UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A glottochronological analysis of Latvian and Russian Staume, Guido Nov 2, 1967

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1967_A8 S87.pdf [ 8.3MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0105419.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105419-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105419-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105419-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105419-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105419-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105419-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0105419-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0105419.ris

Full Text

A GLQTTQCHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS of LATVIAN AND RUSSIAN by GUIDO STRAUME B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1965 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of S l a v o n i c S t u d i e s D i v i s i o n of L i n g u i s t i c s We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY DF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1967 In p re sen t i ng t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study I f u r t h e r agree that permiss ion f o r ex ten s i ve copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r ep re sen t a t i v e s . It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t he s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be a l lowed without my w r i t t e n pe rmi s s i on . Department of S l a v o n i c s / L i n g u i s t i c s The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date August 3D, 1967. i ABSTRACT Gl a t t o c h r o n o l o g y i s a branch of l i n g u i s t i c s which attempts to provi d e dates f o r a h i s t o r i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between languages, as w e l l as to e s t a b l i s h degrees of l e x i c a l r e l a t i o n  s h i p . In much the same way as carbon 1^ d a t i n g p r o v i d e s dates f o r a r c h a e o l o g i c a l f i n d s , g l o t t o c h r o n o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s i s a technique u t i l i z e d to estimate l i n g u i s t i c p r e h i s t o r y . The hypothesis t h a t a proto B a l t o - S l a v o n i c language has e x i s t e d i n p r e h i s t o r i c times i s t e s t e d i n t h i s paper. T h i s t e s t i s based on the cognate count, which r e f l e c t s the cognation, i n percentages, of corresponding l e x i c a l forms i n both languages. The v a l i d i t y of the r e s u l t s obtained i n the cognate count i s dependent on the method of de t e r m i n a t i o n of cognation. There f o r e , only an extremely r i g o r o u s approach, i n the comparison of corresponding farms i n L a t v i a n and Russian, can be accepted as a reasonably v a l i d method of determining true cognation. The corpus of the cognate count c o n s i s t s of 207 items i n e i t h e r language. Each item i s formed by corresponding f r e e morphemes i n both L a t v i a n and Russian, and i s designated as e i t h e r a p o s i t i v e , o r a negative item, depending on the cog n a t i o n of the corresponding forms. The r e s u l t s of the cognate A l l acknowledgements of indebtedness to sources are to be found i n the t e x t . i i count are then processed a c c o r d i n g to the accepted g l o t t a c h r o n - • l a g i c a l methods. According to the r e s u l t s obtained, i t was concluded th a t the h y p o t h e s i s , c l a i m i n g a prate B a l t o - S l a v a n i c language, had to be r e j e c t e d due ta i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence f a r such a language. I t a l s o appeared t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e i n sample s i z e c o u l d f u r n i s h t h i s type of i n v e s t i g a t i o n with mare r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s . The c o n c l u s i o n s reached i n d i c a t e t h a t the d e t e r m i n a t i o n D f a g e n e t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between languages, with the a i d of the g l a t t o c h r a n o l a g i c a l technique, tends ta be i n c o n c l u s i v e . I t appears th a t g l a t t o c h r a n o l a g i c a l a n a l y s i s i s a v a l u a b l e method f o r use i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of degrees, of r e l a t i o n s h i p between languages. The r e s u l t s obtained from t h i s type of a n a l y s i s should be u t i l i z e d i n c o r r e l a t i o n ta r e s u l t s obtained by other d i s c i p l i n e s i n an endeavour to r e c o n s t r u c t p r e h i s t o r y , as dates obtained v i a t h i s technique should be viewed as not ab s o l u t e but r a t h e r as r e l a t i v e measurements. C O N T E N T S Page Glottochronological Perspectives 1 Cognate Count: A. C r i t e r i o n 17 B. Methodology 18 C. Procedure 22 D. Word L i s t s 26 E. Summary of Symbols, Abbreviations and Transliterations 30 F. F i r s t Word L i s t 36 G. Second Word L i s t 78 Glattochronological Analysis 126 A. Sample I considered 12B B. Sample II considered 139 C. Evaluation 144 0. Conclusions 154 Lexicon: Summary of the Cognate Count 161 Latvian-English Vocabulary 169 Russian-English Vocabulary 173 Bibliography 178 In acknowledgment of the attention, guidance and in s p i r a t i o n afforded me by Dr. 3. 0. St. C l a i r - S o b e l l , of the Department •f Slavonic Studies. I also wish to thank Dr. R. J . Gregg, of the Department of C l a s s i c s , 1 Division of L i n g u i s t i c s , f o r his cooperation and encourage ment, and Prof. U. Revutsky, of the Department of Slavonic Studies, for his assistance in my research work. To the memory of M O R R I S S W A D E S H . 1 GLOTTOCHRONOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES The main purpose of g l o t t o c h r a n o l o g i c a l techniques i s to endeavour to c l a r i f y the l i n g u i s t i c p r e h i s t o r y of any given language or language group. The word ' p r e h i s t o r y ' d e s i g n a t e s , i n t h i s paper, " t h a t p a r t of the past f o r which w r i t t e n r e c o r d s are l a c k i n g , i n c o n t r a s t , t h e r e f o r e , with what i s best c a l l e d r ecorded history".''" I t i s reasonable to assume that a c e r t a i n number of l e x i c a l forms r e f l e c t h i s t o r i c a l l y o l d morphemes, which could be t r e a t e d as h i s t o r i c a l evidence, much as i n archaeology a r t i f a c t s are u t i l i z e d to determine the probable p r e h i s t o r y of any given people or s o c i e t y . There are two b a s i c concepts i n g l o t t o c h r o - 2 nology upon which a l l c a l c u l a t i o n s are based. The f i r s t concept e s t a b l i s h e s the framework f o r a b a s i c v ocabulary, which i s taken to be q u i t e uniform, and conse quently, l e s s s u b j e c t to change over a r e l a t i v e l y long p e r i o d of time.^ T h i s concept i m p l i e s the e x c l u s i o n of a l l p o s s i b l e s a c i o - c u l t u r a l l e x i c a l items from the b a s i c v ocabulary, as they may or may not r e p r e s e n t borrowed forms. T h e r e f o r e , b a s i c vocabulary i s C h a r l e s F. Hockett, A Course i n Modern L i n g u i s t i c s , The Macmillan Co., Mew York, I960, p. hSl. 2 The d e s c r i p t i o n and p r o c e d u r a l p a t t e r n i n g l o t t o c h r o n o l o g y , i n t h i s paper, are based, to a c o n s i d e r a b l e degree, on Miss Gudschinsky•s a r t i c l e : Sarah C. Gudschinsky, The ABC's of  L e x i c o s t a t i s t i c s ( G l o t t o c h r o n p l o g y ) , Word, v o l . 12 (August, 1956), pp. 175-210. "^Morris Swadesh, D i f f u s i o n a l Cumulation and A r c h a i c Residue as H i s t o r i c a l E x p l a n a t i o n s , Southwestern J o u r n a l of Anthropology, U n i v e r s i t y of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, N.M., v o l . 7, p. 13. 2 assumed to i n c l u d e only h i s t o r i c a l l y o l d and autochthonous forms, v i z . , non-borrowed or 'na t i v e ' farms. The second concept i s based an the assumption t h a t c e r t a i n vocabulary items are r e t a i n e d i n any given language over a reasonably long p e r i o d of time. T h i s phenomenon i s designated as a r e t e n t i o n r a t e and i t i s s a i d to be q u i t e c o n s t a n t . The r a t e of l o s s of vocabulary items i s a c o r o l l a r y of the r e t e n t i o n r a t e , and, t h e r e f o r e , a l s o approximately constant i n a l l languages. The two concepts are inter-dependent as they both r e f e r to b a s i c vocabulary. Furthermore, b a s i c vocabulary i s as sumed to be i n j u x t a p o s i t i o n with general vocabulary (on the b a s i s of the f i r s t c o n c ept), e.g., the general vocabulary i s s a i d to be l e s s uniform, consequently i t i s more s u b j e c t to borrowing and change. I t f a l l o w s t h a t , i n g l o t t o c h r o n o l a g y , we deal with a s p e c i f i c p a r t of vocabulary upon which our a n a l y s i s i s dependent. The main procedure of g l o t t o c h r o n o l a g y i s based an the comparison of the b a s i c v o c a b u l a r i e s of two or mare languages. T h i s comparison i s u s u a l l y designated as the cognate count, f o r i t y i e l d s a c e r t a i n number of cognates and non-cognates. I t i s obvious t h a t c a u t i o n has t a be e x e r c i s e d i n determining cognation and only a r i g o r o u s approach i n comparing corresponding forms w i l l f u r n i s h an i n v e s t i g a t o r with a reasonably accurate cognate count.''" M o r r i s Swadesh, Mosan I: A Problem of Remote Common O r i g i n , I . J , of A.L., v o l . 19, p. kO: "For the purposes of a study . . . aimed at e s t a b l i s h i n g remote common o r i g i n , great c a u t i o n i s nec essary to avo i d being m i s l e d by loan s i m i l a r i t i e s . " 3 I t a l s o f o l l o w s t h a t an attempt should be made to avoid any pos s i b l e b i a s i n s e l e c t i n g forms, as w e l l as i n comparing them, e.g. I f , f o r example, i n a l i s t of 200 comparisons there i s only one cognate (.5%) the estimated time depth i s 12.2 m i l l e n i a /sic/, but i f there are two cognates (1%) the time depth i s 10.6 m i l l e n i a . This i s a d i f f e r e n c e of s i x  teen c e n t u r i e s dependent on the r e c o g  n i t i o n of a s i n g l e cognate. 1 Of course, the above example r e p r e s e n t s an extreme case; however, i t does emphasize the n e c e s s i t y of a v o i d i n g any p o s s i b l e b i a s i n every d e c i s i o n , to avoid skewing of the estimates of probable time depths. I t should a l s o be noted tha t the r e s u l t s o btained i n a g l o t t o c h r o n o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s do not r e p r e s e n t a b s o l u t e con cepts i n time but only approximations i n time which are r e l a t i v e to the probable common o r i g i n of both languages i n q u e s t i o n , f o r : Language i n v o l v e s p h y s i c a l , psycho l o g i c a l , h i s t o r i c a l f a c t o r s , i n s h o r t , n a t u r a l and human f a c t o r s i n a very complex i n t e r r e l a t i o n , we succeed e a s i l y i n a d j u s t i n g the f i r s t ( v i z . , n a t u r a l f a c t o r s ) to constant schemes, but the second ( v i z . , human f a c t o r s ) are unforsee- able and unsteady and elude any exact, mathematical c a l c u l a t i o n . 2 As al r e a d y noted, the l o s s of vocabulary i s a c o r o l  l a r y of the r e t e n t i o n of c e r t a i n l e x i c a l items which, i s . d esignated ^"Gudschinsky, ABC 1s, i b i d , (meaning p. 20k). 2 L a u i g i Heilmann's Comments, c i t e d i n Hnut Bergsland and Hans V/ogt, On the V a l i d i t y of G l o t t o c h r o n o l o q y . Current Anthropology, v o l . 3, Wo. 2 ( A p r i l , 1962), p. 135. k as a r e t e n t i o n r a t e . The r e t e n t i o n r a t e i s expressed i n p e r c e n t  ages, and i n t h i s paper i t w i l l be viewed as 80.5% of retainment of the o r i g i n a l vocabulary a f t e r a millennium of s e p a r a t i o n , to wit, independent development of both languages."'" Conversely, t h i s r a t e i m p l i e s a l s o a vocabulary l o s s of 19.5% of o r i g i n a l l e x i c a l items over the same time p e r i o d . I t should be noted t h a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t r o v e r s y e x i s t s r e g a r d i n g the concept of 2 the r e t e n t i o n r a t e being c o n s t a n t . For the purposes of t h i s work, the above r e t e n t i o n r a t e appeared to be q u i t e adequate and reasonable, and i t was thought t h a t any comparison of both l a n  guages which a l s o i n v o l v e d the changes of the r e t e n t i o n r a t e , e.g., c a l c u l a t i n g time depths i n accordance with d i f f e r e n t r e t e n  t i o n r a t e s , would be beyond the l i m i t e d scope of t h i s paper. S u f f i c e i t to say t h a t a language and i t s h i s t o r y are eminently more d i f f i c u l t to study and to equate with e x t e r n a l elements, Robert B. Lees, The B a s i s of G l o t t o c h r o n o l o q y , Language, L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y of America, 1953, v o l . 29, p. 117. 2 Hnut Bergsland and Hans Vogt, On the V a l i d i t y of G l o t t o   chronoloqy. Current Anthropology, v o l . 3, .No. 2 ( A p r i l , 1962), pp. 115-129, and Comments, pp. 129-152. They c r i t i c i z e the con cept t h a t a r e t e n t i o n r a t e i s constant f o r a l l languages and conclude t h a t t h i s concept i s f a l s e , f o r the r e t e n t i o n r a t e v a r i e s c o n s i d e r a b l y between languages, even of the same f a m i l y , e.g., the r e t e n t i o n r a t e f o r the E n g l i s h with a given sample s i z e of 200 items i s 67.8%, whereas the corresponding f i g u r e f o r Modern I c e  l a n d i c i s 97.3%. I t should be noted t h a t these d i f f e r e n t r e t e n  t i o n r a t e s were obtained f o r languages whose recorded h i s t o r i e s predate c o n s i d e r a b l y anything the S l a v i c speech community has and, of course, the B a l t i c group has no recorded h i s t o r y which could even compare with the S l a v i c . 5 such as other languages, than the study of most complicated math e m a t i c a l problems. T h i s i s g e n e r a l l y accepted as axiomatic, f o r any language i s connected u i t h such v a r i a b l e s as p r e f e r e n c e s , d r i f t s , p s y c h o l o g i c a l and other b a s i c a l l y immeasurable human f a c t o r s . A f u r t h e r c o m p l i c a t i o n i n t h i s paper a r i s e s due to the f a c t t h a t we are attempting to e s t a b l i s h the p r e h i s t o r y of the two languages, e.g., the p o s s i b i l i t y of the e x i s t e n c e of a proto B a l t o - S l a v o n i c language. Thus, any d i a c h r o n i c connection between these two speech groups, even i n the optimum case, w i l l r e f l e c t only a h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n , f a r a time depth i n v o l v i n g any t h i n g i n excess of a millennium. The reason f o r t h i s i s t h a t recorded h i s t o r y i n the case of the S l a v o n i c languages i s approx imately 1,000 years o l d , beginning with the f i r s t w r i t s i n the Church S l a v o n i c , whereas the B a l t i c languages f i r s t appeared i n p r i n t only 300 years ago, commencing, i n the L a t v i a n , with the t r a n s l a t i o n of the Lord's Prayer i n the C h r o n i c l e of Simon Grunau,"*" and other t r a n s l a t i o n s of a r e l i g i o u s nature, mostly t r a n s l a t e d by members of the German c l e r g y . In view of the ex t e n u a t i n g circumstances r e g a r d i n g the recorded h i s t o r i e s of the two languages i n q u e s t i o n , and p a r t i c u l a r l y the L a t v i a n , perhaps Hymes' o b s e r v a t i o n , p e r t a i n i n g to the concept t h a t the r e t e n t i o n r a t e i s c o n s t a n t, might be viewed as a u s e f u l guide f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n of the r e t e n t i o n r a t e ( v i z . , 80.5%) i n t h i s paper: J a n i s Andrups and V i t a u t s Kalve, L a t v i a n L i t e r a t u r e , M. Goppers, Stockholm, 1954, p. 4 9 f f . 6 In my o p i n i o n , uere 5,000 years of Assyro-Babylonian to confirm the r e t e n t i o n r a t e , t h i s would be evidence of great im portance; i t would be important i f i t d i d not c o n f i r m the r a t e . Meanwhile, use of the method to determine time depths of g r e a t e r than 2,000 years remains an e x t r a  p o l a t i o n f o r which no d i r e c t c o n f i r m a t i o n e x i s t s . 1 Thus, a c o n c l u s i o n can be reached t h a t g l o t t o c h r o n o l o g y i s a study of the h i s t o r y (more p r e c i s e l y - an estimate of the pre h i s t o r y ) of languages based on the l o s s of voc a b u l a r y . However, there are c e r t a i n other c o n s i d e r a t i o n s connected with the l o s s i n vocabulary, such as replacement of l o s t l e x i c a l items and reb o r  rowing of l o s t autochthonous vocabulary items. The vocabulary of any language i s normally that p a r t of speech which i s s u b j e c t to most change, f o r many i n t e r n a l as w e l l as e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s might i n f l u e n c e i t , such as s l a n g , i n t e r a c t i o n of d i a l e c t s , c e r t a i n p r e f e r e n c e s f o r i n n o v a t i o n s , as w e l l as s o c i o l o g i c a l and c u l t u r a l changes, t e c h n o l o g i c a l advances, i n f l u e n c e s of adstratum and superstratum speech communities. I t i s e x c eedingly d i f f i c u l t to measure or to p r e d i c t a c c u r a t e l y most of the above-mentioned causes f o r vocabulary change. Th i s d i f f i  c u l t y then predetermines that the r e s u l t s obtained v i a the g l o t t o c h r o n p l o g i c a l method w i l l , a d m ittedly, c o n t a i n a c e r t a i n D e l l H. Hymes, L e x i c o s t a t i s t i e s So Far, Current A n t h r o p o l   ogy , v o l . 1 (January, I960), p. Ik. Hymes o f f e r s h i s o p i n i o n , i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , to Hjelmslev's suggestion t h a t a check of the r e t e n t i o n r a t e i n a s i n g l e case would prove l i t t l e i f anything. 7 degree of e r r o r i n the estimates of 'true depths'. T h e r e f o r e , r e s u l t s o btained i n g l o t t o c h r o n o l a g y should be viewed only as approximations i n time. The h y p o t h e s i s t e s t e d i n t h i s paper formulates the e x i s t e n c e of a proto B a l t a - S l a v o n i c language, e.g., bath l a n  guages r e p r e s e n t modern r e f l e x e s of a common parent language. I n d u b i t a b l y , both languages belong to the I-E l i n g u i s t i c stock and the hyp o t h e s i s p o s t u l a t e s t h a t the B a l t i c and the S l a v o n i c speech communities shared a common language ( v i z . , proto B a l t o - S l a v o n i c ) a f t e r they separated from the prato I-E language. The s t a t u s of t h i s B a l t o - S l a v o n i c parent language i s assumed ta have been s i m i l a r to the one a l l o t t e d to the L a t i n language i n r e l a t i o n to i t s modern r e f l e x e s - the Romance languages. T h i s hypothesis w i l l be assumed ta be c o r r e c t i n t h i s paper and an attempt w i l l be made to prove i t s v a l i d i t y . T h i s h ypothesis has caused a c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n troversy i n l i n g u i s t i c c i r c l e s ever s i n c e the p u b l i c a t i o n of Antoine M e i l l e t ' s work " D i a l e c t e s indo-europeens" i n 1908. In t h i s work the author c h a l l e n g e s the hypothesis t h a t B a l t i c and S l a v o n i c languages d e p i c t the modern r e f l e x e s of a common language, which' h i t h e r t o had been h e l d as c o r r e c t , i . e . , i n h i s view these two languages do not r e p r e s e n t modern r e f l e x e s of a parent language but d e p i c t independent but p a r a l l e l developments d i r e c t l y from the proto I-E language. Thus, he d i s m i s s e s , to a gr e a t e r or l e s s e r degree, the p o s s i b l e e x i s t e n c e of a B a l t o - S l a v o n i c parent language, and, consequently, any type of d i a c h r o n i c B a l t o - S l a v a n i c 8 l i n g u i s t i c unity. The modern approach to this hypothesis generally appears to be D P S based on caution and inconclusive- ness, except for some l i n g u i s t s who either support or deny the v a l i d i t y of this hypothesis."'" As already noted, this hypothesis w i l l be treated as true in this work. Unfortunately, the scope and framework of this paper are too limited f o r discussion of •swald Szemerenyi, The Problem of Balto-Slav / s i c / Unity. A C r i t i c a l Survey. Kratylos, Dtto Harrassawitz, Wiesbaden, 1957, v o l . 1, pp. 97-123. This a r t i c l e represents a strong support f o r a Balto-Slavonic unity and favours the acceptance of our hypoth esis as true. A. Senn holds the opposite view, i . e . , he rejects the hypothesis, as depicted in several of his publications, notably A. Senn, On the Degree of Kinship between Slavic and  B a l t i c , The Slavonic and Eastern European Review, 1941, v o l . 20, pp. 251-264. However, i t should be noted that either point of view, in my estimation, i s based on certain assumptions which could be used with r e l a t i v e f a c i l i t y to negate either the accept ance or dismissal of this hypothesis, i . e . , the evidence presented by both proponents i s quite inconclusive, f o r , in t h i s case, st r u c t u r a l considerations alone w i l l not s u f f i c e . The more moder ate view i s represented by Walter Porzig, Die Gliederunq des  Indoqermanischen Sprachqebiets, Carl Winter, Heidelberg, 1954, pp. 139-140: Im baltisch-slavischen Raum s t e l l t sich eine ahnliche Frage wie im i t a l i s c h e n , namlich die nach dem Alter der unverkennbaren Beruhrungen der beiden Sprachen. . . . Die beiden Sprachzweige waren, soweit unsere Kenntnis r e i c h t , immer benachbart. Daher stammen die meisten der ihnen a u s s c h l i e s s l i c h eigenen Neuerungen, die f a s t a l l e Wortbildung und Wortschatz betreffen. Auf.a'em Gebiet der Lautlehre und der Flexion haben sie uber- haupt kaum welche durchgefuhrt. Es fragt sich nun, ob auch schon die Dialektgebiete, aus denen ih r idg. Erbe stammt, benachbart waren. Unmittelbare Anzeichen dafur sind wenig vorhanden. The very thorough study of Stang's about the Slavic and B a l t i c verbal systems could be viewed as a moderate view regarding this hypothesis, e.g., Chr. S. Stang, Das Slavische und Baltische  Uerbum, Oslo, 1942, p. 274: "Die Zuzammenstellung / s i c 7 der hier angefuhrten Tatsachen zeigt, dass in fruher nachieur. Zeit das bait, und slav. Verbalsystem einander sehr nahe gestanden haben." This work could also be viewed as conservative, f o r the conclusions in i t are reached on the basis of the verbal systems alone. 9 every probable l i n g u i s t i c influence, interaction and propensity of response within the contact areas formed by both languages. However, i t should be emphasized that, in order to obtain r e l i a b l e results concerning such a controversial topic as Balto- Slavonic unity, proper and quite extensive consideration would have to be given also to the adjacent speech communities, to wit, Germanic and Finnic. That i s to say that these two language families should be considered at least as forces f o r a possible adstratum influence, as i t were. It i s generally acknowledged that B a l t i c and Finnic l i n g u i s t i c contacts are D f considerable antiquity. However, caution should be exercised when estimating the degree of convergence of these two l i n g u i s t i c groups, fur highly dubious and even erroneous conclusions might be reached as to their interrelationship."'" The Germanic ( p a r t i c u l a r l y the Scandinavian) and the B a l t i c speech communities have been in 2 reasonably close l i n g u i s t i c contact for at least 1,100 years. Thus, i t i s reasonable to assume that these contacts l e f t not only some p o l i t i c a l and c u l t u r a l but also l i n g u i s t i c traces. It should also be noted that the German language has represented Herman H i r t , Die Indoqermanen, Karl 3. Trubner, Strassburg, 1905, v o l . 1, p. 125: "Da wir nun die Letten in einem Gebiet finden, das ursprunglich wohl von finnischen Stammen besetzt war, so beruht diese starke Veranderung des Lettischen vermutlich darauf, dass finnische Volker l i t a u i s c h gelernt haben." Perhaps then, conclusions of this nature motivated M e i l l e t to challenge even the accepted hypothesis of Balto-Slavonic unity. 2 Arnolds Spekke, History of Latvia, M. Goppers, Stockholm, 1957, p. 77: "The second phase in the Germanic advance towards the east was that of the Northmen /sic/ which began to take e f f e c t from the 9th century onward . . . " ID a superstratum position in the B a l t i c area during the past 700 years, the l a s t 200 of uihich have been shared, in the Latvian case, with the Russian."'' In addition to the above f a c t s , which cannot be d i s  missed while considering our hypothesis (even i f their evaluation involves e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c elements), i t seems to be obvious that we are dealing with a speech community, in the B a l t i c case, which, to a greater or lesser extent, i s multilingual, s i m i l a r , f o r 2 instance, to the case of the Dutch. In the B a l t i c area, multi- lingualism would seem to be the r e s u l t of the f a c t that Latvian was in a substratum position u n t i l the 1920's. Therefore, i t i s axiomatic that Vildomec offers the following observations: In the summer term of 1946 the Dutch and the B a l t i c students in the International College, Elsinore, Denmark, seemed to be the most w i l l i n g to use L e's among the fourteen n a t i o n a l i t i e s represented, the former having the most s o l i d p r a c t i c a l mastery of languages, the l a t t e r learning remarkably quickly by mere l i s t e n i n g and t a l k i n g . 3 The Lithuanian case i s s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t from the Latvian, f o r h i s t o r i c a l l y i t r e f l e c t s closer association with the Polish than either German or Russian. 2 For the purposes of this paper, any consideration of fluency of polyglots i s assumed to be unimportant. \ e r o b o j Uildomec, Multilinqualism, A. LJ . Sy thof f, Leyden, The Netherlands, 1963, p. 42. L e = foreign language (langue etrangere). It should be noted that the Dutch students displayed a high.degree of p r a c t i c a l a b i l i t y i n using foreign languages, because of their well established pedagogic system, which has an established history of 'language orientation' for various reasons and predates any f a c i l i t y that could have been available to the B a l t i c students by a minimum of 75 years. Nevertheless, Vildomec's observations can be substantiated, for i t i s generally known that the services of B a l t i c interpreters have been u t i l i z e d 11 In view D f the above considerations, i t appears that any estimate of the B a l t i c l i n g u i s t i c prehistory, especially in comparison to the Slavonic language group, w i l l foster some con troversy. Unfortunately, an analysis, based on l i n g u i s t i c evidence alone, would be f a r from satisfactory,''" as the highly complicated nature of the B a l t i c area demands at least some e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c considerations in order to avoid any skewing of our r e s u l t s . This i s the price of considering the hypothesis at a l l , f or purely l i n g u i s t i c analyses have obviously caused con siderable controversies about t h i s 'sensitive' l i n g u i s t i c area. Therefore, the method of glottochronological analysis seems to be the most promising i n dealing with this hypothesis. I t i s also thought that the results D f this analysis i n correlation to those obtained from purely l i n g u i s t i c ( v i z . , structural) analyses quite extensively by both the Germanic and the Slavonic speech communities. Perhaps, we have to recognize some 'inate a b i l i t y 1 of the Baits, as Vildomec S D v i v i d l y points out. '''Perhaps, the fallowing could be mentioned as an example of a l i n g u i s t i c investigation based on e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c considerations: Robert L. Oswalt, Russian Loanwords in Southwestern Porno, .1.0. of  A.L., 1958, v o l . 24, pp. 245-247. This interesting, but unfor tunately short, a r t i c l e describes Russian loan forms in the South western Porno language. The reason for this research was based on the f a c t that the Russians occupied Fort Ross, located in the middle of Porno t e r r i t o r y , as i t were, for about 29 years (1811 - 1B40). The fieldwork resulted in determining 12 Russian loan forms i n the Pgmo language, e.g., kyska "cat", loska "spoon", misuk "sack", s i n i t c a "wheat", kulucitca "wild mustard", molokko "milk", kafey "coffee", cayu "tea", caska "dishes", yapalka "apple", cuki "socks". The Central Porno language, which i s spoken in the north ofvS.W.^Pomo, contains at least two of the above 12 forms, e.g., loska, cayu, and also parus "canvas" which i s to be found only i n their speech group. The investigators also searched f a r possible Aleut loan forms, as i t was learned that the Russians had many Aleut hunters with them. One such form was po s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d in S.W. Porno, e.g., kalikak " l e t t e r , book", which probably i s connected with Russian kniga, i b i d . 12 might provide a calmer atmosphere, as i t mere, f o r future tests of the hypothesis."'' As already noted, the results of the glottochrono- l o g i c a l analysis depend on the basic word l i s t or cognate count. It follows then that any possible bias in selecting correspond ing forms i n either language must be avoided. The same p r i n c i p l e , of course, has to be employed when estimating cognation between forms. To supply depth to the decision-making process of cogna tio n , extensive background of possible external connections i s given in the cognate count. This background could also be con sidered as quite helpful in removing any possible bias in the estimation of cognates. The unbiased approach has to be stressed in this case as the analysis involves a comparison of two lan guages whose prehistory appears to be quite controversial. In addition to the complicated character of the Balto- Slavonic problem, the question of l i n g u i s t i c convergence of unrelated l i n g u i s t i c stocks, as well as any possible reverbera tions of such convergence, has to be constantly borne in mind when considering modern reflexes of a proto I-E language. Even the character of proto I-E i s considered by some sources to be a l i n g u i s t i c blend, as i t were, e.g., Coon summarizes the views of C. C. Uhlenbeck and A. IMehring: This paper i s r e s t r i c t e d to glottochronological considera tions only. 13 L i n g u i s t i c a l l y , Indo-European i s probably a r e l a t i v e l y recent phenomenon, which arose after animals had been tamed and plants cu l t i v a t e d . The l a t e s t researches f i n d i t to be a derivative of an i n i t i a l l y mixed language, whose p r i n c i p l e elements were Ur a l i c , c a l l e d element A, and some undesig nated element 8 which was probably one of the eastern Mediterranean or Caucasic languages. 1 A type of further l i n g u i s t i c blend could be observed within the language fami l i e s of the I-E l i n g u i s t i c stock, e.g., the Germanic family of languages, the proto language of which i s viewed by Hall as a 'creolized' language: These developments / s i c , the great s h i f t in the consonant pattern, s i g n i f i c a n t vocalic a l t e r n a t i o n / seem tu show the same kind of brusque restructuring that we f i n d i n pidgin and creolized languages. Furthermore, Germanic has l o s t many of the words c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Indo-European, and uses i n their stead a number of words of unknown, but presumably non-Indo- European, o r i g i n , such as wife, hand, leg. On the basis of these phenomena, i t has been sug gested that Proto-Germanic may well have originated as a pidginized variety of Indo- European, which arose along the amber trade route from the Mediterranean to the B a l t i c in the f i r s t millennium, B.C., and which then became creolized, replacing the native languages of the tribes around the lower B a l t i c . 2 Carleton Stevens Coon, The Races of Europe, The Macmillan Co., New York, 1939, p. 178. Anthropologically, this view could be substantiated with r e l a t i v e f a c i l i t y , c f . plate 9, Fig's, k and 5 f o r obvious anthropometric connection between an Irishman from Leitrim and a Finn from Vasa, Finland. Also other plates appear to be quite revealing and could be extremely useful in dismissing some of the 'popular' concepts about the Slavic people, notably the one fostered by predominantly western peoples which depicts the Slavs in popular parlance as 'the A s i a t i c hordes from the e a s t 1 . 2 Robert A. H a l l , J r . , Introductory L i n g u i s t i c s , Chilton Books, Philadelphia/New York, 1964, p. 386. 14 The cognate count, in this paper, r e f l e c t s a basic vocabulary as conceived by glottochronologists generally. It i s f e l t , however, that an increase of the t o t a l number of items i s desirable in order to obtain more r e l i a b l e results s t a t i s t i c a l l y . The concept of basic vocabulary, as well as the size of i t , i s simi l a r in this paper to Hockett's views on this subject: By the basic lexicon i s meant a semantically-defined stock of forms which we can be sure w i l l be found in every human language - names of body-parts, of natural objects and processes, and so on. For pur poses of s t a t i s t i c a l treatment i t i s desirable for the basic lexicon to be as large as pos s i b l e . 1 Any increase in the basic vocabulary would have to follow the general outline mentioned above, though with a proviso that the percentages of the form-classes of any increased sample correspond approximately to those of the generally accepted basic vocabulary. This s t i p u l a t i o n i s thought to be important in order to maintain a balance between d i f f e r e n t form-classes, as a further substantial increase in basic vocabulary, e.g., upwards of 1,000 forms, would tend to approximate any 'basic language* or a language in minia ture. The percentages of form-classes r e f l e c t e d in the basic vocabulary are: nounal class = 39% verbal class = 28.5% Charles F. Hockett, L i n g u i s t i c Time Perspective and i t s  Anthropological Uses, I.0. of A.L., 1953, v o l . 19, p. 148. 15 adjectival class = 18.5% other = 14% 1 As already noted, the basic vocabulary i s thought to exclude a l l probable c u l t u r a l borrowings. Whenever a dubious form i s encountered, the probability of i t being a loan form i s indicated within the presentation of the cognate count, i . e . , i f there i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence to j u s t i f y this i n d i c a t i o n . This method i s u t i l i z e d in order to avoid any possible biased deci sion as to the o r i g i n of these forms, for " c u l t u r a l borrowing of speech-forms i s o r d i n a r i l y mutual; i t i s one-sided only to 2 the extent that one nation has more to give than the other.". It should also be noted that, in order to achieve more r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s pertaining to the prehistory of languages, the results Df a glottochronological study should be correlated to the results not only of a structural but also of a toponymical and an onomatological research."' Onomastics, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Latvian, might provide certain d i r e c t i o n a l indicators for future courses of investigation as, f o r instance, i t has been quite useful in suggesting l i n k s between the I l l y r i a n and the S i c e l . E.g., other than the above form-classes, including function words; c f . also L i s t of Abbreviations preceding the f i r s t word l i s t . 