Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Balto-Slavic languages: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
See talk.
undo removal of referenced material and nationalist propaganda
Line 1: Line 1:
{{disputed}}
{{No footnotes|date=June 2010}}
{{Infobox Language family
{{Infobox Language family
|name=Balto-Slavic
|name=Balto-Slavic
Line 15: Line 13:
|child2=[[Slavic languages|Slavic]]
|child2=[[Slavic languages|Slavic]]
}}
}}
The '''Balto-Slavic''' language group consists of the [[Baltic languages|Baltic]] and [[Slavic languages]], belonging to the [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European family]] of languages. Baltic and Slavic languages share several linguistic traits not found in any other Indo-European branch, which points to the period of common development. However, there is an ongoing debate on the nature of that relationship: Some claim they were [[genetic relationship (linguistics)|genetically related]], and others explain similarities by prolonged [[language contact]].<ref name=enc>{{Citation|title=Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=F2SRqDzB50wC&pg=PA135| last=Young |first=S |isbn=9780080877747}}</ref>.
The '''Balto-Slavic''' language group consists of the [[Baltic languages|Baltic]] and [[Slavic languages]], belonging to the [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European family]] of languages. Having experienced a period of common development, Baltic and Slavic languages share several linguistic traits not found in any other Indo-European branch, which points to their close [[genetic relationship (linguistics)|genetic relationship]].


A hypothetical [[Proto-Balto-Slavic language]] is also reconstructable{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}}, descending from [[Proto-Indo-European]] by means of well-defined [[sound law]]s, and out of which modern Slavic and Baltic languages descended. One particularly innovative dialect separated from the Balto-Slavic dialect continuum and became ancestral to [[Proto-Slavic]] language, out of which all other Slavic languages descended.<ref name=enc/>
A hypothetical [[Proto-Balto-Slavic language]] is also reconstructable, descending from [[Proto-Indo-European language|Proto-Indo-European]] by means of well-defined [[sound law]]s, and out of which modern Slavic and Baltic languages descended. One particularly innovative dialect separated from the Balto-Slavic dialect continuum and became ancestral to [[Proto-Slavic]] language, out of which all other Slavic languages descended.

There was extensive debate in the first half of the 20th century on the exact details of the relationship among Slavic and Baltic languages. Some claimed they were genetically related, and others explained similarities by prolonged [[language contact]]. Modern research, especially with insights gained in the field of comparative Balto-Slavic [[accentology]], corroborates the claim of genetic relationship.<ref>See {{Harvcoltxt|Olander|2002}} for a discussion on exclusive Balto-Slavic accentual isoglosses</ref>


==Historical dispute==
==Historical dispute==


The nature of the relationship of the Balto-Slavic languages has been the subject of much discussion from the very beginning of historical Indo-European linguistics as a scientific discipline. Some were, and still are, more intent on explaining them not in terms of a genetic relationship, but by language contact and dialectal closeness in the Proto-Indo-European period.
The nature of the relationship of the Balto-Slavic languages has been the subject of much discussion from the very beginning of historical Indo-European linguistics as a scientific discipline. Even though the similarities between Baltic and Slavic languages are often more than obvious, some were, and still are, more intent on explaining them not in terms of a genetic relationship, but by language contact and dialectal closeness in the Proto-Indo-European period.
[[Image:Balto-Slavic theories.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Various schematic sketches of possible alternative Balto-Slavic language relationships; Van Wijk, 1923]]
[[Image:Balto-Slavic theories.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Various schematic sketches of possible alternative Balto-Slavic language relationships; Van Wijk, 1923]]


Baltic and Slavic share more close [[phonology|phonological]], [[Lexical (semiotics)|lexical]], [[morphosyntactic]] and accentological similarities than do any other language groups within the Indo-European language family.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} The notable early Indo-Europeanist [[August Schleicher]] (1861) proposed a simple solution: From Proto-Indo-European descended Proto-Balto-Slavic, out of which Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic emerged. The Latvian linguist Jānis Endzelīns thought, however, that any similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages were a result of an intensive language contact, i.e., that they were not genetically related and that there was no common Proto-Balto-Slavic language. [[Antoine Meillet]] (1905, 1908, 1922, 1925, 1934), the distinguished French Indo-Europeanist, in reaction to a second simplified theory of Schleicher's, propounded a view according to which all similarities of Baltic and Slavic occurred accidentally, by independent parallel development, and that there was no Proto-Balto-Slavic language. In turn, the Polish linguist Rozwadowski suggests that the similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages are a result of not only genetic relationship, but also of later language contact. [[Thomas Olander]] corroborates the claim of genetic relationship<ref>See {{Harvcoltxt|Olander|2002}} for a discussion on exclusive Balto-Slavic accentual isoglosses</ref> according to his research in the field of comparative Balto-Slavic [[accentology]].
Baltic and Slavic share more close [[phonology|phonological]], [[Lexical (semiotics)|lexical]], [[morphosyntactic]] and accentological similarities than do any other language groups within the Indo-European language family. The notable early Indo-Europeanist [[August Schleicher]] (1861) proposed a simple solution: From Proto-Indo-European descended Proto-Balto-Slavic, out of which Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic emerged. The Latvian linguist Jānis Endzelīns thought, however, that any similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages were a result of an intensive language contact, i.e., that they were not genetically related and that there was no common Proto-Balto-Slavic language. [[Antoine Meillet]] (1905, 1908, 1922, 1925, 1934), the distinguished French Indo-Europeanist, in reaction to a second simplified theory of Schleicher's, propounded a view according to which all similarities of Baltic and Slavic occurred accidentally, by independent parallel development, and that there was no Proto-Balto-Slavic language. From a modern perspective, the most acceptable theory is that of the Polish linguist Rozwadowski, who thought that the similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages are a result of not only genetic relationship, but also of later language contact.


