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

[Lenab]

So it mentions the Sorbs as well

[exceededminimumso..]

λουκας (Kloukas), Λόβελος (Lobelos), Κοσέντζης (Kosentzis) sound so blatantly Greek that I'm wondering if I'm not missing something glaringly obvious

[Milan.M]

It really depends what texts are compared. The problem there is that we don't know what language was spoken in Indus Valley and which words of that extinct language were similar to IE. Also, IE language that went to India had already influences from others, like Uralic(some of those are calculated as far back as 8000 years), so 97% pure IE vocabulary in Rig-Vedic is rather impossible already.

That hype about Sanskrit and Rig-Vedic script started in 18th century. The numbers I have about first hymns in Rigvedic - Out of 62 word roots in total, most - 52 were similar to words in Latvian. Lithuanians could compare 38 word roots, English, Greek, Latin and German - 8-12 woord roots. I don't have data about Slavic languages, but most probably - less than in Lithuanian even if most Slavic roots that are found in Sanskrit can also be found in Baltic languages.


Identifiable compared to what? If people are excited that they think, that Slavic is recorded in Sanskrit, then - Uralic people have some Baltic words from even older than 3500 year old contacts between them and Baltic has been in heartland of IE languages more than others, so 3500 is not really that final age.

However, let's concentrate on topic about Slavic existence before 600AD and that does not even go so far back in history from that point.

According to Matasovic

Thirdly, the number of words that may be of substratum origin, and that are preserved only in Balto-Slavic, is very limited (perhaps as fewas 14, but probably not more than 20). It is significantly smaller than the number of words of substratum origin that can be attributed to Proto-Celtic,or to Insular Celtic (see EDPC), and it is also much smaller than the number of substratum words in Greek, for example.18 This is probably due to the fact that, during the Balto-Slavic period, speakers of that proto-language were surrounded by speakers of other, more peripheral Indo--European dialects (especially Germanic and Celtic) that were exposed to more intensive contacts with speakers of non-IE languages. Consequently,during the period when Balto-Slavic separated from the other NW European dialects as an individual idiom, borrowing from non-IE substrata was minimal.

[Milan.M]

I'm studying linguistic about the same as proper linguists would do, even if that is not my main speciality and have to do some extensive research into this topic, as my main thesis is related of pattern searching in linguistics for AI, however modern linguists would not agree neither with you, nor OP.


Language in time and space. On the problem of the Slavic Glottogenesis (2004) pp93-96 by V. V. Martynov. His main research interests were Slavic languages, comparative linguistics, formalisation of semantics.


In short: conclusion is that whole tree of Proto-Slavic languages are daughter offshot of Proto-Baltic and not some language group of their own.
Actually 1st edition of book was out in 1983, so this is not something new - I think, that the problem of this discussion is that neither OP nor any others here does have any idea what Baltic languages are and how they differ from Slavic. This is not that hard task - it requires only learning one of Baltic languages, to see, that Slavic is rather simplified version of Baltic language - more or less same vocabulary and more simplified rules of more complex Baltic grammar. Even wiki has some notes, that current model of Baltic-Slavic is not correct model, that Slavic should be placed as branch under Baltic - clearly it has not branched off from modern Baltic languages, but some other, who are now extinct, but that is not really an issue - there are many dead Baltic languages to whom we know name, but there were even more Baltic languages who went extinct and no sources have left even their names.

I think that major question to me is where proto-Baltic was spoken,because almost certainly it wasn't where it is in present day.
Because there is many isoglosses shared only between Baltic and South-Slavic,which suggest close interaction between this two dialects.

I have read for example about Dnieper Balts

The Dniepr Balts were studied by the archaeologist Marija Gimbutas, Lithuanian linguist Kazimieras Būga, and by Russian scientists Vladimir Toporov, O.Trubachev, who analysed hydronyms at the higher Dnieper basin. They have found nearly 800 hydronyms of possibly Baltic origin.

[Wonomyro]

λουκας (Kloukas), Λόβελος (Lobelos), Κοσέντζης (Kosentzis) sound so blatantly Greek that I'm wondering if I'm not missing something glaringly obvious

I've seen many Lithuanian names ending with -as and -is. E. g. Arvydas Romas Sabonis:

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

[Wonomyro]

I think that major question to me is where proto-Baltic was spoken,because almost certainly it wasn't where it is in present day.
Because there is many isoglosses shared only between Baltic and South-Slavic,which suggest close interaction between this two dialects.

