Baltic hydronyms cover a vast area of 860,000 km2 from Vystula River in the west to Moscow in the east and from the Baltic Sea in the north all the way to Kyiv in the south. The current Lithuanian and Latvian lands combined constitute approximately one-sixth of the former Baltic territory.[6] Some researchers suggest that in the past Baltic lands from Vystula to Daugava were inhabited by Baltic Finnic tribes but they were assimilated by the Baltic newcomers later on.[7][8][9] There is still an ongoing debate regarding the boundary of hydronyms in the southwest: Lithuanian linguist Simas Karaliūnas [lt] believed that practically all of the basins of Oder and Vystula Rivers belonged to the Baltic hydronym habitat[10] while German linguist Hermann Schall suggested that Baltic hydronyms could be found much further west all the way to Elbe, Saxony and Rügen island.[11] During the 2nd and 1st millennium BC, the Baltic people inhabited larger territories than Germanic and Slavic people did at the time.[12] It is estimated that the Proto-Baltic lands had up to 500,000 people.[12]
Inhabitants of the Proto-Baltic area were surrounded by Germanic people in the west, Slavs in the south and Finno-Ugric people in the north and northeast. Russian philologistVladimir Toporov believes that during 1000–800 BC Proto-Germanic people began expanding into the western Baltic territory starting from the Pasłęka River.[13] Later on, the Baltic area began shrinking even more due to the migration of the Goths. During the migration period Slavic people began expanding into the northern and eastern territories of the Balts. From 11th to 12th century, Russian scriptures mention ongoing battles near Moscow with Eastern Galindians.[14] Since 1225, the conquests of the Teutonic Order in the current Baltic region intensified and later on resulted in the extinction of the Old Prussians in the 18th century.[15]
Various schematic sketches of possible Balto-Slavic language relationships.
Linguists are considering the possibility of present-day Baltic and Slavic languages having a common point of linguistic development. Some supporters of the Baltic and Slavic languages unity even claim that Proto-Baltic branch did not exist, suggesting that Proto-Balto-Slavic split into three language groups: East Baltic, West Baltic and Proto-Slavic.[16][17][18] However, critics point out that the phonology and morphology, which is shared by all known Baltic languages, is much more archaic than that of Proto-Slavic, retaining many features attributed to other attested Indo-European languages roughly 3000 years ago.[19]
It is also known that some Baltic and Slavic languages have more in common that others: Old Prussian and Latvian share more commonalities with Slavic languages than Lithuanian.[20] Some similarities between Baltic and Slavic can be found on all levels of linguistic analysis, which led German philologist August Schleicher to believe that there was indeed a common point of development. French linguist Antoine Meillet, however, rejected this idea and claimed that similarities between Baltic and Slavic languages were a result of close contact. Meanwhile, Latvian linguist Jānis Endzelīns suggested that following the split of PIE, Baltic and Slavic languages evolved independently, but later experienced a common period of greater contact. Jan Michał Rozwadowski proposed that the two language groups were indeed a unity after the division of Indo-European, but also suggested that after the two had divided into separate entities (Baltic and Slavic), they had posterior contact.[21] Russian liguists Vladimir Toporov and Vyacheslav Ivanov believed that Proto-Slavic language formed from the peripheral-type Baltic dialects.[22][23]
Germanic languages
There is some vocabulary (about 60 words) that Baltic and Germanic languages share, excluding loanwords. Common vocabulary mostly includes words relating to work, equipment, agriculture etc., such as Proto-Baltic *darbas, meaning 'work' and Proto-Germanic*derbaz, meaning 'bold, determined, strong' < *derbaną 'to work',[24] Proto-Baltic *derṷā and Proto-Germanic*terwą, meaning 'tar, resin', Proto-Baltic *gāmurii̯as and Proto-Germanic*gōmô, meaning 'palate'.[25] Baltic and Germanic languages also share numeral formation for 11 to 19, both partially possess the same formation of verbs in past tense (ablaut), absence of the aorist. According to German linguist Wolfgang P. Schmid [de], at first Proto-Baltic was a centum language along with Proto-Germanic, but it eventually became satem later on.[26] Some scholars believe that Baltic and Germanic contacts are older than those with Slavic languages while others claim the opposite.[27][28] According to Lithuanian linguist Saulius Ambrazas [lt], Germanic people borrowed certain suffixes from their Baltic neighbours, such as *-ing-, *-isko-, *-ō-men- (e. g., Old High German: arming 'poor person', Old Icelandic: bernska 'childhood', Gothic: aldōmin (DAT) 'senility').[29] Both Baltic and Germanic emotional verbs possess similar semantic development, which is evinced by roots like *dhers- and *dreǵh-. This semantic group is also noted for having exclusive isoglosses (e. g., PIE: *dreǵh-, *dherbh-, *u̯rengh-, *peḱ-), though they differ in meaning.[30]
Simas Karaliūnas [lt] suggested that in the 3rd millennium BC Germanic and Baltic languages shared a common phase of linguistic convergence and that Baltic dialects were initially closer to the Germanic dialects than Slavic ones.[31]
Finnic languages
