Baltic languages ​​are different from Russian. Baltic languages

Proponents of Endzelin's hypothesis of secondary convergence were T. Lehr-Splavinsky, S. B. Bernstein, B. V. Gornung, K. Moshinsky.

Chronology

One of the supporters of the theory of Balto-Slavic unity, T. Ler-Splavinsky determines the period of existence of the community at 500-600 years, linking the beginning of the existence of the community (and its separation from the Proto-Indo-European continuum) to the era of expansion of the Corded Ceramics culture, which included the Proto-Balto-Slavs, and the end to the era of expansion of the Lusatian culture.

Historical background

In the 18th and even at the beginning of the 19th century, the dominant point of view, also presented by M. Lomonosov in Russia, was that the Baltic languages ​​​​descended from the Slavic ones. With the establishment of the comparative-historical method in the 19th century, F. Bopp put forward the idea of ​​genealogical (genetic) proximity between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages, and R. Raek and A. Schleicher about the Balto-Slavic-Germanic proximity, within the framework of which A. Schleicher postulated the subsequent identification of two separate groups - the Balto-Slavic proper and the Germanic. Subsequently, Schleicher’s position on the existence of a Balto-Slavic proto-language was, on the one hand, supported by researchers such as K. Brugman and F. Fortunatov, and criticized by A. L. Pogodin and Baudouin de Courtenay. In particular, A. L. Pogodin in his study “Traces of root-bases in Slavic languages” (Warsaw, 1903) came to the conclusion that the Balto-Slavic proto-language is a scientific fiction, and K. Brugman in his “Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen" (Straßburg, 1902-1904) substantiated the existence of a Balto-Slavic proto-language on the basis of eight features. Among the Russian scientists, the theory of the Balto-Slavic proto-language was fully accepted by V. Porzhezinsky and A. Shakhmatov, the latter of whom also supplemented Brugman’s argumentation with data from accentology. In 1908, A. Meilleux, having collected all the facts known at that time in his book “Les dialectes indo-europeens” (Paris, 1908), proposed the concept of the independent and parallel development of the Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic languages, and also put forward his own counter-arguments regarding Brugman's eight signs.

A scientific debate arose. A major event in the study of the Baltic-Slavic problem was the monograph by Y. Endzelin “Slavic-Baltic Studies” (Kharkov, 1911). Its author, being initially a supporter of the existence of the Balto-Slavic proto-language, nevertheless, contrary to his own views in his research, came to an intermediate position between the point of view of Meillet and Brugman, expressing an opinion that differed significantly from both the theory of parallel and independent development of the Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic languages, and from the theory of the Balto-Slavic proto-language. According to Endzelin, already in the Proto-Indo-European era, the Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic dialects had significant differences. After the collapse of the Indo-European community and the separation of the Indo-Aryans, the Slavs, neighboring them and the Balts, after some time became closer to the latter, experiencing an era of joint development together with the Balts. Thus, it makes sense to talk about a period of long life together, but not about the existence of a Balto-Slavic proto-language.

Overall rating

With regard to the hypotheses related to the Balto-Slavic problem, their certain distance from the comparative method and focus on their own theoretical constructs is noted. Among the main problems of this kind of concepts and methodological comments regarding the very question of Balto-Slavic kinship, the following is noted:

1. When proving genetic kinship, it is necessary to operate with the most reliable criterion, namely, phonological innovation, or more precisely, the disappearance of “ phonological contrasts in a number of etymologically related units", since only such processes are irreversible and devoid of morphological impurities.
2. Among the hypotheses that insist on the genetic relationship of the respective languages, there is a lack of establishment of joint innovations with simultaneous absolute and relative chronologization of this kind of isogloss.
3. It must be taken into account that structural parallels, in particular word-formation morphology, where Baltic and Slavic share the most common features, within the framework of the comparative method “ should be assigned less evidentiary value».
4. Among the hypotheses insisting on the genetic relationship of the corresponding languages, there is a lack of clarification of “ what share of convergent traits was the result of a shared heritage, and what share was the result of linguistic contacts?».

Arguments of the parties and private observations

Phonetics and phonology

Arguments of supporters

Yu. Tambovtsev in his article devoted to the statistical study of the phono-typological distance between the Baltic and some Slavic languages, in which the typology of the structure of sound chains is analyzed based on the frequency of occurrence of eight groups of consonants (labial, front-lingual, middle-lingual, back-lingual, sonorant, noisy stops, noisy fricative, noisy voiced), as well as vowels, which makes it possible to establish the proximity between languages ​​at the phonetic level, provides the following quantitative characteristics based on the value of the chi-square criterion between the languages ​​being compared:

From this, as the author of the work points out, it turns out that Lithuanian and Latvian are closest in sound to Old Russian, but not modern Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian. Moreover, as Yu. Tambovtsev notes, the phono-typological distance between Lithuanian and Latvian is much greater than between Lithuanian and Old Russian, and Latvian is closest to Old Russian, which, as the author of the work believes, may indicate the existence of a Balto-Slavic group in the Indo-European family of languages. Of the other Slavic languages, as Yu. Tambovtsev points out, the Lithuanian language is least similar in sound to Serbo-Croatian and Latvian is least close to Polish. In turn, the closeness of Lithuanian to Belarusian, according to the author, can be explained not only by Balto-Slavic unity in the past, but also by intensive contacts between both languages ​​within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Criticism

In turn, Lithuanian linguist Antanas Klimas (lit.) Russian in his article on the relationship between Slavic and Baltic, he criticized Semerenya’s evidence. Where not stated to the contrary, criticism of the arguments of supporters of the genetic relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages, in this case on the basis of phonetic, phonological and morphonological (morphophonological) features, is given by Antanas Klimas:

Private observations

According to L. Moshinsky, the change in prim.-e. syllabic sonorants, although it is a common Balto-Slavic process and can be considered to substantiate the thesis about the existence of a Balto-Slavic proto-language community, at the same time, already in the Balto-Slavic era in Proto-Slavic, as indicated by a number of data, there was a different implementation of this from the Proto-Baltic process associated with the activity of the law of the open syllable in the Proto-Slavic dialects of the Balto-Slavic language. T. Milevsky, for his part, denying the existence of a Balto-Slavic proto-linguistic community, based on this specificity of Proto-Slavic, derives its sonants directly from Proto-Slavic. syllabic sonorants.

Arguments of opponents

Where the contrary is not indicated, the arguments of opponents of the existence of a genetic relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages, in this case - on the basis of phonetic, phonological and morphonological (morphophonological) features are given according to Antanas Klimas:

In turn, A.V. Dubasova, in her work on the formation of consonantal systems in the Baltic and Slavic languages, points out that in both languages ​​processes such as the transition to Proto-E. took place. voiced aspirates into voiced ones, iotation, palatalization, then assimilation, dissimilation, metathesis and deletion of consonants and a number of others (see below). In her opinion, such a similar list of changes may indicate a special relationship between Slavic and Baltic, but before drawing conclusions about the qualitative side of such relationships, it is necessary to consider these processes from the point of view of their causes, consequences and course.

Thus, in the field of iotation, A.V. Dubasova points out that there are significant differences between Slavic and Baltic iotation, which researchers have long noted. At the same time, even among the Baltic languages ​​themselves, iotation led to different results, from which, as she states, they usually concluded that this process occurred after the collapse of Proto-Baltic into separate Baltic languages, and this despite, as A.V. Dubasova emphasizes, iotation is found at the Proto-Slavic level. As for palatalization, it, as A.V. Dubasova notes, is typologically a trivial phonetic change, the presence of which in Slavic and Baltic cannot indicate any genetic connections, especially since there are significant differences between Baltic palatalization and Slavic . In her separate article devoted to this phonetic process, A. V. Dubasova begins her work by stating the existing difficulties among specialists in reconstructing the phonological system of the Proto-Baltic language, due to the specifics of the material of the Old Prussian language, regarding which there are often inconsistent positions among different researchers . Further, pointing out the closeness between Latvian and Slavic palatalization, A.V. Dubasova at the same time shows that the implementation of this process, conditions and features, in particular changes or, conversely, non-change of consonants before certain vowels, were different in both languages. In her work on the formation of consonantal systems in the Baltic and Slavic, in relation to assimilation in voicing-voicelessness, A. V. Dubasova argues that this assimilation took place already in Proto-Slavic, and its cause was the loss of ultra-short vowels, but at the same time in Proto-Baltic ultra-short vowels are not reconstructed, which she believes suggests that Baltic assimilation has a different origin. In the case of the loss of final consonants, she points out that in Proto-Slavic this process was a consequence of a general tendency, while in Proto-Baltic the loss of final consonants is not observed at all. Regarding metathesis, A.V. Dubasova notes that in Proto-Baltic it was an independent phenomenon, not associated, unlike Proto-Slavic, with the opening of a syllable. As for prostheses, epentheses ( *s-mobile) and the introduction of consonants, then in the first case this phenomenon manifests itself much more intensely in Slavic than in the Baltic languages; in the second case, *s-mobile in Slavic in many cases it was lost, and in the Baltic languages ​​there are still quite a lot of examples of it; in turn, the appearance of etymologically unjustified k, g before sibilants or sibilants (the introduction of consonants) has not become widespread in Slavic, unlike the Baltic languages. With regard to gemination, A.V. Dubasova notes that among specialists two positions are indicated - on the one hand, considering this phenomenon as an independent process, on the other, as a genetically common one. With regard to the consonant system, A.V. Dubasova, referring to specialists, although pointing out that there is no consensus on this matter, claims that the Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic consonant systems differ in the area of ​​a number of alveolar consonants and a number of dental consonants. All this, in her opinion, allows us to conclude that:

“From the example of the presented phenomena, one can see that the Slavic and Baltic languages ​​“gave preference” to different methods of transformation, using one or another means with varying degrees of intensity; all changes, despite their similarity in the Baltic and Slavic languages, turn out to be independent processes, with different causes and different consequences. Therefore, it is more logical to talk not about “divergence,” but about initially different development - without postulating a common Balto-Slavic proto-language.”

