)
———. 1933. Zur Frage nach der Urverwandtschaft des Indoeuropäischen mit dem
Ugrofinnischen. In Liber Semisaecularis Societatis Fenno-Ugricae, 308–325. Helsinki:
Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
———. 1935. Lit. iau. Studi Baltici 4. 150–154.
———. 1938. Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropäischen Sprachen (Det Kgl. Danske
Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 25(2)). København:
Levin & Munksgaard.
Penzl, Herbert. 1972. Methods of comparative Germanic linguistics. In Frans van
Coetsem & Herbert L. Kufner (eds.), Toward a grammar of Proto-Germanic, 1–42.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Petit, Daniel. 2010. Untersuchungen zu den baltischen Sprachen (Brill’s Studies in Indo-
European Languages & Linguistics 4). Leiden & Boston: Brill.
———. 2011. Review of Olander 2009. Historische Sprachforschung 123. 318–321.
———. 2013. Review of Olander 2009. Kratylos 58. 151–157.
Peyrot, Michaël. 2013. The Tocharian subjunctive: A study in syntax and verbal stem for-
mation (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages and Linguistics 8). Leiden &
Boston: Brill.
Pinault, Georges-Jean. 1989. Introduction au tokharien. LALIES. Actes des sessions de
linguistique et de littérature 7. 5–224.
Bibliography 397
———. 2008. Chrestomathie tokharienne: textes et grammaire (Collection linguistique

publiée par la Société de linguistique de Paris 95). Leuven: Peeters.
Poljakov, Oleg. 1995. Das Problem der balto-slavischen Sprachgemeinschaft (Heidel-
berger Publikationen zur Slavistik. A. Linguistische Reihe 18). Frankfurt am Main:
Lang.
Popović, Ivan. 1960. Geschichte der serbokroatischen Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Probert, Philomen. 2012. Origins of the Greek law of limitation. In Philomen Probert &
Andreas Willi (eds.), Laws and rules in Indo-European, 163–181. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Pronk-Tiethoff, Saskia. 2013. The Germanic loanwords in Proto-Slavic (Leiden Studies in
Indo-European 20). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
Pronk, Tijmen. 2009. The accentuation of the Slavic n-stems. In Thomas Olander & Jenny
Helena Larsson (eds.), Stressing the past: Papers on Baltic and Slavic accentology
(Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 35), 101–114. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
———. 2012. Proto-Indo-European long vowels and Balto-Slavic accentuation.
Baltistica 47. 205–247.
Pulgram, Ernst. 1959. Proto-Indo-European reality and reconstruction. Language 35.
421–426.
———. 1961. The nature and use of proto-languages. Lingua 10. 18–37.
Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård. 1978. Zur Morphophonemik des Urindogermanischen. In
Bojan Čop (ed.), Collectanea Indoeuropaea. Vol. 1, 59–143. Ljubljana: Univerza v ljub-
jani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za primerjalno jezikoslovje in orientalistiko.
(Rasmussen 1999, 1–66.)
———. 1983. Two phonological issues in Germanic. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 18.
201–219. (Rasmussen 1999, 82–99.)
———. 1987a. Miscellaneous morphological problems in Indo-European languages
(I–II). Lingua Posnaniensis 28 (1985). 27–62. (Rasmussen 1999, 100–145.)
———. 1987b. The constituent elements of the Indo-European personal pronouns.
Arbejdspapirer udsendt af Institut for Lingvistik, Københavns Universitet 6. 89–112.
(Rasmussen 1999, 256–275.)
———. 1989a. Die Tenues Aspiratae: Dreiteilung oder Vierteilung des indogermani-
schen Plosivsystems und die Konsequenzen dieser Frage für die Chronologie einer
Glottalreihe. In Theo Vennemann (ed.), The new sound of Indo-European: Essays in
phonological reconstruction (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 41),
153–176. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
———. 1989b. Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen Grundsprache
(Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 55). Innsbruck: Institut für
———. 1992a. ‘Woman’ in Indo-European, Celtic, and Germanic: One paradigm or
two? Copenhagen Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 37–43. (Rasmussen 1999,
505–511.)
398 Bibliography
———. 1992b. Die Vorgeschichte der baltoslavischen Akzentuierung: Beiträge zu einer

