7.1.1 General Information

The complex system of Slavic inflectional morphology covers two domains, nominal and verbal. Nominal inflection or ‘declension’ applies to parts of speech within the noun phrase: substantives (nouns), adjectives (participles, etc.), pronouns (determiners, etc.), and numerals. PSL pronoun inflectional morphology largely differed from substantives; adjectives aligned strictly with substantives, while numerals were split between the two. In Late Common Slavic (LCS) and later Slavic, this configuration evolved towards sovereign adjectival and numeral declensions.

The present succinct survey omits many issues; more in-depth descriptions can be found in works such as Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń (1997), Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley (2006), Reference Hentschel, Th and KempgenHentschel & Menzel (2009), or Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda (2014), all cited liberally below.

7.1.2 Categories of Inflection

PSL nominals distinguished seven case forms (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, locative, and vocative) and three numbers (singular, dual, plural). Parts of speech displaying agreement also inflected for three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter). The full distinction of the possible combinations of all these categories was never reached in practice (Section 7.1.3).

The earliest written varieties such as OCS or ORus. retain an identical system, while the later Slavic languages introduced various kinds of innovations. The chief ones were the collapse of case and number categories (Section 7.4.3; in the latter sphere, only targeting the dual) or the rise of new ones (peripheral cases of Rus., paucal number, etc.; Section 7.4.2) as well as the development of virility/animacy distinctions (so that the gender systems in the modern Slavic languages are typically more complex – cf. Reference CorbettCorbett 1988, Reference Doleschal and KempgenDoleschal 2009: 145–147; see also Section 7.4.1).

7.1.3 Basic Structural Properties

Inflection is a pervasive feature of Slavic nominals; gaining a declensional paradigm typically indicates that a new item (e.g. loanword or delocutive) has integrated into a given type of nominal (Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 228). Instances of indeclinability or defectivity are all the more noteworthy (Section 7.4.4).

Inflection mostly uses suffixes (‘endings’, ‘desinences’); prefixes mark superlatives and comparatives in some languages (Section 7.3.2). Reduplication is likewise an extremely rare strategy in Slavic inflection. It was historically resorted to in a few instances where earlier forms became phonotactically inadmissible or cumbersome – for example, following the jer shift, in the nom.sg.m of pronouns with non-syllabic stems, such as *t-ъ (OCS, ORus. tъ) → *t-ъ-t-ъ (Rus. tot). The synchronic analysis of such forms as reduplicated is open to doubt.

In the prehistory of LCS, case/number markers came to be preceded by ‘theme vowels’, which later coalesced with the markers themselves (Sections 7.2.2–2.3); hence, overt inflectional endings in Slavic nominal morphology predominantly begin with vowels (Reference Greenberg and KapovićGreenberg 2017: 534), with exceptions such as the ins.pl marker -mi in several modern languages or the gen.sg.m/n -ho in certain paradigms in Slk. The marking of some categories was further aided by phonological alternations and prosodic distinctions (Sections 7.4.8–4.9).

In PSL, the declensional endings themselves – typically following theme vowels – could contain between zero and three segments (Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1566). Exceptionally, as a result of processes such as contamination of competing endings or diachronic absorption of thematic morphemes (or even of original derivational suffixes; Section 7.4.7), this maximum composition is longer in some modern languages; in BCS dialects: nom.sg dan-∅ m ‘day’, dat/ins/loc.pl dan-iman (Imotski/Bekija, Reference ŠimundićŠimundić 1971: 88–89), or in ESSl. dialects: sg serce-∅ n ‘heart’, pl serce-nišča ‘hearts’ (Nestram; Reference VidoeskiVidoeski 1999: 182–184). There is a tendency for plural and dual markers to be longer than singular ones (which Reference JakobsonJakobson 1971b: 352 famously interprets as an example of iconic marking; cf. Reference HaspelmathHaspelmath 2021 for a frequency- and economy-based approach), but as an actual driving force, it often fails to react quickly – or at all – to diachronic phonological developments. Thus, exceptions are not rare (disyllabic u-stem dat.sg *-ovi; monosyllabic > null o/ā-stem gen.pl *-ъ). On the other hand, certain novel diachronic interpretations may reveal a greater adherence to this pattern than once thought (cf. Reference 158GorbachovGorbachov 2017 for the argument that the o-stem gen.du had the LCS form *-oju, not *-u). Endings of the pronominal (and later adjectival) declension tend to be longer than those found on substantives (Reference Hentschel, Th and KempgenHentschel & Menzel 2009: 174), a fact which largely reflects their diachronic origins.

Pre-PSL already had fully synthetic endings that could not be broken down into elements marking case and number; whatever internal case vs. number structure had existed in the corresponding singular and plural endings was obsolescent in PIE and effaced by PSL due to phonological erosion (cf. Table 7.1). This state persists in the Slavic languages; instances of new quasi-agglutinative patterns (note the discussion on extended plural stems further below) do not alter the general picture.

Subtractive marking (typological discussion in Reference ManovaManova 2011: 125–147), which found some use in inflection in late PIE and pre-PSL, is not normally encountered in the systems of Slavic declensions, although its reanalyzed effects are attested – particularly in the synchronically ‘non-extended’ nom(/acc).sg forms of consonant stems (Sln. nom.sg mati ‘mother’, gen.sg mater-e, dat.sg mater-i; the ultimate diachronic source of this pattern is the word-final loss of consonants, although numerous morphological factors were involved).

Null markers in the modern languages are generally found only in the nom(/acc).sg and gen(/acc).pl; the latter position is far less stable diachronically (as arguably expected considering iconic or frequency-related tendencies; Section 7.1.3). Both null markers constitute a product of recent phonological changes; still in LCS, both had the unremarkable shape -V, while in pre-PSL times the structure was even fuller. Other null markers in Slavic declension are exceptional and language-specific (cf. the Rus. ‘new vocative’ Maš-∅ ‘Masha!’; Section 7.4.3).

In contrast to the verbal domain, declensional endings are typically added to a unitary nominal stem, which therefore carries lexical information only (Reference Hock and RehderHock 2006: 39–41). Exceptional examples of more than one inflectional stem include (i) former singulatives with the element -in-, as in BCS singular Arap-in-u ‘Arab-sgl-dat.sg’ vs. Arap-ima ‘Arab-dat.pl’ – synchronically interpretable as a shortened plural stem; (ii) quasi-suppletive paradigms such as Rus. singular cypl-ënk-om ‘chick-sg.stem-ins.sg’ vs. plural cypl-jat-ami ‘chick-pl.stem-instr.pl’, arising from derivational morphology reinterpreted as inflectional (Section 7.4.7); (iii) SSl. patterns in certain masculine nouns, mostly monosyllabic, in which the plural stem is extended by -ov- (Sln. grad-∅ ‘castle’, nom.pl grad-ov-i, dat.pl grad-ov-om), historically abstracted from the u-stem component of Macroclass I (Section 7.2.3).

Declensional endings generally occur in absolute word-final position, appended to a stem formed from roots, derivational suffixes, etc. Only by way of exception can they be followed by post-inflectional morphemes (‘postfixes’, Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 218; typological discussion cf. Reference Körtvélyessy and ŠtekauerKörtvélyessy & Štekauer 2018), chiefly found in pronouns (Bul. edi-koj-∅-si ‘so-and-so’ indf-who-sg.m-indf, edi-koj-a-si indf-who-sg.f-indf – Cze. t-oho-to ‘this’ dem-gen.sg.m-dem, t-ím-to dem-ins.sg.m-dem) or in participles of reflexive verbs (Rus. brej-ušč-ij-sja ‘shave-ptcp-nom.sg.m-refl’, brej-ušč-ego-sja ‘shave-ptcp-gen.sg.m-refl’). The Slavic languages attest processes of diachronic rearrangement towards canonical inflection-final order (Reference HaspelmathHaspelmath 1993); for example, the variant root shapes of ‘every’ (Rus. každ-yj, USo. kóžd-y, OPol. kieżd-y) point to the erstwhile site of inflection preceding the element -žd-, as still preserved in OCS and other early varieties (k-yi-žьdo ‘every’ which-nom.sg-indf, k-ojego-žьdo which-gen.sg-indf). For less obvious historical cases see Reference MajerMajer (2015). The transformation can also be observed as an ongoing process in the reinforced demonstratives of colloquial Sln.: standard t-emu-le dem-dat.sg.m-reinf vs. innovated colloquial tele-mu dem.reinf-dat.sg.m (Reference Marušič, Žaucer, Marković, Halupka-Rešetar, Milićević and MilićMarušič & Žaucer 2012).

