DICTIONARY OF REVIVED PRUSSIAN:

coincidence with the Common-Baltic inflection is occasional: a euphonic a-stem
nom. sg. -us occurs after the labial consonants even in Pomezanian, cf. kalmus, i.e.
*kalm u s ‘stub’ (instead of E *kalmis < Balt. kelmas), its genitive being kalmas, of
course. More trivial cases of euphonic epenthesis are attested in Samlandian, e.g.
nom. sg. Cat. (tick)ars = (tik)ars = NPr. (tikk)ars instead of *(tik)rs < *(tik)r V s /
*(tik) V rs < Balt. *(tik)ras, the genitive being (tik)ras, of course. All these peculiarities
are reflected in New Prussian.
As a result, -Tls > -Tlas, -Trs > -Tars, -Cms > -Cmus, but i-stem -Cms > -Cmis,
-CTs > -CTas, -cs > -cis, -sks > -skas, i-stem -VRsts > -VRstis, C meaning any
consonant, T meaning an explosive consonant, R – a resonat or vowel, V - a vowel.
11. A paradox
In Prussian, as in Latvian, the voiceless sibilant s became palatalized into ð before j
followed by a, o, u (cf. E schuwikis = *ðuvik i s, Latv. ðût vs. Lith. siuvikas ‘sewer’,
siûti ‘to sew’ < Balt. *sju-/*sjû-). This means that the voiced sibilant z in Prussian, in
turn, had to be palatalized into þ (cf. Latv. nom. sg. f. dzeguze ‘cuckoo’ but gen. pl.
dzeguþu < *geguzjôn). No instances of Pr. þ < *zj have been attested. On the contrary,
Cat. 3 sg. praes. lîse ‘crowl(s)’ = *lîz’a < *lîzja is a sample of usual positional
palatalization (the difference a : e neutralized after a palatalized consonant), i.e. *zja
> z’a, not *zja > þa. May the Prussians have had an intermediate hissing-hushing
voiceless–voiced pair ƒs, ƒz ? For a German ear the first sounded like sch [ð], however
the latter was comprehended similarly to German s before vowels, i.e. [z].
12. The influence of German on Prussian syntax
In the field of syntax, one distinguishes between typologically known influence of
German, discovered in attested texts, and the influence that induced internal Baltic
development.
Although the influence of German is evident, the attested material does not
support the popular view that the Old Prussian texts are only a slavish literal translation
of the German original.
Keeping in mind that the translation (as well as, possibly, the Prussian language
of the 16 th c. itself) was strongly influenced by German, one should acknowledge
that the number of deviations from the German original is impressive. Cf. e.g.
Stwendau wirst pergubons vs. Vondannen er kommen wird II ‘from there he will
come’, bhe ka tans toûls prîkan Deiwas pallaipsans bhe swaian bousennien ast
seggîuns vs. Vnd was er mer wider die gebot Gottes vnd seinen Standt gethan III
17