Sonderdruck
DIE WELT DER SLAVEN
HALBJAHRESSCHRIFf FOR SLAVJSTIK
Jahrgang
XXXI. 2
N.F.X,2
1986
VERLAG OTTO SAGNER
MDNCHEN
DIE WELT DER SLAVEN
HALBJAHRESSCHRIFT FUR SLAVISTIK
BegrUndet von Erwin Koschmieder
UnteT der Schriftleitung von
Heinrich Kunstmann
herausgegeben von
Henrik Birnbaum' Dietrich Gerhardt· Wolfgang Gesemann
Reinhold Olesch . Peter Rehder . Helmut Schaller
Josef Schrenk' Joseph Schiltz, Erwin Wedel
Redaktion
Peter Rehder
Jahrgang XXXI, Heft 2
N.F.X,2
Inhalt
I. Artike1
u
R. R 1:i i:: k a: lYpologie del" Diathese slavischer Sprachen in parametrischen
225
Variationen
...............................
H. Birn baum: Roman Jakobsons Untersuchungen zum kulturellen Erbe des
slavischen Mittelallers . . . .
.................
H. Kunstmann: Woher die Huzulen ihren Namen haben
G. Toops: Vocative Forms and Vowel Reduction in Bulgarian...
275
317
324
E. Hansack: Das Kyrilliseh-mazedonisehe Blatt und der Prolog zum Bogoslo. ............. , . .
336
vie des Exarehen Johannes. .
A. A. Alekseev: Der Stellenwert der Textologie bei der Erforschung altkir. ......... , .
415
ehenslavischer Obersetzungstexte .
J. Danhelka: In memoriam Miloslav Svab.
439
I I. Rezension
Ch. Hanniek: P. Kawerau, Ostkirehengesehichte IV. Das Christentum in
Siidost- und Osteuropa. Leuven 1984 ..
443
Einsendung vo.n satifertigen Artikeln (bitte unbedingt unsere Typoskriptregeln anfordern) bzw. von Rezensionsexemplaren an den Schriftleiter Professor Dr. Heinrich
Kunstmann, lnstitut filr Siavische Phil%gie der Universittlt Milnchen, GeschwisterScholl-Platz 1, D-8000 Milnchen 22. - Eine Verpflichtung zur Besprechung oder
Rucksendung zugesandter BUcher kann nicht iibernommen werden. Rezensionen
nur naeh Riicksprache mit dem Sehriftleiter.
ISSN 0043-2520
© 1986 by Verlag Otto Sagner, MUnehen
Aile Rechte vorbehalten
Gesamtherstellung: GebT. Pareus KG
Printed in Gennany
Gedruckt mit Unters!Ulzung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft
VOCATIVE FORMS AND VOWEL RED UCT I ON
IN BULGARIAN
Grammarians generall y agree that Bul garian vocative noun form s arc
regularly characterized by o nl y three desinences - -1.1, -e and -0 - and
that these form s a re ex hi bited o nl y by masculine and femi nine nouns
whose uninnected (si ngular) forms have the desinence -0 as well as
masculine nouns w ith -0 desinence (Aronson 1968, 60; Scatton 1984,
140). However conventiona l t his classificatio n of vocative forms may be,
it can be cons idered al least partly accurate only insofar as "form" is
understood to be orthographically distinct. If, on the other hand, forms
arc correctly identified on the basis of p honemic oppositions, then the
capacity for vocative fo rmation can in no way be limited to those
mascu line and feminine nou ns ment ioned above. I propose that, in addition to such nouns, a ll o ther stem-stressed singular nouns with desinential -a, -e and -0, in a ll but the "highest style" of spoken Contemporary
Standard Bulgarian (CSB), simila rly exh ibit a grammatical opposit ion
vocat ive: non-vocative, forma lly characterized by the phonemic oppositions l a/:/;J! ,1e/:/il a nd lolju/. While this proposition is hardl y
origi na l, it has been rejected (Pdov 1980,238-9). Its relevance to the
establishment of an inventory of unstressed vocalic phonemes, ultimately
vali d for all spoken styles of CSB, has likewise been overlooked.
