V zeleni drželi zeleni breg

Studies in Honor of Marc L. Greenberg

Edited by

Stephen M. Dickey &

Mark Richard Lauersdorf

Bloomington, Indiana, 2018

© 2018 by the authors. All rights reserved.

This volume was published in August 2018.

ISBN 978-0-89357-491-8

Technical Editors: Phillip Weirich and Renata Uzzell

Cover Design by Tracey Theriault

Cover Image: Aleš Maučec (www.facebook.com/ales.maucec). Slovenia

(Prekmurje, Goričko), Vučja Gomila—a small village (pop. 269) in the
northeastern part of Slovenia near the border of Hungary.
© Aleš Maučec, permission granted by the author.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Dickey, Stephen M., editor. | Lauersdorf, Mark Richard, editor. |

Greenberg, Marc L., honoree.
Title: V zeleni drželi zeleni breg : studies in honor of Marc L. Greenberg /
edited by Stephen M. Dickey, Mark Richard Lauersdorf.
Description: Bloomington, Indiana : Slavica Publishers, 2018.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018037963 | ISBN 9780893574918
Subjects: LCSH: Slavic languages. | Slavic languages, Southern.
Classification: LCC PG14.G54 V33 2018 | DDC 491.8/1--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018037963

Slavica Publishers [Tel.] 1-812-856-4186

Indiana University [Toll-free] 1-877-SLAVICA
1430 N. Willis Drive [Fax] 1-812-856-4187
Bloomington, IN 47404-2146 [Email] slavica@indiana.edu
USA [www] http://www.slavica.com/
 Contents

Stephen M. Dickey and Mark Richard Lauersdorf

Editors’ Preface ……………………………………………………………… vii
Tabula Gratulatoria ………………………………………………………………… xi
Major Publications by Marc L. Greenberg …………………………………… xiii

David J. Birnbaum and Hanne Martine Eckhoff
Machine-Assisted Multilingual Word Alignment of the
Old Church Slavonic Codex Suprasliensis………………………………… 1
Krzysztof E. Borowski
The Folk Linguistics of Silesian in Poland………………………………… 15
Stephen M. Dickey
On the History of Prefixed Imperfective Motion Verbs in Slavic………… 37
Masako U. Fidler
Czech Onomatopoeia in Non-Artistic Genres: A Tricky Ambiguity…… 57
Victor A. Friedman and Brian D. Joseph
The Importance of Slovene for Understanding Balkanisms……………… 79
Robert D. Greenberg
Language Policies on Both Sides of the Slovenia-Croatia Border:
Ongoing Challenges Regarding Minority Populations…………………… 91
Laura A. Janda
A Stranger in the Lexicon: The Aspectual Status of
Russian смочь ‘be able, manage (to)’……………………………………… 105
Marko Jesenšek
The Prekmurje Standard Language and Slovene in Porabje…………… 127
Ani Kokobobo
The Decadent Muse in Ismail Kadare’s
“The Albanian Writers’ Union as Mirrored by a Woman”…………… 143
Keith Langston
Evaluating the Effects of Language Planning
Efforts in Croatia: Evidence from Corpus Data………………………… 157
vi Contents

Mark Richard Lauersdorf

Historical (Standard) Language Development
and the Writing of Historical Identities: A Plaidoyer
for a Data-Driven Approach to the Investigation of the
Sociolinguistic History of (Not Only) Slovak…………………………… 199
Gabriela Múcsková
Synthetization in the Grammaticalization
of the Preterit in Slovak Dialects………………………………………… 219
Renee Perelmutter
A Fur Hat out of a Pig’s Tail: Jewish Russian Linguistic
Anxieties, Code-switching, and the Humorous Frame………………… 243
Catherine Rudin
Multiple Determination in Bulgarian and Macedonian:
An Exploration of Structure, Usage, and Meaning……………………… 263
Nada Šabec
Toward Less Formal Ways of Addressing the Other in Slovene……… 287
Joseph Schallert
Observations on the Linguistic Geography of the
Fakija Dialect in Southeastern Bulgaria������������ 305
Marko Snoj
Trije odtenki črne…………………………………………………………… 343
Cynthia Vakareliyska
English-Loanblend [N[N]]’s in Serbian…………………………………… 357
 On the History of Prefixed Imperfective Motion Verbs in Slavic*

Stephen M. Dickey

Abstract: This paper presents a comparative overview of Slavic prefixed imperfective

motion verbs (e.g., Russian prixodit’ ‘come’) and their suffixed variants in some lan-
guages (e.g., Czech přicházet ‘idem’). In the west, Czech, Slovak, Sorbian and Slovene
have adopted the suffixed variants, as have Bulgarian and Macedonian in the east.
No other Slavic language employs them (though East Slavic and Polish appear to
have developed and then lost them). Based on the available evidence, it appears that
Czech developed the suffixed variants early, by the 15th century, whereas Bulgarian
developed them later, in the 16th or 17th century. On the basis of this chronology, it
is argued that the development of abstract perfectivizing prefixes triggered the suf-
fixation by entrenching the perfectivizing function of prefixes. In the west it was the
development of abstract s-/z- that triggered the suffixation, and in Balkan Slavic the
suffixation was triggered by abstract perfectivizing po-. It is argued that the timing of
the development of these abstract perfectivizing prefixes in the respective languages
correlates with the appearance of the suffixed variants: in the west s-/z- arose by the
14th century, and in the east po- arose by the 16th century.

1. Introduction

This article was written in honor of Marc L. Greenberg’s contribution to Slavic

linguistics. When I came to the University of Kansas I was working through
the initial stages of a large project on the history of Slavic verbal aspect, and
was prone to thinking of language change and language contact simply in
terms of abstract generalizations. Marc’s focus in our conversations on lan-
guage change and language contact as real phenomena, considering their so-
cial dimensions, has helped me to improve my analyses, even when, as here,
they are ultimately abstract speculations. For a brief time, we collaborated
on the implications of his preferred etymology of *ězditi ‘ride’ as -yeh2- + -sd-
‘go + sit’ (Greenberg and Dickey [2006]; he developed this etymology inde-
pendently of Schuyt [1988: 325], who proposed the same etymology), which

* I would like to thank my co-editor Mark Lauersdorf and an anonymous reviewer for useful
comments and corrections, as well as Václav Cvrček for help with the Czech National Corpus.
They naturally bear no responsibility for any inaccuracies or errors contained in this article.

