Pastabos baltų ir slavų kalbų seniausių santykių klausimu

IN LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS KLAUS LM AL, II LITHUANIA TSR SCIENCE AKADEMI JIA REMARKS BALTIC IR SLAVOV LANGUAGES OLDEST THE QUESTION OF RELATIONSHIP V. MAZIULIS If 19th-century Indo-European language studies (A. "Sleicheris, jaunagramatikiai kt.". ir fairly unanimously held the hypothesis of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage [which was born ne of something other than A. Schleicher's language Theory of the Family Tree (Stammbaumtheorie)], but later there were different opinions. to ir One of the most famous of the time Russian linguists J. Boduenas de Kuitenė (J. Baudouin de Courtenay), unlike the neogrammaticalists, believed that there was no reason to talk about the Balto-Slavic protolanguage, because the arguments "against" ne allegedly less, if ne more, as argumenir ts ‘in favour’; but J. Boduenas de Kurtenė did not discuss her claims in ir this way. The first attempt to argue for the absence of a Baltic-Slavic protolanguage was made by the well-known French linguist A. Meillet. In his study Les dialectes indoeuropéens (Paris, 1908), he criticized Brugman's concept of a Baltic-Slavic protolanguage and concluded that the genetic relationships between the Baltic and Slavic languages could be explained by the principle of parallel development. For traditionally thinking young grammarists ši A. Maye's innovation appeared to be a heresy, an understood thing. However, it was (and is) far from acceptable to all for other linguists, especially those of recent times (not only for the supporters of the Baltic-Slavic protolanguage). The famous Baltic language researcher J. Endzelynas, like A. Mejė, is not inclined to recognize a Baltic-Slavic protolanguage, but he solves this problem differently than A. Mejė. J. Endzelynas, in his work „CnaBsno- -GajirnhckHe ation! (XapbkoB, 1911) after an extremely careful examination of the similarities and differences between the Balts and the Slavs, comes to the conclusion that the Balts and the Slavs allegedly descended from separate pre-Indo-- European tribes, who spoke separate (albeit quite similar) dialects, and later lived through an epoch of common life — the,,balty- -slavy epoch”. (1. 200—201 )!. Our great linguist K. Buga was of the same opinion — ir the most famous of the Baltic toponymic approaches to this problem was the hypothesis of the Baltic-Slavic protolanguage. "Other linguists," wrote K. Būga, "believe that the linguistic communities, which are quite numerous in Estonian and Slavonic,! Plg. dar J. Endzelins, Lekcijas par baltu valodu salidzinamo gramatiku, 6, Riga, 1927; J. Endzelins, Grammar of the Latvian Language, 18, Riga, 1951; $I. M. D. Jinn, IlpeBuešinine cJiaBsHo- -ShajirhėcKHe S3bIKOBbIe. CBS3H, —,,Tpyan Akaneduno HaykK Jlateuiickoii CCP‘, 2, 67—82, Pura, 1953; plg, Bonpocki s3biK03HanHHs, 4, 125, Mocksa (1952) 2 K. Būga, Kalbų mokslas bei mūsų senavė. —,,Draugija‘, 20, 9—10, Kaunas (1913). K. Būga, Selected Writings, 1,407 —408, Vilnius, 1958. I do not believe in this, because I do ir not find any linguistic fact that would necessarily ir force us to accept the alleged po Estonian-Slavic proto-language. All Estonian and Slavic communities only show that Estonians have lived with Slavic neighbors since time immemorial, su t. y. from the Indo-European goby’’*. Some* believe that K. The buoy has been complete A. He is a supporter of the Maya concept, su but this cannot be accepted. K. Bogha’s quite clearly negative view of the Balto-Slavic į protolanguage does not yet give us the right to say that Bogha contradicted J. Endzelynas’s concept, because Bogha, while emphasizing the special closeness of the Balto-Slavic languages, da was a supporter of the principle ir of the contact development of these languages. (no be J. Shmito "wave theory" influence), cf. “language similarities indicate that Estonians were