Even though some linguists still do not accept today the genetic relationship, prevalent scholarly opinion is that there is very little doubt that Baltic and Slavic languages experienced a period of common development.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} Beekes (1995: 22), for example, states expressly that "[t]he Baltic and Slavic languages were originally one language and so form one group". Gray and Atkinson's (2003) application of language-tree divergence analysis supports a genetic relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages and dating the split of the family to about 1400 BCE. That this was found using a very different methodology than other studies lends some credence to the links between the two.<ref>Gray, R. D. & Atkinson, Q. D. ''[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6965/abs/nature02029.html Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin]'', Nature '''426''', 435−439 (2003)</ref>.
Even though some linguists still do not accept today the genetic relationship, prevalent scholarly opinion is that there is very little doubt that Baltic and Slavic languages experienced a period of common development. Beekes (1995: 22), for example, states expressly that "[t]he Baltic and Slavic languages were originally one language and so form one group". Gray and Atkinson's (2003) application of language-tree divergence analysis supports a genetic relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages and dating the split of the family to about 1400 BCE. That this was found using a very different methodology than other studies lends some credence to the links between the two.<ref>Gray, R. D. & Atkinson, Q. D. ''[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6965/abs/nature02029.html Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin]'', Nature '''426''', 435−439 (2003)</ref>.


==Modern interpretation==
==Modern interpretation==
Line 33: Line 33:
The Ivanov-Toporov model is supported by the newest research into Old Prussian as the only well-documented representative of the West Baltic branch. It is also supported by archaeological evidence and other historical indications. The West and East Balts would have been separated from the Slavs by the [[Goths]]. Before the split there was some kind of [[dialect continuum]], on whose outskirts existed an innovative dialect that was ancestral to Proto-Slavic.
The Ivanov-Toporov model is supported by the newest research into Old Prussian as the only well-documented representative of the West Baltic branch. It is also supported by archaeological evidence and other historical indications. The West and East Balts would have been separated from the Slavs by the [[Goths]]. Before the split there was some kind of [[dialect continuum]], on whose outskirts existed an innovative dialect that was ancestral to Proto-Slavic.
[[Image:Balto-Slavic lng.png|thumb|left|260px|Area of Balto-Slavic dialectic continuum (''purple'') with proposed material cultures correlating to speakers Balto-Slavic in Bronze Age (''white''). ''Red'' dots= archaic Slavic hydronyms]]
[[Image:Balto-Slavic lng.png|thumb|left|260px|Area of Balto-Slavic dialectic continuum (''purple'') with proposed material cultures correlating to speakers Balto-Slavic in Bronze Age (''white''). ''Red'' dots= archaic Slavic hydronyms]]
The sudden expansion of Proto-Slavic in the sixth and the seventh century is according to some connected to the hypothesis that Proto-Slavic was in fact a ''[[Koiné language|koiné]]'' of the [[Eurasian Avars|Avar state]], i.e. the language of the administration and military rule of the Avar khaganate in Eastern Europe.<ref>cf. {{Harvcoltxt|Holzer|2002}} with references</ref> It is well-known from historical sources that Slavs and Avars jointly attacked the Byzantine Empire and laid siege to Constantinople<ref>Later historical sources, such as [[De Administrando Imperio]] by [[Constantine Porphyrogenitus]], often mix Avars and Slavs, after a few centuries making no clear distinction between them.</ref>. According to that interpretation, Avars were a thin layer of military aristocracy in that state/alliance, while the Slavs were a military caste - warriors (i.e. not a nation or ethnicity in the proper sense of that word). Their language - at first possibly only one local speech - once koinéized, became a ''lingua franca'' of the Avar state. This might explain how Proto-Slavic spread to the Balkans and the areas of the Danubian basin,<ref>Slavic languages were spoken till the year 800 all the way to line Trieste-Hamburg. Later they were pushed back to the east.</ref> and would also explain why the Avars were assimilated so fast, leaving practically no linguistic traces, and that Proto-Slavic was so unusually uniform. However, such a theory fails to explain how Slavic spread to Eastern Europe, area which had no historical links with the [[Eurasian Avars|Avar Khanate]]<ref>The Slavic Lingua Franca. Linguistic Notes of an Archaeologist Turned Historian. Florin Curta. Pg 148 ''It is possible that the expansion of the Avar khanate during the second half of the eighth century coincided with the spread of... Slavic into the neighbouring areas of Bohemia, Moravia and southern Poland. (but) could hardly explain the spread of Slavic into Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, all regions that produced so far almost no archaeological evidence of Avar influence''</ref>.
The sudden expansion of Proto-Slavic in the sixth and the seventh century (around AD 600, uniform Proto-Slavic with no detectable dialectal differentiation was spoken from [[Thessaloniki]] in Greece to [[Novgorod]] in Russia<ref>Literally entire continental Greece was Slavicized except for the cities; this is obvious from numerous Slavic toponyms there (e.g. on Peloponnese). Afterwards the population was Hellenicised under the influence of prestigious Greek as an official language of the administration, except in certain enclaves (such as Thessaloniki) where Slavic is still spoken.</ref>) is according to some connected to the hypothesis that Proto-Slavic was in fact a ''[[Koiné language|koiné]]'' of the [[Eurasian Avars|Avar state]], i.e. the language of the administration and military rule of the Avar khaganate in Eastern Europe.<ref>cf. {{Harvcoltxt|Holzer|2002}} with references</ref> It is well-known from historical sources that Slavs and Avars jointly attacked the Byzantine Empire and laid siege to Constantinople<ref>Later historical sources, such as [[De Administrando Imperio]] by [[Constantine Porphyrogenitus]], often mix Avars and Slavs, after a few centuries making no clear distinction between them.</ref>. According to that interpretation, Avars were a thin layer of military aristocracy in that state/alliance, while the Slavs were a military caste - warriors (i.e. not a nation or ethnicity in the proper sense of that word). Their language - at first possibly only one local speech - once koinéized, became a ''lingua franca'' of the Avar state. This might explain how Proto-Slavic spread to the Balkans and the areas of the Danubian basin,<ref>Slavic languages were spoken till the year 800 all the way to line Trieste-Hamburg. Later they were pushed back to the east.</ref> and would also explain why the Avars were assimilated so fast, leaving practically no linguistic traces, and that Proto-Slavic was so unusually uniform. However, such a theory fails to explain how Slavic spread to the Baltic region and former Soviet countries, areas which had no historical links with the [[Eurasian Avars|Avar Khanate]]<ref>The Slavic Lingua Franca. Linguistic Notes of an Archaeologist Turned Historian. Florin Curta. Pg 148 ''It is possible that the expansion of the Avar khanate during the second half of the eighth century coincided with the spread of... Slavic into the neighbouring areas of Bohemia, Moravia and southern Poland. (but) could hardly explain the spread of Slavic into Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, all regions that produced so far almost no archaeological evidence of Avar influence''</ref>.


