Paleo-Balkan & Balto-Slavic - Common Proto Language

[Soldier of Macedon]

Sorry SoM, I have not been able to find anything. Given that in Proto-Slavic it was *čьstь, it could be *kistь, *kistis, or something like that in Proto-Balto-Slavic, I'm not sure.

Do you think the č at the beginning of the word could come via k -> č or kt -> št -> č ?

[Delodephius]

No, č only comes from k; c, ć and ḱ come from št.

[Soldier of Macedon]

What about the example of Proto-Slavic kt -> old Macedonian št -> mod. Macedonian ḱ, Serbian č, in words like ḱe and če, or even домаќин and домаћин, because ћ is not too different from č ?

[Delodephius]

Serbian uses će (ће) not če. Yes, the pronunciation is similar but the origin of the sounds is different.

[Soldier of Macedon]

My mistake, I was using Macedonian (latinica) č. The Serbian ће is the equivalent to Croatian će, which is phonetically 'che', and in Croatian the word is domaćin, whereas č is a harder sound more like 'tch' - very minor difference that is more distinct in orthography than pronounciation. The difference between the words kuče and kuće is noted more through context rather than sound.

[Soldier of Macedon]

In Proto-Slavic zlato was zalto due to metathesis (liquid consonants, R and L, switch their positions with a vowel, usually A or O, sometimes E, when between other consonants). Examples: arbъ > rabъ (slave), arvьnъ > ravьnъ (flat), arzьtoka > razьtoka (river delta), ortajь > ratajь (plougher) (however orati (to plough) remained the same because R was followed by a vowel A), armę > ramę (shoulder), alčьnъ > lačьnъ (hungry), orlьja > rolьja (field), olkьtъ > lakьkъ (elbow), oldьja > ladьja (ship), olni > lani (last year), balto > blato (mud), etc. Additonally, the prefix raz-/roz- as in razbiti, razmysliti, razbuditi, etc. was orzь-/arzь.
The word oltarь from Latin altare (altar) was imported into Old Church Slavonic centuries after the metathesis occurred, hence it remained unchanged in Slavic (otherwise it would be latarь).

Therefore when looking at Paleo-Balkan and Proto-Balto-Slavic words it should be understood that they exhibit the forms AL/OL and AR/OR instead of modern LA/LO and RA/RO.

Any idea as to what triggered this metathesis, and the period of time it took place? Is the below an example of a metathesis with another combination of letters, with the change of sound from b/v-l to l-v ?

PIE ghebhelo - Anc. Maced. gabala or gavala - Proto Balto-Slavic galava - Latvian galva - Mod. Maced. glava - Mod. Russn. golova

[Delodephius]

Yes, it is a sample of metathesis. Although there are two of them. First is VAL to LAV, and then it AL to LA. The first I don't know how it is called, the second is Liquid metathesis.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Here is something regarding the above:

http://liverpool.metapress.com/content/1668508q81743216/

This article investigates four cases of consonant + consonant metathesis in the history of Spanish in order to determine how these metatheses became regular sound changes, in contrast to other adjacent and non-adjacent metatheses that were less regular. Given the impossibility of a synchronic metathesis rule as the source of regularity, I argue that Old Spanish /dn/, /dl/, and /nr/ were consistently restructured to /nd/, /ld/, and /ſn/ respectively, via misperception due to adjacency, phonetic similarity, stretched out acoustic cues, and in certain cases the possibility of intermediate blended articulations. Other diachronic metatheses like /bl/ > /lb/ were less regular because they lacked one or more of these factors.

Just like in the Spanish example, I find that this metathesis isn't regular in Balto-Slavic-Balkan either, or not that common from what I have seen thus far. I could be wrong, but haven't come across much other examples.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The metathesis ended somewhere in the 8th century, and it wasn't completed in East Slavic, so Common Slavic language must have still had the older forms like Palaeo-Balkan languages did.

Is that why Russian has golova instead of glava?

[Delodephius]

Is that why Russian has golova instead of glava?

