Kai kurie baltų ir slavų kalbų seniausiųjų santykių klausimai

BPA LMT UT RY LAY UK A EUR VY Š TA I LITHUANIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES SIMAS THE QUEENS KAI KURIE BALTIC IR SLAVOV LANGUAGES THE OLdest RELATIONSHIP QUESTIONS The problem ir of the oldest relations of the Baltic Slavic languages has been raised in linguistics for a long time. For many years researchers examined and ją discussed, but ir unanimous opinion did not come, the solution of the problem, it can ir be said, became even more complicated. Debate disputes on this issue are taking place today with the same passion as many years ir ago. su ir The ir relevance of the problem of the oldest relations of the Baltic ne Slavic languages is shown only by the fact that it, as one of the most important problems of Slavic linguistics, was widely discussed IV International Slavist Congress in Moscow (on that subject were read four messages), but the fact that ir The International Commission for the 1962 m. Study of Baltic-Slavic Relations was established by the resolution of į the International Committee of Slavists, which included ir several prominent iš specialists in Slavic studies from eleven European countries. Baltų ir The problem of the oldest relations of the Slavic languages ir is one of the bars of the work of that commission. Ši the problem is relevant ir because it also includes a larger scope ji of Indo-European studies. į The solution of the problem of the earliest relations ir between the Baltic Slavic languages is part of the solution of many iš questions of the history ir of the Baltic and Slavic languages. Understandably, the problem of the oldest relations of the Baltic Slavic languages ir ir su individual issues of the history of the Lithuanian language. The fact that the problem of the oldest relations of ir the Baltic Slavic languages “is being discussed sharply in science today, in individual cases even acquiring an actual ideological-political meaning”*, poses the task for Lithuanian linguists to express their opinion on this ir issue without delay. ; The Slavic ir languages, in particular the Baltic Slavic languages. language family, are descended from a iš linguistic combination that existed several thousand years ago, called variously ide. — pro- * V The International Slavist Congress in Sofia approved the following composition of the commission: K. Korsak (chairman, USSR), Safarewicz J. (vice-chairman, Poland), Bernstein S. (USSR), I. Duridanovas (Bulgaria), V. Falkenhans (VDR), K. O. Falkas (Sweden), Georgijevas V. (Bulgaria), V. Holtum (England), Č. Kudzinovskis (Poland), V. Kiparskis (Finland), B. Larinas (TSRS), Chr. Stangas (Norway), R. Schmitlein (France), V. Toporovs (TSRS), P. Trostas (CzechoslovakiA. a), Vratislavice nad Nisou (Romania). * K. Korsakas, Comparative ir Linguistics and Problems of Soviet Lithuanian 6, 1963, p. 13. Philology, LKK, language, language, linguistic unity, linguistic commonality or common epoch®. Because the Baltic and Slavic languages are descended from ide. linguistic community, they have many common features inherited from ancient times, found also in other id. languages. In addition, the Baltic and Slavic languages have similarities that suggest that they are descended from the same language. language communion cannot be explained. The problem of the earliest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages and how the Baltic-Slavic innovations emerged, i.e., the phonetic, morphological and lexical commonalities that characterize Baltic and Slavic languages that have evolved in the past. ir už jų linguistic area does not occur. In answering the question of how the Baltic and Slavic innovations arose and what the nature of the relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages in the first centuries after their separation from the ide. linguistic community, several different theories have been developed. The first chapter of this work is devoted to the history of the study of the problem of the oldest relations between the Balts and the Slavs and to the presentation of the developed theories. In the second chapter, due to lack of space, the analysis of phonetic phenomena is limited, the history of their research is given, the concepts of their origin and development are presented. The third chapter attempts to solve some questions of the chronology of the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic (as well as other Indo-European) languages. The author of the thesis, in order to highlight as much as possible the origin of the Baltic and Slavic languages and the time of their emergence, relies on the Baltic, Slavic and other ide. language material. Of the Baltic languages, the Lithuanian language data is used, which is often archaic and not always taken into sufficient consideration when solving this problem. In the teaching of the material, especially in the first part of this thesis, the chronological principle was followed: the researchers’ works are discussed one after the other in the order in which they appeared. The researcher’s activity is assigned to one period — and mainly to the time when the most important work of the researcher appeared on the question of the oldest relations of the Baltic and Slavic languages, although individual articles on this subject were published in other periods as well. Antai Chr. The views of Stango are reviewed in the chapter on the works of the 1920s and 1930s, although one of his articles was published in 1963, and those of J. Kurilovičius — in the chapter on the works of the post-war years, despite the fact that his first article on the subject appeared as early as 1934. The author of this work does not in any way attempt to solve the problem of the oldest relations of the Baltic and Slavic languages in general — so far it remains too complicated. The main aim of the thesis is to highlight the current state of the study of the problem of the oldest relations of the Baltic and Slavic languages, to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the existing theories on this issue and to provide arguments for the theory that seems to the author to be the most reliable. * The terms,,prokalbé* (npasi35iK, Ursprache),,,linguistic unity” (53bIKOBOe eJiHHCTBO, Spracheinheit) and,,linguistic community” (sisbikoBasi OČInHOCTL, Sprachgemeinschaft) are used interchangeably in the work, but each of them is given a different meaning. The term "pro-language" is appropriate for a linguistic unit of vague dialectal division that existed in prehistoric times. A prehistoric linguistic unit of greater dialectal differentiation is referred to as a “linguistic band”. Regarding the concept of those researchers who recognize the Baltic-Slavic language that existed after ide. of linguistic unity, their own term,,balty-slavy linguistic unity“ is used. ti 8 BALTIC IR SLAVOV LANGUAGES The history of the study of the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages has already been quite extensively enlightened. A comprehensive article by N. Bogoliubova and T. Jakubaitė is devoted to the development of general theoretical statements concerning the oldest relations between these languages.’ The history of the investigation of these relations is described in detail by V. Toporov in three large articles?. Here we mainly dwell on the more important, especially theoretical aspects of the study of these relations. Nevertheless, in this and the above-mentioned work repetition was not avoided. The question of the relationship between Baltic and Slavic languages in the works of the creators of the comparative-historical method Scientific study of the relationship between individual languages began in the early 19th century, when F. Bopo, R. Rasko ir J. Make-up? helped ide. the foundations of comparative-historical linguistics. The first comparatists looked at the relationship of languages in a new way, based on comparative studies of languages. Rasmus Rask (1787–1832) devoted considerable space in his works to the analysis of Baltic and Slavic languages. He was the first to raise the importance of the Baltic languages for science, and since then these languages have been given an important place in comparative linguistics. Raskas pointed out that the Baltic languages form an independent ide. branch of languages and that they are related to the Slavic Germanic languages. Franz Bopp (1791–1867) was a French philosopher. In his opinion? *, the Prussian, Lithuanian and Latvian languages forming a group of closely related languages, which are closely related to the Slavic languages. Bop noted that the Baltic languages are not part of the Slavic languages. He attempted to establish a relative chronology of the origin of su languages, based ir on the principle that the closer or further relationship of languages depends on their later or earlier separation. Based on the fact that the Baltic languages are more closely related to the Slavic languages than other languages, Bopp suggested that these languages may have diverged much later. The Baltic-Slavic language separated from its Asian sister, which could be called Sanskrit or nothing, later than the classical, Germanic, etc. BoronwGora, T.A.fdky6Gaiituc, Hcropus paspaGoTkn Bompoca o Galtro-cAaBSIHCKHX $I3LIKOBHIX OTHOlWEHHAX,,,A collection of articles (Dedication to academic professor Dr. Janis Endzelis in memory of 85 years of his life and 65 years of his work)®, Riga, 1959, p. 331-375. * B. H. Tonopos, Hogeiitune paGoTsl B 06acTH H3yueHHS GaJTO-CJAABSHCKHX S3bIKOBHIX otHotuennii, BCI, 3, 1958, p. 134-161; Ouepxk HCTOPHH H3yuYeHHS JApeBHEHIIHX GAaJITO-CJIaBAHCKHX #3bIKOBBIX oTHolennii, Y 3UCh, 17, 1959, p. 248-274; U3 uctopuu H3yueHus ApeBHEHUIHX OaJITO-CJIABSAHCKHX si3bIKOBBIX oTHowenuii, Y3UCa, 23, 1962, p. 3-43; see also O. Szemerényi, The Problem of Balto-Slav Unity —A Critical Survey,,,Kratylos- *, 2, 1957, p. 97—123; A. Vraciu, Slava si baltica. Problema vechilor raporturi dintre ele in lumina noilor cercetari,,,Romanoslavica®, 12, 1965, p. 283 —297, which reviews the latest research in this field. 1 F. Bopp, Uber das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleich mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache, Frankfurt am Main, 1816; R. Rask, Undersogelse om det galme Nordiske eller Islandske Sprogs Oprindelse, Kjdbenhavn, 1818; J. Grimm, Deutsche Grammatik, Gottingen, 1819 (II ed., 1822). * F. Bopp, Uber die Sprache der alten Preussen, Berlin, 1853, p. 80. Celtic languages, but before the split of the Asian į part of ir the Iranian Indo-Iranian languages. Bopp was the first to F. propose that the Baltic-Slavic proto-language was closely related to ir the Indo-Iranian ir languages. su Other languages have a similar status. among languages recognized ir Jakobas Grimas (1785—1863). Jo in my opinion*, frequent lexical correspondences indicate an ir old Slavic-Germanic relationship. The ir Balto-Slavic languages are much closer to each other than they are to the Germanic jų languages. The Baltic languages are to some extent intermediaries between the Slavic ir and Germanic languages. This does not mean, however, that the Baltic languages are a mixture of the latter. Similarly, in Grim's view, it is not J. possible to assume that the Slavic Germanic languages ir borrowed the oldest elements of their system from the Baltic languages. iš Pagal J. The similarities between the Germanic, Slavic ir and Baltic languages are due to the ir long-standing Gemeinschaft (community) between them. jų The first comparatists were summarized and ir further developed by August Schleicher, who (1821 —1868), devoted much of his research to the relations between the Baltic languages. A. The understanding of Schleicher- 's language kinship relationships is linked su jo general idea. the concept of language origin. A. Schleicher developed a coherent hypothesis of genealogical classification of languages called Theory of the "genealogical language tree" (Pedigree theory). According to this theory, the unified idea. prokalbe (indogermanische Ursprache) first split into two branches: Baltic, į Slavic, Germanic į (Slawodeutsch) ir į Indo-Iranian, Greek, Italian, Celtic. A large branch of Baltic, Slavic, Germanic languages later split into two į smaller Germanic — (Deutsch) ir Baltic-Slavic (Slavo-Lithuanian). At the same time, the second ir idea split. Proto-language branch primarily — Indo-Iranian į Greek-Italian-Celtic. ir į After the Greeks separated, the Italian-Celtic protolanguage remained. Baltic ir Slavic languages, Schleicher A. called the Baltic-Slavic protolanguage (Slawolitauische Ursprache), which subsequently split into the į Slavic-Baltic ir basic languages (Grundsprache), which in turn split again into separate languages." į Thus, Bop's F. idea of a Baltic-Slavic protolanguage was expanded A. by Schleicher and ir incorporaį ted a harmonic ide. the theory of pro-speech decay. He clearly indicated the place of the Baltic-Slavic proto-language in ide. among the languages ir recognized its genetic connectiosu ns to the Germanic protolanguage. A. Schleicher's authority was so great that the theory of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage was followed by most linguists In the a. second half of XIX ir even XX a. at the beginning of the treatment. In the period of the formation of comparative-historical Indo-European studies, there was a dispute ne about whether there was a Balto-Slavic protolanguage, which ar was accepted by all except for some, but about its place among — ją other languages. be — among languages. R. Raskas considered ir the Baltic Slavic languages to be more related to Indo-Iranian languages. (Aryan) languages, o F. Bopas, J. Grimas ir A. Schleicher argued that the Baltic ir Slavic languages are genetically related su to the Germanic languages. Ši the ir problem of the place of the Baltic Slavic languages remained ir XX a. the subject of discussion in the second half. * J. Grimm, History of the German Language, ed. III, Leipzig, Germany 1868, I, p. 9—10, 119; II, p. 711—712, 715. * J. Grimm, op. cit., I, p. 119. * A. Schleicher, Compendium of Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages, ed. III, Weimar, Germany 1871, p. 6—7. 10 In the second half of the 19th century, A. Schleicher died convinced that he had succeeded in building a perfect and complete building of Indo-European linguistics. However, in the second half of the 19th century, the building was demolished. And it began to be destroyed by A. Schleicher's pupils themselves. For example, Johann Schmidt (1843—1901) criticized the theory of the “genealogical tree of languages”. In his opinion? *, facts show that the Baltic-Slavic (Lituslawische) languages are closely related to both Germanic and Indo-Iranian languages. Therefore, according to J. Šmitas, the Baltic-Slavic-Germanic protolanguage and the Baltic-Slavic-Aryan protolanguage can be recognized on the same basis. Thus, the position of the Baltic and Slavic languages remains unclear. It will become clear when, according to J. Šmit, it will be recognized not only that the Baltic and Slavic languages did not separate from either the Germanic or the Indo-Iranian languages, but also that it is organically linked to the latter two language groups. Just as there are no geographical borders between Europe and Asia, there should be no strict demarcation lines between European and Asian languages. J. Schmidt adds that everywhere there is a continuous transition (continuierlicher Ubergang) from one language to another, and there are no strict boundaries ide. never existed in the linguistic area: two distant dialects, for example, A and X, were inextricably linked by the dialects B, C, D, etc. With all this in mind, J. Schmidt proposes a wave theory (Wellentheorie) instead of the theory of the “genealogical tree of languages”: “Instead of it I would like to present the image of a wave that, moving from its centre, spreads in concentric circles that are constantly weakening”2. Thus, according to him, linguistic changes spread like waves from one language to another. The new ideas of J. Schmidt were a relatively large step forward. Some of them are: (i.e. dialects, the idea of geographical continuity, etc.) were developed in the 20th century. It is important to note that the theory of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage did not raise any doubts in J. Schmit. His research focused on the Baltic and Slavic languages. in the language family. Another student of A. Schleicher, August Leskynas (1840—1916- ), tried to reconcile the theories of the “genealogical tree of languages” and the “waves”. He believed* that the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages could have survived a common historical stage independently of the other Indo-European languages. and thus the division, as understood in the theory of A. Schleicher. Moreover, it is quite likely that the Baltic and Slavic languages were the link that connected the Germanic and Indo-Iranian languages. In the opinion of A. Leskynas, it is not necessary to recognize the Baltic-Slavic-Germanic protolanguage, because the conjugation systems of these languages, except for some conjugations with the common formant -m-, are not so similar*. Taigyū “The so-called “genealogical language tree” theory does not contradict the “transition” theory at all, if we call J. Schmidt’s hypothesis so briefly”*. 1 J. Schmidt, The Relationships of the Indo-European Languages, Weimar, 1872, p. 16—27. * J. Schmidt, op. cit., p. 27. 3 A. Leskien, The Declination in the Slavic-Lithuanian and Germanic Languages, p. Leipzig, 1876, XII. * A. Leskien, op. cit., p. 157-158. * A. Leskien, op. cit., p. XII. 11 Neither J. Šmito, nor A. There is no clear distinction ir between the Slavic and the Baltic languages. Į them drew attention J. Hanush. Jano Hanuš's (1858—1887) article*, published in 1886 1990, was the first one specifically devoted to the problem ir of the oldest relations of the Baltic Slavic languages. J. Hanuš raised du questions: 1) what allows the recognition of a common Baltic-Slavic linguistic period? 2) as accurately as possible to define the time when the ir white Slavs kal- "there was one language? In answering į the first question, J. Hanuš presented several morphological ir similarities in the phonetics of the Baltic ir Slavic languages: ide. the fate of sonatas, the conjugation of nominative ir adjectives, etc. The second jo argument, indicating a common Baltic-Slavic linguistic period, was of Baltic origin Borrowings from the Baltic-Ugric-Finnic languages, which he considered Belarusian (at that time, scientists had not yet established the pure Baltic origin). jų In answering į the second question, J. Hanuš speculated that the Balto-Slavic tribe had to split the Balto-Slaves į approximateir ly between V a. pr. m. e. ir II m. e. age, because Herodotus believes jo that the Nevroi were Belarusians. Subsequent researchers have not confirmed this date. J. Hanuš's article was significant in that it specifically raised the question of the relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages, and for the first time presented in one place all the Baltic and Slavic language communities known at the time. « Soon not only Baltic and Slavic, but also all ide. questions of language affinity retreated to second place. There were completely new questions (laws of sounds, analogy, borrowed words) that were the focus of researchers' attention for many years." An article by Karl Brugmann (1849—1919), one of the most prominent representatives of the Junggrammatiker school, appeared, in which he took a skeptical view of the theory of protolanguages: common innovations in individual languages could not be an argument for close affinity between languages, since these innovations could have occurred independently in each language. The only valid argument for the affinity of languages, according to Brugmann, is the totality of new developments in phonetics, flexion, syntax and lexicon®. Although Brugmann was sceptical about the theories of language affinity, he nevertheless believed that the Baltic and Slavic languages had long since survived the "Zeit der baltisch-slawischen Urgemeinschaft"! In his "Outline of the Comparative Grammar of Indo-European Languages- ", Brugman presented seven common features of the Baltic and Slavic languages, which he believed to show close relations between those languages: 1) goes. transformation of the sonants xm, r into in, and (cf. lit. at-mintis and s. sl. mong, pa-mets); simplification of intervocal geminates; 3) formation of nominative adjectives with the pronoun *jo-(cf. lit. good 2) ir s. sl. better); 8 J. Hanusz, On the Lithuanian-Stowian period in relation to the Indo-European protolanguage,,,Discourses and reports from the meetings of the philological department of the Academy of Skills“, 11, Krakow, 1886, p. 249-272. 7 For further details, see F. Specht, The "Indo-Germanic" Linguistics from the Young Grammarists to the First World wars,,,Lexis*, 1, 1948, p. 229—263. ® K. Brugmann, On the Question of the Relativity of the Indo-European Languages,,,International Journal of General Linguistics“, 1, 1884, p. 226—256. * K. Brugmann, op. cit., p. 253. 1» K. Brugmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen I, Sprachen, Strasbourg, 1978, p. 1897, p. 146. 1 K. Brugmann, op. cit., p. 20-21. 12 4) nt the transition of ir the consonant root nouns of the stem participants in certain syllables to the i stem (cf. lit. vėžančio, s. sl. vežama from *vežontio and lit. vežąs, sl. s. bonds iš *carrier; let. stone, sl. s. kamenomi ir liet. stones, s. sl. kamy iš *akmon)'? 5) ; It's going. pronouns *so, *sa substitution with pronouns lit. Ta, Ta, Sa. s. ts, ta; pronoun 6) singular noun liet, manie, pr. mennei, s. sl. menė formation according to the singular pronoun; substitution 7) o of the singular pronoun of stem nouns by an ablative (plg. let. wolf, sl. s. viska ir s. ind. vfkat). These K. The similarities of the ir Baltic Slavic languages presented by Brugman were sufficient At the a. end of ir XX a. the 19th century, linguists were convinced that there was a Belarusian proto-language. In the second a. half of the 19th century, as before, ir one of the most important issues for ir the Balto-Slavs was their local identity. the language family. However, it is at this time that attention is drawn to the interrelationships of the Baltic Slavic languages: the first special article by J. į Hanuš, as we ir have seen, devoted to this problem, appears, and K. Brugman presents commonalities characterizing the interrelationships of the Baltic and Slavic languages. Although most scholars of this period did not doubt the existence of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage, at the end of the 19th century, sceptical voices are being heard about it. These voices were particularly strong in the early 20th century. 1908—1912 m. discussion on the oldest ir relations of the Baltic Slavic languages : In the early 20th century, the Balto-Slavic proto-language theory began to be heavily questioned. All the commonalities between the Balto-Slavic and Slavic languages, which were generally considered as arguments for the Balto-Slavic proto-language theory, were critically examined. All of the pro-languages have been viewed with scepticism since the time of the Neogrammatical movement. All the ideas. Delbrück considered the grouping of languages into dialects to be questionable, except for the Indo-Iranian protolanguage!. Apie baltų-slavų prokalbę abejodamas kalbėjo P. fon Bradkė?. In 1903, Janas Bauduonas de Kurtenė (1845—1929) wrote that there are no more arguments for the “Lithuanian-Slavic epoch” and probably even fewer than against it, and that therefore we can consider it to be science fiction®. Kazimieras Jaunius (1848—1908) asserted that “it is not true that Slavic and Aestian are twin sisters: Aestian is the sister of Slavic, just like other Indo-European languages”*. The aforementioned researchers, without specifying arguments, limited themselves to general reasoning directed against the theory of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage. 12 Brugman’s Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (Berlin—Leipzig, 1922, p. 18) distinguishes between the participants and the consonant stem, and therefore lists eight features. 1 B. Delbriick, Introduction to the Study of Languages, 3. Aufl., Leipzig, 1893 (1st edition 1880). 2 P, von Bradke, Beitrūge zur Kenntnis der prehistorischen Entwicklung unseres Sprachstamms, Giessen, 1880. 3 H. Boaysu-ne-Kyprens, Jlunrsuctuueckne 3aMeTkKH H adopu3Mbi, ŽKMHTII, 346, 1903, p. 330. 4 K. fIsunc, T paMMarHka JinTOBCKOTO si3biKa, [lerporpan, 1908—1916, p. 27. 13 Antoine was the first to argue against the theory of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage Maye (1866—1936). Dar 1905 m. A. Maye wrote that the Baltic Slavic languages ir do not have as much innovation as is attributed to them, that there is no reason to speak of ir an epoch of Baltic-Slavic unity (d'une ėpogue d'unitė balto-slave)®. 1908 m. in the book “Indo-European dialects”® a large chapter A. Maye focused on the characteristics ir of the earliest relations of the Baltic Slavic languages. Before examining K. In contrast to ir Brugman's similarities between the Baltic A. Slavic languages, May noted that the ir similarities between the Baltic Slavic languages are obvious. Baltų ir similar character of the Slavic language jo systems, according to the following 1) factors: baltų ir Slavic languages iš originated from ide. identical dialects of the linguistic community (l'unité indo-europčenne) (de parlers indo-europčens sensiblement identiques), which were not separated by one major nė isoglosse; the Balto-Slavic languages have 2) not undergone ir radical systemic fractures (aucune fracture brusgue du systėme) in their development, so they are conservative and archaic and therefore have retained many ancient features; 3) the Balts and Slavs lived in adjacent geographical areas in similar civilizational conditions all along. Moreover, Maye pointed out that the similarity of the Baltic and Slavic languages was reinforced by borrowings — especially of the Baltic languages from the Slavic languages." Furthermore, A. Mejė examined in detail the similarities between the Baltic and Slavic languages mentioned by K. Brugman. One. Sonants /, m, nm, r similar development, in addition to the Baltic and Slavic languages, was also in Germanic and Celtic languages. In certain positions, the u appeared next to the sonant in Greek, Latin and Armenian. Therefore, the appearance of the adjective vowel i, u next to the sonates is ide. dialectic phenomenon of linguistic community, but not an innovation of Baltic and Slavic languages. 