In her work on the general and different in the development of the Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic phonological systems from the Proto-Indo-European, A. V. Dubasova examines some phonetic processes common to the Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic languages. Thus, with regard to the assimilation of Indo-European palatopalatals, it indicates that there is no generally accepted opinion according to which the development of Proto-European. palatopalatal in Slavic and Baltic would be identical, but if we adhere, as she claims, to traditional reconstructions (I.-E. *k̂, *ĝ, *ĝh> probalt. *š’, *ž’, Praslav *s’, *z’), then the fate of the pri.-e. palatal rather indicates their independent development in the respective languages. In turn, in an article devoted to the mixing of palatopalatal and dental in the Baltic and Slavic languages, A.V. Dubasova argues that, unlike Proto-Baltic in Proto-Slavic, this mixing did not have a significant impact on the development of consonantism and therefore, as she believes, it can be assumed , that in Proto-Slavic it was in fact not an independent phenomenon, but arose under the influence of Baltic dialects.

Prosody and accentology

Arguments of supporters

1. The disappearance of the difference between primary words in the group of primary words. baritones and oxytones;
2. The emergence of intonations in a group of derivative words, which led to the formation of several intonation-accentuation paradigms;
3. Intonation-accentuation trinity of paradigms in declension and conjugation.

All this, according to E. Kurilovich, represents the strongest arguments in favor of the existence of Balto-Slavic unity in the past.

In turn, the leading member of the Moscow accentological school - V. A. Dybo, a representative of the “post-Illich-Svitychevskaya” Slavic accentology, in one of his works concludes that the Slavic and Baltic languages ​​are descendants of the Balto-Slavic proto-language, since Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic actually had one accent system, which, in his opinion, was impossible to borrow. He emphasizes that the patterns of morphonological (morphophonological) phenomena, as a rule, are not clear to the speaker, and even with contacts of closely related dialects, their morphonological features are only eliminated, but not borrowed. In his article on the study of accent types of derivatives in the Balto-Slavic proto-language, V. A. Dybo argues that the reconstruction of the systems for generating accent types in the Proto-Slavic and Proto-Slavic languages ​​led to the restoration of two proto-language systems, which, in some cases, coincide in word-formation and accentology respect, and in others they represent different parts or “fragments” of the “actually one system” he postulated, and which, in his opinion, can be united in the course of further reconstruction.

The problem of the relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​is most fully considered by V. A. Dybo in his work devoted to Baltic comparative historical and Lithuanian historical accentology. He begins his work by criticizing the position of S. B. Bernstein and concludes that it is difficult to agree with his statement about the secondary convergence of the Slavic and Baltic languages, when they together preserved:

1. the difference between simple voiced stops and voiced aspirates;
2. the distinction between short and long diphthongs and diphthong combinations, which was lost in the rest of the Indo-European languages;
3. the so-called “Bezzenberger combinations”, direct reflections of which are found mainly only in ancient Indian and ancient Greek;
4. register tones, reflected in morphonological phenomena, and which were lost by other Indo-European languages.

At the same time, a general complex of accentological innovations is observed, such as:

1. creation of an identical system of accent paradigms with an identical system for generating accent types of derivatives;
2. delaying the final stress on primary long monophthongs and diphthongs (Hirth’s law);
3. the emergence of the “acute-circumflex” opposition;
4. metatonia “acute → circumflex before dominant suffixes”;
5. Fortunatov-de Saussure law.

Criticism

The methodology of V. A. Dybo in his work “Slavic accentology: Experience in reconstructing the system of accent paradigms in Proto-Slavic” (M.: Nauka, 1981) and the entire Moscow accentological school, based on the “paradigmatic accentology” accepted by them and many other researchers, was subjected to fundamental criticism from Yu. S. Stepanov, who reproaches V. A. Dybo for hypostatizing the role of the root morpheme following Saussure, while in reality “ the connection between the accent type of the derived word and the intonation of the root morpheme is determined by the word-formation type, the word-formation model of the word as a whole, etc.» .

Private observations

With regard to the distribution and use of intonations, E. Kurilovich noted that the morphological structure of the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​was identical before the emergence of common intonations. Yu. V. Shevelev points out that the Baltoslavic opposition or the opposition of acute to circumflex and a similar phenomenon in Greek arose independently of each other, after the collapse of the Proto-Indo-European language. H. Stang believed that the Slavic Akut, unlike the Lithuanian, retained the Balto-Slavic nature.

According to L. Moshinsky, a representative of classical Slavic accentology, Balto-Slavic inherited from Proto-Indo-European such two independent prosodic features as strength and longitude, and the third feature - tone, in turn, represents a common Balto-Slavic innovation. At the same time, in “Early Proto-Slavic” (L. Moshinsky’s term), that set of certain Balto-Slavic dialects from which Proto-Slavic developed, an additional feature was added to the distinctive longitude adopted from Proto-Indo-European - a change in the quality of the vowel.

V. A. Dybo, in a number of his works, defends the thesis that the Balto-Slavic accentological system is extremely archaic and, in general, not far removed from the Proto-Indo-European state, while other Indo-European languages ​​either lost or radically changed their accent systems. Also, he points out that perhaps in a number of Indo-European languages ​​some accentological innovations occurred that were also characteristic of Balto-Slavic, such as Hirt’s law in Celto-Italic and metatonia in Greek. S. L. Nikolaev, a representative of the Moscow accentological school, considers the metatony “acute → circumflex before dominant suffixes” as a specific late Proto-Indo-European phenomenon, and with regard to Hirt’s law, he points out that it has a typological parallel in Celto-Italic.

In turn, T. Pronk, in his article on Proto-Indo-European accentuation, analyzing the works of Dybo and a number of other researchers on Balto-Slavic accentuation, notes that, in addition to the ancient Indian ones, it is possible that only Proto-Slavic intonations, but not Baltic ones, directly reflect the Proto-Indo-European tonal system. According to T. Pronk, Proto-Slavic intonations are not an innovation and considering them in this capacity, often as a Balto-Slavic innovation, seems difficult. He also notes that Dybo's observations on accent placement in Proto-Slavic can be better explained if we consider this prosodic phenomenon as originating from accent placement in Proto-Indo-European.

In turn, the Dutch linguist Pepijn Hendricks criticizes representatives of the Moscow accentological school and specifically V. A. Dybo for giving Hirt’s law an uncertain status due to V. A. Dybo’s doubts regarding its applicability to a number of accentological processes in Slavic. In addition, T. G. Khazagerov characterizes Hirt's law as dubious.

Adjacent position

G. Mayer, noting the presence of pure phonological innovations among the dialects of Proto-Baltic, argues that, in contrast, the similarities between the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​are of a contact nature and are based on morphological-syntactically determined innovations of an accentological nature. K. Ebeling, a representative of the “post-Illich-Svitychevskaya” Slavic accentology, in his review of the chronology of Slavic accentological processes, argues that the significant similarity between the Slavic and Baltic accentuation systems can be explained by “ similar, but not identical development, starting from the same prim.-e. template» .

According to V. M. Illich-Svitych, although a comparison of the Slavic and Baltic systems of accentuation paradigms of the name leads to the conclusion about their identity, it is nevertheless difficult to say whether such a commonality indicates the existence of a Balto-Slavic system of accentuation paradigms of the name, since the mobility of stress in Baltic and Slavic may be a Proto-Indo-European archaism, and as for the delay of the final stress (Hirth's law), this indeed represents an innovation, but also found in Celto-Italic.

