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
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 -----
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
It seems that there should be at least 5 Slavic
1. Northern (Polish and related dialects);
2. Czech-Slovak (+ languages of Slavs between Oder
and Elbe ?);
3. West Balkan (Slovene, Serbian,
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?