Talk:Balto-Slavic languages/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Balto-Slavic

the recent additions about 'difficulties' of Balto-Slavic need some serious npoving. Please don't add outlandish theories as fact. dab (ᛏ) 09:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do You know what they need more than NPOV? Accurate data.

Uhh, did you read any of the journal articles cited in the references section? The Klimas (1973) article provides an overview. There's a half-dozen journal articles cited, which ones are outlandish? linas 21:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it appears, sadly, to be a political question of the Balts not wanting anything to do with the Slavs. I'm not saying these articles are bogus. They just represent a tiny minority position in historical linguistics.

Sounds to me that it's you who wants to make this question sound political. The only Slavic people the Balts might not want to have anything to do with in the nearest future are Russians. Should I remind you about millions and millions of non-Russian Slavic people starting from Poland in the morth to Bulgaria in the south? Please stop trying to politicize linguistics. There is no such thing as Balto-Slavic languages. This language taxon is remotely hypothetical at its best. Period.

And it's not me who is editing this article from different IP addresses. Those are other people. I stumbled on this article by accident and I have to say my jaw dropped. It's not even funny. I presume non of those here who keep editing this article back are familiar with neither Baltic or Slavic languages.

Please stop spreading disinformation! Monmartre

it appears, sadly, to be a political question of some russians and especially beelorussian historicians wanting to promote theory of Slavic-Baltic unity.

They are not "outlandish", by all means cite them, but give a fairer accout of academic opinion. I would bet that >90% of Indo-Europeanists would accept common Balto-Slavic without batting an eyebrow. However, this article tears right into the criticism. The article should first expose the (many) commonalities, and then present a criticism section. As it is, it's very misleading, and I'm afraid we'll have to put an "npov" warning on it. dab (ᛏ) 18:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is scientific problem having some poltical trace too, but not betting. There is academical journal BALTISTICA http://www.leidykla.vu.lt/inetleid/baltistic/baltist.html of Vilnius University - one of the leading centers of Baltic languages studies having articles from different universities of the world (Jochen D. Range >Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald<...) and there is no question that Baltic language group is separated group.78.62.22.250 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice to have a more general discussion before 'tearing into' the criticism. As to npov and majority opinion, there is an interesting article at consensus science that could be linked. Basically, all of the really intersting stuff happening in science is exactly where there is controversy, where the majority opinion may (or may not) prove to be wrong. linas 17:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

granted, but here is a link to encyclopedia. -- We are not here to present groundbreaking mind-boggling linguistic revolutions. we are here to present the picture as determined by science so far. If it's different in 10 years, let's come back and edit the article in 10 years. dab (ᛏ) 21:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

we are here to present the picture as determined by science so far

EXACTLY! Not some weak speculations like it's ATM.

The "moderate" opinion given by Stang (from the Klimas article),

Methodisch bedeutet dies, dass man kein Recht hat, in allen Fallen mit baltoslavischen Grundformen zu rechnen.

Aus dieser rein linguistischen Analyse ergibt sich somit folgende Reihe von Strata: 1) Urindoeuropäisch, 2) Das baltoslavische Dialektgebiet, 3) Das baltische Dialektgebiet und die annahernd einheitliche urslavische Grundsprache, 4) Das balt. Dialektgebiet zerfiel in mehrere Mundarten, von welchen uns das Preussische (westbaltische) und das Lit.-Lett. (ostbaltische) bekannt sind. 5) Das Urostbalt. zerfiel in Urlit, und Urlett. mit den später daraus entwickelten Mundarten. Wenn ich in der folgenden Darstellung die Ausdrucke "baltoslavisch" und "urbaltisch" verwende, geschieht es mit dem Vorbehalt, der oben angegeben ist.

