LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXVIII (1989)

KALBŲ RYŠIAI IR SĄVEIKOS

CONTACTS OF PERIPHERAL DIALECTS WITH NEIGHBORING LANGUAGES

ZIGMAS ZINKEVIČIUS

THE EARLIEST LITHUANIAN LINGUISTIC CONTACTS WITH THE SLAVS

This is a rather complicated subject. It is not easy to determine when Lithuanian contacts with the Slavs began, or to discuss their course and nature. Much must be described approximately, and certain assumptions made. First, the situation in that period should be discussed, insofar as this can be done on the basis of linguistic, archaeological, and historical data.

During the period of intensive Slavic expansion (around the 7th century), when the Slavs reached the Pskov–Novgorod region, the linguistic differentiation of the eastern Balts must still have been relatively slight. In linguistic terms, the Lithuanians did not yet differ much from the Baltic tribes living farther east. The Baltic-Slavic linguistic boundary must have run somewhere near Minsk, Polotsk, and Pskov. In that epoch, the Slavs had not yet reached the area occupied by Lithuanians in historical times. Thus, direct contacts between the ancestors of present-day Lithuanians and the Slavs are scarcely likely to have occurred. Such contacts must have taken place only between the eastern Slavs and our kinsmen living farther east. The echoes of those contacts may not have reached our ancestors; at least, we find no traces of them in present-day Lithuanian.

Researchers of hydronymy and archaeologists observe that the western part of the Upper Dnieper region, especially the area between the Pripyat and the upper Nemunas, remained outside the early Slavic expansion. The Slavic wave reached the Lithuanian territory later, in the 8th–9th centuries, and was less massive. Apparently, not only Slavs proper moved through this area, but also groups of ethnic Balts assimilated by them. The different character of the Slavicization of Baltic hydronymy and the archaeological evidence show that in many places Baltic-speaking enclaves had survived here even until the 12th–13th centuries. By then, the language of those Balts must have differed somewhat from that of the ancestors of the Lithuanians living farther west. However, where the boundary between the two lay, and how clearly defined it was, can today only be surmised.

Just before coming into direct contact with the ancestors of the Lithuanians—and this can scarcely have happened earlier than the beginning of the 9th century—the East Slavic tribes underwent considerable changes that were decisive for the subsequent development of the tribes themselves, their language, and their relations with the Baltic languages. For during the Viking Age (approximately from the 8th century), the famous Varangian (Viking) waterway from the Baltic to the Black Sea stretched along rivers and lakes through lands occupied by the East Slavs. It connected the East Slavic tribes both with the Scandinavian countries and with Byzantium and its capital, Constantinople, greatly intensifying trade and other contacts. In that epoch, Slavic languages acquired more words reflecting various innovations, borrowed from Western Europe through Germanic languages. Their ultimate source was most often Latin. Of particular importance was the establishment in the 9th century of the East Slavic state of Kievan Rus’. That state united the Slavic tribes, consolidated them, contributed to the leveling of dialectal features, and generally strengthened the linguistic integration of the East Slavs.

4

In 988, Christianity came from the Byzantine Greeks to Kievan Rus’. The first bishoprics were established closer to Lithuania—in Polotsk, Novgorod, Turov, and Vladimir. Orientation toward the high culture of Byzantium fundamentally affected the Slavs’ way of life. Most importantly, writing was acquired along with Christianity. From the end of the 10th century, missionary aims—the effort to convert the Baltic tribes to Christianity—also began to encourage Slavic expansion into Baltic lands. Christianity greatly accelerated the Slavicization of the Baltic enclaves in the east and was apparently the main factor behind it.

The Lithuanians must first have come into contact with the East Slavic tribes of the Krivichians and Dregovichians. The former had settled along almost the entire eastern edge of Lithuanian lands. From the 10th century, the Principality of Polotsk, founded by the Krivichians, became dominant in this region. It forced its neighbors, the Latgalians—the principalities of Jersika and Koknese—to pay tribute. It also sought to extend its influence into Lithuanian lands.

Southeast of the Lithuanians, in the upper reaches of the Nemunas basin, our kinsmen the Yotvingians had lived since ancient times. The East Slavic tribe of the Dregovichians came into contact with them quite early, perhaps as early as the 8th century. Among other things, the Slavicized name of the Merkys River Мереч prompts this supposition; it must have arisen before pleophony (full vocalism, Russian полногласие) and the change of palatalized k into an affricate in East Slavic. In Yotvingian territory, the Dregovichians founded the important towns of Volkovysk, Grodno, Slonim, Novogrudok, and others in the 10th–11th centuries. At that time, they must have come into direct contact with the Lithuanians living nearby.

