Poljakov Oleg. „Das Problem der balto-slavischen Sprachgemeinschaft“

LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XL (1998) Review. Reviews. Notes. Opinions. Reviews. Observations and overviews. Reviews. Anmerkungen Poljakov Oleg, Das Problem der balto-slavischen Sprachgemeinschaft [Heidelberger Publikationen zur Slavistik, A. Linguistishe Reihe, Band 8. Hrsg. Baldur Panzer], Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, Europaischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1995, XXX 336 p. The reviewed book by Oleg Poljakov, associate professor at the Slavy Philology Department of Vilnius University, is perhaps the largest study since Janis Endzelynas’s- ,,Slavobaltiskyju Etiudes”, devoted to one of the, it may be said, eternal problems of historical linguistics — the problem of the relations between the oldest Baltic and Slavic languages. The book consists of a “Preface” (pp. XIII-XIX), three parts (pp. 1-302), “General conclusions” (pp. 303-305) and a list of literature (pp. 307-334). In the "Preface" he describes, on the basis of theoretical principles, the basic methods used to solve the problem of the relations between the oldest Baltic and Slavic languages, describes his method of research as "Systemanalyse, systematische Behandlung", emphasizing that this problem can be solved not by deducing individual common phenomena of those languages, but by analyzing the isoglosses of all the linguistic parts and thus avoiding the arbitrariness of opposing and contradictory hypotheses (p. XVII), and defines a rather modest goal, which is "aber nicht, endgültige Losungen vieler Probleme vorzuschlagen, sondern eine neue Diskussion über das Problem der balto-slavischen Sprachen. stimulate language community and language affinity in general, which corresponded to the modern development of linguistics” (p. XIX). As it turns out later in the book, O. Poliakov had a much higher goal in his research. In the first part "Introduction. History and Methodological Issues of the Problem of the Baltic-Slavic Linguistic Community” (pp. 1—58) describes in detail the methods of studying the relations of the oldest Baltic and Slavic languages, distinguishing the Brugmann method and the Meillet method, and touching on the question of the origin of the Baltic and Slavic languages in general, and also referring to the latest linguistic literature, reviews the situation of the study of the relations of the oldest Baltic and Slavic languages on individual linguistic levels — lexical (following W. Manczaka, he considers the dictionary as an important factor in determining the degree of affinity of languages; he summarizes the common suffixes of word formation of these languages), phonetic-phonological (reviews only prosody and pronunciation issues), morphological (touches only the verb system), syntactic and even “extralinguistic” (after reviewing mainly from the methodological side the Indo-European ancestors- '9un3ennn HK. M. Craeano-6anmuiickue omrodn, Xapskos, 1911. 243 The study of the wine, concludes that the data of other sciences, such as archaeology, can neither confirm nor deny the Baltic Slavic linguistic community). It is striking that, in reviewing the situation of the problem of the oldest relations of the Baltic and Slavic languages in terms of language, he mentions, comments and criticizes only those arguments that are directed against the Baltic Slavic community, and does not touch the argumentation of the supporters of that community, contenting himself with the general remark that their arguments are also disputed (p. 58). From a methodological point of view, O. Poliakov’s observation that the problem of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages can be solved by adding up, not by calculating individual phenomena or groups of them, but by analyzing the isoglosses of all the linguistic domains, and, most importantly, that these common phenomena and elements cannot be projected into the same chronological plane (p.8) is worth noting. In the second part, “Phonetic-- phonological problems of the Balto-Slavic linguistic community” (pp. 59-192), the author examines quite diverse phenomena of the phonetic-phonological systems of the Balto-Slavic languages that have arisen at different times, such as: ide. the fate of syllable sonants ‘, m, m, r, ide. Overlap of veliariniy and