Hubbry Logo
Balto-Slavic languagesBalto-Slavic languagesMain
Open search
Balto-Slavic languages
Community hub
Balto-Slavic languages
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Balto-Slavic languages
Balto-Slavic languages
Balto-Slavic languages
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Balto-Slavic
Balto-Slavonic
Geographic
distribution		Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Central Europe, Southeast Europe and Northern Asia
EthnicityBalts and Slavs
Native speakers
c. 322 million[1][2]
Linguistic classificationIndo-European
  • Balto-Slavic
Early form
Proto-languageProto-Balto-Slavic
Subdivisions
Language codes
Glottologbalt1263
Countries where the national language is:
  Eastern Baltic
  Eastern Slavic
  Southern Slavic
  Western Slavic
Balto-Slavic languages
Part of a series on
Indo-European topics
Languages

Extant

Extinct

Reconstructed

Hypothetical

Grammar

Other

Philology
Origins

Mainstream

Alternative and fringe
Archaeology
Chalcolithic (Copper Age)

Pontic Steppe

Caucasus

East Asia

Eastern Europe

Northern Europe

Bronze Age
Pontic Steppe

Northern/Eastern Steppe

Europe

South Asia

Iron Age
Steppe

Europe

Caucasus

Central Asia

India

Peoples and societies
Bronze Age

Iron Age Indo-Aryans

Iranians

Nuristanis

East Asia

Europe

Middle Ages
East Asia

Europe

Indo-Aryan

Iranian

Religion and mythology
Reconstructed

Historical

Indo-Aryan

Iranian

Others

European

Practices

Indo-European studies
Scholars

Institutes

Publications

Category

The Balto-Slavic languages form a branch of the Indo-European family of languages, traditionally comprising the Baltic and Slavic languages. Baltic and Slavic languages share several linguistic traits not found in any other Indo-European branch,[3] which points to a period of common development and origin.[4]

A Proto-Balto-Slavic language is reconstructable by the comparative method, descending from Proto-Indo-European by means of well-defined sound laws, and from which modern Slavic and Baltic languages descended. One particularly innovative dialect separated from the Balto-Slavic dialect continuum and became ancestral to the Proto-Slavic language, from which all Slavic languages descended.[5]

While the notion of a Balto-Slavic unity was previously contested largely due to political controversies, there is now a general consensus among academic specialists in Indo-European linguistics that Baltic and Slavic languages comprise a single branch of the Indo-European language family, with only some minor details of the nature of their relationship remaining in contention.[6]

Historical dispute

[edit]

The nature of the relationship of the Balto-Slavic languages has been the subject of much discussion from the very beginning of historical Indo-European linguistics as a scientific discipline. A few are more intent on explaining the similarities between the two groups not in terms of a linguistically "genetic" relationship, but by language contact and dialectal closeness in the Proto-Indo-European period.

Various schematic sketches of possible alternative Balto-Slavic language relationships; Van Wijk, 1923

Baltic and Slavic share many close phonological, lexical, morphosyntactic and accentological similarities (listed below). The early Indo-Europeanists Rasmus Rask and August Schleicher (1861) proposed a simple solution: From Proto-Indo-European descended Balto-German-Slavonic language, out of which Proto-Balto-Slavic (later split into Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic) and Germanic emerged.[7][8] Schleicher's proposal was taken up and refined by Karl Brugmann, who listed eight innovations as evidence for a Balto-Slavic branch in the Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen ("Outline of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages").[9] The Latvian linguist Jānis Endzelīns thought, however, that any similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages resulted from intensive language contact, i.e. that they were not genetically more closely related and that there was no common Proto-Balto-Slavic language. Antoine Meillet (1905, 1908, 1922, 1925, 1934), a French linguist, in reaction to Brugmann's hypothesis, propounded a view according to which all similarities of Baltic and Slavic occurred accidentally, by independent parallel development, and that there was no Proto-Balto-Slavic language. In turn, the Polish linguist Rozwadowski suggests that the similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages are a result of both a genetic relationship and later language contact. Thomas Olander corroborates the claim of genetic relationship in his research in the field of comparative Balto-Slavic accentology.[10]

Even though some linguists still reject a genetic relationship, most scholars accept that Baltic and Slavic languages experienced a period of common development. This view is also reflected in most modern standard textbooks on Indo-European linguistics.[11][12][13][14] Gray and Atkinson's (2003) application of language-tree divergence analysis supports a genetic relationship between the Baltic and Slavic languages, dating the split of the family to about 1400 BCE.[15]

Tree of Balto-Slavic languages

Internal classification

[edit]

The traditional division into two distinct sub-branches (i.e. Slavic and Baltic) is mostly upheld by scholars who accept Balto-Slavic as a genetic branch of Indo-European.[16][6][17] There is a general consensus that the Baltic languages can be divided into East Baltic (Lithuanian, Latvian) and West Baltic (Old Prussian). The internal diversity of Baltic points at a much greater time-depth for the breakup of the Baltic languages in comparison to the Slavic languages.[5][18]

"Traditional" Balto-Slavic tree model

Balto‑Slavic
Baltic

West Baltic

East Baltic

Slavic

This bipartite division into Baltic and Slavic was first challenged in the 1960s, when Vladimir Toporov and Vyacheslav Ivanov observed that the apparent difference between the "structural models" of the Baltic languages and the Slavic languages is the result of the innovative nature of Proto-Slavic, and that the latter had evolved from an earlier stage which conformed to the more archaic "structural model" of the Proto-Baltic dialect continuum.[19][20] Frederik Kortlandt (1977, 2018) has proposed that West Baltic and East Baltic are in fact not more closely related to each other than either of them is related to Slavic, and Balto-Slavic therefore can be split into three equidistant branches: East Baltic, West Baltic and Slavic.[21][22]

Alternative Balto-Slavic tree model

Balto‑Slavic

West Baltic

East Baltic

Slavic

Kortlandt's hypothesis is supported by a number of scholars.[23][24][25] Some scholars accept Kortlandt's division into three branches as the default assumption, but believe that there is sufficient evidence to unite East Baltic and West Baltic in an intermediate Baltic node.[26]

The tripartite split is supported by glottochronologic studies by V. V. Kromer,[27] whereas two computer-generated family trees (from the early 2000s) that include Old Prussian have a Baltic node parallel to the Slavic node.[28]

Area of Balto-Slavic dialect continuum (purple), with proposed material cultures correlating to speakers of Balto-Slavic in the Bronze Age (white); including archaic Slavic hydronyms (red dots).