That sudden expansion of Proto-Slavic erased most of the idioms of the Balto-Slavic dialect continuum, which left us today with only three branches: Eastern Baltic, Western Baltic and Slavic.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} This secession of the Balto-Slavic dialect ancestral to Proto-Slavic is estimated on archaeological and glottochronological criteria to have occurred sometime in the period 1500-1000 BCE.<ref>cf. {{Harvcoltxt|Novotná|Blažek|2007}} with references. "Classical glottochronology" conducted by Czech Slavist M. Čejka in 1974 dates the Balto-Slavic split to -910±340 BCE, Sergei Starostin in 1994 dates it to 1210 BCE, and "recalibrated glottochronology" conducted by Novotná & Blažek dates it to 1400-1340 BCE. This agrees well with Trziniec-Komarov culture, localized from Silesia to Central Ukraine and dated to the period 1500–1200 BCE.</ref>
That sudden expansion of Proto-Slavic erased most of the idioms of the Balto-Slavic dialect continuum, which left us today with only three branches: Eastern Baltic, Western Baltic and Slavic. This secession of the Balto-Slavic dialect ancestral to Proto-Slavic is estimated on archaeological and glottochronological criteria to have occurred sometime in the period 1500-1000 BCE.<ref>cf. {{Harvcoltxt|Novotná|Blažek|2007}} with references. "Classical glottochronology" conducted by Czech Slavist M. Čejka in 1974 dates the Balto-Slavic split to -910±340 BCE, Sergei Starostin in 1994 dates it to 1210 BCE, and "recalibrated glottochronology" conducted by Novotná & Blažek dates it to 1400-1340 BCE. This agrees well with Trziniec-Komarov culture, localized from Silesia to Central Ukraine and dated to the period 1500–1200 BCE.</ref>


==Balto-Slavic isoglosses==
==Balto-Slavic isoglosses==
The close relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages is indicated by a series of exclusive [[isogloss]]es representing innovations not shared with any other IE branch (especially in their phonology)<ref name=enc/> and by the fact that one can establish the relative chronology of those innovations, which is the most important criterion for establishing genetic relationship in historical linguistics.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} The most important of these isoglosses are:
The close relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages is indicated by a series of exclusive [[isogloss]]es representing innovations not shared with any other IE branch (especially in their phonology) and by the fact that one can establish the relative chronology of those innovations, which is the most important criterion for establishing genetic relationship in historical linguistics. The most important of these isoglosses are:


* [[Winter's law]] (lengthening of vowels before PIE voiced consonants, probably only in a closed syllable)
* [[Winter's law]] (lengthening of vowels before PIE voiced consonants, probably only in a closed syllable)
Line 49: Line 49:
* generalization of the PIE neuter *[[wikt:Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *tód|to-]] stem to the nominative singular of masculine and feminine demonstratives instead of PIE *[[wikt:Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *só|so-]], i.e. PIE demonstrative {{PIE|*só, *séh₂, *tód}} (‘this, that’) became PBSl. *tos, *ta, *tod
* generalization of the PIE neuter *[[wikt:Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *tód|to-]] stem to the nominative singular of masculine and feminine demonstratives instead of PIE *[[wikt:Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *só|so-]], i.e. PIE demonstrative {{PIE|*só, *séh₂, *tód}} (‘this, that’) became PBSl. *tos, *ta, *tod
* formation of so-called definite adjectives with a construction that includes adjective and a relative pronoun, e.g. Lith. ''geràsis'' 'the good' as opposed to ''gẽras'' 'good', OCS ''dobrъjь'' 'the good' as opposed to ''dobrъ'' 'good'
* formation of so-called definite adjectives with a construction that includes adjective and a relative pronoun, e.g. Lith. ''geràsis'' 'the good' as opposed to ''gẽras'' 'good', OCS ''dobrъjь'' 'the good' as opposed to ''dobrъ'' 'good'
* usage of genitive to state the object of a negated verb, e.g. Russ. ''knigi (ja) ne čital'', Lith. ''knygos neskaičiau'' 'I haven't' read the book'.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}}
* usage of genitive to state the object of a negated verb, e.g. Russ. ''knigi (ja) ne čital'', Lith. ''knygos neskaičiau'' 'I haven't' read the book'.


Common Balto-Slavic innovations include several other prominent, but non-exclusive isoglosses, such as the [[Satemization]], [[Ruki sound law|Ruki]], change of PIE */o/ to PBSl. */a/ (shared with [[Germanic languages|Germanic]], [[Indo-Iranian languages|Indo-Iranian]] and [[Anatolian languages|Anatolian]] branch) and the loss of labialization in PIE labiovelars (shared with Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Tocharian). A number of these, however, fit only in the relative chronology of other otherwise exclusive Balto-Slavic isoglosses, which makes them specific Balto-Slavic innovation.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}}
Common Balto-Slavic innovations include several other prominent, but non-exclusive isoglosses, such as the [[Satemization]], [[Ruki sound law|Ruki]], change of PIE */o/ to PBSl. */a/ (shared with [[Germanic languages|Germanic]], [[Indo-Iranian languages|Indo-Iranian]] and [[Anatolian languages|Anatolian]] branch) and the loss of labialization in PIE labiovelars (shared with Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Tocharian). A number of these, however, fit only in the relative chronology of other otherwise exclusive Balto-Slavic isoglosses, which makes them specific Balto-Slavic innovation.


Baltic and Slavic languages also show some amount of correspondence in vocabulary; about 100 words are shared by Baltic and Slavic languages, either being a common innovation (i.e. not of PIE origin) or sharing the same semantic development from PIE root<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/50949/Baltic-languages |title=Baltic languages |authorlink=Vytautas Mažiulis |first=Vytautas |last=Mažiulis |accessdate=2008-10-10 |work=Britannica Online Encyclopedia}}</ref>.
Baltic and Slavic languages also show a remarkable amount of correspondence in vocabulary; there are at least 100 words exclusive to Balto-Slavic, either being a common innovation (i.e. not of PIE origin) or sharing the same semantic development from PIE root<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/50949/Baltic-languages |title=Baltic languages |authorlink=Vytautas Mažiulis |first=Vytautas |last=Mažiulis |accessdate=2008-10-10 |work=Britannica Online Encyclopedia}}</ref>.
For example:
For example:
* PBSl. {{PIE|*lḗjpā}} '[[tilia]]' > Lith. ''[[wikt:liepa#Lithuanian|líepa]]'', Old Pr. ''līpa'', Latv. ''[[wikt:liepa#Latvian|liẽpa]]''; PSl. *léjpā > Common Slavic *lipa (OCS ''lipa'', Russ. ''[[wikt:липа#Russian|lipa]]'', Pol. ''[[wikt:lipa#Polish|lipa]]'')
* PBSl. {{PIE|*lḗjpā}} '[[tilia]]' > Lith. ''[[wikt:liepa#Lithuanian|líepa]]'', Old Pr. ''līpa'', Latv. ''[[wikt:liepa#Latvian|liẽpa]]''; PSl. *léjpā > Common Slavic *lipa (OCS ''lipa'', Russ. ''[[wikt:липа#Russian|lipa]]'', Pol. ''[[wikt:lipa#Polish|lipa]]'')
Line 59: Line 59:
* PBSl. {{PIE|*galwā́}} 'head' > Lith. ''[[wikt:galva#Lithuanian|galvà]]'', Old Pr. ''[[wikt:galwo#Old_Prussian|galwo]]'', Latv. ''[[wikt:galva#Latvian|galva]]''; PSl. *{{unicode|galwā́}} > Common Slavic *[[wikt:Appendix:Proto-Slavic *golva|golvà]] (OCS ''[[wikt:глава#Old_Church_Slavonic|glava]]'', Russ. ''[[wikt:голова#Russian|golová]]'', Pol. ''[[wikt:głowa#Polish|głowa]]'')
* PBSl. {{PIE|*galwā́}} 'head' > Lith. ''[[wikt:galva#Lithuanian|galvà]]'', Old Pr. ''[[wikt:galwo#Old_Prussian|galwo]]'', Latv. ''[[wikt:galva#Latvian|galva]]''; PSl. *{{unicode|galwā́}} > Common Slavic *[[wikt:Appendix:Proto-Slavic *golva|golvà]] (OCS ''[[wikt:глава#Old_Church_Slavonic|glava]]'', Russ. ''[[wikt:голова#Russian|golová]]'', Pol. ''[[wikt:głowa#Polish|głowa]]'')


