DICTIONARY OF REVIVED PRUSSIAN:

13.7. Use of German vernacularisms
When no evidence for any etymological recovery may be found, vernacularisms of
former East and West Prussia may be transposed into Prussian since the Prussians
could not but know and use them in any case. I have in mind not only words such as
EPr. Lith. Plicipçds ‘bicycle’ // > NPr. welsipçds, or such slang words as Kaluse
‘prison’ > NPr. kalûza (l is palatal) or Geseires (from Yiddish) ‘jabber, nonsense’ >
NPr. gezçiras, but also even some native words.
These are words which really existed in Prussian but cannot be recovered. The
German East- and West-Prussian vernacularism Aust ‘harvest’ < August was
widespread so that the Ideal Prussians had to use it, while speaking German, and
therefore spontaneously used it as a Germanism in their own speech > NPr. `usts.
13.8. Artificial constructing and pseudo-sources
If a word should have existed and is very important, but there is neither an evidence
for its recovery, nor any widespread German vernacularism of East and West Prussia
that may be used, one may try to create a West Baltic word on the basis of comparison
and analogy. This is the single circumstance when one can take risk to create a
Baltic word artificially.
The word for ‘attention’, ‘Achtung’, ‘uwaga’, ‘dëmesys’, ‘uzmanîba’ is extremely
necessary. Each language has its own word to render this meaning. For the Prussian
correspondence, I have used typological comparison, taking into consideration the
root compound ‘to put’ in the Lithuanian neologism dë-mesys, as well as the root
compound ‘over’ in Latvian uz-manîba, German Auf-merksamkeit. As a result, I
obtained a NPr. nôda with the same compounds nô ‘over’ + -d ‘put’ (for the root *d(ç)
cf. NPr. dîtun reconstructed on the basis of OPr. audei`nsts, senditans III and Lith.
dëti, Slavic dçtü). This new word nôda may be explained as ‘smth. what is additionally
put, put over usual seeing’, i.e. ‘attention’ as well as ‘remark’ (curiously reminiscent
of Latin nota). I think the Prussians had the same right to neologisms as any other
nation (cf. Lithuanian neologism dëmesys).
An instance of artficial creation of a source is the adjective debs ‘great’, made
from debîks ‘big’ according to Lithuanian pair didis ‘great’ vs. didelis ‘big’ (V. Maþiulis
derives Pr. Cat. debîcan from the noun Pr. *deb- “bigness” 18 ) . Probably there was no
differentiation between ‘great’ and ‘big’ in O.Prussian with all probability. Such a
dichotomy is needed for a modern life only.
18 PEÞ, Vol. 1, p. 184.
22