The linguistic influences of Baltic Finnic languages, which are associated with the eastern Baltic area, can be observed in certain grammatical innovations, such as the merge of some cases with postpositions, thus forming new additional cases (postpositional locatives): inessive*šakāi + en > *šakāi̯en 'in the branch', illative*šakān + nā > *šakānā 'into the branch', adessive*šakāi + prei > *šakāip(r)ei '(to be) by the branch' and allative*šakās + prei > *šakāsp(r)ei '(get closer) to the branch'. The impact of the Finnic languages over Baltic languages also explains the widespread use of a non-agreed modifier expressed by the genitive of a noun (Latvian: latviešu valoda, literally 'language of the Latvians') in contrast to other Indo-European languages that usually apply an agreed modifier expressed by an adjective (German: die lettische Sprache 'Latvian language') as well as the usage of indirect mood when one is retelling an event without knowing whether it actually happened.[32]
Phonetics and phonology
Vowels and diphthongs
The vowels of Proto-Baltic changed little in comparison to PIE: short vowels *a and *o coincided into a single *a while the reduced Indo-European vowel schwa primum (*ə) also turned into *a as it did in other Indo-European languages of Europe and it ceased to exist in the middle of words.[33] According to the proponents of the Laryngeal theory, the schwa primum appeared by turning laryngeals into vowels, which makes its reconstruction for PIE unnecessary and obsolete.[34] There were four short and five long vowels as well as four short and six long diphthongs as presented below:[33]
Vowels *a, *e, *i, *u together with sonorants*r, *l, *m, *n of Proto-Baltic were used to form mixed diphthongs as they are being used in the modern Baltic languages today. It is also well known that there were mixed diphthongs with long vowels at the endings. Long diphthongs can be reconstructed when glottaling (e. g., PIE: *pl̥h₁nós 'full' > Proto-Baltic: *pī́ˀlnas 'full'), compared to PIE, the position of stress in the example is conditioned by Hirt's law.[35][36] Long mixed diphthongs, which position in the morpheme is hardly determined or their existence is questionable are presented in Italic:
Mixed diphthongs
Sonorants
-r
-l
-m
-n
Vowels
a- ā-
arār
alāl
amām
anān
e- ē-
erēr
elēl
emēm
enēn
i- ī-
irīr
ilīl
imīm
inīn
u- ū-
urūr
ulūl
umūm
unūn
ō-
ōr
ōl
ōm
ōn
Consonants
The consonants of Proto-Baltic experienced greater changes than primary vowels when in their primordial condition. PIE aspirated and labialized velar consonants (*bʰ, *dʰ, *gʰ, *gu̯, *gu̯ʰ, *ku̯) in Proto-Baltic coincided with plain consonants (*b, *d, *g, *k) as they did in some other Indo-European languages. However, at the early stages of development, the differences between plain and aspirated voiced plosives might have been retained. This is because before the plain voiced plosives the vowels were lengthened, which is not the case with the aspirated voiced ones (Winter's law). The Proto-Baltic was a satem language, PIE *ḱ turned into *š, PIE *ǵ and PIE *ǵʰ turned into *ž.[37][38]
The sonorants of PIE *ṛ, *ḷ, *ṃ, *ṇ, which were used as vowels and could form a syllable, turned into mixed diphthongs *ir, *il, *im, *in (in rarer cases—*ur, *ul, *um, *un) in Proto-Baltic. These diphthongs alternated (had an ablaut) with *er (*ēr), *el (*ēl), *em (*ēm), *en (*ēn) and *ar (*ōr), *al (*ōl), *am (*ōm), *an (*ōn).
One of the unique properties of Baltic languages is the disappearance of the semivowel *i̯ between a consonant and a front vowel (e. g., *žemi̯ē > *žemē 'earth').
Another noteworthy trait of Proto-Baltic is the retained intact *m existing before front dental consonants *t, *d, *s (e. g., *šimtan 'hundred', *kimdai 'gloves', *tamsā 'darkness'), which in other Indo-European languages turned into n. However, unlike in Italic or Indo-Iranian languages, in Proto-Baltic *m and *ṃ would become *n at the very end of a word.[34]
Stress and pitch accent
In the Proto-Baltic language, the stress could be placed on any syllable, the stress was free, unfixed. According to the movement of stress, three possible variants of accent system are reconstructed: 1) a system with baritone accentuation (stress on the stem) and oxytonic accentuation (stress on the endings), 2) a system with baritone accentuation and mobile accentuation (stress moves from endings to the stem), 3) a system with the baritone, mobile and oxytonic accentuations.[42]
There were two pitch accents, an acute (´) and a circumflex (˜), which were pronounced with pure and mixed diphthongs and long vowels. Pitch accents could be pronounced both in the stems and in the endings. The acute pitch had a rising intonation, while the circumflex pitch had a falling intonation. Some scientists (Zigmas Zinkevičius, Vytautas Kardelis [lt], Vytautas Rinkevičius (1981) [lt] etc.) believe that pitch accents were pronounced both in stressed and unstressed syllables, for example *'rãnkā́ 'hand' (stress placed on the first syllable, although both syllables had different pitch accents).[42][43]
*ā-stem and *ē-stem nouns were feminine, *o-stem nouns basically were masculine and neuter, *s-stem nouns were neuter, *r-stem nouns―masculine and feminine while other noun stems could refer to all three genders. Unlike feminine and masculine nouns, neuter ones always had the same form for the nominative, accusative, and vocative cases. This form distinguished neuter nouns from masculine and feminine ones belonging to the same stem. Masculine and feminine nouns of the same stem had identical endings, and the grammatical gender was indicated by gender-changing words (pronouns, adjectives, participles, etc.) used with nouns:[46]*labas anglis 'a good coal' (masculine), *labā au̯is 'a good sheep' (feminine), *laban mari 'a good sea' (neuter). Because of the disappearance of the semivowel *i̯ between a consonant and a front vowel, neuter *i-stem words had changes *mari̯ī > *marī 'two seas', *aru̯i̯ī > *aru̯ī 'two suitable ones' in dual.