Historical expansion

[edit]

The sudden expansion of Proto-Slavic in the sixth and the seventh century (around 600 CE, uniform Proto-Slavic with minor dialectal differentiation was spoken from Thessaloniki in Greece to Novgorod in Russia[citation needed]) is, according to some, connected to the hypothesis that Proto-Slavic was in fact a koiné of the Avar state, i.e. the language of the administration and military rule of the Avar Khaganate in Eastern Europe.[29] In 626, the Slavs, Persians and Avars jointly attacked the Byzantine Empire and participated in the Siege of Constantinople. In that campaign, the Slavs fought under Avar officers. There is an ongoing controversy over whether the Slavs might then have been a military caste under the khaganate rather than an ethnicity.[30] Their language—at first possibly only one local speech—once koinéized, became a lingua franca of the Avar state. This might explain how Proto-Slavic spread to the Balkans and the areas of the Danube basin,[31] and would also explain why the Avars were assimilated so fast, leaving practically no linguistic traces, and that Proto-Slavic was so unusually uniform. However, such a theory fails to explain how Slavic spread to Eastern Europe, an area that had no historical links with the Avar Khanate.[32] That said, the Avar state was later replaced by the definitively Slavic state of Great Moravia, which could have played the same role.

It is also likely that the expansion of Slavic occurred with the assimilation of Iranic-speaking groups such as the Sarmatians,[33] who quickly adopted Proto-Slavic due to speaking related Indo-European satem languages, in much the same way Latin expanded by assimilating the Celtic speakers in continental Western Europe and the Dacians.

That sudden expansion of Proto-Slavic erased most of the idioms of the Balto-Slavic dialect continuum, which left us today with only two groups, Baltic and Slavic (or East Baltic, West Baltic, and Slavic in the minority view). This secession of the Balto-Slavic dialect ancestral to Proto-Slavic is estimated on archaeological and glottochronological criteria to have occurred sometime in the period 1500–1000 BCE.[34] Hydronymic evidence suggests that Baltic languages were once spoken in much wider territory than the one they cover today, all the way to Moscow, and were later replaced by Slavic.[35]

Shared features of the Balto-Slavic languages

[edit]

The degree of relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages is indicated by a series of common innovations not shared with other Indo-European languages, and by the relative chronology of these innovations which can be established. The Baltic and Slavic languages also share some inherited words. These are either not found at all in other Indo-European languages (except when borrowed) or are inherited from Proto-Indo-European but have undergone identical changes in meaning when compared to other Indo-European languages.[36] This indicates that the Baltic and Slavic languages share a period of common development, the Proto-Balto-Slavic language.

Common sound changes

[edit]
  • Winter's law: lengthening of vowels before Proto-Indo-European (PIE) non-breathy voiced consonants (*b, *d, *g).
  • PIE breathy-voiced consonants (*bʰ, *dʰ, *gʰ, *ǵʰ) merge into plain voiced consonants (*b, *d, *g, *ǵ). This also occurred in several other Indo-European branches, but as Winter's law was sensitive to the difference between the two types of consonants, the merger must have happened after it and so is a specific Balto-Slavic innovation.
  • Hirt's law: retraction of the PIE accent to the preceding syllable, if that syllable ended in a laryngeal (*h₁, *h₂, *h₃, see Laryngeal theory).
  • A high vowel is inserted before PIE syllabic sonorants (*l̥, *r̥, *m̥, *n̥). This vowel is usually *i (giving *il, *ir, *im, *in) but in some occasions also *u (*ul, *ur, *um, *un). Proto-Germanic is the only other Indo-European language that inserts a high vowel (*u in all cases), all others insert mid or low vowels instead.
  • Emergence of a register distinction on long syllables, between acute (probably glottalized) and circumflex. The acute arose primarily when the syllable ended in a PIE voiced consonant (as in Winter's law) or when it ended in a laryngeal. The distinction is reflected in most Balto-Slavic languages, including Proto-Slavic, as an opposition between rising and falling tone on accented syllables. Some Baltic languages directly reflect the acute register in the form of a so-called "broken tone".
  • Shortening of vowels before word-final *m.[37]
  • Word-final *-mi > *-m after a long vowel.[37] This followed the preceding change, as the preceding long vowel is retained.
  • Raising of stressed *o to *u in a final syllable.[37]
  • Merging of PIE short *o and *a into *a. This change also occurred in several other Indo-European branches, but here too it must have happened after Winter's law: Winter's law lengthens *o to *ō and *a to *ā, and must therefore have occurred before the two sounds merged. It also followed the raising of *o to *u above. In the Slavic languages, *a is later rounded to *o, while the Baltic languages keep *a:
    • Lithuanian ašìs Old Church Slavonic ось (from PIE *a: Latin axis, Ancient Greek áxōn)
    • Lithuanian avìs, Old Church Slavonic овьца (from PIE *o: Latin ovis, Greece óis)

Common Balto-Slavic innovations include several other changes, which are also shared by several other Indo-European branches. These are therefore not direct evidence for the existence of a common Balto-Slavic family, but they do corroborate it.

  • Satemization: The PIE palatovelar consonants *ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ become palatal sibilants *ś, *ź, *ź, while the PIE labiovelar consonants *kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ lose their labialization and merge with the plain velar *k, *g, *gʰ. The palatal sibilants later become plain sibilants *s, *z in all Balto-Slavic languages except Lithuanian.
  • Ruki sound law: *s becomes *š when preceded by *r, *u, *k or *i. In Slavic, this *š later becomes *x (variously spelled ⟨ch⟩, ⟨h⟩ or ⟨х⟩ in the Slavic languages) when followed by a back vowel.

