DICTIONARY OF REVIVED PRUSSIAN:
DICTIONARY OF REVIVED PRUSSIAN: DICTIONARY OF REVIVED PRUSSIAN:
communicate even in the street or in the kitchen today. One needs at least 9000 words for simple everyday communication, 30000 words for an average modern communication, 40000 words for a good communication in various modern spheres, much more for a rich modern language. The boundary of 30000 words seems to be ideal to serve needs of various groups of Baltic Prussians dispersed in various parts of the modern world. Unfortunately, today even the boundary of 10000 words has not been overpassed yet. Many necessary words cannot be retrieved from the attested material. These words must be created according to several strict principles that are accepted by all participants of the experiment. The easiest way would be volitional creation of words according to simple procedures as in Esperanto (e.g. to take Lithuanian and Latvian roots and adapt them to the rules of the Prussian word derivation). However one should try to preserve maximum authenticity. This may be achieved by discovering ways in which concrete unknown words really did appear or must have appeared at all stages of Prussian up to the present day. The said ways may be found by analyzing attested material according to methods of historical comparative linguistics. Going this way, one may be sure that among the total number of recovered words there will be inevitable coincidences with facts that really existed but now have been lost, something that is excluded when Lithuanian and Latvian roots are artificially used. Only when the said way appears to be impossible, one can Prussianize Lithuanian and Latvian words, except in cases where there are compelling reasons to use international terms or local vernacularisms. Therefore, the recovery of Prussian combines the historical comparative method with features of interlinguistics. In addition to using inner reconstruction as part of traditional research, the recoverer of Prussian also uses complementary reconstruction, or complementary explication (see further, Section 5). Even the descriptive identification of phonemes appears necessary at the initial stage when one decodes which Old Prussian dialect to use as basis for the standard New Prussian language. 3. Transposition of all attested material onto one common level The language attested in historical documents reflects different Old Prussian dialects. The dialect of the Elbing Vocabulary is assumed to be Pomezanian. The Catechisms come from Samland, the 3 rd Catechism having been translated in Pobethen. Presence of o (*/ô/) in the Elbing Vocabulary versus -a < -*`, ` /`/ in the Catechisms is the main feature that distinguishes these dialects, cf. Towis E vs. T`ws III ‘father’. 7
The distinctive feature of the 1 st Catechism is the long e (*/ç/), which is absent in the other Catechisms but present in the Elbing Vocabulary, cf. Swetan E, swetan I vs. swytan II, swîtan III ‘world’. Of course, there are other dialectal and sub-dialectal differences in attested texts (cf. the difference in the inflection of the nom. sg. masc. Towis E vs. T`ws III). New Prussian as a language for all modern Prussians must be standardized on the basis of one of the attested old dialects. The language is best represented in the 3 rd Catechism, which is a translation of Martin Luther’s Enchiridion. Therefore, the dialect of the 3 rd Catechism has been chosen as the literary norm, according to which all other attested material is phonetically and morphologically transposed. Thus, in accordance with the pair Towis E vs. T`ws III with (t`ws) as a norm, a literary word r`ks ‘crawfish’ appears from the attested rokis E 584. Nevertheless, recent investigations cast doubt as to whether the language of the 3 rd Catechism is authentically Prussian. It seems probable that it was a kind of Prussianized Yatvingian spoken by descendants of 1,600 Soudovians, who had been resettled in northwest Samland by the Teutonic Order after conquering Soudovia. In this case one should take into consideration the coinciding phonetic system of Samlandian geographic names in their German spelling and of Pomezanian Elbing Vocabulary. The latter system (with its long ô instead of long ` of the Catechisms) appears to be really Prussian, with attendant morphonologic implications 2 . In this case the created norm may be revised (it should not be revised provided the future Prussian Center is set up in Samland, where the said Yatvingian dialect prevailed). 4. Prussian complemented by Slavic, Lithuanian and Latvian Prussian is being recovered as a West-Baltic language, keeping in mind that its system had developed in the same peripheral area of the parent linguistic community of related dialects, in which Proto-Slavic dialects originated in their turn (the concept of Vladimir Toporov – Vytautas Maþiulis) 3 . Therefore the law is: if some inherited Indoeuropean feature has been attested in Lithuanian, Latvian and in Slavic, it may be reconstructed in Prussian too. 2 Cf. Palmaitis L. Grammatical Incompatibility of 2 Main Prussian “Dialects” as Implication of Different Phonological Systems. / Colloquium Pruthenicum 2001, pp. 63–67; also: http:// donelaitis.vdu.lt/prussian/Diallang.pdf. 3 Cf. Maþiulis V. Baltø ir kitø indoeuropieèiø kalbø santykiai. Vilnius, Mintis 1970 (further BS), p. 319–322. 8
- Page 1 and 2: PRVSSOLOGIA KLOSSIANA: LINGVA BORVS
- Page 3 and 4: © Letas Palmaitis Institut Europƒ
- Page 5 and 6: PREFACE This work is only a little
- Page 7: have absorbed all influences during
- Page 11 and 12: Next, one must have in mind that th
- Page 13 and 14: common Baltic-Slavic level, but wit
- Page 15 and 16: III, fem. Antr` Maddla III, neutr.
