DICTIONARY OF REVIVED PRUSSIAN:

In fact, the word grijkans is a direct object determined in a regular Baltic manner
by a non-agreed genitive attribute stesse g`ntsas swîtas. The word swîtas, in turn, is
determined by the attribute g`ntsas, agreed with it in the same genitive case.
Therefore, the construction with the Baltic sequence of determination o stesse g`ntsan
swîtan grijkans ast pûdauns is nonsense and really impossible, but not because “the
construction genitive + accusative + accusative was not authentic in Prussian”. If
one reshapes the construction in another manner (ast pûdauns grijkans stesse g`ntsas
swîtas), so that the sequence of the determination is not Baltic, then the use of the
forms in -an appears really possible (ast pûdauns grijkans stesse g`ntsan swîtan),
but not indispensable.
Why was it possible? Because instances, where the arthroid was indispensable,
actually existed.
The cited instance is not the instance the authors had to discuss. The use of the
arthroid is really indispensable in cases when the forms of the accusative singular
and genitive plural coincide (en / prei etwerpsennien stçison grijkan). On the other
hand, there was no “construction genitive + accusative + accusative” in Prussian at
all, because the forms of the genitive case in -an were not any “accusatives”.
This “case” is named “general” (casus generalis) only on the basis of the form.
Syntactically, one has either genitive (of the arthroid) + genitive (ending in -an) or
dative (of the arthroid) + dative (ending in -an(s)).
My explanation may seem to be complicated only to persons who do not want
to perceive character of Samlandian linguistic thinking. Any confusion would have
been impossible if the authors had desired to think in Prussian by experimenting with
concrete phrases.
The “final solution” of the problem of arthroid in Old Prussian Catechisms as
means of differentiating cases (I am not referring to real mistakes of translating the
German articles literally) is merely one of the positive results of the experiment to
revive Prussian. In this sense, the experiment undoubtedly has heuristic value. Many
texts in Prussian have been created during 20 years of the experiment. These texts,
in turn, help to correct earlier mistakes and contribute to constant improvement of
New Prussian. Thus Prussian communities receive their authentic language as an
important means of self-identification.
26
Mikkels Klussis