Rafał Szeptyński
Instytut Języka Polskiego Polskiej Akademii Nauk  
(Inštitut za poljski jezik Poljske akademije znanosti)
rafal.szeptynski@ijp.pan.pl
Marek Majer
Uniwersytet Łódzki (Univerza v Lodžu)
marek.majer@uni.lodz.pl 
Slavistična revija 72/2 (2024): 131–152
UDK 811.16:811.163.6'28
DOI 10.57589/srl.v72i2.4179
Tip 1.01
Common Slavic *-nǫ-, *-ny-, or *-nu-? A New Look at the History 
of the Slavic Nasal Suffix. Slovene Evidence for *-nu-
The current consensus is that the aorist/infinitive suffix of Class II verbs in Common 
Slavic was either *-nǫ- (in most of the area) or *-ny- (part of the western periphery). In this 
study, we argue that this picture is still inadequate as it does not account for part of the dialec-
tal Slovene evidence. A careful analysis shows that some peripheral varieties of Slovene must 
reflect a pre-form *-nu-, lexicalized relics of which are also found more widely in Slovene. The 
existence of CSl *-nu- has thus far only been conjectured based on internal reconstruction and 
Indo-European parallels. (An attempt at an integrated diachronic explanation of the rise of the 
CSl variants will be the task of a separate ensuing study.)1
Keywords: Common Slavic, Class II verbs, Slovene dialectology, Resian, Carinthian
Splošnoslovansko *-nǫ-, *-ny- ali *-nu-? Nov pogled na rekonstrukcijo 
pripone glagolov II. vrste. Slovenski dokazi za *-nu-
Pripono nedoločniške/aoristne osnove splošnoslovanskih glagolov II. vrste se danes običaj-
no rekonstruira kot *-nǫ- (tako na večini spsl. področja) oz. *-ny- (del zahodnega obrobja). V 
pričujočem prispevku argumentirava, da ta rekonstrukcija še vedno ni ustrezna, saj se z njo ne 
da pojasniti dela slovenskega narečnega gradiva. Natančna analiza pokaže, da nekateri periferni 
slovenski govori odražajo praobliko *-nu-, katere leksikalizirane ostanke sicer najdemo tudi 
drugje znotraj slovenskega jezikovnega območja. Obstoj spsl. *-nu- je bil doslej domnevan le 
na podlagi notranje rekonstrukcije ter primerjave z drugimi indoevropskimi jeziki. (Poskus 
celotne diahrone razlage nastanka spsl. različic bo naloga ločene prihodnje študije.)
Ključne besede: splošna slovanščina, glagoli II. vrste, slovenska dialektologija, rezijan-
ščina, koroščina
1 This article has been written under the research project financed by the National Science Centre (Poland) 
decision number: 2019/33/B/HS2/02965. The research discussed here was presented at two conferences: 17th 
Annual Meeting of the Slavic Linguistics Society (SLS17), Sapporo, and 4. Slovenski dialektološki posvet 
(SDP4), Ljubljana, both in September 2022. We are grateful to the audiences of these events for their helpful 
comments and suggestions. We express our thanks to Januška Gostenčnik and Karmen Kenda-Jež for their 
help in obtaining the Slovene dialectal material, to Luigia Negro and Dino Valente for sharing their compe-
tence in Resian with us, to Han Steenwijk and Matej Šekli for valuable commentary on the Resian forms, 
to Paweł Janczulewicz for helpful discussion of the Polabian data, and to Miguel Villanueva Svensson and 
Florian Wandl for other useful suggestions. All interpretations and opinions are our own.
Slavistična revija, letnik 72/2024, št. 2, april–junij132
1 Basic premises
Class II verbs of Common Slavic are defined by a present stem in *-ne-: OCS 
drъznetъ ‘dares’, minetъ ‘passes’. Their aorist/infinitive stem, if it is overtly marked 
(as is the case in most subtypes), displays the suffix traditionally reconstructed as 
*-nǫ-: OCS drъznǫti ‘dare.inf’, drъznǫšę ‘dare.pret.3pl’, minǫti ‘pass.inf’, minǫ ‘pass.
pret.3sg’. This latter morpheme – more specifically, its form only2 – is the topic of 
the present study. Wherever we refer to the ‘nasal suffix’ or ‘*-nV-’, we mean this CSl 
aorist/infinitive suffix specifically.
Research in recent decades (see below) has shown that the traditional reconstruction 
CSl *-nǫ- is oversimplified. While most Slavic languages do indeed point to such a 
form, it is now clear that a variant shape of this suffix, *-ny-, must have existed in the 
Common Slavic period already. But although the coexistence of *-nǫ- and *-ny- is 
now broadly recognized, how this fact is to be interpreted within the chronology and 
geography of Common Slavic, as well as how the situation arose, remains controversial.
The problem of the variation in the suffix *-nV- is described amply in recent liter-
ature. Andersen (1999; more concise but updated treatment 2020: 26-9) remains the 
most comprehensive guide to the overall situation. The West Slavic material discussed 
there can be extended somewhat, cf. AJK14 (159-60) on Polish dialects. The South 
Slavic situation has since been studied in more depth – Menac-Mihalić, Celinić (2016) 
(Менац-Михалич, Целинич 2016), Celinić, Menac-Mihalić (2017: 98-102), Vranić 
(2017), Pronk (2022: 104-8), and Štarkl (2023) supply detailed data and references to 
additional literature.
Forms consistent with *-ny- are attested in two general zones – West and South 
Slavic, respectively. The former encompasses Polabian (type -nĕt, e.g. våtåknĕt ‘put 
in’), dialectal Polish (type -nyć, found in Kociewie, in the intersection of Wielkopolska, 
Mazowsze, and Małopolska, and ranging into Silesian), and Upper Sorbian (type -nyć, 
e.g. hasnyć ‘extinguish’). Within all of these areas, *-ny- competes geographically and/
or chronologically with *-nǫ- (types Plb -nǫt, Pol -nąć, OUSorb -nuć); in fact, all of 
the West Slavic forms compatible with *-ny- can also be argued to derive from *-nǫ-, 
though generally at the cost of relying on certain less-than-regular transformations.3 
In view of the much stronger evidence for *-ny- in South Slavic (see below), the pres-
ence of an inherited cognate in West Slavic is, at the very least, a serious possibility. 
2 Note that we are not concerned with Class II as such, in particular its functional domains, apophonic, 
derivational, and syntactic properties, internal divisions (including the distribution of suffixed vs. unsuffixed 
aorist/infinitive stems), or the prehistory of individual verbs within it. On the more general background 
of the ‘nasal verbs’ of Slavic and the evidently closely related structures in Baltic and Germanic, see, for 
example, Schuyt (1990: 10-4), Gorbachov (2007), and Villanueva Svensson (2010, 2016), all with copious 
earlier literature.
3 Generally consisting in the reduction of unstressed vowels. See for example Bígl (2019: 43-4), 
Schaarschmidt (1997: 143-6), SSA12 (299), and Michalk (1962: 231) on Upper Sorbian (postulated *-nǫC- > 
*-nuC- > *-nC- >(>) -nyC- and/or a hypercorrect reaction to the change y > u after labials). For criticism of 
this approach, see Andersen (1999: 54-6). On the nature of the Polabian evidence see fn. 35.
133Rafał Szeptyński, Marek Majer: Common Slavic *-nǫ-, *-ny-, or *-nu-?
The second zone where *-ny- is reflected is tantamount to »the north-western half of 
western South Slavic, northwest of the line that runs approximately from Kikinda in 
the Serbian Banat to the Croatian coast just north of Dubrovnik« (Pronk 2022: 104). 
Note that in all of this area CSl *y is reflected as i, so that the relevant forms display 
the shape -ni-. This zone notably includes standard Slovene (type -niti, l-participle 
-nil: e.g. miniti ‘pass.inf’, minil ‘pass.pst.m’), but also many dialectal varieties of 
Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian. In some parts of this zone reflexes of *-ny- coexist 
with *-nǫ- within the same paradigm; relationships with the present stem, as well as 
the past passive participle stem, are also complex (Lenček 1985; Pronk 2022). It is 
possible that *-ny- formerly ranged into the now extinct Slavic dialects further south, 
judging by loanwords in Albanian that have -nit-, consistent with *-nyti (Majer 2019).
In general, the distribution of *-ny- has the markings of a peripheral archaism, but 
this qualification is relative to the comparatively recent migrations that brought the 
presently continued Slavic dialects to these areas in the first place (Andersen 1999: 
56, 2020: 18; see also Lindstedt, Salmela 2020).
A detailed diachronic treatment of the above facts – covering both the intra-Slavic 
innovations in this suffix and its Indo-European cognates and Proto-Indo-European 
sources – will be the object of a separate, ensuing study (Majer, Szeptyński 2024), 
where the research history on these issues will also be reviewed. For the purposes of 
the present article, some basic remarks will be sufficient.
2 Common Slavic *-nu-: Introduction
It has long been known that external Indo-European comparanda (PIE *-new-) 
and inner-Common Slavic alternations (past passive participle and verbal noun in 
*-noven-, cf. OCS drъznovenie ‘courage’ from drъznǫti ‘dare.inf’; infrequent4 imper-
fective derivatives in *-ati built to Class II verbs, such as *minovati ‘pass.ipfv’ from 
*minǫti) suggest that the original Common Slavic form of the nasal suffix may have 
been *-nu- (from the monophthongization of PSl *-now-), and that the well-attested 
*-nǫ- may represent a secondary nasalization of this *-nu- (or its pre-monophthongi-
zation stage, with a nasalized glide as the intermediate step): cf. doublets of the type 
*gnusъ ~ *gnǫsъ ‘filth’, *vъnukъ ~ *vъnǫkъ ‘grandson’, or *nuditi ~ *nǫditi ‘coerce’. 