2. The simplification of geminates is ide. the result of a general tendency in languages, and it began in the ide. in the linguistic community. In the Baltic and Slavic languages, as in Armenian, geminates have been simplified, while in other languages this has not happened. The presence of geminates in ide itself is doubtful. in the linguistic community, where they mainly occurred in the Hippocratic and children's language lexicon. 3. The types of adjectives in both language groups differ in detail and their meanings do not coincide. The noun *iolabai is similarly used alongside nouns and adjectives in the Avestan language (A. Mejė especially emphasizes the fact that both in the Avestan and in the Baltic and Slavic languages the noun *jo is combined with those words with which it is used). 4. the active participants of the present tense of the masculine gender have passed into its stem according to the participants of the feminine gender (i@ stem), existing already in ide. in the linguistic community. May pointed out that adjectives tend to move to the vowel stem much faster than nouns (Lithuanian language teturi o ir u stem adjectives, Slavic languages —only o stem). This transition is a general idea. language innovation,-- because the exact equivalent of the Baltic and Slavic languages can be found in the West Germanic languages (Old English, Old Saxon, Old High German). ir 5. Insertion -such į forms as lit. akmen-i-mis, s. sl. kamen-6-mi, typical only ne of the Baltic ir Slavic languages, because the Latin language knows exactly the same phenomenon (plg. ped-i- * A. Meillet, Studies on 1’étymologie et le vocabulaire du ancien slave, II, Paris, 1905, p. 201. $ A. Meillet, Les dialectes indo-européens, Paris, 1908. 7 A. Meillet, Les dialectes indo-européens, Nouveau tirage, Paris, bus), Armenian 1922, p. 40—41. 14 (plg. ot-i-wkh) ir kt language. Be of these two types was facilitated by the phonetic coincidence of both the singular endings of the i consonant stem and the ir jų plural endings. 6. The old denominator of the demonstrative pronoun *so-, *sū- (plg. skr. sd, sa, gr. 6, 1, got. sa, so) replaced by stem *r0-, *rū-, Baltic be Slavic, ir still West Germanic languages (plg. s. German the, thia, vok. s. height. there, he says). A. Mejé emphasized that this was a major innovation, since all the ta forms of the paradigm, except for the singular noun, began with a consonant that could very easily have been ;-, replaced by analogy with a single vowel with the initial consonant s-. į su 7. The Property Owner. mania, man, pr. mennei does not s. correspond to sl. moné neither root nor end vowels. A. Maye added that these forms of Baltic Slavic languages are an excellent example of ir the parallel but independent innovations that characterize both language groups. 8. Genealogy of the Aboriginal peoples. wolf, sl. s. vlska corresponds to the Sanskrit ablative vfkat. The genetic ir ablative merged due to the fact that in all strains except type, the singular genetic o ablative had one ir ir tą the same form. In Greek, the genitive form was used to denote the ablative, o while in the ir Balto-Slavic languages, the genitive function was assumed by the ablative. Does not appear, emphasizes A. The term is derived from the Slavic language, where the word is derived from the (a Latin word deus, de meaning god. ‘God’. Thus, he added, the generalization of the ablative is easily explained by the independent development of languages. Having examined these ir commonalities of the Baltic Slavic A. languages, Maye concluded that ,,baltų ir the Slavic languages developed in parallel; This parallelism has, of course, led to the emergence of some identical forms, but these innovations do not allow the recognition of a common period of tų language development.”* As a striking example of parallel innovation A. May indicated de Sosiūro-Fortunatovo law, quite rightly stating that this law acted independently in Lithuanian Slavic languages. ir Similarly, the other ones. Maye showed that the mentioned Baltic-Slavic ir language communities are either archaisms inherited from the early Indo-European A. period, or modernizations. ir iš If the phenomenon or fact is archaic, then Balts and Slavs, as other ide. ir language. ji passed. Also, the novelties ir cannot be a strict argument for the common era of the Balto-Slavic ar proto-language, because they could have arisen independently in other Balto-Slavic languages. ir languages, or in tų the era of language contacts. Be of which, A. according to Meja, Belarusian innovations are only similar, but identical ne (see, for example, the beneficiary of a personal pronoun). The new bold A. The idea of the matrix is the basis of the theory of polynomials. Jo criticism showed that the existing arguments to prove the Balto-Slavic protolanguage are not sufficient. The authors of the report were forced to seek new evidence to support their claims. Be the first to reply Viktoras Poržezinskis (1870-1929). Jo the work ir on the question of the Balto-Slavs concluded as follows: “the Baltic ir Slavic languages underwent a common period of considerable novelty”*. 8 A. Meillet, op. cit., p. 45. * W. Porzezinski, The Baltic-Slavic Sprachgemeinschaft, RSI, the Baltic Slavic 4, 1911, p. 2-3. 15 Thus, in K. the view of Boga, the ir common vocabulary of the Baltic Slavic languages arose because of: : a) languages originated ir in the Id. iš linguistic communities, where the Balto-Slavic ir dialects already had their own characteristic words; b) the Baltic and Slavic languages were immediately bordering and neighboring in the course of history: This interpretation of the origin of the common vocabulary of the Baltic and Slavic languages has not lost its value today. In fact, long-term contact between related languages can not only lead to analogous phonetic and morphological phenomena, but also to the emergence of a common vocabulary. He did not find any evidence of the unity of the Baltic and Slavic languages (in his term, the proto-language) and therefore was firmly opposed to it, while the Russian linguists A. Shahmatov and A. Sobolevsky, working at the same time, did not doubt the unity of the Baltic-Slavic languages. Alexei Shahmatov (1864—1920), noting that the particular closeness of the Baltic and Slavic languages can hardly be doubted, writes: "This closeness cannot be accidental and depends only on their common origin from the Indo-European proto-language; Both the Baltic and the Slavic languages have many common deviations from the old relations, and these common deviations testify to their common life at the time when they separated from the other Indo-European languages. Thus, it is necessary to recognize the Balts and Slavs as descending from a common ancestor (or OnHoro OGinero pojoKauajibHHKAa), who had already separated from the family speaking the Indo-European protolanguage. The ancestor of the Baltic and Slavic languages, which can be called the Baltic-Slavic protolanguage, was the language of that Indo-European family, which, having separated from the Indo-European family, only later split into two branches — the Baltic and the Slavic.” The quotation shows A. Shahmatov's view of the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages: he unequivocally claims that there was a Baltic-Slavic unity, both linguistic and ethnic, existing after the ide. the disintegration of linguistic community. The original and interesting hypothesis of the genesis of Slavic peoples and languages was developed by Alexei Sobolevsky (1856-1929). In order to solve the problem of the formation of the Slavic protolanguage, he paid special attention to ide. s reflexes in Slavic languages. The letters i, u, r, and k in Slavic languages are id. s became ch, in all other positions it remained unchanged. Sobolevsky made this phonetic law absolute and concluded that the Slavic protolanguage is a combination of two languages: s-language and ch-language**?. The Ch-language belongs to the Iranian language branch and the r is probably a dialect of the Scythian language. According to A. Sobolevski, the s-language is “close to the Baltic languages, having previously formed a unified Slavo-Baltic, or Slavo-Lithuanian, language with them”**. It includes words and forms with s instead of the old §; this change to ch in balty-slavy has never happened. Sobolevski was convinced that the Baltic and Slavic peoples once spoke the same language. That unified Balto-Slavic. language, in his opinion, existed until the beginning of our era, i.e. until the time when the Scythians encountered the White Slavs at the Baltic Sea. About the hypothetical Balto-Slavs and their language, A. Sobolevskis could say nothing more: “From where did the ancestors of the people with s-language, the Balto-Slavs A. IllaxMaroB, Ouepk JpeBHeitmero riepHojia HCTOPHH PYCCKOTO S3bIKA,:,,JHUKKJIOnejus eJiaBakcekKoHK, come to the Baltic coast? OnJioJiorun", Bern. II, [Nerporpan, 1915, p. IX. 12 A. H. Co6oaneBckuil, Pyccko-ckudckue stioas, HMOPSAC, 27, 1924, p. 334. 13 A. H. Co6oaepckuii, op. cit., p. 334. 22 nation, we do not know; Hardly from the west, southwest or east. We have no reason to look for it even among the peoples mentioned by Herodotus." And the people with ch-language, in his opinion, is an old inhabitant of the Baltic coast, who gave name to the river Nemunas4. Sobolevsky's hypothesis was severely criticized and rejected!*. Both the hypotheses of A. Sachmatov and A. Sobolevski lacked argumentation based on the analysis of the factual material of the Baltic and Slavic languages. The example of A. Shakhmatov and A. Sobolevsky as if confirmed the words of K. Buga that, when solving questions related to the genesis of languages, it is first necessary to study well the languages themselves. The problem of the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages in the 1920s and 1930s In the 1920s and 1930s, scholars mainly studied the Baltic and Slavic languages themselves. While examining individual issues of their phonetics, accentology, morphology and lexicology, researchers have also drawn more general conclusions concerning the earliest relationships between these languages. This inductive solution of the question of the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages, based on the analysis of abundant factual material, was methodologically extremely significant. The study of N. van Weik on the origin of the accent and intonation systems of the Baltic and Slavic languages and the dictionary of Baltic and Slavic languages* by R. Trautmann were of great importance for the study of the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages. In the introduction to his book, Nikolai van Week (1880—1941) pointed out that between There is no fundamental difference between the theories of A. Schleicher and J. Rozvadovski: both researchers have recognized the “Belarusian period”. Furthermore, N. van Week added that the theory of A. Meje is not very different from that of A. Schleicher, although at first glance the difference between them may seem very large. For, according to A. Mejés, the Balto-Slavic dialects (which can be said to have also “sprokalbė”) existed in the Idy. linguistic community until it split, and A. Sleicher, as shown by the scheme of his,,genealogical language tree“, acknowledged their existence even after id. of the linguistic community (in A. Sleicher- ’s term, proto-language). Van Veeck himself was of the opinion that these were id. dialects of the linguistic community, from which the Baltic and Slavic languages were later formed, forming a relatively close (zusammenhūngendes), albeit dialectically differentiated whole (Ganzes) even when other ide. language groups, such as the Indo-Iranian, had already separated. This continuity, apparently, did not last long, as it did not leave any more pronounced traces in the known languages. Therefore, the theoretically possible Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity, says N. van Week, in practice we can ignore. For the proto-Baltic and proto-Slavic dialects he reconstructed two intonations — circumflex and acute, —N. van Wijk noted that "this does not in any way indicate 14 A. H. Co6onesckuii, op, cit., p. 332. 15 A critical evaluation of Mr Sobolev’s hypothesis has been made by Mr Pogodin, see, inter alia, the case-law cited. A. JI. Both of you, Teopus will. A. H. CoGosieBCKOTO 0 JIBOAKOM NPOHCXOMK/IEHHH CJIABAHCKOTO IJIEMEHH, „Slavia“, 9, 1930-1931. ! N. van Wijk, The Baltic and Slavic Accent and Intonation Systems (A Contribution to the Study of the Baltic-Slavic Relationships), Amsterdam, 1923. * R. Trautmann, Baltic Slavic Dictionary, Gottingen, Germany 1923. * N. of Wijk, The Baltic and Slavic Accent und Intonation systems, 2. ed., *'s — Gravenhage, 1958, p. 13. : closer relationships between 23 the two language groups, because: 1) the quality of the proto-Baltic and proto-Slavic intonations can be determined only very vaguely; 2) the Greek language has similar intonation relationships." Reinhold Trautmann (1883—1951) The ir “Dictionary of the Baltic Slavic Languages” is the largest ir and most complete ir collection of the lexicon of the Baltic Slavic languages. Jį consists mainly of common words of the Baltic ir Slavic languages, although it contains some words ir that exist only in one language group or even only in one language. This happened, apparently, because R. Trautman was convinced of the existence of a Baltic-Slavic language community (baltischslavische Sprachgemeinschaft)- ®: he believed that words in the Baltic languages that now lacked a corresponding word in the Slavic languages might have existed in the Slavic languages in the past. jo ir R. A large part of the lexicon presented by Trautman cannot be considered Belarusian: some common words of both language groups have equivalents in other languages. in ir languages therefore is probably inherited ide. iš linguistic community, part is only in one linguistic group even in the language. ar R. Trautmann's dictionary was important ir in the lexicon of the Baltic o Slavic languages, as well as ir tų of the oldest relations between languages. However, in be dealing with the question of ir the oldest vų relations of the white-speaking peoples, it had some negative ir effects. The researchers were impressed by the fact that such a dictionary was compiled: if such a large iš dictionary ir can be written on bų the Balto-Slavic lexicon, then there can be no doubt about the unity of the languages! An tų obvious example here may be the following words of Specht: F. “That the Baltic ir Slavic languages have undergone a common development in the past, which can be explained ir only by the theory of the Baltic Slavic protolanguage, po R. Trautmano The ir appearance of the “Dictionary of Baltic Slavic Languages” should no longer raise doubts.” The question arises as to the iš significance of the actual lexicon in the study of language kinship relationships. In this su connection, I would like to recall A. The history of the developir ment of the bų White Slavic language. Raising the questions of ir the significance of the vocabulary of ir the oldest relations of the Baltic ir ne Slavic languages R. Trautmann- 's dictionary, article "Origin of the Slavic Languages Dictionary: I. — The problem of the Balto-Slavic unity” he stated: 1. The lost elements characterize the vocabulary in the same way as the preserved ones. ir The ir Baltic Slavic languages have lost many of their ancient ideas. words, replacing them with new ones. For example, ir the Baltic Slavic languages lost their old the ‘parent’ name (s. ind. pitd, gr. naro, lot. father). Instead of jo white, he began to use a new word: lit. father, lat. tęvs pr. ir taws, Slavic o expressive — s.s.l. 0f-5c6 (for the suffix, cf. the s. adjective sl. otf- -bnjb ‘father’). Ta The fact that the Belarusian ir Slavic language lost old words and different ir substitutes were jų created in its place, shows that the Belarusian Slavs had ir similar living conditions while the language changed parallelly. ir jų 2. The lexical ir equivalents of the Balto-Slavic languages do not indicate that the ir Balto-Slavic languages had a period of common life that was id. po The common ta vocabulary of the ir Baltic Slavic languages is inherited iš from the ide. dialects of the linguistic community, cf., for example, lit. fog, sl. s. fog gr. ir o-piyin®. * N. of Wijk, op. cit., p. 46. * R. Trautmann, op cit., p. V. ¢ F. Pickle, To the Baltic-Slavic Language unit, KZ, 62, 1934, p. 248. i A. Meillet, Les origines vocabulaire du slave: I. — Le problem de l'unitė balto-slave, RESI, 5, 1925, p. 5—13, 8 A. Meillet, loc. cit. 24 3. The parallel development of the Baltic and Slavic languages is shown by the lexical formants. For example, the nomina instrumenti in Vedic Balts have the suffix *-tlo-(lit. -kla-), and Slavs have the suffix *-dhlo, cf. lit. drklas and so on. ralo, Czech rddlo. These suffixes are similar, but not identical, and both are old: the first corresponds to the Latin -culum (cf. Latin poculum "cup"), and the second to the Latin -culum. -bulum (cf. lat. pabulum "food") and gr. - Oh, wow. (plg. Article 10 yšved9Aiov). 4. A distinct difference between Baltic and Slavic languages is that ide. vocabulary of the Baltic languages preserved better than the Slavic. For example, the Baltic languages well preserved the names of man and man (cf. s. lit. Zmuo, pr. smoy and lat. hemé or homė, got. guma; lit. vyras, lat. virs, pr. wijrs and s. ind. virdh, lat. vir, s. air. fer, got. wair), while the Slavic languages lost them. Concluding his article, A. Mejė writes: “The Indo-European part of the dictionary of the Baltic and Slavic languages originates from the same ide. dialect groups. However, it is enough to read Trautmannjų 's Baltisch-slavisches Worterbuch to see that there is a difference between ide. There was no period during ir the historical period of linguistic unity of the Baltic and Slavic languages during which a common vocabulary for both language groups was formed. There is parallelism, there is no unity." It is interesting that A. Maye's view of the lexicon of ir the Baltic Slavic languages is very close to ma K. In the case of the two — languages, the common vocabulary of these languages is 1) considered by both iš scholars to be derived from ide. dialects of the linguistic community, ir 2) which developed independently, in parallel, since both language groups lived in neighborhood from ancient times. Iš in fact, for the common ir vocabulary of the Baltic Slavic languages it is not necessary at all to recognize the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity: this vocabulary was sufficient to emerge from the various contacts that the Baltic Slavs have ir had in their history. Be therefore, when dealing with the ir question of the oldest relations of the Baltic Slavic languages, the significance of the lexicon cannot be overstated, since the dictionary, as is known, is the most changing part of the linguistic system. In order to support the theory of ir the unity of the Baltic Slavic languages, be the lexical argument, Franz Specht used (1888—1949) a number of noticeable jo grammatical similarities, such as: su (lit. tamė=s. sl. empty» iš *tamen), strict men ir n stem nų division, masculine nomina agentis formantu su *-the loss (plg. It's going. *patėr ir liet. father, s. sl. otece6) ir kt. N. of In his work, R. Trautman ir F. Špecht addressed ir the question of the oldest relations of the Baltic Slavic languages based on the findings of his own specific research. The Italian neolinguists took a completely different path. In their su theoretical principles of common linguistics, they primarily tried to determine the character ir of the Baltic Slavic languages. Iš 100 mg/ day Vitoria "Pisan acknowledges that the Baltic ir Slavic language po is id". of the linguistic community underwent a common period of development. The ir isoglosses of the Balto-Slavic languages tų crossing the V. linguistic area, according to Pisani, suggest that the ir Balto-Slavic territories remained unified for quite a long time. po disintegration of the linguistic community. The general period of development of these languages V. Pisano called the communion * A. Meillet, op. cit., p. 13. 10 F. Specht, op. cit., p. 248—259, '' V. Pisani, Balto e slavo, StB, 2, 1932, p. 1—22 (=Linguistica generale e indoeuropea, Milano, 2000) The 1947, p. 65—82). 25 Indo-Aryan language was a proto-Indo-- European language, which he dated to about the 5th century BC and the 4th century AD. However, later Pisano's views changed: he believed that, based on the isogloss system, it was hardly possible to speak of a Baltic-Slavic community, and it was also hardly possible to speak of a Baltic-Slavic protolanguage, since it seemed never to have existed. Another Italian neolinguist, Matteo Bartoli (1874—1946), after analysing several Baltic and Slavic equivalents, concluded that the chronological order of the Baltic languages is determined by the fact that there are more anti-ethnic new creations in them than in the Germanic languages, and significantly less than in the ancient Indian language*.” In disagreement with Bartholdi's conclusion, Julian Bonfanti expressed his opinion? ** that the Baltic languages, especially Lithuanian, are both archaic and conservative, while the Slavic languages are conservative but not archaic. J. Bonfanti pointed out a number of archaisms, adding that the Baltic languages had also failed to resist the waves of innovation coming from the centre (Greek, Armenian, etc.)**. The Norwegian linguist Christian Stange not only analyzed the earliest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages, but also wrote extensive works in which he shed light on the history of verbs and accentology in Baltic and Slavic languages. In one of my articles!” Chr. Stangas raised the question: what does the term “linguistic unity” mean? In his opinion, linguistic unity can be understood in two ways: 1) unity characterized by individual (not dialectal and not social) deviations; 2) unity, when the speakers feel that their language is one and the same, even though it is divided into dialects (by this definition, for example, German is one language and Swedish and Norwegian are two, although the difference between the latter is smaller than between northern and southern German dialects); such linguistic unity, Chr. "Political and Cultural Relations". The first type of unity between Baltic and Slavic languages after ide. the linguistic community could not be, because, for example, id. s's fate after K, r, i, u brings Slavic languages closer to Indo-Iranian languages. The existence of the second type of unity between these languages after the aforementioned disintegration cannot be proven by linguistic data. The most important Slavic and Baltic languages are: Stangas describes it as follows: The Baltic and Slavic languages originated, it may be said, from the same ide. dialect. However, there are very old differences between them: different ide. s after k, r, i, u fate (see p.81tt. of this work), different details of satam-phenomenon (cf. lit. klausytiir sl. slyšati,see p.186tt. of this work) and others. Later, when the linguistic community broke up, the Baltic and Slavic languages underwent a period in which their territories were surrounded by several new isoglosses. Some of them cover the entire territory of these languages, while others cover only a part of it. Such isoglosses as i, il, im, in, and ur, ul, um, un (see p. 76 of this work), verb type with -auju: -uju, nomina agentis lit. artojas, pr. artoys, s. sl. ratajo et al. Kol, Chr. In Stango’s opinion, the existing possibility of * V. Pisani, Glottologia indoeuropea, Torino, 1949, p. 26. * M. Bartoli, II conservative character of the Baltic languages, StB, 3, 1933, p. 1—26. '4 G. Bonfante- ,,,Arcaico e ,,conservative‘ in the Baltic group, StB, 5, 1935 — 1936, p. ak plg. ,,Indo-European Yearbook", 21, 1937, p. 326. * For more information, see B. H. Tonopos, H3 ucropun wusyuenus apesmeiiuiux 6Gajito-cJaBAHCKHX S3bIKOBbIX OTHOINHIeHHH, p. 22—25. * Chr. S. Rod, some Remarks on the As long as there is a gap between the Slavic and Baltic languages, NTS, isoglosses, it is possible to speak of a 11, 1939, p. 85-98. 26 living isoglossal territory (lebendiges Isoglossengebiet). 1963 in music Stangas details and specifies his views on the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages'?, He expresses the opinion that different ide. s after k, r, i, u fate and some different reflexes of satom-phenomenon (listen: slyšati) in Baltic and Slavic languages in their age do not reach ide. of linguistic communion. After discussing some of the innovations of the Baltic and Slavic languages, Chr. Stange concludes that these languages are after ide. the fragmentation of the linguistic community formed a unified dialecting area (Dialektgebiet), in which: the new formations of those languages occurred and for which the expression,,balty-slavy language“ („Baltisch-slavisch“) can be used. On the other hand, in his opinion, it is also acceptable that in this dialectal area certain old isoglosses crossed, which separated the Baltic dialects from the Slavic ones. The skimming of the Balto-Slavic dialectal area has taken place in stages, as there are isoglosy, some of which cover the Slavo-Eastern Balto-Slavic area, others — the Slavo-Prussian area. In his works Chr. Stangas often uses the expression "Balto-Slavic languages". In his book “Accentuation of Slavic Languages”* he states that he does not use the term “Balty-Slavonic” in the sense of an absolutely homogeneous language. By this term he meant “a dialectal area that is so homogeneous that linguistic changes that occur in it can cover the whole area or part of it”*. Such a Chr. Stango’s opinion about the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages was confirmed by the main conclusions of his book “Slavu and the Baltic verb”. In the past, the commonalities of the Baltic and Slavic verb systems had to be much greater, and their present tense systems after ide. of the linguistic community should be very similar?!. In addition, due to the differences in language development, the verb systems of these languages have diverged from each other. Chr. Stangas also highlights the structural differences between the Baltic and Slavic verbs. The Baltic languages, like the Germanic languages, do not have a sigmatic aorist, and apparently never had one. The Slavic sigmatic aortic is very similar to the Indo-Iranian: both have an elongated degree of root vowelism. In connection with this Chr. Stangas states that the Baltic and Slavic languages belonged, possibly, to different geographical spheres in relation to Aorist. The Slavic languages do not have the long root preteritum that the Baltic, Germanic, Celtic, Italic, and Albanian languages have. The Baltic languages have the sigmatic future, which is not present in the Slavic languages. This was the first time that the present perfect was used to represent the future, and the sigmatic future was no longer necessary. Chr. Stango’s analysis shows that some structural types and categories (e.g. nasal and i-stem verbs, optative) are rather the consequences of convergent or even parallel development. An overview of the study of the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages in the 1920s and 1930s shows that the researchers of this period, with the exception of R. Trautman and F. Špecht, do not find any data that would allow them to recognize the certainty17 of Chr. Stang, Uber das Verhittnis zwischen slavischen und baltischen Sprachen,,,Prace jezykoznawcze*, 5, 1963, p. 393-394. 