The organization of inflectional patterns into classes, or ‘declensions’, has shifted quite dramatically over time, with LCS differing considerably both from the modern Slavic languages (where declensional classes correlate more clearly with gender; Section 7.2.3) and from earlier, prehistorical stages (Section 7.2.4).

The paradigms of the modern standard languages possess at most six discrete case forms across one given number, and typically fewer (Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 266–267). The trend has been towards the reduction of distinctiveness of forms and the concomitant increase in functional burden for the particular endings (Section 7.4.3). There is also a tendency to concentrate more distinctive morphological capacity in the singular than in the plural (Reference Hentschel, Th and KempgenHentschel & Menzel 2009: 167), though it is not overly forceful; in fact, the LCS stage happened to contradict this universal propensity as a result of the (diachronically young) homonymy of nom.sg and acc.sg in key paradigms. The dual is formally impoverished vis-à-vis the other numbers wherever it is preserved, which continues the state of LCS (and PIE); but see Section 7.4.5. Adjectival/pronominal declensions tend to express somewhat fewer distinctions than substantival ones, and the patterns in numerals are often even less complex (Sections 7.3.1–3.3).

The declensional patterns of Slavic have enjoyed extraordinary prominence in theoretical discussions of case and several related fields, particularly at certain formative stages of their development (see Reference Parker, Fellerer and BermelParker forthcoming for an overview).

7.2.1 General Information

Since the arrangement of declensional classes in substantives has seen sweeping changes, labels typically used to classify them (e.g. ‘vocalic’ or ‘consonantal’) also have varying denotations depending on the chronological stage. The following description first reviews the LCS state, subsequently analyzing its later changes as well as its prehistory.

7.2.2 Common Slavic Patterns

As remarked above, the system of LCS was based on so-called ‘theme vowels’ – morphemes which, though mostly reflecting derivational suffixes from the IE point of view, came to represent stem markers devoid of lexical meaning. Gradual coalescence with case/number markers produced distinct inflectional patterns for each theme vowel (Reference Schenker, Comrie and CorbettSchenker 1993: 88, Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1565–1566, 1571–1572); they can be considered separate ‘declensions’: o-stem, ā-stem, u-stem, and i-stem (named after the post-PIE, not LCS, value of the respective vowels). Additionally, several varieties of a consonantal declension existed, in which the original case/number markers were added directly to a stem ending in a consonant (at least in parts of the paradigm; i-stem endings crept in, largely due to an epenthetic *-i- that arose at certain stem-ending junctures in pre-PSL times). The so-called ū-stem paradigm can effectively be considered consonantal too (Section 7.2.4).

Theme vowels persisted as abstract notions even after the respective surface segments had largely faded into obscurity (except for isolated slots, e.g. the dat.pl: cf. o-stem *-o-mъ, ā-stem *-a-mъ, u-stem *-ъ-mъ, i-stem *-ь-mъ; the PSL > LCS sound changes *i > *ь and *u > *ъ must be taken into consideration). The development of the above system entailed the elimination of the class of root nouns, that is, structures where a root was followed by inflectional morphemes directly – a common occurrence in PIE. Thus, all LCS consonant-stem nouns reflect PIE suffixed formations (or, exceptionally, root nouns reinterpreted as such).

The interaction of the theme vowel-based division with grammatical gender was significant, but less so than in modern Slavic. The o-stem declension covered solely masculines and neuters, constituting the productive paradigm for both genders (they differed in the nom, acc, and voc markers in all numbers); conversely, the ā-stem declension predominantly contained feminines and constituted the prototypical feminine declension (although it also contained some virile masculines). The u-stems comprised only masculines, ū-stems only feminines, and i-stems both – though mostly the latter. Consonant stems spanned all three genders, although neuters were by far the most common and feminines exceedingly rare. All in all, the possibilities of predicting the gender from a noun’s inflectional forms – or the other way round – were non-trivial, but far more limited than in the modern languages.

When the stem ended in *-j- or a ‘soft’ segment resulting from its absorption, the initial vowel of the ending was affected by the well-known LCS intrasyllabic tonality harmony developments, typically consisting in fronting (e.g. *-o- > *-e-). Initially automatic, the resulting alternations gradually became opaque, leading to morphologized ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sub-patterns; this affected the o-stem and ā-stem classes in particular (Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1566, 1574–1575). The hard/soft differentiation into o-stems/jo-stems and ā-stems/jā-stems had no bearing on gender correlations.

The LCS declensional classes are presented in Tables 7.2–7.9. The OCS system is still very close, though less clear-cut; for example, the u-stem paradigm is no longer attested as a compact class, as the convergence with masculine o-stems is already underway.

7.2.3 Evolution in the Modern Languages

All Slavic languages conducted a transformation of the theme-based system towards stronger correlation with gender (Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1578), with initial stages visible already in OCS (Reference Hock and RehderHock 2006: 39). However, this has not quite resulted in coherent paradigms associated with each gender; thus, an arrangement of Slavic declensions by gender only is still not feasible (cf. Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 293, Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 250; in-depth and theory-rich case study in Reference Manova and DresslerManova & Dressler 2001). Thus, in a pan-Slavic perspective, one typically recognizes three morphologized ‘Macroclasses’ (Reference Hentschel, Th and KempgenHentschel & Menzel 2009: 168–189, Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1582, Reference Berdicevskis, Fellerer and BermelBerdicevskis forthcoming: §5.5.2). Although these constitute mere approximations of the actual inflectional classes in the respective languages and fail to capture numerous details (especially for some languages, e.g. Cze.), overall compatibility is high.

Macroclass I (Table 7.10) represents a merger of LCS (j)o-stems and u-stems (with admixtures from masculine i-stems); it covers most masculines and practically all neuters, preserving the gender differentiation as found in LCS (j)o-stems. The masculine variety is sometimes referred to as the ‘consonantal’ declension (Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 252) since the null-marked nom.sg yields a consonant-final form; this must be distinguished from ‘consonant stems’ of LCS or earlier stages. The complex repartition of original o-stem and u-stem morphology interacted with virility/animacy distinctions (Section 7.4.1). On the loss of most case morphology in Bul. and Mac., see Section 7.4.3.

Macroclass II (Table 7.11) continues the (j)ā-stems and retains its prototypical association with feminines. The virile masculines belonging here develop distinct gender-aligned features, for example plural forms following Macroclass I (Reference Doleschal and KempgenDoleschal 2009: 143, Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 300–301); in addition, they may acquire virility-specific traits such as dat.sg *-ovi (Section 7.4.1; Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1579).

Macroclass III (Table 7.12) essentially continues the feminine i-stems and is limited to feminines; a usual defining feature is the formal identity of nom.sg and acc.sg. Many former consonant stems and ū-stems are integrated into this Macroclass, sometimes retaining partially autonomous patterns (e.g. Sln. nouns in -ev-∅, gen.sg -v-e, or the reflexes of *mati ‘mother’ and *dъťi ‘daughter’ in a number of languages). Thus, the feminine gender is exceptional in that it is associated with two Macroclasses (Reference KondrašovKondrašov 1986: 29, Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 293–294), although the productivity of Macroclass III is restricted to the abstract suffix *-ostь (and, in Sln., deverbal -tev; Reference Greenberg and KapovićGreenberg 2017: 534).