I have read for example about Dnieper Balts

The Dniepr Balts were studied by the archaeologist Marija Gimbutas, Lithuanian linguist Kazimieras Būga, and by Russian scientists Vladimir Toporov, O.Trubachev, who analysed hydronyms at the higher Dnieper basin. They have found nearly 800 hydronyms of possibly Baltic origin.

That's interesting.

Lithuanian linguist Kazimieras Būga

How would he explain a meaning/origin of his surname? We have Bouga in the list:

According to the legend preserved in the work, they [Croats] were led by five brothers Κλουκας (Kloukas), Λόβελος (Lobelos), Κοσέντζης (Kosentzis), Μουχλώ (Mouchlo), Χρωβάτος (Chrobatos), and two sisters Τουγά (Touga) and Βουγά (Bouga),...

Is it just a coincidence?

[Srbadija]

I've seen many Lithuanian names ending with -as and -is. E. g. Arvydas Romas Sabonis:

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

Almost all of them are on "-as" "-is".

Lithuanian language preserved word-final syllables just like Greek. But those names are obviously more like Greek.

[Wonomyro]

Almost all of them are on "-as" "-is". Lithuanian language preserved word-final syllables just like Greek. But those names are obviously more like Greek.

In what way are the names "more like Greek" except that they were written in Greek?

[RajvoSa]

I think that major question to me is where proto-Baltic was spoken,because almost certainly it wasn't where it is in present day.
Because there is many isoglosses shared only between Baltic and South-Slavic,which suggest close interaction between this two dialects.
I have read for example about Dnieper Balts

Proto-Baltic wasn't spoken anywhere, because such language never existed. There are Baltic languages and they are those languages who originate from Proto-Balto-Slavic stage but didn't become Slavic. Nomenclature in classification of languages is totally irrelevant.

[Milan.M]

Proto-Baltic wasn't spoken anywhere, because such language never existed. There are Baltic languages and they are those languages who originate from Proto-Balto-Slavic stage but didn't become Slavic. Nomenclature in classification of languages is totally irrelevant.

If you don't understand the question let me simplified it to you.Where the language that become known as Baltic was spoken?
Because there is isoglosses shared only between Baltic and South-Slavic,which suggest the two dialects had contacts among them.

[exceededminimumso..]

That's interesting.



How would he explain a meaning/origin of his surname? We have Bouga in the list:



Is it just a coincidence?

http://lkiis.lki.lt/pavardziu-duomenu-baze

Most likely comes from bugus, baugus, "easily scared, scary"

[RajvoSa]

If you don't understand the question let me simplified it to you.Where the language that become known as Baltic was spoken?
Because there is isoglosses shared only between Baltic and South-Slavic,which suggest the two dialects had contacts among them.

Baltic languages can be described as Baltic perhaps about 1500 year BC, when actually probably predcessor of proto-Slavic separated from Balto-Slavic continuum. The rest of 2 dialects automatically became proto-Baltic (which means that unified Proto-Baltic stage is not justified to reconstruct, because it includes development of Slavic languages).

[Milan.M]

Baltic languages can be described as Baltic perhaps about 1500 year BC, when actually probably predcessor of proto-Slavic separated from Balto-Slavic continuum. The rest of 2 dialects automatically became proto-Baltic (which means that unified Proto-Baltic stage is not justified to reconstruct, because it includes development of Slavic languages).

This is a scheme of Berstein and Trubachev between the connection of Balto-Slavic languages,you can see South-Slavic resp for Slovenian,Serb-Croat,Bulgarian and Macedonian more closer to Baltic.While Baltic neighbors like Polish,other west Slavs much further,east Slavic dialects still bit further than South-Slavic are.

[JajarBingan]

It's going to be hard imo.
And the reason for that are the Hunter Gatherers from Ukraine and Latvia.
We already know from examples in Western Europe that those were predominantly blue-eyed and dark skinned. They passed those traits to farmers who contributed the light skin into the mix.
Now the ones in Latvia have light skin and blue eyes. And Balts have one of the highest incidence of light eyes today.
Now with Ukrainians it gets trickier. They are also at least as fair eyed as Western Euros, but the Hunter Gatherers from Ukraine are basically all brown-eyed and with light skin.
I'll leave it to you to tell me where Slavs were hanging around, but my guess is somewhere where there was a noticeable presence of blue eyes. In the vicinity of Ukraine, that's either Globular Amphora Culture in Poland (which got the blues from their local hunter gatherers) or in the Baltics.