Unlike the noun, the adjective used to be alternated using a gender (masculine, feminine, and neuter), which was then adapted to the corresponding gender of the noun. Adjectives had three degrees: positive (no suffix: masculine *labas, neuter *laban, feminine *labā 'good'), comparative (suffix *-es-: masculine *labesis, neuter *labesi, feminine *labesē 'better') and superlative (suffix *-im-: masculine *labimas, neuter *labiman, feminine *labimā 'the best'). They had singular, dual and plural numbers as they were applied to adjectives for combining them with nouns. The vocative case usually concurred with the nominative one.[47]
As in the case of noun paradigms, there were *i̯o- (fem. *i̯ā-) and *ii̯o- (fem. *ē-) stem variants next to the *o-stem adjectives. Feminine gender forms were constructed with the *ā-stem while the feminine forms with the *i̯ā-stem (sing. nom. *-ī) were constructed with the *u-stem adjectives. The feminine gender of the masculine and neuter genders for the *i-stem probably resulted with *i̯ā- or *ē-stems. However, the reconstruction of the later is difficult as the *i-stem adjectives in the current Baltic languages were poorly preserved.[48]
The reconstruction of the verb of Proto-Baltic is mostly based on the collected data on the Eastern Baltic languages, as the verb system in Old Prussian is poorly attested. The reconstructed verb system is attributed to the later stages of linguistic development. Unlike other parts of speech, the verb of Proto-Baltic experienced a lot of changes—the grammatical mood, tense and voice systems that came from PIE changed. For instance, from the former Proto-Indo-European tenses—the present, the aorist, the perfect—only the present was preserved by Proto-Baltic in addition to the sigmatic future, which by some researchers is considered to be an inheritance from late PIE.[50]
In PIE there were four moods: indicative, subjunctive, optative and imperative. In Proto-Baltic, indicative remained but subjunctive was changed by the newly formed conditional mood. Meanwhile, imperative gained forms from optative. PIE also had two verb voices – active and middle. The latter was changed with reflexive verbs in Proto-Baltic. New types of verb form (the analytical perfect and the pluperfect) and the analytical passive voice were created.[51] The most archaic trait of Proto-Baltic is the retained athematic conjugation.[52][53] In the first and second person forms, Proto-Baltic had preserved the three numbers from PIE (singular, dual and plural), while in third person, number was not distinguished.[54]
The verb of the Proto-Baltic had three basic stems, i.e. the stems of the present tense, past tense and the infinitive. All forms of the verb were based on those stems.[55] For example, the stems of the verb 'to carry' were *neša-, *nešē-, *neš-; the stems of the verb 'to sit' were *sēdi-, *sēdējā-, *sēdē-. Compared to Lith. nẽša 'he carrys', nẽšė 'he carried', nèšti 'to carry'; sė́di 'he sits', sėdė́jo 'he sat', sėdė́ti 'to sit'.[56]
Conjugation
CH. Stang identifies the following conjugations of verbs in the present tense: athematic, thematic (*o-stem verbs) and semi-thematic (*i-stem and *ā-stem verbs).[57] The future tense was formed using the *-s- / -*si- suffix attached to the infinitive stem, and because of the *-si- suffix, all future tense verbs were conjugated with the *i-stem.[58] The past tense had *ā- and *ē-stems.[59] With a few exceptions (1st sg. conditional*rinkti̯ā 'I would gather', 2nd sg. imperative*renkais 'gather!'), all verb endings were borrowed from the present tense.[60]
In Proto-Baltic the infinitive was created with suffixes *-tei, *-tēi, *-ti: *eitei, *-tēi, *-ti 'go', *darītei, *-tēi, *-ti 'do'. The infinitive comes from the singular nominal of the word stem ti in its dative (*mirtei 'for death') and locative (*mirtēi 'in death'; consonant stem —*darānti 'in doing' (active participle, masculine–neuter) form. In Lithuanian, the relationship between the infinitive and dative can sometimes be observed to this day (e. g., kėdė yra sėdėti / sėdėjimui 'the chair is for sitting', ne metas liūdėti / liūdėjimui 'no time for sadness').[61]
Supine
In Proto-Baltic the supine was created with suffixes *-tun < PIE *-tum: *eitun, *darītun. This verb form is unconjugated and was used together with the verbs of movement to express the adverbials of a purpose or an intention. The supine comes from the singular nominal of the word stem tu in its accusative form (*leitun 'rain'). The connection can be observed in the existing dialects of the current Baltic languages and is considered to be inherited from PIE as the supine can be found in other Indo-European languages as well.
Aspect
Aspect (e. g., imperfective aspect Lithuanian: rinkau 'I was gathering' vs. perfective aspect Lithuanian: surinkau 'I had gathered') might have been unusual to Proto-Baltic, as aorist tense, which was used to express a perfective aspect of a process in contrast to the present tense used to express the imperfective aspect, fell out of use.[62]
Participle
Proto-Baltic had active and passive voice participles. Traditionally, it is believed that active voice participles already existed in PIE. Participles were declined the same way as the nominals. The vocative case probably coincided with the nominative one. The participle had three genders (masculine, feminine and neuter), numbers (singular, dual, plural) and tenses (present, future, past). Active participles were used to express a specific trait of an object that arises as a result of their own doing while passive participles were meant to express a specific trait of an object that arises as a result of someone else taking action.
