Knyga apie rytinių slavų kalbų susidarymą

O. M. O uann, ObpasoBanne f35IKa BOCcTOUKbIX C/taBsK, MockBa—Jlennarpan, 1962. 294p. Although Filin's book is intended to shed light on the stages of the history of the Slavic languages, especially the eastern ones, it also touches on the Baltic languages in many places. The question of the formation of the Slavic protolanguage is closely related to the question of the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages. For this reason, F. Filinas gives more space to the contacts between Baltic-Slavic languages (p. 123—130). It is well known that the Baltic languages are closest to the Slavic languages. F. Filin points out that diametrically opposing hypotheses have been raised on the origin and nature of this closeness (with this word he apparently refers to specific communities of Baltic and Slavic languages, i.e., such communities that are foreign to other groups of Indo-European languages). Such wide differences of opinion, he understands, are due to the fact that linguistics does not yet have an objective criterion for determining the degree of language affiliation. Therefore, there may be subjectivism in the interpretation of linguistic relationships. The idea of F. Filin that such an objective criterion does not exist for two reasons is particularly important: first, comparative phenomena as elements of the linguistic system are not yet well studied; secondly, the relative chronology of unknown phenomena. F. Filin is categorically opposed to the concept of a Baltic-Slavic protolanguage, which, in his opinion, has no solid scientific basis. In his view, the fact that the proponents of this concept cannot reconstruct the Balto-Slavic protolanguage is instructive; in research practice they are familiar with Slavic and Indo-European proto-languages. F. Filin is right when he says that the theoretical deductions of the proponents of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage hypothesis are characterized by bias in the selection and interpretation of facts, apriorism and antihistorism. As an example of such antihistorism and disregard for the chronology of phenomena, he points to the statement defended by V. Georgiev that Lithuanian, which is characterized by phonetic and morphological conservatism, is almost capable of replacing the common Slavic protolanguage not recorded in writings. The above-mentioned shortcomings of the method of the proponents of the Balto-Slavic proto-language hypothesis are particularly clearly seen in the fact that they cannot agree on the existence of the proto-language and the time of its splitting. The French Slavist A. Vayan believes that in the time of Tacitus and Ptolemy, the Balts and Slavs still spoke one language, which split in the first centuries of our era, when the Balto-Slavs were invaded by Germanic tribes (Goths and Hepides). J. Safarevičius suggests that the split of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage was caused by the influx of Iranian tribes (Scyths — from the 7th century BC, Sarmatians — from the 3rd to the 4th century BC). T. Ler-Splavinskis dates the split of the Balto-Slavic proto-language to the Zila antiquity, about 1500–1300 BC. V. Georgiev claims that the Balto-Slavic proto-language existed in the 3rd millennium BC and split already in the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. ! In the Lithuanian language literature it has already been written about it, see. K. Korsakas, Comparative Linguistics and the Challenges of Soviet Lithuanian Philology, Issues of Lithuanian Linguistics, vol. 6, Vilnius, p. 5—20. 240 F. Filin disagrees ir with the opposite view, mostly defended A. It is a Slavic language ir of the Baltic iš languages. linguistic community separated independently of each other that closer contact ir between jų nė not occurring, Paties F. Filin's approach į to the oldest ir relations of the Belarusian Slavs is not new. The author believes that there is still ide. a group of dialects formed within the framework of linguistic commonality, whose speakers had a relatively close ir long-term contact. They are not isolated from the other dialects. dialects, enriched with special innovations ir having many common changes. That's it. The Proto-Baltic languages ir were the ancestors of the Proto-Slavic languages. After the idea. Proto-Baltic Proto-Slavic languages, whose ir systems, while not identical, have remained similar to the present day. Iš to F. Filin concludes that contact between the Baltic Slavic languages has ir existed at small intervals su throughout the history of the languages, otherwise their bith