Stephen M. Dickey and Mark Richard Lauersdorf, eds. V zeleni drželi zeleni breg: Studies in Honor of
Marc L. Greenberg. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 2018, 37–56.
38 Stephen M. Dickey

was a watershed in my study of Slavic verbs of motion and allowed me to

develop the hypothesis that Common Slavic xoditi-type motion verbs were
originally manner-of-motion verbs, as argued in Dickey (2010).
The history of the determinate : indeterminate opposition in North Slavic
motion verbs has received scant attention in recent Slavic linguistics (some no-
table exceptions are Stern [2002], Greenberg and Dickey [2006], Dickey [2010],
Greenberg [2010], and Nichols [2010]).1 The status and history of prefixed
imperfective motion verbs (e.g., Old Church Slavic prixoditi ‘come/arrive’)
has also largely escaped attention (notable exceptions are Schuyt [1988] and
Dickey [2014]).
The sparsity of the literature on these topics is presumably due to the
overall lack of clarity regarding the details of the rise of the Slavic aspectual
system and a lack of data for prefixed imperfective motion verbs in early
stages of Slavic (for example, ězditi ‘ride’ and its compounds are unattested in
Old Church Slavic according to Aitzetmüller [1977], and prefixed imperfective
motion verbs are otherwise relatively infrequent in early Slavic texts). This
paper builds upon my previous work on the subject, which as pointed out
above developed out of a collaboration with the honorand, to consider what
the extant data for prefixed imperfective motion verbs can tell us about the
early history of Slavic aspect and the role of motion verbs in its development.
This discussion treats prefixed manner-of-motion verbs expressing verid-
ical motion along a path (excluding procedural formations such as Rus poxodit’
‘walk for a while’ and other change-of-state verbs such as Rus iznosit’ ‘wear
out’) and proceeds from the following assumptions. First, following Dickey
(2010), it is assumed that there was no determinate : indeterminate opposi-
tion in motion verbs in Common Slavic; motion verbs such as xoditi ‘walk’,
nositi ‘carry’, ězditi ‘ride’, etc. comprised a class of manner-of-motion verbs that
foregrounded the manner (or agent-patient configuration in the case of tran-
sitive verbs) of motion as opposed to motion along a trajectory. Second, the
etymology of ězditi ‘ride’ is the morphological sequence -yeh2- + -sd- ‘go + sit’,
i.e., ‘go-by-sitting’ (Greenberg and Dickey [2006]). Third, prefixed imperfective
motion verbs in Common Slavic (e.g., prixoditi ‘come/arrive’) arose due to the
suffixation of deverbal nouns (e.g., prixodъ + -iti) and/or the prefixation of man-
ner-of-motion verbs (e.g., pri- + xoditi), cf. Dickey (2014).2
The starting point for this discussion is the cross-Slavic overview of the
morphology of prefixed imperfective motion verbs in the contemporary lan-
guages given in Table 1, which is adopted from the information given by
1
 For a discussion of older views on the subject, cf. Maslov (1961) and the references cited there.
I take issue with these approaches in Dickey (2010, 2014). For a discussion of the emergence of
motion verbs as a central component of the Russian aspectual system, cf. Janda (2008).
2
 I cannot think of any reason why these different ways of producing imperfective *prixoditi
would have different nuances of meaning; they are simply two equally plausible ways of
producing imperfective prefixed compounds of xoditi-type motion verbs.
 On the History of Prefixed Imperfective Motion Verbs in Slavic 39

Schuyt (1988: 331). As in Bulgarian and Macedonian there is suppletion in im-

perfective correlates of prefixed forms of ‘go’ (Bulgarian ida, Macedonian idat),
imperfective correlates of prefixed forms of ‘carry’ (e.g., Old Church Slavic
prinesti ‘bring’, otnesti ‘carry away’) have been used to illustrate the overall
situation.3

Table 1. The Morphology of Prefixed Imperfective Motion Verbs in Slavic

Czech, Slovak, Sorbian, Slovene East Slavic, Polish

Suffixation of prefixed stems:
Cz přináš-et (< přinosi- + -ati)
Cz odnáš-et (< odnosi- + -ati)
Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian
Prefixed manner-of-motion verbs:
B/C/S do-nositi
B/C/S od-nositi
Prefixed manner-of-motion verbs:
Rus pri-nosit’
Rus ot-nosit’
Bulgarian, Macedonian
Suffixation of prefixed stems:
Blg donas-jam (< donosi- + -am)
Blg otnas-jam (< otnosi- + -am)

East Slavic and Polish comprise a continuous zone in which prefixed im-
perfective motion verbs preserve the original model of prefix + manner-of-mo-
tion verb, e.g., pri- + nositi ‘bring’.4 Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian also preserves
this model, e.g., do- + nositi ‘bring’. On the one hand it is Czech, Slovak, Upper
and Lower Sorbian, which comprise the western languages in Dickey’s (2000,
2015a) east-west aspect division, and on the other it is Balkan Slavic, i.e., Bul-
garian and Macedonian, that show reflexes of a later development,5 i.e., the
suffixation of the prefixed manner-of-motion verb stem with the imperfectiv-
izing suffix -a-, e.g., Czech přinášet ‘bring’ < přinosi- + -ati.
The suffixed stems in western Slavic and Balkan Slavic prefixed imperfec-
tive motion verbs are very familiar from Slavic aspectual morphology: pre-
fixed stems with perfective value require suffixation to produce a verb with
imperfective value, e.g., suffixation of Old Church Slavic ukrěpiti ‘strengthen,
fortify’ with -a- produced imperfective ukrěpljati ‘idem’. Thus, it would appear
that the suffixation of imperfective prefixed motion verbs in these languages

3
 For a comprehensive discussion of the nature of motion verbs in Bulgarian and differences
between Bulgarian and other Slavic systems, see Lindsey (2011).
4
 The picture is different in dialects, and it was also different at earlier points in time. Dialect
data is not considered here, but section 5 presents a brief discussion of relevant diachronic data
for East Slavic and Polish.
5
 Note that Old Church Slavic attests the prefix + manner-of-motion verb pattern, e.g., prixoditi
‘come’, prinositi ‘bring’.
40 Stephen M. Dickey

was precipitated by a reinterpretation of prefixed manner-of-motion verb

stems as perfective.
Given the perfectivizing force of prefixes since the time of Late Common
Slavic, the development of prefixed imperfective motion verbs in western
Slavic and Balkan Slavic in fact makes sense: whether these verbs arose via
prefixation or via the suffixation of deverbal nouns (cf. Dickey’s [2014] hypoth-
eses mentioned above), it makes sense that at some point these verbs would be
considered aspectually ambiguous, requiring clear imperfective morphology.
Thus, on one level the challenge is to explain why this conflict seems not to
have arisen in East Slavic, Polish, and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (on this latter
issue, see section 5).
A definitive solution to this issue is beyond the scope of a brief article. In
the sections that follow I attempt to shed some light on the fate of these verbs
after the breakup of Common Slavic, including the timing of suffixation, and
discuss some implications for the history of Slavic verbal aspect. In particular,
I argue that the suffixation of prefixed imperfective motion verbs in a given
Slavic language was triggered by the loss of spatial meaning of a prefix in that
language, which strengthened the perfectivizing effect of prefixes. On the ba-
sis of the available data, I argue in section 2 that in Czech the suffixed variants
emerged as a class in the 14th century (and it is assumed, pending evidence to
the contrary, that the timing was more or less the same in the other western
languages), whereas in Bulgarian they emerged in slightly later, in the 17th
or possibly the 16th century. The aspectual value of prefixed forms of *ězditi
‘ride’ and the possibility that other prefixed motion verbs of the xoditi-type are
discussed as related phenomena in sections 3 and 4. In section 5, I argue that
based on this timing it is plausible that the emergence of prefixed-suffixed
imperfective motion verbs in the west was triggered by the rise of abstract
perfectivizing s-/z- (occurred by the 14th century), whereas in the east it was
triggered by the rise of abstract perfectivizing po- (occurred by the 16th cen-
tury). I also argue that, based on historical data, Polish and East Slavic can
be linked with the western group and Balkan Slavic (respectively), whereas
Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian is unique (exept for dialectal phenomena) in never
having suffixed the original prefixed imperfective motion verbs at all. Conclu-
sions are presented in section 6.