The most internal diversity is found within Macroclass I, whose masculine subtypes are the venue for most virility/animacy effects (Section 7.4.1). The neuter is generally much less varied (typical faithful preservation of LCS o-stem gen.sg *-a, dat.sg *-u; on the other hand, its subtypes tend to integrate vestiges of the LCS consonantal declensions (Reference KondrašovKondrašov 1986: 29, Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 303–304), mostly limited to *-en- and *-ęt-, but in Sln. also *-es-. Save for the often aberrant nom.sg forms, these remnants usually amount to stem extensions preceding the general endings of Macroclass I (Pol. imi-ę, nom.pl imi-on-a – BCS im-e, nom.pl im-en-a ‘name’ – Rus. im-ja, nom.pl im-en-a; Cze. tel-e, nom.pl tel-at-a – Bul. tel-e, pl tel-et-a ‘calf’; Sln. kol-o, nom.pl kol-es-a ‘wheel’), although some languages retain differences in a subset of the endings as well (Rus. im-ja, gen.sg im-en-i, vs. general ending -a). Total regularization is also commonly encountered, either via the integration of the consonantal element into the stem (Cze. jmén-o ‘name’, Rus. koles-o ‘wheel’) or via its elimination (Pol. koł-o, nom.pl koł-a ‘wheel’).

Although the transition of the LCS theme vowel types into the modern Macroclasses involved considerable interference, little morphological material has been completely discarded. For example (Reference JandaJanda 1996), despite the early and irrevocable loss of morphological autonomy, almost the totality of the LCS u-stem paradigm survives in some capacity in the Slavic languages (generally within Macroclass I).

The degree to which the hard/soft differentiation in substantival morphology is retained in the modern Slavic languages varies but is mostly low (Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 304–305). WSl. languages preserve the most meaningful differences, particularly Cze. (where the opaque alternation was revitalized by umlaut). Rus., conversely, obliterated most of the historical hard/soft distinctions in nominal paradigms (although this is not the case in verbal inflection; Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1566, 1574): crucially, the surface distinction between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ here is largely an artifact of orthography (e.g. <я> and <и> instead of <а> and <ы>; Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 257). SSl. preserves certain -o-/-e- alternations within Macroclass I in several endings (BCS ins.sg brat-om ‘brother’ vs. prijatelj-em ‘friend’, muž-em ‘husband’ – Sln. brat-om vs. prijatelj-em, mož-em), but even here dissimilative processes involving the root vowel have obscured the mapping based on the stem-final consonant (BCS ins.sg kej-om ‘wharf’, jež-om ‘hedgehog’). In WSSl., Macroclass II practically reflects the soft jā-stem paradigm (some dialects diverge); in Macroclass I the impact of jo-stems is substantial too.

In all languages one encounters lexicalized deviations from the Macroclass-gender mappings. The LCS word for ‘way, road’, *pǫtь (masculine i-stem), is frequently cited as yielding such abnormalities (cf. Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1578): Rus. putʹ-∅, gen.sg put-i (masculine, most forms aberrantly in Macroclass III), BCS put-∅, ins.sg put-em (masculine, in Macroclass I but aberrantly ‘soft’; the status of regular put-om depends on the norm).

7.2.4 Prehistory and Position within Indo-European

The assertion that Slavic preserves a markedly archaic Indo-European look of nominal inflection (e.g. Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 217) is true inasmuch as seven cases and three numbers are distinguished, which indeed approximates the situation in the ancient IE languages. However, the same cannot be said about the theme vowel-based organization of declensional paradigms, which represents a fundamental innovation; similar arrangements found in many IE languages (e.g. Latin) likewise differ from the original situation. In Proto-Indo-European, save for the partly divergent o-stems, differences between ‘stem classes’ mostly amounted to the effects of incidental, surface phonological processes, while the transparent case/number markers were identical for all stems. Conversely, meaningful differences among inflectional paradigms were organized around the interplay of accent and apophony (cf. Reference FortsonFortson 2010: 119–120). In PSL, oppositions between these accent/apophony types were eliminated as inflectional types became dependent solely on the abstracted ‘theme vowels’. Thus, while in PIE a stem in -i- such as *lóu̯k-i-s ‘shining’ (gen.sg *léu̯k-i-s) inflected differently from a stem in -i- such as *mén-ti-s ‘thought’ (gen.sg *mn̥-téi̯-s), their descendants in Slavic inflect exactly alike (*luč-ь ‘light’, gen.sg *luč-i; *[pa]męt-ь ‘memory’, gen.sg *[pa]męt-i). See Reference FurlanFurlan 2013 on some potential Slavic remnants of the older situation.

In PIE, minimal correlation between gender and stem-final segment was limited to certain suffixed formations. Many Slavic innovations foreshadow the later post-LCS gender-oriented rearrangements: (i) loss of feminine o-stems (PIE *snus-o- f ‘daughter-in-law’ ≫ LCS *snъx-a, as though < *snus-ā- < *snus-eh₂-), neuter and feminine u-stems, etc.; (ii) split of i-stems into feminine and masculine subtypes (cf. nom.pl *gost-ьje, ins.sg *gost-ьmь m ‘guest’ vs. nom.pl *kost-i, ins.sg *kost-ьjǫ f. ‘bone’; cf. Table 7.5); (iii) autonomous ū-stem declension, integrating consonantal inflection with elements of ā-stems (cf. nom.pl *-ъv-e but ins.pl *-ъv-a-mi, Reference VaillantVaillant 1958: 264–265; synchronic classification as ‘consonantal’ or ‘vocalic’ is problematic, cf. Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 249).

Other changes are mere simplifications, such as: (i) almost complete merger of PIE stems in *-ih₂- and *-i̯eh₂- (the paradigms of *old-i ‘boat’ and *zemľ-a ‘earth’ differ solely in the nom.sg); (ii) loss of root nominals (Section 7.2.2); (iii) reduction of consonant stems to a small subset of eligible segments (no such constraints obtained in PIE or the early IE languages); (iv) merger of genitive and ablative into the Slavic genitive; (v) generalization of *-m- at the cost of *-bʰ- in endings (LCS dat.pl *-mъ vs. Lat. -bus), shared with Baltic and Germanic. Many individual markers are innovated too; even if Reference Langston, Klein, Joseph and FritzLangston’s (2018: 1542) observation that “fewer than half of the endings […] can be transparently derived from standard reconstructions of IE proto-forms by regular sound changes” may be a slight overstatement, it is closer to the truth than a simple description of Slavic declension as faithful to IE inheritance.

7.3.1 Pronouns

Inflectional morphology added to pronouns diverged appreciably from that found on substantives. The clearest outliers were the genderless personal pronouns of the first and second persons as well as the reflexive (cf. Tables 7.13–14). These wholly isolated patterns are characterized by (i) blurred boundaries between stem and case ending; (ii) some endings without parallels in other nominals; (iii) distinct unaccented (clitic) forms in some slots; (iv) more or less tangible suppletion between nom and other case forms, as well as between sg and pl forms. These special traits continue the situation in PIE and have generally survived into modern Slavic (some aspects, e.g. the clitic forms, have even been extended to third person pronouns). Interactions with substantival patterns have only occurred sporadically; see the ins in -ōm in BCS pronouns of the 1sg and 2sg (mnȏm, tȍbōm), matching the innovated ending in Macroclass II (žèn-ōm ‘woman’), or – remarkably – the rise of separate masculine and feminine nom forms of 1/2pl and 1/2du pronouns in Sln. (mi ‘we.m’, me ‘we.f’), matching the corresponding nom.pl endings in Macroclasses I and II. (Not unusual typologically, the distinction is abnormal in Indo-European; cf. the rare parallel in the 1sg pronoun in Tocharian, Reference JasanoffJasanoff 1989.) Personal pronouns are the last holdout of case morphology in Bul. and Mac. (cf. Section 7.4.3), not unlike in English or most of Romance.