[Weeehsko]

I think this talk about Balto-Slavic unity is very, very controversal, bordering on pseudoscience. I mean, if all areas preceding to Slavic cultures are full of clearly Baltic hydronyms, with Baltic characteristical suffixes (Milograd culture, Dnieper-Dvin, Upper Oka, Yukhnovska, etc....)... It actually means that Baltic type of speech was formed very before proper proto-Slavic existed. Then, about what "Balto-Slavic unity" are we talking about?

[laint]

Baltic languages can be described as Baltic perhaps about 1500 year BC, when actually probably predcessor of proto-Slavic separated from Balto-Slavic continuum. The rest of 2 dialects automatically became proto-Baltic (which means that unified Proto-Baltic stage is not justified to reconstruct, because it includes development of Slavic languages).

LOL, I'm sorry couldn't hold myself

[laint]

According to Matasovic

So, how is your quote from Matasovic actually contradicting my text?


There is A PROBLEM of ancient similarities between Uralic and IE. I've read about number 8000 - don't remember if that is years ago or BC, but that precedes anything else that IE might have contacted and kept liguisticaly. There is also European substratum, that might be in some cases from older societies, but that is still much younger contact for IE.

Yeah, there is also other problem, where modern Baltic was also influenced by Mari languages(and younger Uralic substratum from Livones or South Estonians) - especially if it comes to Latvian-Lithuanian(which some insists, that it has to be named proto-Baltic), as a carriers of Mari N1a into modern Baltic.

And then - there is that problem with Uralic people - Udmurt, Mordvians, Mari - all of whom seems to have received their names from Scythians(who, it seems, were oblivious of ancient Slavic omni-presence), who were in their imminent neighborhood before Slavic came into existence. And then we have this ridiculous discussion how Slavic are speaking Vedic...



PS I start to see some strange trend:
Turks seems to have some problems with their ancient roots, who were not Turkish
Magyars seems to have some problems with their ancient roots, who were not Magyar
Indians in India seems to have some problems with their ancient roots, accepting that R1a is not coming from India
Slavs, especially in Balkans seems to have some problems with their roots, especially accepting more ancient history of Balts

[email protected] this interesting thing about genes. I now wonder what is in the minds of people that makes this world...

[teftelis]

>Yeah, there is also other problem, where modern Baltic was also influenced by Mari languages

What? Baltic languages weren't influenced by Mari languages, the only visible influence on Baltic languages from Uralic languages is on Latvia from Finnic speakers like Livonians/Estonians or before they even differentiated as evidenced by loanwords/hydronyms in Latvian territory and some speculate stressing of the words but that's highly controversial or rather ongoing debate. In Lithuanian it's virtually non existent or non existent at all.

"as a carriers of Mari N1a into modern Baltic."

N1 in Balts has nothing to do with Mari's, virtually of it comes from a clade around from around 600BC N-L1025, which we can assume was somewhere around vicinity of Baltic sea or somewhere close to it, not from Mari's

Moreover judging by the number of loanwords Baltic speakers had the most intense contacts were with Finnic speakers then Mordvinic speakers but the number drops very significantly to dozens, in Mari there are like few less than 5 don't remember the exact number of words but most of scholars like Riho Grünthal said it's likely they were mediated trough other Uralic dialects. Moroever there were no archaeological cultures associated with Balts anywhere near close Mari people. While on the other hand we can strongly assume based on archaeology that early Balts were within vicinity of Finnic speakers and somewhat close to Mordvinic speakers. Because we know they that both Balts as attested by numerous hydronyms and Mordvins historically were near Oka basin.

[laint]

>Yeah, there is also other problem, where modern Baltic was also influenced by Mari languages

What? Baltic languages weren't influenced by Mari languages, the only visible influence on Baltic languages from Uralic languages is on Latvia from Finnic speakers like Livonians/Estonians or before they even differentiated as evidenced by loanwords/hydronyms in Latvian territory and some speculate stressing of the words but that's highly controversial or rather ongoing debate. In Lithuanian it's virtually non existent or non existent at all.

"as a carriers of Mari N1a into modern Baltic."