vereinfachten Lösung. In Bernd Barschel, Maria Kozianka & Karin Weber (eds.),
Indogermanisch, Slawisch und Baltisch (Slavistische Beiträge 285), 173–200.
München: Sagner. (Rasmussen 1999, 469–489.)
———. 1992c. Contributions to the understanding of Lithuanian metatony.
Copenhagen Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 79–89. (Rasmussen 1999, 541–550.)
———. 1993. The Slavic i-verbs. With an excursus on the Indo-European ē-verbs. In
Bela Brogyanyi & Reiner Lipp (eds.), Comparative-historical linguistics: Indo-
European and Finno-Ugric. Papers in honor of Oswald Szemerényi. Vol. 3 (Amsterdam
Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series 4: Current Issues in
Linguistic Theory 97), 475–487. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
———. 1994. On the phonetics of the Indo-European laryngeals. In Jens Elmegård
Rasmussen & Benedicte Nielsen (eds.), In honorem Holger Pedersen: Kolloquium der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25.–28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen, 433–447.
———. 1996. Szemerényi’s theory of Indo-European i- and u-stems. Copenhagen
Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 137–141. (Rasmussen 1999, 579–582.)
———. 1999. Selected papers on Indo-European linguistics: With a section on compara-
tive Eskimo linguistics (Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European 1). Copenhagen:
Museum Tusculanum.
———. 1999. Idg. Genitiv *‑os, Ablativ *‑es. In Rasmussen 1999, 635–638.
———. 2003. The marker of the animate dual in Indo-European. In Karlene Jones-
Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe & Miriam Robbins Dexter (eds.),
Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles,
November 8–9, 2002 (Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph Series 47),
83–95. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
———. 2005. Der Akkusativ auf ‑m im Indogermanischen und Uralischen: Kontakt
oder Erbe. In Gerhard Meiser & Olav Hackstein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und
Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17.–23.
September 2000, Halle an der Saale, 525–536. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
———. Forthc. a. Indo-European nominal morphology: Inflection, accent and ablaut.
———. Forthc. b. On the epistemology of Indo-European studies.
Reinhart, Johannes. 2012. Inheritance or innovation in the Proto-Slavic verb: The end-
ing ‑mo (1st person plural). In H. Craig Melchert (ed.), The Indo-European verb:
Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles
13–15 September 2010, 289–294. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Renfrew, Colin. 2003. Time depth, convergence theory, and innovation in Proto-Indo-
European: “Old Europe” as a PIE linguistic area. In Alfred Bammesberger & Theo
Vennemann (eds.), Languages in prehistoric Europe, 17–48. Heidelberg: Winter.
Bibliography 399
Rieken, Elisabeth. 1994. Der Wechsel -a- / -i- in der Stammbildung des hethitischen
Nomens. Historische Sprachforschung 107. 42–53.
———. 2008. The origin of the ‑l genitive and the history of the stems in ‑īl‑ and ‑ūl‑ in
Hittite. In Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe & Miriam Robbins
Dexter (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los
Angeles, November 3–4, 2007 (selected papers) (Journal of Indo-European Studies
Monograph Series 54), 239–256. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
———. 2009. Der Archaismus des Hethitischen: eine Bestandsaufnahme. Incontri
Linguistici 32. 37–52.
Ringe, Donald A. 1991. Evidence for the position of Tocharian in the Indo-European
family? Die Sprache 34. 59–123.
———. 2006a. A linguistic history of English. Vol. 1. From Proto-Indo-European to
Proto-Germanic. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2006b. A sociolinguistically informed solution to an old historical problem:
The Gothic genitive plural. Transactions of the Philological Society 104(2). 167–206.
———. 2009. The Proto-Indo-European verb system. Handout. http://www
.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/courses/lx310/ringe-handouts-09/pie-pgmc-vb.pdf.
Ringe, Donald A. & Joseph F. Eska. 2013. Historical linguistics: Toward a twenty-first
century reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ringe, Donald A., Tandy Warnow & Ann Taylor. 2002. Indo-European and computa-
tional cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 100. 59–129.
Rinkevičius, Vytautas. 2010. Review of Olander 2009. Baltistica 45. 369–379.
Rix, Helmut. 1976. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. (2., korrigierte Auflage, 1992.)
———. 1977. Das keltische Verbalsystem auf dem Hintergrund des indo-iranisch-
griechischen Rekonstruktionsmodells. In Karl Horst Schmidt (ed.), Indogermanisch
und Keltisch: Kolloquium der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft am 16. und 17. Februar
1976 in Bonn, 132–158. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Rix, Helmut, Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp & Brigitte Schirmer (eds.).
1998. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Wiesbaden: Reichert. (2., erw. und verb.
Aufl., 2001.)
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1949. Historische Grammatik der italienischen Sprache und ihrer
Mundarten. Vol. 1. Lautlehre. Bern: Francke.
———. 1966. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Vol. 1.
Fonetica. Italian translation of Rohlfs 1949 by Salvatore Persichino. Torino: Giulio
Einaudi.
Ryko, Anastasija Igorevna. 2000. Семантическое распределение окончаний 3-го
лица презенса в северо-западных русских говорах. In Балто-славянские иссле-
дования 1998–1999, 114–133. Москва: Индрик.
400 Bibliography
Sabaliauskas, A. 1976. Dėl lie. formos nuodu ‘mudu’. Baltistica 12. 167.
Šaxmatov, Aleksej Aleksandrovič. 1915. Очеркъ древнѣйшаго перiода исторiи рус-
скаго языка (Энциклопедiя славянской филологiи 11(1)). Петроградъ: Отдѣленіе
русскаго языка и словесности Императорской Академіи Наукъ. (Репринтное
издание, Москва: Индрик, 2002.)
Schelesniker, Herbert. 1964. Beiträge zur historischen Kasusentwicklung des Slavischen
(Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, Ergänzungsband 5). Köln & Graz: Hermann
Böhlaus Nachf.
Schenker, Alexander M. 1993. Proto-Slavonic. In Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett
(eds.), The Slavonic languages, 60–121. London & New York: Routledge. (Paperback
edition, 2002.)
Scherer, Wilhelm. 1868. Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Duncker.
Schindler, Jochem. 1964. Einige indogermanisch-uralische Wortgleichungen. Die
Sprache 10. 171–173.
———. 1974. Fragen zum paradigmatischen Ausgleich. Die Sprache 20. 1–9.
———. 1977. Notizen zum Sieversschen Gesetz. Die Sprache 23. 56–65.
———. 1989. Altindische Nominalmorphologie. Vorlesungen, WS 1988/1989. [Wien].
Schlerath, Bernfried. 1981. Ist ein Raum/Zeit-Modell für eine rekonstruierte Sprache
möglich? Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 95. 175–202.
Schmalstieg, William R. 1961. Primitive East Baltic *‑uo‑, *‑ie‑ and the 2nd sg. ending.
Lingua 10. 369–374.
———. 1965. Slavic o- and ā-stem accusatives. Word 21. 238–243.
Schmidt, Gernot. 1978. Stammbildung und Flexion der indogermanischen Personal
pronomina. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Schmitt-Brandt, Robert. 1998. Einführung in die Indogermanistik. München: Francke.
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 1981. Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen mit sprachvergleichen-
den Erläuterungen (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 32). Innsbruck:
Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. (2., durchgesehene
Auflage, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 123, 2007.)
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939. Griechische Grammatik. Vol. 1. Allgemeiner Teil. Lautlehre.
Wortbildung. Flexion. München: Beck. (Vierte, unveränderte Auflage, 1968.)
Seebold, Elmar. 1984. Das System der Personalpronomina in den frühgermanischen
Sprachen: Sein Aufbau und seine Herkunft (Ergänzungshefte zur Zeitschrift für ver-
gleichende Sprachforschung 34). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Senn, Alfred. 1929. Kleine litauische Sprachlehre. Heidelberg: Groos. (Nachdruck,
Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1974.)
———. 1935. Die athematischen Verba in Mikalojus Dauksza’s Schriften. Studi Baltici
4. 86–122.
Seržant, Ilja A. 2004. Zur Vorgeschichte des Inessivs im Urostbaltischen. Acta Linguistica
Lithuanica 51. 59–67.
Bibliography 401
Shevelov, George Y. 1964. A prehistory of Slavic. The historical phonology of Common

