slavic and the indo-european migrations

”Slavic and the Indo-European Migrations”. Language Contacts in Prehistory. Studies inStratigraphy (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 239) ed. by Henning Andersen, 45–76.Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003.

SLAVIC AND THE INDO-EUROPEAN MIGRATIONS

Henning AndersenUniversity of California, Los Angeles

0. IntroductionIt has long been acknowledged that the Slavic languages contain scores of

shared loanwords that reflect episodes or periods of language contact in theirrelatively recent prehistory.1

It has also been recognized that much of the inherited Common Slavicvocabulary is heterogeneous and shows affinities with several other Indo-European language groups—especially Baltic, Iranian, Italic, and Germanic—which is traditionally taken as evidence of developments shared with theforerunner dialects of these language groups, or of contacts with them, in a moredistant past.

But besides this lexical material, there is phonological evidence thatsuggests a heterogeneous origin of Slavic—irregular correspondences that pointto prehistoric contacts between ancestral dialects of Slavic and other, more orless closely related Indo-European dialects which we cannot identify by name. Itis the main purpose of this paper to review some of this phonological evidenceand argue for its importance in developing an understanding of the origin ofSlavic and the neighboring Baltic languages.

In the pages that follow, Section 1 offers a brief overview of approaches tostratigraphy in comparative Slavic linguistics. This will serve as background foran examination, in Section 2, of the just mentioned phonological material.Section 3 discusses the problem of corroborating hypothetical interpretations ofsuch data and draws on the testimony of additional perspectives that seemsconsistent with the phonological evidence. Section 4 briefly mentionsimplications for our understanding of the spread of the Indo-European dialectsfrom the supposed homeland.

1 I am grateful to Theo Vennemann for generous advice I gladly took, and to Yves-CharlesMorin, who came to my aid with some much needed references when my files (and mymemory) failed me.

46 HENNING ANDERSEN

1. The tradition of stratigraphy in comparative Slavic linguistics1.0 Overview

The rod and staff of stratigraphic studies in Slavic, as in other languagegroups, quite naturally, is the seriation of phonological changes. In Slavicprehistory, these cluster in two periods, one early, the other recent.2

The early period, of uncertain length and relatively ancient (3000–1000B.C.?), includes the phonological changes which set the pre-Slavic and pre-Balticdialects apart from other Indo-European dialect groups as well as the changesthat differentiate the two groups from one another. On the whole, these changeshave not played the role they should in discussions of Slavic prehistory. Theyare the topic of Section 2.

The recent period, which extends roughly from the 300s to the 900s A.D.,comprises changes that are common to all Slavic dialects as well as the regionalchanges that gave rise to the earliest, major isoglosses that criss-cross theterritory of the modern Slavic languages. In terms of external history, this periodbegins with the migration of the Goths from the Baltic coast to the Black Sealittoral a century or so before the Slavic territorial expansion. Its end coincidesapproximately with the Christianization of the Slavs and the formation of the firstSlavic states. The seriation of the phonological changes of this period helps toidentify several layers of lexical ingredients from Iranian, Celtic, Altaic, andGermanic languages; see Section 1.1.

Between these two periods characterized by phonological change is aperiod of indeterminate length during which numerous lexical affinities betweenSlavic and other Indo-European dialects are thought to have developed; seeSection 1.2.

Since this paper is concerned with prehistory, I entirely omit discussion ofthe historical period after about A.D. 900, in which an increasingly ample textualattestation of the Slavic languages—together with the data of historicaldialectology and reliable information about the relevant contact languages—

2 Notational conventions. I omit asterisks in reconstructed forms labeled PS, PB, and LCS.Late Common Slavic forms that happen to be attested in Old Church Slavonic are labeledOCS.

The following abbreviations are used: Alb. (Albanian), Arm. (Armenian), Av. (Avestan),Bg. (Bulgarian), Br. (Belorussian), Celt. (Celtic), ChS (Church Slavonic), Cz. (Czech), d.(dialect), Eng. (English), Fi. (Finnish), Fr. (French), Gk. (Greek), Gm. (German), Go.(Gothic), Hitt. (Hittite), Ir. (Irish), Iran (Iranian), Ka. (Kashubian), La. (Latvian), Lat. (Latin),LCS (Late Common Slavic), Li. (Lithuanian), LS (Lower Sorbian), M® (Middle), Mac.(Ancient Macedonian), o. (old, obsolete), O® (Old), OCS (Old Church Slavonic), OE (OldEnglish), OHG (Old High German), ON (Old Norse), OPr. (Old Prussian), Osc. (Oscan), P(Polish), Panj. (Panjabi), Pb. (Polabian), PB (Proto-Baltic), PGmc. (Proto-Germanic), PS(Proto-Slavic), R (Russian), SC (Serbian–Bosnian–Croatian), Sk. (Slovak), Skt. (Sanskrit),Sn. (Slovenian), st. (standard), U (Ukrainian), US (Upper Sorbian), W (Welsh).

SLAVIC AND THE INDO-EUROPEAN MIGRATIONS 47

enable investigators to construct rather detailed chronological accounts ofindividual Slavic language traditions. Not surprisingly, these reflect the culturalrelations among the Slavic peoples and between them and their neighbors innorthern, western, and central Europe, in the Balkans, in eastern Europe, and inAsia during the last thousand years.

1.1 Common Slavic lexical accessions in recent prehistoryThe recent strata of lexical ingredients (cf. footnote 3) come from fairly

well-defined language traditions. They bear witness to contacts with varieties ofGermanic, Altaic, Celtic, and Iranian. They are traditionally simply called‘loanwords’ or ‘borrowings’, but while some may indeed be borrowings in thestrict sense, many may have entered Slavic as intrusions.3 It is generallyrecognized that during the period in question, there were dialect differenceswithin Common Slavic, and some ingredients are in fact geographically limited.

1.1.1 Germanic. There are several strata of Germanic ingredients (cf. Kiparsky1934, 1975:55–59; Go¬a∫b 1991:362–384, Schenker 1995:159–160). The secureexamples comprise about fifty items distributed among four categories, pre-Gothic, Gothic, Balkan-Germanic, and West Germanic, in the proportions 2 : 3 :1 : 4. They include some items ultimately from Latin or Greek.

The West Germanic ingredients, in the main clearly High German, datefrom after the beginning of the Slavic westward expansion (from the 400s on)and in part reflect the eastward expansion of the Roman Catholic church, in partthe later Frankish expansion in the same direction.

An earlier layer comprises lexemes that are attested in Gothic and can beassigned to the time of the Gothic dominion north of the Black Sea (200s–300sA.D.).

A small number of ingredients that have no correspondents in the Gothiccorpus, and whose meanings point to the Balkans as the place of accession, arethought to have been adopted from either Gothic or the dialects of some otherGermanic-speaking groups (Gepids, Herules?) after the 500s, when Slaviccontacts with the Balkans intensified.

The ingredients of the oldest layer appear to antedate the shared CommonSlavic sound changes. They cannot be attributed to specific Germanic dialects,but may correlate with the archaeological evidence of the presumably GermanicPrzeworsk culture, which diffused into Slavic territory in the Upper Dniesterregion in the first centuries of our era (Sedov 1993:45).

3 For the terms borrowing, intrusion, interference, and transfer, see pp. 6–9 above.

48 HENNING ANDERSEN

1.1.2 Altaic. The Altaic ingredients, mainly culturally motivated borrowings, areattributed to contacts between Slavs and some of the series of Altaic-speakinggroups that entered the western steppe region after the eclipse of Iranianpopulations there. The Huns routed the Goths in 375. The Avars dominatedsome Slavic groups in the 500s–700s and were allies of the Slavs during theircolonization of the Balkans. The Bulgars, first known for their dominion on thelower Volga, established themselves in the Balkan Peninsula in 679, where theirethnonym was adopted by the Slavs they ruled, and among whom their thinsuperstratum was dissolved. These are relevant to the period of interest here andthe stratum of a dozen or so Altaic ingredients in Common Slavic.

Linguistic evidence of contact with the Khazars (who held sway in the700s–900s from the Middle Volga south to the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus, andthe Black Sea), the Patzinaks (R pec˚enegi), the Coumans (R polovcy“Polovetzians”), Tatars, and Mongols belongs to a more recent period.

1.1.3 Celtic. Celtic ingredients in Common Slavic are rather few. They appear tobe intrusions. It seems likely that they date from the period from the 300s B.C. tothe 100s A.D. In the early part of this period the Celtic expansion across CentralEurope reached what is now the west Ukrainian province of Galicia (UHalyc˚yna, with the ancient capital Halyc˚, PS gaµlÈ µk-ja- “the Celts’ (viz. city);poss.adj.”), but contacts may have occurred elsewhere as well, and perhaps someaccessions were mediated by other languages.

1.1.4 Iranian. The Iranian ingredients have traditionally been thought to reflectcontacts between Slavs and Scythians and Sarmatians in what is now southernRussia from the 700s B.C. to the 300s A.D. And they have traditionally beenaccepted as evidence of cultural influence, some being clearly related to religiousbeliefs or practices. The close mapping between Early Common Slavic andIranian phonology in this period (Zaliznjak 1963) makes it hard to determinewhether some similar lexemes are cognates or Iranian accessions. It is interestingthat despite their apparently early date of accession, quite a few Iranianingredients are limited to specific Slavic areas (Trubacev 1967).

1.2 Lexical affinities in the more distant pastAll through the 1900s, Slavists and Indo-Europeanists, inspired by

Meillet’s (1908) Dialectes indo-europeåens (cf. Porzig 1954), endeavored to gobeyond the rough understanding captured in Schleicher’s conception of “Lithu-Slavisch” branching into “Lithu-Lettisch” and “Slavisch”. As a result, a greatdeal of progress has been made in establishing lexical isoglosses between Slavicand other Indo-European languages.


The question of the relationship between Slavic and Baltic has beenprominent in these endeavors, and several quite diverse interpretations of thatrelationship have been proposed (summarized in Trubacev 1983:238–239; seealso Dini 1997:128–135). These will not be discussed here, but it must bementioned that they fall into three categories: (i) some interpretations regardSlavic and Baltic as separate branches of Proto-Indo-European; (ii) someconsider Slavic and Baltic sister descendants of a Proto-Balto-Slavic branch; (iii)still others view Slavic and the individual Baltic languages as sister descendantsof a Proto-Baltic branch. Within each of these categories, scholars havehypothesized a variety of secondary (adstratum) contacts between Slavic andBaltic and/or between either or both of them and other Indo-European dialects inorder to account both for their apparently shared innovations and their deepdifferences. I touch on this issue in Section 4.

It should also be mentioned that irrespective of differences in theinterpretation of the more distant (‘original’) relationship among these languages,there is an emerging consensus that in recent times, say, at the beginning of ourera, Slavic and Baltic dialects formed a continuum, located (west to east) fromthe Vistula to the Don and Oka basins and (north to south) from the Baltic Seaand the Upper Volga to the parklands in what is now northern Ukraine andsouthern Russia. In this conception, the attested Slavic and Baltic languagesrepresent peripheral fragments of this large language area, the dialects transitionalbetween them having become overlain by Slavic during the Slavic expansion (cf.Ivanov 1981, Toporov 1988, Andersen 1996, Birnbaum 1998).

A major difficulty in determining the earlier relationships between Slavicand Baltic arises from the fact that during the long prehistorical period—from theearliest phonological individuation of Slavic and Baltic to the beginning of theSlavic expansion ca. A.D. 300—there are no phonological changes in Slavic orBaltic that are amenable to secure seriation, and which might thus providesupport for a relative dating of the lexical material.

Investigations in this area have consequently had to use different means.

1.2.1 Craft terminology. Trubac˚ev (1966) exploited the facts that thedevelopment of metalurgy, specifically smelting, presupposed a technology ofpottery firing, and that pottery-making developed out of basket-weaving, andpatterns of pottery decoration reflect various textile-making techniques. Againstthe background of the relative chronology of the basic crafts—woodworking,weaving, pottery making, and metalurgy—Trubacev subjected the correspondingSlavic systems of terminology to etymological analysis. He showed how thecraft terminologies indeed reflect the technological development: terms coined fora later craft can commonly be explicated by their sense in an earlier craft. At the

50 HENNING ANDERSEN

same time his analyses showed that many terminological innovations wereshared between Slavic and other European language groups, but unevenly:Slavic shared more such innovations with Germanic (30 lexemes) than withItalic (26 lexemes), and many more with these than with Baltic (6 lexemes). Heinterpreted these differences (1966:392) as evidence of a cultural gradient acrossEurope, in which Baltic was peripheral, whereas Slavic was closer to the centersof technological innovation.