N1 in Balts has nothing to do with Mari's, virtually of it comes from a clade around from around 600BC N-L1025, which we can assume was somewhere around vicinity of Baltic sea or somewhere close to it, not from Mari's

Moreover judging by the number of loanwords Baltic speakers had the most intense contacts were with Finnic speakers then Mordvinic speakers but the number drops very significantly to dozens, in Mari there are like few less than 5 don't remember the exact number of words but most of scholars like Riho Grünthal said it's likely they were mediated trough other Uralic dialects. Moroever there were no archaeological cultures associated with Balts anywhere near close Mari people. While on the other hand we can strongly assume based on archaeology that early Balts were within vicinity of Finnic speakers and somewhat close to Mordvinic speakers. Because we know they that both Balts as attested by numerous hydronyms and Mordvins historically were near Oka basin.

You are refering to something I did cover already.

N-VL29, that Lithuanians have it at 93% among N is shared with Mari. I clearly refered to period of history before arrival of Lithuanians in Lithuania. You should, too ;)


Yeah, I'm using a bit loose terminology, but ancient Mari is closest to core of Finnic languages. I find it funny, that talking about contacts of Baltic and Finnic, that happened ~3000BP, people can distinguish Mordvian influences even before Mordvians came into existence... Also, I was not referring to Modern Mari and Mordvian influences, so you should not, too.

There is no such Mordvin language, but there exists Mordvin LANGUAGES - Erzya and Moksha are most used. So, a million dollar question for you: From which ones - Erzya or Moksha Lithuanians have those loanwords?

[teftelis]

You are refering to something I did cover already.

N-VL29, that Lithuanians have it at 93% among N is shared with Mari. I clearly refered to period of history before arrival of Lithuanians in Lithuania. You should, too ;)


Yeah, I'm using a bit loose terminology, but ancient Mari is closest to core of Finnic languages. I find it funny, that talking about contacts of Baltic and Finnic, that happened ~3000BP, people can distinguish Mordvian influences even before Mordvians came into existence... Also, I was not referring to Modern Mari and Mordvian influences, so you should not, too.

There is no such Mordvin language, but there exists Mordvin LANGUAGES - Erzya and Moksha are most used. So, a million dollar question for you: From which ones - Erzya or Moksha Lithuanians have those loanwords?

First of all none of Balts carry N-VL29 , all N1 in Balts is downstream from it from a younger clade it as I've mentioned above under N-L1025, I don't think you grasp this. Moreover there's no evidence of contacts between Balts and Mari people. Other thing N1 in Baltic states shows up around 700-500BC as seen in Genetic prehistory of Baltic sea region, where they find no N1 Baltic until 500BC, the upcoming Estonian study also find N1 appearing around 700-500BC in Estonia. Earliest sample with N1 in Balts is from 350-650AD and based on some models shows up minor Finland_Karelia like admixture. Again pointing that Finnic like population was vector of N1c in Balts not Mari like. Second thing I didn't say Mordivian is language I said Mordvinic speakers later reffered to them as Mordvins both Erzya and Moksha fall under this umbrella term. As evidenced that Baltic loanwords are only found loanwords are only in Finnic and Mordvinic, while Mari is closely related to Mordvinic it's more eastern branch and it doesn't show any hard evidence for contact with early Baltic speakers. Quote from Baltic loanwords in Mordvinic by Riho Grünthal:

"Traditionally, it ismaintained that the Mordvinic languages share more vocabulary and grammatical features with the Finnic languages than with more eastern Uralic languages,such as Mari, the Permic languages, Hungarian, Ob-Ugric, and the Samoyediclanguages (Bartens 1999: 13; Bereczki 1988: 314; Hajdú 1962: 94–97, 1981: 54;Häkkinen 1997: 162–210; Terho Itkonen 1997: 247–260; Keresztes 1987: 32–43)"

"More generally speaking, there are very few Mari words that are supposed to beBaltic borrowings. None of these etymologies is plausible (Mägiste 1959)"

Also what Erzya and Moksha loanwords in Lithuanian are you talking about? As far as I'm aware there are none and I've read about this subject thoroughly unless you have some sort of secret information.

[Srbadija]

LOL, I'm sorry couldn't hold myself

Your problem is that you even don't know what means term "proto-language".

Linguists (whose job is that about what we are talking now) agreed that there was one unique Balto-Slavic stage inside Indo-European family of languages. Of course you can't understand that, because you are just looking from the point of archaisms, (which means actually nothing in genetical classification of languages).