labioveliary gomuriniy consonants, elongation of root vowels in Baltic and Slavic languages (so-called Winter's law), ide. overlapping of aspirated and unaspirated explosive consonants, ide. palatalization of palatal palatal consonants, alterations of consonant groups, ide. "'s substitution after i, u, r; k, it's going. reflexes of nasal consonants at the end of a word and the laws of word ending in Slavic languages. A considerable space is also devoted to the subjects of Baltic and Slavic accentology. After a detailed review of the intonation systems of the Latvian and Prussian languages and the Žemaičių dialects of the Lithuanian language, he arrives at the interesting conclusion that the primeval nature of the Belarusian intonations (acute — descending, circumflex — ascending preposition) has been preserved in the Lithuanian common language and the Vysočina dialects. The most controversial issues in this chapter are, of course, Winter's law and the operation of the de Saussure–Fortunatov law in Slavic languages. The third part “Declination of Baltic and Slavic languages and their relations” (p. 193—302) is devoted to the conjugation systems of Baltic and Slavic languages, which, in the opinion of O. Poliakov, are more important than the personification systems in solving the question of the oldest relations of Baltic and Slavic languages, because the declination is “static”, less variable and altered. It is based on the eight-vowel system (including the vowel) that was characteristic of ide. prologue to a later stage of development. The conclusion that O. Poliakov draws about the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages from the analysis of the declination relations of those languages is unexpected — already after id. the breakdown of the proto-language there was a common source of declination of the Baltic and Slavic languages, which can be called the "pro-language" (Ursprache) or "language community" (Sprachgemeinschaft) (p 302). But when O. Poliakov adds that this common source was of the same nature as the Indo-Iranians, everything becomes clear: after id. There was a common Baltic-Slavic language, from which the Baltic and Slavic languages later evolved. After all, the 244 existence of the Indo-Iranian proto-language is an Indo-European recognized fact. je There is no doubt that O. The publication of Poliakov’s study is a new important stage in the study of the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages, not to mention that the book published abroad and written in German is a significant biographical fact of O. Poliakov himself as a scholar. In this connection it is necessary to emphasize that after writing and publishing this book in German — the classical language of Indo-European studies — O. He also taught Lithuanian language. With O. Poliakov’s book, Lithuanian linguists’ works, interpretations, hypotheses and ideas came into the horizon of Western scholars. Lithuanian and Latvian linguists will find it very useful, even necessary, to study O. Poliakov’s book carefully. You see that it was written not only in Lithuania, but also in the Western centres of science and culture. The latest Indo-European literature is referred to and quoted, based on the latest research results, hypotheses, conclusions. For each question, the literature is referred to in detail, interpretations and hypotheses are presented, nothing is hidden. But O. Poliakov also has his own view — he bases it, argues it, polemizes it with other viewpoints of other researchers. Therefore, O. Poliakov’s book is a scientific investigation. As a positive feature of O. Poliakov’s scientific method, it should be noted that he examines the facts and phenomena of the Baltic and Slavic languages in a broad sense. in the context of linguistic data — facts and phenomena of Baltic and Slavic languages appear in a new light either as archaisms or as innovations. The possibility of accessing the latest research on Indo-European languages and their results, as well as the systematic approach of the author of the book, allowed to fundamentally review many statements of Baltic historical comparative linguistics, for example, the history of neutrum nouns in Baltic languages. (p. 197-209). As already mentioned, O. Poliakov’s book also contains controversial points that are really worth arguing about, but, of