What is problematic with this explanation of the verbal suffix *-nǫ-, as is well-known, 
is the apparent lack of reflexes of the variant *-nu- in the material. The perseverative 
nasalization *nu > *nǫ was a sporadic, chaotic process, with incoherently distributed 
outputs – doublets are encountered even within the single written traditions (OCS 
gnušati sę ‛be disgusted’ alongside gnǫšati sę, OPol wnuk ‘grandson’ alongside wnęk). 
Contrariwise, the nasalization in the nǫ-verbs would be remarkably consistent (not only 
in comparison with root morphemes, which is less surprising in a grammatical suffix, 
but also across the dialect continuum), obliterating all traces of the original input. (This 
4 The imperfectivization *-nǫti → *-novati is rare and often competes with other types, some of which 
may in fact be older (e.g. *mijati ‘pass’, which omits the nasal suffix). The type in *-novati is nevertheless 
clearly residual and may hardly be a recent creation (Arumaa 1985: 227; Tedesco 1948: 348).
Slavistična revija, letnik 72/2024, št. 2, april–junij134
presentation of the matter is slightly oversimplified and excludes the question of the 
variant *-ny- and several other matters; detailed treatment and research history will 
follow in Majer, Szeptyński 2024).
The objective of the present contribution will be to show that viable evidence for 
CSl *-nu- can indeed be demonstrated in dialectal Slovene material. Before we proceed 
to this task, we shall briefly review other scholars’ attempts to detect palpable traces 
of CSl *-nu-. As far as we are aware, of all other ‘phonologically probative’ varieties 
(i.e., those in which *ǫ does not fall together with *u – which essentially means most 
of Lechitic and East South Slavic), such claims have only been made with regard to 
Old Church Slavic.
3 Old Church Slavic evidence?
Possible traces of CSl *-nu- in the OCS canon were dealt with the most extensive-
ly by Vaillant. Initially, he considered the rare instances of -nu- there (see below) as 
reflecting the expected, archaic form of the suffix, opposing them to the predominant 
but secondary forms in -nǫ- (Vaillant 1948a: 45). He later changed his opinion, stating 
that the OCS evidence for CSl *-nu- is insufficient, as no traces are observable in the 
other Sl languages; he thus acknowledged -nǫ- as the only primordial variant for OCS 
too (Vaillant 1966: 230).
Vaillant (1948a: 45) puts aside the manuscripts in which the graphical interchange 
between <ǫ> and <u> may result from general denasalization in one of the copyists’ 
dialects, most notably the Codex Marianus. As regards the rest of the corpus, he lists 
the following forms with -nu- from three manuscripts: inf goneznuti ‘save oneself’ 
(Supr. 220v), pst.ptcp.act nom.sg.m drъznuvъ ‘dare’ (Supr. 227v), pst.ptcp.act dat.sg.n 
minuvъšu ‘pass’ (Supr. 280v), pst.ptcp.act nom.pl.m pljunuvъše ‘spit’ (Sav. 119v – Matt. 
27:30), aor.3sg dunu ‘breathe’ (Оchr. 2r). Elsewhere (Vaillant 1948b: 8), following 
earlier literature, he reads dьrznu<ti> ‘dare’ in the Macedonian Cyrillic Fragment (1r); 
this is, however, emended to bez nu<ždę> ‘without coercion’ by Minčeva (Минчева 
1978: 80, 86). The key examples mentioned above are presented in their original 
manuscript form in Table 1.
It should be noted that, in fact, the first three manuscripts mentioned above all 
exhibit the confusion between <u> and <ǫ> to some extent. The Codex Suprasliensis, 
as the largest of them, shows the most numerous instances of both <u> in place of 
<ǫ> – e.g. prs.ptcp.act dat.sg.m.def imuštuumu ‘have’ (189r), prs.ptcp.act dat.sg.m 
kažuštu ‘indicate’ (284r) – and <ǫ> in place of <u>, e.g. prs.ptcp.act dat.sg.m sǫštǫ 
‘be’ (114r), acc.sg dǫšǫ ‘soul’ (191r). For Sava’s Book, we may mention e.g. adv 
protivu5 ‘against’ (Matt. 25:1) or dat.sg velьbǫdǫ ‘camel’ (Matt. 19:24). The Ochrid 
Folios have nǫždašete ‘force’ (1r).6
5 Vaillant (1948a: 46) reckons with influence from adverbs in -u.
6 Less probative, as the variation *nud’a ~ *nǫd’a is found more widely in Sl (see §2); but note that the 
manuscript consists of only two folios, so that gaps may be coincidental.
135Rafał Szeptyński, Marek Majer: Common Slavic *-nǫ-, *-ny-, or *-nu-?
Table 1: OCS spellings with -nu- for usual -nǫ- in the Class II suffix in Supr., Sav., 
and Ochr.
Supr.
goneznuti drъznuvъ minuvъšu
Sav.
pljunuvъše
Ochr.
?dunu
Thus, we consider the OCS examples of the suffix -nu- unreliable as possible 
reflexes of CSl *-nu-. In theory, they are ambiguous; in practice, their low frequency 
suggests treating them as corruptions of original forms with -nǫ-.
Conversely, as we shall see, the dialectal Slovene evidence for *-nu- is of a far 
more systematic nature and thus incomparably more reliable.
4 Slovene evidence
4.1 Introduction
It is widely believed that the Slovene linguistic area is divided into three main parts as 
regards the continuation of the CSl nasal suffix (cf. Lenček 1985: 396; Andersen 1999: 
50; Lundberg 2013: 47; Greenberg 2020: 3; Pronk 2022; already Miklosich 1879: 54). 
The largest, central part evidently reflects the variant *-ny- > -ni-, as does the standard 
language (miniti ‘pass’). The other two, namely the dialect of Resia Valley (It Resia, 
Sln Rezija) on the western periphery and the Pannonian dialect (Sln panonska narečna 
skupina) on the eastern one, are conventionally deemed to reflect *-nǫ-. However, there 
are in fact some indications of yet another variant, viz. a reflex of CSl *-nu-.7 The aim 
of this section is to evaluate the evidence for such an interpretation.
The most recognizable Slovene examples of -nu- belong to the standard language, 
cf. the adjectives minuli ‘past’, preminuli ‘deceased’ (SSKJ), izginuli, minuli, poginuli, 
preminuli, zginuli (Pravopis) as well as the noun trenutek ‘moment’ (SSKJ; Pravopis). 
Familiar though they may look from a comparative Slavic perspective, they undoubtedly 
cannot reflect either *-nǫ- or, all the more, *-ny- in any regular way. The easiest way 
7 On -na- see further discussion in Majer, Szeptyński (2024: §3.2).
Slavistična revija, letnik 72/2024, št. 2, april–junij136
to explain these forms is to assume Croatian influence, where u is the regular outcome 
of *ǫ in the standard language – thus also in the verbal class in -nu-, including minuti 
‘pass’, ginuti ‘perish’, tre(p)nuti ‘blink’. Nevertheless, Snoj 3SES considers the u in 
trenutek and in the full-fledged verb minuti (16th c.) a genuine, although unexpected 
(»nepričakovani«) Slovene reflex of *ǫ. Moreover, Ramovš (1922), who devoted a 
separate study to such unexpected instances of u in Slovene (including ones unrelated 
to the verbal suffix), mentions some non-trivial philological and dialectal facts that 
encourage a closer examination.
Our survey based on the lexical index (Besedje16) and corpus (Korpus 16) of 16th-c. 
Slovene prints confirms Ramovš’s (1922: 5) conclusion that potentially genuine instances 
of minuti occur mainly in Krelj’s translation of Spangenberg’s Postil from 1567, with 
a single example attested in Dalmatin’s translation of the Book of Sirach from 1575.8 
As also observed by Ramovš, ganuti ‘move’ is actually a hapax legomenon9 occurring 
in Trubar’s translation of the New Testament, repeated in the second edition.
Linking these facts with the modern dialectal data analyzed below, as well as re-
viewing the material of later writings (including both early and modern grammatical, 
lexicographical, and orthographical works), remains beyond the scope of this paper. 
These issues would certainly deserve a dedicated study. For the present purposes, how-
ever, we consider the modern dialectal material both more reliable and more important. 
Thus, the remainder of this section will be devoted to examining potential traces of 
-nu- in Slovene dialects. First, the counterparts of the standard Sln verb miniti will be 
discussed in §4.2. Second, we will scrutinize the systematic reflexes in Resia (§4.3) 
and Jaun Valley (§4.4). Finally, a synthetic account of the Sln data will be presented 
against the wider Slavic background in §5.
4.2 Slovene minu- in dialects
Apart from the philological data briefly discussed above, Ramovš (1922: 5) quotes 
examples of the verb minuti from the dialects of Upper Carniola (Sln Gorenjska) 
and Carinthia (Sln Koroška), where the usual form of the nasal verbal suffix, when 
accented, is -ni-. Actually, he was not the first to take notice of these facts. Already 
in 1814, Kopitar pointed to Carniola in general as the areal domain of such forms (cf. 
