UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A glottochronological analysis of Latvian and Russian Staume, Guido 1967

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

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  B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y  STRAUME  of B r i t i s h  C o l u m b i a , 1965  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in  the Department of  Slavonic Division  We a c c e p t required  THE  this  Studies  of L i n g u i s t i c s  thesis  as c o n f o r m i n g  to the  standard  UNIVERSITY DF BRITISH A u g u s t , 1967  COLUMBIA  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s for  in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the  requirements  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ,  I agree  t h a t 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 r e f e r e n c e and study thesis  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n  f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of  this  f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my  Department o r by h i s  representatives.  It  i s understood t h a t  copying  o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .  Department o f  Slavonics/Linguistics  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  A u g u s t 3D,  1967.  i  ABSTRACT  Glattochronology attempts  to p r o v i d e  languages, ship. for  utilized  The has  existed  test  hypothesis  validity  of l e x i c a l  relation-  analysis  isa  times  B a l t o - S l a v o n i c language  i s tested i n this  count,  which r e f l e c t s  lexical  obtained  paper.  only  an e x t r e m e l y  forms i n both  i n the cognate  corresponding a reasonably  f a r m s i n L a t v i a n and R u s s i a n , valid  The items free  i n either  nation  found  method o f d e t e r m i n i n g  corpus  o f the cognate  language.  morphemes i n b o t h  as e i t h e r  r i g o r o u s approach,  languages.  count i s  a positive,or  Each i t e m  a negative  of the c o r r e s p o n d i n g  forms.  c a n be a c c e p t e d  item,  as  cognation.  consists  i s f o r m e d by  L a t v i a n and R u s s i a n ,  There-  i n the comparison of  true  count  This  the c o g n a t i o n ,  d e p e n d e n t on t h e method o f d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f c o g n a t i o n . fore,  dates  linguistic prehistory.  of corresponding  of the r e s u l t s  between  1^ d a t i n g p r o v i d e s  that a proto  on t h e c o g n a t e  percentages,  The  to estimate  which  relationship  glottochronological  i n prehistoric  i s based  degrees  t h e same way as c a r b o n  archaeological finds,  of l i n g u i s t i c s  for a historical  as w e l l as t o e s t a b l i s h  I n much  technique  in  dates  i s a branch  o f 207  corresponding  and i s d e s i g n a t e d  d e p e n d i n g on t h e c o g -  The r e s u l t s  A l l acknowledgements of i n d e b t e d n e s s i n the t e x t .  o f the  to sources  cognate  a r e t o be  ii  count  are then  •lagical  processed  had  the h y p o t h e s i s ,  language.  that a substantial  this  type  The c o n c l u s i o n s r e a c h e d  I t appears  a v a l u a b l e method relationship  indicate  disciplines dates  mare  t h a t the  between l a n g u a g e s , tends  with  t a be  that g l a t t o c h r a n o l a g i c a l analysis i s o f degrees, o f  obtained  from  in correlation  this  type  ta results  of a n a l y s i s  obtained  by  i n an e n d e a v o u r t o r e c o n s t r u c t p r e h i s t o r y , as  obtained  absolute  with  languages.  The r e s u l t s be u t i l i z e d  a  increase i n  f o r use i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n  between  concluded  f a r such  of i n v e s t i g a t i o n  a i d of the g l a t t o c h r a n o l a g i c a l t e c h n i q u e ,  inconclusive.  i t was  evidence  D f a genetic relationship  determination  should  glottachron-  B a l t o - S l a v a n i c language,  ta i n s u f f i c i e n t  could furnish  results.  obtained,  claiming a prate  I t a l s o appeared  size  reliable  the  to the r e s u l t s  t o be r e j e c t e d due  sample  to the a c c e p t e d  methods.  According that  according  via this  technique  b u t r a t h e r as r e l a t i v e  should  be v i e w e d  measurements.  as n o t  other  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, A b b r e v i a t i o n s 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 I I considered  139  C. E v a l u a t i o n  144  0. Conclusions  154  Lexicon: Summary of the Cognate Count  161  L a t v i a n - E n g l i s h Vocabulary  169  R u s s i a n - E n g l i s h Vocabulary  173  Bibliography  178  In acknowledgment guidance and i n s p i r a t i o n Dr. 3.  of the a t t e n t i o n , a f f o r d e d me by  0. S t . C l a i r - S o b e l l , of the Department  •f Slavonic Studies.  I a l s o wish to thank Dr. R. J . Gregg, of the Department of C l a s s i c s , D i v i s i o n 1  L i n g u i s t i c s , f o r h i s cooperation  of  and encourage-  ment, and P r o f . U. Revutsky, of the Department of S l a v o n i c S t u d i e s , f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e i n my research work.  To  t h e memory o f  MORRIS  SWADESH.  1  GLOTTOCHRONOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES  The to endeavour language this  to c l a r i f y  or language  paper,  lacking,  main p u r p o s e  "that  in contrast,  history".''"  forms  treated  as h i s t o r i c a l  utilized  reflect  upon which  time.^ cultural  less  'prehistory'  a r e two  not represent  records  basic are  i s t a k e n t o be  a certain  borrowed  based.  the b a s i c  could  be  artifacts  o f any  given  2  t h e framework f o r a  quite  the e x c l u s i o n  forms.  number o f  concepts i n glottochro-  u n i f o r m , and  t o change o v e r a r e l a t i v e l y  items from  are  c a l l e d recorded  o l d morphemes, w h i c h  concept e s t a b l i s h e s  This concept implies lexical  written  the p r o b a b l e p r e h i s t o r y  given  designates, i n  e v i d e n c e , much as i n a r c h a e o l o g y  a l l calculations  subject  techniques i s  o f any  w i t h what i s b e s t  historically  v o c a b u l a r y , which  quently,  may  therefore,  There  The f i r s t basic  word  of t h e p a s t f o r w h i c h  to determine  people or s o c i e t y . nology  The  prehistory  I t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t  lexical  are  the l i n g u i s t i c  group.  part  of g l o t t o c h r a n o l o g i c a l  long  conse-  period  of a l l p o s s i b l e  sacio-  v o c a b u l a r y , as t h e y may  Therefore,  basic  of  or  vocabulary i s  C h a r l e s F. H o c k e t t , A C o u r s e i n Modern L i n g u i s t i c s , M a c m i l l a n Co., Mew Y o r k , I 9 6 0 , p. hSl.  The  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 p a p e r , a r e b a s e d , t o a c o n s i d e r a b l e d e g r e e , on M i s s Gudschinsky•s a r t i c l e : S a r a h C. G u d s c h i n s k y , The ABC's o f 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 ( A u g u s t , 1 9 5 6 ) , pp. 175-210. "^Morris Swadesh, D i f f u s i o n a l C u m u l a t i o n and A r c h a i c R e s i d u e as H i s t o r i c a l E x p l a n a t i o n s , S o u t h w e s t e r n J o u r n a l o f A n t h r o p o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y o f New M e x i c o P r e s s , A l b u q u e r q u e , N.M., v o l . 7, p. 13.  2  assumed t o i n c l u d e o n l y h i s t o r i c a l l y viz.,  non-borrowed o r ' n a t i v e '  The certain  vocabulary  a reasonably  loss  and,  items  of vocabulary  The  items  less  uniform,  t o be q u i t e c o n s t a n t .  approximately  two c o n c e p t s  concept),  that  constant  Furthermore,  rate,  i n a l l languages.  as t h e y  both  basic vocabulary  general vocabulary  e.g., the g e n e r a l v o c a b u l a r y  consequently  The r a t e  of the r e t e n t i o n  are inter-dependent  with  over  T h i s phenomenon i s d e s i g n a t e d  i s a corollary  to b a s i c vocabulary.  the f i r s t  an t h e a s s u m p t i o n  a r e r e t a i n e d i n any g i v e n l a n g u a g e  sumed t o be i n j u x t a p o s i t i o n of  i s based  r a t e and i t i s s a i d  therefore, also  refer  concept  forms,  farms.  long p e r i o d of time.  as a r e t e n t i o n of  second  o l d and a u t o c h t h o n o u s  i s as-  (on the b a s i s i s said  t o be  i t i s more s u b j e c t t o b o r r o w i n g 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 d e a l w i t h a  specific  part of vocabulary The  the c o m p a r i s o n This  only  furnish  i s dependent.  o f g l o t t o c h r o n o l a g y i s b a s e d an  o f t h e b a s i c v o c a b u l a r i e s o f two o r mare  a certain  obvious and  main p r o c e d u r e  comparison  yields  upon w h i c h o u r a n a l y s i s  i s usually  designated  number o f c o g n a t e s  as the cognate  count,  and n o n - c o g n a t e s .  t h a t c a u t i o n h a s t a be e x e r c i s e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g a r i g o r o u s approach an i n v e s t i g a t o r  with  languages.  i n comparing  corresponding  a reasonably  accurate  for i t  It is cognation forms  cognate  will  count.''"  M o r r i s Swadesh, Mosan I : A P r o b l e m o f Remote Common O r i g i n , I . J , o f A . L . , v o l . 19, p . kO: "For the purposes o f a study . . . aimed a t e s t a b l i s h i n g remote common o r i g i n , g r e a t c a u t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y t o a v o i d b e i n g m i s l e d by l o a n s i m i l a r i t i e s . "  3  It  also  sible  follows  bias  that  an a t t e m p t  i n selecting  forms,  s h o u l d be made t o a v o i d as w e l l  as i n c o m p a r i n g  any p o s them, e . g .  I f , f o r example, i n a l i s t o f 200 c o m p a r i s o n s t h e r e i s o n l y one c o g n a t e (.5%) t h e e s t i m a t e d t i m e d e p t h i s 12.2 m i l l e n i a /sic/, b u t i f t h e r e a r e two c o g n a t e s ( 1 % ) t h e t i m e d e p t h i s 10.6 millenia. This i s a difference of s i x t e e n c e n t u r i e s d e p e n d e n t on t h e r e c o g n i t i o n of a s i n g l e cognate. 1  Of  c o u r s e , t h e above example  it  does  every  emphasize  decision,  time d e p t h s . in  r e p r e s e n t s an extreme  the n e c e s s i t y  to a v o i d  skewing  I t should also  a glottochronological  of avoiding  any p o s s i b l e  that  the r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d  do n o t r e p r e s e n t a b s o l u t e c o n -  c e p t s i n time b u t only  a p p r o x i m a t i o n s i n time which  to  origin  t h e p r o b a b l e common  bias i n  of the e s t i m a t e s of probable  be n o t e d  analysis  c a s e ; however,  of both  languages  are r e l a t i v e  i n question,f o r :  Language i n v o l v e s p h y s i c a l , p s y c h o l o g i c a l , h i s t o r i c a l factors, i n short, n a t u r a l and human f a c t o r s i n a v e r y complex i n t e r r e l a t i o n , we s u c c e e d 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 ) t o c o n s t a n t schemes, b u t t h e s e c o n d ( v i z . , human f a c t o r s ) a r e u n f o r s e e a b l e and u n s t e a d y and e l u d e any e x a c t , mathematical c a l c u l a t i o n . 2  As lary  already  of the r e t e n t i o n  noted,  the l o s s  of c e r t a i n  of v o c a b u l a r y i s a c o r o l -  lexical  i t e m s which, i s . d e s i g n a t e d  ^"Gudschinsky, A B C s , i b i d , (meaning p . 20k). 2 L a u i g i H e i l m a n n ' s Comments, c i t e d i n Hnut B e r g s l a n d and Hans V/ogt, On t h e V a l i d i t y o f G l o t t o c h r o n o l o q y . C u r r e n t A n t h r o p o l o g y , v o l . 3, Wo. 2 ( A p r i l , 1 9 6 2 ) , p. 135. 1  k  as  a retention  a g e s , and of  the  rate.  in this  original  The  paper  independent  this  rate implies also  that  items  i t will  vocabulary  wit,  lexical  retention  after  development  over  the  be  rate i s expressed viewed  a millennium  of b o t h  a vocabulary same time  a considerable controversy  as 80.5%  of  period. exists  of  percent-  retainment  of s e p a r a t i o n , t o  languages."'" loss  in  Conversely,  19.5%  of  I t should  original be  r e g a r d i n g the  noted  concept  of  2 the r e t e n t i o n work, the  r a t e being  constant.  above r e t e n t i o n  reasonable,  and  i t was  r a t e appeared  thought  guages w h i c h a l s o  i n v o l v e d the  e.g.,  time  tion  calculating rates,  Suffice  w o u l d be  i t t o say  more d i f f i c u l t  t h a t any  the  the  the  t h a t a language and  and  of  i t s history  to e q u a t e w i t h  this  of b o t h  retention  with  scope  of  q u i t e adequate  comparison  c h a n g e s of  limited  purposes  t o be  depths i n accordance  beyond  to study  For  reten-  paper.  are  external  lan-  rate,  different this  and  eminently  elements,  R o b e r t B. L e e s , 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 A m e r i c a , 1953, v o l . 29, p. 117. 2 Hnut B e r g s l a n d and Hans V o g t , On the V a l i d i t y of G l o t t o chronoloqy. C u r r e n t A n t h r o p o l o g y , v o l . 3, .No. 2 ( A p r i l , 1 9 6 2 ) , pp. 115-129, and Comments, pp. 129-152. They c r i t i c i z e the c o n 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 c o n c l u d e t h a t t h i s c o n c e p t 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 l a n g u a g e s , even o f 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 w i t h a g i v e n sample s i z e of 200 i t e m s i s 67.8%, whereas t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g 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 s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e s e d i f f e r e n t r e t e n t i o n r a t e s were o b t a i n e d f o r l a n g u a g e s whose r e c o r d e d h i s t o r i e s p r e d a t e c o n s i d e r a b l y a n y t h i n g t h e S l a v i c s p e e c h community has and, of c o u r s e , the B a l t i c g r o u p has no r e c o r d e d h i s t o r y w h i c h c o u l d even compare w i t h t h e S l a v i c .  5  such  as o t h e r l a n g u a g e s ,  ematical any  problems.  than  fact two  A further  t h a t we  are  languages,  only  two  i n excess  recorded imately Church print  1,000  the  possibility Thus, any  groups,  i n the  years  300  case  Grunau,"*"  and  translated tenuating  of  by  the other  ago,  Baltic  Prayer  the  i n q u e s t i o n , and  Hymes' o b s e r v a t i o n , p e r t a i n i n g rate  i s c o n s t a n t , m i g h t be  application  M.  of  the  retention  depth  for this  the f i r s t  languages i n the  i n the  t o the  rate  C h r o n i c l e of  any-  i s that i s approx-  appeared  concept  nature,  in the  mostly the  ex-  of  the  L a t v i a n , perhaps  t h a t the guide  for  80.5%) i n t h i s  Latvian  the  Simon  histories  the  as a u s e f u l  J a n i s A n d r u p s and V i t a u t s K a l v e , G o p p e r s , S t o c k h o l m , 1954, p. 4 9 f f .  reflect  In v i e w o f  recorded  (viz.,  proto  L a t v i a n , with  a religious  the  the  writs in  first  the  between  involving  S l a v o n i c languages  particularly  viewed  to  e x i s t e n c e of a  German c l e r g y .  regarding  due  p r e h i s t o r y of  reason  with  t r a n s l a t i o n s of  members of  the  human  optimum c a s e , w i l l  The the  preferences,  diachronic connection  commencing,  Lord's  circumstances  languages  of  as  immeasurable  the  math-  as a x i o m a t i c , f o r  paper a r i s e s  f a r a time  o l d , beginning  years  of  e v e n i n the  S l a v o n i c , whereas the only  variables  to e s t a b l i s h  of a m i l l e n n i u m .  history  translation  two  attempting  a hypothetical situation,  thing  such  other b a s i c a l l y  language.  speech  o f most c o m p l i c a t e d  complication in this  e.g.,  Balto-Slavonic these  uith  p s y c h o l o g i c a l and  factors.  study  This i s g e n e r a l l y accepted  language i s connected  drifts,  the  retention the paper:  Literature,  6  In my o p i n i o n , u e r e 5,000 y e a r s o f Assyro-Babylonian to confirm the r e t e n t i o n r a t e , t h i s would be e v i d e n c e o f g r e a t i m p o r t a n c e ; i t would be i m p o r t a n t i f i t d i d not c o n f i r m the r a t e . M e a n w h i l e , use o f the method t o d e t e r m i n e t i m e d e p t h s o f g r e a t e r t h a n 2,000 y e a r s r e m a i n s an e x t r a p o l a t i o n f o r w h i c h no d i r e c t c o n f i r m a t i o n exists. 1  Thus, a c o n c l u s i o n c a n be r e a c h e d study  of t h e h i s t o r y  (more p r e c i s e l y  h i s t o r y ) of languages there  are c e r t a i n  vocabulary, rowing  such  of l o s t  The of  speech  well  which  well  based  other  vocabulary  o f the p r e -  of vocabulary.  lexical  with items  However, the l o s s i n and r e b o r -  items.  o f any l a n g u a g e  i s normally  that part  i s s u b j e c t t o most c h a n g e , f o r many i n t e r n a l as  of d i a l e c t s ,  might  i n f l u e n c e i t , such  certain  and c u l t u r a l  of adstratum  exceedingly  of  the above-mentioned then  of l o s t  autochthonous vocabulary  is  culty  on t h e l o s s  as r e p l a c e m e n t  as s o c i o l o g i c a l  influences  - an e s t i m a t e  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s connected  as e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s  interaction  that glottochronology i s a  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 changes,  and s u p e r s t r a t u m  difficult  predetermines  t e c h n o l o g i c a l advances,  speech  communities.  t o measure o r t o p r e d i c t  causes  f o r vocabulary  that the r e s u l t s  g l o t t o c h r o n p l o g i c a l method w i l l ,  as s l a n g ,  admittedly,  a c c u r a t e l y most  change.  obtained  It  This  diffi-  v i a the  contain a certain  D e l l H. Hymes, L e x i c o s t a t i s t i e s So F a r , C u r r e n t A n t h r o p o l ogy , v o l . 1 ( J a n u a r y , I 9 6 0 ) , 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 H j e l m s l e v ' s s u g g e s t i o n 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 c a s e would p r o v e l i t t l e i f a n y t h i n g .  7  degree  of e r r o r  results  i n t h e e s t i m a t e s o f 'true depths'.  obtained i n glottochronolagy  Therefore,  s h o u l d be v i e w e d  o n l y as  approximations i n time.  The existence  hypothesis tested  of a proto B a l t a - S l a v o n i c  guages r e p r e s e n t modern Indubitably, and  both languages  communities  Slavonic) after status of t h i s been s i m i l a r  will  reflexes  This linguistic  Meillet's  work  that  the B a l t i c  hitherto  but d e p i c t  to the L a t i n  i n this  ever since  "Dialectes  paper  language,  BaltoThe  i s assumed t a have language  i n relation  This hypothesis  and an a t t e m p t  the p u b l i c a t i o n  reflexes  as c o r r e c t ,  do n o t r e p r e s e n t modern independent  degree,  proto  will  a considerable controversy  indo-europeens"  t h e modern  t h e p r o t o I-E l a n g u a g e . lesser  stock  and t h e S l a v o n i c  (viz.,  p a r e n t language  h y p o t h e s i s has c a u s e d  had been h e l d  languages  language.  i t s validity.  circles  depict  lan-  t h e p r a t o I-E l a n g u a g e .  the a u t h o r c h a l l e n g e s t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t languages  e.g., bath  - t h e Romance l a n g u a g e s .  t a be c o r r e c t  f o r m u l a t e s the  t o t h e I-E l i n g u i s t i c  s e p a r a t e d from  Balto-Slavonic  be made t o p r o v e  language,  s h a r e d a common l a n g u a g e  they  be assumed  paper  o f a common p a r e n t  belong  t o t h e one a l l o t t e d  t o i t s modern  in  reflexes  the hypothesis p o s t u l a t e s  speech  i n this  i n 1908. Baltic  o f a common  reflexes  language,  T h u s , he d i s m i s s e s ,  work  which'  t h e s e two  of a parent  developments  existence  In t h i s  and S l a v o n i c  i . e . , i n h i s view  but p a r a l l e l  the p o s s i b l e  of Antoine  language  directly  from  to a greater or  of a Balto-Slavonic  a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y , any t y p e o f d i a c h r o n i c  parent  Balto-Slavanic  8 l i n g u i s t i c unity.  The modern approach to t h i s  hypothesis  g e n e r a l l y appears to be D P S based on c a u t i o n and i n c o n c l u s i v e ness, except f o r some l i n g u i s t s who validity  of t h i s hypothesis."'"  e i t h e r support or deny the  As already noted,  w i l l be t r e a t e d as true i n t h i s work.  this  hypothesis  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the scope  and framework of t h i s paper are too l i m i t e d f o r d i s c u s s i o n of  •swald Szemerenyi, The Problem of B a l t o - S l a v / s i c / U n i t y . A C r i t i c a l Survey. K r a t y l o s , Dtto Harrassawitz, Wiesbaden, 1957, v o l . 1, pp. 97-123. This a r t i c l e r e p r e s e n t s a strong support f o r a B a l t o - S l a v o n i c unity and f a v o u r s the acceptance of our hypothe s i s as t r u e . A. Senn holds the opposite view, i . e . , he r e j e c t s the h y p o t h e s i s , as d e p i c t e d i n s e v e r a l of h i s p u b l i c a t i o n s , notably A. Senn, 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 Eastern European Review, 1941, v o l . 20, pp. 251-264. However, i t should be noted t h a t e i t h e r p o i n t of view, i n my e s t i m a t i o n , i s based on c e r t a i n assumptions which could be used with r e l a t i v e f a c i l i t y to negate e i t h e r the acceptance or d i s m i s s a l of t h i s hypothesis, i . e . , the evidence presented by both proponents i s q u i t e i n c o n c l u s i v e , f o r , i n t h i s case, s t r u c t u r a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s alone w i l l not s u f f i c e . The more moderate view i s represented by Walter P o r z i g , Die Gliederunq des Indoqermanischen Sprachqebiets, C a r l Winter, H e i d e l b e r g , 1954, pp. 139-140: Im b a l t i s c h - s l a v i s c h e n Raum s t e l l t s i c h eine a h n l i c h e Frage wie im i t a l i s c h e n , namlich d i e nach dem A l t e r 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 b e t r e f f e n . Auf.a'em Gebiet der L a u t l e h r e und der F l e x i o n haben s i e uberhaupt kaum welche durchgefuhrt. Es f r a g t s i c h nun, ob auch schon die D i a l e k t g e b i e t e , aus denen i h r i d g . Erbe stammt, benachbart waren. Unmittelbare Anzeichen dafur s i n d wenig vorhanden. The very thorough study of Stang's about the S l a v i c and B a l t i c v e r b a l systems could be viewed as a moderate view regarding t h i s hypothesis, e.g., Chr. S. Stang, Das S l a v i s c h e und B a l t i s c h e Uerbum, Oslo, 1942, p. 274: "Die Zuzammenstellung / s i c der h i e r angefuhrten Tatsachen z e i g t , dass i n f r u h e r nachieur. Z e i t das b a i t , und s l a v . Verbalsystem einander sehr nahe gestanden haben." T h i s work c o u l d a l s o be viewed as c o n s e r v a t i v e , f o r the c o n c l u s i o n s i n i t are reached on the b a s i s of the v e r b a l systems alone. 7  9 every  probable  l i n g u i s t i c i n f l u e n c e , i n t e r a c t i o n and  propensity  of response w i t h i n the contact areas formed by both languages. However, i t should be emphasized t h a t , i n order r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s concerning S l a v o n i c u n i t y , proper  and  such a c o n t r o v e r s i a l t o p i c as B a l t o q u i t e extensive c o n s i d e r a t i o n would  have to be given a l s o to the adjacent wit, Germanic and F i n n i c .  to obtain  speech communities, to  That i s to say t h a t these  f a m i l i e s should be considered  language  at l e a s t as f o r c e s f o r a p o s s i b l e  adstratum i n f l u e n c e , as i t were.  I t i s g e n e r a l l y acknowledged  t h a t B a l t i c and F i n n i c l i n g u i s t i c c o n t a c t s are D f antiquity.  two  considerable  However, c a u t i o n should be e x e r c i s e d when e s t i m a t i n g  the degree of convergence of these two h i g h l y dubious and  l i n g u i s t i c groups, f u r  even erroneous c o n c l u s i o n s might be  as to t h e i r interrelationship."'"  The  reached  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 i n 2 reasonably  c l o s e l i n g u i s t i c c o n t a c t f o r at l e a s t 1,100  Thus, i t i s reasonable only some p o l i t i c a l and I t should  years.  to assume that these c o n t a c t s l e f t c u l t u r a l but a l s o l i n g u i s t i c  a l s o be noted that the German language has  not  traces. represented  Herman H i r t , Die Indoqermanen, K a r l 3. Trubner, S t r a s s b u r g , 1905, v o l . 1, p. 125: "Da wir nun die Letten i n einem Gebiet f i n d e n , das u r s p r u n g l i c h wohl von f i n n i s c h e n Stammen b e s e t z t war, so beruht diese s t a r k e Veranderung des L e t t i s c h e n v e r m u t l i c h darauf, dass f i n n i s c h e Volker l i t a u i s c h g e l e r n t haben." Perhaps then, c o n c l u s i o n s of t h i s nature motivated M e i l l e t to challenge even the accepted hypothesis of B a l t o - S l a v o n i c u n i t y . 2 Arnolds Spekke, H i s t o r y of L a t v i a , M. Goppers, Stockholm, 1957, p. 77: "The second phase i n the Germanic advance towards the east was t h a t of the Northmen /sic/ which began to take e f f e c t from the 9th century onward ..."  ID a superstratum p o s i t i o n i n the years,  the l a s t 200  B a l t i c area during  the past  of uihich have been shared, i n the  700  Latvian  case, with the Russian."''  In a d d i t i o n to the above f a c t s , which cannot be missed while c o n s i d e r i n g  our  dis-  hypothesis (even i f t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n  i n v o l v e s 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 d e a l i n g with a speech community, i n the  to a g r e a t e r  B a l t i c case, which,  or l e s s e r extent, i s m u l t i l i n g u a l , s i m i l a r , f o r 2  instance,  to the case of the Dutch.  l i n g u a l i s m would seem to be was  In the B a l t i c area,  the r e s u l t of the f a c t that  i n a substratum p o s i t i o n u n t i l  the  1920's.  axiomatic that Vildomec o f f e r s the f o l l o w i n g  multi-  Latvian  Therefore,  i t is  observations:  In the summer term of 1946 the Dutch and the B a l t i c students i n the I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o l l e g e , E l s i n o r e , Denmark, seemed to be the most w i l l i n g to use L ' s among the f o u r t e e n 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 l e a r n i n g remarkably q u i c k l y by mere l i s t e n i n g and t a l k i n g . 3 e  The L i t h u a n i a n case i s s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t from the L a t v i a n , 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 c l o s e r a s s o c i a t i o n with the P o l i s h than e i t h e r German or Russian. 2 For the purposes of t h i s paper, any c o n s i d e r a t i o n of f l u e n c y of p o l y g l o t s i s assumed to be unimportant. \ e r o b o j Uildomec, M u l t i l i n q u a l i s m , A. L J . Sy thof f, Leyden, The Netherlands, 1963, p. 42. L = f o r e i g n language (langue etrangere). I t should be noted that the Dutch students d i s p l a y e d a high.degree of p r a c t i c a l a b i l i t y i n using f o r e i g n languages, because of t h e i r w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d pedagogic system, which has an e s t a b l i s h e d h i s t o r y of 'language o r i e n t a t i o n ' f o r various reasons and predates any f a c i l i t y that could have been a v a i l a b l e to the B a l t i c students by a minimum of 75 years. Nevertheless, Vildomec's observations can be s u b s t a n t i a t e d , f o r i t i s g e n e r a l l y known that the s e r v i c e s of B a l t i c i n t e r p r e t e r s have been u t i l i z e d e  11 In view D f the above c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , i t appears that any  estimate  of the B a l t i c l i n g u i s t i c p r e h i s t o r y , e s p e c i a l l y i n  comparison to the S l a v o n i c language group, w i l l f o s t e r some controversy.  Unfortunately,  an a n a l y s i s , based on l i n g u i s t i c  evidence alone, would be f a r from satisfactory,''" as the h i g h l y complicated  nature of the B a l t i c area demands a t l e a s t some  e x t r a - l i n g u i s t i c considerations our r e s u l t s . all,  i n order to avoid any skewing of  T h i s i s the p r i c e of c o n s i d e r i n g  f o r purely  l i n g u i s t i c analyses  s i d e r a b l e c o n t r o v e r s i e s about t h i s Therefore,  the hypothesis a t  have obviously  caused con-  'sensitive' linguistic  area.  the method 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 seems to  be the most promising  i n d e a l i n g with  t h i s hypothesis.  It is  a l s o thought that the r e s u l t s D f t h i s a n a l y s i s i n c o r r e l a t i o n to those obtained  from purely l i n g u i s t i c  ( v i z . , s t r u c t u r a l ) analyses  q u i t e e x t e n s i v e l y by both the Germanic and the S l a v o n i c speech communities. Perhaps, we have to recognize some 'inate a b i l i t y of the B a i t s , as Vildomec S D v i v i d l y p o i n t s out.  1  '''Perhaps, the f a l l o w i n g could be mentioned as an example of a l i n g u i s t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n based on 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 s : Robert L. Oswalt, Russian Loanwords i n Southwestern Porno, .1.0. of A.L., 1958, v o l . 24, pp. 245-247. This i n t e r e s t i n g , but unfort u n a t e l y s h o r t , a r t i c l e d e s c r i b e s Russian loan forms i n the Southwestern Porno language. The reason f o r t h i s research was based on the f a c t that the Russians occupied F o r t Ross, l o c a t e d i n the middle of Porno t e r r i t o r y , as i t were, f o r about 29 years (1811 1B40). The f i e l d w o r k r e s u l t e d i n determining 12 Russian loan forms i n the Pgmo language, e.g., kyska " c a t " , l o s k a "spoon", misuk "sack", s i n i t c a "wheat", k u l u c i t c a " w i l d mustard", molokko "milk", kafey " c o f f e e " , cayu " t e a " , caska " d i s h e s " , yapalka "apple", cuki "socks". The C e n t r a l Porno language, which i s spoken i n the north of S.W.^Pomo, contains a t l e a s t two of the above 12 forms, e.g., l o s k a , cayu, and a l s o parus "canvas" which i s to be found only i n t h e i r speech group. The i n v e s t i g a t o r s a l s o searched f a r p o s s i b l e A l e u t loan forms, as i t was learned that the Russians had many A l e u t hunters with them. One such form was p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d i n S.W. Porno, e.g., k a l i k a k " l e t t e r , book", which probably i s connected with Russian kniga, i b i d . v  12 might provide  a calmer atmosphere, as i t mere, f o r f u t u r e t e s t s  of the hypothesis."'' As already noted, the r e s u l t s of the 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 depend on the b a s i c word l i s t or cognate count. I t f o l l o w s then that any p o s s i b l e b i a s i n s e l e c t i n g corresponding forms i n e i t h e r language must be avoided. of course, forms.  The same p r i n c i p l e ,  has to be employed when e s t i m a t i n g cognation  To supply  t i o n , extensive  depth to the decision-making process  between of cogna-  background of p o s s i b l e e x t e r n a l connections i s  given i n the cognate count.  This background could a l s o be con-  s i d e r e d as q u i t e h e l p f u l i n removing any p o s s i b l e b i a s i n the e s t i m a t i o n of cognates.  The unbiased approach has to be s t r e s s e d  i n t h i s case as the a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e s a comparison of two l a n guages whose p r e h i s t o r y appears to be quite c o n t r o v e r s i a l .  In a d d i t i o n to the complicated S l a v o n i c problem, the question unrelated  c h a r a c t e r of the B a l t o -  of l i n g u i s t i c convergence of  l i n g u i s t i c s t o c k s , as w e l l as any p o s s i b l e  reverbera-  t i o n s of such convergence, has to be c o n s t a n t l y borne i n mind when c o n s i d e r i n g modern r e f l e x e s of a proto the c h a r a c t e r of proto l i n g u i s t i c blend,  I-E i s considered  I-E language.  Even  by some sources to be a  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 tions only.  to g l o t t o c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a -  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 a f t e r animals had been tamed and p l a n t s c u 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 d e r i v a t i v e 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 U r a l i c , c a l l e d element A, and some undesignated element 8 which was probably one of the eastern Mediterranean or Caucasic languages. 1  A type of f u r t h e r l i n g u i s t i c blend could be observed w i t h i n the language f a m i l i e s of the I-E l i n g u i s t i c stock, e.g., the  Germanic f a m i l y of languages, the proto language of which i s  viewed by H a l l as a ' c r e o l i z e d ' language:  These developments / s i c , the great s h i f t i n the consonant p a t t e r n , s i g n i f i c a n t v o c a l i c a l t e r n a t i o n / seem tu show the same kind of brusque r e s t r u c t u r i n g that we f i n d i n p i d g i n and c r e o l i z e d 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 t h e i r stead a number of words of unknown, but presumably non-IndoEuropean, o r i g i n , such as w i f e , hand, l e g . On the b a s i s of these phenomena, i t has been suggested that Proto-Germanic may w e l l have o r i g i n a t e d as a p i d g i n i z e d v a r i e t y of IndoEuropean, which arose along the amber trade route from the Mediterranean to the B a l t i c i n the f i r s t millennium, B.C., and which then became c r e o l i z e d , r e p l a c i n g the n a t i v e languages of the t r i b e s around the lower B a l t i c . 2  C a r l e t o n Stevens Coon, The Races of Europe, The Macmillan Co., New York, 1939, p. 178. A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l l y , t h i s view could be s u b s t a n t i a t e d with r e l a t i v e f a c i l i t y , c f . p l a t e 9, F i g ' s , k and 5 f o r obvious anthropometric connection between an Irishman from L e i t r i m and a Finn from Vasa, F i n l a n d . Also other p l a t e s appear to be q u i t e r e v e a l i n g and could be extremely u s e f u l i n d i s m i s s i n g some of the 'popular' concepts about the S l a v i c people, notably the one f o s t e r e d by predominantly western peoples which d e p i c t s the Slavs i n popular p a r l a n c e as 'the A s i a t i c hordes from the e a s t . 2 Robert A. H a l l , J r . , Introductory L i n g u i s t i c s , C h i l t o n Books, Philadelphia/New York, 1964, p. 386. 1  14 The  cognate count, i n t h i s paper, r e f l e c t s a b a s i c  vocabulary as conceived felt,  It i s  however, that an i n c r e a s e of the t o t a l number of items i s  d e s i r a b l e i n order The  by g l o t t o c h r o n o l o g i s t s g e n e r a l l y .  to o b t a i n more r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s  statistically.  concept of b a s i c vocabulary, as w e l l as the s i z e of i t , i s  s i m i l a r i n t h i s paper to Hockett's views on  this  subject:  By the b a s i c l e x i c o n i s meant a s e m a n t i c a l l y - d e f i n e d stock of forms which we can be sure w i l l be found i n every human language - names of body-parts, of n a t u r a l o b j e c t s and processes, and so on. For purposes of s t a t i s t i c a l treatment i t i s d e s i r a b l e f o r the b a s i c l e x i c o n to be as l a r g e as possible. 1 Any  increase  general  i n the b a s i c vocabulary would have to f o l l o w  o u t l i n e mentioned above, though with a proviso  percentages of the form-classes  of any  increased  the  that  the  sample correspond  approximately to those of the g e n e r a l l y accepted b a s i c vocabulary. This s t i p u l a t i o n i s thought to be important i n order a balance between d i f f e r e n t f o r m - c l a s s e s , increase  i n b a s i c vocabulary, e.g.,  tend to approximate any ture.  The  vocabulary  to maintain  as a f u r t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l  upwards of 1,000  forms, would  'basic language* or a language i n  percentages of form-classes  r e f l e c t e d i n the  minia-  basic  are: nounal c l a s s  =  39%  verbal class  =  28.5%  Charles F. Hockett, L i n g u i s t i c Time P e r s p e c t i v e and i t s A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l Uses, I.0. of A.L., 1953, v o l . 19, p. 148.  15  adjectival class  =  other  =  18.5% 14%  1  As already noted, the b a s i c vocabulary exclude  a l l probable  c u l t u r a l borrowings.  i s thought to  Whenever a dubious  form i s encountered, the p r o b a b i l i t y of i t being  a loan form i s  i n d i c a t e d w i t h i n the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the cognate count, i . e . , i f there i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence method i s u t i l i z e d  to j u s t i f y  i n order to avoid any  this indication.  