A lot of progress has been made in Slavic etymology—not to mentionIndo-European morphology or the history of the crafts—since this study of fortyyears ago, and one would have to revisit all of Trubac˚ev’s assumptions andessentially redo the investigation to determine whether his conclusions are stillvalid. This would in fact be a worthwhile project. In any case, the study is alandmark in systematic etymology, and Trubac˚ev’s idea of exploiting thelanguage-external relative chronology of the basic crafts for seriation is worthyof note. It could perhaps be applied with good results elsewhere.

1.2.2 Synonymous pairs. In a provocative paper on structural comparison,Ivanov & Toporov (1961) argued that the component structures of Proto-Slavic(vowel system, noun declension, etc.) can be derived from those of Proto-Baltic,but not vice versa. They interpreted this as evidence that the Slavic languages aredescended from Proto-Baltic.

This is the basic assumption of Martynov (1983, 1985 with additionalreferences), who has devoted a series of studies to the investigation of pairs ofnearly synonymous lexemes in Common Slavic, pairs in which one lexeme has aBaltic etymon while the other has correspondents in Italic, Iranian, Germanic, orCeltic. Martynov assumes that synonymous pairs of lexemes are unlikely to arisethrough borrowing and concludes that in such word pairs, the non-Balticlexemes are intrusions (his term is R proniknovenie “penetration”), evidence of aseries of contacts with superstratum dialects which, as their elements wereintegrated into the pre-Slavic tradition of speaking, gradually transformed anoriginally Baltic dialect into what we know as Slavic. He sketches the followingprogression: Proto-Baltic > East Baltic vs. West Baltic; West Baltic1 > OldPrussian; West Baltic2 (+ Italic intrusions, 1100s–800s B.C.) > Proto-Slavic (+Iranian intrusions, 500s–400s B.C.) > Early Common Slavic (+ Germanic andCeltic intrusions and borrowings, 400s–200s B.C.) > Late Common Slavic.4

Many of Martynov’s etymological analyses are chronologically problem-atic, and some of his assumptions very questionable. His initial assumption that 4 Martynov distinguishes different chronological stages labeled (in Russian) protobaltijskij,protoslavjanskij and praslavjanskij, here rendered as Proto-Baltic, Proto-Slavic, and EarlyCommon Slavic.


synonymous pairs arise through intrusions more often than, or to the exclusionof, borrowings is hardly valid. And the very notion of ‘synonymous lexemes’ isproblematic both in theory and in its application in this work. For these reasonsand others Martynov’s conception of the emergence of Slavic has not found mayadherents. Still, many of his observations are challenging, and the method ofexploiting near-synonyms to establish a seriation probably valuable whenapplied to the right data (cf. Unger, this volume).1.2.3 Geographical affinities.Since the beginning of the 1900s, a great deal of work has been done on theelucidation of the geographical distribution of the lexical stock of the Indo-European languages. The interpretation of such distributional data involves anumber of common-sense assumptions. For instance, it is assumed that sharedinnovations indicate contiguity of the given languages at the time of innovation,that a more widely shared innovation is likely to be older than a less widelyshared one, that an innovation shared with geographically noncontiguouslanguages antedates their separation, and so on. And of course assumptions haveto be made regarding the actual or, at least, relative location of language areas inprehistory.

In his survey in Mel’nyc˚uk (1966:500–530) Krytenko defines thesegeographically defined layers of vocabulary: (i) a general Indo-European layer,(503–520), (ii) a Western-European or European layer (520–522), (iii) an EastEuropean layer (522–23), (iv) a South European layer (523–524), (v) a Balto-Slavic layer (524–526), and (vi) a Slavic layer (526–530).

Go¬a ∫b (1991), the most recent attempt to form a synthetic account of theprehistoric linguistic relations between Slavic and other language communities,develops a more detailed account, represented in Figure 1. Here the seriation ofthe top five strata correlates with the phonological changes of the most recentperiod (cf. Section 1.1). A single phonological change of the early period, theSat´m Assibilation, is reflected in the deepest stratum. The long intermediateperiod has been seriated largely on the basis of such assumptions as the onesmentioned just above. See, for example, the succession of strata in Figure 1labeled “Younger centum elements, (Balto-)Slavic ‡ Germanic ‡ Baltic ‡ Celticlayer, Balto-Slavic ‡ Germanic layer, Slavic ‡ Germanic, Proto-Slavic innova-tions”. But note also the realistic view that innovations in the inherited Balto-Slavic ingredients occurred concurrently with the accession of new ingredients ina series of substantial contact episodes, over a period of perhaps 1500 years.Go¬a ∫b’s synthesis integrates findings by scholars making quite diverse initialassumptions and using different methods of analysis, including Trubacev (1966)and Martynov (1983), mentioned above.

52 HENNING ANDERSEN

Time No. of lexemes600s Old High German 8

400s–700s Altaic: Hunnic, Avar, Bulgar 18400s–500s Balkan Germanic 7100S–300s Gothic 18

Before A.D. 200 Early Germanic 17500 B.C. Proto-Slavic innovations700 B.C. Slavic-Germanic

(on ‘Venetic’ substratum?)Balto-Slavic innovations ± 600

Slavic-Germanic(on ‘Venetic’ substratum?)

66 (+ 6)

1000 B.C. Balto-Slavic ‡ Germanic layer 73 (+ 5)

2000 B.C.(Balto-)Slavic ‡ Germanic ‡ Baltic

‡ Celtic layer (Northwest IE)71

Slavic ‡ (Indo-)Iranian layer 49Balto-Slavic ‡ Indo(-Iranian) layer 26

Younger centum elements 143000 B.C. Older centum elements 45

Old sat´m elements

Figure 1: Lexical strata in Common Slavic. Based on Go¬a ∫b (1991:173 and passim)

The account Go¬a ∫b constructs is one of an original Indo-European sat´mdialect exposed to lexical enrichment and lexical replacements in contact withdifferent (constellations of) adstrata through the centuries and, as a consequence,becoming differentiated from its sister dialects, while remaining its distinct fromthe various contact languages and developing its own individuality.

In Go¬a ∫b’s work, as in other investigations of its kind, acceptance of theconclusions depends to a large extent on the quality of the etymologies. It isregrettable that Go¬a ∫b’s extensive synthesis, which was completed in 1982(1991:iv), but actually developed in the 1970’s, is based on impressionisticcomparisons and written without the benefit of the advances made in Indo-European linguistics during the many years it was in gestation.

In the following pages I will present some of the phonological evidence fora stratification of the forerunner dialects of Slavic. It will be seen that thisevidence, which includes some material that is well known from the handbooks,yields hypotheses that are very different from one part of Go¬a∫b’s account.


2. Irregular phonological correspondences in Proto-Slavic2.1 Proto-Indo-European palatals

Slavic and Baltic are sat´m languages, that is, like Indo-Iranian, Armenian,and Albanian, they have sibilant reflexes of Proto-Indo-European palatalplosives and—at least in their reconstructed earliest stages—velars for Proto-Indo-European velars and labiovelars. Some typical examples are offered inTable 1. But besides numerous regular examples such as these, there areirregular reflexes of at least two kinds.

PS sÈ µrd-, LCS sÈ ΣrdÈ Σce, OCS srÈ ΣdÈ Σce “heart”. PB sir-d- OPr. seyr, La. sir ∆ds, Li. s˚irdÈ`s. PIE*kñer-d-. Cf. Arm. sirt, Gk. kardÈåa, Lat. cor–cordis, OIr. cride, Go. hairtoµ, Eng. heart.

PS desimt-, OCS dese ∫tÈ Σ “ten”. PB des˚imt-, OPr. dessimpts, La. desmit, Li. de ≈s˚imt. PIE*dekñmt-. Cf. Skt. daåsåa, Av. dasa, Gk. deåka, Lat. decem, OIr. deich, Go. taihun.

PS znaµ-, OCS znati “know”. PB z˚inaµ-, OPr. sinnat, La. zina ∆t, Li. z˚inoåti. PIE *gñn-eh2-. Cf.Skt. jaµnaåµti “recognizes”, Arm. caneay “recognized”, Gk. gnoµskoµ, Lat. –gnoscoµ, Go. kann“can”, OE knawan “know”.

PS zamba-, OCS zo ∫bu Σ “tooth”. PB z˚amba-, La. zo`bs “tooth”, Li. z˚am ≈bas “edge”. PIE*gombío-. Cf. Skt. jaåmbha- “tooth”, Gk. goåmphos “peg”, OHG kamb “comb”.

PS zeimaµ-, OCS zima “winter”. PB z˚eimaµ-, OPr. semo, La. ziema, Li. z˚iema. PIE *gñíeim-. Cf.Skt. himaå-, Av. zima-, Arm. jmer ≥n, Gk. kheÈ ≈ma, Lat. hiems.

PS wez-, OCS vesti–vezo ∫ “transport”. PB wez˚-, OPr. wessis “sled”, La. ve ∫zums “cart-load”, Li.vez˚u` “transport”. PIE *wegñí-. Cf. Skt. vahati, Gk. oåkhos “carriage, Lat. vehoµ, Go. wagjan“to move”, Eng. weigh.

Table 1: Regular Slavic reflexes of Indo-European palatals

2.1.1 PB st for PIE *kñ. In Baltic, a few lexemes have st for PIE *kñ (Table 2).Trubacev (1973) considers these borrowings from pre-Slavic, and the st reflex, aphonetic substitution for pre-Slavic [tÑs], the intermediate stage in the pre-Slavicdevelopment *kñ › ts › s; cf. also Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1984:108).

Li. stÈ`rna “deer”, La. stir ≈na. But PB sirnaµ-, La. o. sirna. PS sirnaµ-, LCS sÈ Σrna. PIE *kñer-“horn”. Cf. Lat. cervus “deer”.

Li. tuµkstantis “thousand”, La. tuµkstotis (with parasitic k), La. o. «tuustosche». But PB tuµs˚imt-,OPr. tusimtons, PB tuµs˚amt- reflected in Fi. tuhansi, tuhat. PS tuµsimt(j)-È µ, tuµsamt(j)-È µ,OCS tyse ∫s˚ti, tyso ∫s˚ti. PIE d. *tuµ-s “great” + *kñmt- “hundred”. Cf. Go. πuµs-hundi,Franconian (Lex Salica) thuis chunde.

OPr. parstian («Prastian») “pig”. But PB pars˚-a-, Li. par ≈s˚as. PS pars-ent-, OCS prase ∫, Rporose¨nok. PIE *porkñ-o-. Cf. Lat. porcus “pig”, OHG far(a)h, OE fearh “piglet”, Eng.farrow.

Table 2: Baltic examples of st for PIE *kñ

However, the scattered distribution of these forms does not point to acontact zone with Slavic. From a semantic point of view, only “thousand” wouldbe a likely borrowing; the others are more likely intrusions. And there is no needto invoke phonetic substitution, for st is known to be a possible regular outcome

54 HENNING ANDERSEN

of velar palatalization, as in Savoyan d. [ster] “dear”, [sta ≈] “field”, [sto] “hot”,etc. for LLat. CARU, CAMPU, CALDU, cf. Fr. st. cher, champ, chaud (Duraffour1969, Martin & Tuaillon 1971–1978, s.vv.). Hence, the st forms are more likelyintrusions contributed by bearers of otherwise unidentifiable sat´m dialects,merged with the pre-Baltic tradition of speaking.

2.1.2 Discrepant dorsals. In addition, both Slavic and Baltic languages haveseveral dozen lexemes with velars as reflexes of Proto-Indo-European palatals.Investigators differ on the number of Proto-Indo-European roots showing such‘discrepant dorsals’ (traditionally termed Gutturalwechsel). Shevelov (1965:

PS berga-, LCS bergu Σ “bank”, R bereg. PIE *bíergñí-o- “hill”. Cf. Skt. bròh-aånt- “high”, Av.b´r´zant “high”, Alb. burg “mountain, ridge”, OHG be¨rg “mountain”.

PS kerd-aµ-, kurd-a-, LCS c˚erda, ku Σrdu Σ “herd”, R c˚ereda “file”, SC krdo “herd, group”. PBkerd-, OPr. keµrdan “time”, Li. kerdz˚ius “shepherd”. PIE *kñerdí-. Cf. Skt. såaårdha-, Av.sar´da “sort”, Go. hairda “herd”.

