How to divide Slavs from Balts, and vice-versa before 6th century?

Could you site same sentence in old church Slavonic and Sanskrit

Numericals, for example:
First — "perviy" — "purva"
One — "odin" — "adi"
Two — "dva/dve/dvoe" — "dva/dve/dvaya"
Three — "tri/troe/tretiy/troyka" — "tri/traya/treba/trika"
Four — "chetyre/chetvero" — "chatur/chatvara"
Ten — "desyatero" — "dashatara"

Verbs:
To be — "byt" — "bhu"
To stand — "stoyat" — "stha"
To dry — "sushit" — "shush"
To cook — "varit/pech" — "var/pach"
To fall — "padat" — "pad"
To cry — "revet" — "rav"
To swim to — "proplyvayet" — "praplavate"
To swim across — "pereplyvat" — "pariplavate"

So...
234 — "dwesti tridsat chetire" — "dwishata tridasha chatwari"
There is your home, there is my home — "Tot vash dom, aetot nash dom" — "Tat vas dham, etat nas dham".

Although in old church language the sentence should be "To vash dom, se nash dom".

— from:
http://новости.ru-an.info/новости/что-мы-знаем-о-санскрите-и-почему-он-так-похож-на-русский-язык/
http://www.econet.ru/articles/70238...tri-vy-govorite-na-izmenennoy-forme-sanskrita
https://www.kramola.info/video/zama...j-jazyk-iznachalen-po-otnosheniju-k-sanskritu
https://www.kramola.info/books/letopisi-proshlogo/o-srodstve-yazyka-slavyanskago-s-sanskritskim
http://www.krivandino.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=120&Itemid=59
 
Numericals, for example:
First — "perviy" — "purva"
One — "odin" — "adi"
Two — "dva/dve/dvoe" — "dva/dve/dvaya"
Three — "tri/troe/tretiy/troyka" — "tri/traya/treba/trika"
Four — "chetyre/chetvero" — "chatur/chatvara"
Ten — "desyatero" — "dashatara"

Verbs:
To be — "byt" — "bhu"
To stand — "stoyat" — "stha"
To dry — "sushit" — "shush"
To cook — "varit/pech" — "var/pach"
To fall — "padat" — "pad"
To cry — "revet" — "rav"
To swim to — "proplyvayet" — "praplavate"
To swim across — "pereplyvat" — "pariplavate"

So...
234 — "dwesti tridsat chetire" — "dwishata tridasha chatwari"
There is your home, there is my home — "Tot vash dom, aetot nash dom" — "Tat vas dham, etat nas dham".

Although in old church language the sentence should be "To vash dom, se nash dom".

— from:
http://новости.ru-an.info/новости/что-мы-знаем-о-санскрите-и-почему-он-так-похож-на-русский-язык/
http://www.econet.ru/articles/70238...tri-vy-govorite-na-izmenennoy-forme-sanskrita
https://www.kramola.info/video/zama...j-jazyk-iznachalen-po-otnosheniju-k-sanskritu
https://www.kramola.info/books/letopisi-proshlogo/o-srodstve-yazyka-slavyanskago-s-sanskritskim
http://www.krivandino.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=120&Itemid=59
I hope that by now you have realized that these are two separate languages. You know, such close similarities of basic vocabulary exist throughout all IE language family. Same roots, but separate languages. Most likely a common ancestor of these two languages and all IE was Yamnaya culture.
 
Most likely a common ancestor of these two languages and all IE was Yamnaya culture.

Yes, it's proven by archaeologists.

Yamnaya started when water from Mediterranean Sea broke through Bosfor and raise the water level in Black Sea. People who already had an overpopulation in the region (the land was very fruitful, plus they had an ability to drink cow milk, as can still) starten to move away from their ancestral fatherland.

Yamnaya.png
 
Yes, it's proven by archaeologists.

Yamnaya started when water from Mediterranean Sea broke through Bosfor and raise the water level in Black Sea. People who already had an overpopulation in the region (the land was very fruitful, plus they had an ability to drink cow milk, as can still) starten to move away from their ancestral fatherland.

View attachment 9854

This has not been proven by archaeologists at all. It's still a (very plausible and sensible) hypothesis, with genetic and cultural consequences that haven't been sufficiently demonstrated, but anyway it has nothing to do with Yamnaya. Instead it's related to the development of much earlier cultures. The Black Sea Deluge hypothesis is dated to have taken place some 7,600 years ago, i.e. around 5,600 BC.

That was more than 2 milennia before the earliest attestations of undeniably Yamnaya culture by 3,300 BC. You're missing a lot of time of certain cultural, social and economic changes, and also migrations of people. Not even the most likely direct ancestors that contributed to the formation of Yamnaya, Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk, existed by 5,600 BC.

There may be some association of the very distant ancestors of Yamnaya (some of them, certainly not all) and those peoples who once inhabited the Black Sea territory, but it's at best a very indirect relationship with a gap of 2,300 years between the two cultures, a gap which needs to be detailed and explained.
 
Northern India was conquered by people who started from the same region, the fruitful, rich, fertile banks of the Black Sea. Both Krishna and Arjuna spoke in "Old Church Slavonic", also known as... Sanskrit.

You must be joking. Erm... Right?
 
I hope that by now you have realized that these are two separate languages. You know, such close similarities of basic vocabulary exist throughout all IE language family. Same roots, but separate languages. Most likely a common ancestor of these two languages and all IE was Yamnaya culture.