The inflection of other pronouns (demonstrative, relative, interrogative, etc.) recalled the substantival o-stem paradigm for the masculine/neuter and ā-stem for the feminine, although some items also integrated elements of other etymological formations, for example in *-i-. Divergence vis-à-vis substantives consisted in: (i) some distinct endings (e.g. gen.sg.m/n *-ogo); (ii) erstwhile stem extensions coalescing with inflectional suffixes (e.g. dat.sg.f *-oj-i, gen.pl *-ě-x-ъ, dat.sg.m/n *-m-u; cf. Reference Schenker, Comrie and CorbettSchenker 1993: 89–90); (iii) non-distinction of gender in the plural outside of nom and acc. Much of this represents PIE inheritance, although some of the particulars (e.g. the morpheme *-go) are diachronically opaque. Hard and soft subtypes emerged, mirroring the developments seen in substantives (see Tables 7.15–7.18). A prominent vehicle of the soft subtype was the anaphoric/personal pronoun of the third person (gen.sg.m/n *j-ego etc.); the nom forms here were supplied by demonstratives (nom.sg.m *on-ъ etc.; on the nature of this suppletion cf. Reference HillHill 2015).

The roughly similar patterns of the interrogative/indefinite pronouns *kъto ‘who’ and *čьto ‘what’ (Table 7.19) featured important deviations: (i) non-distinction of number and gender; (ii) nom(/acc) postfix *-to (forms without it are attested too, cf. Čakavian ča ‘what’, Cze. pro-č ‘why < for what’); in *čьto further: (iii) synchronically unmotivated ‘soft’-like pattern, etymologically a pronominal stem in -i/e-; (iv) isolated (though historically expected) ending *-eso in the gen; in *kъto further: (v) initially anomalous gen=acc syncretism, providing the fuse for later extensive innovations (Section 7.4.1).

Modern Slavic preserves a similar overall picture of pronominal inflection, sharply distinct from substantives; a typical innovation is convergence with adjectival inflection (Section 7.3.2). The patterns of ‘who’ and ‘what’ tend to lose the most peculiar LCS features, but novel irregularities arise (e.g. the original gen.sg only survives as such in Sln. česa, but a reduced form of *česo was reinterpreted as a new nom/acc in WSl.: Cze./Pol./Ksb. co).

In the prehistorical period, there was a tendency for pronominal inflection to infiltrate substantival paradigms, particularly o-stems and ā-stems; LCS substantival endings with a pronominal pedigree include the o-stem nom.pl.m *-i (< PIE pronominal *-o-y, vs. substantival *-o-es [-ōs]), o-stem nom/acc.sg.n *-o (< PIE pronominal *-o-d, vs. substantival *-o-m), probably the ā-stem ins.sg *-ojǫ, and a few others. In the post-LCS era, the opposite direction becomes dominant (e.g. WSSl. replaced *-go, *-so in the gen.sg.m/n with *-ga, *-sa under the influence of substantival o-stem *-a).

7.3.2 Adjectives

In PIE and pre-PSL, adjectives were indistinct from nouns except for inflecting for gender and for degree; they could belong to any ‘stem class’. By LCS, however, all adjectives (though cf. Section 7.4.4) were integrated – primarily by suffixation – into the o-stem pattern for the masculine/neuter and the ā-stem pattern for the feminine (certain remnants of consonant-stem inflections are found in participles and in the comparative degree). These patterns, fully parallel to the respective substantival paradigms (recall Tables 7.2–7.3 and 7.6–7.7), came to be known as the ‘short’ adjectival inflection.

By way of a famous innovation, a ‘long’ inflection also arose, originally consisting of the short form followed by the corresponding form of the anaphoric/relative pronoun *jo- (Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 264–266, Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1580, Reference WandlWandl 2022b). This construction was initially not restricted to adjectives, but also found, for example, with prepositional phrases: OCS bez-um-a-i ‘ignorant-nom.sg.m’ without-reason-gen.sg-that.nom.sg.m (Reference Hock and RehderHock 2006: 40–41, Reference Koch, Barschel, Kozianka and WeberKoch 1992). In adjectives, however – due to contractions, haplologies, and other innovations at the juncture of the respective inflected forms (e.g. ins.pl.f *dobr-ami-j-imi ≫ *dobr-y-jimi) – the shape of these paradigms became different than the sum of their ingredients already in LCS (cf. Tables 7.20–7.21).

At later stages, this device – originally expressing definiteness, though the details are more fine-grained – became the unmarked default (incipient already in OCS, cf. Reference VaillantVaillant 1964: 119), while the foundational, short pattern generally became marginalized. While a teleological interpretation is questionable, this indisputably resulted in the rise of a distinct adjectival inflectional pattern in late LCS (Reference Topolinjska and GutschmidtTopolinjska: 2014: 1607), akin to but distinct from the pronominal one. In keeping with general morphonological requirements, the pattern acquired hard and soft subtypes, the stem of the underlying short form guiding the development: *nov-ъ-jь ‘new’ vs. *ťuď-ь-jь ‘foreign’.

In later Slavic, this pattern could converge with pronominal inflection (Section 7.3.1), which – coupled with phonological developments (chiefly contraction across -j-) – resulted in the patterns shown in Table 7.22. The degree of this rapprochement with pronouns varies from language to language (LCS gen.sg.m/n *t-ogo mold-a-jego ‘that young’, gen.pl *t-ěxъ mold-y-jixъ – Cze. gen.sg.m/n t-oho mlad-ého, gen.pl t-ěch mlad-ých – Rus. t-ogo molod-ogo, t-ex molod-ych – BCS t-ȍg mlȃd-ōg, t-ȋh mlȃd-īh – Pol. t-ego młod-ego, t-ych młod-ych). Synchronically, patterns reflecting the original pronominal inflection are often classified as a ‘special’ subtype of the now prototypical adjectival inflection – which latter term is conventional too, as its domain extends to certain numerals, etc. (Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 263, 269).

The hard/soft distinction has been less durable here than in substantives, especially beyond automatic, synchronically motivated alternations (Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 317–319).

The degree of retention of the original short adjective pattern varies across modern Slavic (Reference Hentschel, Th and KempgenHentschel & Menzel 2009: 173–174, Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 262–264, Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1580); at least in some instances (e.g. Cze.), its persistence coincides with earlier or archaicizing standardization (Reference Topolinjska and GutschmidtTopolinjska 2014: 1607). Synchronically, the phenomenon can be construed as substantive-like elements in the inflection of adjectives. The least impoverished paradigms, though never entirely devoid of suppletion with long forms, are preserved in WSSl. (Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 276–278, 311–314); note that this correlates with the retention of some aspects of the original definite/indefinite distinction.

In Rus., short forms are limited to predicative function and thus devoid of case forms other than the historical nom; in the remaining ESl. languages, the status of short forms is even more restricted. In WSl., only certain basic adjectives build short forms; their paradigms are greatly reduced, often tantamount to a nom.sg.m form lacking the final -V. Short forms sometimes survive outside of the declensional paradigm proper (Section 7.4.7), for example old dat.sg.m/n -u in adverbial expressions like Pol. po angielsku ‘in English’, po ludzku ‘humanly’.

Short inflection is preserved more robustly – partly to the exclusion of long forms – in possessive adjectives (or derived surnames, etc.) formed with the suffixes *-ovъ and *-inъ (Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 251, Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 314–317). Here, Rus. inflects most of the oblique cases in accordance with the short paradigm: Petr-ov-∅, gen.sg Petr-ov-a, dat.sg Petr-ov-u (surname), as does Cze.; other languages corroborate the special status by innovations (cf. Slk. gen.sg.m/n dobr-ého ‘good’ but otcov-ho ‘father’s’). In the norms of BCS, short forms in the oblique cases of possessive adjectives are prescribed – and realized – to different extents (dat.sg.m Mark-ov-u brat-u or Mark-ov-om brat-u ‘Marko’s brother’).