Among Balto-Slavic archaisms notable is the retention of [[Proto-Indo-European accent|free PIE accent]] (with many innovations).{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}}
Among Balto-Slavic archaisms notable is the retention of [[Proto-Indo-European accent|free PIE accent]] (with many innovations).


On the other hand, there are very few exclusive isoglosses that connect Baltic languages only, and that leave Slavic languages aside. Many of these isoglosses are trivial from a phonological point of view (e.g. transition PIE *tl > Baltic *kl), and most importantly, they do not show any kind of relative chronology.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}}
On the other hand, there are very few exclusive isoglosses that connect Baltic languages only, and that leave Slavic languages aside. Many of these isoglosses are trivial from a phonological point of view (e.g. transition PIE *tl > Baltic *kl), and most importantly, they do not show any kind of relative chronology.


==Proto-Balto-Slavic language==
==Proto-Balto-Slavic language==
{{Main|Proto-Balto-Slavic language}}
{{main|Proto-Balto-Slavic language}}
Proto-Balto-Slavic is [[Linguistic reconstruction|reconstructed]] [[proto-language]] descending from [[Proto-Indo-European language|Proto-Indo-European]] and out of which all later Baltic and Slavic languages and dialects descended.
Proto-Balto-Slavic is [[Linguistic reconstruction|reconstructed]] [[proto-language]] descending from [[Proto-Indo-European language|Proto-Indo-European]] and out of which all later Baltic and Slavic languages and dialects descended.


Line 75: Line 75:


==Notes==
==Notes==
{{Reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}


==References==
==References==
* {{citation |first1=Petra |last1=Novotná |first2=Václav |last2=Blažek |title=Glottochronolgy and its application to the Balto-Slavic languages |journal=[[Baltistica]] |volume=XLII (2) |year=2007 |pages=185–210 |url=http://www.leidykla.eu/fileadmin/Baltistika/42-2/04_Blazeko.pdf |format=PDF}}
* {{citation |first1=Petra |last1=Novotná |first2=Václav |last2=Blažek |title=Glottochronolgy and its application to the Balto-Slavic languages |journal=[[Baltistica]] |volume=XLII (2) |year=2007 |pages=185–210 |url=http://www.leidykla.eu/fileadmin/Baltistika/42-2/04_Blazeko.pdf |format=PDF}}
* {{citation |url=http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/eeo/Urslawisch.pdf |contribution=Urslawisch |authorlink=Georg Holzer |first=Georg |last=Holzer |year=2002 |accessdate=2008-10-01 |title=Enzyklopädie des Europäischen Ostens |language=German |location=Klagenfurt |publisher=Wieser Verlag |format=PDF }}
* {{citation |url=http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/eeo/Urslawisch.pdf |contribution=Urslawisch |authorlink=Georg Holzer |first=Georg |last=Holzer |year=2002 |accessdate=2008-10-01 |title=Enzyklopädie des Europäischen Ostens |language=German |location=Klagenfurt |publisher=Wieser Verlag |format=PDF }}
* {{Citation | author=Barschel; Kozianka; Weber (eds.) | title=Indogermanisch, Baltisch und Slawisch, Kolloquium in Zusammenarbeit mit der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft in Jena, September 1989 | location=[[Munich]] | publisher=Otto Sagner | year=1992 | isbn=3-87690-515-X |language=German}}
* {{cite book | author=Barschel; Kozianka; Weber (eds.) | title=Indogermanisch, Baltisch und Slawisch, Kolloquium in Zusammenarbeit mit der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft in Jena, September 1989 | location=[[Munich]] | publisher=Otto Sagner | year=1992 | isbn=3-87690-515-X |language=German}}
* {{citation| authorlink=Robert S. P. Beekes |first=Robert |last=S.P. Beekes | title=Comparative Indo-European Linguistics | location=[[Amsterdam]] | publisher=John Benjamins | year=1995 | id=ISBN 90-272-2151-0 (Europe), ISBN 1-55619-505-2 (U.S.)}}
* {{citation| authorlink=Robert S. P. Beekes |first=Robert |last=S.P. Beekes | title=Comparative Indo-European Linguistics | location=[[Amsterdam]] | publisher=John Benjamins | year=1995 | id=ISBN 90-272-2151-0 (Europe), ISBN 1-55619-505-2 (U.S.)}}
*Gray, Russell D., and Clayton Atkinson. 2003. "Language-tree divergence times support Anatolian theory of Indo-European Origins," ''Nature'' 426 (27 November): 435-439.
*Gray, Russell D., and Clayton Atkinson. 2003. "Language-tree divergence times support Anatolian theory of Indo-European Origins," ''Nature'' 426 (27 November): 435-439.
Line 90: Line 90:
* {{citation |year=2001 |authorlink=Georg Holzer |first=Georg |last=Holzer |language=German |title=Zur Lautgeschichte des baltisch-slavischen Areals |journal=Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch |issue=47 |pages=33–50}}
* {{citation |year=2001 |authorlink=Georg Holzer |first=Georg |last=Holzer |language=German |title=Zur Lautgeschichte des baltisch-slavischen Areals |journal=Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch |issue=47 |pages=33–50}}
*{{citation |year=2007 |authorlink=Georg Holzer |first=Georg |last=Holzer |title=Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen. Einleitung und Lautgeschichte der Standardsprache | location=[[Frankfurt am Main]] |publisher=Peter Lang |id=ISBN 978-3631561195 |language=German }}
*{{citation |year=2007 |authorlink=Georg Holzer |first=Georg |last=Holzer |title=Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen. Einleitung und Lautgeschichte der Standardsprache | location=[[Frankfurt am Main]] |publisher=Peter Lang |id=ISBN 978-3631561195 |language=German }}
* {{citation |url=http://www.tommeltot.dk/downloads/olander-bsproblem.pdf |title=Det baltoslaviske problem - Accentologien |first=Tomas |last=Olander |author-link=Tomas Olander |year=2002 |language=Danish |format={{Dead link|date=June 2010}}}} Thomas Olander's Ph.D. thesis on the existence of Balto-Slavic genetic node solely on the basis of accentological evidence
* {{citation |url=http://www.tommeltot.dk/downloads/olander-bsproblem.pdf |title=Det baltoslaviske problem - Accentologien |first=Tomas |last=Olander |author-link=Tomas Olander |year=2002 |language=Danish}} Thomas Olander's Ph.D. thesis on the existence of Balto-Slavic genetic node solely on the basis of accentological evidence
* {{citation |first=Tomas |last=Olander |author-link=Tomas Olander |year=2009 |title=Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility |publisher=[[Mouton de Gruyter]] |location =Berlin & New York |isbn=978-3-11-020397-4}}
* {{citation |first=Tomas |last=Olander |author-link=Tomas Olander |year=2009 |title=Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility |publisher=[[Mouton de Gruyter]] |location =Berlin & New York |isbn=978-3-11-020397-4}}


==External links==
==External links==
* [http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art218e.pdf Balto-Slavic Accentuation], by Kortlandt; a very idiosyncratic approach to Balto-Slavic accentuation
* [http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art218e.pdf Balto-Slavic Accentuation], by Kortlandt; a very idiosyncratic approach to Balto-Slavic accentuation
* {{Citation |url=http://www.kroraina.com/slav/bern_trub.htm |author=[[Oleg Trubachyov|Трубачев О.]], Бернштейн С. |chapter=Отрывки о балто-южнославянских изоглосах |title=Сравнительная грамматика славянских языков |year=2005 |location=Moscow |publisher=Наука |language=Russian}} (Bernstein and Trubachev on the Balto-South-Slavic isoglosses)
* {{cite book |url=http://www.kroraina.com/slav/bern_trub.htm |author=[[Oleg Trubachyov|Трубачев О.]], Бернштейн С. |chapter=Отрывки о балто-южнославянских изоглосах |title=Сравнительная грамматика славянских языков |year=2005 |location=Moscow |publisher=Наука |language=Russian}} (Bernstein and Trubachev on the Balto-South-Slavic isoglosses)


{{DEFAULTSORT:Balto-Slavic Languages}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Balto-Slavic Languages}}

Revision as of 07:52, 14 June 2010

Balto-Slavic
Geographic
distribution		Eastern and Northern Europe
Linguistic classificationIndo-European
  • Balto-Slavic
Subdivisions

The Balto-Slavic language group consists of the Baltic and Slavic languages, belonging to the Indo-European family of languages. Having experienced a period of common development, Baltic and Slavic languages share several linguistic traits not found in any other Indo-European branch, which points to their close genetic relationship.