neighbours of Slavs much longer than Italian Celts”*. su Similar, it seems; as Endzelynas opinions are ir Ms. Skardžius". In favour of J. Endzelyno theory (respectively against the Balto-Slavic protolanguage) a number of rational reasonings have been presented recently by the prominent Soviet Slavist Prof. dr. S. Bernšteinas (C. B. BepuiuTeiin) in his article,,banto-caaBsHcKas 3biKoBasi COOGinHOocTE““, the main idea of which is expressed briefly by the following words of the author: „In our (i.e. S. Bernšteinas — V. M.) article we will talk about Verkehrsgemeinschaft (this term is further translated by the author as COOOINIHOCTb — V.M.), i.e. about the commonality ir of the Baltic Slavic languages, which arose ne from the jų common origin of the Indo-European proto-language, and from the long contact, which began much later than the Indo-European epoch and ended well before our era.” Without ir further examining the history of the question of the genetic affinity of the Baltic and Slavic languages (which is already the subject of a number of works), it should be added that, despite the capital J. Endzelyno, K. Bugos, E. Frenkelio streets (E. Fraenkel) Chr. Stango, M. Fasmerio (M. Vasmer), L. Bulachovskiir 's and other scholars (Baltists, Slavists and Indo-Europeanists, 0, in addition, archaeologists, etc.), the final solution of the problem of the oldest relations of the Baltic and Slavic languages, undoubtedly, still requires considerable work?. In any case, it must be said that typology is gaining increasing importance in the study of both individual languages and related languages; the study of the problem of the oldest relations of the Balto-Slavic languages quite fruitfully uses, for example, Ivanov ją V. ir V. Toporovas?*?. This article examines the origins of the oldest relations between Baltic and Slavic languages 3 K, This is a list of ancient iš Indo-European ir languages. — ,,The ir word of the people“, 2, 106, Kaunas, 1924; plg. dar op. cit., 1, 431. 4 Plg, eg.,,.CnaBsuckas ¢uiosnorns (Philologie slave)“ (hereinafter —co) 1, 8, Mocxsa (1958). 5 K. 10, op. cit., 106. 6 Ms. Skardžius, Lithuanian language, its formation development ir (indicated by Co, 1, 31. —V. M.). 7 See. CO, 1, 45—67. 8 CO, 1, 45. 9 Some linguists (especially from the Balty-Slavic proto-language supporters) argue that the main issue of this problem (t. y. the existence of the ir Balto-Slavic proto-language etc.) now finally resolved, with which far from everyone agrees. 10 See, B. B. HBanoBs x B. H. Tonopos, K riocrakoBke Bompoca 0 JpeBHeHUIHX OTHOMIeEHHSAX GaJNTHACKHX H CJIABSHCKHX #3blKoB (IV Mexpynapojįubie Cbe3jį CJIABHCTOB), Mocksa, we 1958. 6 do not intend to solve the problem, but limit ourselves to one more specific remark on some questions of some significance for the study of the earliest relations of these language groups." I Lie. duomi, demi, ssl. dam6 strain § 1. Linguists have been studying lie for more than a hundred years. give, give, give, ssl. dam, dast’®, dadets, dady lie. ir demi, desti, putting the root of the present tense. The whole problem is that many reconstructive reduplicated prolytés *dod(2)mi resp. *dedh(o)mi'? vocalism does not correspond to Praindo-European Skyju *grandfather: resp. *dedhémi (atstatomy, normally, according to skt. dadami, dadhami, gr. ZiZop, 9th ke. ). ir Siam discrepancy has a number of explanations (Zr. 7 psl. footnote No. 12), which usually rely on the root *wishes. *decontamination with the su corresponding reduplicated current-time strains (but to, plg. 8 psl. footnote No. 17); as it may be, but in this way the singular long vowel stem remains unclear (plg, skr. dadami, gr. S(5wpt ir kt.) disappearance. 2. Mr Kofinekas lies. duomi, ssl. damb interprets differently **, in his opinion, the Baltic and Slavic *domi, *dome esa are descended from the older *domi resp. *dames, which are nothing else than pre-Indo-- European genders, only having lost the reduplicative syllable in all numbers?