Talk:Proto-Slavic borrowings

PSl. *bergu 'hill'
" (OCS brěgъ) < Germanic *bergaz (cf. German Berg)" Are you sure about this one? In all Slavic languages I know 'breg' actually means "shore, coast, bank", not "hill", and there is hardly any reason to loan such a basic word (with a shifted meaning, right). 77.40.63.126 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Basic words are loaned all the time, for reasons that are often hard to recover. The original meaning of Proto-Germanic *bergaz, anyway, was likely more specific than simply "hill", because of the apparent connection with *burg- "fortress". Imagine the kind of hill that a fortress is typically built on, with a steep slope in the front and a gentle rise in the back, as at a river bend or a promontory at a sea coast or lakeshore, because that makes the fortress easier to defend: three sides are protected both by a natural water-filled trench (the river, sea or lake respectively) and a steep slope. That explains the semantic shift.
 * By the way, *melka "milk" is a likely candidate for a Germanic loanword (*meluk-, which is however feminine, not neuter – note that, according to Griepentrog, the original accusative was *melk-un, parallel to the inherited strong verb *melk-a-), too, because of the unexpected k instead of z. In contrast, the verb *milz-e-, infinitive *mels-tej (< *melz-tej) looks native, as does Russian molozivo "colostrum". See Wiktionary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

One have to have in mind, that this could also be term going back to a common Indo European origin, as both Germanic and Slavic are Indo European linguistic groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.122.28 (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As a trained linguist, I am very well aware of that. In these cases, however, there are reasons to doubt the possibility of simple inheritance in Slavic – for example extremely limited attestation within Indo-European branches (only Germanic and Slavic, not even Baltic), lack of palatalisation, and even a possibly too close meaning (note that in Serbo-Croatian, the cognate of OCS brěgъ actually does mean "small hill"). When presumable cognates are phonologically and semantically very close, closer than expected from the relationship of the involved languages, this can be a reason for the researcher to suspect borrowing (phonological evidence is much more probative, though, because of the regularity of sound change). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