ESSl., in a separate line of development, retains short forms as default (the long form of the nom.sg.m has served as the basis of the modern definite form: Mac. indf mlad-∅ < *mold-ъ but def mlad-iot < *mold-ъ-jь + *tъ; Section 7.4.6). The morphological distinction between adjectives and substantives has thus again been reduced, although the general disappearance of case morphology diminishes the significance of this development. The former long form of the nom.sg.m without the new definite morpheme may function as a dedicated voc: Bul. drag ‘dear’ < *dorg-ъ, voc drag-i < *dorg-ъ-jь (Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 266).

All standard languages, even Bul. and Mac., feature classes of adjectives that exclude short forms. The reflex of the formant *-ьskъ-jь is one typical locus: Rus. kitajskij, Cze. čínský, BCS kineski, Bul. kitajski ‘Chinese’ (sole possible nom.sg.m form everywhere).

Though not strictly declensional (under many views not even inflectional), degree forms are a significant component of Slavic adjectival morphology (Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 321–324, Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 459–462, Reference Mannewitz and KempgenMannewitz 2009, Reference Gvozdanović, Jachnow, Norman and SuprunGvozdanović 2001). In most standard languages, the synthetic comparative (competing everywhere with analytic structures) is formed via a suffix preceding declensional endings. The morpheme displays a shorter and longer variant (LCS *-jьš- and *-ějьš-); the distribution is complex and diachronically unstable, but the allomorphy persists in most standards (cf. LSo. star-y ‘old’, cpv star-š-y vs. kšut-y ‘robust’, cpv kšuś-ejš-y; Sln. mlad-∅, ‘young’, cpv mlaj-š-i vs. nov-∅, ‘new’, cpv nov-ejš-i; Ukr. m´´jak-yj ‘soft’, cpv m´´jak-š-yj vs. mudr-yj ‘wise’, cpv mudr-iš-yj). Earlier Slavic preserved elements of consonantal inflection in these forms, with *-(ě)-j- in nom/acc.sg.m/n alternating with *-(ě)-jьš- elsewhere in the paradigm: OCS nom.sg.m mǫdr-ěi ‘wiser’ vs. nom.pl.m mǫdr-ěiš-e. The modern standards have mostly generalized the form with š, as seen in the above examples. Still, several languages have done the opposite to a certain extent (most widely BCS); the shorter allomorph is then signaled solely by alternations (Section 7.4.8), chiefly involving the stem-final consonant, as well as by prosody (Section 7.4.9): BCS mlȃd-∅ ‘young’, cpv mlȁđ-ī ‘younger’, gen.sg mlȁđ-ēg; star-∅ ‘old’, cpv star-ij-i, gen.sg star-ij-eg.

For certain groups of overtly suffixed adjectives, the comparative morpheme is added directly to the root, substituting the positive formant: Pol. słod-k-i ‘sweet’, cpv słod-sz-y; BCS vis-ok-∅, cpv viš-i. Typically operating on basic adjectives formed with *-ъkъ and *-okъ, this process – ultimately a remarkable retention of a PIE-age pattern – sometimes extends its domain to other suffixes (Cze. snad-n-ý ‘easy’, cpv snaz-š-í next to snad-n-ějš-í). A number of suppletive comparatives are found in each standard language, although the stems and their pairings diverge.

In Rus., save for lexicalized exceptions, synthetic comparative forms are restricted to predicative position and indeclinable (Section 7.4.4): bystr-yj nom.sg.m ‘quick’, cpv bystr-ee with no agreement markers. ESSl. has lost the suffixed formation altogether and the comparative is built via prefixing po- to the positive: Bul. nov ‘new’, cpv po-nov (hyphenated orthographically), Mac. nov, cpv ponov. The area of this innovative structure extends to BCS dialects.

In most standard languages, the synthetic superlative is formed by prefixing *najь- to the form of the comparative: Ukr. najmudrišyj ‘wisest’, BCS najmlađi ‘youngest’ (in ESSl., to the positive: Bul. naj-nov(ijat), Mac. najnov(iot); this is found dialectally in other languages too). This relative uniformity is due to secondary convergence. In OCS, nai- was not obligatory for expressing the superlative, while the morpheme itself is also attested across Slavic in variants such as *na-, *nad-, *nažь-, and *najь-žь- (a few of these are embraced by current standard languages – Ksb. nômłodszi ‘youngest’, nôlepszi ‘best’; LSo. nejžlěpšy ‘best’ next to nejlěpšy – whereas others are limited to historical and dialectal varieties) and often maintains prosodic or even syntactic autonomy from the adjective (detailed overview: Reference WandlWandl 2022a). In Rus., synthetic superlatives (suffixed with *-ějьš- and optionally prefixed with nai-) are literary Church Slavonicisms; analytic constructions are the norm.

The application of the above-described morphology to nominals other than adjectives is highly exceptional, albeit less so in the case of the ESSl. prefixes.

7.3.3 Cardinal Numerals

Though universally declinable, cardinal numerals possessed no dedicated patterns in LCS, instead following various substantival or pronominal models: *jedinъ/*jedьnъ ‘1’ and *dъva ‘2’ inflected like pronouns, *sъto ‘100’ like an o-stem noun, *tysǫťi/*tysęťi ‘1000’ like a jā-stem noun, etc. Most others behaved as i-stem nouns (actually occurring forms varied greatly as a result of divergent numeral syntax). Some numerals, however, displayed minor peculiarities: *trьje ‘3’ possessed a nom/acc.n *tri, with no counterpart in substantives as i-stem neuters had been lost; *desętь ‘10’ displayed elements of consonant-stem inflection; etc.

This state, still registered in OCS, underwent far-reaching alterations in the modern Slavic languages: numerals became a separate morphological class commanding specific declensional endings (Reference SuprunSuprun 1969, Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 274–277, Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 337–341). The spawning ground of many consequential innovations was *dъva ‘2’, whose endings – originally simply reflecting the dual number (cf. Section 7.4.5) – could be reinterpreted as numeral-specific once the syntactic category of the dual was lost. The most important markers involved were gen/loc *-(oj)u and dat/ins *-(o/ě)ma. The resulting patterns tend to spread to other quantifiers: Pol. ins -(o)ma (dw-oma ‘2’, pięci-oma ‘5’, etc., but also il-oma ‘how many’, kilk-oma ‘a few’), gen/dat/loc -u (sześci-u ‘6’ etc., but also par-u ‘several’).

The latter also holds for numeral-specific inflectional markers stemming from sources other than ‘2’, for example the Mac. virile ending -mina (pet-mina ‘5’, osum-mina ‘8’, but also e.g. nekolku-mina ‘a few’, poveḱe-mina ‘most’), originally a derived collective. The rise of dedicated virile forms from assorted diachronic sources is attested almost throughout modern Slavic (Rus. and Cze. being two important exceptions among the standard languages; cf. Reference Janda and MillsJanda 1999).

Another trend is the collapse of distinctive case forms in numeral declensions (Rus. nom/acc st-o, gen/dat/ins/loc st-a ‘100’); advanced stages are observed in BCS, where case inflection on the numerals from ‘2’ to ‘4’ may be abandoned and replaced with prepositional constructions, particularly in less formal registers, while most of the higher numerals are completely indeclinable (Section 7.4.4).

Certain languages – e.g. Sln. – display fewer effects of all of the above processes, with case morphology found on cardinal numerals not deviating significantly from substantives and adjectives. This, however, results only in part from conservatism and largely from diachronic convergence.

In some languages, autonomous morphological structures reflecting an amalgamation of various sources have also arisen in collective/distributive numerals (cf. Pol. pięcior-o ‘5’, gen pięcior-g-a, dat pięcior-g-u).