Jagić 1885: 378), as did later Janežič, who also included his native Carinthia into it 
(Janežič 1854: 71). However, the material we analyzed has revealed no unambiguous 
8 The 16th-c. adjective, originally a participle, minuči (absent in Krelj’s works, pace Bezlaj 1982: 184), 
seems to have been borrowed from Croatian, possibly via Juričič’s writings. The latter author’s numerous 
uses of -nu- are irrelevant in view of his being a Croat (cf. Ramovš 1922: 8). Note that trnutje (ternutye), 
attributed by Ramovš to Krelj’s Postil, does not appear in this incomplete version but in Juričič’s complete 
one of 1578. As regards vspomenutje (vſpomenutie), with two tokens in Krelj’s Otrozhia biblia of 1566, 
these occur in the Croatian part of the work.
9 Apart from Juričič’s later uses, cf. the previous footnote. Note, however, genutje ‘movement’ in Pohlin’s 
dictionary of 1781 (Snoj 2020: 193) and similar forms in some later Slovene lexicographic works.
137Rafał Szeptyński, Marek Majer: Common Slavic *-nǫ-, *-ny-, or *-nu-?
traces of minuti in Lower Carniola (Sln Dolenjska).10 Accordingly, we will concentrate 
exclusively on the two dialectal areas identified by Ramovš.11
Ramovš (1922: 5) quotes the neuter singular form mnúl from Ravne (or mnȗl, from 
Ravne and Bohinjska Bistrica, Ramovš 1920: 159) and, presumably, the feminine mnú-
wa from Grabče for Upper Carniolan, as well as the set mənútə, mənù, mənúwa from 
the Rosen Valley (Ge Rosental, Sln Rož) for Carinthian. The infinitive mənútə and the 
feminine form mənúwa of the latter paradigm are explicitly contrasted by Ramovš with, 
respectively, hənə̀t and hənȋwa, reflecting -ni- (cf. standard Sln ganiti ‘move’). In order 
to explain these facts, he assumes a regular change of pst.sg.m minil to mənù and the 
subsequent generalization of the new vowel in the other past forms and the infinitive.
It remains unclear, however, why mini- would be the only stem to undergo this 
remodeling, unlike other verbs in -(n)i- (note that there is no reason to treat -ni- and 
-i- separately in this scenario). Besides, the change -il > -u is not common to all dialects 
in which the archetype minuti is reflected. This is evident, e.g., for Kropa12 in Upper 
Carniola, where pst.sg.m mnùːu̯ exclusively matches obùːu̯ ~ obːu̯ < obul ‘put on 
shoes’ and not any form in -(n)i-l, cf., e.g., potẹ́ːgnu ‘pull’, bəcˈnọu̯ ‘kick’, lou̯íːu ̯‘hunt’ 
(Škofic 2008; 2019); both the similarity to obuti and the difference vis-à-vis verbs in 
-(n)iti are also reflected in the infinitive and in the other past forms, cf. inf mnúːt ~ 
obúːt, pst.sg.f mnúːla ~ obúːla, pst.sg.n mnùːl ~ obúːl (Škofic 2008: 15, 31; 2019: 202, 
215) as opposed to inf potẹ́ːgənt, báːcənt, loˈu̯ət/lou̯̯íːt, pst.sg.f potẹ́ːgənla/potegníːla, 
bəcní̯ːla, louíːla, pst.sg.n potẹ́ːgənlə/potegní̯ːl, bəcní̯ːl, lou̯í̯ːl (Škofic 2008: 22-3; 2019: 
194, 197). Thus, the hypothesis that minuti goes back to miniti faces serious obstacles.13
Ramovš was probably aware of these problems, as he changed his interpretation in 
a later account (Ramovš 1936: 179). This time, he assumes that it is *minǫti, not miniti, 
that was subject to an irregular change – namely, either a dissimilation (denasalization) 
*-nǫ- > -nu- or an analogy to the present stem minuj- of the corresponding imperfective 
verb minovati (thus already Oblak 1890: 196). Nevertheless, he still invokes the l-parti-
ciple pst.sg.m mənȕ as an additional factor possibly supporting the generalization of u.
In our view, this alternative interpretation is no more plausible. First, Ramovš does 
not actually quote instances of denasalization *-nǫ- > -nu- for Slovene but rather the 
10 Incidentally, Janežič’s account may be understood differently if one assumes that miniti and minuti 
have been switched around by mistake, which, in our view, would make the passage more coherent and 
comprehensible. In this case, Lower Carniola would be excluded from his formulation. As regards Kopitar, 
since he was born in Upper Carniola, one may argue that also his information is more reliable for this area 
than for Lower Carniola.
11 Murko’s (1843: 110) information on -nu- occurring in some areas of Styria (“in einigen Gegenden 
von Steiermark”), illustrated precisely with minuti, seems irrelevant for our discussion. Such examples of 
-nu- belong geographically to East Styria and linguistically to the Pannonian dialect, where the reflex of *u 
is more often fronted to ü when accented and to i when unaccented. Admittedly, in some Pannonian idioms 
(unaccented) -nu- can hardly be analyzed as containing a regular reflex of any CSl vowel (cf. Škofic 2004: 112).
12 See Škofic (1997, 2019: 29-85) for a phonological description of the Kropa dialect.
13 For the Rosen Valley dialect of the Carinthian group, see Scheinigg (1881, 462, 1882a, 530, 1882b: 25).
Slavistična revija, letnik 72/2024, št. 2, april–junij138
opposite, e.g., noja < *nǫd’a instead of nuja < *nud’a for Upper Carniolan (Ramovš 
1936: 177, after Miklošič and Štrekelj).14 Second, although CSl *minovati is arguably 
an old formation, in Slovene the verb minovati (prs.1sg minujem) is absent in both the 
standard language (where the corresponding form is minevati, prs.1sg minevam, SSKJ) 
as well as, apparently, in the dialects, so that it could hardly have influenced the base 
verb. It only appears in a few 19th-c. dictionaries and occurs extremely rarely in texts 
(based on a Google Books survey), arguably as a learned, ‘Slavonic’ loanword.15 Third, 
pst.sg.m mənȕ is irrelevant, as it cannot be considered the regular reflex of *minǫlъ 
in Upper Carniolan and Carinthian. Fourth, Ramovš still provides no justification for 
the exceptional development of minuti as compared to the other verbs of the same 
class. In light of these objections, we consider minuti not an irregular modification 
of a more familiar form in *-ny- or *-nǫ-, but rather an archaism—i.e., a reflex of the 
CSl variant *-nu-.
The question now is why the evolution of this single verb has been so distinct. 
In our view, one factor behind the divergence could be the verb’s peculiar prosodic 
pattern—i.e., its mobile accentuation (accentual paradigm c; see Olander 2009: 136-7 
for background). As is clear from Skljarenko’s (Скляренко 1998: 180) overview,16 
this prosodic type was quite exceptional among verbs displaying the nasal suffix. Most 
probably, after the earliest Slovene accentual changes—i.e., the advancement of the CSl 
circumflex and the retraction of the final short accent onto a preceding long vowel, the 
stem minu- was consistently accented on the suffixal vowel, which was predominant-
ly long: CSl *minűti, *mȋnūlъ, *minūlà, *mȋnūlo > PSln. *minùti, *minȗl, *minúla, 
*minȗlo (apart from some nonsingular aorist forms, which were lost early in most of 
the Slovene dialects). Owing to these prosodic features, the vowel u in this verb could 
14 This, as we saw in §2, is a broader phenomenon by no means limited to Sln. The argument could 
be invoked that the verb *minǫti features a ‘hyper-nasal’ environment due to the composition of the root, 
but note that verbs in *-nǫ- built to roots containing nasal consonants or vowels were no rarity and such a 
purported dissimilation is nonetheless never found elsewhere.
15 Pleteršnik (1894) only quotes Šolar’s dictionary (Šólar 1873), where minovati appears s.vv. abnehmen, 
hinschwinden, hinstreichen, schwinden, vergehen. In fact, the verb is also included in Cigale’s dictionary 
(Wolf 1860) s.v. aufhören; it is mentioned also s.v. uebergehen as ‘Old Slovene’ (altsl. = altslovenisch), 
i.e. OCS. Importantly, it is consistently cited in the latter way in Miklošič’s works (Miklosich 1868-1874: 
310; 1886: 197) and never as Slovene proper, “Modern Slovene” (nsl. = neuslovenisch). As regards the 
ephemeral adjective minujezhi occurring s.v. caducus in the copies of Kastelec’s dictionary from the 1680s 
(Kastelec ms 169; Kastelec ms 803), it is arguably an ad hoc emendation of the Croatian loanword minuzhe 
(cf. fn. 8) – probably encountered by Kastelec in Megiser’s 1592 dictionary, where it translates Vergenglich, 
caducus. The genuine Sln participle form ‘passing, transient’, attested from the 16th c. onwards, is mineozhi 
(Dalmatin) and minezhi (Trubar, Dalmatin). The former occurs in Kastelec’s dictionary s.v. momentaneus. 
Vorenc’s version has the former also s.v. praeteritus and the latter s.v. transitorius (Stabej 1997: 221).
