Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 109

Thread: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vilnius (Lazdynai)
    Native language
    Lithuanian / Lietúvüü
    Posts
    92

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Quote Originally Posted by CristAbe View Post
    Why are the Batic languages not considered Slave?
    Another example is Lord's Prayer in two Baltic languages (now extinct) Prusian and Curonian. If you find anything similar to any Slavic language, call me:

    Lord's Prayer in Old Prussian (from the so-called "1st Catechism")
    Thawe nuson kas tu asse Andangon,Swintits wirst twais Emmens;Pergeis twais Laeims;Twais Quaits audasseisin na Semmey, key Andangon;Nusan deininan Geittin deis numons schindeinan;Bha atwerpeis numans nuson Auschautins, kay mas atwerpimay nuson Auschautenikamans;Bha ny wedais mans Enperbandan;Sclait is rankeis mans assa Wargan. Amen

    Lord's Prayer after Simon Grunau (Curonian-Latvian)
    Nossen Thewes, cur tu es Delbes,Schwiz gesger thowes Wardes;Penag mynys thowe Mystalstibe;Toppes Pratres giriad Delbszisne, tade tymnes sennes Worsinny;Dodi momines an nosse igdenas Magse;Unde geitkas pamas numas musse Nozegun, cademas pametam nusson Pyrtainekans;No wede numus panam Padomum;Swalbadi mumes newusse Layne. Jesus. Amen.

    Lithuanian: 'Tėve mūsų, kuris esi danguje,
    teesie šventas tavo vardas,
    teateinie tavo karalystė,
    teesie tavo valia
    kaip danguje, taip ir žemėje.
    Kasdienės mūsų duonos duok mums šiandien
    ir atleisk mums mūsų kaltes,
    kaip ir mes atleidžiame savo kaltininkams.
    Ir neleisk mūsų gundyti,
    bet gelbėk mus nuo pikto'.Amen

    ENGLISH:

    Our Father, Who art in heaven,
    Hallowed be Thy Name.
    Thy Kingdom come.
    Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.
    Give us this day our daily bread.
    And forgive us our trespasses,
    as we forgive those who trespass against us.
    And lead us not into temptation,
    but deliver us from evil. Amen.
    Last edited by neonrider; 16th October 2013 at 11:52 PM.
    Žuvėdrai reikia ryti ir sparnais plasnoti, kad išgyventų!

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Санкт-Петербург
    Native language
    Russian
    Age
    40
    Posts
    2,205

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Quote Originally Posted by neonrider View Post

    In the past and in my other posts I posted many examples like those. I believe it is incorrect to bundle Baltic languages with Slavic languages into one group. While there's nothing wrong with Slavic, and they're well respected (by me at least), but now I see all these people at StormFront etc. coming up with comments such as "Oh you Balts are slaves" etc. because they see Balto-Slavic language group. Speaking both Baltic and Slavic languages as well as many others I can see that there's equal amount of similarity between Lithuanian and other Indo-European languges, very little indeed, but equal similarity, and especially with English, Greek and Latin and with Russian etc. as well. None overwhelms the other. There is no more similarity of Lithuanian to Russian than to English or Latin if we are talking about original words and not borrowings. Anyone who could prove in one post that Baltic belongs to a Slavic group, please post your proof or your references and links here.
    That is not quite true. First of all, this depends on the level of discussion. The Internet wisdom is different from that one found in the linguistic literature and is targeted at a different audience. Linguistic palaeontology distinguishes between similarities of different origin and values. Modern English has more words of Romance than of Germanic origin, but that does not make it a less Germanic language from the evolutionary viewpoint. Likewise, in the order of branching on the evolutionary tree, English and northern German dialects are noticeably closer to each other than the northern and southern German dialects, yet the latter now constitute one language clearly different from English.

    The English Wikipedia has a decent article about Balto-Slavic, may be even too serious for this resource. In particular, investigations of the last decades have shown that both Baltic and Slavic had an almost identical starting point as to their accentuation system, very complicated and pretty different from those in all the other attested IE branches. A complex accentuation is the thing that is extremely difficult to learn when adult, and this is the aspect extremely unlikely to be borrowed from one language to the other. We may hypothesize, if we want, that the Genitive after negative verbs, or Instrumental after "to be", or compound definite adjectives are borrowings, or that declension similarities are shared archaisms, but the ir/ur reflexes, the Winter law, and the accentuation put Baltic and Slavic apart from any other IE branch. This simply cannot be independent.

