B A L T I S T I C A X L (1) 2 0 0 5 57

W i l l i a m R. S C H M A L S T I E G
State College, Pennsylvania

A NOTE ON THE PROTO-EAST BALTIC VOWEL SYSTEM

The classical languages show us that the Indo-European vowels * and * were
quite well distinguished, cf., e.g., Lat. mter, Gk. m$thr mother representing *
in the initial syllable as opposed to Lat. dnum, Gk. dron gift representing *
in the initial syllable. Now this distinction seems to have been maintained in East
Baltic, cf. Lith. moteris woman (< *mteris), vs. duoti to give (< *dtei). A
problem arises, however, because sometimes East Baltic * seems to derive from
Indo-European *, e.g., Latv. d--sns = Lith. d-o-snKs generous apparently with
the same root as etymological d-uo-ti to give (see M a i u l i s 1970, 23).
M a i u l i s (1970, 21) explains this in the following way: stressed Indo-European
* gave Baltic * which passed to Old Prussian , Lith. and Latv. uo whereas the
unstressed variant of * passed to Lith. = Latv. .
M a i u l i s (2004, 19) presents a late Baltic vocalic system, which he
characterizes as a vowel rectangle rather than a triangle:
*i

*u

*e

*a (=*)

*
*
*

*
*
* (=*-)

Under the influence of the outstanding Lithuanian phonetician, A. G i r d e n i s

(1977, 303) Maiulis now writes * where formerly he wrote *] and *a where
formerly he wrote *\, but it still seems likely to me that * would correlate with *
rather than *. Maiulis' rectangular system still has more long back vowels than
long front vowels and this seems to be a typological anomaly.
L e v i n (1975, 156) proposed as the latest Common Baltic dynamic system:

He writes then: That is, *P descended and merged with *! , * descended and
probably merged with * in unstressed position, * and * descended and became the
front correlates of **. This correlation is an important feature of East Baltic
morphonology; its antiquity in Lithuanian morphonology argues for the early time
frame of the descent of the front vowel. It seems likely that the new low front vowel
pushed back *!, and that *!, at least, was slightly rounded.
Levin proposes then the merger of unstressed * with *, whereas Maiulis
talks only of the passage to Lith. = Latv. . On the other hand Levins proposal,
like that of Maiulis, would still seem to leave at least the stressed * without a
front counterpart.
I suggest, however, that the vocalic system which both Levin and Maiulis
propose is only partially valid, and, indeed, partially valid only for East Baltic, not
as Maiulis proposes for Proto-Baltic. Although the original front counterpart of
East Baltic * was *1 (< Indo-European *) it later became that *2 which derived
from the monophthongization of the diphthong *ei (and perhaps *ai) in stressed
position (see S c h m a l s t i e g 1968, 427; 1972, 162). The suggestion that only
stressed * remained as such and did not merge with * would be strengthened by
the supposition that likewise *2 apparently arose only in stressed position, i.e.,
both of these phonemes could have originally been encountered only in a stressed
syllable. A partial parallel for the neutralization of the Baltic * vs. * contrast in
unstressed position is furnished by modern standard Russian where /a/ and /o/
contrast only in stressed position, the contrast being neutralized in favor of /a/ in
unstressed position (A v a n e s o v 1956, 106120). The parallel does not, however,
extend to the front vowel phonemes which are kept apart in Baltic but generally
neutralized in Russian.
In East Baltic the introduction of *2 (< *ei and perhaps *ai) which supplied a
front counterpart for stressed was the cause (in a chain shift) of the lowering of the
old etymological *1 so I would modify Levins diagram in the following way:

The merger of P with ! and unstressed with respectively would produce the
following system with the stressed long mid vowels 2 (<*ei, *ai) and Q:

At a later date, of course, 2 and were diphthongized in Lithuanian and Latvian,

apparently independently, see L e v i n (1975, 147154). In derivative words the
vowels * (> Latv., Lith. uo) and *2 (> Latv., Lith. ie) were analogically transferred
to unstressed position, cf., e.g., Lith. perduoti to transfer (cf. duoti to give), dievotas
devout (cf. DiAvas God).
Differently from Maiulis, I suggest that the evidence for an etymological contrast
of vs. in Old Prussian is weak and I would point to L e v i ns (1975, 156)
reconstruction of a vowel rectangle for Proto-West Baltic.
Although I continue to support most of what I presented in 1970 (S c h m a l s t i e g
1972, 161163), I would now modify this to suppose it possible that the East Baltic
chain shift lowering of *1 and * was caused by the introduction of *2 into the
system and was possibly accompanied by the simultaneous merger of * P with ! and
unstressed with .

PASTABA DL BALSI SISTEMOS RYT BALT PROKALBJE

Santrauka
Ryt balt kiriuotas * (i ide. *) visada turjo prieakins eils atitikmen. I pradi tai
buvo *1, kils i ide. *, vliau *2, atsirads i protobalt *ei ir *ai. Naujosios fonemos *2
atsiradimas vokalizmo sistemoje lm, kad *1 perjo emutin eil, o paskui j ir nekiriuotas
*, sutaps su *. Galbt tuo laiku ir P sutapo su !.

REFERENCES
A v a n e s o v R. I., 1956, Fonetika sovremennogo russkogo jazyka, Moscow.
G i r d e n i s A., 1977, Review of Balto-slavjanskij sbornik, Moscow, 1972, Baltistica, XIII
(2), 300306.
L e v i n J., 1975, Dynamic linguistics and Baltic historical phonology, General Linguistics,
XV, 144158.
M a i u l i s V., 1970, Balt ir kit indoeuropiei kalb santykiai, Vilnius.
M a i u l i s V., 2004, Prs kalbos istorin gramatika, Vilnius.
S c h m a l s t i e g W. R., 1968, Primitive Baltic *, Word, XXIV, 427432.
S c h m a l s t i e g W. R., 1972, Balt ir slav kalb vokalizmo sistem raidos chronologija,
Baltistica, I priedas, 159164.