16 We follow Skljarenko’s (Скляренко 1998: 176-7) reconstruction of *minǫti save for the notation of 
prosodic features (which we replace with the traditional one). The vowel of the suffix, of course, has to be 
treated as subject to variation.
139Rafał Szeptyński, Marek Majer: Common Slavic *-nǫ-, *-ny-, or *-nu-?
resist later reductions that exposed the morpheme -nu- in the other accentual paradigms 
to the influence of the competing variant of the nasal suffix—i.e., -ni- < *-ny-.17
So far, this interpretation merely explains why the verb minuti could retain the 
suffix -nu- as its possibly original characteristic and avoid the alignment with the 
type in -ni-, but it remains to be explained why the variant -nu- was inherited in this 
verb in the first place. A natural working assumption would be that it is a lexical relic 
of a pattern that was once more widespread in Sln. Further dialectal evidence indeed 
confirms this, as discussed below.
4.3 Regular -nu- in Slovene dialects: Resia
As mentioned in §4.1, it is generally believed that the dialect of Resia Valley (It 
Resia, Sln Rezija) has inherited the CSl nasal suffix in the form *-nǫ-. Curiously, 
however, while discussing the evolution of this morpheme, Baudouin de Courtenay 
(Бодуэн-де-Куртенэ 1875: 82) and Ramovš (1928: 117) allude to the development of 
the CSl vowel *u (cf. fn. 31). In order to resolve this controversy, we will first present 
the modern data and then confront them with the expected Resian outcomes of *-nǫ- and 
*-nu-. Additionally, we will comment on why Baudouin de Courtenay’s earlier mate-
rial, also used by Ramovš, did not enable the conclusion proposed within this section.
The basic modern source for Resian are the works by Steenwijk – most notably 
the online dictionary (Resianica), which combines a descriptive and a prescriptive 
approach, and the grammatical description of the dialect as spoken in San Giorgio di 
Resia/Bila (Steenwijk 1992). The relevant material from the dictionary can be divided 
into three parts. The first contains verbs with the accent18 on the root (20 lexemes, e.g. 
+|sednut ‘sit down’),19 the second – those with the accent on the suffix (3 lexemes, e.g. 
17 Importantly, the Upper Carniolan group and the Rosen Valley dialect of the Carinthian group have 
retained the reflex of the advanced circumflex on u. A wholly different situation obtains in the westernmost 
varieties of the Gail Valley dialect of the Carinthian group, where root accentuation has been generalized, 
cf. pst.sg.m mínu, f mínuwa, n mínuwo (Pronk 2009: 119, 236), so that the resulting unaccented u is am-
biguous. The accent of mínu and mínuwo is due to either the so-called tertiary retraction of the circumflex 
(»terciarni umik cirkumfleksa«) or the retention of the non-advanced circumflex (cf. discussion in Pronk 
2009: 173-90; 2011).
18 The entries include some forms that are provided with accent marks, unlike the lemmata themselves. 
For clarity, in line with Steenwijk’s 2008 description, we provide some other forms from his dictionary with 
explicit information on the position of stress. The latter is generally marked by the acute, save for the grave 
in the case of open-mid ò and è (as opposed to close-mid ó and é, respectively); besides, we use the symbol 
| in cases where the timbre of e or o varies among the subdialects. We mark such forms with +; they should 
not be quoted on par with those occurring in primary sources.
19 Cf. bocnut ‘prick (pierce slightly)’, kapnut ‘drip (fall in drops); to rain gently’, kleknut ‘kneel down’, 
nategnut ‘stretch, spread’, pähnut ‘kick (hit with the foot)’, pärdnut ‘fart’, pïknut ‘sting (pierce with a sting); 
peck (take food with the beak)’, pjüwnut ‘spit (eject from the mouth)’, poknut ‘burst (break with violence); burst 
(explode)’, potegnut ‘pull, draw (cause to move towards oneself); suck (draw into the mouth by breathing); 
absorb (drink in)’, pudïhnut ‘smell; snuff (tobacco)’, sednut ‘sit down (place oneself on a seat)’, skašnut se 
‘sneeze; cough’, stïsnut ‘press together, clench’, stopnut ‘step (move and set down the foot)’, šćïpnut ‘pinch 
(squeeze the skin between the fingers)’, wgasnut ‘extinguish (a fire); quench (thirst)’, wgrïznut ‘bite (grip 
with the teeth)’, wpïknut ‘thrust, stab’, wzdïgnut ‘lift, raise’.
Slavistična revija, letnik 72/2024, št. 2, april–junij140
+taknòt ‘touch’),20 and the third – with both options available (1 lexeme).21 Although 
much less frequent, the latter two types are more important for our discussion, because 
unaccented vowels in the first group have been liable to neutralizations (not necessarily 
due to the Resian vowel harmony).22 Below, we will review the diversity of the forms 
of the suffix in the individual dialects as attested in Steenwijk’s works (Table 2 below).
In the infinitive, -no- (+-nò-) is the basic form of the suffix when accented and -nu- 
when unaccented. The entries in the dictionary, as well as Steenwijk’s separate dedicated 
study (1992: 154), show that the San Giorgio dialect differs from those spoken in the 
other villages regarding the quality of the vowel in the accented infinitive suffix, cf. 
-nǘ- in +bušnǘt, +gnǘt, +spomanǘt, +taknǘt. On the other hand, the Stolvizza/Solbica 
dialect shows -no- also if unaccented; cf., e.g., kléknot, sédnot.
It is clear (also from Steenwijk 1992 and Бодуэнъ-де-Куртенэ 1895) that the ac-
centuation of the infinitive is basically matched by the related past forms (cf., however, 
fn. 21). In the masculine singular form in -l,23 the quality of the vowel remains as in 
the infinitive, including the accented ü in San Giorgio (Steenwijk’s 1992: 154) and 
the unaccented o in Stolvizza (cf. Logar 1981a: 39), since both forms are structurally 
similar (-nV-C#). In the other past forms, which contain a syllabic desinence (-nV-
l-V#), the accented suffix shows up consistently as -nü-, cf. pst.sg.f +bušnǘla, +gnǘla, 
+spomanǘla, +taknǘla. That this in fact applies to all of the villages can be deduced 
from, e.g., +gnǘla and +nǘla24 in San Giorgio and Stolvizza, respectively; these two 
varieties otherwise differ to the largest extent (cf. above). The descriptions do not 
usually provide the unaccented suffix for forms with a syllabic desinence, but it can be 
securely established as -nu- based on, first, the numerous feminine singular forms in 
-nula cited from Stolvizza (e.g., kléknula, sédnula) and, second, Steenwijk’s description 
of the San Giorgio dialect (Steenwijk 1992: 153).
We will start the discussion on the origin of the suffix by confronting the modern 
data with the expected outcomes of CSl *-nǫ- in each position (the discussion on CSl 
*-nu- will then follow). The expectations are formulated mainly on the basis of previous 
literature (Бодуэн-де-Куртенэ 1875; Ramovš 1928; Logar 1972; 1981a; Steenwijk 
1988; 1992; Vermeer 1993).
20 Cf. bušnot ‘kiss’, gnot ‘move (set in motion)’, taknot ‘touch (make physical contact)’. Cf. also pargnút̤ 
‘bend’, *wsanút̤ se (pst.sg.m wsanṳ́l se) ‘fall asleep’, zadinṳ́t ‘take on one’s shoulders’, zagnút̤ ‘bend’, zasanút̤ 
‘oversleep’ in San Giorgio (Steenwijk 1992).
21 Cf. +spomanòt ‘remember (revive memory of)’. While the form of the infinitive conforms to the 
pattern of the second group, alternate accentuation is observable in past forms, cf. +spomanǘla/+spmanula.
22 Pronk (2022: 108) assumes that such neutralizations paved the way for the replacement of the origi-
nal reflexes of CSl *ǫ in accented position. As laid out in §4.4, we consider this direction of change rather 
implausible.
23 Oseacco/Osojani: -w.
24 Note the loss of the only root segment due to the change g > h > ∅. On the other hand, the verb gnot 
exhibits secondary remodeling of the present stem, cf. prs.3sg gnüjë, Stolvizza nüjë (see Steenwijk 1992: 
128). This remodeling does not affect the whole type; cf. the inherited prs.3sg form taknë. Probably, impe-
rative forms are the first to undergo this change (Steenwijk 1992: 136, 154).
141Rafał Szeptyński, Marek Majer: Common Slavic *-nǫ-, *-ny-, or *-nu-?
Table 2: Resian reflexes of the CSl nasal suffix
accented suffix unaccented suffix
inf pst.sg.f inf pst.sg.f
San Giorgio +taknǘt
+taknǘla
sèdnut
+|sednulastandard
+taknòt
Stolvizza sédnot
The clearest evidence against the inheritance of *-nǫ- comes from the accented suffix 
-nǘ-, occurring in past forms with syllabic desinences, e.g. pst.sg.f +taknǘla. While the 
basic Resian reflex of accented *ǫ is [o] when originally long and [ɔ] when short (cf. 
Vermeer 1993), in the position after a nasal consonant it yielded u according to Logar 
(1981a: 37). Therefore, CSl *tъknǫ̋la should have yielded †t(a)knúla, which does not 
match the attested form +taknǘla. However, as has been pointed out by Baudouin de 
Courtenay (Бодуэн-де-Куртенэ 1875: 55-6) and Nahtigal (Nahtigall 1915: 99), the 
raising to u after a nasal consonant concerns the early long *ǫ, different than the non-final 
acute vowel in the suffix under discussion.25 Even if the change did not apply under 
these conditions – which we in fact do not know – the expected outcome of *-nǫ-, with 
the regular reflex of *ǫ, would be †-no-, i.e. †t(a)knóla or †t(a)knòla, which does not 
match the attested form either.
