SBORNlK PRACI FILOSOFIGKE F A K U L T Y B R N E N S K E UNIVERSITY
STUDIA MINORA FACULTATIS PHILOSOPHICAE UNIVERSITATIS BRUNFNSrS
A 20, 1972
MIREK
CEJKA
LEXICOSTATISTIC DATING AND SLAVONIC LANGUAGES
Some Tentative Results
0.1 A statistic analysis of basic vocabulary can provide very useful and
interesting data for determining the approximate absolute and relative
chronology of the development of both individual languages and language
families. In the last two decades in particular, the glottochronological method;
which was worked out in the fifties, chiefly by M . Swadesh, has been the
principal one employed. It will be remembered that Swadesh's method is
based on the assumptions that the basic vocabulary of any language is com­
paratively fixed, and that over long periods of time the rate of replacement
of the basic vocabulary is almost constant. For example, lrom one hundred
most basic vocabulary items per one thousand years, only about 86 % survives;
and 14 % is replaced by other words. On the basis ol these assumptions it is
possible to calculate the interval ot time between two stages of a language
whose basic vocabulary is known; it is also possible to calculate the length
of time that has elapsed since the disintegration of the original linguistic
unity, comparing the contemporary basic vocabularies of as many pairs of
cognate languages that owe their origin to the disintegration as is possible.
0.2 It is advisable, however, to adopt a cautious approach when applying
the glottochronological method because the initial assumptions of the method
are for the most part empirical, and are badly in need of major theoretical
justification. Glottochronology also tacitly presupposes that the development
of language families from proto-languages is a process of a predominantly
divergent character (cf. Schleicher's Stammbaumtheorie). The latter presup­
position can certainly be accepted only with considerable limitations, espe
cially in the case of speech communities that are geographically close to each
other and/or in an intensive cultural and economical contact, to say nothing
of communities bound together into a political or administrative unity.
It is necessary to take into account that at certain stages the divergent factors
may be suppressed while the convergent ones may become dominant. Such
a complex divergent-convergent development has obviously taken place in the
Slavonic languages, during the last several centuries in particular. Even
considering the earliest periods of existence of the independent Slavonic
languages, we must admit that no kind of complete isolation of the separated
parts of the Slavonic whole that would lead to a one-way divergent develop-^
ment ever existed. It is true that the great geographical barriers, or divides
(the Carpathians, the Alps, the Danube) were of much greater importance!
1
J
1
40
MIREK
CEJKA
than they are today, but they were neither insurmountable nor hermetic Nor
did the divisions resulting from the intrusion of ethnically foreign elements
(like the Magyars or the Germans) between different parts of the Slavonic
communities cause complete isolation of the divided Slavs. In the earlier
stages at least, the conquerors and colonists only amounted to a very thin
stratum of inhabitants in the territory concerned, over a thick layer of the
autochthonous Slavonic inhabitants who continued to be in active contact with
their Slavonic neighbours and certainly carried out active communication
between the separated communities tor a long time. In these circumstances we
would hardly expect the glottochronological method to prove successful in
investigating the development of the Slavonic languages. Surprisingly enough,
however, the contrary is the case: investigations produce positive results,
and these fit in remarkably well with the conclusions of other linguistic and
historical disciplines.
1.1 The first tentative investigations of this sort were made by the author
together with A . L a m p r e c h t ten years ago; the results were published in
1963—1965. The techniques and procedures as described chiefly in Swadesh
1955 and Gudsehinsky 1956a were employed. For our comparisons we used
Swadesh's 100-item list. Later on, after having thoroughly checked and
corrected our original lists of the basic vocabulary of the Slavonic languages,
I included the list for Macedonian, and made new calculations. The vocabulary
data of the following twelve main Slavonic languages have been compared:
Byelo-Russian (Br), Bulgarian (Bu), Czech (Cz), Lower Lusatian (LI), Upper
Lusatian (Lu), Macedonian (Mc), Polish (PI), Russian (Rs), Serbo-Croatian
(Sc), Slovak (Sk), Slovene (Sn), Ukrainian (Uk). I have calculated the
time-depth t, taking the retention rate r = 0.864, for each pair of these twelve
languages. The time data have been arranged according to the decreasing
time-depth and the eventual approximate date of separation. The figures are
of a statistical nature, and for this reason the standard deviation for probability
p = 0.68 has been calculated for every figure of time-depth. Such an
undifferentiated set of data, however, presents only a very general and vague
view of the development of the Slavonic languages. In order to get from the
statistical data as much information about the processes of linguistic
development as possible, I have isolated the data for each Slavonic language
and recorded all pairs containing the language in question along the time-axis.
