On Old Prussian poklausīmanas

Some thoughts on the origin of the Proto-Balto-Slavic participial suffix *-ma-.

draft; definitive version to appear in Scando-Slavica, Issue 2, vol. 63, 2017

Paweł Nowak

Abstract
In Old Prussian there is one famous form, namely, poklausīmanas ‗heard, answered‘. The reason for its renown
is that it is regarded by some to be a present passive participle, and, by the same token, directly continue the
Proto-Indo-European medio-passive participle in *-mh1no- as reflected e.g. in Vedic -māna- and Greek -μενο-.
However, such a supposition is problematic in a few regards. Firstly, Baltic, like Slavic, knows only present
passive participle in -m-, which makes the Old Prussian form, at the very least, enigmatic. Secondly, if OPr. -
manas truly reflects the ancestral PIE morpheme, it sheds doubts on the validity of the hitherto reconstructed
Proto-Balto-Slavic participial suffix *-ma as reflecting PIE *-mh1no-.
In the present paper it is argued that Old Prussian poklausīmanas indeed is a present passive participle
and that the suffix -mana- does in fact derive from an earlier *-mna- which, in turn, continues PIE *-mh1no-. As
for the shape of the Old Prussian suffix, it is proposed that -mana- contains a secondary anaptyctic vowel as
suggested by other evidence. Furthermore, some light is shed on the possibility of reconstructing the Proto-
Balto-Slavic participial suffix not as *-ma- but rather as *-mna-, which would be more consistent with the shape
of the reconstructed PIE suffix from which it derives.

Keywords: Old Prussian, Baltic, Proto-Slavic, Proto-Balto-Slavic, Proto-Indo-European, phonology,

morphology, present passive participle, poklausīmanas.

0 Introduction

The hapax legomenon attested in Old Prussian as poklausīmanas is assumed by some to

be a form of the present passive participle reflecting the Proto-Indo-European medio-passive
participle.1 Thus, -manas would directly continue the PIE2 participial suffix reconstructed as
either *-m(e)no- or *-mh1no- (*-mǝ1no-),3 which was added to the full-grade of a verb
(Matasović 2008, 295). This participle, as such, lives on in a number of daughter languages,
cf. Ved. bháramā a-, Av. barǝmna- ‗carrying (for oneself)‘, Tokh. A -mā and Tokh. B -
mane (Matasović 2008, 295), and Gr. υερόμενος ‗carrying (oneself), being carried‘ and, with
the *-mo- suffix in the Balto-Slavic languages, as found in Lith. n amas, Latv. n sams, OCS
nesomъ ‗being carried‘. In the remaining language branches, only a few fossilized examples

1
I am very grateful to Thomas Olander for his fruitful advice and useful comments on a draft version of this
paper.
2
Abbreviations of languages used: Arm. - Armenian, Av. - Avestan, CS - Common Slavic, EBalt. - East Baltic,
ESl. - East Slavic, Germ. - German, Got. - Gothic, Gr. - Greek, Hit. - Hittite, Lat. - Latin, Latv. - Latvian, Lith.
- Lithuanian, Luv. - Luvian, OCS - Old Church Slavic, OLat. - Old Latin, OPr. - Old Prussian, OR - Old
Russian, Osc. - Oscan, PBS - Proto-Balto-Slavic, PIE - Proto-Indo-European, P - Polish, R - Russian, Sn. -
Slovenian, Tokh. A - Tokharian A, Tokh. B - Tokharian B, Umbr. - Umbrian, Ved.- Vedic, WBalt. - West
Baltic, WSl. - West Slavic.
3
For the discussion on the shape of PIE suffix, see e.g. Olsen (1999, 841), Sihler (1995, 618) who reconstructs
this suffix as ablauting *-meno- ~ *-mno-, stating that its ablaut is inexplicable in a thematic stem; Fortson
(2004, 108) says that ―its exact reconstruction is a matter of dispute‖.
of this participle remain, e.g. Lat. alu-mnus ‗fosterling (lit. ‗being nurtured‘)‘,4 f mina ‗(the
one) nursing, breastfeeding‘;5 also frequently cited as continuing this participle is the Arm.
anasown ‗animal‘.6 Probably related is the Cuneiform Luv. kī ammi- ‗combed‘.7 However,
seeing as the East Baltic (Lithuanian and Latvian) and Slavic languages continue the PIE *-
mh1no- suffix as *-ma-, the Old Prussian form poses some difficulties in its reconstruction and
as such is not accepted by all. The question of the development of PIE *-mh1no- > PBS *-ma-
also remains problematic and the exact course of its development still evades the communis
oppinio.
In the present paper, I shall first give an account of the situation regarding the present
past participle in the attested Balto-Slavic languages (section 2), followed by the survey of the
existing hypotheses put forward to account for the shape of the Old Prussian formation in
question (section 3). Then, I shall propose a new hypothesis to explain the origin of the
aforementioned Old Prussian suffix (section 4). This will be followed by an argumentation
that OPr. -mana-, as well as East Baltic and Slavic -m-, can be phonologically derived from
PIE *-mh1no- (section 5). Finally, the paper is rounded off by a conclusion (section 6).

1 Material

The present passive participle with the suffix *-(o)mo-,*-(o)mā- as found in Balto-Slavic
was not originally connected with PIE *-mh1no-.8 As for the modern Baltic languages, the
present passive participle is synchronically formed from the present9 stem of transitive and
imperfective verbs,10 to which the suffix -m- is added. This participle declines then as o-stem
(masc.) and ā-stem (fem.) adjectives. Thus we have e.g. Lith. v damas ‗being led‘ and Latv.
v dams; Lith. (dial) b riamas (standard Lith. b ramas) ‗being scolded‘ and Latv. baŗams;
Lith. m limas ‗being loved‘ and Latv. (dial.) mĩlims; Lith. (dial.) jamas (standard Lith.
eĩnamas); Lith. jamas ‗which can be walked‘ and Latv. ejams. In both Lith. and Latv. these
participles follow the adjectival declension and can have definite forms, e.g. Latv. N.sg.m.
rakst mais, N.sg.f. rakst m ‗sth. to write with‘. There are also reflexive forms, e.g. Latv.
mazgājamâs vieta ‗place for washing oneself‘. Both in standard Lithuanian and its dialects
many present passive participles assume the character of adjectives. On account of this fact,
such participles can also be inflected to indicate the degree of comparison (i.e. positive,
comparative and superlative). In the Lithuanian literary language, the present passive
participle is a living grammatical category; however, its use in some dialects is in decline
(Otrębski 1956, 263).