Common grammatical innovations

[edit]
  • Replacement of the original PIE genitive singular ending of thematic (o-stem) nouns, which is reconstructed as *-osyo, with the ablative ending *-ād (Proto-Slavic *vьlka, Lithuanian vil̃ko, Latvian vilka). Old Prussian, however, has another ending, perhaps stemming from the original PIE genitive: deiwas "god's", tawas "father's".
  • Use of the ending *-ān (from earlier *-āmi) of the instrumental singular in ā-stem nouns and adjectives.[37] This contrasts with Sanskrit -ayā, archaic Vedic -ā. Lithuanian rankà is ambiguous and could have originated from either ending, but the correspondence with East Lithuanian runku and Latvian rùoku point to Balto-Slavic *-ān.
  • Use of the ending *-mis in the instrumental plural, e.g. Lithuanian sūnumìs, Old Church Slavonic synъmi "with sons". This ending is also found in Germanic, while the other Indo-European languages have an ending with -bʰ-, as in Sanskrit -bhis.
  • Creation of a distinction between definite (meaning similar to "the") and indefinite adjectives (meaning similar to "a"). The definite forms were formed by attaching the corresponding form of the relative/demonstrative pronoun *jas to the end of the adjective. For example, Lithuanian geràsis 'the good' as opposed to gẽras 'good', Old Church Slavonic dobrъjь 'the good' as opposed to dobrъ 'good'. These forms in Lithuanian, however, seem to have developed after the split, since in older Lithuanian literature (16th century and onwards) they had not yet merged (e.g. naujamę́jame ʽin the new one' from *naujamén + *jamén). In Lithuanian, the pronoun merged with the adjective having a modern (secondary) pronominal inflection; in Slavic, the pronoun merged with an adjective, having an ancient (primary) nominal inflection.[38]
  • Usage of the genitive case for the direct object of a negative verb. For example, Russian кни́ги (я) не читал, Lith. knygos neskaičiau 'I haven't read the book'.[39]

Shared vocabulary

[edit]

Some examples of words shared among most or all Balto-Slavic languages:

Despite lexical developments exclusive to Balto-Slavic and otherwise showing evidence for a stage of common development, there are considerable differences between the vocabularies of Baltic and Slavic. Rozwadowski noted that every semantic field contains core vocabulary that is etymologically different between the two branches. Andersen prefers a dialect continuum model where the northernmost dialects developed into Baltic and the southernmost dialects into Slavic (with Slavic later absorbing any intermediate idioms during its expansion). Andersen thinks that different neighboring and substratum languages might have contributed to the differences in basic vocabulary.[41]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Balto-Slavic languages

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Balto-Slavic languages form a primary branch of the Indo-European language family, comprising the closely related Baltic and Slavic subgroups that descended from a common Proto-Balto-Slavic ancestor around the mid-2nd millennium BCE. These languages are primarily spoken in Eastern, Central, and Southeastern , with Balto-Slavic speakers making up roughly one-third (~260 million) of Europe's (~745 million as of 2024) and occupying nearly half of the continent. The Baltic languages consist of two extant members—Lithuanian and Latvian, both East Baltic tongues with approximately 3 million and 1.5 million native speakers worldwide as of 2024, respectively—alongside extinct West Baltic varieties like Old Prussian, which survived until the 18th century. In contrast, the Slavic languages are far more numerous and widespread, numbering over a dozen living varieties divided into three main branches: East Slavic (including Russian with about 148 million native speakers, Ukrainian with around 30 million, and Belarusian with ~3 million as of 2024), West Slavic (such as Polish with over 40 million speakers, Czech with ~10 million, and Slovak with ~5 million as of 2024), and South Slavic (encompassing Serbo-Croatian with roughly 17 million speakers, Bulgarian with ~7 million, and Slovenian with ~2 million as of 2024). Collectively, Slavic languages account for the vast majority of Balto-Slavic speakers, totaling over 250 million native users as of 2024. The unity of the Balto-Slavic branch, widely accepted but subject to some debate, is posited based on extensive shared innovations distinguishing it from other Indo-European groups, including phonological developments like the satem treatment of Proto-Indo-European palatovelars (e.g., *ḱ > s) and the (where cause following *s to become š), as well as the loss of laryngeals without trace vowels in many contexts. Morphologically, Balto-Slavic languages exhibit innovations such as the merger of genitive and ablative cases in thematic stems, the extension of dative plural endings in *-mos to other declensions, and the development of a mobile accent system with paradigmatic stress shifts preserved especially in Lithuanian and Slavic. Lexically, they share a substantial common , including terms for body parts, , and numerals, reflecting a prolonged period of common evolution before the divergence of Baltic and Slavic around the 1st millennium BCE. These features underscore the conservative nature of Balto-Slavic relative to Proto-Indo-European, particularly in and inflectional morphology. Despite their close relationship, Baltic and Slavic diverged significantly due to geographic separation and external influences, with Baltic retaining more archaic traits like complex vowel systems and pitch accent in Lithuanian, while Slavic underwent innovations such as loss and the rise of aspectual verb pairs. Today, Balto-Slavic languages play a vital role in the cultural and national identities of numerous countries, from the to and the , and continue to be studied for insights into Indo-European prehistory.

Overview

Definition and Scope

The Balto-Slavic languages constitute a proposed intermediate branch of the Indo-European language family, hypothetically grouping the Baltic and Slavic subgroups based on shared linguistic features. This classification traces back to the , when scholars like Franz Bopp and first treated Baltic and Slavic as a unified entity within Indo-European. The Baltic subgroup comprises the living Lithuanian and Latvian, along with the extinct West Baltic language Old Prussian, while the Slavic subgroup includes major living languages such as Russian, Polish, and Czech, divided into East, West, and South branches. Collectively, Balto-Slavic languages are spoken by approximately 320 million native speakers worldwide as of 2020, predominantly in and parts of . The proposed unity of Balto-Slavic can be interpreted genetically, as deriving from a common Proto-Balto-Slavic ancestor through shared innovations after the Proto-Indo-European stage, or typologically, as arising from areal convergence due to extended between Baltic and Slavic speakers. Proponents of genetic unity cite systematic correspondences in and morphology, while critics, including Meillet, attribute many similarities to secondary convergence rather than direct descent. Despite ongoing debate, the grouping highlights close historical ties between the subgroups, with limited among modern languages. The scope of Balto-Slavic encompasses all attested living and extinct languages within the Baltic and Slavic subgroups, focusing on their Indo-European core while excluding external non-Indo-European influences, such as Finno-Ugric substrata that may have impacted vocabulary or phonetics in prehistoric stages. This delineation emphasizes the genetic and structural integrity of the branch without incorporating areal borrowings from neighboring families.