It has been found that every language follows a typical pattern of the
distribution of data. The basic types of distribution correspond obviously to
three main branches of Slavonic languages: to the eastern, western and
southern branches. This analysis is summarized in a synthetic T A B L E . The
data in the table are classified, according to the nature of pairs, as couples
of languages belonging to the different Slavonic branches (external pairs:
East—South, West—South, East—West), and. as couples of languages
belonging to the same Slavonic branch (internal pairs: East—East,
West—West, South—South).
1.2 A n analysis of the distribution of data for individual Slavonic
languages has resulted in tentative conclusions which have been applied in the
course of compiling the synthetic table.
.1.21 First, attention should be drawn to the special place that the Slovene
language occupies among the Slavonic languages. When comparing the lexico2
3
4
s
LEXICOSTATISTIC
41
DATING
statistic data for Slovene, a contemporary southern Slavonic language, with
the data for more distant southern Slavonic and other Slavonic languages, we
can see that it shows a conspicuous similarity to the pattern of the western
Slavonic languages, and that it differs considerably from the southern
Slavonic one. Of course, this suggests that Slovene is a language of western
Slavonic origin which has only in its later development inclined towards
the southern Slavonic languages,, preserving the western Slavonic lexical
core in its basic vocabulary. Such an assumption agrees with the opinion of
some contemporary linguists, i.e. that the old linguistic basis of the contem­
porary Slovene language is identical with what has been termed Alpine
Slavonic, namely the language of a community which originally inhabited
western Pannonia and the eastern part of the Ostmark, and had the character
of a mixed transitional, rather western Slavonic language, up to the end of the
13 century. This is borne out by data of a purely linguistic character (e.g.,
some features.in. the phonemics, morphology and vocabulary of the con­
temporary Slovene language); philological data (as. e.g., Freising Leaves);
and some data of a purely toponymical, archaeological and historical nature.
In this connection, F. B e z l a j ' s hypothesis concerning the northern Slavonic
nature of the original Slovene speech community that has developed under
a strong southern Slavonic influence seems to be, in my opinion, extremely
important and very appropriate. (The rather late figures for Sn—Sc may
be interpreted as obvious evidence of the above-mentioned southern Slavonic
influence, or, in other words, as an instance of dominance of the convergent
factors over the divergent ones; cf. 0.2.) For these reasons and for the sake
of consistency I decided to present Slovene as a western Slavonic language
in the table.
1.22 The section 'External Pairs' shows a remarkable concentration of the
pairs of languages in the comparatively short intervals of two centuries. In my
opinion, it is a clear reflection of the disintegration of the original Common
Slavonic linguistic unity. According to the lexicostatistic data, the lower limit
of this disintegration goes back to the 8 century and the upper limit
reaches up to the turn of the 1 1 century. Again it is possible to refer
to many important theoretical contributions in the field of Slavonic studies
that present roughly the same delimitation of the disintegration of the
Common Slavonic unity. The interesting feature, namely that the lexico­
statistic data fit in with the results of other linguistic disciplines to a remarkably
high degree, has already been discussed elsewhere. The occurence of several
pairs deviating in both directions from the centres of the densest accumulation
can be explained partly as a random effect following from the statistic nature
of the method itself, partly as a consequence of the functioning oi some
convergent factors (e.g., PI—Br, Sk—Br, and perhaps Cz—Sc, Sk—Sc, too).
1.23 It has already been stated that in its attempts to determine the
absolute chronology of linguistic changes, the glottochronological method
presents considerable difficulties. A number of technical corrections and
improvements of Swadesh's method have already been devised and suggested.
Some troublesome points could be avoided by using the results of glottochrono­
logical investigations for the determination of mere relative chronology. If
the data of absolute chronology are available (however dubious we might be
as to their exactness) those of relative chronology follow automatically. For
th
6
th
th
7
8
9
10
42
MIREK
CEJKA
instance, it can be clearly seed that there is an indication of relative.chronology:
in the gradual disintegration of the initial Common-Slavonic unity in the table:
Since it is possible to assume that at the earlier stages of development of the
Slavonic languages the divergent factors dominated over the convergent ones
in a more straightforward manner than in later times, and, consequently, that
the application of the glottochronological method is. more adequate for the
period of separation of the Slavonic branches than for the later period of the
origin of the independent Slavonic languages, then it is quite probable that
this representation is true and that it roughly corresponds to the actual state,
of affairs in the past. The data of relative chronology as indicated i n our table
are represented in a schematic way in the form of a D I A G R A M .