8 Chr. S. Stang, Slavonic accentuation, Oslo, 1957. Chr. S. Stang, op. cit., p. 174. * Chr. S. Stang, The Slavic and Baltic Verb, Oslo, 1942. Chr. S. Stang, loc. cit., p. 268, 271. 27 the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity. On the contrary, the study of specific ir accentological morphological phenomena led to conclusions that showed that the earliest relations between the Baltics were of a contact ir nature. vų Research of ir the oldest relations of the Baltic Slavic languages in the post-war period The study ir of the problem of the oldest relations of the Baltic Slavic languages po was intensified by World War II. Several articles have been published specifically devoted to this problem. The earliest relationships between these languages are also characterized in one of the major works on the ne history of the Baltic Slavic languages. ar 1950 m. out E. The Book of Frenkel "Baltic languages"! was the impetus to appear J. Angelino article, į which in turn responded J. Otrembskis, A. Zenas et al. ir (see section 4.4). (see below). There has been, you could say, a certain debate. Especially actively the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages were discussed in preparation for the IV International Congress of Slavists in Moscow. The post-war studies of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages are characterized by detailed analysis of the known and newly established similarities and differences between these languages, as well as by raising the question of their chronology. Moreover, at the present time the authors avoid creating hypotheses that interpret the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages in a new way, and are satisfied with the modification, more detailed argumentation or criticism of the theories raised in 1908—1912. In 1946, two Polish linguists published their work on the problem of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages. *, —J. Safarevičius’ article,,Dél balto-slavic communion question- “? and T. Ler-Splavinskis’ book,,On the origin and homeland of the Slavs”*. Janas Safarevičius stated in his article that, on the one hand, such innovations of the Baltic and Slavic languages as the present tense construction from aoristic roots (cf. Lithuanian Zuomi, Slovak dame and Slovak ind. ddam, Greek €dopevy), such as the above-mentioned derivation from the perfect root *men-, are very old and therefore could not have arisen in the second convergence of the Baltic and Slavic languages. By saying this, J. Safarevičius undoubtedly meant J. Endzelyno convergence theory. Such and similar innovations, in his opinion, show that the epoch of communion probably existed and that it existed immediately after the idea. language community, extending it*. On the other hand, such old differences between the Baltic and Slavic languages, such as the use of the present tense suffix *-do (see s. sl. idą and lit. eimi, lit. vėrda, which is not present in the Slavic languages), in J. Safarevičius’s opinion, show that the period of commonality (okres wspoėlnoty) between these languages was not long-lasting. He believes that the Baltic-Slavic community has broken down not because of geographical contacts, but because of the influx of Iranian tribes. Later, J. Safarevičius’ remarks about the linguistic unity of the Balts and Slavs become even more critical. In 1961, he wrote that "the existence of an era of Baltic-Slavic unity is not entirely certain". Furthermore, J. Safarevičius points out that the Baltic and Slavic language communities * E. Fraenkel, The Baltic * During the war, H. 1950. Pedersen published an article,,Et baltoslaviskt problem“ (In memoriam Kr. Sandfeld, Kobenhavn, 1943), with which the author of this work, unfortunately, did not have the opportunity to get acquainted. * J. Safarewicz, Causes of the issue of the baito-stowian community,,,Reports of z meetings i Polskiej Academy Skills®, 46, 1946, p. 199—202. * T. Lehr-Sptawinski, O Origin of the i Stovian Homeland, Poznan, 1946. * J. Safarewicz, op. cit., p. 200. * J. Safarewicz, Balto-stowianiskie stosunki jezykowie,,,Stownik starozytnosci slavianskich*, I, 1 (A-B), Wroclaw — Warsaw — Krakow, 1961, p. 79-80. 7 J. Safarewicz, op. cit., p. 79. 28 are more similar to parallel, independently occurring innovations (cf. o-kamieniy singular noun ending —lt. -o, s. sl. -a and pr. -as). Even the most striking commonality of the Baltic and Slavic languages, such as nominative adjectives, he considers to have been independently formed in one and the other language group. According to J. Safarevičius, the epoch of the Baltic-Slavic union is only the embryo of this phenomenon. He believes that the Baltic and Slavic languages originated from the same ide. the dialect of the linguistic community and that the epoch of the Baltic-Slavic community, if, of course, it existed, could have existed in the first half of the second millennium B.C.” The question of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages was addressed in a slightly different way by another Polish linguist Tadeusz Ler-Splawiński (1891—1965- ). In his book On the Origin and Homeland of the Slavs, he succinctly set out his concept: "The ancestors of the Slavs and the Balts once lived through an epoch of common linguistic development, which continued even after contacts with other peoples were lost. dialect groups had already been broken." T. Ler-Splavinskis is guided by the methodological principle that innovations show the common development of languages much more truthfully than past-European archaisms, which, in his opinion, could easily have survived in the independent development of those languages. To support his statement, T. LerSplavinskis summarizes a number of common innovative changes in phonetics, morphology and lexicon of Baltic and Slavic languages. The most important argument he nevertheless considers the commonalities of the vocabulary, which, in his opinion, are so numerous that they make up a large (even of 1600 positions) etymological dictionary of the Baltic and Slavic languages (he refers to the Trautmann dictionary). According to T. Ler-Splavinskis, the old differences in morphology and especially in vocabulary do not confirm the thesis about the original unity of the Baltic and Slavic languages. First, these differences indicate that those ide. dialects spoken by the Baltic and Slavic ancestors ide. in the times of linguistic communion, were close, but differed significantly in both grammar and vocabulary composition. This did not prevent the formation of general trends in their development, which operated even after the idea. of the linguistic community and later brought together the two dialect groups already during their common epoch. Secondly, the old differences between Baltic and Slavic languages indicate that the common Baltic-Slavic epoch (doba wspolnosci językowej baltostowianskiej) existed in the very distant past. This epoch was replaced by a relatively long period of independent development of the proto-Baltic and proto-Slavic dialects, during which different tendencies in the formation of the grammatical structure and increased differences in the vocabulary, partly inherited from the ide, emerged. of linguistic community. At that time, the contacts between the two dialect groups were very weak, but they were not completely broken. After some time, these contacts are revived again, and their reflection was the Baltic languages borrowed from Slavic and Slavic — from Baltic. This T. Ler-Splavinskis concept- ®, presented in the 1946 book “On the Origin and Homeland of the Slavs”, was developed in many articles in later years! ?, but its essence remained the same. 8 J. Safarewicz, op. cit., p. 80. * T. Lerner-Sptawinski, op. cit., p. 23. 10 For its quintessence, see. BSI, I, 1958, pp. 37-41 and,,C60pHHK OTBETOB Ha BOMPOCH [0 SI3bIKO3HaHHIO (K IV MexjiynapojiuoMy cse3jly caasucros)®, M., 1958, pp. 152-157. " For a bibliography of Ler-Splavinsky’s works published in 1946—1955, see V. Falkenhahn, ZfSI, 2, 1956, p. 49—88; jo Darby (including on the ir question of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages), published in 1951 —1961, for bibliography see,,Studia linguistica in honorem Thaddaei LehrSplawinski“, Warszawa, 1961, p. 1963, p. 7—8. 29 To be mentioned T. Ler-Splavinskis article, in which he tries to characterize those ide. iš ir T. In the opinion of Ler-Splavinskis, ide. dialects, iš which later formed the Baltic Slavic languages, ir without ide. During the linguistic union of compact unity, but formed by several iš closely related dialects, which had quite abundant differences. Baltic ir Slavic languages. to characterize the dialectic basis T. Ler-Splavinskis gives the following to characteristics showing the non-uniformity of the base: I. The language is not related ir to any other Slavic language, a) such as the Baltic languages. ir Western languages (except Germanic- ), distinguishes ide. é ir a, o in Slavic languages, such as Indo-Iranian and Germanic, id. long vowels matched (see section 4.4). of this work p. 61 tt. ); It's b) going. compound srliko sveikas in Lithuanian (plg. let. srawja ir s. ind. srdvati), Latvian, o Prussian, Slavic in all ide. ir in western languages turned str- (plg. s. sl. electricity)- c) *; different construction of the numerals „pirmas“, cf. let. first, pr. first, s. angl. form, s. sax. form (pressure) *-mo-) ir s. sl. test (pressure) *-uo-, like Indo-Iranian, Tocharian and probably Illyrian); different numerals "eleven" d) ir ,.dvylika“ daryba, plg. the second sand *_empty- (lit. eleven, twelve, got. 'Ain. Li. Tu. Li. s. Waq. height. einlif, zwalif) ir Old Slavic syntactic compound (one na tenth, two na tenths); e) The Prussian language retained the ide. medial I-th person singular - Never. (pr. asma ‘esu’, plg. Article 10 -see section 4.4). II. 1998-1999 Phenomenon typical of Slavic ir languages unknown to Baltic languages: a) Slavic, as well as Indo-Iranian, id. s after K, r, i, u became (§>) ch, and in Lithuanian only after r, k (cf. s. sl. mach, ucho and lit. mūsų, ausis; see p. 81, etc.); nomina agentis suffix b) su - Very. (plg. it. -size-); c) the suffix *-es-, as in the Hittite, in the names of body parts (cf. s. sl. ucho usese, oko ocese); adjective suffix abstrakty d) -ost6 (plg. it. -Ašti)? *; e) deverbaliniy construction of adjectives with participle su function *-/0- (plg. s. sl. It was ir hot. dalugnula iš daalignu- ‘elongated’)**; f) the use of the suffixes *-no-||*-io to form intransitive and transitive verbs of the same root, common with Germanic languages (see p. užasnąti: be amazed got. ir usgeisnan : usgaisjan); g) preservation of the perfect 1st person inflection -č (s. sl. vedė=lat. vidi) and the medial 3rd person ending -19 < *-tor. These old differences between the Baltic and Slavic languages suggest that the ide. During the breakdown of the linguistic community, the Baltic and Slavic dialects differed in many grammatical features. Since the territories of the Baltic and Slavic languages were immediately bordering for many centuries, —this circumstance, no doubt, accelerated the process of levelling of differences and the emergence of commonalities, —that ide. According to T. Ler-Splavinskis, the differences in the time of the breakdown of the linguistic community could have been much more abundant and larger. Lehr-Sptawinski, Podstawy indoeuropejskie wspolnoty językowej batto-stowianskiej,- ,» Z polskich studiéw slawistycznych“, Warszawa, 1958, p. 125—136. 13 In Lithuanian there are examples with str-, cf. lit. straiijas,.- greitas (about water), strébti, stragus. 14 These two suffixes, it seems, also exist in the Baltic languages, cf. lit. biaiir-astis (: biauris) and dég-las degti). (: 30 The theory of T. Ler-Splavinskis shows that 1) he derives the Baltic and Slavic languages from such ide. dialects of the linguistic community, which were not identical, and that 2) the Baltic and Slavic dialects converged only later. Although T. Ler-Splavinskis’ theory resembles J. Endzelyn- ’s concept of convergence on the surface, they are fundamentally different: the Polish linguist recognized not only the linguistic but also the ethnic kinship of the Baltic and Slavic peoples. Similarly, the question of the earliest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages is addressed by André Vayan, who without hesitation acknowledges the period of Baltic-Slavic unity (une pēriode d'unitė balto-slave)'®. In his opinion, the abundance of common features of the Baltic and Slavic languages, "especially such surprising ones as nominative adjectives, clearly shows that after ide. the period of Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity, which existed for quite a long time. On the one hand, the French Slavist admits that the Baltic languages differ from the Slavic languages no more than the Swedish language differs from the German language; on the other hand, he is forced to state that the Slavs feel the affinity of their languages without difficulty, whereas the Lithuanian language is completely foreign to them. The Baltic Venetians (Vēnēdes de la Baltigue) are often considered to be Belarusian Slavs, whose language differed little by the beginning of our era. In his view, the common Balto-Slavic language should be conceived as a cluster of dialects (un faisceau de parlers), with the dialects of the centre and the periphery more or less differing from each other. The Balto-Slavic tribe, the French Slavist continues, having been divided into two groups by the Germanic tribes invading at the beginning of our era, especially the Goths from Scandinavia, and thus having finally broken up the unity of the Balto-Slavic languages, has already split into Ziusia dialects. | A. Vajan puts the task of reconstructing the Balty-Slavic language. In this case, researchers of Baltic and Slavic languages would have to operate with three reconstructed linguistic models — Indo-European, Belarusian-Slavic and proto-Baltic, respectively. In his article “Balty-slavy jazyková jednotybé”1®, A. Vajan analyzed the similarities and differences between the Baltic and Slavic languages in a fairly detailed manner, especially emphasizing the identity of those facts in which A. Meje saw the differences between the two languages (for example, in the verb). At the end of the article, A. Vajanas puts the task of finding a unified basis for the different phenomena and facts of Baltic and Slavic languages." It is clear from the article that A. Vajanas is trying to find such a common primary basis for many of the phenomena of Baltic and Slavic languages. In fact, some of the later Slavic phenomena seem to be interpreted on the basis of Baltic data. Antai A. Vajan quite rightly points out that in the imperfect flexion of Slavic languages it is possible to recognise the extended suffixes *-ejju and *-ujjukamien (cf. s. sl. vidčair iskaa-), which are found only in Baltic languages (plg. let. loved ir sought). However, A. However, the original origins of the name are highly doubtful. For example, A. Wayne believes that liet. néSa is singular The 3rd person *to carry ir plural The 3rd person *the result of a fusion of forms. The Baltic ar languages have hardly ever had singular plurals of thematic verbs ir 15 A. Vaillant, Comparative Grammar of Slavic Languages, I, Lyon — Paris, 1950, p. 13—15; Le problem de Balto-Slavic unit, BSL, 51, 1955, p. XIII - XV. '* A. Vaillant, L'unité linguistique balto-slave, „Filologija“, I, Zagreb, 1957, p. 23—35. 17 „II must find Initial unit la ol it ceased to a be apparent“, — A. 12, op. cit., p. 34. 31 during pregnancy. The singular genitive flexion -@ of o-kamieniy nouns indicates that close relations existed only between the eastern Baltic and Slavic languages, since Prussian here has retained, it seems, the old ending -as (cf. Dutch antuhšaš "man's"). A. Vajano nuomoné- ®, which is supported by O. Semerenjis, that the Prussian ending -as originated from the old *-g (Lithuanian -o, Latin -a), to which -s was added according to the noun, is too hypothetical and therefore hardly reliable. Similarly to the argumentation of other proponents of the theory of the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity, the argumentation of O. Semerenko is characterized by a tendency to seek identity in every fact or phenomenon of these languages, however different it may be. For example, the Slavic suffix *-dlo-, which has nomina instrumenti, O. Semerenjis derives from *-tlo (but not from the Italian *-dhlo-, as all scholars do) probably because it is also present in the Baltic languages (lit. -kla-s). In Slavic languages, however, the consonant 7 did not turn into d. A Bulgarian linguist is also a supporter of the theory of the Balto-Slavic linguistic unity Vladimir Georgiev. V. Georgiev® raised the question of a criterion for determining the degree of closeness between linguistic groups. He points out that such a criterion could be given by the Indo-Iranian linguistic unity, the existence of which is not in doubt and which can be inferred from the data of the oldest written monuments of those languages. In the absence of ancient monuments of Indo-Iranian languages (the oldest parts of the Rigveda date from the end of the 2nd millennium BC, and the Avesta — no later than the 8th century BC), in the opinion of V. Georgiev, it would hardly be possible to establish close affinity between these two linguistic groups and thus come to a conclusion about the once existing Indo-Iranian linguistic unity, since the present Indian and Iranian languages have changed considerably. Monuments of Slavic language writing, he continues, began to appear only from the 9th to 10th centuries, and Lithuanian — only from the middle of the 16th century, thus the data of Slavic languages are recorded almost 2000 years, and Lithuanian — 2500 years later than those of Indo-Iranian languages. However, the closeness between the Baltic and Slavic languages is obvious, and between the Indian and Iranian languages of the 10th and 15th centuries such closeness is much more difficult to observe. Therefore, V. Georgiev is convinced that,,Baltic and Slavic languages once formed a unity, which lasted for a long time and split probably later than the Indo-Iranian unity”*4, Believing that the closeness of the morphology of the Baltic and Slavic languages is to such an extent that the pre-Slavic morphology is almost identical to the Lithuanian morphology, V. Georgiev considers this morphological closeness the most important argument for the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity: the same word change morpheme (noun and verb flexion) cannot be borrowed (i.e.: borrowed!) or arise, when the languages converge, — they must have been inherited from the once existing linguistic unity**. V. Georgiev gives the following stages of the development of Baltic-Slavic relations: The period of Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity — 3rd millennium BC. ; The transitional period — the end of the 3rd millennium BC and the 2nd millennium BC m. e. the beginning; 52 A. Vaillant, BSL, 44, 1948, p. 129. % B. l'eopruen, Kum Bonpoca 3a 6aato-claBsHCKHTa €3HKOBAa OGINnHOCT,,,D b/ITApCKH e3nk”, 8, 1958, p. 106-110; Baarto-caaBsiHcKuil, repMaHCKuil H UH jto-HpaHckuii, CO, 1, 1958, p. 7—26; HccnenoBanus no cpaBHUTEJILHO-HCTOpHUYECKOMY f3biKo3Hauuio, M., 1958, p. 218— 238. : 8 B. l'eoprues, Banto-cnassinckuil, repmaHckuil u HH7AO-HpaHCKnĖ, p. 10. 5 B. I'eoprues, op. cit. p. 11. 38 Pre-Slavic period —2nd and 1st millennia BC**. As can be seen, V. Georgiev dates the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity to very distant times, to the 3rd millennium BC (i.e., the linguistic unity, in his opinion, existed until the 4th millennium BC). On this occasion, it is worth remembering how the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity is dated by other supporters of the unity theory. A. Vajan believes*- ", that the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity broke down at the beginning of our era, when the Germanic tribes invaded and separated the Baltics from the Slavs. Similar opinion is held by J. Otrembskis*?. Mr. Aruma supposes- *? that the unity of the Baltic Slavs in the 4th century BC was already broken. T. Ler-Splavinskis® dates the breakdown of the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity, which he calls the Baltic-Slavic linguistic community, to 1500—1300 BC. The theory of the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity has also been subject to considerable criticism in the post-war period. The English Slavist William Matthews (? —1958), in his article "Relations between Baltic and Slavic languages""! After briefly reviewing and critically evaluating the history of the study of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages, he concluded that the compilation of the most complete inventory of the commonalities of these languages does not yet help to solve the problem of their oldest relations: the commonalities, as linguistic facts, are isolated and therefore cannot be considered as arguments, because language is not an inventory of isolated data, but a system —in which those data are related and dependent on each other. Mathews believes that the question of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages should be studied in another direction: both language groups should be studied as systems. Detailed descriptions of synchronous structures, for example, of Lithuanian and Russian languages, are necessary for correct research and, possibly, for solving the problem of the oldest relations. They would allow the researcher to compare all the details of the two systems, and thus to come to more reasonable conclusions. The researchers of the problem of the oldest relations of the Baltic and Slavic languages, when creating their theories, usually rely on reconstructed facts, but everyone knows that those reconstructions are in all cases based on comparing data of languages recorded at different times. For example, the monuments of ancient Indian writing are many centuries older than the monuments of Slavic languages, and the latter are about half a millennium older than the monuments of Lithuanian language. In addition, when comparing with the old languages, the current forms of Lithuanian are usually cited, not the old writings. Comparing Old Hindi with Hindi shows how much the Indian languages have changed. Similarly, the Baltic and Slavic languages may have changed, but we do not know anything about these changes. The reconstructed prehistoric forms are unreal, since there is no evidence that they ever existed. Mathews notes that subjectivism plays an important role in the theory of Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity. This theory he strongly rejects as anti-historical: since the 3% B. TeoprHeB, op. cit., p. 14. *" A. Vaillant, Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, I, p. 13—14. % J. Otrebski, The Relationships Between the Battic and Stovian Language Groups, »»Z polskich studiéw slawistycznych®, Warsaw, 1958, p. 146. P. Arumaa, Urslavische Grammatik, I, p. 19. * T. Lehr-Sptawinski, The Batto-Stovian language community and the problem of Slavic ethnogenesis, „Slawia Antigua”, 4, 1954, p. 21. 1 W. K. Matthews, The Interrelations of Baltic and Slavonic,- ,,The Slavonic and East European Review“, 35, 1957, p. 409-427; B. K. Moarbioc, O B3aHMOOTHONLIEHHH CJaBAHCKHX H The problem of the oldest relations of the I, 1958, p. 27—44, 39 Gantuiickux, CO, and the Slavic languages is diachronic, so we can formulate it as a problem of historical dialectology, at the same time neutralizing its synchronicity. The theory of the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity is also rejected by the Czech linguist Adolf Erhart. j He believes® that the similarity of the morphological systems of the Baltic and Slavic languages is due to the conservative character of both language groups. Erhart noted that the commonalities (Übereinstimmungen) of these languages are sufficient to be proven only by ide. dialects, from which later the Baltic and Slavic languages arose. That's the idea. the Baltic and Slavic languages could, in his opinion, develop independently. However, according to A. Erhart, we do not have any facts that could definitively refute the theory of the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity. Furthermore, Erhart briefly described the differences and similarities between the Baltic and Slavic languages. He pointed out fourteen differences and twenty-- five similarities. Erhart mentioned the following commonalities between the Baltic and Slavic languages: ide. K, g' transformation š, ž (Slavic s, z), as in Indo-Iranian, Armenian, etc. ide. in dialects; loss of sharp aspirated consonants, as in and etc. ide. in dialects; It's going. coincidence of a and o, as in et al. ide. in languages; It's going. eu conversion already; It's going. s changing to š in certain positions, as in Indo-Iranian languages; It's going. R transformation of iR and uR (this commonality has no probative value, because it is not a typical phonetic phenomenon); o-kamieniy ending of the singular noun (A. Erhart here tends to acknowledge the Slavic influence on the Baltic languages); a-kamieniy ending of the singular noun (lit. -a< *-an, s. sl. -ą, -oją; s. ind. -a, -aya be m); transition of consonant stems to the i stem, as in Latin; nominative adjectives (pronoun ide. roots; cf. Iranian and Germanic data); Present participle suffix *-io-, as in West Germanic languages; pronoun *mun-(cf. het. ammug); the formation of the first-person singular noun of pronouns on the basis of the singular genitive form (A. Erhartas notes that this is a parallel phenomenon); plural origin of pronouns *nassom, *véssom; the pronoun root *i/*io functioning as a personal pronoun, as in Latin and Germanic languages; nouns of demonstrative pronouns *ros, *ta (instead of ide. *sos, *sa); pronouns (and pronouns) with the ending m (cf. lit. tūmui, tamé), as in West Germanic languages; the numerals „,nivyni- ““ (East Baltic, which may have been influenced by Slavic languages); numerals lit. amas, s. sl. osm®; formation of distributive numerals (cf. lit. penkeri, s. sl. petors); word formation, cf. Belarusian suffix -ėjas: -ejb; -egg:-egg; -lis, -lys:-lo; -wall: white; -holder: -6oniko; -ytis: -this; -tukas:-toke; -toj:-tajo; -or: -vba; preteritum construction with prefixes *-e, *-a, as in Latin; infinitive suffix *-ti (A. Erhart compares it to the Vedic -tdye) and passive participle suffix *-mo-, as in Armenian, Luvian (and, it should be added, Hittite) languages. ; As can be seen, A. Erhart attributed to the commonalities of the Baltic and Slavic languages not only the innovations of the Baltic and Slavic languages (ide. eu conversion already; It's going. R transition to iR and uR; o-root noun singular genitive ending; A. Erhart, Zum Problem der baltisch-slavischen Spracheinheit,,,Sbornik praci filosofickė fakulty Brnėnskė University- “, Ročnik VII, Rady jazykovėdne (A), Č. 6, 1958, pp. 123-130. 