What is the difference between baltic and slavic

Sometimes, similar pronunciation of a common root are nothing more than parallel, coincidental development an example is the pronunciation of English "house" and German "Haus"--their similar pronunciation is a kind of coincidence only.

Also, isn't it believed that the Slavic and Baltic languages began to diverge around 3, years ago? The days of the week, for example, are largely cultural terms of the Middle Ages.

Nedela and Ponedelek are results of Christianity--they would have replaced previous terms. Cabbage is also suspect, since it probably was not eaten by early proto-Baltic or proto-Slavic speakers since it is a vegetable of Mediterranean origin unknown in non-Mediterranean Europe over 2, years ago--the standard Slavic "kapusta" comes from Latin "caput" head.

Formerly, they were probably the near neighbors of Western Balts and so they inherited a considerable number of their loanwords, e. The cabbage terms as zelje, zeli etc. Slovenians and Croats including Kaykavian, Chakavian etc. Austrian as opposed to Australian. I would like to emphasise, in support of koniecswiata's post above, that many of those words are also common in other Slavic languages. Links between Slovenian and Kajkavian on the one hand and Western Slavic languages on the other one are well-proven in fact, the prevailing theory about migration of Slovenes to the region where they live now include an earlier wave of possibly Western Slavs which overlapped with a younger one of Southern Slavs - a hypothesis, but a well-founded one.

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 31, LilianaB said:. What is so close between the Slavic and the Prussian? Have they seen Prussian, or at least heard it? I believe that the words similar in Slavic and Baltic languages are either loans, a result of contact of those peoples, or words derived directly from the Proto Indo-European.

This may be true, but Finno-Ugric languages and Baltic languages are genetically not related at all. I believe that the Proto -Balto-Slavic is a myth, a total absurdity, created by people who wanted to prove something against any commonsense. It is not extinct: it has partially been reconstructed.

It could be heard just a few centuries ago. It depends from what point of view you look at it. It may not be extinct if you really like it and there are people who speak it, at least to some extent. Slavic languages and Baltic languages are not genetically related at all. Last edited: Oct 31, I believe. It is not really a consensus view among linguists that there has ever been a Proto Baltic-Slavic language.

There are linguists who highly deny it. You are right as to the second point, that these languages are related as members of the Indo-European group. What I had in mind was really that these languages are not more related than, for example, German and Polish. One might claim that there had been a Proto Germanic-Slavic group. Examples could be found, if one really focussed on it and studied the phonetics to prove the point. What I said about the extinction was just something a little bit funny, a light way to put things.

I hoped it would be understood. In a way nothing is extinct if it exists. From the purely linguistic point of view, Prussian is considered extinct. Ben Jamin Senior Member Norway.

That's a bit of cheating, since Czech and Polish aren't nearly the most remote pair of Slavic languages. Ben Jamin said:. Rival Not that correct.

Estonians aren't Baltic people they also speak a Finno-Urgric language. And Austria and Germany may have Celtic history but that completely and absolutely vanished when the Germanic people pushed them away. There is nothing Celtic left. Friendly x 1. Like x 2. Toten Member. Nietzsche The Last Prussian.

Shrew Active Member. The patterns of genetic structure of the Balto-Slavic populations agree particularly between autosomal and NRY data. However, the maternal gene pool of the Balto-Slavic populations, although less structured possibly due to somewhat lower phylogenetic resolution of the dataset Fig 2C , Tables C, D in S1 File , bears some features similar to those of autosomal and NRY ones such as the differentiation of North Russians and the overlap between East Slavs Fig 2A, 2B and 2C.

In contrast, k2 is abundant around the Mediterranean and in the Caucasus region and decreases among Europeans when moving northward. The further division of the two major components k3 and k2 in the Balto-Slavic populations at higher values of K indicates more complex structuring of genomes of South Slavs as compared to West and East Slavs S2 Fig.