All these early Lithuanian contacts with the eastern Slavs must have influenced the development of the language. Here we are most concerned with their reflections in our language, especially the innovations in Lithuanian of that period that spread across the eastern part of the area and are shared with Slavic—that is, those that can be linked to corresponding phenomena in the language of the East Slavs.

In the field of vocalism, such an innovation is the shift of ą, an, am to ų, un, um, e.g., žūsis ‘žąsis’, runka ‘ranka’, sūmtis ‘samtis’. in eastern Lithuania. Cf. Slavic ręka and Russian > рука ‘hand’. In the West Baltic languages and in the western part of the Lithuanian-speaking area this shift did not occur, since there was no contact with the East Slavs; contact here (among Prussians, Yotvingians, and Prussian Lithuanians) was only with the West Slavs, who preserved nasal ę intact or, in certain cases, had ę instead of ę; cf. Polish ręka ‘hand’. Of course, the phonetic precondition for the raising of ą, an, am—the assimilatory influence of a nasal sound—was inherent in Lithuanian (as in Slavic) itself, but its realization alongside the East Slavs, where this process took place earlier, leads us to associate the change in question, ą, an, am, with an analogous phenomenon in East Slavic phonetics. The eastern forms of the names of Lithuanian dukes Dausprango, Višimanto ir Kentenio in the Rus’ chronicle (the so-called Hypatian Chronicle)—cf. Довъсн-рунко, Вишимун(н)тъ, Ки(н)теній—show that in eastern Lithuania, already in the early 13th century, the shift from an, am to un, um (as well as en, em > in, im) had already taken place. The East Aukštaitian forms of the baptismal names Antānas ir Āndrius, Untānas ir Ūndrius, show that this shift must have begun after 988, when the East Slavs were baptized. Thus, most likely, an, am (and en, em) shifted to un, um (respectively in, im) in the 11th–12th centuries, while the nasal vowel ą (respectively ę) changed correspondingly to ų (i) even earlier, perhaps as early as the 9th–10th centuries. Cf. the early change of an, en in Latvian (by around 1200, uo, ie were already present), most likely inherited from the period of the Principality of Jersika, when the Latgalians had very close relations with the East Slavs, were even ruled by them, and paid tribute to Polotsk.

5

Among the consonant phenomena associated with the East Slavs, the first to be noted are consonant jotation and palatalization, which the Slavs had already undergone earlier. In the Baltic languages these phenomena developed later and most strongly affected the speech of tribes that lived closer to the Slavs. Cf. *ši > š in Latvian and Prussian. In Lithuanian, the clearest parallel with the Slavs in jotation is the change of *ti, *di into affricates, which probably took place in the 13th–14th centuries and was more intensive in the eastern part of the area, while in the west it occurred somewhat later and was less intensive (cf. the Samogitian affricate rule). Consonant palatalization before front vowels is likewise most characteristic of the dialects of eastern Lithuania and gradually weakens from east to west. Among Latvian dialects, consonants are likewise palatalized most noticeably in former Latgale, where contact with the Slavs is oldest and most intensive.

Velarization of hard l is a characteristic phenomenon in many Slavic languages. In Lithuanian it is most intensive in the east, where it also affected the position before e-type vowels (cf. tãdas ‘ice’, lėkti ‘to fly’); elsewhere, velarized l occurs only before a and back vowels (diphthongs).

Among morphological phenomena, the suppletive paradigm of the third-person pronoun, characteristic of eastern Lithuania (ãnas ‘he’, but jõ, jãm, jį …), should be noted; it is the same as in the Slavic languages. It was also found in the speech of Prussian Lithuanians (attested, for example, in the writings of J. Bretkūnas), which had experienced considerable West Slavic (Polish) influence. The Lithuanian subjunctive with the formant -bi- is also most probably associated with the analogous Slavic formation with бы (both originated from forms of the verb būti ‘to be’).

