Кажеш да си лаик, а изјављујеш болдовано. А наш највећи палеолингвидта свих времена Милан Будимир изражава сумњу у постојање балтословенске заједнице, речима"ако је та заједница икада и постојала".
Очигледно лингвиси су и данс подељени и нису у стању да дају модел око кога ће се сложити.
Зато птедлажем да се вратимо питању које сам поставио, а које би требало бити суштинско због чега се палеолингвистика уопште и проучава.
Шта да схватим када ништа ниси рекао.
Одговори на питање.
И невероватно како те није блам да се уопште јавиш. Зар ниси, као лаик, исмево закључке врхунских научника? Покриј се по ушима.
Покшвате да квазинауку и романтичарске ставове да прикажете као науку, а онда се пред аргументима повлачите спуштајући причу на лични ниво.
Да више не губим време. Још један рад о генетици Словена.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0054360
Iran i Indija mtDNA
http://ijb.nigeb.ac.ir/index.php/ijb/article/viewFile/746/319
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516768/
Вратио бих се кратко, ако није проблем, на ово.
[Carlos Quiles; Fernando López-Menchero, A Grammar of Modern Indo European;Тhird edition, 2012]
http://indo-european.info/a-grammar-of-modern-indo-european-third-edition.pdf
The most ancient recognisably Slavic hydronyms are to be found in northern and western Ukraine and southern Belarus. It has also been noted that Proto-Slavic seemingly lacked a maritime vocabulary. The Proto-Slavic language secession from a common Proto-Balto-Slavic is estimated on archaeological and glottochronological criteria to have occurred between 1500-1000 BC (see below Baltic). Common Slavic is usually reconstructible to around AD 600. (...)
Baltic and Slavic share so many similarities that many linguists, following the lead of such notable Indo-Europeanists as August Schleicher and Oswald Szemerényi, take these to indicate that the two groups separated from a common ancestor, the Proto-Balto-Slavic language, dated ca. 1500-500 BC, depending on the different guesstimates. (...)
Szemerényi in his 1957 re-examination of Meillet’s results concludes that the Balts and Slavs did, in fact, share a “period of common language and life”, and were probably separated due to the incursion of Germanic tribes along the Vistula and the Dnieper roughly at the beginning of the Common Era. A new theory was proposed in the 1960s by V. Ivanov and V. Toporov: that the Balto-Slavic proto-language split from the start into West Baltic, East Baltic and Proto-Slavic. In their framework, Proto-Slavic is a peripheral and innovative Balto-Slavic dialect which suddenly expanded, due to a conjunction of historical circumstances. Onomastic evidence shows that Baltic languages were once spoken in much wider territory than the one they cover today, and were later replaced by Slavic.
NOTE. The most important of these common Balto-Slavic isoglosses are:
o Winter’s law: lengthening of a short vowel before a voiced plosive, usually in a closed syllable.
o Identical reflexes of LIE syllabic resonants, usually developing i and u before them.
Kuryłowicz thought that *uR reflexes arose after LIE velars, and also notable is also
older opinion of J.Endzelīns and *R. Trautmann according to whom *uR reflexes are
the result of zero-grade of morphemes that had LIE *o → PBSl. *a in normal-grade.
Matasović (2008) proposes following internal rules after LIE *r → BSl. *ər: 1) *ə→*i
in a final syllable; 2) *ə→*u after velars and before nasals; 3) *ə→*i otherwise.
o Hirt’s law: retraction of LIE accent to the preceding syllable closed by a laryngeal.
o Rise of the Balto-Slavic acute before LIE laryngeals in a closed syllable.
o Replacement of LIE genitive singular of thematic nouns with ablative.
o Formation of past tense in *-ē (cf. Lith. pret. dãvė, “he gave”, O.C.S. imperfect bě, “he was”)
o Generalisation of the LIE neuter to- stem to the nominative singular of masculine and
feminine demonstratives instead of LIE so- pronoun, so, sā, tod → BSl. *tos, *tā, *tod.
o Formation of definite adjectives with a construction of adjective and relative pronoun;
cf. Lith. geràsis, “the good”, vs. gẽras, “good”; O.C.S dobrъjь, “the good”, vs. dobrъ, “good”.
Common Balto-Slavic innovations include several other prominent, but non-exclusive isoglosses, such as the satemisation, Ruki, change of LIE *o → BSl. *a (shared with Germanic, Indo-Iranian and Anatolian) and the loss of labialisation in LIE labiovelars (shared with Indo-Iranian, Armenian and Tocharian). Among Balto-Slavic archaisms notable is the retention of traces of an older LIE pitch accent. ‘Ruki’ is the term for a sound law which is followed especially in BSl. and Aryan dialects. The name of the term comes from the sounds which cause the phonetic change, i.e. LIE *s → š / r, u, k, i (it associates with a Slavic word which means ‘hands’ or ‘arms’). A sibilant *s is retracted to *ʃ after *i, *u,* r, and after velars (i.e. *k which may have developed from earlier *k, *g, *gh). Due to the character of the retraction, it was probably an apical sibilant (as in Spanish), rather than the dorsal of English. The first phase (*s → *š) seems to be universal, the later retroflexion (in Sanskrit and probably in Proto-Slavic as well) is due to levelling of the sibilant system, and so is the third phase - the retraction to velar *x in Slavic and also in some Middle Indian languages, with parallels in e.g. Spanish. This rule was first formulated for IE by Holger Pedersen. Baltic and Slavic show a remarkable amount of correspondence in vocabulary too; there are at least 100 words exclusive to BSl., either being a common innovation or sharing the same semantic development from a PIE root; as, BSl. *lēipā, “tilia” → Lith. líepa, O.Prus. līpa, Ltv. liẽpa; Sla. *lipa; BSl. *rankā, “hand” → Lith. rankà, O.Prus. rānkan, Ltv. rùoka; Sla. *rǭkà (cf. O.C.S. rǫka). BSl. *galwā , “head” → Lith. galvà, O.Prus. galwo, Ltv. galva; Sla. *golvà (cf. O.C.S. glava).