This  possible biased d e c i -  s i o n as to the o r i g i n of these forms, f o r " 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  n a t i o n has more to give than the  I t should a l s o be noted t h a t , i n order  other.".  to  achieve  more r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s p e r t a i n i n g to the p r e h i s t o r y of languages, the r e s u l t s Df a g l o t t o c h r o n o l o g i c a l study  should be c o r r e l a t e d  to the r e s u l t s not only of a s t r u c t u r a l but a l s o of a and  an onomatological  research."'  toponymical  Onomastics, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n  L a t v i a n , might provide c e r t a i n d i r e c t i o n a l i n d i c a t o r s f o r f u t u r e courses  of i n v e s t i g a t i o n as, f o r i n s t a n c e , i t has been q u i t e  u s e f u l i n suggesting  l i n k s between the I l l y r i a n and  the  Sicel.  E.g., other than the above f o r m - c l a s s e s , i n c l u d i n g f u n c t i o n words; c f . a l s o L i s t of A b b r e v i a t i o n s preceding the f i r s t word list.  2  Leonard B l o o m f i e l d , Language, H o l t , Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1964, p. 461. "^The f o l l o w i n g forms could be of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n a toponymical study, e.g., Indra, I n d r a n i , Dagda, Alsunga, Dignaja, Eduole, P i d u o l e , Ranka e t a l . , and i n an onomatolog,ical study, e.g., R u t u l i s , Meldrups, Luobe, Indans, A l k s , Barkans, Lama, Aviks, Dardzans, Annus, e t a l . The afore-mentioned forms are i n a c t i v e usage i n L a t v i a n , but a l l have l o s t any semantic v a l u e . L  L. R. Palmer, The  L a t i n Language, Faber & Faber, London,  16  Also the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of eponyms has aided i n the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of c e r t a i n toponyms i n L a t i n , and Palmer shous t h i s to be the case:  Thus Remus, the eponymous ancestor of the Etruscan remne, stands r e v e a l e d as Etruscan no l e s s than the name of the c i t y to which h i s t o r y denied h i s name. I t should be emphasized t h a t 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 t h a t Remus i s formed from Roma by ' f a l s e analogy'.  1  In any f i e l d of s c i e n c e , no s i n g l e approach can guarantee  an a b s o l u t e l y adequate and complete c o g n i t i o n of  r e a l i t y , i . e . , every method i n r e s e a r c h , by i t s very nature, regards c e r t a i n aspects of r e a l i t y . great importance  dis-  I t f o l l o w s t h a t i t i s of  not to r e l y on any one method i n a s e r i o u s  s c h o l a r l y i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and establishment of c o n t a c t 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 f o r a i d i n any vigorous programme of l i n g u i s t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i s d e s i r a b l e i n order to obtain a higher degree of accuracy f o r the r e s u l t s of such an investigation.  Glottochronological perspectives offer  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 a l s o widens the scope of l i n g u i s t i c  investi-  gations.  1966, p. 43: "The onomatological evidence, suggesting l i n k s with I l l y r i a n (e.g. the - n t - of Agrigentum, . . . ) " . Palmer, i b i d ,  (meaning p. 4 7 ) .  COGNATE COUNT CRITERION:  The cognate count i n v o l v e s comparing  the c o r r e -  sponding morphemes i n both languages and determining hou many of the p a i r s of morphemes are cognate. t i v e l i n g u i s t i c s , a well-known  There i s , i n compara-  p o s t u l a t e according to which  any true cognates i n two or more modern languages are s a i d to be the modern r e f l e x e s of some corresponding form i n a parent language.  This language can be e i t h e r 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 f o r such a language.  The group of modern Romance languages i s s a i d to be d e r i v e d from the v e r n a c u l a r of L a t i n , f o r which there i s ample documentary  evidence."''  Consequently, the parent language  of t h i s group, i . e . , the v e r n a c u l a r of L a t i n , i s s a i d to be demonstrable.  There i s no documentary  evidence f o r a parent  language of the B a l t o - S l a v o n i c group of languages, and, t h e r e f o r e , t h i s proto-language i s s a i d to be a h y p o t h e t i c a l one.  W. D. E l c o c k , The Romance Languages, Faber &. Faber, London, 1964, p. 21. " I t i s the s p e c i a l p r i v i l e g e of Romance p h i l o l o g i s t s that they are not compelled to r e l y e n t i r e l y upon r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . Apart from the massive testimony of L a t i n l i t e r a t u r e , v a r i o u s d i r e c t sources of i n f o r m a t i o n concerning the nature of the spoken language are a v a i l a b l e f o r s c r u t i n y . "  18 G e n e r a l l y , a method of r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s used to d e p i c t a h y p o t h e t i c a l parent  or proto-language.  T h i s method of  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a proto-language i s implemented v i a a comp a r i s o n , with the a i d of which the probable forms of morphemes i n the h y p o t h e t i c a l proto-language are c o n s t r u c t e d . assumption of t h i s method i s t h a t , while  The b a s i c  the phonemes of the  proto-language undergo d i f f e r e n t developments i n d i f f e r e n t languages, t h e i r development, n e v e r t h e l e s s , i n a given  l i n g u i s t i c environment w i t h i n each of those languages,  Thus, i t could be p o s t u l a t e d  that a p a i r of phonemes i n modern  r e f l e x e s , e.g., i n L a t v i a n and Russian, cally ically  i s quite consistent  may d i f f e r  synchroni-  i n t h e i r p h y s i c a l appearance, as i t were, y e t , d i a c h r o n they may represent  the same phoneme.  METHODOLOGY: Uhen comparing the two languages i n q u e s t i o n , we s h a l l c o n s i d e r only those f r e e morphemes as cognate which are true cognates.  F u r t h e r , we s h a l l consider  two  corresponding  morphemes as true cognates i f they are s i m i l a r i n form and i d e n t i c a l i n meaning.  The concept of s i m i l a r i t y  w i l l be based on the c r i t e r i o n  i n t h i s case  that the same p a i r of phonemes  (or phoneme c l u s t e r s ) , w i t h i n a s p e c i f i c l i n g u i s t i c  environment  or i n a given p o s i t i o n w i t h i n the morphemes, w i l l occur  i n many  other p a i r s of morphemes i n e i t h e r the same l i n g u i s t i c  environ-  ment or i n the same p o s i t i o n w i t h i n corresponding  morphemes.  19 Thus, i t can be s t a t e d that the meaning of any given p a i r of f r e e morphemes m i l l be held as a constant and t h e i r forms w i l l be t r e a t e d as p r e d i c t a b l e v a r i a b l e s . ^  respective  In order to  avoid the counting of any p o s s i b l e deceptive or f a l s e  cognates  as true cognates, we s h a l l recognize only those p a i r s of f r e e morphemes as cognate which meet the above c r i t e r i o n of true cognates. Any given p a i r of true cognates s h a l l be designated as being i n 'complete agreement'.  Any given p a i r of forms,  which do not conform to the c r i t e r i o n f o r 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 i n the cognate count conform to the above c r i t e r i o n .  However, to avoid any  possible  e r r o r , while applying the c r i t e r i o n f o r true cognation to some of  the b o r d e r l i n e forms, a t h i r d group of forms i s e s t a b l i s h e d ,  e.g., probable cognates and probable non-cognates.  The con-  cept of probable cognation i s based on the decision-making process which i n v o l v e d a s p e c i f i c  allotment i n percentages to  Thus, meaning i s p o s t u l a t e d as the core f o r comparison. This same c r i t e r i o n i s a l s o a p p l i c a b l e to a l l the forms given which d e p i c t o u t s i d e r e f l e x e s , i . e . , r e f l e x e s without the B a l t i c and S l a v o n i c speech communities. These forms have been l i s t e d to i l l u s t r a t e p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e s as w e l l as probable connect i o n s with other speech groups of the I-E language f a m i l y , as i t were, r e s i d i n g on the European s u b - c o n t i n e n t a l land mass.  20 the f o l l o w i n g components of probable cognation:  meaning 35%,  form.35%, and other f a c t o r s 30%; the l a t t e r i n c l u d i n g  such  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s as p o s s i b l e d i a c h r o n i c background, adstratum and superstratum i n f l u e n c e s and other a v a i l a b l e evidence, i n c l u d i n g extra-Unguis t i c .  Thus, i t c o u l d be s t a t e d that the c r i t e r i o n f o r probable cognation i s based on the t o t a l i n percentages achieved by comparing any two b o r d e r l i n e forms.  Those p a i r s  of b o r d e r l i n e forms which f u r n i s h a t o t a l of no l e s s than 65% of agreement are considered to be probable cognates, whereas all  the D t h e r p a i r s of b o r d e r l i n e 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 cognat i o n i s 'meaning', i . e . , every p a i r of probable cognates  have  to f u r n i s h a t o t a l agreement i n meaning or 35%, and the v a r i a b l e component of t h i s c r i t e r i o n i s represented by 'form , 1  with no  l e s s then 15% agreement, while the remaining percentage could c o n s i s t of other f a c t o r s .  A f u r t h e r method of d e s i g n a t i o n i s e s t a b l i s h e d to f a c i l i t a t e o r i e n t a t i o n when comparing b o r d e r l i n e forms, e.g., p a r t i a l agreement and some agreement, which r e p r e s e n t forms with obscure background and forms with some i n c o n s i s t e n c y of form or l a c k of s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s ,  respectively.  21 Thus, the f o l l o m i n g combinations e x i s t :  i)  ii)  iii)  iv)  true cognates are i n a)  complete agreement  b)  some agreement  true non-cognates d e p i c t a)  no agreements  b)  some agreement  probable cognates r e f l e c t a)  some agreement  b)  partial  agreement  probable non-cognates d e p i c t a)  some agreement  b)  partial  agreement  To e l u c i d a t e the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s c r i t e r i o n f o r probable cognation, l e t us randomly s e l e c t items 24:110 and 82:143.  In the case of the f i r s t  scitat ,  the f i r s t  1  item, e.g., s k a i t i t ::  p a i r of phonemes agree p h o n o l o g i c a l l y , and  because the Russian s- has a morphological f o u n d a t i o n , the above agreement could be considered as only a p a r t i a l  agreement.  This p a i r of forms i s considered as probable cognates, f o r i t t o t a l s more than the necessary percentages to e s t a b l i s h a probable cognation, i . e . ,  t o t a l agreement i n meaning or 35%,  no l e s s than 25% agreement i n form and 20% i n background conn e c t i o n s ; thus, i t f u r n i s h e s 80% of agreement which i s 15% above  22  the requirement f o r probable cognation. second  In the case of the  item, e.g., i e k s :: v/vo, the general background of t h i s  p a i r i s h y p o t h e t i c a l and q u i t e obscure; t h e r e f o r e , i t i s classified is  as being i n p a r t i a l agreement.  This p a i r of forms  c o n s i d e r e d to be probable cognates as i t t o t a l s a minimum  agreement of 65%, e.g., 35% i n meaning, 15% i n form  ( v i a the  p r e f i x - e l e m e n t ) and 15% i n background c o n n e c t i o n s .  PROCEDURE: The cognate  count d e p i c t s two a l p h a b e t i c a l word  l i s t s with a t o t a l of 207 independent count i s based on a b i n a r y system, have to be e i t h e r cognate designated as cognate cognates  items."''  The cognate  i . e . , any given p a i r of forms  or non-cognate; thus, a p a i r of forms  could be e i t h e r true cognates or probable  ( a l s o i n p a r t i a l ar some agreement).  Any given item,  r e p r e s e n t i n g a true cognation, i s designated with a p l u s - s i g n f l a n k e d by v i r g u l e s , and any given item, d e p i c t i n g a probable 2 cognation, i s i n d i c a t e d by a p l u s - s i g n i n parentheses. reflecting  true non-cognation  Items  or probable non-cognation are  designated i n the same may, but with a minus-sign.  I t should be  E.g., each item r e p r e s e n t s three f r e e morphemes i n each of the f o l l o w i n g languages: E n g l i s h , L a t v i a n and Russian. The f i r s t l i s t c o n s i s t s of 100 items and the second l i s t 107 items. 2 Cf. a l s o l i s t of A r b i t r a r y Signs and Symbols.  23  noted that any given p a i r of forms, r e f l e c t i n g o b v i o u s l y r o c a l borrowing,. i s viewed as non-cognate, without any  recip-  consider-  a t i o n being given to t h e i r e x i s t i n g or apparent agreement. i t could be s t a t e d that a l l the non-autochthonous  Thus,  forms, i n s o f a r  as t h e i r autochthony could be e s t a b l i s h e d , are excluded from the comparison.  In  the event that e i t h e r 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 t r e a t e d as a f r e e marph i n each case, with, of course, corresponding c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e s as to i t s d i chotomy of meaning,'''  The comparison i s weighed  considerably  toward the s y n c h r o n i c aspect, e.g., to avoid any unnecessary 2 complication, of  and a l s o to f a c i l i t a t e  any general  application  t h i s method to any given p a i r or group of languages. The g e n e r a l , as w e l l as s p e c i f i c , background  i n each item i s f u r n i s h e d to f a c i l i t a t e r e l a t e d languages, i f need be.  given  comparisons with other  This i n f o r m a t i o n i s a l s o  t r e a t e d as an e s s e n t i a l p a r t of the comparison f o r e s t a b l i s h ing  a b a s i s f o r f u t u r e work i n t h i s f i e l d , as w e l l as f o r  There were no 'events' encountered wherein both languages i n question d i d not possess an autonomous marph f o r any given concept. 2 E.g., an attempt was made to avoid the dependence an hypot h e t i c a l forms, e.g., *forms, e i t h e r f o r comparison or general background, as much as i t was p o s s i b l e , with one e x c e p t i o n , c f . item 186:197,  2k  emphasizing a p o s s i b i l i t y f o r u n i v e r s a l i t y i n t h i s 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 p o s s i b l e , thus avoiding the employment of outsized l e x i c o n and discouraging any probable complication. Each item begins with a c a 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 f o l l o w s : l\l  =  the nounal c l a s s .  V  =  the verbal c l a s s .  A  =  the a d j e c t i v a l c l a s s .  0  =  other forms, i . e . ,  numerals,  pronominals, adverbs and function words. The next element of the item represents the designation of cognation or non-cognation, as already o u t l i n e d .  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 a l p h a b e t i c a l p o s i t i o n 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 a l p h a b e t i c a l p o s i t i o n i n each of the two '100 word  1  lists  (more s p e c i f i c a l l y , i n e i t h e r the 'IDC ' or the '107 word 1  Thus, the f i r s t  list).''"  1  numerical n o t a t i o n of any item designates i t s  a l p h a b e t i c a l p o s i t i o n i n the second sample, and the second n o t a t i o n r e f l e c t s the a l p h a b e t i c a l p o s i t i o n , f o r the f i r s t items ( i n the f i r s t word l i s t ,  sample) and a l s o i t s p o s i t i o n i n the  1DD  first  whereas, f o r the second 100. (107) items, the second  number d e p i c t s only i t s a l p h a b e t i c a l p o s i t i o n w i t h i n the second word l i s t ,  which begins with 101.  TD illustrate  t h i s method of  numerical d e s i g n a t i o n , l e t us s e l e c t the f o l l o w i n g numbers at random, e.g.:  i)  55:127 = a) 55th item i n the second  sample,  b) 27th item i n the second word ii)  76:42  = a) 76th item i n the second b) 42nd item i n the f i r s t  list.  sample, sample,  c) 42nd item i n the f i r s t word  list.  As a l e x i c o n of any given language could be viewed as a p o p u l a t i o n i n s t a t i s t i c a l terms, then i t f o l l o w s that any word l i s t or p o r t i o n of the l e x i c o n 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 s e v e r a l components of the cognate count, the f o l l o w i n g t e r m i nology was s e l e c t e d : i ) the f i r s t sample or 'sample I' d e s i g 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 I I ' d e s i g n a t e s a sample s i z e of 200 items, e.g., an expansion of the f i r s t sample; 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 s t a t e d 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 r e p r e s e n t i n g 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 c o n s i s t s 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  iii)  199:207 = a) 199th item i n the second  sample,  b) 107th item i n the second word  iv)  - :55  = a) 55th item i n the f i r s t  list.  sample,  b) 55th item i n the f i r s t word  list,  c) t h i s item i s excluded from the second While comparing  sample.  two corresponding forms, only the  base morphs are c o n s i d e r e d to be s i g n i f i c a n t elements, i . e . , the  s i m p l e s t p e r m i s s i b l e forms of the f r e e morphs.  Thus, the  i m p e r f e c t i v e aspect of the Russian verb i s used throughout i n preference to that of the p e r f e c t i v e , 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 a l s o a p p l i e d to the p r e f i x e d nominal forms, as w e l l as s u f f i x e d r e f l e x i v e v e r b a l forms. WORD LISTS: In  g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n of g l o t t o c h r o n o l o g y , two  b a s i c word l i s t s  are r e c o g n i z e d which are u t i l i z e d  ment the cognate count. The f i r s t  list,  Rea's word l i s t  In t h i s paper, both l i s t s  to impleare used.  with 100 items, was o u t l i n e d by J . A. Rea."*" was  considered i n i t s e n t i r e t y 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 , 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 . 24, 1958, p. 148.  27  e x c e p t i o n , e.g., Rea's item (l\lo. 89) denoting "person" i s r e p l a c e d by "human" (item 76:42) as apposed  to "animal",  for  "person" appears to be a s o c i o - c u l t u r a l borrowing i n most  of  the I-E languages (from L a t i n persona " c h a r a c t e r , mask worn  by an a c t o r " ) . The second l i s t , M. S w a d e s h i  Two  with 200 items was  d e v i s e d by  items of the Swadesh word l i s t  e.g., h i s item denoting " r o t t e n " i s changed  are m o d i f i e d ,  to "to r o t " , i . e . ,  from the a d j e c t i v a l c l a s s to the v e r b a l one, and h i s item denoting "to p l a y " i s s u b s t i t u t e d with " t D plough". change i s based an the f a c t t h a t the Russian and, the  The  first  particularly,  L a t v i a n languages have a d e f i n i t e v e r b a l o r i e n t a t i o n , as  i t were, and the second change i s based on the assumption that the choice of t h i s form, i n Swadesh*s l i s t ,  was probably 2  i n f l u e n c e d by i t s f r e q u e n t u t i l i z a t i o n i n E n g l i s h , comparison i n t h i s paper i s between two b a s i c a l l y o r i e n t a t e d speech communities,  as they s t i l l  whereas the agriculturally  are to a g r e a t e r  M o r r i s 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 D i c t i o n a r y , Dover P u b l i c a t i o n s , IM.Y., 1961, c f . Sec. 1,19, a l s o Index p. 244. Miss Eaton l i s t s the v e r b a l form of "play" i n the f i r s t 500 most f r e q u e n t l y used concepts i n E n g l i s h . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , there were no frequency d i c t i o n a r i e s a v a i l a b l e p e r t a i n i n g to e i t h e r of the languages compared, although a frequency d i c t i o n a r y of Russian appears to have been p u b l i s h e d by the U n i v e r s i t y of T a r t u , E s t o n i a , c f . Papp, F., Mathematical L i n g u i s t i c s i n the S o v i e t Union, Mouton & Co., The Hague, The Netherlands, 1966, f n . p. 71.  28 or l e s s e r extent a t p r e s e n t .  Therefore, the usage of the v e r b a l  form "to plough" i s envisaged as an adequate replacement f o r "to p l a y " .  I t should also be noted that e i t h e r form, i . e . , "to  p l a y " or "to plough" would not i n f l u e n c e the cognate count, f o r e i t h e r form conforms to the c r i t e r i o n of non-cognation.  Every form i n e i t h e r language i s v e r i f i e d with the a i d of the a v a i l a b l e d i c t i o n a r i e s .  The E n g l i s h forms  reflect  corresponding forms i n L a t v i a n and Russian which are chosen at random, f o r they could be c l a s s e d as 'natural responses' to the E n g l i s h forms.'''  In the event that any d e v i a t i o n from  this  concept of 'natural responses' does occur, the e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the choice of a s u b s t i t u t e form i s given w i t h i n the framework of each item.  Each item i s t r e a t e d as an independent u n i t and  care i s taken to avoid any p a s s i b l e b i a s , e i t h e r i n the s e l e c t i o n of the corresponding forms i n the languages compared or i n e s t a b 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, c i t e d from M. Swadesh, D i f f u s i o n s ! 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 or Anthropology, U n i v e r s i t y of New Mexico P r e s s , Albuquerque, N. M., v o l . 7, p. 13. Miss Gudschinsky speaks about "mast common c o n v e r s a t i o n a l e q u i v a l e n t " as being the corresponding word of any language to the E n g l i s h form. The e q u i v a l e n t i n t h i s paper to Miss Gudschinsky's above-mentioned term i s a 'natural response' form. 2 Gudschinsky, i b i d . : " I f there i s an equal choice of two or more e x p r e s s i o n s , one should be chosen purely at randan (by f l i p p i n g a c o i n i f necessary) to avoid any b i a s i n the d i r e c t i o n  29 ' n a t u r a l responses' i s thought t D be s u f f i c i e n t c r i t e r i o n to e s t a b l i s h randomness i n the s e l e c t i o n of L a t v i a n and Russian forms.  I t i s a l s o thought t h a t the r i g o r o u s approach i n the  a c t u a l comparison of the forms of the two languages i n question mould e l i m i n a t e any d u b i t a b l e forms.  of choosing known cognates, . . .". I t should be noted that there were no major problems encountered i n choosing cognates f o r t h i s paper. The c r i t e r i o n f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g 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 " . A l s o , the concept of 'natural responses' and the avoidance of forms with ' p e r i p h e r a l ' meanings was h e l p f u l i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the corresponding forms. However, Miss. Gudschinsky s method i s q u i t e a c c e p t a b l e (though, whenever p o s s i b l e , should be avoided) when comparison i s made between l e s s e r known languages than L a t v i a n and Russian, e.g., her comparison was between the Amerindian languages of Ixcatec and Mazatec. 1  LIST OF ARBITRARY SIGNS AND SYMBOLS  1  USED IN THE COGNATE COUNT +  =  cognation.  =  non-cognation.  /+/  =  true  /-/  =  true non-cognation.  (+)  =  probable  (-)  =  probable non-cognation.  :  =  ::  cognation.  i s to; also apposition.  =  /  cognation.  =  corresponds t o , the correspondence  with.  a l t e r n a t e s with,  <, =  d e r i v e d from. 2  y = * (j)  =  the source o f . a h y p o t h e t i c a l form.  =  semi consonant; c f . item 37:23, e t c .  ( e ) , (o) =  h i s t o r i c a l semi-vowels i n S l a v o n i c ; semi-vowels, f o r instance i n B u l g a r i a n ; c f . a l s o item 12:6  (n)  =  always f o l l o w s a vowel to i n d i c a t e i t s n a s a l i t y , e.g.,  L i t h u a n i a n karna(n) (item 8:3)  This l i s t c o n t a i n s only those s i g n s 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 f o r t h i s paper. 2 The symbols < , > are i n d i c a t o r s of d e r i v a t i o n g e n e r a l l y , thus A < B could be read: A i s d e r i v e d from B or B i s the source of A.  ABBREVIATIONS USED IIM THE COGNATE COUNT Reference works:"*' Bern.:  Berneker, E., S l a v i s c h e s  Etymoloqisches  LJorterbuch, H e i d e l b e r g , 1924, 2 v o l s . Buck:  Buck, C. D., A D i c t i o n a r y of S e l e c t e d  Synonyms,  Chicago/London, 1965. Endz.:  E n d z e l l n s , J . , L a t v i e s u Valodas Gramatika, Riga, 1951.  Fr.:  F r a e n k e l , E., L i t a u i s c h e s  Etymoloqisches  Worterbuch, Heidelberg, 1962 and 1965, 2 v o l s . Pr.:  Preobrazhensky, A. G., f^timologiceski j S l a v a r ' Russkogo Jazyka,  Vasm.:  N. Y./London, 1964.  Vasmer, M., Russisches  Etymoloqisches  Worterbuch, H e i d e l b e r g , 1953-1958, 3 v o l s .  Languages: Alb.: Arab.: Arm.: Bait.:  Albanian. Arabic. Armenian. Baltic.  B.Russ.: Bulg,:  Belorussian. Bulgarian,  Ch.Slav.: Cz.:  Church-Slavonic  Czech.  The r e f e r e n c e works l i s t e d here are i n an abbreviated form; f o r more d e t a i l e d data, c f . b i b l i o g r a p h y .  Eng.:  English.  Mod.:  Modern, Modern  Finn.:  Finnish.  Germ.:  German/Germanic.  Norw.:  Goth.:  Gothic.  0.:  Gr.: Hung.:  Old Old  Hungarian.  Karel.: Lat.:  Karelian.  Pol.:  Latin.  Russian.  Norwegian.  Old,  Greek.  e.g.,  e.g., High  German,  Prussian.  Polish.  Russ.:  Russian.  Latv.:  Latvian.  S.Cr.:  Serbo-Croatian.  Lith.:  Lithuanian.  Slav.:  Slavonic.  Mid.:  Middle,  e.g.,  Siued. :  Swedish.  Middle  English,  Turk;:  Turkish.  M i d d l e Lou  Other  German.  Ukr.:  Ukranian.  abbreviations:  A  =  a d j e c t i v a l form  dial. ib.  = =  dialect/dialectal. ibidem, given  used  form  semantic one,  =  nounal form  0  =  other  form  nounal, =  verbal  as  a same  preceding "nose";  Lith.  Germ. Nase, i b .  class. classes  verbal. form  the  R u s s . nos  ibid;  N  to i n d i c a t e t h a t  i s l o c a t e d i n the  area  e.g.,  nosis,  V  class.  class.  than  adjectival,  33 TRANSLITERATIONS  A.  Russian  orthography;  A  =  a  n  =  P  B  =  b  P  =  r  B  =  r  T  =  t  y  =  u  =  f  =  x, i . e  =  d  E  =  e  E  =  X  na  z  3  z  =  K  s  g  .Jl  H  u. =  c V  C V  i  m  =  s  j  I  =  sc  k  H  =  y  =  i  V  V  JI  =  e  b  M  =  m  3 =  H  n  K) =  ju  0 =  0  a =  ja  The is  C  above t r a n s l i t e r a t i o n  ' a r t h o g r a p h i c a l l y orientated'.'''  Df  e  the Ru:  The aim of t h i s method  I t should be noted that the d i a c r i t i c mark which u s u a l l y denotes p a l a t a l i z a t i o n , e.g., apostrophe or ', r e p r e s e n t s , i n t h i s paper, only the orthographic ' s o f t s i g n ' . The reason f o r t h i s r a t h e r unorthodox approach i n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of p a l a t a l i z a t i o n was to avoid too extensive usage of d i a c r i t i c marking, thus e l i m i n a t i n g overcrowding of the tops of l e t t e r symbols. Furthermore, i t i s g e n e r a l l y understood that p a l a t a l i z a t i o n i n Russian i s organic and i s represented by the p a l a t a l vowels of ' i , e'.  34 c o u l d be vieued as twofold: the Russian phonetic  i ) to f a c i l i t a t e  the comprehension of  o r t h o g r a p h i c a l c h a r a c t e r s and t h e i r approximate  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , and, i i ) to f a c i l i t a t e  the comparison  of the languages i n q u e s t i o n , as L a t v i a n orthography i s cons i d e r e d to be, p h o n e t i c a l l y , a very c l o s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the v e r n a c u l a r , i . e . , L a t v i a n possesses no o r t h o g r a p h i c a l  ' l a g s ' as  compared t o , f o r i n s t a n c e , Modern E n g l i s h .  B.  L a t v i a n orthography: The  f o l l o w i n g p r e s c r i b e d d i a c r i t i c n o t a t i o n s are to  be found i n L a t v i a n i n t h i s paper: , denotes the p a l a t a l s e r i e s of consonants, e.g.,  h > n  denotes the s h i b i l a n t and p a l a t a l a f f r i c a t e e.g.,  s, z and c, dz, r e s p e c t i v e l y .  ~ denotes lengthening The  of vowels, e.g., i : i , e : i " , e t c .  v o i c e d a l v e o l a r a f f r i c a t e i s represented 'dz' and the devoiced  The  orthographic 'uo',  series,  by a digraph  by the grapheme ' c ' .  'o' i s represented  i n t h i s paper by  f o r i t i s r e a l i z e d p h o n e t i c a l l y as a true  diphthong. C.  Other  orthographies: The  the  'Russian  Albanian  and Armenian forms are transposed  e t y m o l o g i c a l d i c t i o n a r y ' by Vasmer, and, f a r  purposes of v e r i f i c a t i o n i n the case of Armenian, the 'I-E  from  Languages of the U.S.S.R.  1  i s utilized.  An attempt i s a l s o made to r e p r e s e n t the remaining languages i n t h e i r for  prescribed o f f i c i a l  orthographies,  i n t o n a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s and accent n o t a t i o n .  accent n o t a t i o n i s employed only i n Russian,  except  A consistent  and the d i a c r i t i c  mark ", or c i r c u m f l e x , i s used p e r t a i n i n g to only one L a t v i a n form, e.g., i n item 25:111.  It reflects  i n t o n a t i o n which formerly was r i s i n g  the r i s i n g - f a l l i n g  only.  V. U. Vinogradov, ed. e t a l . , J a z y k i IMaradov S.S.S.R., Nauka, Moscow, 1966, v o l . I (meaning I-E languages), pp. 564565, a l s o passim.  FIRST WORD LIST  a l l - v i s s - ves', complete agreement, cognates. Latv. - i -  corresponds to Russ. -e- as i n items  70:40, 122:160.  Further connections a r e :  v i s a s and O.Pruss. wissa-,  Lith,  ibid.  ashes - p e l n i - p e p e l , p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. 1  The Russ. could be viewed as a r e d u p l i c a t e d form, however, d e t a i l s are not very c l e a r i n t h i s  instance;  thus the base morphs are equal, i . e . , p e l - = - p e l ' . Other cognates are to be found i n O.Pruss. pelanne, L i t h . p e l e n a i , i b i d ; a l s o c f . Gr. pain "dust", L a t . pollen  " f i n e f l o u r , meal", p u l v i s  "dust".  bark - miza - kora, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. seems to be connected with O.Pruss. mensa " f l e s h " ( L a t v . miesa, i b i d ) , Russ. mjaso, i b . , Goth, mimz, i b . , A l b . mis, i b . mizu "membrane". f  Perhaps,  the L a t v . p a i r of miesa " f l e s h " : miza "bark, p e e l " should be viewed as a p h o n o l o g i c a l a l t e r n a t i o n to avoid a homonymic c l a s h , then the base marph, e.g., P r u s s . rnins-, d e s i g n a t i n g " f l e s h " could be viewed as the b a s i s f o r the above Latv. forms.  Russ. i s  cognate with L i t h . karna(n) "the i n n e r bark of the linden  (lime) t r e e " , k e r t i  "to shed s k i n , f u r " ;  c f . a l s o L a t . corium ( c a r i u s ) "hide, t h i c k  skin".  37  N/-/10:4  b e l l y - veders - b r i u x o , no agreements,  non-cog.  L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . vederas " g i z z a r d , a l s o craw", O.Pruss. weders venter, v e n t r i s " b e l l y " . with 0.Norse b r i o s k  maw,  " b e l l y " ; c f . also Lat.  Russ. seems to be cognate  " g r i s t l e " , Goth, b r u s t s  "breast",  I r i s h bru " b e l l y , stomach, womb"; c f . a l s o Germ. Brausche " b r u i s e " ; Vasm. I, 131; Buck 252-255; Bern. I, 95-96.  A/-/ll:5  big - l i e l s  - bol'so.j, no agreements, non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . l i e l i s (appropriate), etc.".  gall,  good  Russ. i s , perhaps, connected  with Law Germ, p a l , p a l l also Lat. d e b i l i s  "fit,  "stiff,  "weak", i . e . ,  tense, f i r m " ; c f . d e - b i l i s "without  a l s o not s t r o n g " ; Uasm. I, 105; Buck B79-880;  Bern. I, 72.  N(+)12:6  b i r d - putns - p t l c a , p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. Historically,  t h i s p a i r i s cognate.  L i t h . pute  "hen" seems to p a i n t 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 l a p s e of the h a l f -  vowel (o) w i t h i n the base morph.  Russ. c o n s i s t s 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  bird").  T h i s development i s q u i t e s i m i l a r to L i t h .  put+e "hen" > put+yt+is "young b i r d " ; c f . a l s o L a t . putus "a boy">  putillus  "a small boy" and  putilla  38 "a young b i r d " . pautas V/+/13:7  "egg,  F u r t h e r connections are L i t h .  t e s t i c l e " , Latv. pauts " t e s t i c l e " .  b i t e - kuost - k u s a t , complete agreement, 1  L a t v . -uo-  cognates.  :: Russ. -u- as i n puods "pot" :: pud  "Russ. weight u n i t  (40 Russ. l b s . ) " , puoga "button"  :: pugovica/pugovka, i b i d (cognation of t h i s i s not c e r t a i n ) , buoga "rocky, bush covered i n the f i e l d "  pair island  :: buga "low r i v e r bank, bushes i n  r i v e r ' s overflow area", thus t h i s correspondence q u i t e r a r e and i s c o n f i n e d mostly marginal usage. ka(n)sti,  A/-/14:8  is  to morphemes i n  F u r t h e r connections are L i t h .  i b i d , kandis "a b i t e ,  sting".  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, a l s o  i n d i a l , f o r b l a c k b e r r y (brambleberry)" with f u r t h e r connections i n L a t . mulles molis " c l a y " ,  Latv. mais, i b i d .  "reddish", L i t h .  Russ. i s cognate  with O.Pruss. k i r s n a n "black", L i t h . kersas "skewb a l d " , kerse "spotted cow",  karsis  "bream"; f o r  L a t v . c f . Vasm. I I , 91, and f o r Russ. Uasm. I l l , 327.  I\l/-/15:9  blood - a s i n s - krov'. no agreements, non-cognates The L a t v . base morph as- suggests a connection  39  between asmens "blade", asns "a sprout, a l s o a blade of g r a s s " , a s n i s " t h i s t l e " , ass "sharp" and the above form f o r b l o o d .  This development appears to  be q u i t e s i m i l a r to L a t . aeer "sharp, esp. of t o o l s " , acidus "sharp, esp. i n t a s t e , a c i d y " , a c i e s "edge, keenness",  acinus "a b e r r y , esp. grape",  acumen "the sharp p o i n t of anything" < acuo "to sharpen to a p o i n t " > acus "a bodkin, needle", with ac- as the base morph f o r a l l the aforementioned variants.  However, L a t . possesses two d i f f e r e n t  forms f o r "blood" sanguis, O.Lat. sanguen (> sanies "corrupted blood, thus a l s o venom") as the b a s i c d e s c r i p t i v e form, and cruor f o r " f l o w i n g blood, esp. from a wound".  T h i s p o i n t s to a c e r t a i n  inconsist-  ency of L a t . and suggests, perhaps, that "blood or b l e e d i n g " was connected with some tabu concept; p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of the f a c t that f o r "to b l e e d " L a t . found i t necessary to u t i l i z e an i n d i r e c t v e r b a l 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 L a t .  form, e.g., c r u o r , L i t h . k r a u j a s , O.Pruss.  krawian,  I r i s h c r u , 0.Worse hrar "raw, uncooked"." ' 1  The 0.Norse f o r m _ l i n k s up with L a t . c r u o r , as the l a t t e r i s connected with L a t . crudus which designates " b l e e d i n g " as w e l l 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 , kaulos  " s t a l k " , Lat. c a u l i s , i b i d .  Gr.  Russ. seems to  be cognate with L a t . costa " r i b " ; Uasm. I, Buck 207;  -:11  Pr. I,  643;  368.  b r e a s t - k r u t i s - qrud',  p a r t i a l agreement,  cognates.  This p a i r presents a s i m i l a r problem to the one i n item 41:118, e.g., (devoiced  the i n i t i a l v e l a r phonemes c l a s h  :: voiced) and  the s y l l a b i c c r e s t  contains  the correspondence of u :: u ( v o c a l i c lengthening i n L a t v . has a d i s t i n c t i v e morphophonemic s t a t u s ) . Furthermore, t h i s p a i r presents another  complication,  f o r the f i n a l phonemes of the base morphs a l s o c l a s h , e.g.,  - t - :: - d  1  or a devoiced  dental p l o s i v e ::  v o i c e d p a l a t a l i z e d dent. p l o s . ( p a l a t a l i z a t i o n i n Russ. has a d i s t i n c t i v e morphophonemic s t a t u s ) . Thus, of the f o u r p a i r s of phonemes uiithin the base morphs, only one  p a i r , e.g.,  show complete agreement."''  the l i q u i d s r :: r  Latv. i s cognate u i t h  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" ( L a t v . krute 2 "a hump i n a meadow or a f i e l d " ) .  Russ. appears  The f o l l o w i n g e t y m o l o g i c a l works d i d not c o n s i d e r t h i s p a i r to be e i t h e r connected or cognate: Uasm. I, 312; Buck 247-249; Pr.1,162; Bern. I, 356 suggests a p o s s i b l e connection between them, u t i l i z i n g Latv. krute "hump" and Lat. grandis " e l e v a t e d " as a basis. 2 — The Latv. v e r b a l form k r u t i e s "to c h i n o n e s e l f , i . e . , to chest o n e s e l f " corresponds r e g u l a r y t D Russ. k r y t "to cover", as but "to be" :: byt', i b i d . 