No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Germanic-Balto-Slavic Etyma
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2026
Extract
It is a little over a hundred years (1837) since K. Zeuss first considered the possibility of a closer linguistic relationship between Germanic and Slavic. He gave the name ‘Slovenic’ to the language of the Slavs (or of the Wends, who according to him were ‘one people with the Slavs'), and maintained that the linguistic relationship which existed between that language and Germanic was no less close than that between Greek and Latin: ‘Not only have the two languages certain roots in common which are not found elsewhere; they also evince similarities in root adaptation, especially in flexion, as with none other.' From these facts he then draws the inference that ‘in the dim era into which not a ray of history penetrates’ the respective peoples, the bearers of the languages, 'regardless of whether their particular relationships of contiguity have been continued or not, have been in closer association with one another than others in whose case a more divergent tendency is noted in the unfolding of the foundation common to them.’ He likewise was of the opinion that 'at the other end . . . Slavic together with its Aistic or Baltic sister tongue’ is closely related to Indic.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Language , Volume 17 , Issue 1-Part2: Language Dissertation No. 32: Germanic-Balto-Slavic Etyma, January-March , March 1941 , pp. 5 - 63
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1941 Linguistic Society of America
References
1 K. Zeuss, Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme, 1837.
2 Zeuss 18.
3 Zeuss 19–20.
4 Zeuss 20.
5 P. Diels, RLV 12.273 ft.; S. Feist, Language 8.245–54.
6 J. Grimm, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache1 1086;2 715.
7 A. Schleicher, Beiträge zur vgl. Sprachforschung, 1.12 ff., 107 ff.
8 J. Schmidt, Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen 44 (1872).
9 A. Leskien, Die Deklination im Slavisch-Litauischen und Germanischen (1876), Einleitung.
10 Verw. A 29.
11 Walde-Pokorny, 416*. Stender-Petersen, Slavische Lehnwortstudien, 190, believes Sl. ljudŭ to have been borrowed from Germanic, and adduces to this end a variety of morphological and semasiological factors. Yet he concedes that ‘its borrowing cannot be strictly proved by means of the genetic analysis of the sounds involved’. For our purpose, on the other hand, it suffices that he does not question Lett. l'audis or Sl. ljudije and accepts Trautmann's *leudei̭es.
12 Verw. B 44.
13 Verw. A 2. A. Senn, Germanische Lehnwortstudien, 47.
14 Falk-Torp, 1234.
15 G. Curtius, Zur Chronologie der idg. Sprachformen, Abhandlungen der sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaft 223 (1870).
16 R. Hassencamp, Über den Zusammenhang des Lettoslavischen und Germanischen Sprachstammes, Preisschrift 30 der Fürstl. Jablonowski Gesellschaft; 1876.
17 Hassencamp 62.
18 Die Deklination; cf. footnote 9 above.
19 Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse, etc.; cf. footnote 8 above.
20 Zur Frage nach den Verwandtschaftsverhältnissen der idg. Sprachen, Internationale Zeitschrift für allgemeine Sprachwissensehaft 1.247, 252 (1884).
21 O. Schrader, Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte 166.
22 Schrader, Sprachvergl. 167.
23 Schrader, Sprachvergl. 168.
24 Schrader, Sprachvergl. 174.
25 Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache, chapter 4; 1896.
26 P. Kretschmer 98, 100.
27 Grundriss1 320 (1891); 2 360–61 (1904).
28 PBB 23.331 ff.
29 Stender-Petersen 87 ff.; cf. footnote 11 above.
30 Page 54.
31 For details concerning the dominance of the Goths and the periods of borrowing resulting from that, cf. Stender-Petersen, who repeatedly refers to it in his book.
32 Archiv für slawische Philologie 15.481 ff.
33 Etymologie der neuhochdeutschen Sprache 108–10; 1921.
34 Beiträge zur idg. Wortforschung 556 ff.; 1912.
35 Beiträge 609.
36 This statement runs counter to the view of the root proposed and elaborated by Benveniste in his Origines de la Formation des Noms en Indoeuropéen (1935). Without going, at this point, into an analysis of Benveniste's attractive theory, I merely want to say that the present dissertation had been completed in 1934, a year before the publication of Benveniste's work, and that, therefore, such terms as base, stem, determinative, suffix are used in the meanings which were generally accepted then. It may also be of interest to note that Professor Prokosch, with whom this dissertation was written, adheres to the traditional terminology in his Comparative Germanic Grammar (1938).