2. On the Timing of Suffixation in West and South Slavic

There are no large diachronic corpora for West Slavic languages except
for Czech. For Old Czech (to the end of the 15th century) I have used the
Staročeská textová banka (StTB), and for Middle Czech (from 1500 to the end of
the 18th century) I have used the Středněčeská textová banka (StřTB).6 Data for

6
 The StTB contains just over 5 million words; the StřTB contains 830,000 words.
 On the History of Prefixed Imperfective Motion Verbs in Slavic 41

some representative older unsuffixed prefixed imperfective motion verbs and

for their newer suffixed counterparts are given in Table 2, which includes the
infinitives, earliest attestation, latest attestion (irrelevant for the suffixed verbs
that are still in use) and the number of tokens in the StTB (only the suffixed
counterparts are attested for most of the verbs in the StřTB).
For all verbs except přivoditi/přivozovati ‘bring’, which appears to be an
outlier both with respect to the suffixed variant (přivozovati instead of the pre-
cursor of modern přiváděti) and the later date of its loss, the data show that
the suffixed variant first appears in the 14th or early 15th century, and the
prefixed manner-of-motion verbs are last attested in the late 15th/early 16th
century. Thus, it seems that the suffixed variants of prefixed imperfective mo-
tion verbs began to constitute a major class in the 14th century.7

Table 2. Dates for Representative Prefixed Manner-of-Motion

Verbs and Suffixed Variants in Old Czech

Earliest Latest Number of

Verb Attestation Attestation Tokens
přichoditi early 14th cent. 1516 104
přicházěti 1376 NA 301
vychoditi 1360’s 1518 79
vycházěti 1376 NA 305
schoditi 1360’s 1500 26
scházěti 1360’s NA 164
přivoditi early 14th cent. 1619 270
přivozovati8 1471 1619 1
přinositi 1376 1497 39
přinášěti 1410’s NA 40

There is circumstantial evidence that the suffixation occurred at around

the same time in Slovene. According to Merše (1995: 52), prefixed man-
ner-of-motion verbs (e.g., prinositi ‘bring’) are infrequent in 16th-century texts
and represent relic forms alongside their newer suffixed counterparts (e.g.,
prinašati ‘bring’). Regarding latest attestions, the situation she describes (e.g.,

7
 In order to confirm the picture given in Table 2, I used the SyD variant search method of the
Czech National Corpus (SyD CNC), which gives the same basic picture for the verbs in Table 2:
the prefixed manner-of-motion verbs show a precipitous decrease in frequency over the 15th
century, whereas the suffixed variants show a precipitous increase in frequency over the same
time. The graphs of the searches cannot be shown here due to limitations on space.
8
 In the StTB there are no attestations of the alternate form přiváděti.
42 Stephen M. Dickey

the latest attestation for prinositi dates from 1567, and others are simply unat-
tested) approximates the situation for Czech shown above.
As for Balkan Slavic (Bulgarian and Macedonian), there are no diachronic
corpora available. Given that Old Church Slavic attests almost exclusively
prefixed manner-of-motion verbs (the sole exception being suffixed prixaž-
dati ‘come’, attested twice according to the SsS), the most reasonable hypoth-
esis is that Bulgarian and Macedonian developed the suffixed variants as a
class later. Indeed, the Manasses Chronicle (14th century; SMCh) only attests
prefixed manner-of-motion verbs (e.g., prixoždaaše). The Trojanski Damaskin
(mid-17th century; TD) amply attests prefixed manner-of-motion verbs (e.g.,
otxodi ‘he departs’, doxodilъ ‘came’), but does attest the suffixed variant of
‘come’ (e.g., doxoždat’ ‘they come’). Similarly, donosi ‘brings’ alternates with
innovative suffixed donesuvaše ‘was bringing’. The Trojanski Damaskin gen-
erally attests prefixed manner-of-motion verbs alongside various innovative
suffixed imperfective motion verbs, as shown in (1).

(1) toja srьpь isxodi ot b(o)žie lice i vъlězuva ъv domъ deto se klъnъtь vъ
ime b(o)žie (TD: 57)
‘That sickle goes out from the face of god and enters into the house
where one swears [falsely] in the name of the lord’9

Finally, in one passage in which the TD has doxodi ‘comes’, the Koprištenski
Damaskin (also 17th century) has suffixed doxožda ‘idem’ (as pointed out in the
footnote in TD: 72). These facts suggest that prefixed manner-of-motion verbs
could have been a real part of spoken Bulgarian at the time, and that they
were being replaced at the time of the Damaskins (17th century) or had been
replaced slightly earlier (16th cent.). It is interesting that the attestations of
doxoždam mentioned above all refer to habitual repetition, not to single events;
it is possible that the suffixed imperfectives entered the system as primarily
habitual verbs.10
Based on the information presented above, I assume that suffixed imper-
fective motion verbs became the default prefixed imperfective motion verbs

9
 The Bulgarian appears to be a loose, paraphrastic translation or mistranslation of the Hebrew
in Zechariah 5: 2–4. This point is irrelevant for the verb forms.
10
 This may be connected to the fact that some of the Old Russian imperfective prefixed motion
verbs suffixed in -yva- attested in or about the 17th century adduced in section 5 also appear to
have had a specifically habitual value. It could be that habitual repetition was felt at various
times in various languages to require clearer imperfective marking than imperfective verbs
referring to single situations as processes. However, the status of “habitual” verbs is also less
than clear; I have argued that suffixed habitual verbs could refer to single events in statements
of fact in 16th-cent. Russian (Dickey 2012: 36–37). This issue requires further investigation in the
individual languages.
 On the History of Prefixed Imperfective Motion Verbs in Slavic 43

in Czech in the 14th century, and that they became the default prefixed im-
perfective motion verbs in Bulgarian relatively late, in the 16th–17th centuries.

3. An Apparent Latecomer Among Prefixed Manner-of-Motion Verbs

Greenberg (2010) discusses Slavic motion verbs suffixed in -i-, dividing them
into those inherited from Indo-European, those of Balto-Slavic provenance,
and Slavic innovations. The latter include *xoditi ‘walk’ and *ězditi ‘ride’. Green-
berg suggests that his etymology of ězditi as yeh2- + -sd- ‘go + sit’ mentioned
in section 1 reflects an increased need for specifying manner of motion as
the originally sedentary Slavs migrated westward and southward, adapting
to new “landscapes, climates, and lifestyles” (Greenberg 2010: 119). Referring
to riding on horseback presumably gained in importance as the Slavs came
into contact with sophisticated military powers (e.g., the Romans). In Dickey
(2010: 83) I argued that Old East Slavic ězditi was often a kind of function verb
referring to various official duties, such as riding in an advance guard, as in
(2), from the Laurentian Chronicle (14th cent.):

(2) Volodimerъ že Glěbovičь vnukъ Jurgevъ ezdjaše naperedu v

storožixъ s Perejaslavci. (Dickey 2010:83)
‘Vladimir Glěbovič, grandson of Jörg, rode ahead in the advance
guard with the Perejaslavs.’