Yamna might be only R1a related and not even origin. While QR - I mean P might have origins in China, but R and Q would have split around area of lake Baikal, where Q was still present and Ket people were speaking Amerindian related language. IE(that includes also R1b) origins most likelly might come nearer to that direction and away from Europe, where R1a originated.
 
Please, don't spread disinformations on such serious forum, picture down:

zy5wkm.png


This "pre-Slavic" or whatever you want to call him was already divided from Baltic-speakers!

I wouldn't speak about Germanic language if i am not well informed!

PLEAS put links to wiki, if you use it as a source. Now, I will do this dis FOR YOU:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Slavic

here is the problem with the wiki text:
you gave 2 conflicting dating systems for something that has nothing to do with slavic, but proto slavic, which is fictional.
According to:
1st dating system you can't talk about slavic, because slavic did not exist prior 6th AD
2nd dating system it says same but with different words: "As there are no dialectal distinctions reconstructible from this period or earlier, this is the period for which a single common ancestor (that is, "Proto-Slavic proper") can be reconstructed."

So, both of them are mentioning time period, which was NOT slavic. You can't mark people who spoke baltic, germanic, celtic or greek as slavic, because they were not slavs at proto-slavic period. What is it so hard to comprehend here?



So, to answer your question in TOPIC:

"How to divide Slavs from Balts, and vice-versa before 6th century?"

You can't divide Slavs from Balts, because they did not exist before 6th century. Balts did exist prior 6th century without *any* Slavs around.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, I'm done with this topic.

I've only recently found this link, and blog solves all the answers I wanted to find:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/the-beast-among-y-haplogroups.html
R1a-M417_The_Beast.png


I had a further read in link:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/late-pie-ground-zero-now-obvious.html(it also contains other information, that might be interesting)
PIE_Baltic.png

What it says, is that Baltic region(5800 years ago?) had already earliest R1a variants. R1a1 is R-SRY1532.2(https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/phylogenetic_trees_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml#R1a) - it is ancestor of ALL discussed R1a variants. That also includes ancestors of M458, so I would abandon any ideas about Slavic as paralel development, as it is unsound. Since Slavic language(and language is the only thing that differ it from other groups) is very young development, it is most probably, that ancestors of R1a spoke either Baltic or proto-Baltic language(or whatever it means). The problem with term proto-Baltic is that it is very wrong, as there was nothing prior Baltic language in Baltic area and Proto-Baltic = Proto-Indo-European(or because it looks like originated in Europe - Proto-European).


Note that M558 which is currently regarded as "Baltic" is present not only in Baltic region, but also exactly in the same mentioned places (from previous picture) of oldest samples of R1a and M417 and also Z93:
R1a-Z282+maps+small.png



There is also very big problem of Baltic substratum in Balkans, that raises question if Thracian-Dacian and Illirian ancestors were originally speaking in Baltic language, which with more work in this area might be true. I've mentioned before, that modern Latvians and Lithuanians share teeth characteristics with people from Balkans - this is usually one of the answers to people in Latvia or Lithuania why they have bad teeth and prominent fangs and why I have urge to suck blood(ok, that is made up).

As for most of Slavic languages - main Slavic language spread happened in very recent times - with Church Slavonic. It made Slavic speaking not only Baltic and Finnish people, but also Greek and that is why we have now Slavic speaking Macedonians in FYMR(and why usage of Macedonian name is pain for Greeks, just as it was for Baltic people in the case of German Prussians), as their ancestors in Aleksander time certainly did not spoke Slavic, but Greek(if we regard ancient non-slavic Macedonian as Greek). Magyars in Panonia with R1a are not exception - people in Pannonia spoke Slavic(who replaced Avars) right before arrival of Magyars or whatever groups of people who settled in that region.


/Serg/ mentioned about similarities of Sanskrist and Slavic... well, actually some of his provided examples sound more modern Baltic than Slavic, but I assume, that he does not know Latvian or Lithuanian and want to judge about this topic purely with knowledge of russian and nothing more. Baltic forms are regarded as more archaical and Sanskrit contains them, but Slavic languages do not contain those forms, that were preserved in Sanskrit same way as they are preserved in Baltic. Besides - Sanskrit was long out of use and heavily changed(from classical, where those archaical forms are preserved) before Slavic emerged, so hardly Sanskrit could be regarded as something that formed Slavic and Slavic, as we established did not appear in 2000BC. So, what /Serg/ is citing is at best classical Sanskrit, which was also influenced by other Aryan languages. And btw - classical Sanskrit evolved from Aryam(Vedic Sanskrit) and that language evolved from Avestan, so we come full circle to Indo-Iranian languages, which influenced each other which were influenced by local languages - mainly Dravidian.

If Slavic languages contain any archaical forms, that can be regarded as Slavic(because they are not Germanic or Celtic), then they are also found in Baltic. It does not work around other way.

If Prussian would emerge from time capsule and spoke to modern Baltic speakers, they would regard it as Slavic without blinking an eye, because they are not really well in these linguistic topics(as I am). But, since Prussian is not Slavic, but is just a variation of Baltic, so are Slavic, who are not developed far from Baltic languages as are Germanic or Celtic. In linguistics we can at best speak about Slavic branch of Baltic languages, as dialect forms, that were between Slavic and Baltic languages have died out, but if they were still alive and in use, this would be no topic to discuss about. And I must mention again - modern Baltic languages appeared in Baltic region only 1500 years ago. If we strictly have to speak about Baltic languages as regional languages, then Baltic became extinct in 16th century when Prussian, Curonian and other local Baltic languages died out. Latvian and Lithuanian can be regarded as Russian and Belorussian, as these countries is where they came from originally.
 