1  to be cognate with L a t . grandis "great, e l e v a t e d " .  U/-/19:12  burn - deqt - qoret', no agreements,  non-cognates.  Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . d e g t i , i b i d , and probably with Russ. z e e which i s the t r a n s i t i v e 1  form of g o r e t ' (the Latv. t r a n s , form i s d e d z i n a t ) . Russ. i s cognate with L i t h . g a r e t i  "to evaporate,  dehydrate", garas "steam", Latv. gars,  "spirit,  mind; a l s o steam i n sauna-bath"; Vasm. I , 295, 412-413.  -:13  ^ claw - !$etna - kogot', no agreements,  '2 non-cognates.  This Latv. form does not seem to o f f e r any cognation with e i t h e r other B a i t , forms c r any S l a v , or Germ. ones.  The i n i t i a l p a l a t a l phoneme might suggest a  borrowing, s i m i l a r to L a t v . I j i l i s " s p r a t " , Ijilavas "canned s p r a t s " ^ probably E s t . k i l u , F i n n ,  kilo,  i b i d > Russ. k i l ' k a , i b . ; Ijeksis "a punt-pole, scoop f o r f i s h i n g " ^ probably F i n n , keksi "a boat hook". Russ. i s probably connected with Q.High Germ, hako "hook" (> Mod. Germ. Haken).  T h i s p a i r was viewed as probable cognates, however, due to the l i m i t e d scope of t h i s paper, i t would be p r o h i b i t i v e to delve i n t o the probable background D f any one p a i r of forms. I t should a l s o be noted that the above Russ. form r e p r e s e n t s e i t h e r a semantic s h i f t or a d i r e c t borrowing. 2 The Latv. synonyms i$epa, peka have s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t conn o t a t i o n s from the above form, e.g., the above form u s u a l l y designates "a claw, paw of w i l d animals", Ijepa "a paw of animals g e n e r a l l y " and peka "a paw g e n e r a l l y , but a l s o ( v i a a semantic  k 2  IM/-/21:14  cloud - makuonis - bp-lake-, no agreements,  non-cog..  Latv. form i s d e r i v e d from makt "to oppress, i n t r u d e upon, depress" and seems to be  cognate u i t h  Lith.  makone "slough, p o o l ; a l s o mudhale or puddle"; a l s o makoti "to trample i n or doun mud,  dirt".  Further  connections are L i t h . maketi "to enter a suamp" ( L a t v . maknit "to go through a suamp"), probably a l s o Russ. moknut' "to become u e t " , L a t . macerare "to  s o f t e n , esp. by s o a k i n g " .  Russ. i s a Ch.Slav.  loanword, e.g., oblako < v o l a c ' "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". with Latv. v i l k t vilkti, cf.  "to p u l l "  (item 113:155),  Lith.  i b i d , v i a the Ch.Slav. form v o l a c ' , i b . ;  also Lat. v e l l o , v e l l i  vulsum  Thus Russ. i s connected  (also v u l s i ,  volsi)  (volsum), v e l l e r e "to p u l l , p l u c k , t w i t c h " >  v u l s u s "plucked, b e a r d l e s s " .  A/-/22:15  c o l d - auksts - x o l o d n y j , no agreements,  non-cog.  Latv. seems to be connected with L i t h . aukstas "high" ( L a t v . a u g s t s ) , a u s t i oic  "cold".  "to grow c o o l " ,  Russ. seems to be cognate with Goth,  kalds and, i f a dichotomy f o r the i n i t i a l can be  Arm.  p o s t u l a t e d , e.g.,  phoneme  *kh- or *k-, then the  S l a v , and Germ, speech communities  have the former  s h i f t ) awkward f o o t or f o o t i n g of c h i l d r e n " . The above Russ. form was used as an analogous form to nogot* "human n a i l ( s ) " .  43 as a b a s i s and  the B a i t , the l a t t e r one, e.g.,  k- as  i n modern r e f l e x e s of L i t h . s a l t a s " c o l d " , Latv. salts  V/-/23:16  "chilly".  1  come - nakt - p r i x o d i t , no agreements, non-cog. 1  Latv. appears to be cognate with L i t h . n o k t i "to mature", p r a n o k t i " t D overtake".  Russ. c o n s i s t s of  the p r e f i x p r i - " a t , by" and - x o d i t  1  "to go".  Russ. base morph seems to be cognate with the  The one  which designates " s i t t i n g " , i . e . , *sed-, as i n item 13G:7if.  The change of * s - > x- i s considered as a  morphemically  conditioned alternation  determined  by the p r e f i x p r i - , as s t a t e d by V/asmer (Vasm. I l l , 253).  V/+/27:17  die - m i r t - umirat', complete agreement,  cognates.  Russ. form c o n s i s t s of p r e f i x u- and base morph -mir- ^ O.Russ. meret' ( p e r f . aspect i n Mod. ymeret ). 1  F u r t h e r cognations  are L i t h .  Russ.  mirti,  The suggestion made, during s e v e r a l d i s c u s s i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to the above Latv. form, about a p o s s i b l e semantic connection between auksts " c o l d " and augsts "high" has to be dismissed as u n s a t i s f a c t o r y , f o r 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 . a u g t i , i b i d ) , a l s o s i m i l a r p a i r s , e.g., s a l t s " c h i l l y " and s a l d s "sweet" defy any semantic connections. However, i t should be noted t h a t L a t . has a s i m i l a r development to L a t v . , e.g., augere "to grow" > augustus " e l e v a t e d , high; a l s o holy, consec r a t e d " . Perhaps, the above Latv. form p o i n t s 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. a u s i s , L a t . aurum, but L a t v . z e l t s (Russ. z b l o t o ) , L i t h . z e l t a s "golden". A l s o , proverbs equate auksts with z e l t s " c o l d with gold". 2 This i n f e r s the correspondence of Latv. - i - :: O.Russ. -e-  44  ibid;  c f . also  L a t . deponent  verbal  form m o r i o r ,  mori, i b .  IM/-/30:18  doq  - suns - sobaka,  some a g r e e m e n t ,  L a t v . i s cognate u i t h sunis, suka  i b . and  "a b i t c h " ;  hunds, i b i d , Slavonic  dial,  sobaka.  nected u i t h  U/-/31:19  drink  c f . also  uith  Ukr. sobaka, T h i s Russ.  I r . spaka  - dzert - p i t ,  O.Pruss.  be c o g n a t e u i t h  Russ.  Russ.  "dog",  reflects  some d i a l e c t a l  Goth, an  East-  usage i n  B.Russ. s o b a k a , P o l . form  i s probably con-  "a hound".  no  1  L a t v . i s cognate u i t h to  Lat. canis  sun, i b .  development  e.g.,  suo, i b i d ,  i s probably connected u i t h  Arm.  Pol.,  Lith.  non-cognates.  agreements,  Lith.  Russ.  gerti,  zrat'  non-cognates.  ibid,  and  "to devour  seems  ( i n Germ,  fressen)".  Russ. r e p r e s e n t s a Pan-Slav, d e v e l o p -  ment, e . g . ,  P o l . p i c , Ukr. p y t y , Cz. p i t i ,  piti. bibo,  I t i s cognate u i t h ibid  initial  nections, "a  A l b . p i "I d r i n k " , L a t .  (<*pibo), Irish  p- i n I r i s h  ibim,  i b . (for loss  c f . item 43:119).  v i a vouel gradation,  drinking  bout, a l s o  S.Cr.  Further  are L i t h .  a uedding f e a s t " ,  of con-  puota O.Pruss.  u i t h i n t h e b a s e morphs and u o u l d n o t a p p e a r t o 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 o f i t e m 44:120. Houever, c e r t a i n 'historically old' f o r m s r e f l e c t t h i s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , e . g . , L a t v . m i r - :: O.Russ. mer- " t o d i e " as L a t v . p i r - ( m a i s ) :: R u s s . p e r - ( v y j ) " f i r s t ( o r d i n a l ) " ; c f . a l s o i t e m s 1:1, 70:40, 122:160.  form p o i e i t i  " d r i n k ! (imperative p i . ) " , L a t . p a t i o  "a d r i n k i n g a c t i o n , a l s o a d r i n k , draught" (< potare "to  A/+/32:2Q  d r i n k " ) ; c f . a l s o Uasm. I I , 362.  dry - sauss - suxo.1, complete agreement, cognates. The base morphs saus- :: sux-, as i n item 35:21. F u r t h e r cognations are L i t h .  sausas, i b i d ,  O.Pruss.  s a u s a i ; c f . a l s o 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.  F u r t h e r cognations are L i t h .  ausis,  ibid,  O.Pruss. acc. p i . a u s i n s , i b . , Lat a u r i s , i b . , a u s c u l t a r e ( i . e . , aus+cultare) "to pay a t t e n t i o n t o , listen  I\l/+/36:22  carefully, tQ l i s t e n  i n secret".  e a r t h - zeme - zeml.ja. complete agreement, cognates. The e q u a l i t y of the base morphs might be suspect to borrowing, however, the very wide usage af the base morph zem-  i n B a i t , seems ta have blocked any ap-  p r e c i a b l e p h o n o l o g i c a l change, e.g., L i t h . i b i d , O.Pruss. semme, i b . , L i t h . L a t v . zems "low", L i t h .  zeme,  zemas "lowly",  zemiau "under", Latv.  zem,  i b i d , etc.;"'" c f . a l s o L a t . humus "ground, e a r t h ,  The base morph zem-/zem- appears to have a very wide a p p l i c a t i o n i n B a i t , languages i n comparison with Russ. Thus L a t v . f e a t u r e s some 70 d i c t i o n a r y e n t r i e s , i n c l u d i n g s e v e r a l toponymic forms, and L i t h . upwards of 100 forms, whereas Rues, (using a comparable Russ. d i c t i o n a r y ) l i s t s only about 30 forms, of which the m a j o r i t y c o n s i s t of e n d o c e n t r i c compounds with r e l a t i v e l y recent f o r m a t i o n .  46 soil"  U/+/37:23  h u m i l i s "low, humble".  eat - - e s t - (.pest', complete agreement, cognates. The Russ. p r o t h e t i c j o d - element i s a h i s t o r i c a l phenomenon having occurred during the Ch.Slav. period, i . e . ,  p r i o r to 1100 A.D.  There are s e v e r a l  forms i n Mod.Russ. which appear as d i r e c t of  t h i s phenomenon, e.g., ( j ) s l '  reflexes  :: Latv. e g l e ,  L i t h . e g l e , O.Pruss. addle " f i r " ; (j)est ''' :: L i t h . 1  B s t i , e s t ; L a t . e s t (Goth, i s t ) " i s (3rd p e r s . s g . of  "to b e " ) " .  F u r t h e r cognations are L i t h .  i b i d ; O.Pruss. 1st,  esti,  i b . ; L a t . edo, e d i or esum,  edere or esse :: Latv. ed "he, she e a t s " , Germ, essen "to e a t " .  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,  t r u n d l e " ; a l s o i n Latv. v e l t , i b i d ; L a t . v o l v e r e "to  turn".  Thus L a t v . u o l i s "pebble" and the above  form are connected ( v i a v o c a l i z a t i o n of v > u) with the  v e r b a l farm f o r " t a r o l l " .  This Russ. form  a l s o has a p r o t h e t i c j o d - element, as i n i t e m 37:23, and i t i s a d i m i n u t i v e extension of the base morph  which forms esmu, "thou  This i s the only r e f l e x form of the present tense paradigm i s s t i l l i n a c t i v e use i n Mod.Russ. The other paradigmatic a l s o had the p r o t h e t i c j a d - element, e.g., (j)esm' :: L a t v . L i t h . esmi, O.Pruss. asmai "I am"; ( j ) e s i :: e s i , e s s e i a r t " , 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 w i t h Germ, das E i , i b i d , Dutch e i ( n ) , i b . ; c f . a l s o Mid.Eng. ey, i b . F u r t h e r conn e c t i o n s are O.Norse egg; L a t . ovum ( n e u t e r ) , i b . y I t a l i a n uova, Rumanian uo; c f . a l s o L a t . a v i s "bird". N/-/39:25  eye - acs - q l a z , no agreements, non-cognates'.  Latv.  i s cognate w i t h 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.  o c u l u s , i b . , Goth, augo y Germ. Auge, i b . Rues, i s connected w i t h P o l . g l a z " s t o n e , r o c k , t o u c h s t o n e " ; 2 c f . a l s o O.High Germ, g l a s "amber, g l a s s " . I\l/-A2:26  f a t - t a u k i - z i r , no agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . taukas "a p i e c e o f f a t " , t a u k a i "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 , g r e a s e " , 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) " m i n e r a l f e r t i l i z e r s " i n Mod. Russ."  1  *  3  F u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s are L i t h . t u k t i " t o  The form o c i r e p r e s e n t s a r e l i c of the o l d d u a l . As a v e s 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, n o t a b l y o c k i " e y e - g l a s s e s " . 2 The form g l a z c o u l d a l s o d e s i g n a t e "a p l a y i n g marble, i . e . , a s m a l l g l a s s b a l l " ; i n t h i s semantic a r e a , i t might be connected w i t h Ch.Slav. g l e z n o " k n u c k l e ; b u t the p i . form may a l s o d e s i g nate d i c e " ; c f . a l s o L a t v . g l e z n u o t " t o 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 , a l s o g l e z o t i " t o smear, s o i l , s t a i n " . "^There i s a l s o 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., t u c n y j " f a t obese".  48 become f a t " ( L a t v . tukt "to s w e l l " ) , Russ. t y t "to grow f a t " , Latv. tukns " c o r p u l e n t " ;  1  c f . also  Germ. Talg " t a l l o w " ( L a t v . t a u k i " f a t , grease, a l s o tallow").  Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development  with a c o n s i d e r a b l e guages, e.g.,  P o l . zer "pasture,  zyr " f a t , fodder; fodder",  S.Cr.  semantic s h i f t i n v a r i o u s food; prey",  a beech-nut", Cz. z i r  z i r "acorns",  lanUkr.  "acorns,  B u l g . z i r " f a t , bacon".  Perhaps, t h i s form i s r e l a t e d to Russ. z i t ' "to live", zir  i f the f a l l o w i n g ' p r o p o r t i o n ' i s  acceptable:  " f a t " :: z i t ' "to l i v e " as p i r "a f e a s t ,  banquet" :: p i t ' "to d r i n k " ; * c f . a l s o Arm. "fat,  l\l/-/45:27  fruitful".  f e a t h e r - spalva  - pero, no agreements, non-cog.  Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . spalva ther probable connections grass, any ens  " p i l l o w , cushion";  are Latv. s p i l v a  c f . also L i t h .  or hide s t r i p p e d from an  f i r e - uquns - oqon' The  "colour".  Fur-  "cotton-  sedge-like plant; also a casing">  L a t v . spa^Li " f l a x - h u s k s " ,  l\i/+/48:28  ger  t  L a t . spolium  spilv-  spaliai, "the  skin  animal".  complete agreement, cognates.  correspondence of Latv. -u-  :: Russ. -o-  i s not  ''"All f o u r forms are from Mod.Russ. and t h i s ' p r o p o r t i o n ' suggested by J . E n d z e l l n s , V/asm. I, 425. 2 This form a l s o designates " h a i r of quadrupeds".  was  49 a common phenomenon and i s e x p l a i n e d as a vowel g r a d a t i o n i n L a t v . , e.g., -o- was reduced t o - u due t o the s h i f t o f s t r e s s t o the i n i t i a l  syllable.  The L i t h . form agnus " r a p i d , f i e r y " would a l s o a t t e s t t o the above e x p l a n a t i o n .  F u r t h e r connec-  tions are L i t h . ugnis, i b i d , L a t . i g n i s , i b . l\l/-/49:29  f i s h - z i v s - r y b a , no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate w i t h 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 t a b u form; c f . a l s o O.Pruss. s u c k i s , i b i d , Arm. j u k n , ib.;  L a t v . z u t i s " e e l ( d i a l , a l s o f i s h ) " , Russ.  zveno "a l i n k " ; Vasm. I , 445; I I , 554; Buck 184. Russ. i s g e n e r a l l y connected w i t h O.High Germ, ruppe " e e l p o u t " ; Vasm. I I , 554; P r . 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. L a t v . - i - :: Russ. -e- as i n items 70:40, 122:160, however, the correspondence of L a t v . - d - :: Russ. -t-  i s d i f f i c u l t t o s u b s t a n t i a t e as a common o c c u r -  rence due t o l a c k of e v i d e n c e . with L i t h . l y d e t i  1  " t o accompany".  L a t v . i s cognate Russ. form i s  cognate w i t h L i t h . l e k t i " t o f l y " , L a t v . l e k t " t o jump", l e k a t " t o hop ( a r o u n d ) " , as the f i r s t  pers.  T h i s p a i r was viewed as p r o b a b l e c o g n a t e s , f o r , o f the t h r e e p a i r s o f elements w i t h i n the base morphs, two showed agreement, though Vasmer d i d n o t l i s t t h i s p a i r as cognates; Vasm. I I , 35.  sg. of the p e r f . a s p e c t u a l form l e t e t ' , e.g., l e c u r e f l e c t s i t s cognation u i t h the above B a i t , forms, ( L a t v . l e c u "I jump").  N/-/56:31  f o o t - peda - noqa^. no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . peda, i b i d , L a t . pes, _ 2 p e d i s , i b . , Goth, f o t u s > Germ. Fuss, i b .  Russ.  i s cognate u i t h O.Pruss. nage " f o o t " , L i t h . naga "hoof", Latv. nagas "both hands, hands and f e e t " (nou i n marginal usage o n l y ) , nags " n a i l " ,  Lith.  nagas, i b i d , Germ. IMagel, i b . F u r t h e r connection i s L a t . unguis " f i n g e r and toe n a i l s " .  A/+/ -:32  full  - p i l n s - p o l n y j , complete agreement, cognates.  The correspondence of Latv. - i a common phenomenon."'  :: Russ. -o- i s not  F u r t h e r connections are L i t h .  p i l n a s , i b i d , O.Pruss. p i l n a n , i b . ( a c c . s g . ) , Germ, vail,  i b . ; c f . also Lat. plenus.  The synonym stupnja " f o o t , s h o r t step" i s a seldom used v e s t i g i a l form, and i t a l s o uould be c l a s s e d as a non-cognate. 2 Apparently Russ. used to have a r e f l e x of t h i s form, as the Mod.Russ. form p e s i j " p e d e s t r i a n " (a v e s t i g i a l a d j e c t i v a l form) uould i n d i c a t e ; c f . a l s o L i t h . p e k s c i a s , i b i d , and f a r L a t v . peka "pau, f o o t " c f . f o o t n o t e to item -:13. E.g., i t should be as i n v i s s :: v e s " a l l " (item 1:1, etc.). 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* i n * p l - c o n d i t i o n e d the v a r i e t y of r e f l e x e s i n d i f f e r e n t speech communities, e.g., depending an the p o i n t of a r t i c u l a t i o n of the •1' phoneme. Thus, the more r e t r a c t e d v a r i e t y i s r e f l e c t e d i n Russ. p o i - and the more advanced one i n Latv. p i l - ; c f . a l s o f n . 2 i n item 159:83. 1  51 v7+/60:33  give - duot - davat', The  complete agreement,  p e r f e c t i v e a s p e c t u a l form dat' r e f l e c t s  cognation, f o r the base morphs duoh i s t o r i c a l phenomenon, e.g., a.  cognates.  Further connections  1  Lat.  a true  :: da- as a  Latv. uo  :: Ch.Slav.  are L i t h . d u o t i , i b i d ,  dare, i b . ; c f . a l s o Latv. davat  L i t h . dovana "a donation",  "to donate",  L a t v . davana "a present,  donation".  A/-/61:34  good - l a b s - xorosi.j , no agreements, non-cog. 3 L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . labas "good, well". Further connections  are Latv. l a b i b a " g r a i n " ,  l a b i e t i s "a ujell-born, r i c h l a b s "good", L i t h . l a b i s  ( w e l l - o f f ) man",  "possessions,  Russ. seems to be connected with Ukr. i b i d , B.Russ. charasycca  O.Pruss.  riches". chorasyj,  "to boast, brag".  Thus  t h i s Russ. form seems to be c o n f i n e d s t r i c t l y the E a s t - S l a v , speech community. of A/+/63:35  F u r t h e r background  t h i s form i s q u i t e vague; c f . Vasm. I l l , 264-265.  green - za\s  - z e l j o n y j , complete agreement,  Latv. -a- :: Russ. -e- as i n item 187:97.  1  to  cognates.  Further  — J . E n d z e l i n s , L a t v i e s u Valodas Gramatika, Latv. V a l s t s I z d e v n i e c i b a , Riga, 1951, p. 58: "La. uo a t b i l s t . . . s e n s l . a..." ( L a t v . uo corresponds t o . . . Ch.Slav. a . . . ) . 2 The Pan-Slav, form f o r "goad" dabr- a l s o appears i n 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 r y t a s "goad morning". v  52 connections are L i t h . z a l i a s , i b i d ,  O.Pruss.  s a l i g a n , i b . ; c f . a l s o item 62:131.  IM/—/65:36  h a i r - mati - v o l o s , no agreements, non-cognates. The background of the L a t v . form i s obscure, e.g., it  i s connected with the v e r b a l form mest "to throw"  (met "he, she throws") and the semantic l i n k i s suggested as "an arrangement of one's h a i r i n a p a r t i c u l a r uay".^  Russ. seems to be connected with  L i t h . v a l a s "horse t a i l - h a i r " ; c f . a l s o L a t . v e l l u s "shorn wool, a f l e e c e " .  l\l/+/66:37  hand - ruoka - ruka. complete agreement, cognates. L a t v . -uo- :: Russ. -u- as i n item 13:7.  Further  connections are L i t h . ranka, i b i d , O.Pruss. rancko, ib., Lith. rinkti  M/+/68:38  "to gather, pick as b e r r i e s " .  head - qalva - qolova. complete agreement, cognates. L a t v . - a - :: Russ. -o- as i n items -:41, 106:61, 133:167.  F u r t h e r connections are L i t h . g a l v a ,  O.Pruss. g a l l u , galwan  ibid,  ( a c c , s g . ) , ib.;Russ. g o l y j  "bare, naked".  V/-/69:39  hear - d z i r d e t - s l 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 . i s cognate with Latv. k l a u s i t "to obey,  Russ.  listen",  This e x p l a n a t i o n i s o f f e r e d i n Buck, p. 204. Another examp l e , of a s i m i l a r d e r i v a t i o n a l process, i . e . , vowel g r a d a t i o n , could be mentioned, e.g., l e k t "to jump": l a k t a "perch, henroost".  53 Lith. klausyti,  i b i d , O.Pruss. k l a u s i t o n  "to pay  a t t e n t i o n " , O.High Germ, hlosen "to l i s t e n , obey"; for  the h i s t o r i c a l cognation of L a t v . and  1  Russ.  forms c f . V/asm. I I , 666-667. N/+/7Q;kQ  heart - s i r d s - serdce, complete agreement, cog. L a t v . - i - :: Russ. -e- as i n items 1:1, Russ. i s a diminutive e x t e n s i o n , e.g., <^*s(e)rd(e)+-ko-.  serdce  F u r t h e r connections are  s i r d i s , i b i d , O.Pruss. s e y r . i b . , Arm. Goth, h a i r t o ,  122:160.  Lith.  sirt, ib.,  i b . , L a t . cor, c o r d i s , i b .  horn - rags - roq, complete agreement,  cognates.  Latv. - a - :: Russ. -o- as i n items 68:38, 106:61, 133:167.  Further connections are L i t h . ragas,  ibid,  O.Pruss. r a g i s , i b . l\l/-/76:42  human - c i l v e k s a cultural  0(+)79:43  - celovek, non  borrowing  cognates, f o r i t i s  from Ch.Slav.  into  Latv.  I - es - .ja, p a r t i a l agreement, cognates.  2  Latv. i s  cognate with L i t h . as, O.Pruss. es, a l s o as,  Arm.  Russ. s l y s a t "to hear" i s connected with s l u s a t ' "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 g e n e r a l l y viewed as an endocentric compound, e.g., celo+vek. The f i r s t morph seems to be connected with c e l j a d ' "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 , c l a n " , I r i s h eland "generation, descendants"). The second one i s compared with L i t h . v a i k a s "boy", Latv. d i a l , v a i k s "servant boy", O.Pruss. vaix "menial". 1  54 es.  Russ. i s cognate with P r o t o - S l a v . *az,  j a z , O.Bulg. az, a l s D j a z and i t g e n e r a l l y a Pan-Slavonic development.  Q.Cz. depicts  However, the general  background f o r the lapse of -z i s q u i t e obscure; Vasm. I l l , V/-/83:44  475-476; Pr. Append. 130-131.  k i l l - kaut - u b i v a t ' , no agreements,  non-cognate.  Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . k a u t i "to smash, a l s o f o r g e , hammer", Russ. kovat' "to f o r g e , hammer", Germ, hauen "to hew,  beat, e t c . " ( <. O.High Germ,  houwan "to hew); c f . a l s o L a t . 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 p a i r seems to be cognate, as L i t h .  kelis,  k e l y s , keleno "knee" seems to be connected with the Russ. form, and L i t h . k e l i s :: L a t v . c e l i s , as L i t h . kelti \I/+/Bk:k6  "to b u i l d "  :: L a t v . c e l t  "build".  2  know - z i n a t - znat'. complete agreement,  cognate.  The Russ. form i s c o n s i s t e n t with other Slav, forms,  Vasmer d i d not consider t h i s p a i r as e i t h e r connected or cognate (Vasm. I, 598). The problem i s created by the phonologi c a l i n c o n s i s t e n c y of the Russ. form, f o r the Mod.Russ. r e f l e x should have a ^ p a l a t o - a l v e o l a r a f f r i c a t e i n i t i a l l y i n s t e a d of the v e l a r , e . g . , c- not k-. T h e r e f o r e , he connects Latv. c e l i s with Russ. c e l j a d "menials", Vasm. I l l , 314. 2 c f . a l s o item 50:12.3 p e r t a i n i n g to a f f r i c a t i o n of the v e l a r s i n Latv. v  1  55 for  they a l l show the absence of the - i - phoneme i n  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 i a syncope. F u r t h e r connections are L i t h . z i n o t i , i b i d , O.Pruss. e r s i n n a t "to r e c o g n i z e , p e r c e i v e " ; c f . a l s o L a t . ignotus "unknown", Germ, sinnen "to ponder, muse".  (\)/-/87:47  l e a f - lapa - l i s t ,  some agreement, non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . l a p a s , i b i d , and i t seems to be connected with Russ. lepen' "a  little  p i e c e ; r a g , 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., P o l . list,  Ukr. l y s t , Cz. l i s t ,  S.Cr. l i s t ,  and i t seems to be connected with L i t h . "letter, i.e.,  Bulg.  list,  laiskas  a l e a f of w r i t i n g " , L a t v . l a i s k a  2 " l e a f of a f l a x - s t a l k " ,  probably a l s o L a t v . l a i k s n e  " w a t e r - l i l y " and O.Pruss. l a i s k a s "beech".  V/-/9Q:48  l i e - q u i e t - l e z a t ' , no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h , g u l e t i recline".''  "to l i e ,  Russ, i s cognate with Germ, l i e g e n "to  Russ. l a p a "paw" does not seem to be connected with t h i s Latv. form but r a t h e r with L i t h . lopa "claw of a bear/dog", Latv. lapa "a ' f l a t ' f o o t " .  2  Also L a t v . l a i s k s " i n d o l e n t , l a z y " should be noted here, though any connection between i t and the above Russ. form i s dubious. "'RUSS. g u l j a t ' "to s t r o l l , l i v e s l o v e n l y , s t r a y " might be connected with t h i s L a t v . form, though the exact p h o n o l o g i c a l correspondence of both forms would make them suspect to borrowing; a l s o a probable semantic s h i f t .  lie"<C  O.High Germ, l i g a n ; c f . a l s o L a t . l e c t u s  "a bed, couch",  Irish lige  "a bed, a l s o  grave".  Uasm. I I , 26. l\l/-/92:49  l i v e r - akna - p e c e n , 1  no agreements,  non-cognates.  Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . jaknos/jeknos, and i s probably connected with Russ. i k r a (Latv. i k r i ,  ibid, "roe"  ibid, Lith. ikrai, ib., Irish  "spawn"); c f . a l s o L a t . i e c u r " l i v e r " .  iuchair  Russ.  r e f l e c t s an E a s t - S l a v o n i c development with some West-Slav,  c o n n e c t i o n s , e.g., Ukr. pecinka, B.Russ.  pecinka, P o l . pieczen " r o a s t " , 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, Latv. i s cognate  with L i t h . gargaras  non-cognates. "long-legged 2  horse", gingaras "a long-legged man";  Buck  BB2.  Russ. seems to r e f l e c t an a l t e r n a t i o n between "long in  space", i . e . , the above form, and  "long i n time",  e.g., d l i n n y j : d o l g i j < Ch.Slav. * d ( e ) l - : * d ( e ) l g ( o ) , whereas i n B a i t , a d i f f e r e n t development o c c u r r e d , e.g., L a t v . u t i l i z e s d i f f e r e n t base morphs:  gar- "long i n space" and i l g -  "long i n  L i t h . appears to have a s i m i l a r semantic e x t e n s i o n , e.g., k e p t i "to bake, f r y " with kepenys " l i v e r , a l s o prepared l i v e r " as i t s extension. 2 Also Russ. gora "mountain" (item_99:56) and L a t v . p r e p o s i t i o n s gar "along, over, about" and garam "past, by" might be connected with t h i s L a t v . form. #  57 time", but i n L i t h . t h i s semantic dichotomy merged i n t o one form:  i l g - "long i n time and space". v  l\l/-/%:51  louse - uts - v o s , no agreements, non-cognates. 1  L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . u t e / u t e l e , i b i d . seems ta be connected with the r e d u p l i c a t e d form v i e v e s a "animal l o u s e " < * v e i v e s a ;  1  Russ. Lith.  c f . also  L a t v . usna " t h i s t l e " , L i t h . u s n i s , i b i d . l\J/-/95:52  man  - v i r i e t i s - muzcina, no agreements, non-cog.  L a t v . i s an extended form < v i r - s man", Lat.  "husband, a l s o  which i s cognate with L i t h . vyras v i r "man,  s i o n < muz  a male person".  "spouse, husband".  "male",  Russ. i s an extenI t represents a  Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . ma(n)z, Ukr. muz,  Cz. muz,  S.Cr. muz;  c f . a l s o L i t h , zmogus  "human", amzius "age, a long time", Latv. muzs i b i d , O.Pruss. amsis "people; a l s o e t e r n a l " .  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 . a l s o Russ. dtizij " s t r o n g , powerful", Germ, taugen "to be of worth or value", Tugend  "virtue".  Russ. i s  The r e c o n s t r u c t e d form can be a t t e s t e d ta by the e x i s t e n c e of an o l d F i n n , loanword vaive "a small c a t t l e - l o u s e " . v• The Slovene form us does suggest a connection with Latv. us-na " t h i s t l e " , however, the v o c a l i c divergence of t h i s form i n the v a r i o u s S l a v , languages might a t t r i b u t e t h i s Slovene form to a mere l o c a l p h o n o l o g i c a l development: P o l . wesz, Ukr. vas, Cz. ves, S.Cr, vas.  58  connected with Goth, manags "many, q u i t e a f e u " , O . I r i s h menicc "copious", L i t h . minia "a croud"; Uasm. I I , 143. I\l/-/97:54  meat - ga^a - mjaso, no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s probably connected u i t h Russ. g o l y j "naked, bare", as the L a t v . farm might have d e s i g nated "rau meat", or i t i s ^ L a t v . g a l s "end, but a l s o a p i e c e " , as i n L a t . caro "meat, f l e s h " , designated " p o r t i o n " ;  Buck 364.  u i t h L a t v . miesa "human f l e s h " , " f l e s h , meat", Arm. mis, i b i d ;  IM/-/ -:55  1  also  Russ. i s cognate O.Pruss. mensa  c f . a l s o item 8:3.  moon - meness - luna - no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h . menulis, i b i d , O.Pruss. menins, i b . , Russ. mesjac "month, a l s o moon", L a t . mensis "month", (Latv. menesis); f o r f u r t h e r connect i o n s c f . Uasm. I I , 125.  Russ. i s connected ( v i a  semantic suggestion) u i t h  the v e r b a l form l u n i t "  "to shine ueakly, throu a very pale l i g h t " , and i t seems to l i n k  up u i t h l u c "ray, a beam of l i g h t " .  F u r t h e r connections are O.Pruss. lauxnos ( p i . form) " s t a r s ( c o l l e c t i v e l y ) , heavenly bodies", L a t . luna "moon", probably a l s o l u x " l i g h t " ;  c f . a l s o Uasm.  I I , 69; P r . I , 477-478; Buck 54-55.  The L i t h . form f o r " f l e s h , human f l e s h " i s mesa, uhich probably i s a s o c i o - c u l t u r a l borrouing because of i t s i n c o n s i s t ent p h o n o l o g i c a l form, e.g., the absence of any n a s a l i z a t i o n .  59  N/-/99:56  m o u n t a i n - k a l n s - q o r a , no a g r e e m e n t s , L a t v . i s cognate  with  Lith.  "hill",  probably  also  w i t h O.IMorse h o l m r  island"  and R u s s . c e l o  poet,  only)".  garian  "tree",  kalnas, Lat. c o l l i s  "brow, f o r e h e a d  Russ. i s cognate  1  Lith.  w i t h A l b . gur "rock";  IM/-/100:57  non-cog.  giria  with  "forest",  c f . also  item  mouth - mute - r o t , no a g r e e m e n t s , L a t v . seems t o be c o n n e c t e d  with  ( i n Mad.Russ. O.Pruss.  probably  "to mutter,  Russ. r e p r e s e n t s a Pan-Slav, e.g.,  usta  Slav,  languages,  semantic opening also  also  93:50.  non-cognates.  mutulis  g u s h " , c f . Germ. Mund "mouth", p r o b a b l y mutus "mute", m u t i r e  "a s m a l l  "a  bubble,  also Lat.  mumble, murmur".  form  (except P a l . ,  "mouth"), however, i n most o f t h e o t h e r t h i s form  carries  a different  v a l u e , e . g . , U k r . r o t "mouth, a l s o t h e of a b a s k e t - l i k e f i s h  dial,  t r a p " , Cz. r e t " l i p ,  f o r mouth", S . C r . r t " p o i n t , m o u n t a i n  top",  B u l g . r o t "a h i l l o c k " ,  sharp  p o i n t , beak".  with  ryt*  with  Latv. r u t u l i s  O.Russ. r ( o ) t ( o ) "a  R u s s . seems t o be  connected  " t o d i g " ( i t e m 28:113) and p r o b a b l y "a r o u n d  also  p i e c e o f wood"; c f .  Vasm. I I , 5 3 9 .  The c o n n e c t i o n between t h e L a t v . f o r m and R u s s . c e l b c o u l d be p o s t u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s e m a n t i c e x t e n s i o n t h a t b o t h s u g g e s t "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. L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h .  vardas, i b i d , Goth,  uaurd "uord" > Germ. Ulort, i b i d , L a t . verbum, i b . , probably a l s o Russ. r o t a "oath, vou", v r a t ' "to prevaricate".  Russ. i s cognate u i t h O.Pruss.  emmens, i b i d , A l b . emen, i b . , Arm. anuor, i b . , Goth, namo, i b . , L a t . nomen, i b .  l\l/-/104:59  neck - k a k l s - se,ja  t  no agreements, non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h .  kaklas, i b i d , also L a t .  collum, i b . , Germ. Hals, i b . Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . s z y j a , Ukr. s y j a , Cz. s i j e , S.Cr. s i j a , Bulg. s i j a .  Further  connections are obscure, houever, L a t . s i n u s "curve, f o l d " ,  A l b . s i ( n ) "nape", L a t v . s e j a  1 features",  also L i t h .  "face,  •»— semis "the c o l o u r ( s ) of  fauna" could be mentioned.  A/-/105:60  neui - jauns - novy.i  t  no agreements, non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h .  *  2  —  jaunas, i b i d , O.Russ.  junyj, i b . , Lat. iunior, also iuvenis young".  "youthful,  Russ. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . naujas "neu",  O.Pruss. nauns, i b i d , L a t . novus, i b . , Gr. neos,  L a t v . s e j a " f a c e " i s u s u a l l y considered to be connected u i t h Russ. s i j a t "to g l o u , s h i n e " , houever, i t might r e p r e s e n t a semantic s h i f t , though the i r r e g u l a r correspondence of Russ. s- :: L a t v . s- seems to bilock t h i s c o n n e c t i o n . 1  2  Mpd.Russ. a l s o h a s ^ s e v e r a l r e f l e x e s of t h i s base morph, e.g., j u n o s t ' "youth", j u n o s e s k i j " y o u t h f u l " , e t c .  ib.,] Arm.  I\l/+/106:61  nor, i b .  n i g h t - nakts - noc', complete agreement,  cognates.  L a t v . - a - :: Russ. - a - as i n items -:41, 68:38, 133:167.  The Russ. f i n a l  phoneme i n the base morph,  i . e . , the unvoiced p a l a t o - a l v e o l a r a f f r i c a t e - c - , corresponds t D L a t v . ' v e l a r - d e n t a l ' p l o s i v e  cluster  - k t - as shown i n item 54:30, e.g., as Russ.  letet'  "to f l y "  i s shown to be connected with L a t v . l e k t  "to jump".  F u r t h e r connections are L i t h .  naktis,  i b i d , O.Pruss. n a k t i n ( a c c . s g . ) , i b . , L a t . nox, i b .  I\l/-/107:62  nose - dBquns - nos, no agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . might be connected with the v e r b a l form degt "to burn" (item 19:12) with d e r i v a t i v e s of deguts "birch-tar"  : darva as a g e n e r a l d e s i g n a t i o n of  " t a r " , and the above form of deguns;  1  c f . Russ.  djogot' " t a r , f o r m e r l y a l s o b i r c h - t a r " , degutas " b i r c h - t a r " ally",  Lith.  : derva d e s i g n a t e s " t a r gener-  i . e . , both B a i t , languages show a s i m i l a r i t y  of o p p o s i t i o n between " t a r " and " b i r c h - t a r " .  Russ.  i s cognate with L i t h . n o s i s , i b i d , L a t v . nass " n o s t r i l " , Germ. IMase "nose", L a t . n a r i s nasus  "nostril",  "nose".  The connection of burning and t a r , a l s o p r e p a r a t i o n of t a r , i s a s s o c i a t e d with strong odour, thus, perhaps, a semantic s h i f t from e i t h e r the n a t u r a l 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. F u r t h e r connections are L i t h . ne, i b i d , L a t . ne(as i n nego < ne a i o = "to say no" : to say yes" = a i o ) , n e s c i r e "not to know, t D be ignorant o f " ( i . e . , n e - + s c i r e ) , etc.;''" Goth, n i , i b i d .  Q/-/110:64  one - v i e n s - o d i n , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . v i e n a s , i b i d ; c f . a l s o O.Pruss. a i n s , i b . , L a t . unus, i b . , Russ. i n o j " f e u " (item 46:121).  Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav,  development, e.g., P o l . jeden, Ukr. odyn, Cz. jeden, S.Cr. jedan, Bulg. e d i n .  This form i s prob-  ably a r e f l e x of a h i s t o r i c a l compounding, e.g., *ed+in(o) u i t h *ed- r e p r e s e n t i n g a p a r t i c l e  desig-  n a t i n g d e f i n i t e n e s s and * - i n ( o ) being the h i s t o r i c a l base morph f o r i n o j " f e u , a l s o the other o n e ( s ) " .  A  s i m i l a r development appears i n the Russ. form ( j ) e d v a "only, h a r d l y , j u s t " < *ed+va, uhere va  2 designated i n O.Russ. "you tuo, both of you";  cf.  a l s o Germ, etuas "some, f e u " , etua " n e a r l y , about",  The Bait.and S l a v , speech communities a l s o u t i l i z e ne- as a p r e f i x of negation, houever, Russ. r e f l e c t s a dichotomy of part i c l e s , e.g., ne/ne- and n i - = L a t . 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 i n O.Russ. u i t h pronouns; i f the second element i s considered to be -va, then ( j ) e d - could be vieued as a r e f l e x of a demonstrative pronoun * d o - / * d i - as r e f l e c t e d i n O.Pruss. d i n "him" ( a c c . s g . ) , d i n s "them" ( a c c . p i . ) , and -va uould be cognate u i t h L i t h , vos " j u s t , o n l y " . Houever, t h i s l i n k a g e seems to be l e s s c l e a r than the one u i t h va "both of you"; Uasm. I , 391.  63  Lat.  BCCB  " b e h o l d , l o ! " as c o n n B C t s d w i t h e c q u i s  (ec+quis) " i s t h e r e any t h a t , does anyone? I,  N/-/115:65  Vasm.  391; I I , 2 5 5 .  r a i n - l i B t u s - dozd', no agreements, Latv.  non-cognates.  i s cognate w i t h L i t h . l i e t u s , i b i d .  Further  c o n n e c t i o n s a r e L i t h . l i e t i " t o pour" ( L a t v . Latv.  l i t " t o r a i n , pour o u t " , L i t h . l y t i  O.Pruss.  pralieiton  liet),  "to r a i n " ,  "poured o u t " , i s l T u n s "outpour",  Russ. l i t ' " t o pour"; c f . a l s o A l b . l ' i s e "brook". Russ.  r e f l e c t s a P a n - S l a v , development, E . g . , P o l .  d e s z c z , U k r . dozdz, C z . d e s t , S . C r . dazd. 1  Russ.  seems t o be connected w i t h Norm, dusk-regn and Sued,  rsgn-dusk " f i n s r a i n , d r i z z l s " , a l s o Norw.  d y s j a "misty r a i n " , a l s o the p o s s i b i l i t y of *dus-djus "bad weather o r c l o u d y 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, g e n e r a l background f o r t h i s form i s q u i t e obscure; c f . Vasm. I , 357, Buck 68, P r . I , 187-188.  A/-/116:66  r e d - s a r k a n s - krasny.j, no agreements, Latv.  non-cog.  i s an extendsd form < s a r k t " t o b l u s h ,  redden", from whencs stems a l s o s a r k s " r e d d i s h " , s a r t s "reddened, as f a c e , c h e s k s " , s a r d i s ( c o l o u r ) ; a roan", e t c .  "sorrel  I t i s cognate w i t h L i t h .  sarkanas " r o s y " , s a r t a s " f o x y - r e d " ; c f . a l s o R u s s . soroga " r o a c h , i . e . , red-eyed f i s h " , p r o b a b l y  s o r o b a l i n a or s o r b a l i n a "red brambleberry Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, form, e.g., "red, n i c e " , Ukr. krasny  e.g.,  as u i e l l .  P o l . krasny  krasnyj " n i c e , b e a u t i f u l " ,  " n i c e , s h i n y , r e d d i s h " , S.Cr.  splendid".  11  shift,  Russ. "red".  i c a l l y , i t i s an extended form < krasa charms" as i t s t i l l  e  krasni "nice,  Thus Russ. d e p i c t s a semantic  general S l a v , " n i c e " >  Cz  Histor-  "beauty,  i s i n p o e t i c use i n Mod.Russ.  Russ. krasa seems to be connected u i t h D.Norse hros "fame, p r a i s e " , hrosa  "to boast, brag",  a b l y ' a l s o Latv. k a r s t s "hot, red-hot", "heat",  Latv. k a r s e t "to heat up",  prob-  Lith.  karstis  though general  background of t h i s form i s q u i t e o b s c u r e .  1  Uasm.  I, 656-657, Pr. I, 377-378.  N/-/12Q:67  road - cej^s - doroga, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . k e l i a s , i b i d , as L a t v . celis  "knee" :: L i t h . k e l i s , i b i d  (item  -:45).  Russ. i s connected u i t h the v e r b a l form d j o r g a t "to p u l l ; u n r a v e l " , uhich i s cognate u i t h dragat  1  Latv.  "to drag, p u l l ; smash, damage; proceed  r e c k l e s s f a s h i o n along a road", L i t h . d i r g i n t i  in a "to  d i s t u r b , tease; f l u s h as game", c f . a l s o Germ.  Latv. krasa " c o l o u r " , krasns "oven", L i t h . k r b s n i s , i b i d , do not seem to be connected u i t h t h i s Russ. form, and, due to t h e i r exact p h o n o l o g i c a l correspondence, any connection uould have to be vieued as a b o r r o u i n g .  65 zerren  IM/-/121:68  "to p u l l ,  drag; tease, worry".  r o o t - s a k n e - kc-ren', no a g r e e m e n t s , Latv. i s cognate with L i t h .  non-cognates.  saknis, ibid.  Russ.  seems t o be c o g n a t e ( v i a v o w e l g r a d a t i o n ) w i t h keras "bush, s h r u b , rhizome", L a t v . c e r s shrub", O.Pruss. k i r n o  "shrub", L i t h .  Lith.  "bush,  kereti  "to  r o o t " ; c f . Vasm. I , 6 2 5 . A/-/  -:69  r o u n d - a p a ^ s - k r u g l y j , no a g r e e m e n t s , Latv. i s cognate with L i t h .  non-cog.  apvalus, i b i d ,  with Russ. vobla "roach" (nautical)." ' 1  also  Russ. i s  d e r i v e d <(, k r u g " c i r c l e " , w h i c h 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.  N/-/126:70  krug.  I t seems t o be c o n n e c t e d w i t h  hringr  " r i n g " , Vasm. I , 6 7 0  D.Norse  o  s a n d - s m i l t s - p e s o k , no a g r e e m e n t s , Latv. i s cognate with L i t h .  _  smiltis  non-cognates.  "fine  2  smelys "sand".  Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, d e v e l -  opment, e . g . , P o l . p i a s e k , U k r . p i s o k , C z . S.Cr. p i j e s a k . w i t h Arm.  sand",  posi  pisek,  T h i s f o r m seems t o be c o n n e c t e d "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 b e t w e e n R u s s . v o b l a and L a t v . a p a ^ 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 o f v o b l a t o R u s s . v a l "a r o l l e r , wave" ( v i a v o w e l g r a d a t i o n ) , t h e l a t t e r b e i n g c o g n a t e w i t h L a t v . v e l t " t o r o l l " ; c f . Vasm. I , 2 1 1 .  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 smelt "to scoop; l a d l e " . Morphophonemically, the s u g g e s t i o n t h a t *smel-/*mel- (the 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 2 3 .  66 t h i s form are q u i t e obscure.  Uasm. I I , 347, Buck  22-23, P r . I I , 49-50.  U/-/127:71  say - s a c i t - skazat', no agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h . s a k y t i , i b i d , sok " p l a i n t i f f ;  Russ.  also scout, spy", Germ, sagen "to  say", perhaps a l s o Ch.Slav. s o c i t i  "to p o i n t o u t " .  Russ. form i s an extension < -kazat' "to shau, p a i n t out", e.g., s+kazat', thus t h i s form r e p r e sents not only an a s p e c t u a l e x t e n s i o n , but a l s o a semantic s h i f t , i . e . , "to p o i n t " > "to r e l a t e " . The b a s i c form - k a z a t  1  i s a general Pan-Slav, de-  velopment u i t h some semantic differentiations,''" e.g., P o l . kazac "to preach, order", Ukr. kazaty "to say, speak, p o i n t , order", Cz. k a z a t i "to shou, order", S.Cr. k a z a t i  "to say".  For f u r t h e r con-  n e c t i o n s c f . Uasm. I , 503; P r . I , 2B2.  U/-/130:72  see - r e d z e t - v i d e t ' , no agreements, Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . r e g e t i .  non-cognates. Russ. i s cog-  nate u i t h L i t h . pavydeti "to envy", v e i z d e t i "to uatch", O.Pruss. u i d d a i IM/+/131:73  "sau", L a t . v i d e r e "to see".  seed - s e k l a - semja, some agreement, cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . s e k l a , i b i d .  Russ. i s  "'"In Mod.Russ. -kazat' e x i s t s only as a thematic form, i . e . , as: +(-kazat')+.  67 cognate with L i t h . semens " l i n s e e d " , semenys "sowing  seeds",  1  O.Pruss. semen "seed", L a t . semen  "seed, s u c c e s s i o n " , Germ. Same "seed".  The b a s i s  for  t h i s p a i r i s considered to be the v e r b a l form  for  "to sow", e.g., Latv. s e t and Russ. s e j a t ' ,  thus the base morphs L a t v . s e - : : Russ. se- are in  V/+/136:74  agreement.  s i t - sedet - s i d e t ' . complete agreement,  cognates.  F u r t h e r connections are L i t h . s e d e t i , i b i d , Goth, s i tan,  N/-/137:75  i b . , L a t . sedere, i b .  s k i n - ada - koza. no agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . oda, i b i d .  Russ.  d e p i c t s a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . , Ukr., S.Cr., B u l g . 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 " g o a t - s k i n " Cas koza ^ koza " g o a t " ) .  V/-/139:76  s l e e p - q u i e t - spat', no agreements,  non-cognates.  Latv. form c o i n c i d e s with "to l i e " , c f . item 90:48. Russ. i s cognate with O.Eng. svefan, i b i d , O.IMorse s o f a , i b . , L a t . s o p i r e "to put to s l e e p " , probably a l s o O.Norse seifa " s l a y ! " , c f . Vasm. I I , 706.  _ L i t h . semenys appears as a loanword i n F i n n . , e.g., L i t h . semenys > F i n n , siemen "seed"; Vasm. I I , 609.  68 /  A/-/14Q:77  small - mazs - maly.j, some agreement, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . mazas, i b i d ,  O.Pruss.  massais "the l e s s e r one", a l s o probably u i t h mizlnec "the l i t t l e  f i n g e r or t o e " .  Russ.  Russ. i s cog-  nate u i t h L a t . malus "bad", Goth, smals " s m a l l , scanty", Germ, schmal "narrou, t h i n , scanty". agreement of the f i r s t  tuo phonemes i n the base  morphs might be considered as c o i n c i d e n t a l , to  IM/+/lif2:78  item -:11.  similar  F u r t h e r connections of Russ. form  are  q u i t e dubious; c f . Buck 881; Uasm. I I , 92;  Pr.  I, 505-506.  smoke - dumi - dym,  complete agreement, cognates.  Latv. -u- ;: Russ. -y- as u i t h the p a i r : but  The  "to be" :: Russ. byt', i b i d .  Latv.  Further connec-  t i o n s are L i t h . dumai, i b i d , O.Pruss. dumis, i b . ; cf.  a l s o L a t . fumus, i b i d , O.High Germ, toum  "haze".  U(+)151:79  stand - s t a v e t - sto.jat', p a r t i a l agreement, cog. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . s t o v e t i , i b i d , Russ. stavit  1  "to p l a c e , put", Goth, s t o j a n "to a l i g n " ,  Germ, stauen "to stow auay",cf. a l s o L a t . r e s t a u r a r e "to  r e b u i l d " , i n s t a u r a r e "to s e t up, e s t a b l i s h " .  1  Uasrner d i d not l i s t t h i s p a i r as cognates, though the conn e c t i o n betueen them uas i n d i c a t e d (Uasm. I l l , 1, 21).  69 Russ. i s cognate with Latv. s t a t ( i e s ) "to a l i g n ( 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, p l a c e , e t c . " , O.High Germ, s t a n / s t e n , i b i d > Germ, stehen,  i b . , c f . also  D.Pruss. p a s t a t "to become", i . e . , po+(stat) "to achieve  a stand".  that t h i s p a i r has  Thus i t could be  concluded  the same base morph, but  with  reversed v a r i a n t forms tD express t r a n s i t i v i t y i n t r a n s i t i v i t y , e.g., stavet  vs.  Latv. i n t r a n s i t i v e form  :: Russ. i n t r a n s i t i v e form s t o 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 stavit•.  l\l/+/152:80  2  s t a r - zvaiqzne  - zvezda, complete agreement, cog.  Latv. - a i - :: Russ. -e- r e g u l a r l y ( c f . footnote item 4 4 : 1 2 0 ) .  L i t h . zvaigzde,  to  i b i d , would i n d i c a t e  the p o s s i b i l i t y of an O.Slav, form *gvezda, with P o l . gwiazda as a modern r e f l e x of i t . As a f u r ther s t e p , i t could be p o s t u l a t e d t h a t , f o r a l l the S l a v , forms, the b a s i s was •gvaigzda lation <  a P r o t o - S l a v . form  and by an incantiguous *zvaigzda,  regressive assimi-  the l a t t e r r e p r e s e n t i n g a  L a t v . t r a n s i t i v e v e r b a l form s t a t ( i e s ) has s e v e r a l v a r i ants, e.g., s t a d i n a t "to arrange, s e t up", s t a d i t "to p l a c e , put; plant". ' 2  —  -  Also L a t v . forms:_ stavs " f i g u r e , e r e c t body" and s t a t i s "standing p o s i t i o n " , _ s t a j a "stand", s t a t s "frame f o r p l a c i n g sheaves e r e c t l y " , stads " p l a n t " correspond h i s t o r i c a l l y to the Russ. form s t a t ' "body, frame, f i g u r e " , though the Latv. forms have been d e r i v e d from ' d i f f e r e n t v e r b a l forms, both i n t r a n s i t i v e and t r a n s i t i v e . 1  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.  F u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s are O.Pruss.  svaigstan  " l i g h t , s h i n e " , L a t v . z v a i g a ^ a "a com w i t h a s t a r l i k e f o r e h e a d marking", z v y g u l y s "shimmer", L a t v . z a i g u o t "to shimmer, N ( - ) : 154::81  stone - akmens - kamen , p a r t i a l agreement, 1  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 L a t v . one i n one feature only, i . e . , a probable metathesis.  However,  the e x a c t p h o n o l o g i c a l correspondence between the two forms makes e i t h e r one an immediate s u s p e c t to borrowing.  The S l a v , 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, B u l g . kamen, which r e f l e c t s a P a n - S l a v , development.  The B a l t i c  forms  are e q u a l l y u n i f o r m , e.g., L a t v . akmens, L i t h . akrnuo, akmens, and O.Pruss. ackons "awn"  (=Latv.  a k u o t s , L i t h . a k u o t a s ) , as the o n l y r e c o r d e d 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 concerned.  In view of the f a c t t h a t the base morphs  ak- and a s - ( f o r a s - development  c f . i t e m 15:9)  have been h i s t o r i c a l l y very p r o d u c t i v e , w i t h i n the B a i t , speech a r e a , then the p o s t u l a t e 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 " s t o n e , stone implements, e t c . " appears to be q u i t e v a l i d ,  e.g.,  *kamen- >  Bait,  'ak-  forms.  1  S l a v , 'kamen-' forms, *akmen->  forms and  *akmen- >  Bait.  'as-/as-'  Thus Russ. i s cognate with 0.Saxon hamar  "hammer", O.Norse hamarr, f u r i t shams complete agreement with these forms ( r / n a l t e r n a t i o n i s a common phenomenon w i t h i n the neuter O.Norse), c f . Vasm. I,  N/+/157:82  gender i n  514.  sun - saule - s o l n c e . complete agreement,  cognates.  Russ. represents an extended d i m i n u t i v e form, which was  d e r i v e d i n a manner s i m i l a r to the one  70:40.  F u r t h e r connections  are L i t h .  i n item  saule, i b i d ,  O.Pruss. s a u l e , i b . , Goth, s a u i l , i b . , L a t . s o l , i b . ; f o r f u r t h e r connections V(+)159:B3  c f . Vasm. I I , 690.  swim - p e l d e t - p l a v a t , p a r t i a l 1  agreement,  Latv. base morph p e l d - / p l u d - "to f l o a t "  cog.  1  (item  51:124), and / p l u s - "to flow" (item 52:125) and a l l forms are connected s e m a n t i c a l l y , to w i t , with activity nates it  i n v o l v i n g water.  "to f l o a t " a l s o and,  The  Russ. form d e s i g -  as shown i n item 51:124,  i s cognate with L a t v . pluduot,  ibid.  i s a morphophonemic a l t e r n a n t of pluduot,  As p e l d e t then i t  Vasmer d i d not l i s t L a t v . p e l d e t i n connection with the Russ. form p l a v a t . The Russ. form was considered to be cognate with L i t h . p l a u t i o n l y , as shown i n item 51:124, probably due to i r r e g u l a r p h o n o l o g i c a l correspondences between L a t v . and Russ. r e f l e x e s , e.g., p l u - / p l u - / p e l - :: p l a - / p l y - ; c f . Vasm. I I , 364, 377. 1  72  follows  t h a t t h e above L a t v .  cognate.  1  extension) pildyti pilet  N/-/16Q:84  tail  Further  connections  Latv. p i l d i t  "to f i l l  and R u s s . f o r m s a r e are ( v i a semantic  "to f i l l ,  up", p i l t i  pour",  Lith.  " t o p o u r " and L a t v .  "to d r i p " .  - aste  - xvost,  no a g r e e m e n t s ,  L a t v . m i g h t be c o n n e c t e d w i t h Lith.  asutas,  ibid,  also Latv.  astri  non-cognates. "horse  ass "sharp",  hair", Russ.  2 ost'  "awn, any s h a r p  "bone" and L i t h . flects  point";  astanka  c f . a l s o Gr. osteon  "remainder".  a Pan-Slav, development w i t h  fied  semantic designations f o r t h i s  Pol,  chwost  grass Cz.  or h o r s e - t a i l  chvost  Bulg.  "tail,  grass",  ibid,  form, e.g.,  Ukr. c h v i s t  grass".  "shave "tail",  Arm. x o s t  T h i s form i s "grass,  meadow"; a l s o D.High Germ, q u e s t a Germ. Q u a s t e ,  diversi-  S.Cr. host " v i n e - s t a l k " ,  "horse-tail  connected with  widely  end", chwoszczka  "trail(ing),  chvosc  usually  tail  Russ. r e -  c f . Vasm. I l l ,  lawn,  "tassel,  tuft"}  237-238.  Other examples o f t h i s type o f a l t e r n a t i o n a r e L a t v . p e l n i "ashes"/plene "a t h i n l a y e r o f a s h e s " , 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 m a t t e d p i e c e o f wool o r h a i r , i . e . , a s h a i r f u l l o f dirt, etc.". 2 G e n e r a l l y t h i s R u s s . f o r m i s v i e w e d as r e l a t e d t o 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 . , s h a r p awned g r a i n " ; c f . Vasm. I I , 288. v  73 D/+/161:85  that - tas - t o t , complete agreement,  cognates.  Russ. r e f l e c t s a r e d u p l i c a t e d form, e.g., to+to as i n Ukr. t o t o .  L a t v . -a- :: Russ. - a - as i n items  -:41, 68:38, 106:61, 133:167.  A f u r t h e r connection  is Lith. tas, i b i d . 0/-/167:86  t h i s - s i s - ^ t o t , no agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate mith L i t h . s i s , i b i d ,  O.Pruss.  s c h i s , i b . , O.Russ. s e j " t h i s " which i s s t i l l i n marginal use i n Mod.Russ.; this side".  1  c f . a l s o L a t . c i s "on  Russ. r e p r e s e n t s an extended form of  t o t (item 161:85), e.g., p r o c l i t i c  directional  p a r t i c l e e « e)+tot.  0/+/168:87  thou - tu - t y , complete agreement,  cognates.  P h o n e t i c a l l y Russ. -y i n ty i s a "center-vowel" between the c a r d i n a l vowels i and u, with S l a v , languages f l u c t u a t i n g h o r i z o n t a l l y and from a f r o n t a l p o i n t of a r t i c u l a t i o n  (Bulg, t i ) to a more  r e t r a c t e d p o i n t (Russ. ty) and the B a i t , group v e r t i c a l l y , as i t were, between the c a r d i n a l vowel u ( L a t v . , L i t h . tu) and mid-vowel  o (O.Pruss.  tou, t o , a l s o t u ) .  Russ. s e j i s an extended form < s(e) " t h i s " , v i a a d e 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 a l s o Uasm. I I , 602.  Ik  (\1/-/172:8B  tongue - mele - j a z y k , no agreements, nan-cognates. L a t v . might be connected w i t h the v e r b a l forms m e l s t " t o g o s s i p " , L i t h . m e l s t i " t o 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. m e l u a t ) , however, g e n e r a l background f o r t h i s form i s q u i t e o b s c u r e ; c f . Buck 230."''  Russ. seems t o  be connected w i t h O.Pruss. i n s u w i s , i b i d , liezuvis,  ib. < liezti  "to l i c k "  development i n L a t v . l a i z T t sweet-tooth!'); "to  Lith.  (but a d i f f e r e n t  " t o l i c k " > l a i z a "a  a l s o O.Lat. dingua "tongue" + l i n g e r e  l i c k " = L a t . l i n g u a "tongue"; f o r f u r t h e r con-  n e c t i o n s c f . Vasm. I l l , 485. IM/+/173:89  t o o t h - zuobs - zub, complete agreement, c o g n a t e s . L a t v . -uo- :: Russ. - u - as i n items 13:7, 66:37. Further connections  a r e L i t h . zambas "any p o i n t e d  o b j e c t , a sharp c o r n e r , e t c . " , zambis "a wooden p l o u g h , i . e . , a p o i n t e d one", a l s o O.High Germ, kamb "comb". IM/-/174:9Q  t r e e - kuoks - derevo, no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . seems to be connected w i t h Gr. kokkos " b e r r y ,  The Russ. forms m o l i t ' " t o e n t r e a t , s u p p l i c a t e " > m o l i t ' s j a "to p r a y " c o u l d probably o f f e r another c o n n e c t i o n , 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 r a t h e r vague due to L a t v . -e- :: Russ. - a - .  75 g r a i n " > L a t . coccum "the berry of the s c a r l e t Dak";  1  p r o b a b l y a l s o L i t h . kaukas "bump, lump, a l s o  a b o i l " , L i t h . d i a l , kuokas " s t i c k , c u d g e l " , O.Russ. kuka  "fist".  Russ. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . derva  "pine k i n d l i n g " , D.Eng. t e r u " t a r " ; L a t v . darva 0/+/176:91  c f . also  Lith.,  "tar".  tuo - d i v i - dva, complete agreement, cognates. The base morphs c o r r e s p o n d t o each o t h e r , s i m i l a r to those i n i t e m 84:46, e.g., d i v - :: dv- as z i n - :: zn-.  F u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s a r e L i t h . du, O.Pruss.  d u a i , Goth, t u a i , A l b . du. v7-/178:92  u a l k - i e t - x o d i t ' , no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate u i t h Russ. i d t i / i t t i , u h i c h i s the b a s i s f o r the f o r m a t i o n of the determined form o f the  i m p e r f e c t i v e a s p e c t as u e l l as the p e r f e c t i v e  a s p e c t of the nan-determined form x o d i t ' . connections are L i t h . e i t i  Further  " t o go", O.Pruss.  "thou u a l k e s t " , e i t " g o i " ( i m p e r . p i . ) .  eisei  F o r the  background of the Russ. form c f . i t e m 23:16. A/-/179:93  uarm - s i l t s  - t / j o p l y j , no agreements, non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h . s i l t a s , i b i d , p r o b a b l y  A p r o b a b l e tabu concept f o r " t r e e " i n L a t v . c o u l d be p o s t u l a t e d as a reason f o r the semantic s h i f t " b e r r y , i . e . , f r u i t > t r e e " , as some t r e e s , n o t a b l y oak, a l s o groves and copses, uere c o n s i d e r e d 'holy' b e f o r e the advent of the C h r i s t i a n e r a , t o u i t , b e f o r e 1200 A.D.  a l s o L a t . c a l e r e "to be warm, hot".  Russ, seems to  be connected with an O.Pruss. toponymic form Tappelauken "Uarmfield", L a t . tepere "to be l u k e warm; c f . a l s o Vasm. I l l , 94-95.  IM/+/181:94  water - udens - v/oda, some agreement, cognates. L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . vanduo, vandens, i b i d , N o r t h . L i t h . unduo, i b . , O.Pruss. wundan, unds, i b . F u r t h e r connections are Goth, wato, i b . , A l b . u j , i b . , L a t . unda "water, esp. water i n motion".  The  L i t h . form combines the p h o n o l o g i c a l f e a t u r e s of both forms, as i t were, and shows them to be cognate.  The d e n t a l n a s a l  'n' i n L i t h . and L a t . forms  seems to be i n t r u s i v e , i . e . , not o r g a n i c and r e l a tively late  0/-/182:95  i n appearance; c f . Vasm. I , 212.  we - mes - my,  complete agreement, cognates.  The  correspondence of L a t v . -e- :: Russ. -y i s unusual, though the Russ. form could be, perhaps, c l a r i f i e d as an a n a l o g i c a l change due to -y i n vy "you" ( L a t v . j u s ) . F u r t h e r connections are L i t h . "we",  O.Pruss. mes,  i b . , Arm. mek,  mes  i b . ; c f . also  Vasm. I I , 183. v  0/-/184:96  what - kas - c t o , no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . kas "what/who", Russ. kto  "who"  (item 188:98), L a t . qui "what", O.High  Germ, hwaz, i b i d .  Historically  Russ. i s a  com-  pounded form, e.g., * c ( e ) "which" (=Lat. quid) + *t(o)  (the neuter form of the demonstrative  " t h i s " , c f . f n . to item 67:133).  pronoun  A f u r t h e r connec-  t i o n i s L a t . q u i s ; c f . a l s o Uasm. I l l , 348. A/+/187:97  white - b a i t s - bely.i, complete agreement, L a t v . - a - :: Russ. -e- as i n item 63:35. connections  are L i t h . b a l t a s "white",  cognates. Further  Latv. bals  " p a l e " , L i t h . b a l a s , i b i d , Latv. b a l i n a t "to b l e a c h " . 0/+/188:98  who - kas - kto, complete agreement,  cognates.  Russ. r e p r e s e n t s a compound form, e.g., k(o)+to, wherein the f i r s t p a r t i s cognate with Latv. kas "who", L i t h . kas, i b i d , and the second p a r t i s the same form as represented  i n item 184:96; c f . a l s o  t h i s item f o r f u r t h e r connections.  N/-/195:99  woman - s i e v i e t e - zenscina, no agreements, non-cog. Latv. i s an extension < s i e v a "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 - d z e l t e n s - z.joltv.i. complete agreement, cog. Further connections  are L i t h . g e l t a s , geltonas,  i b i d , O.Pruss. gelatynan, affrication  i b . , Germ, gelb, i b . ; f o r  of v e l a r s f o r 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 e i t h e r L a t v . i r ( 3 r d p e r s . s g . / p l . of "to be"), or i r " a l s o " i n r e i t e r a t i v e formations  where ' i r ' f u n c t i o n s as a connec-  t i v e f o r s e v e r a l items of the same word In L a t g a l l i a n , an E a s t - L a t v . d i a l e c t , has lapsed i n t o  'i'  category.  'ir'  either  by apocope or has been borrowed  from the S l a v s , who have h i s t o r i c a l l y  represented  not only an adstratum but a l s o a strong  super-  stratum i n f l u e n c e . 1 N/-/3:102  animal  - kustuonis  non-cognates.  ~ - z i v d t n o ( j ) e , no agreements,  Latv. i s d e r i v e d from k u s t e t "to  move" and Russ. from z i t  1  "to l i v e " , c f . item  91:148. 0/-/5:103  a t - p i e - u, no agreements, non-cognates.  Latv.  seems to be cognate e i t h e r with L i t h . p r i e " a t " ( p r i e lango v s . Latv. p i e luoga  " a t the window")  or apie "around" ( L a t v . a p ) , a l s o L i t h . pas " t o " (as a d i r e c t i o n a l as w e l l as a p o s i t i o n a l p r e p o s i tion).  Russ. might be cognate with the now obsolete  L a t v . p r e f i x au- "with, from", as i t i s s t i l l u t i l i z e d i n some v e s t i g i a l forms and e x p r e s s i o n s , The above form i s used i n preference to d z i v n i e k s , i b i d , f o r the l a t t e r was calqued according to the above Russ. p a t t e r n ,  79 e.g., aumanis "someone u i t h good sense, a l s o intellect"  high  (au+manis from maga "sense, i n t e l l e c t  e t c . " ; auma^am " i n or u i t h streams, i . e . , u i t h o u t bounds", as i n p l u s t auma^am "to f l o u i n streams, i.e.,  out of c o n t r o l " (au+maj.am from mala " s i d e ,  boundary").  N/-/S:10k  back - muqura - s p i n a , no agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h . nugara, the l a t t e r form might be cognate u i t h Ch.Slav. nu- "doun" + gora "mountain",  thus i t meant, f i r s t l y ,  r i d g e " (Buck 212).  This e x p l a n a t i o n  based on the e x i s t e n c e  "mountain seems to be  of s e v e r a l v a r i a n t s f o r the  b a s i c form mugura, e.g., mugurs, mugara. ference  The  dif-  of the i n i t i a l n a s a l s between the two B a i t ,  languages could be, perhaps, e x p l a i n e d  as a combi-  n a t i v e change i n i t i a t e d by f r o n t i n g of the phoneme n- (as i n L i t h . ) to m-  (as i n L a t v . ) due to a n t i c i -  pation of the f o l l o u i n g phoneme -u-, which at  l e a s t some l i p rounding.  borrowing from L a t . spina "backbone",  Russ. might be a  "spine" v i a O.Pol, spina  however, there might a l s o e x i s t a con-  n e c t i o n with Latv. spina "a twig, switch deciduous t r e e " , c f . L a t . spina  A/-/7:105  "life"  of any  "thorn, needle".  bad - s l i k t s - p l o x o j , no agreements,  e.g., dzifvnieks <. dzive  requires  non-cognates.  L a t v . seems to be a borrowing From Bait.Germ. " S c h l i c h t e " , which a l s o appears i n P o l . v i a semantic s h i f t , e.g., s z l i c h t a  "weaver's glue"; c f . a l s o  Germ, s c h l e c h t "bad" :: L a t v . s l i k t s "bad".  Russ.  seems to r e p r e s e n t an E/ld-Slav. form, e.g., P o l . plochy "shy, f i c k l e " , Cz. plochy " f l a t " , p l o c h y j "humble, submissive, t a c i t " .  Ukr.  Russ. plaxa  "executioner's b l o c k " i s connected with i t , to w i t , by vowel g r a d a t i o n ; c f . Latv. p l a t s "wide, broad", i . e . , item 189:198, a l s o Germ, f l a c h  0/-/9:106  "flat".  because - juo - i b o , no agreements, non-cognates. 1  L a t v . i s cognate with the  more", and  i ) L i t h . c o n j . jus "so much,  i i ) perhaps, with the i n s t . s g .  form juo of the personal pronoun j i s "he"; c f . a l s o Germ. j e C . d e s t o ) "so much the" + comparative. Russ. c o n s i s t s 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 . a l s o L i t h . juoba "unless, the  W/-/16:107  more".  blow - pust - d u t , no agreements, non-cognates. 1  L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . p u s t i , i b i d , and Russ. puxnut  1  "to s w e l l " ; c f . a l s o L a t . p u s t u l a  "blister".  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; a l s o n e i t h e r form would i n f l u e n c e the cognate count.  81 O.Pruss. dumsle " b l a d d e r " ( L a t v . p u s l i s ) ; c f . a l s o Germ. Dampf \y/-/18:108  "steam".  breathe - e l p u o t - d y s a t ' , no agreements, non-cog. L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . a l p t i " t o f a i n t , i n t o a suoDn", a l p u s " b r e a t h l e s s , f a i n t e d "  fall  (Latv.  elpa "breath"); c f . also L i t h . alsa "weariness, e x h a u s t i o n " ( L a t v . e l s a "a gasp", e l s a s "sobs", e l s u o t " t o p a n t " , e t c . ) . Russ. i s cognate w i t h L a t v . duset " t o r e p o s e , r e s t " , dusa "slumber" L i t h . d u s i n t i " t o gasp f o r b r e a t h , pant"; c f . a l s o 0.Norse dusa " t o assume a m o t i o n l e s s s t a t e " , Germ, d u s e l n " t o daydream, doze". N/-/20:109  c h i l d - berns - r e b j o n o k , no agreements, non-cog. L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . bernas " s e r v a n t , l a d , f e l l o w " ; c f . a l s o O.High Germ, b a r n , O.Eng. b e a m , Swed., Norw. barn; f u r t h e r L a t v . form, v i a vowel g r a d a t i o n , b a r e n i s "orphan", c f . Russ. b a r i n "gentlemen", though t h i s Russ. form r e p r e s e n t s a c o n t r a c t i o n < b o j a r i n " b o y a r ( d ) , a n o b l e " :: 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 w i t h L a t orbus  " c h i l d l e s s , orphaned, b e r e f t " , w i t h the Russ. form representing and  i ) a m e t a t h e s i s , e.g., * o r b - ^ *rob-,  i i ) a r e g r e s s i v e a s s i m i l a t i o n , e.g., *rob->  * r e b - ^ * o r b e ( n ) ; c f . a l s o Germ, der Erbe "an h e i r , successor".  F u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s c o u l d be  82 found i n forms rab " s l a v e " , r o b e t ' "to be  timid,  humble o n e s e l f " .  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  initial  Russ. phoneme s- f u n c t i o n s as a m o r p h o l o g i c a l element i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , to w i t , i t i n d i c a t e s the p e r f e c t i v e aspect, with a s p e c i a l i z e d meaning, of the  form c i t a t '  designated  "to read" < c e s t ' which  originally  "to count, pay, decipher a s c r i p t " ( i n  Mod.Russ. i t designates "to honour").  I f the  form c e s t " i s accepted as the b a s i c one, then the above p a i r i s cognate, f o r - a i -  corresponds to -e-  as i n item 152:80, e t c .  V(-)25:lll  cut - g r i e z t - r e z a t ' , some agreement,  non-cognates.  The s y l l a b i c c r e s t s i n t h i s p a i r of forms seem: to correspond, e.g., - i e - :: -e- as i n items 25:112, 86:145, 145:174; however, a c c o r d i n g to the a v a i l a b l e sources, there seems to be a l a c k of evidence f o r any l a p s e of v e l a r s i n the corresponding S l a v , forms, v i z . , i n the i n i t i a l of "to  the l i q u i d s .  p o s i t i o n and i n f r o n t  L a t v , i s cognate with L i t h .  griezti  cut around", and i t i s f u r t h e r r e l a t e d to the  form g r i e z t "to t u r n , turn about or around, wring" (item 175:192) which c a r r i e s a l e v e l i n t o n a t i o n 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  formerly  a rising  cognate u i t h Thus L i t h . uithout forms  Lith.  the i n i t i a l  have a v e l a r  clash,  i s used  syllabic  crest  of Latv.  t h a t of the Russ.,  items  and a  both  distinctive  to avoid  a homonymic  t h e above  form, as i t uere.  1  uith  i n Latv.  possesses only  day - d i e n a - d e n . c o m p l e t e The  t o u i t , u i t h and  uhereas  initially,  pattern  Russ. i s  "to c u t , r i p , rend".  velar,  uhereas Russ.  velarless  agreement,  cognates.  corresponds  regularly  i . e . , - i e - :: - e - , a s i n  25:111, 86:145, 145:174, and i n s u c h  used' forms  V(-)28:113  rezti  item.  possesses both forms,  intonational  IM/+/26:112  one) of t h i s  dig - rakt  as s i e n s  - ryt'  t  "hay" :: s e n o ,  some a g r e e m e n t , rakti  'often-  ibid.  non-cognates.  Latv.  i s cognate u i t h  Lith.  " t o peck,  Russ.  i s cognate u i t h  Latv. raut,  tear,  rend"; c f . a l s o Russ. rak " c r a y f i s h ,  water  lobster"  i n reference  dirty  - netirs  - qr.jazny.i. no a g r e e m e n t s ,  Latv.  i s the negated form of " c l e a n " ,  Lith.  pick".  r a u t i "to  t o t h e above  fresh-  Latv.  form.  A/-/29:114  consists  of ne+tirs  morph - t i r s uater,  etc.";  i.e.,  "unclean, d i r t y " .  i s cognate u i t h c f . also  tirit  "to clean"  could  Russ.  i s derived  from  Irish also  Lith. tirim  non-cog.  Latv.  tyrus  i t base  "clean a i r ,  "dry", f o r Latv.  designate "drying".  the v e r b a l form  grjaznut*  84 "to s i n k i n t o mud,  to be stuck i n the mud,  dirt"  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 v e r b a l form i s cognate u i t h  the i n t r . v e r b a l form of L a t v . g r i m t ( g r i m s t "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 L a t v . gremdet "to s i n k , l o u e r " . A/-/33:115  dull - truls  1  - tupo.1, no agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . might be connected u i t h the v e r b a l form t r u n e t " t o 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 . t a m p y t i "to s t r e t c h " and t e m p t i "to p u l l o u t , s t r e t c h o u t " ; c f . a l s o L a t . tempus "time; temple ( a n a t . ) " , Germ stumpf " b l u n t , 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 t h a t t h e r e are tuo v a r i a n t s of the same base morph.  The concept of v e r b a l 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 u n d e r l i e the aforementioned dichotomy of the base morph i n L a t v , , B . g . , t r . v e r b a l base morph pus- "to b l o u " ( i t e m 16:107) a l t e r n a t e s u i t h i n t r . v e r b , base morph p u t - ( u o t ) " t D foam" (puta "foam") :: Russ. p y x - ( a t ' ) "to breathe h e a v i l y , p u f f , s t a r t f i r e by b l o w i n g " a l t e r n a t e s  T h i s L a t v . form uas used i n p r e f e r e n c e to neass to a v o i d d u p l i c a t i o n of i t e m 133:167.  "non-sharp"  85 with pux-(nut') " t a s w e l l " (pux "a down f e a t h e r " :: Latv. puka " f l u f f , loose downs"); thus the ultimate base morphs i n L a t v . pu-/pu :: Russ. py-/pu-, with Mod.Russ. r e f l e x e s of imp. p y x a t V p e r f . pyxnut'  V/-/40:117  "to  emit heat", p y x t e t  "to  s w e l l " , Vasm. I I , 470, 473, 475.  fall  1  "to p u f f , pant" and puxnut'  - k r i s t - p a d a t , na agreements, non-cognates. 1  L a t v . i s probably connected with L i t h k r e s t i "to shake, shake l o o s e , e t c . " .  Russ. i s probably con-  nected with L a t v . peda " f o o t " , i f Russ. pod " h e a r t h ( s t o n e ) , a l s o bottom" i s viewed as ^ p a d a t . 1  A f u r t h e r connection could be e s t a b l i s h e d v i a i t s p e r f e c t i v e aspect p a s t ' , which p o i n t s to cognation with L a t . persum  "to the ground, bottom", Vasm. I I ,  330.  A( + )41:118  f a r - t a l s - d a l ' n y j , p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . t o l u s " d i s t a n t , remote, far";  i t i s probably cognate with Russ. d a l •  " d i s t a n c e " (now a v e s t i g i a l form), from whence was d e r i v e d the above Russ. a d j e c t i v a l form. the  However,  correspondence of L a t v . - a - :: Russ. -a- i s not  a common phenomenon, though i t does appear i n item 98:149; n e i t h e r i s the v o i c e l e s s i.e.,  initially  at l e a s t .  :: v o i c e d f e a t u r e ,  IM/-A3:119  f a t h e r - tevs  - o t e c , same agreement, nan-cognates.  L a t v . 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 L a t . base morph dedenoting  "Bod".  Russ. form c o n s i s t s of the base  morph o t - + dim. s u f f . - e c - ( < - e k - ) ; o t - seems t o be connected u i t h Goth. a t t a .  I t should be noted t h a t  D . I r i s h a t h i r d e p i c t s the l a p s e 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 r e p r e s e n t e d  i n Lat. pater,  s i m i l a r to D . I r i s h - i a s c :: L a t . p i s c i s \J/+/kk:lZQ  "fish".  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 " u h i c h i s cognate u i t h L i t h . ibid. are:  baidyti,  F u r t h e r v a r i a n t s of the base morph b a i Latv. b a i l e s , L i t h . b a i l e "fear"; 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 ; L a t v . baisma " h o r r o r " , 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 o t h e r forms seem t o be d e r i v e d The above L a t v . form has a l s o a synonym form t e t i s , u h i c h i s cognate u i t h L i t h . t e t i s , but does n o t seem t o be connected u i t h the above Russ. form. 2 T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t L a t v . a i :: Russ. o u h i c h 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 o n l y onB example c o u l d be found to i l l u s t r a t e t h i s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , e.g. a i t a ( c f . O . I r i s h o i ) "sheep" :: o v c a , i b i d ; houever, the L a t v . 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 L a t v . a i to Russ. e i s mare p r e dominant, e.g., L a t v . m a i s i t " t o mix" ::_Russ. mesat', i b i d ; m a i n i t " t o change" ::: menjat', i b . ; r a i s i t " t o l o o s e n , u n t i e " ( c f . Germ, r e i s s e n ) :: r e s a t ' ( p e r f . a s p e c t r e s i t ' ) " t o s o l v e , c o n c l u d e " , e t c . In v i e u of the above, and the f a c t t h a t the base morph should be b a 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  f r o m i t with d i f f e r e n t v o c a l i c a d j u s t m e n t s , e.g., L a t v . b i e d e t "to t h r e a t e n " , b i j a t ( - i e s ) "to be awed", b i t i B s probably of  "to be a f r a i d " .  connected  The Russ. form i s  with one of the l a t t e r v a r i a n t s  b a i - , or i t might r e p r e s e n t a purely Pan-Slav,  v a r i a n t , as other S l a v , forms a r e : P o l . b a c s i e ( n ) , Cz. b a t i s e , Ukr. b o j a t y s a , S.Cr. b o j a t i s e . ther connection  could be e s t a b l i s h e d v i a the Russ.  nominal form bes "dBmon, satan" ibid;  A/-A6:121  A.fur-  :: L i t h . b a i s a s ,  c f . a l s o L a t . foedus "abominable, h o r r i b l e " .  few - dazs - i n o j , no agresments, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . daznas "frequent, not one  but many, s e v e r a l " .  L i t h . ynas "the r e a l  Russ. i s cannectsd  with  one, true ons, e t c . " , and alsD  v i a vowel g r a d a t i o n with O.Pruss. a i n s "one", consequently with L a t v . v i e n s , L i t h . v i e n a s , i b i d ; c f . a l s o L a t . unus "one".  V/-A7:122  fight  - c i n i t i e s - b o r o t ' s j a , no agreements, non-  cog.  Latv. might be connected  ciqa  "action, struggle, fight",  extension)  v i a i t s nominal form with  L i t h . kine "an E l e v a t e d  ( v i a semantic  location i n a  swamp", c f . a l s o Latv. c i e g a "honour, r e g a r d " and i t s v e r b a l form c i e n i t ,  ibid.  Russ. i s cognate with  f e a r e d / w i l l f e a r " ) , i t could be s t a t s d that Latv. b a i d - :: Russ. bed-, the Russ. form d e s i g n a t i n g "misfortune" which i s a l s o cognate with L a t v . beda " t r o u b l e " .  88  Latv. bart, L i t h . b a r t i -a-  •/+/5D:123  "to s c o l d , f l o g " ;  Latv.  :: Russ. -o- as i n item 125:163.  f i v e - p i e c i - p.jat , complete agreement,  cognates.  1  L a t v . - i e - :: L i t h . -en-  (penki " f i v e " )  "to bend" :: l e n k t i , i b i d . of  as  liekt  L a t v . - c - i s the  result  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 c o r r e -  sponding  r e f l e x e s of p a l a t a l i z a t i o n  i n Russ. and  p h o n o l o g i c a l change i n L i t h . , e.g., penki " f i v e " .  Russ. form l j a k a  pieci - pjat' -  "a sway-back  probably shows the correspondence  no  dog"  of B a i t , - i e - /  -en- with Russ. - j a - , f o r t h i s 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. I I , 82.  V/+/51:124  f l o a t - pluduot Historically,  1  - p l a v a t , some agreement, cog. 1  t h i s p a i r i s cognate.  nate with L i t h . p l u d i s " f l o a t " " f l o o d " ) and Russ. i s cognate "to  wash, r i n s e " ,  This f l u c t u a t i o n  ( c f . Latv. p l u d i with L i t h .  Latv. p l a u s t "to wet,  plauti moisten".  of meaning, between these d i a -  c h r o n i c a l l y cognate lafian >  L a t v . i s cog-  forms,  i s similar  to O.Eng.  l a v e "to wash, bathe; wash or flow along  or a g a i n s t " , wherein  both meanings are combined.  There i s a l s o a t r . v e r b a l form i n L a t v . p l u d i n a t < i n t r . pluduot. The Russ. i s a c t u a l l y an innovated imp. v e r b a l form < L p l a v i t ' "to f l o a t " with a decay of meaning i n Mod.Russ., e.g., "to melt".  V/-/52:125  f l o w - p l u s t - t e c ' , no agreement,  non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . p l u s t i  "to f l o u i " .  Russ. i s cognate with L a t v . t e c e t "to t r i c k l e , leak", L i t h . teketi  N/-/53:126  flower - z i e d s  1  "to f l o w " .  - cvetok. no agreement,  non-cog.  L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . z i e d a s , i b i d , < z y d e t i , Latv. z i e d e t "to bloom".  Russ. i s probably con-  nected with L a t v . k v i t e t "to shimmer" and the t r . v e r b a l form  I\l/-/55:127  kvitinat.  f o g - miqla - tuman, no agreements,  non-cognates.  Latv. i s cognate with L i t h . m i g l a , i b i d , and Russ, mgla "haze".  Russ. seems to be connected with  K i r g i z tuman " f o g , darkness"; c f . a l s o L a t v . tumsa, L i t h . tamsa "darkness". 0/+/57:128  f o u r - c e t r i - c e t y r e . complete agreement, cog,; c f . also L i t h . k e t u r i ,  V/-/58:129  ibid.  f r e e z e - s a l t - m.-jorznut', no agreements, L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . s a l t i ,  non-cog.  i b i d , and seems  to be connected with Russ. s a l o " t a l l o w , suet; a l s o sludge, t h i n i c e " .  Russ. seems to be cognate  with A l b . mardem, i b i d , marde "goose pimples"; Vasm. I I , 121.  The above form was used i n preference to pulje "flower", f a r the l a t t e r i s an obvious loan < L i v o n i a n (Finn.) pul^lj, i b i d ; however, c f . a l s o L a t v . bul^ete "bouquet, nosegay".  90  l\l/-/59:130  f r u i t - a u q l i s - p l o d , no agreements,  non-cog,  1  L a t v . form < augt "to gram" and i t i s cognate with L i t h . augti  "to grow".  Russ. r e p r e s e n t s a Pan-  S l a v , form, e.g., P o l . p l o d , Ukr. p l i d kin*  :: Russ. kon*  (as Ukr.  " h o r s e " ) , Cz. p l o d , S.Cr. p l o d .  T h i s form seems to be connected with Ch.Slav. plodovityj " f r u i t f u l " ;  1M/-/62:131  Uasm. I I , 373; P r . I I , 75.  grass - z a l e - t r a v a , no agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . z o l e , i b i d , s a l i n , i b . , Russ. z e l j o n y j "green" (item  O.Pruss. 63:35).  A f u r t h e r connection seems to be v i a L a t v . z e i t "to t h r i v e , f l o u r i s h , become green"; c f . a l s o L a t . helvus "honey-yellow" and the f u r t h e r  possibility  of a c o n n e c t i o n with g i l v u s " p a l e - y e l l o w " .  Russ.  r e p r e s e n t s a Pan-Slav, form, e.g., P o l . trawa, Ukr. t r a v a , Cz. t r a v a , S.Cr. t r a v a , B u l g . treva (with vowel g r a d a t i o n , e.g., a : e ) . The b a s i s f o r t h i s form seems to be Ch.Slav. t r u t i "to expend, use up" with f u r t h e r d e r i v a t i o n of n a t r u t i "to f e e d " and a l s o f u r t h e r semantic extension i n Bulg. t r o v a "to poison", P o l . t r u e , ibid  :: L a t v . z a l e s ( p l u r a l i a  truje(n),  tantum) "medicine",  The more widely u t i l i z e d Russ. form f r u k t , i b i d , was avoided, f o r i t i s an obvious loan from L a t . f r u c t u s v i a P o l . f r u k t , i b . , Uasm. I l l , 219.  91  za^uot  "to cure, h e a l " , 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 l\l/-/64:132  guts - zarna  v  '  - k i s k a , no agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . zarna "gut".  This form  i s probably connected with zars "branch; a l s o ext e n s i o n " ; c f . a l s o L a t . hernius and Germ. Darm, ibid.  Russ. i s cognate with P o l . k i s z k a ,  Ukr. kyska  "gut, sausage",  ibid,  Arm. kust "maw,  also  womb"; uasm. I , 564; P r . I , 310. 0/-/67:133  he - v i q s - on, no agreements, non-cognates, appears "one"  Latv.  to be connected with the c a r d i n a l v i e n s  (item l l o : 6 4 ) ; c f . also Ukr. v i n , i b i d ,  though probably t h i s form i s connected with the d i r e c t i o n a l p a r t i c l e von "there, over t h e r e , i n the d i s t a n c e ! " .  Russ. seems to be connected 2  L i t h . anas " t h a t , the f a r one".  with  The o b l i q u e cases  of t h i s Russ. pronoun are cognate with the base morph of the now o b s o l e t e r e l a t i v e pron.  ize/jaze/  ( j ) e z e "which ( i n three genders)", v i z . , j e - ; the 1  v  The L a t v . form i e k s a s ( p l u r a l i a tantum) "bowels, i n s i d e s " < i e k s a " i n s i d e " was not used, to avoid d u p l i c a t i o n 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 r e c ognized three degrees of d i s t a n c e and f o r 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 o b j e c t i n question was near the speaker and the i n t e r l o c u t o r ; i i ) t(o) " t h a t " when the o b j e c t was away from the speaker but near the interlocutor; i i i ) on(o) "yon" when the o b j e c t was away from  92  l a t t e r i s cognate w i t h L i t h . j i s / j i  "he/she"; c f .  also L a t . demonstrative pron. i s / e a / i d  "he/she/it;  t h i s o r t h a t person or t h i n g " , Goth, i s "he, t h a t one", Germ, j e n e r " t h a t , the d i s t a n t one" and item 46:121, e.g., Russ. i n o j " f e u " . A/-/171:134  heavy - smaqs - t.iaz.loly.i, no agreements, non-cog. L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h . smagus "heavy, p e r t , to a b l o u , f r o s t " , p r o b a b l y a l s o u i t h Ch.Slav. smagat' " t o whip".  Russ. seems to be cognate u i t h  L i t h . t i n g e t i " t o be i d l e , be a burden"; c f . a l s o Norm., Sued, tung "heavy".  The Russ. v e r b a l form  t j a n t i t ' " t o p u l l " ( i t e m 113:155) and i t s v u l g a t e form t j a g a t ' seem t o be connected u i t h the above form; Vasm. I l l , v  0/-/72:135  here - s e i t  167; P r . Append. 32-34.  1  - t u t , no agreements, nan-cognate,  L a t v . might be connected u i t h L i t h . s t a i " h i t h e r " a l s o c i a "here", though the l a t t e r form p o i n t s to an o r i g i n a l k + i . P r o b a b l y 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 p l a c e , h e r e " , 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 t h a t p l a c e , t h e r e " b o t h . The l a s t form gave Mod.Russ. s g . and p i . forms i n a l l genders f a r the t h i r d person p e r s o n a l pronoun, e.g., on, ana, ono, o n i . "''This i s one of the 'problem  1  forms i n L a t v , , c f . Endz.  1091.  I t should a l s o be noted t h a t t h i s i s the only form i n standard L a t v . u h i c h 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 , e x c e p t f o r seims < Russ. sejma " s a i l " , probably < H a r e l . s e i m i o r F i n n , s e i m i "tou-rope, b o a t - h a u s e r " .  (se,  te r e p r e s e n t the sg. l o c . of s i s " t h i s " , tas  " t h a t " , c f . items 161:85, 167:86).  As f u r t h e r  probable connections, Latv. synonym s i t e  "here-  about",' ' L a t v . d i a l , forms s i e , s e i , s i "where" 1  :: 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., P o l . t u , Ukr. t u t , Cz.  tu "here", tuto "there", S.Cr. tu "there",  Bulg. tu-ka " h i t h e r " . Com.Slav,  The b a s i s f o r t h i s form i s  a l t e r n a t i o n of * t u with *tuto (perhaps  s i m i l a r to kto and c t o forms, c f . items 184:96, 188:98), as the Russ. d i a l , form t u t o , as w e l l as other S l a v , forms, would i n d i c a t e . tenti  "now"  should a l s o be mentioned as i t d e s i g -  nates immediacy  V/-/73:136  The O.Pruss.  i n time.  h i t - s i s t - b i t * , no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. base morph (e.g., s i t "he/she h i t s " ) seems to be connected with L i t h . suduoti "to s t r i k e " . Russ. r e p r e s e n t s an I n t e r - S l a v o n i c development, e.g., P o l . b i c , Ukr. byty, Cz. b i t i ,  S.Cr. b i t i ;  c f . a l s o O . I r i s h benim, Mid.Eng. bete, Mod.Eng. beat.  Perhaps t h i s synonym p o i n t s to a former system o f ^ d i s t a n c e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ( c f . Russ. i n item 67:133), e.g., s i s , s i t a s , tas " t h i s , t h a t , yon". The form of s e i t < s i t e i s q u i t e proba b l e , f o r the a l t e r n a t i o n of i with e i occurs i n d i a l , forms and the f i n a l -e i n s i t e could have lapsed by apocope; c f . Endz. 523 for i > e i . v  3k  V/-/7<+:137  h o l d - t u r e t - d e r z a t ' . some agreement, non-cognate. L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h . t u r e t i " t o h o l d i n poss e s s i o n , own", and appears to be connected u i t h Russ. t v o r i t ' " t o c r e a t e , make".  1  Russ. r e p r e s e n t s  a P a n - S l a v , development, e.g., P o l . d z i e r z y e , Ukr. d e r z a t y , Cz. d r z e t i , S.Cr. d r z a t i ; c f . a l s o L i t h . dirzti  " t o became v i s c o u s " , d i r g i n t i , d i r g y t i " t o  a r r a n g e , a l i g n " , L a t v . d e r d z e t " t o be quarrelsome", d e r g t ( i e s ) " t o be loathsome", D(-)75:138  hau - ka  - kak, some agreement, non-cagnates.  L a t v . appears to be the gen. s g . of kas "uhat, una", t h i s i t seems t a be cognate u i t h Russ. k t o "uho", c f . item 188:98.  Russ. i s a c u r t a i l m e n t of k a k o j  "uhich one"; the l a t t e r r e p r e s e n t s a P a n - S l a v , development, e.g., P o l . k a k i , Cz. kako, S.Cr. kaka, B u l g . kako, kak; c f . a l s o L i t h koks "af u h i c h k i n d " , I r i s h each "each", L a t v . kads, L a t . q u a l i s "af u h i c h 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, L a t v . 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 . a l s o L a t v . mednis "grouse, mountain  L a t v . form t v a r s t i t " t o s e i z e , a l s o to grope f o r " seems to be connected u i t h t h i s Russ. form ( c f . a l s o t v e r t " t o g r a b " ) , s i n c e L a t v . d u r i s o r d u r v i s i s g e n e r a l l y thought to be cognate u i t h Russ. d v e r ' , as L a t v . dvars "raaduay u i t h i n the g a t e s " i s cognate u i t h Russ. dvor " c o u r t " . 2 T h i s i s one of the 'problem' forms i n L a t v . , c f . Endz. 1090.  95  c o c k " , medus "honey".  Russ.  E/W-Slav. d e v e l o p m e n t ,  e.g., P o l . ochota  inclination", Cz. ochota with  "joy".  "pleasure,  gaiety;  hunt",  connected  " t o want, d e s i r e "  and,  p e r h a p s , due  to a tabu c o n c e p t f o r h u n t i n g i n  this  speech area,  has r e p l a c e d  the o r i g i n a l  oxota  " j o y , p a s s i o n , hunt",  shift  started  husband  w i t h " t o want" >  "hunt;  - vlrs  to hunt";  - muz,  no  "a  male".  Russ.  for  i t s c o n n e c t i o n s and  II,  169-170 and  also  i c e - ledus - l j o d , The  semantic  "desire", >  c f . Uasm. I I ,  agreements,  reflects  form with  i . e . , the  L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h .  N/+/8Q:141  an  "longing,  T h i s f o r m seems t o be  the v e r b a l form x o t e t '  gaiety" >  IM/-/78:140  Ukr. ochota  seems t o r e p r e s e n t  vyras,  "joy, 23k.  non-cognates.  ibid, Lat. v i r  a Pan-Slav,  development;  Slav, reflexes  c f . Uasm.  i t e m 95:52.  complete  agreement,  cognates.  L a t v . b a s e morph l e d - :: R u s s . b a s e morph  as L a t v . med-(+us) "honey" Further ladis,  :: R u s s . mjod-,  connections are L i t h . ibid;  probably also  ledus " i c e " ,  Irish  ladg  ljod-  ibid. O.Pruss.  "snow" as i n  Uasm. I I , 25.  0/-/81:142  i f - ja  1  - (j)esli,  no  agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . j a was u s e d i n p r e f e r e n c e t o 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., " o r , 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 u i t h L i t h . j e i , i b i d .  Histori-  c a l l y , the Russ. c o n s i s t s of the t h i r d pers. s g . 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 ) e s t ' + l i = Mod.Russ. ( j ) e s l i , u i t h a complete lapse of the p a l a t a l i z e d dental plosive t  1  i n Mod.Russ.  form designated  1  " i f being  O r i g i n a l l y , t h i s Russ. the case, that ..." uhich  consequently narroued doun to " i f " .  0(+)82:143  i n - i e k s - v/vo, p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. Latv. represents  a contracted  form < i e k s a  " i n s i d e " and seems to be connected u i t h L i t h . i(n)kisti  "to shove ( i n ) , t h r u s t , i n s e r t " , a l s o  Lith. i(n) "in".  Russ. appears to be connected  u i t h the Latv. p r e f i x i e - " i n , i n t o (as i n i e i e t = ie—fiet "in".  'to go i n , i . e . , e n t e r ' ) " and O.Pruss. en H i s t o r i c a l l y , the Russ. forms f a r " i n ,  i n t o " uere represented  by v, vo, uhich uere used  both as p r e p o s i t i o n s and p r e f i x e s and vn- f u n c t i o n ing  as a p r e f i x o n l y ,  2  uhereas i n Latv.  v  ieks  f u n c t i o n s as a p r e p o s i t i o n only and i e - as a prefix."'  Thus i t could be s t a t e d t h a t the above  •^Probably due to a phonetic s i m p l i f i c a t i o n based on economy, e.g., a c o m p l i c a t i o n of a l v e o l a r - d e n t a l f r i c a t i v e , p a l a t o a l v e o l a r p l o s i v e and p a l a t o - a l v e o l a r l a t e r a l , once the morpheme suture betueen the base morph, as i t uere, and the f u n c t i o n uord lapsed and t h e ' l e a s t important' p a l a t o - a l v e o l a r element, i . e . , the d e n t a l , uas dropped. The v, vo forms f u n c t i o n s i m i l a r l y i n Mod.Russ., and the vn- form i s considered to be moribund and appears only i n a f e u v e s t i g i a l forms. ^Even i n Mod. Latv. the usage of p r e p o s i t i o n s i s q u i t e r e -  97 forms are probable cognates, f o r the d i p h t h o n g a l element i n L a t v . i e k s seems to be f u n c t i o n i n g a p r e f i x , e.g., Furthermore, in  as  ieks < ieksa "inside" = ie-+(ksa).  the O.Russ. p r e f i x i s s t i l l  some v e s t i g i a l forms, e.g.,  vnimat'  a t t e n t i o n ( < O.Russ. v ( o ) n - + i m a t i  preserved  "to pay  "to take i n " ) ,  o v e r h e a r " u h i c h i s m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y cognate u i t h L a t v . ie-+nemt/+jemt " t o take i n , c a p t u r e " .  Fur-  t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s are L a t . 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  l a k e - e z e r s - o z e r o , complete agreement, cognates. L a t v . e- :: Russ. o- v i a q u a l i t a t i v e v a u e l gradat i o n , e.g.,  elkuons " e l b o u " :: Russ. l o k o t ' ,  ibid,  u i t h the Russ. form r e f l e c t i n g a m e t a t h e s i s uhereby the h i s t o r i c a l i n i t i a l phoneme o- uas  transposed -v  1 u i t h -1-.  F u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s are L i t h . e z e r a s ,  i b i d , O.Pruss. a s s a r a n , i b . V/+/86:145  l a u g h - s m i e t ( i e s ) - sme.jat' s.ja. ment, cognates.  complete  The L a t v . v e r b a l paradigm s h o u s  complete agreement u i t h the Russ. form, smeju(os) :: smejus 26:112, 145:174. s t r i c t e d and the avoidance  agree-  1  "I laugh"; c f . a l s D  e.g., items  F u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s are L a t v .  of t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n i s o b v i o u s .  There are a f e u o t h e r examples of t h i s type of m e t a t h e s i s , 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 v o u e l : O.Russ. r a l o "a plough" :: L a t v . a r k l s , i b i d , Russ. l a k a t "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 " :: L a t v . a l k t "to t h i r s t , crave". 1  98 s m a i d i t "to s m i l e " , smldinat  "to invoke  sminet "to sneer", a l s o Mid.Eng. smilen  laughter", "to s m i l e " ;  c f . l/asm. I I , 673-674.  A/-/88:146  left  ( s i d e ) - k r e i s s - levv.j, no agreements,  cognates.  L a t v . seems to be connected u i t h  k r e i v a s "crooked" person,  (Latv. k r e i l i s  a l s o clumsy"),  probably  k r i v b j "oblique, crooked". L a t . laevus " l e f t ; i s probably  1  nonLith.  "a l e f t - h a n d e d a l s o u i t h Russ.  Russ. i s cognate u i t h  also s i l l y ,  u n p r o p i t i o u s " , and  connected u i t h L i t h . i s l a i v o t i  "to  make a bend, curve".  N/-/B9:147  l e g - ka.ja - noqa, no agreements, non-cognates. Latv. i s cognate u i t h L i t h . koja, i b i d . background i s o b s c u r e j i c f . Buck 242.  Further  Russ. i s  cognate u i t h Latv. nags " n a i l " , c f . a l s o 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 d z i - + ( s l a ) " a r t e r y , v e i n " :: z i - + ( l a ) , i b i d .  The  Latv. v e r b a l form d z i t "to d r i v e , goad, prod" d e p i c t s the absolute base morph d z i - , from uhence the a d j e c t i v a l form d z i v s " l i v e l y "  ( L i t h . gyvas)  Any connection u i t h t h i s Russ. form i s obscure, due to the Russ. loanuord k r i e v s "Russian" ( k r i v i c i "an E a s t - S l a v , t r i b e i n the North") i n t o Latv., but k r i e v s designates "crooked, d i s t o r t ed", L i t h . k r i v i s "a s l y person! . 1  99 i s d e r i v e d and serves as a b a s i s f o r the above v e r b a l f o r m , e.g., d z i t > d z i v s > d z i v u o t .  Thus  the L a t v . and Russ. forms c o u l d be viewed as t r u e cognates.  Further connections  are L i t h . g y t i " t o  d r i v e " , O.Pruss. g i j w a n s " a l i v e " Lat. I\l/+/97:149  ( a c c . p i . form)  vivus " l i v i n g , a l i v e " .  mother - mate - mat , complete agreement, cognates. 1  L a t v . - a - :: Russ. - a - as i n item 41:118. connections  Further  are L i t h . motyna, i b i d , O.Pruss. m u t i ,  i b . , L i t h . mote, moters "female spouse", L a t . mater, m a t r i s "mother", I r i s h m a t h i r , i b i d , O.High Germ, muoter, i b . , e t c . A/-/102:150  1  narrow - s a u r s - d z k i . j , no agreements, non-cog. 2 L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . s i a u r a s , i b i d .  Russ.  i s - p r o b a b l y connected w i t h L i t h . a n k s t a s "cramped", Lat.  angustus "narrow, cramped".  F u r t h e r connec-  t i o n s are Goth, aggwus "narrow", Arm. a n j u k , i b i d . E.g., t h i s form appears to be a g e n e r a l I-E development, w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of A l b . nana < probably Turk, anne, which does not seem t o have a f f e c t e d o t h e r speech.areas i n Europe or a d j a c e n t to i t , e.g., Hung, az anya, F i n n , a i t i , E s t . ema, Arab, el-omm; but Georgian has deda "mother" : mama " f a t h e r " , i . e . , i t seems t o d e p i c t a r e v e r s e d p h o n o l o g i c a l development to any expected I-E one. 2 « Vasmer mentions sura " v a g i n a " ( i n Pskov, Tver r e g i o n s ) as a p r o b a b l e c o n n e c t i o n w i t h L a t v . s a u r s . However, d e s p i t e the a c c e p t a b l e p h o n o l o g i c a l correspondence of L a t v . - a u r - :: Russ. - u r - 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 s t r o n g p o s s i b i l i t y of Russ. d i a l , b o r r o w i n g , n o t a b l y i n the c o n t a c t - r e g i o n 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 n e a r e s t "  (acc. s g . ) , L i t h t u v i  "at once";  though the e t y m o l o g i c a l background of t h i s form i s q u i t e obscure,  c f . Buck 868.  1  connected with L a t v . b l a i z i t "to  smash", c f . L i t h . b l y z o t i  t a i n i n g to an extremely Lat. A/-/109:152  fligere  Russ. seems to be "to squeeze", b l i e z t "to l i e s t i l l ,  s i c k person,  per-  animal",  also  "to beat down".  o l d - vecs - s t a r y j , no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . v e t u s i s " a n c i e n t , L a t . vetus  " o l d , a n c i e n t " , Russ. v e t x i j " d e c r e p i t , ram-  shackle".  Russ. seems to be connected with  Lith.  s t o r a s " t h i c k , s t r o n g " , a l s o O.Norse s t o r r "huge, powerful". A/-/lll:153  other - u o t r s - 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. a n t a r s , i b i d ,  probably  Russ.  Perhaps a connection between tavs "yours" and the above form c o u l d be suggested, as there e x i s t s a c e r t a i n semantic o v e r l a p i n most of the d e r i v e d forms, e.g., tavs > t a v e j a i s "one of your k i n d , e.g.,_a c l o s e l y r e l a t e d person, a l s o k i n genera l l y " : tuvs Z > t u v e j a i s "anything, anybody c l o s e at hand", t u v a k a i s (= comp. degree) "neighbour, k i n " , t u v i n i e k s " c l o s e r e l a t i v e , kinsman". 2 L a t v . "second" ( o r d i n a l ) i s represented by o t r a i s , i . e . , o t r s 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 s i m i l a r development to the o r d i n a l pirmais " f i r s t " , though i n t h i s case the form with the i n d e f . a d j . desinence, pirms, has become s e m a n t i c a l l y as w e l l as m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y moribund, e.g., pirmais " f i r s t " : pirms "before" - an i n d e c l i n a b l e a d v e r b i a l form.  101 v t o r o j , i b . , though any c o n n e c t i o n between t h i s Russ. form and the Latv/. one seems t o be q u i t e vague, c f . Uasm. I , 237.  Russ. seems t o r e p r e s e n t  a g e n e r a l Pan-Slav, development, e.g., P o l . d r u g i " o t h e r , a l s o second", Ukr. d r u h y j , i b i d , Cz. druhy, i b . , S.Cr. d r u g i , i b . , B u l g . d r u g i " o t h e r " .  His-  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 e x t e n s i o n 4. drug " f r i e n d " ; the l a t t e r i s cognate u i t h L a t v . draugs, i b i d , L i t h . draugas, i b . , a l s o 0.Norse p o e t , form draugr "man"; c f . Uasm. I , 373. U/-/112:154  plough - a r t - p a x a t * . no agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h . a r t i , i b i d , L a t . a r a r e , 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 . o r a c , i b . Russ. seems to be cognate u i t h Cz. p a c h a t i " t o be a c t i v e , do, make", houever, f u r t h e r background seems to be q u i t e obscure; c f . a l s o Uasm. I I , 326, Buck 496, uhere the l a t e Ch.Slav. form p a c h a t i " t o shake, f a n " i s g i v e n as a probable connection. U/-/113:155  p u l l - v i l k t - t j a n u t , no agreements, 1  non-cog.  For the c o n n e c t i o n s and background of the L a t v . form c f . i t e m 21:14.  Russ. r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav,  development based on the concept of " t o 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 cons i d e r e d to be connected u i t h L a t . o r a r e " t o speak", Arm. uranam "I deny", c f . Uasm. I I , 274.  102 t j a g a t ' , e.g., P o l . c i a ( n ) g n a ( n ) c " t o p u l l " , Ukr. t'ahaty " t o p u l l , d r a g " , Cz. t a h a t i / t a h n o u t i " t o p u l l o n e s e l f , s t r e t c h o n e s e l f " , Slovene t e g "a p u l l " , t e g n i t i " t o s t r e t c h o n e s e l f " , S.Cr. n a t e g n u t i " t o draw on, p u l l on". F u r t h e r probable c o n n e c t i o n s a r e O.High Germ, d i h s a l a "uagon-shaft", Lat. U/-/114:156  temo, i b i d ; c f . Uasm. I l l , 166.  push - g r u s t  1  - t o l k a t ' , no agreements, non-cog.  L a t v . 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 ' " t o pound, t r a m p l e " u h i c h i s connected u i t h L i t h . t i l k t s  "to be calm"; c f .  a l s o 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 agreements, non-cognates.  L a t v . appears t o be connected  u i t h the L i t h . form p a r e i z i u i " i n s u c c e s s i o n , r u n ning".  T h i s L a t v . form might a l s o be connected  u i t h the p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase: a uhile ( l i t e r a l l y :  pa r e i z e i  f o r times)".  "once i n  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 r e p r e s e n t e d i n L a t v . prava " c o u r t s e s s i o n , p r o c e e d i n g s , e t c . " , L i t h . p r o v a , i b i d , as Russ. l o a n uords; c f . Uasm. I I , 423.  T h i s L a t v . form uas used i n p r e f e r e n c e to stumt^"to shove^, f o r the normal response t o " t o push" and t o l k a t ' u o u l d be g r u s t , and n e i t h e r form, e.g., n e i t h e r stumt nor g r u s t , u o u l d have i n f l u e n c e d the cognate count as both a r e t r u e non-cognates.  103 A/-/118:158  r i g h t ( s i d e ) - l a b a i s - p r a v y j , no agreements, noncognates.  The L a t v . form i s analogous t o l a b s  "good, w e l l " ( w i t h 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). e.g.,  F o r f u r t h e r connections "good" - l a b s .  c f . item 61:34,  Russ. i s connected w i t h  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 t o L a t . 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 - r e k a . no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . upe and i s probably connected w i t h Ch.Slav. (Russ. o n l y ) vapa " l a k e , puddle", "cloud".  1  consequently  w i t h O.Pruss. wupjan  Russ. r e p r e s e n t s a P a n - S l a v , development, 0  e.g.,  V  P a l . r z e k a , Ukr. r i k a , Cz. r e k a , S.Cr.  r i j e k a , Bulg. reka.  I t might be connected w i t h  the L a t v . v e r b a l form r i t e t " t o r o l l , to f l o w by (as t i m e ) , f l o w ( a s t e a r s ) " > "(bi)cycle", Lith. r i t i n e t i  (div)ritenis  "to r i d e " , r i t i n i s "a  c i r c l e " , c f . a l s o L a t . r i v u s "brook". N/+/122:160  rope - v i r v e - v e r j o v k a , complete agreement, c o g . L a t v . - i - :: Russ. -e- a s . i n items 1:1, 70:40.  T h i s c o n n e c t i o n c o u l d be viewed as a s i m i l a r development to the one i n i t e m 181:94, e.g., udens "water" :: voda, i b i d , consequently w i t h O.Pruss. wundan r e p r e s e n t i n g a combining f o r m , as i t were.  Further connections  a r e L a t v . v e r b a l form v e r t " t o  open; s t r i n g ; t h r e a d " , L i t h . v e r t i " t o t h r e a d " , v i r v e "rope, s t r i n g " , O.Pruss. w i r b e , V/-/123:161  ibid.  r o t - put - q n i t . no agreements, non-cognates. 1  L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . p u t i , i b i d . r e p r e s e n t s a Pan-Slav,  Russ.  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 , gnij(o). gnide  F u r t h e r probable  connections  Bulg.  are L a t v .  "rough, scabby s k i n " , O.High Germ, g n i t a n  "to rub away, g r i n d down", O.Eng. gnidan " r u b , smear; t o crumble away i n p i e c e s " . V/-/124:162  rub - b e r z e t - t e r e t ' , no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s an e x t e n s i o n of b e r z t " t o s c r u b " ; the l a t t e r form i s probably  connected w i t h Russ.  borona "a harrow", consequently boron " t o bore".  O.High Germ,  Russ. seems to be connected w i t h  L a t v . t r i t " t o sharpen", t r i t i e s " t o rub o n e s e l f a g a i n s t something", L i t h . t r i n t i  " t o rub",  tirti  "to e x p l o r e " , L a t . t e r e r e " t o r u b " . I\l/+/125:163  s a l t - s a l s - s o l ' , complete agreement, L a t v . - a - :: Russ. -o- as i n karba  cognates.  "box" :: korob  "bast-box, b a s t - b a s k e t " , a l s o as i n i t e m 47:122 p e r t a i n i n g to the background of b o r o t ' s j a " t o 1 fight".  Further connections  are O.Pruss. s a l ,  T h i s O.Pruss, form i s c o n s i d e r e d as a probable loanword, c f . Vasm. I I , 693.  Slav,  105 L i t h . solymas " S a l t l a k e " (a toponym), L a t . s a l , Goth, s a l t , Arm. a l . V/-/128:164  s c r a t c h - k a s i t - e a r a p a t ' , no agreements,  non-cog.  L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . k a s y t i , i b i d , and i t i s p r o b a b l y connected u i t h Russ. kasa " p l a i t ,  braid".  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 p r o b a b l y connected w i t h the i n t e r j e c t i o n a l phrase: cap - c a r a p ] " q u i c k - q u i c k , grab i t i " ,  w i t h the  v e r b a l form c a p a t ' " t o s n a t c h , s e i z e , grab" as the i n i t i a l element and the second p a r t d e p i c t i n g a phonetic innovation medially.  The v e r b a l form  c a p a t ' seems to r e p r e s e n t a P a n - S l a v , development w i t h 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 " t o grab, snatch", Cz. c a p a t i "to waddle; s p l a s h " , Slovene capa "paw", Slovak c a p a t ' "to s e i z e q u i c k l y " ; c f . Vasm. I l l ,  N/-/129:165  282; P r . Append. 42-43.  sea - .jura - more, no agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . j u r a , i b i d , "swamp, marsh", j a u r u s "boggy".  1  jaura  Russ. i s cognate  w i t h L a t v . mare " l a g o o n , tombolo (a s m a l l bay p r o t e c t e d by a bay-mouth b a r ) " , L i t h . marios " l a g o o n ,  The Russ. d i a l , form (Upper Dvinsk r e g i o n ) j u r m o l a "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 , s o u r c e s , f o r both elements of the compound c o r r e s p o n d to L a t v . j u r m a l a " s e a - s i d e " , which i s a l s o a toponym.  106 a l s o a s m a l l sea of s o r t s " , O.Pruss. mary "lagoon", Goth, marei "sea", I r i s h m u i r , i b i d , L a t . mare, i b . V/-/132:166  sew - s u t - s i t , complete agreement, 1  cognates.  L a t v . -u- :: Russ. - i - as but "to be :: b y t ' , 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.  L a t v . 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 p r e s e n t s a d i f f i c u l t y , L a t v . a s - :: Russ. o s t - , due to l a c k of evidence which would show the presence of t h i s - t - phoneme i n the L a t v . base morph ( u n l e s s L a t v . a s t r i "horse h a i r " c o u l d be viewed as a'combining' f o r m ) .  Perhaps L i t h .  a s t r u s "sharp" c o u l d a l s o be viewed as a combining form, as i t were; f o r f u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s of the L a t v . form c f . i t e m 15:9.  Russ. appears to be con-  nected a l s o w i t h L a t . acer "sharp", Arm. "needle".  aseln  1  T h i s p a i r was viewed as probable cognates, though Vasmer d i d not l i s t i t as such, f o r two of the t h r e e phonemes i n the base morphs showed complete agreement and the semantic l i n k a g e was c o n s i d e r e d to be s u f f i c i e n t evidence f o r c o g n a t i o n . Another - m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y analogous - L a t v . form ass/ase " a x l e " ( L i t h . a s i s ) shows a r e g u l a r correspondence to the Russ. o s , i b i d ; t h u s , perhaps, a l a p s e of - t - i n the L a t v . base morph d i d o c c u r , f o r i t might be assumed t h a t i t e x i s t e d t o a v o i d a homonymic c l a s h , e.g., as- " a x l e " : * a s t ( r ) - "sharp" (the d i a l , form of a s t r a s i n Vasm. I I , 288 i s not c o n v i n c i n g , f o r i t i s o b v i o u s 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 s h o u l d be noted here: L a t v . 1  107 A/-/134:168  short - i s s - k o r o t k i j ,  no agreements, non-cognates.  L a t v . might be connected u i t h  L i t h . d i a l , forms  y s a s / i u s a s " s h o r t " , as w e l l as L a t v . ass " s h a r p " , though g e n e r a l background f o r t h i s form i s q u i t e obscure.  Russ. seems t o be connected w i t h  Lith.  kartus " b i t t e r " , I r i s h cert "small"; c f . also Lat. c u r t u s " s h o r t e n e d , m u t i l a t e d " and Germ, kurz "short". V/-/135:169  s i n g - d z i e d a t - p e t ' , no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . g i e d o t i ,  ibid,  gydyti "to heal, cure", Latv. dziedet, O.Russ. g a j a t i  also  ibid,  " t o crow" might be connected w i t h  it.  Russ. r e p r e s e n t s a P a n - S l a v , development,  Pol.  p i a c , Ukr. p i j a t y ,  Cz. p e t i , S.Cr.  e.g.,  pjevati.  Any o u t s i d e c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h t h i s form seem to be q u i t e o b s c u r e ; c f . Uasm. I I , 422; Buck 1249. I\l/+/138:170  sky - debess - nebo, some agreement, cognates. L a t v . seems t o r e p r e s e n t 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-.  T h i s s u b s t i t u t i o n p r o b a b l y o c c u r r e d due t o L i t h . i n f l u e n c e , as i n L i t h . d e b e s i s d e s i g n a t e s " c l o u d " and L i t h . dangus d e s i g n a t e s " s k y , a l s o Furthermore, the Russ. p l u r a l  heaven".  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"; L a t v . 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 , L a t v . s t r a u j s " r a p i d " but L i t h . s r a u j u s / s r a u n u s .  108 e n t i r e morpheme, e.g., nebesa, u h i c h i s i n complete agreement w i t h the L a t v . form.  Further connections  are L a t . nebula "vapour, f o g , m i s t " , O.High Germ, nebul " f o g " ^> Germ. IMebel, i b i d ; c f . a l s o \/asm. I I , 205. U/-/141:171  s m e l l - uost - n.juxat', no agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . 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, r e s e a r c h e r ( i . e . , 'a s n i f f e r ' ) " ( e x t i n c t i n Mod.Russ.).  The g e n e r a l  background f o r t h i s Russ. form i s q u i t e o b s c u r e , though i t seems to r e p r e s e n t a P a n - S l a v , development u i t h some semantic v a r i a t i o n s , e.g., P o l . n i u c h a c "to s n u f f t o b a c c o " , 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.  njusiti  "to s m e l l " , n j u s k a t i "to snoop about, t r a c k " ; c f . a l s o Uasm. I I , 234; P r . I , 623; Buck 1022-1025. A/+/143:172  smooth - q l u d s - q l a d k i . j , some agreement,  1  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 v i e u e d as cognate.  Russ. i s  The Russ. t h e m a t i c v e r b a l form - u x a t ' "to s m e l l " i s genera l l y v i e u e d as the b a s i s f o r the above form u i t h the n- r e f l e c t i n g 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 r e v e r s e 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 < L a t . mappa "napkin") and a s i m i l a r development to the ' p e r i p h e r a l 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 S p r a c h b i l d p r o n u n c i a t i o n , as i t u e r e .  109  cognate u i t h regular Latv.  Lith.  glodus  correspondence u i t h i n  to item  t h e b a s e morphs.  51:124, d e p i c t s a c e r t a i n  phonemic a l t e r n a t i o n , press,  ibid.  iron",  Further  a definite  cognation  are L i t h .  glausti,  the b a s e morph  uith  glaudus  the Russ. f o r m . "to l i e f l a t " ,  "to f i t c l o s e l y " .  —  I  snake - cuska Latv.  e . g . , glu+/glau+ as i n g l u d i n a t  alternation uithin  connections  glaudoti  morpho-  g l a u d i t "to caress", L i t h .  Thus, t h i s  establishes  IM/-/144:173  shous  b a s e morph seems t o be q u i t e p r o d u c t i v e a n d ,  similar  "to  "smooth", u h i c h  , - z m e j a , no a g r e e m e n t s , a distorted  onomatopoetic  form  b a s e d 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 ,  steuing  type  i s probably  non-cognates.  of morass".  Russ. r e p r e s e n t s  velopment, e.g., P o l . z m i j a , S.Cr.  zmija.  a tabu  Ukr. z m i j a ,  Cz. zmije,  T h i s f o r m m i g h t be a g e n e r a l  euphemism, u h i c h to  a Pan-Slav, de-  has r e p l a c e d  concept,  an o r i g i n a l  Slav, form  and seems t o be c o n n e c t e d  zemlja  "land, earth, s o i l " ,  animal  uhich  due  uith  p e r h a p s d e p i c t i n g an  c r a u l s on t h e e a r t h ; c f . Vasm. I , 457-  458.  T h i s L a t v . form uas used i n p r e f e r e n c e to z a l k t i s "grass s n a k e , a l s o a non-venomous s n a k e " ( L i t h . z a l k t y s ) , uodze " a d d e r , a l s o a venomous s n a k e " ( 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.  