Present participles of the verbs *rinktei 'gather, collect', *turētei 'have', *laikītei 'hold':
Present active participles
*o-stem
*i-stem
*ā-stem
Masculine
Neuter
Feminine
Masculine
Neuter
Feminine
Masculine
Neuter
Feminine
Singular
Nominative Vocative
*renkants
*renkant
*renkantī
*turints
*turint
*turintī
*laikānts
*laikānt
*laikāntī
Genitive
*renkantes
*renkanti̯ās
*turintes
*turinti̯ās
*laikāntes
*laikānti̯ās
Dative
*renkantei
*renkanti̯āi
*turintei
*turinti̯āi
*laikāntei
*laikānti̯āi
Accusative
*renkantin
*renkant
*renkanti̯ān
*turintin
*turint
*turinti̯ān
*laikāntin
*laikānt
*laikānti̯ān
Instrumental
*renkantmi
*renkanti̯ān
*turintmi
*turinti̯ān
*laikāntmi
*laikānti̯ān
Locative
*renkanti
*renkanti̯āi
*turinti
*turinti̯āi
*laikānti
*laikānti̯āi
Dual
Nominative Accusative Vocative
*renkante
*renkantī
*renkanti̯āi
*turinte
*turintī
*turinti̯āi
*laikānte'
*laikāntī
*laikānti̯āi
Dative Instrumental
*renkantmā
*renkanti̯āmā
*turintmā
*turinti̯āmā
*laikāntmā
*laikānti̯āmā
Genitive Locative
*renkantaus
*renkanti̯āus
*turintaus
*turinti̯āus
*laikāntaus
*laikānti̯āus
Plural
Nominative Vocative
*renkantes
*renkantā
*renkanti̯ās
*turintes
*turintā
*turinti̯ās
*laikāntes
*laikāntā
*laikānti̯ās
Genitive
*renkantōn
*renkanti̯ōn
*turintōn
*turinti̯ōn
*laikāntōn
*laikānti̯ōn
Dative
*renkantmas
*renkanti̯āmas
*turintmas
*turinti̯āmas
*laikāntmas
*laikānti̯āmas
Accusative
*renkantins
*renkantā
*renkanti̯āns
*turintins
*turintā
*turinti̯āns
*laikāntins
*laikāntā
*laikānti̯āns
Instrumental
*renkantmīs
*renkanti̯āmīs
*turintmīs
*turinti̯āmīs
*laikāntmīs
*laikānti̯āmīs
Locative
*renkantsu
*renkanti̯āsu
*turintsu
*turinti̯āsu
*laikāntsu
*laikānti̯āsu
Present passive participles
*o-stem
*i-stem
*ā-stem
Masculine
Neuter
Feminine
Masculine
Neuter
Feminine
Masculine
Neuter
Feminine
Singular
Nominative Vocative
*renkamas
*renkaman / *renkama
*renkamā
*turimas
*turiman / *turima
*turimā
*laikāmas
*laikāman / *laikāma
*laikāmā
Genitive
*renkamas(a) / *renkamā
*renkamās
*turimas(a) / *turimā
*turimās
*laikāmas(a) / *laikāmā
*laikāmās
Dative
*renkamōi
renkamāi
*turimōi
*turimāi
*laikāmōi
*laikāmāi
Accusative
*renkaman
*renkaman / *renkama
*renkamān
*turiman
*turiman /*turima
*turimān
*laikāman
*laikāman / *laikāma
*laikāmān
Instrumental
*renkamō
*renkamān
*turimō
*turimān
*laikāmō
*laikāmān
Locative
*renkamei
*renkamāi
*turimei
*turimāi
*laikāmei
*laikāmāi
Dual
Nominative Accusative Vocative
*renkamō
*renkamai
*renkamāi
*turimō
*turimai
*turimāi
*laikāmō
*laikāmai
*laikāmāi
Dative Instrumental
*renkamamā
*renkamāmā
*turimamā
*turimāmā
*laikāmamā
*laikāmāmā
Genitive Locative
*renkamōus
*renkamāus
*turimōus
*turimāus
*laikāmōus
*laikāmāus
Plural
Nominative Vocative
*renkamai
*renkamā
*renkamās
*turimai
*turimā
*turimās
*laikāmai
*laikāmā
*laikāmās
Genitive
*renkamōn
*turimōn
*laikāmōn
Dative
*renkamamas
*renkamāmas
*turimamas
*turimāmas
*laikāmamas
*laikāmāmas
Accusative
*renkamōns
*renkamā
*renkamāns
*turimōns
*turimā
*turimāns
*laikāmōns
*laikāmā
*laikāmāns
Instrumental
*renkamais
*renkamāmīs
*turimais
*turimāmīs
*laikāmais
*laikāmāmīs
Locative
*renkameisu
*renkamāsu
*turimeisu
*turimāsu
*laikāmeisu
*laikāmāsu
Future participles of the verbs *būtei 'be', *turētei 'have':
Future active participles
Infinitive stems (all the verbs)
Masculine
Neuter
Feminine
Masculine
Neuter
Feminine
Singular
Nominative Vocative
*būsi̯ants
*būsi̯ant
*būsi̯antī
*turēsi̯ants
*turēsi̯ant
*turēsi̯antī
Genitive
*būsi̯antes
*būsi̯anti̯ās
*turēsi̯antes
*turēsi̯anti̯ās
Dative
*būsi̯antei
*būsi̯anti̯āi
*turēsi̯antei
*turēsi̯anti̯āi
Accusative
*būsi̯antin
*būsi̯ant
*būsi̯anti̯ān
*turēsi̯antin
*turēsi̯ant
*turēsi̯anti̯ān
Instrumental
*būsi̯antmi
*būsi̯anti̯ān
*turēsi̯antmi
*turēsi̯anti̯ān
Locative
*būsi̯anti
*būsi̯anti̯āi
*turēsi̯anti
*turēsi̯anti̯āi
Dual