37 Walde, Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Einführung iv (1910).
38 Indogermanische Grammatik, 1.314.
39 Stender-Petersen 61.
40 A. Brückner, AslP 42.125–47; cf. footnote 32 above.
41 Germanisches Sprachgut im Slavischen und Baltischen 154-57.
42 Hirt, IG 3.183 f., 226 f.; cf. footnote 38 above.
43 Brückner, KZ 46.219, Die Lituslavische Spracheinheit.
44 IG 1.238 ff.
45 IG 3.82; Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar 141, 305 (note 51).
46 Here again as in footnote 36 I want to call attention to the practically reversed use of the terms ‘suffix’ and ‘determinative’ or ‘extension’ by Benveniste.
47 Abbreviations of names of authors and works often repeated are listed separately in the Bibliography.
48 In case NHG Ulme ('slippery tree') is added here, Latin and Celtic words will have to be included in the etymon: Kluge, Etym. 640. Walde, on the other hand, objects to this etymology (W 152) and derives the NHG word from the base *el- 'fire-red, yellow'; he also argues against the probability of borrowing from Latin by calling attention to three separate grades of ablaut in which that word occurs in Germanic.
49 Trautmann 341. A. Brückner, AslP 42.127.
50 Brückner; cf. footnote 49 above.
51 Vondrák, Slavische Grammatik 1.617.
52 Feist and Kluge claim -t instead of -dh because of ON olla; Germanic would then have to be kept apart from Balto-Slavic. Such distinct allocation of these words is, however, not called for, as ON olla is rather to be understood as a weak preterit terminating in -to- of the type Go. kunþα: *u̯aldh-to-m.
53 It is quite likely that *u̯ebh- is an extension of the simpler base *au- (a u̯e-) : u̯e-‘downward, away from’: OIr. uali ‘restless’, Lat. vescus ‘voracious’, in a manner analogous to *u̯ebh- ‘to weave, etc.’ derived from *au- 'to weave, twine'.
54 Shift of ablaut in contradistinction to root-form *u̯ang-, which Walde (W 212) derives from *u̯a- ‘apart; to bend apart’.
55 The examples from Lettic belong in this context if we do not deal here with an ancient s- as in the case of Latin sībilāre: W 363.
56 Lat. cumulus (W 371) I derive from *qem- ‘to curve, bend’ and ascribe it to the basic *qom-o-lo-s, analogously to Lat. cumera ‘place for storing the grain’ conceived as *qom-e-r-a (W349).
57 Quite possibly to be ultimately derived from the base *qeu- : q(e) u̯e-ĝ-, in the same manner as Scr. kúpyati ‘begins to undulate, is angered’, kōpáyati ‘affects deeply, angers’ belong to *q(e) u̯e-p- (W 379).
58 Other examples to be found in Trautmann 133.
59 Walde (W 416) neatly separates this category of meaning from that of ‘hoarfrost, to freeze’.
60 With others (cf. W 485) I prefer the basic meaning ‘web’ because it is historically the more probable.
61 AslP 16.422 adduces examples which are quite different from those listed here. W 530 strongly doubts the correctness of assuming a root-form which both begins and ends in an unaspirated media.
62 The appropriateness of this etymon is contingent upon the separation of ‘to unite, fit’ from ‘to clasp, hold together’.
63 If not o-grade to *gel- 'to clench, round, shape like a sphere, etc.': Lit. gliumas 'smooth, slippery'.
64 Could just as plausibly be derived from *gō(u)n- ‘to call, scream’.
65 But only on condition that Scr. j
hamāna ‘yawning, gaping, ajar, panting’ does not belong here, for it otherwise fits *ĝhēi- both in the initial palatal and in meaning.
66 Lewy, IF 32.162, equates OE gnīdan with OBG gnětiti ‘to lit the fire’. In this connection cf. W 5, and Verw. C 14.
67 The Gmc. words may be derived from a k-extension, and the Baltic words from a g-extension.
68 Similarly Walde (W 626) following Fick 328 derives *ghleb- : OIcel. glepia 'to cause the fall, mislead, etc.', glapna 'to spoil, become useless', etc. from the simple light e-base *ghel-.
69 Cf. the meaning of OE glendrian, etc. ‘to swallow‘—Fick 147.
70 Hirt IG 1.269 equates ON gleypa with Lit. žli u̯gauti 'to sob'—'the sole instance of initial ĝhl-'.
71 It might be onomatopoetic (W 634).
72 The Germanic words might with equal justice be placed under *g(e)neg-, related to *genebh that has led to designations of sound perceptions: Swed. knappa ‘to click, jingle’ (W 645).
73 If not identical with *ghrebh- ‘to seize, rake’.
74 Very likely an extension of *gel- 'round, etc.': cf. Lit. glaũbti 'to press against one's chest', glaũbstyti ‘to caress’.