Apparently. East Slavs must have split from the rest of the Slavic speakers before the 8th century.
Actually the whole thing is explained on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleophony

The Law of open syllable caused the metathesis, i.e. "no syllable can end on a consonant", therefore some consonants were lost in speech, while the syllables that ended in liquids replaced their places with the preceding vowels. East Slavic has solved this by inserting a vowel after the liquid and the other following consonant.
What was the initial cause that started the Law of the open syllable is unknown.

There is a dialect of Old East Slavic called Old Novgorodian. This dialect was uninfluenced by Old Slavonic/Old Macedonian and therefore is quite unique. Some even theorise it should be group into a separate, North Slavic group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Novgorod_dialect

This dialect however had the metathesis (mlъviti not mъlviti - to talk) but also pleophony (mъlъviti) in some cases.

This dialect shows several common features with West Slavic, while Old East Slavic/Old Ruthenian show more common features with South Slavic, even if we disregard the influence of OCS. What this might indicate, in my opinion, is the origin from where the original Slavic settlers arrived. What is today's Russia was actually uninhabited by Slavic speakers. The most eastern point where original Slavic speakers lived was at the edge of the Gothic realm, somewhere on the river Dnepr, in modern Ukraine. Since the European part of Russia was quite uninhabited in general, with only scattered Uralic speaking tribes living on the banks of its great rivers and impassable forests, I believe that the original settlers of Russia were colonists, merchants and soldiers who established a trade network on the great rivers like Dnepr, Don and Volga and managed trade between the Baltic and the Black and the Caspian seas. The settlers in the north, in Novgorod, originally came from the Baltic coast, modern day Poland, and so their language was more similar to West Slavic, while the settlers in the south, in Kiev, came from the Black Sea coast, so their language was more similar to South Slavic. The southern settlers must have came sooner however, but also the oldest remains of Novgorod actually only date to the 10th century. Most early medieval Russian cities were established only in the 11th century.

Map of the Kievan Rus' (brown) in the 11th century. The cities whose date of establishment is known have dates written below them in italic.


The names of Uralic tribes is written in green, the names of the Baltic tribes is in blue, and the names of Turkic tribes in brown.

[Delodephius]

To illustrate. The Law of the open syllable means that a syllable can only end with a vowel, not a consonant*. When this law came into being, for whatever purpose it might have been, nonetheless it existed, words like "melko" (milk) or "galva" (head), had to change. The consonants L and K or L and V could not stand next to eachother, so the L switched its place with the preceding vowel, E and A respectively. This then produced "mleko" and "glava". The consonantal conjuncts like ML and GL are allowed at beginning of syllables. East Slavic languages however solved this by inserting a vowel between L and the following consonant, producing "moloko" and "golova", thus preserving the Law of the open syllable. This law gradually disappeared somewhere in the late Middle Ages in all Slavic languages. This had effect on the entire grammar of all Slavic languages, for example words that today end in consonants used to end on the back half-vowel Ъ (like medъ, synъ) or front half-vowel Ь (dьnь, estь), but these were lost.

*The only exception in written OCS were the prepositions iz and bez, but these were written separately only to distinguish them from prefixes iz- and bez-.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Slovak, thanks for the information, I have a more detailed response which I am preparing, but would like to ask something in relation to the below:

There is a dialect of Old East Slavic called Old Novgorodian. This dialect was uninfluenced by Old Slavonic/Old Macedonian and therefore is quite unique. Some even theorise it should be group into a separate, North Slavic group.

In your opinion, which other Slavic languages were influenced by Old Macedonian, and to what extent?

Also, what sort of influence are we talking about with regard to the below:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=2477

Is the below a loanword or a genuine Slavic word? Because Greeks also use the word 'omilia' for 'talk'.

This dialect however had the metathesis (mlъviti not mъlviti - to talk) but also pleophony (mъlъviti) in some cases.