In turn, Thomas Olander, while confirming the significant similarity of the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​in his research in the field of accentology, nevertheless points out that such joint innovations can be interpreted in different ways, both within the framework of a single Baltic-Slavic proto-language and within the framework of close communication between the predecessor dialects of the Slavic and Baltic languages. At the same time, he believes that it is methodologically acceptable to treat the Balto-Slavic proto-language as a simple model for describing the common heritage of the Slavic and Baltic languages, although the relationship between their predecessor dialects could be much more complex.

Arguments of opponents

The famous Soviet accentologist L. A. Bulakhovsky, a representative of classical Slavic accentology, discussing in a number of his works the issue of Balto-Slavic relations, following N. V. Van Wijk, believes that the Fortunatov-de Saussure law may be a phenomenon of parallel development in both languages. As for Hirt's law, in his opinion, in reality there is no reliable basis for accepting the operation of this law in Slavic, although Lehr-Splavinsky's amendment to Hirt's law, formulated for the Proto-Slavic language, makes its operation in Slavic more probable. A number of other convergences of an accentological nature, such as metatonia, as he notes, do not seem convincing. Regarding the nature of intonations, L. A. Bulakhovsky claims that “ within each of the compared language groups, changes (even direct opposition) are no less than between them as a whole» .

Morphology and syntax

Arguments of supporters

On the part of supporters of the genetic relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages, the following arguments were proposed based on morphological and syntactic features:

Criticism

With regard to a number of these arguments, opponents of supporters of the genetic relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages, the following critical remarks were given:

Arguments of opponents

In turn, opponents of the existence of a genetic relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​pointed out those morphological features that, from their point of view, prove the absence of a corresponding connection between the Slavic and Baltic languages:

1. Baltic uses the suffix -mo in ordinal numbers, whereas in Slavic numbers the suffix is ​​used -wo(as in Indo-Iranian and Tocharian).
2. Suffix -es, used in the formation of names of body parts in Hittite and Proto-Slavic, is not used in the Baltic languages.
3. Slavic perfect *vĕdĕ, going back to the primordial era. perfect *u̯oi̯da(i̯), represents an archaism without a Baltic correspondence.
4. The Slavic imperative *jьdi continues the prim.-e. *i-dhí, which is not known in Baltic.
5. Slavic suffix of verbal nouns -tel-(close to Hittite -talla) is not used in the Baltic languages.
6. Slavic participles on -lъ, which have corresponding parallels in Armenian and Tocharian, are not known to the Baltic languages.
7. Suffix of Baltic verbs 1 l. units hours present V. -mai, while in Slavic this is not the case.
8. In Baltic languages ​​the infix is ​​often used -sto-, while in Slavic it is absent.
9. Baltic adjective suffix -inga
10. Baltic diminutive suffix -l- not used in Slavic languages.
11. Proto-Baltic did not differentiate between unit forms. h. and pl. h. in verbs 3 l., while in Proto-Slavic this difference was preserved.
12. Inflections 3rd year. units - pl. h. in Slavic well reflects the formants of the pri.-e. -t: -nt, missing from Baltic.
13. Proto-Slavic suffix of participles -no- not used in Baltic languages.
14. Slavic languages ​​have retained their original e.g. aorist on -s-(sigmatic aorist), while no traces of it have been found in the Baltic languages.
15. Proto-Slavic cardinal numerals of the large quantitative ( five six,… etc.) have the suffix -tь, while no traces of it have been found in the Baltic languages.

Vocabulary and semantics

Arguments of supporters

Szemerényi, in one of his fourteen points, pointed out a significant commonality of vocabulary not observed between other branches of the Indo-European languages. Moreover, more than 200 words in the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​are exclusive convergences.

In turn, M. N. Saenko, proposing a new method of using lexicostatistics, argues that in the basic vocabulary of Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic there is a large number of common innovations, which, as the author believes, can serve as a compelling argument for confirming the existence of Balto-Slavic unity.

Criticism

According to opponents of genetic kinship, a significant part of these lexemes can be explained as separate Indo-European archaisms, bilateral borrowings or areal convergences. They also point out the ignorance, on the part of their opponents, of the phenomena of the substrate, which are associated with ethnic mixtures between the Balts and Slavs, who actively contacted each other in the past.

Private observations

Arguments of opponents

Opponents of genetic kinship, for their part, argue about deep differences between Baltic and Slavic at the lexical and semantic level, revealing an ancient character. In particular, such important concepts, according to opponents, as “lamb”, “egg”, “beat”, “flour”, “belly”, “maiden”, “valley”, “oak”, “hollow”, “ dove", "lord", "guest", "forge (blacksmith)", are expressed in different words in the Baltic and Slavic languages.

Notes

Comments

Sources

1. Pietro U. Dini, Baltic languages ​​// Trans. from Italian - M.: OGI, 2002, pp. 152-163
2. B. Wimer. The fate of Balto-Slavic hypotheses and today's contact linguistics. // Areal and genetic in the structure of Slavic languages. - M.: “Probel”, Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2007, pp. 32-33
3. Trubachev O. N. Ethnogenesis and culture of the ancient Slavs: Linguistic studies. - M.: Nauka, 2003, pp. 19-20
4. Zhuravlev V.K. Slavic languages ​​// Comparative-historical study of languages ​​of different families. Current status and problems. M.: Nauka, 1981, pp. 102-104
5. Shcheglova O. G. Comparative-historical grammar of Slavic languages. Course of lectures // Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University, 2011, pp. 25-29
6. Birnbaum H Questions of linguistics, 1985, No. 2, pp. 35-36
7. Pietro U. Dini, Baltic languages ​​// Trans. from Italian - M.: OGI, 2002, pp. 153-154
8. Pietro U. Dini, Baltic languages ​​// Trans. from Italian - M.: OGI, 2002, p. 153
9. Pietro U. Dini, Baltic languages ​​// Trans. from Italian - M.: OGI, 2002, pp. 154-155
10. Juozas Jurkenas, Relationships between the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​in the light of onomastic studies // Acta Baltico-Slavica, 2006, No. 30, p. 261
11. Bernstein S. B. Comparative grammar of Slavic languages: textbook / 2nd ed. M.: Publishing house Moscow. University: Nauka, 2005, p. thirty
12. Pietro U. Dini, Baltic languages ​​// Trans. from Italian - M.: OGI, 2002, pp. 158-159
13. Birnbaum H. On two directions in language development // Questions of linguistics, 1985, No. 2, p. 36
14. Questions of linguistics, 1959, No. 1. - P. 140
15. Illich-Svitych V.M. Balto-Slavic issues at the IV International Congress of Slavists // Questions of linguistics, 1959, No. 1. - P. 139
16. Ler-Splavinsky T.
17. Bernstein S. B. The answer to the question “Did Balto-Slavic linguistic and ethnic unity exist and how should it be understood?” // Collection of answers to questions on linguistics (for the IV International Congress of Slavists). - M., 1958.
18. Novotná P., Blažek V. Baltistica XLIII (2).- Vilnius, 2007. - p. 204. (English)
19. Novotná P., Blažek V. Glottochronology and its application to Balto-Slavic lanuages ​​// Baltistica XLIII (2).- Vilnius, 2007. - pp. 205, 208. (English)
20. Origin and family ties of the languages peoples of Russia
21. Pietro U. Dini, Baltic languages ​​// Trans. from Italian - M.: OGI, 2002, pp. 152-153
22. Zhuravlev V.K. Slavic languages ​​// Comparative-historical study of languages ​​of different families. Current status and problems. M.: Nauka, 1981, pp. 102-103
23. Shcheglova O. G. Comparative-historical grammar of Slavic languages. Course of lectures // Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University, 2011, p. 25
24. Oleg Polyakov, Moscow linguistic school and traditions of modern Baltic studies // Acta Baltico-Slavica. 2006, no. 30, p. 114
25. Bernstein S. B. Comparative grammar of Slavic languages: textbook / 2nd ed. M.: Publishing house Moscow. University: Nauka, 2005, p. 28-29
26. Zhuravlev V.K. Slavic languages ​​// Comparative-historical study of languages ​​of different families. Current status and problems. M.: Nauka, 1981, p. 103
27. Shcheglova O. G. Comparative-historical grammar of Slavic languages. Course of lectures // Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University, 2011, p. 26
28. Bernstein S. B. Comparative grammar of Slavic languages: textbook / 2nd ed. M.: Publishing house Moscow. University: Nauka, 2005, p. 29
29. Shcheglova O. G. Comparative-historical grammar of Slavic languages. Course of lectures // Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University, 2011, p. 27
30. Daniel Petit, Les langues baltiques et la question balto-slave // ​​Histoire, Épistémologie, Langage, 26/2, 2004, p. 24
31. Shcheglova O. G. Comparative-historical grammar of Slavic languages. Course of lectures // Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University, 2011, pp. 27-28
32. B. Wimer. The fate of Balto-Slavic hypotheses and today's contact linguistics. // Areal and genetic in the structure of Slavic languages. - M.: “Probel”, Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2007, pp. 31, 33, 34-35
33. Klimas A. Balto-Slavic or Baltic and Slavic // Lituanus.- 1967. - Vol. 13. - No. 2.
34. Martynov V.V. Glottogenesis of the Slavs: experience of verification in comparative studies. // Questions of linguistics. 1985. No. 6.
35. William R. Schmalstieg, Review “Rainer Eckert, Elvira-Julia Bukevičiūtė, Friedhelm Hinze. Die baltischen Sprachen: Eine Einfuhrung. Lepzig, Berlin, Munich, Vienna, New York: Langenscheidt, Verlag Enzyklopädie 1994, pp. 416." // Lituanus.- 1995. - Vol. 41. - No. 2.
36. Dybo V. A. Baltic comparative historical and Lithuanian historical accentology // Aspects of comparative studies/ Ed. A. V. Dybo, V. A. Dybo et al. M., 2005. RSUH (Orientalia et Classica: Proceedings of the Institute of Oriental Cultures and Antiquity. Issue VI). pp. 178-179
37. Yuri Tambovtsev, Phono-typological distances between the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​// Acta Baltico Slavica, No. 35, 2011
38. Yuri Tambovtsev, Phono-typological distances between the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​// Acta Baltico Slavica, No. 35, 2011, pp. 154–155
39. Harvey E. Mayer Was Slavic a Prussian Dialect? // Lituanus.- 1987. - Vol. 33. - No. 2.
40. Trubachev O. N. Ethnogenesis and culture of the ancient Slavs: Linguistic studies. - M.: Nauka, 2003. - p. 20
41. Birnbaum N. The issue of Balto-Slavic revisited // ΠΟΛΥΤΡΟΠΟΝ. To the 70th anniversary of Vladimir Nikolaevich Toporov. M.: Publishing house "Indrik", 1998. - p. 130
42. Birnbaum H. Slavic, Tocharian, Altai: genetic connection and areal-typological influence // Questions of linguistics. - 2003. - No. 5. - pp. 6-7
43. Ivanov, Vyach. Sun. Linguistic problems of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs in the light of the relationship of Slavic to the Baltic and other Indo-European languages. // Complex problems of history and culture of the peoples of Central and South-Eastern Europe: Results and prospects of research. Moscow, 1979, p. 28
44. Georgiev V. Balto-Slavic and Tocharian language // Questions of linguistics, 1958, No. 3, pp. 8, 13
45. Portzig V. Division of the Indo-European language area. M.: Foreign publishing house. lit., 1964, p. 103