75 It is difficult to say how one is to rationalize the meanings of these words. One might perhaps posit fusion of two diverse forms. On one hand, *dher- ‘to hold, support’ has yielded the Germanic words in the guise of (s)ter-, while on the other *dher- ‘muddy, sticky, rancid, smelly dregs of a liquid’ may have furnished the Baltic words in the guise of shifted (s)ter-.
76 ‘The Lit. words belong here if the words which lack nasalization are neologisms.‘
77 Only if neither Lat digitus nor Gr. δάκτυλος belong here. The former is deduced by Walde (W 776) from *dicitus by dissimilation (< dik-, zero-grade of base *deik- 'to show'); the latter is most likely *dṇt- ‘tooth’, hence a derivative of *ed- ‘to eat’.
78 This equation may be maintained only if Ir. drong ‘crowd’, etc. do not belong here.
79 Lat. trahō ‘I pull’ may be derived from *dhrāgh- or *trāgh-.
80 Might also be conceived as *dhreubh-: Gr. τρύφος n. ‘fragment’, Lett. drubazas ‘wood splinter’.
81 Despite the convergence in meaning between some of the words found under *pe k̑-(W 16*) and others under *paĝ- ‘to make firm’ (W 3*), these groups must yet be held apart because of the divergent vowel. Thus I should prefer to place MIr. ail ‘pleasant’ under *paĝ- : paĝli-, though, to be sure, it might equally well be traced as *po k̑li- to pe k̑- : po k̑-.
82 If ‘warm’ has developed from ‘to burn’, then this form may have come from *(s)phel-‘to shine’ (W 59*) or further still from *bhel-. We thus would deal with a relatively recent form. The series might be conceived as follows: 1. bhel-; 2. s+bhel- = (s)phel-; 3. pel- : pol-.
83 If not identical with pēs- ‘dust, sand’.
84 Alb. plas ‘I burst, break’ seems to be a sound-form. Compare Germ. platzen ‘to burst’ (W 98*).
85 ‘Imitation of sound of sheep; in Germanic unshifted because of unbroken imitation.‘
86 Either *bh(e)rə-n-d-, i.e. bh(e)rəd- with nasal infix, or d-extension of bhren—‘perhaps en/on-stem’ (W 208*).
87 If basic meaning ‘to shine’ analogously to Lit. bl u̯nku ‘to become fallow, lose color’, then to be derived from *bhel-.
88 Only in the meaning ‘glimmer, blink, micare’.
89 Kluge Etym. 399 also adds Scr. marka- m. ‘darkening; eclipse of the sun’; the latter placed by Walde 274*, 278* under *mer- ‘to crush, grind’ together with Av. mahrka- m. ‘death, destruction’.
90 This etymon is plausible only if OIr. nune, etc. ‘pangs of hunger, misery resulting from hunger’ does not belong here (W 316*).
91 Might also be derived from *u̯reiq- < u̯er- ‘to enclose, lock up’ where words occur which denote elevations of all kinds.
92 If MIr. logaisse ‘the lie’ is not to be associated with the above.
93 In this connection cf. Pol. chmura ‘cloud’ and Russ. (na)chmúritĭ ‘to assume a gloomy expression’, Czech chmouřiti, smouriti se ‘to darken, look sour’ under *(s)mauro- ‘weak, dim, dimly lighted, dark’, for they might be conceived as *(s)məu-r, an extension of *mā-: Russ. matusítĭ sa ‘to appear indistinct, glimmer’.
94 It is also quite feasible to deduce the above forms as *sli-n-dh, an ablaut deviation of *sleidh-.
95 The base *sel- in W 502*; the suff. -t u̯ā- in Vondrák SIGr. 1.591.
96 Magnus Olsen surmises that Thrac. ζηλτα is related to the above.
97 OPr. kexti could be derived from participle *kestas, except that in OPr. there is no evidence of a verb which is based on *kes- (W 449).
98 Might perhaps be placed under k̑er- ‘to burn, glow, heat’: cf. Lat. cremāre ‘to burn’, cremor ‘decoction’.
99 To *s u̯īn- < sū- ‘sow, swine’: Lat. suīnus (W 512*).
100 Presumably belongs to *qel-, *qal- (W 440*) in words denoting light and dark spots, gray and blackish color tones. With different suffix, cf. MHG hilwe ‘fine mist’, Bavarian gehilb ‘fog’, OHG huliwa ‘ulige, sordes limi vel aquae’, MHG hülwe ‘puddle, slough, pool’.
101 n-stem of the heteroclitic r/n-stem pe u̯ōr-, punés (W 14*).
102 ‘The Germanic words might just as plausibly be derived from *u̯e-tróm-, as the Slavic words from *u̯e-dróm-‘ (W 222).
103 Perhaps even from *mədhrio < mā-: cf. under *smeu- ‘to smile’.
104 May it be placed under *sem- ‘to draw water‘?
103a OIr. dail belongs to *dā(i)- on account of its vowel.
104a To *mei- or -mai- ‘to soil, soiled’ (W 243*)? I should explain *mai- as *məi- from *(s)mē(i)- ‘to smear’. Cf. there Lat. macula ‘spot, flaw; mesh in embroidery’. Thus we should deal with *(s)məil-.
105 Possibly also Sl. bydlo ‘cattle’ (from ‘stand, well-being, possession‘), if suffix -dlo-is derived from -tlo-, and thus equal to Lit. kla-, and not from -dhlo- (Gr. θ in -θμο-, -θρο-). A. Brückner, KZ 46.219; Vondrák SIGr. 1.569 Anm. 1.
106 Vondrák SlGr. 1.632 refers to Miklosich Gr. 2.176 where the claim is made that prijatelĭ is the only Slavic word which ends in telĭ.
107 But only if Turk.-Osman. apsak, aspak is borrowed from the Slavic (O. Schrader, RL 1.272) and not from Old Armenian (Pedersen, KZ 39.462).
108 Kluge Etym. 137 derives it from *el- ‘yellow’, Walde 152 from *elei- ‘to bend’. Lat. alnus (*ъlsnos) I should derive from *el- ‘yellow’.
109 W 539 is against deriving OHG kuski ‘chosen’ from *ĝeus- inasmuch as he is at a loss to find ‘evidence where the Germ. suff. -ska- is employed passively’. In the above equation both words have in common ‘the concept of active choosing‘—FT 611, 1505.
110 Is there any connection between *proisqo- and *bhroisqo-? In both of these forms the Germanic words occur in the zero-grade, whereas the Balto-Slavic ones are to be seen in either grade. The quality of souring or the lack of this quality is the basic meaning in both the forms.
111 It might be *qūbst- < qeub-, or (s)qūpst- < (s)qeup- (W 555*).
112 In BSl. the following phonetic developmental sequence seems to be most likely: *tūs-k̑ṃtja-: Sl. -sęntja, -sęšta; OPr. (ace.) -šimtons; Lit. -kstantis represents a compromise between k̑ > k (as in klausyti) and k̑ > s.
113 Beiträge 567.
114 IG 3.260.
115 Beitr. 567 A 3.
116 IG 3.256–58.
117 Of the examples that Hirt cites under -d-, *pleud- occurs in the material of this study. OIr. imluadi ‘exagitat’ (W 95*) I should place under *pel- with words expressing ‘restless, unsteady motion, trepidatio, shaking’.
118 Beitr. 567 A 3.
119 IG 3.253–56.
120 Both might possibly be deduced from *leĝh- ‘to creep on the ground, low’, in which case *sleng- would be s
-le-n-gh-, and *slenq- s-lé-n-gh-.
121 Perhaps as a possible result of accent variation to be derived from *ueigh-?
122 IG 3.261.
123 IG 3.262.
124 IG 3.262.
125 Beitr. 77.
126 IG 3.263.
127 IG 3.244–48.
128 An approximate parallel to the above surmised phonetic shift might be found in Germanic, where mb < IE mbh (instead of mb) is Pre-Germanic, and lb, rd < IE lbh, rdh (instead of lb, rd) is Gothic.
129 Hirt IG 1.258–60.
130 IG 1.260–66.
131 IG 1.265.
132 IG 1.266–70.
133 IG 1.270–75.
134 Walde 394.
135 IG 1.275–77.
136 IG 1.277–80.
137 IG 1.280–83.
138 IG 1.283–89.
139 IG 1.285.
140 IG 1.287–89.
141 IG 1.329–33. Siebs, KZ 37.293 ff.
142 The abbreviations T, S, V, A signify Tief-. Schwund-, Vollstufe, Abtönung.
143 RL 1.400.
144 RL 1.273.
145 RL 2.411 f.
146 Actually this word also occurs in Celtic: Gaul. *mori (in proper names Aremorici, Mori), Ir. muir, and in Latin mare. It is, therefore, not peculiar to this collection.
147 For a discussion of the home of the Slavs, Germans and Baits cf. P. Diels, RLV 12.273 ff.; Stender-Petersen, Slav.-germ. Lehnwortkunde; S. Feist, RLV 4.273 ff.; G. Gerullis, RLV 1.341 ff.
148 On the question of suffixes dhr-, dhl-, tro-, tlo- Vondrák (Gr. 1.569 A 1) says all that can be said.