2. It may be said, I suppose, that the acceptable results obtained by a
method based on empirical assumptions do increase the weight of these assump­
tions and the confidence in their usefulness and applicability. Let us quote
Hymes 1960 on. the results of glottochronological investigations: 'The vast
bulk of the cases are found to fit external evidence or not to violate it.' It is
my belief that this article may be looked upon as a confirmation of the words
just quoted.
NOTES A N D A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
1
Gf. Swadesh
1950,
1952, 1954a, b, 1955, Lees
1953, Gudschinsky
1956a, Hymes
1960
References to more recent publications cf. Index of Abstracts and Translations, U A L ,
31 (1965), 1, 86.
A n attempt to disprove the validity of glottochronology cf. Fodor 1961. Critical remarks
to Fodor cf. Cefka—Lamprecht
1963, footnote 1. A discussion of the same matter on
a more general level cf. Fodor 1965. A critical review of this book cf. Dyen 1971.
' CLCe/ka-Lamprecht
1963a, b, 1965.
The greater part of the new results was included i n m y lecture given at the School
of Slavonic and East European Studies i n London, 1968.
' T h e 100-item lists for the twelve investigated Slavonic languages together with
Swadesh's list for English follow as an A P P E N D I X . M y appreciation is due particularly
to A . L a m p r e c h t (Brno) for his frequent aid i n solving different etymological problems
and for the valuable additions and modifications of this article which be suggested. To
. my colleagues 1. D o r o v s k y (Brno) and V . M a j d i c (Ljubljana) also go m y thanks for
checking the lists for Macedonian, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian and Slovene.
• Cf. Bezlaj 1967. Bezlaj's hypothesis has been quoted recently by Petr 1971. Cf. also
1
4
- Stdnislav 1956, 1960, Grafenauer 1966, Piuk
1950.
Cf. Auty 1964, Birnbaam
1970, Cejka-Lamprecht
1963a, b, 1965, Dost&l 1963a, b,
Durnovo
1929, Furdal
1961, Havrdnek
1963, 1968, Jakobson
1929 (1962),
Lamprecht
1956, Lunt 1959, Mares 1956, 1961, Toporov 1959, Trubeckoj 1922, 1924, 1954, Wijk 1927,
7
1949/50, 1356.
• Cf.. Cefka-Lamprecht
1963a, b, 1965.
• Cf., e. g., Dyen 1964, Dyen-James-Cole
'» Cf., e. g., Rodriguez 1957, Klimov 1961.
1967.
REFERENCES
A u t y , R . , Community
and divergence in the history of the Slavonic
languages.
S E E R , 42 (June
1964), 99, 2 5 6 - 2 7 3 .
B e z l a j , F., Esefi o slovenskem jeziku,. Ljubljana, 1967.
B i r n b a u r a , H . , Zur Problematik der zeitlichen Abgrenzung
slavische Philologie 35 (1970), 1, 1 - 6 2 .
;
des Urslavischen.ZeilBchtift
.
fiir
'•
LEXICOSTATISTIC
Cejka,
M . — L a m p r e c h t , A . , Jak
stare jsou
DATING
slovanske
jazyky.
VSda a iivot,
February
1963a, 2, 1 0 0 - 1 0 3 .
—, K
otdzce vzniku
a diferenciace
slovanskych
jazyku.
Sbornik
praci
filosoficke
fakulty
brnenske university, A 11 (1963b), 5 - 2 0 .
—, K voprosu
o slavjanskom
jazykovom
jedinslve
v period
prichoda
v Moraviju
Konstantina
i Mefodija.
Magna Moravia: Sbornik k 1100. vyroci pfichodu byzantske mise na Moravu. ( = S p i s y University J . E . Purkynfi v Brne\ filosofirka fakulta, No. 102.)
Prague, 1965, pp. 4 6 1 - 4 6 8 .
Dostal,
A . , Nekolik
uvah
Lehr—Splawinski.
—, Staroslovinsky
o praslovanstine.