other
The transcription of Proto-Slavic words is weird. I have never seen <ō>,  or final <-j> in the context of PSl. Neko85 (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lots of books use just y everywhere, but in Late Proto-Slavic (Common Slavic) y is used for jery, and in PIE/PBSl. y is not a full-blown consonant yet, so using j is less ambiguous. w is used instead of v because it's more accurate: it was still a bilabial semivowel then ([w] not [v]). PBSl. */ō/ was merged with PBSl. */ā/ in PSl., this new */ō/ came from borrowings, PBSl. *aw (PIE *ow, *aw, *h₂ew, *h₃ew, *How), and was reflected as /u/ in all Slavic languages. It's all just notation, it's what it means that is important.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've looked some other Slavic (comparative/historical) handbooks and the choice of symbol appears to be author's personal preference, and they rarely match. My view is that this 'y' as a second part of a diphthong in Proto-Slavic is just a remnant of a notation used for PIE (where 'y' and 'i' are used to indicate the same phoneme). Schenker (1995) apparently uses the other hard-to-type notation u̯ i̯ which is also obviously a remnant of alt. spelling of non-syllabic PIE 'y' and 'w'. However, since this (semi-vowel, consonant, whatever you like to call it) 'j' ('y') as a second part of a diphthong is in no way different from */j/ that appeared prothetically word-initially in Proto-Slavic, or */j/ that palatalized("iotified") preceding consonants (and consonant clusters), it would be misleading to denote the same phoneme with two different symbols, like some do. Schenker e.g. uses i̯ throughout, which is harder to read and type (it's basically untypable, one must copy/paste it), and misleading with respect to this "un-syllabic" sign underneath which is meaningful in PIE phonology notation, but in PSl. where */j/ and */i/ are two distinct phonemes not so. Hence, since y is reserved for Common Slavic jery vowel [with disputable phonetic value], it would be even more misleading to use it in one sense in Early Proto-Slavic and completely other sense in Late Proto-Slavic. Those two periods differ only in half-a-dozen newly phonemicized affricates/fricatives/palatals that were a result of palatalizatoins/RUKI/iotification, and new half-a-dozen vowels that were a result of quantitative oppositions being replaced by qualitative ones. Hence it's the same language, with ~3 centuries of distance between these two phases, and consistency should be used when designating its phonemes.
 * Similarly Schenker apparently uses 'u̯' throughout in place of where I here (and some others!) use 'w', and most books apparently just uses 'v' (and some even mention that it was bilabial and not labiodental back then!).
 * As for the PSl. */ō/ which resulted from borrowings, PBSL. *aw and PIE *ew > PSl. *jōw > CSl. *'u (with a possible Proto-Slavic and East-Baltic stage of PIE *ew > PBSl. *jaw change, apparently not shared with Old Prussian and Curonian), all of my sources base this on some serious onomastics and borrowings evidence from/into Proto-Slavic in various stages of its development, referencing primarily: 'Diachronische Phonologie des Ur- und Fruhslavischen, František Václav Mareš 1999, Petaer Lang Verlag, Frankfurt a/M'. As you can see even from this list, Gothic/Germanic 'ō' is always substituted with 'u', and borrowed *aw also passed thru this stage. Judging from this paper, same is valid for Finnic borrowings. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that Kortlandt also uses the same notation of */j/ and */w/ for (Early) Proto-Slavic (cf. pages 7, 9, 11). K dates the monophtongization *aw > */ō/ to 6.5. This issue on the notation might be problematic in the future, as most handbooks are based on obsolete reconstruction of Proto-Slavic, Proto-Balto-Slavic and PIE [i.e. based on Proto-Slavic reconstructed on the basis of comparative Slavic evidence, and then the "historical development" is described on the basis of that reconstruction] that don't mention this little "middle step" in the transition PSl. *aw > CS *u, take for granted phonemic *č, *ž, *š resulting from the first palatalization, use 'y' and 'v' instead of more precise 'j' and 'w'..and completely ignore not-so-irrelevant Baltic evidence. We'll need to discuss this thoroughly one day on Proto-Slavic language talk page ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Slavic lukъ
There were two PSl. words *lōku (OCS lukъ), one meaning 'bow' and the other meaning 'onion, leek'. Only the latter had a Germanic source (the first one is part of the inherited vocabulary). But PG *lauka- (cf. OHG lauh, OIcel. laukr) is also the source of English leek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.136.118.5 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, what a silly mistake by me! Actually the 'bow' word is Common Slavic/OCS lǫkъ (not lukъ) < Proto-Balto-Slavic *lonkos (cf. Lith. lankas 'shaft-bow, hoop, bow', Latv. luoks 'shaft-bow, rim', Old Prussian lunkis 'corner'). Today their reflexes merged in lots of Slavic languages (weak word-final yer was dropped in all of them, and */ǫ/ changed to /u/ in many Slavic dialects), so their reflexes often look the same, but the difference is somewhere still marked in the accentuation! E.g. Cr. lȗk : lȕk (N. pl. lúkovi : lȕkovi - the former had circumflex tone on the root vowel and belonged to mobile paradigm ("c"), whilst the latter had acute tone on the root vowel and belong to fixed accentual paradigm ("a"). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Slavic kositь

 * PSl. *kōsītej 'to mow' (OCS kusiti) < Goth. kausjan
 * This is not true. Slavic kositь is borrowed from Baltic languages, cf. Latvian kast /kasīt 'to mow, to gather hay'. The Slavic etymological relative to Latvian kasīt 'to mow, scrape, scratch, dig' is česatь 'to scratch (head)'. Roberts7 01:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberts7 (talk • contribs)
 * You do realise that the quoted snippet refers to Common Slavic *kusiti, and you're discussing *kosa, *kositi etc. family of words? :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Shishkov and *bogъ
Proto-Slavic *bagu and Indo-Iranian *bhagas couldn't have come from the same root due to the absence of Winter's law on root syllable in Slavic (WL wasn't yet known back then, but that is the usual argument today on why that word is considered borrowing from Iranian).

And this Shishkov's theory...isn't this a bit obsolete...I mean, it has been almost 2 centuries? :) If no modern handbook/paper, published e.g. in the last 20-30 years, supports or makes a mention of this Shishkov's "protoroot" theory, I suggest it be removed completely due to its obsoletry, per WP:UNDUE, WP:OR etc. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, well yeah, I tried rewriting that section, but I have no trouble seeing it go. (I am not a Slavic scholar, though.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And looking at Shishkov's entry, it doesn't appear that he has had much formal linguistic training. (Even if the discipline wasn't that developed by then.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll remove that shite. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Bastarnae
Assuming that the Slavs were autochtonous in Ukraine, they must've met a Germanic tribe BEFORE the Goths, (assuming that must've been Bastarnae). What is the scholarly opinion on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure, I'd have to search the literature first, but I'd like to point out that the Slavic homeland is usually assumed to have included parts of (northern) Ukraine, (southern) Belarus and (eastern) Poland, as far west as the Vistula, so the early Slavs (and Balts, too!) can very well have had contacts with Germanic peoples, specifically the precursors of the Goths (Wielbark culture), in eastern/central Poland, specifically along the Vistula, in the early first millennium AD. The Bastarnae are often assumed to have been a (later formed?) mixed group, hence perhaps not as relevant in the first place; in any case, the Wielbark culture, if correctly identified with early Germanic peoples, is more ideally situated for contacts with the early Slavs, as their respective territories are not only adjacent to each other, but actually overlap. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bastarne are germans from Elbe River. Her ceramic is Lusitanian culture from upper Elbe area (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Hinterpommern).

