HISTORICAL GRAMMAR OF OLD PRUSSIAN

HISTORICAL GRAMMAR OF OLD PRUSSIAN
III appeared “because translator of I was not a native Samlandian but was
possibly a Natangian”.
As for the final Pr. *-ç, it remained unchanged under the stress in all
Catechisms, e.g. semç (III) ‘earth’, druwç (III) ‘believes’ = druwe (I, II,
III) ‘idem’ (cf. * 226). However it was shortened when unstressed: *-ç (>
*-î) > *-Ÿ, e.g. mûti (III) ‘mother’, drowy (II) ‘believes’ 12 . Besides that, the
stressed -ç reflects Pr. (Cat.) *-çja > *-çj > *-ç in such instances as budç
(III) ‘is awake’, milç (III) ‘loves’ etc. (Endzelîns SV 111, Stang Vergl.
Gr. 320), see also * 224.
* 16. Balt. *` (= *¯É, cf. Stang Vergl. Gr. 37, see further) is preserved
in the Elbing Vocabulary in spellings o and oa, i.e. *¯É = *` (! cf.
* 19), e.g.: mothe = *m¯Étç ‘mother’, brote = *br¯Étç ‘brother’, soalis =
*z¯Élîs ‘grass’ (PEÞ IV 139). As for the Catechisms, Pr. *` (= *¯É!) turned
into *û there after the labials and gutturals (LG), e.g.: nom. sg. mûti (III)
‘mother’, acc. sg. mûtien (II), muttin (I) ‘idem’ [such *û never underwent
further diphthongization described in * 13 – L.P.]. This Pr. *` (= *¯É!)
remained unchanged in all positions except after LG (cf. Bûga III 106),
12 druwe (III) cannot have -ç < *-ç because of praes. druwçse, druwçmai, not o -druwîmai-! There
is no difference between (III) budç, milç on the one side and (III) druwç (as well as billç, quoitç,
stallç * 225). First, the spelling druwe is attested 2x beside drowy 1x in the same II. If the ending
-y in the latter was really unstressed, the spelling of the stressed u as o beside the spelling of the
unstressed u as u in 2 other instances should seem doubtful. Secondly, in case the verbs
druwç, billç, quoitç, stallç are not the same çja-stem verbs as budç and milç, then their stem
vowel ç should have but turned into -î- in plural forms (III) druwçmai, billçmai, quoitçti, quot`mai
(probably = *kwait’`mai = *kwaitçmai), stallçmai, stallçti and should have been preserved as î at
least once if this ç were really generalized from the form of the 3rd person (* 212). Therefore it
seems no less credible to see a secondary circumflex diphthong -çja- > -çj- = -…ei- > -ç- in closed
syllable in these plural forms. Such diphpthong is well preserved in the participle form (III)
waitiaintins = *vait’`intins < *vait’`jantins. Cf. Palmaitis BGR 223 [cf. ibid. for alternation
in allomorph pairs in stems and suffixes `i / `, çi / ç (all accented), as well as at the end of words
-`i / -`, -çi / -ç (accented), -ai / -a, -ei / -e (generalized, unaccented) what can be supported
additionally by such hyper-corrections as (III) giwei = *giwç. An oxytone stress in giwei is evident
from Latvian correspondence dz±ve with a broken acute]. Cf. ftn's 92, 109.
Since there is no apparent reason (except traditional opinions) to make difference between
verbs (III) budç, milç and druwç, billç, quoitç, stallç, the spelling drowy (II) can be treated as
reflecting a stressed suffix *-ija, i.e. *druvî = *druvij < *druvija / *druvçja, cf. pairs Latv. rûs±t
/ rûs°et, Lith. trûnÑja / tr»ni – L.P.
19