In the family of Indo-European languages, the Slavic and Baltic languages ​​are especially close to each other. The latter include modern Lithuanian and Latvian (the so-called East Baltic) and dead (disappeared at different times) languages ​​of ancient tribes that lived in the forest zone of Eastern Europe from the headwaters of the Oka River to the southern Baltic. Namely: Golyad (until the 12th-13th centuries Golyad lived between the Moscow and Oka rivers, traces of a language close to Golyad are noticeable in the names of reservoirs between the Dnieper and Desna), Yatvingian (Yatvingians lived between the Neman and Western Bug rivers) and Prussian (until the 18th century This language was spoken by the population living west of the Yatvingians, along the southern shore of the Baltic Sea). These three languages ​​are usually called Western Baltic. The fact that once, before the formation of the East Slavic peoples - Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians, speakers of Baltic languages ​​lived on the territory of present-day Belarus and adjacent regions of Russia is evidenced by the names of local rivers and rivers. Most of them are Baltic in origin: having changed their language over time, the descendants of the ancient population remained to live on the land of their ancestors, preserving, in particular, ancient local geographical names.

The closeness of the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​is manifested in regular sound correspondences, in the similarity of forms of inflection and word formation, in the commonality of most words denoting the world around us, people, their relationships and activities in the conditions of a communal tribal system. At the same time, the historically original Proto-Slavic (see Proto-Slavic language) form of words restored for the Slavic languages, as a rule, coincides with their design in the historically attested Baltic languages. So, for example, restoring for the word gate (East Slavic) - gate (South Slavic, Czech and Slovak) - wrota (Polish and Serbo-Lusatian) the original Proto-Slavic form *vort-a - from the proto-form *vãrt-ã, we find exactly this form of the root in Lithuanian: vãrt-ai. Restoring the ancestral form *virs-us for the Slavic top (Old Russian врхъ), we find it in the Latvian virs-us and Lithuanian virs-us. Restoring the ancestral form *sun-us for the Slavic son (Old Russian son), we find it in the Lithuanian sun-us, etc. In a very large number of cases, thus, Slavic words and forms look like transformed Baltic ones. These unique relationships between languages ​​within the Indo-European family, although belonging to different groups, have not yet received a generally accepted historical explanation.

In the middle of the 19th century, when a “family tree” scheme appeared in linguistics, which explained the origin of “related” languages ​​by the sequential division of the proto-language (see Proto-language) into separate languages, the belief arose that at first a single Balto-Slavic proto-language emerged, which later split into Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic. This idea of ​​​​the origin of the Slavic and Baltic languages ​​from a common ancestor language existed in science for almost a century - until the beginning - mid-20th century. It was at this time that an idea began to form about the complexity of the process of formation of “related” languages; it had to include not only the collapse, but also the rapprochement" of languages ​​as a result of the creation of multilingual tribal unions. The first who doubted the reality of the Balto-Slavic proto-language and substantiated his doubts in 1911 was J. Endzelin, a famous Latvian linguist.

Since the Baltic and Slavic languages, along with very noticeable common features, are also characterized by very significant differences, the idea of ​​a Balto-Slavic community (or community) began to develop in science, which consists in the fact that the Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic languages, originally belonging to different Indo-European groups, having been direct “neighbors” for a very long time, became closer, developing a set of features common to them. New research has shown that the so-called Balto-Slavic problem (i.e. the problem of ancient relations between these two language groups) also requires solving the issue of historical relations between the Eastern and Western Baltic languages, which in turn are characterized by very ancient differences that do not allow to trace all Baltic languages ​​to an absolutely single source - the Proto-Baltic language. Supporters of the idea of ​​a Balto-Slavic community explain these relations by the origin of the Western Baltic languages ​​as a result of the convergence of some of the original Proto-Slavic dialects with the East Baltic dialects or, conversely, the convergence of a part of the ancient East Baltic dialects with the Proto-Slavic. This explanation takes into account that the Western Baltic languages ​​are, in their characteristics, intermediate (or transitional), i.e., in some features they are similar to the Eastern Baltic languages, and in others - with the Proto-Slavic language.

In recent decades, serious attempts have been made to generalize the relationships between Indo-European languages. Research has shown that the most ancient features equally unite both Proto-Slavic and Baltic languages ​​with Asian Indo-European languages, with Balkan (Thracian and Illyrian), which disappeared at the beginning of the new era (of these languages, only the Albanian language has survived in the mountains on the Adriatic coast ), as well as with Germanic languages. At the same time, the Proto-Slavic language is characterized by a significant complex of features that bring it closer to the Western Iraic languages, which, as is commonly believed, included the language of the Scythians; these features are unknown to the Baltic languages. Based on this evidence, it has been suggested that the Proto-Slavic linguistic union, which over time took shape in the Proto-Slavic language, consisted primarily of dialects, some of which were preserved on the Baltic outskirts of the once vast area of ​​their distribution. The final separation of the Proto-Slavic language from the Old Baltic dialects occurred after its rapprochement with the Western Iranian speech of the Scythians, who dominated the Northern Black Sea region in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. e.

The formation of Proto-Slavic as a unique Indo-European language was not associated with the geographical gap between the Proto-Slavs and the ancient Balts: a significant part of the Proto-Slavic tribes continued to live along the borders of the ancient Baltic settlements. Archaeologists note that these settlements existed from the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. e. until the second half of the 1st millennium AD e. almost unchanged. At the end of the 1st millennium BC. e. in the Middle Dnieper region an extensive tribal union was formed, leaving archaeological monuments of the 2nd century. BC BC - II-IV centuries n. e., called the Zarubintsy culture. The creators of this culture, as is commonly believed in recent years, spoke dialects of the Proto-Slavic and Western Baltic type. A group of tribes of this association later moved up the Desna River and created settlements in the area of ​​the upper reaches of the Oka River, which in archeology were called the Moshchi culture. As evidenced by hydronymy data (names of rivers and lakes), this group of tribes spoke the Western Baltic language. And the Vyatichi who lived on the territory of the Moschi settlements in ancient Russian times (IX-XI centuries) were so noticeably different from the surrounding Slavic-speaking population that the chronicler did not consider them Slavs, just like the Radimichi (by the way, also living in the territory where the names of rivers of Western Baltic origin are preserved).

