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

Suffix -elis is normal for Latvian.
Ziemelis - winter wind. Ziema - winter.

Yes, but "-elis" and "-elj" are totally different suffix, even if they sound similar. And suffix "-elj" is using in Slavic languages for nouns.

About your post above, i agree with you.
 
Eupedia is not an academically supported site. And yes, it is QUESTIONABLE considering there are NO ancient DNA samples for M458. Who its dominant in today is irrelevant. Where are your ancient samples proving its unquestionable connection to Slavic? Because no ancient DNA has been found. It has already been made clear to you. Even Caucasus populations have it. The Dargins for instance, on the Southern end of the Caucasus has 22% R1a-M458. The damn Turkic Nogai also have old basal M458. Using your reasoning all E-V13 is Albanian because its dominant in Albanians. See how silly that sounds?

Until ancient DNA surfaces for M458, your words are just words without legs.

What i said wrong? I didn't say that M458 is only Slavic, but i said that R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280 formed the proto-Slavs (possible with I2a, but it's unproved). So what, are you claiming that this is wrong constatation?
 
Thanks. Yes, there is no doubt that the separation between Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic was relatively early, with most estimates ranging between 1,000 and 1,500 BC, even if they clearly came from the same IE ancestral language and probably arose from the same Corded Ware horizon. But still I think many people get confused at this because of the very late appearance of Proto-Slavic as one common lanuage that gave us all the modern Slavic languages, which suggests to many that,, no, the immediate ancestor of Proto-Slavic can't be that old. It shouldn't be that confusing. We have many examples of one daughter language replacing all the other daughter languages that belonged to the same branch. Latin superseded all other Italic languages. Later Celtic languages, associated with the Hallstatt and especially La Tene cultures, most probably replaced all other earlier Celtic or maybe Para-Celtic languages that also derived from Proto-Italo-Celtic. That same way, the most probable thing is that Proto-Slavic was just the "Latin of Eastern Europe" that for some reason became a prestigious lingua franca and the main language of immigrant armies and bands. There were certainly other languages similar to it in an "Old Slavic family", but they were easily replaced by a very closely related and much more useful language, (Late) Proto-Slavic.

Exactly! Cyrill and Methodious also surely contributed that Slavic became "lingua franca" of Eastern Europe, since the Slavic was one of rare Christianity-adopted languages, prayers were translated to Slavic languages by Cyrill and Methodious and therefore mass adopted Slavic as main language. But the fact is that East Slavs, West Slavs and South Slavs surely spoke Slavic language a long before Cyrill and Methodious, apostoles of Slavs.
 
Yes, but "-elis" and "-elj" are totally different suffix, even if they sound similar. And suffix "-elj" is using in Slavic languages for nouns.

About your post above, i agree with you.
What is totally different about
- el(is) and - elj? :)
 
What is totally different about
- el(is) and - elj? :)

I am not a linguist, but some of them somehow know how to distinguish ancient Slavic and Baltic languages, and some of them have their arguments such as:


  1. Different fate of Indo-European / * a / , / * o / , / * a / and / * o / : / * a / , / * o / given / * o / in the Slavic, but / * a / in the Baltic, the difference / * a / and / * o / is preserved in the Baltic, but disappears in the Slavonic.
  2. The Praindo-European / * sr / is preserved in the Baltic, but is transformed into / str / in Slavic, although several similar changes in the Baltic make it possible to assume that in the case of / * sr / we are dealing with archaism.
  3. In the Baltic, the suffix -mo is used in ordinal numerals, whereas in the Slavic suffix -wo is used .
  4. The suffix of the Baltic verbs is 1 liter. units hours nast. at. -mai , while in the Slavic it is not so (now this objection is under discussion).
  5. In the Baltic often uses the infix -sto- , while in the Slavic it is absent.
  6. In the pobaltic did not differ forms of units. h. and many others. h. in the verbs of 3 liters, while in the Proto-Slavic this difference persisted.
  7. The Baltic suffix of adjectives -inga is not used in Slavic languages.
  8. Baltic diminutive suffix -l- not used in Slavic languages (though, perhaps, it corresponds to the Russian suffix caressing -ul- : grandma , grandpa , etc...).
  9. The Slavic suffix of the verbal nouns -tel- ( driver, teacher, builder ) is not used in the Baltic languages.
  10. The pre- Indo-European suffix -es was in the Proto-Slavic ( teles, skies ), but is not used in the Baltic languages.
  11. The Slavonic suffix of participles -lo is not used in the Baltic languages.
  12. In the Proto-Slavic law operates an open syllable, which is absent in the Baltic (including the Prabalese) languages.
  13. Slavic languages ​​retained the primordial European aorist by -s- (a sigmatic aorist), whereas in the Baltic languages ​​its traces were not found. (This claim is disputed.)
  14. The pre-Slavic quantitative numerals of the large quantitativ ( five, six, ... , etc.) have the suffix -t , while in the Baltic languages ​​there are no traces of it.
  15. The absence in the Baltic languages ​​of Meie's law, associated with satematic reflexes and the operation of the law "hands". The law of "hand" operated before the beginning of the satemization of languages, hence it is possible to see in this the division of languages ​​before the beginning of the processes of satemization.
 
