Teaching Czech Adjectival Deriva

							                           Teaching Czech Adjectival Derivation
           Charles E. Townsend, Princeton U., SVU Cedar Rapids, Iowa, June 26, 2003


         This paper will try to give an idea of Czech adjectival derivation, with particular emphasis
on the opposition of relational and qualitative adjectives, with our major focus on the relationals.
Aspects of this paper are continued from a talk I gave at Duke in March of this year, which
compared relational adjectives in ^^North Slavic&&< i.e., in Czech, Polish and Russian.
         Adjectival derivation is more developed in Czech (and all of Slavic) than in English, and
Czech has a rich roster of adjectival suffixes. In teaching - or describing - adjectives, the most
useful start is to cite the relational¶qualitative dichotomy in them. In Slavic relational and qualitative
adjectives comprise quite clearcut formal and semantic subsets which allow the formal and the
semantic to be brought together fairly concretely. Qualitative adjectives designate a trait or quality
characteristic of the noun modified< e.g., bâly du_m ^white house&. Relational adjectives designate a
relationship to the noun modified as being of, from, or otherwise connected with something or
someone< e.g., dre've'ny; du_m ^house of wood, wood(en) house& (not that being ^of wood& is not
strictly speaking, also a quality, but it is the relationality which is paramount here). English has
two distinctly qualitative suffixes, notably -y and -ish< e.g., ^hearty greeting& and ^bookish
expression&, but it expresses relationality mostly by simply preposing the noun modified< e.g.,
^heart attack, book store& (hearty attack and bookish store are nonsensical). Czech can oppose
qualitativeness and relationality directly, as in srdec'ny; pozdrav ^hearty greeting& vs. srdec'nâ
za;chvat &heart attack&, but it does not always do so< e.g., the same adjective can express both
relational meaning, as in kniz'nâ vazba ^book binding&, and qualitative meaning, as in kniz'nâ vy;raz
^bookish expression&, where relational meaning turns metaphorical,
         The genesis of Slavic adjectives from nouns is difficult to contest, given the near formal
identity of these two parts of speech until the late historical period. Generalizing qualities from
things is reasonable, and there is some evidence that even adjectives which today seem
fundamentally qualitative both in their meaning and in their clearly non-suffixed form (e.g., bâly;,
mlady;, stary;) are nominal in origin. Somewhat more obvious are adjectives like dobry; and mokry;,
whose stems still look compound and whose nominal provenience may be posited (dob
^convenience, time&, mok ^wet(ness)& despite the absence in modern Slavic of a clearly suffixal -r-.
Kra;sny; has a somewhat more obvious suffix,and the adjective might be argued as coming from
kra;sa ^beauty&, yet the adjective feels qualitative. The semantic shift of the Russian adjective
Í ‡±ÒÌ˚È from ^beautiful& to ^red& (now qualitative, with a new adjectival root Í ‡ÒÌ-), shows the
type of semantic estrangement that can occur though apparent structure remains the same. As we
will see below, -ny; can stand out much more clearly in relational adjectives than it does in kra;sny;.
Most adjectives in Czech (or in any Slavic language), display reasonably clear suffixal derivation.
2     ^^Teaching Czech Adjectival Derivation&&, C. Townsend, SVU Cedar Rapids, 6/¶26¶03