As regards accented final syllables (after the loss of the jers), it has to be noted 
that acute vowels remained short in this position for an even longer time. This pertains 
directly to masculine singular past forms in *-l-ъ. While the evolution of the infinitive in 
Resian was probably more complicated, in any event it behaves exactly like the mascu-
line singular past form in synchronic terms.26 For this position, too, no straightforward 
evidence for or against the raising of CSl *ǫ̋ to u after nasal consonants is available.27 
Although [ɔ], as the regular outcome of short *ǫ (cf. above), would account for the 
standard forms in -no- occurring in most of the villages (e.g., +taknòt, cf. Table 2), it 
does not do so in the case of the San Giorgio dialect (cf. +taknǘt).
Another possibility, which to our knowledge has not yet been pursued, would be 
that at some point accented *ǫ after nasal consonants merged with *o irrespective of 
25 For a different, less convincing interpretation, involving the nasal suffix, see Ramovš (1928: 117).
26 Šekli (2007: 189) reconstructs a similar structure in *-tь for the infinitive, viz. *tъknǫ̋tь > taknot. 
Early apocope in *-ti might be surmised as well (see Ramovš 1928: 118 on the traces of *-ti in Resian).
27 The situation in open final syllables, i.e. basically in desinences, is unclear too. For instance, the noun 
žanä ‘woman’ exhibits acc.sg žanɔ́ ‘woman’ (Steenwijk 1992: 95; žanó, Бодуэн-де-Куртенэ 1875: 78). 
However, the long vowel of the ins.sg ending has avoided the change too, cf. žanó (Steenwijk 1992: 95; 
žanô, Бодуэн-де-Куртенэ 1875: 78). On the other hand, the vowel of the ins.sg form of the 3sg personal 
pronoun has been raised, cf. njú (Steenwijk 1992: 118; ńû, Бодуэн-де-Куртенэ 1875: 79), but scholars 
are not unanimous as regards the related acc.sg form – cf. njú (Steenwijk 1992: 118) vs. ńó (Бодуэн-де-
Куртенэ 1875: 79). While it is reasonable to expect levelings to the unmarked forms of the desinences, i.e. 
ones occurring after stems not ending in nasal consonants, no secure conclusion on short final vowels can 
ultimately be drawn from this material.
Slavistična revija, letnik 72/2024, št. 2, april–junij142
the quantity, ultimately yielding u in the case of early length (cf. Ramovš’s reserva-
tions mentioned above) but ö otherwise, cf. +mški‘men’s’ < CSl *mǫžьskъjь, just as 
möj ‘my’ < CSl *mojь.28 If so, one would expect inf †t(a)knt and pst.sg.f †t(a)knla, 
which are still different from the attested forms.
The unaccented form of the suffix apparently poses fewer problems. Baudouin de 
Courtenay is not very explicit as regards the reflexes of unaccented CSl *ǫ; he adduces 
some examples of both o and u, as well as a few in which the vowel is lost (Бодуэн-
де-Куртенэ 1875: 56). Logar (1981a: 37) points to *ǫ > o in Stolvizza. While these 
accounts do not contradict the reconstruction of *-nǫ-, it has to be borne in mind, as 
already mentioned above, that the data from unaccented syllables are generally a less 
reliable source for the reconstruction of the phonological evolution of Resian.
Considering the above, CSl *-nǫ- does not inspire confidence as a possible protoform 
of the suffix in Resian. In fact, the data are much better accounted for by CSl *-nu-, 
since, according to Steenwijk (1988; cf. also Vermeer 1993), accented *u yields ü in 
non-final syllables (as in +taknǘla) and, specifically, acute *ű in final syllables yields 
ü in San Giorgio (as in +taknǘl) and o [ɔ] elsewhere (as in +taknòt); recall the data from 
Table 2. While u is undeniably the basic reflex of unaccented *u, as in +|sednula, the 
discrepancy between u and o of standard sèdnut and Stolvizza sédnot, respectively, 
is paralleled e.g. by standard tríbuh and Stolvizza tríbo (with h > ∅), cf. literary Sln 
trebuh ‘belly’.
Table 3 summarizes the above interpretations concerning the accented suffix for 
both CSl *-nu- and CSl *-nǫ- (the expected reflexes that do not conform to the attested 
forms are marked in gray).
Table 3: Resian data vs. expected reflexes of CSl *-nu- and *-nǫ-
attested forms
expected reflexes of
*-nu- *-nǫ-
standard -not, -nüla -not, -nüla -not/-nöt/-nut, -nola/-nöla/-nula
San Giorgio -nüt, -nüla -nüt, -nüla -not/-nöt/-nut, -nola/-nöla/-nula
The question now is why the interpretation proposed here differs from previous 
accounts, which universally suggested the reconstruction with a nasal vowel, apart from 
the allusions to the development of the vowel *u mentioned above (Бодуэн-де-Куртенэ 
28 The Resian adjective möški may have acquired root stress due to the late, so-called tertiary retraction 
of the circumflex (cf. fn. 17), unlike in numerous other Slovene dialects and the standard language, where 
such a change did not take place. The type móški in standard Slovene must have resulted from another 
development, viz. the late retraction from final short vowels (cf. Ramovš 1936: 183), basically unknown 
to Resian. See Baudouin de Courtenay (Бодуэн-де-Куртенэ 1875: 55-6) for a morphophonological expla-
nation of Resian möž-.
143Rafał Szeptyński, Marek Majer: Common Slavic *-nǫ-, *-ny-, or *-nu-?
1875; Ramovš 1928; cf. also Logar 1981a). The misinterpretation going back to Baudouin 
de Courtenay probably resulted from:
i. his attachment to the reconstruction of the suffix with a nasal vowel based on 
the OCS29 and Pol counterparts,
ii. his problems in distinguishing u and ü,30
iii. the small number of examples with accented suffix in his material,31
iv. the sound changes that blurred the opposition between the reflexes of *ǫ and 
*u in certain positions, most notably in unaccented syllables, where the suffix 
occurs the most frequently.32
Before we proceed to the final conclusion, a brief note should be taken of the ma-
terial collected by Adayevskaya (von Schoultz-Adaïewski) and included by Baudouin 
de Courtenay in his edition of Resian dialectal texts. Her original records, while less 
systematic and using a somewhat different set of signs, comprise four forms relevant 
to the issue at hand, viz. inf taknut, taknüt, pst.sg.f taknüla ‘touch’, pst.sg.n perhnülo 
‘bow down’ (Бодуэнъ-де-Куртенэ 1895: 431-2; italics reversed, i.e., romans indicate 
the stress). Baudouin de Courtenay transcribes these forms as taknùt [×2], taknúla, perh-
núlo, respectively, and deems the single relevant text to represent the Oseacco dialect 
Бодуэнъ-де-Куртенэ 1895: 692), without providing any argument for this choice. While 
the lack of o in the final accented syllables of taknut, taknüt points to the San Giorgio 
dialect, this possibility is contradicted by the change g > h, e.g., in perhnülo. Be that as 
it may, the use of the diaeresis by Adayevskaya in three out of the four forms suggests 
some kind of marked articulation other than plain [u]. Thus, arguably, the modern data 
reflected in Steenwijk’s works are paralleled by material collected simultaneously with 
Baudouin de Courtenay’s investigations. Importantly, Adayevskaya was probably not 
diachronically biased as much as Baudouin de Courtenay may have been.
29 Baudouin de Courtenay invokes the OCS shape of the morpheme, -nǫ-, while discussing the Resian 
data (Бодуэн-де-Куртенэ 1875: 82).
30 While he acknowledges this explicitly only for San Giorgio Бодуэн-де-Куртенэ 1875: 56), it can be 
inferred also for the other villages from the numerous instances of ú in place of expected ǘ in the dialectal texts 
recorded and published by him (Бодуэнъ-де-Куртенэ 1895). Although many of these have been emended 
in the famously tremendous errata, a large number of such examples still remains valid.
31 There are 5 instances of the accented suffix in non-final syllables (Бодуэнъ-де-Куртенэ 1895: 4 [×2], 
11, 222, 365), all of them rendered by Baudouin de Courtenay with u, not ü. Importantly, 3 of them come 
from San Giorgio, which makes them ambiguous in Baudouin de Courtenay’s terms (cf. fn. 30). Incidentally, 
it was the 12 instances of the accented suffix in final syllables (Бодуэнъ-де-Куртенэ 1895: 6 [×2], 7, 76, 
79, 109, 127, 222 [×2], 323, 349, 367), pointing to *-nu- and not *-nǫ-, that made the scholar implicitly 
connect the development of the suffixal vowel with *u (cf. above). Note, however, that a cross-reference to 
the discussion of the vowel in the nasal suffix is ultimately placed in the paragraph devoted to the reflexes 
of *ǫ (Бодуэн-де-Куртенэ 1875: 56), not *u.