    One thing may save the pride of Baltic patriots not wishing to have special relations to the Slavs. The history decided so that all the IE languages of the ancient Central Europe went extinct. We know about Baltic Venetians, Pannonians, Dacians, Thracians, Illyrians, but we know almost nothing about their languages. Many tribes undoubtedly disappeared with no traces in the written history. For linguistic palaeogeography it means that the links found between Baltic, Slavic, Gemanic, Albanian, Italic or Celtic may have been results of indirect contacts of, say, Balts–Venetians–Germanics or Balts–?–Slavs.
    Last edited by ahvalj; 31st October 2013 at 10:15 AM.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Native language
    Russian
    Posts
    194

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    I would like to point out that the theory of a common `Balto-Slavonic', which was initially proposed by Schleicher, is only ONE theory out of many. The distinguished Russian linguist Trubachev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Trubachyov listed at least 5 theories:

    1) Common Balto-Slavonic proto-language (Schleicher),
    2) Independent parallel development (Meillet),
    3) Independent development and secondary later convergence (Endselin),
    4) Ancient common stage then separation then convergence (Rozwadowski),
    5) Formation of Slavonic from peripheral dialects of Baltic (Ivanov - Toporov).

    Trubachev's view was between 2 and 3 and I am also of the same opinion. Over several pages Trubachev meticulously demonstrated the cardinal differences between Slavonic and Baltic on all levels: lexico-semantic, phonetic (particularly, different character and course of palatalisation) but, most importantly, in morphology and particularly in the verbal system. Trubachev noted that the Baltic verbal system with one Present and one Preterite is reminiscent of Finnish rather than IE and that Slavonic verbal system could not derive from Baltic. He wrote [my translation]:
    "Those linguists who endeavoured to resolve or at least to put the question of the origin of proto-Slavonic were mostly inclined to connect this with its emergence from a Balto-Slavoinic unity dating this event at the beginning of AD or a few centuries before [...] it. Presently, there is an objective tendency to push back the dating of the history of ancient Indo-European dialects. This also applies to Slavonic as one of the Indo-European dialects. However, the question now is not that the history of Slavonic may be measured by the scale of the II to III millenniums B.C. but that we can hardly date the ‘emergence’ or ‘separation’ of pra-Slavonic or pra-Slavonic dialects from Indo-European dialects because of the proper uninterrupted Indo-European origin of Slavonic. This is in concordance with Meillet's assertion that Slavonic [and Baltic*] is an IE language of the archaic type which has not experienced any radical shake-over like, for example the Greek language [...]". (Etnogenez i kultura drevneyshikh Slavian: lingvistichesskiye issledovaniya, 1991 [Ethnogenesis and culture of the oldest Slavs: linguistic studies], pp. 19-25).

    note (*) The quote of the passage to which Trubachev referred:

    “[..] Baltic and Slavic show the common trait of never having undergone in the course of their development any sudden systemic upheaval. [...] there is no indication of a serious dislocation of any part of the linguistic system at any time. The sound structure has in general remained intact to the present. [...] Baltic and Slavic are consequently the only languages in which certain modern word-forms resemble those reconstructed for Common Indo-European.” (The Indo-European Dialects [Eng. translation of Les dialectes indo-européens(1908)], University of Alabama Press, 1967, pp. 59-60).
    शुभमस्तु


  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Санкт-Петербург
    Native language
    Russian
    Age
    40
    Posts
    2,205

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Trubachev belonged to that numerous kind of scientists, especially philologists, who pretend to know more than the data could allow. They waste their lives for building castles in the sky and only a minor part of their scientific heritage survives a critical review.

    In particular, the "different character and course of palatalization" you have mentioned was based, if memory serves, on the single word "sьrna/stirna", which was considered by Trubachev an evidence that the Slavic palatalized IE palatovelars to ts>s and dz>z, while Baltic did so through tš>š(>s) and dž>ž(>z). No comments.

    The verbal system can change pretty seriously for a period of several centuries: e. g., most Northern Slavic languages show little evidence of the Imperfect and scarce remnants of the Aorist, which allowed people like Khaburgayev to suggest that the development of the past tenses was profoundly different in Polish/East Slavic in the one hand and South Slavic/Sorbian in the other. I don't think it is justified, but we are dealing here with pretty dramatic changes that took only several centuries.