actually assumes (2) common Balto-Slavic. Everyone believes this. This is only qualified by the cautionary remark that there may be words without a common balto-slavic predecessor, such as the famous "centum" words in baltic. this may indeed be indicative of early areal contact of the later balts (but not slavs) with (pre-)proto-germanic. that's it. every language has dialects. common balto-slavic had an eastern (proto-baltic) dialect that borrowed some words that didn't make it into slavic. very few people would go beyond this. dab (ᛏ) 18:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with dab on this issue: particularly, I notice that Harvey Mayer's work and motivations are very questionable. His theories are reminiscent of old Nazi views on the "inferiority" of "the Slavic race" (if such a race exists to be inferior in the first place). He states that Slavs were enslaved by the Baltic people, and thus the languages blended (and he states many more things). Every thing Mayer writes should be looked upon with suspicion. Alexander 007 05:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://www.lituanus.org/1999/99_1_02.htm

aha - you have shown us an article in a Lithuanian "arts and sciences" journal, bashing another article in an actual linguistic publication for (naturally) assuming proto-BSl. I'm not opposed to mentioning that the concept is unpopular in the Baltics. You will have noticed that nobody has removed the list of problems with assuming the proto-language either. There are problems, no doubt, but the experts seem to think that they are far outweighed by positive evidence. You may want to consider Talk:Finno-Ugric languages for a similar case (Hungarians being unhappy about being classified with the Finns, linguistically). dab (ᛏ) 14:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Burushaski language

I notice that some months ago somebody went around and plastered across a number of articles this idea of Ilija Casule (and perhaps others) about Burushaski being related somehow (in an unexplained fashion) to Balto-Slavic. Is there any Wikipedia rule that states that we have to mention every new, unverified hypothesis that just comes off the presses (actually, published in 1997)? I especially don't like it when it is just vaguely mentioned but no explanation of how and in what way they are related is given. Alexander 007 05:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's wrong. It may not necessarily be crank work as I suggested; but a quick search reveals that the alleged special relationship is not with Balto_Slavic specifically, but with a larger subgroup of IE which he calls the "Southern" or "Aegean" languages. Nor does he rule on whether these are the results of "an early relationship" or "contact". Even if this is notable, it doesn't belong here. - Mustafaa 05:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It didn't seem right to have it in the article, being so vague and unlikely as it was. Alexander 007 06:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Balto-Slavic "remotely hypotetical"?

There is no such thing as Balto-Slavic languages. This language taxon is remotely hypothetical at its best. Period.

Period? You mean, we are to take your word for it? I think not. I won't pretend that I'm familiar with the languages, but luckily, I have read books by people who are.

most of the researchers that are familiar with these languages believe that the Baltic languages diverged from the Proto-Indo-European separately from other language groups, including the Slavic languages.

I see. So "being familiar" with balto-slavic is equivalent to "agreeing with User:Monmartre. Unfortunately, this is not what Indo-Europeanists believe at all, and for very good reason. Don't say "most researchers", cite one researcher who does. We'll mention him, along with others who say the opposite. This is WP:NPOV: Not every view gets the same amount of space, the views more common among experts take precedence. Minority opinions are cited, but clearly labelled as minority opinions. dab (ᛏ) 14:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) we are here to present the picture as determined by science so far

2) This is WP:NPOV

Then please stop promoting mere speculations ahead of actual facts. And when talking about Baltic languages and Slavic languages you should respect the opinion of the linguists who have particulary devoted their research to these languages more than some general Indo-Europeanists who have poor actual knowledge about these languages. I will find references, don't worry, because I know I'm right. JUst give me a couple of days to get to the library and the Baltic linguinistics centre afterwards.

Unfortunately, it is not enough to be familiar with Baltic to assess the question of Balto-Slavic, which requires knowledge of Indo-European. You are welcome to cite your references. Feel free to wait with editing until after you have been to the library. dab (ᛏ) 14:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile you could actually read through the references already provided.