2 Leonard Bloomfield, Language, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1964, p. 461. "^ The following forms could be of p a r t i c u l a r interest in a toponymical study, e.g., Indra, Indrani, Dagda, Alsunga, Dignaja, Eduole, Piduole, Ranka et a l . , and in an onomatolog,ical study, e.g., Rutulis, Meldrups, Luobe, Indans, Alks, Barkans, Lama, Aviks, Dardzans, Annus, et a l . The afore-mentioned forms are i n active usage in Latvian, but a l l have l o s t any semantic value. L L. R. Palmer, The Latin Language, Faber & Faber, London, 16 Also the investigation of eponyms has aided in the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of certain toponyms in Latin, and Palmer shous this to be the case: Thus Remus, the eponymous ancestor of the Etruscan remne, stands revealed as Etruscan no less than the name of the c i t y to which history denied his name. It should be emphasized that there are no l i n g u i s t i c p a r a l l e l s which would support the view that Remus i s formed from Roma by 'false analogy'. 1 In any f i e l d of science, no single approach can guarantee an absolutely adequate and complete cognition of r e a l i t y , i . e . , every method i n research, by i t s very nature, d i s  regards certain aspects of r e a l i t y . It follows that i t i s of great importance not to rely on any one method i n a serious scholarly investigation, and establishment of contact with other d i s c i p l i n e s , which must be s o l i c i t e d for aid in any vigorous programme of l i n g u i s t i c investigation, i s desirable in order to obtain a higher degree of accuracy for the results of such an investigation. Glottochronological perspectives of f e r such cooperation between d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e s and, as i t i s a branch of l i n g u i s t i c s , i t also widens the scope of l i n g u i s t i c i n v e s t i  gations. 1966, p. 43: "The onomatological evidence, suggesting lin k s with I l l y r i a n (e.g. the -nt- of Agrigentum, . . . ) " . Palmer, i b i d , (meaning p. 47). COGNATE COUNT CRITERION: The cognate count involves comparing the corre sponding morphemes in both languages and determining hou many of the pairs of morphemes are cognate. There i s , in compara tive l i n g u i s t i c s , a well-known postulate according to which any true cognates in two or more modern languages are said to be the modern reflexes of some corresponding form in a parent language. This language can be either demonstrable or hypo t h e t i c a l , depending on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of documentation for such a language. The group of modern Romance languages i s said to be derived from the vernacular of Latin, for which there i s ample documentary evidence."'' Consequently, the parent language of t h i s group, i . e . , the vernacular of Latin, i s said to be demonstrable. There i s no documentary evidence for a parent language of the Balto-Slavonic group of languages, and, there fore, this proto-language i s said to be a hypothetical one. W. D. Elcock, The Romance Languages, Faber &. Faber, London, 1964, p. 21. " I t i s the special p r i v i l e g e of Romance ph i l o l o g i s t s that they are not compelled to rely e n t i r e l y upon reconstruction. Apart from the massive testimony of Latin l i t e r a t u r e , various direct sources of information concerning the nature of the spoken language are available for scrutiny." 18 Generally, a method of reconstruction i s used to depict a hypothetical parent or proto-language. This method of reconstruction of a proto-language i s implemented via a com parison, with the aid of which the probable forms of morphemes in the hypothetical proto-language are constructed. The basic assumption of this method i s that, while the phonemes of the proto-language undergo di f f e r e n t developments in di f f e r e n t languages, their development, nevertheless, i s quite consistent i n a given l i n g u i s t i c environment within each of those languages, Thus, i t could be postulated that a pair of phonemes in modern reflexes, e.g., in Latvian and Russian, may d i f f e r synchroni- c a l l y in their physical appearance, as i t were, yet, diachron- i c a l l y they may represent the same phoneme. METHODOLOGY: Uhen comparing the two languages in question, we s h a l l consider only those free morphemes as cognate which are true cognates. Further, we s h a l l consider two corresponding morphemes as true cognates i f they are similar in form and i d e n t i c a l in meaning. The concept of s i m i l a r i t y in this case w i l l be based on the c r i t e r i o n that the same pair of phonemes (or phoneme c l u s t e r s ) , within a s p e c i f i c l i n g u i s t i c environment or in a given position within the morphemes, w i l l occur in many other pairs of morphemes in either the same l i n g u i s t i c environ ment or in the same position within corresponding morphemes. 19 Thus, i t can be stated that the meaning of any given pair of free morphemes m i l l be held as a constant and their respective  forms w i l l be treated as predictable variables.^ In order to avoid the counting of any possible deceptive or f a l s e cognates as true cognates, we s h a l l recognize only those pairs of free morphemes as cognate which meet the above c r i t e r i o n of true cognates. Any given pair of true cognates s h a l l be designated as being in 'complete agreement'. Any given pair of forms, which do not conform to the c r i t e r i o n for true cognation, w i l l be viewed as true non-cognates and w i l l be designated as forms with 'no agreements'. Most of the forms compared in the cognate count conform to the above c r i t e r i o n . However, to avoid any possible error, while applying the c r i t e r i o n for true cognation to some of the borderline forms, a th i r d group of forms i s established, e.g., probable cognates and probable non-cognates. The con cept of probable cognation i s based on the decision-making process which involved a s p e c i f i c allotment in percentages to Thus, meaning i s postulated as the core for comparison. This same c r i t e r i o n i s also applicable to a l l the forms given which depict outside reflexes, i . e . , reflexes without the B a l t i c and Slavonic speech communities. These forms have been l i s t e d to i l l u s t r a t e possible influences as well as probable connec tions with other speech groups of the I-E language family, as i t were, residing on the European sub-continental land mass. 20 the following components of probable cognation: meaning 35%, form.35%, and other factors 30%; the l a t t e r including such considerations as possible diachronic background, adstratum and superstratum influences and other available evidence, including extra-Unguis t i c . Thus, i t could be stated that the c r i t e r i o n for probable cognation i s based on the t o t a l in percentages achieved by comparing any two borderline forms. Those pairs of borderline forms which furnish a t o t a l of no less than 65% of agreement are considered to be probable cognates, whereas a l l the Dther pairs of borderline forms are considered to be probable non-cognates. The constant of the c r i t e r i o n f o r probable cogna tion i s 'meaning', i . e . , every pair of probable cognates have to furnish a t o t a l agreement in meaning or 35%, and the variable component of this c r i t e r i o n i s represented by 'form 1, with no less then 15% agreement, while the remaining percentage could consist of other factors. A further method of designation i s established to f a c i l i t a t e orientation when comparing borderline forms, e.g., p a r t i a l agreement and some agreement, which represent forms with obscure background and forms with some inconsistency of form or lack of s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s , respectively. 21 Thus, the folloming combinations e x i s t : i ) true cognates are in a) complete agreement b) some agreement i i ) true non-cognates depict a) no agreements b) some agreement i i i ) probable cognates r e f l e c t a) some agreement b) p a r t i a l agreement iv) probable non-cognates depict a) some agreement b) p a r t i a l agreement To elucidate the application of th i s c r i t e r i o n f o r probable cognation, l e t us randomly select items 24:110 and 82:143. In the case of the f i r s t item, e.g., s k a i t i t :: s c i t a t 1 , the f i r s t pair of phonemes agree phonologically, and because the Russian s- has a morphological foundation, the above agreement could be considered as only a p a r t i a l agreement. This pair of forms i s considered as probable cognates, f o r i t totals more than the necessary percentages to establish a probable cognation, i . e . , t o t a l agreement in meaning or 35%, no less than 25% agreement in form and 20% in background con nections; thus, i t furnishes 80% of agreement which i s 15% above 22 the requirement f o r probable cognation. In the case of the second item, e.g., ieks :: v/vo, the general background of this pair i s hypothetical and quite obscure; therefore, i t i s c l a s s i f i e d as being i n p a r t i a l agreement. This pair of forms i s considered to be probable cognates as i t totals a minimum agreement of 65%, e.g., 35% in meaning, 15% in form (via the prefix-element) and 15% in background connections. PROCEDURE: The cognate count depicts two alphabetical word l i s t s with a t o t a l of 207 independent items."'' The cognate count i s based on a binary system, i . e . , any given pair of forms have to be either cognate or non-cognate; thus, a pair of forms designated as cognate could be either true cognates or probable cognates (also in p a r t i a l ar some agreement). Any given item, representing a true cognation, i s designated with a plus-sign flanked by virgules, and any given item, depicting a probable 2 cognation, i s indicated by a plus-sign in parentheses. Items r e f l e c t i n g true non-cognation or probable non-cognation are designated in the same may, but with a minus-sign. It should be E.g., each item represents three free morphemes in each of the following languages: English, Latvian and Russian. The f i r s t l i s t consists of 100 items and the second l i s t 107 items. 2 Cf. also l i s t of Arbitrary Signs and Symbols. 23 noted that any given pair of forms, r e f l e c t i n g obviously r e c i p  rocal borrowing,. i s viewed as non-cognate, without any consider ation being given to their existing or apparent agreement. Thus, i t could be stated that a l l the non-autochthonous forms, insofar as their autochthony could be established, are excluded from the comparison. In the event that either language does not possess two autonomous forms f o r two d i f f e r e n t concepts, the same form i s repeated and i t i s treated as a free marph in each case, with, of course, corresponding cross-references as to i t s d i  chotomy of meaning,''' The comparison i s weighed considerably toward the synchronic aspect, e.g., to avoid any unnecessary 2 complication, and also to f a c i l i t a t e any general application of this method to any given pair or group of languages. The general, as well as s p e c i f i c , background given in each item i s furnished to f a c i l i t a t e comparisons with other related languages, i f need be. This information i s also treated as an essential part of the comparison for es t a b l i s h  ing a basis f o r future work in this f i e l d , as well as f o r There were no 'events' encountered wherein both languages in question did not possess an autonomous marph for any given concept. 2 E.g., an attempt was made to avoid the dependence an hypo t h e t i c a l forms, e.g., *forms, either for comparison or general background, as much as i t was possible, with one exception, c f . item 186:197, 2k emphasizing a p o s s i b i l i t y for universality in this branch of comparative l i n g u i s t i c s . I t should be noted also that most of the examples, depicting phonological correspondences between Latvian and Russian, are drawn from within the corpus of the cognate count, whenever i t i s possible, thus avoiding the employment of out- sized lexicon and discouraging any probable complication. Each item begins with a ca p i t a l l e t t e r designating the form class to which belong the corresponding forms i n the comparison, as follows: l\l = the nounal class. V = the verbal class. A = the adjectival class. 0 = other forms, i . e . , numerals, pronominals, adverbs and function words. The next element of the item represents the desig nation of cognation or non-cognation, as already outlined. Each item i s also preceded by two numerical notations which are separated by a colon, e.g., the f i r s t number designates the alphabetical position of any given item within the t o t a l word l i s t , i . e . , the '200 item' l i s t , and the second number depicts i t s alphabetical position in each of the two '100 word1 l i s t s (more s p e c i f i c a l l y , i n either the 'IDC1' or the '107 word1 list).''" Thus, the f i r s t numerical notation of any item designates i t s alphabetical position in the second sample, and the second notation r e f l e c t s the alphabetical position, for the f i r s t 1DD items (in the f i r s t sample) and also i t s position in the f i r s t word l i s t , whereas, for the second 100. (107) items, the second number depicts only i t s alphabetical position within the second word l i s t , which begins with 101. T D i l l u s t r a t e this method of numerical designation, l e t us select the following numbers at random, e.g.: i ) 55:127 = a) 55th item in the second sample, b) 27th item in the second word l i s t . i i ) 76:42 = a) 76th item in the second sample, b) 42nd item in the f i r s t sample, c) 42nd item in the f i r s t word l i s t . As a lexicon of any given language could be viewed as a population in s t a t i s t i c a l terms, then i t follows that any word l i s t or portion of the lexicon could be viewed as a sample of this population. To f a c i l i t a t e the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the several components of the cognate count, the following termi nology was selected: i ) the f i r s t sample or 'sample I' desig nates the f i r s t 100 items, and the f i r s t word l i s t i d e n t i f i e s the f i r s t 100 forms, i . e . , sample I and the f i r s t word l i s t coincide; i i ) the second sample or 'sample II' designates a sample size of 200 items, e.g., an expansion of the f i r s t sam ple; and i i i ) the second word l i s t r e f l e c t s the second 100 (107) forms. Thus, i t could be stated that there are two samples of d i f f e r e n t s i z e s , e.g., 100 and 200 items, and two word l i s t s of 100 and 107 forms, the l a t t e r representing those 7 items which were excluded from the f i r s t word l i s t to form sample I I . Consequently, sample II consists of 93 items from the f i r s t word l i s t and 107 items from the second word l i s t . 26 i i i ) 199:207 = a) 199th item i n the second sample, b) 107th item in the second word l i s t . iv) - :55 = a) 55th item in the f i r s t sample, b) 55th item in the f i r s t word l i s t , c) this item i s excluded from the second sample. While comparing two corresponding forms, only the base morphs are considered to be s i g n i f i c a n t elements, i . e . , the simplest permissible forms of the free morphs. Thus, the imperfective aspect of the Russian verb i s used throughout i n preference to that of the perfective, without, of course, any d i s t o r t i o n of the corresponding meaning. The same c r i t e r i o n i s also applied to the prefixed nominal forms, as well as suffixed r e f l e x i v e verbal forms. WORD LISTS: In general application of glottochronology, two basic word l i s t s are recognized which are u t i l i z e d to imple ment the cognate count. In this paper, both l i s t s are used. The f i r s t l i s t , with 100 items, was outlined by J . A. Rea."*" Rea's word l i s t was considered in i t s entirety with one 0. A. Rea, Concerning the V a l i d i t y of L e x i c o s t a t i s t i c s , International Journal of American L i n g u i s t i c s , v o l . 24, 1958, p. 148. 27 exception, e.g., Rea's item (l\lo. 89) denoting "person" i s replaced by "human" (item 76:42) as apposed to "animal", for "person" appears to be a socio-cultural borrowing in most of the I-E languages (from Latin persona "character, mask worn by an actor"). The second l i s t , with 200 items was devised by M. Swadeshi Two items of the Swadesh word l i s t are modified, e.g., his item denoting "rotten" i s changed to "to rot", i . e . , from the adjectival class to the verbal one, and his item denoting "to play" i s substituted with " t D plough". The f i r s t change i s based an the fact that the Russian and, p a r t i c u l a r l y , the Latvian languages have a d e f i n i t e verbal orientation, as i t were, and the second change i s based on the assumption that the choice of this form, in Swadesh*s l i s t , was probably 2 influenced by i t s frequent u t i l i z a t i o n in English, whereas the comparison i n this paper i s between two b a s i c a l l y a g r i c u l t u r a l l y orientated speech communities, as they s t i l l are to a greater Morris Swadesh, Towards Greater Accuracy i n L e x i c o s t a t i s t i c  Dating, I.J, of A.L., v o l . 21, 1955, pp 132-137. 2 Helen S. Eaton, Word Frequency Dictionary, Dover Publica tions, IM.Y., 1961, c f . Sec. 1,19, also Index p. 244. Miss Eaton l i s t s the verbal form of "play" in the f i r s t 500 most frequently used concepts i n English. Unfortunately, there were no frequency di c t i o n a r i e s available pertaining to either of the languages compared, although a frequency dictionary of Russian appears to have been published by the University of Tartu, Estonia, cf. Papp, F., Mathematical Li n g u i s t i c s in the Soviet Union, Mouton & Co., The Hague, The Netherlands, 1966, f n . p. 71. 28 or lesser extent at present. Therefore, the usage of the verbal form "to plough" i s envisaged as an adequate replacement for "to play". It should also be noted that either form, i . e . , "to play" or "to plough" would not influence the cognate count, for either form conforms to the c r i t e r i o n of non-cognation. Every form in either language i s v e r i f i e d with the aid of the available d i c t i o n a r i e s . The English forms r e f l e c t corresponding forms in Latvian and Russian which are chosen at random, for they could be classed as 'natural responses' to the English forms.''' In the event that any deviation from this concept of 'natural responses' does occur, the explanation f o r the choice of a substitute form i s given within the framework of each item. Each item i s treated as an independent unit and care i s taken to avoid any passible bias, either in the selection of the corresponding forms in the languages compared or i n estab l i s h i n g connections between any of the languages or speech 2 communities. Thus, i t must be emphasized that the concept of Sarah C. Gudschinsky, The ABC's of L e x i c o s t a t i s t i c s , Word, The L i n g u i s t i c C i r c l e of New York, v o l . 12 (August, 1956) p. 179, cited from M. Swadesh, Diffusions! Cumulation and Archaic Residue  as H i s t o r i c a l Explanations, Southwestern Journal or Anthropology, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, N. M., v o l . 7, p. 13. Miss Gudschinsky speaks about "mast common conversational equiv alent" as being the corresponding word of any language to the English form. The equivalent in this paper to Miss Gudschinsky's above-mentioned term i s a 'natural response' form. 2 Gudschinsky, i b i d . : "If there i s an equal choice of two or more expressions, one should be chosen purely at randan (by f l i p p i n g a coin i f necessary) to avoid any bias i n the direction 29 'natural responses' i s thought tD be s u f f i c i e n t c r i t e r i o n to establish randomness in the selection of Latvian and Russian forms. It i s also thought that the rigorous approach in the actual comparison of the forms of the two languages in question mould eliminate any dubitable forms. of choosing known cognates, . . .". It should be noted that there were no major problems encountered i n choosing cognates f o r this paper. The c r i t e r i o n for establishing true cognation appeared to be s u f f i c i e n t l y r i g i d to avoid "coin f l i p p i n g " . Also, the concept of 'natural responses' and the avoidance of forms with 'peripheral' meanings was helpful in establishing the corresponding forms. However, Miss. Gudschinsky 1s method i s quite acceptable (though, whenever possible, should be avoided) when comparison i s made between lesser known languages than Latvian and Russian, e.g., her comparison was between the Amerindian languages of Ixcatec and Mazatec. LIST OF ARBITRARY SIGNS AND SYMBOLS 1 USED IN THE COGNATE COUNT + = cognation. = non-cognation. /+/ = true cognation. /-/ = true non-cognation. (+) = probable cognation. (-) = probable non-cognation. : = i s to; also apposition. :: = corresponds to, the correspondence with. / = alternates with, <, = derived from. 2 y = the source of. * = a hypothetical form. (j) = semi consonant; c f . item 37:23, etc. (e), (o) = h i s t o r i c a l semi-vowels in Slavonic; semi-vowels, f o r instance in Bulgarian; c f . also item 12:6 (n) = always follows a vowel to indicate i t s nasality, e.g., Lithuanian karna(n) (item 8:3) This l i s t contains only those signs and symbols which are of a s p e c i f i c nature or were a r b i t r a r i l y chosen for this paper. 2 The symbols < , > are indicators of derivation generally, thus A < B could be read: A i s derived from B or B i s the source of A. ABBREVIATIONS USED IIM THE COGNATE COUNT Reference works:"*' Bern.: Berneker, E., Slavisches Etymoloqisches  LJorterbuch, Heidelberg, 1924, 2 vols. Buck: Buck, C. D., A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms, Chicago/London, 1965. Endz.: Endzellns, J . , Latviesu Valodas Gramatika, Riga, 1951. Fr.: Fraenkel, E., Litauisches Etymoloqisches Worterbuch, Heidelberg, 1962 and 1965, 2 vols. Pr.: Preobrazhensky, A. G., f^timologiceski j Slavar' Russkogo Jazyka, N. Y./London, 1964. Vasm.: Vasmer, M., Russisches Etymoloqisches Worterbuch, Heidelberg, 1953-1958, 3 vols. Languages: Alb.: Albanian. Arab.: Arabic. Arm.: Armenian. Bait.: B a l t i c . B.Russ.: Belorussian. Bulg,: Bulgarian, Ch.Slav.: Church-Slavonic Cz.: Czech. The reference works l i s t e d here are i n an abbreviated form; for more detailed data, c f . bibliography. Eng.: E n g l i s h . F i n n . : F i n n i s h . Germ.: German/Germanic. Goth.: G o t h i c . Gr.: Greek. Hung.: Hungarian. K a r e l . : K a r e l i a n . L a t . : L a t i n . L a t v . : L a t v i a n . L i t h . : L i t h u a n i a n . Mid.: Middle, e.g., Middle E n g l i s h , Middle Lou German. Other a b b r e v i a t i o n s : Mod.: Modern, e.g., Modern Russian. Norw.: Norwegian. 0.: Old, e.g., Old High German, Old P r u s s i a n . P o l . : P o l i s h . Russ.: Russian. S.Cr.: Se r b o - C r o a t i a n . S l a v . : S l a v o n i c . Siued. : Swedish. Turk;: T u r k i s h . Ukr.: Ukranian. A = a d j e c t i v a l form c l a s s . d i a l . = d i a l e c t / d i a l e c t a l . i b . = ibidem, used to i n d i c a t e t h a t a given form i s l o c a t e d i n the same semantic area as the preceding one, e.g., Russ. nos "nose"; L i t h . n o s i s , i b i d ; Germ. Nase, i b . N = nounal form c l a s s . 0 = other form c l a s s e s than a d j e c t i v a l , nounal, v e r b a l . V = v e r b a l form c l a s s . TRANSLITERATIONS 33 A. Russian orthography; A = a n = P B = b P = r B = C s r g T = t .Jl = d y = u E = e = f E = X = x, i.e na z u. = c 3 z V C H = i m = V s j I = V V sc K k H = y JI = e b = i M = m 3 = e H n K) = ju 0 = 0 a = ja The above t r a n s l i t e r a t i o n D f the Ru: i s 'arthographically orientated'.''' The aim of this method It should be noted that the d i a c r i t i c mark which usually denotes p a l a t a l i z a t i o n , e.g., apostrophe or ', represents, in this paper, only the orthographic 'soft sign'. The reason f o r this rather unorthodox approach in representation of p a l a t a l i z a  tion was to avoid too extensive usage of d i a c r i t i c marking, thus eliminating overcrowding of the tops of l e t t e r symbols. Further more, i t i s generally understood that p a l a t a l i z a t i o n in Russian i s organic and i s represented by the palatal vowels of ' i , e'. 34 could be vieued as twofold: i ) to f a c i l i t a t e the comprehension of the Russian orthographical characters and their approximate phonetic representation, and, i i ) to f a c i l i t a t e the comparison of the languages in question, as Latvian orthography i s con sidered to be, phonetically, a very close representation of the vernacular, i . e . , Latvian possesses no orthographical 'lags' as compared to, for instance, Modern English. B. Latvian orthography: The following prescribed d i a c r i t i c notations are to be found in Latvian i n this paper: , denotes the pala t a l series of consonants, e.g., h n> denotes the s h i b i l a n t and palatal a f f r i c a t e series, e.g., s, z and c, dz, respectively. ~ denotes lengthening of vowels, e.g., i : i , e : i " , etc. The voiced alveolar a f f r i c a t e i s represented by a digraph 'dz' and the devoiced by the grapheme 'c'. The orthographic 'o' i s represented in this paper by 'uo', for i t i s realized phonetically as a true diphthong. C. Other orthographies: The Albanian and Armenian forms are transposed from the 'Russian etymological dictionary' by Vasmer, and, f a r purposes of v e r i f i c a t i o n in the case of Armenian, the 'I-E Languages of the U.S.S.R.1 i s u t i l i z e d . An attempt i s also made to represent the remaining languages i n their prescribed o f f i c i a l orthographies, except for intonational patterns and accent notation. A consistent accent notation i s employed only in Russian, and the d i a c r i t i c mark ", or circumflex, i s used pertaining to only one Latvian form, e.g., in item 25:111. It r e f l e c t s the r i s i n g - f a l l i n g intonation which formerly was r i s i n g only. V. U. Vinogradov, ed. et a l . , Jazyki IMaradov S.S.S.R., Nauka, Moscow, 1966, v o l . I (meaning I-E languages), pp. 564- 565, also passim. FIRST WORD LIST a l l - viss - ves', complete agreement, cognates. Latv. - i - corresponds to Russ. -e- as in items 70:40, 122:160. Further connections are: L i t h , visas and O.Pruss. wissa-, i b i d . ashes - pelni - pepel 1, p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. The Russ. could be viewed as a reduplicated form, however, de t a i l s are not very clear in this instance; thus the base morphs are equal, i . e . , p e l - = - p e l ' . Other cognates are to be found in O.Pruss. pelanne, L i t h . pelenai, i b i d ; also c f. Gr. pain "dust", Lat. pollen "fine f l o u r , meal", pulvis "dust". bark - miza - kora, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. seems to be connected with O.Pruss. mensa "f l e s h " (Latv. miesa, i b i d ) , Russ. mjaso, i b . , Goth, mimz, i b . , Alb. mis, i b . f mizu "membrane". Perhaps, the Latv. pair of miesa " f l e s h " : miza "bark, peel" should be viewed as a phonological alternation to avoid a homonymic clash, then the base marph, e.g., Pruss. rnins-, designating " f l e s h " could be viewed as the basis for the above Latv. forms. Russ. i s cognate with L i t h . karna(n) "the inner bark of the linden (lime) tree", k e r t i "to shed skin, f ur"; c f . also Lat. corium (carius) "hide, thick skin". 37 N/-/10:4 belly - veders - briuxo, no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . vederas "gizzard, maw, also craw", O.Pruss. weders "belly"; c f . also Lat. venter, ventris " b e l l y " . Russ. seems to be cognate with 0.Norse briosk " g r i s t l e " , Goth, brusts "breast", I r i s h bru "belly, stomach, womb"; c f . also Germ. Brausche "bruise"; Vasm. I, 131; Buck 252-255; Bern. I, 95-96. A / - / l l : 5 big - l i e l s - bol'so.j, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . l i e l i s " f i t , good (appropriate), etc.". Russ. i s , perhaps, connected with Law Germ, pal, p a l l " s t i f f , tense, firm"; c f . also Lat. d e b i l i s "weak", i . e . , d e - b i l i s "without g a l l , also not strong"; Uasm. I, 105; Buck B79-880; Bern. I, 72. N(+)12:6 bird - putns - p t l c a , p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. H i s t o r i c a l l y , this pair i s cognate. L i t h . pute "hen" seems to paint to put- as the base morph, with Russ. r e f l e c t i n g the h i s t o r i c a l lapse of the half- vowel (o) within the base morph. Russ. consists of pt+ic+a (< O.Russ. pt+ok+a < *p(o)t+(o)k+a, with adj. *p(o)t+(e)sk(o) and O.Bulg. p(o)t+ic+a "young b i r d " ) . This development i s quite similar to L i t h . put+e "hen" > put+yt+is "young b i r d " ; c f . also Lat. putus "a boy"> p u t i l l u s "a small boy" and p u t i l l a 38 "a young b i r d " . Further connections are L i t h . pautas "egg, t e s t i c l e " , Latv. pauts " t e s t i c l e " . V/+/13:7 bite - kuost - kusat 1, complete agreement, cognates. Latv. -uo- :: Russ. -u- as in puods "pot" :: pud "Russ. weight unit (40 Russ. l b s . ) " , puoga "button" :: pugovica/pugovka, i b i d (cognation of this pair i s not c e r t a i n ) , buoga "rocky, bush covered island in the f i e l d " :: buga "low r i v e r bank, bushes in r i v e r ' s overflow area", thus this correspondence i s quite rare and i s confined mostly to morphemes i n marginal usage. Further connections are L i t h . ka(n)sti, i b i d , kandis "a b i t e , s t i n g " . A/-/14:8 black - melns - c/iornv.j, no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . melynas "blue", O.Pruss. melne "a blue spot", Gr. melanos "black" and seems to be connected with Russ. malina "raspberry, also in d i a l , f o r blackberry (brambleberry)" with further connections in Lat. mulles "reddish", L i t h . molis "clay", Latv. mais, i b i d . Russ. i s cognate with O.Pruss. kirsnan "black", L i t h . kersas "skew- bald", kerse "spotted cow", karsis "bream"; for Latv. c f . Vasm. II, 91, and f o r Russ. Uasm. I l l , 327. I \ l / - / 1 5 : 9 blood - asins - krov'. no agreements, non-cognates The Latv. base morph as- suggests a connection 39 between asmens "blade", asns "a sprout, also a blade of grass", asnis " t h i s t l e " , ass "sharp" and the above form for blood. This development appears to be quite sim i l a r to Lat. aeer "sharp, esp. of tools", acidus "sharp, esp. in taste, acidy", acies "edge, keenness", acinus "a berry, esp. grape", acumen "the sharp point of anything" < acuo "to sharpen to a point" > acus "a bodkin, needle", with ac- as the base morph for a l l the aforementioned variants. However, Lat. possesses two d i f f e r e n t forms for "blood" sanguis, O.Lat. sanguen (> sanies "corrupted blood, thus also venom") as the basic descriptive form, and cruor f o r "flowing blood, esp. from a wound". This points to a certain inconsist ency of Lat. and suggests, perhaps, that "blood or bleeding" was connected with some tabu concept; p a r t i c u l a r l y in view of the fa c t that f o r "to bleed" Lat. found i t necessary to u t i l i z e an i n d i r e c t verbal form, e.g.,. effundere "to pour f o r t h , gush" or a whole phrase, e.g., sanguinem dare "to give blood". Russ. i s connected with the l a t t e r Lat. form, e.g., cruor, L i t h . kraujas, O.Pruss. krawian, I r i s h cru, 0.Worse hrar "raw, uncooked"."1' The 0.Norse form_links up with Lat. cruor, as the l a t t e r i s connected with Lat. crudus which designates "bleeding" as well as "raw, uncooked". 40 N/-/17:10 bone - kauls - k o s t f t same agreement, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . kaulas, i b i d , Gr. kaulos "stalk", Lat. c a u l i s , i b i d . Russ. seems to be cognate with Lat. costa " r i b " ; Uasm. I, 643; Buck 207; Pr. I, 368. -:11 breast - krutis - qrud', p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. This pair presents a similar problem to the one i n item 41:118, e.g., the i n i t i a l velar phonemes clash (devoiced :: voiced) and the s y l l a b i c crest contains the correspondence of u :: u (vocalic lengthening in Latv. has a d i s t i n c t i v e morphophonemic status). Furthermore, this pair presents another complication, for the f i n a l phonemes of the base morphs also clash, e.g., - t - :: -d 1 or a devoiced dental plosive :: voiced palatalized dent. plos. ( p a l a t a l i z a t i o n in Russ. has a d i s t i n c t i v e morphophonemic status). Thus, of the four pairs of phonemes uiithin the base morphs, only one pair, e.g., the l i q u i d s r :: r show complete agreement."'' Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . k r u t i s , i b i d , I r i s h c r u i t "hump" (Latv. krute 2 "a hump in a meadow or a f i e l d " ) . Russ. appears The following etymological works did not consider this pair to be either connected or cognate: Uasm. I, 312; Buck 247-249; Pr.1,162; Bern. I, 356 suggests a possible connection between them, u t i l i z i n g Latv. krute "hump" and Lat. grandis "elevated" as a basis. 2 — The Latv. verbal form kruties "to chin oneself, i . e . , to chest oneself" corresponds regulary tD Russ. k r y t 1 "to cover", as but "to be" :: byt', i b i d . to be cognate with Lat. grandis "great, elevated". U/-/19:12 burn - deqt - qoret', no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . degti, i b i d , and probably with Russ. zee 1 which i s the t r a n s i t i v e form of goret' (the Latv. trans, form i s dedzinat). Russ. i s cognate with L i t h . gareti "to evaporate, dehydrate", garas "steam", Latv. gars, " s p i r i t , mind; also steam i n sauna-bath"; Vasm. I, 295, 412-413. ^ ' 2 -:13 claw - !$etna - kogot', no agreements, non-cognates. This Latv. form does not seem to offe r any cognation with either other Bait, forms cr any Slav, or Germ. ones. The i n i t i a l p alatal phoneme might suggest a borrowing, simi l a r to Latv. I j i l i s "sprat", Ijilavas "canned sprats" ^ probably Est. k i l u , Finn, k i l o , i b i d > Russ. k i l ' k a , i b . ; Ijeksis "a punt-pole, scoop for f i s h i n g " ^ probably Finn, keksi "a boat hook". Russ. i s probably connected with Q.High Germ, hako "hook" (> Mod. Germ. Haken). This pair was viewed as probable cognates, however, due to the limited scope of this paper, i t would be prohibitive to delve into the probable background Df any one pair of forms. It should also be noted that the above Russ. form represents either a semantic s h i f t or a di r e c t borrowing. 