4
From PIE *h2elo-mh1no-s, de Vaan (2008, 35).
5
From PIE *dheh1-mh1n-h2-, de Vaan (2008, 210).
6
Supposedly (literarily) ‗not-talking‘, from asem ‗I talk‘, from late PIE *n-h2ag-omno-, thus Fortson (2004,
108), following Meillet (as cited in Olsen 1999, 602); however a contesting view would have that it could, in
actuality, represent a merger of the *nt- and the *mh1no-participle Olsen (1999, 602–603).
7
From *-mna- < *-mh1no-, see Fortson (2004, 108) and Sihler (1995, 618).
8
Stang (1942, 206) states that this suffix is not found outside of Balto-Slavic. See also Arumaa (1985, 332–336).
9
Except for the athematic stems to which the vowel a is added before the suffix -mo-), cf. Endzelīns (1971, 249).
It is to be noted that the third person is used as a point of reference synchornically, since neither Lithuanian nor
Latvian make distinction between singular and plural forms in the third person.
10
However, it sometimes is also formed from both intransitive and reflexive verbs.
 The situation in the attested Slavic languages is similar to that found in the above-
mentioned Baltic languages. Thus, in Old Church Slavic, the present passive participle was
formed by addition of the suffixes -mъ, -ma, -mo (masc., fem., neut. respectively) onto the
present tense-stem of transitive, mostly imperfective verbs, e.g. vedomъ, -a, -o. The suffix *-
mo- shows the o-grade (cf. OCS nesomъ, dvignomъ, znajemъ, like Lith. n amas, Latv.
lìekams), except for when added to i-verbs, in which case it assumes the form -im- (OCS
nosimъ cf. Lith. m limas, Latv. (dial.) mĩlims); athematic verbs also add -omъ.

2 Existing Hypotheses

There exists however, as mentioned in the introduction, an intriguing form attested in

Old Prussian, namely poklausīmanas ‗(being) heard‘,11 containing the suffix -manas. This
form, along with various hypotheses surrounding it, will be examined more closely in this
paragraph.

There have been many attempts to explain the said Old Prussian form.12 According to
some of them, it is an archaic formation which reflects the Proto-Indo-European medio-
passive participle, characterized by the suffix PIE *-mh1no-. Different variants of this
approach will be treated in 3.1. On the other hand, some researchers are inclined to see the
form in question as a new formation, others yet regard the attestation as graphically distorted.
These views will be discussed in 3.2.

2.1 An archaic formation

The traditional interpretation of the Old Prussian material would have it that the suffix
-mana-s of po-klausī-mana-s be considered an archaic formation. This view was probably put
forward first by Bopp (1854, 34) who compared this suffix to Ved. -māna-s and Gr. -μενο-ς,
adding that it corresponded very well to the Ved. medio-passive participle śroṣamā a-s.
Later, in his Vergleichende Grammatik,13 besides poklausīmanas, which he regards as a
―völlig sanskritischer Form (…) wenn nicht etwa das a der ersten Sylbe kurz ist‖, Bopp lists
yet another form of the present passive participle, namely enimumne ‗agreeable‘.14 As for the
shape of the suffix -mn- in the cited word, he states that the lack of the internal vowel
corresponds to such forms as the Latin alumnus, Vertumnus, and Av. barǝmna-. He also
notes that in Old Prussian, besides the accusative form kermnen (from kermen-s ‗body‘), we
find such different spellings as kermenen and kermenan.15 Bopp opposes this alleged present
passive participle enimumne to the prefect passive participle form enimts ‗accepted‘ (both
from enimt ‗accept‘, cf. Lith. paimti). Vondrák (1906, 414) also sees poklausīmanas as a
participle, comparable to that of Greek and Sanskrit, though he opposes it to the East Baltic -
mas and Slavic -mъ which he considers to be of a different origin. The same view is also

11
‗erhört werdend‘, Bopp (1854, 34).
12
Cf. Rinkevičius (2017, 198–199) for a short summary of the prevailing hypotheses.
13
Bopp (1860, 161).
14
Bopp (loc.cit.) ―angenehm eigentlich angenommen werdend‖.
15
Bopp (1860, 161).
shared by Berneker (1896, 230), Trautmann (1910, 258) and Klingenschmitt (1975, 163) who
regard poklausīmanas as an archaic construct corresponding genetically to Ved. -māna- and
Gr. -μενο-.16 Similarly, Endzelīns (1944, 196; 1971, 250) followed by Fraenkel (1950, 34),
Stang17 and Hamp (1973, 49), all connect the Old Prussian ending -manas with Ved. -māna-,
Gr. -μενο-, Av. -mna-, Lith.-Latv. -m(a)s and Slavic *-mo-. I follow Smoczyński‘s critique of
these assumptions18 that ―eine (…) Herleitung von apr. -manas direkt aus *-mh1nos ist
unwahrscheinlich, weil es keine weitere Belege für einen vokalischen Reflex eines Laryngals
in Binnensilben gibt, ein Tatbestand, der auch als eines der Argumente zugunsten einer balt.-
slav. Einheit genannt wird‖. Seeing as it is accepted today that vocalic alternants of the
laryngeals found in inter-consonantal position are reflected in Vedic (as -i-), Greek (the so-
called ―triple representation‖)19, Italic (as -a-)20 and that -māna- of Vedic (and -āna- of
Avestan) is originally the post-vocalic variant (i.e. -Cāna- from earlier -Cmh1no-) of PIE *-
mh1no-, it seems that any hypothesis attempting to connect the OPr. -manas- with the ablaut
of the suffix found in Gr. or Ved. is outdated and falls short of meeting the standards of the
current state of research.
Endzelīns (1944, 195), following Bopp and Trautmann (1910, 258), maintains that the
form poklausīmanas is not an isolated attestation of the present passive participle in Old
Prussian, citing also enimumne ‗acceptable, pleasant, angenehm‘,21 which he regards as a
possible corruption of *enimamne with *-mn- corresponding directly to Av. -mna-; and also
schumeno ‗waxed end‘ and poadamynan ‗sweet milk‘ (from the root *peh3- ‗drink‘ with d-
extension). He thus notes that the suffix -mana- of poklausīmanas might have to be corrected
to -mna-,22 as found in the above-mentioned enimumne, in order to guarantee the correct
analysis. In his Vergleichende Grammatik, Stang (1966, 446) concludes that when dealing
with the Old Prussian ending we have to do with a circumstance where Lith., Latv. (East
Baltic) and Slavic match against Old Prussian (West Baltic). However, such a reconstruction
would cast some serious doubts on the validity of the reconstruction of PBS *-ma- and, if
correct, it would beg reconsideration of the existence of the Baltic proto-language. These
problems will be dealt with in section 5. For my view on the possibilities proposed by
Endzelīns and Stang I refer to section 4.
Brugmann (1904, 316) sees in -mana- of poklausīmanas the same suffix as in the Av. -
mna- and such Lat. formations as the above-mentioned alumnus, f mina, and so on. Similarly,
Rasmussen (1999, 69, fn. 6) states that ―OPr. poklausīmanas is far too flimsy a basis for
assuming a vowel -e/o- between the nasals of the suffix. (…) I would suggest that the OPr.
hapax represents a form of the determinate declension whose first part has been frozen in the