It is also possible that increased river travel at the time of the migrations,
and possibly due to contact with the Vikings resulted in the use of the verb
for boat travel, as noted by the MSDJa (1621), which defines ězditi as ‘ride on
horses or boats’.
Assuming a relatively late origin of ězditi can explain puzzling features
of prefixed forms of the verb in various Slavic languages.11 In East Slavic and
Polish the prefixed imperfectives of ‘arrive by transport’ are suffixed, e.g.,
Russian priezžat’, Polish przyjeżdżać. These verbs in and of themselves indicate
that at the time of their derivation the combination pri- + ězditi was either
perfective or at least aspectually ambiguous. Old East Slavic priězditi could
have been ambiguous at most, and not simply perfective, because it is amply
attested in imperfective contexts and in present active participles. For Polish,
the SStP (Suplement, cz. 1: 65) gives przyjeździć, with an attestation in a per-
fective context (…kyedi przyieszdzil poszel… ‘when he arrived he went...’), and
defines the verb in Polish with the perfective przybyć ‘arrive’.
This state of affairs is assumed for Old Czech by the ESSČ, which gives
two homophones for přijězditi: (1) a perfective verb (k komu přijet, jízdou se do-

11
 Another possibility is that as a kind of utilitarian function verb, ězditi retained its manner-of
motion status longer than other erstwhile manner of motion verbs, e.g., xoditi.
44 Stephen M. Dickey

stat, zajet ‘come to someone by transport, by riding’) correlated with simplex

imperfective ězditi ‘ride’, (2) an imperfective verb correlated with perfective
prijěti ‘arrive, riding‘. For Slovak, the SSJ (vol. 3: 561) gives perfective archaic
prijazdiť (prísť na koni al. na nejakom dopravnom prostriedku ‘arrive on a horse
other some means of transport’). For Upper Sorbian, the HSNS gives perfec-
tive přijězdźić (heranfahren, herzufahren) ‘approach, driving’. Similarly, for con-
temporary Slovene the SSKJ gives perfective prijezditi (s jezdenjem priti ‘arrive
by riding’). Contemporary Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian dictionaries, e.g., the
HJP, list archaic perfective dojezditi (doći jezdeći ‘arrive riding’). For contempo-
rary Macedonian, the DRMJ lists perfective dojazdi (dojde so jazdenje, javanje,
dojava ‘arrive by riding’).
The fact that prefixed compounds of ězditi are aspectually ambigu­
ous (Old Czech) or perfective (Upper Sorbian, Slovene, Bosnian/Croatian/
Serbian, Macedonian) in languages that eventually suffixed prefixed
imperfective motion verbs (cf. Czech přinášeti) or kept the original compounds
imperfective (cf. Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian donositi ‘bring’) is a fairly strong
indicator that prefixation of ězditi occurred at a point in time later than the
prefixation of other manner-of-motion verbs, presumably when the perfectiv-
izing force of prefixes had already become productive in derivation. In addi-
tion, if ězditi was created as a kind of descriptive function verb with particular
societal applications as the Slavs migrated (see above), as opposed to being a
motion verb in the narrow sense (cf. verbs with a semantically related root in
Slavic, e.g., Old Czech jěti, Old East Slavic ěxati, both ‘ride’), prefixation of the
verb could have triggered perfectivization in the same way that non-motion
verbs are prefixed to create perfective motion verbs in some Slavic languages,
e.g., Russian perfective priprygat’ ‘come hopping’.

4. Relic Evidence of Aspectual Ambiguity in Prefixed Manner-of-Motion Verbs

Beyond the peculiar aspectual value of prefixed compounds of ězditi in the

various languages, prefixed imperfective motion verbs are almost paradoxi-
cal, because on the one hand, as pointed out in section 1, most West and South
Slavs eventually felt the need to derive suffixed imperfectives, presumably to
avoid aspectual ambiguity, whereas on the other they are amply attested in
imperfective usage patterns from the earliest recorded texts. To my knowl-
edge there have not been any discussions of attestations of perfective usage
that would have precipitated the aforementioned suffixation.12 In this section
I discuss a few possible cases of prefixed manner of motion verbs with perfec-
tive value apart from prefixed compounds of ězditi.

12
 Again, I assume that perfective prefixed manner-of-motion verbs profiling results other than
the completion of directed-motion trajectories, e.g., Rus isxodit’, Blg izxodja ‘walk all over some
space’ or Rus donosit’, Blg donosja ‘wear out; carry to term’ are irrelevant for this question.
 On the History of Prefixed Imperfective Motion Verbs in Slavic 45

The RBE gives imperfective doxodjam and perfective doxodja as a dialectal

aspect pair meaning ‘come’. Similarly, the DRMJ gives perfective doodi (< do- +
[x]odi) as a verb meaning ‘walking, arrive at a given place, at the end’ (so odenje
stigne do opredeleno mesto, do kraj). It seems that the only perfective derivation
of this kind is do- + reflexes of xoditi; other inherited manner-of-motion verbs
(reflexes of nositi ‘carry’ voditi ‘lead, etc.) have apparently not produced pre-
fixed perfective motion verbs.
The only other cases I know of are distributive verbs in Czech, e.g., per-
fective odnosit ‘carry away gradually piece by piece’ (po částech postupně odnést)
and vynosit ‘carry out gradually piece by piece’ (po částech postupně vynést),
which have been discussed by Hilchey (2014: 194–5). The Czech perfective
distributive motion verbs are probably a by-product of the establishment of
single-act and distributive perfective doublets (on these, see again Hilchey
[2014]). The ESSČ gives perfective otnositi, attested in 1417 as a distributive
perfective (otnosili sú kamenie ‘they carried away the rocks’), translating a Latin
perfect (tulerunt). The particular Czech situation cannot be discussed further
here, but the existence of otnositi as a perfective distributive in Old Czech pro-
vides more evidence that prefixed manner-of-motion verbs could have perfec-
tive value in early Slavic.
Returning to Bulgarian doxodja ‘come’ and its Macedonian congener doodi,
these verbs may have a relatively late provenance. Goal-oriented motion verbs
prefixed with do- are much less frequent than those prefixed with pri- in Old
Church Slavic texts, and motion verbs containing pri- are common in texts in
which motion events occur. Moreover, doxoditi ‘come’ is attested only once in
Old Church Slavic, in the Codex Suprasliensis (cf. Aitzetmüller [1977: 148]). The
perfectives doiti ‘come’ dovesti ‘lead hither’ and donesti ‘bring’ are also attested
primarily in the Codex Suprasliensis, and three times in the Euchologium Sinaiti-
cum. Note that according to Aitezmüller (1977), the only manner-of-motion
verb prefixed with do- is doxoditi; others such as donositi and dovoditi, are not
attested in Old Church Slavic.
While it is difficult to make claims based on the age of the texts, the Codex
Suprasliensis is a younger, Cyrillic text from the 11th century. The fact that
motion verbs prefixed with do- occur primarily in this text may reflect an in-
novative use of motion verbs prefixed with do- as goal-oriented motion verbs
in South Slavic. Note again that the Manasses Chronicle (14th cent.; SMCh)
employs motion verbs prefixed with pri-, whereas the Damaskins (17th cent.)
attest motion verbs prefixed with do-. This suggestion should not be taken as a
claim that motion verbs prefixed with do- did not exist in Late Common Slavic
(they are attested in dictionaries of Old East Slavic as well); rather, the sugges-
tion is that they became prevalent in South Slavic as deictically goal-oriented
come-verbs at a relatively late time, and there may have been competing per-
46 Stephen M. Dickey

fective and imperfective senses of doxoditi before the suffixation described in

section 1.13
It is curious that we find doxoditi in Old East Slavic in usage that seems to
be perfective, as in the examples in (3).