2 The Latv. synonyms i$epa, peka have s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t con notations from the above form, e.g., the above form usually des ignates "a claw, paw of wild animals", Ijepa "a paw of animals generally" and peka "a paw generally, but also (via a semantic k 2 IM/-/21:14 cloud - makuonis - bp-lake-, no agreements, non-cog.. Latv. form i s derived from makt "to oppress, intrude upon, depress" and seems to be cognate uith L i t h . makone "slough, pool; also mudhale or puddle"; also makoti "to trample in or doun mud, d i r t " . Further connections are L i t h . maketi "to enter a suamp" (Latv. maknit "to go through a suamp"), probably also Russ. moknut' "to become uet", Lat. macerare "to soften, esp. by soaking". Russ. i s a Ch.Slav. loanword, e.g., oblako < volac' "to drag, p u l l " (Mod. Russ. v o l o c i t ' "to drag") < *Qb-volk(o) "to drag, draw over or around". Thus Russ. i s connected with Latv. v i l k t "to p u l l " (item 113:155), L i t h . v i l k t i , i b i d , via the Ch.Slav. form volac', i b . ; cf . also Lat. v e l l o , v e l l i (also v u l s i , v o l s i ) vulsum (volsum), ve l l e r e "to p u l l , pluck, twitch"> vulsus "plucked, beardless". A/-/22:15 cold - auksts - xolodnyj, no agreements, non-cog. Latv. seems to be connected with L i t h . aukstas "high" (Latv. augsts), austi "to grow cool", Arm. oic "cold". Russ. seems to be cognate with Goth, kalds and, i f a dichotomy for the i n i t i a l phoneme can be postulated, e.g., *kh- or *k-, then the Slav, and Germ, speech communities have the former s h i f t ) awkward foot or footing of children". The above Russ. form was used as an analogous form to nogot* "human n a i l ( s ) " . 43 as a basis and the Bait, the l a t t e r one, e.g., k- as in modern reflexes of L i t h . saltas "cold", Latv. s a l t s " c h i l l y " . 1 V/-/23:16 come - nakt - p r i x o d i t 1 , no agreements, non-cog. Latv. appears to be cognate with L i t h . nokti "to mature", pranokti " t D overtake". Russ. consists of the prefix p r i - "at, by" and - x o d i t 1 "to go". The Russ. base morph seems to be cognate with the one which designates " s i t t i n g " , i . e . , *sed-, as in item 13G:7if. The change of *s- > x- i s considered as a morphemically conditioned alternation determined by the prefix p r i - , as stated by V/asmer (Vasm. I l l , 253). V/+/27:17 die - mirt - umirat', complete agreement, cognates. Russ. form consists of prefix u- and base morph -mir- ^ O.Russ. meret' (perf. aspect in Mod. Russ. ymeret 1). Further cognations are L i t h . m i r t i , The suggestion made, during several discussions pertaining to the above Latv. form, about a possible semantic connection between auksts "cold" and augsts "high" has to be dismissed as unsatisfactory, for the l a t t e r i s d e f i n i t e l y < augt "to grow" ( L i t h . augti, i b i d ) , also simi l a r p a i r s , e.g., s a l t s " c h i l l y " and salds "sweet" defy any semantic connections. However, i t should be noted that Lat. has a similar development to Latv., e.g., augere "to grow" > augustus "elevated, high; also holy, conse crated". Perhaps, the above Latv. form points to an independent semantic s h i f t , which might have been based on some tabu concept or general nonacceptance of "gold", e.g., L i t h . auksas, O.Pruss. ausis, Lat. aurum, but Latv. z e l t s (Russ. zbloto), L i t h . zeltas "golden". Also, proverbs equate auksts with z e l t s "cold with gold". 2 This i n f e r s the correspondence of Latv. - i - :: O.Russ. -e-44 i b i d ; c f . a l s o L a t . deponent v e r b a l form morior, mori, i b . IM/-/30:18 doq - suns - sobaka, some agreement, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h . suo, i b i d , O.Pruss. s u n i s , i b . and i s probably connected u i t h Russ. suka "a b i t c h " ; c f . a l s o L a t . c a n i s "dog", Goth, hunds, i b i d , Arm. sun, i b . Russ. r e f l e c t s an E a s t - S l a v o n i c development u i t h some d i a l e c t a l usage i n P o l . , e.g., Ukr. sobaka, B.Russ. sobaka, P o l . d i a l , sobaka. This Russ. form i s probably con nected u i t h I r . spaka "a hound". U/-/31:19 drink - d z e r t - p i t 1 , no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h . g e r t i , i b i d , and seems to be cognate u i t h Russ. z r a t ' "to devour ( i n Germ, f r e s s e n ) " . Russ. r e p r e s e n t s a Pan-Slav, develop ment, e.g., P o l . p i c , Ukr. pyty, Cz. p i t i , S.Cr. p i t i . I t i s cognate u i t h A l b . p i "I d r i n k " , L a t . bibo, i b i d ( < * p i b o ) , I r i s h i bim, i b . ( f o r l o s s of i n i t i a l p- i n I r i s h c f . item 43:119). F u r t h e r con n e c t i o n s , v i a vouel g r a d a t i o n , are L i t h . puota "a d r i n k i n g bout, a l s o a uedding f e a s t " , O.Pruss. u i t h i n the base morphs and uould not appear to be c o n s i s t e n t u i t h the d i s c u s s i o n of item 44:120. Houever, c e r t a i n ' h i s t o r i c a l l y o l d ' forms r e f l e c t t h i s correspondence, e.g., L a t v . mir- :: O.Russ. mer- "to d i e " as L a t v . p i r - (mais) :: Russ. per- ( v y j ) " f i r s t ( o r d i n a l ) " ; c f . a l s o items 1:1, 70:40, 122:160. form p o i e i t i "drink! (imperative p i . ) " , Lat. patio "a drinking action, also a drink, draught" (< potare "to drink"); c f . also Uasm. II , 362. A/+/32:2Q dry - sauss - suxo.1, complete agreement, cognates. The base morphs saus- :: sux-, as in item 35:21. Further cognations are L i t h . sausas, i b i d , O.Pruss. sausai; c f . also O.Eng. sear "barren, withered". 1M/+/35:21 ear - auss - uxo, complete agreement, cognates. The base morphs correspond to each other as i n item 32:20. Further cognations are L i t h . ausis, i b i d , O.Pruss. acc. p i . ausins, i b . , Lat auris, i b . , auscultare ( i . e . , aus+cultare) "to pay attention to, l i s t e n c a r e f u l l y , tQ l i s t e n i n secret". I\l/+/36:22 earth - zeme - zeml.ja. complete agreement, cognates. The equality of the base morphs might be suspect to borrowing, however, the very wide usage af the base morph zem- in Bait, seems ta have blocked any ap preciable phonological change, e.g., L i t h . zeme, i b i d , O.Pruss. semme, i b . , L i t h . zemas "lowly", Latv. zems "low", L i t h . zemiau "under", Latv. zem, i b i d , etc.;"'" c f . also Lat. humus "ground, earth, The base morph zem-/zem- appears to have a very wide a p p l i  cation i n Bait, languages in comparison with Russ. Thus Latv. features some 70 dictionary entries, including several toponymic forms, and L i t h . upwards of 100 forms, whereas Rues, (using a comparable Russ. dictionary) l i s t s only about 30 forms, of which the majority consist of endocentric compounds with r e l a t i v e l y recent formation. 46 s o i l " humilis "low, humble". U/+/37:23 eat - - est - (.pest', complete agreement, cognates. The Russ. prothetic jod- element i s a h i s t o r i c a l phenomenon having occurred during the Ch.Slav. period, i . e . , prior to 1100 A.D. There are several forms i n Mod.Russ. which appear as di r e c t reflexes of t his phenomenon, e.g., ( j ) s l ' :: Latv. egle, L i t h . egle, O.Pruss. addle " f i r " ; (j)est 1''' :: L i t h . B s t i , est; Lat. est (Goth, i s t ) " i s (3rd pers. sg. of "to be")". Further cognations are L i t h . e s t i , i b i d ; O.Pruss. 1st, i b . ; Lat. edo, edi or esum, edere or esse :: Latv. ed "he, she eats", Germ, essen "to eat". N/-/38:24 egg - uola - .ja/ico, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . uola "whetstone", which seems to be connected with v e l t i "to r o l l , rotate, trundle"; also in Latv. v e l t , i b i d ; Lat. volvere "to turn". Thus Latv. uolis "pebble" and the above form are connected (via vocalization of v > u) with the verbal farm f o r "ta r o l l " . This Russ. form also has a prothetic jod- element, as in i t e m 37:23, and i t i s a diminutive extension of the base morph This i s the only reflex form of the present tense paradigm which i s s t i l l in active use in Mod.Russ. The other paradigmatic forms also had the prothetic jad- element, e.g., (j)esm' :: Latv. esmu, L i t h . esmi, O.Pruss. asmai "I am"; ( j ) e s i :: e s i , essei "thou art", Latv. and L i t h . having i d e n t i c a l forms. kl - a j - , e.g., j a j c o = j+£Taj)+(ic)+o7. The Russ. base morph i s cognate with Germ, das E i , i b i d , Dutch e i ( n ) , i b . ; c f . also Mid.Eng. ey, i b . Further con nections are O.Norse egg; Lat. ovum (neuter), i b . y I t a l i a n uova, Rumanian uo; c f . also Lat. a v i s " b i r d " . N/-/39:25 eye - acs - q l a z , no agreements, non-cognates'. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . a k i s , i b i d , O.Pruss. a c k i s , i b . , O.Russ. oko ( p i . form b e i ) ; 1 c f . also Lat. oculus, i b . , Goth, augo y Germ. Auge, i b . Rues, i s connected with P o l . glaz "stone, rock, touchstone"; 2 c f . a l s o O.High Germ, glas "amber, g l a s s " . I\l/-A2:26 f a t - ta u k i - z i r , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . taukas "a piece of f a t " , taukai "grease", O.Pruss. t a u k i s " d r i p p i n g , l a r d ( i n Germ. Schmalz)", O.Russ. tuk " f a t , grease", from whence came the v e s t i g i a l form of t u k i ( p l u r a l i a tantum) "mineral f e r t i l i z e r s " i n Mod. Russ."3 Further connections are L i t h . t u k t i "to 1 * The form o c i represents a r e l i c of the o l d dual. As a ves t i g i a l form, i t i s s t i l l used p o e t i c a l l y and i n a few moribund forms, notably ocki "eye-glasses". 2 The form glaz could al s o designate "a pla y i n g marble, i . e . , a small glass b a l l " ; i n t h i s semantic area, i t might be connected with Ch.Slav. glezno "knuckle; but the p i . form may also d e s i g  nate d i c e " ; c f . also Latv. gleznuot "to p a i n t , e.g., a p a i n t i n g " , L i t h . g l e z n o t i , also g l e z o t i "to smear, s o i l , s t a i n " . "^There i s also a v e s t i g i a l a d j e c t i v a l form i n Mod.Russ., e.g., tucnyj " f a t obese". 48 become f a t " (Latv. tukt "to swell"), Russ. t y t 1 "to grow f a t " , Latv. tukns "corpulent"; c f . also Germ. Talg "tallow" (Latv. tauki " f a t , grease, also tallow"). Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development with a considerable semantic s h i f t i n various lan guages, e.g., Pol. zer "pasture, food; prey", Ukr. zyr " f a t , fodder; a beech-nut", Cz. z i r "acorns, fodder", S.Cr. z i r "acorns", Bulg.zir " f a t , bacon". Perhaps, this form i s related to Russ. z i t ' "to l i v e " , i f the fallowing 'proportion' i s acceptable: z i r " f a t " :: z i t ' "to l i v e " as p i r "a feast, banquet" :: p i t ' "to drink";* c f . also Arm. ger " f a t , f r u i t f u l " . l\l/-/45:27 feather - spalva - pero, no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . spalva "colour". Fur ther probable connections are Latv. s p i l v a "cotton- grass, any sedge-like plant; also a casing"> s p i l v - ens "pillow, cushion"; c f . also L i t h . s p a l i a i , Latv. spa^Li "flax-husks", Lat. spolium "the skin or hide stripped from an animal". l\i/+/48:28 f i r e - uquns - oqon' t complete agreement, cognates. The correspondence of Latv. -u- :: Russ. -o- i s not ''"All four forms are from Mod.Russ. and t h i s 'proportion' was suggested by J . Endzellns, V/asm. I, 425. 2 This form also designates "hair of quadrupeds". 49 a common phenomenon and i s explained as a vowel gradation i n Latv., e.g., -o- was reduced to -u- due to the s h i f t of s t r e s s to the i n i t i a l s y l l a b l e . The L i t h . form agnus " r a p i d , f i e r y " would also a t t e s t to the above explanation. Further connec t i o n s are L i t h . ugnis, i b i d , Lat. i g n i s , i b . l\l/-/49:29 f i s h - z i v s - ryba, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . z u v i s , i b i d , and Ch.Slav. *z(o)v' which might have receded as a tabu- form; c f . also O.Pruss. s u c k i s , i b i d , Arm. jukn, i b . ; Latv. z u t i s "eel ( d i a l , also f i s h ) " , Russ. zveno "a l i n k " ; Vasm. I , 445; I I , 554; Buck 184. Russ. i s generally connected with O.High Germ, ruppe "eelpout"; Vasm. I I , 554; Pr. I I , 22B-229. V(+)54:30 f l y - l i d u o t - l e t a t ' , p a r t i a l agreement, cognate. Latv. - i - :: Russ. -e- as i n items 70:40, 122:160, however, the correspondence of Latv. -d- :: Russ. - t - i s d i f f i c u l t to substantiate as a common occur rence due to lack of evidence. 1 Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . l y d e t i "to accompany". Russ. form i s cognate with L i t h . l e k t i "to f l y " , Latv. l e k t "to jump", l e k a t "to hop (around)", as the f i r s t pers. This p a i r was viewed as probable cognates, f o r , of the three p a i r s of elements w i t h i n the base morphs, two showed agree ment, though Vasmer d i d not l i s t t h i s p a i r as cognates; Vasm. I I , 35. sg. of the perf. aspectual form l e t e t ' , e.g., lecu r e f l e c t s i t s cognation uith the above Bait, forms, (Latv. lecu "I jump"). N/-/56:31 foot - peda - noqa^. no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . peda, i b i d , Lat. pes, _ 2 pedis, i b . , Goth, fotus > Germ. Fuss, i b . Russ. i s cognate uith O.Pruss. nage "foot", L i t h . naga "hoof", Latv. nagas "both hands, hands and feet" (nou in marginal usage only), nags " n a i l " , L i t h . nagas, i b i d , Germ. IMagel, i b . Further connection i s Lat. unguis "finger and toe n a i l s " . A/+/ -:32 f u l l - pi l n s - polnyj, complete agreement, cognates. The correspondence of Latv. - i - :: Russ. -o- i s not a common phenomenon."' Further connections are L i t h . pilnas, i b i d , O.Pruss. pilnan, i b . (acc. sg.), Germ, v a i l , i b . ; c f . also Lat. plenus. The synonym stupnja "foot, short step" i s a seldom used v e s t i g i a l form, and i t also uould be classed as a non-cognate. 2 Apparently Russ. used to have a reflex of this form, as the Mod.Russ. form p e s i j "pedestrian" (a v e s t i g i a l a d j e c t i v a l form) uould indicate; c f . also L i t h . pekscias, i b i d , and f a r Latv. peka "pau, foot" c f . footnote to item -:13. E.g., i t should be as in viss :: ves 1 " a l l " (item 1:1, et c . ) . I t seems that the i n s t a b i l i t y of the s y l l a b i c '1* in * p l - conditioned the variety of reflexes i n d i f f e r e n t speech communities, e.g., depending an the point of a r t i c u l a t i o n of the •1' phoneme. Thus, the more retracted variety i s reflected in Russ. poi- and the more advanced one i n Latv. p i l - ; c f . also f n . 2 in item 159:83. 51 v7+/60:33 give - duot - davat', complete agreement, cognates. The perfective aspectual form dat' r e f l e c t s a true cognation, f o r the base morphs duo- :: da- as a h i s t o r i c a l phenomenon, e.g., Latv. uo :: Ch.Slav. a. 1 Further connections are L i t h . duoti, i b i d , Lat. dare, i b . ; c f . also Latv. davat "to donate", L i t h . dovana "a donation", Latv. davana "a present, donation". A/-/61:34 good - labs - xorosi.j , no agreements, non-cog. 3 Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . labas "good, well". Further connections are Latv. labiba "grain", l a b i e t i s "a ujell-born, r i c h (well-off) man", O.Pruss. labs "good", L i t h . l a b i s "possessions, riches". Russ. seems to be connected with Ukr. chorasyj, i b i d , B.Russ. charasycca "to boast, brag". Thus this Russ. form seems to be confined s t r i c t l y to the East-Slav, speech community. Further background of this form i s quite vague; c f . Vasm. I l l , 264-265. A/+/63:35 green - za\s - zeljonyj, complete agreement, cognates. Latv. -a- :: Russ. -e- as in item 187:97. Further 1 — v J . Endzelins, Latviesu Valodas Gramatika, Latv. Valsts Izdevnieciba, Riga, 1951, p. 58: "La. uo a t b i l s t . . . sensl. a..." (Latv. uo corresponds to... Ch.Slav. a...). 2 The Pan-Slav, form for "goad" dabr- also appears in Russ., but i t has experienced a semantic narrowing, e.g., i t designates "kind". "'it appears mostly i n compounds or such expressions as labas rytas "goad morning". 52 connections are L i t h . z a l i a s , i b i d , O.Pruss. saligan, i b . ; c f . also item 62:131. IM/—/65:36 hair - mati - volos, no agreements, non-cognates. The background of the Latv. form i s obscure, e.g., i t i s connected with the verbal form mest "to throw" (met "he, she throws") and the semantic link i s suggested as "an arrangement of one's hair i n a par t i c u l a r uay".^ Russ. seems to be connected with L i t h . valas "horse t a i l - h a i r " ; c f . also Lat. vel l u s "shorn wool, a f l e e c e " . l\l/+/66:37 hand - ruoka - ruka. complete agreement, cognates. Latv. -uo- :: Russ. -u- as in item 13:7. Further connections are L i t h . ranka, i b i d , O.Pruss. rancko, i b . , L i t h . r i n k t i "to gather, pick as berries". M/+/68:38 head - qalva - qolova. complete agreement, cognates. Latv. -a- :: Russ. -o- as in items -:41, 106:61, 133:167. Further connections are L i t h . galva, i b i d , O.Pruss. gallu, galwan (acc, sg.), ib.;Russ. golyj "bare, naked". V/-/69:39 hear - dzirdet - sl y s a t ' , no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . g i r d e t i , i b i d . Russ. i s cognate with Latv. k l a u s i t "to obey, l i s t e n " , This explanation i s offered in Buck, p. 204. Another exam ple, of a simil a r derivational process, i . e . , vowel gradation, could be mentioned, e.g., lekt "to jump": lakta "perch, hen roost". 53 L i t h . k l a u s y t i , i b i d , O.Pruss. klausiton "to pay attention", O.High Germ, hlosen "to l i s t e n , obey"; 1 f o r the h i s t o r i c a l cognation of Latv. and Russ. forms c f . V/asm. I I , 666-667. N/+/7Q;kQ heart - sirds - serdce, complete agreement, cog. Latv. - i - :: Russ. -e- as in items 1:1, 122:160. Russ. i s a diminutive extension, e.g., serdce <^*s(e)rd(e)+-ko-. Further connections are L i t h . s i r d i s , i b i d , O.Pruss. seyr. i b . , Arm. s i r t , i b . , Goth, hairto, i b . , Lat. cor, cordis, i b . horn - rags - roq, complete agreement, cognates. Latv. -a- :: Russ. -o- as in items 68:38, 106:61, 133:167. Further connections are L i t h . ragas, i b i d , O.Pruss. ragis, i b . l\l/-/76:42 human - cilveks - celovek, non cognates, f o r i t i s 2 a c u l t u r a l borrowing from Ch.Slav. into Latv. 0(+)79:43 I - es - .ja, p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . as, O.Pruss. es, also as, Arm. Russ. s l y s a t 1 "to hear" i s connected with slusat' "to l i s t e n , hearken" as Germ, horen "to hear" i s with horchen "to obey, hearken". 2 This form i s generally viewed as an endocentric compound, e.g., celo+vek. The f i r s t morph seems to be connected with celjad' "menials" ( L i t h . k i l t i s " r e l a t i v e s " , Latv. c i l t s " t r i b e , clan", I r i s h eland "generation, descendants"). The second one i s compared with L i t h . vaikas "boy", Latv. d i a l , vaiks "servant boy", O.Pruss. vaix "menial". 54 es. Russ. i s cognate with Proto-Slav. *az, Q.Cz. jaz, O.Bulg. az, alsD jaz and i t generally depicts a Pan-Slavonic development. However, the general background for the lapse of -z i s quite obscure; Vasm. I l l , 475-476; Pr. Append. 130-131. V/-/83:44 k i l l - kaut - ubivat', no agreements, non-cognate. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . kauti "to smash, also forge, hammer", Russ. kovat' "to forge, hammer", Germ, hauen "to hew, beat, etc." ( <. O.High Germ, houwan "to hew); c f . also Lat. cudere "to beat, pound", I r i s h cuad "to s t r i k e , b a t t l e " . Russ. i s an extended form of b i t ' "to h i t " ( c f . item 73:36), e.g., u+bi+va+t'. IM(+) -:45 knee - c e l i s - koleno, p a r t i a l agreement, cognates.''' This pair seems to be cognate, as L i t h . k e l i s , kelys, keleno "knee" seems to be connected with the Russ. form, and L i t h . k e l i s :: Latv. c e l i s , as L i t h . k e l t i "to b u i l d " :: Latv. c e l t " b u i l d " . 2 \I/+/Bk:k6 know - zinat - znat'. complete agreement, cognate. The Russ. form i s consistent with other Slav, forms, Vasmer did not consider this pair as either connected or cognate (Vasm. I, 598). The problem i s created by the phonolog i c a l inconsistency of the Russ. form, for the Mod.Russ. reflex should have a^palato-alveolar a f f r i c a t e i n i t i a l l y instead of the velar, ve.g., c- not k-. Therefore, he connects Latv. c e l i s with Russ. c e l j a d 1 "menials", Vasm. I l l , 314. 2 c f . also item 50:12.3 pertaining to a f f r i c a t i o n of the velars in Latv. 55 f o r they a l l show the absence of the - i - phoneme in the base morph, which h i s t o r i c a l l y corresponded to Ch.Slav. half-vowel (e) and lapsed v ia syncope. Further connections are L i t h . z i n o t i , i b i d , O.Pruss. ersinnat "to recognize, perceive"; c f . also Lat. ignotus "unknown", Germ, sinnen "to ponder, muse". (\)/-/87:47 leaf - lapa - l i s t , some agreement, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . lapas, i b i d , and i t seems to be connected with Russ. lepen' "a l i t t l e piece; rag, t a t t e r " , f o r Slovene lepen = "leaf"."'" Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., Pol. l i s t , Ukr. l y s t , Cz. l i s t , S.Cr. l i s t , Bulg. l i s t , and i t seems to be connected with L i t h . laiskas " l e t t e r , i . e . , a leaf of writing", Latv. l a i s k a 2 "leaf of a f l a x - s t a l k " , probably also Latv. laiksne "w a t e r - l i l y " and O.Pruss. laiskas "beech". V/-/9Q:48 l i e - quiet - lezat', no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h , g u l e t i "to l i e , recline".'' Russ, i s cognate with Germ, liegen "to Russ. lapa "paw" does not seem to be connected with this Latv. form but rather with L i t h . lopa "claw of a bear/dog", Latv. lapa "a ' f l a t ' foot". 2 Also Latv. l a i s k s "indolent, lazy" should be noted here, though any connection between i t and the above Russ. form i s dubious. "'RUSS. guljat' "to s t r o l l , l i v e slovenly, stray" might be connected with t h i s Latv. form, though the exact phonological correspondence of both forms would make them suspect to borrow ing; also a probable semantic s h i f t . lie"<C O.High Germ, ligan; c f . also Lat. lectus "a bed, couch", I r i s h l i g e "a bed, also grave". Uasm. II, 26. l\l/-/92:49 l i v e r - akna - pecen 1, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . jaknos/jeknos, i b i d , and i s probably connected with Russ. ikra "roe" (Latv. i k r i , i b i d , L i t h . i k r a i , i b . , I r i s h iuchair "spawn"); c f . also Lat. iecur " l i v e r " . Russ. r e f l e c t s an East-Slavonic development with some West-Slav, connections, e.g., Ukr. pecinka, B.Russ. pecinka, Pol. pieczen "roast", Cz. pecenka, i b i d , v I and i t seems to be connected with pec' "to bake". A/-/93:50 long - gars - dlinny.i, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . gargaras "long-legged 2 horse", gingaras "a long-legged man"; Buck BB2. Russ. seems to r e f l e c t an alternation between "long in space", i . e . , the above form, and "long in time", e.g., dlinnyj : d o l g i j < Ch.Slav. * d ( e ) l - : *d(e)lg(o), whereas in Bait, a d i f f e r e n t development occurred, e.g., Latv. u t i l i z e s d i f f e r e n t base morphs: gar- "long in space" and i l g - "long i n L i t h . appears to have a simi l a r semantic extension, e.g., kepti "to bake, f r y " with kepenys " l i v e r , also prepared l i v e r " as i t s extension. 2 # Also Russ. gora "mountain" (item_99:56) and Latv. preposi tions gar "along, over, about" and garam "past, by" might be connected with this Latv. form. 57 time", but i n L i t h . this semantic dichotomy merged into one form: i l g - "long i n time and space". v l\l/-/%:51 louse - uts - vos 1, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . ute/utele, i b i d . Russ. seems ta be connected with the reduplicated L i t h . form vievesa "animal louse" < *veivesa; 1 c f . also Latv. usna " t h i s t l e " , L i t h . usnis, i b i d . l\J/-/95:52 man - v i r i e t i s - muzcina, no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s an extended form < v i r - s "husband, also man", which i s cognate with L i t h . vyras "male", Lat. v i r "man, a male person". Russ. i s an exten sion < muz "spouse, husband". It represents a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., Pol. ma(n)z, Ukr. muz, Cz. muz, S.Cr. muz; c f . also L i t h , zmogus "human", amzius "age, a long time", Latv. muzs i b i d , O.Pruss. amsis "people; also eternal". A/-/96:53 many - daudzi - mnoqie, no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . daug, i b i d ; c f . also Russ. dtizij "strong, powerful", Germ, taugen "to be of worth or value", Tugend "virtue". Russ. i s The reconstructed form can be attested ta by the existence of an old Finn, loanword vaive "a small cattle-louse". v • The Slovene form us does suggest a connection with Latv. us-na " t h i s t l e " , however, the vocalic divergence of this form in the various Slav, languages might attribute this Slovene form to a mere l o c a l phonological development: Pol. wesz, Ukr. vas, Cz. ves, S.Cr, vas. 58 connected with Goth, manags "many, quite a feu", O.Irish menicc "copious", L i t h . minia "a croud"; Uasm. II, 143. I\l/-/97:54 meat - ga^a - mjaso, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s probably connected uith Russ. golyj "naked, bare", as the Latv. farm might have desig nated "rau meat", or i t i s ^ L a t v . gals "end, but also a piece", as in Lat. caro "meat, f l e s h " , also designated "portion"; Buck 364. Russ. i s cognate uith Latv. miesa "human f l e s h " , 1 O.Pruss. mensa "f l e s h , meat", Arm. mis, i b i d ; c f . also item 8:3. IM/-/ -:55 moon - meness - luna - no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . menulis, i b i d , O.Pruss. menins, i b . , Russ. mesjac "month, also moon", Lat. mensis "month", (Latv. menesis); for further connec tions c f . Uasm. I I , 125. Russ. i s connected (via semantic suggestion) uith the verbal form l u n i t " "to shine ueakly, throu a very pale l i g h t " , and i t seems to link up ui t h luc "ray, a beam of l i g h t " . Further connections are O.Pruss. lauxnos ( p i . form) "stars ( c o l l e c t i v e l y ) , heavenly bodies", Lat. luna "moon", probably also lux " l i g h t " ; c f . also Uasm. II , 69; Pr. I, 477-478; Buck 54-55. The L i t h . form for " f l e s h , human f l e s h " i s mesa, uhich probably i s a soc i o - c u l t u r a l borrouing because of i t s inconsist ent phonological form, e.g., the absence of any nasalization. 59 N/-/99:56 mountain - kalns - qora, no agreements, non-cog. La t v . i s cognate with L i t h . k a l n a s , L a t . c o l l i s " h i l l " , probably a l s o with O.IMorse holmr "a sm a l l i s l a n d " and Russ. c e l o "brow, forehead ( i n Mad.Russ. poet, o n l y ) " . 1 Russ. i s cognate with O.Pruss. g a r i a n " t r e e " , L i t h . g i r i a " f o r e s t " , probably a l s o with A l b . gur "rock"; c f . a l s o item 93:50. IM/-/100:57 mouth - mute - r o t , no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . seems to be connected with m u t u l i s "a bubble, gush", c f . Germ. Mund "mouth", probably a l s o L a t . mutus "mute", mutire "to mutter, mumble, murmur". Russ. r e p r e s e n t s a Pan-Slav, form (except P a l . , e.g., usta "mouth"), however, i n most of the other S l a v , languages, t h i s form c a r r i e s a d i f f e r e n t semantic v a l u e , e.g., Ukr. r o t "mouth, a l s o the opening of a b a s k e t - l i k e f i s h t r a p " , Cz. r e t " l i p , a l s o d i a l , f o r mouth", S.Cr. r t " p o i n t , mountain top", Bulg. r o t "a h i l l o c k " , O.Russ. r ( o ) t ( o ) "a sharp p o i n t , beak". Russ. seems to be connected with r y t * "to d i g " (item 28:113) and probably a l s o with L a t v . r u t u l i s "a round p i e c e of wood"; c f . Vasm. I I , 539. The connection between the La t v . form and Russ. c e l b c o uld be p o s t u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g to the semantic e x t e n s i o n t h a t both suggest "a p r o t r u s i o n , e l e v a t i o n " . 60 l\l/-/101:58 name - yards - Imja, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . vardas, i b i d , Goth, uaurd "uord" > Germ. Ulort, i b i d , Lat. verbum, i b . , probably also Russ. rota "oath, vou", vrat' "to prevaricate". Russ. i s cognate uith O.Pruss. emmens, i b i d , Alb. emen, i b . , Arm. anuor, i b . , Goth, namo, i b . , Lat. nomen, i b . l\l/-/104:59 neck - kakls - se,jat no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . kaklas, i b i d , also Lat. collum, i b . , Germ. Hals, i b . Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., Pol. szyja, Ukr. syja, Cz. s i j e , S.Cr. s i j a , Bulg. s i j a . Further connections are obscure, houever, Lat. sinus "curve, f o l d " , Alb. si(n) "nape", Latv. seja "face, 1 •»— features", also L i t h . semis "the colour(s) of fauna" could be mentioned. A/-/105:60 neui - jauns - novy.it no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . jaunas, i b i d , O.Russ. * 2 — junyj, i b . , Lat. iunior, also iuvenis "youthful, young". Russ. i s cognate uith L i t h . naujas "neu", O.Pruss. nauns, i b i d , Lat. novus, i b . , Gr. neos, Latv. seja "face" i s usually considered to be connected uith Russ. s i j a t 1 "to glou, shine", houever, i t might represent a semantic s h i f t , though the irr e g u l a r correspondence of Russ. s- :: Latv. s- seems to bilock this connection. 2 Mpd.Russ. also has^several reflexes of this base morph, e.g., junost' "youth", junoseskij "youthful", etc. ib.,] Arm. nor, i b . I\l/+/106:61 night - nakts - noc', complete agreement, cognates. Latv. -a- :: Russ. -a- as in items -:41, 68:38, 133:167. The Russ. f i n a l phoneme in the base morph, i . e . , the unvoiced palato-alveolar a f f r i c a t e -c-, corresponds tD Latv. 'velar-dental' plosive cluster -kt- as shown in item 54:30, e.g., as Russ. l e t e t ' "to f l y " i s shown to be connected with Latv. lekt "to jump". Further connections are L i t h . naktis, i b i d , O.Pruss. naktin (acc. sg.), i b . , Lat. nox, i b . I\l/-/107:62 nose - dBquns - nos, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. might be connected with the verbal form degt "to burn" (item 19:12) with derivatives of deguts "birch-tar" : darva as a general designation of "tar", and the above form of deguns; 1 c f . Russ. djogot' "tar, formerly also birch-tar", L i t h . degutas "birch-tar" : derva designates "tar gener a l l y " , i . e . , both Bait, languages show a s i m i l a r i t y of opposition between "tar" and "birch-tar". Russ. i s cognate with L i t h . nosis, i b i d , Latv. nass " n o s t r i l " , Germ. IMase "nose", Lat. naris " n o s t r i l " , nasus "nose". The connection of burning and tar, also preparation of tar, i s associated with strong odour, thus, perhaps, a semantic s h i f t from either the natural phenomenon or s o c i a l a c t i v i t y to the sense of smell could be assumed. 62 Q/+/108:63 not - ne - net, complete agreement, cognates. Further connections are L i t h . ne, i b i d , Lat. ne- (as in nego < ne aio = "to say no" : to say yes" = ai o ) , nescire "not to know, tD be ignorant of" ( i . e . , ne-+scire), etc.;''" Goth, n i , i b i d . Q/-/110:64 one - viens - odin, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . vienas, i b i d ; c f . also O.Pruss. ains, i b . , Lat. unus, i b . , Russ. inoj "feu" (item 46:121). Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., Pol. jeden, Ukr. odyn, Cz. jeden, S.Cr. jedan, Bulg. edin. This form i s prob ably a reflex of a h i s t o r i c a l compounding, e.g., *ed+in(o) uith *ed- representing a p a r t i c l e desig nating definiteness and *-in(o) being the h i s t o r i c a l base morph for inoj "feu, also the other one(s)". A similar development appears in the Russ. form (j)edva "only, hardly, j u s t " < *ed+va, uhere va 2 designated in O.Russ. "you tuo, both of you"; c f . also Germ, etuas "some, feu", etua "nearly, about", The Bait.and Slav, speech communities also u t i l i z e ne- as a prefix of negation, houever, Russ. r e f l e c t s a dichotomy of par t i c l e s , e.g., ne/ne- and n i - = Lat. n i . 2 Another form should be noted, e.g., -va, uhich uas used e n c l i t i c a l l y in O.Russ. uith pronouns; i f the second element i s considered to be -va, then (j)ed- could be vieued as a reflex of a demonstrative pronoun *do-/*di- as r e f l e c t e d i n O.Pruss. din "him" (acc. sg.), dins "them" (acc. p i . ) , and -va uould be cog nate uith L i t h , vos "just, only". Houever, this linkage seems to be less clear than the one uith va "both of you"; Uasm. I, 391. 63 L a t . BCCB " b e h o l d , l o ! " as connBCtsd with ecquis (ec+quis) " i s there any t h a t , does anyone? Vasm. I, 391; I I , 255. N/-/115:65 r a i n - l i B t u s - dozd', no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . l i e t u s , i b i d . F u r t h e r connections are L i t h . l i e t i "to pour" ( L a t v . l i e t ) , L a t v . l i t "to r a i n , pour out", L i t h . l y t i "to r a i n " , O.Pruss. p r a l i e i t o n "poured out", i s l T u n s "outpour", Russ. l i t ' "to pour"; c f . also A l b . l ' i s e "brook". Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development, E.g., P o l . deszcz, Ukr. dozdz, Cz. d e s t 1 , S.Cr. dazd. Russ. seems to be connected with Norm, dusk-regn and Sued, rsgn-dusk " f i n s r a i n , d r i z z l s " , also Norw. dysja "misty r a i n " , also the p o s s i b i l i t y of *dus-djus "bad weather or cloudy sky" (*dus- = Goth, t u z - as a p r o c l i t i c p a r t i c l e designating "bad"); however, general background f o r t h i s form i s quite obscure; c f . Vasm. I, 357, Buck 68, Pr. I, 187-188. A/-/116:66 red - sarkans - krasny.j, no agreements, non-cog. L a t v . i s an extendsd form < sa r k t "to blush, redden", from whencs stems also sarks "reddish", s a r t s "reddened, as fa c e , chesks", s a r d i s " s o r r e l ( c o l o u r ) ; a roan", e t c . I t i s cognate with L i t h . sarkanas "rosy", sar t a s "foxy-red"; c f . also Russ. soroga "roach, i . e . , red-eyed f i s h " , probably sorobalina or sorbalina "red brambleberry 1 1 as uiell. Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, form, e.g., Pol. krasny "red, nice", Ukr. krasnyj "nice, be a u t i f u l " , Cz e krasny "nice, shiny, reddish", S.Cr. krasni "nice, splendid". Thus Russ. depicts a semantic s h i f t , e.g., general Slav, "nice" > Russ. "red". Histor i c a l l y , i t i s an extended form < krasa "beauty, charms" as i t s t i l l i s i n poetic use in Mod.Russ. Russ. krasa seems to be connected uith D.Norse hros "fame, praise", hrosa "to boast, brag", prob- ably'also Latv. karsts "hot, red-hot", L i t h . k a r s t i s "heat", Latv. karset "to heat up", though general background of this form i s quite obscure. 1 Uasm. I, 656-657, Pr. I, 377-378. N/-/12Q:67 road - cej^s - doroga, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . k e l i a s , i b i d , as Latv. c e l i s "knee" :: L i t h . k e l i s , i b i d (item -:45). Russ. i s connected uith the verbal form djorgat 1 "to p u l l ; unravel", uhich i s cognate uith Latv. dragat "to drag, p u l l ; smash, damage; proceed in a reckless fashion along a road", L i t h . d i r g i n t i "to disturb, tease; flush as game", c f . also Germ. Latv. krasa "colour", krasns "oven", L i t h . krbsnis, i b i d , do not seem to be connected uith this Russ. form, and, due to their exact phonological correspondence, any connection uould have to be vieued as a borrouing. 65 z e r r e n " t o p u l l , d r a g ; t e a s e , worry". IM/-/121:68 r o o t - sakne - kc-ren', no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . s a k n i s , i b i d . Russ. seems to be cognate ( v i a vowel g r a d a t i o n ) w i t h L i t h . k e r a s "bush, s h r u b , r h i z o m e " , L a t v . c e r s "bush, s h r u b " , O.Pruss. k i r n o " shrub", L i t h . k e r e t i " t o r o o t " ; c f . Vasm. I , 625. A/-/ -:69 round - apa^s - k r u g l y j , no agreements, non-cog. L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . a p v a l u s , i b i d , a l s o w i t h Russ. v o b l a " r o a c h " ( n a u t i c a l ) . " 1 ' Russ. i s d e r i v e d <(, krug " c i r c l e " , which r e f l e c t s a P a n - S l a v , development, e.g., P o l . k r a ( n ) g , Ukr. k r u h , S.Cr. k r u g . I t seems to be connected w i t h D.Norse h r i n g r " r i n g " , Vasm. I , 6 70 o N/-/126:70 sand - s m i l t s - pesok, no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . s m i l t i s " f i n e sand", _ 2 smelys "sand". Russ. r e f l e c t s a P a n - S l a v , d e v e l  opment, e.g., P o l . p i a s e k , Ukr. p i s o k , Cz. p i s e k , S.Cr. p i j e s a k . T h i s form seems t o be connected w i t h Arm. p o s i "sand", though o t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s f o r 1 * The c o n n e c t i o n between Russ. v o b l a and L a t v . apa^s, v i z . , L i t h . a p v a l u s , i s p o s t u l a t e d upon the r e l a t i o n s h i p of v o b l a t o Russ. v a l "a r o l l e r , wave" ( v i a vowel g r a d a t i o n ) , the l a t t e r b e i n g cognate w i t h L a t v . v e l t " t o r o l l " ; c f . Vasm. I , 211. 