Grammars and linguistic studies of CSB typicall y make relat ively brief
mention of vocative forms. For example, t he second volume of the
Bulgarian Academy Grammar (1983), consisting of 511 pages, devotes the
equivalent of only two pages to a discussion of them. Thi s is understandable inasmuch as a descriptio n of vocative form s, at least from an orthographic point of view, is essentially com plete once the distribution of
the three vocative dcsinences is defined. To summarize E. A. Scatton
(1975, 163), whose a na lysis parallels that o f H. I. Aronson (1968, 60 - 1),
the vocative dcs inences -u, -e and -0 occur in the following morphophonemic environments:
Vocative forms and vowel reduclion in Bulgarian
(I) Desinence Environment
-u
In masc. nouns with
stems
in high, non·back,
anterior consonantal or
in / jl
-e
In masc. nouns with
stems
in non·high, non·back,
anterior consonantal,
except for stems ending in
Icl or the suffix I-i n-I
In fern. nouns with stems
in l·c·1 and sometimes
I- k-I
-0
Elsewhere
325
Examples
drugar 'comrade':
drugdrju
ratdj 'farmhand': rattiju
slavej 'nightingale':
slaveju
utftel 'teacher': utftelju
brat 'brother': brdte
minfstar 'minister':
minfstre
narod 'nation': narode
tedtar 'theatre': tedtre
carica 'czarina': carfee
gospOtiea 'Miss': gospOtice
Ivdnka (given name):
Ivanke
ulitelka 'teacher': utftelke
bdlgarin 'Bulgarian':
bdlgarino
gospot.d 'Mrs!: gosp6to
kradic 'thief': kradeeo
majka 'mother': mdjko
mat 'man': mato
pa/dt 'executioner': palato
pala~ 'poodle': pald~o
seslrd 'sister': sestro
siromdch 'poor man':
siromacho
stopanin 'landlord':
stopdnino
utenfk 'pupil': utenfko
tend 'woman': Uno
Irregular vocative forms, including those that occur in addition to the
regular ones, must be listed:
326
Gary lOOps
(2) Irregular
Bog 'Ood': Bote
tovik .'man': lovete
dllJlerjo 'daughter': d41te
gospod 'Lord': gospodi
gospodln 'Mister'; gosp odfne
orei 'eagle' : 6rl'0
Olec 'father (priest)': 61&
petel 'rooster'; pitro
stdrec 'old man'; suirle
sllpnig 'husband': sdpru!.e
zel 'son/ brother·in·law'; zitko
.
Regular -- Irregular
brat 'brother': brdte -- bnitko
{orbodl/ja 'rich man': lorhad!fjo -- lorbadtf
drugdr 'comrade': drugdr)u
-- drugdr'o
jundk 'hero': junako -- juntUe
kon 'horse': kon)u -- kon 'o
sfn 'son': s(ne"" sInko
/voTic 'creator' (\loreca -- (}Jorte
vojn(k 'soldier'; vojn/ko
-- vojn({e
While the foregoing description of vocative forms is recommended by
its economy and thoroughness. there remain, in my view, three basic prob
lems, the first of which is more or less evident from the material presented
in the Bulgarian Academy Grammar (1983, 114- 5; see also Cernov 1979,
33 - 4). First, conventional descriptions like the one above fail to take into
account the special status of personal names. An application of the given
rules yields, therefore. the following infelicitous form s: (a) vocative forms
of surnames, which do not exist; (b) vocative form s of masculine given
names ending in -a or -j - the forms · Blagoju « Blago)), ·Dragoju
« Drago)), ·Nikoldju «Nikold)), ·Nikdlo « Nik6la), ·flijo « IUja)1
do not exist; and (c) vocative form s of feminine given names terminating
in -a which native speakers describe as peasant-like or extremely familiar
and which the Bulgarian Academy Grammar (1983, 143) describes as having a " nuance of stylistic inferiority [stilisJilna nep4lnocennos/] and crudity {grubovatost1" - Marijo « Marija), EMno « Elena), Margar(to
« MargarttaF. Common nouns with stem-final / -k-/ exhibit the opposite
I Cernov (1979, 33) cites vocati ve (arms for DObri; DObre, Dragoj: Drag~, Vikentij ; Vikentip. The Bulgarian Academy Grammar (1983, 11 5) states that the first two fo rms
do not exist.
I Hubenova et al. (1983a, 125) use the vocative Lilidno in the address of a contemporary leiter, where o ne would expect Lilidna. The few other feminine vocative forms in - 0,
Ka({no« Ka((na) and Cveto « Cveta) , a ppear in archaic contexts (Hubcnova 1983b, 200;
236).