Monmartre

Three observations: 1) someone should review the way established Encyclopedias (Brittanica, etc.)treat the issue, and Wikipedia should not stray too far from Encyclopedic convention; 2) Monmartre needs to bring more references to back up the claim that "most" linguists knowledgable in the languages reject Balto-Slavic; 3) even if it is demonstrated that the anti-Balto-Slavists have a good case, it is still going to be given less prominence than the conventional theory (=Balto-Slavic). Alexander 007 14:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have seen your references. No, I've not plodded through them all, this is not my day-job. Granted, they are articles trying to refute Balto-Slavic. They exist, and I am very prepared to mention the fact. I have even seen that the link you provide calls Balto-Slavic an "old delusion". So, if you like, let us state that "Harvey E. Mayer says that Balto-Slavic is an old delusion". This doesn't say anything about communis opinio. Balto-Slavic is the standard theory, and Wikipedia has no business to present the case otherwise, we are not a journal of breakthrough linguistic research. Find us a reference we can agree is impartial backing up the "most linguists" statement, and the case will begin to look different. dab (ᛏ) 15:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The references are interesting, indeed. Antanas Klimas, the only one of these three with any serious credentials, is Professor Emeritus of Lithuanian Linguistics at Rochester. His article expresses his opposition to the Balto-Slavic theory, while listing more linguists who support it than oppose it:

"Exponents of the Balto-Slavic protolanguage or the linguistic unity theory:

A. Schleicher (1861), J. Hanusz (1886), K. Brugmann (1897), W. Porzezinski (1911), J. Rozwadowski (1912), A. Bruckner, (1914), A. Šachmatov (1915), R. Trautmann (1923), A. Sobo-levsky (1924, F. Specht (1934), J. Kurylowicz (1934, 1956, 1957, 1958), T. Lehr-Sptawinski (1946, 1958), T. Milewski (1948), O. Szemerenyi (1948, 1957), A. Vaillant (1950, 1955, 1957), J. Otrębski (1954, 1958), M. Leumann (1955), P. Aru-maa (1955, 1963, 1964), N. van Wijk (1956), V. Georgiev (1958), W. Ernitz (1958), V. Kiparsky (1958), E. Dickenmann (1958), P. Trost (1958).

Opponents of this theory:

J. Baudouin de Courtenay (1903), A. Meillet (1905, 1908, 1922, 1925, 1934), J. Endzelins (1911, 1923, 1931, 1951, 1952), K. Jaunius (1908), K. Būga (1910, 1913, 1922, 1924), G. Bon-fante (1935), Ch. Stang (1939, 1957, 1963, 1966), A. Senn (1941, 1954, 1966), E. Fraenkel (1950), W. Porzig (1954), A. Salys (1955), W. K. Matthews (1957), I. Lekov (1958), L. Bulachovskij (1958), B. V. Gornung (1958, 1963), J. Loja (1961), F. P. Filin (1962), A. Klimas (1967), S. Karaliūnas (1968), G. Shevelov (1964)."

To the list of "exponents" we can add 3 of the 5 people he cites as having changed their mind.

After 1969, he lists Stang (talking cautiously of a Balto-Slavic "dialect area"), and Karaliūnas talking of a "Balto-Slavic isoglossal community" and claiming that "In the third millennium before our era in the framework of the dialects of the northern area of the IE linguistic community, the "Baltic" dialects were separate from the "Slavic" dialects. At this time the "Baltic" dialects probably had closer contacts with the "Germanic" dialects."

Incidentally, his ridiculously over-the-top claim that "Today lexical similarities have almost no significance for the establishment of original ethnogenetic relationships, since the lexical stock is almost completely a creation of civilization and culture: it does not show primordial, original relationships." does not bode well for his attempts at comparative linguistics. However, his article itself definitely confirms that Balto-Slavic is the more widely held hypothesis.