And I also think the below explanation is very plausible:

This dialect shows several common features with West Slavic, while Old East Slavic/Old Ruthenian show more common features with South Slavic, even if we disregard the influence of OCS. What this might indicate, in my opinion, is the origin from where the original Slavic settlers arrived. What is today's Russia was actually uninhabited by Slavic speakers. The most eastern point where original Slavic speakers lived was at the edge of the Gothic realm, somewhere on the river Dnepr, in modern Ukraine. Since the European part of Russia was quite uninhabited in general, with only scattered Uralic speaking tribes living on the banks of its great rivers and impassable forests, I believe that the original settlers of Russia were colonists, merchants and soldiers who established a trade network on the great rivers like Dnepr, Don and Volga and managed trade between the Baltic and the Black and the Caspian seas. The settlers in the north, in Novgorod, originally came from the Baltic coast, modern day Poland, and so their language was more similar to West Slavic, while the settlers in the south, in Kiev, came from the Black Sea coast, so their language was more similar to South Slavic. The southern settlers must have came sooner however, but also the oldest remains of Novgorod actually only date to the 10th century. Most early medieval Russian cities were established only in the 11th century.

[Delodephius]

In your opinion, which other Slavic languages were influenced by Old Macedonian, and to what extent?

The most influenced was Russian and Ukrainian. After them Bulgarian, Serbian and Croatian. West Slavic languages were almost uninfluenced, Polish wasn't at all, though through Russian and other Slavic languages perhaps indirectly. I know that Russian was influenced not only in vocabulary but also in grammar, that there are some suffixes that were taken from OCS rather than from Old East Slavic.

Also, what sort of influence are we talking about with regard to the below:

Literary influence most likely. Don't know about the language.

Is the below a loanword or a genuine Slavic word? Because Greeks also use the word 'omilia' for 'talk'.

In Scandinavian language the word for language is mál or mål, it derives from Proto-Germanic *maþlan, so in Anglo-Saxon it was mahal, in Gothic maþl. If in in Proto-Slavic the verb was mъlviti then a noun should have been mъlva or something similar. Ukrainian and Belarusian to this day use the word mova (from molva) for language. I think perhaps the word originated in Proto-Germanic and then through Gothic to Slavic, and through Slavic to Greek. The reason for this would be that in Germanic there still was the sound þ which was lost in Slavic. But maybe it existed in Proto-Balto-Slavic and was lost then. I don't know.

[Commander Bond]

The most influenced was Russian and Ukrainian. After them Bulgarian, Serbian and Croatian. West Slavic languages were almost uninfluenced, Polish wasn't at all, though through Russian and other Slavic languages perhaps indirectly. I know that Russian was influenced not only in vocabulary but also in grammar, that there are some suffixes that were taken from OCS rather than from Old East Slavic.

Delodephius, Thanks for this. I have always wanted to know.

Why was Polish uninfluenced, yet the patron saints of Poland are Cyril and Methodius?

I find this interesting because I believe it is uninfluenced too as it is the most difficult of the Slavic language group.

Could it be a result that Poland (due to their Catholic faith and strong allegiance with the Vatican) wanted so eagerly to be considered a part of Western Europe?

Were the Poles ever Orthodox in faith?

[Delodephius]

Cyril and Methodius never went to Poland on a mission. I believe Methodius only visited the southern part of Poland that was part of Great Moravia, but Christianization of Poland began only a century later and it was done by western clergy. It was a forced Christianization, the population was mostly pagan up until 1030's when they revolted against the king, but they were defeated.

Poland was never Orthodox, Old Slavonic was never used in Poland, except in the eastern part when Poland conquered Ukraine and Belarus and made them part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but that was centuries later, in the 16th century onwards. The only reason Cyril and Methodius are considered saints in Poland is because they are Pan-Slavic saints, but they had nothing to do with Poland or it being Christian.


Polish is easier than Russian actually, their orthography is more consistent and grammar much simpler. From what I experienced while talking to westerners who tried learning both Polish and Russian is that Polish is quite easier to learn. To me it is easy simply because my native Slovak is similar to it and I can understand Polish without translation.