- ®. But J. M. Kofinek’s interpretations of reduplicated past11 Here are the same thoughts and the same material (although somewhere slightly and differently edited) that were set out in my brochure: 3amerkH K Bornpocy O ApeBHeRMmHX OTHOLIEHHSX OaJTHHCKHX H CJIABSHCKHX S3bIKOB (IV Mexpnynapojinbiė cbe3jį ciasucToB), BuJibaioc, 1958. 12 Proto-Balto-Slavic resp. Proto-Baltic and Pra-Slavic stems of similar reduplication for genders lie. duomi, ssl. dame, lie, demi are directly or compromised by: A. Schleicher, Litauische grammatik, 253—254, Prag, 1856; G. Mahlow, Die langen Vocale AEO in den europaeischen Sprachen, 84—85, Berlin, 1879; O. Wiedemann, Das litauische Priteritum, 54—55, Strassburg, 1891; O, Wiedemann, Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, 114, Strassburg, 1897; K. Brugm ann, Grundriss- ... 2 Band, Teil 3, 1 Lieferung, 110 et al., Strassburg, 1913; W, Vondrédk, Vergleichende slavische Grammatik, 1, 506 et al., Gottingen, 1906; A. Leskien, Grammatik der altbulgarischen Sprache, 188—189, Heidelberg, 1909; A, Meillet, Le slave commun, 207—208, Paris, 1934; A, Meillet, Introduction... 204, Paris, 1934; R. Trautman n, Baltisch-slavisches Worterbuch, 47, 56—57, Gėttingen, 1923; Chr. S. Stang, Das slavische und baltische Verbum, 21—22, 268, Oslo, 1942; A, Vaillant žr. Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris, 40, 22 (although see previously Revue des études slaves, 14, 30 and others); A. Baia, PykoBojicTBO no crapocJiaBAHCKOMY s3bKy, § 222, MockBa, 1952; J. C. Orpem6Gckuii, CraBsHo-- 6anTHACKOe $3LIKOBOE eJHHCTBO. —,,Bonpocki A3blKO3Hanua‘* (hereinafter ‘BSI’), 6, 35-36, (1954); J. Otrebski, Gramatyka jezyka litewskiego, 3, § 430, Warszawa, 1956; J. Endzelins, Latviešu valodas gramatika, 723 ir kt., Riga, 1951; M, Vasmer, Russisches etymologisches Worterbuch, 1, 327, 347, Heidelberg, 1953; B. Teopruer, Kem Bbupoca 3a 6aaTocaaBsHCKAaTa e3HKoBa OOMmHOCTb. —,,BBArapekn esuk‘‘, rox VIII, 2, 107, (1958). BB,,The Greek distribution (e for aoristic and perfect, t for present) is secondary“ —E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik, II Lief., 648, Miinchen, 1939, 14 I, M. Korinek, Praesentni tvary korene *do-„,davati“ v jazycich slovanskych baltskych. a — ,,Listy filologickė“, yearbook 65, Prague, 445—454, 1938, 15 J. M. Korinek’s interpretations are supported by: E. Fraenkel, Baltische Sprachwissenschaft in den Jahren 1938—1940, 11—12, Helsinki, 1941; E. Fraenkel, Die baltischen Sprachen, 92 et al., Heidelberg, 1950; E. Fraenkel, Litauisches etymosentinį 7 kamieną ssl. — Daddy, lie. duodass (plg. skr. dadat, gr. ŠiŠoJę), o taip pat pl., du., 2 sing. 2 3 — is, in my opinion, quite artificialail®, ; § 3. First of all, it should be said that in solving the issue there can be šį approaches or two alternatives. du According to one, traditional, view, — reduplication of the present tense roots of these verbs reaching the times of Indo-European protospeech (see section 4.4). § 4-§ 8), by other — ji may have appeared ir later, as an isoglossic innovation of Indo-European dialects (see section 4.4). $11). § 4. According to the first alternative, it would seem most reliable to believe that lie. duomi, demi, ssl. damoyranetekäreduplikoituotoimen vain singular lyyteissä: therefore, in singular lyyteissä before the ending the two present stems did not have a consonant *-d-, plg., e.g. Sanskrit, Greek paradigms: dddami (dddūsi, dddati: dadmds kt.), ir šį(3opx (Bidoę, Šifčdwow: *Btčpev > Šičopev ir et al.), Tne (by, Times: *outpev > sidepeyv ir kt.) ir Mr. § 5. Baltic (plg. Slavic ir etc.) in atematiniy languages in ir general the singular genders of all verbs never exceed the plural and diphthong genders in the number of syllables, but plg. skr. dddami: dadmds, dadvds, gr. didop: *5expos- = ure to idopevir t.t. For the to whites (and Slavic) singular genders *dedomi, dedēmi * reduplicative syllables in singular became phonomorphologically isolated (it falls): sg. 1.