    The situation with Baltic/Slavic is such that we cannot doubt the number of their unique shared innovations in the early period of history (due to direct contacts, or as I had mentioned, through some now extinct Central European IE branch) and somewhat parallel development in the subsequent periods. The question is when did the split happen. The latest dating is the middle of the 1st millennium BC (based, I guess, on the substantial differences of Prussian vs. East Baltic), the earliest — a couple of millennia before (i. e. the latest stages of the IE). I personally don't think there is any practical value of regarding Balto-Slavic as a group like Germanic, since these are taxa of different levels, but that Baltic and Slavic originally belonged to a single dialect continuum is reflected in their useful grouping as an informal Balto-Slavic branch.

    I suspect, if we had now living descendants of the Osco-Umbrian dialects, and those would have been able to escape the Latin influence, the divergence between Romance and modern Osco-Umbrian would have been pretty dramatic. Likewise, modern Indo-Iranian languages hardly show any signs of particular affinities. It is the archaic character of Lithuanian that makes comparisons with Slavic still possible.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Native language
    Polish
    Age
    63
    Posts
    4,105

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dhira Simha View Post

    note (*) The quote of the passage to which Trubachev referred:

    “[..] Baltic and Slavic show the common trait of never having undergone in the course of their development any sudden systemic upheaval. [...] there is no indication of a serious dislocation of any part of the linguistic system at any time. The sound structure has in general remained intact to the present. [...] Baltic and Slavic are consequently the only languages in which certain modern word-forms resemble those reconstructed for Common Indo-European.” (The Indo-European Dialects [Eng. translation of Les dialectes indo-européens(1908)], University of Alabama Press, 1967, pp. 59-60).
    I saw recently some texts that claim that Baltic and Slavic languages are the only ones of IE languages that have avoided being influenced in a considerable degree by any non IE language, thus being the most direct descendants, and continuators of PIE. I don't know how plausible this claim is, but it is, at least, interesting.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Санкт-Петербург
    Native language
    Russian
    Age
    40
    Posts
    2,205

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Jamin View Post
    I saw recently some texts that claim that Baltic and Slavic languages are the only ones of IE languages that have avoided being influenced in a considerable degree by any non IE language, thus being the most direct descendants, and continuators of PIE. I don't know how plausible this claim is, but it is, at least, interesting.
    That's not true, since there are clear areal features common for languages distributed to the south and east of the Baltic sea, namely Baltic, Slavic and Baltic-Finnic — such as a non-Accusative after negative verbs (Genitive in B and Sl and Partitive in BF) or a non-Nominative after "to be" (Instrumental in B and Sl and Essive and Translative in BFi), not to mention the secondary locative cases in Old Lithuanian.

    Also, there is a popular mistake that the most conservative dialect is the most direct descendant of the proto-language. However, in cases when the historical development can be traced, we find various situations, including those that contradict this assumption. Say, in Italian the dialect of Rome is just an average dialect among others, with nothing especially conservative. In contrast, the Tuscan dialect, spoken by descendants of the non-IE Etruscans *is* the most conservative. In Slavic languages, dialects of the Slavic homeland — in Slovakia, southern Poland and western Ukraine have no striking signs of conservatism or more "Slavicness" comparing to any other. Almost every Slavic language preserves some features better than the others, and without direct knowledge of the OCS we would have had a hard time to decipher what exactly is archaic and what is not. It is safe to assume that the same is true for the PIE.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Native language
    Russian
    Posts
    194

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Quote Originally Posted by ahvalj View Post
    Trubachev belonged to that numerous kind of scientists, especially philologists, who pretend to know more than the data could allow. They waste their lives for building castles in the sky and only a minor part of their scientific heritage survives a critical review.
    For those who do not know whom we are talking about:

    Oleg Trubachyov (October 23, 1930, Stalingrad - March 9, 2002, Moscow) - Soviet and Russian linguist, one of the leading Russian scholars in the field of the etymology of Slavonic languages ​​and Slavonic onomastics. Specialist in comparative-historical linguistics, Slavonic, lexicography, etymology, PhD. He was an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences and served as the editor-in-chief of Etimologiya yearbook. He was engaged in the translation and editing of "Etymological dictionary of Russian language" by Max Vasmer. Editor of the multi-volume "Etymological dictionary of Slavonic languages. Proto-Slavonic lexical fund".


    I am glad that I have set the discussion into a more academic course.
    Last edited by Dhira Simha; 2nd November 2013 at 2:39 AM.
    शुभमस्तु


  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Native language
    Russian
    Posts
    194

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Quote Originally Posted by ahvalj View Post
    In particular, the "different character and course of palatalization" you have mentioned was based, if memory serves, on the single word "sьrna/stirna", which was considered by Trubachev an evidence that the Slavic palatalized IE palatovelars to ts>s and dz>z, while Baltic did so through tš>š(>s) and dž>ž(>z). No comments.
    You obviously over-simplify his theory.