2 P r o b a b l y the L a t v . form i s connected w i t h the v e r b a l form s m e l t " t o scoop; l a d l e " . Morphophonemically, the s u g g e s t i o n t h a t *smel-/*mel- ( t h e b a s i s f o r malt "to g r i n d " ) i s a l s o q u i t e d u b i o u s , f u r i t would tend to e x c l u d e the form smalks " f i n e , r e f i n e d " ; c f . Buck 23. 66 this form are quite obscure. Uasm. I I , 347, Buck 22-23, Pr. II, 49-50. U/-/127:71 say - s a c i t - skazat', no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . sakyti, i b i d , Russ. sok " p l a i n t i f f ; also scout, spy", Germ, sagen "to say", perhaps also Ch.Slav. s o c i t i "to point out". Russ. form i s an extension < -kazat' "to shau, paint out", e.g., s+kazat', thus this form repre sents not only an aspectual extension, but also a semantic s h i f t , i . e . , "to point" > "to r e l a t e " . The basic form -kazat 1 i s a general Pan-Slav, de velopment uith some semantic differentiations,''" e.g., Pol. kazac "to preach, order", Ukr. kazaty "to say, speak, point, order", Cz. kazati "to shou, order", S.Cr. kazati "to say". For further con nections c f . Uasm. I, 503; Pr. I, 2B2. U/-/130:72 see - redzet - videt', no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . r e g e t i . Russ. i s cog nate uith L i t h . pavydeti "to envy", veizdeti "to uatch", O.Pruss. uiddai "sau", Lat. videre "to see". IM/+/131:73 seed - sekla - semja, some agreement, cognates. Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . sekla, i b i d . Russ. i s "'"In Mod.Russ. -kazat' exists only as a thematic form, i . e . , as: +(-kazat')+. 67 cognate with L i t h . semens "linseed", semenys "sow ing seeds", 1 O.Pruss. semen "seed", Lat. semen "seed, succession", Germ. Same "seed". The basis for this pair i s considered to be the verbal form for "to sow", e.g., Latv. set and Russ. sejat', thus the base morphs Latv. se-:: Russ. se- are in agreement. V/+/136:74 s i t - sedet - sid e t ' . complete agreement, cognates. Further connections are L i t h . sedeti, i b i d , Goth, s i tan, i b . , Lat. sedere, i b . N/-/137:75 skin - ada - koza. no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . oda, i b i d . Russ. depicts a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., Pol., Ukr., S.Cr., Bulg. koza, Cz. ku(o)ze, which seem to be connected with koza "goat", e.g., o r i g i n a l l y koza designated "goat-skin" Cas koza ^ koza "goat"). V/-/139:76 sleep - quiet - spat', no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. form coincides with "to l i e " , c f . item 90:48. Russ. i s cognate with O.Eng. svefan, i b i d , O.IMorse sofa, i b . , Lat. sopire "to put to sleep", probably also O.Norse seifa "slay!", c f . Vasm. I I , 706. _ L i t h . semenys appears as a loanword in Finn., e.g., L i t h . semenys > Finn, siemen "seed"; Vasm. I I , 609. 68 / A/-/14Q:77 small - mazs - maly.j, some agreement, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . mazas, i b i d , O.Pruss. massais "the lesser one", also probably uith Russ. mizlnec "the l i t t l e finger or toe". Russ. i s cog nate uith Lat. malus "bad", Goth, smals "small, scanty", Germ, schmal "narrou, thin, scanty". The agreement of the f i r s t tuo phonemes in the base morphs might be considered as coincidental, s i m i l a r to item -:11. Further connections of Russ. form are quite dubious; c f . Buck 881; Uasm. I I , 92; Pr. I, 505-506. IM/+/lif2:78 smoke - dumi - dym, complete agreement, cognates. Latv. -u- ;: Russ. -y- as uith the pair: Latv. but "to be" :: Russ. byt', i b i d . Further connec tions are L i t h . dumai, i b i d , O.Pruss. dumis, i b . ; cf. also Lat. fumus, i b i d , O.High Germ, toum "haze". U(+)151:79 stand - stavet - sto.jat', p a r t i a l agreement, cog. Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . s t o v e t i , i b i d , Russ. s t a v i t 1 "to place, put", Goth, stojan "to a l i g n " , Germ, stauen "to stow auay",cf. also Lat. restaurare "to rebuild", instaurare "to set up, e s t a b l i s h " . 1 Uasrner did not l i s t this pair as cognates, though the con nection betueen them uas indicated (Uasm. I l l , 1, 21). 69 Russ. i s cognate with Latv. s t a t ( i e s ) "to align ( o n e s e l f L i t h . s t o t i , i b i d , Lat. statuere "to cause to stand, place, etc.", O.High Germ, stan/sten, i b i d > Germ, stehen, i b . , c f . also D.Pruss. pastat "to become", i . e . , po+(stat) "to achieve a stand". Thus i t could be concluded that this pair has the same base morph, but with reversed variant forms tD express t r a n s i t i v i t y vs. i n t r a n s i t i v i t y , e.g., Latv. i n t r a n s i t i v e form stavet :: Russ. i n t r a n s i t i v e form sto j a t ' and Latv, t r a n s i t i v e form s t a t ( i e s ) :: Russ. t r a n s i t i v e form s t a v i t • . 2 l\l/+/152:80 star - zvaiqzne - zvezda, complete agreement, cog. Latv. - a i - :: Russ. -e- regularly (cf. footnote to item 44:120). L i t h . zvaigzde, i b i d , would indicate the p o s s i b i l i t y of an O.Slav, form *gvezda, with Pol. gwiazda as a modern re f l e x of i t . As a f u r  ther step, i t could be postulated that, f o r a l l the Slav, forms, the basis was a Proto-Slav. form •gvaigzda and by an incantiguous regressive assimi l a t i o n < *zvaigzda, the l a t t e r representing a Latv. t r a n s i t i v e verbal form s t a t ( i e s ) has several v a r i  ants, e.g., stadinat "to arrange, set up", s t a d i t "to place, put; plant". ' 2 — -Also Latv. forms:_ stavs "figure, erect body" and s t a t i s "standing position",_staja "stand", stats "frame for placing sheaves erectly", stads "plant" correspond h i s t o r i c a l l y to the Russ. form stat' "body, frame, figure", though the Latv. forms have been derived from ' d i f f e r e n t 1 verbal forms, both i n t r a n s i  tive and t r a n s i t i v e . 70 h y p o t h e t i c a l P r o t o - B a l t . - S l a v . form; c f . Vasm. I , kkl. Further connections are O.Pruss. svaigstan " l i g h t , shine", Latv. zvaiga^a "a com with a s t a r  l i k e forehead marking", zvygulys "shimmer", Latv. zaiguot "to shimmer, N(-): 154::81 stone - akmens - kamen 1, p a r t i a l agreement, non-cog. The Russ. form c o n s t i t u t e s one of the 'problem' forms, f o r i t d i f f e r s from the Latv. one i n one feature only, i . e . , a probable metathesis. However, the exact phonological correspondence between the two forms makes e i t h e r one an immediate suspect to borrowing. The Slav, speech community has uniform r e f l e x e s of t h i s form, e.g., P o l . kamiefi, Ukr. kamin, Cz. kamen, S.Cr. kami, Bulg. kamen, which r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development. The B a l t i c forms are equally uniform, e.g., Latv. akmens, L i t h . akrnuo, akmens, and O.Pruss. ackons "awn" (=Latv. akuots, L i t h . akuotas), as the only recorded form. Thus both speech areas are extremely r i g i d as f a r as the phonology of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r form i s con cerned. In view of the f a c t that the base morphs ak- and as- ( f o r as- development c f . item 15:9) have been h i s t o r i c a l l y very productive, w i t h i n the B a i t , speech area, then the postulate f o r a c o e x i s t  ence of s e v e r a l h y p o t h e t i c a l forms f o r "stone, stone implements, e t c . " appears to be quite v a l i d , e.g., *kamen- > Slav, 'kamen-' forms, *akmen-> Bait, 'ak-1 forms and *akmen- > Bait. 'as-/as-' forms. Thus Russ. i s cognate with 0.Saxon hamar "hammer", O.Norse hamarr, fur i t shams complete agreement with these forms (r/n alternation i s a common phenomenon within the neuter gender in O.Norse), c f . Vasm. I, 514. N/+/157:82 sun - saule - solnce. complete agreement, cognates. Russ. represents an extended diminutive form, which was derived in a manner simil a r to the one i n item 70:40. Further connections are L i t h . saule, i b i d , O.Pruss. saule, i b . , Goth, s a u i l , i b . , Lat. s o l , i b . ; f o r further connections c f . Vasm. II, 690. V(+)159:B3 swim - peldet - p l a v a t 1 , p a r t i a l agreement, cog. 1 Latv. base morph peld-/plud- "to f l o a t " (item 51:124), and /plus- "to flow" (item 52:125) and a l l forms are connected semantically, to wit, with a c t i v i t y involving water. The Russ. form desig nates "to f l o a t " also and, as shown in item 51:124, i t i s cognate with Latv. pluduot, i b i d . As peldet i s a morphophonemic alternant of pluduot, then i t Vasmer did not l i s t Latv. peldet in connection with the Russ. form p l a v a t 1 . The Russ. form was considered to be cognate with L i t h . plauti only, as shown in item 51:124, probably due to ir r e g u l a r phonological correspondences between Latv. and Russ. reflexes, e.g., plu-/plu-/pel- :: pla-/ply-; c f . Vasm. II, 364, 377. 72 f o l l o w s t h a t the above L a t v . and Russ. forms are co g n a t e . 1 F u r t h e r connections are ( v i a semantic extension) L a t v . p i l d i t "to f i l l , pour", L i t h . p i l d y t i "to f i l l up", p i l t i "to pour" and L a t v . p i l e t "to d r i p " . N/-/16Q:84 t a i l - aste - xvost, no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . might be connected with a s t r i "horse h a i r " , L i t h . a s u t a s , i b i d , a l s o L a t v . ass "sharp", Russ. 2 os t ' "awn, any sharp p o i n t " ; c f . a l s o Gr. osteon "bone" and L i t h . astanka "remainder". Russ. r e  f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development with widely d i v e r s i  f i e d semantic d e s i g n a t i o n s f o r t h i s form, e.g., P o l , chwost " t a i l , t a i l end", chwoszczka "shave grass or h o r s e - t a i l g r a s s " , Ukr. c h v i s t " t a i l " , Cz. chvost " t r a i l ( i n g ) , S.Cr. host " v i n e - s t a l k " , B u l g . chvosc " h o r s e - t a i l g r a s s " . T h i s form i s u s u a l l y connected with Arm. xos t " g r a s s , lawn, meadow"; a l s o D.High Germ, questa " t a s s e l , t u f t " } Germ. Quaste, i b i d , c f . Vasm. I l l , 237-238. Other examples of t h i s type of a l t e r n a t i o n are La t v . p e l n i "ashes"/plene "a t h i n l a y e r of ashes", p i l n s " f u l l ' V p l e n e "crowd, m u l t i t u d e ; a matted p i e c e of wool or h a i r , i . e . , as h a i r f u l l of d i r t , e t c . " . 2 v G e n e r a l l y t h i s Russ. form i s viewed as r e l a t e d to L i t h . a k s t i s "wooden s p i t " , L a t v . d i a l , a k s t s " b a r l e y , i . e . , sharp- awned g r a i n " ; c f . Vasm. I I , 288. 73 D/+/161:85 that - tas - tot, complete agreement, cognates. Russ. r e f l e c t s a reduplicated form, e.g., to+to as in Ukr. toto. Latv. -a- :: Russ. -a- as i n items -:41, 68:38, 106:61, 133:167. A further connection i s L i t h . tas, i b i d . 0/-/167:86 this - s i s - ^ t o t , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate mith L i t h . s i s , i b i d , O.Pruss. schis, i b . , O.Russ. sej " t h i s " which i s s t i l l i n marginal use i n Mod.Russ.;1 c f . also Lat. c i s "on th i s side". Russ. represents an extended form of tot (item 161:85), e.g., p r o c l i t i c d i r e c t i o n a l p a r t i c l e e « e)+tot. 0/+/168:87 thou - tu - ty, complete agreement, cognates. Phonetically Russ. -y in ty i s a "center-vowel" between the cardinal vowels i and u, with Slav, languages fluctuating horizontally and from a f r o n t a l point of a r t i c u l a t i o n (Bulg, t i ) to a more retracted point (Russ. ty) and the Bait, group v e r t i c a l l y , as i t were, between the cardinal vowel u (Latv., L i t h . tu) and mid-vowel o (O.Pruss. tou, to, also t u ) . Russ. sej i s an extended form < s(e) " t h i s " , via a de f i n i t e a d j e c t i v a l desinence. O.Russ. s(e) was a demonstrative pronoun of the f i r s t degree, as i t were; c f . item 67:133 and also Uasm. II, 602. Ik (\1/-/172:8B tongue - mele - jazyk, no agreements, nan-cognates. Latv. might be connected with the verbal forms melst "to gossip", L i t h . m e l s t i "to speak e n t h u s i  a s t i c a l l y , a l s o pray", meluoti "to l i e " (Latv. meluat), however, general background f o r t h i s form i s quite obscure; c f . Buck 230."'' Russ. seems to be connected with O.Pruss. insuwis, i b i d , L i t h . l i e z u v i s , i b . < l i e z t i "to l i c k " (but a d i f f e r e n t development i n Latv. l a i z T t "to l i c k " > l a i z a "a sweet-tooth!'); a l s o O.Lat. dingua "tongue" + l i n g e r e "to l i c k " = Lat. l i n g u a "tongue"; f o r f u r t h e r con nections c f . Vasm. I l l , 485. IM/+/173:89 tooth - zuobs - zub, complete agreement, cognates. Latv. -uo- :: Russ. -u- as i n items 13:7, 66:37. Further connections are L i t h . zambas "any pointed o b j e c t , a sharp corner, e t c . " , zambis "a wooden plough, i . e . , a pointed one", also O.High Germ, kamb "comb". IM/-/174:9Q tree - kuoks - derevo, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. seems to be connected with Gr. kokkos "berry, The Russ. forms m o l i t ' "to entr e a t , s u p p l i c a t e " > m o l i t ' s j a "to pray" could probably o f f e r another connection, whereby the correspondence of the base morphs would be as i n item -:45, e.g., mel- :: moi- as e e l - :: k o l - , though t h i s correspondence i s rather vague due to Latv. -e- :: Russ. -a-. 75 g r a i n " > Lat. coccum "the berry of the s c a r l e t Dak"; 1 probably also L i t h . kaukas "bump, lump, also a b o i l " , L i t h . d i a l , kuokas " s t i c k , cudgel", O.Russ. kuka " f i s t " . Russ. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . derva "pine k i n d l i n g " , D.Eng. teru " t a r " ; c f . also L i t h . , Latv. darva " t a r " . 0/+/176:91 tuo - d i v i - dva, complete agreement, cognates. The base morphs correspond to each other, s i m i l a r to those i n item 84:46, e.g., d i v - :: dv- as z i n - :: zn-. Further connections are L i t h . du, O.Pruss. duai, Goth, t u a i , A l b . du. v7-/178:92 ualk - i e t - x o d i t ' , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h Russ. i d t i / i t t i , uhich i s the basis f o r the formation of the determined form of the imperfective aspect as u e l l as the p e r f e c t i v e aspect of the nan-determined form x o d i t ' . Further connections are L i t h . e i t i "to go", O.Pruss. e i s e i "thou u a l k e s t " , e i t " g o i " (imper. p i . ) . For the background of the Russ. form c f . item 23:16. A/-/179:93 uarm - s i l t s - t / j o p l y j , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . s i l t a s , i b i d , probably A probable tabu concept f o r " t r e e " i n Latv. could be postu l a t e d as a reason f o r the semantic s h i f t "berry, i . e . , f r u i t > t r e e " , as some t r e e s , notably oak, also groves and copses, uere considered 'holy' before the advent of the C h r i s t i a n era, to u i t , before 1200 A.D. also Lat. calere "to be warm, hot". Russ, seems to be connected with an O.Pruss. toponymic form Tappelauken "Uarmfield", Lat. tepere "to be luke warm; c f . also Vasm. I l l , 94-95. IM/+/181:94 water - udens - v/oda, some agreement, cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . vanduo, vandens, i b i d , North.Lith. unduo, i b . , O.Pruss. wundan, unds, i b . Further connections are Goth, wato, i b . , Alb. uj, i b . , Lat. unda "water, esp. water in motion". The L i t h . form combines the phonological features of both forms, as i t were, and shows them to be cog nate. The dental nasal 'n' in L i t h . and Lat. forms seems to be i n t r u s i v e , i . e . , not organic and r e l a  t i v e l y l a t e in appearance; c f . Vasm. I, 212. 0/-/182:95 we - mes - my, complete agreement, cognates. The correspondence of Latv. -e- :: Russ. -y i s unusual, though the Russ. form could be, perhaps, c l a r i f i e d as an analogical change due to -y in vy "you" (Latv. j u s ) . Further connections are L i t h . mes "we", O.Pruss. mes, i b . , Arm. mek, i b . ; c f . also Vasm. II, 183. v 0/-/184:96 what - kas - cto, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . kas "what/who", Russ. kto "who" (item 188:98), Lat. qui "what", O.High Germ, hwaz, i b i d . H i s t o r i c a l l y Russ. i s a com-pounded form, e.g., *c(e) "which" (=Lat. quid) + *t(o) (the neuter form of the demonstrative pronoun " t h i s " , c f . f n . to item 67:133). A further connec tion i s Lat. quis; c f . also Uasm. I l l , 348. A/+/187:97 white - baits - bely.i, complete agreement, cognates. Latv. -a- :: Russ. -e- as in item 63:35. Further connections are L i t h . baltas "white", Latv. bals "pale", L i t h . balas, i b i d , Latv. balinat "to bleach". 0/+/188:98 who - kas - kto, complete agreement, cognates. Russ. represents a compound form, e.g., k(o)+to, wherein the f i r s t part i s cognate with Latv. kas "who", L i t h . kas, i b i d , and the second part i s the same form as represented in item 184:96; c f . also this item f o r further connections. N/-/195:99 woman - sie v i e t e - zenscina, no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s an extension < sieva "wife"; the l a t t e r seems to be cognate with O.High Germ., O.Eng. hiwa "wife". Russ. i s an extended form < zena "wife"; the l a t t e r form seems to be cognate with O.Pruss. genna "wife", L i t h . zmona, i b i d < zmogus "human, person". A/+/200:1Q0 yellow - dzeltens - z.joltv.i. complete agreement, cog. Further connections are L i t h . geltas, geltonas, i b i d , O.Pruss. gelatynan, i b . , Germ, gelb, i b . ; f o r a f f r i c a t i o n of velars for Latv. c f . item -:45. 7a SECOND WORD LIST 0/-/2:101 and - un - i , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. form seems to be a borrowing from Germ. und. Russ. form might be connected with either Latv. i r (3rd pers. sg./pl. of "to be"), or i r "also" in r e i t e r - ative formations where ' i r ' functions as a connec tive for several items of the same word category. In L a t g a l l i a n , an East-Latv. d i a l e c t , ' i r ' either has lapsed into ' i ' by apocope or has been borrowed from the Slavs, who have h i s t o r i c a l l y represented not only an adstratum but also a strong super stratum influence. 1 ~ N/-/3:102 animal - kustuonis - zivdtno(j)e, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s derived from kustet "to move" and Russ. from z i t 1 "to l i v e " , c f . item 91:148. 0/-/5:103 at - pie - u, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. seems to be cognate either with L i t h . prie "at" (prie lango vs. Latv. pie luoga "at the window") or apie "around" (Latv. ap), also L i t h . pas "to" (as a d i r e c t i o n a l as well as a po s i t i o n a l preposi t i o n ) . Russ. might be cognate with the now obsolete Latv. prefix au- "with, from", as i t i s s t i l l u t i l i z e d in some v e s t i g i a l forms and expressions, The above form i s used i n preference to dzivnieks, i b i d , f o r the l a t t e r was calqued according to the above Russ. pattern, 79 e.g., aumanis "someone uith good sense, also high i n t e l l e c t " (au+manis from maga "sense, i n t e l l e c t etc."; auma^am "in or uith streams, i . e . , uithout bounds", as i n plust auma^am "to f l o u in streams, i . e . , out of control" (au+maj.am from mala "side, boundary"). N/-/S:10k back - muqura - spina, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . nugara, the l a t t e r form might be cognate uith Ch.Slav. nu- "doun" + gora "mountain", thus i t meant, f i r s t l y , "mountain ridge" (Buck 212). This explanation seems to be based on the existence of several variants f o r the basic form mugura, e.g., mugurs, mugara. The d i f  ference of the i n i t i a l nasals between the two Bait, languages could be, perhaps, explained as a combi native change i n i t i a t e d by fronting of the phoneme n- (as i n Lith.) to m- (as in Latv.) due to a n t i c i  pation of the f o l l o u i n g phoneme -u-, which requires at least some l i p rounding. Russ. might be a borrowing from Lat. spina "spine" via O.Pol, spina "backbone", however, there might also exist a con nection with Latv. spina "a twig, switch of any deciduous tree", c f . Lat. spina "thorn, needle". A/-/7:105 bad - s l i k t s - ploxoj, no agreements, non-cognates. e.g., dzifvnieks <. dzive " l i f e " Latv. seems to be a borrowing From Bait.Germ. "Schlichte", which also appears in Pol. via semantic s h i f t , e.g., s z l i c h t a "weaver's glue"; c f . also Germ, schlecht "bad" :: Latv. s l i k t s "bad". Russ. seems to represent an E/ld-Slav. form, e.g., Pol. plochy "shy, f i c k l e " , Cz. plochy " f l a t " , Ukr. plochyj "humble, submissive, t a c i t " . Russ. plaxa "executioner's block" i s connected with i t , to wit, by vowel gradation; c f . Latv. plats "wide, broad", i . e . , item 189:198, also Germ, f l a c h " f l a t " . 0/-/9:106 because - juo - i b o 1 , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with i ) L i t h . conj. jus "so much, the more", and i i ) perhaps, with the i n s t . sg. form juo of the personal pronoun j i s "he"; c f . also Germ. j e C . d e s t o ) "so much the" + comparative. Russ. consists of i+bo "and" (item 2:101) + "then" (archaic form). The l a t t e r form i s cognate with O.Pruss. be "and"; c f . also L i t h . juoba "unless, the more". W/-/16:107 blow - pust - dut 1, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . pusti, i b i d , and Russ. puxnut 1 "to swell"; c f . also Lat. pustula " b l i s t e r " . Russ. might be connected with L i t h . dumti "to blow", This^Russ. form i s used i n preference to the "more recent one potomucto; also neither form would influence the cognate count. 81 O.Pruss. dumsle "bladder" (Latv. p u s l i s ) ; c f . also Germ. Dampf "steam". \y/-/18:108 breathe - elpuot - dysat', no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . a l p t i "to f a i n t , f a l l i n t o a suoDn", alpus " b r e a t h l e s s , f a i n t e d " (Latv. elpa "breath"); c f . also L i t h . a l s a "weariness, exhaustion" (Latv. e l s a "a gasp", e l s a s "sobs", el s u o t "to pant", e t c . ) . Russ. i s cognate with Latv. duset "to repose, r e s t " , dusa "slumber" L i t h . d u s i n t i "to gasp f o r breath, pant"; c f . also 0.Norse dusa "to assume a motionless s t a t e " , Germ, duseln "to daydream, doze". N/-/20:109 c h i l d - berns - rebjonok, no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . bernas "servant, l a d , f e l l o w " ; c f . also O.High Germ, barn, O.Eng. beam, Swed., Norw. barn; f u r t h e r Latv. form, v i a vowel gradation, barenis "orphan", c f . Russ. ba r i n "gentlemen", though t h i s Russ. form represents a co n t r a c t i o n < b o j a r i n "boyar(d), a noble" :: paren' "young man, f e l l o w " < parobok " l a d " , A/asm. I , 56; I I , 316, 317. Russ. i s cognate with Lat orbus " c h i l d l e s s , orphaned, b e r e f t " , with the Russ. form representing i ) a metathesis, e.g., * o r b - ^ *rob-, and i i ) a reg r e s s i v e a s s i m i l a t i o n , e.g., *rob-> *reb- ^ * o r b e ( n ) ; c f . also Germ, der Erbe "an h e i r , successor". Further connections could be 82 found in forms rab "slave", robet' "to be timid, humble oneself". v"(+)24:110 count - s k a i t i t - s c i t a t ' , p a r t i a l agreement, cog. Only the f i r s t and the l a s t elements of the base morphs agree, e.g., s-, - t - ; however, the i n i t i a l Russ. phoneme s- functions as a morphological element i n this instance, to wit, i t indicates the perfective aspect, with a specialized meaning, of the form c i t a t ' "to read" < cest' which o r i g i n a l l y designated "to count, pay, decipher a s c r i p t " (in Mod.Russ. i t designates "to honour"). If the form cest" i s accepted as the basic one, then the above pair i s cognate, f o r - a i - corresponds to -e- as in item 152:80, etc. V ( - ) 2 5 : l l l cut - g r i e z t - rezat', some agreement, non-cognates. The s y l l a b i c crests i n this pair of forms seem: to correspond, e.g., - i e - :: -e- as i n items 25:112, 86:145, 145:174; however, according to the available sources, there seems to be a lack of evidence f o r any lapse of velars in the corresponding Slav, forms, v i z . , in the i n i t i a l position and i n front of the l i q u i d s . Latv, i s cognate with L i t h . g r i e z t i "to cut around", and i t i s further related to the form g r i e z t "to turn, turn about or around, wring" (item 175:192) which carries a l e v e l intonation as opposed to g r i e z t (with a r i s i n g - f a l l i n g one, 83 f o r m e r l y a r i s i n g one) of t h i s item. Russ. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . r e z t i "to c u t , r i p , rend". Thus L i t h . possesses both forms, to u i t , u i t h and u i t h o u t the i n i t i a l v e l a r , uhereas i n La t v . both forms have a v e l a r i n i t i a l l y , and a d i s t i n c t i v e i n t o n a t i o n a l p a t t e r n i s used to a v o i d a homonymic c l a s h , uhereas Russ. possesses only the above v e l a r l e s s form, as i t uere. IM/+/26:112 day - diena - d e n 1 . complete agreement, cognates. The s y l l a b i c c r e s t of La t v . corresponds r e g u l a r l y u i t h t h a t of the Russ., i . e . , - i e - :: -e-, as i n items 25:111, 86:145, 145:174, and i n such ' o f t e n - used' forms as s i e n s "hay" :: seno, i b i d . V(-)28:113 d i g - r a k t - r y t ' t some agreement, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h . r a k t i "to peck, p i c k " . Russ. i s cognate u i t h L a t v . r a u t , L i t h . r a u t i "to t e a r , rend"; c f . a l s o Russ. rak " c r a y f i s h , f r e s h  water l o b s t e r " i n r e f e r e n c e to the above L a t v . form. A/-/29:114 d i r t y - n e t i r s - qr.jazny.i. no agreements, non-cog. L a t v . i s the negated form of " c l e a n " , i . e . , i t c o n s i s t s of n e + t i r s "unclean, d i r t y " . L a t v . base morph - t i r s i s cognate u i t h L i t h . t y r u s " c l e a n a i r , u a t e r , e t c . " ; c f . a l s o I r i s h t i r i m "dry", f o r L a t v . t i r i t "to c l e a n " c o u l d a l s o d e s ignate " d r y i n g " . Russ. i s d e r i v e d from the v e r b a l form g r j a z n u t * 84 "to sink i n t o mud, to be stuck i n the mud, d i r t " u i t h a Mod.Russ. r e f l e x of g r j a z n i t ' / z a g r j a z n i t ' "to s o i l , d i r t y " . The verbal form i s cognate u i t h the i n t r . verbal form of Latv. grimt (grimst "he/ she s i n k s " ) , L i t h g r i m s t i "to s i n k " and u i t h the t r . form of Latv. gremdet "to s i n k , l o u e r " . A/-/33:115 d u l l - t r u l s 1 - tupo.1, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. might be connected u i t h the verbal form trunet "to r o t , crumble", L i t h t r u n e t i "to r o t " . Russ. seems to be cognate u i t h L i t h . tampyti "to s t r e t c h " and tempti "to p u l l out, s t r e t c h out"; c f . a l s o Lat. tempus "time; temple ( a n a t . ) " , Germ stumpf "blunt, d u l l , stumpy". I\l(+)34:116 dust - p u t e k l i s - p y l ' t p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. Cognation f o r t h i s p a i r of forms i s based on the f a c t that there are tuo v a r i a n t s of the same base morph. The concept of verbal t r a n s i t i v i t y and i n t r a n s i t i v i t y seems to underlie the aforementioned dichotomy of the base morph i n Latv,, B . g . , t r . ve r b a l base morph pus- "to blou" (item 16:107) a l  ternates u i t h i n t r . verb, base morph put-(uot) " t D foam" (puta "foam") :: Russ. pyx-(at') "to breathe h e a v i l y , p u f f , s t a r t f i r e by blowing" a l t e r n a t e s This Latv. form uas used i n preference to neass "non-sharp" to avoid d u p l i c a t i o n of item 133:167. 85 with pux-(nut') "ta swell" (pux "a down feather" :: Latv. puka " f l u f f , loose downs"); thus the ultimate base morphs in Latv. pu-/pu :: Russ. py-/pu-, with Mod.Russ. reflexes of imp. pyxatVperf. pyxnut' "to emit heat", pyxtet 1 "to puff, pant" and puxnut' "to swell", Vasm. I I , 470, 473, 475. V/-/40:117 f a l l - k r i s t - padat 1, na agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s probably connected with L i t h k r e s t i "to shake, shake loose, etc.". Russ. i s probably con nected with Latv. peda "foot", i f Russ. pod "hearth(stone), also bottom" i s viewed as ^ padat 1. A further connection could be established via i t s perfective aspect past', which points to cognation with Lat. persum "to the ground, bottom", Vasm. II , 330. A( + )41:118 f a r - t a l s - dal'nyj, p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . tolus "distant, remote, fa r " ; i t i s probably cognate with Russ. dal• "distance" (now a v e s t i g i a l form), from whence was derived the above Russ. adjectival form. However, the correspondence of Latv. -a- :: Russ. -a- i s not a common phenomenon, though i t does appear in item 98:149; neither i s the voiceless :: voiced feature, i . e . , i n i t i a l l y at l e a s t . IM/-A3:119 f a t h e r - tevs - otec, same agreement, nan-cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . tevas and i t uould seem to be connected u i t h the Lat. base morph de- denoting "Bod". Russ. form c o n s i s t s of the base morph o t - + dim. s u f f . -ec-(<-ek-); o t - seems to be connected u i t h Goth. a t t a . I t should be noted that D . I r i s h a t h i r depicts the lapse of the i n i t i a l b i l a b i a l p l o s i v e p- as represented i n Lat. pater, s i m i l a r to D. I r i s h - i a s c :: Lat. p i s c i s " f i s h " . \J/+/kk:lZQ f e a r - b a i d i t i e s - bo.jat's.ja, some agreement, cog. Latv. i s a r e f l e x i v e verbal f o r m < b a i d l t "to f r i g h t e n " uhich i s cognate u i t h L i t h . b a i d y t i , i b i d . Further v a r i a n t s of the base morph b a i - are: Latv. b a i l e s , L i t h . b a i l e " f e a r " ; Latv. b a i s s , baigs, baismigs " f e a r f u l " , L i t h . baisus, b a i s i n g a s , i b i d ; Latv. baisma "horror", L i t h . baime, i b i d , e t c . Thus the base morph f o r f e a r seems to 2 be b a i - , and a l l other forms seem to be derived The above Latv. form has also a synonym form t e t i s , uhich i s cognate u i t h L i t h . t e t i s , but does not seem to be connected u i t h the above Russ. form. 2 This suggests that Latv. a i :: Russ. o uhich cannot be r e a d i l y s u b s t a n t i a t e d , f o r only onB example could be found to i l l u s t r a t e t h i s correspondence, e.g. a i t a ( c f . O . I r i s h o i ) "sheep" :: ovca, i b i d ; houever, the Latv. form avs "eue" seems to be more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to t h i s Russ. form than the former a i t a . U s u a l l y , the correspondence of Latv. a i to Russ. e i s mare pre dominant, e.g., Latv. m a i s i t "to mix" ::_Russ. mesat', i b i d ; mainit "to change" ::: menjat', i b . ; r a i s i t "to loosen, u n t i e " ( c f . Germ, re i s s e n ) :: r e s a t ' (perf. aspect r e s i t ' ) "to s o l v e , conclude", e t c . In v i e u of the above, and the f a c t that the base morph should be ba i d - ( b a i d a s / b a i d l j a s / b a i d i s i e s "he f e a r s / 87 from i t with d i f f e r e n t vocalic adjustments, e.g., Latv. biedet "to threaten", b i j a t ( - i e s ) "to be awed", b i t i B s "to be a f r a i d " . The Russ. form i s probably connected with one of the l a t t e r variants of bai-, or i t might represent a purely Pan-Slav, variant, as other Slav, forms are: Pol. bacsie(n), Cz. batise, Ukr. bojatysa, S.Cr. bojatise. A.fur ther connection could be established v i a the Russ. nominal form bes "dBmon, satan" :: L i t h . baisas, i b i d ; c f . also Lat. foedus "abominable, h o r r i b l e " . A/-A6:121 few - dazs - i n o j , no agresments, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . daznas "frequent, not one but many, several". Russ. i s cannectsd with L i t h . ynas "the real one, true ons, etc.", and alsD via vowel gradation with O.Pruss. ains "one", con sequently with Latv. viens, L i t h . vienas, i b i d ; c f . also Lat. unus "one". V/-A7:122 f i g h t - c i n i t i e s - borot'sja, no agreements, non- cog. Latv. might be connected via i t s nominal form ciqa "action, struggle, f i g h t " , with (via semantic extension) L i t h . kine "an E l e v a t e d location in a swamp", c f . also Latv. ciega "honour, regard" and i t s verbal form c i e n i t , i b i d . Russ. i s cognate with feared/will f e a r " ) , i t could be statsd that Latv. baid- :: Russ. bed-, the Russ. form designating "misfortune" which i s also cog nate with Latv. beda "trouble". 88 Latv. bart, L i t h . b a r t i "to scold, f l o g " ; Latv. -a- :: Russ. -o- as in item 125:163. •/+/5D:123 f i v e - p i e c i - p.jat 1, complete agreement, cognates. Latv. - i e - :: L i t h . -en- (penki "five") as l i e k t "to bend" :: l e n k t i , i b i d . Latv. -c- i s the r e s u l t of a h i s t o r i c a l process of a f f r i c a t i o n with corre sponding reflexes of p a l a t a l i z a t i o n in Russ. and no phonological change in L i t h . , e.g., p i e c i - pjat' - penki " f i v e " . Russ. form ljaka "a sway-back dog" probably shows the correspondence of Bait, - i e - / -en- with Russ. - j a - , for this Russ. form seems to be connected with Latv. l i e k t , L i t h . l e n k t i "to bend"; Vasm. II, 82. V/+/51:124 f l o a t - pluduot 1 - p l a v a t 1 , some agreement, cog. H i s t o r i c a l l y , this pair i s cognate. Latv. i s cog nate with L i t h . pludis " f l o a t " ( c f . Latv. pludi "flood") and Russ. i s cognate with L i t h . p l a u t i "to wash, rinse", Latv. plaust "to wet, moisten". This fluctuation of meaning, between these dia- chronically cognate forms, i s simil a r to O.Eng. l a f i a n > lave "to wash, bathe; wash or flow along or against", wherein both meanings are combined. There i s also a t r . verbal form in Latv. pludinat < i n t r . pluduot. The Russ. i s actually an innovated imp. verbal form <Lplavit' "to f l o a t " with a decay of meaning in Mod.Russ., e.g., "to melt". V/-/52:125 flow - plust - tec', no agreement, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . p l u s t i "to floui". Russ. i s cognate with Latv. tecet "to t r i c k l e , leak", L i t h . teketi "to flow". N/-/53:126 flower - z i e d s 1 - cvetok. no agreement, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . ziedas, i b i d , < zydeti, Latv. ziedet "to bloom". Russ. i s probably con nected with Latv. kv i t e t "to shimmer" and the t r . verbal form k v i t i n a t . I\l/-/55:127 fog - miqla - tuman, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . migla, i b i d , and Russ, mgla "haze". Russ. seems to be connected with Ki r g i z tuman "fog, darkness"; c f . also Latv. tumsa, L i t h . tamsa "darkness". 0/+/57:128 four - c e t r i - cetyre. complete agreement, cog,; cf . also L i t h . keturi, i b i d . V/-/58:129 freeze - s a l t - m.-jorznut', no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . s a l t i , i b i d , and seems to be connected with Russ. salo "tallow, suet; also sludge, thin i c e " . Russ. seems to be cognate with Alb. mardem, i b i d , marde "goose pimples"; Vasm. II , 121. The above form was used in preference to pulje "flower", f a r the l a t t e r i s an obvious loan < Livonian (Finn.) pul^lj, i b i d ; however, c f . also Latv. bul^ete "bouquet, nosegay". 