7.4.1 Encoding Virility and Animacy

The emergence of virility and animacy as syntactically relevant categories had a significant effect on the shape of declensional paradigms across Slavic (Reference KondrašovKondrašov 1986: 30–32, Reference Hentschel, Th and KempgenHentschel & Menzel 2009: 172–173, Reference Klenin and KempgenKlenin 2014: 153–154), particularly in Macroclass I – where subgender paradigms develop – as well as in cross-Macroclass structures in the plural (and dual). The relevant distinctions are predominantly encoded by: (i) propagation of syncretisms: acc=gen animate, acc=nom inanimate (Sln. nom. mož-∅, gen/acc mož-a ‘husband’ vs. nom/acc log-∅, gen log-a ‘grove’ – Ukr. nom.pl babus-i, gen/acc.pl babusʹ-∅ ‘grandmother’ vs. nom/acc.pl vulyc-i, gen.pl vulycʹ-∅ ‘street’); (ii) repartition of former u-stem and o-stem morphology, typically: inanimate gen.sg *-u vs. animate gen.sg *-a (Cze. gen advent-u ‘advent’ vs. student-a ‘student’); animate dat.sg and secondarily loc.sg *-ovi vs. inanimate dat.sg *-u and loc.sg *-ě (Slk. dat/loc koň-ovi ‘horse’ vs. dat hrad-u, loc hrad-e ‘castle’); (iii) nom.pl *-i (originally o-stem), *-ove (u-stem) or *-ьje (i-stem) used in animates/viriles vs. acc.pl *-y extended to nom in inanimates/non-viriles (Pol. nom.pl chłop-i ‘peasants’ vs. nom.pl snop-y ‘sheaves’). These devices are employed to different degrees across Slavic (Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 296–300), with most of the phenomena only found in a subset of the modern languages. They are also of uneven chronological depth: although some emerge in LCS, most develop at later times, with intermediate stages quite unlike the modern picture (Reference Krysʹko and GutschmidtKrysʹko 2014). A famous outlier is the Novgorodian dialect, where the virile acc=gen syncretism developed in the plural, but – unlike elsewhere – not in the singular (the early innovation of a distinct o-stem nom.sg.m -e certainly played a role).

WSl. is currently the principal locus of the above-indicated distinctions, which often amount to more nuanced systems involving subgenders and quasi-genders (e.g. depreciative forms in Pol.: dobrzy profesorowie ‘good professors’ vs. dobre profesory ‘good professors.depr’, patterning as non-virile; Reference SwanSwan 2015). SSl., on the other hand, possesses the fewest means of encoding virility and animacy; in the standard languages, they are limited to the acc.sg syncretism patterns. This is not due to a simple retention of the LCS state, however, as virility-related use of dat.sg -ovi is known from OCS (Reference Hock and RehderHock 2006: 40), as are instances of -y encroaching into the nom.pl of inanimates (Reference Iordanidi and KrysʹkoIordanidi & Krysʹko 2000: 192–193; Reference Krysʹko and GutschmidtKrysʹko 2014: 1601), while animacy- and virility-sensitive distinctions occur in the declensional paradigms of certain Čakavian dialects (Reference VermeerVermeer 1984). Conversely, reductions of animacy marking surpassing those of the SSl. standards are found in Kajkavian, where the acc.sg=gen.sg syncretism has been generalized throughout Macroclass I (Reference StankiewiczStankiewicz 1968: 32). A characteristically ESl. innovation is the extension of the acc=gen animate feature into the plural of all Macroclasses (Section 7.4.3).

7.4.2 Encoding Innovative Case/Number Categories

Marking innovative synthetically expressed categories is achieved almost exclusively by manipulating pre-existing inflectional material (formerly associated with separate theme vowel paradigms and subsequently turning redundant); other means, such as the grammaticalization of derivational suffixes or resegmentation, are rare (example in Section 7.3.3). For example, the emergence of the ‘second locative’ (or locative proper, as opposed to ‘prepositional’) case in Rus. is formally associated with the distinct stressed ending -ú (historically u-stem loc.sg): na nos-ú ‘on the nose’ vs. o nós-e ‘about the nose’.

Other minor morphosyntactic patterns considered separate cases under some criteria are even less prosperous formally: they never have discrete morphology at their disposal, but rather rely on distributional properties. An instance of this is the ‘second genitive’ or partitive of Rus. (stakán čáj-u ‘glass of tea’ vs. vkus čáj-a ‘taste of tea’), whose form coincides with the dat in the singular (cf. dat čáj-u) but is always identical to the gen in the plural; even less morphologically grounded are the potential ‘inclusive case’ (vključitelʹnyj padež) and ‘expectative case’ (ždatelʹnyj padež) (Reference ZaliznjakZaliznjak 1973, Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 228, Reference Hentschel, Th and KempgenHentschel & Menzel 2009: 166–167).

Several languages innovated a paucal (special morphological form occurring with numerals 2–4: Rus. nom.pl syn-ovʹja ‘sons’, pauc četyre syn-a ‘4 sons’; BCS nom.pl zȅmlj-e ‘countries’, pauc trȋ zèmlj-e ‘3 countries’) or enumerative (after numerals generally; Bul. pl grad-ove ‘cities’ vs. enum dvajset grad-a ‘20 cities’); see Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley (2006: 225), Reference Breu and GreenbergBreu (2020). Its morphological expression derives entirely from former dual markers (Section 7.4.5). The paucal does not develop a separate paradigm inasmuch as all forms other than the nom/acc are supplied by the plural.

7.4.3 Syncretism

A salient process observed throughout modern Slavic (never in a radical form except for ESSl.) is the gradual reduction of the complexity of nominal inflection paradigms and distinctiveness of forms. This is associated with the term ‘syncretism’, which may refer to: (i) diachronic loss of pre-existing distinctions, or (ii) synchronic instances in which morphology fails to mark facts relevant for syntax (in Slavic context, cf. Reference Parker, Fellerer and BermelParker forthcoming: §.5.5; general typology in Reference Baerman, Malchukov and SpencerBaerman 2009).

Some occurrences of syncretism are of a fairly ‘local’ or sporadic nature, not endangering the existence of categories as a whole. Many instances of this kind reach PIE times and do not reflect a loss, but a potential morphological distinction that had not arisen (e.g. the identity of nom and acc in all neuter substantives across all numbers). Others did arise diachronically, resulting from phonological changes – or, exceptionally, morphological restructurings – from PIE to LCS, but have been recalcitrant and mostly persist into modern Slavic (e.g. the identity of gen.sg and nom/acc.pl in Macroclass II, of dat.sg and loc.sg in Macroclass II, of most oblique cases of the sg in Macroclass III, or of the gen.pl and loc.pl in pronominal/adjectival inflections). In contrast to the prehistorical era, most instances of syncretism arising in post-LCS times did not result from phonological erosion, but from system-wide rearrangements (an exception is Cze., where umlaut has obliterated many distinctions in recent history, although the system of categories remains conservative; Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 273–274).

More systematic instances of syncretism result from morphological levelings operating via different axes. Levelings across paradigms underlie the historical rise of the Macroclasses, conspiring towards the creation of gender-specific structures (Section 7.2.3). However, concomitant developments have also led to the rise of number-specific structures (Reference Hentschel, Th and KempgenHentschel & Menzel 2009: 171, Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1577): while early languages such as OCS still had theme vowel-based classes spanning the singular(, dual,) and plural, in modern Slavic the plural tends to display higher convergence across the Macroclasses than the singular (LCS ins.pl *vьlk-y ‘wolves’, *ryb-ami ‘fish’, *sět-ьmi ‘nets’; Rus. volk-ami, ryb-ami, setʹ-jami, Pol. wilk-ami, ryb-ami, sieci-ami). Among the standard languages, Cze., Sln., and BCS resist this process to the largest extent, while in ESl. it is the most pronounced; it has helped propagate sensitivity to animacy throughout the plural (Reference KondrašovKondrašov 1986: 31).