The first two Mayer citations barely address the issue, while the third puts forward an argument against it - one whose phrasing ("can anyone validly persist in believing in a so-called "Balto-Slavic" protolanguage?") makes it clear that many academics do believe in a Balto-Slavic protolanguage. The Pashka cites are unworthy of serious discussion; literally the only germane material in them is "Some dialects seldom lost prolonged contact with each other, as in the case of Baltic and Slavic. This explains the similarities between those two groups". - Mustafaa 18:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Encyclopaedia Britannica phrasing can be seen here. - Mustafaa 19:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where are the other lithuanian professors -Opponents of this theory: like Zigmas Zinkevičius - the author of 6 vol. History of Lithuanian language?...78.62.22.250 15:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And for a thoroughly authoritative and well-known source supporting Balto-Slavic, see Frederik Kortlandt's paper. ([1]). - Mustafaa 19:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

thanks Mustafaa. I'm beginning to see pov pushers as a positive force that spur competent editors into improving articles (nobody can deny that Afu's exploits resulted in a better Finno-Ugric languages, bottom line). Let's include some of your stuff here into the article. dab (ᛏ) 15:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's true... sometimes! (I wish it were as true in political articles.) I've tried to put some of this information into the article, but I'm not sure it's really satisfying yet. - Mustafaa 07:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also according to the Ethnologue: Languages of the World presents the data used to prepare the printed volumes, along with links to the SIL Bibliography and the International Academic Bookstore Baltic and Slavic are separate language groups.

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90017 83.223.132.198

True, and we may make note of that if you like: SIL makes no pretense of being a historical linguistics publication, so they probably just couldn't be bothered to have the discussion we are having here. But SIL is certainly respected as a "quick reference", mostly for obscure languages about which there are hardly any publications, not for languages with their own specialist literature, but we can certainly say that they have two separate nodes for Baltic and Slavic, no problem. dab (ᛏ) 11:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Controversial vs. POV

I don't get it. Now we have anonymous contributors taking (what seems to me to be) neutrally written, albeit controversial, articles, and marking them POV? I don't think so ... linas 02:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no, yawn, some people are just not made for encyclopedias. They make it more difficult to believe in myths. dab (ᛏ) 10:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Controversy vs. Information?!

Anyone else notice that this page is entirely dominated by the debate over the balto-slavic family's vadility, with the only actual information about the family being used to prove a point? Of course the controversy is very important, but presumably there is a lot of information on the balto-slavic languages in general that is missing here. --86.135.71.113 23:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The vast majority of WP articles on almost any topic are missing large chunks of information about core aspects of the subject. If you are competent and able and of a balanced and insightful demeanor, please do edit the article to add the missing content. linas 23:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

but in this case, this is indeed the focus of the debate. Since the language is not attested, it is an article about reconstruction anyway. The features I give in the 14 points could of course be substantially expanded, in their own right. dab (ᛏ) 20:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

the map

Wiglaf, I think your map is ok here, but it should be made clear that while BSl is widely accepted, the idea that they were divided by the Goths is not really mainstream. Most people would assume an earlier date of separation, I think, say in the 2nd millennium BC. I think the Wielbark culture is much more likely to have separated East, West and South Slavic (see Image:Slavic languages.jpg), triggering the migrations that would ultimately take the Bulgars to the Balkans. dab (ᛏ) 20:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes you're right. I remove the map since it may give the uninformed the idea that there is more to the theory than is warranted.--Wiglaf 00:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Have you read this

Mayer in this paper and in several others apparently claims that Proto-Slavic was not grouped with Proto-Baltic, but with Proto-Albanian. If I have interpreted his papers correctly, I think this should be mentioned in the article as an alternate hypothesis (which I do not support, but that's not the point). Alexander 007 12:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Harvey E. Mayer apparently has the notion that Albanian, Slavic, Messapian, and Illyrian descend from one late proto-language, but Baltic is excluded. See Messapian language and Proto-Slavic language and one may wonder what the fuck Harvey was thinking, if indeed he claimed this. Alexander 007 14:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

sounds like exquisite nonsense. Baltic journals seem to be desparate for articles separating Baltic and Slavic just as Macedonian ones seem desparate for articles connecting XMK and Slavic. The IE Splittersprachen are extremely thankful objects for the projection of such wishful thinking. dab (ᛏ) 14:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

One small mistake?