Vocative forms and vowel reduction in Bulgarian
327
tendency. While the personal names (vocative forms) Zfvke « Zfvka),
lvdnke « Ivdnka) are stylistically neutral, the corresponding vocative
forms of common nouns, e. g. drugdrke 'comrade (fern.), « drugdrka),
prepodavdtelke 'teacher' « prepodavdtelka), are considered crude and
are replaced by drugdrko and prepodavdtelko, resp.
The se<::ond problem is that the description of vocative forms given
above applies for the most part only to nouns occurring in isolation, i. e.
address clausesJ consisting of a single noun. Thus, conventional descriptions of vocative forms do not account for the fact that the vocative gospodfne 'Mister' is not used in the address clauses gospodfn Pop6v 'Mister
Popov' or gospodfn d6ktore '(Mister) Doctor,' while the vocative
gosp6fice 'Miss' is consistently used in address clauses (gosp61.ice
Pop6va 'Miss Popova'); or that both the non-vocative gospol.d and the
vocative gosp6t.o occur not only in multiple-noun address clauses (gospol.d "'" gosp6t.a Popova 'Mrs. Popova') but also in isolation (cf. Hubenova 1983a, 107: D6biJr den, gospot.d 'Good day, ma'am'). Similarly, in the
address clause Drugdrju akademfk Aleksdndiir Pop6v (as opposed to the
theoretically imaginable ·Drugdrju akademfko Aleksdndre Pop6v)
'Comrade Academician AleksandlIr Popov', the appellative function of
only the first noun is formally marked (this usage is attested also in Old
Church Slavic, Greek and Latin, cf. Vaillant 1977,24)". While it is clear
from the data that vocative forms are (for the most part, see Note 4) semantically marked "appellative" and the non-vocative are not so marked,
the question of which contexts favor or require the unmarked form in
address clauses is best reserved as the topic of a separate study.
To the extent that morphophonemic analyses of CSB are not applied
solely to the "orthoepic norm [provogovorna norma]" (which proscribes
the reduction of unstressed vowels), the third problem, which I have
primarily undertaken to discuss here. arises from the fact that the vocative
desinences are inherently unstressed (this entails stress retraction for
I I follow Brooks (1973) in the use of the term "address clause!'
• I use the term "vocative" in reference to form, "appellative" in reference to function. Non-vocative forms are not strictly non-appellative, nor, according to Mladenov
(1929. 225), are vocative forms strictly appellative, cr. v{ka( go Stojdne 'they call him Stojan,' Jovdne me kdzva( 'my name is Jovan~
328
Oary lOOps
nouns with desinential stress - .tend 'woman': Uno). According to Scat·
ton (1975, viii), "in all but the most formal styles of CSB unstressed non·
high vowels are raised towards their higher counterparts: Ie) ..... [il. (a) .....
'<II , [0] ..... [u} ." This statement suggests that vowel raising, or vowel reduction, which ScattoD describes as a "low-level phonetic phenomenon"
(1975. viii), operates in all unstressed syllables, including the unstressed
vocative desinences. From the published literature dealing at least in part
with the question of vocative forms. it is clear, however, that this is not
the case: on the contrary. the unstressed desinential vowels of vocative
forms are never raise<P.
In this regard, S. Mladenov (1929, 86) states: "The modern Bulgarian
literary language faithfully maintains etymological 0 even in unstressed
syllables, whereas in the diaJects, both eastern and western, the pronunciation is rather that of a reduced Q, which aJmost or completely sounds
like ordinary u ... Even in dialects with the most extensive reduction, 0
in the vocative remains pure 0. albeit unstressed."
Thus, a Bulgarian speaker who pronounces goni 'forest' as [gura] will
not pronounce the vocative goro as *(g6ru], but as [g6ro]'.
P. Pa~ov (1980, 238) makes the same observation with respect not only
to 0. but also to e: "In Contemporary Standard Bulgarian it is mandatory
that an unstressed vowel not be reduced only [when it functions] as a vocative form ending . .. In these instances there is no reduction even in the
dialects, including the central Balkan dialect. in which a clear distinction
is made between "Stojfu, 'l.ndj" [sic, 'Stojl!o knows'] and "Kil!': Stojfo"
['Say, Stojoo'], "Dil ignijm nil konfi" ['Let's play (hobby) horse'] and
"Dfj, df. konfe" ['Go, go, horse'].
