A BOOK ON THE FORMATION OF THE EAST SLAVIC LANGUAGES

Ф. М. Филин, Образование языка восточных славян, Москва—Ленинград, 1962. 294р.

Although F. Filin’s book¹ is devoted to illuminating the historical stages of the Slavic languages, especially the East Slavic ones, it also touches on the Baltic languages in many places. The question of the formation of Proto-Slavic is closely connected with the problem of the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages. For this reason, F. Filin devotes more space to contacts between the Baltic and Slavic languages (pp. 123–130).

It is well known that the Baltic languages are the closest relatives of the Slavic languages. F. Filin notes that diametrically opposed hypotheses have been put forward concerning the origin and nature of this closeness (by this word he apparently means the specific common features of the Baltic and Slavic languages, that is, features alien to other Indo-European language groups). In his view, such major differences of opinion arise because linguistics still lacks an objective criterion for determining the degree of kinship between languages. Consequently, subjectivity may enter into explanations of linguistic-genetic relationships. F. Filin’s observation that there is no such objective criterion for two reasons is particularly noteworthy: first, comparative phenomena, as elements of linguistic systems, have not yet been adequately studied; second, the relative chronology of these phenomena is unknown.

F. Filin has categorically opposed the concept of a Balto-Slavic proto-language, which, in his opinion, has no firm scientific basis. In his view, it is instructive that proponents of this concept cannot reconstruct a Balto-Slavic proto-language; in their research practice, they make do with Proto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-European.

F. Filin is right in saying that the theoretical arguments of proponents of the Balto-Slavic proto-language hypothesis are characterized by bias in the selection and interpretation of facts, apriorism, and antihistoricism. As an example of such antihistoricism and disregard for the chronology of phenomena, he cites V. Georgiyev’s claim that Lithuanian, characterized by conservative phonetics and morphology, could almost serve as a substitute for the unattested common Proto-Slavic. The methodological shortcomings of the proponents of the Balto-Slavic proto-language hypothesis are especially clear from their inability to agree on when the proto-language existed and split up. The French Slavist A. Vaillant believes that in the time of Tacitus and Ptolemy the Balts and Slavs still spoke a single language, which split up in the first centuries of our era, when Germanic tribes (the Goths and Gepids) flooded into the territory of the Balts and Slavs. J. Safarewicz supposes that the split of the Balto-Slavic proto-language was caused by an influx of Iranian tribes (the Scythians from the seventh century BC, the Sarmatians from the third–fourth centuries BC). T. Ler-Splavinski places the split of the Balto-Slavic proto-language in the distant past, around 1500–1300 BC. V. Georgiyev maintains that the Balto-Slavic proto-language existed in the third millennium BC and had already split up at the beginning of the second millennium BC.

¹ This subject had already been discussed in Lithuanian linguistic literature; see K. Korsakas, “Comparative Linguistics and the Tasks of Soviet Lithuanian Philology,” *Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai*, vol. 6, Vilnius, pp. 5–20.

240

F. Filin also rejects the opposing view, advocated chiefly by A. Zeno, that the Baltic and Slavic languages separated from the Indo-European linguistic community independently of one another and that there had been no closer contact between them.

F. Filin’s own view of the oldest relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages is not new. The author believes that, still within the framework of the Indo-European linguistic community, a group of dialects took shape whose speakers had fairly close and long-lasting contact. These related dialects, while not isolated from other Indo-European dialects, became enriched with distinctive innovations and underwent many changes in common. The ancestors of the Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic languages belonged to this group of Indo-European dialects. After the dissolution of the Indo-European linguistic community, the Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic languages separated; although their systems were not identical, they remained similar down to our own day. From this, F. Filin concludes that contact between the Baltic and Slavic languages continued, with brief interruptions, throughout their history, since otherwise they would have had to lose their linguistic commonality (i.e., their Balto-Slavic innovations). In our view, this conception of the ancient linguistic relations between the Balts and Slavs is simple and comprehensible; it adequately explains the emergence of isoglosses crossing the area of the Baltic and Slavic languages.

