Why are Baltic languages not considered Slavic?

Dhira Simha

Senior Member
UK
Russian
:D
As if they started from some different system. They surely both started from proto-IE and co-existed after, so "given the long-time co-existence and interference one would expect and even greater similarity" ;)
Which they had until Slavic expanded and assimilated crazy number of other dialects and people.

You, probably know for sure what is behind the label "proto-IE", where and when it originated and existed, how it sounded, what was its grammar, what was its dialectal division etc., also what was the origin of the Slavs, and from where they "expanded" and what "crazy number of other dialects and people" they assimilated. Pls. enlighten us ;)....
 
  • arvistro

    New Member
    Latvian
    You, probably know for sure what is behind the label "proto-IE", where and when it originated and existed, how it sounded, what was its grammar, what was its dialectal division etc., also what was the origin of the Slavs, and from where they "expanded" and what "crazy number of other dialects and people" they assimilated. Pls. enlighten us ;)....
    I don't think this even needs an answer :) We apparently live in different worlds.
     

    DarkChild

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian
    By the way, about the dissimilar verbal systems. Let's take the Russian verb as it is, with the Infinitive, full set of participles, and the single л-Past, and the Bulgarian verb without the bookish and Russian-influenced present participles and imagine that the л-tenses have been lost or, better, replaced with имам constructions: the only shared verbal forms between Russian and this imaginary Bulgarian will be the Present tense and the Past Passive Participle — and all this for just a millennium of divergent development.
    What exactly are you referring to? If it's what I think it is, it's not bookish at all and used all the time. Also, not sure why you think it's Russian-influenced. I've actually never heard of Russian influences on grammar.
     
    What exactly are you referring to? If it's what I think it is, it's not bookish at all and used all the time. Also, not sure why you think it's Russian-influenced. I've actually never heard of Russian influences on grammar.
    Sorry if it is wrong, but this is what I have read in virtually any description of the Bulgarian grammar. For example, E. A. Scatton, "Bulgarian" in B. C. Comrie & G. G. Corbett (eds.), 1993, "The Slavonic languages": 215 (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_7IkEzr9hyJWWV3OWtRZzl6cFU&authuser=0) — "A present active participle is formed from imperfective present stems with the suffixes /-ašt- ~ -ešt-/: m SG п'ишещ/píšešt 'writing'. A strictly literary form devised in the late nineteenth century on Russian and Church Slavonic models, it is only used attributively".

    By the way, I had forgotten the Imperative, so we would have had three shared forms.

    Update. Ю. С. Маслов, 1981, "Грамматика болгарского языка": 228, writes:
    "Причастие настоящего времени распространилось в литературном языке в XIX–XX в. под русским (первоначально и церковнославянским) влиянием и в первое время с русской огласовкой суффикса (орфогр. -ущ и -ющ), лишь позже получившего своё современное болгаризованное оформление".

    Update 2. http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Руско_....80.D0.B8.D1.87.D0.B0.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B8.D0.B5
    Сегашното деятелно причастие (знаещ, виждащ) е нововъведение в новобългарския книжовен език, което възстановява изчезналата в народните говори старобългарска форма. За възраждането му първоначално оказва влияние църковнославянският, а по-късно и руският език, като отначало се възприемат частично русизираните форми (например ведущ, но не ведуч, понеже както в църковнославянски, така и в руски тези форми са останали със старобългарско щ, вместо източнославянско ч, за справка вижте тук). По-късно, към края на 19 век заеманите от руски по книжовен път форми на деятелни причастия се приспособяват към морфологичните основи на българските глаголи и по този начин стават част от българското спрежение. В съвременната разговорна реч тези форми обикновено се заместват с конструкция от относително местоимение + глагол (например: вм. намиращ се - който се намира и т.н.).
    За справка:

     
    Last edited:

    Christo Tamarin

    Senior Member
    Bulgarian
    By the way, about the dissimilar verbal systems. Let's take the Russian verb as it is, with the Infinitive, full set of participles, and the single л-Past, and the Bulgarian verb without the bookish and Russian-influenced present participles and imagine that the л-tenses have been lost or, better, replaced with имам constructions: the only shared verbal forms between Russian and this imaginary Bulgarian will be the Present tense and the Past Passive Participle — and all this for just a millennium of divergent development.
    What exactly are you referring to? If it's what I think it is, it's not bookish at all and used all the time. Also, not sure why you think it's Russian-influenced. I've actually never heard of Russian influences on grammar.

    ahvalj was right. The active present participle in Bulgarian is not inherited, it is restored from Literary Russian and Church Slavonic. Such forms are missing in vernacular tongues, Bulgarian-Russian-Greek.

    Also, East Bulgarian lacks the adverbial active present participle. Тhose forms (имайки, бидейки, знаейки) are the contribution of the South-West dialects to the Standard Bulgarian. Unlike East Bulgarian, vernacular Russian and Greek have such forms.

    If the forms of the active present participle in Bulgarian were inherited, there should not be endings -ящ-/-ащ-, there should not be mutations -ящ- > -ещ- (apllied by some people), there should only be -ещ-/-ъщ- as in вещ/горещ/могъщ/същ.
     
    Last edited:

    rur1920

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Such forms are missing in vernacular tongues, Bulgarian-Russian-Greek.
    DarkChild is also right: "missing" is too strong a word. As it feels, the tendency to use the present participle for specific purposes is the same in spoken and in written, though of course the inherent difference of purposes of these kinds of speech may result in differing frequencies of utilisation of such participles. I would not say that participles are rarer in spoken speech, I would instead say that some non-formalised constructions are introduced in spoken and are more frequent there than in written speech ("этот человек, он в гости пошёл…"). Attributively (and even predicatively, as opposed to the use as a conjunction), these forms are most certainly completely common: one cannot imagine spoken speech without phrases like "это человек знающий". I am speaking about Russian of course, maybe in Bulgarian there are specifics, though DarkChild says you quite do use the present participle in spoken.
     
    Since we have touched on the participles, here are examples of etymologically identical participial forms in Lithuanian and Old Church Slavonic. The Accusative Singular feminine of the compound declension is taken as examples.

    vestivesti (= Russian вести) "to lead, to carry"
    vytiviti (= Russian вить) "to wind, to weave, to twist"

    Present Active participle: vedančiąją = vedǫštǫjǫ (= Russian ведущую)
    Past Active participle: vedusiąją = vedъšǫjǫ (= Russian ведшую)
    Present Passive participle: vedamąją = vedomǫjǫ (= Russian ведомую)
    Past Passive participle: vytąją = vitǫjǫ (= Russian витую)
     

    klemen

    Member
    Slovene
    Why are the Batic languages not considered Slave?
    Baltic languages are so different from slavic that they belong to different group of languages. But they have got in common with slavic languages some features, thus they are grouped together with slavic languages.
     
    Lithuanian (Baltic) vs. English (Germanic, influenced by Latin)