16
Berneker, however, reconstructs the Ved. and Gr. forms as reflecting different ablauts of PIE *-monos,
Trautmann reconstructs *-meno-, *-mono-, *-mno- and *-mo- as different PIE ablaut grades of the medio-
passive participle, while Klingenschmitt derives OPr. -manas directly from PIE *-mh1no- and Balto-Slavic *-
ma- as an n-less variant of the suffix *-mh1no-, namely *-mh1o-.
17
Stang (1942, 207) and later Stang (1966, 446) ―Diese Form stimmt anscheinend mit Ved. -mā as, gr. -menos,
phryg. -menos, toch. A -mā überein, und ich sehe keinen Grund, sie von diesen zu trennen”.
18
Smoczyński (2005, 198 fn 445).
19
I.e. h1, h2, h3 (often also represented as ǝ1, ǝ2, ǝ3) are regularly reflected as e, a, o respectively.
20
Possibly also in other branches, see e.g. Klingenschmitt (1975, 163), Sihler (1995, 101–102), Rasmussen
(1999, 69), Fortson (2004, 255–256).
21
III 9118.
22
Endzelīns (1971, 250).
shape of the acc.sg. (due either to imperfect recording or to morphological restructuring), cf.
pirmonnis (2x) beside pirmois ‗the first‘ after the acc. pirmonnien (f), or pirmannien,
pirmannin (m/n)‖. I agree with Rasmussen‘s statement that the Old Prussian evidence is too
sparse to assume the existence of a specific vowel between the nasals of the suffix -man- as a
reflex of the PIE *-mh1nos. I believe, however, that there is another explanation for the
seemingly fleeting vowel contained in this suffix of the forms cited. I shall return to this
question in section 4.
From the above survey it is clear that, although a number of researchers are inclined to
assume that -manas is a participial suffix, they encounter a serious problem in connecting not
only the alleged Old Prussian -mana- to Lithuanian-Latvian -m(a)- and Slavic -m- and further
to Gr -μενο- but also in accounting for the presence of the o-grade vowel in place of the
laryngeal from the reconstructed PIE ending *-mh1no-.

2.2 Not a participle

In spite of the seeming agreement among researchers to see poklausīmanas as a present
passive participle there are, however, opposing views held by some authors as to whether the
form in question indeed should be regarded as a participle and an archaic formation at that.
According to one such view, presented by Benveniste (1933, 5–7)23 and shared by Havránek
(1928),24 the Old Prussian hapax poklausīmanas is corrupted. He stresses that the attribute in
Old Prussian is normally expressed with N.sg. and that the correct form would be
poklausīman. Thus, what we are dealing with here is a pseudo-participle with the ending -as
incorrectly transferred onto the participle from the subject (stawīdas madlas) due to
congruence, hence poklausīman-as. I, however, agree with Stang (1942, 207) who does not
find this explanation convincing, stating: ―Ich finde es psychologisch wenig wahrscheinlich,
daß der Übersetzer zu einer fertigen und verständlichen Neutralform *poklausīman die
feminine Mehrzahlendung -as gefügt haben sollte, besonders wenn die Kongruenz zwischen
dem Substantiv und dem Attribut unnormal wäre‖.25 The same view is maintained by
Endzelīns (1944, 196) who states that if *poklausīman received the ending -as due to case
agreement with madlas, as Benveniste would have it, then why did the same not happen to the
word enimmewingi?
According to Meillet (1951, 269), the Old Prussian -mana- of po-klausīmanas is not
comparable with the Lith. and Latv. -m(a)s and Slavic *-mo-, in which assumption he agrees
with Stang (see above). This view is also followed by Aitzetmüller (1978/1991, 241)26 who
states that it is unlikely that both Slavic and Baltic *-mo- go back to the zero-grade *-mno-.
Instead, he equates the Balto-Slavic suffix with that of Luv. ki ama- ‗combed‘, a harnumma
‗bloody‘ etc, while, according to him, other languages employ the full-grade suffix *-meno- or
the zero-grade *-mno-.27 He grounds this assumption in the fact that in most cases the original
PIE ablaut was generalized in Slavic with the full-grade not the zero-grade, as in C-st. and the

23
Moreover, in his article, Beveniste concludes that the original shape of the suffix was -mno-, whereas Gr. -
μενο- should be regarded as an innovation formed for ―rhythmic reasons‖ after a consonant.
24
As cited in Fraenkel (1950, 34).
25
Stang (1942, 207). This view is also shared by Hamp (1973, 49).
26
Similarly, Rosenkranz (1955, 130).
27
cf. Av. -mna- in barǝmna-.
nt-participle. Moreover those word-forms with the reconstructable consonant cluster *-mn-
point rather to the phonological development of *-mn- to *-n-, not *-m-. Aitzetmüller also
adds that the presence of the suffix in the Anatolian languages makes the development of *-
mo- from *-mn- even less possible. Instead, the -m- of Slavic (and East Baltic) should be
compared with *-mo- found in e.g. numerals (Lith. pìrmas ‗first‘) or in the superlative (Ved.
upama- ‗highest, supreme‘, Lat. summus) and that perhaps the same element occurs also in
Slavic in a petrified form as the adjectival formant in tamo, kamo, mimo, prěmo.28 As already
discussed above, the full-grade suffix *-meno- and the zero-grade *-mno- are merely different
outcomes of *-mh1no- in different branches, with the former being only found in Greek. The
question of deriving OPr. -mana- and the Balto-Slavic pariticipial suffix *-ma- form the same
PIE *-mh1no-, through an interstage *-mna-, will be taken up in section 5. As for the
assumption that the origin of the participial suffix -m-, found in East Baltic and Slavic, should
be sought in numerals, adjectives or deictics seems rather implausible.
Another hypothesis is proposed by Moszyński (2006, 331) who connects the same -m-
with the PIE *-m- element which originally formed verbal nouns of the type PIE *dhuh2-mos
(from *dheuh2- ‗blow‘)29 as reflected in CS *dymъ, Lat. fūmus, Gr. ϑῡμός. I find it
unconvincing, however, that the present passive participle should be reinterpreted as a verbal
noun, for if any such interpretation should take place, the participle would be rather
reanalyzed as an adjective, not a verbal noun, cf. the material in section 2. Thus, Moszyński‘s
argumentation does not seem compelling.
In his monumental work, Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, Vaillant (1966,
113) states that Old Prussian exhibits only one clear example of the present passive participle
(N. pl. f. stawīdas madlas ast … poklausīmanas) from klausīton (comparable with Lith.
paklaus ti).30 However, he states that it is improbable that Old Prussian would have known a
different form of the participle than that of Lithuanian-Latvian and Slavic, let alone one more
akin to the Gr. type -μενο-. Instead, he supposes that it is possible that -manas is a gerund31
ending in -man, regularly corresponding to Lith. gerunds in -ma, which in Old Prussian texts
became confused with the N.pl. -mas. As an alternative to this assumption, Vaillant proposes
that the form in -manas be viewed as an adjective in -mna from earlier *-mina.32 This is
suggested by the neuter form enimumne (from enimt ‗take up, Lith. paimti‘) which must
reflect *enimamin- (with a > u after the first m and with a rather common loss of i in the
unaccented position). Thus, the participle in -ma- would have been preserved in the form of
an adjective derived from -mina-, as in Sorbian znajomny < znajomy ‗acquaintance (lit.
known)‘, cf. P znajomy, R. znakómyj‘ (id.). This hypothesis, in my opinion, faces a few
problems. Firstly, the suffix *-ina- is only added to past passive participles (in both Baltic and
Slavic), secondly the Sorbian form in -mn- need not necessarily be an archaism.33 Also, there