Place in Indo-European Family

The Balto-Slavic languages constitute one of the principal branches of the Indo-European language family, comparable in status to Germanic, Romance (as part of Italic), Celtic, and Indo-Iranian. This branch, comprising the Baltic and Slavic subgroups, is posited to have diverged as a distinct lineage from Proto-Indo-European between approximately 4000 and 6000 years before present, or roughly 2000–4000 BCE, based on phylogenetic analyses of linguistic diversification. Through the application of the , Balto-Slavic provides key evidence for Proto-Indo-European reconstruction due to its retention of archaisms not preserved in other branches. Notably, the languages exhibit traces of Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in their prosodic systems, where the acute intonation in Balto-Slavic continues the effects of these laryngeals, offering insights into their original syllabic and tonal roles in the proto-language. Linguists debate whether Balto-Slavic represents a primary branch that split directly from Proto-Indo-European or a secondary convergence resulting from prolonged areal contact between proto-Baltic and proto-Slavic dialects. This controversy engages broader discussions in between the , which posits discrete genetic bifurcations supporting Balto-Slavic unity via shared innovations, and the wave model, which allows for and reconvergence, as proposed in scenarios like Rozwadowski's three-stage process of initial unity, divergence, and reapproximation.

Historical Development

Origins of Proto-Balto-Slavic

Proto-Balto-Slavic emerged as a distinct branch from Proto-Indo-European during the second millennium BCE, roughly between 1500 and 1000 BCE, in the aftermath of the Yamnaya culture's expansions across . This period marks the consolidation of shared innovations that define the Balto-Slavic group within the broader Indo-European family. Scholars reconstruct this proto-language based on comparative evidence from attested Baltic and , positing its formation amid the migratory and cultural dynamics following the Yamnaya horizon (ca. 3300–2600 BCE). The proposed homeland for Proto-Balto-Slavic lies in the region spanning the to , particularly areas between the middle and rivers, where early speakers likely interacted with local populations. This location aligns with genetic and archaeological evidence suggesting continuity from steppe pastoralists into forested zones of . Environmental and cultural influences, such as interactions with the (ca. 2900–2350 BCE) in and , contributed to the branch's development, including the adoption of satem phonological traits characteristic of eastern Indo-European dialects in the centum-satem division. Proto-Balto-Slavic maintained relative unity for several centuries before the initial divergence into the Baltic and Slavic subgroups, which occurred gradually between approximately 500 BCE and 500 CE. This split reflects increasing geographical separation and external contacts, with Baltic speakers remaining in the northern and eastern Baltic regions while Slavic groups expanded southward and westward. Although the existence of a unified Proto-Balto-Slavic as a genetic entity remains a point of scholarly , its reconstructed features provide a framework for understanding early Balto-Slavic cohesion.

Dispute on Genetic Unity

The dispute over the genetic unity of Balto-Slavic languages revolves around whether Baltic and Slavic form a distinct within the Indo-European family, descending from a common Proto-Balto-Slavic ancestor, or if their resemblances primarily result from areal convergence in a prolonged , akin to a . This debate has persisted since the , when linguists like posited Balto-Slavic as a unified branch based on systematic correspondences in and morphology that distinguished it from other Indo-European groups. Schleicher, influenced by the family-tree model of linguistic evolution, argued that these shared traits indicated a late divergence from a single proto-language spoken around the mid-2nd millennium BCE. Early challenges to this view emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, particularly through Johannes Schmidt's wave theory (Wellentheorie), which emphasized across dialects rather than strict bifurcations, applying this to question rigid Balto-Slavic boundaries. Antoine Meillet further critiqued the genetic unity in the 1920s, proposing that many apparent innovations could arise from mutual influence during extended coexistence in , rather than exclusive inheritance. Modern proponents of skepticism, such as Hans Henrich Hock, have reinforced this perspective by highlighting how contact-induced changes—rather than genealogical splits—could account for parallel developments, drawing on broader Indo-European contact scenarios. Similarly, Thomas Olander in 2022 examined phylogenetic methods to test subgrouping, concluding that Baltic and Slavic form a single Indo-European branch supported by shared innovations such as satemization and the ruki rule, with a period of common evolution no later than 2000 BCE. Supporting genetic unity, scholars point to the chronological alignment of innovations, such as the post-Proto-Indo-European palatalizations and shifts that affected both subgroups in a narrow timeframe, suggesting a period of common evolution before their separation around the BCE. These are seen as non-trivial shared developments that predate later divergences, bolstering the case for a phase. Conversely, opponents argue that the absence of exclusive shared errors—hallmarks of true genetic subgroups—and the presence of potential external borrowings undermine this. For instance, certain phonological traits may reflect influences from neighboring (e.g., via contacts) or even Germanic, which could have diffused areally without requiring a unified . Hock emphasizes that such borrowings complicate the delineation of inherited versus acquired features, favoring a over . Recent research, including genetic studies as of , supports the genetic unity through evidence of shared ancestry and migrations aligning with linguistic divergence in the second millennium BCE. Accentological analyses, such as Rick Derksen's 1996 study on metatony in Baltic, illustrate how accentual patterns provide evidence for genetic inheritance alongside convergence from sustained interaction in the . Olander's phylogenetic approach accommodates hybrid explanations but affirms clade-like signals in key datasets. This view reflects a consensus among linguists for Balto-Slavic as a genetic entity, with areal contact amplifying similarities during a formative period of proximity.