* dom(e)i pl. 1. *dedmé du. 1. *dead end. praes. act. * dedan(t)s 2. *dos(e)i 2. *decade 2. *destū 3. * given 3. *dedint(i), -ant(i). s.g. 1. *dead(s) pl. 1. *dedmé du. 1. *dead end. praes. act. *dedan(r)s 2. *display(s) 2. *decade 2. *destū 3. *add 3. *dedint(i), -ant(t). § 6. For a high-quality (and quantitative) confrontation of stem vowels, t. y. *.9-:*-$-, singular *domi, *dosi, *doti stem vowels could be generalized to the entire *-0present tense stem!" (plg. lie. eimi: *imé skr. = emu: you have it, lie. primary: *smé=skr. asmi: severe ir t. t.): sg. 1. *dom(e)i pl. 1. *Domme two. 1. *giving up the beach. praes. act. *add(s) 2. *dos(e)i 2. *enough 2. *dosta 3. *dots 3. *doing(s), -ing(s) § 7. The third gender of the singular *dOtt according to the ratio with 2 pl. *doste, 2 du. *back, e.g. 3 *doing(i), -ing(i), part. praes. act. *ddodan(t)s (plg. 3 s.g. ėsti: pl. 2 evening, 3 pl. *eating(i- ), -ing(i), part. praes. act. *édan(t)s ir t. t.) made *Dosti. Plurals in the first person *-dbefore -mdesnily fallen out, according o to this double ir counts of to the same person's sex'®, be doubt, ne be corresponding ir influences einelogisches Worderbuch, 112, Heidelberg, Germany 1955; V. Machek, Etymological Dictionary of Language Českoslovena ský 81 spisovatel (in Czech). ‘jen plur, 3. stč. dadie z dd-d-redupl. *), Praha, 1957. Similar plg. O, Szemerényi, Two Questions of urslav. Verbums, — Etudes slaves et roumaines, 1, 7—14, (1948); but this, as ir J. The work of SafareviCiu [J. Safarewicz Causes of the issue do of the Baltic-Stovian totality. — Reports of z meetings i P.A.U. No. 46, 8, 199-202, (1945)], the author was unavailable. 16 E.g., ir Endzelyno critical remarks on 3 Sgt. — J. Endzelins, op. cit., 724. 17 In this case root e.g. -0-, *dot(e)i (infin.), hardly ar had an effect, cf. *do lie, > do, but demi, desti, ssl. add, but the dead counts (see section 4.4). (see below). 8 the first person gender'® (in which *-none, see above). Similarly, ssl appeareir d. dams, dasi, dast®, dam, daste, dadgt® (part. praes. act. dady, -gsta), davė, dasta, daste, -ta gender stem. § 8. in the paradigm of the verb demi due to the quantitative confrontation of stem vowels, t. y. -é~(sg.): -¢ (pl., du. ir in the relevant participants), the vote - Uh- (moreover, present genders have more su of such stem vowels). — In Lithuanian language *dead(e)s) rolled like ir *dom(e)i, but stem vowel praesense — -ė-19, o *-dlytyse *grandmother, *grandfather disappeared, apparently, by analogy (all ne phonetically!) su lytimis *home, *dova (see section 4.4). above), *feeding > ♪ yeah, yeah, yeah ♪ —*6va etc., all ir the more so that in singular *death(s) (instead of older * had no *.4sin; that's how lie came into being. dem, desi, destis etc. ir Similarly, the Slavic present ir paradigm of this verb, which became a thematic ssl rather early, rolled around. — rain < *dedi@ < *demi (but in terms of paradigm, similar sexes ssl. — dame, dasiir etc.), plg. ssl. viždę (plg. athematic imperative viždo): lie. veimu "I am looking for" (Dieveniškės — Language Posnaniensis 5, 72-73) «3 *veimi < *form; plg. A. Meillet, Le common slave, ed., II psl. 206 § 9. A few more remarks on the third — person plural of these verbs (3rd ed.) gender. First of all, pl. 3 gender a certain formative relationship correlation — with the su gender of the present participle of the active species is quite clearly visible in Indo-European languages (forming *-m£-)*? If the proto-Baltic language iš really existed (we are all convinced) pl. 3 sex corresponding to (in this case) ssl. daders, dadęto, skr. dadati, dadhati ir pan., that's her, t. y. *dodint(i), *dodant(i), *dedint(i), *dedant(i), by a circumstantial way, perhaps, shows the participle gender in such expressions: nėr kas duodg, nėr kas dedį (Dusetos, Antazavė ir etc.) *!. [His earlier hypothetical conjecture (as well as the jo footnote attached- )**, that D. The Klein grammar of the sg. 3 pl. you. lytys did, (pra)ded indirectly, perhaps, indicating the proto-Baltic pl. 3 sex *dodint(i), *dedini(i), now I consider it to be unfounded]. Since the present participle of these two, like other ir athematic verbs, already, it seems, has a formant from very old times iš -ant-< idea. *-have-* (no -int-! ), it is in place of the older pl. 3 gender *dont(s), *dont(s), (e.g. ssl. dadetv) may have occurred (previously 3 mentioned pl. T B Pig,,,Der Dual davė, vévé, évé (javé) has analogue dShrink after T. Ps. Sgt. and. PL’ — N. of Wijk, History of the Old Church Slavic Language, 1, 53, Berlin u, Leipzig, 1931. 19 For the lie. half, o ne *bleeding, cf. K. Booga. — "The ir word of the nation", 1, 402; K. The language ir of antiquity, 1, 158, 213; K, Booga. — Archivum Philologicum, 1, 62. 20 Perhaps these two genders are derived (?) from one, i.e. verb-noun respectively. of the participle gender, which has eventually į entered the verb paradigm? ; 22 For further details, see the case-law. J. Endzelin IF 33, 124–125, (1914). J. Endzelynas, Baltų kalbų garsai ir formos, 161—162, Vilnius, 1957; J. Endzelins, Latviešu valodas gramatika, 708—712; Chr. S. Stang, The Slavic and Baltic Verb, 233-234, Oslo, 1942; plg. F. Specht KZ, 56, 121, (1929). 22 See, B. Maxionuc, 3aMeTku K BOMPOCY O APeBHeHUIAX OTHOWeEHHSX GaATHACKHX H CJIABAHCKHX 53bIKOB, 9(lines 18-24 above and footnote 4), Buasnioc, 1958. 2,,Undoubtedly lay but uridg. Gradation in the participle of most athematic verbs’ (A. Thumb, Handbuch des Sanskrit, 1, 223, Heidelberg, 1905). The Baltic (Slavic, etc.) participle formant -ant-(sl. *-ont-) is here generalized from the root of direct (indirect —*-pt-) participle genders, e.g., the old participle noun lie. teeth, mouth. dantis, skr. dantam (acc. sg.): datds (acc, pl.), gr. d&3dvia, (eol.) 8ovieg (pl.): lot. dentem, air, dæt, got. tunpus, etc. 9 sex ir partic. praes. act. correlation and the corresponding thematic gender example) new gender formant su -ant-, t. y. *giving(s), *taking(s), plg. ssl. dadgt®, rus. You're a ir fool. § 10. Lie. given paradigms for thematization (though rather late) among other reasons, it is to be assumed that the correlation of the present verb finiti and the ir present verb infiniti stems may have had an influence*”. About tą the same can be said ir about the Slavic *demi paradigms, which became thematic rather early, the development of the present tense. § 11. Above alternative (§ 4 — § 8) resp. the present reduplication of the verbs under consideration here in the past Indo-European times, seems to į be even controversial, since this reduplication projection into the Indo-European protolanguage is made, after all, only on the basis of the corresponding facts of the Indo-Iranian, Greek and, partly, Armenian language. But it is known that the Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian languages form a separate dialectal group [plg. Bonfanti (Bonfante), Porcigo (Porzig), Kraes (Krahe) and others], which has a number of features that distinguish it from other Indo-European languages (see verb tenses, augmentation, etc.). When you lie. duomi, demi present stems could never, therefore, have had reduplication in the Indo-European protolanguage, language, seemingly, and facts of other Indo-European languages, cf., e.g., het. rahhi,,imu‘‘ (probably from ide. *do-—“to give”), temi „to speak“ (see the development of meanings —see dėti „to put; to say“), zehhi,,dedu® [both genders seem to have come from ide. *dhé-„to put“ (reduplication is not foreign to the Hittite language, but it is not a formative element as, for example, in ancient Indian or Greek)]. For this purpose, see str. The reduplication of dadami, dadhami, gr. 3{3wp, idm, etc. could be considered as an innovation of the dialect group of these languages. In connection with this, the Baltic (and