L a t v . - i e - :: Russ. -e- as i n items 25:111, 86:145. F u r t h e r connections are L i t h . s n i e g a s , i b i d , O.Pruss.  snaigis, i b . , L i t h . snaigala  "snowflake",  Goth, snaiws, i b . , L a t . n i x , n i v i s , i b . and corresponding v e r b a l forms of these Q/-/146:175  the  languages.  some - drusku - neskol'ko, no agreements, non-cog. L a t v . 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 " , d r u z g e t i  "to break up i n  small p i e c e s " , druzgas "piece of c r o c k e r y " , drauzs "dandruff", probably a l s o Russ. druzg "twigs, dry branches", Goth. drau(h)snos "crumb, morsel". Russ. r e p r e s e n t s a negated form of the i n t e r r o g a t i v e pronoun skbl'ko "how with L i t h . k e l i "how  much?"."''  I t i s cognate  many, some", k o l " u n t i l ,  w h i l e " , a l s o L a t . q u a l i s "of what s o r t ? " . U/+/147:176  s p i t - sp^aut - p l e v a t ' , complete  agreement, cog.  A l l S l a v , forms are represented u n i f o r m l y , without the i n i t i a l  s- phoneme, as opposed to the B a i t ,  ones which possess i t , e.g., P o l . p l u c ,  Ukr.  As the L i t h . and L a t . forms r e f l e c t , o r i g i n a l l y the Russ. form was a l s o without 'the p r o t h e t i c s- which i s a c t u a l l y the p r e p o s i t i o n s < s(o) "approximately"; a l s o , t h e ^ o r i g i n a l form emerges i n other S l a v , languages, e.g., Bulg. kblko "how much", e t c . ; c f . Vasm. I I , 643. 1  Ill p l ' u v a t y , S.Cr. p l j u v a t i , e t c . , as oppased t a the B a i t , farms of L i t h . s p i a u t i and Latv/. s p ^ a u t .  The  expected correspondence of L a t v . -au- :: Russ. - u - , e.g., as i n J a u d i s "people" :: l j u d i , i b i d , appears i n the v e r b a l 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 o t h e r S l a v , languages. F u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s a r e Goth, speiwan, i b i d , L a t . 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 L a t v . - e - phoneme c o u l d correspond t o the Russ. -oas i n item -:45.  Houever, a L a t v . d e v o i c e d 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 d e v o i c e d p a l a t a l p l o s i v e b e f o r e p a l a t a l v o u e l s 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  folloued  by a dev. p a l . - a l v . a f f r i c a t e o r o n l y the dev. p a l . a f f r i c a t e , e.g., L a t v . sl$- :: Russ. s c - / c - as i n sleeps " l a n c e " :: scap "a f o p , dandy"; s ^ i e t s "weaver's r e e d " :: s c i t "a s h i e l d " ^ o r sixers " o b l i q u e " :: c e r e z "through".  Therefore, a true  cognate t o the above L a t v . form would appear to be Russ. s e e l ' " c l e f t , c h i n k , c r a c k " , a l s o skelti  "to s p l i t " .  Lith.  Russ. seems t o be connected  with Latv. k a l t "to forge", k a l t s " c h i s e l " ,  Lith.  k a l t i " t o f o r g e " , perhaps a l s o L a t v . k u l t " t o t h r e s h " , L i t h . k u l t i , i b i d , O.Pruss. p r e i c a l i s  112 " a n v i l " , k a l o p e i l i s "chopping k n i f e " . V/-/149:17B  1  squeeze - s p i e s t - d a v i t , no agreements, non-cog. 1  L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h . s p i e s t i " t o smarm, conc e n t r a t e " , s p a u s t i " t o squeeze, p r e s s " .  Russ.  r e f l e c t s a P a n - S l a v , development, e.g., P o l . d a u i c , Ukr. d a v y t y , Cz. d a v i t i , S.Cr. d a v i t i .  I t s general  background i s q u i t e obscure;. p r o b a b l y i t i s connected u i t h 0.Worse d e y j a " t o d i e " , O.High Germ, touuen, i b i d , Goth, d i u a n , i b . ; c f . a l s o Uasm. I , 326. * U/-/150:179  stab - d u r t - v o n z a t  2 1  , no agreements, non-cognates.  L a t v . 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 a blou".  1  "to d e l i v e r  Russ. appears to be cognate u i t h P o l .  n i z a c " t o s t i n g , s t a b , t h r e a d " , though i t s g e n e r a l background i s q u i t e obscure.  P r o b a b l y i t i s con-  nected u i t h noz " k n i f e " ( L a t v . n a z i s ) . I\l/-/153:180  s t i c k - kuja'' - p a l k a , no agreements, nan-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h . k u j i s "hammer", k u j a " s t i l t " , p r o b a b l y a l s o L i t h . k u g i s " s t a c k , hay-  Uasmer a l s o i n d i c a t e s a probable c o n n e c t i o n betueen the L a t v . and Russ. forms, but does n o t l i s t t h i s p a i r as cognate. 2 * T h i s form uas used i n p r e f e r e n c e t o z a k o l o t ' u h i c h i s an e x t e n s i o n of k a l b t * i n item 148:177. ^The L a t v . form n u j a " s t i c k " has an u n c e r t a i n e t y m o l o g i c a l background, and n e i t h e r form i s cognate u i t h Russ. p a l k a ; t h e r e f o r e L a t v . k u j a uas u t i l i z e d .  113 s t a c k " , O.Pruss. k u g i s , 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 . p a l a " c l u b " , Ukr. p a l k a " s t i c k , p i e c e of f i r e - u o o d " , Cz. p a l i c e " c u d g e l " , S.Cr. p a l i c a " s t i c k " , B u l g . p a l i c a "stick".  Houever, g e n e r a l e t y m o l o g i c a l background  f o r t h i s form i s q u i t e vague.  I t might be con-  nected u i t h p a l i c a "a b a t 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 , o r i t c o u l d a l s o r e p r e s e n t a b o r r o u i n g from O.High Germ, p f a l " s t a k e , p o l e " ^ L a t . p a l u s " s t a k e " ; c f . a l s o 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. L a t v . seems t o be a d e r i v e d 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 v o u e l g r a d a t i o n ) , Latv. t i e s a " t r u t h , court, j u s t i c e " , L i t h . tiesus " d i r e c t " , L a t v . t i e s s , i b i d , probably  a l s o O.Russ.  t e s i t ' " t o q u i e t e n , comfort" > i n Mod.Russ. " t o amuse, e n t e r t a i n " , thus a l s o t l x i j " q u i e t , peacef u l " as a d e r i v e d form from t e s i t ' .  Russ. r e p r e -  s e n t s a P a n - S l a v , development u i t h q u i t e 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, S.Cr.  ibid,  prema " o p p o s i t e " , Slovak prima " p o l i t e , k i n d ,  affable".  F u r t h e r connections  are q u i t e  perhaps i t i s connected u i t h O.Norse framr  obscure; "good,  114  decent", Goth, fram " i n d u s t r i o u s , keen", c f . a l s o Vasm. I I , 455.  V(+)156:182  suck - sukt - s o s a t ', p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. The correspondence of L a t . -u-:: Russ. -a- i s quite i r r e g u l a r .  The general S l a v , development i s  p h o n o l o g i c a l l y q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t , e.g., P o l . ssac, Ukr. s s a t y , Cz. s s a t i , Slovene s ( e ) s a t i , s a t i , except f o r  S.Cr.  Russ. which might have the c l o s e s t  connection i n O.Bulg. s ( o ) s a t i . t i o n s are L a t . sugere, i b i d ,  F u r t h e r connec-  sucus " j u i c e , sap",  •.Norse suga "to suck", O.High Germ, sugan, i b i d , Germ, saugen, i b .  Thus L a t v . r e f l e c t s the o l d e s t  of the tuio base morphs, e.g., suk-, and  Russ.  r e p r e s e n t s an independent development, as i t were. uY-/15B:183  1  smell - pampt - puxnut , no agreements, n o n - c o g . 1  L a t v . i s cognate with L i t h . pampti, i b i d .  Further  connections are L i t h . pumpa "knob" ( L a t v . pumpa), L i t h . pumpuras "bud"  ( L a t v . pumpurs), probably  also  Russ. pup " n a v e l " , L a t . pampTnus "a v i n e - t e n d r i l or vine-leaf".  Russ. i s cognate with L a t v . 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 s w e l l  up".  This p a i r 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 e s t a b l i s h cognation, f o r Russ. might a l s o 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 ( s i m i l a r to L a t v . i n t h i s case); c f . item 16:107, pust "to blow" :: Russ. puxnut "to s w e l l " . 1  115 0/-/162:184  t h e r e - t u r - tarn, some agreement, non-cognates. 1  L a t v . i s p r o b a b l y p a t t e r n e d by analogy a f t e r kas : kur "who  : where", c o n s e q u e n t l y t a s : t u r " t h a t :  there".  Russ. r e f l e c t s a P a n - S l a v , development,  e.g., P o l . , Ukr., Cz., B u l g . , 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 d e m o n s t r a t i v e pronoun t o t " t h a t " , cf. 0/-/163:185  Vasm. I l l , Ik  and item 161:85.  2  they - v i n i - o n i , no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . and Russ. forms are the c o r r e s p o n d i n g p l u r a l r e f l e x e s of "he", t h u s , f o r t h e i r background and c o n n e c t i o n s , c f . item 67:133.  A/-/164:186  t h i c k - r e s n s ^ - t b l s t y . j . no agreements, non-cog. L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . r e s n a s " s t r o n g , capable",  though both B a i t , forms c o u l d be Russ. l o a n -  words, due t a t h e i r e x a c t p h o n o l o g i c a l c o r r e s p o n d ence to O.Russ. r e s n b j " s t r o n g , c o p i o u s " . connected w i t h L i t h . t u l z t i  " t o become s o f t ,  L a t v . t u l z t "to s w e l l " , t u l z n a A/+/165:187  Russ. i s swell",  "blister".  t h i n - t i e v s - t o n k i . j , some agreement, cognates.  T h i s i s one of the 'problem' forms i n L a t v . , c f . Endz. 1091. 2 T h i s 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 q u i t e obscure and the i n i t i a l t - phoneme c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d to c o i n c i d e n c e . A l s o Vasmer d i d 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 L a t v . form b i e z s "dense" should be a l s o viewed as noncognate w i t h the above Russ. form.  116 L i t h . seems to p r o v i d e a 'combining' form, e.g., t e ( n ) v a s , i b i d ( f o r L a t v . - i e - :: L i t h . - e ( n ) - / - e n c f . i t e m 50:123).  f  Some of the o t h e r Slav, forms  p r o v i d e a l i n k u i t h the L i t h . form, n o t a b l y Cz. tenky and P o l . c i e n k i , but Russ. r e p r e s e n t s an independent development which i s r e f l e c t e d a l s o i n o t h e r E a s t - S l a v , forms, e.g., U k r . t b n k y j , O.Russ. t ( a ) n ( o ) k ( o ) and B u l g . t ( o ) n ( o ) k .  Thus Russ.,  perhaps, developed by i n c o n t i g u o u s r e g 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 e v i d e n c e , t h i s p a i r  of morphs are cognate.  F u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s are L a t .  t e n u i s " t h i n , s l e n d e r " , O.High Germ, dunni " t h i n " ; c f . a l s o Uasm. I l l , 119. V/-/166:188  t h i n k - duomat - dumat'. non-cognates.  This i s a  Goth, loanword i n t o L a t v . , probably v i a S l a v , s o u r c e s , e.g., Goth, domjan " t o judge" ^ Russ. and L a t v . ; 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 P r . I , 202. 0/+/169:189  t h r e e - 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 g e n e r a l I-E development,''" w i t h Arm. e r e k ( h ) as an e x c e p t i o n .  E.g., i n o t h e r speech communities, a d j a c e n t t o the I-E a r e a , o t h e r base morphs f o r " t h r e e " are used: F i 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 - b r o s a t ' , no agreements, non-cognate. L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h . m e s t i , i b i d , Russ. metat' " t o t o s s , f l i n g " , L i t h . m e t y t i " t o p i t c h " ( L a t v . metat " t o t o s s a b o u t " ) . the Russ. form i s q u i t e obscure. cognate u i t h Ukr. b r o s y t y  probably  I t seems t o be  "to d i s c a r d " , Slovene  b r s a t i "to streak, s t r i p e " . are L i t h . b r u k s m i s / b r u k s n i s  The background o f  Further  connections  "a s t r i p e ,  striation",  also Latv. brukt "to peel o f f " , L i t h .  braukti "to uipe, stroke", 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. L a t v . 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 " ( L a t v . s a i t e "any band, r i b b o n " ) , O.Pruss. " b e l t " , a l s o probably connections  Russ. s e t ' "net".  -saytan  Further  are L a t . saevus " b r i s t l e , s t i f f  hair",  O.High Germ, s e i d " s t r i n g " , Germ. S a i t e , i b i d . Russ. r e p r e s e n t s a P a n - S l a v , 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. vezati.  F u r t h e r probable  connections  a r e Goth,  uindan " t o u i n d , t u i n e " , Cz. vaz "nape", O.Pruss. u i n s u s "neck", Arm. v i z , i b i d . i//-/175:192  t u r n - q r i e z t - v e r t e t , no agreements, nan-cog. 1  L a t v . i s s i m i l a r t o g r i e z t " t o c u t " ( c f . item 25:111).  The i n t o n a t i o n a l p a t t e r n i s a l s o kept  i n d e r i v e d f o r m s , e.g., g r i e z i e n s "a t u r n " (cont i n u o u s o r 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 c u t ,  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 w i t h L a t v . v e r s t " t o p o i n t , a l s o t u r n o n e s e l f or someone, t w i s t " , L i t h . v e r s t i ,  ibid,  0. P r u s s . w i r s t "he becomes", w a r t i n t " t o t u i i s t " . F u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s are L i t h . v i r s t i  " t D become,  a l s o to r o l l about", Goth, w a i r t h a n " t o become", Lat.  v e r t e r e " t o t u r n , t u r n around"; c f . Vasm.  1, 190. V/-/177:193  vomit - vemt - r v a t ' , no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . v e m t i , i b i d , L a t . vomere.  Russ. r e f l e c t s a P a n - S l a v , development  w i t h 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 , Slovene r v a t i  Cz. r v a t i  "to t e a r , s t r e t c h " ,  " t o r i p o u t , p l u c k " , S.Cr. r v a t i se  "to g r a p p l e " .  F u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s are L a t v . r a v e t  "to weed", L i t h . r a v e t i ,  i b i d , probably also L a t .  r u e r e " t o r i p o u t , d i g o r grub up ( t h e ground)"; c f . Vasm. I I , 499. V/-/180:194  wash - mazqat - m y t , no agreements, non-cognates. 1  L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . m a z g b t i , i b i d .  Further  c o n n e c t i o n s are L i t h . mazgas "a k n o t " ( L a t v . mazgs "a node"), p r o b a b l y a l s o L i t h . mazgyti " t o k n i t " and c o n s e q u e n t l y O.Russ. mazgar' " s p i d e r " , O.IMorse mo(n)skvi "a mesh, k n o t , noose", O.High Germ, masca "a mesh, n e t " .  1  Russ. seems to be connected w i t h  A f u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n between Russ. mozg " b r a i n " and L a t v .  119 L i t h . maudyti "to b a t t l e someone", O.Pruss. aumusnan "a wash" ( a c c . s g . ) , L a t v . d i a l , maut "to d i v e , swim under-water", probably mun  also I r i s h  " u r i n e " , Mid.Low Germ, muten "to wash the  f a c e " ; c f . l/asm. I I , 185. A/-/183:195  wet - s l a p j s - mbkryj, no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . s l a p i a s , i b i d . r e f l e c t s a Pan-Slav, development, e.g., Ukr. m b k r y j , Cz. rnokry, S.Cr. probable  connections  mokar.  Russ.  P o l . rnokry, Further  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 L a t v . form  makuonis " c l o u d " c f . item 21:14, a l s o Uasm. I I , 148. 0(+)185:196  when - kad - koqda, p a r t i a l agreement, cognates. L a t v . - a - :: Russ. -o- as i n items -:41, 106:61, 133:167, 161:85.  68:38,  The e x p l a n a t i o n 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 n i s h e d by the obvious p h o n o l o g i c a l v a r i a t i o n s i n d i f f e r e n t S l a v , forms, e.g.,  P o l . gdy,  also kiedy  "when, e v e r " , Cz. kda, a l s o kehdy, S.Cr. B u l g . kaga "when" r e s p e c t i v e l y .  kada,  Thus, i t c o u l d  be  mazgat "to wash" i s q u i t e vague and would have to be d i s m i s s e d as a s u p p o s i t i o n . However, i t should be noted t h a t numerous ' b r a i n d i s h e s ' are prepared i n the B a i t , l i t t o r a l and some of the a s p i c d i s h e s are c o n s i d e r e d to be the f i n e s t d e l i c a c i e s . Moreover these d i s h e s i n v o l v e c o m p l i c a t e d p r e p a r a t i o n a l work, i n c l u d i n g s e v e r a l washing and c l e a n i n g procedures.  120  p o s t u l a t e d d i a c h r o n i c a l l y t h a t the above Russ. form r e p r e s e n t s a s o r t of combining form, as i n P o l . k i e d y < O.Pol, k i e g d y , and the B u l g . koga r e p r e s e n t s one v a r i a n t whereas the S.Cr. kada  (also  North.Russ. d i a l , kada) the o t h e r 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 v o i c e d v e l a r as w e l l as the v o i c e d d e n t a l . P h o n o l o g i c a l l y , i t might be p o s t u l a t e d t h a t the ' v e l a r ' v a r i a n t of B u l g . koga i s , perhaps, a r e s u l t of a p a r t i a l p r o g r e s s i v e i n c o n t i g u o u s 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 c o n n e c t i o n s do  p o i n t t o a form w i t h an i n t e r v o c a l i c d e n t a l - d - , as i n L i t h . kada, O.Pruss. kaden/kadden, kadangi.  0 ( + ) 1 8 6 : 1 9 7  Lith.  1  where - k u r - qde, p a r t i a l agreement,  cognates.  A c c o r d i n g to the a v a i l a b l e e t y m o l o g i c a l works, t h i s 2  p a i r was viewed as cognate.  Further connections  are A l b . k u , i b i d , L i t h . k u r , i b .  There might a l s 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 o f a l i t e r a r y s t a n d a r d , as i t were. T h i s ' s t a n d a r d ' c o u l d have been the c a r r i e r o f the above B u l g . form koga and i n f l u e n c e d the v e r n a c u l a r , p a r t i c u l a r l y of the E/W S l a v , speech communities. Of c o u r s e , i t c o u l d a l s o be argued t h a t Russ. kogda r e p r e s e n t s a ' c o n t a c t ' form which r e f l e c t s the c o m b i n a t i o n of B a i t , kad/kada and S l a v , koga, i f the l a t t e r c o u l d be cons i d e r e d as the o r i g i n a l S l a v . form. However, the above c o n t e n t i o n would d i s m i s s the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t 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 o f *kogo goda "which y e a r " , c f . Vasm. I , 5S7; P r . I , 3 2 8 . 2r-  E.g., the Russ._gde was viewed as b e i n g connected w i t h L a t v . kur v i a Vedic ku "where", a l s o 0 . I n d i e kuha, c f . Vasm. I , 264.  121 A/-/189:198  wide - p l a t s - s i r b k i . i , no agreements, non-cog. L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . p l a t u s , i b i d , Gr. p l a t u s , i b . F u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s are L i t h .  plasti  "to widen" ( L a t v . - p l e s t - "to spread o u t , widen", probably a l s o O.Russ. p l a t a " k e r c h i e f " > (Mod.Russ. p l a t b k "shawl, k e r c h i e f " ) , Germ, p l a t t  "flat,  spread out".''' Russ. r e p r e s e n t s a P a n - S l a v , d e v e l o p 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 g e n e r a l background i s q u i t e ob-  s c u r e , as i s a l s o i t s base form s i r ' "expanse, w i d t h " , which does not seem to possess any probable c o n n e c t i o n s ( w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of Goth, s k e i r s " c l e a r " , c f . Uasm. I l l , IM/-/190:199  401).  2  w i f e - s i e v a - zena, no agreements, non-cognates. Both L a t v . and Russ. forms were compared i n item 195:99, e.g., as the base forms f o r "woman". Lat.  Also  c i v i s " c i t i z e n " c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d 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 - v e t e r . some agreement, c o g n a t e s .  The  i n i t i a l p a i r s of phonemes agree i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , e.g., L a t v . ve- :: Russ. ve-.  The L a t v . form i s  cognate w i t h Russ. v e j a t " "to blow, winnow", which  The Russ. farm s p l o s ' " f u l l y , everywhere" might a l s o s e r v e as a f u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n , which would have to be e s t a b l i s h e d v i a L a t v . p l a s s " e x p a n s i v e , e x t a n t " , the l a t t e r being connected w i t h the above L a t v . form. 2 v The L a t v . form s a u r s "narrow" ( i t e m 102:150) might r e p r e s e n t a f u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n , though the correspondence of L a t v . -au- :: Russ. - i - i s unusual and cannot be s u b s t a n t i a t e d .  122 reflects  t r u e c o g n a t i o n w i t h the L a t v . base morph.  The Russ. form i s cognate w i t h L a t v . v e t r a "storm", as i t r e f l e c t s  the Russ. base morph v e t - .  Further  c o n n e c t i o n s a r e L i t h . v e j a s "wind", v e t r a "storm", 0. P r u s s . wetro "wind", Goth, waian " t o blow", probably a l s o L a t v . v e t i t vetyti, I\l/-/192:201  " t o winnow", L i t h .  i b i d , L a t . ventus "wind".  wing - s p a m s - k r y l b , no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . s p a r n a s .  I t might be  f u r t h e r connected w i t h Russ. paparot " f e r n " ,  Lith.  p a p a r t i s , i b i d , Latv. paparde/paparkste, i b . , also Russ. perb " f e a t h e r " .  The c o n n e c t i o n 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 " : p t e r o n "wing". be connected w i t h L a t v . s k r i e t skrieti  Russ. appears to "to run", L i t h .  " t o f l y , move r a p i d l y " , s k r i s t i " t o g l i d e  around", a l s D Germ, s c h r e i t e n " t o walk, s t e p , march"; c f . Uasm. I I , 313 ( f o r L a t v . ) and Vasm. 1, V/-/193:202  672-673 ( f o r R u s s . ) .  wipe - s l a u c i t  - u t i r a t , no agreements, 1  L a t v . i s connected w i t h L i t h . s l u o s t y t i ,  non-cog. ibid,  perhaps a l s o w i t h the L a t v . form s l a u k t " t o m i l k " . Russ. i s connected w i t h 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 a s p e c t 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 g r a d a t i o n e :i).  123 Q/-/194:203  w i t h - a r - s ( o ) , no agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . i s probably a c u r t a i l e d form < a r i " a l s o " (-i  l a p s e d by apocope).  Russ. i s cognate w i t h 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 " w i t h m o r a l s , honesty", L a t v . p r e f i x suo-, i b i d  (now e x t i n c t , as i n  s u o v a r d i s "namesake", i . e . , suo-+vardis " w i t h name ( p e r s o n ) " , 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 . , L a t . s i m i l i s  "simi-  l a r " ; c f . Uasm. I I , 564, and f o r L a t v . F r . I , 15. f\l/-/196:204  woods - mezs - l e s . no agreements,  non-cognates.  L a t v . i s cognate w i t h L i t h . medzias, i b i d ,  Russ.  meza " b o r d e r , l i m i t , edge", which r e f l e c t s a proba b l e semantic shift," " 1  though the e x a c t phonolog-  i c a l correspondence of both forms, i . e . L a t v . and Russ.,makes them s u s p e c t to b o r r o w i n g . c o n n e c t i o n s a r e L i t h . medis " t r e e " ,  Further  O.Pruss.  median, i b i d , probably a l s o L a t . medius "middle", I r i s h mide, i b i d , Goth, m i d j i s " l o c a t e d i n the m i d d l e " , Arm, mej "middle". Pan-Slav, development,  Russ. r e p r e s e n t s a  e.g., P o l . l a s , Ukr. l i s ,  Cz. l e s , S.Cr. l i j e s , B u l g . l e s . F u r t h e r connect i o n s are O.Eng.  l a e s "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 " c o u l d 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 , p r o b a b l y a l s o L a t v . l i e s s "meager, extremely t h i n " , though f u r t h e r background i s q u i t e obscure f o r the Russ. form; c f . Vasm. I I , 33. i\l/-/197:205  worm - t a r p s - c e r v ' , no agreements, non-cognates. L a t v . seems to be connected u i t h L i t h . t a r p a " g r o u t h , development" ( L a t v . t a r p a  "capability"),  t a r p t i " t o g a i n , b e n e f i t " , thus a l s o p r o b a b l y u i t h Russ. t o r o p l t ' " t o h u r r y " < tbrop " h a s t e " .  Russ.  r e f l e c t s a P a n - S l a v , development u i t h some semantic variations,  e.g., P o l . c z e r u "maggot, grub", Ukr.  c e r v "uorm", Cz. cerv "uorm, maggot", S.Cr. c r v "uorm, B u l g . c e r v e j "uorm".  T h i s Russ. form seems  to be connected u i t h O.Russ. cermnyj " c r i m s o n - r e d " and i n the v e r n a c u l a r c e r j b m n y j " r e d - h a i r e d " ; thus probably a l s o u i t h L i t h . k i r m i s "uorm", L a t v . c i r m i s "midge, a l s o s m a l l uorm", cerme "mau-uorm", I r i s h c r u i m "uorm", A l b . k r i m b , i b . , though the v o i c e d 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 p r e s e n t s c e r t a i n d i f f i c u l t i e s , as none of the o t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s seem t o r e f l e c t i t , c f . Vasm. I l l ,  317, 318, 325; P r . App. 63-64, and f o r  L a t v . Vasm. I l l , 125-126.  0(-)197:206  ye - .jus - vy, p a r t i a l agreement, non-cognates. L a t v . i s cognate u i t h L i t h . j u s , O.Pruss. i o u s . F u r t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s are Goth, j u s , i b i d , Eng. you. Russ. r e f l e c t s a P a n - S l a v , development, e.g., P o l .  125 my, Ukr. v y , O.Cz. v y , S.Cr. v i , B u l g .  vi/vije.  Perhaps, the S l a v , forms have been i n f l u e n c e d by an o b l i q u e case of the h y p o t h e t i c a l P r o t o - I - E form * i u s / * ( j ) u s (nom. p i . ) , as r e f l e c t e d i n L a t . vos "you", O.Pruss. wans, i b i d ( a c c . p i . ) ,  1  c f . Uasm.  I , 238, P r . I , 102-103. (M/-/199:207  year - gads - god, non-cognates.  I t i s a Russ.  loanword i n t o L a t v . , as L i t h . metai "year" would indicate. gadigs  Russ. i s probably  connected w i t h L a t v .  " h e e d f u l " o r g a d l t ( i e s ) " t o chance, a l s o  happen", gadat " t o c a r e , s u p p l y " . connections  Further  probable  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 . F r i e s i a n gada " t o u n i t e " , Mid.Low Germ, gaden "to p l e a s e " ,  consequently  ( v i a a vowel g r a d a t i o n i n B a i t . ) w i t h L a t v . guods "honour", L i t h . guodas, i b i d , though these forms a r e g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d Russ. g a d a t 250  1  Bait,  to be connected w i t h  " t o a d v i s e " , c f . Uasm. I , 283-284;  ( f o r B a i t , guods/guodas).  T h i s p a i r was c o n s i d e r e d to be probable non-cognates, f o r t h e i r g e n e r a l background appeared to be q u i t e obscure_and t h e i r p h o n o l o g i c a l correspondence vague,_e.g., only L a t v . - u - :: Russ. -y- as a r e g u l a r correspondence ( b u t " t o be" :: b y t ' , i b i d ) . I t should a l s o be noted t h a t the O.Pruss. form wans c o u l d not be c o n s i d e r e d to be a 'combining' form, f o r i t r e f l e c t s an o b l i q u e case and the g e n e r a l S l a v , development was too uniform to o f f e r any c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h 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. employed  The  methodology  h e r e a f t e r w i l l f o l l o w the o r d i n a r y s t a t i s t i c a l p r o c e -  d u r e s , 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.  the  a c t u a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s i n our a n a l y s i s r e s t s w i t h  the  d e t e r m i n a t i o n of c o g n a t i o n between any g i v e n p a i r of c o r r e -  sponding f o r m s ,  1  T h e r e f o r e , i t i s r e a s o n a b l e to s t a t e t h a t  which have a l r e a d y been d e s i g n a t e d as i t e m s .  These items r e p r e s e n t the s m a l l e s t 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 p o i n t of view, as they r e p r e s e n t 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 d e p i c t s the f o r m a t i o n a l p r o c e s s of a sample i n t h i s paper: L a t v . - Russ.; form  - form  item; /+/;  /-/;  (+); (-)  sample. I  = 10QC+/-) or  II  = 20DC+/-)  The concept of the i t e m i s based, i n t h i s paper, on the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of c o g n a t i o n f o r a s p e c i f i c p a i r of forms i n both L a t v i a n and R u s s i a n .  The d e c i s i o n of e i t h e r c o g n a t i o n o r non-  I t should be emphasized again, t h a t the e n t i r e a n a l y s i s depends on the cognate c o u n t , f o r o n l y a very r i g o r o u s approach i n the s e l e c t i o n , as w e l l as the d e t e r m i n a t i o n , of cognates w i l l y i e l d r e a s o n a b l e 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 s s i b l e 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 cognation  i s represented  by  a s y m b o l , e.g.,  T h i s s y m b o l u n i f i e s the f o r m s i n v o l v e d and ' r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ' of the newly c r e a t e d we  can  consider  and  c o u l d be can  or  also serves  as  u n i t - the i t e m .  i t e m o r i t e m s , g e n e r a l l y , f o r they  autonomous u n i t s . items,  e i t h e r *+*  We  can  a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h between  their designation  type  of n o t a t i o n .  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  between d i f f e r e n t t y p e s (-).  Thus i t i s e v i d e n t  an a p p o s i t i o n o f t h e not p r a c t i c a l f o r our the behaviour their  of  type  *-'  i t e m s , e.g.,  t h a t any '/+/  are  entirely  '+•  and  '-'  they  Furthermore,  of /+/  '+'  items  we  or  : ( + ) , /-/  :  g i v e n ,item i s a u t o n o m o u s , f o r  : (-)' i s a l s o p o s s i b l e , though  p u r p o s e s as we  of i n d i v i d u a l  Thus,  i s p u r e l y a r b i t r a r y , e.g.,  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h any  a  items  are not  concerned  with  but w i t h the s i g n i f i c a n c e of  total. 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 b a s e d on  b i n a r y s y s t e m , w h i c h i s i m p l e m e n t e d by e i t h e r '+'  or  •-'  symbols, v i z . , e i t h e r presence or absence of c o g n a t i o n . sequently,  a l l items  independently system.  but  should  be  Con-  v i e w e d as s i g n i f i c a n t , n o t  a l s o w i t h i n the framework of the  of  •-'  and  '+'  items  we  s h a l l concern  two  and  sig-  i t p r o d u c e s a c e r t a i n number  i t i s actually  these  t o t a l s with  which  ourselves.  I t has contains  t o t a l s , e.g.,  only  binary  T h i s s y s t e m f u r n i s h e s us w i t h t h e c r i t e r i o n f o r  n i f i c a n c e of the i t e m  the  a l r e a d y been n o t e d t h a t t h e c o g n a t e  count  s a m p l e s , 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 i t e m s , and sample I I , c o n s i s t i n g of 200 i t e m s . ent  Each D f the samples a l s o r e p r e s e n t s an independ-  u n i t and m i l l be viewed as such.  Each sample c o n t a i n s a  c e r t a i n number of '+' and '-' items o r cognates and non-cognates. We s h a l l concern o u r s e l v e s w i t h 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 c o n s i d e r e d  first.  Sample I c o n s i d e r e d : A t o t a l of 100 p a i r s of forms i n L a t v i a n and R u s s i a n were compared i n sample I .  T h i s 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 r e p r e s e n t s 39 cognates and 61 non-cognates.  A more c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e p r o b a b l y would c l a i m  o n l y 31 cognates and 69 non-cognates, f o r e i g h t of the cognates were p r o b a b l e cognates, and a more r i g o r o u s approach i n the e s t i m a t i o n of t h e i r c o g n a t i o n might have c l a s s i f i e d them as non-cognates, o r a t l e a s t as probable non-cognates.  On the  o t h e r hand, an i n v e s t i g a t i o n based on l e s s background i n f o r m a t i o n , as w e l l as l e s s a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h both languages, p r o b a b l y would have y i e l d e d 40 cognates and 60 non-cognates ( i t e m 154:81 c o u l d have been c l a s s e d as a t l e a s t a probable c o g n a t e ) . f o r e , the m e r i t of a d e t a i l e d study of the background  There-  connec-  t i o n s , as w e l l as the c o g n a t i o n , of forms appears t o be o b v i o u s , f o r , even i n the case of a p o s s i b l e c o g n a t i o n , 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 g e n e r a l l y knoun t h a t 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 :  t  log c 2 2 log r  =  or  t  =  1  log c -5 (1CT); 2 log r  (1)  uhereby the time depth i n m i l l e n n i a i s r e p r e s e n t e d by the  1  1*  f o r m u l a , 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 f o r m u l a by ue o b t a i n the time depth i n y e a r s . f o r the percentage sample s i z e , and  In t h i s f o r m u l a  ID" , 5  'c' stands  of cognates expressed as a p o r t i o n of the 'r  1  r e p r e s e n t s a r a t i o of cognates r e t a i n e d  a f t e r a m i l l e n n i u m of s e p a r a t i o n .  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 , u h i c h i s taken tD be a c o n s t a n t r a t e of r e t e n t i o n of cognates, expressed of 1,000  years.  i n percentages,  over a p e r i o d  The r e t e n t i o n r a t e uas p o s t u l a t e d to be a t  .8048, rounded o f f to .805 or 80.5%,  2  u h i c h i s the value t h a t  R. 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. Lees d e s i g n a t e d t h i s f o r m u l a as the d a t i n g e q u a t i o n : t  log  F3  2 log k ' uith r e p r e s e n t i n g 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 r e p r e s e n t i n g a c o n s t a n t of r e t e n t i o n d u r i n g a g i v e n time p e r i o d , e.g., 1,000 y e a r s . For the development of t h i s e q u a t i o n c f . pp. 115-117, v i z . , b e g i n n i n g u i t h "1. Rate E q u a t i o n s " . 2 Lees, i b i d . ( m e a n i n g 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 f o r m u l a which i n c o r p o r a t e s the c o n s t a n t component, e.g., the r e t e n t i o n r a t e :  t  log c = 2 l o g .805  =  log c =  log c  =  a  1  ~  2 (.217)  .434 2  The next step i n v o l v e s c a l c u l a t i n g the v a l u e of ' c ' , r e f l e c t s c o g n a t i o n expressed i n p e r c e n t a g e s ,  which  e.g.,  As sample I r e p r e s e n t s a sample s i z e of  100  i t e m s , and the cognate count y i e l d e d 39 cogn a t e s , then  c  «  39  =  100  .39.  The f i n a l s t e p i n v o l v e s c o m p l e t i n g our f o r m u l a as f o l l o w s : l D t  =  9  c =  .434  l o g .39 " .434  .942 " .434  =  =  2  a  7  ~  <  = =' S  or t  =  .217Q0 ) 3  .  2,170.  H. A r k i n and R. R. C o l t o n , 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 l o g a r i t h m v a l u e s . The a c t u a l value of a mantissa f o r any g i v e n l o g a r i t h m was not u t i l i z e d , f o r e i t h e r '+* or '-' v a l u e s appeared to be i n s i g n i f i c a n t f o r our e s t i m a t e s , to w i t , l o g . 805 i s l o c a t e d 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 significant. 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, e t a l .  131 Thus we can say t h a t on the s t r e n g t h of the sample s i z e of 100 i t e m s , which y i e l d e d a 39% c o g n a t i o n , L a t v i a n and R u s s i a n share a time depth of 2.17 m i l l e n n i a o r 2,170 y e a r s . 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 c o u l d be expressed i n s e v e r a l ways: i)  L a t v i a n and R u s s i a n have been e x i s t i n g as sepa-  r a t e languages f o r an e s t i m a t e d 2,170 y e a r s ; ii)  L a t v i a n and R u s s i a n began t o d r i f t a p a r t about  200 B.C., u s i n g 1967 as a base year and rounding o f f t o the nearest  decade. iii)  L a t v i a n and R u s s i a n , a f t e r having been sepa-  r a t e d f o r 2,170 y e a r s , s t i l l possess 39% c o g n a t i o n o u t of a sample s i z e of 100 forms. However, i t s h o u l d be noted t h a t we are d e a l i n g w i t h r e l a t i v e v a l u e s and not a b s o l u t e ones and, t h e r e f o r e , i t would be q u i t e erroneous t o accept the year 200 B.C. as some d e f i n i t e p o i n t f i x e d i n time ( o r a p o i n t e s t i m a t e ) when the s e p a r a t i o n of the two languages began.  The time depth of 2,170 y e a r s should  be viewed, even i n optimum c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , o n l y as a time-span which s u p p l i e s us ( t o some degree of a c c u r a c y ) w i t h a t l e a s t an a p p r o x i m a t i o n i n time when both languages c o u l d 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 c o u r s e , the e n t i r e e s t i m a t e  depends on the accuracy of our sampling procedure and the consequent 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 t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h 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 a s s o c i a t e d u i t h problems of e s t i m a t i o n .  D e s p i t e the most c a r e -  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  decisions.  b i l i t y of our e r r o r (assuming  To e s t i m a t e the  proba-  t h a t any change/changes i n the  word l i s t have o c c u r r e d randomly), we s h a l l employ a type of measurement c a l l e d the s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n .  