    Those who are lucky enough to read German may want to get an idea of Trubachev's approach from this article: Trubačev, O. N.
    "Die Sprachwissenschaft und die Ethnogenese der Slawen." ZfS, 1987, 32, 911–919
    .

    Russian texts are widely available on the web.
    शुभमस्तु


  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Санкт-Петербург
    Native language
    Russian
    Age
    40
    Posts
    2,205

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dhira Simha View Post
    You obviously over-simplify his theory.

    Those who are lucky enough to read German may want to get an idea of Trubachev's approach from this article: Trubačev, O. N.
    "Die Sprachwissenschaft und die Ethnogenese der Slawen." ZfS, 1987, 32, 911–919
    .

    Russian texts are widely available on the web.
    Trubachev's opus magnum on the topic: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7...it?usp=sharing see pp. 21 & 31.

    Looking at the working method of people like Trubachev or Vyacheslav Ivanov it is easy to notice that it is not a careful analysis of all the data according to some transparent procedures: authors of this type see no fun in the boring aspects of scientific research. What they do is closer to writing essays: "what if I am right and the things are so and so", then, the original assumption is taken as proven and new essays are being written on that basis. As a result, the final conclusions are not necessarily wrong, but they represent some chain of probabilities randomly chosen among an ocean of other, not less probable, interpretations. It strongly resembles the approach by the ancient Greek philosophers: when thousands of people generate random ideas ("Universe is fire" — "no, Universe is water"), some of these ideas casually turn out right with time, and we praise e. g. Democritus for first discovering the atomic structure. This is in striking contrast to people like Meillet and Zaliznyak who leave proven facts and widely accepted interpretations.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Санкт-Петербург
    Native language
    Russian
    Age
    40
    Posts
    2,205

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Just to conclude with Trubachev. The greatest problem of minor sciences is that there is very little feedback. When one is involved in some physical research, the correctness is verified by the practice: if the plane eventually flies and lands, everything is OK, otherwise... There is usually no such possibility in philology, and the only feedback here is the existence of an audience of competent and reasonable colleagues. Unfortunately, this was definitely not so with the palaeoetymological Slavic studies in Russia — there simply were not enough people to evaluate Trubachev's research.

    I spoke once with Otkupschikov about the reaction on his book about the pre-Greek substrate: he said that there was virtually no reaction, since nobody read it carefully — some people looked at the complexity of the book and decided that it must have been a serious research, the others looked at the conclusions that contradicted their own ideas and rejected the book entirely (well, if recent Carian achievements by Adiego are not another vaporware, like many others before, Otkupschikov eventually was wrong with the palaeo-Balkanic nature of the Carian language, though the book itself is just fine).

    There is a classical phrase from Solovyov's «Возмутитель спокойствия» that describes how things work in such kind of sciences:

    «[х]отя он очень сильно подозревал Ходжу Насреддина в мошенничестве и невежестве, но подозрение не есть уверенность, можно и ошибиться; зато о своем крайнем невежестве мудрец знал точно и не осмелился спорить».

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Native language
    Russian
    Posts
    194

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Quote Originally Posted by ahvalj View Post
    Just to conclude with Trubachev. The greatest problem of minor sciences is that there is very little feedback. When one is involved in some physical research, the correctness is verified by the practice: if the plane eventually flies and lands, everything is OK, otherwise... There is usually no such possibility in philology, and the only feedback here is the existence of an audience of competent and reasonable colleagues. Unfortunately, this was definitely not so with the palaeoetymological Slavic studies in Russia — there simply were not enough people to evaluate Trubachev's research.
    Very wise words indeed, but is not it the essence of this, as you rightly said, `minor science'? “Historical linguistics often resorts to generalizations based on limited evidence, making statements that are far from obvious and often subject to discussion and various interpretations.” (Maciej Wencel. “Making Archaeology Speak - Archaeology and Linguistics”). The fundamental problem has been formulated by Pulgram as: “Now when we reconstruct, through the methods of comparative historical linguistics, an array of asterisked Proto-Indo-European forms, the procedure itself implies that the result of our endeavors is a uniform construct. We are, in fact, creating an idiolect -- not of a speaker, to be sure, but of the scholar, of the method, as it were. This procedural circumstance spares us a priori all scruples and worries over uniformity. But note that the result emanates from the method, that different procedures would deliver different results.” (Pulgram, E. “Proto-Indo-European Reality and Reconstruction”. Language, Linguistic Society of America, 1959, 35, pp. 421--426).