Warsaw,
1963a,
jazyk, jeho strukturni
Studia
pp.
linguistica
i n honorem
Thaddaei
71-79.
charakteristika
a lokdlni
typy. Ceskoslovensk6 pfed-
n i S k y pro V . mezinarodni sjezd slavistu v Sofii. Prague, 1963b, pp. 11 —28.
D u r n o v o , N . N . , K voprosu
o vremeni
raspadenija
obiceslavjanskogo
jazyka.
Sbornik p r a c i
I. sjezdu slovanskych filologu v Praze 1929, V o l . I I : PfednaSky. Prague, 1932, p p .
514-526.
D y e n , I., On the validity
of comparative
lexicostalistics.
Proceedings of the Ninth Inter­
national Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., August ,27—31, 1962. E d . Horace
G. Lunt. The Hague, 1964, pp. 2 3 8 - 2 5 2 .
D y e n , I. — J a m e s , A . T. — C o l e , J . W . L . , Language
divergence
and estimated word
retention
rate. Language 43 (March 1967), 1, 1 5 0 - 1 7 1 .
D y e n , I., review of Fodor
F o d o r , I., The
validity
1965. U A L 37 (1971), 2, 1 3 0 - 1 3 4 .
of glottochronology
on the basis
of the Slavonic
languages.
Studia
Slavica 4 (1961), 7.
—, The rate of linguistic
change. The Hague, 1965.
F u r d a l , A . , Rozpad jgzyka praslowianskiego
w swietle rozwoju glosowegoi
G r a f e n a u e r , B . , Die ethnische Gliederung unci geschichlliche Rolle der
im Mittelalter.
Bericht fur den I. Balkanologischen Kongress
26. V I I I . - 1. I X . 1966 (ungekiirzte Fassung). Ljubljana, 1966.
Gudschinsky,
S. C ,
The ABC's
of lexicostalistics
(glottochronology).
Wroclaw, 1961 westlichenSudslawen
in
Sofija,
vom
Word, 12 (1956a),
175-210.
—, Three disturbing
questions concerning lexicostalistics.
U A L , 22 (1956b), 212—213.
H a v r a n e k , B . , Potdtky slovanskeho pisma a psane literatury
v dobe vdkomoravske.
Velka
Morava (Tisicileta tradice statu a kultury). Prague, 1963, pp. 77—96.
—, Cyrillo-Methodianische
Fragen,
Slavische
Philologie
und Altertumskunde.
A c t a Congressus
historiae Slavicae Salisburgensis i n memoriam SS. Cyrilli et Methodii anno 1963 celeb rati
Wiesbaden, 1968. ( = Annates Instituli Slavici, I, 4, ed. F. Zagiba.)
H o i j e r , H . , Lexicostalistics
— A critique.
H y m e s , D. H . , Lexicostatistics
J a k o b s o n , R., Remarques
Language, 32 (1956), 49—60.
so far. Current Anthropology, 1 (1960), 1.
sur revolution
phonologique
du russe cpmparee
a celle des
autres
langues slaves. T C L P , 2 (1929). Reprinted i n Roman Jakobson: Selected writings I: The
Hague, 1962.
K l i m o v , G . A . , O leksiko-statisticeskoj
teorii M. Svodesa.
Voprosy teorii jazyka v sovre-
mennoj zarubeZnoj lingvistike. Moscow, 1961, pp. 239—253.
L a m p r e c h t , A . , Neskolko
zamecanij
o razvitii
foneticeskoj
sistemy praslavjanskogo
jazyka.
Sbornik praci filosoficke fakulty brnenske university, A 4 (1956), 17—23.
L e e s , R. B . , The basis of glottochronology.
Language, 29 (1953), 1 1 3 - 1 2 7 .
L u n t , H . G., Old Church Slavonic grammar.
M a r e S , F. V . , Vznik slovanskeho fonologickeho
jazykove
jednoty.
—, Drevneslavfanskij
nd
The Hague, 1959 ( 2 rev. ed.).
systemu a jeho vyvof do konce obdobi
slovanske
Slavia, 25 (1956), 443—495.
literaturnyj
jazyk
v Yelikomoravskom
gosudarstve.
V J a , 10 (1961), 2,
12-23.
P e t r , J., Zdklady
Piuk,
K . , Zur
slovinstiny.
Prague, 1971.
Fragf, der Slawen
Jahrbuch, 1 (1950), 1 1 2 - 1 3 0 .
in Pannonien
im 9. Jahrhundert.