Iranian loanwords
Rather than using the methodologically dubious position of Goląb ("every Slavic word starting in x is an Iranism"), let alone others such as Reczek and Bernštejn with their huge lists, as a strawman argument against Iranian loanwords (false dichotomy between "there are only a few isolated Iranisms in Slavic" and "there are heaps of them, and they're EVERYWHERE!"), it would make more sense to list a couple more reasonable candidates that have frequently and typically been proposed in the literature, as in the quote from Schenker under Talk:Proto-Slavic, where twelve etyma and one theonym are listed. Extreme positions and principled statements aren't helpful – it's more sensible to address the actual evidence and arguments, and judge every case on its own merits. (BTW, the unexpected vocalism of *suta "hundred" has also been suspected to be somehow due to influence from Iranian *sata-.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * slavs have iranian loan words. true. but you're forgeting that iran was twice under slavic rule. macedonian and sassanid( saxa, saka, saqaliba, siclab, sclav).79.126.238.201 (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh no, the Saka were Iranian and have nothing to do with the Slavs (apart from being Indo-European as well), Saka ~ Saqaliba (the Arabic rendering of Greek Sklábos) is an accidental similarity, and the Ancient Macedonians were not Slavic, either. No idea why you think the Sassanids were of Slavic origin; they weren't even Saka. Given that the early Slavs seem to have lived in Eastern Europe (Polesia/Volhynia area, between the Vistula, Dnieper and Pripyat Rivers), the only plausible region of contact is in the Ukraine. Certainly not in Asia! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

gown
I'd like to point out that according to Wiktionary, English gown really has the same ultimate origin in Scythian as Slavic *gōnjā, so the IP happened to be right there. Still, it's perhaps a bit too far out of the scope of the article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

deleted "Slavicisms in Germanic"
IMO this entire section is an invention on the part of a certain Russian researcher named Viktor Martynov. It is not surprising to me that a Slavic researcher would claim a Slavic origin for words found cognate between Slavic and Germanic. However, I cannot find a single corroborating source for these claims. The various words that were claimed to be borrowed from Slavic in Proto-Germanic times (e.g. the words that lead to OE bearu "grove" < "pine forest", OE mealt "malt", OE dāl "portion", Gothic niþjis "kinsman", etc.) are all given different etymologies in other sources I can find -- either they are claimed to be Slavic borrowings *from* Germanic, or parallel NWIE words. The attempt to derive niþjis from Slavic *net- < PIE *nepti- isn't even phonologically feasible, since it assumes a much earlier (pre-Grimm's Law) borrowing, and yet it is pretty clear that contact between Slavs and Germans does not much (if at all) predate the 2nd century AD. The only conceivable actual Slavic borrowing is OHG chursinna "fur" (also reflected in OE crusene, Med. Latin crusina, etc.), which appears to belong to a different layer than all the other words. One source says this "may be mediated through Slavic, although doubtless not originating there" (I am paraphrasing). This is pretty thin evidence to base an entire section. Benwing (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They are mentioned in Vladimir Orel's dictionary of Proto-Germanic. It would be interesting to see what Guus Kroonen's dictionary says on them - if it mentions Martynov's theories then we have to include because that's two of the most recent Proto-Germanic dictionaries (others were published like a century ago). Kiparsky (Die gemeinslavischen Lehnwörter aus dem Germanischen, p. 96-101) listed five possible borrowings into Proto-Germanic: *drop-, *kъrzьno, *sorka, *pьlxъ, *plęsati. Georg Holzer considers it controversial, and according to Henrik Birnbaum such borrowing is neither possible nor provable. This useful book recently appeared that could shed some light but I don't have access to it (yet). (It will be free as of 2017) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Former contents of loanwords category
"Category:Iranian loanwords" contained the articles listed below. The category is being listified and deleted per this CFD. DexDor (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ban (title)
 * Jász
 * Paradise
 * Pilaf
 * Proto-Slavic borrowings

You are blind in your chauvinism towards Slavic people
Decide if "luk" is "Scythian mediations are luk (onion)" or freaking "PSl. *lōku, onion, leek (OCS lukъ) < Proto-Germanic *lauka- (cf. OHG lauh, OIcel. laukr);".