          The separation and continuing strengthening of relational adjectives is pronounced in Slavic
and has proceeded through the development of a set of specific suffixes which build specifically
relational adjectives. This phenomenon is much less widespread in languages like English and
German which are prone to prepose the determining noun, either separately, as in English fish soup
(no fishy soup here) or together, as in German Fischsuppe, or in languages which use prepositions,
like French soupe de poisson or Spanish sopa de pescada. Russian and Polish, on the other hand,
offer suffixal rybnyj sup and zupa rybna, while Czech rybâ pole;vka, though it has no palpable
suffix, marks relationality with the desinence -â (me'kky;) rather than -y; (tvrdy;) betraying the -j-
possessive-relational type preserved in Russian rybij. Polish rybi is similar to the Czech here.
          Though Slavic languages have distributed them in differing ways and in varying
proportions, almost all of them retain the seven overtly relational suffixes, listed below in their
presumed short forms (with desinences in parentheses< below we will use just the suffixes
hyphenated on each side (without the jers).
          -j(¸) -in(˙)              -ov(-ev)(˙)     -¸n±(¸)         -¸sk(˙)        -e['n(˙)         -¸n(˙)
          Of the seven suffixes, the first five all have meanings which are still clearly possessive.
The notion ^^relational&& is more or less contained in the notion ^^possessive&& anyway. All five have
been maintained, though in differing proportions. The first two, -j- and -in-, have been reduced to
more strictly possessive meaning, and are reflected in Czech rybâ, noted above, and in the feminine
possessive-relationals in -in, as in sestr'in ^sister&s& (du_m) The third, -ov-(-ev-), has much expanded
as a relational formant and is very prominent, particularly in North Slavic. In Czech, -ov- has
generalized in two important ways> 1) to build relational-possessives in -u_v, as in Karlu_v
^Charles&s& (most), and 2) numerous relational adjectives, like jazykovy; ^of the language, linguistic&).
^The fourth suffix, (soft) -n±- was, in OCS as now, linked with time and place notions. In most of
Slavic it is still limited to that role, but in Czech, as we shall see, it has moved well beyond that role
and builds many relational adjectives, like the above srdec'nâ ^of the heart, cardiac&. The fifth suffix,
-sk-, as in polsky; ^of Poland, Polish&, has remained restricted mostly to proper and place names and
is still common in all of Slavic, including Czech. Other examples> americky; ^American& lidsky; ^of
the people&, praz'sky; ^of Prague& autorsky; ^authors&. The sixth suffix, -e'n-, as in dr'eve'ny; ^of wood,
wood(en)&, with its meaning of ^^substance&& or ^^material&&, has maintained its hold on some 10 to
15 adjectives in most of the languages, again including Czech. Other examples> slame'ny; ^of straw&,
vlne'ny; ^of wool, woolen&. The last suffix, (hard) -n-, as in ovesny;, was favored in Late Common
Slavic over all other relational suffixes. There were several hundred vs. only four of five in -ov-.
-n- has maintained its favored status in most of Slavic and builds large quantities of both relational
and qualitative adjectives. In Czech, though, (hard) -n- has to a large degree been supplanted by -
n;- and is now limited to certain semantic and phonetic concepts, to the point that -n- has now
3     ^^Teaching Czech Adjectival Derivation&&, C. Townsend, SVU Cedar Rapids, 6/¶26¶03


become to a large extent a marker of qualitativity, opposed to relationals in -n±-. We have already
seen this in srdec'ny; pozdrav ^hearty greeting& vs. srdec'nâ za;chvat ^heart attack&, below.
         We wind up now with five relational suffixes in modern Czech. -sky;, as we saw above is
mostly limited to people and places, ^^animate&& so to speak. See examples in Handout 7. -e'n, see
also Handout 7, has ^^material&& meaning. The remaining three, -ovy;, -nâ, -ny;, are more or less ^^all-
purpose&& relationals, building from fundamentally inanimate things, concepts, etc. Examples on
Handout 8> LED¶EN-lednovy; ^January&, PA:TEK-pa;tec'nâ ^Friday&, OV¶E¶S-ovesny; ^oat&. Let&s
focus on these three suffixes and their distribution and interaction. The expansion of -ovy; and -nâ
has been extraordinary< almost 2,000 adjectives apiece in each, and -ny; is much less numerous but
still used as a relational, as we&ll see. In all three we note a relational to qualitative (metaphorical)
direction, so that with relational adjectives much more numerous now, a proportionally larger
number could be expected to move toward qualitative status. In Czech, the massive expansion of
the originally time and place bound -n±- has resulted in a large number of doublets and even triplets.
We&ll note below many oppositions of adjectives in -ovy; and -nâ and even a few involving three
suffixes> -ovy;, -nâ, and -ny;, though -ny; in these cases is frequently an archaic variant of -nâ, to be
expected from the history mentioned above. Let&s examine some doublets and triplets.
         Here&s an appropriate example, given the topic of our talk. Here we have less vs. more
(purer) relationality>


                        VZTAH                    ^relation&
        vztaz'ny;       vztaz'ne; za;jmeno               ^relative pronoun&
        vztahovy;       vztahove; pr'âdavne; jme;no      ^relational adjective&


The first adjective, in -ny;, is relational but somewhat marginally so. The second, in -ovy;, is purely
relational, Note also the English suffixal difference in the translations> -al is usually relational,
while -ive is more qualitative.