In the second half of the 1st millennium AD. e., during the era of the formation of the Old Russian state unification, the Baltic-speaking population of the central forest zone was intensively Slavicized, that is, included in the Old Russian nationality, preserving the Baltic speech of their ancestors only on the western outskirts (the descendants of this population are modern Lithuanians and Latvians).

The Baltic languages ​​are a group of Indo-European languages. B. i. preserve the ancient Indo-European language system more completely than other modern groups of the Indo-European family of languages. There is a point of view according to which B. i. represent a remnant of ancient Indo-European speech, preserved after the separation of other Indo-European languages ​​from this family. Within the group of ancient Indo-European dialects, B. i. gravitate towards its eastern part (Indo-Iranian, Slavic and other languages), “satem” languages ​​(those in which the Indo-European velar palatals are presented as sibilants). At the same time, B. I. participate in a number of innovations characteristic of the so-called Central European languages. Therefore, it is advisable to talk about the intermediate (transitional) status of B. I. in the continuum of ancient Indo-European dialects (it is significant that B. Ya. are exactly the zone in which “satemization” was carried out with the least completeness among other languages ​​of the “satem” group). B. are especially close to me. to Slavic languages. The exceptional closeness of these two language groups (in some cases one can speak of diachronic similarity or even identity) is explained in different ways: by belonging to the same group of Indo-European dialects, which were in close proximity and experienced a number of common processes that continued the trends of Indo-European development; relatively late territorial convergence of the carriers of B. i. and Slavic languages, which led to the convergence of the corresponding languages, as a result of which many common elements were developed; the presence of a common Balto-Slavic language, the ancestor of B. i. and Slavic languages ​​(the most common point of view); finally, the original inclusion of Slavic languages ​​in the group of B. Ya., from which they emerged relatively late (on the southern periphery of the Baltic area), from this point of view, B. Ya. act as the ancestor of the Slavic languages, coexisting in time and space with its descendant. Close genetic connections unite B. i. with the ancient Indo-European languages ​​of the Balkans (Illyrian, Thracian and others).

Distribution area of ​​modern B. i. limited to the eastern Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, the northeastern part of Poland - Suvalkija, partly Belarus). At an earlier time, B. I. were also common in the southern Baltic states (in its eastern part, in the territory of East Prussia), where until the beginning of the 18th century. remnants of the Prussian language were preserved, and the eastern, apparently, of the Yatvingian language. Judging by the data of toponymy (especially hydronymy), Baltisms in Slavic languages, archaeological and historical data itself, in the 1st millennium - early 2nd millennium AD. e. B. i. were distributed over a vast territory to the south and southeast of the Baltic states - in the Upper Dnieper region and up to the right tributaries of the upper Volga, Upper and Middle Poochye (including the western part of the Moscow River basin and the territory of the modern city of Moscow), the Seim River in the southeast and the Pripyat River in the south (although undisputed Balticisms are also noted south of it). One can speak of a Baltic element to the west of the Vistula - in Pomerania and Mecklenburg, although the origin of these Balticisms is not always clear. A number of toponomastic isoglosses unite the Baltic area with Pannonia, the Balkans and the Adriatic coast. Features of the distribution area of ​​B. i. in ancient times traces of linguistic contacts between the Balts and the Finno-Ugrians, Iranians, Thracians, Illyrians, Germans, etc. are explained.

Modern B. i. presented Lithuanian language and Latvian language (sometimes the Latgalian language is especially emphasized). Among the extinct B. i. relate: Prussian(East Prussia), whose speakers lost their language and switched to German; Yatvingian(northeast Poland, Southern Lithuania, adjacent regions of Belarus - Grodno region, etc.; its remains apparently existed until the 18th century), some traces of which were preserved in the speech of Lithuanians, Poles and Belarusians of the named area; Curonian(on the Baltic Sea coast within modern Lithuania and Latvia), disappeared by the mid-17th century. and left traces in the corresponding dialects of Latvian, as well as Lithuanian and Livonian languages ​​[one should not mix the language of the Curonians with the language of the so-called Kursenieki (Kursenieku valoda), a dialect of the Latvian language spoken in Juodkrante on the Curonian Spit]; Selonian(or Selian), which was spoken in parts of Eastern Latvia and northeastern Lithuania, as can be judged from documents from the 13th-15th centuries; Galindian(or Golyadsky, in the south of Prussia and, apparently, in the Moscow region, on the Protva River), which can be judged only by a small amount of toponymic material localized in Galindia (according to documents of the 14th century) and, probably, in the Protva basin (cf. "golyad" of the Russian chronicle). The name of the language (or languages) of the Baltic population in the East Slavic territories remains unknown. There is no doubt, however, that the languages ​​of the Yatvingians (they are also Sudavians, cf. Sudavia as one of the Prussian lands) and Galinds (Golyadi) were close to Prussian and, perhaps, were its dialects. They should be classified, together with the Prussian language, as Western Baltic languages, in contrast to Lithuanian and Latvian (as Eastern Baltic languages). Perhaps it is more correct to talk about the languages ​​of the outer belt of the Baltic area (Prussian in the extreme west, Galindian and Yatvingian in the extreme south and, possibly, in the east), contrasted with the relatively compact core of languages ​​of the “inner” zone (Lithuanian and Latvian), where “cross-talk” is significant. linguistic" lines of connections (for example, Lower Lithuanian and Lower Latvian, respectively Upper Lithuanian and Upper Latvian dialects). B. i. the outer belt were early subjected to Slavization, and were completely included in the substrate in the Polish and East Slavic languages, completely dissolving in them. Characteristic is the fact that it is these B. I. and the corresponding tribes first became known to ancient writers (cf. “Aistii” of Tacitus, 98 AD; the Baltic population of the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, “Galinds” and “Sudins” of Ptolemy, 2nd century AD). The general name of the Indo-European languages ​​of the Baltic region as Baltic was introduced in 1845 by G. G. F. Nesselman.

Phonological structure of B. i. is determined by a number of common features that are realized on approximately the same composition of phonemes (the number of phonemes in Lithuanian is slightly larger than in Latvian). The phoneme system in Lithuanian and Latvian (and, apparently, Prussian) is described by a common set of differential features. The contrasts between palatal and non-palatal (such as k’ : k, g’ : g, n’ : n; in Lithuanian the scope of this opposition is much larger than in Latvian), simple consonants and affricates (c, ʒ, č, ʒ̆) are significant. tense and relaxed (e: æ, i: ie, u: o); The phonemes f, x (also c and dz in Lithuanian or dž in Latvian) are peripheral and are found, as a rule, in borrowings. The similarity in the organization of the prosodic level of the language is important, despite the fact that the stress in Lithuanian is free, while in Latvian it is stabilized on the initial syllable (Finnish influence). Vowel phonemes differ in length - brevity (cf. Latvian virs 'above' - vīrs 'husband' or Lithuanian butas 'apartment' - būtas 'former'). Intonation contrasts are characteristic of both Lithuanian and Latvian, although they are realized differently in specific conditions [cf. Latvian. plãns ‘clay floor’ (long intonation) - plâns ‘thin’ (intermittent intonation); laũks ‘field’ (long-lasting) - laùks ‘white-fronted’ (descending); Lit. áušti ‘cool down’ (descending) - aũšti ‘dawn’ (ascending), etc.]. Rules for the distribution of phonemes in B. i. relatively uniform, especially at the beginning of a word (where a cluster of no more than three consonants is allowed, cf. str-, spr-, spl-, skl-...); the distribution of consonants at the end of a word is somewhat more complex due to the loss of final vowels in a number of morphological forms. A syllable can be either open or closed; the vocal center of a syllable can consist of any vowel phoneme and diphthongs (ai, au, ei, ie, ui).

The morphonology of a verb is characterized by quantity and quality, alternation of vowels, name - movement of accent, change of intonation, etc. The maximum (morphological) composition of a word is described by a model of the form: negation + prefix + ... + root + ... + suffix + ... + inflection, where the prefix, root and suffix can appear more than once (sometimes we can talk about complex inflection, for example, in pronominal adjectives, cf. Latvian balt-aj-ai. The most typical situations of “doubling”: aspectual prefix pa + “lexical » prefix; root + root in compound words [usually they are binomial, but the composition of their root parts is varied: Adj. + Adj./Subst., Subst. + Subst./Vb., Pronom. + Subst./Adj.). , Numer. (counting) + Subst./Numer., Vb. + Subst./Vb., Adv. + Subst./Adj./Adb.], suffix + suffix (most often in the following order: objective assessment suffix + subjective assessment suffix). B. i. have an exceptional wealth of suffix inventory (especially for conveying diminutive - magnifying, endearing - derogatory).

