| Abstract [eng] |
The present study deals with the identification of minor Baltic languages, namely Yatvingian, Curonian, Semigallian and Selonian. Although this question has received much attention in traditional Baltic studies, close analysis of the empirical data shows that the criteria for distinguishing these languages should be reconsidered. The present study revises the traditional classification of the minor Baltic languages and verifies hypotheses raised in the most important works by Būga (1958–1961), Dini (2000; 2014), Kabelka (1982), Karaliūnas (2015), Mažiulis (1994), Salys (1995), Zinkevičius (1984) and the Encyclopedia of the Lithuanian Language (2008). The question arises whether the minor Baltic languages could be distinguished on the basis of features discussed in the literature. Thorough analysis of their distinctive features and the prominence of the latter (see Figure 7) show absence of reliable linguistic data and clear arguments which would allow us to make a distinction between Yatvingian, Curonian, Semigallian and Selonian. The present study verifies the role of historical regions, place names and Lithuanian dialects in distinguishing these languages. Historical regions are not a reliable criterion because some Baltic tribes and areas had apparently independent languages, while other tribes and areas did not. Similarly, place names, recorded in Lithuanian and Latvian subdialects, cannot be regarded as a reliable criterion because the linguistic evidence they provide for the identity of these languages is insufficient. Individual place names should be thoroughly analyzed on the basis of archeological, historical, sociolinguistic and migration data, though these data may be difficult to obtain. The features of Lithuanian dialects and their geography, which should also be considered from a typological perspective, unfold from the substratum theory of the minor Baltic “languages”.... |