32 There are 30 examples of the unaccented suffix in Baudouin de Courtenay’s material, some of which 
include mid-close and mid back vowels, variously marked. In fact, the optional change of unaccented *u 
to o in Baudouin de Courtenay’s texts can be demonstrated (also outside the suffix in question) not only 
for Stolvizza.
Slavistična revija, letnik 72/2024, št. 2, april–junij144
In conclusion, the above analysis revealed that the traditional reconstruction of the 
CSl nasal suffix with *ǫ is unable to account directly for the outcome observable in the 
Resian dialect. The modern Resian data published by Steenwijk and corroborated by 
Adayevskaya’s as well as, only partially, by Baudouin de Courtenay’s earlier records 
(cf. fn. 31) point rather unambiguously to the vowel *u, i.e., *-nu-.33
4.4 Regular -nu- in Slovene dialects: Jaun Valley
The reflexes of the nasal suffix in the dialects of Jaun Valley (Ge Jauntal, Sln 
Podjuna) and the easternmost part of Rosen Valley (Ge Rosental, Sln Rož) have never 
been explicitly analyzed, to our knowledge. Since unaccented high vowels are basically 
reduced in Carinthia, we will review the data for the suffix in accented position only. 
The relevant material was collected:
i.  by Grafenauer in the 1960s for the Slovene Linguistic Atlas (SLA): St. Kanzian 
am Klopeiner See/Škocijan (SLA T027);
ii. by Logar in the 1960s for the Slovene Linguistic Atlas (SLA): Sittersdorf/
Žitara vas (SLA T028), Rinkolach/Rinkole (SLA T036), Wiederndorf/Vidra 
vas (SLA T038); by Logar, undated, for the Slavic Linguistic Atlas (OLA): 
Grafenbach/Kneža (OLA T148); cf. also his two descriptions of the Grafenbach 
dialect (Logar 1968; 1981b);
iii. by Zdovc in his more comprehensive work (1972).
In the northern part of the territory of the Jaun Valley dialect, the suffix usually 
contains the vowel u, cf. for Grafenbach: pst.sg.m minú: (OLA T148: 2371), pst.sg.f 
səxnù:ua̯ || səĥnù:ua̯ (OLA T148: 2488), pst.pl.m uziĥnú:lə, minú:lə (OLA T148: 3043); 
for Diex: pst.pl.f səhnúla (Zdovc 1972: 106, 123). One example from Grafenbach 
shows a nasal reflex, cf. pst.pl.f u̯zihnónla (Logar 1968: 407). In the central part, over 
the Drava, nasal vowels predominate – cf. for Rinkolach and Wiederndorf: pst.pl.m 
u̯zignli, pst.pl.f u̯̯zignu̯e (SLA T036: 841a; T038: 841a). The vowel u shows up 
again in the neighboring part of the Rosen Valley dialect, still on the right bank of the 
Drava – cf. for St. Kanzian am Klopeiner See and Sittersdorf, respectively: pst.sg.f 
pəxnȗła (SLA T027: 855), pst.sg.f pəxnȗu̯a (SLA T028: 855).
In light of the descriptions by Logar (1968; 1981b) and Zdovc (1972), the vowels u 
and ọ̃ directly correspond to CSl *u and *ǫ, respectively. Two conclusions arise in this 
connection. First, we see here yet another peripheral Slovene area exhibiting reflexes 
of *-nǫ- (cf. above on Pannonian; conventionally Resian is included here too, which 
33 While the material collected for the Slovene Linguistic Atlas (SLA) by Logar and Rigler in 1962 in 
San Giorgio di Resia/Bila, Gniva/Njiva, Oseacco/Osojani, and Stolvizza/Solbica (SLA T056-T059: 841a) 
agrees with Baudouin de Courtenay’s account in displaying u, not ü (exclusively in some secondary present 
forms mentioned in fn. 24, however), Steenwijk’s and Šekli’s personal communications and, most importan-
tly, entire paradigms of all three accentual types presented by Luigia Negro (Stolvizza) and Dino Valente 
(Oseacco) to Šekli and one of the authors in June 2023 leave no doubt that both the modern pronunciation 
ü as well as the relevant vowel alternations match the expected reflex of CSl *-nu-.
145Rafał Szeptyński, Marek Majer: Common Slavic *-nǫ-, *-ny-, or *-nu-?
we dismiss in §4.3). Second, an even more peripheral area exhibits reflexes of *-nu-; 
quite strikingly, it also seems to reflect an extremely old (even if somewhat labile) 
isogloss *-nu- : *-nǫ-, more or less strictly connected to the irregular nasalization of 
u after nasal consonants (cf. §5).34
5 Evaluation
Although we are not aware of any positive evidence for CSl *-nu- anywhere else 
in the ‘phonologically probative’ varieties,35 we are convinced that the Slovene data 
discussed in §4 on their own suffice to consider *-nu- not only as a heuristic stipulation, 
but as a tangible entity, reflected directly, if scantily, in the material. The discussion 
of the Slovene material and its basic relationship with the broader Slavic background 
can be summarized as follows.
Whereas most Slovene dialects reflect CSl *-ny-, some peripheral ones point to 
either *-nǫ- (as commonly acknowledged in previous literature) or *-nu- (as suggested 
in this paper). Of the two, the latter occurs in dialects that are peripheral not only from 
the Slovene but also from the general Slavic perspective, and may therefore be con-
sidered more archaic. The dialect areas in question are those of Resia Valley (It Resia, 
Sln Rezija) and the northern Jaun Valley (Ge Jauntal, Sln Podjuna), together with the 
easternmost part of the Rosen Valley (Ge Rosental, Sln Rož). As is known, these areas 
have not been reached by certain other early and almost pan-Slovene innovations: cf. 
the non-retraction of stress from final short syllables in Resia or the retention of nasal 
vowels in Jaun Valley, or, in the sphere of morphology, the retention of synthetic past 
tenses (aorist and imperfect) in Resia. More central – and thus probably innovative 
– are the reflexes of *-nǫ- in the central Jaun Valley dialect as well as in Pannonian. 
Apparently, the establishment of the variant *-nǫ- reached the central Jaun Valley dialect 
but basically left its northern part intact. The expansion of the variant *-ny- (i.e., the 
tendency to generalize it) proceeded differently: certain other, more western Carinthian 
and Upper Carniolan dialects were affected by it but they retained a single residual verb 
in *-nu-, minuti. Regrettably, the Slovene material does not allow for reconstructing 
the original intrasystemic distribution of *-nu-, *-nǫ-, and *-ny- (cf., however, some 
basic remarks on minuti in §4.2). The results that we consider certain based on data 
currently available to us are outlined in Figure 1. What remains to be investigated in 
future studies is, first and foremost, whether it is possible to demonstrate a continuity 
in reflecting *-nǫ- between the Jaun Valley and Pannonian areas.
34 One may argue that it is u that has emerged secondarily, e.g. due to the generalization of unaccented 
reflexes of *ǫ: cf. pst.sg.f uz̯ȋgnuua̯ in Rinkolach and Wiederndorf (SLA T036: 841a; T038: 841a). But apart 
from the fact that unaccented allomorphs are usually recessive rather than dominant, this scenario fails to 
explain the reduction in the infinitive, which occurs even in the dialects with the nasal vowel in the suffix: 
cf. u̯zȉgn̥te in Rinkolach and Wiederndorf (SLA T036: 841a; T038: 841a). Since the reduction points to *u 
and not *ǫ, one would have to assume a chain of non-trivial steps to account for the actual picture.
35 In Polabian, -nĕt could represent either *-nyti or *-nuti. According to Paweł Janczulewicz (p.c.), the 
philological evidence makes the position of the variant -nĕt (vis-à-vis regular -nǫt) insecure. Janczulewicz 
intends to treat the issue elsewhere.
Slavistična revija, letnik 72/2024, št. 2, april–junij146
Figure 1: Rough areas of the variants *-nǫ-, *-ny-, and newly determined *-nu- in Slovene 
(including material from OLA and SLA; scope of Slovene dialects after Gostenčnik 2023)
6 Conclusion
The direct confirmation of the existence of CSl *-nu- is potentially of considerable 
significance for the diachronic explanation of the evolution of the nasal suffix, i.e. both 
its Indo-European prehistory and the development of the Common Slavic variation. A 
reevaluation of these topics is thus necessary – a task which we will attempt to carry 
out in a separate study (Majer, Szeptyński 2024).
abbreviations
CSl – Common Slavic; Ge – German; IE – Indo-European; It – Italian; O – Old; OCS 
– Old Church Slavic; Plb – Polabian; Pol – Polish; P – Proto-; Sl – Slavic; Sln – Slovene; 
USorb – Upper Sorbian. Grammatical glosses in small caps follow the Leipzig Glossing 
Rules (Online), extended by: aor – aorist.
references
AJK14 = Hanna popowska-taborska et al., 1977: Atlas językowy kaszubszczyzny i 
dialektów sąsiednich. Vol. XIV. Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków, Gdańsk: Zakład 
Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Henning andersen, 1999: The Western South Slavic contrast Sn. sah-ni-ti // SC sah-
-nu-ti. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 2. 47-62. Also online.
147Rafał Szeptyński, Marek Majer: Common Slavic *-nǫ-, *-ny-, or *-nu-?
Henning andersen, 2020: On the formation of the Common Slavic koiné. New 
Perspectives on the Early Slavs and the Rise of Slavic. Contact and Migrations. 
Ed. Tomáš Klír et al. Heidelberg: Winter. 11-42.