The early contacts between Lithuanian and the East Slavs are most clearly reflected, of course, in the lexicon. In ancient times, the East Slavs were the main intermediaries through whom various innovations and the words associated with them began reaching our ancestors (and other eastern Balts, as well as the Baltic Finns). The oldest stratum of Slavic loanwords in Lithuanian consists mainly of names for various items then new in Lithuania, especially objects of trade, as well as terms related to Christianity. The Slavs themselves had received many of these words from their Germanic neighbors (who, in turn, had most often received them from Latin), and some from the Greek of Byzantium. It should be emphasized that, unlike the Balticisms and Lithuanianisms in Slavic languages, which almost all consist of words of Baltic origin, the majority of old Slavic loanwords in Lithuanian, as in the other Baltic languages, are not words of Slavic origin but of other languages, which reached us through the Slavs. It is not easy to determine when early loans acquired through the East Slavs¹ began to appear in Lithuanian. They can hardly have entered before the beginning of the 9th century. The phonetics of loanwords provides most of the evidence for dating the borrowing.

The earliest East Slavic loanwords, those acquired before the 10th century, should be considered to be words that show no signs of pleophony. However, we do not really have any entirely certain examples of this kind. The most reliable are these:

čerpė ‘such an earthenware vessel, a shard of it; a clay tile for roofing or building a stove’ is usually derived from Slavic *čerьpъ ‘shard’ (whence Russian череп ‘skull’, черепок ‘fragment’, etc.), with the ending -ė instead of the expected -as because of the Lithuanian synonym šukė. Correspondingly, the form in old writings čerpyčia ‘brick’ is derived from Slavic *čerьpica. However,

¹ In linguistic literature, especially etymological dictionaries, they are often called Belarusian loanwords, but this is inaccurate, since at the time of borrowing the East Slavic language (reflected in what is called Old Russian, i.e. the language of Rus’) had not yet split into Russian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian.

6

The latter is most likely a shortening of čerepyčia (P. Skardžius TŽ VII 54, 55). In that case, čerpe may also be a form of the older *čerėpė = Slavic čerепъ; karbas, karbija ‘such a basket, wicker basket’ could derive from Slavic *korbъ, *korbja (hence Russian короб, коробка; Polish krobia; the Slavs apparently received it from Germanic, and the latter from Latin, compare corbis ‘basket, wicker basket’), unless it is a later borrowing from Polish korb or a shortening of late East Slavic karabas, karabija (< коробъ, коробья); skavardą ‘frying pan’ may derive from Slavic *skovoroda (hence Russian сковорода), unless it is a later shortening of *skavaraďa, as are the variants skaradà, skauradà, etc. (compare Polish skowroda).

Other loanwords that supposedly show no signs of pleophony (e.g., karvãjus ‘a certain wedding cake made by the groom’s mother’) are even less reliable.

There are several words in Lithuanian that may be considered to have been borrowed while East Slavic still had nasal vowels, which had already been denasalized by the 10th century; these words, therefore, must have entered Lithuanian before the 10th century. These are —

lėnkas (ethnonym) is usually derived from *łęchъ (> Old Russian ляхъ ‘Pole’). The absence of more pronounced traces of this word there makes it difficult to believe that it came from West Slavic (V. Kiparskis RES XXIV 24, 39);

pùndas, dialectal pundñs ‘a unit of weight of about 40 pounds, a pood; a bundle’ is often derived from Slavic *pudъ < pędъ, which in turn was borrowed from Old Scandinavian punda (itself from Latin pondus ‘weight, heaviness’). However, this word may have entered Lithuanian without Slavic mediation, either from Old Scandinavian or (later) from the language of East Prussian Germans (pund);

unguras ‘Hungarian’ (in the writings of M. Daukša) is derived from Slavic *ęgъrъ (< *ęgъrъ (> Old Russian угринъ). V. Kiparskis RES XXIV 37 considers that this may be a later loan from Latin Ungurus, Ungarus, but this is doubtful.

The words kruopos and kuodėlis have the diphthong uo instead of Slavic u (cf. Russian крупа, кудель). They are most likely old loans from East Slavic, acquired before the 10th century, rather than words of common origin (though some hold this view). Samogitian puõkas (cf. Russian пух) should also be considered an old Slavic loanword; cf. the later Aukštaitian pūkas. Latvian has more old loanwords with uo, for example, duõma ‘thought’ (Russian дума), kàpuõsts ‘cabbage’ (капуста), muõcît ‘to torment’ (мучить), rùobežà ‘wall, border’ (рубеж), and others. All these words indicate that, at the time of borrowing, the Slavs still pronounced ō instead of u, from which Lithuanian-Latvian uo later developed.