                         HLOUBKA                  ^depth&
        English has just ^^deep structure&& for this linguistic term, but Czech doesn&t use its
qualitative adjective, hluboky;, but builds from the noun hloubka ^depth&< hence, hloubkova;
struktura ^^depth structure&& or ^^structure in depth&&. There are countless such examples. Compare
Czech nedostatec'ne; zboz'â, with nedostatkove; zboz'â ^insufficient (inadequate) goods vs. ^goods in
                                      ;
short supply&. I have also seen z'arovkovy; humor> How many Czechs (instead of Poles) does it
take to screw in a light bulb@.
4     ^^Teaching Czech Adjectival Derivation&&, C. Townsend, SVU Cedar Rapids, 6/¶26¶03


                           VU{LE            ^will&
        While teaching a translation class using Michael Heim&s reader, Readings in Czech, I
discovered a good example of how useful cognizance of relationality can be at a practical level.
The qualitative adjective volny; ^free& is common, of course. But in a passage from Jan
Mukar'ovsky^s Jazyk, ktery; ba;snâ, we find the relational adjective volnâ> ^^Slova ^^ma;j&& a ^^la;ska&& ....
                            '
navozujâ v mysli c'tena;rove' cosi, co by se dalo nazvat z'ivotnâm pocitem, citovy;m a volnâm pome'rem
ke skutec'nosti ... ^^. ^suggest in the reader&s mind something that could be called a life feeling, an
emotional and volitional relationship to reality.& Heim translates volnâm with ^willful&, but this
rendition is too qualitative than the context calls for> i.e., ^^a feeling of life, an emotional and
volitional (i.e., of the WILL)&& attitude toward reality. Willful in the sense of ^^of the will&& describes
a quality (resolute, stubborn, etc.). Since volny; is common, the appearance of -nâ in volnâ should
trigger a relational reflex< the relationality helps the reader really get the point.


                          ^^Relationalizing^^ -ny; with -ovy; and -nâ
          With many native words -ovy; is used to create new relationals opposed to qualitatives in -
ny;. From cena ^value, price& cenny; ^valuable& is almost always qualitative, while cenovy; is drafted
for the necessary relationals> cenovy; index ^price index&. Similarly, from moc ^power& consider
mocna; politika vs. mocova; politika (^powerful vs. power politics&). From u;stup ^retreat,
concession&, note u;stupny; delega;t ^delegate ready to retreat or make concessions^ vs. u;stupovy; boj
^fight (tactics) of retreat&, With an example like osud ^fate&, the distinction can become somewhat
blurred. Note osudny; ^fateful, fatal& osudny; omyl ^fatal mistake& vs. osudova; ra;na ^wound&, which
strike me as more qualitative and better candidates for osudny;. Osudova; trage;die ^tragedy of fate&
is more strictly relational, as is osudove' spjaty ^linked by fate (fatewise)&. Konecny; does duty for
stanice (^station&) and more abstract câl (^goal&), but the linguists resorted to -ovy; for koncova;
slabika ^final syllable&. A more concrete example is kal ^mud&. Note kalna; voda ^muddy, unclear
water& or, used more qualitatively, kalny; can mean ^dull, gloomy (thing or person)&. But note the
new technical relational kalovy;> kalovy; filtr ^mud filter&. For bla;to itself, there is the common
bla;tivy; ^muddy (note English -y)^, and the dictionary lists a relational bla;tovy; as rare or poetic ^z
bla;ta ude'lany; (^made from mud&&, blatove; laguny (from Neruda ^mud lagoons&). They don^t all
catch on well, as we can see. The relational -nâ, of course, also ^^relationalizes^^ qualitative -ny;>
                                          ;
za;bava ^fun, entertainment& yields za;bavny; vec'er; ^entertaining¶fun evening& vs, za;bavnâ vec'er
^evening of entertainment&.
          In foreign words in -nâ with atypical qualitative meaning, the relational can be ^^rescued&& by
-ovy;> kapita;lnâ ^great, colossal& vs., kapita;lovy; ^capital (economics)&.
5     ^^Teaching Czech Adjectival Derivation&&, C. Townsend, SVU Cedar Rapids, 6/¶26¶03


                                   Adverbials in -ove'
         Czech also builds adverbs from relationals in -ov-. The meaning is often close to that
expressed by colloquial English -wise. The meaning here often can become qualitative. Thus we
note kniha obsahove' (not obsaz'ne') bohata; ^book rich in content¶contentwise&, rodove' (not rodne',
though rodny; is common) vznes'ene; pr'âbuzenstvo ^relatives high up in pedigree¶pedigreewise.
Others are hrobove' (not hrobne', though hrobnâ is common) tichy ^silent like the grave&. Also
ledove' (not ledne') studene; te'lo ^body cold as ice&, jazykove' spra;vny; vy;raz ^linguistically¶
languagewise correct expression&, na;me'tove' pru_bojna; kniha ^book which is groundbreaking
plotwise&.
         I could try out on my Czech friends my own creations> ^Je zubove' v hors'âm stavu (though
zubnâ is normal for human teeth< note zubnâ kaz ^cavity&) ^He&s worse off dentally¶toothwise, while
zubovy; itself is used for teeth in a machine or fortifications. How about pstruhove' bohata; r'eka
^river rich in trout¶troutwise^.