Nominative Accusative Vocative
*būsi̯ante
*būsi̯antī
*būsi̯anti̯āi
*turēsi̯ante
*turēsi̯antī
*turēsi̯anti̯āi
Dative Instrumental
*būsi̯antmā
*būsi̯anti̯āmā
*turēsi̯antmā
*turēsi̯anti̯āmā
Genitive Locative
*būsi̯antaus
*būsi̯anti̯āus
*turēsi̯antaus
*turēsi̯anti̯āus
Plural
Nominative Vocative
*būsi̯antes
*būsi̯antā
*būsi̯anti̯ās
*turēsi̯antes
*turēsi̯antā
*turēsi̯anti̯ās
Genitive
*būsi̯antōn
*būsi̯anti̯ōn
*turēsi̯antōn
*turēsi̯anti̯ōn
Dative
*būsi̯antmas
*būsi̯anti̯āmas
*turēsi̯antmas
*turēsi̯anti̯āmas
Accusative
*būi̯antins
*būsi̯antā
*būsi̯anti̯āns
*turēsi̯antins
*turēsi̯antā
*turēsi̯anti̯āns
Instrumental
*būsi̯antmīs
*būsi̯anti̯āmīs
*turēsi̯antmīs
*turēsi̯anti̯āmīs
Locative
*būsi̯antsu
*būsi̯anti̯āsu
*turēsi̯antsu
*turēsi̯anti̯āsu
Future passive participles
Infinitive stems (all the verbs)
Masculine
Neuter
Feminine
Masculine
Neuter
Feminine
Singular
Nominative Vocative
*būsi̯amas
*būsi̯aman / *būsi̯ama
*būsi̯amā
*turēsi̯amas
*turēsi̯aman / *turēsi̯ama
*turēsi̯amā
Genitive
*būsi̯amas(a) / *būsi̯amā
*būsi̯amās
*turēsi̯amas(a) / *turēsi̯amā
*turēsi̯amās
Dative
*būsi̯amōi
*būsi̯amāi
*turēsi̯amōi
*turēsi̯amāi
Accusative
*būsi̯aman
*būsi̯aman / *būsi̯ama
*būsi̯amān
*turēsi̯aman
*turēsi̯aman / *turēsi̯ama
*turēsi̯amān
Instrumental
*būsi̯amō
*būsi̯amān
*turēsi̯amō
*turēsi̯amān
Locative
*būsi̯amei
*būsi̯amāi
*turēsi̯amei
*turēsi̯amāi
Dual
Nominative Accusative Vocative
*būsi̯amō
*būsi̯amai
*būsi̯amāi
*turēsi̯amō
*turēsi̯amai
*turēsi̯amāi
Dative Instrumental
*būsi̯amamā
*būsi̯amāmā
*turēsi̯amamā
*turēsi̯amāmā
Genitive Locative
*būsi̯amōus
*būsi̯amāus
*turēsi̯amōus
*turēsi̯amāus
Plural
Nominative Vocative
*būsi̯amai
*būsi̯amā
*būsi̯amās
*turēsi̯amai
*turēsi̯amā
*turēsi̯amās
Genitive
*būsi̯amōn
*turēsi̯amōn
Dative
*būsi̯amamas
*būsi̯amāmas
*turēsi̯amamas
*turēsi̯amāmas
Accusative
*būsi̯amōns
*būsi̯amā
*būsi̯amāns
*turēsi̯amōns
*turēsi̯amā
*turēsi̯amāns
Instrumental
*būsi̯amais
*būsi̯amāmīs
*turēsi̯amais
*turēsi̯amāmīs
Locative
*būsi̯ameisu
*būsi̯amāsu
*turēsi̯ameisu
*turēsi̯amāsu
Past participles of the verbs *būtei 'be', *turētei 'have', *laikītei 'hold':
Past active participles
*ā-stem
*ē-stem
Masculine
Neuter
Feminine
Masculine
Neuter
Feminine
Singular
Nominative Vocative
*turēi̯ents / *turēi̯ēs
*turēi̯ent / *turēi̯us
*turēi̯usī
*laikents / *laiki̯usēs
*laikent / *laiki̯us
*laiki̯usī
Genitive
*turēi̯uses
*turēi̯usi̯ās
*laiki̯uses
*laiki̯usi̯ās
Dative
*turēi̯usei
*turēi̯usi̯āi
*laiki̯usei
*laiki̯usi̯āi
Accusative
*turēi̯usin
*turēi̯ent / *turēi̯us
*turēi̯usi̯ān
*laiki̯usin
*laikent / *laiki̯us
*laiki̯usi̯ān
Instrumental
*turēi̯usmi
*turēi̯usi̯ān
*laiki̯usmi
*laiki̯usi̯ān
Locative
*turēi̯usi
*turēi̯usi̯āi
*laiki̯usi
*laiki̯usi̯āi
Dual
Nominative Accusative Vocative
*turēi̯use
*turēi̯usī
*turēi̯usi̯āi
*laiki̯use
*laiki̯usī
*laiki̯usi̯āi
Dative Instrumental
*turēi̯usmā
*turēi̯usi̯āmā
*laiki̯usmā
*laiki̯usi̯āmā
Genitive Locative
*turēi̯usaus
*turēi̯usi̯āus
*laiki̯usaus
*laiki̯usi̯āus
Plural
Nominative Vocative
*turēi̯entes / *turēi̯uses
*turēi̯entā / *turēi̯usā
*turēi̯usi̯ās
*laikentes / *laiki̯uses
*laikentā / *laiki̯usā
*laiki̯usi̯ās
Genitive
*turēi̯usōn
*turēi̯usi̯ōn
*laiki̯usōn
*laiki̯usi̯ōn
Dative
*turēi̯usmas
*turēi̯usi̯āmas
*laiki̯usmas
*laiki̯usi̯āmas
Accusative
*turēi̯usins
*turēi̯entā / *turēi̯usā
*turēi̯usi̯āns
*laiki̯usins
*laikentā / *laiki̯usā
*laiki̯usi̯āns
Instrumental
*turēi̯usmīs
*turēi̯usi̯āmīs
*laiki̯usmīs
*laiki̯usi̯āmīs
Locative
*turēi̯u(s)su
*turēi̯usi̯āsu
*laiki̯u(s)su
*laiki̯usi̯āsu
Past passive participles
Infinitive stems (all the verbs)
Masculine
Neuter
Feminine
Masculine
Neuter
Feminine
Singular
Nominative Vocative
*būtas
*būtan / *būta
*būtā
*turētas
*turētan/ *turēta
*turētā
Genitive
*būtas(a) / *būtā
*būtās
*turētas(a) / *turētā
*turētās
Dative
*būtōi
*būtāi
*turētōi
*turētāi
Accusative
*būtan