40 singular noun ending; ivardi *mun-; constructive morphemes, etc.), but also those general phenomena that are found in other ide. languages. Erhart points out the following differences between the Baltic and Slavic languages: 1. The first palatalization of the Slavic languages is quite old, and it is quite possible that it is related to the Indo-Iranian palatalization. This would be an important argument against the theory of Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity. 2.Different ide. d and 4 (for more details see p. 61 et seq. of this work). 3. The conjugation of adjectives in the Baltic languages, like in Germanic languages, differs from that of nouns (pronoun singular endings, etc.). 4. The comparative suffix of adjectives -esnis resembles the corresponding Germanic suffix (see got. -izan). 5. Word formation. The name is derived from the Slavic word for a person who does not speak a language. The -ėjas, -tojas prepositions in Lithuanian are quite rare in Slavic languages. In Lithuanian deminutive suffixes, the element -I-, which is foreign to Slavic languages, prevails, and the very common deminutive element -K, which is common in Slavic languages, is rarely used in Lithuanian. The Baltic nomina instrumenti suffix was *-t/o-, and the Slavic one was *.dhlo. Lithuanian has a very productive adjective suffix -ingas, which is not found in Slavic languages. 6. substitution of the primary invariant numerals „penki“ — „nivyni“: in the Baltic languages the adjective element jo was added to them, and in the Slavic languages the abstracts of numerals are formed with the suffix *-ti-. S 7. The Lithuanian way of forming the numerals „vienuolika“ — „nineteen“ has parallels only in Germanic languages. 8.Some types of present tense (nasal insertion, sta stem) have no analogues in Slavic languages. The *ne/no verbs, which are widespread in Slavic languages, are almost non-existent in Baltic languages. Intransitive verbs in Baltic languages have the suffix -i-, and in Slavic languages -i-(<ei?). 9. There is no trace of a sigmatic aoristic in the Baltic languages. 10. The first person singular of the Baltic languages has retained ide. flexion *-6. The origin of the Slavic ending -ą is unclear. 11. The third person plural of the Baltic languages has no ending. 12. Baltic languages do not have participants with suffixes -/and -n-. 13. The category of verb aspects is less well preserved in Baltic languages. 14. Glossary. | Vienos A. Erhart's differences between the ir Baltic Slavic languages may be very old, such as the numerical inconsistency, the sigmatic aorist, and the third person plural. These differences affect cardinal parts of ir the Baltic Slavic language system, showing that in the past the Baltic Slavic languages ir were not identical. Others jų (first palatalization of Slavic languages, different ide. votes 6 ir a destiny, sta-stame verbs, singular first person flexion, etc.) ir likely to have been later. It is a Slavic language ir of the Balto-Slavic po language family. does not reflect the fragmentation of the linguistic community. In the way A. Erhart pointed out the ir great differencir es between the ancient Baltic Slavic languages. 41 One of the most consistent defenders of the convergence theory, Samuel Bernstein, also raised the question of why the theory of the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity cannot be accepted.”* In his opinion: 1. Many of the oldest processes in the Baltic and Slavic languages were different (for example, the ide. o and a in the Baltic languages became a, in the Slavic — 0; the ide. d and a in the Baltic languages retained the difference, while in the Slavic languages it was lost; see more about this on p. 52 etc. of this work). 2. Many of the most important processes of the Slavic proto-language, which took place in its early period, were unknown to the Baltic languages in whole or in part (for example, in the Slavic languages the s became ch after K, r, i, u, and in the Lithuanian language —§ after K, r; see more about this at p. 81, etc.). 3; The theory of Baltic-Slavic unity denies the old dichotomy of the Baltic protolanguage. 4. the proponents of the theory of the Balto-Slavic unity cannot reconstruct the Balto-Slavic proto-language; it is "evident proof of the falsehood of that theory. 5. The theory of Balto-Slavic unity is not supported by archaeological data. Archaeologists, for example, J. Kostevski, do not find a culture that could be considered the equivalent of the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity. Based on this, S. Bernstein believes that neither the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity (pro-language), nor the Balto-Slavic progeny never existed. Bernstein further pointed out that the fact that the Baltic and Slavic languages are closely related, that they have a lot in common, is a fact recognized by all. And that is not what the researchers are arguing about. It is commonly argued about the nature and origin of the commonalities between the Baltic and Slavic languages. Bernstein believes that the Baltic and Slavic languages are not so closely related because of their origin from the Indo-European languages. language community, but because of long-term contacts between them, which began not soon after ide. linguistic community disintegration and ended well before our era. In other words, the closeness of the Baltic and Slavic languages, their commonalities resulting from the Baltic-Slavic language community (coočmHocTb; Verkehrsgemeinschaft)®- ®. Long-term contact is sufficient to explain the origin of the Baltic and Slavic languages. Not recognizing the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity and its dichotomous split and Boris Gornungas. In his opinion, splitting the idea. The integration of different dialectal types (strengthening of contacts, interaction and fusion of dialects) not only constantly accompanied the processes of differentiation (the breakdown of linguistic unity), but also often 'dominated, so that the differentiation itself was sometimes the result of the integration processes- *?. In the opinion of B. Gornung, ide. At the end of the 3rd millennium BC and the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, the “north-western” zone of the linguistic community split into the “western” (Proto-Celtic-Illyrian-- Italic-Germanic) and the “north-eastern” (Proto-Baltic-Slavic-- Tocharian) zones. When the Prototocharites moved beyond the Volga, the remaining ide. the “north-eastern” zone of the linguistic community and is considered to be the common source from which the Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic linguistic communities have evolved. ** C. B. Bepnmreiin, Ouepk cpaBHHTEJLHOH TpaMMATHKH CJIABSHCKHX SI3bIKOB (MpOCHEKT), KCHCa, 18, 1956, pp. 3-26; Bazro-cnaBsttekasi ssuikoBasi CO0OIHOCTb, CO, I, 1958, pp. 45-68; Ouepr cpaBHHTeJibHOH rpaMMATHKH CJaBSIHCKHX si3biKOB, M., 1961, pp. 27-87; see also BS, I, 1958, p. 48-49;,,CGopuHKr oTrBeTOB Ha Bompochl Mo si3bIKO3HaHHIO (K IV MexjynapojiuoMy cse3jly cJiaBucToB)“, M., 1958, p. 167-169. % C. B. bepuwreiin, BamJiro-cJiaBsHcekast s3bIKOBas COOOIKHOCTb, p. 45. % B, B. Topuyur, K auckyccuu o 6a/1T0-CJ1aBAHCKOM SI3bIKOBOM H 3THHYECKOM €JIHHCTBE, Bf, 4, 1958, p. 55-62; M3 npenbicropHH 06pa30BaHHs1 OONIECJIABSIHCKOTO S36IKOBOTO €/HHCTBA, M., 1963. 42 The most questionable aspect of Gornung- 's theory is that the Proto-Prussian dialects have long been part of the Proto-Baltic language community, rather than the Proto-Slavic language community. The Baltic origin of the Prussian language is undeniable. It does not seem that this Balticness would have been less several thousand years ago than it is now. The Prussian- -Slavic isoglosses" are clearly not sufficient for such a conclusion. Around the second quarter of the 2nd millennium B.C. the Proto-Slavic dialects, among which, as already mentioned, were the Proto-Prussian dialects, and the Proto-Baltic dialects began to converge — the beginning of the,,balty-slavy epocha“- ®® (B. Gornung uses the term of J. Endzelynas). However, in B. Gornung- ’s opinion, it was not long-lasting, because about the middle of the 2nd millennium BC the Proto-Prussian dialects joined the Proto-Baltic (i.e., according to B. Gornung protolietuviy-latviy) and thus formed the Baltic linguistic community. Gornung believes that the Baltic and Slavic contacts were then broken for a long time. B. Gornung- ’s principled approach to the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages recalls J. Endzelyno, Chr. The concepts of Stango, E. Frenkel and S. Bernstein. Especially worthy of attention is B. Gornung- 's idea that the genetic links (respectively, the commonalities) of the Baltic and Slavic languages may reach chronologically different epochs. B. Gornung derives them from five epochu®: 1) from the era of the spherical amphora culture; 2) from the epoch of the expansion of battle axes and rope pottery cultures; 3) from the period of contacts between proto-Baltic and proto-Slavic groups and the carriers of the maritime battle axes culture; 4) from the epoch of contacts with proto-Indo-Iranians, during which satam isogloss was formed and 5) only finally from the,,balty-slavy epoch”. The projection of the Baltic and Slavic language communities into different chronological planes is methodologically extremely important, because the proponents of the unity theory of the Baltic-Slavic languages usually ignore the moment of chronology: they tend to project all the Baltic and Slavic language communities into one chronological plane. This gives the impression that there are indeed many similarities between the Baltic and Slavic languages, and that they — and this is the most important thing — originate from the same era. In this case, the idea of the unity of the Baltic-Slavic languages comes to mind. The analysis of the commonalities of the Baltic and Slavic languages shows that they are nevertheless most likely creatures of different chronological epochs. The overview shows that in the post-war years, linguists from different countries, who participated in the discussions on the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages, as before, did not come to a unanimous opinion. Part of the researchers —T. Ler-Splavinskis, A. Vajanas, J. Otrembskis, M. Loimanas, J. Kurilovičius, P. Aruma, O. Semerenjis, V. Georgievas — hold to the theory of Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity. Other researchers —J. Safarevičius, E. Frenkelis, A. Zenas, A. Salys, V. Porzigas, V. Matthews, A. Erhartas, S. Bernstein, B. Gornungas —deny this theory and the closeness of the Baltic and Slavic languages, their similarities tend to explain the commonality of these languages (J. Safarevičius), long-term neighborhood (E. Frenkelis), close ties (V. Porzigas), long-term contacts (S. Bernstein) or ide. dialects from which they originated (A. Erhartas). *7 J. Endzelins, Par prūšu valodas radniecibas sakariem, FBR, 11, 1931, p. 189—193; S. Stang, Einige Bemerkungen ūber das Verhūltnis zwischen den slavischen und baltischen Sprachen, NTS, 11, 1939, p. 6 B. B. Topuynr, M3 npejibicropuu 06pa30BaHHS OČINECJIABSAHCKOTO S3LIKOBOTO €IHHCTBa, p. 96. 66 B. B. TopHyHr, op. cit., p. 106, footnote 9. “B, B. Topuyur, op. cit., p. 97. 43 The question of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages and the IV and V International Congresses of Slavists The study ir of the oldest relations of the Baltic Slavic languages IV ir V International Slavist Congress. The IV Congress of Slavists, ir held in Moscow in September 1958, paid particular attention to the question of the genetic relations of the Baltic Slavic languages. 1—10 d. In preparation for the congress, the Soviet Slavist Committee published thirty questions for the congress, covering the main problems of Slavic linguistics. The twentieth question was: “Did there exist a Baltic-Slavic linguistic ir ethnic unity as it should ir be understood?- ją ”* Answers to į these questions were published in a separate publication?. Four papers were read at the ir Congress on the issue of the oldest relations of the Baltic Slavic languages. These reports ir and the problem of the oldest ir relations of the Balto-Slavic languages in general were hotly debated during the congress." Į question "Did there exist a Baltic-Slavic linguistic ir ethnic unity as it ir should be understooją d?" answered K. Yanachek, V. Kiparskis, V. Ernitsas, E. Dikenman, L Bulachovskis, Lekov, I. etc. ir K. Janáček pointed out* that there are two major į šį obstacles to the affirmative answer to this question: 1) the ir monuments of the Baltic Slavic languages appeared very late; we 2) don't know, ką iš Individual ID languages can be considered as ide. prokalbe ir in any way to distinguish the Balto-Slavic period from ide. the pre-talk period. V. Kiparskis expressed his conviction that the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity has existed." Jo otherwise it would not be possible to explain the abundant lexical newcomers of the so-called main vocabulary. The Balto-Slavic ethnic complex V. Cypriot tends to tie su Herodotus' nerves. V. Ernitsa, as ir V. "Kyparski, recognizes Baltic-Slavic unity". He pointed out that "the Balto-Slavs, separated from the other representatives of the satem group, still maintained their unity for a certain period of time. Later, as the population grew and the territory expanded, ir dialectal traits began to emerge. ir ir 1 BY, 1, 1958, p. 36. 2 on OTBETOB Ha BONpoCkI mo s3biko3naunio (K IV Mex yHapoaHomy cbesny cJIaBHeToB), M., 3p. 1958. Trost,,The current situation of ir the question of the Baltic-Slavic linguistic V. ethnic relations”, Ivanov and V. Toporov,,How to raise the question of the oldest relations of the Baltic and Slavic languages”, J. Otrembski “Developir ment of relations between Baltic Slavic linguistic groups” ir V. Mažiulio ,,On the relations of the ir oldest Baltic Slavic languages“, see IV MexjiykapojiHbiė cte3jį caasucroB (Marepnajiki jmckycenit), II, M., 1962, p. 422—426. * On the oldest relations of ir the Baltic Slavic languages, speakers, be spoke T. Ler-Splavinskis (Poland), M. Altbauer (Israel), K. O. Falk (Sweden), V. Georgiev (Bulgaria), J. Cekanovski (Poland), V. Ilyich-Svitich (USSR), M. Guchman (USSR), M. Fasmer (Federal Republic of Germany) Republic), V. Machekas (CzechoslovakiE. a), Seidel (German Democratic Republic), A. Vraciu (Romania), B. Gornung (USSR), B. Larinas (USSR), P. Aristé (USSR); See IV. Cbe3jį cJIraBHeToB (Marepnajisi auckyceuu), II, p. 429—450. * C60pHHK OTBeTOB Ha BOMPOCH TO s3biKosHanuio (K IV Mex iyHapoHoMy Cbe3jty cJiaBnheToB), p. 162—166. 8 Up. cit., p. 170—171. 7 Up. cit., p. 173—174. 44 skirtumai. But the contacts were still maintained. Therefore, language changes that occurred in one group could easily spread to the other. All this, according to V. Ernits, had to take place before the Baltic and Baltic-Ugric-Finnish contacts (about 2000 BC). e.), because in Slavic languages these contacts are no longer reflected. E. Dikenmanas noted*? that there is a lack of data to answer positively the question of whether there was ethnic unity of the Balts and Slavs, and their linguistic unity is beyond doubt. L. Bulachowski (1888—1961- ), one of the leading specialists in Slavic accentology, pabréze? that the consonant in the Baltic languages has not yet lost its old morphological function (in the paradigm of jumping). But this is not true of the Slavic languages. The most important proof of the close relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages — the Soshiur-- Fortunatov law — may be the result of the parallel development of both language groups. . The functioning of Hirt's law in Baltic and Slavic languages is generally questionable. Other accentological phenomena common ir to these languages (e.g., metatonia in the forms of the plural, etc.) are no more convincing. | The difference between the Baltic languages and the Slavic languages is so obvious that it does not require any proof. These are "closed" language groups with no transitional links. It does not seem that even a thousand years ago the picture of the relations between Baltic and Slavic languages would have been fundamentally different. It may be assumed that the links between the Baltic and Slavic languages, which existed in ancient times, were once definitively broken. However, this did not prevent the Baltic and Slavic languages not only from retaining some of the signs of their former closeness, but also from forming new similarities separately. Bulachovskis believes that most of the commonalities of the Baltic and Slavic languages arose at a time when these languages were still part of the Indo-European language family. satem dialect, within the framework of which the ir Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity could have existed. The theory of Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity was rejected ir J. Lekov? ?. In his opinion, the commonalities of these languages consist of: 1) ide. the legacy of linguistic community; 2) phenomena of later times, resulting from parallel development; 3) borrowed from different chronological epochs. I. Lekovs pointed out that solving the question of the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages is hindered by terminological confusion, because the researchers use very different terms: — community, unity, common epoch ar period, protolanguage, parallel ir development, etc. ; As in the above-mentioned responses, ir there was no unanimous opinion in the congress ir reports on the oldest relations of the Baltic Slavic languages. P. In his presentation, Trost* emphasized that the main argument for the unity of the Balto-Slavic languages is the specific — morphological correspondence, “i.e., the small morphological features that are similar in both language groups. There are two possible explanations for the jo massive coincidence of two languages: genetic connections or linguistic union. However, the similarity of minor morphological features of the Baltic and Slavic languages suggests more genetic connections than a linguistic union. It has already been mentioned earlier by some scholars (e.g. V. Matthew) demand for the solution of the problem of the oldest relations of Baltic and Slavic languages to 8 Up. cit., p. 175. 9 Up. cit., p. 157-162. 10 Up. cit., p. 172—1173. " P. Trost, otazce K baltoslovanskych jazykovych vztahū,,,Czechoslovak pfednasky for IV. Mezinarodni sjezd slavistū vMoskvė“, Prague, 2000, 1958, p. 221—227. 45 pp. 103–104. The inventory of the differences in the commonalitiir es of these languages hardly helps to solve the ar problem. tą From a methodological point of view, V. Ivanovo ir V. Toporov's report? *?, which has ir raised the question of the oldest relations of the Baltic Slavic languages on a completely new level. The authors indicated that the question, — was there ar not a Balto-Slavic — protolanguage, could not be raised. The research of the last decades shows that the earliest existence of ir the Balto-Slavic, ir Indo-Iranian, o as well as the Italic Celtic ir language groups should be understood as a traditional protolanguane ge, but as a continuity of the dialect space in time. ir For that reason, the question of the oldest relations ir of the Baltic Slavic languages V. Ivanovas ir V. Toporov raises as follows: what is the relationship between the oldest structural of the Baltic and Slavic languages. Models? | By means of internal reconstruction, V. Ivanov and V. Toporov ir determined the oldest phonological morphological models separately for the Baltic and Slavic languages and compared them. They concluded that the oldest structural models of the Baltic Slavic languages coincide and are fundamentally different from the Indo-European model. ir ir iš Be therefore, the models ir of the Baltic Slavic languages cannot be accommodated in a į single chronological plane: the Slavic language model appeared later, and it is the result of a change in the structural model of the Baltic languages'®. The essence ir of the solution of this problem of genetic relations of Baltic Slavic languages V. Toporov described it as follows: the Slavic protolanguage was iš formed by peripheral dialects of the Baltic type!*. The hypothesis of V. Ivanov and V. Toporov is in good harmony with the laws of linguistic facts in space and time, which are observed in the real life of languages: languages with slight dialectal differentiation and occupying a large territory have a later origin. ir po tą the territory. This is exactly what the Slavic languages are. The Baltic languages, on the other hand, are heavily fragmented in dialects. A good analogy for the relationship between Slavic and Baltic languages is the English language, which has spread across the continents, and the highly dialectically differentiated West Germanic languages in Europe. ; J. Otrembskis emphasized in his presentation at Sime!® that the Balts and Slavs once spoke the same language. From ide. the inherited Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity (tacznošė baltycko-stowianska), which, according to J. Otrembski, collapsed very late, about the beginning of our era. The reason for the collapse was that some of the Balts, or Balto-Slavs, began to speak Ugric-Finnic languages and became Ugric-Finnic. V. Mažiulis!" mostly stayed at the present tense stems lit. duomi, demi, s. sl. dam’ origin. The author, based on the data of the Hittite language, derives these athematic genders from non-reductive origins. forms. Elementas -ddaugiskaitos trečiai2 B. B. HsBanos nu B. H. Toriopos, K nocrasoske Boripoca 0 JApeBHEHIINX OTHOUIEHHSAX GanTHŪCKHX H CJaBAHCKUX 53bIKOB, M., 13 B, B. 1958. Usanos and B. H. Tonopos, op. cit., p. 39. 14 B. H. Tonopos, K npo6aeme Ganro-caapsHcKuX S1I3bIKOBbIX OTHONIeHHĖ, KCUCa, 33—34, 1961, p. 213. 15 J. Otrębski, Rozwėj wzajemnych stosunkėw miedzy grupą językową bałtycką a slavianska, p. 146—148. 16 B. MaxioJinc, 3aMeTrkH K BONPOCY O JĮipeBHehlHX OTHOLIEHHSAX OaJITHĖŪCKHX H CJIaBAHCKHX Si35!1KOB, Buzsisnioc, 1958. The Lithuanian version of the report Zr. Remarks on the question of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic 2, 1959, p. 5—16. ; 46 languages, LKK, which could have appeared in him, in the opinion of V. Mažiulis, already due to the formed Baltic and Slavic conjugation systems. As languages change, the most constant are often numerals. Therefore, they are of great importance in the study of the relationships between languages. In that sense, the conclusions reached by V. Mažiulis, studying the Baltic numerals system, are interesting! ":,,In general, the constructive and morphological system of Baltic numerals is similar to Slavic in many cases. However, it should be noted that the oldest, i.e. common Indo-European, numerals of the Balts are immediate relics of the Indo-European protolanguage, and the later, i.e. non-common Indo-European, numerals are respectively similar to the numerals of the Slavic, as well as Germanic and some other Indo-European languages. of linguistic community. In the reports of the IV International Congress of Slavists on the problem of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages, and in the discussions on this issue, two theories were represented — the theory of Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity and the theory of convergent development of Baltic and Slavic languages. As before, the proponents of the theory of the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity emphasized the innovations of the Baltic and Slavic languages, while the proponents of the theory of the convergent development of the Baltic and Slavic languages, without denying the innovations of these languages, emphasized the equally abundant archaic differences between them. It goes without saying that, based on the similarities (innovations) and differences, the chronology of which is unknown, it is hardly possible to solve the problem of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages. The Congress discussion showed that in solving this problem, a complex of various linguistic methods should be used, in which an important place should be occupied by the relations of Baltic and Slavic languages with other languages and linguistic groups, Baltic and Slavic language borrowings from other languages and into other languages, ethnonymy and toponymy, landscape terms (biological and geographical), etc. The solution of these extralinguistic problems together with a deeper structural analysis of the phenomena of the Baltic and Slavic languages will allow to reach certain conclusions of a geographical and chronological nature and to say whether the Baltic and Slavic dialects coexisted separately? ?. ar It is natural that in the development of science, after feverish and tense investigations, there comes a time of retreat. This retreat actually began after the Fourth International Slavist Congress. For example, apart from T. Ler-Splavinsky's outline of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, where the genetic relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages were also touched on in passing, at the V International Congress of Slavists, held in Sofia from 17 to 23 September 1963, not one presentation was devoted to the problem of the oldest relations between these languages. True, there was also a 17” B. Maxiosinc, JluroBckne YHCJIHTEJIbHbIE H COOTHOLMIEHHe GaJTHHCKHX UHCJIHTEJILHbIX C UHCJIHTEJIbHLIMH JIPYTHX HH/IOCBpONeKCKHX f3biKOB (pyKonHcsL), M., 1955; HujoesBponetickas JietitH MaJIibHasi CHCTEMA UKHCJIHTEJIbHLIX, BS, 4, 1956, pp. 53—59. 18 V, Mažiulis, Notes on the question of the oldest relations of the Baltic and Slavic languages, p. 14. YB. M. Haanu-Ceuthiu, Banarto-- cnassinckas npoGiematuka Ha. IV MexjtykapojiutoM cpe3jie caasucros, BS, 1, 1959, p. 139-141. 