28
However, it is still declined in Šestodnev, cf. prěmъ, prěmoje, prěmaago. Cf. also Vaillant (1958, 711-712).
29
LIV, 153, fn. 5.
30
Similarly, Mathiassen (2010, 57–58) only limits himself to stating that in poklausīmanas we find the only one
attested example of the present passive participle (N.pl.f.). Cf. Rinkevičius (2015, 212; 2017, 198) who also
identifies poklausīmanas as N.pl.f. and equates it with Lith. paklausomos ‗heard‘.
31
gérondif fixe (loc. cit.)
32
(loc. cit.).
33
The vocalism of znajomny < znajomy also attest to the fact that it is a younger formation, since old Slavic
dialects did not permit back vowels after palatal consonants, the original Old Sorbian form would be *znajemy.
are not any similar formations found in other Slavic languages to my knowledge, thus Sorbian
-mn- is most likely a coalescence of two suffixes -m- (of the present passive participle) and -
n- (of the past passive participle) at the time when present passive participle was coming out
of use, which would also point to a later date of this word‘s formation.
An interesting point of view is presented by Mažiulis (2004, 102)34 who does not
conform to the traditional interpretation but rather maintains that poklausīmanas cannot be a
present participle, for such a reconstruction cannot be supported by internal data of the Baltic
and Slavic languages.35 Instead, he suggests that it be analyzed as an adjective
*paklausīmenās ‗listenable‘ (N.pl.f., with -as from earlier *-ās). He thus assumes a pre-stage
*paklausīmina- with the suffix -in-, later replaced morphologically by *paklausīmena- with
the (phonologically similar) suffix -en-, added to the Old Prussian suffix *-ma-/*-mā- (from
PBS *-ma-/*-mā- which contains the same present passive participle suffix -m- as found in
East Baltic and Slavic). Thus, *paklausīmena- would be an adjectival derivative of the Old
Prussian present passive participle *(pa)klausīma-/*(pa)klausīmā- ‗(now being) listened‘
which, in turn, would be formed from the present stem *(pa)klausī- (from earlier *(pa)klaus -
‗hear‘), cf. inf. klausiton ‗hear‘, 1.pl.pres. klaus mai ‗we hear‘.36 Similarly to Vaillant,
Mažiulis in his Etymological dictionary37 equates *paklausīmina- with enimumne which he
reconstructs as an adverbialized form of the N-A.sg.n. adjective, derived from the N.sg.m.
*en-imaminas ‗pleasant‘or io-stem *en-imaminīs ‗id.‘ also with the suf. *-ina- or *-inia-
added to the present passive participle N.sg.m. *enimamas. This way, both *paklausīmina-
and *enimamina- would have a parallel in dial. Lith. ariam-ìnis ‗ploughable, used
for/in/during ploughing‘38 (which is derived from the present passive participle ria-mas
‗(being) ploughed‘, from árti ‗plough‘). The existence of the attested forms such as klausiton,
klaus mai seem to constitute a good argument in favor of Mažiulis‘ hypothesis. However, it
seems unlikely that, at a time when the present passive participle is seemingly a living
grammatical category, it would add a past passive participle suffix. Another argument against
this assumption would be that the Lith. adjectival suffix -in- is normally added to past passive
participles (as is the case in Slavic, see above), e.g. Lith. priimtinas ‗acceptable‘, OCS
prijętьnъ ‗pleasant‘ (from Lith. prìimtas and OCS prijętъ, both ‗received, accepted‘. Thus,
Mažiulis‘ hypothesis, though appealing, still faces some problems.
An ingenious solution is offered by Smoczyński39 who assumes that the Old Prussian
poklausīmanas is a graphic distortion and should instead be read as *poklausīnamas.40 He
sees it as a form of the present passive participle, derived by the means of the suffix -m-(a)-
from an unattested verb *(pa)klaus-in-a- ‗he is listening‘ (with the suffix -ina added to the
stem),41 further reconstructing the inf. *poklausint or *poklausīt,42 which presumably existed

34
Also, PKEŽ (1996, 310–311).
35
Thus also Ambrazas (1979, 50f).
36
According to Mažiulis (2004, 18–19) the vowel * developed to*ī in stems and suffixes, while the final *-
remained unchanged under stress; unstressed *- > *-ī which then became shortened to *-i. Thus, (in
klaus mai) and ī (in klausiton, poklausīmanas, etc.) are just different positional reflexes of the same Proto-Baltic
vowel * .
37
PKEŽ (1988, 267).
38
Cf. also ariamìnis arklys ‗ploughing horse‘.
39
Smoczyński (2000; 2005, 196–7).
40
Or *[paklausínamas] in Smoczyński‘s transcription.
41
For more details on the present suffix *-inā, see Stang (1966, 361–374).
alongside the attested and synonymous inf. klausi-ton (cf. the abovementioned 1.pl.pres.
klaus mai) and part.pret.act. klausiuns. Smoczyński also proposes that an underlying present-
stem *klausina also be assumed for Lithuanian and Latvian, in view of the fact that there exist
such intensive formations in - - or -ā- as Lith. klausin ti ‗continually inquire, enquire in
detail‘ or Latv. klàusinât, -āju ‗interrogate‘, klàusinât, -āju (syncopated klaūsņât) ‗inquire,
gather information, make enquiries‘. With regard to its formation, Smoczyński states that
*[paklausínamas] can be compared to such passive participles as Lith. vadìnamas ‗named,
mentioned‘ (from vadìnti), sodìnamas ‗good for planting (of weather‘, from sodìnti ‗plant‘),
gesìnamas ‗extinguishable‘ (from gesìnti ‗put out, extinguish‘). According to him, the
attestations enimumne and enwertinnewingi possibly also contain the participial morpheme -
ma-. Smoczyński‘s interpretation, though interesting and offering a fresh perspective on the
old problem, hinges on the assumption of a graphic distortion of the attested form. Moreover,
the assumption that the abovementioned intensive formations in -in - (Lith. type klausin ti)
can prove the existence of the hypothesized *klausin- is inherently flawed. This is due to the
fact that -in - is a very productive iterative suffix that can be added to any verbal stem, cf.
Lith. dar-in ti ‗do, make (repeatedly)‘ (from dar ti ‗do, make‘), kalb-in ti ‗talk, speak
(repeatedly)‘ (from kalb ti ‗talk, speak‘), siuv-in ti ‗embroider‘ (from siūti ‗sew, stitch,
tailor‘), gręž-in ti ‗drill, bore (repeatedly)‘ (from gręžti ‗drill, bore‘), puld-in ti ‗harass,
attack‘ (from pùlti ‗attack, assault‘), važ-in ti ‗drive/ride about‘ (from važ-iúo-ti ‗go, drive,
ride‘), etc. Most of these verbs do not and never did contain forms with the suffix -in-.
Furthermore, Smoczyński argues that from the point of view of the modern research it is
difficult to follow the traditional interpretation in assuming the Old Prussian formant -man- in
poklausīmanas to be the archaic participial suffix because then it would be the only one
attested and then difficult to explain because of its o-grade, not only in connection to Gr. -
μενο- but also, above all, to PBS suffix *-ma-. However, in view of the other forms cited (cf.
enimumne etc.), I am not so convinced that poklausīmanas be the only attested participle,
furthermore I believe that there exists another possible explanation to account for the vowel of
the suffix -man- without having to derive it from the laryngeal nor to assume any scribal
errors as I shall try to show in the following section.