Classification

Internal Structure

The internal classification of Balto-Slavic languages posits Proto-Balto-Slavic as the ancestral node, which bifurcated into the Baltic and Slavic branches, each exhibiting distinct subgroupings based on shared phonological, morphological, and lexical innovations. The Baltic branch traditionally encompasses (Lithuanian and Latvian, descending from Proto-East Baltic) and West Baltic (primarily Old Prussian and extinct relatives like Curonian and Sudovian, from Proto-West Baltic), with an intermediate Proto-Baltic stage proposed to account for common developments such as the merger of certain Indo-European diphthongs. The Slavic branch divides into three main subgroups: East Slavic (Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian), West Slavic (Polish, Czech, Sorbian), and South Slavic (, Bulgarian, Slovene, Macedonian), unified under Proto-Slavic through innovations like the preservation and eventual denasalization of nasal vowels (e.g., Proto-Slavic *ǫ from Indo-European *on). Some models suggest additional intermediate layers, such as a Proto-East Balto-Slavic stage linking East Baltic and Slavic more closely, while others, like those by Frederik Kortlandt, argue against Baltic by positing West Baltic as diverging earlier from a core East Balto-Slavic continuum. Subgrouping within Balto-Slavic relies on of shared innovations—changes unique to a subset of languages—over mere retentions of Proto-Indo-European features, following the Stammbaum () model of genetic descent. For instance, Slavic's nasal vowels represent an innovation distinguishing it from Baltic, where nasals were lost differently (e.g., via oralization before resonants), whereas both branches share earlier Balto-Slavic innovations like the satemization of palatovelars. Cladistic approaches, which emphasize binary branching and testable phylogenies, contrast with wave models () that allow for areal diffusion, but the former dominates for Balto-Slavic due to clear isoglosses like the first palatalization in Slavic. Retentions, such as the in nominal declensions, are insufficient for subgrouping as they may reflect archaisms rather than descent. Uncertainties persist regarding the position of extinct Baltic dialects (also known as Dnieper-Oka or ), attested sparsely in toponyms and loans, which may form a third Baltic branch distinct from East and West Baltic or align with an eastern extension of East Baltic. Recent computational phylogenetic studies, employing Bayesian and neighbor-joining methods on lexical data, reinforce the Balto-Slavic unity with divergence estimates around 2000–1500 BCE and suggest a particularly tight Baltic-Slavic bond within Indo-European, potentially via enhanced sampling of ancient attestations. These analyses, such as those in 2022 overviews of Indo-European chronology, highlight how quantitative models can resolve ambiguities in traditional trees by weighting innovations probabilistically.

Baltic Subgroup

The Baltic subgroup within the Balto-Slavic branch is traditionally classified into two main divisions: East Baltic and West Baltic. The comprise the extant Lithuanian and Latvian, along with Latgalian, which is often regarded as a of Latvian rather than a separate . The West Baltic division includes the extinct Old Prussian and the sparsely attested (also known as Galindites), with other minor extinct varieties such as Curonian sometimes associated with this . Due to the scarcity of historical documentation, particularly for West Baltic, no deeper subdivisions or dialectal hierarchies have been reliably established beyond this binary structure. Key representatives of the subgroup highlight its linguistic diversity and historical trajectory. Lithuanian stands out as the most archaic of the living , renowned for its preservation of phonological and morphological elements, and it features a tonal accent system distinguished by acute (rising-falling) and circumflex (falling) intonations on long vowels and diphthongs. Latvian, in contrast, represents a more innovative East Baltic variety, characterized by the development of a broken tone—a prosodic feature involving or pre-aspiration that affects certain syllables, marking a departure from the simpler tonal contrasts in Lithuanian. Old Prussian, the sole well-documented West Baltic language, survived until the late 17th century, with its last fluent speakers perishing amid Germanization efforts in the region; the corpus is limited to partial texts, including 16th-century catechisms, the Elbing Vocabulary (a bilingual ), and fragmentary inscriptions, providing incomplete but valuable insights into its grammar and lexicon. A defining trait of the Baltic languages is their conservative retention of PIE features, particularly in nominal morphology, where Lithuanian maintains seven cases—nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, , locative, and vocative—effectively preserving the core of the reconstructed eight-case PIE system by merging or eliminating the ablative without broader simplification. This archaism contrasts with the more extensive innovations in the Slavic subgroup, such as case mergers and phonological shifts, underscoring the Baltic branch's relative stability. The modern speaker base remains small, totaling around 4.5 million individuals, with approximately 3 million for Lithuanian and 1.5 million for Latvian, reflecting the subgroup's confinement to and amid historical pressures from neighboring language families.

Slavic Subgroup

The Slavic languages constitute the more expansive and better-documented branch within the Balto-Slavic group, traditionally divided into three primary subgroups based on shared phonological, morphological, and lexical innovations that emerged after the divergence from Proto-Balto-Slavic around the 5th to 9th centuries CE. These subgroups—East Slavic, West Slavic, and South Slavic—reflect a diversification driven by geographic separation and contact with neighboring language families, yet they maintain in transitional dialects. The East Slavic subgroup encompasses Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian, which together represent the most widely spoken Slavic varieties and originated from a common East Slavic dialect continuum in the medieval Kievan Rus' period. The West Slavic subgroup includes Polish, Czech, Slovak, and Sorbian, characterized by innovations such as the preservation of certain Proto-Slavic consonant clusters and a historical Lechitic-Polabian core that has largely given way to standardization. Meanwhile, the South Slavic subgroup comprises Serbo-Croatian (encompassing Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin variants), Bulgarian, Slovene, and Macedonian, marked by early Balkan influences and a split between Torlakian transitional forms and more distinct western varieties. Proto-Slavic, the reconstructed common ancestor of these languages, is primarily attested through , the earliest written Slavic idiom developed in the 9th century by the missionaries for liturgical purposes in the region of and later . This attestation, consisting of manuscripts from the 9th to 11th centuries, provides direct evidence of late Proto-Slavic and , facilitating a more precise reconstruction than is possible for the less attested . Early common innovations distinguishing Proto-Slavic from its Balto-Slavic precursor include the monophthongization of diphthongs and the development of nasal vowels (*ę and *ǫ), which were later lost or denasalized across most branches through processes like vowel + mergers followed by oralization. Collectively, the Slavic languages are native to over 250 million speakers worldwide, with dialect continua—such as the Polabian-Lechitic transitions in the west or the Torlakian bridge between south and east—blurring strict branch boundaries and underscoring the gradual nature of their diversification. These continua, often spanning political borders, preserve archaic features and highlight the ongoing interplay of innovation and retention in Slavic linguistic evolution.