I'm not very familiar with editing rules here, however I wanted to point out that example of similarities between Latvian, Lithuanian and Russian languages, is not very correct. "I run" in Latvian is "Es skrienu", in Russian it's "Ja begu". However, "to flee" is "bēgt" and in Russian it is "bežatj". May be it's not so big mistake, but anyway ;) I didn't change anything in the article since I'm certainly not a linguist and can not decide whether it is vital correction or not. There are certainly many of words and grammatical forms with some degree of similarity in Latvian and Russian languages, however there are many also between Latvian and German, Italian (believe that with other indo european languages). However, as both Latvian and Russian are to me native languages (one's father's, other's mother's) it was quite of surprise that they might had the same proto language.. ;) I can see and feel close ties in between any Germanic languages, but with these ones it is not so evident. But OK, if the big minds think so, let it be. Minor shifts in grouping is not so important anyway. At least I hope that these big minds know more of Baltic and Slavic languages than I could see from given examples :) --Skolniek 23:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have Russian as a native language, then you presumably ought to know that "I run" is b(j)egaju, not *begu. I don't know where this mistake can have come from in the main text since it's clearly a thematic verb, at least in Modern Russian.Fbunny 13:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag?

The discussion is flagged controversial but this junk science crap article isn't(??)

now that's more like it-a nice box-like thing arraying all the hypothetical subfamilies.

      It is junk and propaganda article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliceonmilkyway (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC) 

Comparison of Baltic versus Slavic Languages

(This was removed by Crculver, therefore posted here). I invite anyone to actually look at the languages and the completely different words used for one and the same text, the PATER NOSTER- Lord's Prayer. Anyone advocating close relationship has obviously never looked at the languages.

When one actually takes a look and compares the Baltic languages to the Slavic languages, it becomes immediately clear, that they are completely seperate languages This can be done easily by looking at the Lord's Prayer in any of the languages at Christus Rex website (sample Polish below)

Lord's Prayer in Lithuanian Language:

Lithuanian

Lord's Prayer in Polish Language:

Polish

The term Satem is an outdated term, no longer used, because it is too vague and imprecise.

If anyone, who actually looks at the Polish, Russian, Chech etc language Lord's Prayer and the Baltic Lithuanian, Latvian language Lord's Prayer can find any similarities at all, please post them here. Thank you

Labbas 23 December 2006

---

No one has come up with any similarity of vocabulary yet

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balto-Slavic_languages&diff=98147300&oldid=98120035

If nobody disputes that they are completely different languages, why not stop this nonsense of Balto-Slavic unity?

Labbas 3 January 2007

---

Not very difficult, Labbas. Here is a quick try, where I compare the Old Slavonic and Old Prussian versions of the prayer, with reference where relevant to the other Baltic and Slavic versions.

1. Otche nash" izhe esi na nebesjex" - Tāva nūsūn, kas Tū asei an dangūn,

Adjective position. Proto-Baltic “our” with n- (cf Latin nostr-) is attested by Old Prussian. m- in Lith/Latv, a generalization from the 1pl pron nom (my/mes), also generalized to the acc. pron. in OPr already. PBS Otev.s, father. Vocative form in –e. A significant commonality given unrelated to universal PIE pater- 2s. of “to be”: OCS esi / Lith. Esi (form later lost in Slavic) Reinforcement of the locative with a preposition –n- I don’t immediately see the origin of dang- in PB but it is more easy to relate nebesjex to Latvian debesis.

2. da svjatitsja imja tvoe - Svintīnts virst Tvais ēmens.

Sva(n)t- (cf Latin sanctus) and imja/emens is clear. Lexical substitution with vard- in Lith/Lat (Germanic loan?).

3. da priidet" carstvie tvoe - Pereit Tvais rīks,- Lith. teateinie tavo karalystė,

Priidet / Pereit is clear. Clearly the Lith word for Kingdom is cognate to Russ. Korolj, with lexical substitution in OCS of the loanword tsar- (cf Polish krolestvo). OPr. Riks is lent from low german.