tų would have lost their linguistic commonality. ir (resp. Belarusian innovations). Such a concept of the ir linguistic relations of the ancient Baltic Slavs, in our opinion, is easy to ir understand; ji sufficiently explains the occurrence of ir isoglosses crossing the range of Baltic Slavic languages. Disputed F. Filin's claim that the closeness of the ir Baltic Slavic languages (resp. Belarusian innovations) indicate close contact between the ancient Belarusian Slavs in the last centuries of the ir ancient era and the first centuries of our era, because ir there are too obvious phonetic, morphological, lexical language innovations. ir tų It seems that these innovations would have survived to our days if the contact between the Balto-Slavic languages had been completely ir interrupted at the turn of the ages, because the Balto-Slavic innovations, at least in terms of their impulse of emergence, are, apparently, the ir consequences of many earlier epochs, which were more or less closely connected. ir F. Filin needed it so that, relying on it, he could determine the ancestry of the Slavs. Kad The Pripyat river basin may have iš been a region of active contact ir between vų the Balts and the Slavs before the Slavic expansion to the north-nortį heast, as ir evidenced by the Balt-Slavic toponymy found there. ir As a positive feature, the author's criticism should be noted. But sometimes it turns into denial. After presenting the hypotheses of the Slavic origin of the ethnologinė st, the author ir does not find one reliable and rejects to them all, while he does not attempt to explain the matter himself. In our opinion, the author is probably mistaken in claiming that ‘in Slovenian kildjenje iš Slova or any other similar iš place name is a priori unprovable’ ir (p. 56). Production in Slovenia iš Words (plg. polab Zlowe, vok. Schlawe, Kashubian Slow-no) from the vy point of view of sladerivation is quite possible, cf. poliane: field, gorožane: gorod, seliane: selo?. This is the closest relative of the Slavic ir languages. — The analogy of the Baltic languages may explain somewhat the origin ir of the Slavic etymology. In Lithuanian language suffix -énas is quite widely used to indicate the origin of the local population, e.g. 3 Plg. K. Bouga, Selected Writings, III, Vilnius, 1961. p. 714. 16, Morphological structure of ir Lithuanian language its development 941 Lit. bognas (p. 122) bogna, bagna, bagma "Moor, Sumpi" is also a Slavism, cf. sl. *bathroom. Lit. *aornas (p. 145) probably a proofreading error instead of (j)évaras, (j)évaras (see lit. javaras, javoras) „Platane, Schwarzpappel“, which is a Germanism (see s. german. high. ahorn), which came through the Slavs (see Belarusian. javor and Polish. jawor,,Ahorn*)®. The Lithuanian carriage, strange, hot “Sarg” (p. 172) through the Slavic languages (cf. Russian korsta, kersta, Belarusian korsta) came from the Ugric-Finnic languages (cf. Estonian kirst and Finnish kirstu “Kasten- ”). Lithuanian karpa, kdrpé, karpis, karpas "Cyprinus carpio" (p. 116) are probably Slavisms (see Polish karp "Karpien- "). Lit. miduos (p. 93) "Met, Honigwein" is considered Germanic (cf. Goth. *midus, s. German. high. time) alongside the Baltic medūs. There are incorrectly spelled and spelled Lithuanian words: tūksantis, trydésimtys (p. 38), miésa'® (p. 93), mūsos (p. 102), spidu (p. 105), taūkas, kaati (p. 107), zirnis (p. 113), kumėlė (p. 114). It can be written and pronounced: tūkstantis, trys dėžtys or trisdešimt, mésa (acc. sg. mėsą), mūsų (gen. pl. musū) or mūsas, mūsų, mūsų, spiduju, taukas, kdutis, pernis, kumėlė. In certain cases, the spelling of the Lithuanian examples should be modernized, for example, instead of aszwa, š (p. 93) should be written ašva, šuo. Also, it seems, we do not have the right to read the Prussian name of the fish suckis (Elbing dictionary, 560) as žūkis (p. 133). The linguistic work of F. Filin gives a clear picture of the formation, development, division and emergence of the Slavic protolanguage and of the separate Slavic (Eastern) languages. It also highlights the prehistoric relationships of Slavic languages with other linguistic units (e.g., Baltic). F. Filin’s book, written in a popular way, is accessible not only to the specialist reader. Lithuanian linguists should also think about a similar work, which would popularize the history of the Baltic languages, the origin and development of the Lithuanian language, and its relations with other languages. The King's 9. E. Fraenkel, Lithuanian etymological dictionary, Heidelberg-Gėttingen, p. 195. 10 See. K. Būga, Selected Writings, II, Vilnius, 1959, p. 710.