    Returning to the topic, many years ago I started from the concept of Balto-Slavonic but in the course of lexicographic an comparative research my views on this have changed. I can now clearly see the gap separating the two groups and quite agree with Trubachev that despite the apparent similarity there is an even larger disparity at the very fundamental lexical stratum. I can now better understand why Meillet wrote that `The general resemblance of Baltic and Slavic is so apparent that no one challenges the notion of a period of common development. Nevertheless, upon close examination the innovations and the individual features, common to the two groups are less probative than they appear at first" (See the ref. in my earlier post p.58). In my opinion, Baltic and Slavonic come from separate but closely related IE dialects and I came to accept Meillet's conclusion: " [...] Baltic and Slavic had identical points of departure and [...] they developed under the same conditions and influences. There may even been some period of common development, but, if so, neither Baltic nor Slavic, the most conservative of the Indo-European languages, produced any notable innovations in the course of it. It is sufficient to examine the verb system to see that the two developments were independent at an early date." (p. 67).
    Last edited by Dhira Simha; 2nd November 2013 at 4:35 PM.
    शुभमस्तु


  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Санкт-Петербург
    Native language
    Russian
    Age
    40
    Posts
    2,205

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Look, that's all true, but Baltic and Slavic share at least three unique and very specific kinds of phonetic innovations I had mentioned some posts before:
    (1) i/u reflexes of syllabic sonants — there are other groups with u-coloring (Germanic and some Palaeobalkanic — reflexed in Greek borrowings with yr/yl/yn/ym), with i (some cases in Celtic, though i there goes after the sonant, not before it) — but no other branch has both at the same time (and often with parallel development: when it is i in Baltic, it usually corresponds to i in Slavic);
    (2) Winter law (acute lengthening of old short vowels before IE voiced/glottalized stops) — again, no group has anything comparable, plus it must have been quite old since the IE o in Baltic lengthens to o:, while a — to a:, suggesting this law operated before the merger of short o and a;
    (3) the extreme similarity if not identity of the accentuation system (see Dybo) — a thing that cannot be borrowed in principle.
    Points (2) and (3) were not known at the time of major Balto-Slavic discussions since they became clear only in the eighties.

    This all implies that the split must have happened after the rest of the documented IE branches had diverged from the common stock, so in any case there must have been a serious period of time necessary to create the new accentuation system, with an acute/non-acute opposition, identical rules of accent placement (different at the same time from those in Indo-Iranic, Greek, pre-Werner's Germanic and pre-Dybo's Italic and Celtic) etc. I can only repeat my arguments that languages change and diverge with time and that e. g. the modern Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages have diverged for 3,5–4 millennia to such an extent that it is hard to imagine they have any special connections, yet it is often claimed that the language of older parts of Avesta can be converted into a decent Vedic by standard phonetic replacements (and vice versa).

    I think the following can be considered proven:
    (1) We don't know how close the ancestors of both branches were at various IE periods.
    (2) After the split of IE, both branches experienced a period of common unique innovations (outlined above + many less unique).
    (3) After that, they developed separately but influencing each other from time to time so they exhibit many similar (but not always identical) innovations, even at pretty late periods (e. g. yotations occurred in parallel in the 1st millenium in Slavic and in the 1st or early 2nd millennia in Baltic, the compound adjectives formed on the local material but in a fully parallel manner (including avoidance of trisyllabic endings), the aspectual opposition in verbs developed separately but in parallel (though in Slavic it went further), finally the modern Lithuanian consonantism is so astonishingly close to the modern Russian one, to the extent that the academic grammar by Ambrazas et al. (1985) wrote «Согласные фонемы ... литовского языка реализуются по существу такими же звуками, как и соответствующие фонемы русского языка, и потому они не нуждаются в подробных артикуляционных характеристиках» (p. 34)).

    Practically, for the title question of this topic, it means that Baltic and Slavic do not belong to the same group of the level of Germanic, but they do belong to an informal supergroup. Since all this taxonomy exists first of all for didactic and mnemonic purposes, there are numerous contexts when it is more convenient to operate with Baltic and Slavic as independent groups with their particular peculiarities, but there are numerous contexts when it is more convenient to treat them together, like e. g. the ancient Indo-Iranic.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Санкт-Петербург
    Native language
    Russian
    Age
    40
    Posts
    2,205

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Just for fun, here is the beginning of "Pater noster" in the 11th century Old Church Slavonic (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Отче_наш) (Wikipedia text has Russifying mistakes):
    «Otĭče našĭ jĭže jesi na nebesĭxŭ,
    da svętitŭ sę jĭmę tvoje,
    da prijĭdetŭ carĭstvĭje tvoje,
    da bǫdetŭ voļa tvoja
    jako na nebese i na zemļi».