- Page 17 and 18: occasionally appeared due to contam
- Page 19 and 20: ‘and what more he has done agains
- Page 21 and 22: are also indisputable Prussicisms t
- Page 23 and 24: 13.7. Use of German vernacularisms
- Page 25 and 26: As urban culture spread, terms for
- Page 27 and 28: In fact, the word grijkans is a dir
- Page 29 and 30: GRAMMATICAL ABBREVIATIONS ac active
- Page 31 and 32: 16 f : subba subses subsei subban s
- Page 33 and 34: 27 f : weselîngi weselîngis wesel
- Page 35 and 36: 40 m : kûgis kûges kûìu kûgin
- Page 37 and 38: 69 n : îmtan îmtas imtasmu îmtan
- Page 39 and 40: 106: smeîtwei ps smejja pt smîja/
- Page 41 and 42: 139: krikstîtun/îtwei ps krikstij
- Page 43 and 44: vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft de
- Page 45 and 46: 44 Prûsiskan alfabçtan A a ~ ` B
- Page 47 and 48: AFRIKÎNINI [Afrikîns drv] Africa
- Page 49 and 50: ALGENÎKS [Dein`algenikamans 95 dr
- Page 51 and 52: APST~KTAN n [Abstotten E 395] lid
- Page 53 and 54: ASTÔNDESIMTS [Astônei MK] eighty
- Page 55 and 56: AÛKTAN [Aucktimmien 91 VM] height
- Page 57 and 58: AUSTEBTWEI [Stebtwei drv] to be am
The distinctive feature of the 1 st Catechism is the long e (*/ç/), which is absent<br />
in the other Catechisms but present in the Elbing Vocabulary, cf. Swetan E, swetan I<br />
vs. swytan II, swîtan III ‘world’.<br />
Of course, there are other dialectal and sub-dialectal differences in attested<br />
texts (cf. the difference in the inflection of the nom. sg. masc. Towis E vs. T`ws III).<br />
New Prussian as a language for all modern Prussians must be standardized on the<br />
basis of one of the attested old dialects. The language is best represented in the 3 rd<br />
Catechism, which is a translation of Martin Luther’s Enchiridion. Therefore, the<br />
dialect of the 3 rd Catechism has been chosen as the literary norm, according to which<br />
all other attested material is phonetically and morphologically transposed. Thus, in<br />
accordance with the pair Towis E vs. T`ws III with (t`ws) as a norm, a literary word<br />
r`ks ‘crawfish’ appears from the attested rokis E 584.<br />
Nevertheless, recent investigations cast doubt as to whether the language of the<br />
3 rd Catechism is authentically Prussian. It seems probable that it was a kind of<br />
Prussianized Yatvingian spoken by descendants of 1,600 Soudovians, who had been<br />
resettled in northwest Samland by the Teutonic Order after conquering Soudovia. In<br />
this case one should take into consideration the coinciding phonetic system of<br />
Samlandian geographic names in their German spelling and of Pomezanian Elbing<br />
Vocabulary. The latter system (with its long ô instead of long ` of the Catechisms)<br />
appears to be really Prussian, with attendant morphonologic implications 2 . In this<br />
case the created norm may be revised (it should not be revised provided the future<br />
Prussian Center is set up in Samland, where the said Yatvingian dialect prevailed).<br />
4. Prussian complemented by Slavic, Lithuanian and Latvian<br />
Prussian is being recovered as a West-Baltic language, keeping in mind that its<br />
system had developed in the same peripheral area of the parent linguistic community<br />
of related dialects, in which Proto-Slavic dialects originated in their turn (the concept<br />
of Vladimir Toporov – Vytautas Maþiulis) 3 .<br />
Therefore the law is: if some inherited Indoeuropean feature has been attested<br />
in Lithuanian, Latvian and in Slavic, it may be reconstructed in Prussian too.<br />
2 Cf. Palmaitis L. Grammatical Incompatibility of 2 Main Prussian “Dialects” as Implication<br />
of Different Phonological Systems. / Colloquium Pruthenicum 2001, pp. 63–67; also: http://<br />
donelaitis.vdu.lt/prussian/Diallang.pdf.<br />
3 Cf. Maþiulis V. Baltø ir kitø indoeuropieèiø kalbø santykiai. Vilnius, Mintis 1970 (further<br />
BS), p. 319–322.<br />
8
Change language