20 Chnassincka ¢uaosorus, VI (oruethn matepuann), Cogus, 1965. 47 » 0, was not well reasoned. V. Tomsen' and H. Jakobzonas?®® supported their claims that the vowel o existed in the Baltic languages in the past, with borrowed words from the Baltic-Ugric-Finnic languages, where the short vowel o occurs instead of the present-- day a of the Baltic languages. Based on borrowed words from the Baltic-Finnic languages of Baltic origin, K. Būga?! It was believed that in the earliest period of Baltic-Finnish language contacts ide. 0 was preserved only in the unpronunciated position, and the pronounced one was translated as a. The claim that the short vowel o existed in the Baltic language community has recently been tried to be supported by new facts. J. Kazlauskas?? It is believed that in, un of the eastern Highland dialects of Lithuanian and en, on of the Žemaičių dialects may have originated from en, on. Furthermore, J. Kazlauskas claims that the conversion of the Latvian compounds en, on €, d and then (after the correlation ė: 0) to ie, uo is simpler and more understandable. The combinations en, an did not necessarily have to give €, 6, because it was possible to use the nasal ¢, gq. V. Maziulis- ** believes that doalgis “dalgis” in Prussian- -type words is a graphema oa denoting the long vowel 6, which, due to circumflex elongation, arose from the short o, which, in his opinion, is to be considered a co-Baltic one. The assertion that the Baltic language community had the short vowel o is supported, perhaps, by other data. 1. When studying the development of vocalism in Baltic languages, the scientific literature has already mentioned the principle of polarization of vocalism systems- ?*?. It is clearly visible from the development of the vocalism systems of the Žemaičių dialektai. Not only the vowels a, e, but also the vowels o, e are broad and open. That the vowels 9, e are derived from the narrow vowels w, i, is shown by the combinations um, un, im, in, in which the vowels u, i have remained largely unchanged. The fact that the vowels u, i have retained their narrowness in all other dialects of Lithuanian, while they have widened in the Žemaičių dialect, is probably explained by the large labialization of long vowels and their great narrowing, cf. 1k. uo, ie—>žem. You, I, you, I, I. 0, ė->zem. Uh, yeah. Thus, the system of long vowels of the Žemaičių dialektai changed in the direction of narrowing and labialization, and the system of short vowels, on the contrary, in the direction of widening and delabialization. In this case, it remains to conclude that not only the vowels o, e, but also the vowels a, e have originated from the narrow and labialized short vowels (x, i respectively o, ¢). In view of this tendency to broaden short vowels, their narrowing in some positions can be considered old. For example, in the combinations of the Žemaičių dialektas, as already mentioned, um, un, im, in vowels u, i are always narrow, in other words, here they will have retained their original character due to the influence of nasal vowels. Similarly, the vowels 9, ę of the Samogitian compounds om, on, em, en must be considered older than the open syllable a, e. Has this already been written about in the scientific literature?- *. The northern Doun dialects have narrow, sometimes diphthongized vowels e/ie due to the strong narrowing, in the position of the old accent, if the subsequent syllable has a narrow e. V. Thomsen, Berėringer mellen de finske og de baltiske (litauisk-lettiske) Sprog, Kobenhavn, 1890, p. 89. * H. Jacobsohn, op. cit., p. 75. * K. Būga, RR, I, p. 457. ** U. Kasnayckac, K passutuio ofmeGanruiickoit cuctembl syzhthsusix, Bf, 4, 1962, p. 20-24. #2 B. Maxiojiuc, 3aMeTKH no NMPYCCKOMY BOKaJH3My,,,Bompochi TEOpHH H MCTOPHH S13biKa (C6opuuk B uectb npodeccopa B. A. Jlapuna)- ®, Jlenuurpan, 1963, p. 192—193; V. Mažiulis, Remarks on the vocalism of Old Prussian- ,,,Acta baltico-slavica®, 2, 1965, p. 4 HU. Kasnayckac, op. cit., pp. 21-22. 5 YU. Kasanayckac, op. cit., p. 23. 54 fricative vowels u, i (short or long). In each position, the older character of the vowel e is retained, shown by the behavior of the vowels u, i. The narrow vowels u, i are unchanged in most of the area of the Douninski dialects against the dialect narrow vowels w, @, uo, i, i, ie. They are broadened before other dialect vowels, turning into o, ę**. If the vowels u, i in front of narrow vowels retained their primitive character, then the vowel e in this position could also have retained its primitive character (narrowness). Thus, the facts described here show that the original short vowels of the Žemaičių dialects were probably narrow 0, e. In the eastern Highland dialects (so-called rotininkus) instead of the pronounced non-terminal vowel of the literary language a is pronounced o (dialectological transcription 2 and d), cf. anykštėnų, kupiškėnų rotai, grožū (acc. sing.), vokaras, darbas. In the unpronounced position and at the end of the pronounced word, which phonetically corresponds to the unpronounced position, there is a, cf. vakarai, gražūs, giria*". The question arises whether rotation is a new phenomenon, or whether it is inherited from ancient times (in other words, which position — accentuated or unaccentuated — vocalism is older). Rotting is widespread in a relatively small area between Papilis and Ukmergė?- *?. Since vowel assimilation does not work in the southern part of the rotting area and therefore the relationships between sounds are clearer, at first we will limit ourselves to examining the vowel systems of the dialects of this part. According to Z. Zinkevičius®, for example, the vowel systems of the Anykščiai dialect are as follows: short vowels long vowels in the accented position u i ū i uo ie 2 e 2 é in unpronounced position u in u. in. a e a. @. Before the appearance of the diphthongs uo and ie (which are perhaps to be treated as stretched phonemes from a synchronic point of view), the system of long vowels in the accented position could have been as follows: 2 o RI ma 0 ‘0 The position of each phoneme in the system could be characterized by the following differential characteristics: phonemes [i] and [i] — diffuse (previous to phonemes /6/ and /e/) and non-compact (previous to phonemes /a@/ and /é[); 26 Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija,' Vilnius, 1966, p. 61—62. * For details see. Zinkevičius, op. cit., p. 50. Zinkevičius, op. cit., pp. 50-51 and map. No. 6. Zinkevičius, op. cit., p. 50 et seq. 55 phonemes [4] and |e/—non-diffuses (previous to phonemes [ii and Jil]) and non-compact (previous to phonemes /a/ and [é/]); phonemes [af and [é/—compact (preceded by phonemes /6/ and /ė|) and non-diffuse (preceded by phonemes /ū/ and /i/). Furthermore, the phonemes [i/, Jo|, Ja] and Jil, Jel, |ēl, seem to have had the differential signs,,bemoliskumas dieziškumas“. The phonemes /it/, [6], |a] are characterized as bemoll because not only the vowels # and 6 were strongly labialized at the phonetic level, but 4 also seems to have had a certain degree of labialization (a more appropriate notation would be 4 or even 5). That the vowel @ was labialized is shown by its — labialization to the diphthong u in the Žemaičių and some Vysočinai dialects (about Zietela, Lazūnai, Ramaškonis and about Adutiškis and Gerdašiai near Druskininkai*?- ). This diphthongation itself assumes a certain degree of primary labialization of the vowel a. The fact that the vowel was a 4 manifestation of a compact, non-diffuse and, in addition, a bemol phoneme, is confirmed, it seems, by the translation of the Slavic vowel into the a Lithuanian long vowel. o (plg. let. streak ir s. Russian. strach®, left. fear). The Eastern Baltic linguistic community should probably be reconstructed with the same vowels as the Eastern Highlanders (about Dusetos, Svėdasys, Alytus, Utena) and the Western Zemgalians (about Karklė, Žardė) have today. The archaic nature of this vowel (i.e. d) is also shown by the geographical moment: according to the principles of area linguistics, a linguistic phenomenon or fact that exists in marginal or distant areas is older than that linguistic phenomenon or fact that is widespread in the central or continuous area*!. In other words, there is reason to believe that in the aforementioned dialects of the eastern Highlands and the coastal Zemgale, the old a of the Eastern Baltic language community has been preserved. su The system of long vowels of the Anykščiai dialect, we see that: 1) at the phonematic level, the interdependence of its elements remained the same: phonemes are characterized by the same differential signs as before; 2) on the phonetic level, its elements follow the ir direction of narrowing of a slight ta labialization: ir 6, €—>u0, ie ir a, é —3, é. The question arises, in which — direction ar the — narrowing of the expansion of the other The system of short vowels in the ir Anykščiai dialect and its relationship to the su development of the long vowel system. In į šį answering the question, ta it is important to note that in the eastern (at least in those that are part of the rotation į area) there is a correlation between short vowels, here elongated to semi-long, long vowels. ir The existence of this correlation is confirmed by many facts. About Ukmergė neutralized ne only the shortness of — the length, but the local ir (timbre) opposition, pgl. ra'tas 'rata' : pre'tas ‘mind’. In the northern part of the breeding range, where vowel assimilation is active, the same fate befell both the short and long vowels. e, ir ė. Before bemoll vowels at the absolute end ir of a word instead of literary language e ir ė in kupiškėnų dialect is a resp. 4, o before decimal vowels ir etymological j — e resp. €. In the po k, g, š, ž, č, j position, regardless of the quality of the further syllable, most Kupiškis e have resp. &, o about In the case of the absolute end of a word, the position ir of the papilion before the bemoll vowel is resp. @ @*2. Ww Z. 10, op. cit., p. 71. * B. Iln3aann, O6mee xn HH I0eBpOTIeli CKOe s3bIKO3HaHHe- ,,,0O6mee H HHIOeBpoEjKoe s3biKo3HaHHe (O630p sutepatypsi)’, Mocksa, 1956, p. 112-114. 3# Z. 10, op. cit., p. 54, 74. 56 When Formed (mainly due to the elongation of short vowels) correlation between short long vowels, ir both vocalism systems had to change one ir ta in the same direction. Since, as we have seen, the system of long vowels labialized and ir narrowed, the system of short vowels had ir to change in the direction of the ir labialization narrowing. So, the narrow vowels of the Eastern Highlands 0, e probably are newly-emerged older iš broad vowels a, e. In the unaccented position, the long vowel system in the Rota dialects was shortened and widened in the opposite — ji direction. ir Antai In the Anykščiai 6, € dialect debializavosi and spread in ir this way coincided su 4, č, o the latter, delabializing while ir expanding, became a., @. . In the undialectal position, the rotinky dialects have broad short vowels everywhere. Thus, the uniform development of the vowel systems of the Rotnik dialects in the unaccented position also supports the proposition of the uniform development in the accented jų position. The ir existence of correlation between short and long vowels in ir Eastern Highland dialects (resp. elongation of short vowels, narrowing ir of labialization in accented position) shows that ir in the larger area of the rotic 5, 6 we find the short one (here extende2, o d) in the to eastern part of the area next to d — short vowel d. In paribio dialects these relationships can be confused next to — can be 5 d (Trakiniai village between Kavarsko ir Alantos), o greta 4 — 29 (In Swedish)*?. However, the very existence of correlation is undeniable here. ir Variation of vowels in the Kupiškis dialect depending on position (assimilation) will be understood if we assume that there were broad open vowels resp. e ė, which in front of the non-vowels at the absolute ir end of the word became even wider virto resp. ir a 4, o In addition, the etymology ir of the j word is controveir rsial. ¢ €, t. y. ; 14 Tesp. a "Ta E sa e resp. ‘eg resp. € The narrowing a of the broad vowel in rotinky ir dialects indicates that the acute diphthong au has a vowel a (but o). ne It did not narrow, apparently due to the nature of the accent due to ir which, it u, seems, can not be a narrow vowel (e ar (o). Labialized vowels are a sometimes found in Žemaičių ir dialektai (approx. Laukuvą, Sedą, ir etc. )**. However, it is probably new ir here, because in the Žemaičių dialects the short vowels of the narrowed long vowels, which have been severely ir labialized, have naturally become open and broad. The aforementioned changes in the vocalism of Lithuanian dialects (polarization of short long vowels in the Žemaičių dialect, correlation of assimilation . phenomena in ir the eastern Highland dialects), perhaps, indicate that the short vowels ir o, e became open a, e relatively long ago. 2. In the Latvian language, the short vowel o is used instead of the literary a language in the Upper Zemgale dialects. The vowel o here can be both accented and unaccented ir (plg. lat. vosara ir vosora ,,summer®), both before the rear and before the ir 38 Z. 10, op. cit., p. 50. 394 Z. 10, op. cit., p. 51. 57 3*, Without having experienced the development of the vocalism systems of the Latvian dialects, it is difficult to say anything about the antiquity of this vowel. The short vowel o also occurs in Prussian. In the Elbing dictionary of Prussian language, instead of g, 0% is quite often found, cf. pr. wobse „vapsva- “, sompisic, „raw bread, Grobbrot“ (pr. somatitinka lit. sam-). This o may be a remnant of the older, more widely used short vowel o*." 3. That the short vowel o could have existed in the Baltic language community, suggests a possible object, and Baltic-origin Baltic-Finnish borrowings, in which there is o in certain cases, cf. morsian ir lit. marti, suom. oinas and lit. avinas, suom. lohi and lit. lynx etc. ?® Recently, V. Šteinicas has expressed a credible opinion that words with o belong to the oldest layer of Baltic-origin Ugric-Finnic borrowings®, Some researchers, beginning with K. Brugman- ?’, are inclined to believe that the short vowel o also existed in the Slavic protolanguage. Such opinion was or still is held by M. FasmerisTM, A. Mejė*?, S. Bernšteinas*?, F. Filinas** and others. The fact that the vowel o of Slavic languages is echoed by the vowel a in Greek borrowings and toponyms of Slavic origin, for example, M. Fasmeris** explained as follows: the Greek closed vowel o. did not pass to the vowel o of Slavic languages because it was open. According to A. Mejés**- ?, there was no great difference in tone between the short o and the long a in the proto-Slavic language. The difference was mainly quantitative. Bernstein believes that the Slavic vowel o has had a low degree of labialization in the past. Therefore, some scholars argue that the proto-Slavic language contained a truncated vowel a or d, while others are inclined to believe that the proto-Slavic language contained a vowel o. In fact, there is not as much difference between these two views as it may seem at first glance. For those who claim that there was a vowel a in the Slavic protolanguage also believe that this short vowel was somewhat labialized and more closed than the vowel a. And those,?5 J. Endzelins, Latviešu valodas gramatika, Riga, 1951, pp. 110—123; M. Rudzite, LatvieSu dialektoloģija, Riga, 1964, pp. 267—271. % E. Berneker, Die preussische Sprache, I. Lautlehre, Strassburg, 1895, p. 27; J. Endzelin, Zum o fiir aim Elbinger Vokabular, StB, 5, 1935—1936, p. 37 Pig, MH. Kasanayckac, op. cit., p. 21. % From recent literature see E. Nieminen, Uber einige Eigenschaften der baltischen Sprache, die sich in den ältesten baltischen Lehnwörtern der baltischen Finnischen Sprachen abspiegelt, »»Sonderabdruck aus den Sitzungsberichten der Finnischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1956«, Helsinki, 1957, p. 199-200; A. Sabaliauskas, Baltų ir Pabaltijo suomiy kalbų santykiai, LKK, Helsinki, 1957, p. 6, 1963, p. 109—136. * W. Steinitz, Zur Periodisierung der alten baltischen Lehnwörter im Baltic-Finnischen, „Symbolae linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kurylowicz“, Wroclaw —Warszawa —Krakėw, 1965, p. 297-303. “ K. Brugmann, op. cit.,, p. 146. 1 M. Vasmer, Two small treatises. II. 1998-1999 To the Slavic representation of arioeurop. o, KZ, 41, 1907, p. 157-164. “2 A. Meiie, OGuecnassinckuit siabik, Mocksa, 1951, p. 42-44. 48 C.b. Bepnmreiin, Ouepk cpaBHHTENbHON 'PAMMATHKH CJIABAHCKHX SI3bIKOB, p. 144—146. “4 O. II. Puann, O6pazosanne s3blKa BOCTOMHLIX CJIaBsiH, p. 101. 45 M. Vasmer, op. cit., p. 157-164. 4% A. Meiie, op cit., p. 44. | 47 C. B. 10 Bepuwreiin, op. cit., p. 143. 58 who believe that the short vowel in the Slavic protolanguage simultaneouo, sly emphasizes ir jo the weak degree of labialization and openness. To define more precisely the quality of the short vowel of the Slavic protospeech, it seems, the following facts allow: 1. The Slavic pronoun is a word originating from iš the Latin ide. o ir a, phonetically could be closer to the vowel than suggested g, by the o, Slavic-origin Ugric-Finnish, Baltic, Germanic ir Greek calcolins bu and toponyms, which everywhere have instead of a the present Slavic vowel plg. o, suom. papu ‘pupa’ in iš Russian. 606, pr. handrail ,,malda, please, prayer“ iš left. modla, s. Bavarian Rasa sl. iš produced, gr. BēBo “grandmiš other” sl. *baba kt. ir In other Slavic a languages, it is represented by the vowel plg. o, s. sl. koto/9 „katilas“ iš got. *boiler (plg. katile gen. pl. ). This indicates that at the time of borrowing the Slavic languages had a voice a. 2. Belarusian ir some southern Russian dialects, as well as some very archaic Bulgarian dialects" have a vowel in the unpronounced position a (so-called ‘acking’), cf. Baltar. rush, rush. kasd (written x03a) ir bulg. kazy-te (nom. pl. ). In the unaccented position, these dialects will have retained the Pro-Slavic short vowel a". ,,In the recent discussion®® on the origin of blindness*, the view prevailed that the ši ir The peculiarity of Russian dialects appeared rather late (approx. XIII — XIV a.) spontaneously or under the influence of a substrate. More reliable, it seems, is still the first the interpretation of the origin of — the “blinking” of the unpronounced position of d these dialects is to be a considered a relic of the a) Slavic language, because: — (plg. analogous phenomenon of archaic Bulgarian b) dialects); The existence of the a short in the Slavic protospeech is confirmed by phonological studies. 3. All so far researchers of the Slavic protolanguage have reconstructed the correlation a : a (resp. d: 4)*?. He's coming. short vowel o transfora ir mation su coincidence ide. a reflex was associated with the su delabialization of other Slavic proto-vowels. In Slavic protospeech, palatalization su of consonants was accompanied by labialization of consonants. (resp. vowel delabialization) ** Cr. Croiikos, B Akane roBopa xa c. Tpurpan (Ilesnncko),- ,,Benrapekn eskr“, 13, 1963, p. 8-21. ** A. Vaillant, Comparative Grammar of Slavic Languages, I, p. 107; G. Y. Shevelov, A Prehistory of Slavic, p. 386—387; B. H. the work, Pycckoe axkaHbe H ero oTHOLIEHHe K cHcTeMe doHeM Nnpac/JIiaBaHCKOTO ssbika, BS, 2, 1963, p. 20—29; O6mecaaBsiHcKoe 3HaueHHe NnpoGJieMbi akaubs, BSI, 4, 1964, p. 151 —152. “B. It. Pyneaes, K doHosornueckoii HHTEpNpeTaunn pycckoro akambsi, BSI, 2, 1963, p. 30-38; II. 1998-1999 C. Kyanenos, K Bonpocy o npoucxoxjennn akaubsi, BSI, I, 1964, p. 30—41; B. B. Kouaecos, O HeKOTOpEIX 0COGEHHOCTAX (DOHOJIOTHUECKONH MOJIEJIH, pasBHBaIOLIEH aKaHbe, BSl, 4, 1964, p. 66-79; 51. Puraep, K npo6aeve aransa, BSI, 5, 1964, p. 36-45; B. H. JlutrKHH, Emma K Bonpocy o NpoHCX0oX/eHHH pyccKoro aKaHbs, BSI, 4, 1965, p. 44-52; T. A. XaGypraes, O ¢oHOJOrHUECKHX YCJOBHSX pa3BHTHS PyccKoro akaubsi, BSI, 6, 1965, p. 55—63. But plg.M. Halle, Akan’e (The Treatment of Unstressed Nondiffuse Vowels in Southern Great Russian Dialects), ,,Symbolae linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kurylowicz®, p. 103-109. t Plg. B. H. Bopkosckuii, II. C. Kysuenos, Heropuueckas rpamMmaTHKa pyccKoro s3bika, M., 1963, p. 142. ** R. Jakobson, Remarks on the phonological evolution of du Russian compared to a that of other Slavic languages, TCLP, 2, 1929, p. 20—23; F. V. Mareš, The Origin of the Slavonic Phonetic System and its Development to the End of the Period of Slavonic Linguistic Unity,,,Slavia®, 25, 1956, p. 445; G. Y. Shevelov, Prehistory A of Slavic, p. 150-162; H. san Beifik, K ucropun ¢orosornueckoit CHCTEMbI B OČINECJIABAHCKOM f3bIKe MO3jHero raps,,,Slavia,, 19, 1950, p. 293. 59 process. Recent phonological studies have shown** that the short vowels o and a (as well as 6 and @) coincide primarily in position after the labial consonants. The differential feature of the vowel o (as well as d) “,“bemolarity” became irrelevant, because that feature was a constitutive element of the labial consonants (see more on this. work p. 67 tt. ). The assertion that the short vowel a (but not 0) existed in the Slavic protolanguage is contradicted by the masculine o-kamie. noun singular noun and suffix ending -» —phonetically it could: „, find only from *-os and *-om through intermediate *-u(s) ir *-u(m). G. Sheveliov quite rightly tends to explain the appearance of the singular noun ending -8 instead of *-as (cf. s. sl. vlokt) with morphological reasons- **. The ending *-am could have become -9 very easily, because narrowing of vowels before nasal consonants is a common phenomenon found in many languages. After the phonetic changes in the end of the Slavic proto-language o ir # the following proportion of strains analogy: *-u (acc. sing., u kam. ): *-s (nom. sing., u kam.) = *-u (acc. sing., o kam.): x (nom. sing., o kam.), where x should have been equal to *-u. Therefore, nothing prevents us from believing that in the Slavic protolanguage there was a short possible object, somewhat labialized, a, because in the court loanwords of Slavic origin instead of the Slavic protolanguage there is oa, cf. a rum. grodzdi “fear” p. iš Thank you. According to the researchers, the Slavic short vowel a became o rather late (about the 8th-9th centuries), just before the first Slavic written monuments appeared- ®. After the 9th century, borrowed words of Slavic origin in other languages have quite often a o, cf. gr. Z.9Aofevot from p. *in Slovenian. Almost all scholars agree that in both Baltic and Slavic languages the ir primary system of short vowels was triangular: e 0 a However, the second alternative is also possible, that the original short vowel system of these languages was quadrangular: in which there was no u e 0, opposition a : o. In addition to Baltic and Slavic languages, id. The short vowels o and g coincided in Germanic, Albanian, and ancient ir Indian Hittite languages. In these languages they are answered a. ** B. K. XKypasjeB, OopuupoBanne rpynioBoro CHHTApMOHH3MA B IPACJIaBSHCKOM S13blxe, BA, 4, 1961, p. 35—36. 54 G.Y. Shevelov, op. cit., p. 156—157. sh5. G. Y. Shevelow, op. cit., p. 162. ** E. Schwarz, op. cit., p. 136; H. Ban Beiik, op. cit., p. 293; F. V. Mares, op. cit., p. 445; G. Y. Shevelov, op. cit., p. 151; B. K. )Xypasaes, Ha ucropuu Boka/m3Ma B npacjtaBAHCKOM fi3plKe IIO3/įHero repuoja, BSI, 2, 1963, p. 13, 19; B. H. T'eoprues, BS, 2, 1963, p-29; Hou Teopun H TpajauunoHaJHH 3a6ay KH,,,Bearapcku esuk®, 15, 1965, p. 297-307. 60 L The short vowel is a ide. linguistic community, apparently, was rare. It was most frequently found in expressive, technical and domestic vocabulary, and in vowel change it was almost absent*". The vocabulary of the European languages with phoneme 0 and a, which have the short vowel a, is mainly confined to the agricultural field, and for this reason this vocabulary, and thus the phoneme a, may be of later origin**. Some researchers believe that the South Indians were the origin of the Indians. The opposition of o: a in languages (Armenian, Greek, Italic and Celtic) may have occurred later due to laryngeal fall®. Therefore, it is quite possible that the ide. languages that do not have opposition 0: a, never had it. The Pro-Baltic short vowel o and the Pro-Slavic a may correspond to the southern ide. o and a in languages. In order to solve the question of the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages, it is important to find out what unstressed compactiniy/phonemy manifestants, respectively low-pitched posterior short vowels, the Baltic and Slavic languages had in the first centuries after the separation from the ide. of linguistic community. This cannot be said for a number of reasons, the most important of which are: a) we do not have any data on the basis of which we could reconstruct the relationships of vocalism in such distant epochs, i.e. we do not know whether the Baltic dialects really had the short vowel o, and the Slavic dialects — the short vowel a; b) it is unclear which system of short vowels (triangular or quadrangular) was the primary in the Baltic and Slavic languages; c) we do not know the exact absolute chronology, when id. The reflexes of the short vowels o and a (recognizing the triangular system of short vowels as primary) coincided in the Baltic and Slavic languages. Anyway, whatever short vowel system we choose as the primary, one thing is clear: just like the Baltic and Slavic languages, the other Indo-European languages also had a primary short vowel system. dialects (e.g. Germanic). Thus, the reconstruction of the same primary system of short vowels in Baltic and Slavic languages does not in any way indicate a common, different from other ide. dialects of the Balto-Slavic development stages and the Balto-Slavic linguistic unity. He's coming. long vowels o and a He's coming. The long vowels O and a coincided in Slavic languages. The Baltic languages have retained their difference. Thus, the Baltic and Slavic languages differ greatly in ide. development of long vowels. In order to solve the problem of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages, it is important to find out when the Slavic languages began to stop distinguishing ide. long vowels. He's coming. a in Latvian has retained the whole (a), in Lithuanian it has become o, and the Slavic languages have a here, e.g.: lietuv. brolis, broter-élis, lat. bralis, brater-itis, s. sl. bratr®s:- s. ind. Brdta, gr. gparno "member of the brotherhood", lat. frater, got. bropar (o from ide. a), toch. To have fun; 57 A. Meillet, Introduction a I’étude comparative des langues indo-eur opéennes, 7 ėd., Paris, 1934, p. 99, 166—168. Plg.,,The vowel a is found in particular in words of popular, technical or affective character“ (p. 99). 