Elsewhere, V. A. Cernov (1979, 33) cites Dobre as the vocative of Ddbrio a masculine given name which, according to the Bulgarian Academy
j Scanon (1984, 19; 55; 72) elaborates that there are three hierarchicaily ordered
systems of vowel reduction, yielding varying inventories of 5, 4 and 3 unstressed vocalic
phonemes. resp. Given the oppositions laJ :/~ / , 101 :/ul and lei :/;/, Bulgarian speakers
may. in unstressed syllables. neutra1iu the first opposition, the first two or all three o ppositions (in that order). Scanon's observations, however, still ignore the fact that even in a
system of maximal vowel reduction (entailing the neutralization of all three oppositions),
the unstressed vocalic desinences of vocative forms are not subject to reduction.
, Although I am concerned here with CSB, it is obvious that the extent to which the
pronunciation of a speaker of CSB deviates from the orthoepic norm is dialectaJly influenced.
Vocative rorms and vowel reduction in Bulgarian
329
Grammar (1983, 115), has no vocative form: apparently some Bulgarian
speakers misinterpret the final·; ([i]) as a "reduced" allophone of fe/,
which they pronounce as [E] when addressing someone with that name.
The appellative function of the unstressed but unreduced vocalism is
also reflected occasionally in written works; cf. the following stanzas
from Christo Botev's poem ChadU DimftOr (Cernov 1979, 83). Words
ending in unstressed ·e regularly rhyme with those in unstressed ·i, except
the appellative sl6nce 'sun: which rhymes with end-stressed sOrce 'heart'7:
(3) tdtva e segd . .. Pejle, robin;,
lez tdIni pesni! Grej i ii, sl6nce,
v laz r6bska zemjd! Ste da zagine
i 16ja jundk ... No ml6km; sOrce.
...
Denem mu sjdnka pdzi ortica
; v41k mu krotko rdnata blite;
nad nego sok61, juna~ka ptlca.
; tja se za brat, za jundk grili.
One should also note that while the Bulgarian Academy Grammar
(1983 , 115) states that masculine nouns (both proper and common) whose
uninflected form s end in · 0 do not have corresponding vocative form s,
it paradoxically notes elsewhere (1982, 54) that "the vowel [0] undergoes
a relatively weaker degree of reduction or undergoes almost no reduction
[at all] when it fulfills the function of a sufflx for the vocative form of
nouns." Without providing phonetic transcriptions, the Academy Grammar (1982, 54) cites as examples the sentences Milko, ela 'Mitko, come'
and Pfsach na Mflko 'I wrote to Mitko' (apparently the contexts alone are
sufficient for a native Bulgarian speaker to distinguish between the two
phonetic realizations to which the Grammar alludes). Using the Gram-
1 PaJov (1980, 242) aTlues that poems do not reliably indicate whether two words
with different endings actually rhyme or not. In citing the following stanza rrom N. Furnadfiev, however, Palov actually suppons the proposition that unstressed ~ in the vocati ve
pdpe «pop 'priest') cannot conceivably be reduced to rhyme with sn6pi 'sheaves';
Omrdznacha m; tv6jte PUsti dumi, I omrhznaf si mi mn6go. djddo pdpe! I V glm ifte pdri
kar6 smllrt kurfJima / j gnijar po charmdna m6jte sn6pi.
330
Gary Toops
mac's transcriptions of post-tonic 0, however, one may establish a fairly
clear distinction between the phonetic realizations of Milko in its appellative function and the graphically identical noun in its nonappellative function:
(4) Appellative:
Non-appellative:
[mitkoJ -- [mitk9]
[mitk9J ,.., [mitkQ] ..... [mitku]
In seeking to determine whether such varying degrees of vowel height
constitute a phonemic opposition (i. e., vocative I mitkol vs. non-vocative
I mftku/ ), a user of the Bulgarian Academy Grammar is hard put to find
an unequivocal answer. For example, the Grammar (1982, 59) clearly regards vocative: non vocative as a grammatical opposition, going so far
as to speak of a vocative case (pade~. It establishes (1982, 60) two unstressed allophones of 101 - (9] and (Q] -, which differ from each other
in degree of closure (height). Yet the Grammar (1982, 54-5) maintains
that the phonetic realization of the grammatical opposition voca·
tive: non·vocative is purely allophonic. In other words, the Grammar
would have the user believe that, given two or more positional variants,
one is realized when the noun functions appellatively, another when the
noun functions non·appellatively. This is clearly a contradiction in terms
(phonetic distinctions that signal grammatical oppositions being phone·
mic, not allophonic).