Btw, since author is from Balkan area, I have question:

How nonslavic R1a differs from slavic in Balkans?
I would be interested about:
Albanians or how they are called in native - Shqiptarët
Greeks or Ellines
Romanians


This is very important question, before dwelling into battle of dividing slavic from baltic. Those people in Balkans most probably have more common R1a y-dna(not to mention - R1b) among themselves, than rest of slavic and baltic among themselves. And I am also interested how would you divide macedonian slavs from greeks. Just curious.

If they are very similar to each other, why would you even suggest, that I would look on balts and neighbouring slavs as if they are genetically different people? Even if some, like /Serg/ are with limited knowledge and brain power... still, they are retards of mine or finnish - not yours ;)
 
Last edited:
You can't divide Slavs from Balts, because they did not exist before 6th century. Balts did exist prior 6th century without *any* Slavs around.

Only in your fairytale. First Baltic text is recorded in 14th century, and you are speaking about some Baltic language. I am sorry to you, Slavic didn't come from Baltic. And even modern Baltic languages themself are not familiar, Latvian and Lithuanian. They have many disagreements. Also is mostly possible that modern Baltic languages are just intermediate between dead language - West Baltic and Slavic. Your claims are clear nonsense without proofs. While linguists are arguing still about it, you think you are sure, while you aren't. You say : "Balts did exist prior 6th century without *any* Slavs around. Based on what? Who are Balts now? In genetical sense they're half Finno-Ugric half Indo-European, while West and East Slavs aren't in such combination. This propaganda that Balts were already "formed" when Slavs arrived is nonsense.

You said: "because they did not exist before 6th century."

Really? How then Zarubintsy culture si directly connected with proto-Slavs? Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarubintsy_culture

Now, you should try to change wikipedia, becouse they don't agree with you that Slavs are from 6th century, but from 3rd century BC. :) Evil wikipedia.
 
Btw, since author is from Balkan area, I have question:

How nonslavic R1a differs from slavic in Balkans?
I would be interested about:
Albanians or how they are called in native - Shqiptarët
Greeks or Ellines
Romanians


This is very important question, before dwelling into battle of dividing slavic from baltic. Those people in Balkans most probably have more common R1a y-dna(njot to mention - R1b) among themselves, than rest of slavic and baltic among themselves. And I am also interested how would you divide macedonian slavs from greeks. Just curious.

If they are very similar to each other, why would you even suggest, that I would look on balts and neighbouring slavs as if they are genetically different people? Even if some, like /Serg/ are with limited knowledge and brain power... still, they are retards of mine or finnish - not yours ;)

Macedonians are mainly slavicized natives. Why is that weird for you? While my country for example mainly descent from Slavic migrations to Balkan (I2a + R1a) and our ancestral clades are today in Western Ukraine which proves Slavic migrations to Balkan.
 
First Baltic text is recorded in 14th century, and you are speaking about some Baltic language..

So, what is the issue there? Are you arguing, that Baltic languages did not exist before 14th century because of writing? Well, so were most of modern languages, who had their writing established only by 18th century - it is not news.

No one argues, that there are a lot of finnish genes in modern baltic people, as there was a massive influx of finnish people and quite a lot of them were assimilated into Baltic people. Most of that influx happened after 6th AD, so Baltic people of 6th AD had a lot less N1c than now, however most modern south slavic people probably had none R1a and also did not used slavic language, unlike baltic who used baltic, when they branched off PIE.

I have no problems regarding finnish part, as I believe in only one solution(and that is not gas camera - I'm not that evil) for them on my quest to reunite baltic with slavic, as this stupid russian evilmongery and lie distribution business has to stop and if it ends with russian dissolution, as they are doing now with belorussians(which is also part of my heritage), then why would I care? That is my fairytale, after all - who really cares, if that is your nightmare, if you act as indians, who have problems accepting, that India was invaded by people from steppes of Europe and which also created caste system as a result. Well - segregation is not good, but neither is extermination of locals, what some IE tribes practiced towards early noneuropean looking Uralic people, for example.

As for wiki - it says exactly, that I mentioned, that there are no slavic language prior 6th century. And we can only argue about language here - nothing else. if you don't like your own sources or actually don't understand them - just don't use them. No one forces you to do so.



Before Zarubnitsy culture was Milograd culture(it is souther orange), which was baltic:

585px-Baltic_cultures_600-200_BC_SVG.svg.png


Listen, wiki does not say that Zarubintsy culture was slavic or even proto slavic. It says, that it is connected to proto-slavic. From what I understand it is still baltic, just as Milogrady culture is baltic. Let me explain how it is connected to proto-slavic. Zarubnitsy culture is connected to Kiev culture, as Kiev culture is descendant of Zarubnitsy culture(maybe, possibly).
640px-East_Europe_Archaeological_Kievan-Chernyakhov.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_culture

English wiki says, that: "It is widely considered to be the first identifiable Slavic archaeological culture"
According to wiki rules, this is very bad text, as widely in russian wiki version translates 4+ versus 2(and I mentioned before - science is not a democracy - either those 4+ are dead wrong or 2 and I would not put my money on most scientists, that they are right):

"В вопросе этнической принадлежности носителей киевской культуры нет единства мнений. В. Н. Даниленко, П. Н. Третьяков, В. Д. Баран, Р. В. Терпиловский и ряд других исследователей относят её к славянам[3], предполагая, что на основе киевской возникают последующие славянские культуры раннего средневековья: пеньковская и колочинская. В. В. Седов и И. П. Русанова считают её балтской[4]. При этом Седов рассматривает славянство колочинской культуры как результат взаимодействия с пеньковской, а киевскую культуру как субстрат для пеньковской и колочинской культур. "

So, NO - we can't still consider Kiev culture as slavic - not in my dreams or even nightmares. Choose what you want.