4. da budet" volja tvoja - Tvais kvaits audāstsin,- Lith. Teesie tavo valia Volja / valia is clear as is the loss in PS of the future verb forms in –s-. Opr. Verb (cognate of Lat. audere) lost from PS.

5. jakw na nebesi i na zemli - Kaigi an dangūn, tēt taigi nā zemian.

Kaigi/Russ. Kak; taigi/tak – zem- (with PS –l- mutation) clear

6. xljeb" nash" nasushchnyj dazhd' nam" dnes' - Nūsūn deininian geitian dais nūmans šan deinan,

dein- clear (postfixed demonstrative in –s- in OCS which appears as a separate prefixed demonstrated in Opr). m/n in nus-/num- cf mus-,mum- already remarked. ”To give” clear. The word for “bread” is remarkably fluid across IE languages, even Latv, Lith and Opr have different words for it. The word “necessary” is an intrusion in the OCS translation.

7. i wstavi nam" dolgi nashja - Ba atvērpeis nūmans nūsūns aušautins,- Lith. ir atleisk mums mūsų kaltes

Both verb and noun differ, but again, they differ between all three Baltic languages as well. Opr cf PWG werpan-, Latv. verpt to spin, has reflex in Russ. vertetj. and vernutj.

8. jakwzhe i my wstavljaem" dolzhnikwm" nashym" - Kai mas atvērpimai nūsūns aušautinīkamans.

Covered in previous notes

9. i ne vvedi nas" vo iskushenie - Ba ne vedeis mans an perbandāsnan,

The verb ved- is clear. The abstract verbal noun varies across all three Baltic languages.

10. no izbavi nas" wt lukavagw - Šlait izrankeis mans aza vargan.

Opr. shows that PB used iz- rather than no- in this context, cognate with the Slavic particle s-, from, replaced in this context by ot-. Again, all three Baltic languages have different words for “evil” so no conclusion can be drawn. Fbunny 14:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Horrible Translation

In Latvian, bēgu does NOT mean to run. It means to escape, or to attempt to escape. It does NOT have to be in running form; therefore, the comparison is illegal. Good job, now stop putting back after I delete it for the 5th time, it's immature. --Rudi 18:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

see semantic shift. The point is comparing cognate forms, not translations. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I seem to have completely missed this little discussion thread when I put in "bēgu", which to me seemed an obvious omission. Obviously the semantics are a bit different, but the word form is identical.

   Just to do a little post-mortem on this matter, to evade/escape is "izbēgt" (to save oneself is "izglābties"). "Flee" is the correct translation for bēgu and certainly connotes, in the words of Monty Python: "RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!" —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"but the languages are completely different"