It is apparent that the Grammar seeks to avoid any "deviation from
the orthoepic norm influenced by the eastern Bulgarian unstressed vocal·
ism" (1982, 58). With regard to the allophone (Ql, which. according to
the Grammar, occurs primarily in post·tonic position, but may occur in
any unstressed syllable other than the immediate pretonic, the Grammar
(1982, 55) states: "In terms of auditory impression (po sluchovo vpe·
i!atlenie] it is identified as a sound close to the vowel (u], with which,
however, it does not coalesce." Of unstressed l ui ([u)) the Grammar
(1982,57) states: "In certain positions ... it tends toward a broader arti·
culation. which approaches that of unstressed [Q] in second pretonic or
post·tonic position." Under no circumstances. then. do unstressed 0 and
u lose their distinctive "o·like" and "u·likc" quality, resp. In view of the
sonagraph frequencies which the Academy Grammar (1982, 53 - 6) cites,
however. this seems unlikely. By listing the allophones of 101 and l ui in
increasing order of frequency, we see that while stressed l ui and 101 are
maximally opposed with respect to the feature highl low (F .), unstressed
331
Vocative forms and vowel reduction in Bulgarian
lui falls clearly within the frequency range of unstressed 10/. In terms of
the feature back·round (Pz). the frequency ranges of unstressed l ui and
101 likewise overlap:
F,
(5)
stressed lui:
post·tonic 10/:
unstressed lui:
pretonic 10/:
stressed 10/:
[ul
[01
[iI]
[9]
[6]
(h;gh)
300 hz
305- 325
380
4115
478
(low)
F,
(back·rounded)
posHonic 10/:
stressed lui:
pretonic 10/:
stressed 10/:
unstressed l ui :
[01 755 - 775 hz
[ul 850
[91 855
[6] 894
[ill 900
(front)
In order to determine, then. whether the functional opposition appella·
tive: non·appellative of two graphically identical nouns with word·final
·0, -e or -0 can be formally marked by the phonemic oppositions
la/: 1:)1. lei : Iii or 101: l ui, it is perhaps better to consider the two "stylistic extremes" of spoken CSB together with their respective inventories
of unstressed vocalic phonemes. To the extent that a speaker adheres to
the strictest prescriptions of the orthoepic norm (the "highest" spoken
style), it is essentially moot to ask whether there exist vocative forms that
are orthographically indistinguishable from non-vocative forms. Accord·
ing to Aronson (1968, 31), the orthoepic norm prescribes an artificial
spelling pronunciation. In its strictest application. unstressed vowels dif·
fer from stressed vowels only quantitatively. length being a concomitant
of stress 8• In this style of spoken Bulgarian, six vocalic phonemes occur
both in stressed and in unstressed syllables:
I According to the Bulgarian Academy Grammar (1982, 47), the difference in length
between unstressed and stressed a in the word glavd 'head' is 0.05 second (stressed: 0.12
second; unstressed: 0.07 second). - It has been suggested (Piclov 1980,239) that unstressed word-final -a, -f! and -0 do not undergo reduction because they are pronounced long
when the noun functions appellatively. If so, we would have to conclude that Bulgarian has
phonemic length. The inventory of stressed vocalic phonemes for the orthoepic norm
would accordingly have to be marked for length, and the inventory of unstressed vocalic
phonemes would then be increased to nine (lal , l a, l ei, I U, 10/, 1r,I , 141 , I ii , l uI). PaWv
(1980, 239), however, rejects the notion that lengthening of the vocative desinences is
responsible for the lack of vowel reduction, pointing out that in certain contexts the reo
duced vocalism may also be lengthened (for example, when a name is uttered emphatically
or in an outburst of joy, or repeated by a speaker in response to his interlocutor's failure
10 hear or understand the name the first time it was uttered).
332
Gary lOOps
(6)
Unstressed
Stressed
l ui
I iI
l ui
I ii
10 1
101
lei
lei
101
101
lal
l al
Even if we admit that the unstressed vocalisms differ qualitatively to
some extent from those in stressed position, the unstressed vocalisms are
merely positiona1 variants of the stressed. The inventory of vocalic phonemes in unstressed position remains the same. cr. Aronson 1968, 33:
(7)
Unstressed - "Full Style" Unstressed - "Colloquia/-Literary"
[i)
[u)
[u)
[i)
[;)
[e)
[0)
[e)
[0)
[a" )
[0" )
[A)
Hence, this style admits no phonemic (or even phonetic) distinction between appellative a nd non-appellative Milko, both being realized either
as (mitb") or as [mitko"J.