I will use map for later connected cultures:
778px-East_europe_5-6cc.png



Kievan culture branches into two:
1. Kolochinskaya culture, which is related to penkovka culture, though it countains also baltic, so it is not real culture, but mix in process. I sure would not call them slavic and neither you or anyone else.
2. Penkovka culture or as we know about them from history - as antes. Yellow on this map. This is the culture, where it is identified as slavic people and I would agree, and we would end this discussion with some result. However, this is what russian wiki says about antes(both sources seems like very recent - 2012, which means, that they also are more trueful, than older unprecise sources):


1. Специалист по археологии древних славян И. П. Русанова отрицала славянскую атрибутацию пеньковской культуры, поскольку пеньковские древности совершенно не похожи на памятники достоверно славянской пражско-корчакской культуры. По её мнению местное население носящее название «анты» возможно уже с VI в. говорило на славянском языке, но сохраняло еще свои этнографические особенности, а в VII веке уже полностью растворилось в славянской среде[10].
(Possibly, that nonslavic antes, who wildly differ from venedi(which are considered really slavic culture) spoke in slavic language from 6th AD already, but were different from slavic and by 7th AD were fully dissolved in slavic environment)


2. По мнению кандидата исторических наук Алексахи А. Г. эта точка зрения подтверждается на основании критерия бездиалектности славянского языка, из которого следует, что никакая археологическая культура, синхронная пражской, не может быть славянской. По его мнению анты были западными балтами, но были ассимилированы славянами лишь в VI веке[11][12].
(It says, that on the basis of nondialectial nature of slavic language no archeological culture, that is sinchronous with Prague-Korchak Culture can be slavic. He has an opinion, that antes were western baltic, that were assimilated by slavic only in 6th century).

So, what it follows, is that we can for sure say, that only Prague-Korchak culture(in map it is orange Venedi) was slavic(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague-Korchak_culture) and rest were baltic, who were assimilated by slavs.

Here is the thing about Prague culture. It is late 5th century(most probably all the other cultures on this map also have the same dates) - more like 6th century culture and it collerates with proto-slavic ideas hypothesis. But from what I read in wiki, name of Veneds most certainly point to prussian Baltic origin(even in lithuanian name of water of vanduo), and if that is true, that more likelly means, that originally veneds were baltic as it is unlikely, that slavs might have tribe name of nonslavic origin, as their own and had venedi bay in southern shores of Baltic sea, as all the bays in the area were baltic up to invasion of Germans, who were employed by Bohemian king Ottokar I. Linguisticaly it makes more sense that slavic have much more linguistical similarities with prussians, than rest of baltic, because rest of baltic encountered slavs much later. Prague culture was also influenced by goths and when they left it did not need to migrate to become slavic. Quite possibly, that proto-slavs are very late development of gothidfied prussians, as I have read before that prussian people could talk and understand each other - also people who were considered slavic, it is only currently hard to understand why, because we do not have live prussian language to compare and live venedians as well for that matter. Also, if we take into account, that prussians had words, that sound very slavic to rest of baltic, slavic might be just dialect of prussians which developed even more differences after visit of goths. I only claimed that eastern slavs are balts so far, but with venedo prussian branch as proto-slavs, slavic languge is baltic as well. Very f*cked up baltic language, but still - it is baltic.



https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Этногенез_славян_по_данным_археологии

This is the list of approved cultures, as slavic:

КорчакскаяПражскаяСуковско-дзедзицкая (лехитская)Ипотешти-кындештскаяВолынцевскаяРоменско-борщёвскаяНовгородских сопокРюсенская (сербо-лужицкая)Лука-райковецкаяФельдбергскаяКарантанская


Related, but still - under question(which actualy means - should not be considered as slavic, but these are cultures, that are identified as the ones, that participated in ethnogenesis of slavs):
ЧернолесскаяМилоградскаяПоморскаяПодклёшевых погребенийПшеворскаяЗарубинецкаяПочепскаяКиевскаяЧерняховскаяКолочинскаяПеньковскаяИменьковскаяБраслетообразных сомкнутых височных колецПсковских длинных кургановСмоленско-полоцких длинных курганов

I APOLOGISE IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND CYRILIC AND RUSSIAN, BUT READING WIKIPEDIA IN ENGLISH DOES NOT REALLY GIVE YOU MUCH KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SLAVIC TOPIC. Despite not being russian, I do read russian and actually my only source about baltic are in russian, and I trust them when they come out with sensational breakthroughs, as much of the history are lies, that includes any slavic sources, that were redacted couple of times, just like Bible. Spread of slavic languages truly bloomed only in 9th century, after "work" of Cyril and Methodius.

Something similar happened to Livonia, where lettish language was used as liturgical language in southern part of Livonia and made into demise at least two finnish tribes: livonian and south estonians in modern Latvia, not to mentioning that there were settled captured votians and other people(even russians) who dissolved into latvians.