*būtan / *būta
*būtān
*turētan
*turētan / *turēta
*turētān
Instrumental
*būtō
*būtān
*turētō
*turētān
Locative
*būtei
*būtāi
*turētei
*turētāi
Dual
Nominative Accusative Vocative
*būtō
*būtai
*būtāi
*turētō
*turētai
*turētāi
Dative Instrumental
*būtamā
*būtāmā
*turētamā
*turētāmā
Genitive Locative
*būtōus
*būtāus
*turētōus
*turētāus
Plural
Nominative Vocative
*būtai
*būtā
*būtās
*turētai
*turētā
*turētās
Genitive
*būtōn
*turētōn
Dative
*būtamas
*būtāmas
*turētamas
*turētāmas
Accusative
*būtōns
*būtā
*būtāns
*turētōns
*turētā
*turētāns
Instrumental
*būtais
*būtāmīs
*turētais
*turētāmīs
Locative
*būteisu
*būtāsu
*turēteisu
*turētāsu
Pronouns
The inflexions of PIE were already different significantly in comparison to nominals. As in the case of PIE, the demonstrative pronouns of Proto-Baltic could indicate three levels of varying distance from the speaker: close range *šis and *is, distant range *anas, and unspecified range *tas. The latter demonstrative pronoun, which had three grammatical genders, was the equivalent to the third-person. There were two personal pronouns, they had no grammatical gender — *ež (*eš) 'I' and *tu / *tū 'you', which possessed suppletive inflexion forms preserved from PIE. The reflexive pronoun*seu̯e 'oneself' only had a singular form without the nominative as it does in the current Baltic languages. The singular forms of the pronoun *seu̯e were also used with dual and plural objects, i.e. the singular also served as dual and plural.[63]
Dutch Professor Frederik Kortlandt believed that only the oldest and non-renewed pronoun forms should be reconstructed in Proto-Baltic language while Lithuanian linguist-historian Professor Zigmas Zinkevičius believed older pronoun forms only existed at the earliest stages of Proto-Baltic.[64]
There were two interrogative pronouns—masculine *kat[a/e]ras, neuter *kat[a/e]ra, feminine *kat[a/e]rā, all meaning 'which', and masculine–feminine *kas, neuter *ka, meaning 'who, what'. The latter was used as a relative pronoun in compound sentences. According to Zigmas Zinkevičius, relative pronouns had all three genders,[66] and Vytautas Mažiulis believed pronoun *kas had the feminine form *kā when it was used as a relative pronoun.[67] Interrogative and relative pronouns were inflected the same way as the demonstrative pronoun *tas.
Indefinite pronouns
Indefinite pronouns, such as masculine *kitas, neuter *kita, feminine *kitā , meaning 'other', or masculine *u̯isas, neuter *u̯isa, feminine *u̯isā, meaning 'all, entire, whole', were also inflected as the pronoun *tas.[66]
Possessive pronouns
Possessive pronouns indicate divisions between Baltic dialects: the western areal would have forms, such as the masculine *mai̯as, neuter *mai̯a, feminine *mai̯ā 'mine'; masculine *tu̯ai̯as, neuter *tu̯ai̯a, feminine *tu̯ai̯ā 'yours'; masculine *su̯ai̯as, neuter *su̯ai̯a, feminine *su̯ai̯ā 'oneself'. In comparison, the eastern areal would possess forms like the masculine *menas, neuter *mena, feminine *menā; masculine *teu̯as, neuter *teu̯a, feminine *teu̯ā; masculine *seu̯as, neuter *seu̯a, feminine *seu̯ā, respectively. These pronouns would be inflected as other gendered pronouns, although they could have been used only in their genitive form. The eigenvalue of plural and dual possessive pronouns was possibly expressed in the genitive case of plural personal pronouns (e. g., *nōsōn (→*nūsōn) 'ours', *ṷōsōn (→*i̯ūsōn) 'yours').[68]
Western Baltic pronouns masculine *su̯ai̯as, neuter *su̯ai̯a, feminine *su̯ai̯ā 'oneself', Eastern Baltic ones masculine *seu̯as, neuter *seu̯a, feminine *seu̯ā 'oneself' could be used with all persons.[69] The equivalent of third person possessive pronoun was the genitive case of the
demonstrative pronoun *tas, which had three numbers and genders.