                   A semantic determinant> Seasons> summer, winter, spring, fall
         Here is the apparent LCS pattern. The words for ^fall& are not attested in OCS, and le't¸n˙ is
glossed as ^of time&.
         SUMMER                  WINTER                  SPRING                    FALL
LCS le'to - le't¸n˙              zima - zim¸n˙ vesna - ves¸n˙            •jesen¸ - •jesen¸n˙
Cz       le;to - letnâ           zima - zimnâ            •vesenny; (jarnâ)         •jesennâ (podzimnâ)
Russ leto - letnij               zima - zimnij           vesna - vesennij          osen& - osennij
Pol      lato - letni            zima - zimowy wiosna-wiosenny           jesien; - jesienny
          In Czech we note the generalization of -n;- to all the seasons, which form a part of the time-
place subgroups. Russian joins Czech in this, whereas, Polish, except for letni, has resisted this
generalization. The Polish example is instructive here, because with its lone -ov- in the group,
Polish zimowy, a semantic determinant may have intervened and overcome a constraint against a
suffix for a given group< here, it may have something to do with the shift of zimny to qualitative
^cold& from relational ^winter&, so that a new relational suffix was needed. No knowledge of Polish
should be needed here to understand this.
         Now let&s consider some more specific examples of interest>


                        HROB              grave
        Instead of the cradle, let&s start with the grave. We noted the original preference for -n- and
the older adjective yielded hrobny; in Czech, suffixes, but now newer (na)hrobnâ and hrobovy; have
replaced it. (na;)hrobnâ ka;men, na;pis (^stone, inscription&) but also hrobovy; na;pis. Figurative
usages are reserved for hrobovy;> hrobove; ticho, hrobova; bledost (^silence, pallor&). Lest this seem
6     ^^Teaching Czech Adjectival Derivation&&, C. Townsend, SVU Cedar Rapids, 6/¶26¶03


odd, note that relationality is preserved here> silence of the grave, paleness of the grave. So we see
here new Czech -n;- replacing -n-, and -ov- with a new relational with metaphorical meaning.


                        ZA:SADA                   principle
        Czech za;sada ^principle& yielded za;sadnâ, which has moved toward qualitative status in its
sense ^principle, main, basic&< for instance, za;sadnâ rozdâl just means ^basic difference&. Reserved
for the more relational ^of principle, related to principle& is the newer za;sadovy;> za;sadovy; rozdâl ^a
difference in principle& (nebyl mezi nimi za;sadovy; rozdâl) ^there was no difference in principle
between them&).


                         SRDCE                    heart
        Note a similar patterns with ^^heart&&. Old Slavic was in typical -ny; for everything. Czech
keeps -ny; asits qualitative srdec'ny; (pozdrav) ^hearty (greeting)& and rejected -ov- for the primary
relational (organ) in favor of -nâ, srdec'nâ (za;chvat) ^heart¶cardiac& (^attack&). It has, though,
typically introduced -ov- for a newer and specific abstract relational> srdcove; eso *ace of hearts*< or
the substantivized adjective srdcova; ^woman of the heart&.


                          MLHA                    fog
         Speaking of foggy issues, let&s examine the foggy issue of fog, Cz mlha. The very noun
seems to lend itself to qualitative meaning, and Czech uses qualitative as well as relational suffixes
for both qualitative and relational meaning.
         Czech has the somewhat bookish and undoubtedly older mlz'ny;> (no •mlz'nâ is listed) obzor,
des'tâk, noc (^horizon, rain, night&) and also abstract> slova, obsah (^words, content&). A newer
                                                                         '
relational, mlhovy; also has both concrete and abstract usages> obla;cek, dny, pozadâ (^cloud, days,
background&). The commonest adjective is probably mlhavy;, built with a suffix which is eminently
qualitative, yet concrete meanings are found here, too> predstavy, nade'je (^notions, hopes) but also
poc'asâ, obzor (^weather, horizon&). Mlhovity; is also used> poc'asâ, podnebâ (^weather&). Rarer
variants are mlz'ivy; and mlz'naty;, both with qualitative suffixes and both with qualitative and
concrete usages. In a large group like this, of course, it is much more difficult than usual to
establish a clearly relational-qualitative polarity.
          In English, with its paucity of qualitative suffixes and virtual absence of relational suffixes,
the situation is simple. We have qualitative foggy. Relational ^^fog&& precedes its determinant,
whether or not spelling has fused the elements, as in foghorn, fog patterns, fog specialist. You
wouldn&t want a foggy specialist. For foggy day, foggy weather, etc. the connection to the noun is
clear and direct, but the highly descriptive nature of the item induces the qualitative.
7     ^^Teaching Czech Adjectival Derivation&&, C. Townsend, SVU Cedar Rapids, 6/¶26¶03