So are Bengali and Ossetian. Yet both are Indo-Iranian. This article is about comparative linguistics, not mutual intelligibility. Only peer-reviewed academic opinions need be cited. dab (𒁳) 10:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Balto-Slavic problem is there, that Baltic and Slavic languages must be reconstructed so far in the past in order to get common Proto-Balto-Slavic (PBS) form, that reconstructed form will be almost equal to PIE form or at least it will be equal to Proto-Indo-Iranian (PII).
For example, Latvian raudāt(i) 'to cry, weep', Lithuanian raudōti, Old Prussian (OP) *raudātvei (- possible Proto-Baltic (PB) form), Sanskrit roditi / rudh-, Russian rydatj, Proto-Slavic (PS) rūdāti. So PBS form will be raudāt- (infinitive ending is under question, OP. -tvei corresponds to Skr. -tave, e.g. OP. dātvei = Skr. dātave (< Vedic Sanskrit dātavai), so common PBS inf. could be *-t(a)vei or *-t(a)vai). And what about PII? There we will get the same form *raudātavai, no older form can be reconstructed. So where is the difference between PBS and PII? And what will be PIE form of *raudātavai?
Of course this is only one example, not too difficult, much more harder will be to reconstruct satem-centum words like Latvian simts 'hundred', Lithuanian šimtas, OP. *simtan, Russ. sto, Old Slavic sǫto or sųto (< *sonto /somto /sunto /sumto), Skr. šata(m), Av. satem. Here even Proto-Baltic form is under question, Latvian and OP. unite the *simtan, but Lith. stays alone with *šimtan. How to merge somto(n/m) / sumto(n/m) with simtan / šimtan? And what is proto form of '100' for PII - sa(m)tam (< *ša(m)tam < ča(m)tam) or ša(m)tam (< s'a(m)tam < c'a(m)tam; where c=[ts])?
Most credible common form for PBS could be only k'amtam (the same as for PII), because Proto-Lith. *šamtam (< *čamtam < k'amtam; if not *šamtam < *s'amtam) is not shared with Proto-Slavic somtom (< *samtam) and Proto-Latvian & Prussian samtam (< *camtam < k'amtam; where c=[ts]). So here we even cannot get common Satem form for all Baltic and Slavic languages and could only reconstruct a common form for both PBS&PII, - almost the PIE form which is k'ṃtṃ (pronounced as [k'amtam], imho).
So there is no reason to distinguish such Proto-Balto-Slavic language, if it's practically the same as PII or even older than PII. So we can even speak about Proto-Indo-Balto-Slavic language having k'amtam in opposition to Proto-Italo-Graeco-Celtic language having komtom.
But returning to PBS, the main question is: if such language existed, where is reconstructed PBS grammar and vocabulary? Imho, no grammar, no vocabulary = no language! Roberts7 22:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

PBS may well belong to the same period as PII, but how did you get the idea that BS and II have a common "PBSII" (proto-Satem) stage? It is well known that the satem isogloss is not phylogenetic. Yes, PBS is of the same feather as PII, if you feel that PII is "no language", you are bound to feel the same about PBS. If PBS dates to the early 2nd millennium, it is removed more than a millennium from late PIE, and more than a millennium from either Proto-Baltic or Proto-Slavic, and as it is perfectly permissible to address such a stage as an entity of its own. Of course, it is beyond our capabilities to decide whether this was a proper "unity" or "just" a dialect continuum, but the same holds for PIE itself, and nobody has a problem with that. dab (𒁳) 08:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The protoBaltic tribes separated from protoGermanic and protoSlavic tribes, when they gave the name for the BEAR - LOKYS (possibly from Lankas - Bow having Nostratic roots). ProtoSlavic tribes separated when they started used for the Bear the name MEDVED. This possibly happened at the end of paleolithic and beginning of mesolithic. The farming and agriculture spreading gave lots of simmilarities to both languages and possibly even weap - You presented. Hunting and fishing terminology is different enough, so to conclude - Baltic and Slavic are different languages groups, but neighbouring and sharing lot of similarities. "Liepa" tree - linden has its own origin from nostratic (understandable even is some part of Africa). UrbiEtOrbi research.

that's complete OR, and fringy OR at that. dab (𒁳) 14:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

in some way original, but based on indoeuropean Paleolithic Continuity Theory ideas.After recent genetical research Renfrew and Mallory have lost about their indoeuropean homeland theories and now Paleolithical continuity is going to be the main stream overcoming the old theories which were based only on intuition or very week archaeological data, but published during 200 years extremly wide. So the model of indoeuropean similarities must be strongly modyfied. We have there situation when the old theories don't want to leave their positions but the new is not powerfull and perfect enough to win. If You study the Baltic verb system You could find that this is much more close to German, but not to Slavic. I see, the problem in definition of language group. It was made classification empyrically, not deductively. How to define language group? Languge group is the set of close languages, which differs from the others by original lexical units (what amount?), by verb, adverb ....system etc. Till we have no clear logical definition we can shout loudly but there will be not of clear answer -only opinions and intuition. My opinion is - they are separated, but if someone after calculations will find the other result - let it be published. Glotochronological methods are funny to me, becouse mathematical model they use is based on the ratio of two logarithms, which have no close reality description. 78.62.22.250 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but PCT is sorry nonsense. There used to be genuine debate on Balto-Slavic in the 1950s, and there are indeed respectable voices that tend to dismiss it, but your bringing PCT into this draws it into the realm of pseudoscholarly fringecruft. So PCT is "going to be the main stream"? Like, when, in another 25 years? That's great, why don't you come back and update the article in 2032 (WP:CRYSTAL). dab (𒁳) 15:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