Do you mean early Slavs? Balts were probably their major component. During the Migration Period and later Slavs asimilated more Balts.

So you basically think that all those pred. early Slavic tribes were Balts? Even if Balts are never called under this name before 19th century?

I think the most accurate term is Balto-Slavic.
 
I am not a linguist, but some of them somehow know how to distinguish ancient Slavic and Baltic languages, and some of them have their arguments such as:


  1. Different fate of Indo-European / * a / , / * o / , / * a / and / * o / : / * a / , / * o / given / * o / in the Slavic, but / * a / in the Baltic, the difference / * a / and / * o / is preserved in the Baltic, but disappears in the Slavonic.
  2. The Praindo-European / * sr / is preserved in the Baltic, but is transformed into / str / in Slavic, although several similar changes in the Baltic make it possible to assume that in the case of / * sr / we are dealing with archaism.
  3. In the Baltic, the suffix -mo is used in ordinal numerals, whereas in the Slavic suffix -wo is used .
  4. The suffix of the Baltic verbs is 1 liter. units hours nast. at. -mai , while in the Slavic it is not so (now this objection is under discussion).
  5. In the Baltic often uses the infix -sto- , while in the Slavic it is absent.
  6. In the pobaltic did not differ forms of units. h. and many others. h. in the verbs of 3 liters, while in the Proto-Slavic this difference persisted.
  7. The Baltic suffix of adjectives -inga is not used in Slavic languages.
  8. Baltic diminutive suffix -l- not used in Slavic languages (though, perhaps, it corresponds to the Russian suffix caressing -ul- : grandma , grandpa , etc...).
  9. The Slavic suffix of the verbal nouns -tel- ( driver, teacher, builder ) is not used in the Baltic languages.
  10. The pre- Indo-European suffix -es was in the Proto-Slavic ( teles, skies ), but is not used in the Baltic languages.
  11. The Slavonic suffix of participles -lo is not used in the Baltic languages.
  12. In the Proto-Slavic law operates an open syllable, which is absent in the Baltic (including the Prabalese) languages.
  13. Slavic languages ​​retained the primordial European aorist by -s- (a sigmatic aorist), whereas in the Baltic languages ​​its traces were not found. (This claim is disputed.)
  14. The pre-Slavic quantitative numerals of the large quantitativ ( five, six, ... , etc.) have the suffix -t , while in the Baltic languages ​​there are no traces of it.
  15. The absence in the Baltic languages ​​of Meie's law, associated with satematic reflexes and the operation of the law "hands". The law of "hand" operated before the beginning of the satemization of languages, hence it is possible to see in this the division of languages ​​before the beginning of the processes of satemization.
This is a good list. Satemization in Baltic and Slavic acts weird.
There is an interesting article by Kourtlandt where he explains differences by different IE substrate languages that Baltic and Slavic absorbed while expanding. Will put a link if I find one.
 
Actually found something else. Might have been wrong on post above.
Anyway this is also an interesting article:
http://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/download/2283/2249
I found this article quite interesting, but it also comes up with some (to me) strange historic premises, for example Kortlandt clearly assumes that Balto-Slavic has nothing to do with Corded Ware but came from the south/southwest with the other Western IE branches superseding IE Corded Ware languages. He also tells a lot about the still not totally accepted (but IMO very fascinating) hypothesis of a Temematic IE language roughly between Germanic and Balto-Slavic. But shouldn't we talk of it only much later as perhaps an offshoot of an earlier branch, since that supposed territory is right well in the Globular Amphora territory, which clearly must've been non-IE speaking? He also makes very specific assumptions (and I honestly don't think we have so much archaeological proofs for that yet) about the routes of dispersal of Western European IE families, placing the future language families veeeery early on near their Iron Age main territories, what to me sounds as suspiciously too simple and straightforward, especially because it does not fit well with the evidences of intense transformations in West/Central Europe with the Bell Beaker and CWC and later Unetice, Urnfield and other cultures. I sincerely can't reconcile with an assumption that even before their total divergence into many language families Italic and Venetic would already be near Italy, Celtic already near Southern Germany, Balto-Slavic already near the Pripyat marshes and so on, exactly as we saw them in the Iron Age.
 