Slavic. Heidelberg.
———. 1982. Между праславянским и русским. Russian Linguistics 6. 353–376.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. New York &
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skardžius, Pranas. 1935. Daukšos akcentologija (Humanitarnų Mokslų Fakulteto raštai
17). Kaunas: V.D.U. Humanitarinių mokslų fakulteto leidinys.
Sobolevskij, Aleksej Ivanovič. 1908. Одинъ изъ законовъ церк.-слaвянскаго языка.
In Jagić-Festschrift / Zbornik u slavu Vatroslava Jagića, 204–205. Berlin:
Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Specht, Franz. 1922. Litauische Mundarten gesammelt von A. Baranowski. Vol. 2.
Grammatische Einleitung mit lexikalischem Anhang. Leipzig: Koehler.
Stang, Christian Schweigaard. 1930. Altpreußisch quai, quei, quendau. Norsk Tidsskrift
for Sprogvidenskab 4. 146–155. (Stang 1970, 121–129.)
———. 1942. Das slavische und baltische Verbum (Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske
Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. 2. Hist.-filos. kl., 1). Oslo: I kommisjon hos J. Dybwad.
———. 1957. Slavonic accentuation. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. (2. ed., 1965.)
———. 1964. De l’instrumental singulier des thèmes en -o- en slave commun. In
Mélanges Vaillant (Revue des études slaves 40), 191–194. Paris: Institut d’Études
Slaves. (Stang 1970, 109–112.)
———. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo, Bergen &
Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget.
———. 1969a. Forelesninger over russisk språkhistorie. Vol. 1. Historisk lydlære. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
———. 1969b. Forelesninger over russisk språkhistorie. Vol. 2. Historisk formlære.
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
———. 1970. Opuscula linguistica: Ausgewählte Aufsätze und Abhandlungen. Oslo,
Bergen & Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget.
———. 1975. Ergänzungsband. Register, Addenda und Corrigenda zur Vergleichenden
Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo, Bergen & Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget.
Stieber, Zdzisław. 1969–1973. Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich.
Warszawa. (Wyd. 3, 1989.)
Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1892. Der Genetiv Pluralis und die baltisch-slavischen
Auslautgesetze. Indogermanische Forschungen 1. 259–299.
Strunk, Klaus. 2006. Review of Mayrhofer 2004. Kratylos 51. 75–81.
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1962. The Indo-Hittite hypothesis. Language 38. 105–110.
Sturtevant, Edgar H. & E. Adelaide Hahn. 1933. A comparative grammar of the Hittite
language. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: LSA. (Revised ed., New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1951.)
402 Bibliography
Svane, Gunnar. 1958. Die Flexionen in štokavischen Texten aus dem Zeitraum 1350–1400.
Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget i Aarhus.
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1967. The perfect participle active in Mycenaean and Indo-
European. Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 2. 7–26. (Considine & Hooker 1987/1991,
1253–1272.)
———. 1970. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. (4., durchgesehene Auflage, 1990.)
———. 1973. Marked–unmarked and a problem of Latin diachrony. Transactions of the
Philological Society 72. 55–74. (Considine & Hooker 1987/1991, 925–944.)
———. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. Translation of Szemerényi
1970/1990, with additional notes and references. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(Paperback ed., 1999.)
Tedesco, Paul. 1951. Review of Mikkola 1950. Language 27. 165–177.
Tichy, Eva. 2000. Indogermanistisches Grundwissen für Studierende sprachwissenschaft-
licher Disziplinen. Bremen: Hempen.
———. 2006. A survey of Proto-Indo-European. English translation of Tichy 2000.
Bremen: Hempen.
Toporov, Vladimir Nikolaevič. 1961. К вопросу об эволюции славянского и балтий-
ского глагола. Вопросы славянского языкознания 5. 35–70.
Torbiörnsson, Tore. 1921. En fornpolsk nybildning. In Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 1921:
Filosofi, Språkvetenskap och Historiska Vetenskaper. Vol. 5. Språkvetenskapliga sälls-
kapets i Uppsala förhandlingar jan. 1919–dec. 1921, 45–62. Uppsala: Akademiska
bokhandeln.
———. 1923a. Die altbulgarische Umbildung der Partizipialformen. Slavia 1. 208–214.
———. 1923b. Eine altpolnische Neubildung. Archiv für slavische Philologie 38.
120–127.
Townsend, Charles E. 2007. Review of Igartua 2005. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 15.
171–173.
Trautmann, Reinhold. 1910. Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler. Göttingen: Vanden
hoeck & Ruprecht.
Trávníček, František. 1935. Historická mluvnice československá: Úvod, hláskosloví a
tvarosloví (Řada spisů duchovědných 2). Praha: Melantrich.
Trubačёv, Oleg Nikolaevič (ed.). 1985. Этимологический словарь славянских языков:
праславянский лексический фонд. Vol. 12. *koulъkъ—*kroma/*kromъ. Москва:
Наука.
Trubeckoj, Nikolaj Sergeevič. 1922. Essai sur la chronologie de certains faits phoné-
tiques du slave commun. Revue des études slaves 2. 217–234. (Hafner, Mareš and
Trummer 1988, 37–54.)
Ul’janov, Grigorij Konstantinovič. 1888. Основы настоящаго времени въ старо-
славянскомъ и литовскомъ языкахъ. Варшава: Въ типографiи Марiи Земкевичъ.
Bibliography 403
Untermann, Jürgen. 1999. Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen (Indogermanische