To analyze further the patterns of gene flow among the Balto-Slavic populations and their non-Slavic neighbors as well as to explore the genetic heritage of the suggested Slavic migration from Central-East to the Balkan region of Europe, we focused on the pairwise sharing of IBD segments [ 39 , 52 ] and applied the fIBD algorithm [ 53 ].

As a measure of IBD sharing, we used an average number of IBD segments per pair of individuals which we refer to as ibd-statistic. We calculated the ibd-statistic for the two groups of Slavic speakers, and compared it to the ibd-statistic for each of the groups of Slavs and their respective non-Slavic neighboring groups of populations S3 Fig and Table F in S1 File , S1 Text : Methods for detailed description of the analysis. The x-axis indicates ten classes of IBD segment length in cM ; the y-axis indicates the average number of shared IBD segments per pair of individuals within each length class.

We applied a lexicostatistical approach to refine the phylogeny of the extant Balto-Slavic languages [ 6 , 7 , 54 ], focusing here particularly on the Slavic sub-branch topology and temporal estimates for lexicostatistical dataset and methodology see S2 File , Figs A-M in S2 File , Tables A-C in S3 File ; S1 Dataset. Further diversification of the Slavic languages took place around — YBP, followed by shaping of the individual languages — YBP.

Modern Slovenian, due to its vocabulary exhibiting a significant level of mixture with West and South Slavic languages, was excluded from the lexicostatistical analysis for details see S2 File : The case of the Slovenian language, Figs H-M in S2 File. Analysis of molecular variance AMOVA partitions the overall genetic diversity in a group of populations into fractions according to hierarchical levels of population structure. The NRY diversity at the lowest level1 of the population structure—among local populations speaking the same language—varies from almost 0 within Czechs and Macedonians to 0.

The genetic differentiation among ethnic populations belonging to the same linguistic branch level2 is around 0. A Mantel test was applied to compare the roles which geography and language have played in shaping the genetic variation of the Balto-Slavic populations Fig 5 , Tables I,J in S1 File. The test was performed independently for the three genetic systems, with all three exhibiting a very high correlation with geography 0.

Because the linguistic pattern itself is highly correlated with geography Fig 5 , partial correlations were considered to distinguish between the direct and indirect influences of geography on the two other systems. The correlations with linguistics became much lower whilst all three genetic systems maintained high correlations with geography Table J in S1 File.

Some mtDNA haplotypes of hgs H5, H6, U4a were more frequent in the genomes of West and East Slavic speakers, providing thereby further evidence for the matrilineal unity of West and East Slavs [ 28 , 36 ] as well as continuity of mtDNA diversity in the territory of modern Poland for at least two millennia [ 38 ].

In contrast to this apparent genetic homogeneity of the majority of West and East Slavs, the gene pool of South Slavs, who are confined to the geographically smaller Balkan Peninsula, differs substantially and shows internal differentiation, as testified by their NRY and autosomal variation Fig 2A and 2B ; Fig 3 , Tables A,B in S1 File.

The importance of these substrata in shaping the genetic diversity of the present-day Slavs is evident from the observed lower IBD relatedness between the combined group of East-West Slavs and South Slavs than with north-east Europeans, including Baltic speakers Fig 4A. AMOVA results also support the substrata prevalence, because genetic variation among Slavic branches which assimilated different substratum populations strongly exceeds intra-branch variation Table H in S1 File. The influence of geography in shaping the Slavic genetic heritage Fig 5 , Table J in S1 File led to the same conclusion, because if substratum importance is the major factor shaping the genetic relationships among present-day Slavic-speaking populations, these will not reflect the relationship among expanding Slavic languages, but should instead reflect the relationships between pre-Slavic populations, which can be approximated by geographical distances between them.

For example, there is a pronounced genetic proximity between Czechs and their immediate Germanic neighbors in the west Fig 2A and 2B , Fig 3 [ 27 , 58 ] that could be attributed to the pre-Slavic gene pool formation of Central-East Europeans. In contrast, a clear genetic border exists nowadays between Poles and their immediate western neighbors Germans, and even between a West-Slavic-speaking minority—Sorbs—and their German host population Fig 2B , Tables A,B in S1 File [ 43 , 59 ].