Kortlandt: "Essential point is that Balto-Slavic split into three branches: West Baltic (=Prussian) , East Baltic (that later splitted into Latvian and Lithuanian) and Slavic"

So, there was no "Balts", there was Balto-Slavs, just with terminological substitution where Balto-Slavs=Balts, which is very rude used by Latvians and Lithuanians when Baltic and Slavic unity is questioned.

So ancestors of Letto-Lithuanians, ancestors of Prussians AND ancestors of Slavs were part of some Satem Indo-European trunk? From which "Baltic" Slavic descended????? History didn't record such language!

Unity of Baltic is basical myth, which made by ignorant pseudo-linguists, who have no idea about what are they talking about.

Let me summarize this: There is NO unity of Baltic languages which would exclude the ancestors of Slavs. Who cares for your archaic bullshits, that's what linguistical science says! It supports Balto-Slavic theory, as a dialect of Indo-European.

So, how is your quote from Matasovic actually contradicting my text?

He is contradicting your pseudo-scientifical myth about unity of "Balts", as a one clear proto-language, which never existed, and you simply can't deal with that. Did you noticed that he is using always "Balto-Slavic" terminology? Why?? Does he have some pan-Slavic agenda against Latvians and Lithuanians? Or is just compentent about question and is using right terminology.


By the way, i noticed big conspiracy among Baltocentrists... There is conspiracy; Balts don't want to be together with Slavic imperialists, and in every way are sabotaging the Balto-Slavic reconstruction. :))))

[teftelis]

You're showing your insecurities , about this Balto-Slavic unity, what is clear Balto-Slavic languages share set linguistic features and vocabulary and are the most related languages. The question originally asked was how can we divide Slavs from Balts before 6th century, we can clearly do that based on archaeology and linguistics. Slavic languages differentiated as late as 10th century, before they were basically same with slight dialectal variation. You're arguing semantics, what where it's called Balto-Slavic, Baltic or etc because it your hurt feelings. What is clear all Slavic languages descend archaeologically speaking from a very late culture, and linguistically too because all Slavic languages spoken today are descendant from one particular dialect which was spoken very late. Also you're quoting one specific linguist Kortlandt he's absolute authority over this subject there are different views also. Other thing is we don't know how many other dialects were erased over this broad horizon, while take for example Dnieper-Dvina culture or Yukhnovo, Upper Oka. While archaeologically they're closest to East Baltic culture like Brushed-Pottery over which various Letto-Lithuanian tribes later formed, we can't say for certain for what Dnieper-Dvina spoke in Late Bronze age/Early Iron age or Yukhnovo etc who lived in vicinity with Finnics more to the east of today's Balts, what we can do be best is base our reconstructions on attested languages, just because they weren't recorded doesn't mean they didn't exist, I hope you grasp this, because you complain about "History didn't record such language!" you do grasp that Proto-Balto-Slavic or is also not recorded but a reconstructed language based on what data we have of surviving languages and attested languages . Even when Baltic loanwords are analyzed in Proto-Finnic or later stages, often terminology such like North Baltic appears because in works from Petri Kallio, Santeri Juntilla, because some features can't be explained neither by East-Baltic or West-Baltic nor Slavic. It's possible that earlier stages Baltic and Slavic or Balto-Slavic languages were part of broader continuum, but only specific dialects survived.

[Srbadija]

You're showing your insecurities , about this Balto-Slavic unity, what is clear Balto-Slavic languages share set linguistic features and vocabulary and are the most related languages. The question originally asked was how can we divide Slavs from Balts before 6th century, we can clearly do that based on archaeology and linguistics. Slavic languages differentiated as late as 10th century, before they were basically same with slight dialectal variation. You're arguing semantics, what where it's called Balto-Slavic, Baltic or etc because it your hurt feelings. What is clear all Slavic languages descend archaeologically speaking from a very late culture, and linguistically too because all Slavic languages spoken today are descendant from one particular dialect which was spoken very late. Also you're quoting one specific linguist Kortlandt he's absolute authority over this subject there are different views also. Other thing is we don't know how many other dialects were erased over this broad horizon, while take for example Dnieper-Dvina culture or Yukhnovo, Upper Oka. While archaeologically they're closest to East Baltic culture like Brushed-Pottery over which various Letto-Lithuanian tribes later formed, we can't say for certain for what Dnieper-Dvina spoke in Late Bronze age/Early Iron age or Yukhnovo etc who lived in vicinity with Finnics more to the east of today's Balts, what we can do be best is base our reconstructions on attested languages, just because they weren't recorded doesn't mean they didn't exist, I hope you grasp this, because you complain about "History didn't record such language!" you do grasp that Proto-Balto-Slavic or is also not recorded but a reconstructed language based on what data we have of surviving languages and attested languages . Even when Baltic loanwords are analyzed in Proto-Finnic or later stages, often terminology such like North Baltic appears because in works from Petri Kallio, Santeri Juntilla, because some features can't be explained neither by East-Baltic or West-Baltic nor Slavic. It's possible that earlier stages Baltic and Slavic or Balto-Slavic languages were part of broader continuum, but only specific dialects survived.