Numerals
Numerals in Proto-Baltic, except for 'two', had noun endings: *ainas / *einas[70][71] (PIE: *oinos) 'one' was inflected the same way as noun word stems o (masculine and neuter) and ā (feminine), this numeral had a singular, dual and plural number; masculine *d(u)u̯ō (PIE: *duu̯ō) and neuter-feminine *d(u)u̯ai (PIE: *duu̯oi) 'two' was inflected as a demonstrative pronoun dual; *trii̯es (masc. PIE: *trei̯es) 'three' was inflected as a plural noun with the word stem i and was common for all genders; meanwhile *ketures (masc. PIE: *ku̯etu̯ores) 'four' was inflected as a plural noun with the consonant word stem r and was also the same for all three genders.[72]
Proto-Baltic people applied the principles for *ketures (PIE: *ku̯etu̯ores) 'four' inflexion to numerals *penkes (PIE: *penku̯e) 'five', *ušes / *sešes (PIE:*u̯eḱs / *su̯eḱs) 'six', *septines (PIE:*septṃ) 'seven', *aštōnes (PIE: *oḱtō) 'eight' and *neu̯ines (PIE: *neu̯ṇ) 'nine'. In PIE, numerals from five to nine were not inflected. The early Proto-Baltic might have retained the uninflected numeral forms of *septin 'seven', *aštō 'eight', *neu̯in 'nine' as well.[76] The reconstruction of Latvian language indicates that *septines 'seven' and *neu̯ines 'nine' with the short *i is plausible.
Ordinal numbers
The masculine and neuter ordinal numbers were inflected as nouns possessing word stem o while feminine ones were inflected as nouns with word stem ā. Ordinal numbers from first to tenth in Proto-Baltic were as follows:
^Dini, P.U. (2000). Baltų kalbos. Lyginamoji istorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. pp. 109–110. ISBN5-420-01444-0.
^Dini, P.U. (2000). Baltų kalbos. Lyginamoji istorija [Baltic languages. Comparative History] (in Lithuanian). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas [Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing]. p. 56. ISBN5-420-01444-0.
^Smoczyński, W. (1986). Języki indoeuropejskie. Języki bałtyckie [Indo-European languages. Baltic languages] (in Polish). Warsaw: PWN.
^Zinkevičius, Zigmas. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija [History of Lithuanian] (in Lithuanian). I. Vilnius: Mokslas [Science]. pp. 154–155. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^Dini, P.U. (2000). Baltų kalbos. Lyginamoji istorija [Baltic languages. Comparative History] (in Lithuanian). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas [Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing]. p. 155. ISBN5-420-01444-0.
^Karaliūnas S. (2005). Baltų praeitis istoriniuose šaltiniuose. 2. [The Past of the Balts in Historical Records. 2.] (in Lithuanian). Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas [Institute of Lithuanian language]. pp. 404–411. ISBN9986-668-69-7.
^Zinkevičius, Zigmas. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija [History of Lithuanian] (in Lithuanian). I. Vilnius: Mokslas [Science]. p. 150. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^ abZinkevičius, Zigmas. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija [History of Lithuanian] (in Lithuanian). I. Vilnius: Mokslas. p. 151. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^Toporov, Vladimir (2006). Мировые языки. Балтийские языки [World languages. Baltic languages] (in Russian). Moscow: Academia. p. 225. ISBN5-87444-225-1.
^Zinkevičius, Z. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija. I. [History of Lithuanian Language, 1st edition] (in Lithuanian). Vilnius: Mokslas. p. 248. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^Mallory, P.; Douglas, Q. Adams (1997). Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. pp. 497. ISBN978-1-884964-98-5.
^Dini, P.U. (2000). Baltų kalbos. Lyginamoji istorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. p. 55. ISBN5-420-01444-0.„104Plg. J. Otrębski 1956–1965 I, p. 44; Schmitt-Brandt 1972. Griežtai prieš baltų (ir baltų-slavų) prokalbės hipotezę pasisakė Mayer 1981.“
^Kortlandt, Frederik (2009), Baltica & Balto-Slavica, p. 5, Though Prussian is undoubtedly closer to the East Baltic languages than to Slavic, the characteristic features of the Baltic languages seem to be either retentions or results of parallel development and cultural interaction. Thus I assume that Balto-Slavic split into three identifiable branches, each of which followed its own course of development.
^Derksen, Rick (2008), Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon, p. 20, I am not convinced that it is justified to reconstruct a Proto-Baltic stage. The term Proto-Baltic is used for convenience's sake.
^Zinkevičius, Z. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija. I. Vilnius: „Mokslas“. p. 9. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^Zinkevičius, Z. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija. I. Vilnius: „Mokslas“. p. 134. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^Dini, P. U. (2000). Baltų kalbos: Lyginamoji istorija [Baltic Languages: A Comparative History] (in Lithuanian). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. p. 143. ISBN5-420-01444-0.