3 New Hypothesis: PIE *-mh1no- > PBS *-mna- > OPr. -mVna- with a
facultative anaptyxis.

In view of the fact that different authors suggested that besides poklausīmanas there
are seemingly a few other forms found in the Old Prussian corpus,43 namely enimumne,

42
Smoczyński (2005, 197 fn. 443) notes also that the Baltic secondary suffixes -in- and -ī- have identical
functions. Thus, the relationship between OPrus. klausin- and klausī- (lit. klaus ti) can be paralleled to such
instances as OPrus. *statint (prei-stattinnimai ‗we present‘, Lith. prist tome’) and Lith. stat ti ‗put, build‘;
wartint ‗turn‘ and *powartīt (powartīsnan ‗penance‘), Lith. vart ti ‗turn (over)‘, Latv. vàrtît ‗roll‘‗;
*pobrandint (pobrentints ‗complain‘) and *pobrandīt (pobrandīsnan ‗ballast‘), Lith. mokìnti neben mókyti
‗learn‘
43
Thus Bopp, Endzelīns, Vaillant, Mažiulis, Smoczyński (with attempts to ―correct‖ poklausīmanas to
poklausīmena-, poklausīmina) as discussed in the previous sections.
schumeno, poadamynan44 and perhaps enwertinnewingi45 which most likely contain the same
suffix, it seems that we find a vowel V in the sequence -mVna- which (graphically) vacillates
between a ~ e ~ i ~ Ø in those words. Further evidence to this observation is produced by
Bopp‘s notice that in Old Prussian, besides the accusative form kermnen (from kermen-s
‗body‘),46 we find such different spellings as kermenen and kermenan (cf. also OPr. emmens
besides emnes ‗name‘). Thus, it appears that it would be most logical to assume that -mana- in
Old Prussian indeed continues the sequence *-mna- (cf. Av. -mna-),47 with a later
development of an anaptyctic vowel (probably schwa-like), as suggested by the
aforementioned formations, perhaps to break the consonant cluster -mn- and to facilitate the
pronunciation48 (perhaps after heavy syllables). It would appear strange, however, that only
Old Prussian preserves the regular reflex of the old PIE form *-mh1no- as largely unchanged
in contradistinction to East Baltic and Slavic languages. But there might be a simple
explanation to this fact.
I would like to posit a hypothesis which takes as its point of departure the statement
put forward by Stang (1966, 445), stating that the suffix *-ma-, characterizing the East Baltic
and Slavic speech area, should be opposed to West Baltic (Old Prussian) which exhibits
another formation. In my opinion, it is conceivable that PIE *-mh1no- yielded PBS *-mna-
which later developed differently in these two above-mentioned language groupings as a
result of a cross-areal development. A parallel might be sought in the development of the so-
called epenthetic ľ in Slavic and Latvian which is unknown to Lithuanian. Below, I will
briefly sketch this problem, whereas the question of how PIE *-mh1no- might have yielded
PBS *-mna- will be dealt with in section 5.
It is a well-established hypothesis that at some point during the prehistory of the Slavic
language, consonant clusters with *i as the second component were eliminated in such a way
that the preceding consonant was palatalized, absorbing *i in the process. However, in the
sequence of a labial consonant + *i, labial consonants did not yield plain palatalized * b v,
but rather the sequence *pľ bľ mľ vľ, with (what is traditionally called) epenthetic ľ.49 Modern
Latvian, similarly to Slavic but contrarily to Lithuanian, also displays ľ from *i (written l) in
the word-initial position after labials, cf. e.g. Latv. bla rs ‗angry, evil‘ and. Lith. bjaurùs
‗ugly‘; Latv. spla t ‗to spit‘ and Lith. spjáuti. Word-medially, however, Latvian consistently
displays j after labials just like Lithuanian.50 The standard view, as presented by Endzelīns
(1923, 121) to which I also adhere, holds that Proto-Latvian *i became *ľ after labials in
every position, just like in Slavic51 as a result of a regular phonological development. The lack
of ľ after labials word-medially is usually explained as the result of a later analogical process
through which it was eliminated.52 I agree with Holzer (2001, 40–43) who attributes the

44
With y for i.
45
From -mn-.
46
Cf. OCS črěvo ‗belly, womb‘, Ved. carman- ‗hide, skin‘, all from PIE *ker-m-.
47
As suggested by Bopp, Brugmann, Endzelīns, Stang, Fraenkel and Rasmussen, see above.
48
A similar development could probably be reconstructed for PS *gardu > dialectal CS *gorǝdъ > *gorodъ in
ESl but *gǝrodъ >*grodъ in WSl.
49
This development can be summarized as follows: Ci > Č, e.g. PS *dauxiā > CS *du a > OCS du a, but Pi >
Pľ, e.g. PS *zemiā > CS *zemľa > OCS zemlja.
50
E.g. Latv. grabju ‗I seize‘ and Lith. gróbiu ‗I plunder‘; Latv. kapju and Lith. kópiu ‗I climb‘.
51
Endzelīns (1923, 121 and 1971, 57).
52
Which also took place in many Slavic languages.
presence of epenthetic ľ in both these language groups to a cross-areal development, common
for both Slavic and Latvian.53 After all, there are other parallels in the history of Balto-Slavic
where we find two different reflexes of the same processes within the same sub-branch, cf. the
development of PIE syllabic sonants * > PBS *iR uR,54 PBS satǝm *ś ź and centum reflexes
*k g of the PIE gutturals *k g gh or the outcome of the PIE word-initial *a- *o- in PBS *e- *a-
.55 One of the latest processes that would point to a cross-areal developments would be the
treatment of consonant clusters *tl dl within Baltic and Slavic languages which yielded kl gl; l
or were retained as tl dl in different areas cross-dialectally and cross-linguistically. Thus, I
believe that the hypothesis of cross-areal development could also be applied to the matter at
hand in order to explain the unexpected two-fold reflex of the PIE suffix *-mh1no- in West
Baltic on the one hand and East Baltic and Slavic on the other. I am thus inclined to
reconstruct, as mentioned above, PBS *-mna- which would later be regularly preserved in
West Baltic whence it developed to OPr. -m(ǝ)na-,56 while the adjacent East Baltic and Proto-
Slavic speech area would undergo a simplification of the consonant cluster *-mn- to *-m-,
yielding *-ma- (the phonological realities of such a development will be discussed in the
following section).
It could well be that this change originated in the (pre-)Proto-Slavic-speaking territory
and consequently spread to speakers of East Baltic, since Slavic is generally known for
possessing a greater inclination towards elimination of consonant groups (cf. law of open
syllables). It is difficult to place this change chronologically, but it would conceivably have
taken place when there was still some strong ties between the ancestors of Lithuanians and
Latvians on the one side and Slavs on the other, while West Balts would have found
themselves outside the zone of influence of this development. Later, the suffix would
regularly develop into the attested forms of Lithuanian-Latvian and Slavic.

