2,334
edits
Carpathian language: Difference between revisions
m
→Early contacts
m (→Consonants) |
m (→Early contacts) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
Several linguists throughout the late 20th century noted the presence of so called "Carpathian [[w:Stratum_(linguistics)#Substratum|substratum]]" – an unidentified, likely non-Indo-European language formerly spoken in the Carpathians. Because there are irregularities in Carpathian substrate words, they might have been borrowed from distinct, but closely related languages. In the west, the substrate languages probably had an š-type sibilant which corresponds to an s-type sibilant in the east. The speakers of the Proto-Carpathian language arrived in the region around 2500 BCE and fully assimilated the local [[w:Paleo-European languages|Paleo-European]] population by the middle of 1st millennium BCE. The detailed reconstruction of this language (or languages) is impossible. Some of the borrowed words have cognates in all dialects of Carpathian, and semantically the substrate consists primarily of basic geographic and botanical terminology as well as toponymy, they are better preserved in dialectal vocabulary of the Carpathian Highlands. Some aspects of the Carpathian phonology, such as pleophony and consonant gemination, and grammar (absence of the passive voice, polypersonal agreement of verbs) are associated with the substrate. | Several linguists throughout the late 20th century noted the presence of so called "Carpathian [[w:Stratum_(linguistics)#Substratum|substratum]]" – an unidentified, likely non-Indo-European language formerly spoken in the Carpathians. Because there are irregularities in Carpathian substrate words, they might have been borrowed from distinct, but closely related languages. In the west, the substrate languages probably had an š-type sibilant which corresponds to an s-type sibilant in the east. The speakers of the Proto-Carpathian language arrived in the region around 2500 BCE and fully assimilated the local [[w:Paleo-European languages|Paleo-European]] population by the middle of 1st millennium BCE. The detailed reconstruction of this language (or languages) is impossible. Some of the borrowed words have cognates in all dialects of Carpathian, and semantically the substrate consists primarily of basic geographic and botanical terminology as well as toponymy, they are better preserved in dialectal vocabulary of the Carpathian Highlands. Some aspects of the Carpathian phonology, such as pleophony and consonant gemination, and grammar (absence of the passive voice, polypersonal agreement of verbs) are associated with the substrate. | ||
The hypothesis that Carpathian is the closest living relative to the Paleo-Balkan languages originated in 1944, based on the number of proposed lexical cognates being greater than that of between Dacian and any other Indo-European subfamily. The other more recent proposal is Carpathian being a divergent Baltic language, it found the most support in Lithuania; the proposal also includes the Paleo-Balkan languages as a closely related subbranch. Noting that Dacian-speaking peoples inhabited the Carpathian region till the fifth century CE, providing a substratum of abstract, geographical and biological terms such as ''ramùs'' “peaceful” ( ← Dac. ''*ramus''), ''kòpa/kàpa'' “mountain slope” ( ← Dac. ''*kapas''), ''kérbā'' “swamp” ( ← Dac. *kerba), ''burùklā'' “cranberry” ( ← Dac. ''*brukla'') or ''tī́ras “blank, desolate” ( ← Dac. ''*tiras''). Other linguists have rejected the Dacian origins for many of these words and instead suggest native Carpathian etymologies, however some words, such as ''dìtas'' “bright” cannot be explained otherwise – PIE *dih₂tís “brightness” would have resulted in ''**dī́tas''. | The hypothesis that Carpathian is the closest living relative to the Paleo-Balkan languages originated in 1944, based on the number of proposed lexical cognates being greater than that of between Dacian and any other Indo-European subfamily. The other more recent proposal is Carpathian being a divergent Baltic language, it found the most support in Lithuania; the proposal also includes the Paleo-Balkan languages as a closely related subbranch. Noting that Dacian-speaking peoples inhabited the Carpathian region till the fifth century CE, providing a substratum of abstract, geographical and biological terms such as ''ramùs'' “peaceful” ( ← Dac. ''*ramus''), ''kòpa/kàpa'' “mountain slope” ( ← Dac. ''*kapas''), ''kérbā'' “swamp” ( ← Dac. *kerba), ''burùklā'' “cranberry” ( ← Dac. ''*brukla'') or ''tī́ras'' “blank, desolate” ( ← Dac. ''*tiras''). Other linguists have rejected the Dacian origins for many of these words and instead suggest native Carpathian etymologies, however some words, such as ''dìtas'' “bright” cannot be explained otherwise – PIE ''*dih₂tís'' “brightness” would have resulted in ''**dī́tas''. | ||
===Shared features with Balto-Slavic=== | ===Shared features with Balto-Slavic=== | ||
The evidence points out to a long-term proximity between Carpathian and Balto-Slavic, and the two branches share several linguistic traits not found in any other Indo-European branch, which suggests a common ancestor. Carpathian and Balto-Slavic share many close phonological, lexical, morphosyntactic and accentological similarities, and some scholars accept the division into three branches — Carpathic, Baltic and Slavic — as the default assumption, even though such a division faces many issues. | The evidence points out to a long-term proximity between Carpathian and Balto-Slavic, and the two branches share several linguistic traits not found in any other Indo-European branch, which suggests a common ancestor. Carpathian and Balto-Slavic share many close phonological, lexical, morphosyntactic and accentological similarities, and some scholars accept the division into three branches — Carpathic, Baltic and Slavic — as the default assumption, even though such a division faces many issues. | ||