Geographical and Historical Expansion

Prehistoric Homeland and Distribution

The prehistoric homeland of Proto-Balto-Slavic speakers is hypothesized to lie in the region between the in modern-day Poland and the middle in and , based on linguistic, archaeological, and genetic syntheses that model an expansion during the late or early . This area encompasses the territories associated with the Lusatian (Lužycká) culture in the west, centered in Poland around 1300–500 BCE and characterized by fortified settlements and bronze metallurgy, and the in the east, spanning and from approximately 700 BCE to 1 CE, noted for its and trade goods indicating interactions with neighboring groups. Early distribution of Proto-Balto-Slavic populations formed a relatively compact zone extending from the southeastern coast southward to the and eastward to the upper basin by around 500 BCE, prior to the divergence and later expansions of the Baltic and Slavic branches. Within this territory, proto-Baltic dialects likely predominated in the northern and eastern peripheries near the sources, while proto-Slavic features began to emerge in the southern areas closer to the Carpathians, as inferred from shared innovations and substrate influences in the linguistic record. Archaeological correlates include the extensive networks that linked Baltic coastal sites with inland cultures like the Lusatian and Milograd, facilitating cultural and economic exchanges that may have reinforced linguistic unity. Genetic evidence from reinforces this prehistoric distribution, demonstrating continuity of the , particularly subclades Z280 (widespread in Balto-Slavic groups) and its derivatives like M458 (more Slavic-specific), from samples in the Poland-Belarus-Ukraine region onward. Recent analyses of over 500 ancient genomes, including pre-migration individuals from the 6th–7th centuries CE in the proposed homeland area, show that these R1a lineages comprised a significant portion of the male , aligning with the compact pre-expansion zone and distinguishing it from neighboring Indo-European branches. This genetic profile supports a model of local differentiation within the homeland before broader dispersals, with autosomal data indicating high internal correlations among early Balto-Slavic populations.

Migrations and Later Spread

The Slavic migrations of the 5th to 7th centuries CE marked a pivotal expansion of Slavic-speaking populations from their original territories in westward into and southward into the . These movements, triggered by the collapse of the Hunnic Empire and subsequent power vacuums, involved large-scale population shifts that displaced Germanic tribes such as the and from regions including modern-day , Czechia, and the basin. Genetic evidence indicates that these migrations replaced over 80% of local ancestry in affected areas during the 6th to 8th centuries, facilitating the widespread adoption of across these territories. In contrast, Baltic-speaking communities exhibited relative stability during this period, maintaining their linguistic distribution in the northeastern European lowlands with only minor territorial shifts due to interactions with neighboring groups. However, the Western faced significant pressure from German colonization; , spoken by the Prussians along the southeastern Baltic coast, underwent gradual assimilation starting in the 13th century following the Teutonic Knights' conquests. This Germanization process intensified in the 15th to 17th centuries through enforced cultural and linguistic policies, leading to the extinction of by the early as speakers shifted to German. Later expansions further altered Balto-Slavic distributions. From the 16th to 19th centuries, Russian speakers advanced eastward into during the Tsardom's conquests, beginning with Yermak's campaigns in 1581 and continuing through colonial settlements that imposed Russian as the administrative and dominant language. This spread integrated Russian into vast indigenous linguistic landscapes, though colonial influences on Baltic languages remained negligible due to their geographic separation. Similarly, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795) promoted Polish and Ruthenian (an East Slavic language) as lingua francas across its multiethnic territories, extending Slavic linguistic influence into Belarusian and Ukrainian regions while Lithuanian retained prominence in official and cultural spheres among the . These migrations and expansions resulted in the current discontiguous ranges of Balto-Slavic languages, with Slavic varieties establishing enclaves far beyond through 19th- and 20th-century emigrations to the . Waves of Slavic immigrants from , , and the Austro-Hungarian Empire arrived in the United States between 1880 and 1920, peaking at over 2 million individuals and forming communities that preserved languages like Polish and Ukrainian in urban centers such as and New York. Additionally, Germanization contributed to the extinction of several and dialects, including Old Prussian and those of the , which were absorbed into Latvian, Lithuanian, or German by the 16th to 18th centuries. Other extinct varieties, such as Curonian, Semigallian, and Selonian, were primarily assimilated into Latvian and Lithuanian.

Shared Linguistic Features

Phonological Developments

The Balto-Slavic languages are characterized by several key phonological innovations that distinguish them from other Indo-European branches, primarily occurring after the separation from the . One of the most prominent is satemization, the palatalization of Proto-Indo-European () palatovelar consonants (*ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ), which shifted to such as *ś (or *z after voicing) in Balto-Slavic, contrasting with the centum retention of velars in western branches. For instance, PIE *ḱm̥tóm 'hundred' developed into Lithuanian šimtas and Proto-Slavic *sъto, reflecting the shared outcome. This change is considered a defining feature of the satem group, including Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, though the exact timing and mechanism remain debated among historical linguists. Another shared innovation is the RUKI law, whereby PIE *s became a postalveolar *š (or equivalent) when following *r, *u, *k, or *i in the . This rule operated within Balto-Slavic, as evidenced by parallel developments in both subgroups, such as PIE *h₂u̯s- 'ear' yielding Lithuanian ausìs and Proto-Slavic *uxo ''. The RUKI change strengthened the argument for Balto-Slavic unity, as it aligns with similar shifts in Indo-Iranian, suggesting an areal or inherited feature predating the Baltic-Slavic split. The loss of PIE laryngeals (*h₁, *h₂, *h₃) represents a further common development, typically resulting in compensatory vowel lengthening or qualitative changes, with laryngeals vocalizing or disappearing in preconsonantal position. In Balto-Slavic, this often produced long vowels, as seen in PIE *ph₂tḗr 'father' evolving to Lithuanian tėvas (with lengthened *ē) and Russian otéc (from *otьcь with laryngeal effects on surrounding vowels). This process contributed to the simplification of the Proto-Balto-Slavic consonant inventory while enriching its vowel system. Accentual innovations form a cornerstone of Balto-Slavic , introducing a mobile accent paradigm that allowed stress to shift across morphemes, departing from the fixed accent of earlier . This mobility laid the groundwork for the development of tonal distinctions in , where pitch accent was retained, versus the later shift to dynamic stress in Slavic. Recent accentological research, such as studies reconstructing PIE accent paradigms through Balto-Slavic reflexes, highlights the acute tone's origins in or laryngeal features, influencing the prosodic systems of both branches. For example, the mobile paradigm is evident in forms like PIE *ph₂tḗr, where accent mobility affected nominal declensions, leading to Baltic tonal oppositions (e.g., acute vs. in Lithuanian) and Slavic fixed initial stress patterns. In Baltic, the retention of pitch accent preserved archaic Indo-European prosody, while Slavic innovated by reducing it to expiratory stress around the 6th century CE, marking a branch-specific within the shared framework.