Bibliothek, 1. Reihe: Lehr- und Handbücher. Handbuch der italischen Dialekte 3).
Heidelberg: Winter.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2003. The Avestan vowels (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 12).
Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
Vaillant, André. 1930. L’impératif–optativ du slave. Slavia 9. 241–256.
———. 1932a. Chronique: Slave commun et vieux slave. Revue des études slaves
12(3–4). 241–245.
———. 1932b. Notules. Slavia 11. 33–42.
———. 1935. Le génitif pluriel en *-ŏn. Révue des études slaves 15(1–2). 5–11.
———. 1936. Le problème des intonations balto-slaves. Bulletin de la Société de
———. 1948. Manuel du vieux slave. Vol. 1: Grammaire. Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves.
(Seconde édition revue et augmentée, 1964.)
———. 1950. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. 1. Phonétique (Collection
“Les Langues du Monde”. Série Grammaire, Philologie, Littérature 6). Lyon & Paris:
IAC.
———. 1958. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. 2. Morphologie, 1–2
(Collection “Les Langues du Monde”. Série Grammaire, Philologie, Littérature 11).
Lyon & Paris: IAC.
———. 1966. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. 3. Le verbe. Paris:
Klincksieck.
———. 1974. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. 4. La formation des noms.
Paris: Klincksieck.
Vasmer, Max. 1907. Zwei kleine Abhandlungen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende
Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 41(1–2). 154–164.
———. 1924. Zur slavischen Grammatik. Indogermanische Forschungen 42. 179–182.
———. 1953. Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Vol. 1. A–K. Heidelberg: Winter.
———. 1964. Этимологический словарь русского языка. Vol. 1. А–Д. Russian transla-
tion of Vasmer 1953 by Oleg Nikolaevič Trubačëv. Москва: Прогресс. (Издание
второе, стереотипное, 1986.)
Ventris, Michael & John Chadwick. 1956. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. (Second edition, 1973.)
Vermeer, Willem R. 1986. The rise of the North Russian dialect of Common Slavic. In
Adrian A. Barentsen, Ben M. Groen & R. Sprenger (eds.), Dutch studies in Russian
linguistics (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 8), 504–515. Amsterdam:
Rodopi. (Annotated version, 2013, academia.edu.)
———. 1991. The mysterious North Russian nominative singular ending -e and the
problem of the reflex of Proto-Indo-European *-os in Slavic. Die Welt der Slaven 36.
271–295. (www version, www.hum2.leidenuniv.nl/pdf/S&R/publicaties/vermeer_
1991b_Mysterious_North_Russian_Nsg.pdf, 2009.)
404 Bibliography
———. 2000. On the status of the earliest Russian isogloss: Four untenable and three
questionable reasons for separating the progressive and the second regressive pala-
talization of Common Slavic. Russian Linguistics 24. 5–29.
———. 2003a. Comedy of errors or inexorable advance? Exploring the dysfunctional-
ity of the debate about the progressive palatalization of Slavic. In Jos Schaeken,
Hubrecht Peter Houtzagers & Janneke Kalsbeek (eds.), Dutch Contributions to the
Thirteenth International Congress of Slavists, Ljubljana, 2003, Linguistics (Studies in
Slavic and General Linguistics 30), 397–452. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
———. 2003b. Leading ideas in the study of the progressive palatalization of Proto-
Slavic. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 44–45. 379–396.
———. 2006. Jagić’s chronology of the progressive palatalization. In Per Ambrosiani,
Irina Lysén, Elisabeth Löfstrand & Johan Muskala (eds.), jáko bl[a]gopěsnívajà ptíca:
Hyllningsskrift till Lars Steensland (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis 32), 229–240.
Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.
———. 2008a. Pedersen’s chronology of the progressive palatalization. In Peter
Houtzagers, Janneke Kalsbeek & Jos Schaeken (eds.), Dutch Contributions to the
Fourteenth International Congress of Slavists, Ohrid: Linguistics (Studies in Slavic
and General Linguistics 34), 503–571. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
———. 2008b. Review of Halla-aho 2006. Scando-Slavica 54. 288–294.
———. 2014. Early Slavic dialect differences involving the consonant system. In Egbert
Fortuin, Peter Houtzagers, Janneke Kalsbeek & Simeon Dekker (eds.), Dutch contri-
butions to the Fifteenth International Congress of Slavists, Minsk: Linguistics (Studies
in Slavic and General Linguistics 40), 181–227. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
Vijūnas, Aurelius. 2013. Review of Nielsen Whitehead et al. 2012. Kratylos 58. 85–99.
Villanueva Svensson, Miguel. 2010. Review of Kortlandt 2009. Baltistica 45. 359–379.
———. 2011. Indo-European long vowels in Balto-Slavic. Baltistica 46. 5–38.
———. 2013. Review of Nielsen Whitehead et al. 2012. Baltistica 48. 337–342.
Villar, Francisco. 1995. A new interpretation of Celtiberian grammar (Innsbrucker
Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft. Vorträge und Kleinere Schriften 62). Innsbruck:
Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
———. 1906. Vergleichende slavische Grammatik. Vol. 1. Lautlehre und
Stammbildungslehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Vondrák, Václav. 1906. Vergleichende slavische Grammatik. Vol. 1. Lautlehre und
Stammbildungslehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (Zweite stark ver-
mehrte und verbesserte Auflauge, 1924.)
———. 1908. Vergleichende slavische Grammatik. Vol. 2. Formenlehre und Syntax.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
———. 1908. Vergleichende slavische Grammatik. Vol. 2. Formenlehre und Syntax.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (Zweite Auflage, neubearbeitet von Dr.
O. Grünenthal, 1928.)
Bibliography 405
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1896. Altindische Grammatik. Vol. 1. Lautlehre. Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Watkins, Calvert. 1969. Indogermanische Grammatik. Vol. 3(1). Geschichte der indoger-
manischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Winter.
———. 1970. Remarks on Baltic verb inflexion. In Thomas F. Magner & William R.
Schmalstieg (eds.), Baltic linguistics, 165–170. University Park, PA & London:
Pennsylvania State University Press.
———. 1976. Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: Problems and pseudo-problems.
In Sanford B. Steever, Carol A. Walker & Salikoko S. Mufwene (eds.), Papers from the
parasession on diachronic syntax, 305–326. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
(Oliver 1994, 242–263.)
———. 1982. Notes on the plural formations of the Hittite neuters. In Erich Neu (ed.),
Investigationes philologicae et comparativae: Gedenkschrift für Heinz Kronasser,
250–262. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. (Oliver 1994, 275–287.)
———. 1998. Proto-Indo-European: Comparison and reconstruction. In Paolo Ramat
& Anna Giacalone Ramat (eds.), The Indo-European languages, 25–73. London &
New York: Routledge. English version of “Il proto-indoeuropeo: Comparazione e
riconstruzione”, in Le lingue indoeuropee, Bologna: il Mulino, 1993, 45–93.
———. 2001. 3. An Indo-European linguistic area and its characteristics: Ancient
Anatolia. Areal diffusion as a challenge to the comparative method? In Alexandra Y.
Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in
comparative linguistics, 44–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Paperback ed., 2006.)
Węglarz, Wiktor. 1933. Staroczeski loc. pl. na ‑as w nazwach miejscowych na ‑any.
Slavia occidentalis 12. 34–41.
Weiss, Michael. 2009. Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin. Ann
Arbor, MI & New York: Beech Stave. (2nd, corrected printing, 2011.)
———. 2015. The Comparative Method. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The
Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 127–145. Routledge: Abingdon (Oxon) &
New York.
Weitenberg, Joseph Johannes Sicco. 1984. Die hethitischen u-Stämme (Amsterdamer
Publikationen zur Sprache und Literatur 52). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Wiedemann, Oskar. 1886. Beiträge zur altbulgarischen Conjugation. St. Petersburg:
Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
van Wijk, Nicolaas. 1915. Къ интонацiи праславянскихъ падежей на ‑ъ. Извѣстія
Отдѣленія русскаго языка и словесности Императорской Академіи Наукъ
20(3). 32–40.
———. 1916. Zur slavischen und baltischen Präsensflexion. Archiv für slavische
Philologie 36. 111–116.
———. 1918. Altpreussische Studien. Beiträge zur baltischen und zur vergleichenden
indogermanischen Grammatik. Haag: Nijhoff.
406 Bibliography
———. 1923. Die baltischen und slavischen Akzent- und Intonationssysteme

(Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam,
Afdeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, Deel 23(2)). Amsterdam: Koninklijke
Akademie van Wetenschappen. (2. edition, ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton (Janua lin-
guarum. Studia memoriae Nicolai van Wijk dedicata. Series minor 5), 1958.)
———. 1925. Zur Entwicklung der partizipialen Nominativendung ‑onts in den slavi-
schen Sprachen. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 1. 279–286.
———. 1926. Die slavischen Partizipia auf -to- und die Aorist formen auf -tъ.
———. 1931. Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache. Vol. 1. Laut- und Formenlehre.
Berlin & Leipzig: de Gruyter.
———. 1950. К истории фонологической системы в общеславянском языке позд-
него периода. Slavia 19. 293–313.
Willi, Andreas. 2012. Kiparsky’s rule, thematic nasal presents, and athematic verba
vocalia in Greek. In Philomen Probert & Andreas Willi (eds.), Laws and rules in
Indo-European, 260–276. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winter, Werner. 1965. Tocharian evidence. In Werner Winter (ed.), Evidence for laryn-
geals (Janua linguarum. Series maior 11), 190–211. The Hague: Mouton.
———. 1978. The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith. ė�sti :
vèsti : mèsti and OCS jasti : vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic languages. In Jacek Fisiak
& Werner Winter (eds.), Recent developments in historical phonology. Vol. 4 (Trends
in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 4), 431–446. The Hague, Paris & New York:
Mouton.
———. 1998. Lexical archaisms in the Tocharian languages. In Victor H. Mair (ed.), The
Bronze Age and Early Iron Age peoples of Eastern Central Asia. Vol. 1. Archeology,
migration and nomadism, linguistics, 347–357. Washington, DC: Institute for the
Study of Man.
Witczak, Krzysztof Tomasz. 2011. On the Indo-European origin of the dual n-marker in
Tocharian. Lingua Posnaniensis 53(2). 123–127.
Young, Steven R. 1994. Endzelin’s law and acute tone in Latvian. Linguistica Baltica 3.
101–108.
Zaliznjak, Andrej Anatol’evič. 1985. От праславянской акцентуации к русской.
Москва: Наука.
———. 1988. Древненовгородский диалект и проблемы диалектного членения
позднего праславянского языка. In Nikita Il’ič Tolstoj (ed.), Славянское язы-
кознание. Х Международный съезд славистов. София, сентябрь 1988 г. Доклады
советской делегации, 164–177. Москва: Наука.
———. 1991. Берестяные грамоты перед лицом традиционных постулатов слави-
стики и vice versa. Russian Linguistics 15. 217–245.
Bibliography 407
———. 1995. Древненовгородский диалект. Москва: Языки русской культуры. (2.

