Mario Alinei kaže ovako:
To fully appreciate the value of this analsis, however, it is necessary to recall the
extraordinary and well-known stability of the LBK culture (the first Neolithic culture of
Germany) and the importance of the role of fallowing in the earliest Neolithic cultures.
Tringham, for example, has remarked that if the LBK had not used the rotating fallow
technique for its new settlements, these would certainly have determined the formation
of tells, exactly like in the Balkans. The emblematic example is the site of Bylany in
Bohemia, one of the most important Neolithic stations of Europa, with its 21 phases of
habitation (Tringham 1971, 115).
Other examples
(1) ‘barley’: Russ. jačmén’, Ukr. jačmín’, Bulg. ečmík, Serb. Cr. ječmen, Slovn. Czech
ječmen, Slovk. jačmeň, Pol. jęczmień, Sorb. jacm'eń, Polab. jąčmén. This is an
exclusively Slavic name, which some scholars connect to Gr. akostē;
(2) ‘flour, meal’: Russ. mélevo, mélivo, Ukr. mélyvo, BRu. mélivo, Serb. Cr. meljivo,
Slovn. melîvo, Czech melivo. The affinity of this lexical family with Germanic,
represented by Germ. mehl, and with Illyrian, represented by Alb. miell, permits the
dating of this isogloss to the period of the earliest Balkanic Neolithic and of its diffusion
in Germany;
(3) ‘rye’: OSlav. rŭžĭ, Serb. Cr. raž, Czech rež, Pol. reż, Russ. rož; Lith. rugiai, Latv.
rudzi, Pruss. rugis; OIcel. rugr, Dan. rug, Swed. råg, OEngl. ryge, MEngl. Engl. rye,
Neth. rog, OS. roggo, OHG. rocko, roggo, Germ. Roggen. As this word is considered a
loanword from an unknown language (Buck 8.45), in the scenario of PCT we could see
it as a loanword introduced by the oriental farmers, which the earliest Slavic Neolithic
cultures would have spread into the Germanic area of the LBK. Archaeological research
has noted the presence of a “fairly large number of rye grains [...] in several
settelements of the Linear Pottery” (Wisłański 1970, 426);
(4) ‘threshing flail’: Russ. cép, Ukr. cip, Bulg. Czech Slovk. cep, Pol. Sorb. cepy (pl.),
Polab. cepoi (pl.). Slavic agricultural specialization of an earlier IE technical term (cp.
Lat. scopa, scāpus, scamnus, Gr. skípōn, Goth. skip etc.);
(5) ‘billy-goat’: the family of Russ. Ukr. Czech dial. Slovk. Pol. cap, Slovn. càp,
attested also in Hung czáp, Rum. ţap, and in It. dialects (Latium zappo), probably
derives deriva from Illyrian (Alb. geg. tsap: Meyer 1891, 387, cp. Vasmer s.v.).
Irrespective of what its ultimate origin might be, this word clearly reflects the early
Neolithic unity of the Balkans, due to the introduction here of the first wave of Middle-
Eastern farmers;
(6) ‘wool, hair of an animal’: Russ. šerst’ ‘wool’ (dial. also ‘goose feathers’), Ukr.
šerst’, Slovn. Czech srst ‘hair of an animal’, Slovk. srst’, Pol. sierść. The relationship of
this family with other IE words having a different meaning (cp. IEW) implies a Slavic
Neolithic specialization;
(7) ‘dog, puppy’: Bulg. kuče ‘dog’, Serb. Cr. kuča, kuče, Slovn. kúč\k, Pol. kuczuk, Ukr.
kot’uha, Slovk. kot’uha, all ‘dog’, dial. Russ. kutya ‘doggy, puppy’, attested also in Alb.
kutš ‘dog’, as well as in Hung. kutya, Vog. kūt’uw, Syr. kićan, Est. kutsikas; Osm.
kuçukuçu, and in Italian dialects (Tosc. kuča, Umbr. guccia, kucciatella, kucciala,
kucciola, kucciarella, March. kucciola kucciavella, all ‘puppy’ etc.). Probably another
Neolithic loanword introduced in Eastern and Southern Europe with farming.
(8) ‘cheese’: OSlav. syrŭ, Russ, Ukr. BRu. Slovk. syr, Bulg. sírene, Serb. Cr. sir, Slovn.
sìr, Czech sýr, Pol. ser, Sorb. sera. Attested also in Baltic (Lith. sūris ‘cheese’, Latv.
sūrs ‘salty, bitter, sour’), this word appears to be a Neolithic specialization of an IE
adjective that in Germanic means ‘sour’: OIcel. súrr ‘acido’, OHG. sûr, Germ. sauer,
Neth. zuur etc. (Vasmer). Its passage to milk products is attested also in Alb. hirrë
‘whey’ (ibidem) and probably also in Lat. serum (which would then be a Slavic
loanword);
(9) ‘loom’: Russ. Ukr. krósno, OSlav. krosno ‘liciatorium’, Bulg. krosnó, Serb. Cr. Pol.