PB peku-, OPr. pecku “cattle”, Li. o. pe ≈kus. PIE *pekñu-. Cf. Skt. pasåuå-, Lat. pecuµ, Go. faihu.PB smakra-, La. smakrs, Li. sma ≈kras “chin”. PIE *smekñ-r-. Cf. Skt. såmaåsåru- “beard”.PS swekra-, LCS svekru Σ “father-in-law”. But PB s˚es˚ura-, Li. s˚e ≈s˚uras. PIE *swekñu-ro-. Cf.

Skt. såvaåsåu-ra-, Lat. socer, Go. swaihroµ.PS gwaizd-aµ- “star”, LCS d. gve˚zda, P gwiazda, R zvezda. But PB z˚waizd-eµ-, OPr. swaµigstan

“light”, La. zva`igzne “star”, Li. z˚vaigzde ≥≈. PIE *gñíwoi-. Cf. Gk. phoÈ ≈bos “bright”.PS kaµ-moµn-, OCS kamy “rock” (PIE d. *kñeh2-). PB ak-moµn-, Li. akmuo ≈ “stone, but PB as-

men-, Li. as˚meny ≈s “cutting edge”. PIE *h2ekñ-moµn-. Cf. Skt. aåsåman- “stone”, Gk. aåkmoµn“anvil”, ON hamarr “rock, cliff”, OHG hamar “hammer”.

PS sleu-, slaµw-aµ-, OCS sluti–slovo ∫ “call, name”, slava “fame”. PB klau-s˚-È µ-, OPr. klausiton“to hear”, Li. klausyåti “to ask”, but PB s˚luw-eµ-, s˚laµw-eµ-, La. sluve ∆t “be known”, Li. slove≥ ≈“fame”. PIE *kñleu-. Cf. Skt. sårava- “praise”, Gk. kleå(w)os “praise”.

PS klan-È µ-, “bend, bow” OCS kloniti, R klonit’, but PS slan-È µ-, LCS sloniti, R slonit’ “lean”.PIE *kñlei-. Cf. Skt. såraµyateµ, Gk. klÈ µno µ, Lat. clÈ µno µ, Lit. s˚lÈ`eti “lean”.

PS gansi-, LCS go ∫sÈ Σ “goose”, but PS zansi-, U d. dzus’ “come, geese!”. PB z˚ansi-, OPr.sansy, La. zo`ss, Li. z˚a ∫sÈ`s “goose”. PIE *gñían-. Cf. Skt. ham ≥saå-, Gk. kheµån, Lat. anser,OHG gans.

PS kerm-aux-aµ-, R c˚ere¨muxa “bird cherry”, PS kerm-ux-jaµ- R c˚erems˚a “ramsons”, but PSsermux-jaµ-, Sn. sreñms˚a “bird cherry”. PB kerm-(a)us˚-, La. ce ∫ `rmauksis “rowan”, Li.kermuse≥≥≈ “wild garlic”, but PB s˚ermus˚-, Li. s˚ermu`ks˚nis “rowan”. PIE *kñer-. Cf. Gk.kroåmuon “onion”, Gmc. *hrams-, G. Ramsel “ramsons, fireweed”.

PS garda-, LCS gordu Σ “(fortified) city”, R gorod, but PS ab-zarda-, R ozoroåd “rack”. PBgarda-, Li. gar ≈das “pen”, but PB z˚arda-, Li. z˚ar ≈das “rack; fence”, OPr. sardis “fence”.PIE *gñíerdí-. Cf. Skt. gròhaå- (< *gròdíaå-) “dwelling”, Alb. gardh “fortified place”, Go.gards “house”, OE geard “yard”.

PS kaµrw-aµ-, “cow”, LCS korva, R korova, but PS sÈ µrn-aµ- “deer”. PB kaµrw-eµ- “cow”, OPr.curwis, Li. kaårve ≥, but PB sÈ µrn-aµ- ÏÏ stÈ µrnaµ-, OPr. sirwis, La. o. sirna, Li. stÈ`rna. PIE*kñer-wo- “horned”. Cf. Alb. ka–qe “bull; sg.–pl.”, Gk. keraos, Lat. cervus “deer”.

PS gil-ta-, LCS z˚È Σltu Σ, R z˚e¨ltyj “yellow”, but PS zel-e-na-, zal-ta-, OCS zelenuΣ “green”, LCSzolto, R zoloto “gold”. PB gelta-, OPr. gelatynan, La. dzelts, Li. geltoånas “yellow”, butPB z˚el-ta-, Li. z˚eålti “grow green”. PIE *gñíel-. Cf. Gk. khoålos, –eµå “gall”, OHG galla.

Table 3: Discrepant dorsals in Slavic and Baltic


142–143) mentions some thirty; Steensland (1973) examines around seventy;Go¬a ∫b (1991:79–91) identifies about sixty. Some of the roots are attested onlywith velar reflexes in Slavic or Baltic, while others occur with different variantsin Slavic and Baltic, or with both velar and sibilant reflexes in one or morelanguages or language groups. Table 3 displays a sample.

Since these discrepant dorsals were first identified in the 1800s, scholarshave attempted to explain them, in the main, in three different ways, throughsound change, borrowing, and language shift—though also expressive oraffective deformation has been considered (see Shevelov 1965:143).

Sound change. Several explanations have been proposed which leavevarying numbers of examples unaccounted for; see Stang (1966:91–92). Arather intricate one is that of Kortlandt (1978); it is accepted in spirit byGamkrelidze & Ivanov (1984:109–114) and by Beekes (1995:109–112).

Kortlandt posits a number of conditioned sound changes of palatals tovelars and labiovelars to velars, which result in neutralizations in a variety ofenvironments. This sets the stage for analogical levelings, which producedifferent results from lexeme to lexeme and from one dialect to another, as wellas instances of semantic differentiation, reflected in such doublets as OCS kloniti“to bow, bend”, LCS sloniti “to lean” (PS klan-È µ-, slan-È µ-), Li. akmuo ≈ “stone”,as˚muo ≈ “knife edge” (PB ak-moµn-, as˚-moµn-). Kortlandt’s sound changes aremore or less plausible. The motivation for the supposed analogical changes is leftto the reader’s imagination and seems problematic in many cases.

Still, this attempt at an explanation would be hard to reject were it not fortwo circumstances. First, it is clear that in the analogical levelings, Slavic andBaltic predominantly favored velars whereas Indo-Iranian favored palatals.Kortlandt’s account does not explain why this would be so. His explanation,then, in essence trades a phonological problem for an analogical mystery (or foras many mysteries as there are lexemes), and it does this at the cost of severalotherwise uncalled-for hypothetical sound changes. Secondly, what needs to beaccounted for is not just the irregular correspondences, but also very significantdifferences in their geographical distribution. In a sample of 75 lexemes withdiscrepant dorsals in one or more of the Slavic and Baltic language areas, velarsare attested with the numbers 22 (Latvian) : 14 (Lithuanian) : 17 (Slavic),sibilants with the numbers 24 : 10 : 19, and lexical doublets or variants withvelar ÏÏ sibilant, with the numbers 10 : 48 : 7. The much greater concentration oflexemes with dual reflexes in Lithuanian than in Latvian or Slavic has to berecognized as an explanandum.

Borrowing. Some scholars have preferred considering the discrepantdorsals the result of borrowing from neighboring centum dialects, Germanic,Venetic-Illyrian, or West-Indo-European. Trubac˚ev (1979–, s.vv.) generally

56 HENNING ANDERSEN

rejects such explanations, but accepts culturally motivated borrowing for somelexemes. An example is PS kaµrw-aµ-, PB kaµrw-eµ- “cow” (see Table 3). This he([1979–] vol. 11, 1984:106–112) considers a borrowing from Celtic (caravos“deer”, read as *kar´wos), supposedly introduced as an explicit metaphor for“cow” together with the practice of drinking cow’s milk. But—leaving aside themilk hypothesis—the denotata of these lexemes must have been well-establishedamong Slavs and Balts from time immemorial, given their familiarity withstockbreeding since the time of their pastoralist forefathers. This is true, too,mutatis mutandis, of the word for “goose”, which Trubac˚ev thinks is a culturalborrowing. Wild geese have a wide occurrence in Eurasia and are extremelyeasily domesticated, leaving little reason to suppose the word for “goose”, LCSgo ∫sÈ Σ “goose” PS gan-s-i- was borrowed. In this instance, the existence of Udzus’ “word used to call geese” shows that (some) (pre-)Slavic dialects had aninherited sat´m word (LCS d. zo ∫sÈ Σ) for “(domesticated) goose” just like the(pre-)Balts; cf. Table 3. Most of the supposed borrowings with discrepantdorsals call for similar comments.

Intrusion. Some scholars have felt that the best way to explain the irregularvelar reflexes is to attribute them to more intimate interaction with a centumsubstratum or superstratum some time in the distant past. Investigators earlypointed to Germanic as their likely source (see Kiparsky 1934:106), but only afew of the apparent centum words have Germanic correspondents (e.g., LCSbergu Σ “bank”, gordu Σ “(hill) fort”, go ∫sÈ Σ “goose”). Other scholars have explicitlyspoken of other, unknown centum dialects. Kiparsky sees no reason to think thediscrepant dorsals are not old, in which case they may have arisen in a lengthyperiod of contact between sat´m dialects and undifferentiated centum dialects(1934:108). Moszynåski (1957:18–22) and Go¬a ∫b (1991) are less explicit, butagree that the lexemes with discrepant dorsals are likely intrusions from anunknown centum substratum. There are actually several indications for this, bothfor Slavic and for Baltic. Consider the following, (i)–(iii).

(i) The character of the centum vocabulary that persisted through thesubstratum speakers’ language shift—everyday words having to do withstockbreeding (“cow”, “herd”, “hoof”, “calve”, “feed”), house building (“rod”,“palisade”, “fence in”, “storehouse”, “corner post”), tools (“scythe”, “bobbin”),kinship (“father-in-law”, “mother-in-law”), various verbs (“bend”, “ask”); cf.Gola∫b (1991:86–87);

(ii) The fact that there are different centum ingredients in Slavic and in theBaltic languages—“goose”, “father-in-law”, “bank”, etc. in Slavic, “cattle”,“cheek”, “ask” etc. in Baltic, and—as mentioned above—great numericaldifferences among the languages; and


(iii) Areal differences in word formation among the centum words, e.g.,ante-Slavic *gil-ta- “yellow” (PS GIL-TA-, LCS z˚È Σltu Σ), but ante-Baltic *gel-ta-“yellow” (PB GEL-TA-, Li. geltoånas), ante-Slavic *kñeh2-moµn- “stone” (PS kaµ-maµn-, LCS kamy), but ante-Baltic *h2ek ñ-moµn- “stone” (PB ak-moµn-, Li.akmuo≈).

A centum substratum is obviously not the only conceivable source of thediscrepant dorsals. One should acknowledge the possibility that the pre-Slavic–Baltic sat´m speakers colonized areas inhabited by pre-sat´m speakers,that is, speakers of a less advanced stage of their own form of speech. Thiswould make it easier to understand one additional peculiarity, viz. (iv) theexistence, in Lithuanian, of sets of lexical velar ÏÏ sibilant doublets, showing onlya connotative difference in meaning, e.g., kvan ≈ks˚ti ‡ s˚van ≈ks˚ti “breathe heavily”,kum ≈pis ‡ s˚um ≈pis “ham”, kreke¨åti ‡ kres˚e¨åti “to get strong”, gnyåbti ‡ z˚nyåbti “topinch”, sliau≈gti ‡ sliau≈zti “to crawl” (Otre∫bski 1958:333). The pattern of soundsubstitution in these doublets is not phonesthetically motivated in synchronicterms in either modern Lithuanian or Proto-Baltic (k ‡ s˚, g ‡ z˚). But it wouldhave been at an earlier stage, when the alternants were k ‡ kñ, g ‡ gñ. This suggeststhat these examples are remnants of a (once productive?) pattern of expressiveword formation involving an interchange of velar and palatal plosives, a patterngoing back to before the Sat´m Assibilation (Otre ∫bski 1958:334; cf. Stang1966:93). One can imagine that such an exploitation of the phonemic distinctionof velars and palatals could easily arise in communities in which closelyrelated—pre-sat´m and sat´m—traditions of speaking were being intertwined.

Discussion. Although most scholars would prefer to have just oneexplanation for the discrepant velar reflexes, there is really nothing to precludethe possibility that some of the words have one explanation and others, another.Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1984:421) consider some items internally developed(that is, through sound change and analogy), and others centum borrowings. Buta combination of borrowing and intrusions is just as possible. Language shiftcan easily be preceded and/or followed by a borrowing relation.