Slavic) present genders of these two verbs would have to reconstruct the ancient image (structurally corresponding to the pre-Indo-European): Sgt. 1. *dom(e)i pl. 1. *dome 2. *dose(s) 2. *dote 3. *dou? 3. *donti etc. Sgt. 1. *dem(e): pl. 1. *dem 2. *des(e)i 2. *child 3. *children 3. *denti, etc. Plg, we are. tém, t6s, tt, tOmes, tét, tént, etc. (note the relation of root vowelism —*de-mi >> *de-mei > lit. de-mi: dé-ti, *de-mi = ssl. de- -zdo: dé-ti, cf. lit. émi, ssl. jamb: sk. admi, etc.). In this way, we can speak of a certain period of the Baltic and Slavic languages with the 3 pl. gender *donti, *denti, which later, in correlation with the thematic 3 pl. gender, e.g., *vedant(- i), *narint(i- ), etc., was understood as *d-ont(:), *d-enti*- ?. Since this place was the weakest pa24 plg, II, C. Ky3nenos, Hcropuueckas rpaMMaTHKa pyccKoro s3bIKA, 280, Mocxea, 1953. 25 pp. J, Endzelins, op. cit. 725 (from line 4 from above), 26 of the root indicated by Endzelyn gives a correlation with 3 pl. *dodant(- i) (cf. J. Endzelins, Latviešu valodas gramatika, 724) in the Baltic and especially in the Lithuanian language or just does not contradict: in the Lithuanian old writings 3 sg. is generalized to the plural, plural third person, and given (and demi) genders of thematic presence appear, it seems, later (when 3 pl. had long disappeared). 27 Plg, ved. give... see. A. A. BapaHHHKOB, DieMeHThi CPaBHHTEJIbHO-- HCTOPHUECTM Koro MeTOJa B HHZOJIOTHH BS, 2, 49, (1952). 10 radigmoje [monophonic root next to simple *do-, *dč-**, as well as for o other reasons: e.g., the pl. of the vast majority of athematic verbs in Baltic and Slavic languages. 3 sex has syllables more than the other (atematic) genders, especially plural, cf. lie. Take it, ssl. jamb: ssl. jadgt®, white. *smé: ssl. You're a good man. 3 ],because pl. sex could have occurred -d-*8 (t. y. *do-nti > *do-d-pti > *do-d-inti, *de-nti > *de-d-nti > *de-d-inti), perhaps, similarly as in the following, ancient iš consonant-free -D--*? : lie. aumi ‘weave’: to weave ‘weaving’, weaving (plg. skr. otum ‘austi’ ir etc.), lie. giemi ‘,giedu’’, : giesti ,,gieda®, singing (plg. sen. Russian. eaamu ‘giedoti (gaidys)““,skr.gdyati ‘gieda’, gi-tas (from )giedotas‘‘ ir kt.), lie. čiaumi ‘sneeze’: sneeze "sneeze", sneezing (plg. la. scout, scroll xauti "Monsteir rs" etc. ),*? plg. lie. eimi “I am going”, go 'one': ssl. idgro, rus. smoke (ssl. idg kt. ir = Russian. udy kt.) ir ir kt If -dlytyse *dodant-, *dedantbe, iš actually, of such origin, that is lie. duosti, desti, ssl. Dastw ir kt. gender formation resp. -the appearance would be self-evident. § 12. Near the athematic lie. duomi, demi, ssl. dame, *demo (SdeZdt) genders are found in Slavic and Baltic languages: ssl. dajo (dajati), dėjo (déjati), la. dáj ‘deda (višta)’” [dát ‘dėti (ūžinius)*’]. These parallel genders were apparently connected by the meanings of the factors." su Plg. But I'm lying. joja: I know. yams, ssl. jadore, jadore (plg. ssl. idgto: lie. eimi); lie. I'm standing, ssl. stajg: gr. totypt < ontante; ssl. wind, got. waia ‘puču’: skr. watts, gr. gyot kt. ir II. 1998-1999 On Baltics and Slavs enclitic personal pronouns $ 1. Balts and Slavs have atonic and enclitic genders for all three persons of the personal pronoun: lie. mi, ti, si (-i, must be, from * -e:), ssl. mi, ti, si (-i most likely from * -oi). Other Indo-European languages, usually said, have corresponding genders only for the first and second person, e.g., sk. me, you, gr. pot, oo. (Homer tot) It is said that such patterns are common only to the Whites and Slavs*?. However, similar statements do not prove that the mentioned Baltic and Slavic feature is only a phenomenon of these two idioms, — it must be assumed that it is, after all, an old Indo-European relic, cf. gr. pot, Tot, of, etc. ** For all three persons we find enclitics of the same root, for example, in the syllabic Hittite language: -mu,,man, me“, -ta „to you, to you“, -§7 „to him, to her, to yourself- ““** (these Hittite enclitics have also plurals28 This thought was reported to me (May 20, 1958) by my Moscow colleague V. Toporov. 