course, not in the tone and style of W. Hock. * O. Poliakov distinguishes two main methods of studying the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages and their nature — the Brugmann method and the Meillet method (p. XIV). According to O. Poliakov, their essence is as follows: the deduction of the common exclusive phenomena and facts of the Baltic and Slavic languages (the so-called “eight Brugmann points”) states that there was “eine balto-slavische Sprachgemeinschaft” (after the disintegration of the proto-language); identical or similar equivalents, parallels from other ide. The reference to the history of languages acknowledges parallel, independent development between Baltic and Slavic languages (Meillet method). These two methods, these two approaches, were the reason for the most famous linguistic debate, in which many scholars participated. Some scholars, O. Poliakov continues, acknowledge the existence of a „balto-slavische Sprachgemeinschaft“, others deny it,,ausgehend paradoxerweise von den methodologischen Vorstellungen K. Brugmanns (pro) oder A. Meillets (con2 See. Linguistica Baltica 5-6, 1996-97, 227-233. 245 tra)’ (p. XIV). Iš here appear two categories of explorers — “Adherents of this Theory and opponents of this theory (i.e. of the Balto-Slavic language community)“. Such a division of the principled approaches to the problem of the relations of the oldest Baltic and Slavic languages is schematic, too broad and therefore does not correspond to reality. Recalling that O. Poliakov considers Meillet’s method “im grof3en und ganzen ein groBer methodologischer Fehler” (p. 14), we know on whose side O. Poliakov’s sympathies are — he is a fervent supporter of the unity of Baltic and Slavic languages. Preconceptions about the existence of this unity diminished the convincingness and the probative power of a good and interesting book. The reality is that there are neither opponents nor supporters of the Baltic-Slavic linguistic community, but there is a problem of interpretation, which constitutes the essence of the study of the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages. The Baltic and Slavic languages have a string of isoglosses that connect them to each other and distinguish them from other Indo-European languages. languages. How did these isoglosses come about? It is necessary to recognize the existence of a separate Baltic-Slavic language after ide. the decomposition of protolanguage, and thus to rely on the concept of protolanguage, which actually aims at A. Schleicher’s Stammbaumtheorie in the middle of the 19th century? Or perhaps it is possible to explain the emergence of this thread in some other way — parallel development of Baltic and Slavic languages, as A. Meillet has succeeded in, or convergent development of those languages, secondary convergence, as J. Endzelynas and many other researchers have thought? The great French comparative linguist A. Meillet tried to find another solution to the problem — he saw a moment of parallelism in the development of the Baltic and Slavic languages, and methodologically this was the most important thing in solving the problem of the relationship of the oldest Baltic and Slavic languages. The similarity of the structures of the Baltic and Slavic languages, according to A. Meillet, was determined by the following factors: 1) the Baltic and Slavic languages originated from the ide. the identical dialects (de parlers indo-européens sensiblement identiques) of the linguistic community (I'unité indo-europčenne), not separated by any major isogloss; 2) the Baltic and Slavic languages have not undergone radical systemic fractures in their development ((aucune fracture brusgue du systėme), i.e. they are conservative and archaic and therefore have retained many ancient features; 3) the Balts and Slavs lived in adjacent geographical areas under similar civilizational conditions, and this was reflected in their languages. Moreover, the similarity of the Baltic and Slavic languages has been increased by borrowings, especially of the Baltic languages from the Slavic languages." Even N. Trubeckojus did not rule out the possibility of convergent development between Baltic and Slavic languages, noting that consistent divergent development would probably have led to the emergence of transitional, intermediate languages or dialects- ." Even before the Second World War, atlases of the main European national languages — Italian, French, German, etc. — were compiled. Atlases covering several languages, such as the eight-volume “Italian and 3Meillet A. Les dialectes indo-européens, Nouveau tirage, Paris, 1922, 40-41. ‘*Tpy6euxoit H C. H3bpannsie mpyos no guaosoeuu, Mocksa, 1987, 48. 