(3) a. I blagodatiju Božieju doxodixъ svjatogo grada Ierusalima i

viděxъ svjataa města […] (Old East Slavic, 12th cent.; XID: 26)
‘And by the grace of God I walked all the way to the holy city of
Jerusalem and saw the holy sites […]’
b. Pomysly bo[go]vъgodnyja prija ježe vъ s[vja]tyj gradъ ier[usa]l[e]
mъ. doxoditi i sěsti vъ okr[ь]st’nii jego pustyni.
 (Old East Slavic, 13th cent.; ŽSSO: 27)
‘He took it into his head to come/walk to to the holy city of
Jerusalem and sit down in the surrounding desert.’

In Dickey (2012: 19) I pointed out that Old East Slavic doxodixъ ‘I reached by
walking’ (3a) is hard to interpret as a round trip, especially since it occurs in
a narrative sequence of events telling first of the desire to go to Jerusalem and
then that he reached the city, along with mention of several things that he did
there. Perhaps it is what it would appear to be if we resist the temptation to
project the modern Russian situation back to 12th-century East Slavic: a pre-
fixed perfective manner-of-motion verb expressing a completed motion event
of walking in a sequence of events. In (3b), the infinitive doxoditi refers to a com-
plete event preceding the sitting down in the desert, and translates a Greek
aorist infinitive, katalabein ‘to arrive at’; both of these facts are circumstantial
evidence that the verb in (3b) is perfective.
On the other hand, Old East Slavic doxoditi is attested in solidly imperfec-
tive forms and contexts, e.g., (4a), as is its Middle Bulgarian congener, e.g, (4b).

(4) a. […] jakože strěly ne doxodjaxutь […]

 (Old East Slavic, 13th cent., RNC)
‘[…] as the arrows were not reaching [them; …]
b. […] i kaži mu kak si do mene doxodilь. ot nego šte da ti bъde
rabota […] (Middle Bulgarian, 17th cent.; TD: 32)
‘[…] and tell him that you came to me. There will be work for you
from him […]’

13
 Again, see Lindsey (2011) for a discussion of the peculiarities of Bulgarian motion verbs.
Come seems to have undergone an unusual development, as perfective dojda is paired with the
unprefixed imperfective idvam. Note also the colloquial imperative elate ‘come here’, borrowed
from Greek.
 On the History of Prefixed Imperfective Motion Verbs in Slavic 47

The imperfect in (4a) requires no further comment. The Middle Bulgarian per-
fect si… doxodil’ ‘you … came’ in (4b) is an annulled-result imperfective state-
ment of fact; note that in the preceding text the speaker urges the addressee to
go back where he came from.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to determine the degree to which per-
fective and imperfective doxoditi coexisted at a given point in time, and it is
also impossible to assess the accuracy of the aspectual tagging of the verb in
dictionaries of Old East Slavic and Bulgarian. I will assume that Bulgarian
perfective doxodja (and its Macedonian congener) are relics from an earlier
time, prior to the suffixation discussed in sections 1–2. In section 5, I speculate
on the reasons for the timing of the suffixation of prefixed imperfective mo-
tion verbs in the various languages.

5. Motivating the Suffixation in Western Slavic and Balkan Slavic; Other

Slavic Languages

The previous sections have discussed the suffixation of prefixed man-

ner-of-motion verbs in the western Slavic languages (Czech, Slovak, Slovene,
Upper Sorbian) and Balkan Slavic (Bulgarian, Macedonian), concluding that
in the languages of the western group the suffixation occurred during the
14th century and in Balkan Slavic it occurred around in the 17th century.
The evidence pointing to the existence of perfective prefixed man-
ner-of-motion verbs, whether due to the presumed relatively late appearance
of a verb (e.g., priězditi ‘arrive riding’) or the presumed preservation of per-
fective senses of otherwise imperfective verbs (e.g., Bulgarian doxodja ‘come,
arrive’), provide a motivating factor for the suffixation. But they do not help
explain the differing timing of the suffixation in western Slavic and Balkan
Slavic; nor do they help us to understand why the suffixation appears not
to have occurred in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and East Slavic/Polish. If the
existence of and patterns of perfective usage of prefixed manner-of-motion
verbs provide no information that might shed light on the timing of the suf-
fixation,14 then we are forced to look elsewhere for factors that could have
triggered the suffixation.
A possible triggering factor could be developments in prefixation in the
various languages: in particular, the timing of the development of abstractly
perfectivizing prefixes. The development of such prefixes could have (further)
entrenched the perfectivizing function of prefixes, to such a degree that exist-
ing combinations of prefix + simplex verb with imperfective value were felt to
be anomalous, and were eliminated by suffixation to create explicitly marked
imperfective verbs. As pointed out in section 1, this idea is a locus communis

14
 It is, of course, possible that fuller data could help in this regard, but at present I can detect no
patterns that provide any substantive information.
48 Stephen M. Dickey

of Slavic aspectology: prefixed verbs are suffixed to cancel the perfectivizing

force of the prefix (e.g., Old Church Slavic ukrěpljati ‘strengthen, fortify’ from
ukrěpiti ‘idem’, etc., etc.). What is perhaps new about this idea is that it assumes
that both the definitive establishment of the perfectivizing force of prefixes
as a class was a protracted process that ended at a relatively late date in some
languages, and conversely that the suffixation of prefixed verbs was also a
protracted process that ended relatively late, after various stragglers (e.g., mo-
tion verbs) underwent the process.
In Dickey (2017) I argue that the despatialization of u- in Common Slavic
was a watershed development (if not the main development) that produced
the perfectivizing effect of Slavic prefixes. In short, the despatialization of u-
affected the entire class of spatial prefixes in Slavic by reorganizing them as a
network based on a shared meaning of abstract perfectivization, as opposed
to sharing various spatial trajectories. This perfectivizing effect ultimately
produced the general aspectual patterning of verbs observed by Eckhoff and
Janda (2014) in Old Church Slavic. The initial change, however, was not com-
prehensive, and various kinds of verbs (motion verbs, communication verbs)
were integrated into the system only slowly. Motion verbs were stragglers in
two ways: (1) prefixed directed motion verbs are attested in Old Church Slavic
in imperfective forms (e.g., the imperfect) and imperfective contexts (cf. Dickey
[2014]); (2) as discussed here, the prefixation of manner-of-motion verbs does
not seem to have consistently produced perfective verbs in Common Slavic.15
Let us start with western Slavic, focusing first on Czech, for which we
have relatively reliable data. The suffixation of prefixed imperfective motion
verbs in Czech appears to coincide in time with the final stages of the estab-
lishment of Czech aspect as a grammatical category. Vintr (2001: 214) observes
that “it is fifteenth-century Old Czech that first shows the full grammatical-
ization of aspect.” As I argue in Dickey (2005, to which the reader is referred
for details), a key development that occurred around this time was the coales-
cence of jьz- and sъ[n]- (due to jer-fall and the reduction of jz- > z-, by the 14th
century) into a single, polysemous suffix s-/z-, which due to the ambiguity of
the prefix, develop a salient, despatialized meaning of change of state (s1 > s2).
Its new despatialized meaning of s1 > s2 is the reason why s-/z- became a highly
productive resultative and perfectivizing prefix in the 14th and 15th centuries
(cf. Šlosar [1981: 106], who notes the development of s-/z- into an abstract per-
fectivizing prefix by the time of the Bible benátská, printed in 1506).
The rise of abstract s-/z- in Czech (and the other western languages) was
the first major development in aspectual prefixation after the despatialization
of u- in Common Slavic, and cemented change of state/totality as the meaning