There are no convincing loanwords with ie instead of i (cf. Latvian krievi² ‘Russians’, from крив-ичи). The word pielà ‘saw’ may not be a loanword, but an inherited Baltic word (= peilis), which acquired the meaning ‘saw’ under Slavic (cf. Russian пила) or Germanic (Middle High German vile) influence. mieras ‘peace’ in the writings of M. Mažvydas is most likely an old inherited form with the suffix -r-, alongside the word mielas with the suffix -l-; cf. Slavic mirъ ‘peace’ alongside milъ ‘dear’.

Lithuanian has several other early loanwords with the diphthong ui instead of Slavic ъi, implying a diphthongal pronunciation of ъi in the western dialects of East Slavic at the time of borrowing:

kūila ‘hernia, rupture’, kuilỹs ‘ram’ < *kyla (Russian кула), *kolb—words of Slavic origin, cognate with Lithuanian kūla ‘hernia’;

The word ² found in Lithuanian writings, krievai ‘Russians; Belarusians’, is probably a Latvian borrowing.

7

muilas < мыло (from *mьldlo: Russian мыть);

mutas < мыто—the Slavs received it from the Germanic peoples (Old High German müta), who probably got it from Latin;

smuikas < *sъmbko (Russian смычок)—an old word of Slavic origin (: Russian смыкать ‘to pull’);

tūnas ‘stake, pole’ < тынъ (Old Russian тынь)—an old Slavic borrowing from Germanic, cf. Old Icelandic tún ‘enclosure, yard, homestead’.

We have more words borrowed while the East Slavs were still pronouncing the reduced sounds ъ, ь (the yers), and thus entered Lithuanian before the 12th century (when ъ, ь disappeared), for example:

asilas < осьлъ (Russian осёл)—the Slavs received it from the Goths (asilus), who in turn got it from Latin (asinus);

birkavas ‘svorio matas 10 pūdų’ < *bъrkоvъ (skz. пѳдъ) ‘Birkos (pūdas)’ (iš čia rus. берковец). Birkos miestas, sen. šved. Bierkö anuomet buvo svarbus prekybos centras Švedijoje;

bulvōnas ‘idol; scarecrow; dullard’ from болванъ. Cf. balvōnas, from a (later?) variant болванъ. The Slavs probably received this word from the Turkic languages;

cirkva ‘Orthodox place of worship, church’ < църквы, gen. sg. църкве (Russian церковь)—the Slavs received it from the Germanic peoples (cf. Old High German chirihha), who in turn got it from Greek (κυρικόν). Cf. the later borrowing cerkvė, which became more widely established;

katilas < комьлъ (Russian котёл)—the Slavs received it from the Germanic peoples (Gothic katilus, katils), who in turn got it from Latin (catinus);

krikštas ‘baptismal rite; cross’, krikštyti, krikščionis with an infixed -k- from крьсть ‘cross’, крьстуму, крьстьян(ин)ъ. The East Slavs received these words from Church Slavonic (cf. Russian крест, крестить, крестьянин, without ё), into which they entered from Latin by way of Germanic mediation (Christus ‘Christ’), and into Latin from Greek (χριστός);

kūbilas < къбьлъ (Russian кобел)—the Slavs received it from the Germanic peoples (cf. Middle High German kübel), who got it from Medieval Latin cupellum;

kūmetis < къметь (Russian кметь) ‘warrior; peasant’—the Slavs probably received it indirectly from Latin comes, gen. sg. comitis ‘companion, friend’ (thus the specific meaning ‘court peasant, smallholder’ arose in Lithuanian itself);

kūrtas ‘very fast hunting dog’ < хортъ (Russian хорт)—the origin of this word in the Slavic languages is unclear;

pepper < пъпъръ (Russian перец) – the Slavs most likely received it from Latin through the Germanic peoples (piper), who had received it through the Greeks (πέπερι) from eastern lands; cf. Old Indian pippali;

Pōvilas < Павьлъ (Russian Павел), a personal name, was received by the Slavs through the Byzantine Greeks (Παῦλος) from Latin (Paulus);

troop <пълкъ (Russian полк) from Germanic *fulkaz; cf. Old High German folk, Old English folc ‘army, unit’;

radish < *rъdъkъ (Russian редька) – the Slavs received it from Latin through the Germanic peoples (cf. Old High German redik) (rādicem);

glass < стькло (Russian стекло) – the Slavs received it from Germanic (Gothic stikls ‘goblet’);

silk < шьлъкъ (Russian шёлк) – the Slavs received it from Latin through the Germanic peoples (Old Scandinavian silki) (sēricus ‘silken’, from Sēres < Greek Σῆρες ‘China’);

8

tùlkas ‘interpreter’ < тълкъ (Russian толк) — a word of Slavic origin; cf. Russian толковать.