Most of those words are marked with [citation needed] anyway which suggests that there were just a bunch of people adding them to make those words appear mostly Germanic. Could you even imagine that it was the other way around and that those words could come from a Slavic language? Those words could even come from Proto-Indo-European or even Pre-Indo-European common substrate marked with I2 haplogroup (Eastern Hunter Gatherer) or I1 Western Hunter Gatherer. Did your professors in your nazi universities teach you about genetics and DNA which proves that in Poland 60% of R1a (R1a-M417 itself forming around 5000 BC in Sredny Stog culture) citizens can trace their paternal ancestors to the area of Poland minimum 2000 BC which throws your nazi Gustaf Kossinna allochtonous theory of Slavic arrival in the 6th century AD to trash. This whole theory is responsible for Slavic Genocide and Holocaust in World War II as Germans saw their homeland in Poland and general Corded Ware Culture area. This whole article is based on this theory "that Proto-Slavic speakers came into contact with, either in prehistorical times or during their expansion when they first appeared in history in the 6th century (the Common Slavic period)." therefore it is a nazi article. "Gołąb, noting the etymological connection with Slavic *tepǫ, I hit, holds that this word is in fact a loan from Slavic into Iranian.". In Polish: "tępię" = I slay; I make weapon not sharp.

"Borrowings" of most common words. Let me see how you borrow most common words nowadays from the languages that you have learned. You don't. Use some logic and down-to-earth thinking sometimes, because professors who "think" only for money and to not to be kicked out of university and keep their jobs certainly do not if they produce such senseless ideas. Tell to 360 million Slavs that their most common word for bread "hleb" is some kind of borrowing. For you all it deals such a pain that Slavic word for God "BOG" and Sanskrit "BHAGA" and Old Persian "Baga" and thousand other could be a cognate or even borrowed from Proto-Slavic or Proto-Balto-Slavic into those languages as both are Satem languages. Nooo it must be a borrowing to Slavic, because "Slavs were eating mud and were idiotic barbarians, they did not know how to bake bread even and they came to Europe from Siberia."

"borrowed during a period well after Slavic prehistory (which ended c. 600 CE)." such a joke. Also borrowings compared by RECONSTRUCTIONS is the biggest joke here too. Yes * this means a reconstruction not an actual word attested in history. *hlaibaz such a joke.

Word "bukva", "buky" comes from the word "buk" which means "Fagus sylvatica", "European beech". A tree on which Slavs were writing signs and letters. For example Birch bark manuscript.