90 l\l/-/59:130 f r u i t - auqlis - p l o d 1 , no agreements, non-cog, Latv. form < augt "to gram" and i t i s cognate with L i t h . augti "to grow". Russ. represents a Pan- Slav, form, e.g., Pol. plod, Ukr. p l i d (as Ukr. kin* :: Russ. kon* "horse"), Cz. plod, S.Cr. plod. This form seems to be connected with Ch.Slav. plodovityj " f r u i t f u l " ; Uasm. I I , 373; Pr. I I , 75. 1M/-/62:131 grass - zale - trava, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . zole, i b i d , O.Pruss. s a l i n , i b . , Russ. zeljonyj "green" (item 63:35). A further connection seems to be via Latv. z e i t "to thrive, f l o u r i s h , become green"; c f . also Lat. helvus "honey-yellow" and the further p o s s i b i l i t y of a connection with gilvus "pale-yellow". Russ. represents a Pan-Slav, form, e.g., Pol. trawa, Ukr. trava, Cz. trava, S.Cr. trava, Bulg. treva (with vowel gradation, e.g., a : e). The basis for this form seems to be Ch.Slav. t r u t i "to expend, use up" with further derivation of natruti "to feed" and also further semantic extension i n Bulg. trova "to poison", Pol. true, truje(n), i b i d :: Latv. zales ( p l u r a l i a tantum) "medicine", The more widely u t i l i z e d Russ. form frukt, i b i d , was avoided, f o r i t i s an obvious loan from Lat. fructus via Pol. frukt, i b . , Uasm. I l l , 219. 91 za^uot "to cure, heal", but the expression za^uot edienu designates "to poison", l i t e r a l l y "to add 'medicine' to a meal". 1 v ' l\l/-/64:132 guts - zarna - kiska, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . zarna "gut". This form i s probably connected with zars "branch; also ex tension"; c f . also Lat. hernius and Germ. Darm, i b i d . Russ. i s cognate with Pol. kiszka, i b i d , Ukr. kyska "gut, sausage", Arm. kust "maw, also womb"; uasm. I, 564; Pr. I, 310. 0/-/67:133 he - viqs - on, no agreements, non-cognates, Latv. appears to be connected with the cardinal viens "one" (item l l o : 6 4 ) ; c f . also Ukr. vin, i b i d , though probably this form i s connected with the di r e c t i o n a l p a r t i c l e von "there, over there, in the distance!". Russ. seems to be connected with 2 L i t h . anas "that, the f a r one". The oblique cases of this Russ. pronoun are cognate with the base morph of the now obsolete r e l a t i v e pron. ize/jaze/ (j)eze "which (in three genders)", v i z . , je-; the 1 v The Latv. form ieksas ( p l u r a l i a tantum) "bowels, insides" < ieksa "inside" was not used, to avoid duplication of item 82:143. h i s t o r i c a l l y , O.Russ. (about 1100 - 1700 A.D.) s t i l l rec ognized three degrees of distance and for each degree used a d i s t i n c t dem. pron., e.g., i ) s(e) " t h i s " when the object in question was near the speaker and the interlocutor; i i ) t(o) "that" when the object was away from the speaker but near the interlocutor; i i i ) on(o) "yon" when the object was away from 92 l a t t e r i s cognate with L i t h . j i s / j i "he/she"; c f . also Lat. demonstrative pron. i s / e a / i d "he/she/it; t h i s or that person or t h i n g " , Goth, i s "he, that one", Germ, jener "that, the d i s t a n t one" and item 46:121, e.g., Russ. i n o j "feu". A/-/171:134 heavy - smaqs - t.iaz.loly.i, no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . smagus "heavy, p e r t , to a blou, f r o s t " , probably als o u i t h Ch.Slav. smagat' "to whip". Russ. seems to be cognate u i t h L i t h . t i n g e t i "to be i d l e , be a burden"; c f . also Norm., Sued, tung "heavy". The Russ. verbal form t j a n t i t ' "to p u l l " (item 113:155) and i t s vulgate form t j a g a t ' seem to be connected u i t h the above form; Vasm. I l l , 167; Pr. Append. 32-34. v 1 0/-/72:135 here - s e i t - t u t , no agreements, nan-cognate, Latv. might be connected u i t h L i t h . s t a i " h i t h e r " also c i a "here", though the l a t t e r form points to an o r i g i n a l k+i. Probably i t i s a c u r t a i l e d farm of s e i t a n " i n t h i s place, here", as s e - s e i t - s e i t a n :: t e - * t e i t - t e i t a n " i n that place, there" both. The l a s t form gave Mod.Russ. sg. and p i . forms i n a l l genders f a r the t h i r d person personal pronoun, e.g., on, ana, ono, o n i . "''This i s one of the 'problem 1 forms i n Latv,, c f . Endz. 1091. I t should a l s o be noted that t h i s i s the only form i n standard Latv. uhich shous the diphthong e i f o l l o u i n g the unvoiced s h i b i l a n t , except f o r seims < Russ. sejma " s a i l " , prob ably < H a r e l . seimi or F i n n , seimi "tou-rope, boat-hauser". (se, te represent the sg. l o c . of s i s " t h i s " , tas "that", c f . items 161:85, 167:86). As further probable connections, Latv. synonym s i t e "here about",'1' Latv. d i a l , forms s i e , s e i , s i "where" :: the l i t e r a r y form kur (O.Pruss. quei) "where"! could be mentioned. Russ. seems to r e f l e c t a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., Pol. tu, Ukr. tut, Cz. tu "here", tuto "there", S.Cr. tu "there", Bulg. tu-ka "hither". The basis for t h i s form i s Com.Slav, alternation of *tu with *tuto (perhaps simila r to kto and cto forms, c f . items 184:96, 188:98), as the Russ. d i a l , form tuto, as well as other Slav, forms, would indicate. The O.Pruss. tenti "now" should also be mentioned as i t desig nates immediacy in time. V/-/73:136 h i t - s i s t - b i t * , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. base morph (e.g., s i t "he/she hits") seems to be connected with L i t h . suduoti "to s t r i k e " . Russ. represents an Inter-Slavonic development, e.g., Pol. b i c , Ukr. byty, Cz. b i t i , S.Cr. b i t i ; c f . also O.Irish benim, Mid.Eng. bete, Mod.Eng. beat. Perhaps this synonym points to a former system of^distance d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ( c f . Russ. in item 67:133), ve.g., s i s , s i t a s , tas " t h i s , that, yon". The form of s e i t < s i t e i s quite prob able, f o r the alternation of i with e i occurs in d i a l , forms and the f i n a l -e in s i t e could have lapsed by apocope; c f . Endz. 523 for i > e i . 3k V/-/7<+:137 hold - t u r e t - derzat'. some agreement, non-cognate. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . t u r e t i "to hold i n pos se s s i o n , own", and appears to be connected u i t h Russ. t v o r i t ' "to create, make".1 Russ. represents a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . d z i e r z y e , Ukr. derzaty, Cz. d r z e t i , S.Cr. d r z a t i ; c f . also L i t h . d i r z t i "to became visc o u s " , d i r g i n t i , d i r g y t i "to arrange, a l i g n " , Latv. derdzet "to be quarrelsome", d e r g t ( i e s ) "to be loathsome", D(-)75:138 hau - ka - kak, some agreement, non-cagnates. Latv. appears to be the gen. sg. of kas "uhat, una", t h i s i t seems ta be cognate u i t h Russ. kto "uho", c f . item 188:98. Russ. i s a curtailment of kakoj "uhich one"; the l a t t e r represents a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . k a k i , Cz. kako, S.Cr. kaka, Bulg. kako, kak; c f . also L i t h koks "af uhich k i n d " , I r i s h each "each", Latv. kads, Lat. q u a l i s "af uhich k i n d " ; V/asm. I , 506; Buck 920-921. V/-/77:139 hunt - medTt - o x o t i t ' s . i a , no agreements, non-cog, Latv. seems to be connected u i t h L i t h , m e d z i o t i , ;| i b i d ; c f . als o Latv. mednis "grouse, mountain Latv. form t v a r s t i t "to s e i z e , also to grope f o r " seems to be connected u i t h t h i s Russ. form ( c f . als o t v e r t "to grab"), since Latv. d u r i s or dur v i s i s generally thought to be cognate u i t h Russ. dver', as Latv. dvars "raaduay u i t h i n the gates" i s cognate u i t h Russ. dvor "court". 2 This i s one of the 'problem' forms i n Latv., c f . Endz. 1090. 95 cock", medus "honey". Russ. seems to r e p r e s e n t an E/W-Slav. development, e.g., P o l . ochota " l o n g i n g , i n c l i n a t i o n " , Ukr. ochota " p l e a s u r e , g a i e t y ; hunt", Cz. ochota " j o y " . T h i s form seems to be connected with the v e r b a l form x o t e t ' "to want, d e s i r e " and, perhaps, due to a tabu concept f o r hunting i n t h i s speech area, has r e p l a c e d the o r i g i n a l form with oxota " j o y , p a s s i o n , hunt", i . e . , the semantic s h i f t s t a r t e d with "to want" > " d e s i r e " , > " j o y , g a i e t y " > "hunt; to hunt"; c f . Uasm. I I , 23k. IM/-/78:140 husband - v l r s - muz, no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . v y r a s , i b i d , L a t . v i r "a male". Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development; f o r i t s connections and S l a v , r e f l e x e s c f . Uasm. I I , 169-170 and a l s o item 95:52. N/+/8Q:141 i c e - ledus - l j o d , complete agreement, cognates. The L a t v . base morph l e d - :: Russ. base morph l j o d - as L a t v . med-(+us) "honey" :: Russ. mjod-, i b i d . F u r t h e r connections are L i t h . ledus " i c e " , O.Pruss. l a d i s , i b i d ; probably a l s o I r i s h l a dg "snow" as i n Uasm. I I , 25. 0/-/81:142 i f - j a 1 - ( j ) e s l i , no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . j a was used i n p r e f e r e n c e to v a i , f o r the l a t t e r has s e v e r a l d e s i g n a t i o n s , e.g., "or, whether, a l s o i f ( i n o p t a t i v e or p a s s i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n s ) " . 96 Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . j e i , i b i d . H i s t o r i  c a l l y , the Russ. consists of the t h i r d pers. sg. form of "to be" ( c f . item 37:23) and the emphatic p a r t i c l e l i , e.g., (j)est'+li= Mod.Russ. ( j ) e s l i , uith a complete lapse of the palatalized dental plosive t 1 i n Mod.Russ.1 O r i g i n a l l y , this Russ. form designated " i f being the case, that ..." uhich consequently narroued doun to " i f " . 0(+)82:143 in - ieks - v/vo, p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. Latv. represents a contracted form < ieksa "inside" and seems to be connected uith L i t h . i ( n ) k i s t i "to shove ( i n ) , thrust, i n s e r t " , also L i t h . i(n) " i n " . Russ. appears to be connected uith the Latv. prefix i e - " i n , into (as in i e i e t = i e — f i e t 'to go i n , i . e . , enter')" and O.Pruss. en " i n " . H i s t o r i c a l l y , the Russ. forms f a r " i n , into" uere represented by v, vo, uhich uere used both as prepositions and prefixes and vn- function- 2 v ing as a prefix only, uhereas in Latv. ieks functions as a preposition only and i e - as a prefix."' Thus i t could be stated that the above •^Probably due to a phonetic s i m p l i f i c a t i o n based on econ omy, e.g., a complication of alveolar-dental f r i c a t i v e , palato- alveolar plosive and palato-alveolar l a t e r a l , once the morpheme suture betueen the base morph, as i t uere, and the function uord lapsed and the'least important' palato-alveolar element, i . e . , the dental, uas dropped. The v, vo forms function s i m i l a r l y in Mod.Russ., and the vn- form i s considered to be moribund and appears only in a feu v e s t i g i a l forms. ^Even i n Mod. Latv. the usage of prepositions i s quite re-97 forms are probable cognates, f o r the diphthongal element i n Latv. ieks seems to be f u n c t i o n i n g as a p r e f i x , e.g., i e k s < ieksa " i n s i d e " = ie-+(ksa). Furthermore, the O.Russ. p r e f i x i s s t i l l preserved i n some v e s t i g i a l forms, e.g., vnimat' "to pay a t t e n t i o n (< O.Russ. v(o)n-+imati "to take i n " ) , overhear" uhich i s morphologically cognate u i t h Latv. ie-+nemt/+jemt "to take i n , capture". Fur ther connections are Lat. i n " i n , i n t o " , I r i s h i n - , i b i d , Goth, i n , i b . (\l/+/85:144 lake - ezers - ozero, complete agreement, cognates. Latv. e- :: Russ. o- v i a q u a l i t a t i v e vauel grada t i o n , e.g., elkuons "elbou" :: Russ. l o k o t ' , i b i d , u i t h the Russ. form r e f l e c t i n g a metathesis uhereby the h i s t o r i c a l i n i t i a l phoneme o- uas transposed 1 -v u i t h -1-. Further connections are L i t h . ezeras, i b i d , O.Pruss. assaran, i b . V/+/86:145 laugh - s m i e t ( i e s ) - sme.jat' s.ja. complete agree ment, cognates. The Latv. verbal paradigm shous complete agreement u i t h the Russ. form, e.g., smeju(os) :: smejus 1 "I laugh"; c f . a l s D items 26:112, 145:174. Further connections are Latv. s t r i c t e d and the avoidance of t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n i s obvious. There are a feu other examples of t h i s type of metathesis, e.g., i n v o l v i n g the l i q u i d s 1-, r - and the f o l l o u i n g vouel: O.Russ. r a l o "a plough" :: Latv. a r k l s , i b i d , Russ. l a k a t 1 "to l a p , s u i l l , o r i g i n a l l y to s t a r v e " :: Latv. a l k t "to t h i r s t , crave". 98 smaidit "to smile", smldinat "to invoke laughter", sminet "to sneer", also Mid.Eng. smilen "to smile"; c f . l/asm. I I , 673-674. A/-/88:146 l e f t (side) - kreiss - levv.j, no agreements, non- cognates. Latv. seems to be connected uith L i t h . kreivas "crooked" (Latv. k r e i l i s "a left-handed person, also clumsy"), probably also uith Russ. kri v b j "oblique, crooked". 1 Russ. i s cognate uith Lat. laevus " l e f t ; also s i l l y , unpropitious", and i s probably connected uith L i t h . i s l a i v o t i "to make a bend, curve". N/-/B9:147 leg - ka.ja - noqa, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate uith L i t h . koja, i b i d . Further background i s obscurejicf. Buck 242. Russ. i s cognate uith Latv. nags " n a i l " , c f . also item 56:31. V//+/91:148 l i v e - dzivuot - z i t ' , some agreement, cognates. Latv. absolute base morph d z i - :: Russ. z i - as o dzi-+(sla) "artery, vein" :: z i - + ( l a ) , i b i d . The Latv. verbal form d z i t "to drive, goad, prod" depicts the absolute base morph d z i - , from uhence the a d j e c t i v a l form dzivs " l i v e l y " ( L i t h . gyvas) Any connection uith this Russ. form i s obscure, due to the Russ. loanuord krievs "Russian" ( k r i v i c i "an East-Slav, tribe in the North") into Latv., but krievs designates "crooked, d i s t o r t  ed", L i t h . k r i v i s "a sly person!1. 99 i s derived and serves as a basis f o r the above ve r b a l form, e.g., d z i t > d z i v s > dzivuot. Thus the Latv. and Russ. forms could be viewed as true cognates. Further connections are L i t h . g y t i "to d r i v e " , O.Pruss. gijwans " a l i v e " (acc. p i . form) Lat. vivus " l i v i n g , a l i v e " . I\l/+/97:149 mother - mate - mat 1, complete agreement, cognates. Latv. -a- :: Russ. -a- as i n item 41:118. Further connections are L i t h . motyna, i b i d , O.Pruss. muti, i b . , L i t h . mote, moters "female spouse", Lat. mater, matris "mother", I r i s h mathir, i b i d , O.High Germ, muoter, i b . , e t c . 1 A/-/102:150 narrow - saurs - dzki.j, no agreements, non-cog. 2 Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . s i a u r a s , i b i d . Russ. is-probably connected with L i t h . ankstas "cramped", Lat. angustus "narrow, cramped". Further connec t i o n s are Goth, aggwus "narrow", Arm. anjuk, i b i d . E.g., t h i s form appears to be a general I-E development, with the exception of A l b . nana < probably Turk, anne, which does not seem to have a f f e c t e d other speech.areas i n Europe or adjacent to i t , e.g., Hung, az anya, F i n n , a i t i , E st. ema, Arab, el-omm; but Georgian has deda "mother" : mama " f a t h e r " , i . e . , i t seems to depict a reversed phonological development to any expected I-E one. 2 « Vasmer mentions sura "vagina" ( i n Pskov, Tver regions) as a probable connection with Latv. saurs. However, despite the acceptable phonological correspondence of Latv. -aur- :: Russ. -ur- w i t h i n the base morphs, the exact correspondence of the i n i t i a l phonemes i n d i c a t e s a strong p o s s i b i l i t y of Russ. d i a l , borrowing, notably i n the contact-region of Pskov. 100 A/-/103:151 near - tuvs - b l l z k i j , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. seems to be connected with O.Pruss. tauischan "the nearest" (acc. sg.), L i t h tuvi "at once"; though the etymological background of this form i s quite obscure, c f . Buck 868. 1 Russ. seems to be connected with Latv. b l a i z i t "to squeeze", b l i e z t "to smash", c f . L i t h . b l y z o t i "to l i e s t i l l , per taining to an extremely sick person, animal", also Lat. f l i g e r e "to beat down". A/-/109:152 old - vecs - s t a r y j , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . vetusis "ancient, Lat. vetus "old, ancient", Russ. v e t x i j "decrepit, ram shackle". Russ. seems to be connected with L i t h . storas "thick, strong", also O.Norse storr "huge, powerful". A/-/lll:153 other - uotrs - druqo.j. no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . antaras "second" (an 2 o r d i n a l ) , O.Pruss. antars, i b i d , probably Russ. Perhaps a connection between tavs "yours" and the above form could be suggested, as there exists a certain semantic overlap i n most of the derived forms, e.g., tavs > tavejais "one of your kind, e.g.,_a closely related person, also kin gener a l l y " : tuvs Z > tuvejais "anything, anybody close at hand", tu- vakais (= comp. degree) "neighbour, kin", tuvinieks "close r e l a t i v e , kinsman". 2 Latv. "second" (ordinal) i s represented by o t r a i s , i . e . , otrs with a d e f i n i t e a d j e c t i v a l desinence. This i s a similar development to the ordinal pirmais " f i r s t " , though in this case the form with the indef. adj. desinence, pirms, has become semantically as well as morphologically moribund, e.g., pirmais " f i r s t " : pirms "before" - an indeclinable adverbial form. 101 v t o r o j , i b . , though any connection between t h i s Russ. form and the Latv/. one seems to be quite vague, c f . Uasm. I , 237. Russ. seems to represent a general Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . drugi "other, also second", Ukr. druhyj, i b i d , Cz. druhy, i b . , S.Cr. d r u g i , i b . , Bulg. drugi "other". H i s  t o r i c a l l y , the Russ. form i s an a d j e c t i v a l exten sion 4. drug " f r i e n d " ; the l a t t e r i s cognate u i t h Latv. draugs, i b i d , L i t h . draugas, i b . , also 0.Norse poet, form draugr "man"; c f . Uasm. I , 373. U/-/112:154 plough - a r t - paxat*. no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . a r t i , i b i d , Lat. arare, i b . , O.Russ. o r a t ' , i b . ( e x t i n c t i n Mod.Russ.), 1 P o l . orac, i b . Russ. seems to be cognate u i t h Cz. pachati "to be a c t i v e , do, make", houever, f u r t h e r background seems to be quite obscure; c f . also Uasm. I I , 326, Buck 496, uhere the l a t e Ch.Slav. form pachati "to shake, f a n " i s given as a prob able connection. U/-/113:155 p u l l - v i l k t - t j a n u t 1 , no agreements, non-cog. For the connections and background of the Latv. form c f . item 21:14. Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development based on the concept of "to s t r e t c h " = ^The homophonous d i a l . Russ. fprm o r a t ' "to y e l l " i s con sidered to be connected u i t h Lat. orare "to speak", Arm. uranam "I deny", c f . Uasm. I I , 274. 102 t j a g a t ' , e.g., P o l . cia(n)gna(n)c "to p u l l " , Ukr. t'ahaty "to p u l l , drag", Cz. t a h a t i / t a h n o u t i "to p u l l oneself, s t r e t c h oneself", Slovene teg "a p u l l " , t e g n i t i "to s t r e t c h o n e self", S.Cr. nategnuti "to draw on, p u l l on". Further probable connections are O.High Germ, d i h s a l a "uagon-shaft", Lat. temo, i b i d ; c f . Uasm. I l l , 166. U/-/114:156 push - g r u s t 1 - t o l k a t ' , no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . g r u s t i , i b i d . Russ. i s connected u i t h t o l o c ' "to pound, trample" uhich i s connected u i t h L i t h . t i l k t s "to be calm"; c f . also Uasm. I l l , 116-117. A/-/117:157 r i g h t ( c o r r e c t ) - p a r e i z s - p r a v i l ' n y . j , no agree ments, non-cognates. Latv. appears to be connected u i t h the L i t h . form p a r e i z i u i " i n succession, run ning". This Latv. form might also be connected u i t h the p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase: pa r e i z e i "once i n a u h i l e ( l i t e r a l l y : f o r times)". Russ. i s an extended form < pravo " j u s t i c e , r i g h t s " ; the l a t t e r i s represented i n Latv. prava "court s e s s i o n , pro ceedings, e t c . " , L i t h . prova, i b i d , as Russ. loan- uords; c f . Uasm. I I , 423. This Latv. form uas used i n preference to stumt^"to shove^, f o r the normal response to "to push" and t o l k a t ' uould be grust, and ne i t h e r form, e.g., ne i t h e r stumt nor grust, uould have influenced the cognate count as both are true non-cognates. 103 A/-/118:158 r i g h t (side) - l a b a i s - p r a v y j , no agreements, non- cognates. The Latv. form i s analogous to labs "good, w e l l " (with an i n d e f i n i t e a d j e c t i v a l d e s i n  ence). For f u r t h e r connections c f . item 61:34, e.g., "good" - l a b s . Russ. i s connected with pravo " j u s t i c e , r i g h t s " as i n item 117:157. The Russ. form pravo appears to be r e l a t e d to Lat. probus "good, f i n e " , 0.Norse framr "progressing", c f . \/asm. I I , 424. N/-/119:159 r i v e r - upe - reka. no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . upe and i s probably connected with Ch.Slav. (Russ. only) vapa " l a k e , puddle", 1 consequently with O.Pruss. wupjan "cloud". Russ. represents a Pan-Slav, development, 0 V e.g., P a l . rzeka, Ukr. r i k a , Cz. reka, S.Cr. r i j e k a , Bulg. reka. I t might be connected with the Latv. verbal form r i t e t "to r o l l , to flow by (as time), flow (as t e a r s ) " > ( d i v ) r i t e n i s " ( b i ) c y c l e " , L i t h . r i t i n e t i "to ride", r i t i n i s "a c i r c l e " , c f . also Lat. r i v u s "brook". N/+/122:160 rope - v i r v e - verjovka, complete agreement, cog. Latv. - i - :: Russ. -e- a s . i n items 1:1, 70:40. This connection could be viewed as a s i m i l a r development to the one i n item 181:94, e.g., udens "water" :: voda, i b i d , consequently with O.Pruss. wundan representing a combining form, as i t were. Further connections are Latv. verbal form v e r t "to open; s t r i n g ; thread", L i t h . v e r t i "to thread", v i r v e "rope, s t r i n g " , O.Pruss. wirbe, i b i d . V/-/123:161 r o t - put - q n i t 1 . no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . p u t i , i b i d . Russ. represents a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . g n i c , Cz, h n i t i , Ukr. hnyty, S.Cr. g n j i t i , Bulg. g n i j ( o ) . Further probable connections are Latv. gnide "rough, scabby s k i n " , O.High Germ, gnitan "to rub away, grind down", O.Eng. gnidan "rub, smear; to crumble away i n pieces". V/-/124:162 rub - berzet - t e r e t ' , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s an extension of berzt "to scrub"; the l a t t e r form i s probably connected with Russ. borona "a harrow", consequently O.High Germ, boron "to bore". Russ. seems to be connected with Latv. t r i t "to sharpen", t r i t i e s "to rub oneself against something", L i t h . t r i n t i "to rub", t i r t i "to explore", Lat. terere "to rub". I\l/+/125:163 s a l t - s a l s - s o l ' , complete agreement, cognates. Latv. -a- :: Russ. -o- as i n karba "box" :: korob "bast-box, bast-basket", also as i n item 47:122 pe r t a i n i n g to the background of b o r o t ' s j a "to 1 f i g h t " . Further connections are O.Pruss. s a l , This O.Pruss, form i s considered as a probable Slav, loanword, c f . Vasm. I I , 693. 105 L i t h . solymas " S a l t l a k e " (a toponym), Lat. s a l , Goth, s a l t , Arm. a l . V/-/128:164 scratch - k a s i t - earapat', no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . k a s y t i , i b i d , and i t i s probably connected u i t h Russ. kasa " p l a i t , b r a i d " . Russ. i s a r e l a t i v e l y new v e r b a l form and i t i s probably connected with the i n t e r j e c t i o n a l phrase: cap - carap] "quick - quick, grab i t i " , with the verbal form capat' "to snatch, s e i z e , grab" as the i n i t i a l element and the second part d e p i c t i n g a phonetic innovation medially. The verbal form capat' seems to represent a Pan-Slav, development with some semantic d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n , e.g., P o l . capac "to walk c l u m s i l y " , Ukr. capaty "to grab, snatch", Cz. c a p a t i "to waddle; sp l a s h " , Slovene capa "paw", Slovak capat' "to se i z e q u i c k l y " ; c f . Vasm. I l l , 282; Pr. Append. 42-43. N/-/129:165 sea - .jura - more, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . j u r a , i b i d , jaura "swamp, marsh", jaurus "boggy". 1 Russ. i s cognate with Latv. mare "lagoon, tombolo (a small bay pro tected by a bay-mouth b a r ) " , L i t h . marios "lagoon, The Russ. d i a l , form (Upper Dvinsk region) jurmola "a low l y i n g land-mass", as l i s t e d by Vasmer ( c f . Vasm. I l l , 472-473), seems to be a d i r e c t borrowing from B a i t , sources, f o r both elements of the compound correspond to Latv. jurmala "sea-side", which i s also a toponym. 106 also a small sea of s o r t s " , O.Pruss. mary "lagoon", Goth, marei "sea", I r i s h muir, i b i d , Lat. mare, i b . V/-/132:166 sew - sut - s i t 1 , complete agreement, cognates. Latv. -u- :: Russ. - i - as but "to be :: byt', i b i d , (Russ. i / y are i n a l l o p h o n i c d i s t r i b u t i o n o n l y ) . A(+)133:167 sharp - ass - o s t r y j , p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. Latv. a- :: Russ. o- as i n items 68:38, 106:61, 185:196 and i n i t i a l l y as a b i , abas "both" :: aba, obe, i b i d . However, the l a s t phoneme i n the Russ. base morph presents a d i f f i c u l t y , Latv. as- :: Russ. o s t - , due to lack of evidence which would show the presence of t h i s - t - phoneme i n the Latv. base morph (unless Latv. a s t r i "horse h a i r " could be viewed as a'combining' form). Perhaps L i t h . astrus "sharp" could also be viewed as a combining form, as i t were; f o r f u r t h e r connections of the Latv. form c f . item 15:9. Russ. appears to be con nected also with Lat. acer "sharp", Arm. aseln "needle". 1 This p a i r was viewed as probable cognates, though Vasmer did not l i s t i t as such, f o r two of the three phonemes i n the base morphs showed complete agreement and the semantic linkage was considered to be s u f f i c i e n t evidence f o r cognation. Anoth er - morphologically analogous - Latv. form ass/ase "axle" ( L i t h . a s i s ) shows a regular correspondence to the Russ. o s 1 , i b i d ; thus, perhaps, a lapse of - t - i n the Latv. base morph di d occur, f o r i t might be assumed that i t e x i s t e d to avoid a homo- nymic c l a s h , e.g., as- "axle" : * a s t ( r ) - "sharp" (the d i a l , form of astras i n Vasm. I I , 288 i s not convincing, f o r i t i s obvious l y a r e s u l t of L i t h . i n f l u e n c e ) . A l i k e v a c i l l a t i o n w i t h i n s i m i l a r l i n g u i s t i c environment should be noted here: Latv. 107 A/-/134:168 short - i s s - k o r o t k i j , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. might be connected u i t h L i t h . d i a l , forms ysas/iusas "short", as w e l l as Latv. ass "sharp", though general background f o r t h i s form i s quite obscure. Russ. seems to be connected with L i t h . kartus " b i t t e r " , I r i s h c e r t "small"; c f . also Lat. curtus "shortened, mu t i l a t e d " and Germ, kurz "short". V/-/135:169 sing - dziedat - pet', no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . g i e d o t i , i b i d , also gydyti "to h e a l , cure", Latv. d z i e d e t , i b i d , O.Russ. g a j a t i "to crow" might be connected with i t . Russ. represents a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . p i a c , Ukr. p i j a t y , Cz. p e t i , S.Cr. p j e v a t i . Any outside connections with t h i s form seem to be quite obscure; c f . Uasm. I I , 422; Buck 1249. I\l/+/138:170 sky - debess - nebo, some agreement, cognates. Latv. seems to represent a phoneme s u b s t i t u t i o n i n the case of the i n i t i a l phoneme, e.g., d- f o r n-. This s u b s t i t u t i o n probably occurred due to L i t h . i n f l u e n c e , as i n L i t h . debesis designates "cloud" and L i t h . dangus designates "sky, also heaven". Furthermore, the Russ. p l u r a l paradigm exposes the straume "stream", L i t h . s r i a u m e / d i a l . straumuo "stream" :: Russ. strcimen' "brook"; Latv. s t r a u t s "brook" but L i t h . s r a u t a s / s t r a u - t a s , Latv. s t r a u j s " r a p i d " but L i t h . sraujus/sraunus. 108 e n t i r e morpheme, e.g., nebesa, uhich i s i n complete agreement with the Latv. form. Further connections are Lat. nebula "vapour, f o g , mist", O.High Germ, nebul "fog" ^> Germ. IMebel, i b i d ; c f . also \/asm. I I , 205. U/-/141:171 smell - uost - n.juxat', no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . u o s t i , i b i d , and Arm. hot " s m e l l " , O.Russ. jadoxa "sage, researcher ( i . e . , 'a s n i f f e r ' ) " ( e x t i n c t i n Mod.Russ.). The general background f o r t h i s Russ. form i s quite obscure, though i t seems to represent a Pan-Slav, development u i t h some semantic v a r i a t i o n s , e.g., P o l . niuchac "to snuff tobacco", Ukr. nuchaty "to s m e l l " , Gz. c e - n i c h a t i "to s m e l l , to snoop about", S.Cr. n j u s i t i "to s m e l l " , n j u s k a t i "to snoop about, trac k " ; c f . also Uasm. I I , 234; Pr. I, 623; Buck 1022-1025. 1 A/+/143:172 smooth - qluds - qladki.j, some agreement, cognates. The s y l l a b i c c r e s t i n t h i s p a i r of base morphs i s s i m i l a r to the one i n item 51:124, consequently these forms have to be vieued as cognate. Russ. i s The Russ. thematic verbal form - uxat' "to s m e l l " i s gener a l l y vieued as the basis f o r the above form u i t h the n- r e f l e c t  ing a v e s t i g i a l p r e p o s i t i o n a l element, i . e . , i t i s a reverse development from Eng. an apron ( i . e . , the i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e and noun) << Mid. Eng. a napron < O.Fr. naperon,(dim. of nape < Lat. mappa "napkin") and a s i m i l a r development to the 'peripheral form' of "a neut" •< O.Eng. e f e t e ; Mid.Eng. an eut taken as a neut, due to a muddy t r a n s i t i o n , r e i n f o r c e d by Sprachbild pronunciation, as i t uere. 109 cognate u i t h L i t h . glodus "smooth", uhich shous r e g u l a r correspondence u i t h i n the base morphs. La t v . base morph seems to be q u i t e p r o d u c t i v e and, s i m i l a r to item 51:124, d e p i c t s a c e r t a i n morpho phonemic a l t e r n a t i o n , e.g., glu+/glau+ as i n g l u d i n a t "to p r e s s , i r o n " , g l a u d i t "to c a r e s s " , L i t h . g l a u s t i , i b i d . Thus, t h i s a l t e r n a t i o n u i t h i n the base morph e s t a b l i s h e s a d e f i n i t e cognation u i t h the Russ. form. F u r t h e r connections are L i t h . glaudus "to l i e f l a t " , g l a u d o t i "to f i t c l o s e l y " . — I , IM/-/144:173 snake - cuska - zmeja, no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s probably a d i s t o r t e d onomatopoetic form based on c u k s l a j s (< c u k s t e t ) "an u n s t a b l e , s t e u i n g type of morass". Russ. r e p r e s e n t s a Pan-Slav, de velopment, e.g., P o l . zmi j a , Ukr. z m i j a , Cz. zmije, S.Cr. z m i j a . This form might be a ge n e r a l S l a v , euphemism, uhich has r e p l a c e d an o r i g i n a l form due to a tabu concept, and seems to be connected u i t h zemlja " l a n d , e a r t h , s o i l " , perhaps d e p i c t i n g an animal uhich c r a u l s on the e a r t h ; c f . Vasm. I, 457- 458. T h i s L a t v . form uas used i n pref e r e n c e to z a l k t i s "grass snake, a l s o a non-venomous snake" ( L i t h . z a l k t y s ) , uodze "adder, a l s o a venomous snake" ( L i t h . a n g i s ) , f o r i t i s g e n e r i c i n i t s semantic d e s i g n a t i o n . 110 l\J/+/145:174 snoui - snieqs - sneq, complete agreement, cognates. Latv. - i e - :: Russ. -e- as in items 25:111, 86:145. Further connections are L i t h . sniegas, i b i d , O.Pruss. snaigis, i b . , L i t h . snaigala "snowflake", Goth, snaiws, i b . , Lat. nix, n i v i s , i b . and the corresponding verbal forms of these languages. Q/-/146:175 some - drusku - neskol'ko, no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s connected with the nominal form of druska "crumb"<. druskat "to break up", and i s cognate with L i t h . druska " s a l t " , druzgeti "to break up i n small pieces", druzgas "piece of crockery", drauzs "dandruff", probably also Russ. druzg "twigs, dry branches", Goth. drau(h)snos "crumb, morsel". Russ. represents a negated form of the interroga tive pronoun skbl'ko "how much?"."'' It i s cognate with L i t h . k e l i "how many, some", kol " u n t i l , while", also Lat. qualis "of what sort?". U/+/147:176 s p i t - sp^aut - plevat', complete agreement, cog. A l l Slav, forms are represented uniformly, without the i n i t i a l s- phoneme, as opposed to the Bait, ones which possess i t , e.g., Pol. pluc, Ukr. As the L i t h . and Lat. forms r e f l e c t , o r i g i n a l l y the Russ. form was also without 'the pro t h e t i c 1 s- which i s actually the preposition s < s(o) "approximately"; also, the^original form emerges in other Slav, languages, e.g., Bulg. kblko "how much", etc.; c f . Vasm. I I , 643. I l l p l 'uvaty, S.Cr. p l j u v a t i , e t c . , as oppased ta the B a i t , farms of L i t h . s p i a u t i and Latv/. sp^aut. The expected correspondence of Latv. -au- :: Russ. -u-, e.g., as i n Jaudis "people" :: l j u d i , i b i d , appears i n the verbal paradigm, e.g., j a p l j u j u "I s p i t " and i n the i n f i n i t i v e forms of other Sla v , languages. Further connections are Goth, speiwan, i b i d , L at. spuere, i b . V(-)148:177 s p l i t - s l j e l t - k o l o t ' , p a r t i a l agreement, non-cog. Both forms have the l a t e r a l -1- i n common and the Latv. -e- phoneme could correspond to the Russ. -o- as i n item -:45. Houever, a Latv. devoiced p a l a t o - a l v e o l a r f r i c a t i v e f o l l o u e d by a devoiced p a l a t a l p l o s i v e before p a l a t a l vouels u s u a l l y corresponds to e i t h e r a Russ. dev. p a l . - a l v . f r i c a t i v e f o l l o u e d by a dev. p a l . - a l v . a f f r i c a t e or only the dev. p a l . - a f f r i c a t e , e.g., Latv. sl$- :: Russ. sc-/c- as i n sleeps "lance" :: scap "a fop, dandy"; s ^ i e t s "weaver's reed" :: s c i t "a s h i e l d " ^ or sixers "oblique" :: cerez "through". Therefore, a true cognate to the above Latv. form would appear to be Russ. s e e l ' " c l e f t , chink, crack", also L i t h . s k e l t i "to s p l i t " . Russ. seems to be connected with Latv. k a l t "to forge", k a l t s " c h i s e l " , L i t h . k a l t i "to fo r g e " , perhaps also Latv. k u l t "to thresh", L i t h . k u l t i , i b i d , O.Pruss. p r e i c a l i s " a n v i l " , k a l o p e i l i s "chopping k n i f e " . 112 1 V/-/149:17B squeeze - s p i e s t - d a v i t 1 , no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . s p i e s t i "to smarm, con ce n t r a t e " , spausti "to squeeze, press". Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . dauic, Ukr. davyty, Cz. d a v i t i , S.Cr. d a v i t i . I t s general background i s quite obscure;. probably i t i s con nected u i t h 0.Worse deyja "to d i e " , O.High Germ, touuen, i b i d , Goth, diuan, i b . ; c f . also Uasm. I , 326. * 2 U/-/150:179 stab - durt - vonzat 1 , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . d u r t i , i b i d , and i t might be connected u i t h O.Russ. u d y r i t 1 "to d e l i v e r a blou". Russ. appears to be cognate u i t h P o l . nizac "to s t i n g , stab, thread", though i t s general background i s quite obscure. Probably i t i s con nected u i t h noz " k n i f e " (Latv. n a z i s ) . I\l/-/153:180 s t i c k - kuja'' - palka, no agreements, nan-cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . k u j i s "hammer", kuja " s t i l t " , probably also L i t h . kugis "stack, hay- Uasmer also i n d i c a t e s a probable connection betueen the Latv. and Russ. forms, but does not l i s t t h i s p a i r as cognate. 