Grammatical Innovations

The Balto-Slavic languages exhibit several morphological innovations that distinguish them from other Indo-European branches, particularly in the nominal and verbal systems. One key feature is the retention of the , which was inherited from Proto-Indo-European but preserved more robustly in Balto-Slavic compared to most other branches; for instance, Lithuanian maintains dual forms across cases, while Slovene retains them in pronouns and verbs. In the nominal domain, case mergers occurred, such as the fusion of genitive and ablative in thematic stems and the tendency for consonant stems to merge across Baltic and Slavic, simplifying the inherited eight-case system while retaining a core of seven cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, , locative, vocative). Within the verbal morphology, Proto-Slavic innovated by developing a unified through the loss of the distinct (perfective past) and (imperfective past), replacing them with a synthetic form based on the perfect, which marked aspect via prefixes and suffixes rather than tense distinctions. Syntactically, Balto-Slavic shares the use of the to encode possession, a feature that evolved from Proto-Indo-European relational uses but became standardized in predicative constructions across both subgroups, differing from the dative or prepositional strategies more common in Germanic. The system represents another shared innovation, with Balto-Slavic reconstructing active participles in *-nt- for and *-us- for preterit, which underwent parallel developments like in Baltic and aspectual integration in Slavic, enabling complex subordinate clauses beyond simple finite verbs. Additionally, the mood, derived from Proto-Indo-European *-tum and realized as Balto-Slavic *-tun, emerged as a non-finite form primarily for purpose clauses and future expressions, particularly prominent in Slavic as a complement to the *-tī. These innovations highlight Balto-Slavic's conservative yet distinctive path, retaining three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter) without the mergers seen in some , where neuter often collapsed into masculine in nouns. Evidence from verbal reconstructions, such as the development of PIE *wóyde 'leads' into Balto-Slavic athematic presents like Lithuanian *veda and Slavic *vede, illustrates shared morphological patterns in stem formation and ending attachment that diverged from Germanic's stronger ablaut reliance and weak verb innovations.

Lexical Similarities

The Balto-Slavic languages exhibit a substantial inherited lexicon derived from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) roots that underwent parallel developments in both the Baltic and Slavic branches, underscoring their common proto-language. Basic vocabulary related to kinship, numerals, and natural phenomena often preserves these reflexes. For instance, the PIE root *méh₂tēr 'mother' yields Lithuanian mótė and Proto-Slavic *matī, reflected in Russian matʹ. Similarly, PIE *dwoh₁ 'two' appears as Lithuanian dù and Proto-Slavic dъva. Such correspondences extend to approximately 200 core terms, including words for family relations (e.g., PIE *ph₂tḗr 'father' > Lithuanian tėvas, Russian otéc) and numbers (e.g., PIE *treyes 'three' > Lithuanian trys, Russian trí), forming the foundation of Balto-Slavic lexical unity. Lexicostatistical analyses using Swadesh lists reveal a substantial lexical overlap between Baltic and , higher than with more distant branches like Germanic. This elevated retention rate supports the genetic proximity within Balto-Slavic, as the shared terms resist borrowing and reflect common inheritance rather than later convergence. For example, in a 110-item Swadesh-based of modern Balto-Slavic lects, the core demonstrates consistent cognacy patterns across subgroups, with divergences primarily in peripheral items. Beyond inherited stock, Balto-Slavic unity is evident in shared borrowings and calques, likely arising from contacts with neighboring groups during prehistoric expansions. Possible Iranian loans, acquired through interactions with Indo-Iranian speakers in the Pontic-Caspian region, appear in both branches; for instance, terms related to cultural or administrative concepts may derive from Iranian substrates, though specific reflexes vary. Additionally, substrate vocabulary from pre-Indo-European populations in the Baltic and Pontic areas contributes to the lexicon, with words for local flora, fauna, or technology (e.g., certain terms for trees or tools) showing parallel adoption and adaptation in Baltic and Slavic. These elements, numbering in the dozens, enhance the perceived unity without overshadowing the dominant PIE inheritance.

Modern Status

Contemporary Baltic Languages

The contemporary Baltic languages consist primarily of Lithuanian and Latvian, the only two surviving members of the Baltic branch of the Balto-Slavic family. Lithuanian is spoken by approximately 3 million people worldwide, the vast majority of whom reside in where it serves as the sole . Latvian has around 1.75 million native speakers, predominantly in , where it is also the . Both languages have established literary traditions dating back to the , with the first printed book in Lithuanian—a Lutheran by Martynas Mažvydas—appearing in 1547, and the earliest known Latvian text printed in 1525, though the oldest surviving Latvian book dates to 1585. These standards have evolved through reforms, including modern orthographies developed in the early , preserving the languages' conservative Indo-European features amid historical pressures. Despite their official status, both languages face ongoing challenges to vitality, including a legacy of during the Soviet era (1940–1991), which promoted Russian as the dominant language in , administration, and media, leading to a significant shift in language use and demographic changes in urban areas. and migration have exacerbated this decline, as younger generations in cities increasingly adopt Russian or English for professional and , resulting in reduced intergenerational transmission and erosion. As members of the since 2004, and benefit from EU policies that support official state languages through funding for , cultural preservation, and cross-border initiatives, though these focus more on broader linguistic diversity than specific Baltic minority dialects. Recent efforts to bolster these languages include standardization initiatives in , such as the completion in 2025 of a nationwide transition to Latvian-only instruction in schools and preschools, aimed at reinforcing monolingual proficiency among students. Digitally, both languages are gaining traction through (NLP) advancements, including specialized models for morphological analysis and tailored to their rich inflectional systems. The 10th Workshop on Balto-Slavic (BSNLP 2025), co-located with the Association for conference, advanced research in these areas, fostering tools for low-resource Baltic languages to enhance digital accessibility and preservation.

Contemporary Slavic Languages

The contemporary Slavic languages, numbering over a dozen distinct varieties, are spoken by approximately 300 million people globally, making them one of the largest language families in . Russian dominates as the most widely spoken, with around 154 million native speakers primarily in and former Soviet states, serving as a across much of and . Other major languages include Polish, with about 40 million speakers, many concentrated in but supported by vibrant diasporas that sustain cultural transmission abroad. Throughout the 20th century, Soviet-era policies significantly influenced Slavic language dynamics by promoting Russian as the administrative and educational medium, often marginalizing minority Slavic tongues in non-Russian republics through mandatory bilingualism and efforts. Following the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991, many experienced revitalization, exemplified by Ukraine's 2019 reform, which updated spelling rules to better reflect modern usage and distance from Russian influences, thereby reinforcing national linguistic identity. Within subgroups, persists at high levels; for instance, the continuum—encompassing Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin—allows speakers of these standardized varieties to understand one another with relative ease due to shared and . Emigration waves, particularly from the late onward, have extended the global footprint of , with millions relocating to and for economic opportunities. Polish exemplifies this diaspora strength, with an estimated 5 million speakers outside , forming communities in the United States, , and that maintain language schools and media to preserve heritage. In parallel, computational linguistics has advanced processing, as seen in the 2022 volume Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics, which compiles research on topics like clitics, verbal prefixes, and nominalizations, enhancing tools for in these languages.