Wiener slawislische£
44
MIREK
CEJKA
R o d r i g u e s , A . dall'Igna, Eine neue Datierungsmethode
der cergleichenden S prachwissenschafi. Kratylos, 2 (1957), 1.
S t a n i s l a v , J . , Dejiny slovenskeho jazyka I. Bratislava, 1956.
—, Zo slovanskiho miestopisu v neslovanskych
krafindch. (Podunajske
a alpske uzemie v Rakusku, Panonia.)
Jazykovedny Sasopis, 11 (I960), 63—77.
S w a d e s h , M . , Salish internal relationships.
U A L , 16 (1950).
—, Lexico-statistic
dating
of prehistoric
ethnic contacts, with special reference to
North
American
Indians
and Eskimos.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,
96 (1952), 4 5 2 - 4 6 3 .
—, Perspectives and problems of American
comparative linguistics.
Word, 10 (1954a).
—, Time depths of American linguistic groupings. American Anthropologist, 56 (1954b).
—, Towards greater accuracy in lexicoslatistic
dating U A L , 21 (1955), 121—137.
T o p o r o v , V . N . , Nekotoryje soobrazenija otnositelno izulenifa istorii praslavfanskogo
jatyka.
Slavjanskoje jazykoznanije. Sbornik statej. Moscow, 1959, pp. 3—27.
T r u b e c k o j , N . S., Essai sur la chronologie de certains faits phonetiques du slave
commun.
R E S , 2 (1922), 2 1 7 - 2 3 4 .
—, Einiges
uber die russische
Lautentwicklung
und die Aufldsung
der
gemeinrussischen
Spracheinheit.
Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie, 1 (1924), 2 8 7 - 3 1 9 .
—, Altkirchenslavische
Grammatik.
Vienna,-1954. ( = 0sterr. A k a d . d. Wiss., Philos.-hist.
K l . , Sb., 228 : 4.)
W i j k , N . van, O dw6ch okresach w rozwoju jezyka praslowiaHskiego
i o ich znaczeniu
dla
jezykoznawstwa
ogdlnego. P F , 12 (1927), 3 9 5 - 4 0 4 .
—, K istorii fono'logileskof
sistemy v obsieslavjanskom
jazyke pozdnego perioda. Slavia, 19
(1949/50), 2 9 3 - 3 1 3 .
—, Leslangues
slaves. Del'uniti
a la pluralite. The Hague, 1956. ( = Janua Linguarum, II.)
APPENDIX
100-Item Lists of the Basic Vocabulary
English (After Swadesh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
thou
we
thiB
that
who
what
not
all
many
one
two
big
long
small
woman
man
person
fish
bird
dog
louse
tree
seed
leaf
1955)
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
root
bark
skin
meat
blood
bone
fat
egg
born
tail
feather
hair
head
ear
eye
nose;
mouth
tooth
tongue
olaw
foot
knee
hand
belly
neck
61
62
53
64
65
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
«7
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
breast
heart
liver
drink
eat
bite
see
hear
know
sleep
die
kill
swim
fly
walk
come
lie
sit
stand
give
say
sun
moon
star
water
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
96
96
97
98
99
100
rain
stone
sand
earth
cloud
smoke
fire
ashes
burn
road
mountain
red
green
yellow
white
blaok
night
hot
cold
full
new
good
round
dry
name
LEXICOSTATISTIC
DATING
Byelo-Ruaaian
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ja
ty
my
hety
toj
xto
Sto
ne
uvos'
smat
adzin
dva
vjaliki
douhi
malen'ki
zancyna
muzcyna
Aalavek
ryba
ptufika
sabaka
voS
dreva
semja
list
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
46
46
47
48
49
60
koran'
kara
skura
mjaaa
krou
koso'
tiu&c
jajoo
roh
xvost
pjaro
valaay
halava
vuxa
voka
nos
rot
zub
jazyk
kipcjur
naha
kalena
ruka
iyvot
Syja
61
52
53
54
55
66
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
76
hrudzi
serca
pecan'
pic'
jesoi
kusac'
baiyc'
cue"
znac'
spae'
pamerci
zabic'
plyc'
Ijacec'
isci
pryjsci
ljazac'
sjadzec'
stajac'
dac'
akazac'
sonca
meajac
zara
vada
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
66
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
koren
kora
koza
meso
kriv
kost
maz
jajce
rog
opa&ka
pero
kosa
glava
uxo
oko
nos
usta
z&b
ezik
noklt
krak
koljano
raka
korem
vrat
51
52
53
54
56
56
57
58
69
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
gr&di
sardce
drob
pija
jada
xapja
gledam
6uja
znaja
spija
u mi ram
ubivam
plavja
letja
idam
idvam
lezam
sjadam
stoja
davam
kaza
stance
luna
zvezda
voda
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Bulgarian
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
az
ti
nie
toj
tozi
koj
kakvo
ne
vsiiko
mnogo
edin
dva
goljam
d&l&g
mal
iena
m(l
covek
riba
ptica
ku&e
vaSka
dr&vo
seme
list
daid
kamak
pjas&k
zemja
oblak
dim
og&n
pepel
palja
pat
planina
cerven
zelen
ialt
bjal
fieren
nost
goreSt
studen
palen
nov
dobir
kr&gal
sux
ime
MIREK
CEJKA
Czech
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ja
ty
my
tento ,
onen ,
kdo
co
ne
vsechno
mnoho
jeden
dva
velky
dlouhy
maly
zena
muz
eiovek
ryba ,„
ptak ' .