The opposite "stylistic extreme" admits only three vocalic phonemes in
unstressed position. D. Tilkov (1983. 77) states that in unstressed syllables
in the dialects of eastern Bulgaria, "the open vowels [aJ. [0). [e) are
lacking at the expense of the vowels [~J. [i) and [uJ. In the western dialects
there exists. rather, a more or less noticeable convergence [pribli1.avaneJ
of the open vowels with the corresponding closed ones. For the Bulgarian
speaker it is essentially insignificant whether the speaker pronounces in
an unstressed syllable. regardless of its position in the word. [~J in place
of [a], [u] in place of [0] or vice versa. In other words, as concerns the
absence of stress [neudarenostlal. the oppositions between degrees of
openness are neutralized." Tilkov (1983, 78) establishes the following
phonemic inventories for stressed and unstressed syllables:
Stressed
(8)
Unstressed
l ui
Ii!
I~ I
lei
hi
101
lal
l ui
I iI
Vocative forms and vowel reduction in Bulgarian
333
Tilkov, however, is apparently not concerned, at least in this particular
instance, with the unstressed word-final vowels of appellative nouns' . Pa~ov (1980, 238 - 9), on the other hand, is concerned with them, stating
that in addition to unstressed word-final -e and - 0, unstressed -a is likewise not subject to reduction in those instances when the noun functions
appellatively. Pa~ov cites as examples the personal names GaUna (from
which the vocative GaUno may be formed) and Nik61a (from which a vocative ·Nik610 is not formed): "In address [clauses] not only will the vocative ending -0 not reduce ("Gal(no, zdravej!" ('Galina. hello!'D, but
neither will the ending -a ("Gaf(na. zdravejr' ('Galina. hello!']), and in
this way we distinguish phonetically [izgovornoj "GaUna dojde" ['Galina
came'] from "GaUna. dojde" ['Galina, hel shel it came'] (. . . the comma
after the address in this case does not indicate a pause). The same is true
of the masculine name Nik6la: 'Tova e Nik6la. Nik6la. zapoznaj se s. ..
['This is Nikola. Nikola, meet ... 'j ."
It is clear from these observations that the phonemes l al, lei and 101
must be included in the inventory of unstressed vowels illustrated in (8)
above. By doing so, we achieve the following result:
(9)
Unstressed
l ui
I ii
h i
lei
101
lal
This inventory of unstressed phonemes is the same as that cited in (6).
In my opinion, this is the only one which adequately accounts for the
fact s of both the orthoepic norm and those styles of spoken CSB in
which one or more phonemic oppositions are neutralized in all but the
desinences of nouns marked "appelative"lo. In spoken styles characterized by maximal vowel reduction, then, the phonemic oppositions
l a/ : I;, I, lei : I ii and 101 : l ui formally mark the grammatical opposition vocative : non-vocative, cr.:
, Tilkov uilimately takes vocative form s into consideration in his capacity as author
of pp. 17 - IS8 of volume I of the Bulgarian Academy Grammar (1982).
10 In other wo rds. the re cannot exist an inventory of fewer than six unstressed vocalic
phonemes, since any invento ry that does not include the phonemes /a/, / el and /or 101
automatically fails to account for the occurrence of one or mo re of these phonemes as
unstressed vocative desinences.
334
Gary Toops
(10)
Nikdlo
Safo
ku~e
'dog'
Vocative
I nik61a/
/saf,o/
Non-vocative
I ku~e/
/ ku~i /
i nik61:J/
/ saf,u/
Literalure Cited
Aronson, H. I., 1968: Bulgarian Innectional Morphophonology. The Hague/
Paris. (Slavistic Printings and Reprinlings. 70.)
Brooks, M . Z .• 1977: The Polish Vocative Case - Will It Survive? In: Folia
Siavica 1:2. 165 -7 1.
Bulgarian Academy Grammar 1982 :z BAlgarska Akademija na Naukite. Institut
za bAlgarski ezik 1982: Gramalika na sAvremennija bAlgarski knifoven el.ik I.