TL;TR You can search for other solutions for the rest of your life, but you will come to this eventually: Proto-slavic language is prussian branch, which developed with the help of goths.
 
Last edited:
So, what is the issue there? Are you arguing, that Baltic languages did not exist before 14th century because of writing?

No, but that ethnicity for sure didn't exist. Word Balt was started to use in 19th century for Letto-Lithuanians.

Even if we come to conlusion (somehow) that proto-Balto-Slavic language is equal term to proto-Baltic, than you need to understand some things. So, if this theory (hypothesis) is true than we have such situation; Baltic continuum of languages (not an ethnicity Balts). So this continuum of languages was made from 3 dialects: West Baltic (dead), East Baltic (Letto-Lithuanian) and Slavic (which can be call alternatively South Baltic dialect. But that what today means BALTS are exclusively Letto-Lithuanian dialect, and their dialect is defined as Baltic in 19th century. So when you see "Baltic" cultures, what do you mean? That Slavs come from Lithuanians and Latvians? That they spoke their dialect or what? It would be retarded claim. West Balts are one, East Balts are second and the Slavs (alternatively South Balts) are third thing. So your claim "There are no Slavs before 6th century" is nonsense. You are using (incorrect) term Baltic languages, for Balto-Slavic which would be more correct. Since Baltic languages are, i must say again modern Lithuanian and Latvian, who were always different dialects than the Slavic one. So this is the thing of terminology, and you are using the term "Balt", then i can use the term "North Slavs" for Balts, and it would not change anything. The sense is same.

Spread of slavic languages truly bloomed only in 9th century, after "work" of Cyril and Methodius.

I see you are proving your unknowledge. When Cyril and Methodius started to work, there was already many many dialects of Slavic languages. South Slavs already had their dialect, West Slavs already had their dialects, and East Slavs already had their dialects (which was quite similar to the West Slavic one). You are delusional if you are thinking that Cyril and Methodious made half Europe to speak Slavic. It's funny.

You can search for other solutions for the rest of your life, but you will come to this eventually: Proto-slavic language is prussian branch, which developed with the help of goths.

Hahahah. It's incorrect and supported just by few linguists. Main modern statement is that Slavic is Southern Baltic dialect (dialect of Baltic continuum not of the ethnicity Balts - modern Letto-Lithuanians).

For example, you can read it from Frederik Kortlandt, from Toporov, from Ivanov etc...

Part of Kortlandt's work:

There is little or no evidence for a period of common West and East Balticinnovations after the period of common Balto-Slavic developments before theseparation of Slavic from the Baltic languages. The terms “Proto-Baltic” and “ProtoBalto-Slavic”refer to the same thing, and Slavic may alternatively be called “SouthBaltic”. The opposite view is taken by Miguel Villanueva Svensson (2014) and EugenHill (2016). Here I specify the differences which underlie the disagreement.

Part of Villanueva's work (who thiks otherwise):

According to Villanueva (2014: 173), the “most serious problem for Baltic unityis the apparent existence of non-trivial isoglosses between East Baltic and Slavic (e.g.thematic genitive singular, “nine”, ”third”, etc.)”. He opposes gen.sg. Lith. vil̃ko andOCS vlъka < *-ãd to OPr. deiwas (2014: 163). In fact, the ending Lith. -o, Slavic -arepresents *-ōd and can be identified with the Latin ablative ending -ōd, not **-ād, forwhich there is no evidence whatever. The Lithuanian reflex is -o because the endingwas unstressed in all accent classes (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 6, 46). Prussian added ananalogical -s to the Balto-Slavic ending in accordance with the other flexion types, allof which had a genitive in -s (cf. Vaillant 1958: 30, Kortlandt 2009: 192). The originalending was preserved in the Old Prussian proverb Deues does dantes, Deues doesgeitka ‘God give teeth, God give bread’ (cf. Sjöberg 1969) and in the Basle epigramnykoyte pēnega doyte ‘you do not want to give money’, where an emendation to -an or-as is unsatisfactory (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 215f.). There is no ancient isogloss betweenEast Baltic and Slavic here.The words for ‘nine’ and ‘third’ indeed support the view that Balto-Slavic splitinto three identifiable branches, with East Baltic as an intermediate dialect betweenWest Baltic and Slavic. OPr. newīnts ‘ninth’ shows that the substitution of de- for neinLith. deviñtas and OCS devętъ belongs to the dialectal Balto-Slavic period. Thesame holds for the subsequent development of *eu to *iou before consonants in EastBaltic and Slavic (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 45f., Derksen 2010). Similarly, OPr. tīrts ‘third’,acc. tīrtian, tirtien, Vedic tṛtī́yas for earlier *triyo-, is archaic in comparison with Lith.trẽčias and OCS tretii, which have tre- from *treies ‘three’. Another commondevelopment of East Baltic and Slavic not shared by West Baltic is the elimination of-s- in the pronominal dat.sg. and loc.sg. forms Lith. tãmui, tamè, tái, tojè, OCS tomu,tomь, toi, OPr. stesmu, stessiei, Vedic tásmai, tásmin, tásyai, tásyām

slavic languge is baltic as well

Slavic language is from Baltic continuum, not Baltic language (modern Letto-Lithuanian family).

Before Zarubnitsy culture was Milograd culture(it is souther orange), which was baltic:

Who proclaim it as Baltic? You, or some relevant archeologists? Names? Quotations?