4 The origin of Balto-Slavic *-ma-

It is indeed difficult to account for the regularity of the development *-mn- > *-m- in
Baltic and Slavic. There are disagreements as to the exact fate of this consonant cluster given
that according to some *-mn- should be simplified to *-n-, while others see its development as
twofold.
It was probably Brugmann (1904, 316) who first suggested that Balto-Slavic -ma-
could in fact derive from earlier *-mno-, citing Umbr. persni(h)-mu ‗being asked‘.57 He also
argued that PIE *-mn- contained in suffixes was sometimes preserved, sometimes yielded -m-
and rarely yielded -n- listing Gr. νώνσμνος ‗nameless‘, but ἄσπερμος ‗seedless‘ as examples.58

53
Cf. a similar hypothesis, put forward by Andersen (1996), who states that PIE word-initial *a-, *o- is reflected
in modern Baltic and Slavic je-/o- isogloss as a result of a change which operated throughout the Baltic-Slavic
dialect continuum.
54
R represents any sonorant, while any syllabic sonorant (*r l m n).
55
There were attempts to explain these developments as a dialect mixture, culturally motivated borrowings,
different chronological strata, language substrates and cross-areal developments. See Shevelov (1965, 86 ff.),
Arumaa (1964, 133 ff. ), Stang (1966, 77 ff.) and Andersen (1996, 105 ff.) for more details.
56
Where the real pronunciation of -mǝn- was graphically realized as -mn- ~ -man- ~ -myn- ~ -men-.
57
Cf. Untermann (200, 541–542) ‗precamino‘ (3.sg.imp.II.), perhaps from *prk-sk-mh1n-.
58
Brugmann (1904, 111).
This view is followed by Meillet (1951, 269) who further points to Osc. censamur59 as
possibly containing the suffix *-mn-. He further argues that one could assume that for some
reason the development of *-mn- was different and yielded *-m- rather than the expected *-n-,
due to its function as a grammatical marker. This hypothesis, however, has very much ad hoc
flavor to it and, as such, is in need of a great deal of substantiation.
In his presentation, Shevelov (1964, 323–324) puts together a survey of forms with the
reconstructable cluster *-mn- and examines their reflexes in Slavic. It appears that if *-mn-
was preceded by *ī i i ū u u or a consonant,60 the resulting consonant was n,61 however after
*e it was *m and, as it seems, *e became lengthened.62 Despite this, Shevelov states that the
results are inconclusive. Endzelīns (1971, 67) states that the sequence *-mn- sometimes
develops to -m- and sometimes to -n- in different Indo-European languages under unclear
conditions. Vaillant (1966, 114) sees PBS *-ma- as isolated and assumes that it cannot be
anything else than an alternation of *-mno- attested in Avestan.
Vondrák (1924, 416–417),63 on the other hand, sees it that those few examples, which
are not very certain, seem to point to a development *-mn- > -n- in Slavic with the loss of m.64
He cites R grjánutь (from gremétь ‗thunder‘, cf. Lat. aggredior), OCS těnь as deriving from
*temni-s and the abovementioned OCS tьnǫ. On this basis, he opposes Old Prussian
poklausīmanas, considering it to be of a different origin, to East Baltic and Slavic, stating that
it cannot be assumed that the present passive participle suffix -mъ of Slavic and -mas of East
Baltic be derived from *-meno- or *-mno-, since here -mn- would rather yield -n-. However,
of the three words cited by Vondrák, it seems that only the last one has a secure etymology
with a reconstructable *-mn- cluster,65 namely OCS tьnǫ. He notes, however, that the cluster
*-nm- produces -m- as in OCS imę (from earlier *inmen < *nmen), the aforementioned OPr.
emmens (also spelled emnes), Gr. ὄνομα, all from PIE *h3nh3men.
Brugmann‘s view is shared by Rasmussen (1999, 69, fn. 6) who also deems it highly
possible that the Proto-Balto-Slavic participle in *-ma- derives from PIE *-mh1no- through
the intermediate stages of *-mǝno- > *-mna-, cf. -m- from -nm- in Lith. žym ‗sign‘ from
*źīnmiā (cf. pažìnti ‗know, recognize‘) and the aforementioned OCS imę. A very similar
development is hypothesized by whose view is shared by Smoczyński (2005, 198) who
admits that the Balto-Slavic suffix might have developed from the inherited *-mh1no- through
assimilation, i.e. *-mna- > *-mma- and finally, through degemination, to *-ma-.66 According
to him, such a phonological development could be supposed on the basis of Lith. priem

59
Cf. Untermann (2000, 382–383) ‗censemino‘ (3.sg.imp.pres.pass.).
60
Cf. also Lat. spūma in de Vaan (2008, 583).
61
E.g. PIE *tmh1-n-o > PBS *timnōˀ > Lith. tinù, OCS tьnǫ, Gr. τέμνω ‗cut‘, cf. LIV, 625.
62
E.g. OCS těmę < PIE *tem-h1-n- (?).
63
Followed by Aitzetmüller (1978/1991, 241).
64
Thus also Smoczyński (2005, 198 fn. 446).
65
Seeing as R grjánutь is probably rather etymologically connected to grjadú ‗tread‘ (Vasmer 1986, 468) and
OCS těnь most likely is a transformation of *sěnь on the basis of *tьma ‗darkness‘, *tьmьnъ ‗dark‘ (see
Derksen 2008, 492).
66
This development is also assumed by Forssman (2001, 225).
‗Vorhaus, Vorzimmer‘67 and OLith. akmemis ‗with stones‘,68 Matasović (2008, 295) too
reconstructs PBS *-ma- from *-mno- as being derived from PIE *-mh1no-.
From the above survey it seems that the original cluster *-nm- yields -m-, while it
would appear that *-mn- should give -n- in both Baltic and Slavic. Let us summarize the
outcomes of the abovementioned forms:

PIE *h3nh3men > *nmen > *inmen > *immen > OCS imę
PIE *h2ékmnbhi(H)s → *akmenmīs69 > *akmemmīs > OLith. akmemis
PIE *gn-néh3- > *źin- → *žīn-m- 70 > *žīmm > Lith. žym , Latv. zìme;
but:
PIE *tmh1-n-o > *timnōˀ > *tinnōˀ(?) > Lith. tinù, OCS tьnǫ.