246 Languages of Southern Switzerland The cartographic 1928). representation of linguistic data, primarily in the classical form of — isoglosses and fibers, laid the foundations of jų area-specific geographical — study of Indo-European languages. These atlases have raised interesting facts showing that linguistic phenomena transcend dialects tų ir borders of language ranges, į interferes with the area of another language. The comparative je method of Indo-European linguistics applied to genetically ir non-memory languages revealed that common, typological features of phonetic grammatical systems can ir be found in languages of different structural types." ir All this led the researchers to think that, due to the influence of other languages, languages with a large accumulation ir of foreign elements can fundamentally change from one structural iš genetic type to another, — iš for example, from flexional to agglutinativenj®. į Therefore, representatives of Prague functional linguistics distinguished the genealogical kinship of languages (Verwandtschaft) ir antritypological nę language affinity (Affinitat). The notion of genealogical kinship, expressing the relationship between languages that have grown from a single stem, here called the Ursprache, here the base language, was characteristic of the entire thinking apparatus of historical comparative linguistics in the 19th century. Secondary typological affinity occurs between genetically unrelated languages and includes common features that have arisen through convergent evolution and interference (a term used by Prague linguists). The similarity of the structures of the Balkan languages has led researchers to talk about linguistic alliances (alliance linguistigue, Sprachbund): neighbouring, even non-communicative languages, having maintained a long period of steady intensive communication, "infect" each other and acquire similar pronunciation skills, common sounds and phonotactic elements, as well as similar features of grammatical structure." It is possible that these areal convergence factors have also led to the similarity of the Baltic and Baltic-Finnic languages. The Baltic Finnic languages not only have borrowed a large number of words from the Baltic languages, but they are also closely related to the phonetic system of the Baltic languages”, they also have surprising similarities in their grammatical structures, let’s compare, for example, the present tense paradigms of Lithuanian miegoti and Estonian žodis „miegoti”: Lithuanian Estonian miegu mina magan aš "I sleep" you sleep you sleep "you sleep" jis, ji sleep his sleep "his sleep" we sleep we sleep "we sleep" you sleep you sleep "you sleep" they, jos sleep they sleep "they sleep" SSl Ko 6conmn P. K xapaxmepucmukxe espasuiickozo a3bix020 coro3a, Ilapux, 1931. ®Tpy6eukoit H.C. Op. cit., 29-30, 53-58. "Jakobson R. Selected Writings. - I. Phonological Studies, The Hague —Paris, 1962, 137-201. SAnttila R. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics, New York— London, 1972, 174. 247 As we can see, we are not dealing with a single, separate and therefore quite possible thing, with randomly similar facts, but with a fragment of a morphological system whose structural and functional similarity includes even material identity of elements (plural endings -me, -te and the roots of the verbs themselves mieg-, mag-). In the Estonian paradigm, the third person is a pure root —as in the Baltic languages—because -b-/-vay are present tense indicators and -dyr is a plural formant. The structural similarity of the paradigms is further enhanced by the fact that the I person singular ending historically had "-m and the consonant m at the end of the word regularly became n — as in the Baltic languages. The materially identical element in the Baltic languages is found in the inflection of athematic verbs, cf. ei-m-i "I go". The only difference between the paradigms is that the -t-/-dest element in Estonian functions in the second person singular, whereas in Lithuanian it functions in the third person singular, cf. es-t-i. Others here. languages, such as the Hittite, have it both in the third and second person, cf. het. e-e-sh-ta "you were; it was.’ If convergent evolution was able to produce such surprising coincidences in languages of fundamentally different genetic structural types, then what can we say about the Baltic and Slavic languages, which emerged from one language, even though they were divided into dialects. pro-languages and which have existed for thousands of years in neighbourhood in similar geographical and civilizational conditions and whose speakers maintained close and intensive contacts. O. Poliakov attaches great importance to the common vocabulary of the Baltic and Slavic languages, to the phenomena of prosody and ablative, all of which indicate the genetic, but not parallel, independent origin of the common facts of the Baltic and Slavic languages. It is quite possible that some morphological innovations, e.g., 0 stem gen. sing. ending '-4 (wolf, lat. vilka), -a (s. sl. vloka), a stem instr. sing. the ending "-an (lit. hand, s. sl. roko), which appeared at the time when the common lexicon of the Baltic and Slavic languages was formed (e.g., names of body parts: glava, s. sl. glava, ranka, s. sl. roka, delnas, sr.kr. dlan, ragas, s. sl. rogy, pentis, s. sl. peta). But does this mean that there was only one language? o kamieno gen. sing. the ending is a truly striking isogloss of Baltic and Slavic languages, distinguishing these languages from other ide. of languages, because it is a paradigm rebuilding, which consists in replacing the old genitive form with an ablative form (p. 216). However, the Prussian language has retained the old flexion (deiwas "of God" with -as from ide. '-oso). The logical conclusion would be that during the change of the genitive to ablative, quite possible thing, as well as during the emergence of the common lexicon of the Baltic and Slavic languages, the Baltic and Slavic languages were two independent dialectal continuities. Otherwise, the genitive would have been replaced by an ablative in Prussian. The same is apparently true of some phonetic phenomena, e.g. ide. 's fate after w, u, r. k: if after ide. If the proto-language had existed in the Balto-Slavic language, such words with the intact s as teisūs, viesulas, flesa, músas, muse, ausis, daiisos, klausyti, saūsas, tausytis (cf. s. sl. tichy, s. rus. vichwrs, blrcha, mychy, musica, s. sl. ucho, duchwv, slusati, suchy, po-tuchnoti) would hardly have survived. According to recent research —which O. Poliakov refers to in detail (p. 202-205), —Prussian neutrum nouns with nom. -acc. sing. limb lake, chair) is a superarchaism. Thus, the emergence of the predicative function of the genitive forms in Lithuanian language 248 - Come on. '-om (e.g., assaran, creslan : lit. (for example, how good I am!) ir neutrum nouns su -o (ozero, kréslo) appearance in Slavic languages instead of archaic neutrum forms with “-om is an innovation of eastern Baltic and Slavic languages. O. Poliakov- 's explanation that the old neutrum form 'geran (cf. fr. labban) was replaced by good because of analogy with adjectives of the u root, where neutrum never had -n<"-m (cf. grazu and het. idalu "bad"), is quite possible. The result of equalization by analogy, a possible object, is also the Slavic neutrum with -o. Nom. acc. sing. “-om phonetically changed to "-2, there was a serious risk of the neutralum category disappearing. In order to prevent this from happening, the ending -o could have been introduced into the neutrum nouns from the pronominal declination (see to „Ššis“) or perhaps from the s stem (see slovo<'slovos). O. Poliakov also agrees with this treatment of the phenomenon in classical Indo-European studies (A. Leskienas, K. Brugmann, F. Fortunatov). So, a protoid. Neutrum category with -om was eliminated independently in Baltic and Slavic languages, but this phenomenon was not late — the Baltic-origin debtors in Baltic Finnish languages do not have -an anymore (cf. Finnish silta "bridge", heind, Sienas®). More cases of parallel and independent development can be found in the noun declination system. and the stone name. plural ending '-iies >lit. -ys (cf. ugn-ys) and sl. -oje < -ijes (cf. s. sl. hosteje) has changed the idea of this verb. the flexion "-eies (cf. s. ind. agnayas "fire") independently in each language group, —this is evident from the fact that the old ide. The inflection has been preserved in lit. dial. (Aukštaitijos) form of fire with -ies <'-eis <'-eies. This development is also acknowledged by O. Poliakov (p. 274). It is not clear enough whether i stem acc. plural ending -is (lit. akis, lat. acis) and sl. -i (sl. ogni) is "eine gemeinsame ostbaltish-slavische Neuerung" (p. 276), because '-ins > -i is the only case of such phonetic change and therefore too problematic. Rather, here we would expect the same result as the io trunk acc. in the plural form, where “-iins gave the nasal vowel reflex, cf. pronouns s. sl. je "them", jęże "which", also i kamieno gen. plur. s. sl. hosted with -6jo from “-iiom. The inflection of this vowel in the Baltic and Slavic languages is probably also the result of parallel, independent development. A clear case of parallel development from the vowel system is the change of the diphthong “eu” into liet 'iau and sl. ju, because during the contacts of the Baltic languages and Baltic Finnish languages the Baltic language eu still had a whole, cf. Finnish leuka, „Unterkiefer, Kinn“ < Baltic, cf. lit. liauka „Drūse“ (for the meaning connection cf. lit. geležuonys „Drūse“: lat. dzēlzs „Kinnlade, kiefer“; lat. žuokli „Kinlanden; Mandeln- “). It is also not clear why the i stem gen. sing. the form with the ending '"-eis (of fire, s. sl. ogni) constitutes an innovation of the Baltic and Slavic languages (p. 270). The Germanic languages have such an ending (gen. sing. s. high German ensti, s. Saxon ensti, s. English ēste "favor, grace" with german. '-eiz <ide. '-eis), the Oskian language (aeteis) and probably s. Indian (gdtes "walk")*. Bammesber ger A. The Morphology of the Proto-Germanic Nomen, Heidelberger, 1990, 124-125. 249 Greta gave it. plural forms with germ. '-miz, which is probably of instr. plural origin (cf. Saitchamimis in the oldest Germanic sources), is now tended to be accepted as being both past and present. plural forms with the ending "-maz <ide. '-mos, e.g. dat. plur. got. dagam "for days" is derived from 'dagamaz with syncope of the third syllable and subsequent assimilation 'dagamz >dagam(- m)". Slavic Languages dat. The plural ending -m» can continue with both “-mus” and '-mos, and in Baltic languages there are cases where the vowel a turns into u, especially near the labial consonants (see lit. mazgas: muzgas, paskui: puskui, kaponė: kuponė, sambarė: samburė, lat. jūrmala: jūrmule). Then give it. Plur. -mos and instr. plur. -mis resp. "-mis flexion are from ide. a dialectic feature inherited from the pro-language, forming an opposition to other ide. language (Aryan, Greek, Italic, Celtic) flexion bhi(i)os. The two examples given below show the method of O. Poliakov, with which he wants to prove that the Baltic-Slavic language existed after ide. the disintegration of linguistic community. o stem nouns nom. plural '-oi (wolves, s.sl. vleci) to be „eine gemeinsame genetische Isoglosse im Baltischen und Slavischen“ (p. 236), but the same ending in Greek (Ako) to be already the result of a parallel independent development of Greek. Explaining o stem dat. sing. As for the origin of the flexion (wild, s. sl. vivku), O. Poliakov relies on V. Maziulis’ theory that the Balts and Slavs here had a common ending “6, which later in the Slavic languages was replaced by -u<'-ou" coming from the u stem, but rejects V. Maziulis’ statement that this ending was common Indo-European, because it with the added '"-i was used by the Hittites, Aryans, Greeks, etc. This detracts from the impression of balty-slavy unity (p. 223-224). The statement that the long diphthong "oi reflex ui "im Inlaut nie vorkommt" (p. 217) is inaccurate, and therefore rejects the development of "oi > uoi>ui, because, hearing, it cannot be supported by facts (p. 219). However, there are words in which ui may have come from the diphthong “6i'”. The possibility of the root '-di is also shown by the Lithuanian word kuomija "headquarters, place (about a wolf)", which is of the same root as village. Only here “the oi reflex was different — in the position before m the i disappeared”. With this in mind and knowing that 0 is the root date. sing. '-di (from '-o + -ei) goes. in languages is well proven, it is not entirely impossible traditional interpretation, that '-0di