Those are official informations about Milograd culture:

"The Milograd culture (also spelled Mylohrad, also known as Pidhirtsi culture on Ukrainian territory) is an archaeological culture, lasting from about the 7th century BC to the 1st century AD. Geographically, it corresponds to present day southern Belarus and northern Ukraine, in the area of the confluence of the Dnieper and the Pripyat, north of Kiev. Their ethnic origin is uncertain."

Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milograd_culture

I came here and opened a thread searching for someone who will post just proven things. You are posting your personal assumptions, and i respect this, but i don't respect that you are representing it as official and real. While nobody proved it yet. Do you see that even Balts (Letto-Lithuanians) on this forum don't have such statements as you have?
 
The reason for archaic nature of modern Baltic languages in comparison to Slavic ones:

40% of both Latvians and Lithuanians have ancient haplogroup R1a, which resided in the Baltics since 7000 years ago, and since 5000-4500 years ago it became Indo-European, after a new wave of R1a bearers (R1a-Z645) have arrived from Europe to territories from Black Sea to Baltic Sea. They spoke IE languages, and their northern branch (R1a-Z645-Z280) stayed on the Russian Plain (up to the North), and their southern branch (R1a-Z645-Z93) went to the East, and finally reached India, with their IE, pre-Sanskrit language. Naturally, their Northern branch spoke the same language, when they split.
 
"The problem with term proto-Baltic is that it is very wrong, as there was nothing prior Baltic language in Baltic area and Proto-Baltic = Proto-Indo-European(or because it looks like originated in Europe - Proto-European)." >>> That isn't correct. There was no "proto-European", because it was exactly the same as "Proto-Indo-European", which geographically and historically speaking was just as relevant to Central Asian branches (like Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan probably were in their beginning) as to European ones. "Indo-European" refers to the modern distribution of the IE languages, not to the geographic origins of that PIE language.

Besides, Proto-Baltic is an adequate term because it was not simply Common PIE, it was the northern or northeastern dialect/language derived from the Common PIE once spoken more or less regularly in the steppes, before the differentiation of dialects led to sister languages. Proto-Baltic is the direct descendant of PIE much like Proto-Greek is the direct descendant of PIE, and a "Baltic language" proper never existed, as it immediately split into various other languages, particularly because linguists consider that West Baltic and East Baltic are so distinct fom each other that their time of divergence is probably very early, diverging right from Proto-Baltic, and not from a later language among other Baltic languages. But, in the end, this is all like splitting hairs. What you call "Baltic" is what most linguists call "Proto-Baltic" because they can't see the existence of one definite and sole "Baltic language" afterwards, instead of a branch of closely related Baltic languages.
 
"The problem with term proto-Baltic is that it is very wrong, as there was nothing prior Baltic language in Baltic area and Proto-Baltic = Proto-Indo-European(or because it looks like originated in Europe - Proto-European)." >>> That isn't correct. There was no "proto-European", because it was exactly the same as "Proto-Indo-European", which geographically and historically speaking was just as relevant to Central Asian branches (like Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan probably were in their beginning) as to European ones. "Indo-European" refers to the modern distribution of the IE languages, not to the geographic origins of that PIE language.

Besides, Proto-Baltic is an adequate term because it was not simply Common PIE, it was the northern or northeastern dialect/language derived from the Common PIE once spoken more or less regularly in the steppes, before the differentiation of dialects led to sister languages. Proto-Baltic is the direct descendant of PIE much like Proto-Greek is the direct descendant of PIE, and a "Baltic language" proper never existed, as it immediately split into various other languages, particularly because linguists consider that West Baltic and East Baltic are so distinct fom each other that their time of divergence is probably very early, diverging right from Proto-Baltic, and not from a later language among other Baltic languages. But, in the end, this is all like splitting hairs. What you call "Baltic" is what most linguists call "Proto-Baltic" because they can't see the existence of one definite and sole "Baltic language" afterwards, instead of a branch of closely related Baltic languages.

I have read, that US linguists do not use term Indo-Europeans, but instead use Eurasians, as there are still a lots of IE speaking people outside India and Europe. I could just start with counting armenians, kurdish, all indo-iranyans in Iran and Afganistan, even Pakistan(but I regard it as Indian region), so term Indo-European is really bad or - terrible to describe modern and not to mention - ancient distribution of IE languages.

1. No. There really do not exist term of proto-Balts in relation to PIE. If you reacted to this, you clearly have no clue about topic.
The only proto-balts you will get will be about much much later proto-Latvian-Lithuanian baltic language, that will be called proto-Baltic. And to make matters worse it is also very misleading, because by proto it is meant as pre Latvian-Lithuanian baltic languages(not that very different, but still), that existed before Latvian-Lithuanian influx. As for your understanding of PIE, I'm aware of that and this is actually what I meant, that PIE = proto-Baltic, and if you will prove otherwise, well... we will have a Nobel prize award(of how it is possible to break science) to Brasilian ;)

2. Proto-Greeks were not even PIE, but semitic at best. If you insist, that all pre-hellenic greeks were PIE, you have no idea about topic.

3. There is no Common PIE the way you describe it. Balts has nothing in common with germanic nonPIE lingual ancestry, because germanic language contain 30% of nonPIE lexicon and lingists are pulling hairs from their shiny heads to understand from where it comes. Also nothing in common with nonPIE greek, and neither with any other nonPIE ancestry of indo-iranian, who has heavy dravidian or even Indus valley civilisation extinct language influences. There is nothing more proto-PIE, than Baltic, because they are most archaic - to all languages, including recent development of slavic, which is not archaic as baltic is. If you can't understand what means archaic, well - Baltic languages are relic to ALL IE languages. I'm not saying, that they have not changed, but the closest to PIE you will have is any Baltic language.

4. I do not know anything about timing calculations that are made about divergence of Western and Eastern Baltic and I would like to have that data for me, if you can provide. Although - you are also not correct about understanding what are West and East balts, as the process between West and Eastern Balts is not divergence, but actually completelly opposite. I can only give you timings for divergence between modern latvian and lithuanian and it is ~1500 ya.

5. I can call Baltic anything, that can be shuffled under continuous Baltic dialect continium and where it can be proven as such. Slavic, also some other extinct language groups quite comfortably fit under this description, so it is just a matter of technical definition. From my experience we will come to this - eventually.

6. I do not care what most linguists call something, as you can't solve in these matters something by mere voting... What matters to me - if that is logical and if that actually makes sense. Don't get the wrong idea - I do actually read what linguists write(too much, actually), but as I mentioned - they have to have some sense and leave no unfinished questions to their ideas.
 
It is enough to look at the phonetic character of some words in the early proto-Slavic period, which is not directly testified:


"noć" (Old C. S.) - "naktis" (=Lith.)
"vuk" (Old C. S.) - "vilkos" (Lith. "vilkas")
"sin" (Old C. S.) - "suunus" (=Lith.)

After all, many linguists claim that there are almost no joint conclusions linking the Lithuanian-Latvian group with the prussian, which would not encompass the Slavic group. Only the loss of special forms for the third person of the plural could be counted here, but this line is most likely acquired through language contact after these languages have already been differentiated.
 
No, but that ethnicity for sure didn't exist. Word Balt was started to use in 19th century for Letto-Lithuanians.

Even if we come to conlusion (somehow) that proto-Balto-Slavic language is equal term to proto-Baltic, than you need to understand some things. So, if this theory (hypothesis) is true than we have such situation; Baltic continuum of languages (not an ethnicity Balts). So this continuum of languages was made from 3 dialects: West Baltic (dead), East Baltic (Letto-Lithuanian) and Slavic (which can be call alternatively South Baltic dialect. But that what today means BALTS are exclusively Letto-Lithuanian dialect, and their dialect is defined as Baltic in 19th century. So when you see "Baltic" cultures, what do you mean? That Slavs come from Lithuanians and Latvians? That they spoke their dialect or what? It would be retarded claim. West Balts are one, East Balts are second and the Slavs (alternatively South Balts) are third thing. So your claim "There are no Slavs before 6th century" is nonsense. You are using (incorrect) term Baltic languages, for Balto-Slavic which would be more correct. Since Baltic languages are, i must say again modern Lithuanian and Latvian, who were always different dialects than the Slavic one. So this is the thing of terminology, and you are using the term "Balt", then i can use the term "North Slavs" for Balts, and it would not change anything. The sense is same.



I see you are proving your unknowledge. When Cyril and Methodius started to work, there was already many many dialects of Slavic languages. South Slavs already had their dialect, West Slavs already had their dialects, and East Slavs already had their dialects (which was quite similar to the West Slavic one). You are delusional if you are thinking that Cyril and Methodious made half Europe to speak Slavic. It's funny.



Hahahah. It's incorrect and supported just by few linguists. Main modern statement is that Slavic is Southern Baltic dialect (dialect of Baltic continuum not of the ethnicity Balts - modern Letto-Lithuanians).

For example, you can read it from Frederik Kortlandt, from Toporov, from Ivanov etc...

Part of Kortlandt's work:

There is little or no evidence for a period of common West and East Balticinnovations after the period of common Balto-Slavic developments before theseparation of Slavic from the Baltic languages. The terms “Proto-Baltic” and “ProtoBalto-Slavic”refer to the same thing, and Slavic may alternatively be called “SouthBaltic”. The opposite view is taken by Miguel Villanueva Svensson (2014) and EugenHill (2016). Here I specify the differences which underlie the disagreement.

Part of Villanueva's work (who thiks otherwise):

According to Villanueva (2014: 173), the “most serious problem for Baltic unityis the apparent existence of non-trivial isoglosses between East Baltic and Slavic (e.g.thematic genitive singular, “nine”, ”third”, etc.)”. He opposes gen.sg. Lith. vil̃ko andOCS vlъka < *-ãd to OPr. deiwas (2014: 163). In fact, the ending Lith. -o, Slavic -arepresents *-ōd and can be identified with the Latin ablative ending -ōd, not **-ād, forwhich there is no evidence whatever. The Lithuanian reflex is -o because the endingwas unstressed in all accent classes (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 6, 46). Prussian added ananalogical -s to the Balto-Slavic ending in accordance with the other flexion types, allof which had a genitive in -s (cf. Vaillant 1958: 30, Kortlandt 2009: 192). The originalending was preserved in the Old Prussian proverb Deues does dantes, Deues doesgeitka ‘God give teeth, God give bread’ (cf. Sjöberg 1969) and in the Basle epigramnykoyte pēnega doyte ‘you do not want to give money’, where an emendation to -an or-as is unsatisfactory (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 215f.). There is no ancient isogloss betweenEast Baltic and Slavic here.The words for ‘nine’ and ‘third’ indeed support the view that Balto-Slavic splitinto three identifiable branches, with East Baltic as an intermediate dialect betweenWest Baltic and Slavic. OPr. newīnts ‘ninth’ shows that the substitution of de- for neinLith. deviñtas and OCS devętъ belongs to the dialectal Balto-Slavic period. Thesame holds for the subsequent development of *eu to *iou before consonants in EastBaltic and Slavic (cf. Kortlandt 2009: 45f., Derksen 2010). Similarly, OPr. tīrts ‘third’,acc. tīrtian, tirtien, Vedic tṛtī́yas for earlier *triyo-, is archaic in comparison with Lith.trẽčias and OCS tretii, which have tre- from *treies ‘three’. Another commondevelopment of East Baltic and Slavic not shared by West Baltic is the elimination of-s- in the pronominal dat.sg. and loc.sg. forms Lith. tãmui, tamè, tái, tojè, OCS tomu,tomь, toi, OPr. stesmu, stessiei, Vedic tásmai, tásmin, tásyai, tásyām