Shevelov pooh-poohs the substratum idea, saying that “As for theunknown centum-language ® since it is unknown ® [this explanation] cannotbe either proved or disproved” (1965:145). But in reality none of theseexplanation types is more clearly subject to proof or disproof than the others.Once we understand this we should abandon the long-standing practice of tryingto resolve every issue on its own, in isolation from other issues, in accordancewith the out-dated, nineteenth-century methodological principle of atomism.Where there is no hope of finding empirical corroboration or invalidation of ourhypotheses—such as when we are dealing with the distant past—we should try

58 HENNING ANDERSEN

to explore to what extent possible hypothetical interpretations of different sets ofdata can be shown to cohere with one another.

In the paragraphs above I enumerated four particulars that, however feebly,speak in favor of a substratum account of the discrepant dorsals. It is interestingthat there are other irregular reflexes of Proto-Indo-European palatals (Baltic st)that appear to point to another, sat´m substratum. This should increase ourconfidence that this approach to interpretation is appropriate.

2.2 The Ruki ChangeThe Ruki Change is significantly related to the centum (or pre-sat´m)

intrusions. The change of PIE *s to PS x, PB *s˚ /{i, u, r, k} appears to precedethe earliest phonological change known to yield different outcomes in Slavic andBaltic. The allophonic part of the change, which preceded the Sat´m Assibilation,was undoubtedly the same as in Indo-Iranian, viz. the development of a retroflex[s\] allophone in the Ruki environments. In the Sat´m Assibilation, this retroflex[s\] allophone first merged with pre-Slavic–Baltic *kñ before obstruent;subsequently, in other environments, *kñ was identified with the principal [s]allophone in Slavic (PS s), but with the retroflex [s\] in Baltic (PB s˚) (cf.Andersen 1968); see Table 4.

Proto-Slavic Proto-Baltic

*s *kñ *s *kñ

After i, u, r, kbefore obstruent s s s˚ s˚

before vowel or sonorant x s s˚ s˚Elsewhere s s s s˚

Table 4: Reflexes of PIE *s and *kñ in Slavic and Baltic

Later on, in recent prehistory, most known Baltic dialects merged hushingwith hissing sibilants; they are sometimes called ‘sigmatic dialects’. Now onlyLithuanian preserves the s : s˚ and z : z˚ distinctions. However, Lithuanian isspoken on a substratum of sigmatic dialects, and as a consequence, all Lithuaniandialects, including the standard language, have some lexemes with s, z asreflexes of PIE *kñ, *gñ(h) and with s for PIE *s in the Ruki environments; cf.Zinkevicius (1966:147–148, 1987:19, 24, 26, 35, 40), Mayer (1994, 1996); thearchaeological evidence of the population movements in the 400s–800s, bywhich Lithuanian spread into its current areas, is summarized in Volkaite≥-Kulikau-skiene ≥ 1987:154–160; see also Andersen (1996:58–61). Since suchsigmatic forms result from language contact, apparent exceptions to the RukiChange in Lithuanian cannot be taken at face value. To take an example that is


relevant to the topic at hand, the lack of a Ruki reflex in Li. klausyåti “ask” (OPr.klausiton “hear”, PB klau-s-È µ-?) in Table 3 may be an indication that this centum(or pre-sat´m) intrusion was adopted after the Ruki Change, but it does not proveit, for the word may have undergone both the Ruki Change (PB klau-s-È µ-?) andthe s > s change before entering Lithuanian from the sigmatic substratum.

Slavic, on the other hand, has preserved its Ruki reflex of PIE *s, retracted(from *s\) to the reconstructed PS x, and eventually modified by the severalpalatalizations of velars in Slavic prehistory (yielding LCS s˚ and så or s reflexesbesides unchanged x); it has also been extended to morphological environmentswhere it did not arise through the Ruki Change (Shevelov 1965:131, Andersen1968).

Now, here is the thing. While Slavic has several dozen lexemes withdiscrepant velar reflexes of Proto-Indo-European palatals, as we saw in Section2.1, there are no exceptions to the Ruki Change other than in recent accessions;see Shevelov (1965:131). This fact severely limits the possible interpretations ofthe discrepant dorsals. If a significant number of discrepant-dorsal lexemes wasadopted after the Ruki Change, one would expect them to be a subset of a muchlarger number of accessions, comprising both criterial (with discrepant dorsals)and non-criterial lexemes, and among both subsets one would expect to findsome with unchanged PIE *s in Ruki environments, in the style of Li. klausyåti“ask”. But the Slavic languages appear to have none. This can only mean that thediscrepant-dorsal lexemes, and the contemporary non-criterial lexemes, wereintroduced before the Ruki Change, that is, at the latest at a time when Rukiretroflection was allophonic and was applied to any new material that was inte-grated into the language. Examples would be PS kermaux-, PB kerm(a)us˚- inTable 3, discrepant-dorsal intrusions with Ruki reflexes in both Slavic and Baltic.

To put it differently, although one cannot exclude the possibility that someof the lexemes from the discrepant-dorsals stratum are post-Ruki Changeaccessions, the absence of any Slavic lexemes with PIE *s unaffected by theRuki Change suggests that (most of) the discrepant-dorsal ingredients wereadopted before the Sat´m Assibilation.

This inference corroborates the interpretation of the Lithuanian k ÏÏ s˚, g ÏÏ z ˚doublets proposed in Section 2.1.2: they were formed before the Sat´mAssibilation. At the same time it raises doubt about Go¬a ∫b’s account of thecentum ingredients (see Section 1.2.3), which was constructed without anyattention to the Ruki Change.

2.3 Dual reflexes of syllabic sonorantsBoth Slavic and Baltic have dual reflexes of Proto-Indo-European syllabic

sonorants. For reconstructed PIE *mò, *nò, *l ò, *r ò (abbreviated Rò) we have

60 HENNING ANDERSEN

reflexes of PS, PB im, in, ir, il (iR) and um, un, ur, ul (uR) in the various attestedlanguages. As in the case of the discrepant dorsals, Slavic and Baltic haveslightly different lexical distributions of iR and uR reflexes. In a sample of 215lexemes shared by Slavic and Baltic, 36 (17%) are attested only with uR reflexes,22 (10%) with both reflexes in the same language or language group, or withone in Slavic and the other in Baltic, and the remaining 157 (73%) are attestedonly with iR. See Table 5. As one might expect, these dual reflexes have beenapproached in several ways.

Sound change. The phonetic difference between the two sets of reflexesnaturally suggests that they are phonologically conditioned. Kury¬owicz(1956:227–242) surveyed the lexical sample included in Trautmann’s (1924)Balto-Slavic dictionary, but found no phonologically consistent distribution,except that in one position—following a reflex of PIE *k ñ, *gñ, or *gñí—Slavic andBaltic have only iR reflexes. Shevelov (1965:86–91) presents a fuller and moredetailed analysis of the Slavic data, but in the end demonstrates only that thedistribution of the dual reflexes is not reducible to phonological conditioning.

Language shift. In Stang’s judgement (1966:79), Kury¬owicz’s statisticsproved only that iR reflexes are much more frequent than uR reflexes, but Stangmade some additional observations. First, Slavic and Baltic grammaticalmorphemes have iR reflexes, but no uR reflexes. Secondly, iR reflexes participatein productive ablaut alternations, but uR reflexes do not. The inference to bedrawn from these observations is that the iR reflexes are part of the Slavic–Balticlinguistic heritage. Significantly, this dovetails with the fact that only iR reflexesoccur after Proto-Indo-European palatals. Far from being a case of phonologicalconditioning, the correlation of sat´m reflexes and iR reflexes simply tells us thatin these sat´m dialects, iR was the regular result of the diphthongization ofsyllabic sonorants.

But how are the uR reflexes to be explained, then?First of all, the Slavic and Baltic discrepant-dorsal words include items

with PIE *Rò. Some of these have uR reflexes: SC krdo (similarly Sn, Sk), LCSku Σrdo “herd, flock”, PS kurda- (cf. PS kerdaµ- in Table 3). Others have iRreflexes: OCS kle∫ti–klÈ Σno∫ se∫ “take an oath” (PS klin-, cf. klan-È µ- “bend” in Table3); LCS zÈ ΣltuΣ “yellow” (cf. PS gilta- in Table 3), LCS z˚È ΣrdÈ Σ “rod” (PS girdi-; cf.PS garda- in Table 3). However, this is precisely the same distribution one findsin lexemes in which syllabic sonorants are preceded by other segments. Here,too, uR reflexes—e.g., La. pur ∆ns “lip”, Li. burna` (PB purna- ÏÏ burnaµ-; cf.Section 3.2), OPr. dumsle “bladder”, Li. dumti “to blow” (PB dum-, cf. PS dum-, OCS do ∫ti–du Σmo ∫ “to blow”), OPr. lunkan, La. lu ∆ks, Li. lu`nkas “bast” (PBluµnka-, cf. PS luµka-, LCS lyko)—contrast the iR reflexes—e.g., OPr. pirmas


PS pÈ µr-wa-, LCS pÈ Σrvu Σ “first”, R pervyj. PB pÈ µr-ma-, OPr. pirmas “first”, La. pÈ`rmaÈ ≈s, Li.pÈ`rmas. PIE *pr-h-wo-/-mo-. Cf. Skt. puµrva-, Av. paurva-, OE forwost.

PS gÈ µrnuµ-, LCS z˚È Σrny–z˚È Σrnu Σve “handmill, quern”, R z˚e¨rnov. PB gÈ µrnaµ-, OPr. girnoywis“quern”, La. dzir ≈nas, Li. gÈ`rnos. PIE *gîerh-. Skt. graµåvan- “muller”, Arm. erkan, Go.(asilu-)qairnus, OHG kuerna.

PS kuµrp-jaµ-, LCS d. ku Σrplja “shoe”, Sn. kråplje “snowshoes”. PB kuµrp-jaµ-, OPr. kurpe “shoe”,La. kur ≈pe, Li. ku`rpe ≥. PIE *kerh1p-. Cf. Gk. kreµpis “high boot”, Lat. carpisculum “shoe”.

PS duµm-, OCS do ∫ti—du Σmo ∫ “blow”, R dut’. PB duµm-, OPr. dumsle “bladder”, Li. du`mti“blow”. PIE *díu-m-. Cf. Skt. dhaåmati “blows”, Gk. thuµmos, Lat. fuµmus “smoke”.

PB er-um-beµ-, Li. d. jerumbe≥≈ “grouse”. But PS er-im-bi-, LCS jere∫bÈ Σ “grouse”. PIE *h3er-n\-bí-. Cf. Go. ara, Gk. oårnis “bird”, Hitt. hÀaras˚, hÀaranas˚ “eagle”.

PS un-, OCS vu Σ(n) “in”. But PB in-, Li. i ∫, in ≈- “in”. PIE *nò.PS kur-a-, LCS ku Σru Σ “root; bush”. But PB kir-na-, OPr. kirno “bush”, Li. kÈ`rna “stump”. PIE

*kîer-. Cf. La. ceçrs, Li. ke ≈ras “bush”PS gin- LCS z˚e ∫ti–z˚È Σmo ∫ “cut, harvest”. PB gun-, OPr. guntwei “drive”, but PB gin-, gin-tla-,

Li. gin ≈ti “strike, drive”, gin ≈klas “weapon”. PIE *gîíen-. Cf. Skt. haånti “slays”, Hitt.ku‚enzi “kills”, Gk. theÈånoµ, Ir. benim “strike”, Lat. deµfendoµ.

PS tim-aµ-, OCS tÈ Σma “darkness”. PB tum-saµ-, La. tu`msa “darkness”, Li. d. tumsa`, st. tamsa`“idem”, but PB tim-saµ-, La. tÈ`msa “darkness”. PIE *tem(h)-. Cf. Skt. taåmas- “darkness”,Av. t´mah-, OIr. temel, Lat. tenebrae, OHG de¨mar “twilight”.

PS stulba-, LCS stu Σlbu Σ “post”. PB stulba-, Li. stul≈pas “pillar”, La. stu`lbs “shin”, but PBstilba-, La. stil ≈bs “forearm”. PIE *stel-bí-/ *stel-p-. Cf. ON stolpi “post”.

PS guµr-tla-, LCS gu Σrdlo “throat”, but PS gi r-, OCS z˚È Σro ∫ “swallow, eat”. PB guµr-tla-, Li.gurkly ≈s “idem”, but PB gÈ µr-, Li. gÈ`rtas “drunk”. PIE *gîíerh3- . Cf. Skt. gÈ å rat i“swallows”, Av. gar- “swallowing-“, Arm. kerÈå “I ate”, Gk. bibroµåskoµ “eat”, Lat. voroµ.