    An(t) = on
    Apsėstas = obsessed
    Apverst = upside down, obverse
    Ar = are, is, do
    Augmuo, augmenys, augalas = growth, augmentation, plant
    Augt, augint = augment, to grow, to raise
    Auksas = gold (Lat. Aurum)
    Avis = sheep (Lat. ovis)
    Balkis, rastas = balk, log
    Banda - band, flock
    Bet = but
    Bintas, bintuot = bandage
    Braukt = brush away
    Brūžint - to bruise
    Būti = to be
    Dantis = tooth (Lat. dentes)
    Darbas = work (german: arbeit)
    Duktė = daughter
    Džiaugsmas (pron.: jowgsmas) = joy
    Esi = is, are (It. sei)
    Ëst (vulg. animal) = to eat (Germ. essen)
    Gaut = to get, gain
    Gelbėt (pagelbėt) = help, save (the root is GELB-)
    Gentis = tribe, nation (Lat. gente)
    Giminė = genus, gender
    Girdët = to hear
    Girnos = grindstones
    Grandyt = to grain
    Griebt = to grab (grieb+ti vs. to+grab)
    Grindinys = pavement (to grind)
    Guoda (paguoda) = consolation, comfort, relief (related to "god"? guost vs. ghost?)
    į (old “in”) = in, into
    Jaunas = young
    Jie = they
    Jungtis = junction
    Jūs (pron.: yoos) = you
    Kambarys = room (chamber)
    Kask, kast = cascade (to dig)
    Kirst = to cut
    Kirstis = to cross
    Laižyt = to lick
    Lapas = leaf
    Leist = to let (let do something)
    Link = towards, link
    Lygmuo, lygiuot, lygint = league
    Mano = mine, my
    Myžt, myžo (vulg.) = mijar (Port.) Example: mijar na cadeira = myžti ant këdës - to pee on a chair)
    Moteris = woman (comp. mother, madre)
    Naujas = new
    Oras = air
    Per = Per
    Persekiot = to persecute
    Perst (vulg.) = to fart
    Pirkt (perka = buys) = to buy (perks, to perk)
    (už)Pist (vulg.) (to piss off, to make one upset)
    Plūgas = plough (agricult.)
    Purtyt = purge
    Raibul(iavimas)= ripple
    Raitytis, riestis = to writhe
    Ratas = wheel (Germ. rad)
    Rident = to roll over, to ride
    Salė = hall
    Saulė = sun (Lat. sol, Fr. soleil, It. Sole)
    Senas = old (senile)
    Sėst = to sit (sėdimas = sedentary)
    Siek, siekt = to seek
    Siela = soul
    Sirgt = sick
    Siūt, siuvimas = to sew, sewing
    Skambint = chime
    Skelt = to split
    Skrebot = scrape, scrub
    Skubėt = scurry
    Spiaut = to spit
    Stiebelis, stiebas = stubble
    Stot, stok = to stop, stop
    Sūnus = son
    Šaukt (pron. shaúkt) = to shout
    Šaut (pron. sháwt) = shoot
    Šikt (pron. shikt) = to shit
    Tapšnot = tap
    Tempt = to drag (~attempt?)
    Traukt = to pull (related to truck?)
    Tu = You (Lat. tu)
    Tūtavimas = tootle
    Vėjas = wind
    Vemt (vulg.) = to vomit
    Vyras = man (Latin: vir)

    Just to name a few…

    (ENG) Prefix To vs. (LIT) Suffix -ti

    IMHO the Lithuanian verb ending -t (-ti) seems to “match” or be related to the English “to”, for example: EN to shoot vs. LT shaut(ti). Let’s take the Lithuanian verb TRAUK(ti) (Eng: to pull, to truck) where the root is TRAUK- and the ending -TI is like the English TO in front of any English verb. Thus: Trauk-ti or To trauk, to truck. This is my theory (how English originates from the proto Indo-European language).

    LITH vs. LATIN

    dantis = tooth (Lat. dente(s))
    auksas = gold (Lat. Aurum)
    avis = sheep (Lat. ovis)
    saule = sun (Lat. sol, Fr. soleil, It. Sole)
    tu = you (Lat. tu)
    esi = is, are (It. sei)
    mirtis = mortem (death)
    naktis = noctis (night)
    and others…

    Now Lithuanian vs. Russian:


    Péreiti vs. Перейти (pereití) (to cross, a street)
    Prapuolë vs. Пропал (propál) (disappeared)
    Be vs. Без (bez) (without)
    Bëgioti vs. Бегать (begat’) (to keep on running)
    Prasyti vs. Просить (prosit’) (to ask)
    Büti vs. Быть (byt’) (to be)
    Ezys vs. Ёжик (jözhyk) (hedgehog)
    Ezeras vs. Озеро (özero) (lake)
    Duoti vs. Дать (dat’) (to give)
    Eiti vs. Идти (idtí) (to go)
    Plaukti vs. Плавать (plávat’) (to swim)
    Nesti vs. Нести (nestí) (to carry)
    Karve vs. Корова (karöva) (cow)
    Ranká vs. Рука (ruká) (hand)
    Büsim vs. Будем (büdem) (we will be)
    Kreivas vs. Кривой (krivöy) (curved, crooked)
    Ugnis vs. Огонь (agwoñ) (fire)
    Paprasyk vs. Попроси (poprosÿ) (ask)
    Pesciomis vs. Пешком (peshköm) (by walk)
    Gyvas vs. Живой (zhyvój) (alive)
    Nagai vs. Ногти (nogti) (toe/nails)
    Vezti vs. Везти (veztí) (to carry by driving)
    Ieskoti vs. Искать (iskát’) (to seek, look for)
    Sodinti vs. Садить (sadít’) (to plant)
    Prasaú vs. Прошу (prashü) (please, to ask)
    Prasom vs. Просим (prösim) (please, we ask)
    Sesti vs. Сесть (sëst’) (to sit down)
    Stoti vs. Стать (stät’) (to stand up)
    Lipdyti vs. Лепить (lepít’) (to mould, to glue)
    Parduoti vs. Продать (prodát’) (to sell)
    Laizyti vs. Лизать (lizát’) (to lick)
    Sedeti vs. Сидеть (sidét’) (to sit)
    Stoveti vs. Стоять (stoyát’) (to stand)
    Prapulti vs. Пропадать (propadát’) (to disappear)
    Tamsus vs. Тёмный (tyomnyj) (dark)
    Sapnas vs. Сон (sön) (a dream)
    Kaupti vs. Копить (kapit’) (to save, accumulate)
    Varna vs. Ворона (varona) (crow)
    Erelis vs. Орёл (aryol) (eagle)
    Blogas vs. Плохой (plakhoy) (bad, evil)
    Sidabras vs. Серебро (serebró) (silver)
    Zvaigzde vs. Звезда (zvezdá) (star)
    Sienas vs. Сено (siéno) (hay)
    Praeiti vs. Пройти (proytí) (to be over, to pass)
    Tada vs. Тогда (tagdá) (then)
    Kada vs. Когда (kagdá) (when)
    Kam vs. Кому (kamú) (whom)
    Kur vs. Куда (kudá) (where)
    Teka vs. Течёт (techyot) (river runs)
    Zmoná vs. Жена (zhená) (wife)
    Grazi vs. Красивая (krasívaya) (beautiful fem.)
    Muilas vs. Мыло (mylo) (soap)
    Jiems vs. Им (jim) (to/for them)
    Pereja vs. Переход (perekhöd) (ped. crossing)
    Virve vs. Верёвка (veryovka) (rope)
    Pradzia vs. Перед, начало (pered) (the beginning)
    Siena vs. Стена (stená) (wall)
    Sniegas vs. Снег (snieg) (snow)
    Ledas vs. Лёд (lyod) (ice)
    Usai vs. Усы (usý) (moustache)
    Sakalas vs. Сокол (swókal) (falcon)

    Slavic languages were somehow related to Baltic thousands of years ago way before Russians mixed up with Mongols, Tatars, Iranians, Finns and Turkic peoples. Yet humans live on Earth for millions of years and the last 2000 years are insignificant in development of languages. Humans may as well exist in the Universe for trillions of years.
     
    Last edited:

    AndrasBP

    Senior Member
    Hungarian
    I mean no offense when I say this, but I think the Lithuanian posters belief that their language is not and can not be related to Slavic languages has more to do with the cold war and their countries treatment by the soviets during that time then it does with linguistics.
    I totally agree.
    As a Russian speaker who has learned Lithuanian, I also learned early on not to tell Lithuanians that my knowledge of Russian actually helped me learn their language. Many of them got quite annoyed by this and tried to deny the obvious fact that there really are lots of similarities, both in grammar and vocabulary. One of them even claimed that English was closer to Lithuanian than Russian! :D :rolleyes:
     
    Top