Slavic language is from Baltic continuum, not Baltic language (modern Letto-Lithuanian family).



Who proclaim it as Baltic? You, or some relevant archeologists? Names? Quotations?

Those are official informations about Milograd culture:

"The Milograd culture (also spelled Mylohrad, also known as Pidhirtsi culture on Ukrainian territory) is an archaeological culture, lasting from about the 7th century BC to the 1st century AD. Geographically, it corresponds to present day southern Belarus and northern Ukraine, in the area of the confluence of the Dnieper and the Pripyat, north of Kiev. Their ethnic origin is uncertain."

Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milograd_culture

I came here and opened a thread searching for someone who will post just proven things. You are posting your personal assumptions, and i respect this, but i don't respect that you are representing it as official and real. While nobody proved it yet. Do you see that even Balts (Letto-Lithuanians) on this forum don't have such statements as you have?


I am curious about Southern baltic language term use in your argument, but I explicitly mentioned, that recent historians called Kievan Rus(which contains southern areal of Baltic, as well) as Eatern Baltic state, because Lithuanian is considered Eastern Baltic.
Besides, I explained about not my research actually, but ideas I've picked up, how prussians were linked to slavs, whic does not make slavic as southern baltic, but creole of western baltic, and it still does not make any paralel existence of slavic language.

No, Im using correct term of Baltic languages, which explicitly mean - anything that used Baltic and continued to use it till now or until extinction. We have a huge misunderstansding, because I suppose, that all of these theories about baltic-slavic relations are outdated and are not supported by historical and linguistical evidence(following picture is 100 years old and you are trying to shuffle slavic as one of those):

546px-Balto-Slavic_theories.svg.png


And I am with Влади́мир Никола́евич Топоро́в, who says, that slavic branched off from baltic and proto-baltic-slavic theory is not supporting this idea of a very authoritative baltic linguist, but insist on using outdated version... so I have a problem with wiki interpretation, which I would not use, without considering a very notable update.

Also another thing. Western baltic does not exist - there are at least couple of groups of languages, that are related to each other and who for the sake of simplicity are called as western. Yes, I am aware, that wiki says otherwise(again), but wiki is not authority in these matters at all.

I need to understand your measurement of half of Europe, but thanks to church slavonic, Rus was made into slavic speaking region, where slavic population was in tiny minority among more numerous finnish and baltic tribes. With church slavonic all of rural greeks became slavic speaking just as well as nonslavic people of Balkans, who were orthodox christians. Just like slavic and baltic people of eastern germany were assimilated into german, because in those ages the only identification of people was religion branch and what language used church, that was the language they used, or are you implying that common folks influenced language of church liturgy?


"It's incorrect and supported just by few linguists." - What about this: "In linguistics nothing can be solved by voting, but by research."

About Villanueva:
Oh, we are dwelling into something, that what I've noted, that eastern slavs were assimilated balts. Not all of them were eastern balts, though - some of them were even more eastern, than eastern balts and some, like galindians were colonists from west of eastern balts. Also, I would need to understand to which specific time period Villanueva is refering to. It should be noted, that eastern slavs were hit by church slavonic very heavily - I must wonder, if that author is even aware of what could happen as a result of mix of eastern baltic(all that is used for church in eastern slavic comes from church slavonic) and church slavonic in eastern slavic languages? Also, if you did not understand what I wrote there, that actually contradicts anything you are mentioning as unified slavic language and proto-language, because most of that is influences of preslavic eastern baltic substratum on eastern slavic, which are not present in other slavic languages, but we are still talking proto-slavic, as slavic, that originated from one slavic group, right? Btw, I've not considered option, that slavic might be evolved as paralel multiple slavic languages, whic Villanueva argument seems like actually makes as a case.


Well, I do not see any problems regarding Milograd culture. Wiki has used unprecise terminology, which is open to strange interpretations, but it is Baltic with unknown ethnic origin - as we do not know name for ethnicity of Milograd culture. Unless we are ready to accept their identification as Neuri or baltic name would be Nauri, which comes from Narew name of Bug river tributary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuri
http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/galindai.htm

I still don't see how you can nitpick Milograd culture, just by using as a base, what is written in wiki, without consulting actual sources, as more recent sources still classifies younger cultures as baltic, where also Milograd culture is regarded as baltic.

What is the point of mentioning other people and by baltic ethnicity? What's the use for this kind of argument? Only thing what I can come up, is that they are not as many and most probably they have nothing to say, where I have ;)
 

This thread has been viewed 65434 times.

Back
Top