    Now, hocus-pocus, leaving all the grammar and lexis as is, I change the phonetics as it must have sounded one thousand years before, at Christ's time (I voluntarily distinguish between ō and ā, and write an older ṣ instead of x, and ž/š instead of z/s from IE palatovelars, though honestly nobody knows if these changes had already occurred to that time):
    «Atike nōsjas jas ge esei nō nebesiṣu,
    dō šwenteiti sen inmen twaja,
    dō prei ideti [waldūkistwa] twaja,
    dō būndeti waljā twajā
    jāka nō nebese ei nō žemjai».

    Now, hocus-pocus again, I take this text, pretend it to be a proto-Baltic text of the same period, and change the phonetics as it developed to the modern Lithuanian, sound after sound:
    «Atike nuosias, jas ge esi nuo nebesisu,
    duo šventietis įmę tvaja,
    duo priideti [karalystė] tvaja,
    duo bundeti valia tvaja
    joka nuo nebese ie nuo žemei».

    Enjoy ,-)

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Native language
    Russian
    Posts
    194

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Quote Originally Posted by ahvalj View Post
    Look, that's all true, but Baltic and Slavic share at least three unique and very specific kinds of phonetic innovations I had mentioned some posts before:
    (1) i/u reflexes of syllabic sonants — there are other groups with u-coloring (Germanic and some Palaeobalkanic — reflexed in Greek borrowings with yr/yl/yn/ym), with i (some cases in Celtic, though i there goes after the sonant, not before it) — but no other branch has both at the same time (and often with parallel development: when it is i in Baltic, it usually corresponds to i in Slavic);
    The question of sonorants is still one of the disputed areas. For example in the Watkin's Dictionary of IE Roots you can still find different reflexes for OCS (*rъ/*lъ) and Lithuanian (*ir/*il).

    Quote Originally Posted by ahvalj View Post
    (2) Winter law (acute lengthening of old short vowels before IE voiced/glottalized stops) — again, no group has anything comparable, plus it must have been quite old since the IE o in Baltic lengthens to o:, while a — to a:, suggesting this law operated before the merger of short o and a;
    As you know, Winter's Law is one of the most disputed and controversial 'sound laws' which Sylvain Patri clearly called a `fiction` based on `coïncidences aléatoires': “Il s’ensuit que les principes nécessaires à l’élaboration d’une règle cohérente que sont la régularité et l’économie descriptive sont l’un et l’autre contredits par les données. Toutes les conditions sont donc réunies pour conduire à la conclusion que l’hypothèse d’une relation entre la durée des syllabe et la position de leur noyau par rapport aux consonnes de la série *b, *dy *g, *g, *gw est réfutée; en d’autres termes, que la loi de Winter est une fiction. Les quelques exemples qui ont été invoqués à l’appui de sa formulation relèvent de ce que les ouvrages de probabilité et de statistiques désignent sous le nom de « coïncidences aléatoires »: dès lors que n’existe nulle contrainte sur la répartition des voyelles allongées dans le mot (Varbot 1984), il est naturel que celles-ci puissent se rencontrer, devant toutes consonnes, y compris devant *b, *d, *g, même si cette constatation ne permet évidemment pas d’inférer l’existence d’une régularité prégnante.”

    Quote Originally Posted by ahvalj View Post
    (3) the extreme similarity if not identity of the accentuation system (see Dybo) — a thing that cannot be borrowed in principle.
    Points (2) and (3) were not known at the time of major Balto-Slavic discussions since they became clear only in the eighties.
    I admit that I am not an expert in accentuation, which appears to be the corner-stone of the `Leiden School' (which I believe you embrace), but I know that it is not without controversies and problems. There are considerable dialectal variations in Lithuanian, which is practically the only source of information about Baltic accentuation. We have no direct information about Pra-Slavonic accent. Also there is no consensus in IE accentuation as it is directly linked to the problem of laryngeals which is an issue in itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by ahvalj View Post
    Practically, for the title question of this topic, it means that Baltic and Slavic do not belong to the same group of the level of Germanic, but they do belong to an informal supergroup. Since all this taxonomy exists first of all for didactic and mnemonic purposes, there are numerous contexts when it is more convenient to operate with Baltic and Slavic as independent groups with their particular peculiarities, but there are numerous contexts when it is more convenient to treat them together, like e. g. the ancient Indo-Iranic.
    In my opinion, the 1-3 arguments are hardly sufficient to support `Balto-Slavonic' unity in the `classic' form as envisaged by Schelicher. I would agree with your definition `informal supergroup'. This goes well with the results of my etymological research. Thank you for the excellent post!
    Last edited by Dhira Simha; 3rd November 2013 at 1:51 AM.
    शुभमस्तु