pes
veS
atrom
semeno
list
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
kofen ,
kura
kuie
maeo
krev
kost
tuk
vejce
roh
ooas
pero
vlasy
hlava
uoho
oko
nos
vista
zub
jazyk
drap
noha
koleno
ruka
bficho
krk
51
62
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
76
prsa
srdce
jatra
pit
jfst
kousat
videt
slyset
znat
spat
zemfi't
zabi't
plavat
letet
jit
pffjit
leiet
sedet
stat
dat
ffci
slunce
mesic
hvezda
voda
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
dm
kamen
pfsek
zeme
tnrak
kouf
ohen
popel
palit
cesta
hora
fierveny
zeleny
zluty
bily
fierny
noc
horky
studeny
piny
novy
dobry
kulaty
suchy
jm^no
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
korjen
Skora
koia
m6so
ksej
kos6
tuk
jajo
rog
wopus
pjero
wlosy
glowa
wucho
woko
nos
guba
zub
j&zyk
pazora
noga
koleno
ruka
brjuch
gyja
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
68
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
bruflt
wutSoba
jdtsa
pU
j6s6
kusas
wizes
styias
znas
spas
mres
zabis
plei
leies
hys
psis
lazai
sejzes
stojas
das
gronis
slynco
rajasec
gw6zda
woda
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
desc
kamjen
peak
zemja
mrok
dym
wogen
popjel
palis
droga
gora
cerwjeny
zeleny
zolty
bely
carny
noc
gorucy
zymny
polny
nowy
dobry
kulowaty
suchy
me
Lower Lusatian
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ja
ty
my
ten
wony
ohto
co
n«
wSen
wjele
jaden
dwa
wjeliki
dlujki
mafy
zona
muz
clowjek
ryba
ptask
pjas
wefi
bom
semje
topjeno
LEXICOSTATISne
DATING
Upper Lusatian
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ja
ty
my
t6n
wony
St6
8to // 6o ;
ne
wSo
wjele
jedyn
dwaj
wulki
dothi
maly
iona
muz
filowjek
ryba
ptak
poB
wos
atom
aymjo
topjeno
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
korjeri
skora
koza
mjaso
krej
k6sc
tuk
jejo
roh
wopus
pjero
wlosy
hlowa
wucho
woko
n6e
huba
zub
jazyk
pazor
noha
koleno
ruka
brjuch
eija
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
76
hrudz - •
wutroba
jatra
pi<5
jesc
kusac
widzec
slysec
znac
spac
mre<5
zabic
plowac
ledec
hie
pfino
lezec
sedzec
atac
da6
rjec
s!6nco
mesa£k
hwSzda
woda
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
desc
kamjen
peak
zemja
mrok
dym
wohen
popjel
palio
puc
hora
derwjeny
zeleny
iolty
bely
corny
noo
horcy
zymny
potny
nowy
dobry
kiilowaty
suchi
mjeno
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
85
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
koren
kora
koza
meso
krv
koska
maz
jajce
rog
opaska
pero
kosi
glava
uvo
oko
nos
usta
zab
jazik
gandzi
noga
koleno
raka
mev
vrat
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
68
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
gradi
sroe
(cm) dr6b
pijam
jadam
kasam
gledam
5uvam
znam
spijam
umram
ubivam
plivam
letam
idam
doad'am
leiam
sedam
atojam
dam
veljam
sonce
mesecina
dzvezda
voda
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
86
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
dozd
kamen
peaok
zemja
mrak
dim
ogan
pepel
goram
pat
planina
erven
zelen
iolt
bel
crn
not'
zezok
studen
poln
nov
dobar
trkalezen
suv
ime
Macedonian
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
jas
ti
nie
ovoj
onoj
koj
Sto
ne
ae
mnogu
eden
dva
golem
dulg
mel
zena
mai
eovek
riba
ptica
ku<5e
voSka
drvo
seme
list