I sincerely can't reconcile with an assumption that even before their total divergence into many language families Italic and Venetic would already be near Italy, Celtic already near Southern Germany, Balto-Slavic already near the Pripyat marshes and so on, exactly as we saw them in the Iron Age.
Agree on this. Usually it would not work like this.
Probably there were quite a lot more now dead IE languages in Europe like Temematic, etc.

As to Balto-Slavic in particular, idea of it to expand at the expense of some IE languages (rather than non-IE languages) I could agree with. Had they expanded with CW, then a lot more non-IE words would be absorbed, we could speak of strong non-IE substrate in Slavic/Baltic. But we dont have that. We have strong non-IE substrate in Germanic (at least there is this theory), but not for Balto-Slavic.
 
Agree on this. Usually it would not work like this.
Probably there were quite a lot more now dead IE languages in Europe like Temematic, etc.

As to Balto-Slavic in particular, idea of it to expand at the expense of some IE languages (rather than non-IE languages) I could agree with. Had they expanded with CW, then a lot more non-IE words would be absorbed, we could speak of strong non-IE substrate in Slavic/Baltic. But we dont have that. We have strong non-IE substrate in Germanic (at least there is this theory), but not for Balto-Slavic.


Yes. But still, those differences are interesting. In declination, morphology and other things. Linguist should study and determinate it in future. :) Until now we have only assumptions.
 
I think that Balts did not have M458 (at least its young and most frequent today clades like L1029 or L260) about 1500 ybp. Y-DNA of Balts was N and R1a-Z280 (especially Z92?). West and South Slavs have no or really little R1a-Z280-Z92. Maybe Z92 people among East Slavs are slavicised Balts? Ancient Balts should not also have I2-Din. In Latvia I2*/I2a is only about 1% of male population, while in Lithuania it is 6%. Modern Lithuanians may have relatively large Slavic ancestors. On the other hand, proto-Slavs could not carry Y-DNA N (which is common in Balts).
 
Agree on this. Usually it would not work like this.
Probably there were quite a lot more now dead IE languages in Europe like Temematic, etc.

As to Balto-Slavic in particular, idea of it to expand at the expense of some IE languages (rather than non-IE languages) I could agree with. Had they expanded with CW, then a lot more non-IE words would be absorbed, we could speak of strong non-IE substrate in Slavic/Baltic. But we dont have that. We have strong non-IE substrate in Germanic (at least there is this theory), but not for Balto-Slavic.

Exactly. I'm still very open to the idea of an association of Balto-Slavic (and maybe also the first steps of Indo-Iranian or pre-Indo-Iranian) with Corded Ware, but the territory of CWC was huge and I don't think the dating for a common origin of Baltic and Slavic languages, as late as 1,500 BC, fits well the notion that all CWC languages were Balto-Slavic or very similar to it. It's most probable, in my opinion, that Balto-Slavic represents yet another among many east-to-west expansions from present-day Russia, sweeping over other Indo-European languages of the CWC culture and other cultures including non-IE ones like Globular Amphora (probably the "west" and "central, non-Balto-Slavic CWC were languages with more non-IE substrate, since the eastern parts of CWC were almost certainly much less settled by Neolithic agriculturalists and were thus certainly much more thinly inhabited).
 
I think that Balts did not have M458 (at least its young and most frequent today clades like L1029 or L260) about 1500 ybp. Y-DNA of Balts was N and R1a-Z280 (especially Z92?). West and South Slavs have no or really little R1a-Z280-Z92. Maybe Z92 people among East Slavs are slavicised Balts? Ancient Balts should not also have I2-Din. In Latvia I2*/I2a is only about 1% of male population, while in Lithuania it is 6%. Modern Lithuanians may have relatively large Slavic ancestors. On the other hand, proto-Slavs could not carry Y-DNA N (which is common in Balts).

I share your opinion about M458 among Balts, but, it's almost sure that Slavic language comes from R1a-Z280 people, since it's very similar with Baltic. The question will still be: Which language was spoken by M458 people?!

Abouz Z92, there are some samples even among South Slavs, especially in Serbia.
 