15
 I should point out here again that in Dickey (2014) I assume two possible derivational paths of
creating prefixed imperfective motion verbs in Common Slavic: (1) actual prefixation of manner-
of-motion verbs (i.e., pri- + xoditi) and (2) suffixation of deverbal nouns (i.e., prixodъ + -iti), cf. the
etymology of xoditi as a denominal verb assumed by Greenberg (2010) and Nichols (2010).
 On the History of Prefixed Imperfective Motion Verbs in Slavic 49

of perfective verbs in these languages. Subsequent developments (such as the

rise of za- as a productive perfectivizing prefix in Czech) were gradual, sec-
ondary developments that did not radically alter the aspectual system. I sug-
gest that the suffixation of imperfective prefixed manner-of-motion verbs in
Czech and the western languages ensued as the result of the rise of a second
despatialized prefix in the network of aspectual prefixes, which definitively
established prefixes as markers of perfectivity. When this happened, imper-
fective prefixed motion verbs, which contained no imperfectivizing suffix,
were at the least anomalous, if not aspectually ambiguous, and this deviation
from the aspectual system was eliminated by suffixing these verbs to make
them fit in with the productive morphological rules of the aspectual system.
The western languages form a compact group, and all saw the develop-
ment of s-/z- as a major perfectivizing prefix with productivity continuing to
the present day (for a detailed discussion, see Dickey [2005]). Thus, the hy-
pothesis that the rise of s-/z- was a final step in the establishment of prefixes
as markers of perfectivity that precipitated the suffixation of deviant prefixed
imperfective verbs accounts for the apparent timing of suffixation of prefixed
imperfective motion verbs in Czech (and the other languages as well, assum-
ing further data will show the same relative chronology). Most of the Slavic
languages, however, lie outside this group, and their differing patterning re-
garding the suffixation presents a complex picture (cf. Table 1) that resists a
simple explanation. In the remainder of this section I sketch a hypothesis of
the developments in the other languages.
Although modern standard Polish does not employ suffixed variants of
prefixed imperfective motion verbs, according to the SStP the following suf-
fixed verbs are attested in 15th century: odchadzać ‘go away’, przychadzać ‘come’,
przynaszać ‘bring, carrying’, and also przyletować ‘arrive, flying’. The attesta-
tions in the SStP of all of these verbs except odchadzać are pluractional, which
suggests they were habitual verbs. In any case, the fact that they are all first
attested in the 15th century comports with the hypothesis advocated here,
i.e., that they followed on the development of s-/z- in Polish, which occurred
around the same time or slightly later than in Czech (cf. Dickey [2005: 25]).
Of the eastern languages, let us start with Balkan Slavic, in which the
suffixation took place as well, but later (in the 17th century or a little earlier).
Bulgarian is a member of the eastern languages in my east-west Slavic aspect
division (which otherwise include Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian;16 for a
recent discussion, cf. Dickey 2015a). In these languages, the major perfectiviz-
ing prefix was po-. In Dickey (2007, 2015b), I have argued that the rise of perfec-
tivizing po- in these languages was the result of the aspectual pairing of ‘go’

16
 Macedonian also patterns with eastern languages in many respects, but also forms the
beginning of the transitional zone spanning Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian (cf. Kamphuis
[2014]). For the issues considered here, Macedonian patterns with the eastern languages.
50 Stephen M. Dickey

(Old East Slavic iti) and ‘po-go‘ (Old East Slavic po-iti) and the accompanying
despatialization of po-, the meaning of which shifted from surface-contact to
the onset and some amount of the action (ingressive-partial trajectory); this
was a protracted process that was underway in the 14th and continued for
some time, into the 16th century. The Middle Bulgarian Manasses Chronicle
(14th cent.) provides circumstantial evidence for this assumption, as it attests
a high frequency of ‘po-go’ in ordinary contexts of sequenced motion events,
which contrasts with Old Church Slavic texts, in which ‘po-go’ rarely occurs,
especially in past tenses. The aspectual pairing of ‘go’ and ‘po-go’ differed
from the bulk of earlier aspectual pairs, as po-iti was not telic, but atelic in that
it only profiled the onset and some indeterminate amount of directed motion,
without asserting arrival at the destination (which is the way that modern
Russian pojti is used).
In Dickey (2007, 2015b) I have argued the new status of ‘po-go’ as an atelic
perfective of ‘go’ that served as a catalyst for the rise of a new productive class
of po- delimitatives in East Slavic and Bulgarian.17 Sigalov (1975) shows that
East Slavic delimitative po- became highly productive in the 16th and espe-
cially 17th centuries; Lilov (1964) shows that Bulgarian delimitative po- was a
Middle Bulgarian development, but does not specify a precise time. Pending
evidence to the contrary, I will assume that the rise of productive delimitative
po- postdates the rise of ‘po-go’ in Bulgarian as well.
Thus, in Bulgarian and East Slavic, the second despatialized prefix (po-)
became productive later than had s-/z- in the western languages, in the
16th/17th centuries. In the Bulgarian and East Slavic development, the despa-
tialization of po- impacted the network of prefixes in manner different from
the effect of telic s-/z- in the western languages: the dominant meaning of
po- in this system was ‘some amount of an action’, i.e., ¬P > P > ¬P, or tempo-
ral sequencing (including a common resultative variant ¬P > P > Q), which
eventually became the meaning of all perfective verbs in these languages (for
a detailed discussion, cf. Dickey [2005]). From the limited data available, the
timing of the despatialization of po- in Bulgarian appears to coincide with
the suffixation of its prefixed imperfective motion verbs. Thus, the cause of
the suffixation in Balkan Slavic can be assumed to be the same: the rise of
a second despatialized perfectivizing prefix that entrenched perfectivity as
the meaning signaled by prefixes, leaving prefixed imperfective verbs that
lacked imperfectivizing suffixes as anomalous in the system. The difference
was that the timing was later (16th/17th centuries), and the perfective mean-
ing involved was not change of state, but temporal sequencing.
Let us now turn to the absence of the suffixed variants in East Slavic. The
East Slavic situation, in fact, resembles the situation in Polish: dialects attest

17
 Po- delimitatives existed only as a closed class derived from stative verbs in Late Common
Slavic, cf. Dickey (2007: 348 and the references cited there).
 On the History of Prefixed Imperfective Motion Verbs in Slavic 51

suffixed variants, which are also attested in Old Russian. For example, the
SRJaXI–XVII gives the suffixed variants shown in Table 3. Table 3 shows that
(1) suffixed variants of prefixed imperfective motion verbs appear primarily
in the late 16th/early 17th century, and that (2) according to the SRJaXI–XVII,
their aspectual value varies—some were habitual (e.g., vxaživati), and others
were simply imperfective (vnošivati).18 As with Old Czech, ‘walk’ produces the
earliest attested suffixed form (prixaživati is first attested in 1490). In view of
this fact, it is probably better to hypothesize that there were already latent im-
pulses to create such verbs (cf. Old Church Slavic prixaždati < prixoditi ‘come’),
but that it was the new despatialized prefix po- that served as an immediate
catalyst for them as a derivational model.19

Table 3. Old Russian Suffixed Imperfective Motion Verbs

(from the SRJaXI–XVII)

Suffixed Verb Aspectual Value Earliest Attestation

vnošivati ‘carry into’ imperfective 15th–17th cent.
vxaživati ‘go into’ habitual 1701
vybegivati ‘run out’ imperfective 1611
vyvaživati ‘transport out’ imperfective 1586
vynašivati ‘carry out’ imperfective 1628
vyxaživati ‘go out’ habitual 1590
otběgivati ‘run away’ imperfective 13th/14th–16th cent.
otvaživati ‘lead away’ habitual 1613
prinašivati ‘carry hither’ imperfective 1609
privaživati ‘lead hither’ habitual 1586
prixaživati ‘come’ habitual 1490
sběgivati ‘run down’ imperfective 1602
snašivati ‘carry down’ habitual 1640
svaživati ‘transport down’ habitual 1630

