Re: Language - Area - Routes

--- In cybalist@..., S.Tarasovas@... wrote:

> --- In cybalist@..., tgpedersen@... wrote:
> > plus the fact that the
> > language on the birch bark pieces in Novgorod shows West-slavic
> > influence
>
> No it doesn't. This dialect (indeed unrealized language) shows

strong

> and consistent difference from what one could call 'Standard Old
> Russian', but this difference is by no means due to West-Slavic
> influence. Krivichian dialect, which contributed to Novgorod/Pskov
> interdialectal koine (which is mosly represented in bich bark
> inscriptions), has some features not found in (what we could very
> conditionally call) 'East Slavic' and found in 'West Slavic', but

it

> has as well some features found in 'South Slavic' only, and, which

is

> much more interesting, has unique features not found in any

recorded

> Slavic language/dialect. For instance, so called 'second
> palatalization' (*{k,g,x}{e^,i2<*oi}>*{c,dz,s:s^}) failed, cf.
> amazing (at least for a Slavicist) examples like zamUke kE^le 'lock
> (is) unbroken' vs. canonical form *zamUkU ce^lU, xe^rI 'gray crash'
> vs. se^rI.
>
> Sergei

Sorry about the lack of precision. It was something I picked up
somewhere. Given the whole picture of the language who would you
assume these people traded with?

Torsten

people did most trade with