                       JAZYK                    language, tongue
        In North Slavic formation is preeminently from -ov-> Cz jazykovy;, P je$zykowy, R has
jazykovo;j for language but jazyko;vyj for the organ (food). Cz has alternate jazyc'nâ¶jazyc'ny; for
linguistic (tongue sounds).


                        LED                      ice (hockey)
        For ^(ice) hockey& note that, typically, Czech uses a relational adjective, whereas Polish
prefers a periphrastic> lednâ hokej vs, hokej na lodzie, For ^hockey stick& note Cz hokejova; hu_l
(though also hokejka) vs. P kij do hokeja (though I also found kijek hokejowy).


                         Z"ELEZO                 iron
         Old Slavic had only what resulted in Czech z'elezny;, which then resisted replacement by -
nâ, for standard relational usage (^of iron&) and also an abstract relational> z'elezna; vu_le ^iron will&.
Characteristically, the -ov- suffixed in used in Czech z'elezovy; beton ^reinforced concrete&, while
Polish shows z[elazobeton. In accordance with the inclination in Slavic to utilize qualitative
suffixes in chemistry, for ^ferrous&, for instance, Czech uses both z'elezity; and z'eleznaty;.


                                            GRAINS
         Among foodstuffs, Czech, exceptionally, prefers -n- to -n;-, particularly for GRAINS>
ps'enic'ny;, mouc'ny;, ovesny;, prosny;, kukur'ic'ny; (^wheat, flour, oats, millet, corn&) with jec'menovy;
(^barley&) supplanting rarer jec'menny; (also older jec'mennâ) perhaps for phonetic reasons.


                          VI:NO           wine
         For ^wine&, both Czech and Polish (also the other Slavic languages) have -n-. Cz has vinny;
ker', P spirytus winny. Czech, typically, uses -ov- as well< e.g. for ^vine (wine shrub), vinny; ker' and
vinovy; ker' (recall here above adverbials> vânove' c'erveny &wine red&). Polish has only winny krzew.
         The predilection of Czech for relationals vs. Polish use of periphrastics can be illustrated by
the following table comparing usages involving ^wine& from Czech and Polish dictionaries>
         wine bag                me;ch na vâno, vinny; me'ch              szaw`ok (na wino)
         wine basket             vinny; kos'                              koszyk na butelke$ wina przy stole
         wine cellar             vinny; sklep                             piwnica winna,
         wine cup                poha;r na vâno, vinna; c'âs'e            puchar (naczinie do wina)
         wine glass              sklenice, vinna; sklenka                 kieliszek do wina
         grapevine               re;va vinna;                             winoros;l
         wine list               vinny; lâstek                            karta win
         wine press              lis na vâno, vinny; lis                  prasa do winogron
8     ^^Teaching Czech Adjectival Derivation&&, C. Townsend, SVU Cedar Rapids, 6/¶26¶03


        wine stone              vinny; ka;men                            vinik, kamien; winny
        wine vinegar            vinny; ocet                              ocet winny


        Note the same phenomenon with ^coffee&>


                         KA:VA                    coffee
        coffee bean             ka;vove; zrno, zrnko ka;vy               ziarnko kawowe
        coffee cup                          ;
                                ka;vovy; s'alek                          filiz[anka do kawy
        coffee grounds           ka;vova; sedlina                        fusy
        coffee mill             ka;vovy; mly;nek, mly;nek na ka;vu       m`ynek do kawy
        coffee pot              konvice na ka;vu, ka;vova; konvice       maszynek do kawy
        coffee spoon            (mala;) ka;vova; lz'ic'ka                `yz[eczka do kawy



                                 CONCLUSIONS


         There are, perhaps, two main issues here for teaching Czech adjectival derivation. The first
is the great importance of explaining the qualitative vs. relational adjectives, with use of contrastive
English examples (-y, -ish vs. preposing of nouns to be modified). The second is to illustrate the
richness of the Czech relational system (e.g., srdec'ny;, volny; za;bavny; vs. srdec'nâ, volnâ, za;bavnâ).