For the morphological structure of the name in B. i. Characteristic categories are gender (masculine and feminine with traces of the neuter, especially in one of the well-known dialects of the Prussian language), number (singular - plural; examples of the dual number are known), case (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumentalis, locative, all of them are opposed a special vocative form; the influence of the Finnish-language substrate explains the existence in Lithuanian dialects of the forms allative, illative, adessive), complex/uncomplicated (primarily in adjectives - full and short forms, but sometimes in other classes of words), gradualism (3 degrees of comparison in adjectives). In the declension of nouns, there are 5 types of stems - conventionally - -o-, -a-, -i-, -u- and consonant. Along with the nominal type of declension, there is also a pronominal type, which plays a special role in the declension of adjectives. For a verb, in addition to the category of numbers, the following are essential: person (1st, 2nd, 3rd), tense (present, past, future), mood (indicative, conditional, desirable, imperative; obligatory and retelling moods have developed in the Latvian language, obviously, under the influence of the Finnish-language substrate), voice (active, reflexive, passive). Differences in type (including all shades of the course of action - initiality, terminativity, iterativeness, etc.) and in causativeness/non-causativeness are more appropriate to be considered as facts of word formation. The verb paradigm is distinguished by a simple structure, which is facilitated by the neutralization of opposition by numbers in the 3rd person forms (in some dialects, for example in Tam, opposition by persons is also neutralized), which can sometimes be expressed by zero inflection, and especially by the presence of a single (in principle) scheme inflections describing the personal forms of the verb in the indicative mood. Different combinations of personal forms of the auxiliary verb with participles give rise to a variety of complex types of tenses and moods.

Syntactic connections between sentence elements in B. i. are expressed by inflectional forms, non-independent words and adjacency. The core of the sentence is a noun in the nominative + a verb in the personal form. Each of these two members can be absent (for example, in the absence of a verb, noun phrases arise) or expanded (thus, a noun group can be expanded into an adjective + noun, or a noun + noun, or a preposition + a noun or pronoun, etc.; a verb group unfolds into verb + adverb, personal verb + personal verb, etc.). These deployment rules can be applied more than once. Their implementation is connected, in particular, with the order of words in the phrase. Thus, usually the verb group follows the noun group in the nominative; in the group of a personal non-linking verb, the non-nominative noun group follows the personal non-linking verb; in the group of a name, all case forms follow the name in the genitive if they are associated with it (this rule has a high degree of probability and is significant due to the fact that the genitive in B. Ya. is capable of expressing a wide variety of syntactic relations - almost almost all, except those that are characteristic of the nominative; hence the exclusive role of the genitive in syntactic transformations).

The vast majority of semantic areas in the Lithuanian and Latvian languages ​​(also in Prussian) are provided by the original vocabulary of Indo-European origin. This allows us, in a number of cases, to talk about an almost unified dictionary of B. i. Particularly complete correspondence is observed in the composition of word-forming elements, function words, pronominal elements, main semantic spheres (numerals, kinship names, body parts, names of plants, animals, landscape elements, celestial bodies, elementary actions, etc.). Differences in this area are rather a matter of exceptions (cf. Lithuanian sunus 'son', Prussian soūns, but Latvian dēls; or Lithuanian duktė 'daughter', Prussian duckti, but Latvian meita; or Lithuanian. duona 'bread', Latvian maize, Prussian geits; or Lithuanian akmuo 'stone', Latvian akmens, but Prussian stabis, etc.). The lexical community of B. I is very large. with Slavic languages. It is explained both by the common origin and archaic nature of both language groups, and, therefore, by a layer of Slavic borrowings in Belarus. (terms of a socio-economic and religious nature, everyday and professional vocabulary, etc.). A considerable number of Germanisms penetrated into Lithuanian and especially into the Latvian language (in the latter, more often in dialects, there is also a significant layer of borrowings from Finno-Ugric languages). Many lexical internationalisms have penetrated into B. i. not only directly from the source language, but also through Russian, Polish or German.

Literature

Toporov V.N., Baltic languages, in the book: Languages ​​of the Peoples of the USSR, vol. 1, M., 1966.
Augstkalns A., Mūsu valoda, viņas vēsture un pētītāji, Rīga, 1934.
Ozols A., Tautas dziesmu literatūras bibliogrāfija, Rīga, 1938.
Ozols A., Veclatviešu rakstu valoda, Riga, 1965.
Niedre J., Latviešu folklora, Riga, 1948.
Endzelīns J., Baltu valodu skaņas un formas, Riga, 1948.
Endzelīns J., Darbu izlase, t. 1-4, Riga, 1971-85.
Fraenkel E., Die baltischen Sprachen. Ihre Beziehungen zu einander und zu den indogermanischen Schwesteridiomen als Einfu»hrung in die baltische Sprachwissenschaft, Hdlb., 1950.
Grabis R., Parskats par 17. gadsimta latviešu valodas gramatikām, in the book: Valodas un literatūras Institūta Raksti, V, Riga, 1955, p. 205-66.
Būga K., Rinktiniai raštai, I-III, Vilnius, 1958-62 (special volume - indexes).
Grīsle R., 17. gadsimta gramatikas kā latviešu valodas vēstures avots, ibid., VII, 1958, p. 245-55.
Zemzare D., Latviešu vārdnīcas (līdz 1900 gadam), Riga, 1961.
Stang Chr. S., Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen, Oslo - Bergen - Tromsø, 1966.
Schmalstieg W. R., Studies in Old Prussian, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1976.
Sabaliauskas A., Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija iki 1940 m., Vilnius, 1979.
Sabaliauskas A., Lietuvių kalbos tyrinėjimo istorija, 1940-1980, Vilnius, 1982.
Gineitis L., Lietuvių literatūros istoriografija, Vilnius, 1982.
Kabelka J., Baltų filologijos i;vadas, Vilnius, 1982.
Jonynas A., Lietuvių folkloristika, Vilnius, 1983.
Sabaliauskas A., Baltų kalbų tyrinėjimai 1945-1985, Vilnius, 1986.

V. N. Toporov

BALTIC LANGUAGES

(Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. - M., 1990. - P. 64-65)

To the origins of Rus'. People and language. Academician Trubachev Oleg Nikolaevich.

Slavic and Baltic

An important criterion for the localization of the ancient range of the Slavs is the related relations of Slavic to other Indo-European languages ​​and, above all, to Baltic. The scheme or model of these relations accepted by linguists radically determines their ideas about the habitats of the Proto-Slavs. For example, for Ler-Splavinsky and his followers, the close nature of the connection between the Baltic and Slavic dictates the need to search for the ancestral home of the Slavs in close proximity to the original area of ​​the Balts. The undeniability of the similarity of the Baltic and Slavic languages sometimes distracts the attention of researchers from the complex nature of this proximity. However, it is precisely the nature of the relationship between the Slavic and Baltic languages ​​that has become the subject of ongoing discussions in modern linguistics, which, we agree, makes the Balto-Slavic language criterion very unreliable in the matter of localizing the ancestral homeland of the Slavs. Therefore, first you need to at least briefly dwell on the Balto-Slavic linguistic relations themselves.

Similarities and differences

Let's start with vocabulary, as the most important component for etymology and onomastics. Supporters of Balto-Slavic unity point to a large lexical commonality between these languages ​​– over 1600 words . Kiparsky argues for the era of Balto-Slavic unity with common important innovations of vocabulary and semantics: names "head", "hand", "iron" etc. But iron is the latest metal of antiquity, the absence of common Balto-Slavic names for the more ancient copper (bronze) suggests contacts of the Iron Age era, that is last centuries BC s (cf. analogy of Celtic-Germanic relations ). New formations such as “head” and “hand” belong to frequently updated lexemes and can also date back to a later time . The above-mentioned “iron argument” even before a detailed check shows the instability of dating the separation of Proto-Slavic from Balto-Slavic around 500 BC. e.

There are many theories of Balto-Slavic relations. In 1969 there were five of them: 1) Balto-Slavic proto-language (Schleicher);
2) independent, parallel development close Baltic and Slavic dialects (Meie);
3) secondary convergence of Baltic and Slavic (Endzelin);
4) ancient community, then a long break and a new rapprochement (Rozvadovsky);
5) formation of Slavic from peripheral dialects of Baltic (Ivanov - Toporov).
This list is incomplete and not entirely accurate. If the theory of the Balto-Slavic proto-language or unity belongs mainly to the past, despite some new experiments, and a very sound (2) concept of independent development and secondary rapprochement of the Slavic and Baltic , unfortunately, did not receive new detailed developments, then radical theories explaining mainly Slavic from Baltic, are now experiencing their boom. However, it would be wrong to elevate them all to theory number 5, since Sobolevsky even put forward a theory about Slavic, as a combination of the Iranian language -x and the Baltic language -s [Sobolevsky A.I. What is the Slavic proto-language and the Slavic proto-people? // Izvestia II Department. Ross. AN, 1922, vol. XXVII, p. 321 et seq.].