Table 5: Dual reflexes of syllabic sonorants

“first”, La. pÈ`rmaÈ ≈s, Li. pÈ`rmas (PB pÈ µrma-, cf. PS pirwa-, LCS pÈ Σrvu Σ), Li.tingu`s “heavy” (PB tingu-, cf. PS tingu-ka- LCS te ∫gu Σku Σ), OPr. limtwei “ tobreak”, Li. lÈ`mti (cf. PS lem-È µ- “to break”, LS lemicå)—not to mention word-initial PS un, OCS vuΣ(n) “in(to), but PB in, La. È µ, Li. i ∫ “in(to)”.

This suggests that all the lexemes with uR reflexes (or with uR ÏÏ iRdoublets) reflect contact with dialects in which syllabic sonorants had a differentdevelopment. Perhaps there was an areal difference between the dialects fromwhich discrepant-dorsal lexemes were adopted—some having changed syllabicsonorants to *uR (as in Germanic), others to *iR. Or there may have been achronological difference: early accessions from substratum dialects with syllabicsonorants would be diphthongized to *iR, whereas later accessions, when the(pre-) Slavic–Baltic dialects no longer had syllabic sonorants, were adopted withu-diphthongs (uR) in (pre-)Slavic–Baltic. Here it has to be understood that someaccessions were mere variants of inherited pre-Slavic or pre-Baltic items.

Stang (1966:79–80) made an additional, important observation about BalticiR and uR diphthongs, which is relevant also to Slavic: many words containinguR diphthongs in these languages have expressive value, they are lexemesmeaning (i) “fat”, “dumb”, “lazy”, “clumsy”, (ii) “crooked, bent”, (iii) “crippled,decrepit”, (iv) “dark”, “dirty”, or (v) they are onomatopoeic. These are semantic

62 HENNING ANDERSEN

categories in which other languages too have u + sonorant combinations (cf.Eng. plump, dumb, bungle, bulky, clumsy, glum, dumpy, sulky, blunder, blunt,etc.; Gm. dumm, dumpf, stumm, stumpf, plump, etc.). They evidently reflect auniversal sense–sound connection (Jakobson & Waugh 1979:179, 184–187, seealso Rhodes and Lawler 1981). Hence they may have been innovated at varioustimes during the long prehistory of these languages and, if so, have no bearingon the (pre-)Slavic–Baltic diphthongizations of PIE *Rò to PS, PB iR.

Still, among the possibly expressive words with iR/uR diphthongs thereare some doublets; see Table 4. In such pairs, the iR-forms can be taken as anindication that before the diphthongization, they had a syllabic *R\ in the pre-Slavic–Baltic sat´m dialects. After the diphthongization, iR nuclei might havebeen subject to expressive replacement with uR, motivated by the universalphonesthetic value of the back-vowel diphthong. But also, in any contactsituation with a closely related *Rò > uR dialect, uR and iR variants would haveoccurred in usage side by side, and the same motivation would have supported apreference for the variants with uR.

2.4 Word-initial laryngealsThe regular reflexes of initial laryngeal + *e in Slavic and Baltic are PS,

PB e- for PIE *h1e- and PS, PB a- for *h2e- and *h3e-. However, in a numberof lexemes Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic have irregular reflexes of such initialsequences. There are two cases to consider.

2.4.1 Rozwadowski’s Change. In a number of lexemes, Proto-Slavic and/orProto-Baltic have initial e- or doublets with initial e- ÏÏ a- for PIE *h2e- and*h3e-, a peculiarity first described by Rozwadowski (1915). See Table 6.

It must be mentioned that both language groups have had a change inrecent prehistory (perhaps around the beginning of our era) of initial e- to a- withcharacteristic geographical distributions of the reflexes, disturbed, however, bythe Slavic territorial expansion as well as by the westward displacement of theLithuanians (cf. Section 2.2). The reflexes of this recent change are: in Slavic,mainly o- in Russian, otherwise commonly o- in central dialects, je- in peripheralSlavic dialects; in Baltic, mainly a- in Old Prussian, in eastern Lithuanian dialectsa-, elsewhere in Lithuanian and in Latvian, e-). Although the recent changesobscure the reflexes of the proto-language initials somewhat, the distinctionbetween PS and PB e- and a- is clear enough, and it is clear as well that therecent changes affected PS, PB e- from *h1e- and from *h2e- and *h3e- on equalterms (Andersen 1996:88–112).

Remarkably, most of the examples of Rozwadowski’s Change showmorphological differences between the Slavic and Baltic languages. Consider the


difference between PS al-k-u-ti- and PB el-k-uµ-n-eµ- “elbow”, both apparentlysharing one layer of derivation and then diverging. Or consider the differencebetween PS el-i-x-aµ- ÏÏ al-i-x-aµ- and PB el-s-ni- ÏÏ al-s-ni- “alder”, where themorphological difference provided different environments for the Ruki Change.

PS al-k-u-ti- “elbow”, LCS olku ΣtÈ Σ, R lokot’. PB el-k-uµ-n-eµ- ÏÏ al-k-uµ-n-eµ- “elbow”, OPr.alkunis, La. e`çlkuons, Li. alkuµåne ≥, d. elkuµåne ≥. PIE *hxh3-el-. Cf. Skt. aratnÈå-, Av. ar´thna-,Gr. oµleåneµ, oµllon, Lat. ulna (*olenaµ), OIr. uÈålen, Go. aleina, OHG elina.

PS el-au-a- ÏÏ al-au-a- “lead (Pb)”, Bg. o. elav(o), elsewhere *o-: R olovo. PB eµl-u-a- ÏÏ aµl-u-a,OPr. elwas ‘tin’, alwis “lead”, La. al ∆vs “tin”, Li. aålvas “idem”.

PS elix-aµ- ÏÏ al-i-x-aµ- “alder”, R ol’xa, SC jels˚a, d. jelha. PB el-s-ni- ÏÏ al-s-ni- ÏÏ al-is-ni-“alder”, OPr. alisknas («Abskande»), La. a`lksna, Li. el ≈ksnis, alÈ`ksnis. Ante-IE *al(V)s-.Cf. Mac. aålidza (Hesych.), Lat. ulnus (*alisnos), OHG elira, Gm. Erle, ON o ∫lr, jo ∫lstr“willow”, Fr. alise “rowanberry” (< Gaul. *alisia).

PS epsaµ- ÏÏ apsaµ- “aspen Populus tremula”, R osa, osina. PB ep(u)s˚eµ- ÏÏ apseµ-, OPr abse, La.apse, Li. a ≈pus˚e, e ≈pus˚e (contaminated with pus˚i`s “pine”). Ante-IE (?) *asp-. Cf. OHGaspa.

PS erila- ÏÏ arila- “eagle” LS jerjo¬, elsewhere *o-: R ore¨l. PB erelia-, OPr. arelie, La. e`rglis,Li. ere ≈lis. PIE *h3er-. Cf. Go. ara, Eng. erne, Gk. oårnis “bird”, Hitt. hÀaras˚, hÀaranas˚“eagle”.

PS eseraµ- “prickly stuff”, P d. jesiora “fish bone”. PB es˚eria- ÏÏ as˚eria- “perch Percafluvialis”, La. asers, Li. es˚ery ≈s. PIE *h2ekñ-er-o-. Cf. OHG ahira, Gm. A¨hre, Eng. ear (ofgrain), PIE *h2ekñ-er-aµ-. Slavic and Baltic have a- in the underlying adjective and all otherderivatives: OCS ostru Σ “pointed”, Li. astru`s “idem”.

PS eseti-, P d. jesiecå “grain sieve”, R oset’ “grain rack”. PB eketiaµ- “harrow”, OPr. aketes, La.eceµs˚as, Li. ake¨åc˚ios, d. eke¨åc˚ios. PIE *h2ekñ-. Cf. OHG egida, Lat. occa (< *otekaµ ‹ *oketaµ),Gk. oksina (Hesych.).

Table 6: PS, PB e- for PIE *h2e-, *h3e-

Or note the different ablaut grades in PS el-au-a- ÏÏ al-au-a- and PB el-u-a- ÏÏ al-u-a- “tin”, or the sat´m and centum (pre-sat´m) reflexes of PIE *kñ in PS es-e-ti-“rack” and PB ek-e-ti-aµ- “harrow”. All these differences must have developedsubsequent to Rozwadowski’s Change. If one assumes the contrary, it isimpossible to understand why a change in a word-initial vowel would haveaffected predominantly (actually seven out of eleven) synonymous lexemes withmorphologically distinct by-forms in different (ante-)Slavic–Baltic dialects whileleaving dozens of other lexemes with initial PS, PB a - untouched. Themorphological differences clearly go back to before the Sat´m Change (cf.“harrow”) and the Ruki Change (cf. “alder”) and remind one of themorphological differences among the centum (pre-sat´m) accessions mentionedin Section 2.1.2. One can conclude, then, that Rozwadowski’s Change is olderthan the dialectal differentiation reflected in these morphological differences.

Even more remarkable, considering the early date of the change, is this: ifthe Rozwadowski lexemes are plotted on a virtual map—assuming the samegeographical disposition of (pre-)Latvian, (pre-)Lithuanian and Common Slavic

64 HENNING ANDERSEN

as at the beginning of our era—one can discern (or construe) spatial relationsamong the e- ÏÏ a- reflexes which, if they are not a mirage, amount to a palereflection of the change’s extension in a central region of a presumable ante-Slavic–Baltic dialect continuum. In Slavic, the e- doublets in PS elaua- anderila-, which are limited to one language each, may have been northern beforethe migrations, that is, contiguous to Baltic (or quasi-Baltic) dialects with e-.Otherwise a- variants occur mostly in western Slavic dialects; in Baltic, there aremore a- doublets in Latvian than in Lithuanian, and more in Old Prussian than inthe East Baltic languages (Andersen 1996:99–101).

This virtual geographical difference is similar to the differences in thedistribution of lexical doublets with velar and sibilant reflexes of PIE *kñ, *gñ(h)

(Section 2.1.2), where a central area represented by Lithuanian shows a greaterconcentration of discrepant dorsals than the peripheral areas to the north(Latvian) and south (Common Slavic).

There is no way of accounting for Rozwadowski’s Change as a purelyphonological change in pre-Slavic and pre-Baltic (Andersen 1996:103). But ofcourse the discrepant PS, PB e- forms may reflect a regular change in some ante-Slavic–Baltic dialect. If they are to be understood as intrusions, as theirgeographical distribution suggests, there are several possible interpretations. Themost likely seems to be that (i) the e- forms reflect substratum dialects with amarkedly different realization of open vowels than the prevailing dialects. If thesubstratum had, say, e [‰] vs. a [a], but the prevailing dialect e [æ] vs. a [ƒ],individual substratum forms with a [a] might have been interpreted by speakersof the prevailing dialect as having e [æ]. Or (ii) perhaps they reflect a substratumthat after the loss of laryngeals had merged its low vowels in [æ]. In such asituation, substratum variants without the (initial) vowel distinctions might easilyintrude into the tradition of the prevailing dialect. (See further Andersen1996:111–112.) Be this as it may, the fact of the change and the pale reflection ofits apparent geographical distribution are data that point to a distant ante-Slavic–Baltic substratum.

2.4.2 Initial PS k-. In a small number of lexemes the Slavic languages have aninitial k- of uncertain origin, in part with correspondences in other Indo-European languages, in one lexeme with doublets within Slavic; see Table 7.Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1984:129–132) have attempted to give a phonologicalaccount of these correspondences, positing a separate phoneme, PIE *q(postvelar or uvular) and supposing that this stop consistently either merged withanother phoneme or was lost in the attested languages. But their account does notexplain why this segment would have irregular reflexes in all the lexemes inwhich it is posited and in all the languages in which it has reflexes; see Table 7.


In fact, since the posited *q has no basis in regular correspondences at all, it is,as the authors duly acknowledge, very speculative.

It would be more realistic to ascribe the doublets to interaction betweendialects with segmental realizations of (initial) laryngeals and dialects with noexact match for these and substituting k- for them. Note that from a semanticpoint of view, all of the examples except Gk. keµ≈pos “monkey” (and its cognates),which is an obvious Wanderwort, would be typical intrusions. Though of coursea Wanderwort could easily be present in a substratum and intrude into aprevailing dialect to which it was previously unknown.

PS kasti- “bone”, OCS kostÈ Σ. Lat. costa, Hitt. h…as˚tai. But Lat. os–ossis, Skt. aåsthi, Av. asti-,Gk. osteåon, Alb. asht, ashte¨. PIE *h3est-.