All the words discussed here must have entered Lithuanian before the 12th century. The old layer of borrowings should also include those words related to Christianity that entered Lithuanian from East Slavic (not Polish!) before Lithuania’s official baptism (1387), for example:

angel < ангелъ — the Slavs received it from Greek (ἄγγελος);

church < божница ‘pagan temple’ (Slavic богъ ‘god’ may be an Iranianism) — this word may have been borrowed while the Slavs were still pagans;

gavėnia ‘fast before Easter’ < говение (a word of Slavic origin). Lithuanian ė instead of ie, cf. dėdės < дѣдъ, is due to the suffix -ėti; cf. gavėti ‘to fast during Lent’ < говѣти;

kalėda ‘a tribute given to church servants who visit around Christmas’, cf. Kalėdos ‘the feast of Christ’s birth’ < коляда — the Slavs received it from Latin (calendae) through intermediaries;

nedėlia ‘Sunday’ < недѣля (Lithuanian ė instead of ie, probably due to the influence of dėti) — a Slavic semantic borrowing from Latin dies feriata (it later acquired the meaning ‘week’ because of the double meaning of Greek σάββατα). Other names for the days of the week also entered Lithuanian from East Slavic and survive in old texts and dialects: paldienykas, padielnykas ‘Monday’ from *панедѣльникъ <понедѣльникъ, utàrnykas ‘Tuesday’ <уморникъ <*въторникъ (cf. Russian вторник), seredà ‘Wednesday’ <середа (a calque from Old High German mittawēcha or Latin media hebdomas), čètvergas ‘Thursday’ <четвергъ pėtnyčia ‘Friday’ <пятница, subata ‘Saturday’ <субота (from Greek σαββατα > dialectal *σαμβατα, itself from Aramaic šabatā or Hebrew šabbāt);

Velykos <великъ (день) — a Slavic semantic borrowing from Greek μεγάλη ἡμέρα ‘great day’.

Alongside these words are also some other old loanwords, mostly denoting new realities of the time, trade goods, etc. Such words include, for example:

drum < бубенъ (with bn > gn as in the native word dūgnas < * dūbnas: dūbti); cf. the variant būbნას (also a borrowing);

gadynė from gadyna (in old writings) <година — a word of Slavic origin (: Russian год);

gròmata < грамота — the Slavs received it from the Greeks (γράμματα);

kapà ‘60 units’ <копа — a word of Slavic origin (from the same root as Lithuanian kāpas, kõpos, etc.);

karalius <король — the Slavs received it from the Germans, cf. Old High German Karal, Karl — the name of Charlemagne (742–814);

knygà <книга — the Slavs most likely received this word from the East (China or Mesopotamia?) via the Turkic languages;

liūtas <лютъ (звѣрь). In the Slavic languages it initially meant ‘wild, fierce (beast)’. Its origin is unclear;

mėsà <мясо. Most likely, the native word *mensā > męsa (= Samogitian mėsà > meisà) was remodeled as mėsà under the influence of Slavic мясо;

meškà <меи(ь)ка ‘small bear’ (such a name for a bear may have arisen in the Slavic languages because of a taboo);

9

mint < мята — the Slavs received it from Latin (mentha), where it had entered from Greek (μίνθη);

town < мѣсто — a word of Slavic origin that acquired the meaning ‘город’ from the West Slavs, where it arose under Germanic influence; cf. Old High German stat ‘place’ and ‘town’;

oven < печь — a word of Slavic origin (cf. Russian печь, Lithuanian to bake);

to promise < сулить (a word of Slavic origin);

helmet < Slavic *šolm — the Slavs received it from the Germanic peoples (*helmaz; cf. Gothic hilms, Old High German hēlm);

quiet < тихъ — a word of Slavic origin; the Dzūkian form cykùs indicates the antiquity of the borrowing;

wine < вино — the Slavs most likely received it through the Germanic peoples (Gothic wein, Old High German wīn) from Latin (vinum).

Later, after the Lithuanian state had been established and Slavic began to be used in its chanceries, Slavicisms in Lithuanian increased considerably, from about the 14th century onward. It should be assumed that the chancery language exerted its influence not only directly but also through the spoken East Slavic language of the time. Words such as bajõras < бояръ (the origin is not entirely clear; the Slavs may have received it from the Turks), blõgas < благъ (an Old Church Slavonic word; in East Slavic it would have been *бологъ), donis ‘tribute’ < дань, pėčėtis ‘seal’ < печать, rėdyti(s) ‘to rule, get dressed, adorn oneself’ < прядать(ся), retėžius ‘chain, shackles’ < ретязь (the Slavs received it from the Germanic peoples), tijūnas ‘overseer, an official of this kind’ < тиунъ (a Germanic loanword in Slavic), among others, should be considered products of that influence.

Words from Polish began to spread into our language only from the 15th century onward. Earlier Polonisms have not been identified. Closer contacts with the Poles began at that time. The oldest Polonisms are associated with Christian terminology. Interestingly, the Poles themselves had received most of these terms from the Czechs at the time of their baptism. They generally entered Czech from Latin and Greek through the mediation of German. These are the words apãštalas, birmavóti, vỹskupas (býskupas), grabnyčios (gramnyčios) ‘a church feast of this kind on February 2’, koplyčia, minỹkas ‘monk’, mišià, nẽšparai (mišpãrai), pópiežius, traičė ‘trinity’, žegnotis, and others. One or another early Polonism with a different meaning may also be included, for example garstyčia, lelija (the Slavs received these through intermediaries from the Near East), pópierius (through intermediaries from Greek πάπυρος), rýžiai (which made its way here all the way from India), rõtùšė (the Poles received it from the Germans), salotà (through intermediaries from Latin; cf. salāre ‘to salt’), šeimas, vaivadà, and others.

There are more words that may have come from either Polish or East Slavic, making their origin difficult to determine. These are aliẽjus (derived ultimately from Latin oleum), dvãras, kmýnas (which came from Semitic languages via Greek and Germanic), pãšininkas (the Slavs received it from the Germanic peoples), rõjus (it came from far away; cf. Sanskrit rāy ‘wealth’), and others. However, the discussion of such and similar words, acquired no earlier than the 15th century, falls outside the scope of our topic. Here the main concern has been to discuss only the traces in Lithuanian of the very earliest contacts with the Slavs—that is, contacts before the 15th century.

ABBREVIATIONS

Eng. — English language, in English

Rus. — Russian

dial. — dialectal (non-standard-language) form

old — old, e.g., old Rus. — Old Russian language

10

Goth. – Gothic Ind. – Indian, Old Ind. – Old Indian language Isl. – Icelandic Lat. – Latvian Pol. – Polish Lith. – Lithuanian Lat. – Latin RES – Revue des études slaves. Paris 1921 et seq.

Skt. – Sanskrit Sl. – Slavic OHighG. – Old High German Swed. – Swedish TŽ – Tauta ir žodis. K., 1923 et seq. MHighG. – Middle High German MLowG. – Middle Low German

THE EARLIEST LINGUISTIC CONTACTS OF THE LITHUANIANS WITH THE SLAVS

Summary

The article analyzes the reflection in the Lithuanian language of the early contacts (from the 7th century AD) between Lithuanians and East Slavs. It identifies phonetic, morphological, and lexical innovations from this period in Lithuanian, particularly in the dialects of eastern Lithuania.

The earliest Slavicisms to have entered Lithuanian before the 10th–12th centuries are considered to be those in which full-vowel combinations have been replaced by incomplete-vowel combinations, as in tort, e.g., čérpė < Slavic *čerъ > Russian череп; words in which the pronunciation of nasal vowels has been preserved, e.g.: lénkas (ethnonym) < *lęchъ > Old Russian ляхъ.

Words in which the ancient pronunciation has been preserved are considered Slavicisms rather than genetically related words: uo in place of Slavic и: krū́pos (Russian крупа); ie in place of Slavic i: Lithuanian dialect krievi (from Krivichi); ui in place of Slavic ы: smūikas < *smykъ, as well as words in which the pronunciation of the Slavic yers has been preserved: ásilas < осьль, bulvónas < бълвань, and others.

Christian terminology, borrowed by Lithuanian from East Slavic languages (not from Polish) before Lithuania’s baptism (1387), also belongs to the stratum of ancient borrowings: ángelas < ангелъ, bažnyčia < боженица, and others, as well as words denoting new realities of that time: būgnas < бубень.

In conclusion, a brief overview is provided of West Slavic borrowings that entered Lithuanian predominantly from the 15th century onward.