F. Filin’s claim that the closeness of the Baltic and Slavic languages (i.e., the Balto-Slavic innovations) indicates close contact between the ancient Balts and Slavs in the last centuries of the pre-Christian era and the first centuries of our era is debatable, since, he maintains, the innovations in the phonetics, morphology, and lexicon of these languages are too evident. It seems that these innovations would have survived to the present day even if contact between the Baltic and Slavic languages had ceased entirely around the turn of the eras, because the Balto-Slavic innovations, at least in terms of the impetus behind their emergence, are apparently the result of much earlier periods. F. Filin needed the claim of close contact between the Baltic and Slavic languages around the turn of the eras so that he could use it to determine the Slavic homeland. The Baltic and Slavic toponymy found there indicates that the Pripyat River basin could indeed have been an area of active contact between Baltic and Slavic tribes before the Slavic expansion to the north and northeast began.

The author’s critical approach should be noted as a positive feature. Sometimes, however, it turns into outright rejection. For example, after presenting hypotheses about the origin of the ethnonym slovėne, the author finds none reliable and rejects them all, while making no attempt to explain the matter himself. In our opinion, the author is probably mistaken in asserting that “the derivation of slovėne from Slova or from some other similar place-name is aprioristic and unprovable” (p. 56). The formation of Slovėne from Slova (cf. Polabian Zlowe, German Schlawe, Kashubian Slow-no) is entirely possible from the perspective of Slavic derivation; cf. poliane: pole, gorozane: gorod, seliane: selo². The closest relatives of the Slavic languages, the Baltic languages, also have this type of derivation. Analogies in the Baltic languages may also help to explain the origin of the aforementioned Slavic ethnonym. In Lithuanian, the suffix -ėnas is widely used to indicate the origin of local inhabitants, for example, žmo-

² Plg. K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, III, Vilnius, 1961. d. 714.

16. Lietuvių kalbos morfologinė sandara ir jos raida

241

Those living by the rivers Gāmē and Nōtē began to be called gamēnai and notēnai. Proper names later arose from those common nouns as well: Gamėnai, Notėnai³. It is interesting that the Slavic toponym Slova has a counterpart in the Baltic languages; cf. Lithuanian Slavė (a left tributary of the Šventoji; Anykščiai, Slavėnai village). Just as the inhabitants of the banks of the Slavė were called slavėnai (whence the village name Slavėnai later arose), so likewise the inhabitants of Slova may have been called slov-ėnė⁴. Incidentally, the root *k’lotu-/*k’leu- is quite widespread in Lithuanian toponymy⁵.

It is also difficult to believe F. Filin’s claim that the ethnonym antai derives from the Turkic languages (p. 61). Moreover, it is hardly possible to agree with the author that Slavic–Indo-Iranian contacts, which gave those languages a considerable number of shared isoglosses, began only in the mid-first millennium BCE, when the Scythians and Sarmatians moved into the steppes of southern Russia (p. 139). It seems to us that those contacts may be much older. Otherwise, the shared isoglosses of those languages would not have extended across the area of Old Indian.

Some of the claims made in the book are already outdated and have been rejected by more recent research—for example, the classification of the Curonians as a Baltic Finnic tribe⁶ (p. 130), and the assertion that direct Baltic–Iranian linguistic ties are supposedly unobservable⁷ (p. 142).

We will point out one or two minor inaccuracies in the Baltic (mostly Lithuanian) material. The author considers the word krėvs (p. 62) Lithuanian. However, according to the information available to us, neither Lithuanians nor Latvians have this form of the word. Latvian has only krieūs ‘Russian’. K. Būga used the words krėvis, kriēvas to refer to Russians. The forms krēvis ‘Russian’ and krieviai ‘East Slavic tribes’ are known from the writings of S. Daukantas and are probably his coinages⁸. None of the aforementioned forms is known in Lithuanian, so it is better not to rely on them.

F. Filin considers some loanwords to be old Lithuanian (Baltic) words. Here are a few examples of this kind:

Lithuanian aduos, adua ‘barely’ (p. 198) is a Slavicism; cf. Russian odua, Belarusian odua (just like ledua from Russian ledua, Polish ledwo).