изд., переработанное с учетом материала находок 1995–2003 гг., Москва: Языки
славянской культуры, 2004.)
Zeilfelder, Susanne. 2001. Archaismus und Ausgliederung: Studien zur sprachlichen
Stellung des Hethitischen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Zinkevičius, Zigmas. 1966. Lietuvių dialektologija: lyginamoji tarmių fonetika ir morfolo-
gija. Vilnius: Mintis.
———. 1968. О формах локатива в литовских диалектах. Lingua Posnaniensis 12–13.
71–76.
———. 1980. Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. Vol. 1. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Zubatý, Josef. 1893. Zur Declination der sog. -i̯ā- und -i̯o-Stämme im Slavischen. Archiv
für slavische Philologie 15. 493–518.
———. 1902. K slovanským kmenům na ‑jan‑ ‑ěn‑. Listy filologické 29. 220–230.
Zucha, Ivo. 1986. Zu den Endungen ‑y, ‑ę, ‑ě im G.sg. und N.pl. der slawischen Deklination
und zu den Nasalvokalen. Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 32. 133–137.
Index
Page numbers for definitions are in boldface. Common Slavic shortening of long
diphthongs 118, 170. See also
accent 3–4, 9, 12–13, 18, 33–34, 40, 42, 43, 48, monophthongisation of oral
49, 49–50, 54, 68, 69, 106–107. See also diphthongs [22]
Dybo’s law and deglottalisation [13]; Common Slavic vowel contractions [25] 64,
mobility law [4]; prosody; Saussure’s 65, 92, 93, 226, 298, 317
law comparative method 1, 13–15, 19
accent-ablaut paradigms 68, 259, 260 Core Indo-European. See non-Anatolian
acrostatic 68 Indo-European
ad hoc hypotheses 57, 91, 138, 326, 333
amphikinetic 68 deaspiration of voiced aspirated stops.
Anatolian (vs. non-Anatolian Indo-European) See Winter’s law and deaspiration of
5, 8–9, 21–23, 74, 89, 112–113, 241, 296, voiced aspirated stops [6]
366 deglottalisation and Dybo’s law. See Dybo’s
apocope 106, 197, 214–215, 218, 221, 268, law and deglottalisation [13]
308, 328 delabialisation of *o to *a [7] 41–42, 48, 49,
assibilation of palatal stops [8] 41, 51, 51–52, 50, 51, 56, 58, 60, 61, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,
52, 54, 110 97, 103, 104, 106, 110, 119, 135, 138, 140,
assimilation 57, 143, 239 157, 165, 178, 198, 206, 208, 209, 212,
Auslautgesetze (laws of final syllables) 221, 233, 257, 259, 261, 266, 271, 273,
10–11, 37 274, 276, 278, 294, 310, 317, 323, 332,
333, 337, 338, 341, 353, 359, 362, 364,
backing of *ē to *ā after palatalised 365, 367
consonants [27] 57, 60, 61, 62, 66, 100, delabialisation of *ō to *ā [15] 43, 49, 55, 57,
111, 118, 136, 159, 161, 165, 197, 219, 236, 67, 90, 151, 168, 197, 204, 251, 262, 286,
276, 284, 293, 308, 321, 336 308
backing of *e to *a before *u̯ [11] 53, 57, 63, depalatalisation 329, 330
65, 143, 148, 154, 155, 174, 183, 229, 261 devī ́ type 73, 101, 165, 184
Baltic linguistic unity 24, 25, 27, 59 devoicing of word-final obstruents [5] 40,
Balto-Slavic linguistic unity 24–25, 27 48, 50, 51, 58, 87, 91, 92, 93, 106, 108, 110,
Brugmann’s law 188, 220, 345 136, 332, 335, 336, 337, 364
diphthongisation of *ē̆ to *i̯ā̆ before
centralisation of *ā̆ to *ə̄ ̆ before word-final tautosyllabic *u̯ [10] 52–53, 53 57,
fricatives. See loss of word-final 128, 174, 183
fricatives, with centralisation of diphthongisation of syllabic sonorants [2]
preceding *ā̆ to *ə̄ ̆ [17] 48, 58, 86, 87, 90, 114, 117, 242, 248, 362,
collective formation 222, 233 364
Common Indo-European vowel contractions Dybo’s law and deglottalisation [13] 43, 54,
[3] 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 90, 117, 135, 55, 56, 81, 100, 102, 110, 113, 131, 148, 161,
136, 150, 151, 165, 167, 195, 206, 208, 211, 162, 165, 168, 170, 176, 191, 192, 193, 195,
212, 231, 248, 259, 261, 262, 264, 367 197, 200, 201, 204, 215, 217, 218, 219, 221,
Common Slavic 1, 4, 7, 29–31, 44–45, 59–60, 224, 228, 236, 240, 259, 261, 266, 276,
367. See also Proto-Slavic 278, 280, 281, 282, 284, 289, 291, 293,
Common Slavic shortening of final long 295, 308, 312, 321, 327, 336, 338, 342, 345,
vowels 43–44, 332 353, 360, 363
index 409
elimination of post-consonantal *i̯ [26] 42, irregular sound change. See sporadic