It has been suggested, that this genetic boundary predates massive resettlements of people after World War II, and could have been shaped during medieval migrations of Germanic and Slavic peoples in the Vistula and Oder River basins [ 60 ]. In the north-east, a largely autochthonous pre-Slavic component is detected in the gene pool of Russians from northern regions of the European part of Russia Fig 2A, 2B and 2C , Fig 3 , which agrees with previous anthropological [ 61 , 62 ] and genetic [ 32 , 45 , 56 , 63 ] studies and supports substantial admixture of expanding Slavs with indigenous populations and, perhaps, language shift in the latter.

The presence of two distinct genetic substrata in the genomes of East-West and South Slavs would imply cultural assimilation of indigenous populations by bearers of Slavic languages as a major mechanism of the spread of Slavic languages to the Balkan Peninsula. Expansion of Slavic languages took place in an area already occupied by speakers of the Baltic languages [ 49 , 50 ].

Comparing genetic and linguistic reconstructions with geography has a long tradition in human population genetics [ 67 ]. Here, we have studied the autosomal, NRY and mtDNA diversity of all Balto-Slavic populations in the context of their linguistic variation and geography.

A remarkable agreement between these five systems was found: correlation coefficients range from 0. This agreement between datasets from different systems supports the reliability of the results and in most cases, when drawing a conclusion, we could find one supported by the majority of the systems analyzed. In particular, we found that autosomal and NRY compositions and geographic affiliations of the Balto-Slavic populations form a triad, all variables of which are very similar to each other.

Combining all lines of evidence, we suggest that the major part of the within-Balto-Slavic genetic variation can be primarily attributed to the assimilation of the pre-existing regional genetic components, which differed for West, East and South Slavic-speaking peoples as we know them today. The DNA samples analysed in the study were collected after having obtained written informed consent.

The NRY data comprises 6, samples, including 1, reported here for the first time and 1, samples updated from previous work Table L in S1 File. The autosomal SNP data include 1, worldwide individuals including 70 reported here for the first time Table M in S1 File ; this dataset encompasses in total samples representing Balto-Slavic populations. S1 Text : Datasets provides extended information on dataset assemblage.

All samples reported here for the first time were collected after informed consent was obtained from each participant. S1 Text : Methods provides details about the autosomal SNP pre-processing performed before all analyses.

See S1 Text : Methods for choosing the value of K which best models the ancestry components in our dataset. IBD relatedness within Slavs to the IBD relatedness between each group of Slavs vs their respective neighboring groups of mostly non-Slavic populaitons Table F in S1 File lists populations in each group, S3 Fig shows schematically the geographic location of each population groups.

To this end we: a calculated an average number of IBD segments per pair of individuals ibd-statistic between the group of East-West Slavs group1 and South Slavs group2 , i. See S1 Text : Methods for detailed information about the experimental design and statistical approach applied. Mantel tests were performed in Arlequin 3.

S1 Text : Methods provides additional details for Mantel tests analysis. The consensus tree Fig 1 , Fig G in S2 File was drawn manually based on the set of trees produced by different phylogenetic methods.

The method implying individual relative index of stability for each Swadesh item [ 73 , 74 ] was used for the node dating. Populations within each group are listed in Table F in S1 File. Russians from Northern region of European part of Russia are considered separately from the group of north-east Europeans. Fig A in S2 File. Geographical distribution of extant Slavic and East Baltic languages and dialects used in the study.

Map was prepared by Yuri Koryakov. Fig B in S2 File. Dated phylogenetic tree of the Balto-Slavic lects produced by the StarlingNJ method from the multistate matrix binary nodes only. Fig C in S2 File. Phylogenetic tree of the Balto-Slavic lects produced by the NJ method from the binary matrix in the SplitsTree4 software. Branch length reflects the relative rate of cognate replacement as suggested by SplitsTree4.

