HISTORICAL GRAMMAR OF OLD PRUSSIAN

HISTORICAL GRAMMAR OF OLD PRUSSIAN
* 10. The articulation of Pr. -a moved forward after palatals and j,
i.e. was spelled as a and e irrespectively, e.g.: Pr. (E) garian = *gar’an
‘tree’ vs. wargien = *var’an ‘copper’ (the spelling wargien with g shows
that the informant perceived *r’ as *rj, cf. PEÞ IV 221 as well as * 24
further), (III) gçide = *g…eid’a ‘waits’. At the same time the unstressed Pr.
a is spelled as e sometimes, e.g. (III): sedinna ‘states’ (PEÞ IV 34 s.v.
sadinna), widdewû ‘widow’ (PEÞ IV 234), (E): tresde ‘thrush’ (PEÞ IV
199), wessis ‘sledge’ (PEÞ IV 232) 10 .
b) Long vowels
* 11. The dialect of the Elbing Vocabulary is more archaic than
dialect(s) of the Catechisms in respect to the fate of Baltic long vowels,
whether accented or unaccented. The fate of the final lond *-ç in the
Prussian word for ‘mother’ is a good example to make this evident. This
word is barytone (the ending is unstressed), but the shortening of the final
vowel took place in dialects of the Catechisms only, cf. (E) mothe = *m¯Étç
(the ending is long!) vs. (III) mûti (the ending is short!) < *mûtî < *m¯Étç
(for these û resp. î see further ** 13, 15).
* 12. Balt. *î --> WBalt. *î produced Pr. (E) *î, spelled as i, y and ie,
e.g. : Pr. (E) giwato ‘life’ (cf. Lith. gyvat‡a), ylo ‘awl’ (cf. Lith. ƒyla, Latv.
µlens ‘idem’), liede ‘pike’ (cf. Lith. lyd…ys, Latv. l±daka). The same WBalt.
*î is spelled as i, î, ei, ey in the Catechisms. Cf. spelling of the same word
final vowels are reduced to short there (this is obvious from the variations in spelling as in gen.
sg. fem. menses II / mensas III < *-`s). Nevertheless this process (known as reduction of the final
vowels) is not attested in the Elbing Vocabulary – cf. antis (not o ants), wosee. This shows that the
inflection nom. sg. masc. -is (with its i reduced) instead of *-as hardly can be explained as a result
of purely phonetic shortening (no shortening took place!). Therefore, the inflection nom. sg.
masc. -s as well in the dialects of the Catechisms may be older than the reduction of the final
vowels there and may have been caused by the same grammatical (not pure phonetic) reasons as
in the dialects of the Elbing Vocabulary (cf. here ** 89, 91–92). – L.P.
10 Spelling a as e reflects the reduction of a in the unstressed position and shows the strength of
the dynamic accent in Prussian. Therefore this was namely the strong accent which caused reduction
of the final (unstressed) vowels in the dialects of the Catechisms. As for mixing a and e after
palatals and j, this reflects the absence of the phonematic opposition between /a/ and /e/ in all
positions except initial – cf. ftn. 8. – L.P.
17