Language desk
< February 15	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 16

Yakovlevich

It seems that the Russian patronymic for men whose father's name is Yakov is Yakovlevich. Where does the soft -l- come from? Why isn't it Yakovovich? Pais (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euphony is the ultimate answer. The patronymic of Lev is not Levovich/Levovna but L'vovich/L'vovna, for the same reason. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice also that 'любить' (/l'ub'it'/ - "to love") has present 1.s. 'люблю' (/l'ub'l'u/ - "I love"). I've a feeling that it is not the only verb ending in a labial consonant to do so, but my Russian is very rusty. --ColinFine (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, euphony is not the issue here, or at least only a small component (and euphony is not at all the reason behind L'vovich/L'vovna). However, this requires some delving into the earlier history of the Russian language. Common Slavic (the shared ancestor of the Slavic languages) as well as early Russian had three means of forming possessive adjectives: -ov-, -in-, and -j- (That's IPA /j/, so like English "y"). Most adjectives formed from masculine personal names used either -ov- or -j-, with -j- being especially common with names ending in /v/ to avoid the repetition of consonants: *jakovjь "Jacob's", *jaroslavjь "Yaroslav's", etc. However, in Russian the consonant sequence /vj/ subsequently became /vl'/ (hence why *jaroslavjь gordъ "Yaroslav's City" became modern Ярославль. Now, patronymics were formed by taking the adjectival form of a name in -ov and adding the appropriate adjectival suffix (-ič or -na in modern Russian). My guess is that since these patronymics were usually formed from -ov- possessives, while Old Russian яковль is a -j- type, speakers "reinforced" the possession by double marking it: яковль+ев+ич.

As for Лев > Львович, that's a different issue. The Common Slavic form of the name "Lev" (or word "lion") was *lьvъ, where ъ and ь represent two ultrashort vowels called Yers. In a sound change known as the "Fall of the Yers", certain yers were strengthened to full vowels (eg, when stressed) and others were lost (eg, word-finally or before the stressed syllable). As a result, *lьvъ regularly developed into Lev, while *lьv-ov-itj-ь became L'vovich; the first yer was kept in the "Lev" because it was stressed, and dropped in "L'vovich" because it was not. Voikya (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Thanks, Voikya. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian has inherited from Old Slavonic an epenthetical л’, which should appear after labial and labiodental consonants when they are followed by /j/, so [б в м п] + /j/ result in [бл’ вл’ мл’ пл’]. Apart from the above-mentioned verb любить - люблю ('to love' - 'I love', from Old Slavonic любити - люблѭ), here is another couple of modern Russian verbs to illustrate that:

спать - сплю ('to sleep' - 'I sleep'), from Old Slavonic съпати - съплѭ;
ловить - ловлю ('to catch' - 'I catch'), from Old Slavonic ловити - ловлѭ.

Of course, this does not only apply for verb endings. I'm posting this as an attempt to make clear why /vj/ became /vl'/, for instance in Yaroslavl, as Voikya explained. Sorry for the enlarged font of the Slavonic text, but it is hardly readable in my browser when in regular size, and I suspect others could be having this problem too. --Theurgist (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct, though one little nitpick: Russian did not come from Old Church Slavonic. Old Church Slavonic a South Slavic language, while Russian is East Slavic. Old Church Slavonic was spoken at the same time as Old Russian. Both languages share a common ancestor in Common Slavic (or Proto-Slavic), which was never written down. Voikya (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are correct. Sorry for my misleading post. --Theurgist (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation Voikya! I knew about epenthetic l after soft labials (and how some languages lose them, which is why what Serbs call Skoplje is called Skopje by Macedonians), but I didn't know that -j- was an adjectival suffix that patronymics made use of. Pais (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about [фл’]? --84.61.155.241 (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ф does not occur in native Slavic words, except in onomatopoeias or as a result of some pronunciation shifts. --Theurgist (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"too big of a" etc.

In American English, are expressions like "too big of a problem" (for "too big a problem"), "too long of a journey" (for "too long a journey"), etc., considered correct? 86.177.105.71 (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Too long a journey" sounds like it should be correct, but somehow, it seems wrong, to my ear. :) Corvus cornix_talk 19:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the same class of hyper-corrections as "If you hadn't have done that, I wouldn't have had to to fix it". The second 'have' is correct, but the first 'have' is technically out of place. But many people feel naturally disposed to saying it. (That's when they don't think the word they're saying is "of".)-- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed this "of a" construction. I read/hear American, English, Scottish, Australian and my native variety, South African English regularly. I've only seen heard it from US sources, so I'd say it is most likely an "Americanism". Roger (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Perfectly natural (actually preferable) to my American English ears. Lexicografía (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect influence from "too much of a ... ". But that's WP:OR. --ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of construction is commonly used in colloquial American English, but it is not considered "correct", and it grates on my American English ears. Marco polo (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "too big of a" gets 2.16 million ghits, while "too big a" gets 4.53 million. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "incorrect", but it's a bit informal. It's generally preferable to the same construction without the "of". In formal writing you don't use either, unless you're specifically aiming for a poetic tone, in which case "too long a journey" might match your requirements. --Trovatore (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned that I am a British English speaker. In BrE "too big a", "too long a" etc. are fine, but the versions with "of" are wrong. However, I was unsure about the situation in AmE. 86.179.113.228 (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a BritEngLinguist (!), I must admit to finding these suplurfluous 'of's rather irritating: to the extent that I removed a userbox ({{User:Sgt. R.K. Blue/Userboxes/Darkroom}} from my user page for such a blatant violation of grammar. Then again, I'm a grump, so I need to find things to complain about... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found an interesting commentary on this question here. This commentary points out that the construction is a relatively recent development in American English and reminded me that I could remember a time when I first started hearing the "too ADJ of a" construction. It was probably during the late 1970s or early 1980s. (I learned American English as my native language in the 1960s.) I can remember hearing this construction as a teenager, mainly from people I considered stupid or uneducated. It has certainly spread since then to Americans who are neither stupid nor uneducated, but it still sounds that way to me. Marco polo (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]