The BioNJ method yields the same topology. Fig D in S2 File. Fig E in S2 File. Branch length reflects the relative rate of cognate replacement as suggested by MrBayes. Fig F in S2 File. Branch length reflects the relative rate of cognate replacement as suggested by TNT. Fig G in S2 File. The gray ellipses additionally mark two joined nodes, which cover binary branchings that differ depending on the method.

StarlingNJ dates are proposed. Fig H in S2 File. Fig I in S2 File. Fig J in S2 File. Fig K in S2 File. Fig L in S2 File. Fig M in S2 File. We are grateful to all the volunteers who have made this study possible by donating their blood samples. We thank V. Ferak, M. It can be schematized as follows in Fig.

Although most of the main textbooks on Indo-European- linguistics mention only three Baltic languages, Old Prussian, Lithuanian and Latvian, in Baltic linguistics we usually count six Baltic languages.

Of these, only Lithuanian and Latvian are spoken today. Old Prussian died out in the 17th century. Couronian, Zemgallian and Selian were absorbed by Latvian and Lithuanian ca. In the figure below, our last figure, are found the basic opinions or views concerning the origin of the Baltic and Slavic languages:. We will turn now to our real task, which is to take a closer look at those similarities on which these deductions are usually based.

There is no space in an article of this kind to dwell on everyone's enumeration, or even discussion of the similarities. It will be sufficient to pick one or two samples to see how divergent are the attitudes concerning this problem. Professor Szemerenyi claimed to have found the following fourteen of the "most important innovations" between Baltic and Slavic:. The BS palatalization 2. Accent innovations 5. Definite adjective 6. Participle-inflection in - yo - 7.

New comparative formation 9. Unfortunately Szemerenyi's knowledge of the Baltic languages seems to be second-hand; he simply does not know enough about the Baltic languages to make such decisions.

Most of his arguments are based on quotations, paraphrases, and interpretations of other scholars' research, including that of Meillet, but especially of Kurylowicz and Vaillant.

The latter two, inspite of their fame as leading linguists in certain fields, appear to be deficient in their knowledge of the Baltic languages. In his latest article on this problem, Professor Senn who has an excellent first-hand knowledge of practically all the Baltic and Slavic languages discusses the fourteen similarities claimed by Szemerenyi and finds that only numbers 6 and 9 are wholly acceptable.

All the others in reality do not exist. We will not go into detailed discussion here, because this article is already rather lengthy. I would like, however, to point out some really grievous mistakes in Szemerenyi's listing. The Lithuanian palatalization occurred later, and it was of a different character. Thus, there was no common palatalization at all in Proto-Baltic. Szemerenyi's type of palatalization has to be ascribed only to Slavic, Latvian palatalization occurring then, most probably, under the influence of Russian, and not as a commonly inherited feature.

In reference to Szemerenyi's no. Thus, it cannot be assumed to have been a Balto-Slavic innovation. In number 3, Szemerenyi simply shows that he is not thoroughly enough acquainted with Baltic linguistic problems. If he were, he would never have listed this item.

How Professor Szeme-renyi failed to mention that fact, I fail to comprehend. Szemerenyi's "innovations" 7, 8, and 10 did not take place in all Baltic languages, i.

Thus, they are really very recent innovations occurring only in individual Baltic languages. They did not exist in the Common Baltic or Proto-Baltic period. Certainly, then, they have absolutely no common origin with occurences in Slavic. Some of them may be a later influence of Slavic, but this may show only a long association, not a common origin. The least defensible is Szemerenyi's last "innovation," no.

According to him, it is enough just to glance at the vocabulary listings of Baltic and Slavic languages, and one will be convinced that there must have been a common protolanguage. But even Professor Reinhold Trautmann himself, whose dictionary Szemerenyi mentions, 11 announced in that he is no longer in favor of the concept of Baltic and Slavic unity "Einheit" , but only of historically neighboring community "Gemeinschaft".