This whole article can be described as most quotations in it [dubious – discuss]. Bye bye Occam's razor. Nelias (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I could not agree more. These linguistic researches were writtwn by Germans, so why not proclaiming the Aryan supremacy over dirty Slavs. And not to mention the arival of Goths around 200ish close to Slavs, and before that Slavs were throwing rocks, barked on mammalians and howling upon the Moon. Just look at the map of Nordic tribes expansion, area so small that if it was not so cold, marshy and inhospitable, Slavs would settle there too. Moreover, all sources of linguistic borrowings are first written by Germans, It does not matter that Slavs were inhabiting areas from Hamburg to nearly Ural mountins, it must be Germans who gave them milk, bread and hill. Before that Slavs lived on the water in the middle of nowhere, sun gazing and fishing. What is even funnier is that they state Latin source, then transfer to the Gothic and then Slavic - So Germans were running from Roman Empire to far European east to enlighten barbarians I wonder why Slavs (Slovs) call them Niemci - the one who cannot speak. Pixius talk 09:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please be civil and Αssume Gοοd Faith. Just because someone suspects Proto-Slavic may have borrowed words from Proto-Germanic or any other language does not imply any disrespect to Slavic people or belief in the superiority of Germanic-speakers. No one is being a Nazi by suggesting that a word was borrowed into Proto-Slavic. (see Godwin's Law) The reason some words ─ for example *hlaibaz, as you mentioned─ are believed to be borrowed from Proto-Germanic into Proto-Slavic is because *hlaibaz displays perfectly regular sound changes, for example Grimm's Law, that occurred in the development from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic but not in Proto-Balto-Slavic or Proto-Slavic, not because anyone is suggesting that Proto-Slavic speakers could not have had a word for bread or that they were "barbarians." Nor are linguistic reconstructions merely a "joke" because the word was unattested. All of Proto-Slavic itself is an unattested, reconstructed language, a probable common ancestor based on linguists' knowledge of later Slavic Languages! Hlaibaz has been reconstructed on the basis of its descendents in modern and old Germanic languages which are attested. The ethnicity, nationality, or whatever other irrelevant criterion/a of "all sources of linguistic borrowings" has nothing to do with their credibility (at least in most cases; when the work is dubious and the author is clearly advocating the supposed supremacy of their group over another then it can be dismissed as unreliable). As for basic vocabulary, it can definitely be borrowed, like any other word! (Though it is less likely, and thus using basic vocabulary is often a useful method for comparing languages to determine if they have a phylogenetic relationship; see also Swadesh list if you happen to be interested.) For example, one of the English language's third-person pronouns, (and its Accusative form ) is a borrowing from Old Norse going back to Middle English, and for an extreme example, Japanese has borrowed a whole set of numerals from Chinese:  (1),  (2),   (3),  (4), and so on, which are related to Modern Standard Mandarin  (romanised yī),  (romanised èr),  (romanised sān),  (romanised sì), etc. Also I highly doubt that the fact that─ like every known language on the face of this planet─ Proto-Slavic borrowed some words from some other languages was the main cause of the Holocaust. Of course, I do not seek to deny the atrocious genocide committed by the Nazis and others during this time. I am just saying that this is not a "Nazi Article" because it suggests that Proto-Slavic may not always have consisted exclusively of native words inherited from Proto-Balto-Slavic which inherited them from Proto-Indo-European which did not borrow them from any other contemporaneously spoken language. I do not believe that Proto-Slavic-speakers or any other people should be considered, classified, thought of, called, or referred to as "barbarians" or any other offensive names. I hope you understand that I am merely trying to explain that there is no shame in a language borrowing words from another language, as it is something which happens all the time, and can even extend to basic vocabulary. Thank you and have a good night (or evening or day or morning or afternoon or whatever time it is in your current time zone). 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:10D1:BD3:D4DB:B978 (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, by the time the Slavs appear in history, about 540, Germanic-speaking peoples already had a significant role on the world stage (not even only in European history, but as far as North Africa), and there were written works in Gothic and to a limited extent (in the form of inscriptions) even in North Germanic; like it or not (and no nationalist zeal will change this), the Slavs are relative newcomers in history, with no literature in their own language until around 863, when even German already had a significant literary tradition. As such, it is no surprise that Germanic became a source for loanwords for the illiterate early Slavs. Historical facts aren't chauvinism. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Listen Florian, with regard to your Goths and their statehood in Africa, it has already been established that these are fairy tales of medieval humanists. yes, yes, exactly fairy tales. and you won't change my mind.
 * and your surname is clearly of Slavic origin Blaschke, serboluzhitskaya or Polish. so you're a Slav overgrown with German meat 91.193.178.194 (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like a source for who said that "Goths and their statehood in Africa" are "fairy tales of medieval humanists". Also, saying that you "won't change [your] mind" is dangerous. --Ioe bidome (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

many inaccuracies were cleared up after factual Indo-European research.
Scientist like Max Vasmer and Oleg Trubachev and plenty of other scholars have published many academic works proving the true origin of words that were assumed to be borrowings into Proto-Slavic. Heres a list of some refuted borrowings with their cites from Vasmers dictionary that was published not only in print but also on the internet and is free for anyone to use. https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasmer/ 1.равный/ровный https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasmer/р/ровный 2.широкий https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasmer/ш/широкий 3.вина https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasmer/в/вина 4.бог https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasmer/б/бог 5.берег https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasmer/б/берег 6.город https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasmer/г/город 7.корм https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasmer/к/корм 8.клеть https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasmer/к/клеть 9.слуга https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasmer/с/слуга 10.готовить https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasmer/г/готовый 11.чадо https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasmer/ч/чадо 12. люди https://lexicography.online/etymology/vasmer/л/люд These are just some the supposed borrowings, that have had their true Slavic origin discovered. There is many more not listed here. D.kalivas98 (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to rename it "Proto-Slavic language contacts"
Despite its issues pointed by the warnings on the top of the article, I believe the subject matter merits its inclusion, as an independent article from "Proto-Slavic", since there is academic literature that deals with the many layers of contact between Proto-Slavic and other Indo-European and non-IE languages.

In that regard, should the article be renamed "Proto-Slavic language contacts", to better convey the content of the article? KHR FolkMyth (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)