Paleo-Balkan & Balto-Slavic - Common Proto Language

[Onur]

In fact, in terms of military tecnology and organization skills (most important things in that era), the so-called barbarians was far more advanced from the Romans. Thats why Romans immediately adopted eastern military tactics and eastern composite bows as soon as they saw Hunnic armies. Also thats why eastern Roman emperor Leo wrote a book to analyse Turkic military system. I think the emperor Leo`s "Tactica" was one of worlds first strategy book. The current military system and it`s hierarchical organization of 10s divisions is still quite same as 1500 years ago, like head of 10 men is corporal and a luitenant is responsable from 10x corporals, 100 men and 10x luitenants obeys to the squadron leader etc. All these systems comes from the so-called barbarians of medieval age. It was quite same for other barbarians. For example Vandals and also Gauls naval technology was more advanced than Romans, so they defeated them many times.


As for the langugage adoptions; b4 the start of widespread education in 19th century, probably the most important factor was the population. I mean, in the medieval age, the minorities was probably adopting the language of majority due to intermingling between them. For example, why Bitish people (Anglo-Saxons) speaks the language of Angles today, instead of Saxons? It`s because, probably Angles was more populous than Saxons at that time but that doesnt mean that Saxons german like language didnt effect Angles language, cuz it surely did.

2nd most important factor was the religion. In medieval Europe, when a group of people adopts a new religion, sometimes they were also adopting the langage and customs of their religious forefathers because their former language and customs was being demonized and regarded as a sin. Like the peaceful druids of Celts and the runic alphabet of Germans becoming/transforming to the root of witchery and demonism after christianty. Or for example Bulgars in danube. As soon as the Bulgar monarchy became christians, they abandoned their own language, customs and titles like Khan in favor of the Macedonian system created by Cyril&Methodious at that time but that doesnt mean that Bulgars Turkic language didnt effect current slavic language of Bulgarians. It surely did and i know that there are ~150-200 Turkic words in today`s Bulgarian which comes from early medieval era.

There are many linguistic and customary similarities between Swedes and Slavs that no one can explain, for example.

It`s not that difficult to explain. Swedes were also a part of the barbarian peoples from the east. They migrated from the current Russian plains. Before they became christians, they had shamanistic beliefs, like tree of life called igdrasil, the myths like Odin, Thor and ofc they were using runic alphabet.

[Delodephius]

Here is also something that many people have been pondering about and giving many fanciful explanations: why did Romans and Greeks called the Slověni as Sclavi/Sclaveni. Why did they say CL instead of just L. Well to understand this you should know two things: Common Slavic and Belarusian phonology. You see, unlike in all other modern Slavic languages, Common Slavic (and also Old Church Slavonic) had and modern Belarusian still has a consonant sound called the "black L". In Polish and Belarusian transcription into Latin it is written as Ł ł. In Polish however it is pronounced like w in modern days, though some dialects preserve the old pronunciation. This "black L" was pronounced pretty much like a regular L, except it was much deeper in the throat, it was a velar (like k, g) liquid. In Common Slavic and OCS it appeared only before back vowels (a, o, u, ŭ, ɨ), just like in the word Slověni. So when the Romans and Greeks wrote down the name of the Slavs they wrote it how they heard it: an L pronounced back in the throat as if it was preceeded by a K or G, and an A which was really an O though they didn't know that as it sounded the same to them. Hope this makes sense.

[Delodephius]

The Proto-Slavic and even OCS a was much more closer to the back of the throat than a in modern South Slavic languages and Czech and Slovak. In Polish and East Slavic languages it is still pronounced further in the throat. On the other hand, Slavic o is much higher, in all Slavic languages than in other European languages (but not Indo-Iranian). The very reason why in foreign languages the native Slověni was pronounced Sclaveni is due to Slavic o and a being very similar. So in my opinion both galva and golva could have been used in Common Slavic, keeping in mind that such language was never recorded and is only reconstructed and thus only hypothetical. Overall however, Polish has certain features that it preserved from Common Slavic that no other Slavic language has, but so have all Slavic languages.

I don't think that Common Slavic originated in Poland. To be frank I am unsure where it originated. The entire area from both sides of the Carpathian mountains is a possible homeland of that particular dialect, although I think that Common Slavic evolved as a mixture of dialects from the entire area that was under Gothic, Hunnic and Avar rule where it served as a Lingua Franca.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Slovak, is Common Slavic (which is what I have been calling the tongue that was developed north of the Danube before the 6th century) closer to West Slavic languages than the rest, in terms of phonology? As an example I am referring to the below development of the word for 'head':

PBSl. *galwā́ 'head' > Lith. galvà, Old Pr. galwo, Latv. galva; PSl. *galwā́ > Common Slavic *golvà (OCS glava, Russ. golová, Pol. głowa)

The reason I ask is because the vowel in South Slavic glava is closer to Proto Slavic galwā́ than it is to Common Slavic golvà, whereas Polish głowa appears to be closer to Common Slavic, and Russian. So I am wondering if it has anything to do with the below explanation you provided previously:

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.

Would this suggest that Common Slavic emanated from the dialects that were spoken in present-day Poland sometime prior to the 6th century? Interested in your thoughts.

[Delodephius]

Polish has a different phonological system, it preserved some features of Proto-Slavic that almost all other Slavic languages lost, like the nasal ę and ą (ǫ). But it also has some peculiar sounds that don't exist in South Slavic languages. Once you learn how to pronounce them its quite easy to learn the language. The orthography is a bit non-transparent (like the name of the city of Łódź which in Macedonian would be pronounced as Вуќ and not Лоѓ as most people would think) which may cause problems when you first encounter it, but it's very consistent, and so its easier to learn than Russian.

I personally don't like the sound of Macedonian, or Bulgarian, but Polish sounds very beautiful to me, as well as Czech.

[Commander Bond]

Thanks for that, Delodephius.

Interesting concept about westerners understanding Polish more than Russian.
I still think Polish is harder (to me) because I am fluent in my mother tongue, being Macedonian but I am also fluent in Serbian and Croatian. I get a reasonably good understanding of spoken Czech and Slovak (particularly Slovak) but Polish stumps me. I must admit on a personal level that Polish is not pleasant on the ear to me as I dont like the overly busy sounding flow of the language.

Out of curiosity (with your experience), why would this be the case?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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-.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.