It seems, however, unsafe to draw conclusions as for the development of *-mn- > *-n- based
on one secure reconstruction, while I find it conceivable and, indeed, possible that the original
PIE suffix *-mh1no- yielded *-mna- and then, perhaps through the intermediate stage of
metathesis *-nma-, was assimilated to *-mma-, which would then regularly become simplified
to *-ma-. As for the relative chronology of these processes, it seems plausible to assume that,
while Baltic languages preserved the original cluster *-mna-, the abovementioned
simplifications originated in the Slavic speaking territory and later spread to the neighboring
Baltic dialects. Alternatively, one could assume that the whole development of the cluster *-
mna- > *-ma- took place in East Baltic and Proto-Slavic dialect-continuum and never reached
the West Baltic dialects. Given the history of the interplay of phonological and morphological
changes between Baltic and Slavic languages, the second possibility seems the most plausible.
I am thus inclined to derive PBS *-ma- from PIE *-mh1no- in the following manner
(presented schematically):

 PIE *-mh1no- > PBS *-mna- >

o WBalt. *-mna- >
 OPr. -mǝna- anaptyxis [graphically -mn- ~ -man- ~ -myn- ~ -men-];
o EBalt. and PS *-mna- > (*-nma- metathesis) > *-mma- assimilation > *-ma- degemination >
 Lith.-Latv. -m(a)-;
 CS -m-.

Perhaps the following argumentation71 provides further evidence for the validity of the
proposed hypothesis. Seeing as poklausīmanas represents the N.pl.f. form, we may attempt to

67
Which he derives from priemn , from earlier priemen ; however, it could as well be be a borrowing from R
priëmnaja (kómnata) ‗reception‘, formed from the verbal noun priëm ‗reception‘ to prinjáť ‗receive‘, cf. also
Fraenkel (1962, 653).
68
Instr.pl., from earlier *akmen-mis.
69
The original PIE paradigm seems to have been N.sg. h2ékmons > h2ékmō(n), A.sg. h2ékmónm, G.sg. h2ékmnés,
L.sg. h2ékmén-i, cf. Wodtko (2008, 291).
70
Seeing as degemination does not produce compensatory lengthening in Lithuanian, the long ī in žym could be
explained as a secondarily lengthened zero-grade, cf. Fraenkel (1965, 139), Smoczyński (2007, 785) and
Derksen (2015, 519).
reconstruct the development of the N.sg.m. from Proto-Balto-Slavic to Old Prussian. Thus,
PBS *(pa)klausīmnas, reflected as such in WBalt. *paklausīmnas undergoes syncope of
syllable-final short vowels in Old Prussian at which time an anaptyctic vowel is inserted in
order to prevent the rise of an impossible consonant cluster **mns, yielding *paklausīmǝns;72
this form would have probably been spelled *poklausīmans, had it been attested. Now, it is
possible to envisage that N.pl.f. form of WBalt. *paklausimnās (with *-ās regularly reflecting
the PIE ending *-ah2as) developed into *paklausīmǝnās, with morphologically motivated
secondary anaptyxis, modeled on those cases with the similar internal structure as the N.sg.m.
This form came down to us as the attested poklausīmanas. Furthermore, if we take under
consideration that in Old Prussian the N.sg.m. ending of the part.pres.act. was -ins, -ants, of
the part.pret.act. -uns, of the part.pret.pass. -Vts, it is conceivable that if the ending of
part.pret.act. was *-mn(a)s, it might have felt ―out of place‖ structurally,73 which further
facilitated the trend towards the vowel insertion in *-mǝns. In terms of relative chronology,
this would indicate that the anaptyxis was later than the loss of syllable-final *a in Old
Prussian.
Thus, the traditional view that OPr. -mana- indeed is a regular reflex of an earlier *-mna-,
as proposed by Bopp, Berneker and Trautmann can be combined with the view that, as such,
it is different from the East Baltic and Slavic suffix *-ma-, as assumed by Vondrák,
Klingenschmitt, Endzelīns, Stang, Fraenkel and Meillet, while ultimately deriving West Baltic
*-mna- as well as East Baltic and Slavic *-ma- from PBS *-mna-. Furthermore, the PBS
suffix *-mna- can thus be regarded as having regularly developed from PIE *-mh1no-, as
advocated by Brugmann and Rasmussen as well as Smoczyński who entertained such a
possibility.

5 Conclusion

Although the supposition that the attested Old Prussian form poklausīmanas is indeed
graphically distorted cannot be ruled out completely, in view of the analyzed material, it
seems that the possibility of a regular phonological development of the suffix -man- from
Proto-Balto-Slavic *-mn- and ultimately PIE *-mh1n- seems just as plausible. Such a
hypothesis is, to my mind, at the same time the most economic one as it simultaneously
accounts for the East Baltic and Slavic reflexes of the said PIE morpheme. Thus, I believe it
apparently reasonable to assume that PIE suffix *-mh1n- in fact yielded PBS *-mn- and then,
due to cross-areal developments that took place in East Baltic and Slavic dialect continuum
after the break of Proto-Balto-Slavic speech community, eventually yielded *-m- in these
dialects, save for West Baltic which did not participate in these processes. This would be
suggested by those Old Prussian attestations which contain the suffix -mVna- with a different
or no vowel between the two nasals which fact points to the conclusion that this suffix indeed

71
The following line of reasoning was inspired by valuable comments and suggestions of Thomas Olander (pers.
comm., 2017).
72
With ǝ perhaps pronounced as either a, e or i, depending on the phonological environment.
73
Since the above-noted endings have the structure -Vn/t-s.
 reflects the inherited sequence *-mna- with a secondarily inserted, possibly schwa-like,
anaptyctic vowel.
On the final note I would like to point to the matter that, while the reconstruction of a
period of at least a very close co-existence, if not indeed a common Balto-Slavic language
stage, is more than warranted, the supposition of a Proto-Baltic language might be less so
given the differences between the attested East and West Baltic data.74

References

Aitzetmüller, Rudolf. 1978. Altbulgarische Grammatik als Einführung in die slavische

Sprachwissenschaft (Monumenta Linguae Slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et dissertationes
12). Freiburg i. Br.: Weiher. (2., verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage (Monumenta Linguae
Slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et dissertationes 30), 1991.)
Ambrazas, Vytautas. 1979. Lietuvių kalbos dalyvių istorin sintaks . Vilnius: Mokslas.
Andersen, Henning. 1996. Reconstructing prehistorical dialects: Initial vowels in Slavic and
Baltic (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 91). Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Arumaa, Peter. 1964. Urslavische Grammatik, I: Einleitung: Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Winter.
Benveniste, mile. 1933. Le participe indo-europ en en -mno-. In Bulletin de la Société de
linguistique de Paris. 34. 5-21.
Berneker, Erich. 1896. Die preussische Sprache. Texte, Grammatik, etymologisches Wörterbuch.
Strassburg: Trübner.
Bopp, Franz. 1854. ber die sprache der alten Preussen in ihren verwandtschaftlichen
beziehungen. Berlin: Dümmler.
————. 1860. Vergleichende grammatik des sanskrit, send, armenischen, griechischen,
lateinischen, litthauischen, altslavischen, gothischen und deutschen. Dritter Band. Berlin:
Dümmler.
Brugmann, Karl. 1904. Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen.
Strassburg: Trübner.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2008. Etymological dictionary of Latin and other Italic Languages (Leiden
Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 7). Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Derksen, Rick. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon (Leiden Indo-
European Etymological Dictionary Series 4). Leiden & Boston: Brill.
————. 2015. Etymological dictionary of the Baltic inherited lexicon (Leiden Indo-European
Etymological Dictionary Series 13). Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Endzelīns, J nis. 1923. Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.
————. 1931. Was ist im altpreussischen aus ide o. (und a) Geworden? In Studi Baltici 4.
Roma