Recently, with the help of my students, I checked the supposed lexical innovations found only in Baltic and Slavic against the newest findings in etymological works. The result is that only lexical items can be considered as occurring only in Baltic and Slavic.

All the others can be found in one or more other branches of the Indo-European languages. One can compare that result with the lexical stock common only to Baltic and Germanic languages. There are at least 72 such words, though no one has yet posited a common Balto-Germanic proto-language. Thus, the real similarities between the Baltic and Slavic languages can easily be reduced to about four:.

But even here one has to keep in mind that Germanic languages also definitely show the m -element in their dative plural; b some similarity in forming the oblique cases of the first person singular; c similarity in forming some forms of the first person plural; d perhaps also the change from the - nt - stem inflection to the - jo - stem inflection of participles.

However, some traces of this development can also be found in Germanic. As we have just seen, the real similarities, or innovations between the Baltic and Slavic languages are very few indeed. Such a number of similarities could, as a matter of fact, be found in many a pairing of Indo-European languages.

This small number of rather insignificant innovations in Baltic and Slavic certainly does not warrant an assumption of a common ancestor, intermediate to Proto-Indo-European.

Thus, the idea of a Balto-Slavic unity must be rejected, though there have even been occasional attempts to reconstruct the assumed "Balto-Slavic Protolanguage. We now will list the main differences between Baltic and Slavic , as a double check on our conclusions.

This will clearly show that it is impossible to reconstruct the supposed Proto-Balto-Slavic at all, a potent proof that it really could not have existed. To our knowledge, this discussion of differences between Baltic and Slavic is being presented in this scope for the first time. By the way, the sequence of listing does not indicate the degree of importance to be attached to these differences. These, then, are the main differences between Baltic and Slavic: 1.

In general, the phonological structure of Baltic languages has always been much more conservative than that of the Slavic languages. Compare Latin octo , "8," Lith. In Baltic, in very numerous cases, the final consonants have been preserved, as well as many final diphthongs.

In even a very archaic form of Common Slavic, these did not survive. Only in Baltic languages, the m before t was preserved. Now, in any word where - mt - occurs, it is totally impossible to reconstruct the form for "Proto-Balto-Slavic," since the form has to be reconstructed with m, and that form is already a Proto-Indo-European form.

Already in the Proto-Baltic era, the inherited Indo-European -j- disappeared from all Baltic forms where it was followed by a front vowel i, e and preceded by a consonant. This did not happen in Slavic. This phenomenon did not take place in Slavic at all. In the Baltic verbal system, the form of the 3rd person singular replaced completely and totally the 3rd plural and dual verbal forms in very early times, as a matter of fact, so early that not a trace is left of the 3rd person plural.

The Slavic languages, all of them, until the present time, carefully separate the two forms for singular and plural. I am convinced that if there had been any "unity," even for one of two hundred years, this would not have occurred. Again, another fact shows that Baltic languages, although very conservative in many areas, in other characteristics show some very early shifts and changes which have not taken place in Slavic until today.

Thus, the three inherited verbal past tenses of Indo-European perfect, aorist, and imperfect , at a very early date— perhaps at the time of the separation from Proto-Indo-European about 3, B. All three ancient past tenses were replaced in Baltic by one new past tense. In Slavic, however, the three past tenses were preserved well into the 11th century A. In some Slavic languages they still exist in one or another form. In Baltic languages, there exists a very frequent and very important type of verb in -inti as in Lithuanian pinti , kankinti , etc.

There are no traces of this type of verb in Slavic. A very old type of verb exists in many Indo-European languages, cf. Slavic shows no traces of that type of verb,. Slavic also has no verb of the type in - st -, which is numerous in Baltic languages, cf. Again looking back to the 8, 9, and 10 above, I am firmly convinced that these facts alone would suffice for me to doubt any possibility of an early unity.

There are altogether only three forms recorded which offer some proof that ancient Slavic, in very olden times, may have had the sigmatic future tense.