44, 52, 53, 61, 62, 65, 90, 91 (irregular) sound change and variation
final long vowels, Common Slavic shortening. Kiparsky’s law (metathesis of word-final *i
See Common Slavic shortening of final and preceding dental; Gk.) 315
long vowels
final syllables, laws of. See Auslautgesetze labialisation of *i̯ to *u̯ after *ō [14] 49, 55,
first palatalisation of velars [21] 27, 28, 57, 151, 286
42, 43, 53, 54, 60–61, 62, 65, 66, 168, 186, laryngeal colouring 14, 38, 39–40, 184
316 laryngeals, loss. See loss of laryngeals [1]
forma difficilior 14, 15, 89 laws of final syllables. See Auslautgesetze
fronting of non-front vowels after palatal Leskien’s law 100, 113, 117, 131, 188, 215, 236,
consonants [20] 27–29, 31, 33, 42, 46, 245, 279, 281, 284, 304, 341, 353
56, 57, 59, 60–62, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, loanword relations (Slavic) 11, 15, 26, 28, 29,
73, 75, 76, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97, 100, 103, 106, 30, 31, 42, 44, 45, 46, 62, 81
118, 119, 131, 136, 150, 151, 159, 161, 165, 176, long diphthongs, Common Slavic shortening.
178, 180, 184, 186, 195, 197, 199, 211, 212, See Common Slavic shortening of long
219, 221, 234, 236, 248, 251, 259, 262, 265, diphthongs
266, 276, 278, 284, 286, 293, 295, 299, loss of laryngeals [1] 41, 42, 47–48, 48, 49,
308, 323, 338, 342, 345, 353, 355, 360, 50, 51, 56, 81, 90, 100, 101, 110, 113, 117, 131,
363, 366 136, 150, 165, 167, 176, 190, 192, 193, 195,
197, 198, 200, 201, 204, 206, 208, 209, 211,
glottalisation 41, 43, 48, 50, 54, 195, 242, 244, 212, 214, 217, 218, 219, 221, 228, 231, 236,
251. See also prosody 240, 248, 257, 259, 261, 262, 264, 276,
“Graeco-Aryan” model 296 279, 281, 282, 284, 293, 306, 308, 312, 321,
323, 336, 337, 338, 341, 353, 359, 367
haplology 146, 147 loss of *n between a high vowel and
Herkunfthypothese 22 word-final *s [16] 55, 56, 242, 244,
hic et nunc marker *-i (PIE) 304, 314, 326, 246
361 loss of word-final dentals after long vowels,
*hom (PIE particle) 109–110, 111, 112, 122, 123, with raising of the vowel [18] 46, 47,
154, 201, 237, 239 57, 82, 84
hysterokinetic 9, 68 loss of word-final fricatives, with
centralisation of preceding *ā̆ to *ə̄ ̆
*i (PIE hic et nunc marker). See hic et nunc [17] 13, 43, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56–57,
marker *-i (PIE) 57, 60, 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 81, 90, 91, 92,
Indo-European homeland 23 95, 97, 98, 99, 103–104, 125, 126, 127, 128,
Indo-Uralic hypothesis 19 131–133, 206, 222, 226, 229, 231, 234, 242,
infinitive (PS) 172, 297, 302 244, 246, 248, 251, 254, 271, 272, 273, 274,
inflection (definition) 15–18 276, 278, 280, 281, 282, 284, 286, 319,
informal speech 330, 333 320, 321, 323, 331, 332, 336, 338, 348, 353,
injunctive (PIE) 296, 297, 302, 327 354–355, 367
intermediate proto-language 19, 20–21, 25 loss of word-final *m after short vowels, with
internal reconstruction 7, 8, 13–15, 26, 35, rounding and raising of preceding *a
130, 136, 167, 187, 196–197, 198, 203, 304, to *u [19] 47, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58–59, 61,
308, 315 86, 110, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 122, 123, 170,
iotation. See elimination of post-consonantal 180, 258, 259, 261, 262, 265, 266, 308,
*i̯ [26] 309, 310, 365, 367
410 index
loss of word-final stops [9] 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, palatalisation of velars. See first palatalisation
58, 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, 97, 106, 108, 136, of velars [21]; second palatalisation of
319, 330, 331, 332, 333, 335, 336, 337, 364, velars [23]
367 palatal stops, assibilation. See assibilation of
palatal stops [8]
macroparadigm 16, 17 paradigm (definition) 16–18
mesostatic 68 paragogic vowel 329–330, 333
metathesis of liquids 29–30, 44, 60, 62, 65, perfect (PIE) 4, 296, 297, 304–305, 306, 317,
66 332, 341, 364
metathesis of word-final *i and preceding permissive (Li.) 48, 337–338
dental (Greek). See Kiparsky’s law phonotactic rules 27, 28, 46, 61, 115, 178, 312
métatonie douce in monosyllabic words 240. post-consonantal *i̯, elimination. See
See also monosyllabic lengthening elimination of post-consonantal *i̯
middle voice (PIE) 296, 297, 306, 317 [26]
mobility law [4] 24, 42, 49, 49–50, 50, 51, 55, proportional analogy 97, 104, 131–132, 133,
56, 81, 98, 99, 103, 106, 108, 111, 115, 116, 170–171, 250, 290, 304
117, 119, 125, 127, 128, 130, 136, 147, 150, prosody 3–4, 12, 16, 18, 24, 34, 41, 47–48, 49,
151, 165, 167, 176, 178, 190, 195, 197, 198, 54, 111, 186. See also accent; glottalisa-
226, 229, 231, 233–234, 242, 244, 245, tion; quantity; tone
248, 250, 259, 261, 262, 264, 271, 285, proterokinetic 68
288, 320, 335, 338, 367 Proto-Baltic See Baltic linguistic unity
monophthongisation of nasal diphthongs Proto-Balto-Slavic See Balto-Slavic
[28] 54, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, linguistic unity
86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 118, 123, 131, 159, Proto-Indo-European word-final voicing 40,
161, 165, 170, 248, 251, 308, 362, 363, 50
365, 367 proto-language 6, 18–21, 27, 59–60
monophthongisation of oral diphthongs Proto-Slavic 1, 7, 19, 25–31, 42–45, 68–80.
[22] 27, 28, 29, 43, 46, 48, 49, 52, 53, See also Common Slavic
55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 62–63, 63, 66, 68, 76,
126, 127, 128, 145, 147, 148, 150, 151, 157, quantity 3, 41, 43–44, 66–67, 79. See also
170, 172, 174, 176, 178, 181, 183, 186, 195, prosody
199, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 234, 266,
288, 295, 306, 312, 316, 317, 323, 338, 342, raising and rounding of *a to *u before
345, 353, 360 word-final *m. See loss of word-final
monosyllabic lengthening 122–123. See also *m after short vowels, with rounding
métatonie douce in monosyllabic words and raising of preceding *a to *u [19]
raising of *e to *i before *i̯ [24] 64–65, 161,
nasal diphthongs, monophthongisation. 208, 226, 259, 317–318
See monophthongisation of nasal raising of long vowels before word-final
diphthongs [28] dentals. See loss of word-final dentals
neutral speech 330, 333 after long vowels, with raising of the
non-Anatolian Indo-European 8–9, 19, vowel [18]
21–24, 47, 74, 89, 112–113, 138, 241, 269, reinterpretation of vowel quantity as quality
296, 366 [29] 28, 31, 43, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54,
55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66,
optative (PIE) 48, 56, 296, 297, 301, 302, 312, 66–67, 68, 76, 81, 82, 84, 90, 91, 92, 95,
321, 322, 323, 336, 337, 341, 353, 359 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 106, 108, 111, 113,
oral diphthongs, monophthongisation. See 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131,
monophthongisation of oral 136, 138, 140, 145, 147, 148, 150, 151, 157,
diphthongs 159, 161, 162, 165, 168, 170, 172, 174, 176,
index 411
178, 180, 181, 183, 184, 186, 189, 191, 192, Teeter’s law 10, 21
193, 195, 197, 199, 200, 201, 204, 206, 207, thematic imperfective preterite (“imperfect”)
208, 209, 211, 212, 215, 217, 218, 219, 221, (PIE) 297, 301
222, 224, 226, 228, 229, 231, 234, 236, third palatalisation of velars. See second
238, 240, 242, 244, 246, 248, 251, 254, palatalisation of velars [23]
258, 259, 261, 262, 265, 266, 271, 272, 273, tone 3, 12–13, 18, 40, 49, 79. See also prosody
274, 276, 278, 280, 281, 282, 284, 286,
288, 289, 291, 293, 295, 305, 306, 308, umlaut, progressive. See fronting of non-front
310, 312, 316, 317, 320, 321, 323, 327, 332, vowels after palatal consonants [20]
333, 335, 336, 338, 342, 345, 348, 353,
360, 362, 363, 367 velars, palatalisation. See first palatalisation
resultative aspect (PIE). See perfect (PIE) of velars [21]; second palatalisation of
root aorist (PIE) 300, 331, 334. See also root velars [23]
preterite vocative (status as paradigmatic form) 18,
root preterite (PIE) 319, 331. See also root 69
aorist voiced aspirated stops, deaspiration.
rounding and raising of *a to *u before See Winter’s law and deaspiration of
word-final *m. See loss of word-final voiced aspirated stops [6]
*m after short vowels, with rounding vowel contractions, Common Indo-European.
and raising of preceding *a to *u [19] See Common Indo-European vowel
ruki change [12] 41, 43, 48, 51, 53–54, 55, 56, contractions [3]
62, 81, 98, 99, 103, 126, 127, 128, 206, 234, vowel contractions, Common Slavic. See
240, 266, 280, 281, 282, 284, 286, 289, Common Slavic vowel contractions
291, 295, 318, 323 [25]
sandhi 11–12, 117, 172, 178, 214, 333 Winter’s law and deaspiration of voiced
Saussure’s law 117, 131, 190, 242, 245, aspirated stops [6] 41, 42, 50, 50–51,
279–280, 281, 304 51, 52, 53, 110, 155
Schwundhypothese 22 word formation 4, 15
second palatalisation of velars [23] 27, 28, word-final fricatives, loss. See loss of
28–29, 42, 46, 61, 62, 63, 63–64, 67, 133, word-final fricatives, with centralisa-
167, 178–179, 234, 295, 323 tion of preceding *ā̆ to *ə̄ ̆ [17]
shortening of final long vowels in Common word-final *m, loss after short vowels.
Slavic. See Common Slavic shortening See loss of word-final *m after short
of final long vowels vowels, with rounding and raising of
shortening of long diphthongs in Common preceding *a to *u [19]
Slavic. See Common Slavic shortening word-final obstruents, devoicing. See
of long diphthongs devoicing of word-final obstruents [5]
sigmatic aorist (PIE) 297, 310, 319, 331, 332 word-final stops, loss. See loss of word-final
sporadic (irregular) sound change and stops [9]
variation 21, 24, 25, 27, 42, 111, 122–123, word-final voicing in Proto-Indo-European.
138, 270, 309, 322, 328, 329, 330 See Proto-Indo-European word-final
stem 16, 16–18 voicing
subjunctive (PIE) 296, 297, 302
subparadigm 16, 32, 71, 73, 75 yodisation. See elimination of post-
supine (PS) 116, 297, 302 consonantal *i̯ [26]
syllabic sonorants, diphthongisation.
See diphthongisation of syllabic
sonorants [2]
syllabification rules (PIE) 40–41, 115