29 The prefix -d in similar cases or just cannot (2?) be derived from the older *-4-(later dissimilated into -dpraesentinéje 3 pl. gender and corresponding part. praes. act.), cf., in a certain respect, the Baltic present suffix -n-a? 30 Perhaps, similar(?) origins are in the -dcausal verb vé-d-inti (cf. get-inti pan. ), ir 31 Plg., e.g., A. Meillet, Le slave commun, II éd., 208, 223. A. Meillet, Introduction to... VII éd., 2 Žr., pvz., 219. SI. C. OrpemGck uit, CnaBauo- -GaaTuiickoe si3bikoBoe eJuHCTBO BS, 6, 35 (1954); J. Otrebski, Gramatyka jezyka litewskiego, 3, 137, Warszawa, 1956; the third person does not provide relevant facts from other Indo-European languages and others, e.g., J. E ndzelynas, Baltic language sounds ir forms, 148, 8 Zr. K, Brugmann, floor plan... 2 Volume, 2 part, Lief., 1 Strasbourg, 407, 1909. 34 Zr, U. ®puppux, op. cit., 73. 11 that sex, cf. for the to Slavs, Indo-Iranianir s, etc.3* relevant facts), which, probably, are older me, te, iš * * * 501; be to, plg. these enclitic pronouns su (Hittite) possessive enclitic pronouns, e.g. dat. s.g. -mi, -!i, (these -§%7 possessiva are found especially in the Hittites "The Old State". If -mu, -ta, (and plural) have the jų meanings of the noun, it ir -Shy. (and plural) jo only — beneficiary 38. The ir meanings of the first second person of the Hittite enclitics seem to have some connection su with tonal personal pronouns uk ‘I’, zik ‘you’ (singular: ir plural), whose adjective, noun, and ir even nominative can be represented by one ir ta the same sex. 2. Useful ir meanings of galininkinés®® are quite clearly seen in Lithuanian enclitics mi, ti, e.g. nemipatika Br. Before. 2. 17, pamifacic Br. I Don't. 37. 16, Tob. 5. 17, Isz to mi plant life K. 13, Pamifdke T. Ap. G. 11. 9, Net dawe KS 176, decavoyamete KM. 11; Anas mi weda K. 18, Kodel mi aplchidei T. Mat. 27.46, that we ti might worship K. 209, To get to zi know people K. 218 ir kt 4 Similar meanings had ir (which became a part of sangraza rather early) enclitic si, which, of course, can be observed even in modern ir language, e.g., auntosi batus: kelūosi lovos, cf. iš la. Ram's hammer! : Get up early! ir kt Be there seems to be facts, which testify that mi, ti, had a nobleman's si meaning**, ir which should be old,. plg. skr. me, (dat. te -gen.). Slavic mi, ti, means si (appears) only the beneficiary 43. If. the older meanings of these three enclitics have iš indeed been of the noun, so here the final meaning in the eastern Baltic languages would have to be interpreted ne according to J. Endzelyno's assumptions**, but still the influence of ir the ratio of the tonal personal pronoun ir suffix%** (plg. on the Hittites, see. above). On the other hand, the Indo-European variations of these three enclitic old — atonic wordlets.- 3 It is believed that this was the case in ir the past. J. Endzelins, Grammar of the Latvian language, 915 (also literature). 38 Žr H. Kronasser, comparative Sound and Theory of forms Hittite,. 142, 144, Heidelberg, 1956. 37 Plg,,,Possessive -mi-: -ti: -§ipot, all, = etc.“ of — J. Kurytowicz, "The Hittites"" — Reports for the Eighth International Congress of Linguists, Vol. II, Oslo, 295, August 5—9 1957. 8 See. I. ®puapHuX, op. cit., 73; H. 10, Op. cit., 142—144. 39 Uudininkinés mi, meanings ti used in old Lithuanian writings much more often than the final one — E. Hermann, Lithuanian Studies, 69, Berlin, Germany 1926. 40 P pupils taken iš A. Bezzen ber ; er, Beitrige zur History of Lithuania Sprache, 163—164 (abbreviated by the ir author), Göttingen, 1877, 4 See, E. Hermann, op. cit., 74 ir kt 42 Which decline had to begin quite early. 43 For a similar (t. y. only. "Slovenski jezik" (in Slovenian). E. Hermann, op. cit., 73, 44 J, Endzelins, LL. c. 45 See. J. Endzelins, op. cit. 505 ir kt ; J. Angelus, Baltic language sounds forms, ir 147—148 (§ 300, § 302). 