74
Fraenkel (1950, 26–50) offers an extensive survey of differences between Old Prussian on the one hand and
Lithuanian-Latvian and Slavic on the other. In the light of many of those differences, it has been suggested that
while one may speak of a Proto-Slavic language, there was no unified Proto-Baltic, but rather a conglomerate
of loosely connected isoglosses. This view is propagated by Fraenkel (1950, 75), Stang (1966, 13), Andersen
(1996, 187) and Matasović (2008, 57); cf. Villanueva Svensson 2014 for an opposite view. See also Derksen
(2008, 20), Kortlandt (2009, 5) and Olander (2015, 25) for more discussion regarding this problem.
————. 1944. Altpreussische Grammatik. German translation of Endzelīns 1943. Riga: Latvju
Gr mata.
————. 1971. Comparative phonology and morphology of the Baltic languages. English
translation of Endzelīns 1948 by William R. Schmalstieg & Benjamiņš Jēgers. (Slavistic
Printings and Reprintings 85). The Hague & Paris: Mouton.
Forssman, Berthold. 2001. Lettische Grammatik (Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft,
Beih. 20). Dettelbach: Röll.
Fortson, Benjamin W., IV. 2004. Indo-European language and culture: An introduction
(Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 19). Malden (MA) & Oxford: Blackwell.
Fraenkel, Ernst. 1950. Die Baltischen Sprachen. Ihre Beziehungen zu einander und zu den
indogermanischen Schwesteridiomen als Einführung in die baltische Sprachwissenschaft.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
————. 1962. Litauisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Vol. 1. Heidelberg: Carl Winter
Universitätsverlag.
————. 1965. Litauisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Vol. 2. Heidelberg: Carl Winter
Universitätsverlag.
Hamp, Eric. 1973, On Baltic, Luwian and Albanian participles in *-m-, Baltistica, vol. 9(1), (45–
50).
Havránek, Bohuslav. 1928. Genera verbi v slovansk ch jazycích. Vol. 1-2. Praha: Kr. Česká
spol. nauk.
Holzer, Georg. 2001. Zur Lautgeschichte des baltisch-slavischen Areals. Wiener slavistisches
Jahrbuch 47. 33–50.
Klingenschmitt, Gert. 1975. Tocharisch und Urindogermanisch. In Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion
und Wortbildung: Akten des Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Regensburg,
9.-14. September 1973, 148–63.Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Kortlandt, Frederik. 2009. Baltica & Balto-Slavica (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 16).
Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.
LIV = Rix, Helmut, Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, Brigitte Schirmer (eds.).
1998. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben 2., erw. und verb. Aufl. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
(2., erw. und verb. Aufl., 2001.)
Matasović, Ranko. 2008. Poredbenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika. Zagreb: Matica
hrvatska.
Mathiassen, Terje. 2010. Old Prussian. Oslo: Novus Press.
Mažiulis, Vytautas. 2004. Prūsų kalbos istorin gramatika. English translation from Lithuanian
and comments by Dr. Letas Palmaitis. http://donelaitis.vdu.lt/prussian/mazgr.pdf
Meillet, Antoine. 1928. Les noms du type tc čun. ÉArm 8, 1-6.
————. 1951. Общеславянский язык. Russian translation of Meillet 1934 by P. S. Kuznecov.
Moscow.
Moszyński, Leszek. 2006. Wstęp do filologii słowiańskiej. Warszawa.
Olander, Thomas. 2015. Proto-Slavic Inflectional Morphology. Brill‘s Studies in Indo-European
Language and Linguistics (Vol. 14): Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Olsen, Birgit Anette. 1999. The noun in Biblical Armenian. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and
Monographs 119). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Otrębski, Jan. 1956. Gramatyka języka litewskiego (Tom III, Nauka o formach). Warszawa:
Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe.
Palmaitis, Mykolas Letas. 2007. Old Prussian Written Monuments: Text and Comments. Kaunas:
Lithuanians‘ World Center for Advancement of Culture, Science and Education.
PKEŽ = Mažiulis, Vytautas. 1988. Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas. Vol. 1 A-H. Vilnius:
Mokslas ir enciklopedijų leidykla.
————. 1996. Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas. Vol. 3 L-P. Vilnius: Mokslas ir
enciklopedijų leidykla.
Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård. 1999. Selected papers on the Indo-European linguistics: With a
section on comparative Eskimo linguistics (Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European, 1).
Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum
Rinkevičius, Vytautas. 2015, Prūsistikos pagrindai. Vilniaus, vilniaus universiteto Filologijos
fakulteto taryba.
————. 2017, Altpreußisch: Geschichte. Dialekte. Grammatik. Translation from Lithuanian.
Hamburg: Baar.
Rosenkranz, Bernhard. 1955. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Altbulgarischen.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Shevelov, George Y. 1964. A prehistory of Slavic. The historical phonology of Common Slavic.
Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Sihler, Andrew L. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. NewYork (NY) &
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smoczyński, Wojciech. 2000. Die altpreussischen Partizipialformen poklausimanas und
enimumne. Linguistica Baltica 8, 181–187.
————. 2005. Lexikon der altpreussischen Verben. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und
Literaturen der Universität Innsburck.
————. 2007. Słownik Etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Wilno: Uniwersytet Wileński,
Wydział Filologiczny.
Stang, Christian Schweigaard. 1942. Das slavische und baltische Verbum. (Skrifter utgitt av Det
Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. 2. Hist.-filos. kl., 1). Oslo: I kommisjon hos J. Dybwad.
————. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo, Bergen & Tromsö:
Universitetsforlaget.
Trautmann, Reinhold. 1910. Die altpreussischen Sprachdenkmäler. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Untermann, Jürgen. 2000. Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Vaillant, Andr . 1958. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. 2. Morphologie, 1-2
(Collection ―Les Langues du Monde‖. S rie Grammaire, Philologie, Litt rature 11). Lyon and
Paris: IAC.
————. 1966. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Vol. 3. Le Verbe. Paris.
Vasmer, Max. 1986. Этимологический словарь русского языка. Перевод с немецкого и
дополнениея члена-корреспондента АН СССР О. Н. Трубачева. Том I (А-Д). Москва:
Прогресс. Russian translation of Vasmer 1950–58. Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch
by O. N. Trubachev. Moscow: Progress.
Villanueva Svensson, M. 2014, On the relationship between West Baltic and East Baltic, in T.
Civjan, M. Zavjalova, A. Judžentis (eds.), Baltai ir slavai: dvasinių kultūrų sankirtos. Vilnius:
Versmė, (162–176).
Vondrák, Václav. 1906. Vergleichende slavische Grammatik. Vol. 1. Lautlehre und
Stammbildungslehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. (Zweite stark vermehrte und
verbesserte Auflauge, 1924.)
————. 1908. Vergleichende slavische Grammatik. Vol. 2. Formenlehre und Syntax.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. (Zweite Auflauge, neubearbeitet von Dr. O.
Grünenthal, 1928.)
Wodtko, Dagmar. S., Britta Irslinger, Carolin Schneider. 2008. Nomina im Indogermanischen
Lexikon. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag.