[tied] Re: Interpreting some Scythian names

--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> I agree that on the whole Slavic is more coherent and has been more
> innovative than Baltic. It is debatable whether we should talk of
> Proto-Baltic and proto-Balto-Slavic as distinct proto-languages.

The

> surviving Baltic languages may represent "basal" subgroups of the
> Balto-Slavic branch, perhaps even with East Baltic being

genetically

> closer to Slavic than either group is to West Baltic. Their most
> recent common ancestor would be no other than Proto-Balto-Slavic,
> which could then be renamed as Proto-Baltic for simplicity. This
> would make Slavic just a large and aberrant subbranch of Baltic. I
> wonder what Sergei thinks of this idea (which recurs in linguistic
> discussions).

I sympathize to this model, though I wouldn't die for it. Still the
hypothesis of the (relatively late) "convergational closeness", so to
say, still retains it's position and can not be easily rejected.
Trubachev would say more on that :).

I'm a bit puzzled by the statement that "perhaps even with East
Baltic being genetically closer to Slavic than either group is to
West Baltic." All that we know of Old Prussian and Jotvingian points,
IMO, to the contrary. Before I provide specific argumentation I must
be sure this is not a typo.

Sergei