  15. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Native language
    Russian
    Posts
    194

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    "Now, hocus-pocus, leaving all the grammar and lexis as is, I change the phonetics as it must have sounded one thousand years before, at Christ's time"

    Bravo! Could have been signed "Frederik Kortlandt"

    Lithuanian:

    Tėve mūsų, kuris esi danguje,
    teesie šventas Tavo vardas,
    teateinie Tavo karalystė,
    teesie Tavo valia
    kaip danguje, taip ir žemėje.
    Count the number of cognates but, for God's sake, without [karalystė]!!!.
    Atike nuosias, jas ge esi nuo nebesisu,
    duo šventietis įmę tvaja,
    duo priideti [karalystė] tvaja,
    duo bundeti valia tvaja
    joka nuo nebese ie nuo žemei.
    Last edited by Dhira Simha; 3rd November 2013 at 1:00 AM.
    शुभमस्तु


  16. #76
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Санкт-Петербург
    Native language
    Russian
    Age
    40
    Posts
    2,205

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dhira Simha View Post
    The question of sonorants is still one of the disputed areas. For example in the Watkin's Dictionary of IE Roots you can still find different reflexes for OCS (*rъ/*lъ) and Lithuanian (*ir/*il).
    This is actually the area with the least amount of problems. There is a number of mismatching reflexes (ginti/гънати), but these can occur in the same language as well (жерло/горло from *gwrtlo). Anyway, double reflexes are a very striking and strong shared innovation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dhira Simha View Post
    As you know, Winter's Law is one of the most disputed and controversial 'sound laws' which Sylvain Patri clearly called a `fiction` based on `coïncidences aléatoires': “Il s’ensuit que les principes nécessaires à l’élaboration d’une règle cohérente que sont la régularité et l’économie descriptive sont l’un et l’autre contredits par les données. Toutes les conditions sont donc réunies pour conduire à la conclusion que l’hypothèse d’une relation entre la durée des syllabe et la position de leur noyau par rapport aux consonnes de la série *b, *dy *g, *g, *gw est réfutée; en d’autres termes, que la loi de Winter est une fiction. Les quelques exemples qui ont été invoqués à l’appui de sa formulation relèvent de ce que les ouvrages de probabilité et de statistiques désignent sous le nom de « coïncidences aléatoires »: dès lors que n’existe nulle contrainte sur la répartition des voyelles allongées dans le mot (Varbot 1984), il est naturel que celles-ci puissent se rencontrer, devant toutes consonnes, y compris devant *b, *d, *g, même si cette constatation ne permet évidemment pas d’inférer l’existence d’une régularité prégnante.”
    These problems have been largely resolved in the last decades. The dictionary by Derksen (Leiden school you'd mentioned) is built entirely around the Winter law: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7...it?usp=sharing And here are a couple of recent papers: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7...it?usp=sharing (Dybo) and https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7...it?usp=sharing (Young). I think, Winter law has matured enough to be used safely.



    Quote Originally Posted by Dhira Simha View Post
    I admit that I am not an expert in accentuation, which appears to be the corner-stone of the `Leiden School' (which I believe you embrace), but I know that it is not without controversies and problems. There are considerable dialectal variations in Lithuanian, which is practically the only source of information about Baltic accentuation. We have no direct information about Pra-Slavonic accent. Also there is no consensus in IE accentuation as it is directly linked to the problem of laryngeals which is an issue in itself.
    I don't adhere to the Leiden school and I find Kortland to be a scientist of the same calibre as Trubachov and Ivanov. This list by him (still largely accepted by Leiden scientists — see Derksen's preface in the dictionary from the first link) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7...it?usp=sharing is a classical example of «краткое введение в сравнительное слоноведение» from the old joke — I don't imagine in principle how the existing data can lead anyone to such a detailed construction (and highly doubtful in so many details).

    As to the Balto-Slavic accentology — in the last thirty years the things have become increasingly clearer. Here is the huge research by Dybo (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7...it?usp=sharing), the main person behind the revolution. Please, note that, in contrast to Trubachov and Ivanov, Dybo goes from material to conclusions, and analyses the bulk of the data, instead of flittering from assumption to assumption.