Exactly. I'm still very open to the idea of an association of Balto-Slavic (and maybe also the first steps of Indo-Iranian or pre-Indo-Iranian) with Corded Ware, but the territory of CWC was huge and I don't think the dating for a common origin of Baltic and Slavic languages, as late as 1,500 BC, fits well the notion that all CWC languages were Balto-Slavic or very similar to it. It's most probable, in my opinion, that Balto-Slavic represents yet another among many east-to-west expansions from present-day Russia, sweeping over other Indo-European languages of the CWC culture and other cultures including non-IE ones like Globular Amphora (probably the "west" and "central, non-Balto-Slavic CWC were languages with more non-IE substrate, since the eastern parts of CWC were almost certainly much less settled by Neolithic agriculturalists and were thus certainly much more thinly inhabited).

Do you think those languages (Baltic and Slavic) were divided already in 1500 BC ? Or perhaps later?
 
How to divide Slavs from Balts, and vice-versa before 6th century, i mean in genetical and (archeological) sense?
Their R1a is almost the same mutations. This ones which have Balts usually have the Slavs as well. And opposite.

Discuss.

You can't. What joins Slavs and Balts, under the same family, is the affinity of their languages not the genes. Even within Slavs, there is little resemblance in their genes, but almost identical languages. The Slavic languages used today among the Slavic people is undoubtedly dedicating their origin, to the OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC, the language of the theocratic elite, who were the masters of those large communities, who later will become Slavic nations. It's nothing ethnic, nothing genetic connecting what we call Slavic nations today. Some Medieval sources, say that Slavs, or otherwise known as Sclavonians, were slaves(servants) from different origins of the Byzantine Masters. The theory, which makes them a big branch of IE people, migrating in different direction all over Europe, is not correct.
 
You can't. What joins Slavs and Balts, under the same family, is the affinity of their languages not the genes. Even within Slavs, there is little resemblance in their genes, but almost identical languages. The Slavic languages used today among the Slavic people is undoubtedly dedicating their origin, to the OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC, the language of the theocratic elite, who were the masters of those large communities, who later will become Slavic nations. It's nothing ethnic, nothing genetic connecting what we call Slavic nations today. Some Medieval sources, say that Slavs, or otherwise known as Sclavonians, were slaves(servants) from different origins of the Byzantine Masters. The theory, which makes them a big branch of IE people, migrating in different direction all over Europe, is not correct.

Slavic urhemeit was somewhere in the triangle eastern Poland, western Ukraine and South-West Belarus. South Slavic languages are result of migrations of those Slavs, and they were moved by Avar Khaganate. The East Slavic language is the result of well-known East Slavic expansion to the Finnic populations where they mixed with them.
 
Some Medieval sources, say that Slavs, or otherwise known as Sclavonians, were slaves(servants) from different origins of the Byzantine Masters.
The origin of the word is just "Sloboda", a village or place to live in ("s-" as a prefix, "life" as a root of word, this gives a village).

The theory, which makes them a big branch of IE people, migrating in different direction all over Europe, is not correct.
Although you're right about the whole Europe, there are many facts of archeology about Eastern Europe, Baltic Region and Northern India, which would help to trace our origins and roots. I tried to clarify it in the neighbour thread, https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28906-New-migration-map-of-haplogroup-R1a1a

There are many artifacts which proves that ancestors of Northern Indians, Balts and Slavs started from the agricultural areas near the northern bank of the Black Sea, when it was a freshwater lake, then came to the North to establish a Dnieper-Donetsk agriculture, which includes cities Kiev and Zhitomir ("Key" was a name of the knight who was the governor, "zhito" means wheat), and then, — as bricks and big white "Russian" stoves has been invented, — continued to move to the North, i.e. to the sourthern bank of the Baltic Sea, when others came to the East, i.e. to the country now known as Russia.

There was a huge role of Scandinavian people to establish a state. "Varyagi" or just warriors, came from the far far North, probably from Sweden. They were part of Kiev city inhabitants and known as "Varangian Guards". Living in Russia you could read folk tales about them. Some names, including Igor (Ingvar) and Olga (Helga), are Scandinavian ones.

As years passed by, most of Russians and Balts in those areas became a mixture of Slavonic and Finno-Ugric people, except for Estonians who are 100% Finno-Ugric people. There are many folks inside the country who still speaks in Finno-Ugric languages, especially in villages. Mari music is a gem for those Russians who can play musical instruments.

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.
 
"zhito" means wheat
nope, zhito is rye in english not wheat. Rye was a pretty late invention/domestication, mostly suitable for Northern European climate. Unheard of in North India.
Both Krishna and Arjuna spoke in "Old Church Slavonic", also known as... Sanskrit.
lol, this is simply nuts! Could you site same sentence in old church Slavonic and Sanskrit? Just for the heck of it.
 

This thread has been viewed 65450 times.

Back
Top