DICTIONARY OF REVIVED PRUSSIAN:

III, fem. Antr` Maddla III, neutr. pronom., adj., subst. stae neuwenen Testamenten
II), Number (cf. sg. pron. (adj.), subst. twais malnijks III, pl. adj., subst. tickrai
malnijkai III, sg. pron., verb. as madli III, pl. Mes madlimai III), Case (cf. nom.
(sg.) num., subst. ains Waix III, dat. (pl.) pron., subst. Steimans Waikammans III),
Degree of Comparison (cf. positive adj. Vrs, adv. arwiskai III, comp. adj.
vraisins, superl. adv. ucka isarwiskai III), Person (cf. 3 pers. pron., verb. [k`igi]
t`ns [...] giwa, 2 pers. sg. pron., verb. tou [...kuilgimai] giwassi, 1 pers. pl. pron.,
verb. mes [...] giwammai III), Tense (cf. praes. verb. pers. d`st, praet. dai III, fut.
d`ts wirst), Voice (cf. act. prowela(din) I, II, pass. prawilts post`i III), Mood (cf.
ind. ast, opt. seisei, boûsei III, conj. boûlai III, imp. seîti III, relat. praes. astits,
poquoitçts III, praet. ymmits I, lymuczt II). The category of the relative mood
(presented also in Lithuanian and in Latvian) has been postulated by myself after
analyzing the usage of the forms in -ts and shortcomings in their traditional
explanations 11 . Reflexivity is not regarded to be a morphological category.
Nevertheless, it is worth to mention that in Old Prussian the same types of the reflexives
are attested as in Lithuanian, even the transitive reflexives (cf. Erains mukinsusin
[mukinsei sin] swaian mukinsnan ‘Let everybody learn own lesson’ III). As for
Aspect, no grammatical means to express perfectivity / imperfectivity are apparent,
nevertheless there are means (the verbal prefixes and the vowel gradation) which are
consistently used to differentiate terminativity, iterativity, continuity etc.
Scholars who have gone the way of “Lithuanizing” Prussian material do not
want to acknowledge the evidence for four cases in Old Prussian. To them this
seems to be a result of spoiling the language “by the Germans” who (this might be
Abel Will only) purported to translated Luther’s Enchiridion literally (although there
are sufficiently instances of deviation of the translated text from the German original).
The kernel of the discussion is always two instances of the “instrumental” case: the
phrase sen wissans swaieis ‘with all his (people)’ III (as if with the Lithuanian ending
instr. pl. masc. -ais) and a pronominal form 1 pers. dat. m`im (2x), maim (1x) (a
dash over the letter ‘a’ is interpreted as a sign of the omitted ‘n’ (Lith. instr. manim).
As for swaieis, with all probability this is a simple misprint for the usual spelling
acc. swaiens. As for the form m`im, it is highly improbable that the omission of the
latter ‘n’, a typical paper-saving device in manuscripts, occurred in this printed text
even 3 times in the same word. The reconstruction of the stem man- is excluded
because of the well attested stem dat. mennei (9x) having the archaic -e- in Prussian
11 Cf. Baltistica 25 (1989), 2, 126–133.
14