References

  1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/indoeuropean-language-family/baltoslavic/5BF5813373849DD7D99E7D65BC40B943
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4558026/
  3. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/europe-population/
  4. https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/tlc/departments-programs-and-centers/slavic-and-eurasian-studies.html
  5. https://www.worlddata.info/languages/lithuanian.php
  6. https://www.lrc.columbia.edu/language/russian/
  7. https://admissions.uiowa.edu/academics/russian
  8. https://slavic.indiana.edu/about/languages-cultures/southslavic/language-study.html
  9. https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/the-10-most-spoken-languages-in-the-world
  10. https://www.berlitz.com/blog/most-spoken-languages-in-europe
  11. https://arpi.unipi.it/retrieve/e0d6c92b-1fd2-fcf8-e053-d805fe0aa794/HSK41.3-Blt-Sl.pdf
  12. https://www.academia.edu/382815/The_phonology_of_Balto_Slavic
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388256384_Balto-Slavic_DRAFT
  14. https://old.lituanus.org/1967/67_2_01Klimas.html
  15. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Balto-Slavic-languages
  16. https://www.mustgo.com/worldlanguages/slavic-branch/
  17. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/ESLO/COM-032140.xml
  18. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/ESLO/COM-032004.xml
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4112997/
  20. https://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/download/2384/2325
  21. https://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art066e.pdf
  22. https://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art322e.pdf
  23. https://www.academia.edu/107268985/Balto_Slavic
  24. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110261288-002/html
  25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333803404_A_complicated_relationship_Balto-Slavic_accentual_mobility_as_a_non-trivial_shared_innovation
  26. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09437-6
  27. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/isbn/9789004653740/html
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289927808_Historical_phonology_in_service_of_subgrouping_Two_laws_of_final_syllables_in_the_common_prehistory_of_Baltic_and_Slavonic
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304210999_Toward_a_relative_chronology_of_the_earliest_Baltic_and_Slavic_sound_changes
  30. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/indoeuropean-language-family/computational-approaches-to-linguistic-chronology-and-subgrouping/4A7B80EB7C1ADDA08CB4421A01FDF0D7
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/baltic-languages
  32. https://dash.harvard.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/66b131b8-cbb7-4535-bf8f-3f7e49544130/content
  33. https://brill.com/display/book/9789401210461/B9789401210461-s004.pdf
  34. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/Karins1996.pdf
  35. https://tied.verbix.com/tree/balt/prussian.html
  36. http://www.old.lituanus.org/1964/64_34_02_Dambriunas.html
  37. https://valoda.lv/en/state-language/
  38. https://www.academia.edu/66790763/Classification_of_Slavic_languages_evolution_of_developmental_models_Slavia_Occidentalis_77_2020_33_64
  39. https://www.academia.edu/4124457/Contact_and_the_development_of_the_Slavic_languages
  40. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:8a1bc7ba-b4d3-4663-b3f4-f7caf273e224
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238425467_Proto-Slavic_Historical_Setting_and_Linguistic_Reconstruction
  42. https://slavic-studies.brown.edu/academics
  43. https://lupinepublishers.com/anthropological-and-archaeological-sciences/pdf/JAAS.MS.ID.000170.pdf
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363579138_Balto-Slavic
  45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24598976
  46. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09437-6
  47. https://sitti.vdu.lt/prussian/princip.htm
  48. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00110.x
  49. https://www.academia.edu/4516031/Polish_Lithuanian_Sprachbund
  50. https://journeys.dartmouth.edu/censushistory/2016/03/04/slavic-immigration-in-america/
  51. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Baltic-languages
  52. https://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art253e.pdf
  53. https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1961055/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  54. https://sites.ff.cuni.cz/chatressar/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2016/03/Jan-Bi%25C4%258Dovsk%25C3%25BD.pdf
  55. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004346109/B9789004346109_003.pdf
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369004787_What_is_the_origin_of_the_Balto-Slavic_acute
  57. https://brill.com/display/title/69018
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365714190_The_dative_and_instrumental_dual_in_East_Baltic
  59. https://www.academia.edu/33665896/The_Proto_Slavic_Genitive_Locative_Dual_A_Reappraisal_of_South_West_Slavic_and_Indo_European_Evidence_2017_
  60. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265811867_On_the_Origin_of_the_Slavic_Aspects_Aorist_and_Imperfect
  61. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/23r8p63b
  62. https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/7/1/article-p194_7.xml
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313825303_Baltic_Slavic_Germanic
  64. https://www.mustgo.com/worldlanguages/lithuanian/
  65. https://live.european-language-grid.eu/ncc/ncc-latvia
  66. https://www.danstopicals.com/lithuanian_book.htm
  67. https://www.gramatai500.lv/en/par500
  68. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/701004
  69. https://www.ecmi.de/fileadmin/downloads/publications/JEMIE/2012/SaarekiviMarten.pdf
  70. https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/languages_en
  71. https://www.eclbs.eu/post/latvia-completes-transition-to-latvian-only-instruction-in-schools
  72. https://bnn-news.com/new-school-year-in-latvia-223000-students-and-major-changes-in-education-271463
  73. https://aclanthology.org/events/bsnlp-2025/
  74. https://aspirantum.com/blog/slavic-languages
  75. https://www.berlitz.com/blog/most-spoken-languages-world
  76. https://crystalcleartranslation.com/the-top-6-most-widely-spoken-balto-slavic-languages/
  77. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14664208.2021.2005384
  78. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/orthography-and-identity-politics-ukraines-writing-conventions-reform-elicits-strong
  79. https://un-aligned.org/country-profile/language-to-unite-language-to-separate-the-tale-of-serbian-croatian/
  80. https://talkpal.ai/how-many-people-speak-polish-and-where-is-it-spoken/
  81. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/481
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.