58 H. Kuhn, Ablaut, «a und Altertumskunde, KZ, 71, 1954, p. 129-161. 59 J, Kurylowicz, L’apophonie en indo-européen, Wroclaw, 1956, p. 167-168. 61 r lit. motė, moteris, lat. mate, s. sl. food: s. ind. matd, gr. (Dorian) parne, lat. Mate, come on. A macer. He's coming. In 6 Slavic languages, it turned to a. In the Eastern Baltic languages, its reflex was double. I've got an idea. od virto uo, plg. : | ' lit. juos-ta, lat. jués-ta, s. sl. po-jas® "belt": gr. "Cyclone "Cyclone- "" (in Japanese). yeah ‘belt’ (a iš It's going. oO); ) Lit. puo-ta: gr. no-vo "drink", lat. po-tus "drunk", s. ind. pa-ti ‘(he) drinks’ (a iš It's going. 6); Lit. uoga, lat. udga:s. sl. jag-oda; lit. uolektis (and uolektis), lat. uolekts: gr. &orévy "elbow"; *6is the elongated form of the root *el-/*ollaipsnis (cf. lit. elkiiné, elkūnė and lat. eglkuons- ); Lit. wosis, lat. udsis: rus. sc-eHs, serb.-chorv. jds-en; lit. dūo-ti, duo-snus, duo-slūs, dio-klé, lat. dub-t, s. sl. da-ti, da-nv "tribute" (= lit. duo-nis, "gift"?), da-rv "gift": gr. 3i-8w-p.. "I give", 3@-pov, "gift", lat. dé6-num "gift", s. ind. dandm "gift" (and i$ ide. 6); but with o lit. do-snus (lat. da-sns), do-slus, do-vana (lat. da-vana), do-vanas „gifts given“, dé-vis „giving“, dé-sai,,marCios dovanos- “, do-tas „giving, gift“, dd-talas (lat. da-tali,,dovanos®)- ,,davimas, duoklė“, do-tilas,,- etc. *; plg. pr. da-t, da-twei "to give". He's coming. 6, swapped with ide. ė, also in some cases is, turned uo, cf. brėžti: bruožas; tear, lat. plést: fibre, lat. pluésit "to tear", pluosa "weaving; cut, p. l. rēz-ati “to strike”: stretch, s. l. raze “shock; 1999: "Sounds of the South", "Sounds of the South", "Sounds of the South", "Sounds of the South". soot; eat: mosquito, lat. ùds. Got an idea. 6 in Lithuanian has become o, Latvian —a, e.g.: lit. nor-éti: gr. vop-etv „to act, to do“, vop-cpuvoc „large, wide“; lit. krok-ti (and kriok-ti), kriog-uoti,„To speak or scream in a hoarse voice“, lat. krakt, krakt, s. rus. krak-ati „to knock“:lot. Croc-are, croc-ire,- krankti (about crows)“, gr..xpoCo „krenkščiu“ (-Liš *-gj-), s. vok. height. hruoh "raven" (uo from German O); | liet. people, wife: lot. acc. sing. homonem (nom. sing. homo) and hemonem; the root *g"hm-|*- g"hem-|*- g'hom-; in the words people, wife we have the zero-degree root, and the normal-degree root is lit. žēm-ė; but s. lit. žmuo (from *g’hm-on); lit. pro, pro-(plg. pré-plaisa): lot. pro, pro(d)-, gr. mpw-; but lat. prué-jam, prué-m ‘away, out’; y o-kamieniy singular origin of nouns lit. vilk-o, lat. vilk-a, s. sl. 1996. pp. 6. "S.L.A.N.- E.R.S.". www.sl.a.- n.e.r.s. vfk-at, vik-ad (-at -ad iš *-od), gr. mw (from *pod) ‘where from’. ; Instead of the désonic vowel change (Lithuanian ė: uo, Latin é: uo from Italian é: 6) in Lithuanian there is a change ė: 0, and in Latvian —é: a, p.g.: Lithuanian bėgti, Latin bėgt: Lithuanian bog-inti, “to carry, carry, cover, carry something quickly or hard”, but Latin budk-stit “to hide”, buok-stities “to move, to walk”; lit. glébti, lat. glébt: lit. globti „to enclose, to surround, to protect- “, lat. gldbt „to protect, to guard“, lit. globa (acc. sing. globą) and gléba; the normal degree of vowel change is lit. glab-oti „to embrace, take, grab“, lat. glab-dt „to protect, guard; buried” (from Belarusian *glob-); ! Liet. donis is considered Slavic. 62 lit. korjs (acc. sing. kėrį), lat. karis: gr. wnpbc ‘wax’, lat. céra; plg. kor-yti, kor-ytas; lit. clay, moly "Land by the clay", mol-fig "clay colored, molinas®, lat. mals (usually dgs. mali): s. sl. méls ‘lime’; E. Frenkel also includes mélas, mėl-ynas* here; k letters. nokti, lat. night "ateiti" : got. nelv(a) "arti", nelv-jan "to s. approach", german. height. nah ‘arti’ (a iz e <ide. é); let. expand : pldtas, next to jų normal degree roots * plet- (plg. expand, expand) ir *plot- (plg. wide); let. press (and press), lat. slégt :letter. slog-inti ’slegti, squeezing’, sloga ‘such a disease; difficulty, trouble“, s/6gas „difficulty to lay down on linen or hemp“, lat. sliga, slags „burden, difficulty, suffering, disease“; but lit. sluogas (and sludgas) "difficulty to oppress", lat. sludga, sluégs ‘t.p.’, sluodz-it, sluédz-ét ‘sležti, stisti’; lit. sit, sit-ing: sit-ing, garden (and garden), s. sl. sad®, lit. soda (acc. sing. sėdą), sodžius (lat. sūdža, sūdžius, presumably Lithuanianisms); Jam. svad-inti "planting" can be iš *suod-inti; let. tvéré, lat. beast „I took, I grabbed“: lit. fvord; the normal degree we find tvėr-ia, plg. s. Russian. zav-iti "to do, to create"; let. envelope (and calls) ‘cover, covering; "Over the Eyes of the Eyes". wolf ‘coverings. ’: sl. 100 mg twice a day ‘(eye)lid, lid’; let. spider ,,Spinne®, lat. It can : rain. stirrup, lat. 100 mg ,,vériau®; the normal degree is vér-ia, var-tai; lit. žolė, lat. zale: lit. grass; The normal root *g’hel-/*g’- hol is found in the words žėl-ia, žal-ias. He's coming. The 6 and a reflexes in Prussian are very vague. "Elbingo žodynėlis" (Pamedė dialekto paminklas) ide. 4 is denoted by the grapheme o and oa (cf. fr. mothe and lit. motė, lat. mate; fr. moazo "tante" and lit. mésa, lat. mdsa "sister"). Similarly, here is the marking of the ide. 6 (cf. pr. podalis and lit. žem. puodalis; pr. woasis and lit. dosis, lat. udsis). Uniform graphic ide. The notation of the d and a reflexes seems to indicate that the Prussian dialect of Elbing Zodynéli ide. 6 and @ coincided®. However, J. Kazlauskas believes* that the same graphic notation does not reflect ide. d and a reflexes opposition neutralization. After all, in the old Lithuanian scripts the letter o is used to mark both o and uo. In J. Kazlauskas’ opinion, the prefix o (from ide. 0) could have been narrower and more labialized than o (from ide. 4). The latter may have been a low-rising, weakly labialized sound. "The Prussian Catechisms (Monuments of Semitic Writing)" (PDF). a reflex is marked a or a (cf. pr. brati and lit. brolis, lat. bralis). He's coming. The 6th reflex is represented here mainly by d or o (cf. pr. per-on-i, "community" and in Lit., Lat. -uon such as gel-uon-is and dzel-uén-s). In certain cases, ide. and the reflex is here marked 4 or a (cf. pr. dat, datwei and daton and lit. duoti, lat. duét); pr. salin and lit. grass, lat. zale). It is a dialect of the Catalan language. The difference between a and 6 reflexes is retained, except in certain cases where ide. a and d, as in the eastern Baltic languages, overlap. ? E. Fraenkel, LEW, p. 430. 8 pg. K. Būga, RR, III, p. 104. * 1. Kasnayckac, K paseatuio obmebGantuiickoli CHCTEMbI raacHeiX, p. 21. 63 skis®, E. Cupica’, J. Endzelynas®, H. Pedersen® and others) believed that id. eu in the Baltic languages has become already, and in the Slavic languages it has become ju. H. Pedersen added that the glans of the word alone (cf. gr. A2dyxm) is sufficient to prove that ide. eu in Lithuanian language turned already?- ?. Because of the idea. The eu transformation into lit. was considered by the aforementioned researchers to be lawful, i.e. all those cases where Lithuanian (and other Baltic) au corresponds to other ide. languages eu, should, according to them, have been exceptions. Therefore, it was necessary to find ways to explain it to them. After investigating this issue, V. Poržezinskis came to iSvada! !, that in the Baltic language community the soft consonants before ew, affected by the consonants before u (here they were hard), were replaced by hard ones in some words. Thus, the group “soft consonant + diphthong eu” in Lithuanian and Latvian became the group “,,soft consonant + diphthong au”, and in Prussian language — the group “,,soft consonant + diphthong eu”. The group "hard consonant + diphthong eu" became the group "hard consonant + diphthong au". This opinion of V. Poržezinski was supported by E. Berneker! ?, indicating that this can explain many exceptions where au is in place of the expected already. The origin of au was attempted to be explained quite differently by H. Pedersen'®. In the word nation, in his opinion, f...t could have changed to 7... due to the second assimilative effect of f. The word latkas could have received the vowel o from another word of the same root. And naiijas instead of *niaujas could have arisen by disassembly or otherwise. In 1907, E. Cupica?* explained the origin of the diphthong au in the word tauta in the same way. These interpretations of au instead of the expected already appearing are not quite successful. For example, V. Poržezinski did not prove why soft consonants were replaced by hard ones in some places and not in others. His conception does not explain why, for example, pr. peuse did not turn into *pause, although in the Baltic language community there was a word next to it in which pp. was in front of u (see lit. pušis). According to the concept of V. Poržezinskis, such a change should be expected. That there was assimilation in the word nation, as E. Cupica and H. Pedersen claim, of course, it is possible to assume, but it is difficult to base on facts., O. Videmanas'®, K. Johansonas'®, J. Mikola'', A. Mejė!? and others believed that in the Baltic languages it originated only from ide. éu, and the diphthong au reflects ide. ex. In Slavic languages, they believed that ju could have come from both ide. éu, as well as from ide. I. Many of these examples of Lithuanian language are contrary to the opinion of these researchers, where it already originated from ide. of the short diphthong eu. : A criterion that allows you to trace where the item is. eu turned already and where —au, tried to determine J. Zubatas'- ®. In his opinion, ide. ex in the Baltic and Slavic languages has become already resp. ju before the vowels of the front row, and before the vowels of the back row it has changed to au resp. wu. 5 B. INopxesunckuii, K ncropun dopm CNnps2xkeHH B OGanTHiickux s3bikax, Mocksa, 1901, p. 79—80. 7 E. Zupitza, Lit. naiijas, KZ, 40, 1907, p. 250-251. 8 MU. Onasenun, CaassHo- -6anTHiiCKHe 3TIOAB, p. 79. ® H. Pedersen, lit. I4U, StB, 4, 1934—1935, p. 150—154. 1 H. Pedersen, op. cit., p. 152. 1 B, I]lop»xe3HHCKHi, op. cit., p. 80. 12 E. Berneker, AfslPh, 25, 1903, p. 489. 12 H. Pedersen, op. cit., pp. 150-154, 14 E. Zupitza, op. cit., pp. 254-255. 15 O, Wiedemann, Das litauische Préteritum, p. 17—18, 32, 184. 16 K. Johansson, Indische Etymologien, IF, 8, 1897, p. 172. 17 J, Mikkola, Urslavische Grammatik, I, p. 57-61. 18 A. Meillet, Le traitement de *-euen letto-lituanien, BSL, 25, 1924, p. 174-175. 19 J. Zubaty, AfslPh, 20, 1898, p. 396-397. 70 J. Endzelynas agreed with the interpretation of J. Zubatas, having slightly modified it. In his opinion, the Baltic languages au originated from ide. eu probably not against all backward vowels, but only against accented ones, cf. The examples given by J. Endzelynas in lit. ir fauta got. piuda (-diš -it seems that these words were pronounced iš at the end), lit. laūkas and gr. Asuxbe. J. Zubato ir J. The concept of angels?! does not explain such facts of Lithuanian language, where it is already before the vowels of the back row, cf., for example, liauka, siaiiras, kiduras, kidutas and others. In addition, the diphthong is often found in words that have a constant root accent, e.g. pig, egg, fly, north, etc. ir E. Bernekeris*?, E. Cupica? *, Mr. Buga? *, G. Seveliovas?’ and others were inclined to believe that the Baltic diphthong au originated from ide. a diphthong with a different degree of vowel change than the diphthong eu. J. Endzelynas?® did not rule out the possibility of changing the vowels, Thus, for example, lit. tauta should not be derived from ide. *feuta, but from ide. *touta or *touta. Should I mention the opinion of J. Otrembski* separately? ", according to which the normal ide. The continuum of the diphthong eu in (Eastern) Baltic languages is au with a preceding hard consonant. In Slavic languages, due to early palatalization of consonants before the anterior vowels ide. eu turned into *jau (from which ju later emerged- ). Because of the idea. The diphthong eu in the Baltic languages changed before the palatalization of consonants (i.e. consonants before the vowels of the anterior row and before the yode had to be still hard), the diphthong eu had to be au with a hard consonant before it. J. Otrembski here bases one hypothetical thing (eu transformation into au) on another hypothetical thing (the hardness of the adiposes and their palatalization). His concept is contradicted by many Lithuanian and Latvian words, the diphthong of which is already clearly derived from ide. I. In Baltic and Slavic languages, it is quite common for the same root to have two variants — one with jau, the other with au (Slavic ju and u). In Lithuanian kiduné and Latin caune (ciš *kj-) has already in the root, and in Russian caune. KyKd —au. Some Slavic languages have ju (see Russian pljuča "lungs" and Czech pluče), while others have u (see Slovenian plušta and Polish ptuca). Examples from Baltic languages show that there is a vowelism of the o-degree root here, cf. lit. plaiiciai, lat. plausas and pr. plauti. If we admit that in the Baltic and Slavic languages id. eu in some cases became au or u, so these facts suggest that this transformation took place very late, already in individual languages. It goes without saying that this could not have been the case. The Finnish loanword laukki indicates that during Baltic and Finno-Ugric contacts the Baltic languages already had au instead of other ide. languages eu. 20 YU. Ouaseannn, CrasgaHo-6antuiickue ston, p. 83; J. Endzelin, Lettische Grammatik, p. 40-41. 2 This concept has been recognised by V. Vondrak and A. Vajan, W. Vondra k, Vergleichende slavische Grammatik, I, p. 41; A. Vaillant, Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, I, pp. 122 to 124. #2 “The few Fille, where au, t seem to correspond, can be created by assuming other Ablauts at side,” —E. Berneker, IF, 10, 1899, p. 167. 3 E. Zupitza, op. cit., pp. 250-251. 24 K. Būga, RR, II, p. 348. 25 G. Y. Shevelov, A Prehistory of Slavic, p. 272—275. 26 K. Dupz3ejnnhnH, ChasBsho-GaJirniickue 3Tionbl, p. 82; J. Endzelin, Latvian Grammar, p. 41. 27 J, Otrębski, LP, 4, 1953, p. 308—312; SI. C. OrpemGcekuii, Chnassno-6aaTHiicKkoe S3bIKOBOe ejmHcecTBO, BA, 5, 1954, p. 31-32. 71 If we think he's gone. eu change in the Baltic and Slavic languages was a natural process and it took place in the Baltic and Slavic linguistic communities, it could by no means have occurred in one language already resp. you, in o other au. — This variation suggests that either o vocalism was inherited from ide. language community, or it has arisen in individual languages through structural analogy. Since, for example, next to pr. caune there was no form with another degree of vowel change and therefore structural analogy was not possible, the Prussian word could only come from the root *kou-. In the Baltic (and Slavic) languages it is id. Eu virtus jau, vowel change has occurred already: au: u (ide. eu: ou:u). In most cases, the soft consonantdisplaced the hard one, which was before the ulap. For example, in the case of the expected *grūti, it is derived from griduti < *gréu-. The soft consonant was also generalized in those forms in which the o had arisen due to the change of vowels, e.g. gridvė instead of the waiting *grovė < *grou-*. The reverse process can also be imagined: the hard consonant that preceded the u could have displaced the soft consonant. For example, it can be assumed that the Latin field (with a hard!-) instead of *liaukas appeared from such a Baltic word (cf. luckis "chip"), where the hard / was lawful. However, such words as pr. peuse and lit. pušis, pr. caune and lit. kidunė do not allow this to be assumed. In the Baltic language community, although pine existed next to peuse, peuse did not become *pause. By analogy, caune could not have come from *kiaune, because there is no word where the consonant would have been before the u. , All of this shows that there is already an interchange with au in words of this type, such as lietuv. kidunė: pr. caune, must be explained by phonomorphological reasons. This conclusion is perhaps also supported by Finnish borrowed words of Baltic origin. It may be assumed that the words leuka and laukki were borrowed by the Finns at the same time, as both are associated with the names of characteristics of living things. These borrowings indicate that at the time of borrowing 1) the Baltic languages already had au instead of the other ide. languages eu and 2) diphthong eu had not yet turned already. The diphthong eu became eu much later than eu became au. Thus, the processes eu> au and eu> were probably no longer related either chronologically or structurally. The above facts seem to allow a part of the Baltic and Slavic words to have au or u instead of other ide. languages ew, kildinti iš o degree root, cf. : *kėu-g-: lit. kidugė and *kou-g-: lit. kaugė, lat. kaudze, s. isl. haugr ‘hill’; *sniffs. : kidney, lat. caūne ir *kou-npr. : Caune, Russian. Kyud; *leu-kg. : Aevxéc, got. sliha ‘Light’ ir *lou-kliet. : time, lat. field, lot. lūc-idus ‘Light’, gr. Xoūocov (-oc -Is *-kj-) ‘white spruce core’; *Leu-klit- : s. gland, gland, lat. Nice, Mr. he5vwrn ir *lou-klat. : field; *leu-|*leu- : liet. lidutis, liav-Onas, lat. Jaūt "Eat," check. Levitical "to forgive", got. leu "left to fate" ir *lou-/*lou- : liet. corpse, mr. au-laūt ‘die’; *pleu-: s. Russian. Lungs „lungs“, s. czech. Floats, Gr. TAsūpov ir *plouliet. : lungs, lat. lungs, pr. wash, sl. s. float, bend. pluca; *reu-d-* :s. English. cold ‘pink’, Gr. pei “raustu” ir *rou-dlie- : t. red, red-one, lat. red, sl. s. brown „ore“, rus. pymsineui (room temperature) iš *red-m-); *sreulie- : t. Sriomud, Gr. $seūpa. "Srovė" ($- iš *sr-) ir *sroulie- : t. srav-eti, sraumud, lat. stream, s. rus. strumeno ‘river’ (struiš *srau-); * Maybe for similar other not ir very clear reasons of one dialect of Lithuanian language (in some forms) have r soft, others o hard, see. — Z. Zinkevičius, Lithuanian dialectology, p. 153—156. 72 *teut-: got. piuda "people", Illyrian (personal noun) Teuta and *tou-t-: Lithuanian tauta, Latin nation, proto-Tauto, Oscian touto "state", Welsh tid "country" (from *tou-), s. air. tuath ‘people’ (tuiš *tou-). It should be added that only a part of the Baltic and Slavic words with root o vocalism can reach ide. times of linguistic communion. This is true, for example, of the Lithuanian word tauta and its relatives: vieni ide. dialects could have a *feulaip, and others—a *foulaip. However, the variants of most words with degrees of e and o vowel change could have already been formed in Baltic and Slavic languages, because the vowel change in Baltic languages (e.g., Lithuanian) is still alive today. For example, some Baltic dialects had the word kidunė with the degree of change of the e vowels, and others — with the degree of change of the o vowels (cf. caune). In some Lithuanian words, the diphthong au can actually be used instead of ide. I. Such present tense forms as keičia, sėka (pasaką) and others, whose root has e-degree vocalism, show that in the forms baūdžia, plaiikia, smaūkia must be e-degree vocalism, because o-degree vocalism is usually found in iterative causative verbs, e.g. kaityti, sakyti ir baūdinti, plaukti, smaukyti. That the old root diphthong in these present tense forms was eu is also shown by the corresponding other ide. Language words, cf. lietuv. baūdžia and s. sl. bljusti, lit. plaūkia and s. vok. height. fliogen "to fly" (io from eu), lit. smaūkia and s. skand. smjuga,,- spraustis, smukti“ (juiš eu). The diphthong eu of the old forms *baudja, *pleukja and *smeukja has been replaced with au not because of ide. ex in the Baltic languages would normally have become au, but, apparently, because the vowelism of these present tense forms has adapted to other forms of the same root with o vowelism. Thus, it is possible to assume that, apart from a few verbs in which ou probably appeared by analogy instead of the older eu, ide. diphthong eu in Baltic (and Slavic) languages did not turn au. All words in Baltic and Slavic languages that have au or u in the root instead of other ide. of ew languages, are probably derived from forms with o-degree vowels. He's coming. The diphthong eu in Baltic and Slavic languages has been regularly transformed into already resp. ju. This phonetic phenomenon is considered to be an innovation of the Baltic and Slavic languages, indicating close relationships between these languages and supporting the theory of the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity. He's coming. The eu transformation already resp. ju can be considered as an argument for the Baltic-Slavic linguistic unity only if ide. eu would have become already resp. ju during the Baltic-Slavic unity. However, there seems to be no basis for considering this phonetic phenomenon so old. You can't really say that it went. eu translation would already be co-Baltic. Iš Prussian language monuments it is difficult to decide what ide. the diphthong eu reflex was in Prussian. Type bleusky Elbing's dictionary writings are ambiguous. Some scholars believe* that the spelling eu denotes the diphthong au after a softened consonant. It is also in the language of the Prussians. I'm turned already. R. Trautmanas also draws attention to similar writing already in the ancient monuments of the Lithuanian language, e.g., gereus instead of geriaus in M. Daukšos writings- *?. Others hold the opinionés® that the Prussian ew actually denotes the diphthong eu, but not already. It is written in the Prussian language. eu remains unchanged. * R. Trautmann, The Old Prussians Language thinking miles, p. 148—149; J. Endzelins, Prussian text graphics, FBR, 15, 1935, p. 97—98; Old Prussian language, p. 30; V. Mažiulis, Monuments of the Prussian language, Vilnius, 1966, p. 54—55. * R. Trautmann, op. cit., p. 148. J. Otrębski, LP, 4, 1953, p. 308—312. 73 All scholars cite pr. iaukint (= lit. to mix) as an argument, which allegedly shows that id in Prussian is a consonant. eu also turned already. However, this argument is unreliable, because the word could also have had the root *ouk-(not *euk-). The vocalism of the root o is precisely suitable for the causative meaning of the verb pr. iaukint and lit. myukinti. It is possible that this is a prothetic, as shown by s. sl. učiti (from *au-) ir s. ind. 6kah "house". The words that are written with the digraph eu (ew) in the Elbing dictionary are: bleusky 286, geauris 757 (see lit. giaurys LKZ, III, 282), gleuptene 247, keutaris 762, keuto 156, 497 (see lit. kidutas), peuse 597, skewre 685 (see lit. kiafilė). It is striking that there are never any grapheme i, y or g before this digraph, which could be interpreted as signs of softness of consonants. We would expect this graphic notation if the Prussian language had had the join iau in these words. In Elbing's dictionary, however, the above-mentioned grapheme sometimes appears before the vowels of the anterior row, cf. plieynis 38 next to pleynis 75. This is why the spelling of the word keuto should be noted: it is recorded in the same way both times, i.e. with the digraph eu. All this seems to indicate that the diphthong eu was present in the aforementioned words of the Elbing dictionary. Based on the fact that in Prussian the compound *sj became š (see schuwikis 496, schumeno 507, schutuan 471), it is generally assumed that in Prussian the j also disappeared after other consonants (dantinių, gomuriniy), softening those consonants*?. However, some writings, especially the use of the grapheme g, seem to indicate that the sound j is still represented here, e.g. cf. angurgis 565, ansalgis 506, kargis 410, dhasar 468, wargien 525 (cf. cugis 518 lit. hammer, where the grapheme g represents the sound j). It is highly doubtful that the graphema g would indicate the softness of consonants here*?. As the Lithuanian and Latvian languages show, j did not necessarily have to fall together in all positions: in some places (e.g., after £, d) it fell earlier, in others (e.g., after labial consonants) — later, at one of the falls. the result was one, elsewhere — another. Therefore, the change of *sj does not indicate that the combinations of other consonants with j have also changed. It is true that even the representatives of the concept of “yotic” palatalization of consonants do not deny that after the labial consonants j still existed in the Prussian language- **. In this case, the graphic of the Elbing dictionary is as follows: piuclan 547 (at the beginning of the word), kalabian 424, tarbio 325, knapios 268, wupyan 9, wormyan 465, samyen 235, claywio 375, perwios 281. Whether the Prussian language still had the diphthong eu, or whether the Prussian dialects already had iau instead, is not as important as the writing bia, bio, piu, pio, pya, mya, mye and wio: a labial consonant compound with a j or a palatalised labial consonant before the vowels of the back row. It is important to note that the graphic representation of this position differs from the graphic representation of the analogous position of the word peuse: if the diphthong eu in Prussian had become iau, then here (i.e. in the word peuse) we would expect the same graphic representation of the labial consonant (with j or palatalized) before the vowel of the back row (*piau, *pyau or *pyeu). Does the different graphic representation not only reflect a different phonetic complex (in the above examples pja or p'a..., and in the word peuse—pe- )? Regarding the phonetic interpretation of the graphic of the Prussian language monuments, it is worth remembering how J. Endzelynas explains the writing of the II Catechism pyienkts. ** J. Endzelins, Prūsu tekstu grafika, p. 96—98; T. Milewski, Przyczynki do gramatyki pruskiej- ,,,Slavia Occidentalis“, 15, 1936, p. 102—108; V. Mažiulis, op. cit., p. 54—55. *3 For example, the questionable interpretation of J. Endzelyno word wargien:- ,,i te vėl iesprausts aiz g varbūt tapéc, lai g-burtu te kas nelasitu ka vėlaro balsigo slėdzeni- “, —J. Endzelynas. Endzelins, op. cit., p. 97. *4 J. Endzelins, op. cit., p. 98; V. Mažiulis, op. cit., p. 55. 