PS kazaµ- “goat”, OCS koza. Alb. keth, OE heµcen “kid”. But PS aµz(i)na-, ChS (j)azÈ Σno“(goat-)skin”, Li. oz˚y ≈s (PB aµz˚ia-), Skt. ajaåh\, MIran. asak. PIE *h2egñ-.

PS kal-eµn-a- “knee”, OCS kole˚no. Li. kele¨ånas, ke ≈lis “knee”, Hitt. h…alii ‚a- “kneel”, Gk. koµåleµps“back of knee”. But PS alkuti-, OCS laku ΣtÈ Σ, Li. uolektÈ`s, alkuµåne ≥, Lat. ulna (‹ *olinaµ), Gk.oµleåneµ, Skt. aµn\È µåh\ “thigh” (‹ *olnis), aratnÈ µ åh \ “elbow” (‹ *oln-tn-). PIE *hxeh3-l- ‡*hxh3-el-.

Gk. kaåruon “nut”, Panj. karuaµ (‹ *karu-k). But OCS ore˚xu Σ, Li. ruos˚uty ≈s, Gk. aårua, Alb. aårreµ.PIE *h2er ‡ h2r-.

Go. hatan, hatis “hate; hatred”, W cawdd “anger”, cas “anger”, Osc. cadeis “enmity; g.sg.”.But Lat. oµdi–oµsus “hate”, Gk. oduås(s)asthai “get angry”, Arm. ateam “hate”, OE atol“ugly”. PIE *h3ed-.

Lat. coµram “face to face”. But Skt. aµåh\–aµsah\ “mouth”, Av. aµh-, Lat. oµs–oµris, MIr. aå “mouth;gen.sg.”, Hitt. ais˚–is˚s˚as˚, ON oåss “river mouth”.

Gk. keµ≈pos (keµ≈pos), Skt. kapÈå- “monkey”. But ON api, OW apa, Celt. abraånos (Hesych.).

Table 7: Initial PS k- for PIE *hx-

The doublets OCS koza “goat” ÏÏ LCS (j)azÈ Σno “(goat-)skin” deservespecial comment.

LCS (j)azÈ Σno (PS aµz-in-a-) and its derivatives (jazÈ ΣnenuΣ “of skin, leather”,jazÈ ΣnjarjÈ Σ “tanner”) are attested only in Serbian Church Slavic and RussianChurch Slavic; they were evidently limited to a small area before as well as afterthe Slavic expansion. LCS (j)azÈ Σno is itself derived, but it has no base word inSlavic. The base word is present in all the Baltic languages: OPr. Woasis, La.a∆zs, Li. oz˚y≈s m., oz˚ka ` f.

On the other hand, OCS koza has numerous derivatives, some of whichsupersede those of (j)azÈ Σno (ChS kozanuΣ “of skin, leather”, kozevÈ ΣnikuΣ “tanner”).Most prominent among its derivatives is OCS kozÈ ΣluΣ “billy-goat” (PS kaz-il-a-),formed with an uncommon, unproductive suffix (S¬awski 1974:113).

PS, PB aµz- corresponds to PIE *h2egñ- (cf. Skt. ajaå- “billy-goat”, ajaµå-“goat”, ajÈåna- “goatskin”) and shows vowel lengthening (prior to the Sat´mAssibilation) according to Winter’s Law (pace Campanile 1994). OCS koza, onthe other hand, is impossible to etymologize as part of the inherited lexical stock

66 HENNING ANDERSEN

of Slavic (Trubac˚ev [1979–] vol. 12, 1985:19–21). But if we suppose it is anintrusion, both its irregular initial, and its exceptional lack of Winter lengtheningbecome understandable. And so, perhaps, does its odd suffix, which is almost asisolated, lexically, in Baltic (Otre∫bski 1965:121) as in Slavic.5

The lexemes with k- for PIE *h2, *h3 are few, but sufficiently widespreadamong the Indo-European languages to call for a single explanation. If one canextrapolate from PS kazaµ-, the Slavic k-lexemes were current in ante-SlavicIndo-European dialects spoken in areas that became Slavic speaking. They mayhave arisen in interaction between early Indo-European speakers who had(initial) laryngeals and non-Indo-European speakers who rendered these with k-.If this interpretation is to be extended to other Indo-European areas, one has tohypothesize that there, too, the Indo-European-speaking groups we know settledin areas that already had Indo-European-speaking populations and perhaps hadhad them for a long time. We will return to this seemingly reasonable hypothesisimmediately below.

3. ConclusionsIn the preceding pages we have examined several sets of irregular

correspondences that point to a series of Indo-European, ante-Slavic–Balticstrata, (i)–(v):

(i) Baltic st for PIE *kñ in Baltic (Section 2.1.1);(ii) Slavic and Baltic velars for PIE *kñ, *gñ(h) (Section 2.1.2);(iii) Slavic and Baltic uR diphthongs for PIE *R\ (Section 2.3);(iv) Slavic and Baltic e- for PIE *h2e-, *h3e- (Section 2.4.1);(v) Slavic k- for PIE *h2-, *h3- (Section 2.4.2).Judging by their character, all but (i) may be centum substrata, and all but

(i) may be pre-sat´m dialects. While (ii) and (iii) may include both centum andpre-sat´m dialects, this distinction may not be relevant to strata (iv), and (v).These two strata reflect a considerable morphological differentiation of the ante-Slavic–Baltic dialects. Judging by the small numbers of examples in each, (iv)and (v) are earlier strata than (ii) and (iii). By its phonetic character, (v) alonesuggests contact with an ante-Indo-European substratum.

Taken together the data suggest the picture of successive waves of Indo-European-speaking settlers, each wave absorbing into its tradition of speakingelements of the local dialects as the locals adopted the phonologically more

5 To conserve space I omit discussion of Winter’s (1978) Law. Evidently the correspondencesit captures are easy to understand as the result of a regular sound change if such exceptions asPS wadaµ-, LCS voda “water” and PB wadaµ- in La. vada “forest bog” and several Slavic andBaltic toponyms (Schmid 1986) are understood as intrusions from ante-Slavic–Baltic Indo-European dialects.


advanced, prevailing dialect of the newcomers. (i) Some Baltic dialects overlaysat´m dialects with st for PIE *kñ. (ii) Slavic and Baltic dialects overlay pre-sat´mdialects as well as, presumably, centum dialects; both may have contributedlexemes with discrepant dorsals, PS, PB k, g for PIE *kñ, *gñ(h). (iii) Both pre-sat´m dialects and centum dialects may have been sources of PS, PB uRingredients. (iv) In a central area, Slavic and Baltic dialects overlay dialects withRozwadowski reflexes of PIE *h2e-, *h3e- from a much earlier substratum.(v) In one area, the Slavic tradition of speaking incorporated lexemes with PS k-for PIE *h2, *h3, perhaps going back to the earliest Indo-European contact withante-Indo-European speakers.

3.1 Supporting evidenceThe evidence for Indo-European strata preceding Slavic and Baltic that has

been presented here is perhaps not overwhelming. It will be strengthened if andwhen the criterial ingredients of the various strata, which are all we can identifyon phonological grounds, are correlated with contemporary non-criterialones—if that can be done. But the data that have been surveyed here are at leastsuggestive. As suggested in Section 2.1.2, it would be wrong to insist that everypart of the evidence for linguistic prehistory be firm enough to stand up in acourt of law. Indeed, we should not ask what our data can prove, for that may bevery little or nothing at all. We should ask what our data can tell us, and howwhat we can infer from our data might be consistent with what we can learn,perhaps equally hypothetically, from other sources.

To test our conclusions, then, we need to consider other perspectives onthe prehistorical development than the one reviewed here to see if they mightpoint to similar conclusions. I will mention three such perspectives, which shedlight on questions of geography, chronology, and substance.

3.1.1 The location of Slavs and Balts. First of all, it was assumed all along inSection 2 that the Slavic and Baltic dialects previously formed a dialectcontinuum in east central Europe (cf. Section 1.1), and that in this continuum,forerunner dialects of Latvian, of Lithuanian, and of Slavic had long been locatedrelative to one another more or less as they were on the eve of the Slavicexpansions, at the beginning of our era. This assumption was useful ininterpreting the geographical distribution of discrepant dorsals, of Rozwadowskireflexes, and of the Slavic k- for *h2, *h3 reflexes. There are other data thatspeak in favor of it.

It is generally recognized that there were close relations between Balticspeakers and Finnic speakers in prehistory, but the Slavs are not believed to have

68 HENNING ANDERSEN

had any contact with Finnic-speaking populations before their territorialexpansion in the Middle Ages.

It is interesting, then, to observe that the modern Slavic and East Balticlanguages all have lexemes in which the inherited distinction between word-initial tenues (ptk-obstruents) and mediae (bdg-obstruents) has been disturbed,resulting in dialectally distributed doublet forms. There are not many suchdoublets in Slavic (see Table 8), maybe a dozen (Shevelov 1965:364–366).There are more in Lithuanian; Otre ∫bski (1958:323–325) lists about fifty pairs.Latvian has rather many, some three hundred pairs, according to Endzelin(1923:23–24). There is some overlap from language to language in these sets(Schmalstieg & Jeµgers 1971:75).

PS kraµux-jaµ- Ï Ï graµux-jaµ- “pear”: LCS grus˚a, in Pb., P, Cz., Sk., Sn., U, Br., cf. R gruås˚a.But LCS krus˚a in Ka., P d., LS, US, SC, cf. Bg. kruås˚a. PB kreµus˚iaµ-, OPr. crausy, La.krau ∆sis, Li. kriaåus˚e ≥, d. kraåus˚e ≥ ≥.

PS kraux-È µ- Ï Ï graux-È µ- “crush”. LCS krus˚iti in OCS, P, Cz., Sn., SC, U, cf. R krus˚iåt’“destroy”. But LCS grus˚iti in Cz., SC, Bg. d., cf. R d. grus˚iåt’ “destroy, break; crush(psychologically)”.

PS kulpi- Ï Ï gulbi- “swan; heron”, LCS ku Σlpi Σ Ï Ï gu Σlbi Σ, P d. kie¬b “swan”, SC d. kuñf ”pelican”,SC d. guñb ”swan”. OPr. gulbis, La. gu`lbis, Li. gul≈be≥ “swan”. PIE *gîíelp-.

PS puµrnaµ- Ï Ï buµrnaµ- “lip”, LCS pu Σrna Ï Ï bu Σrna, Sk. perna, Bg. bu Σrna “lip”. La. pur ∆ns, d.pur ∆na “snout”, Li. burna` “mouthful”. PIE purhx-. Cf. Arm. beran “mouth”, Hitt. puri“lip”.

PS tup-ut-aµ- Ï Ï dup-ut-aµ- “stamp”, LCS tu Σpu Σtati Ï Ï du Σpu Σtati, P deptacå (thus West Slavic), Rtoptat’ (East and South Slavic). Cf. Cz. dupati “stamp”, PS daup-aµ-teµi, LCS dupati, La.d. dupe ∆tie ∆s “resound”, d. staupe “stamping of hooves”. PIE *tup-. Cf. Skt. tupaåti,tuåmpati “strike”, Gk. tuåptoµ (*tupjoµ) “strike”, tuåpos “stamp”.

Table 8: Slavic doublets with voiced and voiceless obstruents

Endzelin (1923:23–24) cautiously ascribed the Latvian doublets to thecenturies of contact between Latvian and Livonian, which like the other Finniclanguages lacks a tenuis vs. media opposition in word-initial position. Kiparsky(1968) more boldly reached back to the first contacts between Baltic and Finnicspeakers in the centuries after 2000 B.C., which are documented by thearchaeological record (Volkaite≥-Kulikauskiene≥ 1987:68). But while there is littledoubt about these contacts, which are evidenced by hundreds of Baltic lexicalingredients in the Finnic languages and a small number in Volga-Finnic, there isno comparable evidence of prehistorical contact between Slavic and Finnicspeakers. It is a question, then, how Slavic came by its discrepant-voicingdoublets. It does not make sense to imagine that such deviant lexeme shapes asthose in Table 8 filtered through Baltic-speaking areas from a Baltic–Finniccontact zone in the north to a presumable Baltic–Slavic transitional area in thesouth. It is more reasonable to suppose that these lexemes reflect an early,


relatively brief contact episode, possibly in an area where pre-Slavic speakerswere succeeded by pre-Lithuanian speakers, and these again by pre-Latvianspeakers, who have then remained in contact with Finnic down through thecenturies. Or perhaps a gradation in discrepant-voicing lexemes existed alreadyin the Indo-European substratum dialects that were absorbed into these Slavicand Baltic traditions of speaking?