The most dramatic variety of syncretism consists in the complete loss of formal distinction between categories, leading to the polyfunctionality of the inflections in question (within a given range or across the board). The locative is the category that has tended to forfeit its morphological autonomy (at least within certain domains) the most easily, attaining formal identity with dat and/or ins markers (LCS dat.sg *gord-u ≠ loc.sg *gord-ě ‘fortification’ – Sln. grȃd-u = grȃd-u; LCS ins.sg.m/n *dobr-y-jimь ≠ loc.sg.m *dobr-ě-jemь ‘good’ – Pol. dobr-ym = dobr-ym; Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 227–228). A drastic example is the pervasive dat.pl=ins.pl=loc.pl syncretism in standard BCS (dialectal Štokavian systems attest other configurations too, e.g. gen.pl=loc.pl). These are virtually never guided by sound change alone, but rather system-driven shifts; newer syncretic patterns may replace older ones. Thus, the above-mentioned development in BCS has led to the loss of the otherwise resilient loc.pl=gen.pl syncretism in pronouns and adjectives. Similarly, the introduction of animacy-related syncretisms across the plural in ESl. has overridden the nom=acc pattern in neuters (Ukr. nom.pl dytjat-a ‘children.n’, acc.pl dytjat-∅).

Despite this preponderantly non-phonological motivation, overarching functional explanations for Slavic case-syncretic innovations have proved problematic (cf. Reference Hentschel, Th and KempgenHentschel & Menzel 2009: 170 vs. Reference JakobsonJakobson 1971a). Certain rearrangements of syncretism have to do with the development of innovative syntactic categories, particularly along the virility/animacy scale (cf. Section 7.4.1).

The morphological status of vocative markers is atypical. It has been debated whether the category is a genuine case form (in Slavic context, cf. Reference Anstatt, Geist and MehlhornAnstatt 2008, Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1568, Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 264–266; more broadly Reference Daniel, Spencer, Malchukov and SpencerDaniel & Spencer 2009), or in fact whether the Slavic voc markers can be considered inflectional endings at all (Reference AndersenAndersen 2012). The issue has a deeper theoretical background connected with the concept of appeal (Reference BühlerBühler 1965: 30–32, Reference KuryłowiczKuryłowicz 1949: 40). On the morphological level, voc is only distinguished from nom in the singular of some non-neuter paradigms, and solely in substantives (historically also in short adjectives; OCS voc.sg rab-e věrьn-e ‘o faithful servant’). Incidental deviations from this do develop, often via socially conventionalized formulae (Ukr. nom.pl pan-y ‘sirs’, voc.pl pan-ove; cf. also Section 7.3.2 on Bul. drag-i voc ‘dear’); besides, suprasegmental differences (Section 7.4.9) may have marked the contrast far more widely: BCS nom.pl junác-i ‘heroes’, voc.pl jȕnāc-i; nom. d(ij)ét-ē n ‘child’, voc d(ij)ȇt-e (cf. Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 266). The latter facts have also been explained by reference to higher suprasegmental tiers, given that voc forms display further anomalies, such as the non-raising of unstressed -o in Bul. (Reference OlanderOlander 2015: 18, 186). The diachronic retention of voc markers correlates poorly with general conservatism in declensional morphology (cf. loss in Kajkavian, Sln., or Slk. vs. retention in Bul. and Mac.; Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1568, 1577); likewise unpredictable is the secondary rise of new distinct voc forms (examples above; cf. also the Rus. type Maš-∅ ‘Masha!’; Section 7.1.3).

Many varieties of ESSl., including standard Bul. and Mac., attest an almost complete loss of case morphology (except the voc) and its replacement with prepositional constructions and/or syntactic means. This trend toward analyticity, although competing with synthetic morphology less aggressively, also pervades the history of other Slavic languages (Reference Gvozdanović and KempgenGvozdanović 2009: 133–136). The morphology-internal rationale for these innovations is rarely self-evident; thus, they are generally to be described at the syntactic level (often via contact phenomena, as e.g. in the Balkan zone; Reference Sobolev, Malchukov and SpencerSobolev 2009). Notably, the Slavic languages most affected by this have retained an intricate system of synthetic verbal inflections.

The marginalization or loss of the neuter, encountered in several discontinuous areas (though in none of the standards), is certainly related to this gender’s boasting the fewest distinctive declensional exponents (Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 241). Nonetheless, this circumstance can hardly be made entirely responsible, even in conjunction with phonological processes such as akan’e. The fact that the development is found in high contact zones – for example, with Baltic or Romance – is more suggestive (Reference Berdicevskis, Fellerer and BermelBerdicevskis forthcoming: §5.5.5.2).

7.4.4 Defectivity and Indeclinability

Defectivity (cf. Reference SimsSims 2015, richly illustrated with Slavic verbal morphology) has no consistent patterns in Slavic declension. Instances are incidental and often phonotactic in nature; see the lack of gen.pl forms in -∅ for items such as Rus. mgl-a ‘haze’ or mečt-a ‘dream’ (Reference Hentschel, Th and KempgenHentschel & Menzel 2009: 165–166).

Indeclinability in nominals is more widespread and poses interesting theoretical challenges (Reference WorthWorth 1966, Reference Gvozdanović and KempgenGvozdanović 2009: 136, Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 250). Native uninflected substantives arise extremely rarely, usually isolated survivals of otherwise extinct morphological types (e.g. BCS doba n.indcl ‘period’, probably a trace of PIE r-stem neuters; inflected by-forms exist). More often, indeclinability is associated with weakly integrated loanwords. As regards substantives, the SSl. standard languages are less prone to tolerate such items, instead using various strategies to host inflection (Reference ThomasThomas 1983, Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 242–243); see Rus. atelʹje indcl ‘atelier’, Pol. atelier [atɛlˈjɛ] indcl vs. Sln. atelje-∅, gen.sg atelje-j-a – BCS atelje-∅, gen.sg atelje-a – Bul. ateli-e, pl ateli-eta. Indeclinable adjectives representing loanwords are found across Slavic, however. A rarer type comprises native conversions from adverbs, prepositional phrases, etc.: Sln. poceni indcl ‘cheap’ < po ceni lit. ‘for price’; bore indcl. ‘meager’ (now archaic) < fossilized voc form (Section 7.4.7). Interestingly, LCS possessed a whole class of indeclinable adjectives in *-ь (OCS isplъnь indcl ‘full’, etc.), though later lost; these probably continue PIE adjectives with the suffix *-i-, but with an intermediate stage of adverbialized usage (Reference Majer, Blanc and BoehmMajer 2021).

7.4.5 Role of Dual Markers

Although the distinctive capabilities of dual number paradigms in LCS were restricted (Sections 7.2–7.3), they did feature several characteristic markers (principally dat/ins *-ma and gen/loc *-(oj)u; also certain nom/acc endings). These, following the loss of the dual as a syntactic category in most of Slavic, are often maintained in some capacity (Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 225–226, Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1567, 1576–1577, Reference Žolobov and KrysʹkoŽolobov & Krysʹko 2001), namely: (i) particular forms qua plurals in nouns denoting paired body parts (e.g. in Macroclass II: Cze. ruk-a ‘hand’, ins.pl ruka-ma, loc.pl ruk-ou; Mac. nog-a ‘foot’, pl noz-e; in irregular nouns: Pol. ok-o ‘eye’, gen.pl ocz-u, ins.pl ocz-yma); (ii) spread to certain plural paradigms without an obvious semantic cue: in Macroclass I (cf. Rus. bereg-∅ ‘shore’, nom/acc.pl bereg-a); in Macroclass III (cf. BCS kost-∅ ‘bone’, gen.pl kost-iju); (iii) wholesale spread across plural paradigms: Cze. colloquial ins.pl -ma; Ksb. variation ins.pl -mi ~ -ma; BCS dat/ins/loc.pl -ma); (iv) utilization for marking novel structures/categories, for example paucal (Section 7.4.2) or numeral inflection (Section 7.3.3). The above developments are practically absent from the few standard languages retaining the dual as a category (i.e. Sln. and Sor.; dialects differ).