. It's hard scientific problem and Renfrew' theory was in the last decade much more main stream than Gimbutas' reconstruction. I don't want to agree, that the author of PCT prof. Mario Alinei from the oldest European Bologna university has lectures about nonsense, like the other scientists from Ljege, Grenoble ... universities. The first European inhabitants had not only their culture, but language too (British archaeologist's opinion). What kind of language they used? What about European languages at LGM? The PCT gives the other model and understanding of Indoeuropean similarities construction, so about Baltic, German and Slavic origins too. Ivanov-Gamkrelidze, Gimbutas, Mallory and Renfrew lost becouse of recent genetical data about paleolithical European predecessors of more than 80 percent modern European population. So, influence of neolithic - farming-military migrations was extremly week. It was detectable in Balkan, but not in Osterreich (fossils DNA research says). There was some Karpatian barier too. I would like too say, that better to say, that not PCT is going to be the main stream, (becouse that theory is under further development), but the former theories collapsed and crashed. So, reliability of these former theories is very low and they are really like WP:CRYSTAL. I see lots of problems in PCT, but this is according not my opinion the most adequate model of reality. I've seen at the German version of Balto-Slavic wiki-article more realistic evaluation of Balto-Slavic(German scholars are very strong linguists). When PCT will became real main streem - it's not easy to conclude (it depends), but to remove some remarks about PCT presenting genetical data in indoeuropean article is diruptive pushing the old theories. According to definition of CRYSTAL - Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. PCT theory is scientific enough theory and statement about its classification to be CRYSTAL without strong arguments is insultive in respect of the authors - profesors. The main problem in common classification of Baltic and Slavic is too different gramatical structures of languages -Baltic verb system is much more close to Germanic rather Slavic.

I respect Your unbelievably huge amount of editings giving knowledge to the world community, but it is very difficult to be true in the total all of these 50 000 problems!

lituanus.org

I am unsure of the linguistic merit of the Lituanus article. This seems to be a Lithuanian arts magazine with patriotic overtones, and they seem to have sort of made it their mission to "disprove Balto-Slavic". The differences between Baltic and Slavic are uncontroversial enough, I suppose, but it may be flawed to present the list as "Objections to Balto-Slavic Unity" on the same footing with Szemerenyi. I admit I didn't read the entire article, I am just saying this needs expert attention. dab (𒁳) 08:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lituanus, while it aims to cover Lithuanian and related topics, is not exactly what I would call patriotic in tone- the writing is usually dispassionate, critical, and well researched (with some exceptions perhaps). heqs ·:. 17:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

fair enough, of course even if they badly want to disprove Balto-Slavic that doesn't a priori invalidate their arguments. By all means cite these articles, just make sure they are put in perspective wrt mainstream. dab (𒁳) 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Baltistica

http://www.leidykla.vu.lt/inetleid/baltistic/baltist.html

versus Latin

I see a lot written about the Sanskrit link. However, nowhere have I seen a comparison of Baltic languages to Latin. In many respects, were I to attempt to describe Latvian to someone who knows nothing about it, I would say it's like Latin with softened consonants (the "Slavic" component) as to how it's pronounced and as to identifiable basic characteristics...

• feminine ends in a
• masculine ends in s/is

some familiar words...

• "mensis" and "mēnesis" (month)
• "augeo" and es/I "augu" (enlarge)
• "balo" and he/viņš "bālo" (bleat Latin, wail Latvian)
• "barba" and "bārda" (beard)
• ... (haven't gone through the whole dictionary! mensis<->mēnesis always stood out for me)

Just wondering. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)