USorb. krosna, Slovn. krósna, Czech krosna ‘support’, Slovk. krosná ‘loom’. This word
family, connected to a typical Neolitic technology, is exclusively Slavic, as the Baltic
cognate words mean ‘chair’ (Vasmer s.v.);
(10) ‘wall’: Proto-Slavic develops the name of this notion from that of ‘stone’ (cp.
Germ. Stein, Engl. stone): Russ. stená, Ukr. stiná, Bulg. stená, Serb. Cr. stijèna, Slovn.
sténa, Czech stěna, Slovk. stena, Pol. ściana, Sorb. sćěna;
(11) ‘wooden plow, made out of a forked branch’: Russ. sochá, to be compared to Ukr.
BRu. Bulg. sochá, Serb. Cr. sòha, Slovn. sóha, Czech Slovk. Pol. Sorb. socha, all
‘pole’, or ‘forked branch’ and the like (Vasmer s.v.). It is certainly connected with the
invention of the plow in Middle Neolithic;
(12) ‘cup’: irrespective of its origin, which is obscure, the Slavic family of Russ. čáša
‘dish, goblet, glass (čaška ‘cup’), Ukr. BRu. čáša ‘cup’, OSlav. čaša ‘glass’, Bulg. čáša
‘idem’, Slovn. čáša ‘idem’, Serb. Cr. čaša ‘idem’, Czech číše, Slovk. čaša, Pol. czasza,
Polab. cosó can only reflect the beginning of pottery typical of Neolithic. In the light of
our knowledge on the introduction of Neolithic from Middle East, a connection with an
Eastern language (cp. Ar. ṭāsa ‘cup’ > It. tazza, fr. tasse, Germ. Tasse etc. ‘idem’)
would be quite plausibile;
(13) ORuss. selo ‘village, field’, Russ. seló, Bulg. séló ‘village’, Serb. Cr. sélo ‘village’,
Slovn. sélo ‘locality’, OSlav. selo ‘dwelling, field’, Czech selo ‘village, field’, Pol. sioło
‘village’; Lith. salà ‘village’, Latv. sola ‘idem’; OIcel. salr ‘dwelling, large room’,
Swed. Dan. Norw. sal ‘hall, large room’, Goth. saliþwōs, ‘dwelling, OHG. sal
‘construction, hall’, Long. sala ‘large room’, Germ. Saal etc. ‘idem’. We have here first
a Slavic innovation, connected with the development of the first Neolithic villages (cp.
the relationship between ‘field’ and ‘village’, and note that the innovation is still close
to the original meaning kept by Lat. solum ‘soil’); then a later Germanic innovation,
connected to the LBK culture and to its typical long rectangular houses (‘large room,
hall’);
(14) ‘peasant’s house’: Russ. Ukr. izbá (dim. istopka), OSlav. istŭba, Bulg. Serb. Cr.
ízba, Slovn. îzba, jspa ‘Stube’, jspica ‘room’, Czech jisba ‘Stube, room’, Slovk. Pol.
izba, Sorb. špa, Polab. jázba. In the traditional scenario the controversy between an
origin from Germ. Stube or from Lat. *exstufa (Slavic scholarship seems to ignore that
the derivation of Germ. Stube from Lat. *exstufa is unquestionable), because both
etymologies involve considerable difficulties (cp. Vasmer s.v.). In the light of the PCT
the problem can be solved by refusing both of them, and accepting as a real etymology
– instead – what has been wrongly considered a folk-etymology: the diminutive istopka
(attested in the form istobka in the Nestorian Chronicle, cp. Vasmer) can certainly come
from *iz-topiti ‘to warm up’, Ukr. topýti, Serb. Cr. tòpiti, Slovn. topíti, Czech topiti,
Slovk. topit’, Pol. topić, Sorb. topiś (Vasmer s.v. topít’). In any case, for a Neolithic
term a geochronological sequence such as Latin > Germanic > Slavic could not be
reconciled with the real prehistoric development. While a Slavic innovation, based on
IE materials (the above mentioned verb has connections in Old Indian, Iranian and
Baltic (Vasmer), is perfectly plausible;
(15) ‘funerary mound’: Russ. mogíla, Ukr. mohyła, Church Sl. mogyla, Bulg. mogíla,
Serb. Cr. gòmila, mògila, Czech Slovk. mohyla, Pol. mogiła, Polab. müǵåla ‘tomb’, to
which must be added Alb. mágule, and the Rum. loanword măgură (Vasmer s.v.). Term
of unknown origin (but possible Slavic origin) which, as we have seen, is also used
locally as a place name to designate the prehistoric tells of the Neolithic settlements of
the area.
(16) I would place here also OSlav. tysešti, tysošti, Pol. tysiąc, Czech tisíc, Serb. Cr.
tisuća, Slovn. tisoč; Lith. tūkstantis, Latv. tūkstuots; Goth. þusundi, OIcel. þúsund,
OHG. thūsund etc., all ‘thousand’. Irrespective of the word origin, only the new
Neolithic economy, with the high numbers associated to stock raising and to the storage
of farming products, could have produced the need to develop such a notion (see also
Alinei 1996).