I don't contradict any of these statements, just those like this user "laint", who is spreading his bullshits here every time he posts. He is more clever than any of modern linguists and he claims like whole question is solved. He has some kind of hatred toward Turks, Russians, and Indians. So, that's the reason why he is spreading constant bullshits about those nations, and their linguistic groups.

[teftelis]

I don't contradict any of these statements, just those like this user "laint", who is spreading his bullshits here every time he posts. He is more clever than any of modern linguists and he claims like whole question is solved. He has some kind of hatred toward Turks, Russians, and Indians. So, that's the reason why he is spreading constant bullshits about those nations, and their linguistic groups.

What I'm saying, Balto-Slavic unity Baltic-Slavic is semantics over terminology even Toporov or Kortlandt as late as 2018 said Slavic could be described basically as South-Baltic, a more neutral name is considered Balto-Slavic, obviously because of different agendas and complex histories of these communities. I'd like to hijack a comment from a Russian member ahvalj, on other forum I won't name it since I don't know if it's not against rules to promote other websites.


"Imagine the Romance language area, from Portugal to the Black sea, where once a single language (with local differences) was spoken. Now imagine only two–three cores remain alive, perhaps Spanish (~East Baltic), Catalan (~West Baltic) and Romanian (~Slavic), with no intermediate dialects between West and East and no Latin as a common written language, just naturally developing dialects of illiterate people. This area split around 400 C. E. after the dissolution of the empire, so imagine that one language (Romanian~Slavic) gets attested 1600 years later, i. e. now, and two others some more centuries later, i. e. sometime in the 25th century. What you'll see is the approximate analogy to the Balto-Slavic situation."

Or other somewhat opposing view like Toporov, who suggested that Proto-Slavic languages formed from peripheral Baltic dialects. But the situation is we're dealing is we're dealing with pre-illiterate societies and languages that weren't attested so can just make guesses on what data was attested or survived to this day. This question will not likely be answered soon or if it's gonna be answered at all, because again we're dealing with semantics and because even then Balto-Slavic unity isn't as defined by some strict criteria, one linguist thinks it's because they descent from a same proto-language, other thinks it's because they shared a lot of contact and we're close to each other for different periods of times thus explaining in part some parallels and shared innovations, some go as far to say that one branch gave birth to another like in case of Toporov and etc. It's much more complex this question is far from being settled and this is just touching linguistics, if we're going to touch archaeology it also becomes entirely different thing. We can say pretty much with certainty that Corded Ware brought it over, in which culture Proto-Balto-Slavic language differentiated from it's PIE root? In which cultures the supposed split appeared and later different dialect like East-Baltic, West-Baltic, Proto-Slavic and possibly some other dialect continuum which never survived to see it's attestation formed? While it's "somewhat" settled on which cultures were Baltic archaeologically speaking if we go down do late BA/Early Iron age, situation is vastly different if comes to Slavic, I've seen so many suggestions in which culture the supposed Proto-Slavic dialect was spoken that it becomes even murkier, from Kiev culture, to Prague-Korchak, Zarubintsy, Chernyakhov and etc.

[laint]

I don't contradict any of these statements, just those like this user "laint", who is spreading his bullshits here every time he posts. He is more clever than any of modern linguists and he claims like whole question is solved. He has some kind of hatred toward Turks, Russians, and Indians. So, that's the reason why he is spreading constant bullshits about those nations, and their linguistic groups.

Oh, no. You forgot Slavs from Balkans...

However, that is not truth - I have no hatred, I just don't understand what is the fuss.


IMO, answer to topic is found, but we can chat and I need some entertainment sometime.