2 * This form uas used i n preference to za k o l o t ' uhich i s an extension of k a l b t * i n item 148:177. ^The Latv. form nuja " s t i c k " has an uncertain etymological background, and nei t h e r form i s cognate u i t h Russ. palka; there f o r e Latv. kuja uas u t i l i z e d . 113 stack", O.Pruss. kugis, i b i d , Russ. k i j " b i l l i a r d - cue". Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development u i t h some semantic d e v i a t i o n , e.g., P o l . pala "club", Ukr. palka " s t i c k , piece of f i r e - u o o d " , Cz. p a l i c e "cudgel", S.Cr. p a l i c a " s t i c k " , Bulg. p a l i c a " s t i c k " . Houever, general etymological background f o r t h i s form i s quite vague. I t might be con nected u i t h p a l i c a "a bat t l e - c u d g e l of s o r t s " i n Russ. f o l k l o r e , or i t could also represent a bor- rouing from O.High Germ, p f a l "stake, p o l e " ^ Lat. palus "stake"; c f . also l/asm. I I , 306. A/-/155:1B1 s t r a i g h t - t a i s n s - pr.iamb.j. no agreements, non-cog. Latv. seems to be a derived form <_ t a i s i t "to make, prepare", L i t h . t a i s y t i , i b i d . Further connections are L i t h . t i e s a " t r u t h " ( v i a vouel gradation), Latv. t i e s a " t r u t h , court, j u s t i c e " , L i t h . t i e s u s " d i r e c t " , Latv. t i e s s , i b i d , probably also O.Russ. t e s i t ' "to quieten, comfort" > i n Mod.Russ. "to amuse, e n t e r t a i n " , thus al s o t l x i j " q u i e t , peace f u l " as a derived form from t e s i t ' . Russ. repre sents a Pan-Slav, development u i t h quite uide semantic d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , e.g., P o l . uprzejmy " p o l i t e " , Ukr. pramyj " s t r a i g h t " , Cz. prima, i b i d , S.Cr. prema "opposite", Slovak prima " p o l i t e , k i n d , a f f a b l e " . Further connections are quite obscure; perhaps i t i s connected u i t h O.Norse framr "good, 114 decent", Goth, fram "industrious, keen", c f . also Vasm. II , 455. V(+)156:182 suck - sukt - sosat', p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. The correspondence of Lat. -u-:: Russ. -a- i s quite i r r e g u l a r . The general Slav, development i s phonologically quite consistent, e.g., Pol. ssac, Ukr. ssaty, Cz. s s a t i , Slovene s ( e ) s a t i , S.Cr. s a t i , except for Russ. which might have the closest connection i n O.Bulg. s ( o ) s a t i . Further connec tions are Lat. sugere, i b i d , sucus "j ui ce , sap", •.Norse suga "to suck", O.High Germ, sugan, i b i d , Germ, saugen, i b . Thus Latv. r e f l e c t s the oldest of the tuio base morphs, e.g., suk-, and Russ. represents an independent development, as i t were. 1 uY-/15B:183 smell - pampt - puxnut 1, no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . pampti, i b i d . Further connections are L i t h . pumpa "knob" (Latv. pumpa), L i t h . pumpuras "bud" (Latv. pumpurs), probably also Russ. pup "navel", Lat. pampTnus "a vine-te n d r i l or vine-leaf". Russ. i s cognate with Latv. pust "to blow" (item 16:107), L i t h . p u s t i , i b i d . A further probable connection i s Norw. feiysa "to swell up". This pair of forms was viewed as probable cognates as the above evidence appeared to be s u f f i c i e n t to establish cognation, f o r Russ. might also r e f l e c t v e l a r i z a t i o n of the l a s t element i n the base morph (similar to Latv. i n this case); c f . item 16:107, pust "to blow" :: Russ. puxnut 1 "to swell". 115 0/-/162:184 there - t u r 1 - tarn, some agreement, non-cognates. Latv. i s probably patterned by analogy a f t e r kas : kur "who : where", consequently tas : t u r "that : there". Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . , Ukr., Cz., Bulg., tarn; S.Cr. tamo "there, thereto". I t appears to be d i s t a n t l y r e l a t e d to the demonstrative pronoun t o t " t h a t " , c f . Vasm. I l l , Ik and item 161:85. 2 0/-/163:185 they - v i n i - o n i , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. and Russ. forms are the corresponding p l u r a l r e f l e x e s of "he", thus, f o r t h e i r background and connections, c f . item 67:133. A/-/164:186 t h i c k - resns^ - t b l s t y . j . no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . resnas "strong, capa b l e " , though both B a i t , forms could be Russ. loan words, due ta t h e i r exact phonological correspond ence to O.Russ. resnbj "strong, copious". Russ. i s connected with L i t h . t u l z t i "to become s o f t , s w e l l " , Latv. t u l z t "to s w e l l " , t u l z n a " b l i s t e r " . A/+/165:187 t h i n - t i e v s - tonki.j, some agreement, cognates. This i s one of the 'problem' forms i n Latv., c f . Endz. 1091. 2 This p a i r was viewed as non-cognates, f o r t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e backgrounds were quite obscure and the i n i t i a l t - phoneme could be a t t r i b u t e d to coincidence. Also Vasmer did not l i s t t h i s p a i r e i t h e r as cognates or connected forms, c f . Vasm. I l l , 74. "^ The Latv. form bie z s "dense" should be also viewed as non- cognate with the above Russ. form. 116 L i t h . seems to provide a 'combining' form, e.g., te(n)vas, i b i d ( f o r Latv. - i e - :: L i t h . -e(n)-/-en- f c f . item 50:123). Some of the other Slav, forms provide a l i n k u i t h the L i t h . form, notably Cz. tenky and P o l . c i e n k i , but Russ. represents an independent development which i s r e f l e c t e d also i n other East-Slav, forms, e.g., Ukr. tbn k y j , O.Russ. t(a)n(o)k(o) and Bulg. t(o)n(o)k. Thus Russ., perhaps, developed by incontiguous reg r e s s i v e a s s i m i l a t i o n from *t(e)n(o)k(o) > O.Russ. farm > Mod.Russ. In view of the above evidence, t h i s p a i r of morphs are cognate. Further connections are Lat. tenuis " t h i n , slender", O.High Germ, dunni " t h i n " ; c f . also Uasm. I l l , 119. V/-/166:188 think - duomat - dumat'. non-cognates. This i s a Goth, loanword i n t o Latv., probably v i a Slav, sources, e.g., Goth, domjan "to judge" ^ Russ. and Latv.; c f . V/asm. I , 380; Buck 1203; Bern. I , 237, and f o r some s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t c l a r i f i c a t i o n s Pr. I , 202. 0/+/169:189 three - t r i s - t r i , complete agreement, cognates. The base morph f o r t h i s p a i r i s a general I-E de velopment,''" with Arm. erek(h) as an exception. E.g., i n other speech communities, adjacent to the I-E area, other base morphs f o r "three" are used: Fi n n , kolme, E s t . kolm, Hung, harom, Turk, uc, Arab, t a l a t e h , Georgian sami. 117 vV-/170:190 throw - mest - brosat', no agreements, non-cognate. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . mesti, i b i d , Russ. metat' "to toss, f l i n g " , L i t h . metyti "to p i t c h " (Latv. metat "to toss about"). The background of the Russ. form i s quite obscure. I t seems to be cognate u i t h Ukr. brosyty "to d i s c a r d " , Slovene b r s a t i "to streak, s t r i p e " . Further connections are L i t h . bruksmis/bruksnis "a s t r i p e , s t r i a t i o n " , probably also Latv. brukt "to peel o f f " , L i t h . b r a u k t i "to uipe, s t r o k e " , Latv. b r a u c i t , i b i d . U/-/171:191 t i e - s i e t - v.jazat', no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . s i e t a s , s a i t a s " s t r i n g " (Latv. s a i t e "any band, r i b b o n " ) , O.Pruss. -saytan " b e l t " , also probably Russ. set' "net". Further connections are Lat. saevus " b r i s t l e , s t i f f h a i r " , O.High Germ, s e i d " s t r i n g " , Germ. S a i t e , i b i d . Russ. represents a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . u i a ( n ) z a c , Ukr. v j a z a t y , Cz. v a z a t i , S.Cr. v e z a t i . Further probable connections are Goth, uindan "to uind, t u i n e " , Cz. vaz "nape", O.Pruss. uinsus "neck", Arm. v i z , i b i d . i//-/175:192 turn - q r i e z t - v e r t e t 1 , no agreements, nan-cog. Latv. i s s i m i l a r to g r i e z t "to cut" ( c f . item 25:111). The i n t o n a t i o n a l pattern i s also kept i n derived forms, e.g., g r i e z i e n s "a turn" (con tinuous or l e v e l i n t o n a t i o n ) : g r i e z i e n s "a cut, 118 s e c t i o n " ( r i s i n g and f a l l i n g i n t o n a t i o n ) . Russ. i s cognate with Latv. v e r s t "to p o i n t , a l s o turn oneself or someone, t w i s t " , L i t h . v e r s t i , i b i d , 0. Pruss. w i r s t "he becomes", w a r t i n t "to t u i i s t " . Further connections are L i t h . v i r s t i " t D become, also to r o l l about", Goth, wairthan "to become", Lat. vertere "to t u r n , turn around"; c f . Vasm. 1, 190. V/-/177:193 vomit - vemt - r v a t ' , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . vemti, i b i d , L at. vomere. Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development with some semantic d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , e.g., P o l . rwac, Ukr. ( i ) r v a t y , Cz. r v a t i "to t e a r , s t r e t c h " , Slovene r v a t i "to r i p out, pluck", S.Cr. r v a t i se "to grapple". Further connections are Latv. ravet "to weed", L i t h . r a v e t i , i b i d , probably also Lat. ruere "to r i p out, d i g or grub up (the ground)"; c f . Vasm. I I , 499. V/-/180:194 wash - mazqat - myt 1, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . mazgbti, i b i d . Further connections are L i t h . mazgas "a knot" (Latv. mazgs "a node"), probably also L i t h . mazgyti "to k n i t " and consequently O.Russ. mazgar' "spider", O.IMorse mo(n)skvi "a mesh, knot, noose", O.High Germ, masca "a mesh, n e t " . 1 Russ. seems to be connected with A f u r t h e r connection between Russ. mozg " b r a i n " and Latv. 119 L i t h . maudyti "to b a t t l e someone", O.Pruss. aumusnan "a wash" (acc. sg.), Latv. d i a l , maut "to d i v e , swim under-water", probably also I r i s h mun " u r i n e " , Mid.Low Germ, muten "to wash the face"; c f . l/asm. I I , 185. A/-/183:195 wet - s l a p j s - mbkryj, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . s l a p i a s , i b i d . Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . rnokry, Ukr. mbkryj, Cz. rnokry, S.Cr. mokar. Further probable connections are L i t h . makone "puddle, mud-hole", consequently I r i s h main "swamp, moor"; f o r f u r t h e r p a s s i b l e connections v i a the Latv. form makuonis "cloud" c f . item 21:14, also Uasm. I I , 148. 0(+)185:196 when - kad - koqda, p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. Latv. -a- :: Russ. -o- as i n items -:41, 68:38, 106:61, 133:167, 161:85. The explanation f o r the ' i n t r u s i v e ' v e l a r -g- i n Russ. i s , perhaps, f u r  nished by the obvious phonological v a r i a t i o n s i n d i f f e r e n t Slav, forms, e.g., P o l . gdy, also kiedy "when, ever", Cz. kda, also kehdy, S.Cr. kada, Bulg. kaga "when" r e s p e c t i v e l y . Thus, i t could be mazgat "to wash" i s quite vague and would have to be dismissed as a s u p p o s i t i o n . However, i t should be noted that numerous 'brain dishes' are prepared i n the B a i t , l i t t o r a l and some of the aspic dishes are considered to be the f i n e s t d e l i c a c i e s . Moreover these dishes i n v o l v e complicated p r e p a r a t i o n a l work, i n c l u d i n g s everal washing and cleaning procedures. 1 2 0 postulated d i a c h r o n i c a l l y that the above Russ. form represents a so r t of combining form, as i n P o l . kiedy < O.Pol, kiegdy, and the Bulg. koga repre sents one v a r i a n t whereas the S.Cr. kada (al s o North.Russ. d i a l , kada) the other v a r i a n t , and the Russ. form a 'combining' v a r i a n t , which r e f l e c t s the voiced v e l a r as w e l l as the voiced d e n t a l . P h o n o l o g i c a l l y , i t might be postulated that the 'vela r ' v a r i a n t of Bulg. koga i s , perhaps, a r e s u l t of a p a r t i a l progressive incontiguous a s s i m i l a t i o n , e.g., *k(o)da > koga. A l l f u r t h e r connections do point to a form with an i n t e r v o c a l i c dental -d-, as i n L i t h . kada, O.Pruss. kaden/kadden, L i t h . kadangi. 1 0 ( + ) 1 8 6 : 1 9 7 where - kur - qde, p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. According to the a v a i l a b l e etymological works, t h i s 2 p a i r was viewed as cognate. Further connections are Alb. ku, i b i d , L i t h . kur, i b . There might als o e x i s t another p o s s i b i l i t y , which would be based on a c e r t a i n e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n , e.g., the concept of a l i t e r a r y standard, as i t were. This 'standard' could have been the c a r r i e r of the above Bulg. form koga and i n  fluenced the vernacular, p a r t i c u l a r l y of the E/W Slav, speech communities. Of course, i t could al s o be argued that Russ. kogda represents a 'contact' form which r e f l e c t s the combination of B a i t , kad/kada and Slav, koga, i f the l a t t e r could be con sidered as the o r i g i n a l Slav. form. However, the above conten t i o n would dismiss the p r o b a b i l i t y that Russ. kogda i s a c t u a l l y a h a p l o l o g i c a l form of *kogo goda "which year", c f . Vasm. I, 5S7; Pr. I , 3 2 8 . 2 r - E.g., the Russ._gde was viewed as being connected with Latv. kur v i a Vedic ku "where", also 0 . I n d i e kuha, c f . Vasm. I , 2 6 4 . 121 A/-/189:198 wide - p l a t s - s i r b k i . i , no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . p l a t u s , i b i d , Gr. p l a t u s , i b . Further connections are L i t h . p l a s t i "to widen" (Latv. - p l e s t - "to spread out, widen", probably also O.Russ. p l a t a " k e r c h i e f " > (Mod.Russ. platbk "shawl, k e r c h i e f " ) , Germ, p l a t t " f l a t , spread out".''' Russ. represents a Pan-Slav, develop ment, e.g., P o l . s z e r o k i , Ukr. s y r b k y j , Cz. - s i r a k y , S.Cr. s i r a k . I t s general background i s quite ob scure, as i s also i t s base form s i r ' "expanse, width", which does not seem to possess any probable connections (with the exception of Goth, s k e i r s " c l e a r " , c f . Uasm. I l l , 4 01). 2 IM/-/190:199 wife - sieva - zena, no agreements, non-cognates. Both Latv. and Russ. forms were compared i n item 195:99, e.g., as the base forms f o r "woman". Also Lat. c i v i s " c i t i z e n " could be considered as an a d d i t i o n a l connection f o r Latv. s i e v a . N/+/191:200 wind - ve.js - veter. some agreement, cognates. The i n i t i a l p a i r s of phonemes agree i n t h i s instance, e.g., Latv. ve- :: Russ. ve-. The Latv. form i s cognate with Russ. ve j a t " "to blow, winnow", which The Russ. farm s p l o s ' " f u l l y , everywhere" might also serve as a f u r t h e r connection, which would have to be e s t a b l i s h e d v i a Latv. pl a s s "expansive, extant", the l a t t e r being connected with the above Latv. form. 2 v The Latv. form saurs "narrow" (item 102:150) might repre sent a f u r t h e r connection, though the correspondence of Latv. -au- :: Russ. - i - i s unusual and cannot be su b s t a n t i a t e d . 122 r e f l e c t s true cognation with the Latv. base morph. The Russ. form i s cognate with Latv. vetra "storm", as i t r e f l e c t s the Russ. base morph vet-. Further connections are L i t h . vejas "wind", vetra "storm", 0. Pruss. wetro "wind", Goth, waian "to blow", probably also Latv. v e t i t "to winnow", L i t h . v e t y t i , i b i d , Lat. ventus "wind". I\l/-/192:201 wing - spams - k r y l b , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . sparnas. I t might be f u r t h e r connected with Russ. paparot " f e r n " , L i t h . p a p a r t i s , i b i d , Latv. paparde/paparkste, i b . , also Russ. perb "feather". The connection between " f e r n " and "wing" i s based on the Gr. example of p t e r i s " f e r n " : pteron "wing". Russ. appears to be connected with Latv. s k r i e t "to run", L i t h . s k r i e t i "to f l y , move r a p i d l y " , s k r i s t i "to g l i d e around", a l s D Germ, s c h r e i t e n "to walk, step, march"; c f . Uasm. I I , 313 ( f o r Latv.) and Vasm. 1, 672-673 ( f o r Russ.). V/-/193:202 wipe - s l a u c i t - u t i r a t 1 , no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s connected with L i t h . s l u o s t y t i , i b i d , perhaps also with the Latv. form s l a u k t "to milk". Russ. i s connected with t e r e t 1 "to rub" ( c f . item 124:162), as the p e r f e c t i v e aspect of the l a t t e r form, u t e r e t ' , would i n d i c a t e ( v i a vowel gradation e : i ) . 123 Q/-/194:203 with - ar - s ( o ) , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s probably a c u r t a i l e d form < a r i " a l s o " (-i lapsed by apocope). Russ. i s cognate with the L i t h . p r e f i x s a(n)- as i n sandora "agreement, peace", i . e . , sa(n)-+dora "with morals, honesty", Latv. p r e f i x suo-, i b i d (now e x t i n c t , as i n suovardis "namesake", i . e . , suo-+vardis "with name (person)", O.Pruss. p r e f i x san-, i b . , p r e p o s i t i o n sen, i b . , 0.Morse sam-, i b . , Lat. s i m i l i s " s i m i  l a r " ; c f . Uasm. I I , 564, and f o r Latv. F r . I , 15. f\l/-/196:204 woods - mezs - l e s . no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . medzias, i b i d , Russ. meza "border, l i m i t , edge", which r e f l e c t s a prob able semantic shift," 1" though the exact phonolog i c a l correspondence of both forms, i . e . Latv. and Russ.,makes them suspect to borrowing. Further connections are L i t h . medis " t r e e " , O.Pruss. median, i b i d , probably also Lat. medius "middle", I r i s h mide, i b i d , Goth, m i d j i s "located i n the middle", Arm, mej "middle". Russ. represents a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . l a s , Ukr. l i s , Cz. l e s , S.Cr. l i j e s , Bulg. l e s . Further connec t i o n s are O.Eng. laes "meadow", Mid.Eng. leswe/ However, a s i m i l a r semantic a l t e r n a t i o n between "a border" and " f o r e s t " could be observed i n O.Swed., e.g., mark "border/ f o r e s t " , c f . Uasm. I I , 112. 124 l e s e , i b i d , probably also Latv. l i e s s "meager, extremely t h i n " , though f u r t h e r background i s quite obscure f o r the Russ. form; c f . Vasm. I I , 33. i\l/-/197:205 worm - tarps - cerv', no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. seems to be connected u i t h L i t h . tarpa "grouth, development" (Latv. tarpa " c a p a b i l i t y " ) , t a r p t i "to gain, b e n e f i t " , thus also probably u i t h Russ. t o r o p l t ' "to hurry" < tbrop "haste". Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development u i t h some semantic v a r i a t i o n s , e.g., P o l . czeru "maggot, grub", Ukr. cerv "uorm", Cz. cerv "uorm, maggot", S.Cr. crv "uorm, Bulg. cervej "uorm". This Russ. form seems to be connected u i t h O.Russ. cermnyj "crimson-red" and i n the vernacular cerjbmnyj "red-haired"; thus probably als o u i t h L i t h . k i r m i s "uorm", Latv. c i r m i s "midge, also small uorm", cerme "mau-uorm", I r i s h cruim "uorm", Alb. krimb, i b . , though the voiced l a b i o - d e n t a l f r i c a t i v e -v- i n the Russ. base morph presents c e r t a i n d i f f i c u l t i e s , as none of the other connections seem to r e f l e c t i t , c f . Vasm. I l l , 317, 318, 325; Pr. App. 63-64, and f o r Latv. Vasm. I l l , 125-126. 0(-)197:206 ye - .jus - vy, p a r t i a l agreement, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . j u s , O.Pruss. i o u s . Further connections are Goth, j u s , i b i d , Eng. you. Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . 125 my, Ukr. vy, O.Cz. vy, S.Cr. v i , Bulg. v i / v i j e . Perhaps, the Slav, forms have been influenced by an oblique case of the h y p o t h e t i c a l Proto-I-E form * i u s / * ( j ) u s (nom. p i . ) , as r e f l e c t e d i n Lat. vos "you", O.Pruss. wans, i b i d (acc. p i . ) , 1 c f . Uasm. I, 238, Pr. I , 102-103. (M/-/199:207 year - gads - god, non-cognates. I t i s a Russ. loanword i n t o Latv., as L i t h . metai "year" would i n d i c a t e . Russ. i s probably connected with Latv. gadigs "heedful" or g a d l t ( i e s ) "to chance, also happen", gadat "to care, supply". Further probable connections are Germ, g a t l i c h " t o l e r a b l e " , Goth, g a d i l i n g s " r e l a t i v e " , O.Friesian gada "to u n i t e " , Mid.Low Germ, gaden "to please", consequently ( v i a a vowel gradation i n B a i t . ) with Latv. guods "honour", L i t h . guodas, i b i d , though these B a i t , forms are generally considered to be connected with Russ. gadat 1 "to advise", c f . Uasm. I , 283-284; 250 ( f o r B a i t , guods/guodas). This p a i r was considered to be probable non-cognates, f o r t h e i r general background appeared to be quite obscure_and t h e i r phonological correspondence vague,_e.g., only Latv. -u- :: Russ. -y- as a regu l a r correspondence (but "to be" :: byt', i b i d ) . I t should also be noted that the O.Pruss. form wans could not be considered to be a 'combining' form, f o r i t r e f l e c t s an oblique case and the general Slav, development was too uniform to o f f e r any connections with the B a i t , forms. 126 GLOTTOCHRONDLOGICAL ANALYSIS The e n t i r e procedure of g l o t t o c h r o n o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s i s based on the r e s u l t s of the cognate count. The methodology employed hereafter w i l l f o l l o w the ordinary s t a t i s t i c a l proce dures, which w i l l i n v o l v e the treatment of c o l l e c t e d data from the cognate count. Therefore, i t i s reasonable to s t a t e that the a c t u a l decision-making process i n our a n a l y s i s r e s t s with the determination of cognation between any given p a i r of c o r r e  sponding forms, 1 which have already been designated as items. These items represent the smallest p o s s i b l e u n i t s , from the a n a l y t i c a l point of view, as they represent the members which form the next l a r g e s t u n i t , e.g., the sample. Thus, the f o l l o w i n g sequence depicts the formational process of a sample i n t h i s paper: Latv. - Russ.; item; sample. form - form /+/; /-/; (+); (-) I = 10QC+/-) or I I = 20DC+/-) The concept of the item i s based, i n t h i s paper, on the deter mination of cognation f o r a s p e c i f i c p a i r of forms i n both Lat v i a n and Russian. The d e c i s i o n of e i t h e r cognation or non- I t should be emphasized again, that the e n t i r e a n a l y s i s depends on the cognate count, f o r only a very rigorous approach i n the s e l e c t i o n , as w e l l as the determination, of cognates w i l l y i e l d reasonable r e s u l t s , to w i t , i t w i l l a i d i n the avoidance of p o ssible e r r o r s i n judgement on the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s p a r t . 127 c o g n a t i o n i s r e p r e s e n t e d by a symbol, e.g., e i t h e r *+* o r T h i s symbol u n i f i e s the forms i n v o l v e d and a l s o s e r v e s as a ' r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ' of the newly c r e a t e d u n i t - the i t e m . Thus, we can c o n s i d e r i t e m o r i t e m s , g e n e r a l l y , f o r they are e n t i r e l y autonomous u n i t s . We can a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h between '+• and '-' i t e m s , and t h e i r d e s i g n a t i o n i s p u r e l y a r b i t r a r y , e.g., they c o u l d be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h any type of n o t a t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , we can a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h between d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of '+' i t e m s o r between d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of *-' i t e m s , e.g., /+/ : (+), /-/ : (-). Thus i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t any g i v e n ,item i s autonomous, f o r an a p p o s i t i o n of the type '/+/ : (-)' i s a l s o p o s s i b l e , though not p r a c t i c a l f o r our purposes as we are not concerned w i t h the b e h a v i o u r of i n d i v i d u a l items but w i t h the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e i r t o t a l . The c r i t e r i o n f o r t h i s s i g n i f i c a n c e i s based on the b i n a r y system, which i s implemented by e i t h e r '+' o r •-' symbols, v i z . , e i t h e r presence or absence of c o g n a t i o n . Con s e q u e n t l y , a l l i t e m s s h o u l d be viewed as s i g n i f i c a n t , not o n l y i n d e p e n d e n t l y but a l s o w i t h i n the framework of the b i n a r y system. T h i s system f u r n i s h e s us w i t h the c r i t e r i o n f o r s i g  n i f i c a n c e of the i t e m t o t a l s , e.g., i t produces a c e r t a i n number of •-' and '+' i t e m s and i t i s a c t u a l l y these t o t a l s w i t h which we s h a l l c oncern o u r s e l v e s . I t has a l r e a d y been noted t h a t the cognate count c o n t a i n s two samples, each of a d i f f e r e n t sample s i z e , e.g., 128 sample I , c o n s i s t i n g of 100 items, and sample I I , c o n s i s t i n g of 200 items. Each D f the samples also represents an independ ent u n i t and m i l l be viewed as such. Each sample contains a c e r t a i n number of '+' and '-' items or cognates and non-cognates. We s h a l l concern ourselves with the t o t a l s of these items w i t h i n each sample, and sample I w i l l be considered f i r s t . Sample I considered: A t o t a l of 100 p a i r s of forms i n Latvian and Russian were compared i n sample I . This t o t a l c o n s i s t s of the f o l l o w i n g items: 100 = +39 + (-61) m 31/+/ + 8(+) + 60/-/ + (-). Thus, the f i n a l count of sample I represents 39 cognates and 61 non-cognates. A more conservative estimate probably would claim only 31 cognates and 69 non-cognates, f o r eigh t of the cognates were probable cognates, and a more rigorous approach i n the estimation of t h e i r cognation might have c l a s s i f i e d them as non-cognates, or at l e a s t as probable non-cognates. On the other hand, an i n v e s t i g a t i o n based on l e s s background informa t i o n , as w e l l as l e s s acquaintance with both languages, probably would have y i e l d e d 40 cognates and 60 non-cognates (item 154:81 could have been classed as at l e a s t a probable cognate). There f o r e , the merit of a d e t a i l e d study of the background connec t i o n s , as w e l l as the cognation, of forms appears to be obvious, f o r , even i n the case of a pos s i b l e cognation, the r e g i s t e r i n g 129 of a probable non-cognate as a probable cognate uould skeu the f i n a l r e s u l t s of our computations. I t i s generally knoun that a l l c a l c u l a t i o n s of g l o t t o c h r o n o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s are i m p l i c i t i n the f o r m u l a : 1 l o g c log c -5 t = 2 or t = - (1CT); (1) 2 log r 2 log r uhereby the time depth i n m i l l e n n i a i s represented by the 11* formula, and, by m u l t i p l y i n g the r e s u l t of t h i s formula by ID"5, ue obtain the time depth i n years. In t h i s formula 'c' stands f o r the percentage of cognates expressed as a p o r t i o n of the sample s i z e , and ' r 1 represents a r a t i o of cognates r e t a i n e d a f t e r a millennium of separation. This r a t i o i s often r e f e r r e d to as a r e t e n t i o n r a t e , uhich i s taken tD be a constant rate of r e t e n t i o n of cognates, expressed i n percentages, over a period of 1,000 years. The r e t e n t i o n rate uas postulated to be at 2 .8048, rounded o f f to .805 or 80.5%, uhich i s the value that R. B. Lees, The Basis of Glottochronoloqy t Language, L i n g u i s t i c Society of America, 1953, v o l . 29, p. 117. Lees designated t h i s formula as the dating equation: lo g F3 2 log k ' u i t h representing a f r a c t i o n of cognates i n r e l a t i o n to the t o t a l of cognates, and k representing a constant of r e t e n t i o n during a given time p e r i o d , e.g., 1,000 years. For the develop ment of t h i s equation c f . pp. 115-117, v i z . , beginning u i t h "1. Rate Equations". 2 Lees, ibid.(meaning p. 119). 130 m i l l be used i n t h i s paper. The f a l l o w i n g i s a r e w r i t e of the above formula which incorporates the constant component, e.g., the r e t e n t i o n r a t e : log c log c log c 1 t = = = = a ~ 2 log .805 2 (.217) .434 2 The next step involves c a l c u l a t i n g the value of 'c', which r e f l e c t s cognation expressed i n percentages, e.g., As sample I represents a sample s i z e of 100 items, and the cognate count y i e l d e d 39 cog nates, then 39 c « = .39. 100 The f i n a l step i n v o l v e s completing our formula as f o l l o w s : t =  l D 9 c = log .39 = .942 = 2 a 7 < .434 " .434 " .434 ~ = S=' or t = .217Q0 3) . 2,170. H. Ar k i n and R. R. Colton, Tables f o r S t a t i s t i c i a n s , Barnes and Noble, New York, 1966, p. 104, was used f o r n a t u r a l logarithm values. The a c t u a l value of a mantissa f o r any given logarithm was not u t i l i z e d , f o r e i t h e r '+* or '-' values ap peared to be i n s i g n i f i c a n t f o r our estimates, to w i t , l o g . 805 i s l o cated halfway between 9.777 and 9.789; thus the mantissa f o r l o g . 805 i s 9.783 - 10,000 and -.217 only was viewed as s i g n i f i c a n t . The symbol 'c' w i l l be used i n t h i s paper as opposed to •C* u t i l i z e d by Swadesh, Gudschinsky, Rea, et a l . 131 Thus we can say that on the strength of the sample s i z e of 100 items, which y i e l d e d a 39% cognation, Latvian and Russian share a time depth of 2.17 m i l l e n n i a or 2,170 years. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n could be ex pressed i n s e v e r a l ways: i ) Latvian and Russian have been e x i s t i n g as sepa rate languages f o r an estimated 2,170 years; i i ) Latvian and Russian began to d r i f t apart about 200 B.C., using 1967 as a base year and rounding o f f to the nearest decade. i i i ) L a tvian and Russian, a f t e r having been sepa rated f o r 2,170 years, s t i l l possess 39% cognation out of a sample s i z e of 100 forms. However, i t should be noted that we are dealing with r e l a t i v e values and not absolute ones and, the r e f o r e , i t would be quite erroneous to accept the year 200 B.C. as some d e f i n i t e point f i x e d i n time (or a point estimate) when the separation of the two languages began. The time depth of 2,170 years should be viewed, even i n optimum c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , only as a time-span which sup p l i e s us (to some degree of accuracy) with at l e a s t an approximation i n time when both languages could have e x i s t e d as a homogeneous l i n g u i s t i c u n i t . Of course, the e n t i r e estimate depends on the accuracy of our sampling procedure and the con sequent r e s u l t s . Therefore, i t i s reasonable to state that a c e r t a i n amount of e r r o r has to be associated with our cognate count. 132 The p r o b a b i l i t y of e r r o r i n s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i s associated u i t h problems of e s t i m a t i o n . Despite the most care f u l sampling methods u t i l i z e d , there always e x i s t s a c e r t a i n p r o b a b i l i t y f o r erroneous d e c i s i o n s . To estimate the proba b i l i t y of our e r r o r (assuming that any change/changes i n the word l i s t have occurred randomly), we s h a l l employ a type of measurement c a l l e d the standard d e v i a t i o n . This measurement i s used to e s t a b l i s h the l i m i t s of our e r r o r , as i t were, at a c e r t a i n confidence l e v e l and enables us to s t a t e t h a t , f o r instance, Latvian and Russian represented a s i n g l e language 2,17D years ago, with the upper l i m i t being +270 years and the lower one -270 years. The general confidence l e v e l f o r the standard d e v i a t i o n or standard e r r o r i s 68% or simply - 7/10, although other l e v e l s can also be employed,''' The standard e r r o r i s computed according to the f o l l o w i n g formula: 2 c ( l - c ) • n •• / Gudschinsky, ABC's, Word, p. 202 (meaning #38). Lees, The B a s i s , Language, p. 124 (meaning formula 11) c f . also J . E. Freund and F. J . W i l l i a m s , Modern Business S t a t i s t i c s , P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Englewood C l i f f s , N.J., 1959, p. 201. In t h i s work our 'c' i s represented by a 'p1 or a proportion of a sample from a papulation, which i s p r e c i s e l y what our symbol 'c' repre sents. I t should be noted also t h a t , g e n e r a l l y , the standard d e v i a t i o n i s denoted by the Greek l e t t e r symbol sigma; however, i n t h i s paper sigma w i l l be replaced by 's'. 133 where 'c' represents the same value as i n the F i r s t Formula and 'n' represents our sample s i z e , e.g f, 100 items. Our next move i s to F i l l i n the Formula, e.g., as s = 1 / x :: s 2 = x, then i t Follows that 2 c ( l - c ) .39(1-.39) _ .39(.61) .2379 n 100 100 100 .002379; s o l v i n g For s : s = l / .002379 = .04877 = .049. 1 The Figure .049 depicts a standard e r r o r oF the proportion oF 'cognates at 7/10 confidence l e v e l . This e r r o r i s added to the percentage of cognates, i . e . , 'c', to c o r r e c t i t , as i t were, and we obtain the corrected cognation i n percentages: C » c + s = (3) .39 + .049 = .439. This corrected 'c 1 w i l l be designated with the c a p i t a l 'C* and i s u t i l i z e d i n formula (1) to obtain the corrected time depth, e.g., formula (1): Cf, f n . 2 to p. 132 : Freund and Wi l l i a m s , i b i d . , pp. 511-517 (meaning tables uf square r o o t s ) . As .002379 l i e s be tween .00237 and .00238, the square root of .002379 i s .04877 or between .0486826 and .0487852 using a method of i n t e r p o l a  t i o n . 134 T = 2 log r log C log .439 .434 .823 .434 1.896 = 1.9; or T = 1.9C103) = 1,900. Thus the corrected time depth i s 1.9 millennia or 1,900 years. In order to establish the extent or l i m i t s of the error, we subtract the corrected time depth from the o r i g i n a l one: and i t follows that the upper l i m i t of our error i n the o r i g  i n a l estimate of the time depth i s 2,170 + 270 years, and the lower l i m i t 2,170 - 270 years, with the range of error being 540 years about the o r i g i n a l time depth at 7/10 confidence l e v e l . The significance of this corrected time depth could be expressed in several ways: i ) Latvian and Russian have been existing as separate languages fur 2,170 + 270 years; i i ) Latvian and Russian began to d r i f t apart between the years 470 B.C. and 70 A.D.; i i i ) Latvian and Russian shared a common language between 1,900 and 2,440 years ago; 2,170 - 1,900 = 270 years. The corrected time depth w i l l be designated with the ca p i t a l l e t t e r 'T'. 