Proto-Slavic Inflectional Morphology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proto-Slavic Inflectional Morphology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proto-Slavic Inflectional Morphology

Brill’s Studies in Indo-European

Craig Melchert (University of California at Los Angeles)

José-Luis García-Ramón (University of Cologne)

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bsiel

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Olander, Thomas, 1974–

Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Balto-Slavic

1 Loss of laryngeals (general) 47

From Proto-Balto-Slavic to Proto-Slavic

12 Ruki change (general) 53

Common Slavic Phonetic Developments

20 Fronting of non-front vowels after palatal consonants (general) 60

24 Raising of *e to *i before *i̯ (general) 64

HLuv. Hieroglyphic Luvian

OPers. Old Persian

SSl. South Slavic

[X] in quotations from the Old Novgorod dialect: uncertain reading

This study consists of a reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic inflectional system,

As for (1), while we have a good understanding of the phonological appearance

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004270503_002

that have not been solved in a satisfactory way by traditional approaches.

on the prehistory of the individual endings in my book Balto-Slavic accentual

1.3 Justification and Perspectives

sometimes do not allow us to distinguish between shared lexicon and loan-

Indo-European and their expressions. The dialectal diversity of Slavic also

The present reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic inflectional system and its

1.4 Methodological Considerations

1.4.1 Sound Laws and Morphological Change

Despite these difficulties most historical linguists, including the author of

the case of Slavic; it is problematic that explanations with reference to sandhi

1.4.2 Accent and Tone

1.4.3 The Comparative Method and Internal Reconstruction

1.5 Terminology and Definitions

1.5.1 Morphological Terminology

and numerals; and (2) verbs. Nominal inflection is traditionally referred to

1.5.2 Proto-X, Pre-X, Common X

(Kortlandt 2010d/2010a: 47) or “Proto-Indo-European” (contrasting with

European group, the relationship between the Anatolian and non-Anatolian

proto-language in this investigation of the prehistory of the Slavic inflectional

1.6 Structure of the Study

1 an introduction providing the general framework of the study;

3 a historical analysis of the nominal endings of Proto-Slavic;

In the main part of the study—chapter 3 on nominal inflection and chapter 4

grammatical categories (present vs. preterite vs. imperative), leading to fewer

Table 1 Overview of material

Reconstructed Proto-Slavic Reconstructed Reconstructed Proto-Indo-

Attested Slavic forms: Old Attested Baltic forms: Attested Indo-European

PIE An overview of opinions presented in selected publications dealing with

PIE Discussion of the Proto-Indo-European reconstruction, based on

PBS Discussion of the Proto-Balto-Slavic reconstruction, based on attested

PS Discussion of the Proto-Slavic reconstruction and its Common Slavic

1.6.3 References to Standard Works

Proto-Indo-European and the non-Balto-Slavic languages

– Brugmann 1909–1911, 1913–1916: Indo-European (except Anatolian and

– Rasmussen forthc. a: Indo-European nouns, pronouns; forthcoming mono-

Proto-Balto-Slavic and the Baltic languages

– Olander 2009: Balto-Slavic nouns, verbs; focuses on the inflectional accent

Proto-Slavic and the Slavic languages

– Vondrák 1908/­1928: Slavic nouns, pronouns, verbs; includes the develop-

2.1 Introductory Remarks

This chapter introduces the phonological background on which the Proto-

24 Raising of e to i before *i̯ (general) 64

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004270503_002

– Vondrák 1908/1928: Slavic nouns, pronouns, verbs; includes the develop-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004270503_003

The obstruent system comprised six stops, p t k b d g, and two fricatives, s

The Proto-Indo-European syllabic sonorants r̥ l ̥ m̥ n̥ are diphthongised to ir

Proto-Indo-European o becomes a in all positions of the word. Note that the

10 Diphthongisation of åē to i̯åā before tautosyllabic *u̯ (general)

11 Backing of e to a before *u̯ (general)

and retracted to PS x unless followed by a stop, where it becomes s, merging

14 Labialisation of i̯ to u̯ after *ō (final?)

16 Loss of n between a high vowel and word-final s (final)

17 Loss of word-final fricatives, with centralisation of preceding ā̆ to ə̄ ̆

In word-final syllables closed by a fricative, a ā become ə ə̄, and the fricative

In word-final syllables ending in ‑m, a becomes *u; subsequently word-final

24 Raising of e to i before *i̯ (general)

27 Backing of ē to ā after palatalised consonants (general)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004270503_004