Thus, East Slavic does fit in with the picture as it appears to be for Bulgarian:
new imperfective motion verbs derived from the Common Slavic prefixed
manner-of-motion verbs appeared as a class in the 16th–17th century. This

18
 There is no consensus on the origin and meaning of -yva-/-iva- in East Slavic. For a nuanced
discussion of the development of this suffix, cf. Schuyt (1988: 402 ff.).
19
 The same idea could apply, mutatis mutandis, to Old Czech.
52 Stephen M. Dickey

correspondence provides more circumstantial evidence that the suffixation of

prefixed imperfective manner-of-motion verbs in the eastern languages was
triggered by the rise of despatialized po-, as discussed above. The distinction
between habitual verbs and simply imperfective motion verbs is less than
clear; this distinction and its relation to the developments in prefixation in the
various Slavic languages mentioned here require further investigation.
This leaves us with the situation in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian.
Standard štokavian Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian has not despatialized any
prefix. That is to say, s-/z- never arose, and po- has retained its meaning of
surface-contact (cf. Dickey [2005: 36–7]). Apparently abstract perfectivizing
prefixation in štokavian Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian consists of straightforward
metaphorical extensions of the spatial meanings of its prefixes. Inasmuch as
this is true, it makes sense that there is no evidence of a wholesale develop-
ment of suffixed variants of prefixed imperfective motion verbs: perfectiviz-
ing prefixation in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian has basically been grammatical-
ized to a lower degree than in the other Slavic languages. While I believe this
account to be plausible, few things in language are ever all-or-nothing, and
it is possible that the suppletion in prefixed imperfective forms of ‘walk’ in
štokavian dialects (e.g., dolaziti ‘come’ instead of original *dohoditi) arose due
to the aspectual ambiguity of do-hoditi. This is another issue that requires de-
tailed diachronic data and further investigation.
It is, however, interesting that in kajkavian dialects and some čakavian
dialects, in which s-/z- arose, the suffixed imperfective motion verbs are at-
tested, e.g., kajkavian and čakavian dohađati ‘come’. Further, the RHSJ (5: 570)
suggests that dohađati came into Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian from the 15th to
the 18th centuries primarily among čakavian writers and marginally among
štokavian writers. The dialect situation in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian in this
regard is complex, but the preliminary data support the conclusion that suf-
fixed imperfective motion verbs appeared where the hypothesis advocated
here would expect them to—in dialects which had s-/z-.

6. Summary and Conclusions

This article has attempted to better organize our knowledge of the fate of man-
ner-of-motion verbs in the historical Slavic languages, focusing on prefixed
imperfective motion verbs. It has presented a cross-Slavic picture of the suffix-
ation of prefixed imperfective motion verbs, beginning with the facts familiar
from the modern standard languages and completing them with data from
older stages of Bulgarian, Czech, Polish and Russian. Suffixation of prefixed
imperfective motion verbs occurred and has been retained in Czech, Slovak,
Slovene, and Sorbian, on the one hand, and in Macedonian and until recently
in Bulgarian, on the other. In Polish and Russian, such verbs appeared but
have not survived in the standard languages. Only in štokavian dialects of
 On the History of Prefixed Imperfective Motion Verbs in Slavic 53

Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian does it appear that suffixation never took place; suf-

fixation did take place in kajkavian dialects and some čakavian dialects.
I have argued that this apparently puzzling picture makes sense if we at-
tribute the suffixation of prefixed imperfective motion verbs to developments
in aspectual prefixation. In particular, I have argued that after the breakup
of Common Slavic, which had a single despatialized prefix u-, the despati-
alization of a second prefix in a given Slavic language was the development
that further entrenched prefixes as grammatical markers of perfectivization
and triggered the suffixation of prefixed manner-of-motion verbs, so that they
would be unambiguously marked as imperfective.
In the western Slavic languages, i.e., Czech, Slovak, Sorbian and Slovene,
as well as the transitional language Polish, it was the development of despati-
alized s-/z- (from jьz‑ and sъ[n]‑ due to jer‑fall and the reduction of jz‑ > z‑) that
precipitated the suffixation. S-/Z- had arisen and was productive in Czech
by the 14th century, which is when the suffixed imperfective motion verbs
are first attested. In Polish, they are attested in the 15th century, which makes
sense if s-/z- arose a little later in Polish, as it spread from the Czech/Slovene
area. In the eastern Slavic languages, it was the despatialization of po- that
was the trigger, which occurred somewhat later, by the 16th century, and we
see that both Bulgarian and East Slavic appear to have suffixed their prefixed
imperfective verbs in the 16th/17th centuries. Lastly, štokavian Bosnian/Cro-
atian/Serbian did not suffix its prefixed imperfective motion verbs because it
did not despatialize any of its prefixes. We see such verbs mostly in čakavian
and kajkavian dialects, which did develop s-/z-.
While any such explanation of the suffixation of Slavic prefixed imper-
fective motion verbs cannot amount to more than speculation supported by
circumstantial evidence (and the argument has been abbreviated due to lim-
itations on space), I have not encountered any data thus far that obviously
controvert the hypothesis linking the grammaticalization of prefixes as ab-
stract perfectivizers to the suffixation of prefixed imperfective motion verbs
in the individual Slavic languages. On the contrary, the chronologies of the
prefixal developments and the appearance of the suffixed variants of prefixed
imperfective motion verbs correlate as good as one could hope based on the
available data. Moreover, the analysis has the advantage of tying diverging
aspectual developments in Slavic languages to confirmed differences in pre-
fixation, providing a more robust account of the aspectual systems in eastern
and western Slavic.

References

Aitzetmüller, Rudolf. (1977) Belegstellenverzeichnis der altkirchenslavischen Ver-

balformen. Würzburg: U.W. Weiher.
54 Stephen M. Dickey

Dickey, Stephen M. (2000) Parameters of Slavic aspect: A cognitive approach. Stan-