Peeter arumaa, 1985: Urslavische Grammatik. Vol. III. Formenlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
Besedje16 = Kozma AhAčič et al., 2014: Besedje slovenskega knjižnega jezika 16. 
stoletja. Online.
France bezlaj, 1982: Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika. Vol. II. K–O. Ljubljana: 
SAZU.
Richard bígl, 2019: Vývoj lužickosrbského časování a slovotvorby. Praha: Karolinum.
Anita Celinić, Mira MenAC-MihAlić, 2017: Poveznice i razdjelnice u srodnim jezičnim 
sustavima. Jezikoslovni zapiski 23/1. 93-105. Also online.
Januška Gostenčnik, 2023: Narečna klasifikacija govora Ravne Gore v Gorskem kotarju. 
Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 15. 41-73. Also online.
Marc L. greenberg (ed.), 2020: Prekmurje Slovene Grammar: Avgust Pavel’s Vend 
nyelvtan (1942). Leiden, Boston: Brill, Rodopi. Also online.
Anton JAnežič, 1854: Slovenska slovnica s kratkim pregledom slovenskega slovstva 
ter z malim cirilskim in glagoliškim berilom za Slovence. Celovec: Eduard Liegel. 
Also online.
Kastelec ms 169 = Matija kastelec: Dictionarium Latino-Carniolicum. 168?. Online.
Kastelec ms 803 = Matija kastelec: Dictionarium Latino-Carniolicum. 168?. Online.
Korpus16 = Kozma AhAčič et al. (ed.), 2019: Korpus 16: Korpus besedil slovenskih 
protestantskih piscev 16. stoletja. Različica 1.0. Online.
Rado lenček, 1985: Is there a -ni- : -ne- isogloss in the South Slavic speech area? 
Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku 27-28. 395-403.
Jouko lindstedt, Elina salmela, 2020: Migrations and language shifts as components 
of the Slavic spread. New Perspectives on the Early Slavs and the Rise of Slavic. 
Contact and Migrations. Ed. Tomáš Klír et al. Heidelberg: Winter. 275-300.
Tine logar, 1968: Dialektološke študije XIV. Govor vasi Kneža na Koroškem. 
Slavistična revija 16/1. 395-412. Also online.
Tine logar, 1972: Rezijanski dialekt (Glasoslovna skica). VIII. Seminar slovenskega 
jezika, literature in kulture. Ed. Breda Pogorelec. Ljubljana: Univerza, Filozofska 
fakulteta, Oddelek za slovanske jezike in književnosti. 1-10.
Tine logar, 1981a: Solbica (Stolvizza; OLA 1). Fonološki opisi srpskohrvatskih-
-hrvatskosrpskih, slovenačkih i makedonskih govora obuhvaćenih opšteslovenskim 
lingvističkim atlasom. Ed. Pavle Ivić. Sarajevo: ANUBiH. 35-40. Also online.
Tine logar, 1981b: Kneža (Grafenbach; OLA 148). Fonološki opisi srpskohrvatskih-
-hrvatskosrpskih, slovenačkih i makedonskih govora obuhvaćenih opšteslovenskim 
lingvističkim atlasom. Ed. Pavle Ivić. Sarajevo: ANUBiH. 201-11. Also online.
Grant H. lundberg, 2013: Dialect Leveling in Haloze, Slovenia. Maribor: Zora. Also 
online.
Marek majer, 2019: The Slavic source of Albanian venit(em) ‘wane’, mahnit(em) 
‘astound’ and certain other verbs. Contributions to the 22nd Annual Scientific 
Conference of the Association of Slavists (Polyslav). Ed. Enrique Gutiérrez Rubio 
et al. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 156-65. Also online.
Slavistična revija, letnik 72/2024, št. 2, april–junij148
Marek majer, Rafał szeptyński, 2024 Common Slavic *-nǫ-, *-ny-, or *-nu-? A new 
look at the history of the Slavic nasal suffix. The diachronic background and the 
rise of the Common Slavic variation. Slavistična revija 72/3.
Siegfried michalk, 1962: Der obersorbische Dialekt von Neustadt. Bautzen/Budyšin: 
Domowina-Verlag.
Franz miklosich, 1868-1874: Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen. Vol. 
IV. Syntax. Wien: Braumüller. Also online.
Franz miklosich, 1879: Über die langen Vocale in den slavischen Sprachen. Wien: 
Karl Gerold’s Sohn. Also online.
Franz miklosich, 1886: Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen. Wien: 
Braumüller. Also online.
Anton J. murko, 1843: Theoretisch-practische Grammatik der Slowenischen Sprache 
in Steiermark, Kärnten, Krain und dem illyrischen Küstenlande. Grätz: Verlag der 
Fr. Ferstl’schen Buchhandlung. Also online.
Rajko nahtigall, 1915: Freisingensia. II. Zastopniki prv. slovan. nosnih samoglas-
nikov v brižinskih spomenikih. Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 12. 77-122. 
Also online.
Vatroslav oblak, 1890: Doneski k historični slovenski dialektologiji. Letopis Matice 
slovenske za leto 1890. 1890. 180-236. Also online.
Ochr. see Охр.
OLA 148 = OLA T148 Kneža/Grafenbach. Excerpt from Slavic Linguistic Atlas data, 
Fran Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana.
Thomas olander, 2009: Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 
Also online.
Maks pleteršnik, 1894: Slovensko-nemški slovar izdan na troške rajnega knezoškofa 
ljubljanskega Antona Alojzija Wolfa. Vol. I. A–O. Ljubljana: Katoliška tiskarna. 
Also online.
Pravopis = Jože toporišič et al., 2007: Slovenski pravopis. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 
Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. Also online.
Tijmen pronk, 2009: The Slovene Dialect of Egg and Potschach in the Gailtal, Austria. 
Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi. Also online.
Tijmen pronk, 2011: Narečje Ziljske doline in splošnoslovenski pomik cirkumfleksa. 
Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 8. 5-17. Also online.
Tijmen pronk, 2022: The verbal suffix *-nǫ-/-ny- in Western South Slavic dialects. 
Hrvatski dijalektološki zbornik 26. 103-17. Also online.
Franz ramovš, 1920: Slovenische Studien. Archiv für Slavische Philologie 37. 123-74, 
289-330. Also online.
Fr[an] ramovš, 1922: Výjimečné u místo pravidelného ọ za ǫ v slovinštině. Časopis 
pro moderní filologii a literatury 8/1. 1-8. Also online.
Franc ramovš, 1928: Karakteristika slovenskega narečja v Reziji. Časopis za slovenski 
jezik, književnost in zgodovino 8/1-4. 107-21. Also online.
Fran ramovš, 1936: Kratka zgodovina slovenskega jezika. Vol. I. Ljubljana: Akademska 
založba. Also online.
Resianica = Han steenwijk, 2002: Resianica. Online. Currently inactive.
Sav. see Сав.
149Rafał Szeptyński, Marek Majer: Common Slavic *-nǫ-, *-ny-, or *-nu-?
Gunter schaarschmidt, 1998: A Historical Phonology of the Upper and Lower Sorbian 
Languages. Heidelberg: Winter.
Janez scheinigg, 1881: Obraz rožanskega razrečja na Koroškem. Kres. Leposloven in 
znanstven list 1/8. 459-65. Also online.
Janez scheinigg, 1882a: Obraz rožanskega razrečja na Koroškem. Kres. Leposloven 
in znanstven list 2/10. 529-32. Also online.
Janez scheinigg, 1882b: Die Assimilation in Rosenthaler Dialect. Ein Beitrag zur kärn-
tisch-slovenischen Dialectforschung. XXXII. Programm des k.k. Staats-Gymnasiums 
zu Klagenfurt. Ed. Ludwig Schmued. Klagenfurt: St. Hermagoras-Buchdruckerei. 
3-27. Also online.
Roel schuyt, 1990: The Morphology of Slavic Verbal Aspect: A Descriptive and 
Historical Study. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi. Also online.
SLA T027 = SLA T027 Škocijan. Excerpt from Slovenian Linguistic Atlas data, Fran 
Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana.
SLA T028 = SLA T028 Žitara vas. Excerpt from Slovenian Linguistic Atlas data, Fran 
Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana.
SLA T036 = SLA T036 Rinkole. Excerpt from Slovenian Linguistic Atlas data, Fran 
Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana.
SLA T038 = SLA T038 Vidra vas. Excerpt from Slovenian Linguistic Atlas data, Fran 
Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana.
SLA T056 = SLA T056 Bila. Excerpt from Slovenian Linguistic Atlas data, Fran Ramovš 
Institute of the Slovenian Language ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana.
SLA T057 = SLA T057 Njiva. Excerpt from Slovenian Linguistic Atlas data, Fran 
Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana.
SLA T058 = SLA T058 Osojani. Excerpt from Slovenian Linguistic Atlas data, Fran 
Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana.
SLA T059 = SLA T059 Solbica. Excerpt from Slovenian Linguistic Atlas data, Fran 
Ramovš Institute of the Slovenian Language, ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana.
Marko snoj, 2020: Slovar Pohlinovega jezika. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, ISJFR. Also online.
Snoj 3SES = Marko snoj, 2016: Slovenski etimološki slovar. 3rd ed. Ljubljana: ZRC 
SAZU, ISJFR. Also online.