Whichever way the discrepant-voicing doublets arose, their distributionacross these language areas is consistent with the idea that the spatial relationsamong the languages in these areas have been stable for thousands of years.3.1.2 Indo-European ingredients in Finnic. Secondly, one extremely usefulsidelight on the ante-Slavic–Baltic strata is the stratification of Indo-Europeaningredients in Finno-Ugric, especially Finnic. Indeed, the Slavic lexemes with k-for PIE *h2-, *h3-, mentioned in Section 2.4.2 recall identical reflexes in Indo-European ingredients in Finnic (see below). Reådei (1988) has been developinga careful synthesis that recognizes three main Indo-European strata, based on thedifferentiation of Uralic. The earliest is Proto-Uralic (with seven etyma). Thesource of these etyma he characterizes as pre-Iranian (“Vorarisch”), and theirtime of accession as ca. 4000 B.C. The second stratum is Proto-Finno-Ugric(eighteen etyma). Its source is ‘Proto-Iranian’ (“Urarisch”). Its accessions wereintegrated before 3000 B.C. and reflect stages in the development of Iranian: earlyaccessions have non-sibilant reflexes of PIE *kñ, *gñ,*gñí, later ones have sibilantreflexes; early accessions distinguish *eµΣ, *aµΣ, *oµΣ, later ones show their merger in*aµΣ. The third stratum (seventeen etyma) includes both Finno-Permian and Finno-Volgaic. Its accessions may have been integrated between ca. 2000 and ca. 500B.C. Here an early layer has sibilants for PIE *kñ, *gñ, *gñí, but preserves the *eµΣ,*aµΣ, *oµΣ distinctions; a later layer merges these in *aµΣ. In a more recent work, Reådei(1997), expands the third stratum to forty-eight etyma and tentatively elaboratesthe chronological correlations between Uralic and Indo-European. Koivulehto(1991, 1997, 2000) has produced several dozen new etymologies representingfive strata of Indo-European ingredients mainly in Western Finnic (Balto-Finnic), seriated on the basis of source-language phonology. The earliest,essentially Proto-Indo-European stratum, which Koivulehto identifies as North-West-Indo-European and dates to the period 3200–2350 B.C., shows variantreflexes of Proto-Indo-European laryngeals, *k in initial and *s˚ in word-internalposition as in Table 9. This variation reflects Proto-Finnic phonotactics (initialfricatives are not admitted) and incidentally proves that the laryngeals werefricatives. The lexemes in this earliest stratum reflect the primitive forestagriculture the Indo-Europeans presumably practiced, “burnt-over clearing”,“leaf-hay”, “pasture”, “grass”, “pig”, “millet”, “wheat”, “to winnow”, “dough”,“ale”. The later strata, which I will not detail—“Archaic Proto-Indo-Iranian”,

70 HENNING ANDERSEN

“Early Proto-Indo-Iranian”, “Proto-Indo-Iranian”, and “Proto-Iranian”—differby their reflexes (i) of PIE *kî, *gî, *gîí and *k, *g, *gí before front vowel, (ii)of PIE *kñ, *gñ,*gñh, and (iii) of PIE *e. Fi. kesa¨ “summer”. PIE *h1es-en- “harvest time, summer”. Cf. PS, PB es-en-i- LCS jesenÈ Σ, R

osen’ “autumn”, OPr. assenis “idem”. Cf. Go. asans “harvest, summer”, OHG arn, aran,Gm. Ernte “harvest”.

Fi. kasa “sharp point, edge” < *kacåa. PIE *h2akñ-jaµ-. Cf. PGmc. *agjoµ > OHG ekka “point,edge”, Gm. Ecke; PS, PB ast-ra- “pointed”, es-e-ti ÏÏ ek-e-ti-“harrow”, OCS ostru Σ, jeset’,Li. astru`s, eke¨åc˚ios.

Fi. kaski “burnt-over clearing” < *kaske. PIE *h2azgV-. Cf. PGmc. *askoµn-, ON aska, OHGaska “ashes”).

Fi. lehti “leaf, blade” < *les˚te. PIE *bíleh1-toå-. Cf. PGmc. *bla∂a-, ON bla∂, OHG blat, Gm.Blatt, Eng. blade. PIE *bíleh1-toå-. Cf. PGmc. *bleµ∂a-, OE blæµd “blossom, sprout”.

Table 9: Indo-European ingredients in Finnic with segmental reflexes of laryngeals

Reådei (1997:146) considers it possible that there were early contactsbetween Uralic and Indo-Europeans if the latters’ homeland was in the Russiansteppes. He evidently thinks in terms of adstratum relations. Koivulehto’s idea ofidentifying the earliest Finnic stratum with North-West-Indo-European suggestsa very different conception of the geo-demographic conditions under whichF i n n i c r e c e i v e d l e x i c a l access ions f r o m Indo-European dialects. I n t h i sconception, the Indo-European elements in Finnic result from a long series ofcontact episodes in prehistory and presuppose that groups of Indo-European-speakers at various times migrated up the major rivers of Eastern Europe—theVolga, the Don, the Dniepr, and their tributaries—into the parklands and theforest zone and settled in areas with an ambient Finnic-speaking population.Some of the Indo-European ingredients may have entered Finnic as culturalborrowings, others as intrusions whenever a group of Indo-European settlersshifted to Finnic. This is very similar to what is suggested by the ante-Slavic–Baltic strata discussed in Section 2. The Indo-European strata in Finnicprovide the justification for assuming that successive groups of Indo-Europeancolonists settled also in areas in which there already was an established Indo-European-speaking population. The contact situations were obviouslydifferent in these two linguistic environments. And so were their consequencesfor us. Where Finnic prevailed, the layers of Indo-European ingredients can beseparated from the inherited Finnic elements. Their regular correspondences withstages of Indo-European make them susceptible to etymological analysis. Bycontrast, the task of teasing apart the similar layers in Slavic and Baltic—or the


other North-West Indo-European languages—is more problematic, though itmay not be impossible.

3.1.3 Layers of nomination. A third source of corroboration for the stratacharacterized in Section 2 is the very lexicon of the languages in question.

It has always been a riddle how it came about that the Slavic and Balticlanguages, while sufficiently similar to suggest a common origin (“Proto-Balto-Slavic”), and developing side by side for thousands of years under natural andtechnological conditions that must have been fairly similar, came to be sodifferent. Leaving the similarities of structure aside and considering just thelexicon, there are indeed several hundred lexemes in Common Slavic that haveetymological equivalents or near-equivalents in Baltic. On the other hand,however, there is not a single semantic field in which there are not deepdifferences in the corresponding lexis. Rozwadowski (1912) was the first toemphasize this problem in his review of Meillet (1905, 1908) and othercontemporary works on the “Balto-Slavic” problem. He illustrated this pointwith examples from such semantic fields as body parts, animals, plants, theearth, humans, dwellings, spiritual concepts, activities and actions, in each ofwhich the most basic concepts are expressed in Slavic and Baltic withetymologically unrelated words.

The common opinion has it that all such differences are of secondaryorigin, more recent than the inherited similarities. This view forms part ofGo¬a∫b’s theory, cf. Figure 1.

But if one looks closely at the terminology for the physical environment inwhich these peoples lived, another possibility suggests itself. In the terminologyfor the flora, to take just one single example, Slavic and Baltic have relatedwords for many trees—ash, apple, aspen, birch, linden, mistletoe, to name a few.But in some basic tree names they differ significantly.

The religious significance of the yew, which is reflected in Hittite, Celtic,and Germanic folklore, has been transferred to the juniper (another evergreenhardwood) in both Slavic and Baltic (Toporov [1979–] vol. 2, 1980:111–117).Since the yew does not occur in Eastern Europe, this is understandable. TheSlavic name for “juniper” (LCS moz˚¥ ˚evljÈ Σ) is a native formation, butetymologically opaque. The Baltic name has precise correspondences in Finnic(OPr. kadegis, La. kadekçis, Li. kadagy ≈s. PFi. kataka, Fi. kataja, without etym-ology). Still, the Indo-European word for “yew” (PIE *ei-/*oi- + *-o-, *-wo-,*-ko-, Hitt. eia, OIr. eo, OHG È µwa, Gm. Eibe, OE È µw, Eng. yew; cf. Gamkrelidze& Ivanov 1984:629–31), is reflected in these languages. It means “willow Salix”in Slavic (PS eiwaµµ-, LCS iva), but “bird cherry Prunus padus” in Baltic (La.ieva, Li. ieva). (Contrast PS kerm-aux-jaµ-, PB kerm-(a)us-, etc. in Table 3.)

72 HENNING ANDERSEN

We cannot assume that the people that transferred the functions of the yewto the juniper, but not its name, kept the word for “yew” in reserve to assign it toother trees later. Nor can we assume that the people who transferred the name ofthe yew to the willow and those that first used it for the bird-cherry had identicalbackground or even similar experience of the natural environment. (The yew isevergreen, the willow and bird-cherry are deciduous, the yew has needles, theothers are broadleaved, the yew is poisonous, willow leaves are medicinal, andbird-cherries, edible, the list goes on.) We have to assume that in one period, theoriginal name for the yew was avoided, gradually yielded completely to theneologisms for the juniper, and eventually was forgotten. Similarly, we mustassume that the willow and the bird-cherry were named at different times, andthat the names the trees have now became established as final resolutions ofvariable usage—which is what would happen in any normal speech community.If we proceed on the assumption that the vocabulary of these languages is theresult of multiple layers of nomination, then their lexical divergences for even themost elementary concepts is not such a mystery. This assumption jibes with thedata presented in Section 2. It defines a potentially productive avenue for theinvestigation of Slavic and Baltic prehistory.

4. The Indo-European migrationsIn this paper I have presented phonological evidence to show that pre-

Slavs and pre-Balts were not the first Indo-Europeans to inhabit the areas inwhich they settled. A scrutiny of several sets of irregular correspondences leadsto the conclusion that early Slavic and Baltic traditions of speaking melded withother, local Indo-European dialects, which in turn had absorbed elements fromeven earlier dialect strata that were probably rather similar, though surelypalpably different from place to place.

Many of the deep differences between Slavic and Baltic—and they extendfar beyond grammar and lexis into folk customs and belief systems—probablystem from these earlier, nameless traditions, which may have developed in theirrespective locations for centuries before the coming of the pre-Slavs and pre-Balts. This is suggested by the substantive differences in vocabulary betweenthese two forms of Indo-European, as well as by the notable differences in wordformation that can be observed in their cognate lexicon. The idea of a successionof settlement waves that preceded the Slavic–Baltic colonization of EasternEurope is supported by the stratification of Indo-European ingredients in Finnic.

The picture of the formation of Slavic and Baltic that emerges from theseconsiderations has implications for our understanding of the Indo-Europeanmigrations in general as well as more narrowly for the Balto-Slavic question.


In most of the twentieth century the dominant idea regarding the Indo-European settlement of Europe was that of a single dispersal followed bydialectal differentiation. This accords roughly with the archaeological record,which shows a steady westward flow of corded-ware people settling the areabetween the Middle Dniepr and the Upper Dniester ca. 2800–2600 B.C., reachingthe Rhine 2500–2000, settling Jutland, Southern Scandinavia, Finland, and theBaltic region from about 2000, and, in the east, spreading up the Dnieper to theUpper and Middle Volga between 2000 and 1700 (Sedov 1993:38–39).

In recent decades this conception has yielded to that of “a staggeredemigration of Indo-European groups out of the core territory ®” (thus Polomeå1990:274; Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1984; more references in Drinka, thisvolume), which explains significant differences in grammatical structure betweenthe dialects of earlier and later emigrant groups.

The Indo-European strata in Finnic and those that underlie Slavic andBaltic suggest a different, complementary picture, of successions of small groupsof people seeking a better life in the woodlands. From the strata they left inFinnic, which include many apparent intrusions, we can infer that theirsettlements time and again proved too small to be linguistically viable. Wherenewcomers settled among Indo-European speakers, as in the case of the pre-Slavs and pre-Balts, presumably their tradition of speaking had better chances ofbeing passed on, but so, surely, did many elements of the local dialects, whichwere kindred and already adapted to local conditions. This way ofconceptualizing the Indo-European colonization of the East European forestzone—as a process encompassing multiple ad-migrations—may be relevant to anunderstanding of other parts of North-West Indo-European as well.