A hypothetical Proto-Balto-Slavic language is also reconstructable, descending from Proto-Indo-European by means of well-defined sound laws, and out of which modern Slavic and Baltic languages descended. One particularly innovative dialect separated from the Balto-Slavic dialect continuum and became ancestral to Proto-Slavic language, out of which all other Slavic languages descended.

There was extensive debate in the first half of the 20th century on the exact details of the relationship among Slavic and Baltic languages. Some claimed they were genetically related, and others explained similarities by prolonged language contact. Modern research, especially with insights gained in the field of comparative Balto-Slavic accentology, corroborates the claim of genetic relationship.[1]

Historical dispute

The nature of the relationship of the Balto-Slavic languages has been the subject of much discussion from the very beginning of historical Indo-European linguistics as a scientific discipline. Even though the similarities between Baltic and Slavic languages are often more than obvious, some were, and still are, more intent on explaining them not in terms of a genetic relationship, but by language contact and dialectal closeness in the Proto-Indo-European period.

Various schematic sketches of possible alternative Balto-Slavic language relationships; Van Wijk, 1923

Baltic and Slavic share more close phonological, lexical, morphosyntactic and accentological similarities than do any other language groups within the Indo-European language family. The notable early Indo-Europeanist August Schleicher (1861) proposed a simple solution: From Proto-Indo-European descended Proto-Balto-Slavic, out of which Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic emerged. The Latvian linguist Jānis Endzelīns thought, however, that any similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages were a result of an intensive language contact, i.e., that they were not genetically related and that there was no common Proto-Balto-Slavic language. Antoine Meillet (1905, 1908, 1922, 1925, 1934), the distinguished French Indo-Europeanist, in reaction to a second simplified theory of Schleicher's, propounded a view according to which all similarities of Baltic and Slavic occurred accidentally, by independent parallel development, and that there was no Proto-Balto-Slavic language. From a modern perspective, the most acceptable theory is that of the Polish linguist Rozwadowski, who thought that the similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages are a result of not only genetic relationship, but also of later language contact.

Even though some linguists still do not accept today the genetic relationship, prevalent scholarly opinion is that there is very little doubt that Baltic and Slavic languages experienced a period of common development. Beekes (1995: 22), for example, states expressly that "[t]he Baltic and Slavic languages were originally one language and so form one group". Gray and Atkinson's (2003) application of language-tree divergence analysis supports a genetic relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages and dating the split of the family to about 1400 BCE. That this was found using a very different methodology than other studies lends some credence to the links between the two.[2].

Modern interpretation

Traditionally the Balto-Slavic languages are divided into Baltic and Slavic branches. However, another division was proposed in the 1960s by Vyacheslav Ivanov and Vladimir Toporov: that the Balto-Slavic proto-language split from the start into West Baltic, East Baltic and Proto-Slavic. Thus Ivanov and Toporov were the first to question not only Balto-Slavic unity, but also Baltic unity. In their framework, Proto-Slavic is a peripheral and innovative Balto-Slavic dialect which suddenly expanded, due to a conjunction of historical circumstances, and effectively erased all the other Balto-Slavic dialects, except in the marginal areas where Lithuanian, Latvian and Old Prussian developed. Onomastic evidence shows that Baltic languages were once spoken in much wider territory than the one they cover today, all the way to Moscow, and were later replaced by Slavic.

The Ivanov-Toporov model is supported by the newest research into Old Prussian as the only well-documented representative of the West Baltic branch. It is also supported by archaeological evidence and other historical indications. The West and East Balts would have been separated from the Slavs by the Goths. Before the split there was some kind of dialect continuum, on whose outskirts existed an innovative dialect that was ancestral to Proto-Slavic.

Area of Balto-Slavic dialectic continuum (purple) with proposed material cultures correlating to speakers Balto-Slavic in Bronze Age (white). Red dots= archaic Slavic hydronyms

The sudden expansion of Proto-Slavic in the sixth and the seventh century (around AD 600, uniform Proto-Slavic with no detectable dialectal differentiation was spoken from Thessaloniki in Greece to Novgorod in Russia[3]) is according to some connected to the hypothesis that Proto-Slavic was in fact a koiné of the Avar state, i.e. the language of the administration and military rule of the Avar khaganate in Eastern Europe.[4] It is well-known from historical sources that Slavs and Avars jointly attacked the Byzantine Empire and laid siege to Constantinople[5]. According to that interpretation, Avars were a thin layer of military aristocracy in that state/alliance, while the Slavs were a military caste - warriors (i.e. not a nation or ethnicity in the proper sense of that word). Their language - at first possibly only one local speech - once koinéized, became a lingua franca of the Avar state. This might explain how Proto-Slavic spread to the Balkans and the areas of the Danubian basin,[6] and would also explain why the Avars were assimilated so fast, leaving practically no linguistic traces, and that Proto-Slavic was so unusually uniform. However, such a theory fails to explain how Slavic spread to the Baltic region and former Soviet countries, areas which had no historical links with the Avar Khanate[7].