48
MIREK
CEJKA
Polish
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ja
ty
my
ten
<Jw
kto
co
nie
wszystko
wiele
jeden
dwa
duzy
dhigi
maty
kobieta
mezozyzna
czlowiek
ryba
ptak
pies
wesz
drzewo
siemie
list
28
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
38
37
38
39
• 40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
korzen
kora
sk6ra
mieso
krew
kosd
ttuszcz
jajko
rog
ogon
pi6ro
wtosy
glowa
ueho
oko
nos
usta
zab
jezyk
pazur
noga
kolano
reka
brzuch
Bzyja
51
52
63
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
88
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
piers
serce
wqtroba
pi6
jesc
gryz6
widziec
slyszei
znac
spac
umrzec
zabi6
prywac
lecie6
isc
przyjs6
lezec .
siedzied
eta/dac
powiedziec
stance
ksiezyc
gwiazda
woda
koren'
kora
skura
mjaso
krov'
kost'
lit
jajoo
rog
xvost
pero
volosy
golova
uxo
glaz
nos
rot
zub
jazyk
kogot'
noga
koleno
ruka
iivot
seja
51
52
53
64
55
66
67
58
69
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
87
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
grud'
serdce
pecen'
pit'
jest'
kusat'
videt'
sly&at'
znat'
spat'
umeret'
ubit'
plyt'
letet*
itti
prijti
lezat'
sidet'
stojat'
dat'
skazat'
solnce
luna
zvezda
voda
'
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
96
96
97
98
99
100
deszcz
kamien
piasek
ziemia
chniura
dym
ogieo
popiel
pali6
droga
gora
czerwony
zielony
z6hy
biaty
ozarny
noc
goracy
zimny
pelny
nowy
dobry
okr^gt>'
suchy
iiriie,
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
dozd'
kamen'
peaok
zemlja
tu£a
dym
ogon'
zola
zee'
doroga
gora
krasnyj
zelenyj
zeltyj
belyj
eernyj
no6'
gorja&ij
xolodnyj
polnyj
novyj
xoroaij
kruglyj
suxoj
imja
RussiaD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ja
ty
my
etot
tot
kto
6to
ne
ves'
mnogo
pdin
dva
bolsoj
dlinnyj
malen'kij
zenfidina
muioina
6elovek
ryba
ptica
sobaka
vos'
derevo
semja
list
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
LEXicdsi'-vriSTif: D A T I N G
Serbo-Croatian
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ja
ti
mi
ovaj
onaj
ko
Sto
ne
sve
mnogo
jedan
dva
velik
dug
mali
zena
muskarac
6ovek
riba
ptica
pas
ul
drvo
seme
list
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
36
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
koren
kora
koza
meso
krv
kost
mast
jajce
rog
rep
pero
kosa
glava
uho
oko
nos
usta
zub
jezik
kandza
noga
koleno
ruka
trbuh
vrat
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
grudi
srce
(crna) dzigerica
piti
jesti
grist i
videti
cuti
znati
spavati
umreti
ubiti
plivati
leteti
ici
doci
lezati
sedeti
stajati
dati
redi
sunce
mesec
zvezda
voda
76
77
78
79
80
61
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
kisa
kamen
pesak
zemlja
oblak
dim
vatra
pepeo
paliti
put
gora
erven
zelen
tut
beo
cm
nod
vruc
studen
pun
nov
dobar
okrugao
siih
imp
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
60
koren
kora
koza
maso
krv
kost
tuk
vajce
roh
ehvost
pero
vlasy
hlava
ueho
oko
nos
usta
zub
jazyk
paziir
noha
koleno
ruka
brucho
krk
51
52
53
54
65
56
57
68
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
prsia
srdce
peceft
pit
jest
hryzt
vidiet
(po)dut
znat
spat
zomriet
zabit
plavat
letiet
1st
prist
lezat
sediet
stat
dat
povedat
slnko
mesiac
hviezda
voda
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
86
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
dazd
kamen
piesok
zem
mrak
dym
ohen
popol
palit
cesta
hora
cerveny
zeleny
ilty
biely
6ierny
noc
horuci
studeny
piny
novy
dobry
gulaty
suchy
meno
Slovak
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ja
ly
my
tento
onen
kdo
6o
nie
vsetok
veta
jeden
dva
velky
dlhy
maly
zena
muz
filovek
ryba
vtak
pes
voS
strom
semeno
list
'
50
M1REK (".EJKA
Slovene
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
jaz
ti
mi
ta
oni
kdo
kaj
ne
vse
mnogo
eden
dva
velik
dolg
ma j hen
zenska
mofiki
clovek
riba
ptic
pes
u&
drevo
seme
list
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
46
46
47
48
49
60
koreniiia
skorja
koia
me so
kri
koat
mast
jajce
rog
rep
pero
laaje
glava
ufao
oko
nog
uata
zob
jezik
krompelj
noga
koleno
roka
trebuh
vrat
51
52
63
54
66
66
57
58
59
80
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
76
prui
srce
jetra
piti
jesti
gristi
videti
slisati
znati
spati
umreti
ubiti
plavati
leteti
iti
priti
leiati
sedeti
stati
dati
reci
sonce
meeec
zvezda
voda
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
del
kamen
pesek
zemlja
oblak
dim
ogenj
pepel
kuriti
oesta
gora
rde£
zelen
rumen
bel
6m
not
vrofc
mrzel
poln
nov
dober
okrogel
Buh
ime
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
46
46
47
48
49
50
korin'
kora
skira
m'jaso
krov
kistka
*yr
jajce
rih
51
62
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
hrudy
seree
pecinka
pyty
jisty
kusaty
baiyty
4uty
znaty
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
dose
kamin
pisok
zemlja
xmara
dym
vohon'
zola
palyty
doroha
hora
eervonyj
zelenyj
iovtyj
bilyj
cornyj
nii
harjacyj
Ukrainian
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ja
ty
my
cej
toj
xto
Sco
ne
vea'
bahato
odyn
dva
velykyj
dovhyj
malen'kyj
iinka
oolovik
ljudyna
ryba
ptax
sobaka
voSa
derevo
sim'ja
lyst
xviBt
pero
volosy
ho] ova
vuxo
oko
nis
rot
zub
jazyk
kihot'
noha
kolino
ruka
iyvit
ftyja
Bpaty
umerty
zabyty
plyety
letity
ity
pryjty
leiaty
sydity
Btojaty
daty
skazaty
sonoe
misjac
zorja
voda
1
J
xolodnyj
povnyj
novyj
dobryj
kruhlyj
suxyj
im'ja
DIAGRAM
Relative Chronology o
UntilB^cenh.
(
Hie
Disintegration
o
t
the Slavonic
Unity
52
MIREK
CEJKA
LEXIKOST ATISTICKE D A T O V A M
JAZYKY
A SLOVANSKE
Statisticka analyze z&kladnibo alovniku dvanacti slovanskych jazyku provedena s pomoci
gloUochronologicke' metody poskytuje soubor udajft o predpokladane absolutni i relativni
chronologii rozpadu praslovansk6 jednoty. Vychazi se z porovnani 100 nejzakladnejSfch slov
u vSech dvojic zkoumanych slovanskych jazyku a vyp.oSitava' se pfibkzne' datum diver­
gence. Odaje pro viechny dvojice, do nichz jisty jazyk vstupuje, tvofi na casove ose jisty
(Ustribucnf vzorec. Syntetick6 tabulka ukazuje zretelne vyvojove procesy rozpadu sloVanske
jednoty do t f i hlavnich v&tvi. Zdkladni diferenciace na jizni, zapadni a vychodnf vStev prob&da v intervalu mezi zafatkem 8. — koncem 11. stoleti s centrem divergenini aktivity ve
stoleti 10. V souboru udaju se slovinStina projevuje daleko vice jako jazyk zapadosloyansky
n e i jihoalovansky. Pfavazna' vStSina dat ziskanych lexikostatistickou nietoaou se sboduje
s udaji, jei byly ziskany jinymi jazykovSdnymi metodami.