74 here, after the labial consonant, could have appeared j**. Thus, the j could be marked even before the vowels of the front row. Similarly, other consonants (with j or palatalized) are marked before the vowels of the back row in Elbing's dictionary, cf. maldian 438, median 586, medione 699, brunyos 419, dragos 386, etc. Similarly, they should be marked in the words keutaris, keuto, skewre, geauris, if here those consonants were before the vowels of the back row. In addition, it should be noted that in Elbing Zodynél grapheme i, y after consonants before vowels of the front row are not usually written (cf. deywis 1, deynayno 5, metis 166, etc.), except, of course, in one other case (such as plieynis 38 next to pleynis 75, geytye 339, etc.). Thus, in the aforementioned words with the digraph eu (ew), there was probably a front vowel, and therefore a diphthong eu. It is also clear that there is no real data that would indicate ide. eu transformation into a bi-vowel, which was already a co-Baltic phenomenon. He's coming. During the change of the diphthong eu in the Baltic (Eastern) and Slavic languages there were quite different phonological situations: in the Baltic languages the change was related to some phonological processes, and in the Slavic languages — to quite other ones. The phonetic eu transformation already presupposes the expansion and reduction of the vowel e in the position before u (primarily, it seems, where it had an acute prefix), i.e. e—>d. The fact that such a phonetic phenomenon is possible is shown by the Lithuanian language, in which there are cases where the vowel e before w or v is widened and moved backward, cf. kliūvas and klėvas in many dialects. In many places, the Žemaičiai pronounce "a" before v (u) with a moving soft consonant. Here, even instead of č, which originated from ei, a is pronounced, e.g. kr'ūus „,creva“- **, $’ava „sheiva“. The a that came from the e before the u could be phonetically very close to the vowel a, which was also before the w (from the old diphthongs au and du), and after the j the a could even coincide with 4. When the vowel o became a, the vowels a and “i” became variants of the phoneme /a/. In this way, the variant d could be phonemized, in other words, instead of the phoneme /e/ in the segment of the manifestant CiiuC (C denotes consonants) appeared the phoneme /a/ manifestant, i.e. CiuC — C'auC. The consonants that were before the decimal vowels had to be different from the consonants that were "before the non-decimal vowels. The first were palatal, the second - velar. The position against j was probably neutral. After the above changes, the palatal consonants were placed in front of the non-molar a. This situation could not last long, because it contradicted the whole system, in which the palatal consonants were only before the decimal vowels, and the non-molar vowels only after the velar consonants. This anomaly could be eliminated in two ways: 1) C'auC had to become CauC (only a velar consonant is possible before a bemoll); 2) C'auC had to become CjauC (palatal consonant is only possible before j before a bemol vowel). The implementation of the first option was associated with greater difficulties than the second: consonants in this position had to move from the class of palatal consonants to the class of velar consonants. Although there was an additional distribution ratio between the palatal and velar classes of consonants, the realization of the first possibility still had to be a cardinal shift in the system. This seems to have ir resulted in the second option being implemented, since, moreover, its implementation was a compromise: the position against j was neutral, hence % J. Endzelins, op. cit., p. 96. % Z. Zinkevičius, Lithuanian dialectology, p. 51. here the consonants were neither palatal nor velar (respectively both palatal and velar). The iota insertion eliminated the contradiction in the system. By the way, in some places, especially in those cases where there was a variant of the root with the diphthong au (and ou) next to it, the type C'auCroot could easily be replaced by the type CauCroot. This, apparently, happened in verbs, cf. daūžia instead of désning *djaužia after daužyti. In Slavic protospeech, the monophthongization of the diphthong ex with the preceding palatal consonant was associated with the formation of compound group phonemes. In the formation of composite group phonemes, the sonants (including w) joined to the phonemes in front of them and became syllable, since the syllable constituent was usually the last element of the group phoneme. Later, when the differential signs “openness: closure” were transphonologicalized into the differential signs “length: shortness”, the vowels, which were already non-syllabic, became performed indicators of decibels, and therefore they easily disappeared. The group phoneme C'eu turned into C'+w, creating a unique case in the phonological system of Proto-Slavic: the diphthong was before the bemoll vowel. The contradiction between the decimal consonant and the following bemoll vowel could be eliminated by the formation of neutral group phonemes. The resulting neutral (neither decimal nor bemoll) consonants (e.g., b) had to coincide with those already present in the system. with neutral consonants (e.g., b from bjV) and give the same reflexes. Apparently, therefore, the reflexes of the consonants in position both before j and before the diphthong eu are the same in all Slavic languages- *". It is a phonological idea. The interpretation of the eu transformation in the Baltic languages and 'u in the Slavic languages definitively confirms the intuitive assumption that this transformation was a completely independent phenomenon in the Baltic and Slavic languages. He's coming. The diphthong eu changed in the Baltic and Slavic languages not only under different systemic conditions and influenced by different systemic factors, but also the phonetic essence of the change was different: in the (Eastern) Baltic languages eu became jau, and in the Slavic languages —just 'u. He's coming. The fate of the diphthong eu is a clear example of the parallel development of Baltic and Slavic languages. This example shows that the common trends in the development of the Baltic and Slavic languages, supported by geographical contact, continued to exist in later stages of their history. He's coming. the fate of syllable sonatas in Ide. syllable consonants /, r, m, n (hereinafter referred to as R) in Baltic and Slavic languages became il, i, im, in or more rarely ul, ur, um, un (hereinafter referred to as iR and uR). Their common fate brings the Baltic and Slavic languages closer together. He's coming. The short sonants R became iR or uR (with circumflex), cf. : a) lit. wolf, lat. vilks, pr. wilkis, s. sl. vleko, rus. sox, serb.-chorv. "Wolf" (feat. vikah, got it. wulfs, gr. hdxoc, lot. lupus; 1995) 1919 – Krzysztof Kieślowski, Polish actor (d. rons, rus. 4ėprblii (from sl. *čbrno): s. ind. krsnah ‘black’; lit. šimtas, lat. simts, s. sl. soto (probably borrowed from Iranian languages- ): s. ind. Satdm (Saiš ide. *k'm-), gr. éxazév (-xaiš ide. *k'm-), toch. kdnt(e), lot. centum, got. dog; %B.K. )KypaBaes, PasBurue rpynnoBoro CHHTapMOHH3Ma B TMpacJIaBAHCKOM SI3biKe, Munck, 1963, pp. 29-41. 76 lit. mintis (acc. sing. mifitį), at-mintis, lat. mit, „think, guess“, pr. po-minisnan „memory“, s. sl. pa-mets (¢ from on): s. ind. matih (-from n),,intent, desire; prayer“, lat. mens mentis, „spirit, mind“, got. muns "mind"; b) lit. kulnas (and kulnis, acc. sing. kulnį), lat. kulna „heel“, pr. kulnis,kulksnis, s. sl. kloka "dent in the road", bulg. kolka "thigh", serb.-chorv. Kiik (from *kelk-): Latin calx "heel", toch. A kolye "thigh"; pr. curwis ‘beef’: lit. kdrvé, s. sl. Cow, Russian. Koposa, gr. xtpac ‘horn’’; lietuviy, Slavic and Greek words have the root of normal degree *kerH-|*- korH-; lot. cornu ‘horn’, got. haurn "horn" from *krH-; let. Angry Birds (アングリーバッド, Anguri Baddo?) Yeops (yeiz *ang-), root *ng-|*ong-. He's coming. long sonates R (from the i.e. *RH) turned iR or ūR (with acute), cf. : (a) lit. vilna, lat. vilna, pr. wilnis and wilna ‘skirt’; Jacket, s. l. vlona, serb.- „choryv. Viina (from sl. *velna): s. ind. - No, no, no, no, no. varana, gr. fįvoc, lot. lana, got. wulla (from German *wulna); Lit. žirnis, lat. zifnis, pr. syrne "grain", s. sl. zrono, rus. 3epHO (from sl. *zorno): lat. granum (ra from ide. *rH), got. kaūrn ‘grain’; lit. pinti, lat. pit, s. sl. peti (g from on, but can also be from en, cf. s. sl. mrėti, praes. merą), praes. Mr. arm. henum „pin, knot“, lat. pendere „to weigh, evaluate- “; also see lit. pdntis; b) lit. gurklps (gen. sing. gūrklio), pr. gurcle "throat" (from Byelorussian *gur-tl-), s. rus. gorlo (Russian e0pao), pol. gardio (iš sl. *gor-dl-):- s. ind. gūrtah "waiting, pleasant- ", Latin gurges "whirl", gurgli "breathing throat"; plg. also lit. throat, throat, gargle; lit. mūlkis, lat. mulis: s. ind. mirkhdh “stupid”. He's coming. in Baltic and Slavic languages, the sonants R have become iR and uR not only in the anteconsonant: position, but also in the antevocal position, cf. lit. pilis, lat. pils, pr. (place names) Pill-aw, Pille-kaym: s. ind. piih (acc. sing. pur-am) "defensive wall", from gr. mois "city"; 2000. "S.A.R.S.: The Forest". girih,kalnas®; pr. garian, garrin ‘tree’ etc. gora "mountain" has the degree of vowel change of kita (*gor-); lit. gun-idti, gun-yti, „gainioti, vaikyti“, pr. gun-twei, s. sl. Gon-ati "to chase", lit. ginti, lat. dzit (i from in), s. sl. 1000 BC) and A.D. (c. Zong, ‘paunu (grain)’ : let. gan-yti, lat. gan-it, s. sl. Gon-iti. The material provided by IS shows that ide. syllable sonants R in Baltic and Slavic languages in some cases became iR, in others —uR. The question arises, what did it depend on? distribution of the vowels i and u. There is no single answer to this question. J. Endzelynas?, J. Mikola*, K. Būga*, R. Trautmanas* and others were inclined to explain the appearance of the i or u as a change of vowels. According to this concept, iR originated from eR, 1 WU. Dupnsesnn, CJiaBsKo-GajrnuūckHe STIOJIbi, pp. 3-24. 2 J. J. Mikkola, Urslavische Grammatik, I, p. 68—71; plg. Where from lit. iau and slav. ju?, IF, 16, 1904, p. 99. ? * K. Būga, RR, II, pp. 128-129, 260-264. * R. Trautmann, Vienas baltų slavų gramatikos bruožas, „Švietimo darbas“, 1922 3—6, Kaunas, p. 271-272; Ein Kapitel aus der Lautlehre der baltisch-slavischen Sprachen, Kaunas, 1922, p. 2, 1923. 77 eR o oR Thus, in the Baltic Slavic ir languages, the reduced vowels e ir o became normal vowels i ir w. In the Baltic languages, eR iR alternates su in most cases, o uR — su aR, plg. drunk to : drink (but plg. gurklys), deep, : deeply, deeply, : deeply, deeply, : deeply kūlti : kalti, kumpas kampas, pr. curwis : liet. cow. But there are cases iR where there can be aR, o uR — greta eR, pg. miltai: malti, lit. multitude: got. manags "many", lit. giria: pr. garian, s. sl. gora, fr. gulsennin "pain": lit. to heal. In single-root forms may occur iR ir uR greta, plg. fit space : to : accomm- : odate tubing. Those cases where iR there is next to aR, o uR — next to eR, does not contradict the concept of the authors mentioned, because, for example, next to *mnir *mon-(cf. lit. minia and got. manags) could have existed previously and *men-, whose declining degree could be lit. minid. The to theory of the change ir of voices can hardly be refuted or supportar ed by facts. It is worth asking why in the Baltic Slavic languages ir the vowels i and w appeared before the syllable sonants, but not, say, the vowels e or a, as in other languages. languages. The diphthongs eR and oR, inherited from ide, existed in the Baltic language community. time. Therefore, it seems that the e and o could not have appeared before syllable sonants. In the quadrangular white short vowel system e 0, compared to i u ją su diphthong first-sound system e(R) 0(R), free members were vowels i ir u, because the first syllables of diphthongs were only vowels e ir o. Therefore, the first verses of the iš diphthongs, resulting in syllable sonates, * could only be free vowels i ir wu. Iš of what has been said, it appears that iR ir uR distribution could depend on the forms of the normal degree of vowel change, in other words, on the diphthongs eR ir oR :iR (from R) could have appeared in those forms next to which existed the same root form su diphthong eR (plg. kil-ti : kél-ti), o uR (from R) — in those forms next to which were forms su diphthong oR (plg. 100 mg/ : day) If the root had the variation eR/oR, then both iR and oR could appear in its forms. uR (plg. let. tĕm-ti :year. Tim-sa : let. for many : years. 100 mg/ kg/ day). K. Brugmanas, A. Vajan, J. Kurilovičius, G. Ševeliovas, ir etc. believed that the appearance of a vowel or depended i on the u phonetic environment. K. Brugmans? noted that the voice originated u from labial po palatal ir consonants. This statement is appropriate for the ir material of the Baltic Slavic languages. was not justified. Toks K. Brugman's interpretation was based on the data of the ancient ir Indian Greek languages, because there are labial po gomuriniy ir consonants u/ ir ur. A. Vajan® believes that in the Baltic ir Slavic languages the adjective w vowel iš originates from ide. labiovelar consonants k“, g“, g“h vowel element. For example, ir the Baltic Slavic languages *gen- : *I-- (plg. let. gēna : gunidti, gunyti ir s. sl. the : woman gona-ti) iš arising ide. *g% hen-:*g* hn- (vadinasi, *g“hn-> *g%n-> *oyn-). So, according to A. Vajano, Baltic ir 5 K. Brugmann, Short comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages, Berlin and Leipzig, 1922, p. 123. 6 A. Vaillant, Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, in the Slavic I, p. 171. 78 languages the adjective vowel » appeared after the labiovelar consonants, and the i — after all the rest. I think so too, Mr. Kurilovičius." According to him, syllable sonants R in Baltic and Slavic languages became #R not only after labiovelar, but also after pure palatal consonants (i.e. k, g, gh), and after all other consonants —iR. Kurilovičius bases his conception on the assumption that palatalization of consonants in Baltic Slavic languages is a more important phenomenon than vocalization of syllable sonates. ta ir ti J. Kurilovic suggests that the transition of R to iR in the groups kRi and gR would have replaced k and g with i k" and g'. However, since the palatal consonants before R could not be palatalised and were therefore hard, the vowel tone of the syllable sonant could only be of the back row (i.e. u). The statistics provided by Mr Kurilovičius? not entirely corresponds to his statements, because uR after other consonants has no less number of examples than after the palatal consonants. For example, uR after k and g has 35.6%, after m — 34.89, after n — 33.39, examples. The same percentage of examples as after m is after j. Most examples of diphthongs have a consonant (44,49%;) uR po s. Other examples have iR everywhere. The initial distribution relationships of iR and uR in the language development may have been confused. For example, the change of vowels eR: R after the hard palatal consonants became eR: uR (plg. let. throat : throat iš white *ger-tl- : *gur-tl-). Since all po other consonants had a variation eR:iR and since it, being more frequent, could be generalized, then in addition to the forms su uR po hard palatal consonants could easily appear in the form of su iR (plg. let. drunk). After iR ir uR studying the issue of G. distribution, Seveliov came to such conclusions? : a) po palatal palatal consonanR ts turned iR; among b) the velar palatals (including labiovelar) ir consonants turned uR; R c) po the phonetic reflex of velar palatal consonants against non-velar R ones was uR; d) po phonetic reflex of labial consonants against velar R palatals buuR; vo ; e) po labial consonants against minor palatal ir po dental consonants (take intervals ir s) before any consonant R became iR. An important argument of the phonetic environment theory is the fact that in the Baltic Slavic ir languages the uR po consonants § ir ž - He's out. k' ir g') rarely occurs. One more example is found (plg. let. šūltis, žulsnūs) are probably of late origin. This fact suggests that at the time of the transition of syllable sonants, R the Baltic į iR ir uR Slavic languages ir still had k' ir g’ or had already translated them į Šš ir ž (possible object, $ ir 2). Ir k', g', ir š, ž had to be very soft. Thus, according to the theory of the "phonetic" environment, it must be recognized that in the ir Baltic Slavic languages ide. the regular evolution of syllable sonatas was R>iR. O row R>uR depending on the phonetic environment (after k ir g) was an anomaly. * J. Kurytowicz, L'apophonie en indo-européen, Wroclaw, 2002, p. 103. 1956, p. 227— 243; O 16, 1957, p. 81—94; O 6amT0-CJIaBSHCKOM S13bIKOBOM SJKKCTBE, BCH, 3, 1958, p. 23—24, 8 J. Kurytowicz, L'apophonie en indo-européen, p. 229 (equivalent). * G.Y. A Shevelov, of Slavic, p. 90. 79 The Slavic s transformation into ch was earlier than the monophthongation of the diphthong ai and the metathesis of er and or in the Southern Slavic languages or the pleophony in the Eastern Slavic languages, since after the diphthong ai and er and or ide. s has changed. The fact that in the Baltic-origin Baltic-Ugric-Finnic borrowed languages the Baltic š (and 2) echoes the sound h, which may have originated from §, indicates Baltic and Baltic-Ugric-Finnic contacts beginning at the time of ide. s after K, r, i, u and ide. In the Baltic languages, k' has already become š. Ide. s after K, r, i, u transformation of š in Baltic languages was structurally related to ide. k" abilitation. As early as 1908, Maye observed that palatal palatal consonants were assimilated in these ide. dialects in which ide. s po K, r, i, u virto š*". When it goes. s after k, r, i, u change and ide. k" abilitation were synchronous structurally related processes, clearly showing the same result of those processes: s after K, r, i, u and ide. In the Lithuanian language, the K has become š. s after K, r, i, u transformation process. After the explosive consonant k, the tongue-tip pronoun r, and after the narrow vowels i and u the articulation of the s was probably higher and the sound itself was probably pronounced quieter and less pronounced. Acoustically, this variant of the consonant s could be an intermediate sound between the current Lithuanian s and š, i.e. it could be §. The transformation of the "high variant" of Priebalsis s into an independent phoneme depended on the coincidence in the pronunciation of the combinations *-r$8 and *-rk'-, *-is and *-ik', etc. Their match resulted in -r and -iz. But the compound *-ok' also became -aš-. However, since the *-ostrument represented the phoneme /s/ (and not its "higher variant" §), § and s were phonetically different sounds. In this way, the phoneme /s/ split into two distinct units. Based on the data presented in this section, the following ideas can be made. conclusions concerning the relationship of dialects of the linguistic community: 1) ide. 5 after the K, r, i, u transformation § the Baltic, Slavic and Indo-Iranian dialects were already independent linguistic units (see above for different details of that transformation); — į s ir $98 2) during this transition the Baltic, Slavic and Indo-Iranian dialects maintained some contacts: in all three language groups id. s another in the same position, and the result of this change was also the same. He's coming. palatal palatal consonants in Ide. the dialectal k’, g’, g’h in Baltic and Slavic languages were assimilated. In Lithuanian they became §, Z, in Latvian, Prussian and Slavic —s, z, plg.: liet. šimtas, lat. simts, s. sl. soto, s. ind. Satdm, av. Satom: gr. šxarėv, lat. centum, s. height. Dog, anyway. edges; Lit. širdis, lat. sifds, pr. seyr (from *šėr(d)), s. sl. srod-5ce, s. rus. sbrd-bce: gr. xupdia, lot. Prehistory cor cordis, het. card; let. Paišas, pr. parstian (attested by prastian Voc. 686), s. rus. porosja, serb.-chorv. pig: s..vok. height. Farah, lot. Pork, pork, meat*, gr. rēpxoc; let. Winter, lat. ziemia, pr. semo (countable with z-), s. sl. Winter, s. ind. héman "winter" (hiš ide. g'h-): gr. yelp, lot. hiems, it. born-; 37 „The line of treatment §/s thus coincides roughly with that of the treatment of the gutturals®, A. Meillet, Les dialectes indo-européens, p. 86. 38 A. Martinet, Concerning some Slavic and Atyan Reflexes of IE s,,,Word- ““, 7, 1951, p. 91-95. 86 liet. žvėris, lat. zvėrs, pr. swirins (acc. pl.), s. sl. deer: gr. 9p, lat. ferus (fiš gh); Lit. bėržas, lat. bėrzs, pr. berse, s. sl. birch, serb.-chorv. birch, s. ind. bhirjdh: s. vok. height. birihha (hh from German k<ide. g°). From the examples given, it is clear that one ide. some languages have spirants, and others have explosives in the same words. In the past, this phonetic idea. language characteristic was given great importance: according to ide. ją The languages were divided į du into dialects — centum and satem (from Latin and Avestan centum and satam). The first such ide. dialectal division of the linguistic area was proposed in 1888 by P. von Bradke)!. He was succeeded by his son, K. Brugman?® ide. the division of languages into kentum and satem dialects was universally accepted. In addition to the above-mentioned Baltic and Slavic languages, Indo-Iranian, Armenian, and Albanian languages were classified as Satem languages, while Greek, Italic, Celtic, and Germanic Illyrian languages were classified as Centum languages. — ir Linguistic classification corresponded to ide. geographical location of the languages: all satem languages were ide. linguistic area in the east, cannibalisto ic in the — west. However, this has been questioned over ar the years. The dialectal division of languages can be taken as an isogloss of palatal consonant abilitation. Recent studies of the Tocharian Hittite ir languages have shown that, although they are geographicir ally within the Satem languages, they are nevertheless very closely related. Thus, the centum ir satom theory lost its geographical argument. Be that the elements of the kentum languages ir are found in the very satem languages, especially those į closer to the west (e.g., Balto-Slavic), ir elements of o palatal abilitation of the palatal consonants are present in cantic languages (plg. some abilitation phenomena in the Hittite language). In the ir Baltic Slavic languages, the palatal ir consonant spirant often alternates in the same root, thus forming the consonant lit. $:k, Z:g Slavic ir s : k, z : g, plg. let. to shout, lat. call a : thing. chewing; let. family : yard, kdimas; let. maple, : lat. glue; let. buckwhe- : at, lat. club; let. crawl : swear; let. blade, ind. s. dšma „stone, rock, sky“ lit. : stone, lat. stone, gr. ėxpow ‘veil’; let. sharp : shaved; let. cry, scream, : scream, scream, lat. crecėt; let. buckled : ham; let. South, lat. dogs, pr. sunis lat. : kuna ‘bitch’; let. foul : smell; let. glow, p. s. saint lat. : kvitėt; let. kerdžius, pr. basket (acc. sing.) ,, "Time, Time, s. Time". crêda ‘band; cattle’ : s. ind. sshardhah ‘band’; s. ind. rūšant-: lit. fields; let. Tastegrass (and chin), white. mjekėr ‘snake’; beard’ (from *smekra-) : s. ind. shmdšru ‘beard’ ($- iš s-); let. pėkus ‘,cattle’’, pr. That's it, lot. peach : s. ind. pasih, av. pasu-; let. hearts ‘enclosed area for livestock’, p. : s. degrees ‘city’; let. yellow „gelvas“ : geltas: lit. Zéntas, s. sl. Żyto liet. : gentis ‘relatives’; let. squeeze, squeeze, : squeeze, squeeze; let. Arjoti “to scream, to shout; bartis, : muštis’ argdti ‘to beat’; pr. gunsix "Beule, gumbas" : lit. Goingle ‘gumb’; let. diagonal : trap; sl. s. brėg6 ‘krantas’ : av. barazah- ‘mountain’ (plg. s. vok. height. mountais. n); sl. column ‘ginča’ :s. ind. sdtruh ‘opponent’; sl. s. Clonite : s. Russian. to lean on, ind. s. Srdyate “(it) flows” ; s. Russian. svėto: kvėto. * P. of Bradke, Contributor to Knowledge of the prehistoric development of our language, Giessen, 1888, * K. Brugmann, floor plan of the comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages, I, 1, p. 542—544, 87 There are instances where the Baltic languages have a spirant and the Slavic languages a gomuric or where the Baltic languages have a gomuric and the Slavic languages a spirant, cf. lit. klausyti, lat. klausit, pr. klausiton „[erhoren, listen“: s. sl. slušati (but the Baltic languages also have a spirant, cf. lit. šlovė, šlavinti, lat. slava, slavėt); S.S.I.E.L.- D., Inc.. Svdsurah:s. sl. father-in-law; lit. šokti: s. sl. height; lit. goose, lat. zūose, pr. sansy: sl. *shock (Russian: 2yc6, Polish:'ges); 1999. "S.S.I.E.L- .D., S.S.I.E.L.- D., S.S.I.E.L.- D., S.S.I.E.L.- D., S.S.I.E.L.- D., S.S.I.E.L.- D.". zvězda (above gv-), left. star; pr. massi,,kann, galiu“: s. sl. may and others. These are the different ide of the Baltic and Slavic languages. Palatal consonant reflexes should not be given much importance, because these different reflexes occur in the Baltic languages themselves. The examples given show that there are kentum elements in the Baltic and Slavic languages. It is not a purely satem language. The Baltic and Slavic languages are not the only satemic languages to have a number of consonant elements. In Albanian, Thracian, and Phrygian, there is also a change in spirants and labial consonants, and in Hittite and some other Anatolian languages, there is a change in ide. k' before u has become s (cf. ašuwa, "horse*- "), although in all other positions the velar and palatal consonants coincided." All those languages in which spirants and palatals alternate in the same root form a group of transitional dialects between the eastern and western Ides. languages. Therefore, V. Porcigas quite rightly distinguished two areas in the zone of abilitation of palatal consonants: the first one, which includes Indo-Iranian and Armenian languages, where palatal consonants with some small exceptions are completely transformed into spirants, and the second one, which consists of the already mentioned transitional dialects- *. The peculiarity of the so-called satemic languages, that the spirants alternate with the labial consonants, was already noted in 1904 by E. Cupica, noting that in the western part of the satemic range there is a higher percentage of forms with labial consonants than in the east. Since the Slavic languages are further to the ide. the eastern part of the linguistic area, therefore there are fewer forms with palatal consonants instead of spirants- .” For what Baltic and Slavic, as well as in other ide. There is no unanimous opinion as to whether Kk, g appeared instead of §, Z or s, z. Most of the type lit. pėkus, sl. *ggse examples were considered "borrowings of Germanic origin" or having changed their phonetic form due to the influence of the Kentum languages*. Since the forms with K, g instead of the expected š, ž (sl. s, z) are quite numerous, considering them as borrowed seems to be inappropriate. For the purposes of this article, 8 Bau is required. B. UBanos, IlpodjneMa s3bik0B centum H satom, BSI, 4, 1958, p. 19; Xerrcknii a3bik, Mocksa, 1963, p. 90. However, some scholars (e.g., H. Kronaser, see his Vergleichende Lautund Formenlehre des Hethitischen, Heidelberg, 1956, p. 229) refer to the words with spirants as het. ašuwa "horse", šuwana (acc. sing.) "dog" and others tend to be considered borrowed from Indo-Iranian languages. * W. Porzig, The Structure of the Indo-European Language Area, p. 74. * E. Zupitza, Zur Gutturalfrage, KZ, 37, 1904, p. 400. ¢ G. Sheveliov thinks differently, see. G. Y. Shevelov, A Prehistory of Slavic, p. 141—145. 