³ Plg. Pr. Skardžius, Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba, Vilnius, 1943, p. 238; Ю. Бальчиконис, Названия литовских населенных пунктов от названий рек и озер, „Lingua Posnaniensis“, t. 7, Poznań, 1959, p. 248 tt.

⁴ Cf. J. Otrębski, Die Herkunft der Bezeichnung slovėne „Lingua Posnaniensis“, vol. 7, p. 263 ff.

⁵ Plg. Lietuvos TSR upių ir ežerų vardynas, Vilnius, 1963, p. 166 tt.

⁶ For the Curonian language as a Baltic language, see J. Endzelin, Über die Nationalität und Sprache der Kuren, „Finnischugrische Forschungen“, vol. 12, 1912, pp. 59—72; Zu den kurischen Bestandteilen des Lettischen, „Indogermanische Forschungen“, vol. 33, 1913, pp. 96—104; V. Kiparsky, Die Kurenfrage, „Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae“, vol. 42, 1939; K. Būga, Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Kaunas, 1924, p. LXXXIX-CXXXIII (= K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, III, Vilnius, 1961, pp. 156—251, with literature on the subject); E. Fraenkel, Die baltischen Sprachen, Heidelberg, 1950, pp. 60—62.

⁷ For Baltic–Iranian language contacts, see B. H. Топоров, О. Н. Трубачев, Лингвистический анализ гидронимов Верхнего Поднепровья, Москва, 1962, p. 231 and the literature cited there.

⁸ Plg. Lietuvių kalbos žodynas, VI, Vilnius, 1962, p. 558, 576.

242

Lith. bōgnas (p. 122) bognà, bagnà, bagmà ‘Moor, Sumpf’ is also a Slavicism; cf. Slav. *bagno.

Lith. *aornas (p. 145) is most likely a typographical error for (i)ōvaras, (i)ōvaras (Old Lith. jāvaras, jāvoras) ‘Platane, Schwarzpappel’, which is a Germanism (cf. OHG āhorn), borrowed through Slavic (cf. Belarusian javor and Polish jawor ‘Ahorn’)⁹.

Lith. karštas, kerštas, karštas ‘Sarg’ (p. 172) came from the Finno-Ugric languages via Slavic languages (cf. Russian korsta, kerstā, Belarusian korsta; cf. Estonian kirst and Finnish kirstu ‘Kasten’).

Lith. kárpa, kárpė, kárpis, karpas ‘Cyprinus carpio’ (p. 116) are most likely Slavicisms (cf. Polish karp ‘Karpfen’).

Lith. midùs (p. 93) ‘Met. Honigwein’ should be considered a Germanism (cf. Gothic *midus, OHG metu), alongside the Baltic word medùs.

Some Lithuanian words are inaccurately written and accented: tūksantis, trūdėsintys (p. 38), miesą (p. 93), mūsos (p. 102), spiau (p. 105), taūkas, káūti (p. 107), žirnis (p. 113), kumėlė (p. 114). The forms should be written and accented as follows: tūkstantis, trys dešimtys or trisdešimt, mėsą (acc. sg. mėsą), mūsos (gen. pl. musų) or māsas, mūsai, mūsai, spiaujų, tāūkas, káūti, žirnis, kumėlė. In certain instances the spelling of the Lithuanian examples given should be modernized; for example, aszwa, š (p. 93) should be written ašū, šuō. Also, it seems, we have no right to read the Prussian fish name suckis (Elbing Vocabulary, 560) as žūlis (p. 133).

F. Filin’s work under discussion presents a clear picture of the formation and development of the Proto-Slavic language, its breakup, and the emergence of the individual (Eastern) Slavic languages. It also sheds light on the prehistoric relationships between the Slavic languages and other linguistic groups (e.g., Baltic). Written in an accessible style, F. Filin’s book is available not only to specialist readers. Lithuanian linguists, too, would do well to consider producing a similar work that would offer an accessible account of the historical stages of the Baltic languages, the origin and development of the Lithuanian language, and its relationships with other languages.

S. Karaliūnas

⁹ Cf. E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg-Göttingen, p. 195.

¹⁰ Žr. K. Būga, Rinktiniai raštai, II, Vilnius, 1959, p. 710.

16*