That sudden expansion of Proto-Slavic erased most of the idioms of the Balto-Slavic dialect continuum, which left us today with only three branches: Eastern Baltic, Western Baltic and Slavic. This secession of the Balto-Slavic dialect ancestral to Proto-Slavic is estimated on archaeological and glottochronological criteria to have occurred sometime in the period 1500-1000 BCE.[8]

Balto-Slavic isoglosses

The close relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages is indicated by a series of exclusive isoglosses representing innovations not shared with any other IE branch (especially in their phonology) and by the fact that one can establish the relative chronology of those innovations, which is the most important criterion for establishing genetic relationship in historical linguistics. The most important of these isoglosses are:

  • Winter's law (lengthening of vowels before PIE voiced consonants, probably only in a closed syllable)
  • identical reflexes of PIE syllabic sonorants
  • Hirt's law (retraction of PIE accent to the preceding syllable closed by a laryngeal)
  • rise of the Balto-Slavic acute before PIE laryngeals in a closed syllable
  • replacement of PIE genitive singular of thematic nouns with ablative
  • ending for instrumental plural of *-miHs; e.g. Lith. sūnumìs, OCS synъmi 'with sons'
  • formation of past tense with the ending *-ē (a type of Lithuanian preterite dãvė 'he gave', OCS imperfect bě 'he was')
  • generalization of the PIE neuter *to- stem to the nominative singular of masculine and feminine demonstratives instead of PIE *so-, i.e. PIE demonstrative *só, *séh₂, *tód (‘this, that’) became PBSl. *tos, *ta, *tod
  • formation of so-called definite adjectives with a construction that includes adjective and a relative pronoun, e.g. Lith. geràsis 'the good' as opposed to gẽras 'good', OCS dobrъjь 'the good' as opposed to dobrъ 'good'
  • usage of genitive to state the object of a negated verb, e.g. Russ. knigi (ja) ne čital, Lith. knygos neskaičiau 'I haven't' read the book'.

Common Balto-Slavic innovations include several other prominent, but non-exclusive isoglosses, such as the Satemization, Ruki, change of PIE */o/ to PBSl. */a/ (shared with Germanic, Indo-Iranian and Anatolian branch) and the loss of labialization in PIE labiovelars (shared with Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Tocharian). A number of these, however, fit only in the relative chronology of other otherwise exclusive Balto-Slavic isoglosses, which makes them specific Balto-Slavic innovation.

Baltic and Slavic languages also show a remarkable amount of correspondence in vocabulary; there are at least 100 words exclusive to Balto-Slavic, either being a common innovation (i.e. not of PIE origin) or sharing the same semantic development from PIE root[9]. For example:

Among Balto-Slavic archaisms notable is the retention of free PIE accent (with many innovations).

On the other hand, there are very few exclusive isoglosses that connect Baltic languages only, and that leave Slavic languages aside. Many of these isoglosses are trivial from a phonological point of view (e.g. transition PIE *tl > Baltic *kl), and most importantly, they do not show any kind of relative chronology.

Proto-Balto-Slavic language

Main article: Proto-Balto-Slavic language

Proto-Balto-Slavic is reconstructed proto-language descending from Proto-Indo-European and out of which all later Baltic and Slavic languages and dialects descended.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ See Olander (2002) for a discussion on exclusive Balto-Slavic accentual isoglosses
  2. ^ Gray, R. D. & Atkinson, Q. D. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin, Nature 426, 435−439 (2003)
  3. ^ Literally entire continental Greece was Slavicized except for the cities; this is obvious from numerous Slavic toponyms there (e.g. on Peloponnese). Afterwards the population was Hellenicised under the influence of prestigious Greek as an official language of the administration, except in certain enclaves (such as Thessaloniki) where Slavic is still spoken.
  4. ^ cf. Holzer (2002) with references
  5. ^ Later historical sources, such as De Administrando Imperio by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, often mix Avars and Slavs, after a few centuries making no clear distinction between them.
  6. ^ Slavic languages were spoken till the year 800 all the way to line Trieste-Hamburg. Later they were pushed back to the east.
  7. ^ The Slavic Lingua Franca. Linguistic Notes of an Archaeologist Turned Historian. Florin Curta. Pg 148 It is possible that the expansion of the Avar khanate during the second half of the eighth century coincided with the spread of... Slavic into the neighbouring areas of Bohemia, Moravia and southern Poland. (but) could hardly explain the spread of Slavic into Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, all regions that produced so far almost no archaeological evidence of Avar influence
  8. ^ cf. Novotná & Blažek (2007) with references. "Classical glottochronology" conducted by Czech Slavist M. Čejka in 1974 dates the Balto-Slavic split to -910±340 BCE, Sergei Starostin in 1994 dates it to 1210 BCE, and "recalibrated glottochronology" conducted by Novotná & Blažek dates it to 1400-1340 BCE. This agrees well with Trziniec-Komarov culture, localized from Silesia to Central Ukraine and dated to the period 1500–1200 BCE.
  9. ^ Mažiulis, Vytautas. "Baltic languages". Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2008-10-10.

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balto-Slavic_languages&oldid=367926810"