7, pp. 7. K. Būga, RR, II, p. 85—86; regarding p. *see horror. K. Brugmann, Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, Berlin and Leipzig, 1922, p. 158. * For example, M. Fasmer (REW, I, p. 324) believes that p. *ząso (cf. lit. goose) sound has been changed due to the influence of Germanic languages, cf. s. height. gans, and E. Frenkelis (Die baltischen Sprachen, p. 15) states that the lit. pėkus, pr. pecku consonant k arose when the old Baltic name of cattle with š (cf. lit. pėsti) crossed with got. faihu “money” (from *peku). 88 hold on debt and maple. It would be unlikely to be true that the Whites, having their own word šleivas, also borrowed maple in exactly the same meaning. The appearance of the Gomuriniy consonants k and g instead of the waiting § and # (Latin, pr. and sl. s and z) other researchers have tended to explain by the dissimulation effect of the adjacent consonants. In the case of Latin, the k and g were replaced by the s. Did E. Frenkel agree with A. Meja's opinion? ?, Similarly thought A. Vajanas'- !, saying that -K',g', g'h in the Baltic and Slavic languages turned k, g when they stood after s or š. Lietuvių kalboje klausytis savo k, A. Vajanas' opinion, got from the construction iš-klausyti. The interpretation of A. Meja and A. Vajan'?® leaves unexplained the quite frequent change of k, g and sh, ž. In the opinion of S. Agrelis and K. Buga? ?, it's going. k" and g', used before r, in Baltic and Slavic languages unturned § and Z resp: s and z, cf. lit. smakras and s. ind. Shmdshru. The word "a" is not a suffix, and the word "a" is not a suffix, so the word "a" is not a suffix. However, it is possible to find Lithuanian forms in which the consonants k and g, although not before r, are in place of the waiting § and ž, cf. lit. akmué ir s. ind. Dshma. + V. Machek is inclined to think? * that palatal palatal consonants could depalatalized before the smooth sonants r, /and before the vowels of the back row (vor dunklen Vokalen). The ir evolution of the Baltic Slavic languages K, g : š, ž resp. s, z still other explorers (A. Briukneris!®, G. Ševeliovas! ", V. Lemanas®® and others) tried to explain the ide. alternance of velar and palatal consonants (k, g, gh: k’, g', g'h). In order to resolve the issue of the appearance of this change of consonants, V. Leman stated the following facts: 1) ide. in languages the articulation of palatal and velar palatal consonants depends on the articulation of the vowels that follow them: the prepalatal palatal consonant has the front of the tongue, e o — the posterior articulation of the tongue, before a ji is neutral, therefore nepalataliné; satam-phenom2) enon manifested in those ide. in dialects that clarified the vowel system; 3) before a ir r never been K", g', gh. Based on these facts, V. Leman concludes that the original ide. the opposition of the palatal consonants of languages k : k“ (resp. g : g“ ir gh :g“h”), the o palatal consonant K, in satem languages that appeared e, before was a positional variant of k the phoneme. Continue V. Leman believes that due to fundamental changes in the vowel system (plg. s. ind. a iš It's going. e, 0, a; let. Here we go. o ir a; s. sl. o He's gone. o ira) a phonematic contrast ir between velar palatal palatal allophones, i.e. * „The Slav uses vélaire la when word le contains a whistle: gosto hostis, gasb : žąsis“, : — A. Meillet, Indo-Iranian. II. 1998-1999 — Three notes on phonetics la of gutturals, MSL, 9, 1896, p. 347. See also A. Meillet, Varia, II. — A about de v. sl. ggss, MSL, 13, 1905 — 1906, p. 243 —245, 19 E. Fraenkel, The Baltic Languages, p. 15. ' A. Vaillant, Comparative Grammar of the Slavic Languages, I, p. 37-38. '* Critical remarks on A. The concepts of Mejés see. M. Vasmer, Contribution to the Slavic Grammar, Meillet's I. Urslavic Sibilantendissimilation Act, ZfsIPh, 2, 1925, p. 54—58. '* S. Agrell, Belarusian Sound studies, Lund, 1919, p. 27; K. Biiga, RR, II, p. 217, 223. 14 Such word pairs are not suitable iš for a single pronoun. Thus, the ir slough, ir the maple will have iš come from separate roots S$(e)l-eikir (e)l-ei-“,— K. Buga, RR, II, p. 221. 15 V. Machek, Zur Representation of the Indo-European Palatal, IF, 53, 1935, p. 89. * A. Brūckner, The Lithuanian Language unit, K Z, 46, 1914, p. 233. 17 G. Y. Shevelov, A Prehistory of Slavic, p. 141—142. '*« W. P. Lehmann, Proto-Indo-European Phonology, Austin, TX 1964, p. 100—101. 2 W. Lehmann, op. cit., p. 101. oo kir k' become phonemes. In this way, V. Leman tries to answer the cardinal question: for what reasons did the allophones k and k' acquire phonematic status??. However, it cannot be said that Leman’s answer to this question is entirely flawless: the above-mentioned interpretation is more appropriate for Indo-Iranian languages, but not for Baltic and Slavic languages, in which the opposition between the front and back vowels (between e and a respectively 0) has been strictly maintained. Because the e and o alternate in the forms of the same root (see the e/o change in the stems of the verb), in the opinion of V. Leman, the change of palatal and velar palatal consonants in the same morpheme has also occurred. Because of the idea. In the linguistic community the change of consonants was not possible, so after kK’ and k became phonemes, either the palatal or the velar consonant had to be generalized. However, it could also be that some forms had a palatal consonant generalized, while others had a velar consonant. This interpretation of the origin of the change of palatal and velar consonants by W. Leman seems to be valid only for the change of consonants at the end of the root (type kre-š-ėti: kre-k-ėti). The change of consonants at the beginning of the word (type sleivas: akmuo) should be interpreted differently. Examples of alternating palatal and spiral consonants can be divided into three groups: 1. The alternating palatal and spiral consonants of the first group of words can be considered as formants: s. ind. ruūšant-: lit. time, lit. krešėti: krėsti, aržoti: argoti, av. barazah-- :s. sl. brego; diagonal: diagonal, pr. massi: s. sl. mogą, šliaūžti: sliaūgti. 2. The second group consists of words whose palatal consonants go before the sonants, but are separated from them by other sounds: kaūkti: shout, kiémas: family, kermušė: slam, lit. herdžius: s. ind. šardhah, lit. kataryti, s.l. category: s. ind. šdtruh, lit. gardas: žardis, lit. goose: sl. *ghost, lit. yellow: yellow, genus: zentas. 3. The third group includes words whose palatal consonants are immediately before the sonants: kl, gl: klausyti: šlovė, kleivas: šleivas, kliūkti: šliaūkti, kliūrti: šliūrti, s. sl. kloniti: s. rus. sloniti, klūbas: šlūbas, liet. gūnglė: pr. gunsix; kr:liet. flavour: s. ind. šmdšru, s. l. swekro: lit. a hat; km: stone: blade; kn, gn: pinch: squeeze; agnūs: acorn; kj (ki) kv —; (ku), gv: kvaūikšti: švaiikšti, s. rus. kvėteo:syčteo, lat. kvitėt: lit. švytėti, pol. star: lit. star, ham: sump, lit. dog:lat. Kuna, lit. pėkus: s. ind. Pdshuh. Based on the words of the latter group, it could be assumed that in the Baltic (and possibly Slavic) languages the palatal k', g' depalatalized before the sonants, i.e. K’l(g’l), kr, km, k’nir k’v(k’u) became kl(gl), kr, km, kn and kv(ku)® Before r it will certainly be depalatalized, because Lithuanian language does not have the compounds *š7-, *žr-(ne20 J. Kurytowicz, On the Methods of Internal Reconstruction,,,- Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists“, London, 1964, p. 9-36. * Plg, C. Kapanwnac, Įlpesnehmne oTHOWeHNs ČaJITHHCKHX H CJIABSHCKHX SI3bIKOB, p. 8. 90 reading, of course, borrowed). It would be logical to assume that palatal palatal consonants hardened also against other sonants — against /, m, n, and also against j, v. A structural analogy to this conclusion would be the fate of s after K, r, i, u: the consonant s did not turn to sh, it seems, also in the position against sonants (see p. 84 of this work). However, the assumption that palatal palatal consonants depalatalized before the sonants is contradicted by many Lithuanian words with §l-, žI-, šm-, žm-, šn-, žn-, šv-, žyat the beginning of the word. However, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that most of these words can be suspected to be of onomatopoeic origin, cf., for example, those that begin with the combinations šŠšn-, žn-: šnairėti|šnerėti, šnarkšti|šnerkšti, šnarpšti|šnerpšti, šnekėti, Snérvés, šnyūkšti, šnyūkti, šnookšti, šnidti, šnypšti, šnirkštilšnyūkšti, šniukštinėti, šniūrti, Snopsti; žnaibyti, žnairūs, Znekséti, žnidugti, žniaūkti, žnybti, žniūgti. Thus, the change itself (§/-: kl-, šm-: kmir, etc.) could also have arisen from the onomatopoeic origin of many of the words containing it. Furthermore, K. Böge's opinion that not all these variants with a palatal and a spirant consonant can be derived from one root may be correct: a variant with a palatal consonant may have been derived from one root, and a variant with a whistling consonant from another. iš From the assumption that palatal consonants depalatalized before the sonants (if it proves to be true in the future), some conclusions could be drawn. In the Baltic language community, even before the abilitation of palatal consonants, alongside forms of normal vowel change degree (e.g., *k'eu-|*k'ouir *g'er-|g'or-), where the development of the palatal consonants immediately before e and o had to be regular (i.e. they had to become šir plg. ž, šau-kti ir žai-dis), there were forms of zero degree of vowel change (e.g., *k'uir *g'r-). In the latter forms, the palatal consonants, which were immediately before u and r, could be depalatalized, i.e. *Ku-ir *gr-—kuir *gr-(cf. kū-kti, kii-kti; with *gr there are no examples). In this way, the alternance of palataliniy (> stbiliant) and veliary consonants could occur in the forms of one root. Later generalizations of k and g could be found before e and 0, and šir ž — before i and u. Thus, duplicates with the same or similar meaning could appear (cf. šaukti: kaūkti, šūkti: kūkti), and sometimes with some semantic differentiation (cf. žardis: gardas). Thus, the palatal consonants of the words akmué and agnūs may have been depalatalized before the m, n, o The words ashmud aZnas ir whistling consonants will have been positioned before the iš vowel, where palatal consonants could normally have been assibilized. Since the origin of the consonant changes § and k (respectively ž and g) is very unclear, no conclusions can be drawn about the earliest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages. The abilitation of palatal palatal consonants itself occurred in Baltic, Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages. This circumstance neutralizes the relevance of this phenomenon to the question of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages. However, the abilitation of palatal consonants, which was structurally associated with consonant su s po K, r, i, u (see section 4.4). 86), suggests that during these changes the Baltics, Slavs and Indo-Iranian dialects maintained linguistic and territorial contacts. On the other hand, the different details of these changes indicate that at that time the dialect groups were already autonomous linguistic units. Palatal consonants were assimilated in Baltic languages before the contact with the Baltic Ugro-Finnic ir languages (their Baltic origin borrowA ed appeared iš § ir 2). 91 Some of the commonalities of the Baltic and Slavic languages are archaisms, others are innovations of the Baltic and Slavic languages, and still others are similar to other languages. familiar innovations in languages. Such common phenomena of the morphology of Baltic and Slavic languages as noun inflection, suffixes *-esti-|*-osti- -, *-lo-, *-er-|*-or-, atematiniy and thematic verbs inflection (*-mi, *-si, *-ti, *-0, *-ėi,-) and others are inherited from ide. linguistic community and therefore are considered archaisms. In some cases, adjectives may also be archaic. He's coming. change of s after K, r, i, u (Baltic š, Slavic ch) and ide. The transformation of palatal k', g', g'h into Baltic š, ž, Slavic s, z are new forms, familiar to other ide. language groups (Indo-Iranian). In addition, there is evidence to suggest that these phenomena occurred in each language group separately. In addition to the phenomena found in other ide. in languages, also belongs the baritone of long root nouns (Hirt's law) and the singular genitive ending of o-stem nouns *-4.: Finally, the innovations of the Baltic and Slavic languages themselves are not equal. He's coming. The change of the diphthong eu and the de Sosiūro-Fortunatov law are undoubted innovations of the Baltic and Slavic languages. However, they appeared in parallel in the Baltic and Slavic languages, moreover, rather late and in different circumstances. The innovations of the Baltic and Slavic languages, whose conditions of emergence and final result were completely identical, are as follows: 1) ide. transformation of syllable sonants R iR and uR; 2) formation of the opposition of intonations “acute: circumflex”; 3) the appearance of some noun forms (e.g. *-ėjo-, *-taio-). These innovations of the Baltic and Slavic languages make it necessary to recognize a certain epoch of active 'contacts, communication, in other words, an epoch of communion between the Baltic and Slavic languages. The question arises when this Baltic and Slavic language community (respectively contact epoch) could have existed. The archaeologists are of the opinion that the representatives of the battle axes and string pottery cultures may have been Balts, Slavs and Germanic tribes." It seems to be supported by linguistic data. Such innovations of the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages as the common ending -m of some plural syllables (cf. lit. rafikoms, s. sl. rąkam*, got. gibom), the name of the numerals "thousands" (cf. lit. tūkstantis, pr. tūsimtons (acc. pl.), s. sl. Shut up, shut up, got it. būsundi), common name of gold (cf. lat. zėlts, s. sl. zloto, got. gulp), common verb for denoting control (cf. liet. valdyti, s. sl. Government, got it. waldan) and a number of other common lexical parallelisms, suggest that the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages had a very close relationship in the past, that these languages have survived the era of communion (respectively contact). Contacts between the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages must have existed at the time when the conjugation system of these languages was formed, the concept of a thousand appeared, the first signs of authority were 1 M. Gimbutas, The Balts, London, 1963, p. 43; A. fl. Bpiocos, O6 skcnaHcHH,,KVJIbTyp c¢ 60eBbiMH TOrnopaMH“ B Kouue III Teicsuenetnst jo H. 5., CA, 3, 1961, p. 14-33, BocTouxas Epona B III Thicauenetun jo H. 3. (dTHoreHeruuecknii ouepk), CA, 2, 1965, p. 47-56; IT. H. Tperbakos, ®unHo-yrpel, 6antel u caassive Ha uenpe un Boare, M.—JI., 1966, p. 69-73. * W. Porzig, The Structure of the Indo-European Language Area, p. 140—143. 92 : ia ta with metals (see also the name of silver borrowed from a common source, but separately by each linguistic group: lit. sidūbras, rus. cepe6po, got. silubr). All this shows the archaic nature of the contacts between the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages and does not contradict their dating to the 3rd millennium BC. That's how it goes. The dialects of the northern area, from which later the Balts, Slavs, Germans and others emerged, may have had a vowel system consisting of five short (i, u, e, o, a) and long (i, i, é, 0, a) vowels, whole syllable sonants R, a three-row consonant system (bh —b —p, dh —d —t, etc.), oppositions of the palatal consonants k“ —k, g* —g and laryngeal consonants not yet pronounced in certain positions. It must be stated that it is still unclear whether there was an opposition between the short vowels o and a, since the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages never distinguished between these two vowels. The dialectical union of the Balts, Slavs and Germans will have .free phonetic accent. Well, it's gone. The dialects of the northern area were characterized by a unified phonological pattern, between the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic dialects already existed old and formed new (especially in morphology) structural differences. This statement is perhaps supported by the fact that the Baltic and Slavic languages have different degrees of affinity with the Germanic languages: Baltic and Germanic languages are linked by more isoglosses than Slavic and Germanic languages. In the Baltic and Germanic languages, such innovations as the numerals "first" (cf. lit. pirmas, got. fruma, s. English form with suffix *-mo-; Slavic languages here have suffix *wo-, plg. s. sl. prove, s. ind. piirvah), "eleven", "twelve" (cf. lit. vienuolika, dvy-lika, got. ain-lif, twa-lif, s. vok. height. ein-lif, zwei-lif, where the second component is associated with ide. The construction of the verbs by the root */eig“ -,,(leave)‘- ‘, the same first and second person plural of pronouns (cf. lit. žem. vėdu, got. wit< *ue-dyuo; lit. júdu, got. jut < *iu-duo), common constructions for nature phenomena (cf. lit. sniėgas drimba, lat. sniėgs drébj, s. isl. drifr snaer) and the abundant vocabulary commonality (cf., for example, the verb signifying movement lit. žefigia and s. English gengan)*, show that the Baltic and Germanic dialects were immediately bordering and that their contacts were active and long-lasting. These remarkable innovations of the Baltic and Germanic languages suggest that there was even a Baltic and Germanic linguistic community. within the framework of the northern range dialects. In the Baltic and Germanic languages the numerals “first”, “eleven” and “twelve” have been formed, the common lexicon of the Baltic and Germanic languages denotes primitive living conditions, there is no social terminology in these languages?, —all this shows that the Baltic and Germanic language communities are very archaic and that their contacts, possibly objects, are older than the contacts of the Baltic, Slavic and Germanic languages. This assumption is reinforced by the fact that the innovations in the Baltic and Germanic languages occurred before the palatalization and asibiliation of the palatal consonants (see for example the above-mentioned Lithuanian žefigia and English gengan). The relationship between Slavic and Germanic languages is not characterized by such a wealth of innovations: these languages have in common mainly lexical innovations®. * For more recent works see W. Porzig, Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebietes, p. 145—147; H. C. Yemonanos, K Bonpocy o repMaKHo-GaJiTHACKHX S3bIKOBBIX CBSA3SX, „Bonpocti repmanckoro si3biKO3HaHHS“, 1961, p. 68—87; CpanBuureJibuas: rpamMmaTHKa repMaHCKHX S3bIKOB, I, p. 70-79. 4 CpaBHuTeNbHAS TpaMMaTHKA TEepMAHCKHX S35IKOB, I, p. 78-79. * W. Porzig, Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebietes, p. 143—145; CpaBHnTeJ/ibHasi TpaMMaTHKA TepMaHCKHX AI35IKOB, I, p. 79—81; O. H. Tpy6aues, Pemecaennas TepMHHOJIOTHS B CJIABSHCKHX si3bIKAX, M., 1966. 93 The analysis of the Balto-Germanic, ir Slavo-Germanic and Balto-Slavo-Germanic isoglosses seems to lead to the conclusion that the Balto-Slavic languages probably originated from different ide. ir iš dialects of the northern area of the linguistic community. Iš 100 mg/ day "Baltic" dialects could maintain closer contacts su Germanic dialects. In the case where the ir Baltic Slavic languages had iš originated from one ide. the northern area dialect of the linguistic community, then the Baltic-Germanic isoglosses probably would not have arisen: they would cover the Slavic language area. ir | ‘Baltų’ ir The rapprochement of the “Slavic” dialects could have begun with the Baltic-Slavic-Germanic (resp. contact). Be isoglosses, covering the area of all three dialect groups, due to mutual boundaries and contacts, separate Balto-Slavic isoglosses may have arisen. ir It is quite possible that the Baltic-Slavic-Germanic communities (resp. contact) the anaphoric-demonstrative pronoun was used more ir frequently in the Balto-Slavic dialects alongside the adjectives, the transformation of some elements of the Indo-European morphological system began (,,Balticization* ir “slavization”), the first Baltic-Slavic lexical commonality appeared. Some distinct features of the Baltic Slavic languages, such as the Baltic ir sigmatic future and the Slavic sigmatic aorist, may have developed at this time. o — In su connection with ir the migration of fighting axes string pottery cultures 3rd millennium BC. m. e. at the end of ir II millennium BC m. e. early Baltic, slavų ir Germanic language community that existed i.e. linguistic community in the northern area, collapsed. This is the beginning of a new ir era of Baltic Slavic relations. II millennium BC m. e. in the first half of the ir 20th century, the Balto-Slavic dialects seem to have survived an era of particularly close contacts. Although according to archaeological data, the White Slavs ir occupied large areas of the northeast ir In Europe, it must be acknowledged that at that time the dialects of the Baltic ir Slavs converged considerably. That II millennium p. m. e. The contact between the Balto-Slavic ir dialects could have been particularly close in the late Bronze Age, shown only by the ne aforementioned innovations ir of the Balto-Slavic languages, which most likely occurred at that time, ir but also by the relations between the ir Balto-Slavic and Slavic languages in the Indo-Iranian su languages. Such isoglosses of Baltic, ir Slavic Indo-Iranian languages as the originator of the singular of personal pronouns (plg. let. intestine. mane, sl. s. Me, av. mana), pronoun * its use in nouns, i.e. su consonant s po k, r, i, u The change, the abilitation of palatal consonants ir of the abundant community of the Dictionary*, suggests that in the past the territories ir of the Baltic, Slavic Indo-Iranian dialects ir bounded these dialects maintained some contacts. These contacts are dated to the millennium BC. II m. e. the first half". There is no doubt that the contacts of ir the Baltic, Slavic Indo-Iranian languages are several centuries later than those of the Baltic, Slavic Germanic ir languages. In order to answer the ir question of the earliest relations of the Baltic Slavic languages, it is important to note that the closeness of the Baltic ir Indo-Iranian languages is almost the same as that of the Slavic Indo-Iranian languages, in other ir words, the Baltic Slavic languages are equally distant from the ir Indo-Iranian languages. This fact seems to indicate that the millennium II pr. m. e. in the first half (i.e. approximately between 2000—1500 m. pr. m. (e) bal6 H. Arntz, Linguistics Relationships between Aryan and Balto-Slavic languages; W. Porzig, Die Subdivision of Indo-European Language area, p. 164—169. 7 W. Porzig, op. cit., p. 169. 8 W. Porzig, op. cit., p. 169. 94 , their dialects converged with the Slavic dialects. The following changes could have occurred in the Baltic and Slavic dialect systems at that time: elimination of the opposition of the sharp and sharp aspirated consonants (b: bh>b, etc.); syllable sonates become R iR ir uR; opposition of intonations is formed (,,akiit cirkumfleksas®); Some new : suffixes appear (e.g. *-éjoir *-tajo-); "Assimiliated palatal consonants k', (lit. g’ §, Z; sl. s, 2); Changed idea. s po K, r, i, u (lit. š, sl. (ch). Some of these phenomena (gomuriniy consonant asibiliatsiya, ide. s The ir morphological changes (e.g., laryngeal dropping) were common to the Baltic, Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages, so they must have occurred at the time when the three dialect groups were in contact, i.e., in the 2nd millennium BC. m. e. in the first half. He's coming. s po Kk, r, i, u ir The change of palatal consonants, which probably occurred separately in the Baltic, ir Slavic Indo-Iranian dialects, confirms the implicit idea that at that time there already existed autonomous ide. dialects. Be common Baltic, Slavic Indo-Iranian ir isoglosses, of course, at the time (2nd millennium BC). m. e. In the first half of the 20th century, separate isoglosses ir of the Baltic Slavic languages were ir supposed to have emerged, ir which were mentioned in the context of the Baltic Slavic language community — the change of syllable sonates, the emergence of new constructive morphemes and lexicons, and the opposition of intonation, apparently due to the disappearance of laryngeals. The time of the ir introduction of these innovations in the Baltic Slavic languages is unknown. We do not have any data that would help to determine exactly when, for example, such Baltic Slavic suffixes ir as *-ėjo-, *-tajo-. For the to question arises why these baltų ir The time of the advent of innovations in Slavic languages is nevertheless dated to the II millennium BC. m. e. the first half. For example, when asserting ir that the opposition of sharp sharp aspirated consonants was ir eliminated by the intonations that arose due to the fall of the larynx, the elimination of the opposition of the said ir consonants, the simultaneity of the appearance of intonations and the demise of the larynx becomes particularly obvious. Iš The intonations R of syllable iR ir uR sonates that appeared during the formation of intonations were already treated as diphthongs, so it is to be assumed that syllable sonates changed before the intonations appeared. This means that all of these phenomena will have occurred approximately at the same time or immediately po after each other. Since the ir change of syllable sonates, the origin of ir intonation, the formation of ir the functional morphemes *-ėjo-, *-tūjos were new developments of the Baltic Slavic ir languages, it is possible to assume that they have appeared at about the same time. Since the reasons for the ir emergence of the innovations in the above-mentioned Baltic Slavic ir languages and the conditions for the final ir results were identical in the Baltic Slavic languages, it is to be assumed that those innovations arose when the Baltic ir Slavic language contacts ir were at their most active. The fact that when it goes. s po Kk, r, i, u during the ir asibiliation of palatal consonants, the Baltic, Slavic Indo-Iranian ir dialects maintained some contacts, as well as almost o identical tų ir The degree of Slavic affinity to Indo-Iranian languages shows the most active closest relations of the ir Balto-Slavic dialects during the millennium ir BC. II m. e. in the first half. Thus, the emergence ir of innovations in the Baltic Slavic languages may 95