    The Latvian and Samogitian data have turned out to be not less important than the Aukstaitian ones, since each branch has preserved different aspects of the original system.

    In brief, what has changed since the situation found in the old manuals.
    (1) The original IE had an opposition of high- and low-toned syllables, like e. g. the Japanese. The place and quality of the accent depended on the interplay of such syllables in the word form. In B and Sl the stress originally fell on the first high-toned syllable of the word form. If all syllables were low-toned, the stress of a special kind fell on the first syllable (hence e. g. modern за'нял but заняла' or рука' but ру'ку and на' руку).
    (2) The high-toned stems are reflected as Lithuanian stress patterns (1) and (2) and the Slavic (a), (b) and (d). The low-toned stems are reflected as Lithuanian patterns (3) and (4) and Slavic (c).
    (3) There were thus four original kinds of stems: high-toned acute (Lithuanian 1), high-toned non-acute (Lithuanian 2), low-toned acute (Lithuanian 3), low-toned non-acute (Lithuanian 4).
    (4) In high-toned stems, the Lithuanian acute corresponds to the Slavic acute, the Lithuanian circumflex corresponds to the Slavic new acute (when the latter is not secondary before ь and ъ). In low-toned stems, the Lithuanian merged its acute with the high-toned acute and its circumflex with the high-toned circumflex (not so in Latvian), while Slavic has merged both low-toned intonations into the Slavic circumflex — thus, what is called circumflex in BSl and L is not the same as the circumflex in the attested Slavic (the major wrong assumption in the entire old literature).

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Санкт-Петербург
    Native language
    Russian
    Age
    40
    Posts
    2,205

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Also, a fine work on the history of the Russian accentuation (again, compare this level with Trubachov's "masterpieces"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7...it?usp=sharing (see especially pp. 118–128 and 158).

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Санкт-Петербург
    Native language
    Russian
    Age
    40
    Posts
    2,205

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dhira Simha View Post
    "Now, hocus-pocus, leaving all the grammar and lexis as is, I change the phonetics as it must have sounded one thousand years before, at Christ's time"

    Bravo! Could have been signed "Frederik Kortlandt"

    Lithuanian:

    Tėve mūsų, kuris esi danguje,
    teesie šventas Tavo vardas,
    teateinie Tavo karalystė,
    teesie Tavo valia
    kaip danguje, taip ir žemėje.
    Count the number of cognates but, for God's sake, without [karalystė]!!!.
    Atike nuosias, jas ge esi nuo nebesisu,
    duo šventietis įmę tvaja,
    duo priideti [karalystė] tvaja,
    duo bundeti valia tvaja
    joka nuo nebese ie nuo žemei.
    Well, let's also compare this:
    "Our Father in heaven,
    hallowed be your name.
    Your kingdom come,
    your will be done,
    on earth, as it is in heaven"

    with this:
    "
    Atta unsar þu in himinam,
    weihnai namo þein,

    qimai þiudinassus þeins,
    wairþai wilja þeins

    swe in himina jah ana airþai".

    Or this:
    «
    Notre Père, qui es aux Cieux,
    Que ton nom soit sanctifié,
    Que ton règne vienne,
    Que ta volonté soit faite
    Sur la terre comme au ciel».

    with this:
    «
    Tatăl nostru Care ești în ceruri,
    sfințească-se numele Tău,
    vie împărăția Ta,
    fie voia Ta,
    precum în cer așa și pe Pământ».

    Languages have a habit to change.
    Last edited by ahvalj; 3rd November 2013 at 6:13 AM.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Санкт-Петербург
    Native language
    Russian
    Age
    40
    Posts
    2,205

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    The Lithuanian nominal accentuation is pretty transparent. For a historical explanation check here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7...it?usp=sharing on pp. 34–36 and e. g. 42–43, for a synchronous one — here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7...it?usp=sharing on pp. 77–81.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Native language
    Russian
    Posts
    194

    Re: Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

    Quote Originally Posted by ahvalj View Post
    The Lithuanian nominal accentuation is pretty transparent. For a historical explanation check here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7...it?usp=sharing on pp. 34–36 and e. g. 42–43, for a synchronous one — here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7...it?usp=sharing on pp. 77–81.
    Thank you very much, I know most of the sources you quoted and daily use Derksen, however, accentuation has not been relevant to my current work but I definitely need an update here.
    शुभमस्तु


Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •