https://journals.phil.muni.cz/linguistica-brunensia Masarykova univerzita cs-CZ Linguistica Brunensia 1803-7410 https://journals.phil.muni.cz/linguistica-brunensia/article/view/39520 Vít Boček Copyright © https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.cs 2024-08-30 2024-08-30 72 2 5 5 10.5817/LB2024-38769 https://journals.phil.muni.cz/linguistica-brunensia/article/view/39521 This paper argues that the earliest stage of the Common Slavic aspectual system consisted to a significant degree of simplex–prefixed aspectual pairs, in which the base verb was a factitive suffixed in -i-. Deadjectival factitives represented accomplishment predicates, and prefixation imposed a synoptic construal on the predicate, including the end-state coded by the adjective, thus vysiti 'raise' includes reference to an end-state where something is higher, and u-vysiti asserts attainment of that end-state. Data for three prefixes are given: u-, o- and po-. All show tendencies to combine with factitives in -i-. Depending on the root, denominal and deverbal factitives in -i- could also represent telic predicates, if the root profiled some end-state, e.g., the presence of a wall or fence in denominal graditi (> ograditi) or an end-state in the verbal root in grabiti 'rob' (> pograbiti). Such pairs represent a very early, if not initial stage, that arguably predates pairs of derived imperfectives such as ugasati–ugasiti 'extinguish', obnavljati–obnoviti 'renew', and potapljati–potopiti 'submerge/flood'. Stephen M. Dickey Copyright © https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.cs 2024-08-30 2024-08-30 72 2 7 17 10.5817/LB2024-38527 https://journals.phil.muni.cz/linguistica-brunensia/article/view/39522 Arriving in today's Austria – and thereby also in today's Eastern Tyrol –, the Slavs left a layer of loans in the toponomastic landscape of these areas. Like all loanwords, they bear witness to the phonetic influence of two languages. In the present case, these are Slavic and Bavarian. By identifying the sound changes undergone and missed, we are able to narrow down the time in which the respective word has been borrowed to a frame between a few centuries and a few decades. For this purpose, the date of occurrence of as many changes as possible must be known for both languages. As an example, Feistritz from Slavic «bystrica» shows the effect of the New High German diphthongisation and thereby reveals to have been integrated into Bavarian before 1100 AD. At the same time, the loan has f for Slavic b, which is a substitution effective only after 770 AD. We can therefore claim that Feistritz must have entered the Bavarian language just in between those two dates. Following the concept of my "Slavia Tirolensis" paper series, the present paper provides a number of toponomastic Slavisms in Eastern Tyrol along with their etymologies and the history of sound changes undergone from the Slavic input to today's South Bavarian output. For each name, an estimation is given about the time frame in which the name must have been integrated. In most of the presented cases, this frame starts after 1050 AD, which can be concluded from the fact that they no longer exhibit accent retraction onto the first syllable. This in turn means that the language contact in the relevant regions of Eastern Tyrol only started as late as this date. Emanuel Klotz Copyright © https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.cs 2024-08-30 2024-08-30 72 2 19 39 10.5817/LB2024-38773 https://journals.phil.muni.cz/linguistica-brunensia/article/view/39523 Archaeologists can rarely contribute to any discussions among linguists. However, they are in a privileged position, when it comes to identifying and delineating migrations. The paper is an attempt to assess the archaeological evidence pertaining to the supposed migration of the Slavs in the 6th century, from their original homeland to the Danube. Wherever that homeland was located, in order to reach the Lower Danube (where the northern frontier of the Empire was located in the 6th century), the Slavs had to cross the territory of present-day Romania. A special emphasis is therefore placed on the archaeological evidence of that country, particularly on those classes that have been typically associated with the early Slavs. However, no class of evidence attests to the existence of any migration across the territory of Romania. Migration is therefore not the mechanism that can explain the spread of Slavic. Florin Curta Copyright © https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode.cs 2024-08-30 2024-08-30 72 2 41 56 10.5817/LB2024-38774 https://journals.phil.muni.cz/linguistica-brunensia/article/view/39524 Vít Boček Copyright © https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.cs 2024-08-30 2024-08-30 72 2 57 60 10.5817/LB2024-38770 https://journals.phil.muni.cz/linguistica-brunensia/article/view/39525 Vít Boček Copyright © https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.cs 2024-08-30 2024-08-30 72 2 61 63 10.5817/LB2024-38771 https://journals.phil.muni.cz/linguistica-brunensia/article/view/39526 Vít Boček Copyright © https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.cs 2024-08-30 2024-08-30 72 2 65 67 10.5817/LB2024-38772