SSA12 = Helmut faßke et al., 1998: Sorbischer Sprachatlas. Vol. XII. Morphologie: Die 
Flexion der Adjektive, Pronomen und Verben. Bautzen/Budyšin: Domowina-Verlag.
SSKJ = Anton bajec et al., 2014: Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika. Ljubljana: SAZU 
in ZRC SAZU, ISJFR. Also online.
Jože stabej, 1997: Slovensko-latinski slovar po: Matija Kastelec – Gregor Vorenc, 
Dictionarium Latino-Carniolicum (1680-1710). Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU. Also online.
Han steenwijk, 1988: Sestav naglašenih samoglasnikov v belskem govoru. Slavistična 
revija 36/4. 331-7. Also online.
Han steenwijk, 1992: The Slovene Dialect of Resia: San Giorgio. Amsterdam, Atlanta: 
Rodopi. Also online.
Han steenwijk, 2008: The microstructure of the Resianica dictionary. Evidence and 
Counter-Evidence: Essays in Honour of Frederik Kortlandt. Vol. I. Balto-Slavic 
and Indo-European Linguistics. Ed. Alexander Lubotsky et al. Amsterdam, New 
York: Rodopi. 527-42. Also online.
Slavistična revija, letnik 72/2024, št. 2, april–junij150
Supr. = David J. birnbaum et al. (ed.), 2013: Codex Suprasliensis. Online.
Matej šekli, 2007: Narečjeslovje in zgodovinska slovnica kot pomoč pri razumevanju 
pravorečja in pravopisa (na primeru zasoplih samoglasnikov v rezijanskem kra-
jevnem knjižnem jeziku). Živeti mejo. Ed. Miran Košuta. Trst: Slavistično društvo 
Slovenije. 184-95. Also online.
Jožica škofic, 1997: Fonološki opis govora Krope (SLA 202). Jezikoslovni zapiski 
3/1. 175-89. Also online.
Jožica škofic, 2004: Fonološki opis govora Juršincev v Slovenskih goricah (SLA 378). 
Jezikoslovni zapiski 10/2. 103-19. Also online.
Jožica škofic, 2008: Oblikospreminjevalni vzorci glagola v gorenjskem kroparskem 
govoru. Jezikoslovni zapiski 14/2. 11-38. Also online.
Jožica škofic, 2019: Krajevni govor Krope. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU. Also online.
Janez šólar, 1873: Deutsch-slovenisches Wörterbuch zu Prof. K. A. Madiera’s deutschen 
Lesebüchern für die 1. und 2. Klasse an Mittelschulen. Leibach: Ign. v. Kleinmayr, 
Fed. Bamberg. Also online.
Ema štarkl, 2023: Narečna glagolska pripona -na- v celjskem mestnem govoru. Škrabčevi 
dnevi 12. Zbornik prispevkov s simpozija 2021. Ed. Danila Zuljan Kumar, Helena 
Dobrovoljc. Nova Gorica: Založba Univerze v Novi Gorici. 57-70. Also online.
Paul tedesco, 1948: Slavic ne-presents from older je-presents. Language 24/4. 346-
87. Also online.
André vaillant, 1948a: Manuel du vieux slave. Vol. I. Grammaire. Paris: Institut 
d’Études Slaves.
André vaillant, 1948b: La préface de l’Évangéliaire vieux-slave. Revue des Études 
Slaves 24/1-4. 5-20. Also online.
André vaillant, 1966: Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. III. Le verbe. 
Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.
Willem vermeer, 1993: L’origine delle differenze locali nei sistemi vocalici del resia-
no. Fondamenti per una grammatica pratica resiana. Ed. Han Steenwijk. Padova: 
CLEUP. 119-47.
Miguel villanueva svensson, 2010: Baltic sta-presents and the Indo-European desi-
derative. Indogermanische Forschungen 115. 204-33. Also online.
Miguel villanueva svensson, 2016: Zero-grade denominative nasal and sta-presents 
in Baltic. Baltistica 51/1. 37-59. Also online.
Silvana VrAnić, 2017: Refleksi *ǫ u istarskim čakavskim govorima zastupljenim u 
dijalektološkim atlasima. Hrvatski dijalektološki zbornik 21. 283-97. Also online.
Anton Alois wolf, 1860: Deutsch-slovenisches Wörterbuch. Vols. I.-II. Laibach: Josef 
Blasnik. Also online [1], [2].
Paul zdovc, 1972: Die Mundart des südöstlichen Jauntales in Kärnten: Lautlehre 
und Akzent der Mundart der „Poljanci“. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der 
Wissenschaften.
Иван А. Бодуэн-де-Куртенэ, 1875: Опыт фонетики резьянских говоров. Варшава, 
Peterburg: Э. Венде и Ко – Д. Е. Кожанчиков. Also online.
[Jan A. baudouin de courtenay, 1875: Opyt fonetiki rez’janskih govorov. Varšava, 
Peterburg: È. Vende i Ko – D. E. Kožančikov].
151Rafał Szeptyński, Marek Majer: Common Slavic *-nǫ-, *-ny-, or *-nu-?
Иванъ А. Бодуэнъ-де-Куртенэ, 1895: Материалы для южнославянской діалектологіи 
и этнографіи, I. Резьянскіе тексты. Санктпетербургъ: М. Глазуновъ et al. 
Also online.
[Jan A. baudouin de courtenay, 1895: Materialy dlja južnoslavjanskoj dialektologii i 
ètnografii, I. Rez’janskie teksty. Sanktpeterburg”: M. Glazunov” et al.].
Мира Менац-Михалич, Анита целинич, 2016: Глагольные суффиксы *nǫ/*ny в 
Хорватии. Труды Института русского языка им. В. В. Виноградова 8. 95-114. 
Also online.
[Mira MenAC-MihAlić, Anita Celinić, 2016: Glagol’nye suffiksy *nǫ/*ny v Horvatii. 
Trudy Instituta russkogo jazyka im. V. V. Vinogradova 8. 95-114].
Ангелина Минчева, 1978: Старобългарски кирилски откъслеци. София: Издателство 
на БАН.
[Angelina MinčeVA, 1978: Starob’’lgarski kirilski otk’’sleci. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na BAN].
Охр. = Григорий Андреевич ильинсКий et al., 1915: Охридскіе глаголическіе 
листки. Отрывокъ древне-церковно-славянскаго евангелія XI в. Петроградъ: 
Типографія Императорской Академіи Наукъ. Also online.
[Ohr. = Grigorij Andreevič il’inskij et al., 1915: Ohridskie glagoličeskie listki. Otryvok” 
drevne-cerkovno-slavjanskago evangelija XI v. Petrograd”: Tipografija Imperatorskoj 
Akademii Nauk”].
Сав. = Евангелие апракос краткий "Саввина книга". Online.
[Sav. = Evangelie aprakos kratkij "Savvina kniga"].
Віталій Г. сКляренКо, 1998: Праслов’янська акцентологія. Київ: Українська книга.
[Vіtalіj H. skljarenko, 1998: Praslov’jans’ka akcentolohіja. Kyjiv: Ukrajins̕ ka knyha].
povzetek
Pripono nedoločniške/aoristne osnove splošnoslovanskih glagolov II. vrste se danes obi-
čajno rekonstruira, odvisno od narečnega območja, bodisi kot *-nǫ- (tako v večini slovanskih 
jezikov: starocerkvenoslovansko -nǫ-, poljsko -ną-, vzhodnoslovansko -nu- itn.), bodisi kot 
*-ny- (le na delu zahodnega obrobja: slovensko ter narečno bosansko/hrvaško/srbsko -ni-, 
morda tudi gornjelužiško -ny-, polabsko -nӗ- itn.). V pričujočem prispevku argumentirava, 
da ta razlaga še vedno ni ustrezna, saj se z njo ne da pojasniti nekaterih oblik znotraj dela 
slovenskega narečnega gradiva.
Na podlagi notranje rekonstrukcije (npr. trpni deležnik na *-nov-en-) ter primerjave z 
drugimi indoevropskimi jeziki (pie. *-new-) se je že dolgo domnevalo, da je bila najstarejša 
splošnoslovanska oblika te pripone *-nu- (domnevna izvirnejša faza nazaliziranega *-nǫ-). 
Opozorjeno je bilo na dejstvo, da nekateri starocerkvenoslovanski rokopisi sicer izpričujejo 
zapise z <-nu->, vendar pa poglobljena analiza pokaže, da v tem primeru ne gre za spsl. *-nu-. 
Medtem pa natančna raziskava slovenskih narečnih podatkov kaže na to, da morajo nekateri 
obrobni govori zares odražati praobliko *-nu-: rezijansko -nü-, (severno)podjunsko -nu-, (vzhod-
no)rožansko -nu-. Leksikalizirani ostanki le-te različice so sicer v slovenščini zastopljeni tudi 
širše (npr. v glagolu minuti ‘miniti’ na Gorenjskem in deloma na Koroškem).
Slavistična revija, letnik 72/2024, št. 2, april–junij152
Obstoj arhaične spsl. oblike *-nu- je bila doslej le domneva, ki je temeljila na posrednih 
ali neveljavnih dokazih. Zato je dognanje, podano v prispevku, relevantno tako za slovensko 
kot za slovansko jezikoslovje.
Poskus celotne diahrone razlage nastanka spsl. različic, ob upoštevanju novih interpretacij 
slovenskega gradiva, bo naloga ločene prihodnje študije.