135 i v ) The above i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o r r e c t a t 7/10 con f i d e n c e l e v e l , i n s o f a r as i t i s based on a sample s i z e of 100 f o r m s , and any v o c a b u l a r y change i s s a i d to be random i n e i t h e r of the l a n g u a g e s . The cognate count y i e l d e d v a r i o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s of cognates and non-cognates ( c f . p. 128). As a l r e a d y n o t e d , a more c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e u o u l d have y i e l d e d o n l y 31 c o g n a t e s , i . e . , 8 l e s s than the above e s t i m a t e , f o r the l a t t e r i n c l u d e d the f o l l o w i n g p r o b a b l e c o g n a t e s : items 4:2, 12:6, -:11, 54:30, 79:43, -:45, 151:79, 159:83. T h i s new amount of c o g n a t e s , i . e . , 31, i s u t i l i z e d i n the f o r m u l a (1) to a r r i v e a t a time depth which would be based on the most c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e of c o g n a t e s . We proceed as b e f o r e , e.g., 31 1. c = = .31 o r 31% of c o g n a t e s . 100 z. u> t = 1 0 9 - 3 1 . i l i Z i - 2 . 6 9 B . 2.7; 2 l o g .805 .434 o r t = 2.7 ( 1 0 3 ) = 2,700. Thus, a more c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e would show t h a t both l a n  guages have e x i s t e d as s e p a r a t e e n t i t i e s f o r about 2,700 y e a r s . We proceed to c a l c u l a t e the s t a n d a r d e r r o r a t 7/10 c o n f i d e n c e l e v e l : , „ x 2 .31 (1-.31) .31 (.69) .2139 1DD 100 100 .002139; . . - 2 s o l v i n g f o r s : s = |/ .002139 = .046251 = .046; 4. (3) Thus C = .31 + .046 = .356. We c a l c u l a t e the c o r r e c t e d time depth: l o g C l o g .356 1.033 D . I = = = = C.* JO I .434 .434 .434 = or T = 2.38 ( 1 0 3 ) = 2,380. We then e s t a b l i s h the l i m i t s of standard e r r o r a t 7/10 con f i d e n c e l e v e l : 6. 2,700 - 2,380 = 320. Thus, ue can s t a t e t h a t the most c o n s e r v a t i v e estimate of the cognate count would e s t a b l i s h the s e p a r a t i o n of ithe. languages i n q u e s t i o n as having begun between 3,020 and 2,380 years ago, and t h a t the range of e r r o r , at 7/10 confidence l e v e l , i s 640 years about the year 2,700 with a given sample s i z e of 100 items. Next we s h a l l c o n s i d e r the optimum case, whereby the cognate count w i l l i n c l u d e any probable non-cognates, e.g., 137 item 154:81. Consequently, me have a t o t a l of 40 cognates and estimate the time depth as f o l l o w s : 40 1. c » m .4 or 40%. 100 2 . ( 1 ) t . i£iL_d = i2i6 = 2.11 .434 .434 or t = 2.11 (10 3) = 2,110; Thus the optimum estimate would i n d i c a t e that these languages have e x i s t e d as separate l i n g u i s t i c u n i t s f o r about 2,110 years. To c a l c u l a t e a probable e r r o r , we proceed as p r e v i o u s l y , e.g., 2 .4(1-.4) .24 3. (2) a = = = .0024; 100 100 2 and s o l v i n g f o r s : s » .048989 = .049; thus the corrected 'c' i s 4. (3) C = .4 + .049 = .449. The corrected time depth becomes: log .449 .801 5. T = — - = = 1.8456 m 1.85; .434 .434 or 138 T = 1.85 (ID 3) = 1,850. To estimate the l i m i t s of our e r r o r : 6. 2,110 - 1,850 = 260. Ue can conclude that the optimum case of the cognate count would date the beginning of separation f o r the two languages at 2,110 + 260 years or between the years 400 B.C. and 120 A.D. approximately, 1 and the range of e r r o r i s 520 years at 7/10 con fidence l e v e l . E.g., the estimates i n years have been rounded o f f to the nearest decade. 139 Sample II c o n s i d e r e d : As s t a t e d on p..128, each sample i s viewed as an autonomous u n i t ; t h e r e f o r e , sample II w i l l be t r e a t e d as such, although i t i s a c t u a l l y an e x t e n s i o n of sample I except f o r 7 items. The 7 items are l \ l / - / -:13; IM/-/ -:55; A/-/ -:69; A/+/ -:32; IM/+/ -:41; (M(+) -:11; N( + ) -:45, and they r e p r e  sent the items which were omitted from sample I and r e p l a c e d by d i f f e r e n t items. The f o l l o w i n g are t h e i r t o t a l s by categories:: 7 = +4 + (-3) * 2/+/ + 2( + ) + 3/-/. Sample II c o n s i s t s of 200 items and the cognate count obtained i s as f o l l o w s : 200 = +79 + (-121) = 65/+/ + 14( + ) + 115/-/ + 6 ( - ) . Thus, sample I I y i e l d e d a t o t a l of 79 cognates and 121 non- cognates and we s h a l l c o n s i d e r t h i s t o t a l f i r s t , i . e . , we s h a l l proceed i n our c a l c u l a t i o n s as p r e v i o u s l y when computing the time depth f o r v a r i o u s p o s s i b l e cognate counts i n sample I. We begin with the c a l c u l a t i o n of percentage of cognation:: 79 1. c = = .395 or 39.5%; 200 s a l v i n g f o r the time depth, we o b t a i n : .434 .434 • r 140 t = 2 .14 ( 1 0 3 ) = 2 , 1 4 0 . Thus, we can st a t e t h a t , given a sample s i z e of 200 items, the two languages are estimated to have been a homogeneous language 2 ,140 years ago, and that they began to d r i f t apart about 170 B . C . To e s t a b l i s h the standard e r r o r , we proceed as before: , N 2 . 3 9 5 ( 1 - . 3 9 5 ) . 3 9 5 ( . 6 0 5 ) .238975 3 . (2) a* = = = 200 200 200 .001194875 ; 2 and s o l v i n g f o r s : s = .001194875 = .0345685 = . 0 3 5 ; thus the corrected 'c' i s : 4 . (3) C m . 395 + .035 = . 4 3 ; and the corrected time depth becomes: 5 . ( ! ) T - i £ 9 _ ^ = ^ = 1 > g l | l | - 1 .94 ; .434 .434 or T = 1 , 9 4 0 . To estimate the l i m i t s of e r r o r : 141 6. 2,140 - 1,940 = 200. Ule can say t h a t the range of our e r r o r i s 400 ye a r s , a t 7/10 confidence l e v e l , with a given sample s i z e of 200 items, and t h a t the two languages began s e p a r a t i n g 2,140 + 200 years ago, which would date t h i s s e p a r a t i o n at between 370 B.C. and 30 A.D. Now we proceed to c o n s i d e r the most c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e , e.g., that both languages possess only 65 cognates, v i z . , 14 l e s s than the p r e v i o u s estimate, f o r the l a t t e r i n  cluded the f o l l o w i n g probable cognates: items 4:2, 12:6, 24:110, 34:116, 41:118, 54:30, 79:43, 82:143, 133:167, 151:79, 156:182, 159:83, 185:196, 186:197. The new cognate count, i . e . , 65, i s worked through the same procedure again: 65 1. c = — = .325 or 32.5%; 200 2 . d ) t B i B 9 ^ 2 5 = 1^124 = .434 .434 or t = 2,590. We can s t a t e t h a t our estimate of 2,590 years d e p i c t s the time span of s e p a r a t i o n of the languages i n q u e s t i o n . 142 To correct our probable error: , ^ 2 .325C.675) .219375 n n ^ n n r n n 3. (2) s = = = .00109688; 200 200 and s = .03312 = .033. Obtaining corrected percentage of cognates: 4. (3) C « .325 + .033 = .358; and the corrected time depth: 1.028 5. (1) T = = 2.368 = 2.37; .434 or T = 2,370. To estimate the extent of our error at 7/10 confidence l e v e l : 6. 2,590 - 2,370 = 220. We conclude that the most conservative estimate uould date the separation of these languages at 2,590 + 210 years ago, uith a sample size of 200 items at 70% confidence l e v e l . Next, ue consider the optimum cognate count, e.g., 85, uhich includes 6 probable non-cognates. These are: items 25:111, 28:113, 75:138, 148:177, 154:81, 198:206, and ue proceed through our calculations as before: 143 85 1. c - = .425 or 42.5%; 20D 2. (1) t = ^ = 1.97; or .434 t = 1,970; , N 2 .425C.575) .244375 3. (2) s = = = .001221875; 200 200 and s = .0349559 = .035; 4. (3) C = .425 + .035 = .46. To f i n d the c o r r e c t e d time depth: 777 5. (1) T = ^ — = 1.79; .434 or T = 1,790. O b t a i n i n g the extent of e r r o r : 6. 1,970 - 1,790 = 180. Thus, we can s t a t e t h a t the optimum estimate would c o n s i d e r L a t v i a n and Russian as having been a s i n g l e l i n g u i s t i c u n i t 1,970 + 18D years ago, with a given sample s i z e of 200 vocabu l a r y items and the range of e r r o r i n the percentage of cognates being 360 years at a 70% confidence l e v e l . The date of t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n c o u l d be p o s t u l a t e d as having occurred between 180 B.C. and 180 A.D. Ikk Evaluation: The s t a t i s t i c a l manipulation of both samples has supplied us with c e r t a i n data. We s h a l l proceed to gather t h i s information i n t o some concise form to enable us to evaluate i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e . As each sample y i e l d e d various cognate counts, due to the co n s i d e r a t i o n of probable cognates and probable non- cognates, we processed every sample exact l y three times. Thus, each sample was considered i n the l i g h t of the most conservative estimate of cognation, as an independent case of the optimum estimate, and according to the cognate count, which included a l l p o s i t i v e items, regardless of t h e i r p r o b a b i l i t y of cognation. The most conservative case was thought to be impor tant to consider, as an example of true cognation. The optimum case was considered because any probable non-cognate could be c l a s s i f i e d as at l e a s t a probable cognate by an i n v e s t i g a t o r who e i t h e r was unacquainted with both languages or to whom the m a t e r i a l f o r a thorough study of these languages was una v a i l a b l e . Consequently, t h i s case would involve the l e a s t accurate cognate count. Furthermore, t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n would also depend on the r i g i d i t y of c r i t e r i o n f o r cognation, f o r , besides true cog nates, the optimum case also includes probable cognates and probable non-cognates. The t h i r d instance was considered to be a s o r t of median between both of the above cases. The f o l l o w i n g l i s t represents a r e c a p i t u l a t i o n of the r e s u l t s obtained i n computations of both samples. 1 4 5 As already noted, t = the o r i g i n a l time depth, T • the corrected time depth; and ' 1 ' i n t h i s case w i l l desig nate the l i m i t s of e r r o r . Each sample i s represented i n three sections and each s e c t i o n represents the above-mentioned cases, e.g., conservative, median and optimum estimates, i n that Drder, Sample I : cases time depth estimated dates i ) +31 - 3 1 / + / t = 2 , 7 0 0 7 3 0 B . C . T = 2 . 3 B 0 1 , 0 5 0 B . C . - 4 1 0 B . C . 1 m + 3 2 0 i i ) + 3 9 = i ) + B ( + ) t * 2 , 1 7 0 2 0 0 B . C . T = 1 , 9 0 0 4 7 0 B . C . - 70- A.O. 1 » + 2 7 0 i i i ) + 4 0 = i i ) + (-) t = 2 , 1 1 0 1 4 0 B . C . T = 1 , 8 5 0 4 0 0 B . C . - 1 2 0 A.D. 1 = + 2 6 0 Sample I I : i ) + 6 5 = 6 5 / + / t = 2 , 5 9 0 6 2 0 B . C . T • 2 . 3 7 0 8 4 0 B . C . - 4 0 0 B . C . 1 = + 2 2 0 i i ) + 7 9 - i ) + 1 4 ( + ) t » 2 , 1 4 0 1 7 0 B . C . T a 1 . 9 4 0 3 7 0 B . C . - 3 0 A.O. 1 = + 2 0 0 i i i ) + 8 5 » i i ) + 6 ( - ) t = 1 , 9 7 0 1 B . C . T - 1 . 7 9 0 1 8 0 B . C . - 1 8 0 A.D. 1 a + 1 8 0 The above c o l l e c t e d data permits us to make c e r t a i n observations about the probable past existence of Latvian and Russian as a s i n g l e homogeneous language. F i r s t l y , u i t h a given sample s i z e of 100 vocabulary items, ue can s t a t e that these languages e x i s t e d as a s i n g l e l i n g u i s t i c u n i t as l a t e as 140 B.C., and probably uere i n reasonably close contact up to 120 A.D. They seem to have begun to separate at about 1,050 B.C. Secondly, u i t h a given sample s i z e of 200 vocabulary items, ue can note that the tuo languages e x i s t e d as a homoge neous u n i t s t i l l around the beginning of the C h r i s t i a n era and seem to have been i n close contact as l a t e as 1B0 A.D. The separation could have begun about 840 B.C. Of course, the above observations are of a general nature and they should be treated as such, f o r any c a l c u l a t i o n i n v o l v i n g confidence l i m i t s i s simultaneously suspect to vague ness. I t should also be noted that the same statement could be made about any problem of estimation. The most important element i n dealing u i t h problems of estimation i s the treatment and d i g e s t i o n of data. The r e s u l t s obtained should be vieued as d i r e c t i o n a l i n d i c a t o r s , as i t uere, and not as point e s t i  mates, unless, of course, there i s some other m a t e r i a l at hand to substantiate the obtained r e s u l t s . Houever, a d e f i n i t e observation can be made from the r e s u l t s obtained i n our c a l c u  l a t i o n s ; f o r instance, the d i f f e r e n c e i n estimated time depths betueen the sample s i z e s i s 30 years i n the median case: Sample I: 200 B.C. + 270 years, Sample I I : 170 B.C. + 200 years. 147 This seems to i n d i c a t e that l a r g e r sample s i z e s than 100 and 200 vocabulary items are d e s i r a b l e i n t h i s type of comparison. The above date appears to be skewed, to w i t , i t seems to be asymmetric. This skewness i s s a i d to be negative i f the t a i l of i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n i s to the l e f t , and i t would seem that our d i s t r i b u t i o n i s skewed to the l e f t , v i z . , the d i f f e r e n c e between the most conservative time depth and the next one, e.g., median time depth, i s 530 years f o r sample I and 450 f o r sample I I , whereas the d i f f e r e n c e between the median case and the optimum i s only 60 years f o r sample I and 170 years f o r sample I I . The d i f f e r e n c e s i n time depth are as follows:; estimates i n years: cases: i i i i i i sample I: 530 60 sample I I : 450 170 The above skewness i s depicted on an imaginary abscissa of the cognate count; theref o r e , the e n t i r e question of skewness i s dependent upon the number of cognates involved i n each case. I t f o l l o w s , then, that the negative skewness of our d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the 3 t e s t cases of each sample i s connected with the number of cognates u t i l i z e d . The d i f f e r e n c e s between the numbers of cognates u t i l i z e d are as f o l l o w s : 148 No. of cognates: cases: i i i i i i sample I: 8 1 sample I I : 14 6 Thus, the skewing can be explained i n terms of cognate numbers used i n each case. I t should also be noted t h a t , as we increase our sample s i z e , the d i f f e r e n c e s between the three t e s t cases seem to decrease, e.g., i n sample I the d i f f e r e n c e i s 530 - 60, but i n sample I I i t i s 450 - 170, though t h i s tendency toward a c e n t r a l k u r t o s i s i s also caused by a smaller d i f f e r e n c e between cognate numbers employed. The c e n t r a l tendency of peakedness probably would become more pronounced i f the sample s i z e were enlarged, as the number of probable cognates, as w e l l as probable non-cognates, would also increase. I t f o l l o w s that an increase i n sample s i z e could probably el i m i n a t e skewing. About c o r r e c t i o n s i n skewing of r e s u l t s obtained i n a g l o t t o - c h r o n o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s of Amerindian d i a l e c t s i n Mexico, Miss S. Gudschinsky has the f o l l o w i n g to suggest: This skewing, however, can be p a r t l y corrected i n terms of the phonological data, which gives the tr u e r p i c t u r e of the h i s t o r i c a l sequence i n which the d i a l e c t s of the area were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . 1 We have already u t i l i z e d phonological data quite e x t e n s i v e l y Sarah C. Gudschinsky, L e x i c o - s t a t i s t i c a l Skewing from  D i a l e c t Borrowing, I . J , of A.L., v o l . 21, 1955, p. 149. 149 while considering the cognate count, and, as our skewing appears to be based on the cognate number considered i n each case, the increase i n sample s i z e seems to be the only s o l u t i o n to c o r r e c t the skewing. Perhaps the skewing of the time depth, as caused by the most conservative case, depicts e x a c t l y the opposite of what i s assumed, e.g., as the conservative estimate i s based on true cognation only, then the 'border-line' items, which form the other two t e s t cases, might r e f l e c t some other phenomenon, such as reborrowing. Unfortunately, there i s no measurement a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s phenomenon, as i t would seem that, i n order to consider reborrowing of l e x i c a l items, e.g., to c a l c u l a t e a c o e f f i c i e n t r e f l e c t i n g both the l o s s and the reborrowing rate of the same l e x i c a l items, a d e t a i l e d study of the contact areas between both languages would have to be undertaken. This type of study could reveal a sub-system or sub-systems of forms which would not f i t the general phonemic pattern of e i t h e r language and, theref o r e , could i n d i c a t e a c e r t a i n propensity to borrow and, consequently, to reborrow some of the l o s t forms. P a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n would have to be devoted to the tendency i n d i a l e c t s of the contact area to absorb outside forms, as i t were. I t i s obvious that our c a l c u l a t i o n s involve a c e r t a i n 'bias of time', f o r the usage of time i n approximations tends to b l u r the concept of time as a dimension. Generally, time i s viewed not only as a dimension coordinated with space 150 but a l s o as a measurement of d u r a t i o n , i . e . , i t i s measurable and dimensional. Therefore, the u t i l i z a t i o n of time i n our a n a l y s i s , i n my o p i n i o n , seems to be quite appropriate. To substantiate t h i s view, l e t us consider another s i t u a t i o n , about 1 which we know that q u a n t i t a t i v e changes give r i s e to q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s . I t i s i n d u b i t a b l y accepted that the d i f f e r e n c e between wood a l c o h o l and grain a l c o h o l i s a q u a l i t a  t i v e expression of a q u a n t i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e i n the proportions of carbon and hydrogen. Conversely, the q u a n t i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e , as expressed by a c e r t a i n period of time, w i l l give r i s e to a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n those speech communities which do not share the same geographical coordinates, although they may have been i n close contact or even members of the same l i n g u i s t i c u n i t some time ago. Our attempts i n t h i s a n a l y s i s centre around the p o s s i b l e estimate of the time depth involved i n the separation of the two languages i n question. I t i s pos s i b l e to measure the q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e , as i t were, of both languages, as any randomly selected 'native-informant 1 of e i t h e r language w i l l supply the necessary data to e s t a b l i s h the d i f f e r e n c e between the two languages. I t f o l l o w s then that only 'time' remains as the unknown f a c t o r i n our a n a l y s i s , and •time' can be measured, and, consequently, approximated, f o r even the most precise measurement represents, i n f a c t , an approximation only of an i d e a l or a proto-type. However, to avoid any possible bias of time, i t has 151 been suggested to estimate the time depth i n d i p s . 1 These dips are measurements which express "degrees of l e x i c a l r e l a - 2 t i o n s h i p " between languages. The dip i s c a l c u l a t e d according to the f o l l o w i n g formula: log c f o r time i n m i l l e n n i a d = 14 ; (4) 2 log r or log c f o r time i n years d = .014 2 log r This formula i s i d e n t i c a l to formula ( 1 ) , except f o r the coef f i c i e n t designating the d i p , e.g., 14 or .014. To convert our previous r e s u l t s of time depth e s t i  mates to d i p s , we proceed as follows:; to consider the f i r s t case of sample I , as l i s t e d on page 145, we m u l t i p l y the computed time depth with the c o e f f i c i e n t of the dip and obtain d = 2,700 (.014) = 37.8 d i p s . we also proceed to estimate the l i m i t of e r r o r i n dips at 7/10 confidence l e v e l : Id » 320 (.014) = 4.5 dips Gudschinsky, i b i d , (meaning p. 141): "The term dip i s derived from 'degree of r e l a t i o n s h i p ' as ' b i t ' i s derived from 'binary d i g i t ' . " 2 L o c . c i t . 1 5 2 Thus, ue can express the l e x i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of these languages i n d i p s , and st a t e that the time depth of 2 , 7 0 0 + 3 2 0 years may be expressed as 3 7 . 8 + 4 . 5 dips r e f l e c t i n g the l e x i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of the two languages. The f o l l o w i n g summary depicts both samples, each di v i d e d i n t o three cases, as on page 1 4 5 . The notation 'Id' designates the l i m i t s of e r r o r at 7 0 % confidence l e v e l , and *dd' - the d i f f e r e n c e between consecutive d i p s : Sample I : Sample I I : cases dips dd Id i ) d = 3 7 . 8 + 4 . 5 7 . 4 i i ) d s 3 0 . 4 + 3 . 8 . 9 i i i ) d = 2 9 . 5 + 3 . 6 i ) d 3 6 . 3 3 . 1 6 . 3 i i ) d = 3 0 . 0 + 2 . 8 2 . 4 i i i ) d = 2 7 . 6 + 2 . 5 The l e x i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p depicted by the dips i s s i m i l a r to that r e f l e c t e d by time depths i n years. Perhaps the evaluation i n dips i s more obvious at a glance, as i t deals with simpler numerical n o t a t i o n s . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of dips could be expressed i n the f a l l o w i n g way, e.g., i n the optimum case of sample I I : 153 the l e x i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p cf Latvian and Russian i s 27.6 + 2.5 dips at 70% c o n f i  dence l e v e l . I t mould seem, i n my view, that the evaluation processes ex pressed i n dips contribute very l i t t l e to the glottochronolog- i c a l a n a l y s i s , i f anything, save f o r the l e s s complicated numerical expressions of the dips which may f a c i l i t a t e the manipulation and presentation of the data gathered i n the cog nate count. A c e r t a i n type of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n has been suggested by M. Swadesh, which i s based on the divergence i n centuries of l i n g u i s t i c u n i t s , c a l c u l a t e d according to the corresponding percentages i n cognation between these u n i t s ( i n c l u d i n g d i a l e c t s ) . 1 Thus, according to t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , two cases of each sample i n our a n a l y s i s would correspond to the category of f a m i l y , to w i t , the median and optimum cases, as t h e i r estimated divergences i n these cases are between 5 - 25 cen t u r i e s . The estimate of divergence of the most conservative case i n both samples would correspond to the category of stock, 2 as i t depicts divergence of more than 25 c e n t u r i e s . This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n represents a general r e l a t i o n s h i p of the two languages and could be considered as a reasonable estimate of t h e i r probable connections. ^Morris Swadesh, Perspectives and Problems of Amerindian  Comparative L i n g u i s t i c s , Word, v o l . 10, 1954, p. 325ff. 2 Cf. p. 145 f o r time depths of a l l cases i n both samples. 15k Conclusions: The r e s u l t s of our c a l c u l a t i o n s have r e f l e c t e d the p o s s i b i l i t y of divergence of both languages as having begun about 1,050 B.C. i n the most conservative estimate of sample I , and BkO B.C. i n the same case of sample I I . This depicts a d i f f e r e n c e of 2 c e n t u r i e s . I t mould appear to be d e s i r a b l e to increase the sample s i z e to a l a r g e r amount, e.g., 1,000 items. This might re v e a l a f u r t h e r d i f f e r e n c e between the 'extreme' case i n sample I and the most conservative case of the enlarged sample. I f the d i f f e r e n c e between these p o i n t s , as i t were, were to increase s u b s t a n t i a l l y , i . e . , k to 5 times, then the above c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of both languages as members of the same fami l y would hold t r u e . The extensive background information given i n the cognate count i n d i c a t e s that many forms i n the two languages possess numerous secondary connections. There f o r e , i t could be concluded that they have experienced quite a close l i n g u i s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p . The problem confronting an i n v e s t i g a t o r , regarding the r e l a t i o n s h i p of these two languages, i s connected with the general acceptance that both languages belong to the same f a m i l y , as i t were. In my op i n i o n , i t i s the d i f f e r e n c e that i s s i g n i f i c a n t and not the s i m i l a r i t y . 1 Therefore, a d e c i s i o n A. L. Kroeber and C. D. Chretien, Q u a n t i t a t i v e C l a s s i f i   c a t i o n of Indo-European Languages, Language, v o l . 13, 1937, pp. 155 has to be reached as to whether t h i s d i f f e r e n c e between Latvian and Russian i s one of kind or of degree. Our i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n d i c a t e s that the d i f f e r e n c e between the two languages i s one of k i n d , not of degree. This postulate would have to be accepted as c o r r e c t , f o r our a n a l y s i s i s based on the assump t i o n that both languages h i s t o r i c a l l y represented a s i n g l e l i n g u i s t i c u n i t , and any l i n g u i s t i c d i f f e r e n c e represented by them i s s a i d to be due to t h e i r separation, e.g., d i f f e r e n t geographical l o c a t i o n , f a r a c e r t a i n period of time. I f the opposite were tr u e , i . e . , the d i f f e r e n c e between them were one of degree and not of k i n d , then we would have to accept a c e r t a i n convergence of these languages a f t e r a period of separa t i o n ; f o r the h i s t o r i c a l records would i n d i c a t e not only an adjacent geographical l o c a t i o n of the two languages, during the past 1,000 years, but also quite a c t i v e s o c i a l i n tercourse between them. This convergence then might lead us to suspect r e c i p r o c a l borrowing, consequently reborrowing, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the case of the L a t v i a n ; f o r i t i s accepted a x i o m a t i c a l l y that the B a i t s , v i z . , L a t v i a n s , preceded any S l a v i c group, i n migration, to t h e i r present geographical l o c a t i o n s . 83-103. This extensive work i s based an Ik s e l e c t e d I-E e l e  ments, which, of course, excludes any p o s s i b i l i t y of randomness. The high c o e f f i c i e n t of .92 f o r the B a l t i c - S l a v o n i c group (p. 95) would have to be explained as being due to the lack of randomness i n the s e l e c t i o n of elements, and a l s o due to several i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n scoring p o s i t i v e l y when the negative i s t r u e , e.g., element 70; also element kS, the l a t t e r r e f l e c t i n g a 'bor d e r - l i n e * element. The high c o e f f i c i e n t of B a l t i c - S l a v i c r e f l e c t s comparisons based on s i m i l a r i t i e s or rather expected, v i z . , h y p o t h e t i c a l , common features ascribed to the I-E stock. 156 Therefore, t h i s s eparation, from a f a m i l y , as i t mere, might have influenced Latvian tD reborrow l o s t forms from the f o l l o w i n g S l a v i c speech groups, i . e . , l a t e r a r r i v a l s . Unfortunately, there i s no measurement f o r reborrowing. The propensity of the Latvian to borrow does not appear to be very high, p a r t i c u l a r l y from other language stocks. Considering that i t has been i n contact with the F i n n i c speech community f o r no l e s s than 2,000 years, t h i s low propensity appears to,' be confirmed by the f a c t that only 400 F i n n i c loanwords can be found i n L a t v i a n , i n c l u d i n g d i a l e c t s i n contact a r e a s . 1 Of these, only some 80 forms are employed i n the prescribed Latvian d i a l e c t (or standard speech). I t should be noted that a F i n n i c speech community, to w i t , L i v o n i a n , was completely absorbed by the L a t v i a n s , and, therefor e , the above-mentioned loanwords might have been absorbed i n c i d e n t a l l y rather than appropriated d i r e c t l y . From the above, i t i s a l s o evident that F i n n i c l i n g u i s t i c u n i t s have e x i s t e d as adstratum speech groups i n r e l a t i o n to the B a l t i c group, yet any r e c i p r o c a l borrowing appears to be on a r e l a t i v e l y low s c a l e . Insofar as r e c i p r o c a l V a l d i s 0. Zeps, T e r r i t o r i a l Patterns of F i n n i c Loanwords i n L a t v i a n , U r a l - A l t a i s c h e Jahrbucher, Otto Harrassowitz, Wies baden, v o l . 34: 1-2, ( J u l y ) 1962, pp. 20-25. I t should also be noted that some of the F i n n i c loanwords, as l i s t e d by the author, cannot be. accepted even as probable loan-forms, e.g., avuots " s p r i n g " . 157 borrowing of the L a t v i a n and the Russian can be determined, i t does not appear to have occurred on any s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l , though there i s a f a i r l y s i g n i f i c a n t number of suspect loan- forms i n both languages, as described i n the cognate count, whenever a p p l i c a b l e . Thus, i t could be stated that reborrowing might have occurred i n the Latvian case, because there i s no d e f i n i t e measurement f o r i t and reborrowed forms would be obscured by the f a c t that both languages belong to the I-E stock and any c o r r e l a t i o n between borrowed and reborrowed forms i s beyond the present state of knowledge. According to t h i s a n a l y s i s , i t f o l l o w s that the d i f f e r e n c e between the two l a n  guages tends to be one of kind rather than one of degree. Even i f the L a t v i a n were as 'starved' f o r 'parent' forms as might be imagined, a f t e r at l e a s t 2,ODD years of separation from a proto B a l t o - S l a v o n i c language, i t would depict a c l o s e r l e x i c a l r e l a  t i o n s h i p than 4 2 . 5 % + 5% cognation,"1" e s p e c i a l l y when considering the geographical proximity of the two languages f o r the past 1 ,000 years, and the substratum status of the Latvian during the l a s t 300 years. Thus, i t could be concluded that the degree of This percentage represents the optimum case of sample I I , i . e . , i t includes probable cognates and non-cognates; thus the t o t a l of '+' items considered was 85 and of these 20 were 'borde r - l i n e ' items. The very high percentage of these items, i n r e l a t i o n to the t o t a l of 8 5 , e.g., 2 3 . 5 % , might i n d i c a t e e i t h e r an extensive semantic s h i f t , perhaps caused by a l i n g u i s t i c d r i f t or c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y l a t e borrowing. 158 genetic r e l a t i o n s h i p between these languages, obtained v i a the g l o t t o c h r o n o l o g i c a l method, i s rather obscure, because the u t i l i z a t i o n of a sample s i z e of up to 200 l e x i c a l items appears to be inadequate to e s t a b l i s h t h e i r respective descents. Accordingly, ue u i l l have to dismiss the p r o b a b i l i t y of the existence of a proto B a l t o - S l a v o n i c language and state that ue reserve our d e c i s i o n u i t h regard to t h e i r genetic r e l a t i o n s h i p , u i t h a given sample s i z e of only 200 i t e m s . 1 H i s t o r i c a l l y , the appearance of the B a l t i c speech groups, i n the B a l t i c l i t t o r a l , could be estimated at around 2,000 B.C. or s l i g h t l y e a r l i e r , as M. Gimbutas estimates the 2 beginning of extensive amber trade around 1,600 B.C. These estimates, based on a r c h a e o l o g i c a l f i n d s seem to d i f f e r from those obtained i n our a n a l y s i s , the d i f f e r e n c e being about a millennium betueen the most conservative case of sample I and Miss Gimbutas 1 estimate. This d i f f e r e n c e i s r a t h e r d i s t u r b i n g , even though migration i s depicted as a continuous process uhich may l a s t f o r a considerable period of time. This d i s  crepancy of 1,000 years may point to some f a c t o r uhich has not Tentative t e s t s u i t h l a r g e r sample s i z e s revealed c e r t a i n i n c o n g r u i t i e s , e.g., a f t e r the f i r s t 600 forms uere compared, the percentage of cognation seemed to decline at an accelerated r a t e , and a sample s i z e of 1,000 items revealed only 14% of true cognation. 2 M a r i j a Gimbutas, The B a i t s , Thames and Hudson, London, 1963, p. 56. 159 been taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n the cognate count. Perhaps the cognate count represents some weighted average, about the weight of which we are not aware. I t should also be noted that the present l o c a t i o n of the western part of the Russian speech community coincides with the former eastern extent of the B a l t i c speech areas; thus a considerable amount of morpho l o g i c a l absorption could have occurred. This appears to be a s i m i l a r phenomenon to that of the appearance of the Livonian forms i n L a t v i a n , as discussed p r e v i o u s l y . Recent studies of toponymic forms af the western part of Russia i n d i c a t e a s u b s t a n t i a l number of forms of d e f i n i t e B a l t i c origin,''" which would substantiate the above contention regarding the eastern extent of the former B a l t i c speech area. However, topanymic evidence i s not yet univer s a l l y accepted as a d e f i n i t e i n d i c a t i o n f o r a geographical \J. IM. Toporov, L i n q v i s t i c e s k i . i A n a l i z Gidronimov Uerxneqq:  Podnepravi.ia, IMauka, Moscow, 1962. In t h i s work, ToparDV can- tends that even same small r i v e r names could be traced to B a l t i c o r i g i n and that some r e l a t i v e l y independent d i a l e c t u n i t s of B a l t i c speech s t i l l e x i s t e d as l a t e as the beginning of the second millennium B.C. (e.g., p. 173); c f . also V. IM. Toporov IMeskol 1 ko I l l i r i . i s k o - B a l t i . j s k i x p a r a l l e l e d i z o b l a s t i toponom- a s t i k i . Problemy indoevrope.iskoqo .jazykoznani.ia, Mauka, Moscow, 1964, pp. 52-58. This a r t i c l e depicts s e v e r a l informative p a r a l l e l s between B a l t i c and I l l y r i a n toponyms, thus i n d i c a t i n g a d e f i n i t e connection between these two areas, although t h e i r geographical distance i s considerable by European standards, e.g., over 9DC miles. 