Fonelika. Sofia.
Bulgarian Academy Grammar 1983 "" BAlgarska Akademija na Naukite. Institut
za bAlgarski ezik 1983: Gramatika na sAvremennija bAlgarski knitoven ezi k 2.
Morfoiogija. Sofia.
Cernoy, V. A. t 1979: Sravnitel'naja charakteristika dvuch lipologi ~esk i razlit!nych
rodstvennych jazykov (bolgarskogo i russkogo). Sverdlovsk.
Hubenova, M. - A. Dfumadanova - M. Marinova , 1983 a: A Course in
Modern Bulgarian. Part I. Columbus (Ohio). (Corrected reprint of Hubenova,
M. et al., 1964: B~lgarski ezik. P~rva t!ast. Sofia.)
Hubenova, M. - A. Dfumadanova, 1983 b: A Course in Modern Bu lgarian.
Part 2. Columbus (Ohio). (Corrected reprint of Hubenova, M. e/ al., 1968:
Balgars ki ezi k. Vtora (!ast. Sofia.)
Mladenov, 5., 1929: Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache. Berlin/ Leipzig.
(GrundriB der slavischen Philologie und Kuiturgesch ichle.)
~aovr, P., 1980: Redukcija na giasnite v sa.vremennija knifoven Mlgarski erik.
In: P4rvev, C h. - V. Radeva (comps.): Pomogalo po b~ l garska fonetika. Sofia, 230 - 48.
Scallon, E. A., 1975: Bulgarian Phonology. Cambridge (Mass.).
Scatton, E. A., 1984: A Reference Grammar of Modern Bulgarian. Columbus
(Ohio).
Tilkov, D., 1983: Neopredelenata fonema. In: Bojadfiev, T. - M. S. Mladenov
(comps.): Izsledvanija vArchu bAlgarskija ezik. Sofia, 74 - 8. (lhmslated reprint of Tilkov, D., 1970: Le phoneme indetermine. In: Phonetica 26, 210 -5.)
Vaillant, A., 1977: Grammaire comparee des langues slaves 5. La Syntaxe. Paris.
Vocative forms and vowel reduction in Bulgarian
335
Additional Liter a tu re
Bojadtiev, T., 1980; Udarenieto i zvukovata struktura na bAlgarskata duma. In:
PArvev, Ch. - V. Radeva (comps.): Pomogalo pO bAlgarska fonet ika. Sofia,
230 - 48.
Ivanlev, S., 1955: Edna neopisana upotreba na llenuvata forma (klim vliprosa za
formata na obrMtenieto v blUgarski ezik). In: Blilgarska Akademija na Nauk ite. Otdelenie za ezikoznanie, etnografija i literatura: Sbornik v lest na akademik AleksandAr Teodorov- Balan po slulaj devetdeset i petata mu godi~nina .
Sofia, 271-8.
Ivanlev, S., 1977: Formite za obrMtenie pri sMtestvitelnoto ime "brat". In: BAl·
garski ezik 27:2,142 -3.
Iva nlev, S., 1980: Rimite na Ivan Vazov i Penlo Siavejkov i redu kcijata na glasnite v bAlgarski ezik. In: PArvev, Ch. - V. Radeva (comps.): Po mogalo po bAlgarska fonetika . So fi a, 249 - 61.
Jana kiev, M., 1980: Udarnost (akcentuvanosl) i bezudarnost (neakcentuvanost).
In: PArvev, Ch. - V. Radeva (comps.): Pomogalo po bAlgarska fonetika.
Sofia , 187-94.
Pa$ov, P., 1980: Pravopisni i pravogovorni obsobenosti svArzani s redukcijata na
neudarenite glasni. In: PArvev, Ch. - V. Radeva (co mps.); Pomogalo po bAlgarska fo netika. Sofia, 262 - 8.
Til kov, D. , 1983: Morfoiogiln i pdl ini za ogranilavane na foneti lnOlo dejstvie v
balgarski erik. In: Bojadtiev, T. - M. S. Mladenov (comps.): Izsledvanija vArchu bAlgarskija ezik. So fia , 244 - 52. (Reprint of Tilkov, D., 1981: Idem. In :
Blilgarski ezik 31 : 5, 413 - 9.)