T h i s 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 c o n f i d e n c e l e v e l and enables us to s t a t e t h a t , f o r i n s t a n c e , L a t v i a n and Russian r e p r e s e n t e d a s i n g l e language 2,17D  years ago, w i t h the upper l i m i t being +270 y e a r s and  lower one -270  years.  the  The g e n e r a l c o n f i d e n c e l e v e l f o r the  s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n or s t a n d a r d e r r o r i s 68% or s i m p l y -  7/10,  although o t h e r l e v e l s can a l s o be employed,''' The  standard e r r o r i s computed a c c o r d i n g to the  f o l l o w i n g formula: 2  •• Gudschinsky,  /  c(l-c)  •  n  ABC's, Word, p. 202  (meaning  #38).  Lees, The B a s i s , Language, p. 124 (meaning f o r m u l a 11) c f . a l s o 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 r e p r e s e n t e d by a 'p or a p r o p o r t i o n of a sample from a p a p u l a t i o n , which i s p r e c i s e l y what our symbol 'c' r e p r e sents. I t should be noted a l s o t h a t , g e n e r a l l y , the s t a n d a r d 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 r e p l a c e d by ' s ' . 1  133 where 'c' r e p r e s e n t s the same value as i n the F i r s t Formula and 'n' r e p r e s e n t s our sample s i z e , e . g , 100 i t e m s . f  Our next move  i s t o F i l l i n the Formula, e.g., as  s  2  =  1 /x  c(l-c)  :: s  =  2  x, then i t F o l l o w s t h a t  .39(1-.39)  n  _  .39(.61)  100  .2379  100  100  .002379; s o l v i n g For s : s = l /  .002379  =  .04877  =  .049.  1  The F i g u r e .049 d e p i c t s a s t a n d a r d e r r o r oF the p r o p o r t i o n oF 'cognates a t 7/10 confidence l e v e l . percentage of cognates,  T h i s e r r o r i s added t o the  i . e . , 'c', to c o r r e c t i t ,  as i t were,  and we o b t a i n the c o r r e c t e d c o g n a t i o n i n percentages: C  »  c + s  .39 + .049  =  = .439.  T h i s c o r r e c t e d ' c w i l l be d e s i g n a t e d w i t h the c a p i t a l 1  i s u t i l i z e d i n formula e.g.,  (3)  (1) to o b t a i n the c o r r e c t e d time  'C* and depth,  formula ( 1 ) :  C f , f n . 2 to p. 132 : Freund and W i l l i a m s , i b i d . , pp. 511-517 (meaning t a b l e s uf square r o o t s ) . As .002379 l i e s between .00237 and .00238, the square r o o t of .002379 i s .04877 or between .0486826 and .0487852 u s i n g a method of i n t e r p o l a tion.  134  T  =  log C  l o g .439  .823  2 log r  .434  .434  1.896  =  1.9;  or T  =  1.9C10 ) 3  =  1,900.  Thus the c o r r e c t e d time depth i s 1.9 m i l l e n n i a or 1,900 y e a r s . In order to e s t a b l i s h the extent or l i m i t s of the e r r o r , we s u b t r a c t the c o r r e c t e d time depth from the o r i g i n a l one:  2,170 - 1,900  =  270 y e a r s .  and i t f o l l o w s that the upper l i m i t of our e r r o r i n the o r i g i n a l estimate of the time depth i s 2,170 + 270 y e a r s , and the lower l i m i t 2,170 - 270 y e a r s , with the range of e r r o r being 540 years about the o r i g i n a l  time depth a t 7/10 confidence  level. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s c o r r e c t e d time depth could be expressed i n s e v e r a l ways: i)  L a t v i a n and Russian have been e x i s t i n g as  separate languages f u r 2,170 + 270 years; ii)  L a t v i a n and Russian began to d r i f t  apart  between the years 470 B.C. and 70 A.D.; iii)  L a t v i a n and Russian shared a common language  between 1,900 and 2,440 years ago;  The c o r r e c t e d time depth w i l l be designated with the c a p i t a l l e t t e r 'T'.  135 iv) fidence l e v e l , f o r m s , and of  the  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  i n s o f a r as i t i s b a s e d  con-  on a s a m p l e s i z e o f  any v o c a b u l a r y change i s s a i d  100  t o be random i n e i t h e r  languages. The  cognates  cognate  count y i e l d e d v a r i o u s combinations  and n o n - c o g n a t e s  ( c f . p. 1 2 8 ) .  of  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 t h a n t h e above e s t i m a t e , f o r t h e l a t t e r f o l l o w i n g probable cognates: 79:43, i.e.,  -:45,  151:79,  31, i s u t i l i z e d  depth which would  i t e m s 4:2,  159:83.  T h i s new  included  12:6,  -:11,  amount o f  54:30,  cognates,  i n the f o r m u l a (1) to a r r i v e a t a  be b a s e d  the  time  on t h e most c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e of  cognates. We  proceed  as b e f o r e ,  e.g.,  31 1.  c  =  =  .31 o r 3 1 % o f  cognates.  100  .  t =  u>  -  . iliZi  .  2.7;  T h u s , a more c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e w o u l d  show t h a t b o t h  lan-  g u a g e s 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  z  1 0 9  31  2 l o g .805  -  2.69B  .434  or t  We confidence  =  proceed  level:  2.7  (10 ) 3  =  2,700.  2,700 y e a r s .  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  ,„x  2  .31  (1-.31)  .31  1DD  (.69)  .2139  100  100  .002139; . . solving  2 for s :  s  4.  (3)  =  Thus C  =  We  calculate  I  =  T  =  log D.  |/ .002139  .31  the  C  +  =  .046251  .046  =  l o g .356  .434  .046;  .356.  c o r r e c t e d time  =  =  depth:  1.033 =  .434  =  .434  C.* JO  =  I  or  We  then  fidence  establish  cognate in and  3  limits  2,700 - 2,380  can  state  count  t h a t the about  =  =  2,380.  of s t a n d a r d  error  a t 7/10  con-  320.  t h a t the most c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e  would e s t a b l i s h  q u e s t i o n as  years  the  (10 )  level:  6.  Thus, ue  2.38  having  s e p a r a t i o n of ithe.  begun between 3,020 and  range of e r r o r , the y e a r  the  a t 7/10  2,700 w i t h  level,  sample s i z e  the  languages  2,380 y e a r s  confidence  a given  of  of  is  ago, 640  100  items.  N e x t we the c o g n a t e  count  shall  will  c o n s i d e r the  i n c l u d e any  optimum c a s e ,  probable  whereby  non-cognates,  e.g.,  137 i t e m 154:81.  Consequently, me have a t o t a l of 40 cognates  and  e s t i m a t e the time depth as f o l l o w s :  1.  2  .  c  40  »  ( 1 )  m  100  .  t  .4 or 40%.  i£iL_d  i2i6  =  .434  2.11  =  .434  or t  =  2.11  (10 )  =  3  2,110;  Thus the optimum e s t i m a t e would i n d i c a t e t h a t these  languages  have e x i s t e d as s e p a r a t e l i n g u i s t i c u n i t s f o r about 2,110 To c a l c u l a t e a probable e r r o r , we proceed as previously,  3.  e.g.,  (2)  a  2  =  .4(1-.4) 100  .24  =  100  =  .0024;  2 and s o l v i n g f o r s : s thus the c o r r e c t e d 4.  (3)  C  »  .048989  =  .049;  +  =  .449.  'c' i s =  .4  .049  The c o r r e c t e d time depth becomes:  5. or  T  =  l o g .449 —.434  =  .801 .434  =  1.8456  m  1.85;  years.  138 T  =  1.85  (ID )  =  3  1,850.  To e s t i m a t e the l i m i t s of our e r r o r : 6.  2,110  -  1,850  =  260.  Ue can conclude t h a t the optimum case of the cognate count would date the b e g i n n i n g of s e p a r a t i o n f o r the two languages 2,110  + 260 years o r between the years 400 B.C.  approximately, fidence  1  and 120  at A.D.  and the range of e r r o r i s 520 years a t 7/10  con-  level.  E.g., the e s t i m a t e s i n years have been rounded o f f to the n e a r e s t decade.  139  Sample I I c o n s i d e r e d :  As  stated  autonomous u n i t ; although items.  therefore,  i t i s actually  items.  7  =  Sample count  =  -:13;  The f o l l o w i n g  +  (-3)  II consists  sample  are t h e i r  *  as such,  I except f o r 7 A/-/ -:69;  N( + ) -:45, and t h e y r e p r e -  were o m i t t e d f r o m  +4  be t r e a t e d  IM/-/ -:55;  (M(+) - : 1 1 ;  +79 + (-121)  T h u s , sample cognates proceed  begin  II w i l l  a s an  2/+/  +  I and r e p l a c e d by  totals  2( + )  by c a t e g o r i e s : :  +  3/-/.  o f 200 i t e m s and t h e c o g n a t e  o b t a i n e d i s as f o l l o w s :  200  time  sample i s v i e w e d  an e x t e n s i o n o f sample  IM/+/ - : 4 1 ;  t h e items which  different  sample  are l\l/-/  The 7 i t e m s  A/+/ -:32; sent  on p..128, e a c h  II yielded  and we s h a l l  65/+/ + 14( + ) + 115/-/ + 6 ( - ) .  a total  with  1.  the c a l c u l a t i o n  =  79 200  f o r t h e time  =  cognate  of percentage  .395 o r 39.5%;  d e p t h , we  .434  •r  total  as p r e v i o u s l y  f o r various possible  c  o f 79 c o g n a t e s  consider this  i n our c a l c u l a t i o n s  depth  salving  =  obtain:  .434  and 121 n o n -  first,  i . e . , we  when c o m p u t i n g  counts  i n sample  of cognation::  shall  the I.  We  140  t  =  2.14  (10 )  =  3  2,140.  Thus, we can s t a t e t h a t , g i v e n a sample s i z e of 200 i t e m s , t h e two languages a r e e s t i m a t e d t o have been a homogeneous language 2,140  years ago, and t h a t they began t o d r i f t a p a r t 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:  3.  , (2) N  2  a* =  .395(1-.395) 200  =  .395(.605)  =  200  .238975 200  .001194875; 2  and s o l v i n g f o r s : s  =  .001194875  =  .0345685  =  .035;  -  1.94;  thus the c o r r e c t e d 'c' i s : 4.  (3)  C  m  .395 + .035  =  .43;  and t h e c o r r e c t e d time depth becomes:  5  .  (!)  T  -  i £ 9 _ ^ .434  =  or T  =  1,940.  To e s t i m a t e the l i m i t s of e r r o r :  ^  =  .434  1 > g l | l |  141  6.  2,140  - 1,940  =  Ule can s a y t h a t at  7/10  and  that  ago, 30  confidence l e v e l ,  the range  of our e r r o r  i s 400 y e a r s ,  w i t h a g i v e n sample s i z e  t h e two l a n g u a g e s  which would date  200.  began s e p a r a t i n g  this  separation  2,140  o f 200 + 200  items,  years  a t between 370 B.C. and  A.D.  Now estimate, viz.,  proceed  e.g., t h a t  14 l e s s  cluded  we  than  both  2  .  d)  cognate  t  cognates,  41:118,  151:79,  54:30,  156:182,  186:197.  c o u n t , i . e . , 65, i s worked  through  again: 65 — 200  =  34:116,  133:167,  185:196,  The new the same p r o c e d u r e  p o s s e s s o n l y 65  cognates:  24:110,  82:143,  159:83,  c  probable  12:6,  79:43,  1.  languages  t h e p r e v i o u s e s t i m a t e , f o r the l a t t e r i n -  the f o l l o w i n g  i t e m s 4:2,  t o c o n s i d e r t h e most c o n s e r v a t i v e  =  .325 o r 32.5%;  iB9^25  B  =  1^124  .434  =  .434  or t  We  can s t a t e  span  that  of s e p a r a t i o n  =  2,590.  o u r e s t i m a t e o f 2,590 y e a r s d e p i c t s o f the languages  i n question.  t h e time  142  To c o r r e c t our probable  3.  , ^ (2)  error:  .325C.675)  2 s  =  .219375 =  200  and  s  =  .03312  ^ .00109688; n  =  n  n  n  r  n  n  200  =  .033.  O b t a i n i n g c o r r e c t e d percentage of cognates:  4.  and  (3)  C  «  the c o r r e c t e d time  .325 + .033  =  .358;  depth: 1.028  5.  (1)  T  =  =  2.368  =  2.37;  .434 or T  =  2,370.  To estimate the extent of our e r r o r at 7/10 confidence  6.  2,590 - 2,370  =  level:  220.  We conclude t h a t the most c o n s e r v a t i v e estimate uould date the s e p a r a t i o n of these languages  a t 2,590 + 210  years ago, u i t h a sample s i z e of 200 items a t 70% confidence level.  Next, ue c o n s i d e r the optimum cognate 85, uhich i n c l u d e s 6 probable non-cognates. 25:111,  28:113,  75:138,  148:177,  154:81,  proceed through our c a l c u l a t i o n s as b e f o r e :  count, e.g.,  These a r e :  items  198:206, and ue  143  1.  c  2.  (1)  85  -  =  20D  .425  t  =  ^ .434  t  =  1,970;  o r 42.5%;  =  1.97;  or  , (2)  2 s  N  3.  .425C.575)  =  .244375  =  200  and  4.  To  find  (3)  s  =  .0349559  C  =  .425  t h e c o r r e c t e d time  5.  (1)  +  =  .001221875;  200  =  .035;  .035  =  .46.  depth:  T  =  777 ^ — .434  T  =  1,790.  =  1.79;  or  Obtaining  the e x t e n t of  6. T h u s , we Latvian 1,970 lary being  can and  items 360  and  - 1,790  state  that  years and  as h a v i n g  ago,  with  the range  c o u l d be  180  A.D.  =  180.  t h e optimum e s t i m a t e  y e a r s a t a 70%  separation B.C.  1,970  Russian  + 18D  error:  been a s i n g l e  would c o n s i d e r linguistic  a g i v e n sample s i z e  of e r r o r  o f 200  i n the p e r c e n t a g e  confidence l e v e l .  p o s t u l a t e d as h a v i n g  The  date  of of  unit vocabucognates their  o c c u r r e d between  180  Ikk  Evaluation: The s t a t i s t i c a l m a n i p u l a t i o n of both samples s u p p l i e d us w i t h c e r t a i n d a t a .  has  We s h a l l proceed to g a t h e r t h i s  i n f o r m a t i o n i n t o some c o n c i s e form to enable us to e v a l u a t e i t s significance. As each sample y i e l d e d v a r i o u s cognate c o u n t s , due to the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of p r o b a b l e cognates and probable noncognates, we processed every sample e x a c t l y t h r e e t i m e s .  Thus,  each sample was c o n s i d e r e d i n the l i g h t of 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 i o n , as an independent case of the optimum e s t i m a t e , and a c c o r d i n g to the cognate count, which i n c l u d e d a l l p o s i t i v e i t e m s , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e i r p r o b a b i l i t y of c o g n a t i o n . The most c o n s e r v a t i v e case was thought to be import a n t to c o n s i d e r , as an example of t r u e c o g n a t i o n .  The optimum  case was c o n s i d e r e d because any probable non-cognate  c o u l d be  c l a s s i f i e d as a t 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 w i t h both languages o r to whom the m a t e r i a l f o r a thorough study of these languages was  unavailable.  C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h i s case would i n v o l v e the l e a s t a c c u r a t e cognate count.  Furthermore, t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n would a l s o depend on  the r i g i d i t y of c r i t e r i o n f o r c o g n a t i o n , f o r , b e s i d e s t r u e cogn a t e s , the optimum case a l s o i n c l u d e s probable cognates and probable non-cognates.  The t h i r d i n s t a n c e was c o n s i d e r e d to be  a s o r t of median between both of the above c a s e s .  The  following  l i s t r e p r e s e n t s a r e c a p i t u l a t i o n of the r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n computations of both  samples.  145  As a l r e a d y noted, t T  •  =  the o r i g i n a l time depth,  the c o r r e c t e d 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 r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h r e e  s e c t i o n s and each s e c t i o n r e p r e s e n t s the above-mentioned  cases,  e.g., c o n s e r v a t i v e , median and optimum e s t i m a t e s , i n t h a t D r d e r , Sample I : cases i)  ii)  iii)  +31  +39  +40  -  time depth  31/+/  = i) +  B(+)  = i i ) + (-)  t  =  2,700  T  =  2.3B0  1  m  +  730 1,050  B.C.  B.C.  -  410  B.C.  320  t * T =  2,170  1  +  »  e s t i m a t e d dates  1,900  200 470  B.C.  400  B.C.  840  B.C.  370  B.C.  B.C. -  70-  A.O.  270  t = T =  2,110  1  =  +  t  =  2,590  T  •  2.370  1  =  +  1,850  140  B.C. -  120  A.D.  260  Sample I I : i)  ii)  iii)  +65  +79  +85  =  65/+/  - i) +  14(+)  » ii) +  6(-)  2,140  1  +  1.940  400  B.C.  170  B.C. -  30  A.O.  200  t = T -  1,970  1  +  a  B.C. -  220  t » T a =  620  1.790  1 180  B.C.  B.C. -  180  A.D.  180  The above c o l l e c t e d data p e r m i t s us to make c e r t a i n  o b s e r v a t i o n s about the probable p a s t e x i s t e n c e of L a t v i a n and Russian as a s i n g l e homogeneous language.  F i r s t l y , uith a  g i v e n sample s i z e of 100 v o c a b u l a r y i t e m s , ue can s t a t e t h a t 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 c l o s e c o n t a c t up to  120 A.D.  They seem to have begun to s e p a r a t e a t about  B.C.  Secondly, u i t h a g i v e n sample s i z e of 200  1,050  vocabulary  i t e m s , ue can note t h a t the tuo languages e x i s t e d as a homogeneous u n i t s t i l l around the b e g i n n i n g of the C h r i s t i a n e r a and seem to have been i n c l o s e c o n t a c t as l a t e as 1B0 A.D. s e p a r a t i o n c o u l d have begun about 840  The  B.C.  Of c o u r s e , the above o b s e r v a t i o n s are of a g e n e r a l nature and they should be t r e a t e d as such, f o r any  calculation  i n v o l v i n g c o n f i d e n c e l i m i t s i s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y suspect to vagueness.  I t s h o u l d a l s o be noted t h a t the same statement  made about any problem of e s t i m a t i o n .  The most i m p o r t a n t  element i n d e a l i n g u i t h problems of e s t i m a t i o n i s the and d i g e s t i o n of d a t a .  c o u l d be  treatment  The r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d 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 u e r e , and not as p o i n t e s t i mates, u n l e s s , of c o u r s e , t h e r e i s some o t h e r m a t e r i a l a t hand to s u b s t a n t i a t e the o b t a i n e d r e s u l t s .  Houever, a d e f i n i t e  o b s e r v a t i o n can be made from the r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n our  calcu-  l a t i o n s ; f o r i n s t a n c e , the d i f f e r e n c e i n e s t i m a t e d 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 T h i s seems to i n d i c a t e t h a t 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.  T h i s skewness i s s a i d to be n e g a t i v e  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 t h a t 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 c o n s e r v a t i v e time depth and the next one, e.g., median time depth, i s 530 y e a r s 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 o n l y 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 f o l l o w s : ; 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 d e p i c t e d on an imaginary a b s c i s s a of the cognate count; t h e r e f o r e , the e n t i r e q u e s t i o n of skewness i s dependent upon the number of cognates i n v o l v e d i n each c a s e . I t f o l l o w s , t h e n , t h a t the n e g a t i v e skewness of our d i s t r i b u t i o n for of  the 3 t e s t cases of each sample i s connected w i t h the number 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  sample I : sample I I :  i i  i i i  8  1  14  6  Thus, the skewing can be e x p l a i n e d i n terms of cognate numbers used i n each case.  I t s h o u l d a l s o be noted t h a t , as we i n c r e a s e  our sample s i z e , the d i f f e r e n c e s between the t h r e e t e s t cases seem to d e c r e a s e , 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 a l s o caused by a s m a l l e r 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 p r o b a b l y would become more pronounced i f the sample s i z e were e n l a r g e d , as the number of probable c o g n a t e s , as w e l l as p r o b a b l e non-cognates, would a l s o i n c r e a s e .  I t follows that  an i n c r e a s e i n sample s i z e c o u l d p r o b a b l y e l 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 o b t a i n e d 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: T h i s skewing, however, can be p a r t l y c o r r e c t e d i n terms of the p h o n o l o g i c a l d a t a , which g i v e s the t r 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 a l r e a d y u t i l i z e d p h o n o l o g i c a l data q u i t e 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  w h i l e c o n s i d e r i n g the cognate count, and, as our skewing  appears  to be based on the cognate number c o n s i d e r e d i n each c a s e , the i n c r e a s e i n sample s i z e seems to be the o n l y 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 c o n s e r v a t i v e c a s e , d e p i c t s e x a c t l y the o p p o s i t e of what i s assumed, e.g., as the c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e i s based on t r u e c o g n a t i o n o n l y , then the ' b o r d e r - l i n e ' i t e m s , which form the o t h e r two t e s t c a s e s , might r e f l e c t some o t h e r phenomenon, such as r e b o r r o w i n g .  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e r e 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 t h a t , i n o r d e r to c o n s i d e r r e b o r r o w i n g of l e x i c a l i t e m s , 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 r e b o r r o w i n g r a t e of the same l e x i c a l i t e m s , a d e t a i l e d study of the c o n t a c t areas between both languages would have to be undertaken. T h i s type of study c o u l d r e v e a l a sub-system or sub-systems of forms which would not f i t the g e n e r a l phonemic p a t t e r n of e i t h e r language and, t h e r e f o r e , c o u l d i n d i c a t e a c e r t a i n p r o p e n s i t y to borrow and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , 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 c o n t a c t area to absorb o u t s i d e forms, as i t were. I t i s obvious t h a t our c a l c u l a t i o n s i n v o l v e a certain  'bias of t i m e ' , f o r the usage of time i n a p p r o x i m a t i o n s  tends to b l u r the concept of time as a dimension.  Generally,  time i s viewed not o n l y as a dimension c o o r d i n a t e d w i t h 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 d i m e n s i o n a l . a n a l y s i s , i n my  Therefore,  the u t i l i z a t i o n of time i n our  o p i n i o n , seems to be q u i t e a p p r o p r i a t e .  To  s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s v i e w , l e t us c o n s i d e r another s i t u a t i o n , a b o u t which we know t h a t q u a n t i t a t i v e changes g i v e r i s e to 1  qualitative differences.  I t i s i n d u b i t a b l y accepted t h a t  the  d i f f e r e n c e between wood a l c o h o l and g r a i n 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  of carbon and hydrogen.  proportions  C o n v e r s e l y , 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 p e r i o d of time, w i l l g i v e 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 g e o g r a p h i c a l they may  coordinates,  although  have been i n c l o s e c o n t a c t or even members of the same  l i n g u i s t i c u n i t some time ago.  Our  c e n t r e around the p o s s i b l e e s t i m a t e i n the s e p a r a t i o n of the two  attempts i n t h i s a n a l y s i s of the time depth i n v o l v e d  languages i n q u e s t i o n .  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 s e l e c t e d  e i t h e r language w i l l supply d i f f e r e n c e between the two only  'native-informant  1  of  the necessary data to e s t a b l i s h the languages.  I t f o l l o w s then t h a t  '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,  c o n s e q u e n t l y , approximated, f o r  even the most p r e c i s e measurement r e p r e s e n t s , a p p r o x i m a t i o n only of an i d e a l or a  However, to avoid any  in fact,  an  proto-type.  p o s s i b l e b i a s of time, i t has  151 been suggested to e s t i m a t e the time depth i n d i p s .  1  These  d i p s a r e measurements which e x p r e s s "degrees of l e x i c a l  rela-  2 t i o n s h i p " between languages.  The d i p i s c a l c u l a t e d a c c o r d i n g  to the f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a : log c for  time i n m i l l e n n i a  d  =  14  ;  (4)  2 log r or log c for  time i n y e a r s  d  =  .014  2 log r  T h i s f o r m u l a i s i d e n t i c a l t o f o r m u l a ( 1 ) , except f o r the c o e f f i c i e n t d e s i g n a t i n g the d i p , e.g., 14 o r .014. To c o n v e r t our p r e v i o u s r e s u l t s of time depth e s t i mates to d i p s , we proceed as f o l l o w s : ; to c o n s i d e r 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 w i t h the c o e f f i c i e n t of the d i p and o b t a i n d  =  2,700 (.014)  =  37.8 d i p s .  we a l s o proceed t o e s t i m a t e the l i m i t of e r r o r i n d i p s a t 7/10 c o n f i d e n c e l e v e l : Id  »  320 (.014)  =  4.5 d i p s  Gudschinsky, i b i d , (meaning p. 141): "The term d i p i s d e r i v e d from 'degree of r e l a t i o n s h i p ' as ' b i t ' i s d e r i v e d from 'binary d i g i t ' . " 2  Loc.c i t .  152  Thus, ue can e x p r e s s 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 s t a t e t h a t the time depth of 2 , 7 0 0  +  320  y e a r s may be expressed as  37.8  +  4.5  dips  reflecting  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 d e p i c t s both samples, each  d i v i d e d i n t o three c a s e s , as on page 1 4 5 . designates  The n o t a t i o n ' I d '  the l i m i t s of e r r o r a t 7 0 % c o n f i d e n c e  *dd' - the d i f f e r e n c e between c o n s e c u t i v e  l e v e l , and  dips:  Sample I : dips  cases d  i)  =  Id  dd  37.8  +  4.5  +  3.8  +  3.6  7.4  d  ii)  s  3 0 . 4 .9  iii)  d  2 9 . 5 =  Sample I I : d  i)  3 6 . 3  3.1 6.3  ii)  d  =  3 0 . 0  iii)  d  =  27.6  +  2.8  +  2.5  2.4  The  l e x i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p depicted  by the d i p s i s  s i m i l a r to t h a t r e f l e c t e d by time depths i n y e a r s .  Perhaps  the e v a l u a t i o n i n d i p s i s more obvious a t a g l a n c e ,  as i t d e a l s  with simpler numerical  notations.  The s i g n i f i c a n c e of d i p s  c o u l d 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 c f L a t v i a n and Russian i s 27.6  + 2.5 d i p s a t 70%  confi-  dence l e v e l . I t mould seem, i n my view, t h a t the e v a l u a t i o n processes  ex-  pressed i n d i p s c o n t r i b u t e very l i t t l e to the 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 a n y t h i n g , save f o r the l e s s c o m p l i c a t e d n u m e r i c a l e x p r e s s i o n s of the d i p s which may  facilitate  the  m a n i p u l a t i o n and p r e s e n t a t i o n of the data gathered i n the nate  cog-  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 c e n t u r i e s 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 a c c o r d i n g to the percentages dialects).  i n c o g n a t i o n between these u n i t s 1  corresponding (including  Thus, a c c o r d i n g to t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , two  of each sample i n our a n a l y s i s would correspond  cases  to the category  of f a m i l y , to w i t , the median and optimum c a s e s , as t h e i r e s t i m a t e d d i v e r g e n c e s i n these cases are between 5 turies.  - 25  cen-  The e s t i m a t e of divergence of the most c o n s e r v a t i v e  case i n both samples would correspond  to the category of s t o c k , 2  as i t d e p i c t s 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 r e p r e s e n t s a g e n e r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of the  two  languages and c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d as a reasonable e s t i m a t e of t h e i r probable  connections.  ^ M o r r i s Swadesh, 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, p. 3 2 5 f f . 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 d i v e r g e n c e of both languages as having begun about 1,050 B.C. i n the most c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e of sample I , and BkO B.C. i n the same case of sample I I . T h i s d e p i c t s 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 t o be d e s i r a b l e t o  i n c r e a s e the sample s i z e t o a l a r g e r amount, e.g., 1,000 i t e m s . T h i s might r e 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 c o n s e r v a t i v e case of the e n l a r g e d 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 i n c r e a s e s u b s t a n t i a l l y , i . e . , k t o 5 t i m e s , 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 f a m i l y would h o l d t r u e .  The e x t e n s i v e background  information  g i v e n i n the cognate count i n d i c a t e s t h a t many forms i n the two languages possess numerous secondary c o n n e c t i o n s .  There-  f o r e , i t c o u l d be concluded t h a t they have e x p e r i e n c e d q u i t e a close l i n g u i s t i c  relationship.  The problem c o n f r o n t i n g an i n v e s t i g a t o r , r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p of these two languages, i s connected w i t h the g e n e r a l acceptance t h a t both languages belong t o the same f a m i l y , as i t were.  In my o p i n i o n , i t i s the d i f f e r e n c e t h a t  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 decision  A. L. Kroeber and C. D. C h r e t i e n , 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 L a t v i a n  and  Russian i s one  of k i n d or of degree.  Our  i n d i c a t e s t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e between the two of k i n d , not of degree.  investigation languages i s one  This p o s t u l a t e 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 assumpt i o n t h a t both languages h i s t o r i c a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d a s i n g l e l i n g u i s t i c u n i t , and any them i s s a i d to be due geographical opposite  l i n g u i s t i c d i f f e r e n c e r e p r e s e n t e d by  to t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n , e.g.,  different  l o c a t i o n , f a r a c e r t a i n p e r i o d of time.  I f the  were t r u e , i . e . , the d i f f e r e n c e between them were  of degree and  one  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 p e r i o d of s e p a r a t i o n ; f o r the h i s t o r i c a l r e c o r d s would i n d i c a t e not only adjacent geographical p a s t 1,000  l o c a t i o n of the two  languages, d u r i n g  y e a r s , but a l s o q u i t e a c t i v e s o c i a l  between them.  an the  intercourse  This convergence then might l e a d us to suspect  r e c i p r o c a l b o r r o w i n g , consequently r e b o r r o w i n g , 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 the B a i t s , v i z . , L a t v i a n s , preceded any migration,  to t h e i r p r e s e n t g e o g r a p h i c a l  that  S l a v i c group, i n locations.  83-103. This e x t e n s i v e work i s based an Ik s e l e c t e d I-E e l e ments, which, of c o u r s e , e x c l u d e s any p o s s i b i l i t y of randomness. The h i g h 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 e x p l a i n e d as being due to the l a c k of randomness i n the s e l e c t i o n of elements, and a l s o due to s e v e r a l i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n s c o r i n g p o s i t i v e l y when the n e g a t i v e i s t r u e , e.g., element 70; a l s o element kS, the l a t t e r r e f l e c t i n g a 'bord 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 r a t h e r e x p e c t e d , v i z . , h y p o t h e t i c a l , common f e a t u r e s a s c r i b e d to the I-E s t o c k .  156  Therefore,  t h i s s e p a r a t i o n , from a f a m i l y , as i t  mere, might have i n f l u e n c e d L a t v i a n t D 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 Unfortunately, propensity  arrivals.  there i s no measurement f o r r e b o r r o w i n g .  The  of the L a t v i a n t o borrow does not appear t o be very  h i g h , p a r t i c u l a r l y from o t h e r language s t o c k s .  Considering  t h a t i t has been i n c o n t a c t w i t h the F i n n i c speech community f o r no l e s s than 2,000 y e a r s , t h i s low p r o p e n s i t y  appears to,' be  confirmed by the f a c t t h a t 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 c o n t a c t a r e a s .  1  t h e s e , only some 80 forms are employed i n the p r e s c r i b e d d i a l e c t ( o r standard  speech).  Of Latvian  I t should be noted t h a t a F i n n i c  speech community, t o 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, t h e r e f o r e , the above-mentioned loanwords might have been absorbed i n c i d e n t a l l y r a t h e r than  appropriated  directly. From the above, i t i s a l s o e v i d e n t  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 t o the B a l t i c group, y e t 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 .  I n s o f a r 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 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 J a h r b u c h e r, Otto H a r r a s s o w i t z , Wiesbaden, v o l . 34: 1-2, ( J u l y ) 1962, pp. 20-25. I t should a l s o be noted t h a t some of the F i n n i c loanwords, as l i s t e d by the a u t h o r , cannot be. accepted even as probable l o a n - f o r m s , e.g., avuots "spring".  157  borrowing of the L a t v i a n and the R u s s i a n can be determined, i t does not appear to have o c c u r r e d on any s i g n i f i c a n t  level,  though t h e r e i s a f a i r l y s i g n i f i c a n t number of s u s p e c t l o a n forms i n both languages, as d e s c r i b e d i n the cognate whenever a p p l i c a b l e .  count,  Thus, i t c o u l d be s t a t e d t h a t reborrowing  might have o c c u r r e d i n the L a t v i a n c a s e , because t h e r e 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 t h a t both languages belong to the I-E s t o c k and any c o r r e l a t i o n between borrowed  and reborrowed  i s beyond the p r e s e n t s t a t e of knowledge.  A c c o r d i n g to t h i s  a n a l y s i s , i t f o l l o w s t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e between the two  forms  lan-  guages tends to be one of k i n d r a t h e r than one of degree. if  Even  the L a t v i a n were as ' s t a r v e d ' f o r 'parent' forms as might be  imagined, a f t e r a t l e a s t 2,ODD y e a r s of s e p a r a t i o n from a p r o t o B a l t o - S l a v o n i c language, i t would d e p i c t a c l o s e r l e x i c a l  rela-  t i o n s h i p than 4 2 . 5 % + 5% cognation," " e s p e c i a l l y when c o n s i d e r i n g 1  the g e o g r a p h i c a l p r o x i m i t y of the two languages f o r the past 1,000  y e a r s , and the substratum s t a t u s of the L a t v i a n d u r i n g  the l a s t 300 y e a r s . Thus, i t c o u l d be concluded t h a t the degree of  T h i s percentage r e p r e s e n t s the optimum case of sample I I , i . e . , i t i n c l u d e s probable cognates and non-cognates; thus the t o t a l of '+' items c o n s i d e r e d was 8 5 and of these 20 were ' b o r d e r - l i n e ' i t e m s . The very h i g h percentage of these i t e m s , 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 e x t e n s i v e 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 b o r r o w i n g .  158 g e n e t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between these languages,  o b t a i n e d 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 r a t h e r 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 r e s p e c t i v e d e s c e n t s .  A c c o r d i n g l y , ue u i l l have to d i s m i s s the p r o b a b i l i t y of the e x i s t e n c e of a p r o t o B a l t o - S l a v o n i c language and s t a t e t h a t ue r e s e r v e our d e c i s i o n u i t h r e g a r d to t h e i r g e n e t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p , u i t h a g i v e n sample s i z e of only 200  items.  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 , 2,000 B.C.  c o u l d be e s t i m a t e d a t around  or s l i g h t l y e a r l i e r , as M. Gimbutas e s t i m a t e s  the  2 b e g i n n i n g of e x t e n s i v e amber trade around 1,600  B.C.  These  e s t i m a t e s , 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 o b t a i n e d 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 m i l l e n n i u m betueen the most c o n s e r v a t i v e case of sample I and M i s s 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 m i g r a t i o n i s d e p i c t e d as a continuous u h i c h may  l a s t f o r a c o n s i d e r a b l e p e r i o d of time.  crepancy of 1,000  years may  Tentative tests u i t h i n c o n g r u i t i e s , e.g., a f t e r the percentage of c o g n a t i o n r a t e , and a sample s i z e of cognation. 2 M a r i j a Gimbutas, The 1963, p. 56.  process This d i s -  p o i n t to some f a c t o r u h i c h has  not  l a r g e r sample s i z e s r e v e a l e d c e r t a i n the f i r s t 600 forms uere compared, seemed to d e c l i n e a t an a c c e l e r a t e d 1,000 items r e v e a l e d o n l y 14% of t r u e B a i t s , Thames and Hudson, London,  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 r e p r e s e n t s some weighted average, about the weight of which we are not aware.  I t should a l s o be  t h a t the p r e s e n t l o c a t i o n of the western p a r t of the  noted Russian  speech community c o i n c i d e s w i t h the former e a s t e r n e x t e n t of the B a l t i c speech a r e a s ; thus a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of morphol o g i c a l a b s o r p t i o n c o u l d have o c c u r r e d .  