If this picture corresponds to reality, Slavic and Baltic started on differentpaths of development at least from the time pre-Slavic and pre-Baltic speakersbegan to settle in their respective areas, among Indo-European speakers withdifferent traditions of speaking. It seems likely that pre-Slavs and pre-Balts atfirst spoke rather similar dialects, though one may doubt they “were originallyone language” (thus Beekes 1995:22). In any case, there are no grounds forthinking of our inventory of reconstructed ‘Proto-Balto-Slavic’ forms as parts ofa real prehistoric community language, for we will never know precisely what,or how much, of their possibly shared lexicon and grammar each group ofsettlers gave up within a few generations in favor of local ingredients, as theymerged their ways of speaking—and their other practices and systems ofvalues—with those of the different local populations.

74 HENNING ANDERSEN

REFERENCESAndersen, Henning. 1968. “IE *s after i, u, r, k in Baltic and Slavic”. Acta Linguistica

Hafniensia 11.171–190.———. 1996. Reconstructing Prehistoric Dialects. Initial Vowels in Slavic and Baltic.

(Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 91.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Beekes, Robert S. P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Birnbaum, Henrik. 1998. “Common Slavic in time and space”. Scando-Slavica 44.131–144.Campanile, Enrico. 1994. “A proposito della Lex Winter”. Miscellanea di studi linguistici in

onore di Walter Belardi, 2. Linguistica indoeuropea e non indoeuropea ed. by P.Cipriano, P. Di Giovine & M. Mancini, 339–352. Roma: Il Calamo.

Dini, Pietro U. 1997. Le lingue baltiche. (Biblioteca di cultura 223. Lingue d’Europa 5.)Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice, Scandicci.

Drinka, Bridget. This volume. “The development of the perfect in Indo-European. Stratigraphicevidence of prehistoric areal influence”.

Duraffour, Antonin. 1969. Glossaire des patois francoprovencçaux ed. by Pierre Gardette, L.Malapert & Marguerite Gonon. Paris: CNRS.

Endzelin, Jan. 1923. Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitatsbuch-handlung.

Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V. & Vjaceslav V. Ivanov. 1984. Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy.Rekonstrukcija i istoriko-tipologic˚eskij analiz prajazyka i protokul’tury, 1–2. Tbilisi:Izdatel’stvo tbilisskogo universiteta.

Go¬a ∫b, Zbigniew. 1991. The Origins of the Slavs. A Linguist’s View. Columbus, Ohio:Slavica Publishers.

Ivanov, Vjac˚eslav V. 1981. “K prostranstvenno-vremennoj interpretacii balto-slavjanskogodialektnogo kontinuuma”. Balto-slavjanskie Issledovanija 1980 ed by V. V. Ivanov et al.,6–10. Moscow: Nauka.

Ivanov, Vjac˚eslav V. & Toporov, Vladimir N. 1961. “K postanovke voprosa drevnejsixotnos˚enijax baltijskix i slavjanskix jazykov”. Issledovanija po slavjanskomu jazyko-znaniju ed. by V. V. Vinogradov et al., 273–305. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk.

Jakobson, Roman & Linda R. Waugh. 1979. The Sound Shape of Language. Bloomington–London: Indiana University Press.

Kiparsky, Valentin. 1934. Die gemeinslavischen Lehnwo¨rter aus dem Germanischen. (AnnalesAcademiae Scientiarum Fennicæ, B 32,2.) Helsinki: Druckerei der Finnischen Literatur-gesellschaft.

———. 1968. “Baltische und Slavische b/p Fa¨lle”. Scando-Slavica 14.73–97.———. 1975. Russische historische Grammatik, 3. Entwicklung des Wortschatzes.

Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitatsverlag.Koivulehto, Jorma. 1991. Uralische Evidenz fu¨r die Laryngaltheorie. (Oesterreichische

Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 566.)Wien: Verlag der osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

———. 1997. “Rannie indoevropejsko-ural’skie jazykovye kontakty”. Balto-slavjanskieIssledovanija 1988–1996 ed. by T. M. Sudnik & E. A. Xelimskij, 156–163. Moscow:Indrik.

———. 2000. “Finno-Ugric reflexes of North-West Indo-European and early stages of Indo-Iranian”. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Los


Angeles June 4–5, 1999 ed. by Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld & Angela DellaVolpe, 21–44. (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 35.) Washington,D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man.

Kortlandt, Frederik. 1978. “I.-E. palatovelars before resonants in Balto-Slavic”. RecentDevelopments in Historical Phonology ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 237–244. (Trends in Lin-guistics. Studies and Monographs 4.) The Hague–Paris–New York: Mouton Publishers.

Krytenko, A. P. 1966. “Leksyka”. Mel’nyc˚uk 1966:500–564.Kury¬owicz, Jerzy. 1956. L’apophonie en indo-europeåen. Wroc¬aw: Ossolineum.Martin, Jean-Baptiste & Gaston Tuaillon. 1971, 1974, 1978. Atlas linguistique et ethno-

graphique du Jura et des Alpes du nord (francoprovencçal central), 1–3. Paris: CNRS.Martynov, Viktor V. 1983. Jazyk v prostranstve i vremeni. K probleme glottogeneza slavjan.

Moskva: Nauka.———. 1985. “Glottogenez slavjan”. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1985(6).43–54.Mayer, Harvey. 1994. “Baltic diglossia in Lithuanian”. Lituanus 40(3).51–56.———. 1996. “East Baltic influence on West Baltic”. Lituanus 42(1).55–61.Meillet, Antoine. 1905. Etudes sur l’eåtymologie et le vocabulaire du vieux slave, 2. 4:

Formation des noms. Paris: Emile Bouillon.———. 1908. Les dialectes indo-europeåens. (Socieåteå de Linguistique de Paris. Collection

Linguistique 1.) Paris: Honoreå Champion.Mel’nyc˚uk, O. S. (ed.). 1966. Vstup do porivnjal’no-istoryc˚noho vyvcennja slov’jans’kyx mov.

Kiev: Naukova dumka.Moszynåski, Kazimierz. 1957. Pierwotny zasia ∫g je ∫zyka pras¬owianåskiego. (Polska Akademia

Nauk. Komitet je∫zykoznawczy. Prace je∫zykoznawcze 16.) Wroc¬aw: Ossolineum.Otre ∫bski, Jan. 1958. Gramatyka je ∫zyka litewskiego, 1 . Wiadomosåci wste ∫pne. Nauka o

g¬oskach.. Warsaw: Panåstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.———. 1965. Gramatyka je ∫zyka litewskiego, 2. Nauka o budowie wyrazoåw. Warsaw:

Panåstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Reådei, Kaåroly. 1988. “Die a¨ltesten indogermanischen Lehnworter der uralischen Sprachen”.

The Uralic Languages. Description, history and foreign influences ed. by Denis Sinor,638–664. Leiden–New York–Copenhagen–Cologne: E. J. Brill.

———. 1997. “Drevnejs˚ie indoevropejskie zaimstvovanija v ural’skix jazykax”. Balto-slavjanskie Issledovanija 1988–1996 ed. by T. M. Sudnik & E. A. Xelimskij, 141–155.Moscow: Indrik.

Rhodes, Richard A. & John M. Lawler. 1981. “Athematic metaphors”. Papers from the 17thRegional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: CLS.

Rozwadowski, Jan. 1912. “O pierwotnym stosunku wzajemnym je ∫zykoåw ba¬tyckich is¬owianåskich”. Rocznik Slawistyczny 5.1–24. Reprinted: Rozwadowski 1961:96–113.

———. 1915. “Przyczynki do historycznej fonetyki je ∫zykoåw s¬owianåskich”. RocznikSlawistyczny 7.9–21. Reprinted: Rozwadowski 1961:331–340.

———. 1961. Wyboår pism, 2. Je ∫zykoznawstwo indoeuropejskie. Warsaw: PanåstwoweWydawnictwo Naukowe.

Schenker, Alexander M. 1995. The Dawn of Slavic. An Introduction to Slavic Philology. NewHaven–London: Yale University Press.

Schmalstieg, William R. & Benjaminçs˚ Jeµgers. 1971. Jaµnis EndzelÈ µ µns’ Comparative Phonologyand Morphology of the Baltic Languages. The Hague–Paris: Mouton. [Revised

76 HENNING ANDERSEN

translation of Baltu ∫ kalbu ∫ garsai ir formos, Vilnius 1971, translated from Baltu valoduskanças un formas, Riga 1948.]

Schmid, Wolfgang. 1986. “Zur Dehnstufe im Baltischen und Slavischen”. Festschrift fu¨rHerbert Bra¨u er zum 65. Geburtstag am 14. April 1986 ed. by Reinhold Olesch & HansRothe, 457–466. Cologne–Vienna: Bo¨hlau.

Sedov, V. S. 1993. “E~tnogenez slavjan po arxeologic˚eskim dannym”. Slavjanskajaarxeologija 1990. E~tnogenez, rasselenie i duxovnaja kul’tura slavjan, 34–55. (Materialypo arxeologii Rossii 1.) Moscow: Nauka–Vostoc˚naja literatura.

Shevelov, George Y. 1965. A Prehistory of Slavic. The Historical Phonology of CommonSlavic. New York: Columbia University Press.

S¬awski, Franciszek. 1974–. Slownik pras¬owianåski, 1–. Wroc¬aw–Warszawa–Krakoåw–Gdanåsk: Ossolineum.

Stang, Christian S. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo–Bergen–Tromso: Universitetsforlaget.

Steensland, Lars. 1973. Die Distribution der urindogermanischen sogenannten Gutturale.(Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Slavica Upsaliensia 12.) Uppsala: Universitetet.

Toporov, Vladimir N. 1979–. Prusskij jazyk. Slovar’. Moskva: Nauka.———. 1988. “K rekonstrukcii drevnejs˚ego sostojanija praslavjanskogo”. Slavjanskoe

jazykoznanie. X mez˚dunarodnyj s”ezd slavistov. Doklady sovetskoj delegacii ed. by N. I.Tolstoj, 264–292. Moscow: Nauka.

Trautmann, Reinhold. 1923. Baltisch-Slavisches Wo¨rterbuch. Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht.

Trubac˚ev, Oleg N. 1966. Remeslennaja terminologija v slavjanskix jazykax (e`timologija i opytgruppovoj rekonstrukcii). Moscow: Nauka.

———. 1967. “Iz slavjano-iranskix leksic˚eskix otnos˚enij”. E~timologija 1965, 3–81.———. 1973. “Leksikografija i e`timologija”. Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. VII mezx˚dunarodnyj

s”jezd slavistov. Vars˚ava, avgust 1973 g. ed. by S. B. Bernstejn, V. I. Borkovskij, N. ITolstoj, O. N. Trubac˚ev & T. V. Popova, 294–313. Moscow: Nauka.

———. 1974–. E~timologic˚eskij slovar’ slavjanskix jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksic˚eskij fond.Moskva: Nauka.

———. 1983. “Jazykoznanie i e`tnogenez slavjan. Drevnie slavjane po dannym e`timologii ionomastiki”. Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. IX mez˚dunarodnyj s”ezd slavistov, 231–250.Moscow: Nauka.

Unger, James Marshall. This volume. “Substratum and adstratum in prehistoric Japanese”.Volkaite ≥-Kulikauskiene ≥, Regina (ed.). 1987. Lietuviu ∫ etnogeneze ≥. Vilnius: Mokslas.Winter, Werner. 1978. “The distribution of short and long vowels in stems of the type Lith.

e¨åsti: ve`sti: me`sti and OCS jasti: vesti: mesti in Baltic and Slavic languages”. RecentDevelopments in Historical Phonology ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 431–446. (Trends in Lin-guistics. Studies and Monographs 4.) The Hague–Paris–New York: Mouton Publishers.

Zaliznjak, A. A. 1963. “O xaraktere jazykovogo kontakta mez˚du slavjanskimi i skifo-sarmatskimi plemenami”. Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie, 3–22. (Institut slavjanovedenija.Kratkie soobs˚c˚enija.) Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR.

Zinkevic˚ius, Zigmas. 1966. Lietuviu ∫ dialektologija. Lyginamoji tarmiu ∫ fonetika ir morfo-logija. Vilnius: Mintis.

———. 1987. Lietuviu ∫ kalbos istorija, 2. Iki pirmu ∫ju ∫ ras˚tu ∫. Vilnius: Mokslas.

slavic and the indo-european migrations

Documents

slavic dialects

ancestral dialects of

modern slavic languages

phonological material

language contacts

phonological evidenceand

indoeuropean dialectsfrom

indoeuropean dialect