Talk:Baltic languages

Prussian

“ The East-West-Prussian native speakers were for the most part expelled and deported by Soviet conquerors between 1945-49. That language therefore greatly suffered over the last 50 years due to the refugee/deportee survivors living in many scattered places. ”

What native speakers? Old Prussian became extinct by the end of 17th century! I think the facts quoted have nothing to do with the language. History of Prussians is for another article...

“ But a large part of the language was retained in Ostpreussisch-EastPrussian German dialects ”

Any proofs? Links? Sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassili Nikolaev (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 June 2003

Temporary copy

I am attempting a rework of this article in Baltic languages/temp. My first edit should appear there shortly, and I'll look for input then. --Theodore Kloba 18:35, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

My rewrite is done, although more historical information is still needed. I think I have addressed the various conflicting viewpoints regarding history and genetic relationship. Unless objections are voiced here, I will replace the original article with the new one soon.--Theodore Kloba 21:14, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks and completed the copy.--Theodore Kloba 22:38, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Category

I think this page should be listed in both Category:Baltic languages and Category:Indo-European languages, especially since some linguists believe the Baltic group is not appropriate to begin with. --Theodore Kloba 15:12, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Balto-Slavic is a lie

The ridiculous lie that before proto-Baltic and proto-Slavic languages there was a proto-Balto-Slavic is just unbelievably insulting and untrue. There was a proto-Balto-Slavo-Germano-Celto-Romano-etc. language, which is proto-Indo-European, but if Baltic really was one with another language group, it is likely that Baltic was in the same group with Germanic, Celtic, or Romance. Germanic, because the grammar is similar and some words are interesting, such as Leute means People in German, Lietuva means Lithuania in Lithuanian, and also Volk means People means Vokietija is Germany in Lithuania. Celtic, because Tacitus said that the languages of the Aestii resembled the ones of Britain. Romance because of the similarities between Lithuanian and Latin. Due to the history of the two remaining Baltic countries, Lithuania and Latvia, who have been in many unions, wars and overall, a lot of contact with Slavs, this is where a lot of similarities come from. Rather than the languages splitting to differ, they became more alike as the time passed, due to these countries constantly being under control or united with Russia, Poland, and Ruthenia(Belarus and Ukraine). There barely, if any, Baltic linguists that will ever accept the theory of Balto-Slavic, because everyone knows the very few similarities are due to history and contact, not a common ancestor. It is also disrespectful to group the two together, due to a theory. Looking at the Indo-European Languages page[1], Balto-Slavic is written as one thing, however, it is untrue, and therefore should be separated, because the Balto-Slavic theory is unproven, and it never will be, because it is false, likely due to Soviet propaganda as well, making the world think that Balts are the same thing as Slavs, and that's the attitude many linguists seem to take. Almost every Slav agrees with the theory, yet almost every Balt opposes it. Due to the fact it is a very unconvincing theory, someone that monitors Wikipedia, would you please change the articles and make it right? Balto-Slavic never existed, except for when proto-Indo-European was around, and that's when they split, just like Germanic, Romance, Celtic, Hellenic, and the rest of the Indo-European languages. Baltic is no closer to Slavic than Celtic, Romance, Germanic, Albanian, or any other Indo-European language group is.173.72.35.239 (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is legitimate to have both a Baltic branch and a Slavic branch of the Indo European Language tree, but their combination is outright false. I won't claim a "conspiracy" but Soviet "academics" during the occupation of the Baltic States did a great deal of damage to linguistic research which remained unchallenged long enough--it is often taken as the base assumption.

If you look into the genetics of the Baltic peoples, they have their own haplogroup--which suggests enough unity of peoples to be distinct from other peoples and languages (not proof, but certainly a consideration). Dubois Cowboy (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

WHATS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?!?!

Muonium777 (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately, linguistics is not driven by nationalistic ideals or denial for political expediency. "Balto-Slavic is defined by at least three unique phonological features in Indo-European: the development of a distinction between rising and falling pitch accents; the change of the syllabic resonants typically to resonants preceded by i; and the change of *VRHC to *V:RC" (Benjamin W. Fortson IV, Indo-European language and Culture, an introduction, 2004, pg. 365). Both the so-called Pennsylvania family tree and the so-called New Zealand family tree link Baltic and Slavic as more closely related to each other than either is to any other Indo-European group (James Clackson, Indo-European Linguistics, An Introduction, 2007, pp. 11-12). No politics, no hysteria, no nationalistic pride involved. Just cold, hard linguistic facts. (Taivo (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

And especially, no "Soviet propaganda" involved. While it's true most Russian Indo-Europeanists of both the Soviet and the post-Soviet era believe in Balto-Slavic, so do most non-Russian Indo-Europeanists (except for those who are Latvian or Lithuanian). Balto-Slavic is pretty much as well established as any sub-branch of Indo-European can be, perhaps slightly more controversial than Indo-Iranian, but more plausible (and more widely believed) than other proposed subgroupings like Italo-Celtic or Greco-Armenian, and far more plausible (and far more widely believed) than any attempt to link the Baltic languages with the Germanic, Celtic, or Italic languages at a post-PIE date. Linking Baltic and Slavic languages is in no way disrespectful to anyone, but refusing to believe an objectively well-supported theory for no better reason than that you hate Slavs is disrespectful, and very poor scientific practice. —Angr 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Having been lumped with the ethno-fascist über-nationalist Russo- Slavo-phobic subhuman WP hordes, that's as reasonable a barometer as any measuring the defense of one's nation and people. That said, Baltic root words (like Volga) stretch into Russia, nowhere near the Goths/Germans/et al. It is the German that has come into Latvian by proximal association (pardon my not using the proper linguistic term)--clearly visible in comparing Latvian, Latgalian dialect, and Lithuanian--not the Slavic. And in the latest theory, it is not Baltic that is some orphan offshoot of Slavic, it is Slavic that is the offshoot of the parent Balto-Slavic, ergo, Latvian and Lithuanian are surviving parents, and the Slavic languages the offshoots. So, it is the Slavic that branched off from the Baltic, not the other way around--which portrayal, an anathema to many Baltic nationalists, was a theory likely driven more by current numbers of speakers as opposed to scientific linguistic research. PetersV       TALK 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

While I might use a different analogy, I tend to agree with Vecrumba/PetersV. The divisions between the different Slavic languages are relatively shallow while the divisions between the three attested Baltic languages are deep. That implies that the differentiation of Proto-Slavic is more recent than the differentiation of Latvian and Lithuanian. So the image is one of Proto-Balto-Slavic breaking into (perhaps) four parts--Pre-Lithuanian, Pre-Latvian, Pre-Prussian, and Proto-Slavic. Proto-Slavic then embarked on its own history of spread and diversification. Even if the initial break was between Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic, Proto-Baltic diversified long before Proto-Slavic did. (Taivo (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

I should mention, that personally once I (Latvian) manage to deal with Latgalian, Lithuanian is not much further off, many root words are similar if not identical. Where Germanisms have crept into Latvian, the original root word is still found in other related words in Latvian--or is simply a secondary choice. Personally I think there's a lot of latitude as to when the Baltic languages branched off from each other, as everything else, a topic for further scholarship and debate. :-) PetersV       TALK 19:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Proto Balto-slavic language is not a lie, but there are two different classifications in east Europe (where Baltic and Slavic languages are native) and in the Western World. In Russia, Ukraina, Poland (tree biggest slavic-speaking countries - I dont know about others), Latvia (baltic-speking country) - there are no term Balto-Slavic in classification - there are: Indoeuropian-->Baltic and Indoeuropian-->Slavic, but in english there are Indoeuropian-->Balto-Slavic--> and then Baltic and Slavic. I dont know why there are 2 different classifications, but in my opinion there (in this article) is worth to admit it. When I tried to correct, admin deleted it and called "POW" and "political reasons"--Riharcc (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What is most hilarious, is that its mostly western scholars and communists that try to pair Baltic and Slavic languages in the same family, I have yet to hear anyone in either Latvia or Russia to publicly try to make a claim that Russian and Latvian have similar roots. Nobody would make that claim, because its obviously laughable and they would be ridiculed to no end for it. Why? Because most Latvians know Russian and most Russians living in Latvia know Latvian, which means that practically everyone, from personal experience, knows Russian and Latvian are about as similar as Greek and English.

The languages which became Celtic, Albanian, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, were derived from a mixing of various indigenous European people and IE steppe immigrants - with their descendants migrating to mix with other indigenous groups later in different locations. Balto-Slavic was rather brief period in various regions where IE Satem speakers mixed with various indigenous people ( Tripolye C2, Lengyel, and TRB cultures ) and with IE Centum speakers ( Globular Amphora and Catacomb cultures ) in diferent degrees. Balto-Slavic is accurate as a generic generalization of such a multi-ethnic convergence, but can be viewed in a way like Celto-Italic is. Cool, huh? Sudowite (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hypothetical scope of Baltic in the lead

The lead currently says: The range of the Eastern Baltic linguistic influence once possibly reached as far as the Ural Mountains, but this hypothesis has been questioned. This is like feeding our readers with speculations and leaving them in the dark about what is actually widely accepted among Balticists. Based on Dini's monograph, I propose to change it to:

• Based on hydronymic evidence, scholars agree that the Baltic speech area covered a much wider area than today, ranging from the Vistula to the Dnieper (or even further on both ends, although this remains controversial).

For details, there is the section "Geographic distribution".

Another thing: @SeriousThinker, can you find a single source that mentions the full number of Baltic speakers? Doing arithmetics is always a bit problematic, since different sources might use different criteria or give figures from different years. I think we can leave things temporarily as they are, but not permanently. Austronesier (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)