^Karaliūnas, Simas (1968). Kai kurie baltų ir slavų kalbų seniausiųjų santykių klausimai [Some Questions About the Oldest Relationship of Baltic and Slavic Languages] (in Lithuanian, abstract available in German and Russian). Acta Linguistica Lithuanica. pp. 93; 97.
^Zinkevičius, Zigmas. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija [History of Lithuanian] (in Lithuanian). I. Vilnius: Mokslas. p. 228. ISBN 4601000000.
^ abZinkevičius, Zigmas. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija [History of Lithuanian] (in Lithuanian). I. Vilnius: Mokslas [Science]. p. 189. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^ abVillanueva Svensson, M. (2016). Indoeuropiečių kalbotyros pagrindai. Antras pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas [Basics of Indo-European Linguistics. Second Revised and Augmented Edition] (in Lithuanian). Vilnius: Vilnius University. p. 77. ISBN978-609-459-788-6.
^Shevelov, G. Y. (1964). A Prehistory of Slavic. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. p. 50.
^ abZinkevičius, Z. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija. I. Vilnius: „Mokslas“. pp. 193–194. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^Kardelis, V. (2015). Lietuvių kalbos istorijos pradmenys. Vokalizmas ir prozodija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. p. 84. ISBN978-609-459-472-4.
^Zinkevičius, Zigmas. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija [History of Lithuanian] (in Lithuanian). I. Vilnius: Mokslas [Science]. p. 43. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^Stang, Chr. (1966). Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen [Comparative Grammar of the Baltic Languages] (in German). Oslo-Bergen-Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget.
^Zinkevičius, Z. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos kilmė. I. Vilnius: „Mokslas“. pp. 195–208. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^Zinkevičius, Z. (1981). Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. II. Vilnius: „Mokslas“. pp. 26–27.
^Zinkevičius, Zigmas. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija [History of Lithuanian] (in Lithuanian). I. Vilnius: Mokslas [Science]. pp. 209–210. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^V. Mažiulis. ''arwis''. Prūsų kalbos paveldo duomenų bazė [Prussian language heritage database]. Retrieved on January 7, 2022.
^Савченко, А. Н. (2003). Сравнительная грамматика индоевропейских языков. М.: УРСС. pp. 285–288.
^Kvietkauskas, V. (1985). Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas [International Word Dictionary]. Vilnius: The Chief Editorial Office of Encyclopedias.
^Bičovský, J. (2009). Vademecum starými indoevropskými jazyky [Pocket Reference in Old Indo-European Languages] (in Czech) Prague: Charles University Publishing House. p. 199. ISBN978-80-7308-287-1.
^Dini, P.U. (2000). Baltų kalbos. Lyginamoji istorija [Baltic languages. Comparative History] (in Lithuanian). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas [Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing]. p. 108. ISBN5-420-01444-0.
^Stang Chr. (1966). Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo-Bergen-Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget. pp. 392–393.
^Stang Chr. (1966). Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo-Bergen-Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget. p. 309.
^Zinkevičius, Z. (1981). Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. II. Vilnius: „Mokslas“. pp. 117–121.
^Zinkevičius, Z. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija. I. Vilnius: „Mokslas“. pp. 218–219. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^Zinkevičius, Z. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija. I. Vilnius: „Mokslas“. p. 217. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^Zinkevičius, Z. (1981). Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. II. [Historical Grammar of Lithuanian Language. Vol. 2.] Vilnius: Mokslas. pp. 162–164.
^Zinkevičius, Z. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija. I. Vilnius: „Mokslas“. p. 216. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^Dini, P.U. (2000). Baltų kalbos. Lyginamoji istorija [Baltic Languages. Comparative History]. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. p. 100. ISBN5-420-01444-0.
^Kortlandt F (2013). "Balto-Slavic personal pronouns and their accentuation". Baltistica. XLVIII(1), Nr. 1 (5-1): 7–8.
^Zinkevičius, Z. (1984). Lietuvių kalbos istorija [History of Lithuanian]. I. Vilnius: Mokslas. pp. 214–215. ISBN5-420-00102-0.
^Zinkevičius, Z. (1981). Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika. II. Vilnius: „Mokslas“. p. 57.
^V. Mažiulis. "dwai". Prūsų kalbos paveldo duomenų bazė [Prussian language heritage database]. Retrieved 2022-01-07.
^"du". Lietuvių kalbos etimologinio žodyno duomenų bazė. Retrieved 2022-09-19.
^Zinkevičius, Z. (1981). Lietuvių kalbos istorinė gramatika [The Historical Grammar of Lithuanian]. II. Vilnius: Mokslas. pp. 59–60.
Further reading
Hill, Eugen. "Phonological evidence for a Proto-Baltic stage in the evolution of East and West Baltic". In: International journal of diachronic linguistics and linguistic reconstruction [IJDL]. 2016, 13, p. 205-232. ISSN1614-5291.
Kortland, Frederic. "Proto-Baltic?". In: Baltistica. 2018, t. 53, Nr. 2, pp. 175–185. DOI: 10.15388/Baltistica.53.2.2338
Svensson, Miguel Villanueva. "On the relationship between West Baltic and East Baltic". In: Baltai ir slavai: dvasinių kultūrų sankirtos. Vilnius: Versmė, 2014. pp. 162–176. ISBN978-9955-589-99-0.
Italics indicate extinct languages· Languages between parentheses are varieties of the language on their left · Asterisk (*) indicates dialects occasionally classified as languages · Question mark (?) indicates disputed classification.
