DICTIONARY OF REVIVED PRUSSIAN:

E.g. the word for ‘dream’ has not been attested (one has only the word for
‘sleep’, i.e. maiggun III 101). Nevertheless, one finds Common-Indoeuropean sapnis
in Latvian, sapnas in Lithuanian (< East-Baltic *svapna-), súnú < *supno- in Slavic.
This shows that the words of the same root had to exist in Prussian too. In this
concrete case one must even reconstruct a more archaic form, than in East Baltic
Lithuanian and Latvian, i.e. *supnas, having in mind the data of Slavic, for which
Proto-Baltic may be regarded as a proto-language according to Vl. Toporov and V.
Maþiulis. The Slavic form in its turn corresponds to Greek hypnos < *supnos, as
well as to Latin somnus < *swepnos / swopnos, Sanskrit svapna- etc. from the IE
root *swep- / sup-. On these grounds, one cannot doubt that there existed archaic
*supnas in O.Prussian. Basing only on both East Baltic languages is insufficient.
Basing on only 1 East Baltic language is undesirable because the chance of error is
even greater.
5. Recovering the attested and lost parts of Prussian
A complete recovery of the language includes recovering the part that is attested in
old texts and the part that has been lost.
The attested part is recovered by means of the sequential treatment of spelling.
Vytautas Maþiulis significantly contributed to this field with his transliterated and
annotated edition of the Old Prussian texts 4 , as well as by his Etymological Dictionary 5 .
First and foremost, the researcher must take into consideration peculiarities of
forms of Gothic letters of corresponding epochs. Thus the correction of ‘t’ to ‘c’ or of
‘c’ to ‘t’ cannot be even regarded as a correction because the both letters are often
confused and differ slightly from the other. This enabled V.Maþiulis to solve the
“mystery” of the Prussian word ‘forehead’, which had been unanimously read as
batto E 77, but usually corrected to *ballo, by almost all linguists. In fact, the form
of the lowercase ‘b’ is similar to that of capital ‘C’ (most of the words in the Elbing
vocabulary begin with capital letters) while ‘tt’ may be read ‘ct’ without any discussion.
As a result the normal Baltic word Cacto [kaktô] appears which is equal to Lithuanian
kakta ‘forehead’ 6 .
4 Maþiulis V. Prûsø kalbos paminklai II. Vilnius: Mokslas 1981 (further PKP).
5 Maþiulis V. Prûsø kalbos etimologijos þodynas. Vilnius: Mokslas, Vol. 1–4, 1988–1998
(further PEÞ).
6 Ibid., Vol. 1 A–H, p. 134–135.
9