Explained similarly the origin of the Slavic Pisani is from the Proto-Baltic with the Iranian superstrate [Pisani V. Baltisch, Slavisch, Iranisch // Baltistica, 1969, V (2), S. 138 – 139.].

According to Ler-Splavinsky, Slavs are Western proto-Balts with Veneti layered on them [Lehr-Slawinski T. About pochodzeniu i praojczyznie Slowian. Poznan, 1946, p. 114]. According to Gornung, on the contrary - the western peripheral Balts themselves broke away from the “Proto-Slavs” «[ Gornung B.V. From the prehistory of the formation of pan-Slavic linguistic unity. M., 1963, p. 49.].

The idea of ​​isolating the Proto-Slavic from the peripheral Baltic, otherwise the Slavic model as a transformation of the Baltic state, is put forward by the works of Toporov and Ivanov[ Ivanov V.V., Toporov V.N. On posing the question of the ancient relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages. In the book:. Research in Slavic linguistics. M., 1961, p. 303; Toporov V.N. On the problem of Balto-Slavic linguistic relations. In the book: Current problems of Slavic studies (KSIS 33-34). M., 1961, p. 213].

This point of view is shared by a number of Lithuanian linguists. Close to the theory of Lehr-Splavinsky, but going even further is Martynov, who produces Proto-Slavic from the sum of Western Proto-Baltic with the Italic superstrate - the migration of the 12th century BC. e. (?) – and the Iranian superstrate. [ Martynov V.V. Balto-Slavic-Italian isoglosses. Lexical synonymy. Minsk, 1978, p. 43; It's him. Balto-Slavic lexical and word-formation relations and glottogenesis of the Slavs. In the book: Ethnolinguistic Balto-Slavic contacts in the present and past. Conference 11 – 15 Dec. 1978: Preliminary materials. M., 1978, p. 102; It's him. Balto-Slavic ethnic relations according to linguistics. In the book: Problems of ethnogenesis and ethnic history of the Balts: Abstracts of reports. Vilnius, 1981, p. 104 – 106].

The German linguist Schall suggests a combination: Baltoslavs = southern (?) Balts + Dacians . It cannot be said that such combinatorial linguistic ethnogenesis satisfies everyone. V.P. Schmid, being an ardent supporter of the “Baltocentric” model of everything Indo-European, nevertheless believes that neither Baltic from Slavic, nor Slavic from Baltic, nor both from Baltic-Slavic can be explained. G. Mayer considers both the concept of Baltic-Slavic unity and the derivation of Slavic facts from the Baltic model to be methodologically inconvenient and unreliable.

Quite a long time ago, the presence of numerous discrepancies and the absence of transitions between Baltic and Slavic was noticed, it was put forward opinion about the Balto-Slavic linguistic union with signs of secondary linguistic kinship and various kinds of areal contacts. [ Trost P. The current state of the issue of Balto-Slavic linguistic relations. In the book: International Congress of Slavists. Discussion materials. T. II. M., 1962, p. 422; Bernstein S.B. // VYa, 1958, No. 1, p. 48 – 49.]

Behind these contacts and rapprochements lie deep internal differences. . Even Ler-Splavinsky, criticizing the work of the Slavic model from the Baltic, drew attention to uneven pace of Baltic and Slavic language development [Lep-Splavinsky T.[Performance]. In the book: IV International Congress of Slavists. Discussion materials. T. II. M., 1962, p. 431 – 432].

The Balto-Slavic discussion should be persistently transferred from the plane of too abstract doubts about the “equivalence” of Baltic and Slavic, in the same number of “steps” taken by one and the other, which, it seems, no one claims, is translated into a specific comparative analysis of forms, etymology of words and names. Enough facts have accumulated, which even a cursory glance convinces.
The profound differences between Baltic and Slavic are evident at all levels. At the lexical-semantic level, these differences reveal an ancient character. According to the data of the “Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Languages” (EDS) (complete check of published issues 1 – 7), such important concepts How " lamb", "egg", "beat", "flour", "belly", "maiden", "valley", "oak", "hollow", "dove", "lord", "guest", "forge ( blacksmith)", are expressed in different words in the Baltic and Slavic languages. This list, of course, can be continued, including at the onomastic level (ethnonyms, anthroponyms).

Elementary and ancient differences in phonetics. Here we should note the movement of the Baltic series of vowel alternations in contrast to the conservative preservation of the Indo-European ablaut series in Proto-Slavic. Completely independently passed in the Baltic and Slavic satemization palatal posterior palatal reflexes, with the proto-Baltic reflex i.-e. k – sh, unknown to Proto-Slavic, which made the development k > с > s. It is simply impossible to find a “general innovation of the consonant system” here, and Schmalstieg’s recent attempt to directly correlate sh in glory pishetb - “writes” (from sj!) and sh in Lit. pieshti - "to draw" should be rejected as an anachronism.
Even more eloquent relationships in morphology. Nominal inflection in Baltic is more archaic than in Slavic, however, here too it is noted Proto-Slavic archaisms like gen. p.un. h. *zheny< *guenom-s [Toporov V.N. A few thoughts on the origin of inflections of the Slavic genitive. In: Bereiche der Slavistik. Festschrift zu Ehren von J. Hamm. Wien, 1975, p. 287 et seq., 296].

As for Slavic verb, then its forms and inflections in Proto-Slavic are more archaic and closer to the Indo-European state than in the Baltic.[Toporov V.N. On the question of the evolution of the Slavic and Baltic verb // Questions of Slavic linguistics. Vol. 5. M., 1961, p. 37]. Even those Slavic forms that reveal a transformed state, such as the inflection of the 1st l. units hours present time -o (< и.-е. о + вторичное окончание -m?), completely original Slavic and do not allow explanation on a Baltic basis. R

the distribution of individual inflections is sharply different, cf., for example, -s– as a formant of the Slavic aorist, and in the Baltic – future tense [ Meie A. Common Slavic language. M., 1951, p. 20.]. The old aorist with -e is preserved in Slavic (мн-?), and in Baltic it is presented in extended forms (Lithuanian minejo) [ Kurilovich E. On Balto-Slavic linguistic unity // Questions of Slavic linguistics. Vol. 3. M., 1958, p. 40.].

Slavic perfect *vede, dating back to the Indo-European non-reduplicated perfect *uoida(i), – archaism without Baltic correspondence . The Slavic imperative *jьdi - “go” continues I.-e. *i-dhi, unknown in Baltic.

Slavic participles ending in -lъ have an Indo-European background (Armenian, Tocharian); Baltic knows nothing like this . [Meie A. Common Slavic language. M., 1951, p. 211].

They represent the whole problem inflections 3rd l. units – pl. h., and Slavic reflects well the formants of I.-e. -t: -nt, completely absent in Baltic ; even if we assume that in Baltic we are dealing with the ancient non-inclusion of them in the verbal paradigm, then in Slavic represents an early innovation linking it with a number of Indo-European dialects, with the exception of Baltic. It's clear that the Slavic verbal paradigm is an Indo-European model, not reducible to the Baltic. [Ivanov Vyach. Sun. Reflection in Baltic and Slavic of two series of Indo-European verbal forms: Author's abstract. dis. for academic competition Art. Oct. Philol. Sci. Vilnius, 1978].

The reconstruction of the verb in Slavic has greater depth than in Baltic. [Savchenko A.N. The problem of systemic reconstruction of proto-linguistic states (based on the material of the Baltic and Slavic languages) // Baltistica, 1973, IX (2), p. 143].
Concerning nominal word formation , then both supporters and opponents of Baltic-Slavic unity paid attention to its deep differences in both Baltic and Slavic. [ Endzelin I.M. Slavic-Baltic studies. Kharkov, 1911, p. 1.].

Late Balts in the upper Dnieper region

After such a brief, but as specific as possible, description of Balto-Slavic linguistic relations, naturally, the view of their mutual localization is also concretized.
The era of the developed Baltic language type finds the Balts, apparently, already in places close to their modern range, that is, in the area of ​​the upper Dnieper region. At the beginning of the 1st millennium AD. e. there, in any case, the Baltic ethnic element predominates [ Toporov V.N., Trubachev O.N. Linguistic analysis of hydronyms in the upper Dnieper region. M., 1962, p. 236]. There is no sufficient reason to believe that the Upper Dnieper hydronyms allow for a broader – Balto-Slavic – characteristic, just as there is no sufficient reason to look for the early range of the Slavs north of Pripyat.

The developed Baltic language type is a system of verb forms with one present and one preterite, which is very reminiscent of the Finnish languages.[Pokorny J. Die Trager der Kultur der Jungsteinzeit und die Indogermanenfrage. In: Die Urheimat der Indogermanen, S. 309. The author points to Finnish verbal system (one present - one preterite) due to the simplification of the time system in Germanic. For the Finnish substrate of the present Baltic area, see Prinz J.// Zeitschrift fur Balkanologie, 1978, XIV, S. 223.].
After this and in connection with this, one can give the opinion about comb ceramics as a probable Finnish cultural substrate of the Balts of this time ; here it is appropriate to point out the structural Balto-Finnish similarities in the formation of complex hydronyms with the second component “-lake” first of all. Wed. Lit. Akle zeris, Balte zeris Gude zeris, Juodo zeris Klev zeris , ltsh. Kalne zers, Purve zers, Saule zers and other additions to —ezeris, -upe, -upis "Finnish" type, Wed Vygozero, Pudozero, Topozero in the Russian North. [ Toporov V.N., Trubachev O.N. Linguistic analysis of hydronyms in the upper Dnieper region. M., 1962, p. 169 – 171.].

Mobility of the Baltic range

But we must approach the Baltic area with the same measure of mobility (see above), and this is very significant, since it breaks the usual views on this issue (“conservatism” = “territorial stability”). At the same time, different fates of ethnic Balts and Slavs emerge according to language data.

Balto-Daco-Thracian connections of the 3rd millennium BC. e. (Slavic does not participate)

The “cradle” of the Balts was not always located somewhere in the Upper Dnieper region or the Neman basin, and here’s why. For quite some time now, attention has been paid to connection between the Baltic onomastic nomenclature and the ancient Indo-European onomastics of the Balkans. These isoglosses especially cover the eastern - Daco-Thracian part of the Balkans , but in some cases also concern the Western - Illyrian part of the Balkan Peninsula . Wed. tailcoat Serme – lit. Sermas, names of rivers, tailcoat. Kerses – Old Prussian Kerse, names of persons; tailcoat Edessa , name of the city, Balt. Vedosa, Upper Dnieper hydronym, tailcoat. Zaldapa – lit. Zeltupe et al. [ Toporov V.N. Toward Thracian-Baltic linguistic parallels. In the book: Balkan linguistics. M., 1973, p. 51, 52.]

From appellative vocabulary proximity should be mentioned room doina - song - autochthonous Balkan element - lit. daina - “song” [Pisani V. Indogermanisch und Europa. Mimchen, 1974, S. 51]. Particularly important for early dating Asia Minor-Thracian correspondences to Baltic names, Wed expressive tailcoat. Prousa , the name of the city in Bithynia is Balt. Prus-, ethnonym [Toporov V.N. Toward Thracian-Baltic linguistic parallels. II // Balkan linguistic collection. M., 1977, p. 81 – 82.].

Asia Minor-Thracian-Baltic correspondences can be multiplied, and due to such significant ones as Kaunos, a city in Caria, – lit. Kaunas [Toporov V.N. Towards ancient Balkan connections in the field of language and mythology. In the book: Balkan linguistic collection. M., 1977, p. 43; Toporov V.N. Prussian language. Dictionary. I – K. M., 1980, p. 279]. Priene, a city in Caria, – lit. Prienai, Sinope, a city on the Black Sea coast , – lit. Sampe < *San-upe, name of the lake.

Affected Thracian forms cover not only Troad, Bithynia , but also Kariya . Distribution of the Thracian element in western and northern Asia Minor dates back to a very early time, probably II millennium BC e. , therefore we can agree with the opinion regarding the time of the corresponding territorial contacts of the Baltic and Thracian tribes - approximately III millennium BC. uh . We cannot help but be interested in the indication that Slavic does not participate in these contacts .
Early proximity of the Balts' range to the Balkans allow you to localize the investigations that established presence of Baltic elements south of Pripyat, including cases in which it is even difficult to discern the direct participation of the Baltic or Balkan-Indo-European - hydronyms Tserem, Tseremsky, Saremsky < *serma -[Trubachev O.N. Names of rivers of Right Bank Ukraine. M., 1968, p. 284].

Western Balkan (Illyrian) elements must also be taken into account, especially in the Carpathian region, on the upper Dniester , as well as their connections with the Baltic. [Toporov V.N. Several Illyrian-Baltic parallels from the field of toponomastics. In the book: Problems of Indo-European linguistics. M., 1964, p. 52. et seq.].

The Baltic group (the name belongs to G.G.F. Nesselman, 1845) includes the languages ​​Latvian, Lithuanian, and Prussian. The languages ​​of this group more fully preserve the features of ancient Hebrew. language system than other modern groups of i.-e. families of languages. This is explained in different ways:

According to some, the Baltic languages ​​represent a remnant of ancient Indo-European speech, preserved after other languages ​​were separated from it.

Others, taking into account the participation of the Baltic languages ​​in innovations characteristic of the so-called Central European languages, as well as the least complete satemization among the languages ​​of the satem group, assign an intermediate (transitional) status to the Baltic languages.

The Baltic languages ​​are especially close to the Slavic languages. Different interpretations are possible:

Initial belonging to one group i.-e. dialects that were in close proximity and experienced a number of common processes in line with the trends of i.-e. development.

A later territorial rapprochement between the speakers of the Baltic and Slavic languages, which led to their convergence, which resulted in many common elements.

The presence of a common Balto-Slavic language, the ancestor of both the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​(the most common point of view).

The separation of the Slavic languages ​​from the Baltic group (on the southern periphery of the Baltic area) is relatively late, so that the group of Baltic languages ​​turns out to be the ancestor of the Slavic group, coexisting in time and space with its descendant.

The Baltic languages ​​are genetically closely related to the Paleo-Balkan languages. languages ​​(Illyrian, Thracian, etc.).

Modern Baltic languages ​​are widespread in the eastern Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, northeastern Poland - Suvalkija, partly Belarus). At an earlier time, they were also common in the east of the southern Baltic region (the territory of East Prussia), where until the beginning of the 18th century. Remnants of the Prussian language were preserved, and even to the east of the Yatvingian language. Toponymy data (especially hydronymy), Baltisms in Slavic languages, archaeological and historical data indicate that in the 1st millennium - early 2nd millennium AD. Baltic languages ​​were widespread in the Upper Dnieper region and up to the right tributaries of the Upper Volga, to the Upper and Middle Poochye (including the western part of the Moscow river basin and the territory of the city of Moscow), to the river. Seim in the southeast and to the river. Pripyat in the south, west of the Vistula - in Pomerania and Mecklenburg.

The peculiarities of the distribution area of ​​the Baltic languages ​​in ancient times explain the traces of linguistic contacts of the Balts with the Finno-Ugric peoples, Iranians, Thracians, Illyrians, Germans, etc.

Modern Baltic languages ​​are represented by Lithuanian and Latvian (sometimes Latgalian is also distinguished). The extinct Baltic languages ​​include Prussian (before the 18th century; East Prussia), Yatvingian or Sudavian (before the 18th century; north-eastern Poland, southern Lithuania, adjacent regions of Belarus), Curonian (before the mid-17th century; on the coast Baltic Sea within modern Lithuania and Latvia), Selonsky, or Selian (documents of the 13th-15th centuries; part of eastern Latvia and north-east Lithuania), Galindsky, or Golyadsky (in Russian chronicles “Golyad”; documents of the 14th century; southern Prussia and, probably, the Protva River basin). Lithuanian and Latvian are often contrasted as Eastern Baltic to all the just named languages ​​as Western Baltic. It would be more precise to talk about the presence of a compact core of languages ​​in the “inner” zone (Lithuanian and Latvian) and about the languages ​​of the outer zone of the Baltic area: Prussian in the extreme west, Galinda and Yatvingian in the extreme south and east). The languages ​​of the outer belt underwent Germanization and Slavicization.

Ancient writers mentioned some of the Baltic tribes: the Aistii by Tacitus, the Galindas and the Sudina by Ptolemy.

Features of the Baltic languages:

in phonetics: the opposition between palatalized and non-palatalized, simple consonants and affricates, tense and unstressed, long and short vowels is significant; the presence of intonation contrasts; the possibility of accumulation of up to 3 consonants at the beginning of a syllable; the presence of closed and open syllables;

in morphology: the use of quantitative and qualitative alternation of vowels in the verb; names have movements of stress, changes in intonation; richness of suffix inventory; neuter remains; 2 numbers; 7 cases, including instrumentalis, locative and vocative), in Lithuanian dialects under the influence of the Finno-Ugric substrate allative, illative, adessive; full and short forms of adjectives; 3 degrees of gradualness; 5 types of noun stems; distinguishing between nominal and pronominal types of declension for an adjective; the moods are indicative, conditional, desirable, imperative, and in Latvian, going back to the Finno-Ugric substrate, obligatory and retelling; active, reflexive, passive voices; diverse types of tenses and moods;

in syntax: precedence of the genitive to other cases in the chain of names;

in vocabulary: most words from the original I.-E. vocabulary; almost a single dictionary of the Baltic languages; significant commonality of Baltic and Slavic vocabulary; borrowings from Finno-Ugric, German, Polish, Russian languages.