This appears to be a  s i m i l a r phenomenon to t h a t of the appearance of the L i v o n i a n forms i n L a t v i a n , as d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y . Recent s t u d i e s of toponymic forms af the western p a r t of R u s s i a 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 s u b s t a n t i a t e the above c o n t e n t i o n r e g a r d i n g the e a s t e r n e x t e n t of the former B a l t i c speech a r e a . s a l l y accepted  However, topanymic evidence  i s not y e t u n i v e r -  as a d e f i n i t e i n d i c a t i o n f o r a g e o g r a p h i c a l  \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 cantends t h a t even same s m a l l r i v e r names c o u l d be t r a c e d to B a l t i c o r i g i n and t h a t 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 b e g i n n i n g of the second m i l l e n n i u m B.C. ( e . g . , p. 173); c f . a l s o V. IM. Toporov IMeskol 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 toponoma s t i k i . Problemy indoevrope.iskoqo .jazykoznani.ia, Mauka, Moscow, 1964, pp. 52-58. This a r t i c l e d e p i c t s s e v e r a l i n f o r m a t i v e 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 c o n n e c t i o n between these two a r e a s , although t h e i r g e o g r a p h i c a l d i s t a n c e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e by European s t a n d a r d s , e.g., over 9DC m i l e s . 1  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 e s t i m a t e s and c o r r e l a t e our r e s u l t s to those of o t h e r s o c i a l s c i e n c e s , e.g., archaeology and a n t h r o 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  r i g o r o u s care and i t s r e s u l t s e v a l u a t e d u i t h c a u t i o n ) can be of v a l u e as a method of e s t i m a t i n g p r e h i s t o r i c l i n g u i s t i c tionships  rela-  f o r those languages uhose u r i t t e n r e c o r d s 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. M o r i s o n , Russian and the S l a v o n i c Languages, Faber & Faber, London, 1964, p. 181: " I f the evidence of river-names uere pressed too hard i t u o u l d l e a v e the S l a v s 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  all  - viss  0  /-/  2  :101  and  - un - i  N  /-/  3  :102  animal  N  ( + )k  :2  ashes - p e l n i  0  /"/  5  :103  at  N  /-/  6  :104  back  A  /-/  7  :105  bad  N  /-/  S  :3  bark  0  /-/  9  :106  because  N  /-/  10  :k  belly  A  /-/  11  :5  big  N  ( + ) 12  :6  bird  - putns  - pt'ica  M /+/ 13 :7  bite  - kuost  -  -ves'  - kustuonis - zivotnqe - pepel  1  - pie - u  - mugura - s p i n a - slikts - miza  - ploxbj - kora  - juo -i b o  - veders  - liels  - brjuxo  - bol'sbj  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 - p u s t  N  /-/  17  :10  bone - k a u l s - k o s t '  N  (+)  -  :11  breast  \l  /-/  18  :108  breathe  \J  /-/  19  :12  burn  N  /-/  20  :109  child  N  /-/  -  :13  clau  N  /-/  21  :1k  cloud  -dut'  - krutis  -  grud'  - elpuot - dysat'  - degt  - goret'  - berns - l^etna -  -  rebjbnok kbgot'  - makuonis - o b l a k o  162  A  /-/  22  :15  c o l d -- a u k s t s -  M  /-/  23  :16  carne -- n a k t - p r i x o d i t  V  ( + ) 24  :11D  count -  V- (-)  25  :111  cut  - griezt  IM /+/  26  :112  day  - diena  V /+/  27  :17  die  - mirt  -  M (-)  28  :113  dig  - rakt  - ryt'  A  /-/  29  :114  dirty  IM  /-/  3D  :18  dog  \J  /-/  31  :19  drink  A /+/  32  :20  dry  /-/  33  :115  d u l l •- t r u l s  IM ( + )  3k  :116  d u s t •- p u t e k l i s - p y l  IM /+/  35  :21  ear  IM /+/  36  :22  earth  V /+/  37  :23  eat  - est  IM  /-/  38  :24  egg  - uola  IM  /-/  39  :25  eye  - acs  V  /-/  40  :117  f a l l •- k r i s t  A  ( + ) 41  :118  far  - tals  A  /-/  42  :26  fat  - tauki  (M  43  :119  father  V /+/  44  :120  fear  IM  /-/  45  :27  feather  A  /-/  46  :121  feu  A  xalodnyj  skaitit  -  -  -  rezat'  den'  - netirs -  grjaznyj  - pit'  - sauss -  suxbj -  - auss -  tupbj 1  uxo  zeme -  1  sobaka  - dzert  -  scitat'  umirat  - suns -  1  zemlja  (j)est' - jajco  -  glaz  -  -  padat'  d'al'nyj - zir  - tevs  -  otec  - baidities - spalva  - dazs -  inbj  - bajat'sja -  perb  163  /-/  47  :122  fight  IM /+/  48  :28  fire  - uguns - a g o n  /-/  49  :29  fish  - zivs  0 /+/  50  :123  five  - pieci  W /+/  51  :124  float  1/  /-/  52  :125  flow  IM  /-/  53  :126  flower  V  IM  V ( + ) 54 ;30  - cinities  -  borot' 1  - ryba - pjat'  - pluduot - plust  plavat'  - tec'  - zieds  - cvetbk  fly  - liduot  -  letat  - m i g l a - tuman  1  IM  /-/  55  :127  fog  N  /-/  56  :31  foot  - peda - noga  Q /+/  57  :128  four  - cetri  \J  /-/  58  :129  freeze  N  /-/  59  :130  fruit  A /+/  -  :32  full  - pilns  V/ /+/  60  :33  give  - duat -  A  /-/  61  :34  good  - labs  N  /-/  62  :131  grass  - zale  A /+/  63  :35  green  - zaj^s - z e l j b n y j  IM  /-/  64  :132  guts - zarna  IM  /-/  65  :36  hair  - mati  IM /+/  66  :37  hand  - ruoka  /-/  67  :133  he - v i n s  IM /+/  68  :38  head  /-/  69  :39  hear - d z i r d e t  IM /+/  70  :40  heart  /-/  71  :134  heavy - smags -  •  vy  A  -  - salt  cetyre - mjarznut'  - auglis -  plad  pblnyj  davat  1  - xorbsij -  trava  v  -  -  t  kiska  vblos - ruka  - on  - galva  - golova - slysat'  - s i r d s - serdce tjazjblyj  0 /-/ N  72  /+/ -  :135  here -  seit  -tut  :41  horn  - rags  - rog  V /-/  73  :136  hit  - sist  \l /-/  74  :137  hold  0 .(-) 75  :138  how - ka  -  - bit  turet  1  - derzat  1  - kak  N /-/  76  :42  human - c i l v e k s  \J /-/  77  :139  hunt - m e d i t - o x o t i t ' s j a  l\l  /-/  78  :140  husband - v i r s  0  (+)  79  :43  I - es - j a  l\l  /+/ 80  :141  ice  •  /-/  81  :142  if  - ja  •  ( + ) 82  :143  in  - ieks - v(o)  - ledus -  -  -  celovek  - muz  ljod  (j)esli  \J /-/  83  :44  kill  N  -  :45  knee -  celis  -  koleno  V /+/ 84  :46  know -  zinat  -  znat'  N /+/ 85  :144  lake  - ezers  -  bzero  u /+/ 86  :145  laugh  (+)  -  kaut  -  - ubivat  smiet  -  1  smejat'sja  IM /-/  87  :47  leaf  -  lapa -  A /-/  88  :146  left  -  kreiss - levyj  IM  /-/  89  :147  leg  - kaja  V /-/  90  :48  lie  - gulet  V /+/  91  :148  live  IM  /-/  92  :49  liver  A /-/  93  :50  lung  IM  94  :51  louse  /-/  -  - noga - lezat  dzivuot -  -  1  - zit  akna - p e c e n gars  -  list  -  1  1  dlinnyj  uts - vas'  165  IM  /-/  95  :52  man - v i r i e t i s  A  /-/  96  :53  many - d a u d z i  IM  /-/  97  :54  meat - ga^a  IM  /-/  -  :55  moon - meness - l u n a  :149  mother - mate - mat'  IM /+/ 98  - muzcina - mnbgie  - mjaso  IM  /-/  99 :56  mountain - k a l n s - gora  IM  /-/  100 :57  mouth - m u t e  IM  /-/  101 :58  name - v a r d s - l m j a  A  /-/  102 :150  narrow - s a u r s - u z k i j  A  /-/  103 :151  near  N  /-/  104 :59  neck - k a k l s - s e j a  A  /-/  105 :60  new - j a u n s - n b v y j  IM /+/ 106 :61 N  /-/  107 :62  0 /+/ 108 :63  - rot  - tuvs -  night  blizkij  - nakts - noc'  nose - deguns - n o s n o t - ne  - net  A  /-/  109 :152  old  - vecs  0  /-/  110 :64  one  - viens  A  /-/  111 :153  other  V  /-/  112 :154  plough  V  /-/  113 :155  pull  - vilkt  -  tjanut  \J  /-/  114 :156  push - g r u s t  -  tolkat'  N  /-/  115 :65  rain  A  /-/  116 :66  red  A  /-/  117 :157  right  - pareizs  A  /-/  118 :158  right  - labais  -  - staryj - odin  uotrs - drugbj  - a r t - paxat'  -• l i e t u s - sarkans  -  1  dozd'  - krasnyj - pravil - pravyj  IM  /-/  119: 159  river  IM  /-/  120: 67  road  IM  /-/  121: 68  r o o t -• sakne -  IM  /+/  122: 160  r o p e -• v i r v e  \J  /-/  123: 161  rot  A  /-/  :69  -  upe - r e k a  -• c e ^ s - d a r b g a  - put  round -  kbren  1  - verjbvka  -  gnit  1  apa^s - k r u g l y j  /-/  124: 162  rub  N  /+/  125: 163  salt  IM  /-/  126: 70  s a n d -• s m i l t s - p i s b k  V  /-/  127: 71  say  V  /-/  128: 164  scratch  IM  /-/  129: 165  sea  - jura  V  /-/ 130: 72  see  - redzet  IM  /+/  131: 73  seed  /+/  132: 166  sew - s u t  A  133: (+)  A  - berzet  -  -• s a l s  teret'  - sol'  - sacit  - skazat'  - kasit  - carapat*  - mbre -  vidit'  -• s e k l a - semja -sit'  167  sharp  -  ass - o s t r y j  /-/  134: 16B  short  -  i s s - korbtkij  \J  /-/  135: 169  s i n g -• d z i e d a t - p e t  \J  /+/  136: 74  sit  IM  /-/  137: 75  s k i n -• ada - kbza  IM  /+/  138: 170  sky  V  /-/  139: 76  sleep  A  /-/  140: 77  s m a l l - mazs -  141: 171  smell  \1 /-/  - sedet  -  sidet  1  1  - d e b e s s - nebo -  -  gulet - spat'  uost  malyj - njuxat'  IM  /+/  142: 78  smoke -  A  /+/  143: 172  smooth - g l u d s  dumi - dym -  gladkij  IM / _ / 144:173  snake - c u s k a - zmeja  N /+/  snow - s n i e g s  145:174  - sneg  0 / - / 146:175  some - d r u s k u -  neskol'ko  V /+/  147:176  spit  plivat'  V (-)  148:177  split  - sp^aut  - sljelt - k o l b t  V / - / 149:178  squeeze  \J / - / 150:179  stab  V (+) 151:79  stand  N /+/  star  152:80  -  - spiest  - durt  -  1  - davit'  vonzat'  - stavet - zvaigzne  stojat' - zvezda  N / - / 153:180  stick  - kuja  IM (-)  stone  - akmens - kamen'  154:81  - palka  A / - / 155:181  straight  V (+) 156:182  suck - s u k t  - sosat'  (M /+/  sun  -  157:82  - t a i s n s - prjambj  - saule  solnce  \J / - / 158:183  swell  V (+) 159:83  swim - p e l d e t - p l a v a t '  IM / - / 160:84  tail  - aste  0 /+/  that  - tas - t o t  161:85  0 / - / 162:184  there  0 / - / 163:185  they  A /-/ 164:186  thick  A /+/  thin  165:187  - pampt - p u x n u t '  -  xvost  - t u r - tarn - vini  - on!  - resns - tievs  -  tblstyj  - tbnkij  \l / - / 166:188  think  0 / - / 167:86  this  - s i s - t^tot  0 /+/  168:87  thou  - t u - ty  0 /+/  169:189  three  - duomat - dumat'  - tris  - tri  \J / - / 170:190  throw - mest -  \1 / - / 171:191  tie  IM / - / 172:88  tongue - mele -  IM /+/  tooth  173:89  - siet  -  brosat'  vjazat' jazyk  - zuobs - zub  IM / - / 174:90  tree  - kuoks - d b r e v o  M / - / 175:192  turn  - griezt - vertet  0 /+/  two - d i v i  176:91  - dv/a  1/ / - / 177:193  v o m i t - vemt - r v a t '  V / - / 178:92  walk - i e t -  xodit'  A / - / 179:93  warm - s i l t s  -  \J / - / 180:194  wash - mazgat - myt'  IM /+/  w a t e r - udens - voda  181:94  tjbplyj  0 / - / 182:95  we - mes  A / - / 183:195  wet  0 / - / 184:96  what - kas - s t o  0  (+) 185:196  when - kad - kogda  0  (+) 186:197  where - k u r - gde  - my  - s l a p j s - mbkryj  A /+/  187:97  white - b a i t s - b e l y j  0 /+/  188:98  who  A / - / 189:198  - kas - k t o  wide - p l a t s -  sirbkij v  N / - / 190:199 wife IM /+/  1  - sieva  r  - zena  191:200 wind - v e j s  -  veter  !M / - / 192:201 wing - s p a m s  - krylb  wipe - s l a u c i t  -  V7 / - / 193:202 utirat'  0 / - / 194:203 with  - ar - s(o)  N / - / 195:99 woman - s i e v i e t e -  zenscina  I\l /-/ 196:204  woods  N / - / 197:205  worm - t a r p a  •  ye  (-)  198:206  - mezs - l e s cerv  1  - j u s - vy  IM / - / 199:207  year  A /+/  yellow  200:100  -  - gads - god - dzeltens  LATVIAN-ENGLISH  -  zjbltyj  VOCABULARY  acs  - eye  cilveks  ada  - skin  cinities  akmens  -  akna -  liver  - human -  fight  stone c e t r i •- f o u r c u s k a •- s n a k e  apa^s - round ar art  with - plough  asins ass  daudzi  -  blood  - sharp  aste  -  tail  - many  d a z s - few d e b e s s - sky degt - burn deguns -  nose  auglis  - fruit  d i e n a •- day  auksts  - cold  divi  auss - ear  - two  drusku -  some  dumi - smoke baits  - white duomat -  baidities berns berzet  duot  - give  durt  - stab  child - rub dzeltens  celis  -  yellow  - knee dzert  ce^s  think  - fear  -  road  - drink  dziedat  -  sing  ka  dzirdet  -  hear  kad  dzivuot  -  live  kaja  elpuet es  -  -  hou - when -  leg  kakls  - neck  kalns  -  breathe mountain  - I  est  -  ezers  -  gads ga^a  kas  - what  kas  -  eat  year  - meat  galva  -  gars -  who  lake  head long  gluds -  smooth  kasit  -  scratch  kauls  -  bone  kaut -  kill  kreiss krist  -  left  -  fall  krutis  -  stick  griezt  -  cut  kuja  griezt  -  turn  kuoks -  tree  kuost -  bite  grust  -  gulet  - lie  kur  gulet  -  kustuonis  ieks  push  -  breast  sleep  - in  iet  - walk  iss  -  ja  - where  ijetna -  -  animal  claw  labais  -  right  labs  -  good  lapa  -  leaf  short  - if S  ledus jauna -  -  liduot jua  -  -  big  sea lietus  jus -  - fly  because liels  jura  ice  new  ye  -  rain  makuonis - c l o u d  pieci  -  five  mate - mother  pilns  -  full  mati  plats  - wide  - hair  mazgat - mash  pluduot  mazs - s m a l l  plust  medit - hunt  pust  mele - t o n g u e  put  melns - b l a c k  puteklis  meness - moon  putns  mes  -  float  - flow - blow  - rot  -  - dust bird  - ue  mest - throw mezs - woods migla mirt  - fog  rags  -  horn  rakt  - dig  r e d z e t - see resns -  - die  thick  ruoka  - hand  mugura - back  sacit  - say  mute - mouth  sakne - r o o t  miza -  nakt  bark  sals  -  salt  salt  - freeze  - come  nakts  - night sarkans  ne  - red  - not saule  - sun  sauss  - dry  pampt - s w e l l  sedet  - s i t  pareizs  sekla  -  netirs  -  dirty  -  right  peda - f o o t  siet  p e l d e t - swim  sieva  pelni  sieviete  pie  - ashes  - at  silts  seed  -tie - wife - woman  - warm  sirds sist  - heart -h i t  skaitit slapjs  tievs  -  count  - wet  slaucit slikts  tevs - f a t h e r  - wipe - bad  tris truls tu  - there  smiet  tuvs  - sand  sniegs  - snow  spalva  - feather  spams  - wing  spiest  - squeeze  sp^aut  -  stavet  - stand  sukt  spit  - suck  - hold - near  udens - w a t e r uguns - f i r e un  - and  uola  - egg  uost  - smell  uotrs - other upe  -  river  uts - louse  s u n s - dog  vards saurs  - name  - narrow vecs  seit  -  - old  here veders  sis  dull  thou  turet  smilts  -  -  tur  thin  - three  smags - heavy - laugh  -  -  -  belly  this vejs  - wind  sl$elt - s p l i t vemt - v o m i t sut  - sew  taisns tals  -  straight  - far  viens  - one  vilkt  -  vini  -  pull they  t a r p s - worm  v i n s - he  tas  virietis  - that  tauki  - fat  virs  - man  - husband  virve  -  rape  viss  - all  zale  -  grass  zaj^s -  green  zeme -  earth  zieds  -  zinat  - know  zivs  flower  -  fish  zuobs zarna  -  tooth  guts zvaigzne  RUSSIAN-ENGLISH belyj  -  blizkij bit'  davit'  -  den'  - hit  bDJat'sja bol'sbj  brjuxo  fear  - big  barbt'sja -  brosat'  -  fight  belly -  carapat'  throw  -  -  celovek cerv'  day tree -  hold  dlinnyj  -  long  dorbga dozd' -  road rain  drugbj -  other  dumat' -  think  scratch -  1  blow  flower  - human  - worm  cetyre -  dva  -  dym  - smoke  dysat'  two  -  breathe  four  cjbrnyj cto  -  squeeze  derzat'  dut cvetbk  -  derevo -  star  VOCABULARY  white near  -  (j)esli  - if  (j)est'  -  black  - what  'etat -  eat  this  dal'nyj - far gde davat' -  - where  give gladkij -  smooth  glaz  - eye  gnit' god  - rot  - year  golova gara  - head  - mountain  goret'  - burn  grjaznyj - dirty grud'  kbza - s k i n krasnyj - red krov'  kruglyj krylo kto  - name  inoj - feu  ja  - I  jajcb  - egg  jazyk  - tongue  - uoods  levyj  - fly -  left  lezat  1  list  - leaf  ljod  - ice  luna  - moon  - lie  rnalyj - s m a l l mat'  kak  - bite  letat'  - because  imja  - uho  - breast  - and  ibo  - round  - uing  kusat'  les i  - blood  - mother  - hou mjaso - meat  kamen' -  stone mjbrznut' - freeze  kiska  -  guts mnbgie - many  kogda - uhen rnbkryj - u e t kbgot  1  - clau  koleno  - knee  kolbt'  -  more - s e a muz - husband split muzcina kora  - bark  kbren  1  - man  my - ue - root myt' korbtkij kost'  - uash  - short  - bone  nebo - s k y  175  neskol'ko net  - some  - nat  plavat  - float  1  plavat'  - swim  njuxat ' - smell  plivat'  - spit  noc  plod  - night  1  -  fruit  noga - l e g  p l o x b j - bad  noga - f a c t  pblnyj pravil'nyj  - nase  nos  nbvy j -  full  pravyj -  new  -  right  prixodit' oblako • din • gan  -  - come  claud prjambj  -  straight  ptica  bird  - one -  1  -  fire puxnut'  an  right  - swell  - he pyl'  ani  - dust  - they  bstryj • tec  -  sharp  - father  oxbtit 'sja -  bzera  padat  lake  -  1  - hut  rebjbnok reka  - river  rezat'  - horn  rot  - mouth  fall - hand  stick rvat'  paxat  -  1  - cut  rag  ruka -  palka  - child  - vomit  plough ryba  - fish  ryt'  -dig  pecen * -  liver  pepel  1  ashes  pero  - feather  scitat'  pet'  - sing  semja - s e e d  pisok pit' pjat'  -  - count  sand  serdce  - heart  - drink  sidet'  - sit  -  -  five  s k a z a t ' - say  slysat  - hear  1  t r a v a - grass  s m e j a t ' s j a - laugh  t r i - three  sneg - snoiu  tuman - f o g  s(a) - u i t h  tupbj - d u l l  sobaka - dog  t u t - here  sol' - salt  ty - thou  s b l n c e - sun sosat  - suek  1  spat' - sleep s p i n a - back staryj - old stojat 1  stand  suxbj - dry s e j a - neck s i r b k i j - uide sit  1  - seu  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 v e r j b v k a - rope v e r t e t ' - turn ves' - a l l veter - uind  tam - there  v i d i t ' - see  tec' - f l o u  vjazat' - t i e  t e r e t ' - rub  v(o) - i n  tjantit' - p u l l  vada - u a t e r  t j a z j o l y j - heavy  volos - hair  t j b p l y j - uarm  vonzat' - stab  t o l k a t ' - push  vos' - l o u s e  t b l s t y j - thick  vy - ye  tbnkij - thin tot - that  xod'it' - ualk xolbdnyj - cold  xorbsij xvost  -  -  good  tail  zeljbnyj  -  zemlja  earth  -  zmeja znat  1  zub  -  snake  - know tooth  zvezda -  zena -  star  wife  zenscina zir zit'  green  - woman  - fat -  live  zivbtnoe zjbltyj  -  animal yellow  178  BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS:  1.  AlekseCj)ev,  M.  P.,  Filoloqii,  2.  Andrups, M.  3.  e d . and o t h e r s ,  Moscow/Leningrad,  J . and H a l v e , V., Goppers,  Bergmane, A.,  R.,  Latviesu  R i g a , 1959;  Sravnitel'noj  1964.  Latvian  Literature.  Stockholm,  1954.  Grabis,  Musdienu  Problemy  L e p i k a , M.,  Literaras  e d . and  others,  Valodas Gramatika, 2  V o l . I (meaning  vols.,  ' P h o n e t i c s and  Morphology').  4.  Bloomfield,  L., Language,  W i n s t o n , 1964  5.  Carroll,  J . B.,  Harvard  7.  Coon, C. S., Co.,  8.  De  (copyright  De  M.  The  & Co.,  Study  University  The  Races  Rinehart  and  1933).  Sprachujissenschaf t ,  1948.  o f Language,  Press,  Cambridge,  Mass.,  1963.  of E u r o p e , New  Y o r k , The M a c m i l l a n  1939.  B r a y , R. J.  9  York, H o l t ,  B r a n d e n s t e i n , W. , F r u h q e s c h i c h t e und Vienna, Gerold  6.  New  G. Dent  A.,  Guide  & Sans,  S a u s s u r e , F., C o u r s e Philosophical  to the S l a v o n i c  Languages,  London,  1963.  i n General L i n g u i s t i c s ,  Library,  1959.  New  York,  179 10.  Dinneen, F. P., An I n t r o d u c t i o n to G e n e r a l L i n g u i s t i c s , New York, H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1967.  11.  D r e x e l , A,, Die Sprachen der Erde, Z u r i c h , Akademie V e r l a g , 1954; V o l . I (meaning  'I-E and Semito-Hamitic  Languages ). 1  12.  E l c o c k , W. D., The Romance Languages,  London, Faber and  Faber, 1964. 13.  E n d z e l i n s , J . , A l t p r e u s s i s c h e Grammatik, R i g a , L a t v j u Gramata, 1944.  14.  , L a t v i e s u Ualodas Gramatika, R i g a , 1951.  15.  E n t w i s t l e , W. 3. and M o r i s o n , W. A., R u s s i a n and the S l a v o n i c 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, H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1964. 17.  Freund, J . E. and W i l l i a m s , F. J . , Modern B u s i n e s s 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 S h o r t Manual of Comparative P h i l o l o g y , London, M a c m i l l a n & Co., 2nd ed., 1901.  19,  Gimbutas, M., The B a i t s . London, Thames and Hudson, 1963.  20.  G l e a s o n , H. A., d r . , An I n t r o 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 , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1966.  180 21.  Greenberg, 3.  i\i.  f  ed., U n i v e r s a l s of Language, Cambridge,  Mass., The M.I.T. P r e s s , 1966. 22.  G u i r a u d , P., Problemes e t Methodes de l a S t a t i s t i q u e L i n q u i s t i q u e , ' D o r d r e c h t , H o l l a n d , D. R e i d e l Co., 1959.  23.  H a l l , R. A., Or., I n t r o d u c t o r y 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, H o l l a n d , P. Noordhoff IM. VV., 1956.  25.  H i r t , H., Die Indoqermanen, S t r a s s b u r g , K a r l J . Trubner, 1905, V o l . I .  26.  H o c k e t t , C. F., A Course i n Modern L i n g u i s t i c s , (View York, The M a c m i l l a n Co., 1963.  27.  J a i n , R i Ch., The Most A n c i e n t Aryan S o c i e t y , S r i Ganganagar, R a j a s t h a n , 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.  J e s p e r s e n , 0., Language, London, George A l l e n & Unwin, 1964 ( c o p y r i g h t 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 , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1964. 30.  M a r t i n e t , A., Elements of General L i n g u i s t i c s ,  trans.  E l i s a b e t h Palmer, London, Faber and Faber, 1966. 31.  Matthews, W. H., The S t r u c t u r e and Development of R u s s i a n , Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1953.  181  32.  Meehl,  P.  E., C l i n i c a l  Minneapolis,  33.  Palmer,  L . R.,  vs. S t a t i s t i c a l  University  An  of Minnesota  Introduction  to Modern  London, M a c m i l l a n & Co.,  34.  , The Faber,  35.  Papp, F., The  36.  Porzig,  Mathematical  Id.,  R.  R o b i n s , R.  Linguistics,  Language, London, F a b e r  Linguistics  and  Indoqermanischen  Heidelberg, Carl  and  Collinson,  H.,  i n the S o v i e t  Union,  1966.  D i e G l i e d e r u n q des  L o n d o n , F a b e r and  38.  1963.  1936.  Hague, Mouton & Co.,  Priebsch,  Press,  1966.  qebiets,  37.  Latin  Prediction,  Winter,  Ul. E . ,  Faber,  The  Sprach-  1954.  German  L a n g u a g e,  1962.  General L i n g u i s t i c s ,  L o n d o n , Longmans,  1965.  39.  Ross,  A.  S.  40.  S h e v e l o v , G.  C,  Y.,  University 41.  Sommerfelt,  A.,  L a n g u a g e,  42.  S p e k k e , A.,  43.  S t a n g , C. 1942.  Etymology,  A Prehistory Press,  of S l a v i c ,  Deutsch,  New  York,  1962.  Columbia  1965.  Diachronic  and  S y n c h r o n i c Aspects of  'S-Gravenhage, H o l l a n d , Mouton & Co.,  History  S.,  L o n d o n , Andre  Das  of L a t v i a ,  Slavische  und  Stockholm,  Baltische  M.  Goppers,  1962.  1957.  Verbum, O s l o ,  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 t o L i n g u i s t i c  New Haven, Conn., Y a l e right  University Press,  1966  (copy-  1933).  k5.  , Linguistic sity  Science,  of Chicago  Change, C h i c a g o ,  The U n i v e r -  P r e s s , P h o e n i x B o o k s , 1965 ( c o p y r i g h t  1917).  k6.  T r a u t m a n n , R., D i e S l a v i s c h e n V o l k e r Dtto  47.  Harrassowitz,  T o p o r o v , V.  Van U l i j k ,  49.  V/erxneqo  Moscow, 1962.  IM., D i e B a l t i s c h e n und S l a v i s c h e n A k z e n t - und  Intonationssysteme, Co.,  Leipzig,  1948.  L i n q v i s t i c e s k i . j A n a l i z Gidronimov  Podneprovi.ja,  48.  und S p r a c h e n ,  'S-Gravenhage, H o l l a n d , Mouton &  1958.  V i l d o m e c , V., M u l t i l i n q u a l i s m , L e y d e n , H o l l a n d ,  A. Ui.  S y t h o f f , 1963.  50.  Vinogradov,  V. V., e d . and o t h e r s , O a z y k i  5 vols.,  51.  weinreich,  IMarodov SSSR,  Moscow, 1966; V o l . I (meaning  U., L a n g u a g e s i n C o n t a c t ,  University  I-E  IMew Y o r k ,  languages).  Columbia  P r e s s , 1953.  DICTIONARIES  52.  A i t z e t m u l l e r , R. and S a d n i k , Altkirchenslavischen 1955.  L., Handworterbuch  Texten,  z u den  The Hague, Mouton & Co.,  183  53.  A v i s , W. S., D r y s d a l e , P. D., Gregg, R. J . and o t h e r s , The Senior  54.  D i c t i o n a r y , Toronto, W. J . Gage, 1967.  Baravykas, V., Anqlu(n) - L i e t u v i u ( n ) K a l b u ( n ) fodynas (English - Lithuanian  Dictionary), Vilnius,  Lithuania,  1961. 55.  Berneker, E., S l a v i s c h e s Etymoloqisches Worterbuch, 2 v o l s . , Heidelberg,  C a r l W i n t e r , 1924; V o l . I (mean-  i n g '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., R u c k l a u f i q e s  Worterbuch der Russischen  Sprache der Geqentuart, B e r l i n , Akademie - V e r l a g , 2nd ed., 1965. 58.  Buck, C. D., A D i c t i o n a r y of S e l e c t e d  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 P r e s s , 2nd ed., 1965. 59.  Daum, E. and Schenk, W.,  Die R u s s i s c h e n Verben, Munchen,  Max Hueber, 1965. 60.  D r a v n i e k s , 0., A n q l i s k i - L a t v i s k a V a r d n i c a ( E n g l i s h L a t v i a n D i c t i o n a r y ) , Stockholm, 3 r d ed., 1966.  61.  E a t o n , H. S., An E n g 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  62.  (copyright  1940).  F r a e n k e l , E., L i t a u i s c h e s E t y m o l o q i s c h e s Worterbuck, 2 v o l s . , Heidelberg, I I , 1965.  C a r l Winter; V o l . I , 1962, V o l .  184  63.  Gutmanis, A.  ed. and o t h e r s , L a t v i e s u - H r i e v u Uardnica  f  Skolam ( L a t v i a n - R u s s i a n D i c t i o n a r y f o r Riga,  1956.  64.  L o j a , J . V.,  65.  L y a l l , A.,  Russko - L a t y s s k i . j S l o v a r . Moscow,  A Guide to 25 Languages of Europe, London,  M u l l e r , \J.  J a c k s o n , 3rd ed.,  Ouseg, H. L., New  68.  1966.  E n g l i s h - R u s s i a n D i c t i o n a r y , New  Dutton & Co., 67.  1951.  1  Sidgwick and 66.  Schools),  6th ed.,  1959.  I n t e r n a t i o n a l D i c t i o n a r y i n 21 Languages,  York, P h i l o s o p h i c a l L i b r a r y ,  D z o l i n s , E.,  York,  1962.  Svesvardu Uardnica ( D i c t i o n a r y uf f o r e i g n  t e r m s ) , E u t i n , H o l s t e i n , Germany, A. D z o l i n s , 69.  —  1958.  , U a c i s k i - L a t v i s k a l/ardnica (German - L a t v i a n  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.  Dzolins,  1964. 70.  Ozegov, S. I . , S l o v a r ' Russkogo J a z y k a , Moscow,  71.  Preobrazhensky, A. G.,  1963.  E t i m o l o q i c e s k i j S l o v a r ' Russkogo  J a z y k a , 2 v o l s , and  Appendix, New  U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2nd  ed., 1964  York, Columbia (copyright  1910-  1914). 72.  Raxmanova, I . V.,  73.  S e r e i s k i s , B.,  Nemecko - Russki.j S l o v a r , Moscow, 1  L i e t u v i s k a i - R u s i s k a s Zodynas ( L i t h u a n i a n  Russian D i c t i o n a r y ) , Kaunas, L i t h u a n i a , A. and  1956.  G. V o l f a s ,  1933.  Lapinas  -  185  74.  Simpson, D.  P.,  Cassell  75.  Smirnitsky, E.  76.  P.  C a s s e l l ' s New  & Co.,  A.  Turkina,  E.,  New  , Latvian  Vasmer, M.,  BD.  81.  Ill,  W e b s t e r , IM., New  ed.,  Y o r k , Ray  New  York,  1959.  - P o l i s h and  - English  Polish -  Publishers,  English  1964.  Vardnica,  Copenhagen,  Dictionary,  New  York,  1964.  C a r l Winter;  Russian ed.,  Vol.  I , 1953;  Vol.  II,  1955;  1958.  Twentieth Century  York, P u b l i s h e r s  W o l k o n s k y , C.  2nd  6th  Dictionary,  R u s s i s c h e s E t y m o l o q i s c h e s LUorterbuch, 3 v o l s . ,  Heidelberg, Vol.  - English  1956.  S a p h r o g r a p h Co.,  79.  London,  1962.  Angliski - Latviska  Imanta,  78.  & Co.,  J., English  Dictionary,  77.  ed.,  I., Russian  Dutton  Stanislaiuski,  2nd  Latin Dictionary,  A.  and  Dictionary  Guild,  Poltoratzky,  (Unabridged),  1939.  M.  A.,  R o o t s , IMew Y o r k , C o l u m b i a  Handbook  University  of Press,  1964.  MONOGRAPHS  82.  Allunans,  H.,  Kurzer Leitfaden  Sprache, Jelgava  83.  Arkin,  H.  and  Colton,  (Mitau),  R.  R.,  York, Barnes & Noble,  zum  Erlernen  L a t v i a , H.  der  Lettischen  Allunan,  1888.  Tables f o r S t a t i s t i c i a n s , 1963.  New  186  84.  Bidwell,  C. E . ,  Form, The  85.  Dieth,  O r t o n , H.,  of E n g l a n d ,  Society,  B6.  Fraenkel, E.  1963.  Leeds  Philosophical  Linguistic  and  Literary  Sprachen,  Heidelberg, Carl  1950.  und  Indogermanischen  das  Baltische  Heidelberg, Carl  88.  i n Tabular  A Questionnaire f o r a  Die B a l t i s c h e n  f  Sandbach, E., Die Basen  Phonology  1952.  Winter,  87.  Historical  Hague, Mouton & Co.,  E . and  Atlas  Slavic  T r u b e t z k o y , IM., Culture,  The  New  Schweren  (Litauische) Prateritum,  Winter,  1930.  Common S l a v i c  York,  Zujeisilbiqen  Columbia  Element  i n Russian  University  P r e s s , 2nd  ed.,  1950.  ARTICLES  89.  Altshuler,  N.,  Linguistic  International 22  90.  (1956),  B e r g s l a n d , H.  91.  Linguistics, vol,  H.,  On  the V a l i d i t y  Current Anthropology,  1962),  pp.  of  v o l . 3,  GlottoNo.  2  115-153.  B l o o m f i e l d , L., A S e t o f P o s t u l a t e s f o r the S c i e n c e o f Language.  92.  People.  106-112.  Vogt,  chronoloqy. (April,  J o u r n a l of American  pp.  and  Forms as Symbols o f  Chretien,  C.  D.,  Language, v o l . 2 ( 1 9 2 6 ) , pp.  The  chronology. March, 1962),  Mathematical  Models of  Language, v o l . 38, pp.  11-37.  No.  153-164.  Giotto-  1 (January  -  187  93.  94.  de G r o a t , A. Ul., G l a s s i f i c a t i o n  I M o r t h - H o l l a n d Co., v o l . 6, No. 2 ( J a n u a r y ,  1957),  113-157.  pp.  F a i r b a n k s , G. H.,  Fries,  pp.  30, No. 1 - P a r t  Language,  1 (January - March,  1954),  C. C. and P i k e , H. L., C o e x i s t e n t Phonemic S y s t e m s .  Greenberg,  J . H.,  ed., pp.  ( 1 9 4 9 ) , p p . 29-50.  Language and E v o l u t i o n .  Anthropology:  98.  Analysis.  57-68.  L a n g u a g e, v o l . 25  97.  o f A.L.,  116-120.  C. C., Meaning and L i n g u i s t i c  pp.  Fries,  A Note on G l o t t o c h r o n o l o g y , I . J .  21 ( 1 9 5 5 ) ,  vol.  96.  Lingua,  Amsterdam,  vol.  95.  o f Word-Groups.  Evolution  A Centennial Appraisal,  The A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l  Society  and  M e g g e r s , B. J . ,  of Washington,  1959,  61-75.  Grinaveckis, Problemy  V., Dve Z a m e t k i  po L i t o v s k o j  Indoevrope.iskoqo  Dialektoloqii.  J a z y k o z n a n i j a . Toporov,  V.N.,  e d . , Moscow, 1964, pp. 70-78.  99.  Gudschinsky,  S. C ,  Borrowing.  Lexico-Statistical  Skewing f r o m  I . J , o f A.L.. v o l . 21 ( 1 9 5 5 ) , p p . 138-149.  100.  , The ABC's o f L e x i c o s t a t i s t i c s c h r o n o l o q y ) , Word, v o l . 12 ( A u g u s t ,  101.  , Three Lexicostatistics. pp.  102.  Gumperz,  Dialect  Disturbing  1956),  Questions  I . J , o f A . L . , v o l . 22  (Glotto-  pp.  175-210.  Concerning (1956),  212-213.  J . J . , On  the E t h n o l o g y  of L i n g u i s t i c  S o c i o l i n q u i s t i c s . B r i g h t , Wm., & Co., 1966, pp. 27-48.  Change.  e d . , The Hague,  Mouton  188  103.  Hockett,  C.  F.,  Linguistic  Anthropological pp.  104.  Uses.  M.,  and  i\lo. 2 ( A p r i l  ed.  and  No.  1 (January  H.,  A Critique.  Speech: and  An  Education, Press,  Classification:  Studies pp.  49-60.  G r u b e r , F.  Retrospect  and  C, 55-83,  vol. 1  50-66.  , Lexicostatistics (January,  Semolaqy:  Holland,  pp.  1 9 5 9 ) , pp.  vol. 1  1960,  1961,  (February,  pology,  -  Evolutionary  Anthropological Linguistics,  M.,  1946),  L a n g u a g e, v o l .  Prospect.  109.  111.  of  Anthropology  , Genetic  Joos,  Structure.  110-125.  U n i v e r s i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a  108.  1930  - M a r c h , 1 9 5 6 ) , pp.  Functions  Approach.  110.  pp.  , Lexicostatisties:  ed.,  (1953),  Trends i n  others, Utrecht,  S p e c t r u m P u b l i s h e r s , 1963,  Hymes, D.  - June,  American L i n g u i s t i c s  Mohrmann, C.,  1D7.  Linguistic  Anthropological Linguistics.  European  32,  v o l . 19  138-143.  H o i j e r , H.,  106.  o f A.L.,  Sound Change and  L a n g u a g e, v o l . 22,  105.  1.3.  and i t s  146-152.  H o e n i g s u i a l d , H.  pp.  Time-Perspective  So  Current  1 9 6 0 ) , pp.  A Linguistic  in Linguistics,  Far.  3-44.  Theory o f  v o l . 13,  Anthro-  Meaning.  N D S . 3-4  (1958),  53-70.  K e l l e y , G.,  The  Status  Sociolinquisties. & Co.,  1966,  pp.  o f H i n d i as B r i g h t , Ulm., 299-308.  a Lingua ed.,  The  Franca. Hague, Mouton  189  112.  K r o e b e r , A. L., Romance H i s t o r y Language,  113.  v o l . 34,  L e e s , R.  B.,  The  29, No.  McDavid,  R.  ences  117.  Malkiel,  Basis  Quantitative  Languages.  I., J r . , Dialect i n an Urban  Differences  Society.  Etymology  18,  Nos.  1-2  Mazjulis,  V.,  Zametki  and  Moscow, 1964,  C. Id., S i t u a t e d  American pp.  119.  N i d a , E . A.,  O s w a l t , R. I.J,  121.  Plath,  and  Social  1966,  pp.  General L i n g u i s t i c s .  (April  - August,  Toporov,  Bright, 72-83.  Ulord,  1 9 6 2 ) , pp.  po P r u s s k o j ^ t i m o l o g i i .  Differ-  198-219.  Problemy \J. N.,  ed.,  66-69.  Actions  Sociological  and  Review,  Vocabularies  of M o t i v e .  v o l . 5 (December,  1940),  904-913.  vol.  120.  pp.  Language. v o l .  Sociolinquisties.  Hague, Mouton & Co.,  vol.  Mills,  v o l . 13  113-127.  Indoevrope.iskogo J a z y k o z n a n i j a ,  118.  Classifi-  Language,  of G l o t t o c h r o n o l o g y .  2 ( 1 9 5 3 ) , pp.  Y.,  454-457.  83-103.  Ulm., e d . , The  116.  4 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , pp.  of Indo-European  ( 1 9 3 7 ) , pp.  115.  Glottochronoloqy.  K r o e b e r , A. L. and C h r e t i e n , C. 0., cation  114.  No.  and  24  The  Identification  ( 1 9 4 8 ) , pp.  o f Morphemes.  414-441.  L., R u s s i a n Loanwords i n S o u t h w e s t e r n o f A.L.,  v o l . 24  ( 1 9 5 8 ) , pp.  Ul., M a t h e m a t i c a l L i n g u i s t i c s .  and A m e r i c a n and o t h e r s , 1963,  Language,  pp.  Linguistics Utrecht,  21-58.  1930  Holland,  Porno.  245-247.  Trends i n European  - 1960, Spectrum  Mohrmann, C., Publishers,  ed,  190 122.  Raun, A.,  Uber d i e S o q e n n a n t e  Lexikostatistische  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 a u f 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 .  Ural -  Altaische  J a h r b u c h e r , W i e s b a d e n , O t t a H a r r a s s o w i t z , v o l . 28 ( 1 9 5 6 ) , pp.  123.  Rea, J . A.,  151-154.  Concerning the V a l i d i t y  I . J . o f - A.L.. 124.  S a b a l j a u s k a s , A.,  of  v o l . 24 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , pp. Iz i s t o r i i  v Balti.jskix Jazykax.  125.  Problemy Indoevrope.iskoqo e d . , Moscow, 1964,  S a l z m a n n , Z.,  The P r o b l e m o f L e x i c a l A c c u l t u r a t i o n , I . J , o f  v o l . 20 ( 1 9 5 4 ) , pp.  S a p i r , E., Language  137-139.  and E n v i r o n m e n t .  p o l o g i s t , v o l . 14 ( 1 9 1 2 ) , pp. 127.  Zivotnovodstva  59-65.  A.L.,  126.  145-150.  Terminologii  J a z y k o z n a n i . j a . T o p o r o v , V. pp.  Lexicostatistics.  S c h e r e r , A.  f  The A m e r i c a n A n t h r o -  226-242.  Per Stand der Indoqermanischen Sprachwissen-  schaft.  T r e n d s i n E u r o p e a n and A m e r i c a n  1930 - I 9 6 0 . Mohrmann, C ,  e d . and o t h e r s ,  H o l l a n d , S p e c t r u m P u b l i s h e r s , 1963, pp.  128.  S c h o f i e l d , A.,  225-239.  L i n g u i s t i c s i n America.  Trends i n  E u r o p e a n and A m e r i c a n L i n g u i s t i c s 1930 Mohrmann, C.,  e d . and o t h e r s , U t r e c h t ,  S p e c t r u m P u b l i s h e r s , 1963, pp. S e n n , A.,  On  Baltic.  Utrecht,  J r . and Uhatmough, J . , C o m p a r a t i v e and  Historical  129.  Linguistics  1960,  Holland,  58-81.  t h e Degree o f K i n s h i p b e t w e e n  Slavic  The S l a v o n i c and E a s t E u r o p e a n  M e n a s h a , w i s e . , v o l . 20 ( 1 9 4 1 ) , pp.  and  Review,  251-265.  191  130.  Serin, A.,  The  Historical  Vocabulary. the P o l i s h July,  131.  Dev/elopment o f t h e  Reprinted Institute  Zametki.  (na M a t e r i a l e  133.  Govora  19  Southwestern  Cumulation  e d . , Moscow,  I . J , of  and  Archaic  Southwestern  1964,  A.L.,  1951),  Residue  Journal  pp.  as an I n s t r u m e n t o f  Journal  o f A.L.,  as  of  1-21.  Prehistory.  o f A n t h r o p o l o g y , v o l . 15  (1959),  A Problem  v o l . 19  o f Remote Common  ( 1 9 5 3 ) , pp.  and P r o b l e m s  Linguistics.  Origin.  26-44.  of  Amerindian  Word, v o l , 10  (1954),  306-332.  , Towards G r e a t e r A c c u r a c y i n L e x i c o s t a t i s t i c Dating.  138.  Indoevrope/js-  20-35.  Comparative  137.  Dvu.jazycil  152-153.  , Perspectives  pp.  Problemy  V. N.,  v o l . 7 (Spring,  , Mosan I_:  136.  Toporov,  Explanations.  , Linguistics  I.J,  Gerv j a t ) .  ( 1 9 5 3 ) , pp.  Anthropology,  135.  - Belorusskom  1  Historical  pp.  of  S c i e n c e s i n America,  Comment on H o c k e t t s C r i t i q u e .  , Oiffusional  134.  and  Bulletin  79-87.  Swadesh, M., vol.  of A r t s  o Litovsko  koqo J a z y k o z n a n i . i a ,  132.  the Q u a r t e r l y  1943.  S u d n i k , J . M.,  pp.  from  Lithuanian  I . J , o f A.L.,  S z e m e r e n y i , 0., (A C r i t i c a l  The  Problem  Survey).  Harrassowitz,  v o l . 21  ( 1 9 5 5 ) , pp.  of B a l t o - S l a v Kratylos,  v o l . 1 ( 1 9 5 7 ) , pp.  121-137.  Unity.  Wiesbaden, O t t o 97-123.  192  139.  Toporov,  \l. N., I s s l e d o v a n i j a  (1957 and  - 1961).  po B a l t i j s k o j  I^timoloqija,  t^timologii  Trubacev,  •.  ed.  o t h e r s , Moscow, 1963, pp. 250-261.  140.  , N e s k o l 'ko I l l i r i j s k o Parallelej  i z Dblasti  evropejskoqo  - Balti.jskix  Toponomastiki.  J a z y k o z n a n i j a . Toporov,  Problemy  Indo-  V. N., e d . ,  Moscow, 1964, p p . 52-58.  141.  , Zametki Ijtimologija, 1963,  142.  Trubacev,  0. IM., e d . and o t h e r s , Moscow,  pp. 187-190.  T r u b e t z k o y , IM. S., Grundzuge d e r P h o n o l o q i e . Cercle  143.  po I n d o e v r o p e j s k a j ^ t i m o l o g i i .  Uarbot,  Linquistique  de P r a g u e ,  Prague,  Z. Z., 0 S l o v o o b r a z o v a t e l ' n o m  logiceskix  Travaux  1939, No. 7.  Analize  Issledovanijax.^timologija,  du  v ^timo-  Trubacev,  0. N.,  e d . 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 , The  American  Z. S., The Scope o f L i n g u i s t i c s .  A n t h r o p o l o g i s t , v o l . 49 ( 1 9 4 7 ) , pp. 588-  600.  145.  Zeps,  \J. J . , T e r r i t o r i a l Latvian.  Ural  Patterns of Finnic  - Altaische  Jahrbucher,  O t t o H a r r a s s o w i t z , v o l . 34, Nos. 1-2 pp.  20-25.  Loanwords i n Wiesbaden,  (July,  1962),  

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