ford: CSLI.
. (2005) “S-/Z- and the grammaticalization of Slavic aspect”. Slovene
linguistic studies 5: 3–55.
. (2007) “A prototype account of the development of delimitative po-
in Russian”. Dagmar Divjak and Agata Kochańska, eds. Cognitive paths
into the Slavic domain. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 326–71.
. (2010) “Common Slavic ‘indeterminate’ verbs of motion were really
manner-of-motion verbs”. Victoria Hasko and Renee Perelmutter, eds.
New approaches to Slavic verbs of motion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
67–109.
. (2012) “On the development of the Russian imperfective general fac-
tual.” Scando-Slavica 58(1): 7–48.
. (2014) “On the origin of Slavic prefixed imperfective motion verbs.”
Scando-Slavica 60(2): 159–71.
. (2015a) “Parameters of Slavic aspect reconsidered: The East-West as-
pect division from a diachronic perspective.” Miriam Schrager, et al.,
eds. Studies in accentology and Slavic linguistics in Honor of Ronald F. Feld-
stein. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 29–45.
. (2015b) “Prefixes in the development of Slavic aspect: Networks and
attractors”. Paper presented at The role of prefixes in the formation of aspect
and related categories. Problems of grammaticalization, Padua, Italy, 28 Sep-
tember 2015.
. (2017) “Prefixation in the rise of Slavic apect”. Rosanna Benacchio,
Alessio Muro, and Svetlana Slavkova, eds. The role of prefixes in the for-
mation of aspectuality. Issues of grammaticalization. Florence: Firenze Uni-
versity Press, 85–102.
Eckhoff, Hanne and Laura A. Janda. (2014) “Grammatical profiles and aspect
in Old Church Slavic”. Transactions of the philological society 112(2): 231–58.
Greenberg, Marc L. (2010) “PIE inheritance and word-formational innovation
in Slavic motion verbs in -i-”. Victoria Hasko and Renee Perelmutter,
eds. New approaches to Slavic verbs of motion. Amsterdam: John Benja-
mins, 115–21.
Greenberg, Marc L. and Dickey, Stephen M. (2006) “Slavic jazditi ‘to ride’ and
its implications for the category of (in-)determinacy”. Jezikovna pre-
danost. Akademiku prof. dr. Jožetu Toporišiču ob 80-letnici. Maribor: Slavis-
tično društvo Maribor, 153–58.
Hilchey, Christian T. (2014) Prefixation of simplex pairs in Czech: An analysis of spa-
tial semantics, distributive verbs, and procedural meanings. PhD dissertation,
University of Chicago.
Janda, Laura A. (2008) “Motion verbs and the development of aspect in Rus-
sian”. Scando-Slavica 54: 179–97.
 On the History of Prefixed Imperfective Motion Verbs in Slavic 55

Kamphuis, Jaap. (2014) “Macedonian verbal aspect: East or West?” Egbert For-
tuin et. al., eds. Dutch contributions to the Fifteenth International Congress
of Slavists, Minsk: Linguistics (= Studies in Slavic and general linguistics
40). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 127–53.
Lilov, Metodi. (1964) “Semantičen razvoj na glagolnata predstavka po v bâlgar-
skija ezik”. Izvestija na Instituta za bâlgarski ezik 10: 65–157.
Lindsey, Traci S. (2011) Bulgarian verbs of motion: Slavic verbs in a Balkan context.
PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Maslov, Jurij S. (1961) “Rol’ tak nazyvaemoj perfektivacii i imperfektivacii
v processe vozniknovenija slavjanskogo glagol’nogo vida”. Viktor V.
Vinogradov, ed. Issledovanija po slavjanskomu jazykoznaniju. Moscow,
165–95.
Merše, Majda. (1995) Vid in vrstnost glagola v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku 16. sto-
letja. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.
Nichols, Johanna. (2010) “Indeterminate verbs of motion are denominal”. Vic-
toria Hasko and Renee Perelmutter, eds. New approaches to Slavic verbs of
motion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 47–65.
Schuyt, Roel. (1988) The morphology of Slavic verbal aspect: A descriptive and his-
torical study. Amsterdam: Rhodopi. [Studies in Slavic and general linguis-
tics, 14.]
Sigalov, Pаvel S. (1975) “Istorija russkix ograničitel’nyx glagolov”. Trudy po
russkoj i slavjanskoj filologii: Serija lingvističeskaja 23: 141–81.
Šlosar, Dušan. (1981) Slovotvorný vývoj českého slovesa. Brno: Univerzita J. E.
Purkyně v Brně.
Stern, Ariann N. (2002) The verbs of motion in Old Russian texts: A comparative
grammatical analysis of a nascent verb class. PhD Dissertation, University
of California at Los Angeles.
Vintr, Josef. (2001) Das Tschechische. Hauptzüge seiner Sprachstruktur in Gegen-
wart und Geschichte. Munich: Otto Sagner.

Sources

DRMJ = Digitalen rečnik na makedonskiot jazik (available at http://www.makedonski.

info). (Last accessed on 20 December 2017.)
ESSČ = Miloslava Vajdlová, ed. (2006–) Elektronický slovník staré češtiny. Prague:
Oddělení vývoje jazyka Ústavu pro jazyk český AV ČR (available at:
http://vokabular.ujc.cas.cz/hledani.aspx). (Last accessed on 20 December
2017.)
HJP = Hrvatski jezični portal (available at: http://hjp.znanje.hr/index.php?show=-
main). (Last accessed on 20 December 2017.)
HSNS = Jakubaś, Filip. (1954) Hornjoserbsko-němski słownik. Budyšin: Domo
wina Verlag.
56 Stephen M. Dickey

MSDJa = Sreznevskij, Il’ja I. (1958) Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka

po pis´mennym pamjatnikam. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel´stvo in-
ostrannych i nacional´nych slovarej.
RBE = Perniška Emilija, ed. (2001–) Rečnik na bâlgarskija ezik. Sophia: Bâlgarska
akademija na naukite. Institut za bâlgarski ezik (available at http://ibl.bas.
bg/rbe/lang/bg/). (Last accessed on 20 December 2017.)
RHSJ = Đuro Daničić, et al. eds. (1880–1975) Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpksoga jezika.
Zagreb: Jugoslavenske akademija znanosti i umjetnosti.
RNC = Russian National Corpus (available at http://www.ruscorpora.ru). (Last ac-
cessed on 3 June 2018.)
SMCh = Bogdan, Joan, ed. (1966) Die slavische Manasses-Chronik. Munich: Wil-
helm Fink.
SRJaXI–XVII = Barxudarov, Stepan G. et al., eds. (1975–) Slovar’ russkogo jazyka
XI – XVII vv. Moscow: Nauka.
SSJ = Peciar, Štefan, ed. (1959–1968) Slovník slovenského jazyka. Bratislava: Vyda-
vateľstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied.
SSKJ = (1970–91) Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika. Ljubljana: Slovenska aka-
demija znanosti in umetnosti.
SsS = R. M. Cejtlin, R. Večerka, E. Blagovoj, eds. (1994) Staroslavjanskij slovar’
(po rukopisjam X–XI vekov). Moscow: Russkij jazyk.
SStP = Nitsch, Kazimierz, et al. eds. (1953–2002) Słownik staropolski. Warsaw:
Polska Akademia nauk.
StTB = Ústav pro jazyk český AV ČR, v. v. i., oddělení vývoje jazyka. (2006–
2018) Staročeská textová banka (available at http://vokabular.ujc.cas.cz/banka.
aspx?idz=STB). (Last accessed on 20 December 2017.)
StřTB = Ústav pro jazyk český AV ČR, v. v. i., oddělení vývoje jazyka. (2006–
2018) Středněčeská textová banka (available at http://vokabular.ujc.cas.cz/
banka.aspx?idz=SDTB). (Last accessed on 20 December 2017.)
SyD CNC = Cvrček, Václav and Pavel Vondřička. (2011) SyD - Korpusový průz-
kum variant. FF UK. Prague (accessible at http://syd.korpus.cz). (Last ac-
cessed on 31 May 2018.)
TD = Ivanova, Ana, ed. (1967) Trojanski damaskin. Bâlgarski pametnik ot XVII vek.
Sophia: Izdatelstvo na Bâlgarskata akademija na naukite.
XID = Xoždenie igumena Daniila. D. S. Lixačev et al., eds. (1997) Biblioteka litera-
tury drevnej Rusi 4. Moscow: Nauka, 26–117.
ŽSSO = Pomialovskij, Ivan, ed. (1890) Žitie sv. Savy Osvjaščennago. St. Peters-
burg: Tipografija Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk.

 University of Kansas
smd@ku.edu