Re: [tied] for ignorants

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 15857
Date: 2002-10-01

Yes, it's basically correct, though in fact the picture is even more complex, since initial splits were followed by periods of areal convergence, obscuring the structure of the Stammbaum (which was not very distinct anyway). Sergei will probably join the discussion, so here's an initial taxonomic proposal:
1. Krivichian (archaic northeastern dialects, now absorbed into East Slavic);
2. Lekhitic (Polish, Polabian, Kashubian, extinct Pomeranian dialects);
3. Sorbian (close Lekhitic affinities, partial convergence with Czech);
4. Czech and Slovak (West Balkan affinities, convergence with Lekhitic);
5. West Balkan (Serbian, Croatian, Slovene);
6. East Balkan (OCS, Bulgarian, Macedonian);
7. East Slavic (Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian).
As you say, 4. and 5. were pretty close in the genetic sense but their geographical separation in the 10th century made them gravitate into the "West Slavic" and "South Slavic" convergence areas, respectively.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alexander Stolbov
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] for ignorants

If so we should deny modern classification of the Slavic group languages (Western, Southern and Eastern subgroups) as basing not on genetic (in linguistic sense) but rather on geographic principles.
It seems that there should be at least 5 Slavic subgroups:
1. Northern (Polish and related dialects);
2. Czech-Slovak (+ languages of Slavs between Oder and Elbe ?);
3. West Balkan (Slovene, Serbian, Croatian);
4. East Balkan (Bulgarian, Macedonian)
5. Eastern (Byelorussian etc. - until we consider this subgroup attentively).
Subgroups 2. and 3. should be closer genetically to each other than 1. and 2. or 3. and 4.
Is it so?