7.4.6 Definiteness Markers

The LCS strategy of marking definiteness in adjectives lost momentum as the former definite paradigm yielded the unmarked ‘adjective declension’ (Section 7.3.2). Later, however, some languages innovated definiteness morphemes marking the nominal phrase (from encliticized demonstrative pronouns, mostly *tъ). A peripheral locus of this phenomenon are certain northern dialects of Rus., but the major one is ESSl., including standard Bul. and Mac. (the development mirrors Balkan languages such as Albanian and Romanian; cf. Reference Lindstedt and Besters-DilgerLindstedt 2014). Whether these markers constitute inflection is disputed, as they follow the number(/case) marker proper (Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 251) and are only present on one member of a given phrase; they also correspond formally to unremarkable syntagmas in other Slavic languages (Pol. artykuł ten ‘this article’). However, their interaction with declensional paradigms in ESSl. is significant and complex. This holds especially for those varieties which, unlike standard Bul. and Mac., preserve relatively vibrant case marking (Reference Topolinjska and KempgenTopolinjska 2009: 182–183, Reference Topolinjska and Gutschmidt2014: 1611), as visualized in Table 7.23.

In the standard languages, this repertoire is far more limited and insensitive to case (exception: the Bul. norm prescribes a diachronically artificial and poorly observed distinction between nom. -ǎt and obl. -a in the m.sg). The shape of the morpheme is mostly regulated by the grammatical gender of the nominal (m.sg Bul. -ǎt/-a, Mac. -ot; f.sg -ta; n.sg -to; m/f.pl -te; n.pl -ta), although instances of ad formam matching are found in particular configurations (cf. Bul. sluga-ta ‘the servant.m’, Mac. luǵe-to ‘the people’). Standard Mac. also possesses two additional series marked for proximal (-ov etc.) and distal (-on etc.), grammaticalized from other demonstrative pronouns. Dialectal ESSl. systems also attest forms based on the pronoun *sь.

7.4.7 Transfers to and from Declensional Morphology

Inflectional markers can be diachronically extracted from their paradigms, for example via lexicalization or grammaticalization; etymological declensional markers may thus be found outside of synchronic paradigms of nominals. Fossilized PIE case forms are hidden in verbal morphemes such as infinitive *-ti (dat or loc, probably the former, of verbal noun in *-ti-) or supine *-tъ (acc of verbal noun in *-tu-); both grammaticalizations are of Balto-Slavic date (cf. Reference Villanueva SvenssonVillanueva Svensson 2019). Trivial intra-Slavic cases involve declensional markers on participles harnessed for periphrastic constructions (chiefly, but not exclusively, the l-participle). Those languages that lost particular case categories often retain their fossilized exponents in adverbs and other indeclinables. For example, Mac. adverbs in -um such as vik-um ‘loudly’, del-um ‘partly’ are ultimately based on the ins.sg *-omь (vik ‘shout’, del ‘part’); Sln., which lost the vocative, preserves items such as bore indcl ‘meager’ (now archaic) < *ubože, original voc.sg of ubog ‘poor’.

Instances of extraneous elements penetrating into the domain of inflectional morphology are rare, practically limited to derivational suffixes reinterpreted as inflectional; see plural markers such as Mac. -inja, Bul./Mac. -išta, based on derived collectives (this happens to replicate the PIE prehistory of the LCS neuter plural *-a; Reference FortsonFortson 2010: 118), or the type Bul. djad-o ‘grandfather’, pl djad-ovci (quasi-suppletive plural marker for masculine nouns in -o, etymologically containing the composite suffix *-ovьcь) (cf. Section 7.1.3).

Borrowing of declensional markers is likewise sporadic and, in the standard languages, mostly limited to learned imports such as Cze. nom.sg rytm-us ‘rhythm’ (gen.sg rytm-u).

7.4.8 Segmental Alternations in Declensional Paradigms

The declensional systems of Slavic languages are rich in segmental alternations (see Chapter 5 in this volume). The null endings of some nom(/acc).sg forms in Macroclasses I and III and of some gen(/acc).pl ones in Macroclasses II and I are a locus classicus of vowel and consonant alternations resulting from final jer loss – word-final devoicing (Section 5.3.1), vowel-zero alternations (Section 5.2.2), and compensatory lengthening (Section 5.2.3). Entrenched in synchronic phonology or at least widely distributed across morphology, these are not connected exclusively with declension.

Morphologized alternations tied specifically to certain case/number endings are mostly associated with LCS palatalization processes or their corollaries (alternations of an older pedigree are practically absent) and are of the type K : C (more rarely K : Č); these may be found essentially in any forms whose LCS exponents started with front vowels (Ukr. noh-a ‘leg’, dat/loc noz-i – BCS trbuh-∅ ‘stomach’, nom.pl trbus-i – Cze. jazyk-∅ ‘tongue’, loc.pl jazyc-ích – Cze. velk-ý ‘big’, nom.pl.m.anim velc-í). In many languages, alternations tend to be lost diachronically – either by simple leveling of alternants (Slk. noh-a, loc.sg noh-e – Sln. trebuh-∅, nom.pl trebuh-i – Sln. jezik-∅, loc.pl jezik-ih – BCS velik-i, nom.pl.m velik-i – Slk. vel’k-ý, nom.pl.m.anim vel’k-í) or by the replacement with historically non-inducing endings (Slk. jazyk-∅ ‘tongue’, loc.pl jazyk-och; Ukr. jazyk-∅, loc.pl jazyk-ax). There are interesting differences between the retention of alternations in nominal and verbal morphology (e.g. Rus. strongly reduced the former while retaining many of the latter, whereas the opposite is found in Cze.; Reference Janda and GutschmidtJanda 2014: 1566). Younger palatalization processes (Section 5.3.2) have added further layers of alternations of the type D: D’ and their outputs (Ksb. miast-o ‘city’, loc.sg miesc-e; Bel. horad-∅ ‘city’, loc.sg horadz-e). For comprehensive descriptions of numerous other segmental alternations in Slavic declension, see Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń (1997: 165–197), Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley (2006: 208–209, 268–269).

7.4.9 Prosody in Declensional Paradigms

In those Slavic varieties in which a free stress system (sometimes accompanied by pitch distinctions) is preserved, it is utilized to assist declensional endings in marking certain categories (Reference Sussex and CubberleySussex & Cubberley 2006: 198–199, 258, Reference Dalewska-GreńDalewska-Greń 1997: 123–126). Its functional load is never dramatically large, but instances of systematic resolution of segmental homonymy are found in each of the relevant languages; see Ukr. gen.sg sestr-ý ‘sister’ vs. nom.pl séstr-y – BCS mlád-a ‘young.f’ vs. mlȃd-a ‘bride’ – Sln. gen.sg grad-ȗ ‘castle’ vs. dat.sg grȃd-u (additional examples in Section 7.4.3). Historical changes include both simplifications of the inherited state – that is, a gradual departure from the LCS system of accentual paradigms as standalone suprasegmental entities (Reference DyboDybo 1981) – and reinforced morphologization of more localized accentual patterns: association of particular endings with stressedness (cf. Section 7.4.2 on the Rus. ‘second locative’ in -ú), striving towards a consistent accentual opposition between singular and plural (Rus. nom.sg lét-o ‘summer’, loc.sg lét-e vs. nom.pl let-á, loc.pl let-áx), and similar developments (Reference Baerman and GutschmidtBaerman 2014). See also Chapter 1 in this volume.