changed 1) to '-6 (due to sandhi falling -i) >lit. -uo and 2) through the intermediate stage “-uoi>lit. -ui > -u (with later declined -i). It is also an inaccurate statement that the Baltic and Slavic languages did not preserve the roots with diphthong roots and that this is another commonality of those languages (p. 290)**. When u stone dat. sing. the ending -ui (son) <'-uoi<'-di would have come from “-ou-ei (p. 282), is phonetically impossible. But O. Poliakov- 's idea that u stem dat. sing. end "Bammesberger A. Op. cit., 45-46. "Maziulis V. Baltic and other Indo-European languages, Vilnius, 117 et seq. 2 Kazlauskas J. Historical grammar of Lithuanian language, Vilnius, 1968, 120 (with literature). 5 Karaliūnas S. Structural similarities and their origin in the Baltic languages, Vilnius, 1987, 183. “Karaliiinas S. Op. cit., 188. 250 -uo (son of Žemaičiai and Gervėčiai) may have come from loc. sing. -ou (plg. žem. turguo <'-uo-ėn ir <'-Or ir s. Indian son < - Or). The history of the consonant stems of the Baltic and Slavic languages and their evolution of inflection is certainly not a special evidence of the Baltic-Slavic linguistic activity (p. 299), because the type of consonant inflection of these languages is a clearly preserved Indo-European antiquity, which shows that the Baltic and Slavic languages are descended from the ide. prokalbės. Some common changes in the paradigms of this consonantization in the Baltic and Slavic languages (e.g., the stems of the normal vowels -en-, -er-) are conditioned by the general tendency of language development — the tendency to simplify and level paradigms — and are therefore late and independently occurred in each language group. And in general, the history of the declination system of the Baltic and Slavic languages does not confirm the conclusion that after ide. the breakdown of the linguistic community was a common source of declination of Baltic and Slavic languages such as Indo-Iranian (p. 302). What is common to the Baltic and Slavic languages in the declination of nouns is, firstly, the retention of ide in most cases. archaic state, second, reflected dialectic characteristics ide. Firstly, the pro-languages of the north-western area, from where the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic (and Tocharian) languages emerged, and, thirdly, the innovations of the Baltic and Slavic languages, which emerged through convergence, both at the morphological level and at the phonological and prosodic and lexical semantic level, due to the neighborhood of the Baltic and Slavic peoples and long-term intensive contacts and similar conditions of civilization and geography. There are more doubtful reconstructions or comparisons, as well as one more encirclement. Maybe you can s. sl. az» to restore the prolyte 'eg'hom (p. 180), cf. s. Indian aham „I“, but lit. es (cf. dialects and old writings eš) and lat. es<blt. “eZ can only come from ide. "Heg'h, with zero degree of vocalism, coexisted with "Heg'ēh, with the normal degree of vowel change in the Latin and Greek forms ego and žyos. Although the origin of the diphthong ui is unclear, as correctly observed by O. Poliakov (p. 217-218), it is certain that lit. luiSas „Belt“, kuinas „hornless, badass“ and tuikti „to stun, to be confused“ have etymologically nothing in common with liišis „Lynx lynx“, kūnas „Kėrper“ and tūkti „fett werden“ (p. 218). Furthermore, Chr. The rod does not bind them." Louis, as it seems, has a connection with liūšas "strip", lūšinti "peeling- ", lušonas "stripes- ", ap-lūsti "covering" and further with lūžas "strip"; kuinas may be etymologically related to kuinas „geinis, ritmuša- “, kuinis „rod, pagalys“ and further through the intermediate form "kainsu keinis, keinys,lazda „ripkai“ musti“ (for the meaning connection cf. lit. baūžas „without horns, buolas“: lat. bauzis „unbearable bull“, bauze „rod, pagalys; spindle of a loom...“), while tuikti undoubtedly belongs to the root, which must vaporize „„..svaigti, kvaisti“. Pr. narvytis „trotzig sein“ (p. 155) is actually Lit. narvytis (-ijasi),uzsispyrima rodyti“ LKŽ VII 564, which is used in Prussian Lithuanian writings instead of the Slavic naravytis of other dialects ‘t. p.“, therefore has nothing to do with desire. Different types of roots. Stang Chr. S. Comparative Grammar of the Baltic Languages, Oslo-Bergen-Tromso, 1966, 72. 251