Bou lder, Colorado
Gary To ops
NEUE R SC H E I NUNGEN
AUS DEM VERLAG arm SAGNER, MUNCHEN
SAGNE R S SLAV I STISCHE SAMMLUNG
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON PETER REHDER
Band 8 Litlerae Siavicae Medii Aevi Francisco Venceslao Mare~ Oblatae.. Herausgegeben
von Johannes Reinhart. 1985. Ln. 427 S.
Band 9 Orbini. Mauro: II Regno degJi Slav!. Nachdruck besorgt von Sima Cirkovic und
Peter Rehder. Mit anem Vorwort von Sima Cirkovic. 1985. Ln. 544 S. Faksimile-Edition.
Band 10, I + II Eng e I, Ulrich, Pavica M r a zo vie (Hgb.): Kontrastive Grammatik
Deutsch - Serbokroatisch. Autoren: Jovan Dukanovic, Ulrich Engel, Pavica Mrazovic, Hanna
Popadic, Zoran Ziletic. Mit einem Vorwort von Rudolf Filipovic. 1986. Ln. 1510 S.
Band 11 VeIimlr Chi e b n i k 0 v 1885 - 1985. Herausgegeben von J. Holthusen t, J. R.
Doring-Smirnov, W. Koschmal, P. Stobbe. 1986. Ln. 278 S.
SLAVISTISCHE B E IT RAGE
BEGRUNDET VON AWlS SCHMAUS, HERAUSGEGEBEN
VON JOHANNES HOLTHUSEN t, HEINRICH KUNSTMANN,
PETER REHDER, JOSEF SCHRENK
Band 190 Kaltwasser, 10rg: Die deadjektivische Wonbildung des Russischen. Versuch
einer ,analytisch-synthetisch-funktionellen' Beschreibung. 1986. VIII, 235 S.
Band 191 Grbavac, Josip: Ethische und didaktlsch-aufkUlrerische "Tendenzen bei Filip
Grabovac. "Cvit razgovora". 1986. 196 S.
Band 192 Jan d a, Laura A.: A Semantic Analysis of the Russian Prefixes m-, pere-, do-, and
ot-. 1986. VlIl, 261 S.
Band 193 Bojie, Vera, Wolf Oschlies: Lehrbuch der makedonischcn Sprache. Zweite,
erweitertc und verbesserte Auflage. 1986. 252 S.
Band 194 Wett, Barbara: ,Neuer Mensch' und ,Goldene Mittelmafligkeit'. F. M. Dostoevskijs Kritik am rationalistisch-utopischen Menschenbild. 1986. VlIl, 238 S.
Band 195 Sc h mid t, Evelies: Agypten und agyptische Mythologie - Bilder der Transition
im Werk Andrej Be!yjs. 1986. 439 S.
Band 196 Ketchian, Sonia: The Poetry of Anna Akhmatova: A Conquest of Time and
Space. 1986. VIII, 225 S.
Band 197 Zeichen und Funktion. Beitrage wr asthetischen Konzeption Jan MukafovskYs.
Herausgegeben von Hans G i1 nth e r. 1986. X, 207 S.
Band 198 Kramer, Christina: Analytic Modality in Macedonian. 1986. X, 177 S.
Band 199 Egg el i n g, Wolfram: Die Prosa sowjetlscher Kinderzeitschriften (1919-1925).
Eine Themen- und MOIivanaiyse in bezug auf das BiId des jungen Protagonisten. 1986. X, 506 S.
Band 200 Siavis!ische Linguistik 1985. Referate des XI. Konstanzer Siavistischen Arbeitstreffens Innsbruck 10. mit 12. 9. 1985. Herausgegeben von Renate Rat h may r. 1986. 326 S.
Band 201 Berger, Tilman: Wortbi1dung und Akzent im Russischen. 1986. VIII, 373 S.
Band 202 Hock, Wolfgang: Das Nominalsystem im Uspensklj Sbornik. 1986. VI, 179 S.
Band 203 Wei d n e r, Anneliese: Die russischen Obersetzungsaquivalente der deutschen
Modalverben. Versuch einer logisch-semantischen Charakterisierung. 1986. 340 S.
Band 204 Lempp, Albrecht: Miee. 'To Have' in Modern Polish. 1986. XIV, 148 S.
Band 205 Ti m ro t h, Wilhelm von: Russian and Soviet Sociolinguistics and Taboo Varieties
of the Russian Language. (Argot, Jargon, Slang, and "Mat".) Revised and Enlarged Edition.
1986. X, 164 S.