160 l o c a t i o n of a l i n g u i s t i c u n i t . Consequently, ue have to r e l y on g l o t t o c h r o n o l o g i c a l estimates and c o r r e l a t e our r e s u l t s to those of other s o c i a l s ciences, e.g., archaeology and anthro pology. G l o t t o c h r o n o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s ( i f implemented u i t h rigorous care and i t s r e s u l t s evaluated u i t h caution) can be of value as a method of estimating p r e h i s t o r i c l i n g u i s t i c r e l a  t i o n s h i p s f o r those languages uhose u r i t t e n records are of r e l a t i v e l y l a t e date. lil. J . E n t u i s t l e and Id. A. Morison, Russian and the  Slavonic Languages, Faber & Faber, London, 1964, p. 181: " I f the evidence of river-names uere pressed too hard i t uould leave the Slavs no o r i g i n a l f o o t h o l d i n the u o r l d ! " . . LEXICON SUMMARY OF THE COGNATE COUNT A /+/ 1 :1 a l l - v i s s - ves' 0 /-/ 2 :101 and - un - i N /-/ 3 :102 animal - kustuonis - zivotnqe N ( + ) k :2 ashes - p e l n i - p e p e l 1 0 /"/ 5 :103 at - pie - u N /-/ 6 :104 back - mugura - spina A /-/ 7 :105 bad - s l i k t s - p l o x b j N /-/ S :3 bark - miza - kora 0 /-/ 9 :106 because - juo - i b o N /-/ 10 :k b e l l y - veders - brjuxo A /-/ 11 :5 b i g - l i e l s - b o l ' s b j N ( + ) 12 :6 b i r d - putns - pt'ica M /+/ 13 :7 b i t e - kuost - kusat' A /-/ Ik :8 black - melns - c j b r n y j N /-/ 15 :9 blood - a s i n s - krov' V /-/ 16 :107 blow - pust - dut' N / - / 17 :10 bone - kauls - kost' N (+) - :11 bre a s t - k r u t i s - grud' \l /-/ 18 :108 breathe - e l p u o t - dysat' \J /-/ 19 :12 burn - degt - go r e t ' N /-/ 20 :109 c h i l d - berns - rebjbnok N /-/ - :13 c l a u - l^etna - kbgot' N /-/ 21 :1k c l o u d - makuonis - oblako 162 A / - / 22 :15 c o l d -- auksts - x a l o d n y j M / - / 23 :16 carne -- nakt - p r i x o d i t 1 V ( + ) 24 :11D count - s k a i t i t - s c i t a t ' V- (-) 25 :111 cut - g r i e z t - r e z a t ' IM /+/ 26 :112 day - diena - den' V /+/ 27 :17 d i e - m i r t - u m i r a t 1 M (-) 28 :113 d i g - r a k t - r y t ' A / - / 29 :114 d i r t y - n e t i r s - g r j a z n y j IM / - / 3D :18 dog - suns - sobaka \J / - / 31 :19 d r i n k - d z e r t - p i t ' A /+/ 32 :20 dry - sauss - suxbj A / - / 33 :115 d u l l • - t r u l s - tupbj IM ( + ) 3k :116 dust • - p u t e k l i s - p y l 1 IM /+/ 35 :21 ear - auss - uxo IM /+/ 36 :22 e a r t h - zeme - zemlja V /+/ 37 :23 eat - e s t - ( j ) e s t ' IM / - / 38 :24 egg - uola - j a j c o IM / - / 39 :25 eye - acs - g l a z V / - / 40 :117 f a l l • - k r i s t - padat' A ( + ) 41 :118 f a r - t a l s - d'al'nyj A / - / 42 :26 f a t - t a u k i - z i r (M 43 :119 f a t h e r - tevs - otec V /+/ 44 :120 f e a r - b a i d i t i e s - b a j a t ' s j a IM / - / 45 :27 f e a t h e r - s p a l v a - perb A / - / 46 :121 f e u - dazs - i n b j 163 V / - / 47 :122 f i g h t - c i n i t i e s - bor o t ' IM /+/ 48 :28 f i r e - uguns - agon 1 IM / - / 49 :29 f i s h - z i v s - ryba 0 /+/ 50 :123 f i v e - p i e c i - p j a t ' W /+/ 51 :124 f l o a t - pluduot - p l a v a t ' 1/ / - / 52 :125 flow - p l u s t - t e c ' IM / - / 53 :126 fl o w e r - z i e d s - cvetbk V ( + ) 54 ;30 f l y - l i d u o t - l e t a t 1 IM / - / 55 :127 f o g - migla - tuman N / - / 56 :31 f o o t - peda - noga Q /+/ 57 :128 f o u r - c e t r i - c e t y r e \J / - / 58 :129 f r e e z e - s a l t - mjarznut' N / - / 59 :130 f r u i t - a u g l i s - p l a d A /+/ - :32 f u l l - p i l n s - p b l n y j V/ /+/ 60 :33 give - duat - davat 1 A / - / 61 :34 good - l a b s - x o r b s i j N / - / 62 :131 grass - z a l e - t r a v a A /+/ 63 :35 green - zaj^s - z e l j b n y j IM / - / 64 :132 guts - v t zarna - k i s k a IM / - / 65 :36 h a i r - mati - vblos IM /+/ 66 :37 hand - ruoka - ruka • / - / 67 :133 he - v i n s - on IM /+/ 68 :38 head - galva - golova vy / - / 69 :39 hear - d z i r d e t - s l y s a t ' IM /+/ 70 :40 heart - s i r d s - serdce A / - / 71 :134 heavy - smags - t j a z j b l y j 0 /-/ 72 :135 here - s e i t - t u t N /+/ - :41 horn - rags - rog V /-/ 73 :136 h i t - s i s t - b i t 1 \l /-/ 74 :137 hold - t u r e t - d e r z a t 1 0 .(-) 75 :138 how - ka - kak N /-/ 76 :42 human - c i l v e k s - celovek \J /-/ 77 :139 hunt - medit - o x o t i t ' s j a l\l /-/ 78 :140 husband - v i r s - muz 0 (+) 79 :43 I - es - j a l\l /+/ 80 :141 i c e - ledus - l j o d • /-/ 81 :142 i f - j a - ( j ) e s l i • ( + ) 82 :143 i n - i e k s - v(o) \J /-/ 83 :44 k i l l - kaut - u b i v a t 1 N ( + ) - :45 knee - c e l i s - koleno V /+/ 84 :46 know - z i n a t - znat' N /+/ 85 :144 lake - e z e r s - b z e r o u /+/ 86 :145 laugh - smiet - sme j a t ' s j a IM /-/ 87 :47 l e a f - l a p a - l i s t A /-/ 88 :146 l e f t - k r e i s s - l e v y j IM /-/ 89 :147 l e g - kaja - noga V /-/ 90 :48 l i e - g u l e t - l e z a t 1 V /+/ 91 :148 l i v e - d z i v u o t - z i t 1 IM /-/ 92 :49 l i v e r - akna - pecen 1 A /-/ 93 :50 lung - gars - d l i n n y j IM /-/ 94 :51 louse - uts - vas' 165 IM / - / 95 :52 man - v i r i e t i s - muzcina A / - / 96 :53 many - daudzi - mnbgie IM / - / 97 :54 meat - ga^a - mjaso IM / - / - :55 moon - meness - luna IM /+/ 98 :149 mother - mate - mat' IM / - / 99 :56 mountain - kalns - gora IM / - / 100 :57 mouth -mute - r o t IM / - / 101 :58 name - vards - lmja A /-/ 102 :150 narrow - saurs - u z k i j A / - / 103 :151 near - tuvs - b l i z k i j N / - / 104 :59 neck - k a k l s - s e j a A / - / 105 :60 new - jauns - nbvyj IM /+/ 106 :61 n i g h t - nakts - noc' N / - / 107 :62 nose - deguns - nos 0 /+/ 108 :63 not - ne - net A / - / 109 :152 o l d - vecs - s t a r y j 0 /-/ 110 :64 one - v i e n s - odin A / - / 111 :153 other - uotrs - drugbj V / - / 112 :154 plough - a r t - paxat' V /-/ 113 :155 p u l l - v i l k t - t j a n u t 1 \J / - / 114 :156 push - gr u s t - t o l k a t ' N / - / 115 :65 r a i n -• l i e t u s - dozd' A / - / 116 :66 red - sarkans - k r a s n y j A / - / 117 :157 r i g h t - p a r e i z s - p r a v i l A /-/ 118 :158 r i g h t - l a b a i s - p r a v y j IM /-/ 119: 159 r i v e r - upe - reka IM /-/ 120: 67 road -• ce^s - darbga IM /-/ 121: 68 r o o t -• sakne - kbren 1 IM /+/ 122: 160 rope -• v i r v e - v e r j b v k a \J /-/ 123: 161 r o t - put - g n i t 1 A /-/ : 69 round - apa^s - k r u g l y j /-/ 124: 162 rub - be r z e t - t e r e t ' N /+/ 125: 163 s a l t -• s a l s - s o l ' IM /-/ 126: 70 sand -• s m i l t s - pisbk V /-/ 127: 71 say - s a c i t - skazat' V /-/ 128: 164 s c r a t c h - k a s i t - carapat* IM /-/ 129: 165 sea - j u r a - mbre V /-/ 130: 72 see - r e d z e t - v i d i t ' IM /+/ 131: 73 seed -• s e k l a - semja /+/ 132: 166 sew - sut - s i t ' A ( + ) 133: 167 sharp - ass - o s t r y j A /-/ 134: 16B s h o r t - i s s - k o r b t k i j \J /-/ 135: 169 s i n g -• d z i e d a t - p e t 1 \J /+/ 136: 74 s i t - sedet - s i d e t 1 IM /-/ 137: 75 s k i n -• ada - kbza IM /+/ 138: 170 sky - debess - nebo V /-/ 139: 76 sle e p - g u l e t - spat' A /-/ 140: 77 small- mazs - malyj \1 /-/ 141: 171 smell - uost - n j u x a t ' IM /+/ 142: 78 smoke - dumi - dym A /+/ 143: 172 smooth - gluds - g l a d k i j IM /_/ 144:173 N /+/ 145:174 0 /-/ 146:175 V /+/ 147:176 V (-) 148:177 V /-/ 149:178 \J /-/ 150:179 V (+) 151:79 N /+/ 152:80 N /-/ 153:180 IM (-) 154:81 A /-/ 155:181 V (+) 156:182 (M /+/ 157:82 \J /-/ 158:183 V (+) 159:83 IM /-/ 160:84 0 /+/ 161:85 0 /-/ 162:184 0 /-/ 163:185 A /-/ 164:186 A /+/ 165:187 \l /-/ 166:188 0 /-/ 167:86 0 /+/ 168:87 0 /+/ 169:189 snake - cuska - zmeja snow - sniegs - sneg some - drusku - neskol'ko s p i t - sp^aut - p l i v a t ' s p l i t - s l j e l t - k o l b t 1 squeeze - s p i e s t - d a v i t ' stab - durt - vonzat' stand - s t a v e t - s t o j a t ' s t a r - zvaigzne - zvezda s t i c k - kuja - pa l k a stone - akmens - kamen' s t r a i g h t - t a i s n s - prjambj suck - sukt - s o s a t ' sun - saule - solnce s w e l l - pampt - puxnut' swim - p e l d e t - p l a v a t ' t a i l - aste - xvost th a t - tas - t o t there - t u r - tarn they - v i n i - on! t h i c k - resns - t b l s t y j t h i n - t i e v s - t b n k i j think - duomat - dumat' t h i s - s i s - t^tot thou - tu - ty three - t r i s - t r i \J /-/ 170:190 \1 /-/ 171:191 IM /-/ 172:88 IM /+/ 173:89 IM /-/ 174:90 M /-/ 175:192 0 /+/ 176:91 1/ /-/ 177:193 V /-/ 178:92 A /-/ 179:93 \J /-/ 180:194 IM /+/ 181:94 0 /-/ 182:95 A /-/ 183:195 0 /-/ 184:96 0 (+) 185:196 0 (+) 186:197 A /+/ 187:97 0 /+/ 188:98 A /-/ 189:198 N /-/ 190:199 IM /+/ 191:200 !M /-/ 192:201 V7 /-/ 193:202 0 /-/ 194:203 N /-/ 195:99 throw - mest - b r o s a t ' t i e - s i e t - v j a z a t ' tongue - mele - jazyk tooth - zuobs - zub tree - kuoks - dbrevo turn - g r i e z t - v e r t e t 1 two - d i v i - dv/a vomit - vemt - r v a t ' walk - i e t - x o d i t ' warm - s i l t s - t j b p l y j wash - mazgat - myt' water - udens - voda we - mes - my wet - s l a p j s - mbkryj what - kas - sto when - kad - kogda where - kur - gde white - b a i t s - b e l y j who - kas - kto wide - p l a t s - s i r b k i j v r wife - s i e v a - zena wind - v e j s - v e t e r wing - spams - k r y l b wipe - s l a u c i t - u t i r a t ' with - ar - s(o) woman - s i e v i e t e - ze n s c i n a I\l /-/ 196:204 woods - mezs - l e s N /-/ 197:205 worm - tarpa - c e r v 1 • (-) 198:206 IM /-/ 199:207 A /+/ 200:100 ye - j u s - vy year - gads - god yellow - d z e l t e n s - z j b l t y j LATVIAN-ENGLISH VOCABULARY acs - eye ada - s k i n akmens - stone b e r z e t - rub c e l i s - knee ce^s - road c i l v e k s - human c i n i t i e s - f i g h t c e t r i • - f o u r akna - l i v e r cuska • - snake apa^s - round ar - with daudzi - many a r t - plough dazs - few a s i n s - blood debess - sky ass - sharp degt - burn aste - t a i l deguns - nose a u g l i s - f r u i t diena • - day auksts - c o l d d i v i - two auss - ear drusku - some dumi - smoke b a i t s - white duomat - think b a i d i t i e s - f e a r berns - c h i l d duot - give d u r t - stab d z e l t e n s - yellow d z e r t - drink d z i e d a t - s i n g d z i r d e t - hear d z i v u o t - l i v e e l p u e t - breathe es - I e s t - eat e z e r s - l a k e gads - year ga^a - meat galva - head gars - long gluds - smooth g r i e z t - cut g r i e z t - turn g r u s t - push g u l e t - l i e g u l e t - s l e e p ka - hou kad - when kaja - l e g k a k l s - neck kalns - mountain kas - what kas - who k a s i t - s c r a t c h k a u l s - bone kaut - k i l l k r e i s s - l e f t k r i s t - f a l l k r u t i s - b r e a s t kuja - s t i c k kuoks - t r e e kuost - b i t e kur - where kustuonis - animal i e k s - i n i e t - walk i s s - s h o r t j a - i f S jauna - new jua - because j u r a - sea j u s - ye ijetna - claw l a b a i s - r i g h t l a b s - good la p a - l e a f ledus - i c e l i d u o t - f l y l i e l s - b i g l i e t u s - r a i n makuonis - cloud mate - mother mati - h a i r mazgat - mash mazs - sm a l l medit - hunt mele - tongue melns - black meness - moon mes - ue mest - throw mezs - woods migla - fog m i r t - d i e miza - bark mugura - back mute - mouth nakt - come nakts - n i g h t ne - not n e t i r s - d i r t y pampt - s w e l l p a r e i z s - r i g h t peda - f o o t p e l d e t - swim p e l n i - ashes p i e - at p i e c i - f i v e p i l n s - f u l l p l a t s - wide pluduot - f l o a t p l u s t - flow pust - blow put - r o t p u t e k l i s - dust putns - b i r d rags - horn r a k t - d i g r e d z e t - see resns - t h i c k ruoka - hand s a c i t - say sakne - r o o t s a l s - s a l t s a l t - f r e e z e sarkans - red saule - sun sauss - dry sedet - s i t s e k l a - seed s i e t - t i e s i e v a - wife s i e v i e t e - woman s i l t s - warm s i r d s - hea r t s i s t - h i t s k a i t i t - count s l a p j s - wet s l a u c i t - wipe s l i k t s - bad smags - heavy smiet - laugh s m i l t s - sand sniegs - snow s p a l v a - f e a t h e r s p a m s - wing s p i e s t - squeeze sp^aut - s p i t s t a v e t - stand sukt - suck suns - dog saurs - narrow s e i t - here s i s - t h i s sl$elt - s p l i t sut - sew t a i s n s - s t r a i g h t t a l s - f a r t a r p s - worm tas - t h a t t a u k i - f a t tevs - f a t h e r t i e v s - t h i n t r i s - three t r u l s - d u l l tu - thou tur - there t u r e t - hold tuvs - near udens - water uguns - f i r e un - and uola - egg uost - sm e l l uotrs - other upe - r i v e r uts - louse vards - name vecs - o l d veders - b e l l y v e j s - wind vemt - vomit v i e n s - one v i l k t - p u l l v i n i - they v i n s - he v i r i e t i s - man v i r s - husband v i r v e - rape v i s s - a l l z a l e - grass zaj^s - green zarna - guts zeme - e a r t h z i e d s - f l o w e r z i n a t - know z i v s - f i s h zuobs - tooth zvaigzne - s t a r RUSSIAN-ENGLISH VOCABULARY b e l y j - white b l i z k i j - near b i t ' - h i t b D J a t ' s j a - f e a r b o l ' s b j - b i g b a r b t ' s j a - f i g h t brjuxo - b e l l y b r o s a t ' - throw cara p a t ' - s c r a t c h cvetbk - f l o w e r celovek - human cer v ' - worm c e t y r e - f o u r c j b r n y j - black cto - what d a l ' n y j - f a r davat' - gi v e d a v i t ' - squeeze den' - day derevo - t r e e d e r z a t ' - hold d l i n n y j - long dorbga - road dozd' - r a i n drugbj - other dumat' - think d u t 1 - blow dva - two dym - smoke dysat' - breathe ( j ) e s l i - i f ( j ) e s t ' - eat 'etat - t h i s gde - where g l a d k i j - smooth g l a z - eye g n i t ' - r o t god - year golova - head gara - mountain g o r e t ' - burn g r j a z n y j - d i r t y grud' - b r e a s t i - and ib o - because imja - name i n o j - f e u j a - I j a j c b - egg jazyk - tongue kak - hou kamen' - stone k i s k a - guts kogda - uhen kbgot 1 - c l a u koleno - knee k o l b t ' - s p l i t kora - bark kbren 1 - r o o t k o r b t k i j - s h o r t k o s t ' - bone kbza - s k i n k r a s n y j - red krov' - blood k r u g l y j - round k r y l o - uing kto - uho kusat' - b i t e l e s - uoods l e t a t ' - f l y l e v y j - l e f t l e z a t 1 - l i e l i s t - l e a f l j o d - i c e luna - moon rnalyj - s m a l l mat' - mother mjaso - meat mjbrznut' - f r e e z e mnbgie - many rnbkryj - uet more - sea muz - husband muzcina - man my - ue myt' - uash nebo - sky neskol'ko - some net - nat n j u x a t ' - s m e l l noc 1 - n i g h t noga - l e g noga - f a c t nos - nase nbvy j - new oblako - c l a u d • di n - one • gan 1 - f i r e an - he ani - they b s t r y j - sharp • tec - f a t h e r o x b t i t ' s j a - hut bzera - l a k e padat 1 - f a l l p a l k a - s t i c k p a x a t 1 - plough pecen * - l i v e r p e p e l 1 - ashes pero - f e a t h e r pet' - s i n g p i s o k - sand p i t ' - drink p j a t ' - f i v e 175 p l a v a t 1 - f l o a t p l a v a t ' - swim p l i v a t ' - s p i t p l o d - f r u i t p l o x b j - bad p b l n y j - f u l l p r a v i l ' n y j - r i g h t p r a v y j - r i g h t p r i x o d i t ' - come prjambj - s t r a i g h t p t i c a - b i r d puxnut' - s w e l l p y l ' - dust rebjbnok - c h i l d reka - r i v e r r e z a t ' - cut rag - horn r o t - mouth ruka - hand r v a t ' - vomit ryba - f i s h r y t ' - d i g s c i t a t ' - count semja - seed serdce - heart s i d e t ' - s i t skazat' - say s l y s a t 1 - hear smejat'sja - laugh sneg - snoiu s(a) - u i t h sobaka - dog s o l ' - s a l t sblnce - sun so s a t 1 - suek spat' - sleep spina - back s t a r y j - o l d s t o j a t 1 - stand suxbj - dry seja - neck s i r b k i j - uide s i t 1 - seu tam - there tec ' - f l o u t e r e t ' - rub t j a n t i t ' - p u l l t j a z j o l y j - heavy t j b p l y j - uarm t o l k a t ' - push t b l s t y j - t h i c k t b n k i j - t h i n t o t - that trava - grass t r i - three tuman - fog tupbj - d u l l t u t - here ty - thou u - at ubivat' - k i l l umirat 1 - die u t i r a t ' - uipe uxo - ear U z k i j - narrou verjbvka - rope v e r t e t ' - turn ves' - a l l veter - uind v i d i t ' - see v j a z a t ' - t i e v(o) - i n vada - uater volos - h a i r vonzat' - stab vos' - louse vy - ye xod'it' - ualk xolbdnyj - cold x o r b s i j - good xvost - t a i l z e l j b n y j - green zemlja - e a r t h zmeja - snake z n a t 1 - know zub - tooth zvezda - s t a r zena - wife z e n s c i n a - woman z i r - f a t z i t ' - l i v e z i vbtnoe - animal z j b l t y j - yellow 178 BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS: 1. A l e k s e C j ) e v , M. P., ed. and o t h e r s , Problemy S r a v n i t e l ' n o j F i l o l o q i i , Moscow/Leningrad, 1964. 2. Andrups, J . and Halve, V., L a t v i a n L i t e r a t u r e . Stockholm, M. Goppers, 1954. 3. Bergmane, A., G r a b i s , R., L e p i k a , M., ed. and o t h e r s , Musdienu L a t v i e s u L i t e r a r a s Valodas Gramatika, 2 v o l s . , Riga, 1959; V o l . I (meaning 'Phonetics and Morphology'). 4. B l o o m f i e l d , L., Language, New York, H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1964 ( c o p y r i g h t 1933). 5. Brandenstein, W. , Fr u h q e s c h i c h t e und Sprachujissenschaf t , Vienna, Gerold & Co., 1948. 6. C a r r o l l , J . B., The Study of Language, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1963. 7. Coon, C. S., The Races of Europe, New York, The Macmillan Co., 1939. 8. De Bray, R. G. A., Guide to the S l a v o n i c Languages, London, J . M. Dent & Sans, 1963. 9 De Saussure, F., Course i n General L i n g u i s t i c s , New York, P h i l o s o p h i c a l L i b r a r y , 1959. 179 10. Dinneen, F. P., An Introduction to General L i n g u i s t i c s , New York, H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, 1967. 11. Drexel, A,, Die Sprachen der Erde, Z u r i c h , Akademie Verlag, 1954; V o l . I (meaning 'I-E and Semito-Hamitic Languages 1). 12. Elcock, W. D., The Romance Languages, London, Faber and Faber, 1964. 13. Endz e l i n s , J . , Al t p r e u s s i s c h e Grammatik, Riga, L a t v j u Gramata, 1944. 14. , La t v i e s u Ualodas Gramatika, Riga, 1951. 15. E n t w i s t l e , W. 3. and Morison, W. A., Russian and the Slavonic Languages. London, Faber and Faber, 1964. 16. F r i e s , C. G., L i n g u i s t i c s (The Study of Language), New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. 17. Freund, J . E. and Wi l l i a m s , F. J . , Modern Business S t a t i s t i c s , Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . , P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1959. IB. G i l e s , P., A Short Manual of Comparative P h i l o l o g y , London, Macmillan & Co., 2nd ed., 1901. 19, Gimbutas, M., The B a i t s . London, Thames and Hudson, 1963. 20. Gleason, H. A., d r . , An Intro d u c t i o n to D e s c r i p t i v e L i n g u i s t i c s . New York, H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, 1966. 180 21. Greenberg, 3. i \ i . f ed., Universals of Language, Cambridge, Mass., The M.I.T. Press, 1966. 22. Guiraud, P., Problemes et Methodes de l a S t a t i s t i q u e Linquistique,'Dordrecht, Holland, D. Reidel Co., 1959. 23. H a l l , R. A., Or., Introductory L i n g u i s t i c s , P h i l a d e l p h i a / New York, C h i l t o n Books, 1964. 24. Herdan, G., Language as Choice and Chance, Groningen, Holland, P. Noordhoff IM. VV., 1956. 25. H i r t , H., Die Indoqermanen, Strassburg, K a r l J . Trubner, 1905, V o l . I . 26. Hockett, C. F., A Course i n Modern L i n g u i s t i c s , (View York, The Macmillan Co., 1963. 27. J a i n , R i Ch., The Most Ancient Aryan S o c i e t y , S r i Ganganagar, Rajasthan, I n d i a , I n s t i t u t e of B h a r a t a l o g i c a l Research, 1964. 28. Jespersen, 0., Language, London, George A l l e n & Unwin, 1964 (copyright 1922). 29. Lehmann, W. P., H i s t o r i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s : An I n t r o d u c t i o n , New York, H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, 1964. 30. Martinet, A., Elements of General L i n g u i s t i c s , t r a n s . E l i s a b e t h Palmer, London, Faber and Faber, 1966. 31. Matthews, W. H., The Structure and Development of Russian, Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1953. 181 32. Meehl, P. E., C l i n i c a l v s . S t a t i s t i c a l P r e d i c t i o n , M i n n e a p o l i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota P r e s s , 1963. 33. Palmer, L. R., An I n t r o d u c t i o n to Modern L i n g u i s t i c s , London, Macmillan & Co., 1936. 34. , The L a t i n Language, London, Faber and Faber, 1966. 35. Papp, F., Mathematical L i n g u i s t i c s i n the S o v i e t Union, The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1966. 36. P o r z i g , I d . , Die Gliederunq des Indoqermanischen Sprach- q e b i e t s , H e i d e l b e r g , C a r l Winter, 1954. 37. P r i e b s c h , R. and C o l l i n s o n , Ul. E., The German Language, London, Faber and Faber, 1962. 38. Robins, R. H., General L i n g u i s t i c s , London, Longmans, 1965. 39. Ross, A. S. C , Etymology, London, Andre Deutsch, 1962. 40. Shevelov, G. Y., A P r e h i s t o r y of S l a v i c , New York, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1965. 41. Sommerfelt, A., D i a c h r o n i c and Synchronic Aspects of Language, 'S-Gravenhage, H o l l a n d , Mouton & Co., 1962. 42. Spekke, A., H i s t o r y of L a t v i a , Stockholm, M. Goppers, 1957. 43. Stang, C. S., Das S l a v i s c h e und B a l t i s c h e Verbum, Oslo, 1942. 182 44. S t u r t e v a n t , E. H.f An I n t r o d u c t i o n to L i n g u i s t i c S c i e n c e , New Haven, Conn., Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1966 (copy r i g h t 1933). k5. , L i n g u i s t i c Change, Chicago, The Unive r  s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , Phoenix Books, 1965 ( c o p y r i g h t 1917). k6. Trautmann, R., Die S l a v i s c h e n Volker und Sprachen, L e i p z i g , Dtto Harrassowitz, 1948. 47. Toporov, V. L i n q v i s t i c e s k i . j A n a l i z Gidronimov V/erxneqo Podneprovi.ja, Moscow, 1962. 48. Van Ulijk, IM., Die B a l t i s c h e n und S l a v i s c h e n Akzent- und Intonationssysteme, 'S-Gravenhage, H o l l a n d , Mouton & Co., 1958. 49. Vildomec, V., M u l t i l i n q u a l i s m , Leyden, H o l l a n d , A. Ui. S y t h o f f , 1963. 50. Vinogradov, V. V., ed. and o t h e r s , Oazyki IMarodov SSSR, 5 v o l s . , Moscow, 1966; V o l . I (meaning I-E languages). 51. w e i n r e i c h , U., Languages i n Contact, IMew York, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1953. DICTIONARIES 52. A i t z e t m u l l e r , R. and Sadnik, L., Handworterbuch zu den A l t k i r c h e n s l a v i s c h e n Texten, The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1955. 183 53. A v i s , W. S., Drysdale, P. D., Gregg, R. J . and others, The Senior D i c t i o n a r y , Toronto, W. J . Gage, 1967. 54. Baravykas, V., Anqlu(n) - L i e t u v i u ( n ) Kalbu(n) fodynas (English - Lithuanian D i c t i o n a r y ) , V i l n i u s , L i t h u a n i a , 1961. 55. Berneker, E., Slavisches Etymoloqisches Worterbuch, 2 v o l s . , Heidelberg, C a r l Winter, 1924; V o l . I (mean ing 'A - L' o n l y ) . 56. B e t t e r i d g e , H. T., ed., C a s s e l l ' s Meu German D i c t i o n a r y , London, C a s s e l l & Co., 3rd ed., I960. 57. B i e l f e l d t , H. H., Rucklaufiqes Worterbuch der Russischen Sprache der Geqentuart, B e r l i n , Akademie - Verlag, 2nd ed., 1965. 58. Buck, C. D., A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms i n the P r i n c i p a l Indo-European Languages, Chicago, U n i v e r s i t y Df Chicago Press, 2nd ed., 1965. 59. Daum, E. and Schenk, W., Die Russischen Verben, Munchen, Max Hueber, 1965. 60. Dravnieks, 0., A n q l i s k i - L a t v i s k a Vardnica ( E n g l i s h - Latvian D i c t i o n a r y ) , Stockholm, 3rd ed., 1966. 61. Eaton, H. S., An Eng l i s h - French - German - Spanish Word Frequency D i c t i o n a r y , New York, Dover P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1961 (copyright 1940). 62. Fraenkel, E., L i t a u i s c h e s Etymoloqisches Worterbuck, 2 v o l s . , Heidelberg, C a r l Winter; V o l . I , 1962, V o l . I I , 1965. 184 63. Gutmanis, A.f ed. and others, Latviesu - Hrievu Uardnica Skolam (Latvian - Russian Dictionary f o r Schools), Riga, 1956. 64. L o j a , J . V., Russko - Latysski.j S l o v a r 1 . Moscow, 1951. 65. L y a l l , A., A Guide to 25 Languages of Europe, London, Sidgwick and Jackson, 3rd ed., 1966. 66. M u l l e r , \J. E n g l i s h - Russian D i c t i o n a r y , New York, Dutton & Co., 6th ed., 1959. 67. Ouseg, H. L., I n t e r n a t i o n a l Dictionary i n 21 Languages, New York, P h i l o s o p h i c a l L i b r a r y , 1962. 68. D z o l i n s , E., Svesvardu Uardnica ( D i c t i o n a r y uf f o r e i g n terms), E u t i n , H o l s t e i n , Germany, A. D z o l i n s , 1958. 69. — , U a c i s k i - L a t v i s k a l/ardnica (German - Latvian D i c t i o n a r y ) , E u t i n , H o l s t e i n , Germany, A. D z o l i n s , 1964. 70. Ozegov, S. I . , Slovar' Russkogo Jazyka, Moscow, 1963. 71. Preobrazhensky, A. G., E t i m o l o q i c e s k i j Slovar' Russkogo Jazyka, 2 v o l s , and Appendix, New York, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 2nd ed., 1964 (copyright 1910- 1914). 72. Raxmanova, I . V., Nemecko - Russki.j S l o v a r 1 , Moscow, 1956. 73. S e r e i s k i s , B., L i e t u v i s k a i - Rusiskas Zodynas (Lithuanian - Russian D i c t i o n a r y ) , Kaunas, L i t h u a n i a , A. Lapinas and G. V o l f a s , 1933. 185 74. Simpson, D. P., C a s s e l l ' s New L a t i n D i c t i o n a r y , London, C a s s e l l & Co., 2nd ed., 1962. 75. S m i r n i t s k y , A. I . , Russian - E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y , New York, E. P. Dutton & Co., 6th ed., 1959. 76. S t a n i s l a i u s k i , J . , E n g l i s h - P o l i s h and P o l i s h - E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y , New York, Ray P u b l i s h e r s , 1964. 77. T u r k i n a , E., A n g l i s k i - L a t v i s k a V a r d n i c a , Copenhagen, Imanta, 1956. 78. , L a t v i a n - E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y , New York, Saphrograph Co., 1964. 79. Vasmer, M., Russisches Etymoloqisches LUorterbuch, 3 v o l s . , H e i d e l b e r g , C a r l Winter; V o l . I, 1953; V o l . I I , 1955; V o l . I l l , 1958. BD. Webster, IM., Twentieth Century D i c t i o n a r y (Unabridged), New York, P u b l i s h e r s G u i l d , 1939. 81. Wolkonsky, C. A. and P o l t o r a t z k y , M. A., Handbook of Russian Roots, IMew York, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2nd ed., 1964. MONOGRAPHS 82. A l l u n a n s , H., Kurzer L e i t f a d e n zum E r l e r n e n der L e t t i s c h e n Sprache, J e l g a v a ( M i t a u ) , L a t v i a , H. A l l u n a n , 1888. 83. A r k i n , H. and C o l t o n , R. R., Tables f o r S t a t i s t i c i a n s , New York, Barnes & Noble, 1963. 186 84. B i d w e l l , C. E., S l a v i c H i s t o r i c a l Phonology i n Tabular Form, The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1963. 85. D i e t h , E. and Orton, H., A Q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r a L i n g u i s t i c A t l a s of England, Leeds P h i l o s o p h i c a l and L i t e r a r y S o c i e t y , 1952. B6. F r a e n k e l , E . f Die B a l t i s c h e n Sprachen, H e i d e l b e r g , C a r l Winter, 1950. 87. Sandbach, E., Die Indogermanischen Z u j e i s i l b i q e n Schweren Basen und das B a l t i s c h e ( L i t a u i s c h e ) P r a t e r i t u m , H e i d e l b e r g , C a r l Winter, 1930. 88. Trubetzkoy, IM., The Common S l a v i c Element i n Russian C u l t u r e , New York, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2nd ed., 1950. ARTICLES 89. A l t s h u l e r , N., L i n g u i s t i c Forms as Symbols of People. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of American L i n g u i s t i c s , v o l , 22 (1956), pp. 106-112. 90. Bergsland, H. and Vogt, H., On the V a l i d i t y of G l o t t o - chronoloqy. Current Anthropology, v o l . 3, No. 2 ( A p r i l , 1962), pp. 115-153. 91. B l o o m f i e l d , L., A Set of P o s t u l a t e s f o r the Science of Language. Language, v o l . 2 (1926), pp. 153-164. 92. C h r e t i e n , C. D., The Mathematical Models of G i o t t o - chronology. Language, v o l . 38, No. 1 (January - March, 1962), pp. 11-37. 187 93. de Groat, A. Ul., G l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Word-Groups. Lingua, Amsterdam, IMorth-Holland Co., v o l . 6, No. 2 (January, 1957), pp. 113-157. 94. F a i r b a n k s , G. H., A Note on G l o t t o c h r o n o l o g y , I. J . of A.L., v o l . 21 (1955), pp. 116-120. 95. F r i e s , C. C., Meaning and L i n g u i s t i c A n a l y s i s . Language, v o l . 30, No. 1 - P a r t 1 (January - March, 1954), pp. 57-68. 96. F r i e s , C. C. and P i k e , H. L., C o e x i s t e n t Phonemic Systems. Language, v o l . 25 (1949), pp. 29-50. 97. Greenberg, J . H., Language and E v o l u t i o n . E v o l u t i o n and Anthropology: A C e n t e n n i a l A p p r a i s a l , Meggers, B. J . , ed., The A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y of Washington, 1959, pp. 61-75. 98. G r i n a v e c k i s , V., Dve Zametki po L i t o v s k o j D i a l e k t o l o q i i . Problemy Indoevrope.iskoqo J a z y k o z n a n i j a . Toporov, V.N., ed., Moscow, 1964, pp. 70-78. 99. Gudschinsky, S. C , L e x i c o - S t a t i s t i c a l Skewing from D i a l e c t Borrowing. I . J , of A.L.. v o l . 21 (1955), pp. 138-149. 100. , The ABC's of L e x i c o s t a t i s t i c s ( G l o t t o   chronoloqy) , Word, v o l . 12 (August, 1956), pp. 175-210. 101. , Three D i s t u r b i n g Questions Concerning L e x i c o s t a t i s t i c s . I . J , of A.L., v o l . 22 (1956), pp. 212-213. 102. Gumperz, J . J . , On the Ethnology of L i n g u i s t i c Change. S o c i o l i n q u i s t i c s . B r i g h t , Wm., ed., The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1966, pp. 27-48. 188 103. Hockett, C. F., L i n g u i s t i c Time-Perspective and i t s A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l Uses. 1.3. of A.L., v o l . 19 (1953), pp. 146-152. 104. Hoenigsuiald, H. M., Sound Change and L i n g u i s t i c S t r u c t u r e . Language, v o l . 22, i\lo. 2 ( A p r i l - June, 1946), pp. 138-143. 105. H o i j e r , H., A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s . Trends i n European and American L i n g u i s t i c s 1930 - 1960, Mohrmann, C., ed. and o t h e r s , U t r e c h t , H o l l a n d , Spectrum P u b l i s h e r s , 1963, pp. 110-125. 106. , L e x i c o s t a t i s t i e s : A C r i t i q u e . Language, v o l . 32, No. 1 (January - March, 1956), pp. 49-60. 1D7. Hymes, D. H., F u n c t i o n s of Speech: An E v o l u t i o n a r y Approach. Anthropology and E d u c a t i o n , Gruber, F. C , ed., U n i v e r s i t y of Pennsylvania P r e s s , 1961, pp. 55-83, 108. , Genetic C l a s s i f i c a t i o n : R e t r o s p e c t and P r o s p e c t . A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s , v o l . 1 (February, 1959), pp. 50-66. 109. , L e x i c o s t a t i s t i c s So F a r . Current Anthro  pology, v o l . 1 (January, 1960), pp. 3-44. 110. Joos, M., Semolaqy: A L i n g u i s t i c Theory of Meaning. Stud i e s i n L i n g u i s t i c s , v o l . 13, N D S . 3-4 (1958), pp. 53-70. 111. K e l l e y , G., The Status of H i n d i as a Lingua Franca . S o c i o l i n q u i s t i e s . B r i g h t , Ulm., ed., The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1966, pp. 299-308. 189 112. Kroeber, A. L., Romance H i s t o r y and G l o t t o c h r o n o l o q y . Language, v o l . 34, No. 4 (1958), pp. 454-457. 113. Kroeber, A. L. and C h r e t i e n , C. 0., Q u a n t i t a t i v e C l a s s i f i  c a t i o n of Indo-European Languages. Language, v o l . 13 (1937), pp. 83-103. 114. Lees, R. B., The B a s i s of G l o t t o c h r o n o l o g y . Language. v o l . 29, No. 2 (1953), pp. 113-127. 115. McDavid, R. I . , J r . , D i a l e c t D i f f e r e n c e s and S o c i a l D i f f e r  ences i n an Urban S o c i e t y . S o c i o l i n q u i s t i e s . B r i g h t , Ulm., ed., The Hague, Mouton & Co., 1966, pp. 72-83. 116. M a l k i e l , Y., Etymology and General L i n g u i s t i c s . Ulord, v o l . 18, Nos. 1-2 ( A p r i l - August, 1962), pp. 198-219. 117. M a z j u l i s , V., Zametki po Prusskoj ^ t i m o l o g i i . Problemy Indoevrope.iskogo J a z y k o z n a n i j a , Toporov, \J. N., ed., Moscow, 1964, pp. 66-69. 118. M i l l s , C. Id., S i t u a t e d A c t i o n s and V o c a b u l a r i e s of Motive. American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, v o l . 5 (December, 1940), pp. 904-913. 119. Nida, E. A., The I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Morphemes. Language, v o l . 24 (1948), pp. 414-441. 120. Oswalt, R. L., Russian Loanwords i n Southwestern Porno. I . J , of A.L., v o l . 24 (1958), pp. 245-247. 121. P l a t h , Ul., Mathematical L i n g u i s t i c s . Trends i n European and American L i n g u i s t i c s 1930 - 1960, Mohrmann, C., ed, and o t h e r s , U t r e c h t , Holland, Spectrum P u b l i s h e r s , 1963, pp. 21-58. 190 122. Raun, A., Uber d i e Soqennante L e x i k o s t a t i s t i s c h e Methode Oder G l o t t a c h r o n o l o q i e und I h r e Anwendunq auf das  F i n n i s c h - U q r i s c h e und T u r k i s c h e . U r a l - A l t a i s c h e  J a h r b u c h e r , Wiesbaden, O t t a H a r r a s s o w i t z , v o l . 28 (1956), pp. 151-154. 123. Rea, J . A., C o n c e r n i n g the V a l i d i t y of L e x i c o s t a t i s t i c s . I . J . o f - A.L.. v o l . 24 (1 9 5 8 ) , pp. 145-150. 124. S a b a l j a u s k a s , A., I z i s t o r i i T e r m i n o l o g i i Z i v o t n o v o d s t v a v B a l t i . j s k i x J a z y k a x . Problemy Indoevrope.iskoqo  J a z y k o z n a n i . j a . Toporov, V. ed., Moscow, 1964, pp. 59-65. 125. Salzmann, Z., The Problem of L e x i c a l A c c u l t u r a t i o n , I . J , of A.L., v o l . 20 ( 1 9 5 4 ) , pp. 137-139. 126. S a p i r , E., Language and Environment. The American A n t h r o  p o l o g i s t , v o l . 14 ( 1 9 1 2 ) , pp. 226-242. 127. S c h e r e r , A. f Per Stand der Indoqermanischen S p r a c h w i s s e n - s c h a f t . Trends i n European and American L i n g u i s t i c s  1930 - I960. Mohrmann, C , ed. and o t h e r s , U t r e c h t , H o l l a n d , Spectrum P u b l i s h e r s , 1963, pp. 225-239. 128. S c h o f i e l d , A., J r . and Uhatmough, J . , Comparative and H i s t o r i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s i n America. Trends i n  European and American L i n g u i s t i c s 1930 - 1960, Mohrmann, C., ed. and o t h e r s , U t r e c h t , H o l l a n d , Spectrum P u b l i s h e r s , 1963, pp. 58-81. 129. Senn, A., On the Degree of K i n s h i p between S l a v i c and B a l t i c . The S l a v o n i c and E a s t European Review, Menasha, w i s e . , v o l . 20 (1 9 4 1 ) , pp. 251-265. 191 130. Serin, A., The H i s t o r i c a l Dev/elopment of the L i t h u a n i a n Vocabulary. R e p r i n t e d from the Q u a r t e r l y B u l l e t i n of  the P o l i s h I n s t i t u t e of A r t s and Sciences i n America, J u l y , 1943. 131. Sudnik, J . M., Zametki. o L i t o v s k o - Belorusskom Dvu.jazycil (na M a t e r i a l e Govora Gerv j a t ) . Problemy Indoevrope/js- koqo Jazykoznani.ia, Toporov, V. N., ed., Moscow, 1964, pp. 79-87. 132. Swadesh, M., Comment on H o c k e t t 1 s C r i t i q u e . I . J , of A.L., v o l . 19 (1953), pp. 152-153. 133. , O i f f u s i o n a l Cumulation and A r c h a i c Residue as H i s t o r i c a l E x p l a n a t i o n s . Southwestern J o u r n a l of  Anthropology, v o l . 7 ( S p r i n g , 1951), pp. 1-21. 134. , L i n g u i s t i c s as an Instrument of P r e h i s t o r y . Southwestern J o u r n a l of Anthropology, v o l . 15 (1959), pp. 20-35. 135. , Mosan I_: A Problem of Remote Common O r i g i n . I . J , of A.L., v o l . 19 (1953), pp. 26-44. 136. , P e r s p e c t i v e s and Problems of Amerindian Comparative L i n g u i s t i c s . Word, v o l , 10 (1954), pp. 306-332. 137. , Towards Greater Accuracy i n L e x i c o s t a t i s t i c D a t i n g . I . J , of A.L., v o l . 21 (1955), pp. 121-137. 138. Szemerenyi, 0., The Problem of B a l t o - S l a v U n i t y . (A C r i t i c a l S urvey). K r a t y l o s , Wiesbaden, Otto H a r r a s s o w i t z , v o l . 1 (1957), pp. 97-123. 192 139. Toporov, \l. N., I s s l e d o v a n i j a po B a l t i j s k o j t ^ t i m o l o g i i (1957 - 1961). I^timoloqija , Trubacev, •. ed. and o t h e r s , Moscow, 1963, pp. 250-261. 140. , Neskol 'ko I l l i r i j s k o - B a l t i . j s k i x P a r a l l e l e j i z D b l a s t i Toponomastiki. Problemy Indo- evropejskoqo J a z y k o z n a n i j a . Toporov, V. N., ed., Moscow, 1964, pp. 52-58. 141. , Zametki po Indoevropejskaj ^ t i m o l o g i i . I j t i m o l o g i j a , Trubacev, 0. IM., ed. and o t h e r s , Moscow, 1963, pp. 187-190. 142. Trubetzkoy, IM. S., Grundzuge der Phonoloqie. Travaux du C e r c l e L i n q u i s t i q u e de Prague, Prague, 1939, No. 7. 143. Uarbot, Z. Z., 0 Slovoobrazovatel'nom A n a l i z e v ^timo- l o g i c e s k i x I s s l e d o v a n i j a x . ^ t i m o l o g i j a , Trubacev, 0. N., ed. and o t h e r s , Moscow, 1963, pp. 194-212. 144. V o e g e l i n , C. F. and H a r r i s , Z. S., The Scope of L i n g u i s t i c s . The American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t , v o l . 49 (1947), pp. 588- 600. 145. Zeps, \J. J . , T e r r i t o r i a l P a t t e r n s of F i n n i c Loanwords i n L a t v i a n . U r a l - A l t a i s c h e Jahrbucher, Wiesbaden, Otto H a r r a s s o w i t z , v o l . 34, Nos. 1-2 ( J u l y , 1962), pp. 20-25. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0105419/manifest

Comment

Related Items