46 Similarly, the old white-toned ir (from a certain. the charactir eristics of the enclisis, cf. on the Slavs A. Baiian, op. cit.,, 411; H. san- -Beiik, Heropaa crapocnaBsuckoro s3bika, Mockma, lytys 280, 1957) *month, *year, *year (plg. price. mien, ten kt., plg. ir ssl. mg, tg, s¢, skr. mam, tvam, žr. J. 12, Op. cit., 148) ir Atonic (inclined only) *mé, *rė, *sé (which, perhaps, would show prrūs. if it really is iš *see, cf. skr. md, tvd, gr. Well, oe < *1Fe etc., ir see J. End elynas, z l.c. ). 12 meaning, probably, from ancient times could not be strictly differentiated morphologically*". § 3. Ssl. gg, fr. sien(sin) <*sen, si, <* sė (there may be; Zr. footnote No. 46, 12 psl.), it seems, could go with the corresponding Lithuanian particle of return - See. Ją (greta -si) we find in our old writings, e.g. Mazvydas*®: raschose kieliese 2115, makase 38,4, 11 skaitose 13,,, 13,,, pradestyse 17;, 40,, prasideiase 21g, biakiese 324_, ir kt (country: pradestysy 14,, dabaiesy 34,5, giestisy 54, ir kt.); Bretquina The Bible: dabaiase Luke. 6, 7, piktinase Mat. 13, 21, biotunse Jer. 32, 39, budawoiose Ap. G. 9, 31; Bretkiinas Postilla: mokintuse I 3313, randasse I 86,; Vilentas Enchiridion : zestoiese 28; "Summa (...Ewangeliv... Kiedaynise... 1653)“: iseduotumey 212.4. A particle of ancient writings -se, seems, confirms the ir present dialect, namely, southern Samogitian [where -e the particle -se cannot be Žemaitiškas vowel pronunciation fact] of the -i western highlands ir su connecting them: sūkose greta sūkos, pasidarė (Pagramantis)®®, pėštise, vaipytise, Sukiotise, pėšase, vaipose greta pėštis, vaipytis, pasišukūok (Girdžiai, Skirsnemunė, Šimkaičiai), suktose, sukiese (Agilas, Tovė, Lija)® etc. ir Lie. - if (semantically identical to -s:) is derived, it seems, from iš ryt.-balt. *senior resp. *I am (acc. s.g. ; for the limb plg. savė, tavė, manė). Based on this gender, it is possible to assume that the eastern ir Balts had the gender of the final of other noun enclitics — *men resp. *month, *year resp. *the*!, plg. prue. mine, ten, sien, si, ssl. me, te, se, skr. mom, tvam, mom, Iva. § 4. Be of this, it should be said that the Belarusian Slavs ir sangraZiniy verbs for all three persons use personal pronouns only in the third person inclitiką — the return; but a very similar fact is found in the Hittite conjugations ir of conjugative verbs, where the conjugative particle for all three persons of the verb is -za, possible object, derived from iš *see**, cf. prue. st < *I am (see section 4.4). above), lot. I know. III. On Baltic and Slavic numerals** § 1. The Baltic numerical noun,,1” has parallels with its root not only in Slavic languages. The Indo-European numerals ",2"" — ",4"" (the ratio between the Belarusian and Lithuanian both and the Slavic and Slavonic both, as compared to the ratio between the Greek gpBw and Latin ambo) in the Baltic and Slavic languages developed depending on their conjugation system. The morphological fate of the Indo-European non-consonant numerals,,5¢¢ —,,9* differs in the Baltic and Slavic languages. Baltų skaitvardis „100““ is an indirect Praindo-- European relic, € Plg, E. Hermann, op. cit., 78 et al. 48 Cited according to J. Gerulio (1922) edition, 49 See, P. Jonikas, Pagramančio tarmė, 66, Kaunas, 1939. 50 See J, Gerulli and Chr. Stangas, Lithuanian fishermen's dialect in Prussia, 47 and others, Kaunas, 1933. 81 In the dialects of eastern Lithuania (with all dzikai) both old genders *sei and *sen (> *sin > -st) could phonetically coincide into one si; similarly could in Latvian *sei and *sēn (> *sie si) > make one -si-, 52 Zr. H. Kronassenr, op. cit., 145, 53 More on numerals see. B. Maxioauc, Hugoesponeiickas aenuMaJsibHasi CHCTeMA UKCJIHTEJIbHbLIX Bf, 4, 53—59 (1956); Some questions of Lithuanian grammar, Vilnius, 40—64, 1957, 13