Talk:Old Prussian language

Untitled

Ok -- First, this information is probably copyrighted and should therefore be removed. Second, it does nothing to inform the reader about Old Prussian -- a language more related to Baltic languages than to Germanic ones, and therefore making one wonder how this language was at all related to Germanic Prussia. JHK

Proto-Indo European is a reconstruction of a language for which we have no written evidence. Don't rely on it too much to prove anything. --MichaelTinkler

Um... I still think these tables are probably taken from a copyrighted source. And I think they add little to the article. If no one can provide a PD source for the tables, I'm removing them on 12 March. HK

---

HJ et al.

First, no one has provided evidence that the language tables are public domain. I am therefore removing them. They will be in the history if we need to restore them.

Second, Tacitus didn't talk about the Aesti in his Agricola and Germania for the simple reason that there is no such book. Helga seems to think that, because she has one edition of a book in English that combines the two, that this is the name of Tacitus' work. It isn't. The only mention is in the Germania. I don't need to reiterate that Tacitus is hardly accurate.

Third, is anyone else bothered by the lack of logic in the following -- old Prussians spoke a Baltic (not Germanic) language. Old Prussians were the original Prussians. The area the Old Prussians inhabited is therefore German, because it has always been German.

Just wondering. HK

---

I intend to change the mention about influence of Old Prussian on Yidisch. It is ridiculous.

---

This article can be so much more (or do we really know so little about it). For example, any Bible translations? Dictionaries? Orthography standardized? Native name for the language (this is usually put in the infobox)? Any notable linguistic features? Any state support for the language (courts, kingdoms)? Literary achievements? Influences on neighboring languages? Any official banning of the language by decree? Any residual mark on local Polish, Russian, nearby German dialects? Estimated peak number of speakers? Major controversies? A-giau 08:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abbreviations

What's with all those abbreviations in the Monuments section? Wikipeditor 16:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who put them in, but I'll see if I can track down and full-ify them (sorry, couldn't think of the word for that - for expanding/clarifying an acronym). Someone remind me to do that when I get back, if I forget. Beobach972 16:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In case it is needed, here is the information prior to my edit of it : The monuments of Old Prussian are: 1 – Prussian geographical names within the territory of Baltic Prussia (the first basic study of these names was by Georg Gerullis, Die altpreußischen Ortsnamen. Berlin und Leipzig, 1922) [ON]; 2 – Prussian personal names (up to now the main research is of Reinhold Trautmann, Die altpreußischen Personennamen. Göttingen, 1923, in which the work of Ernst Lewy, 1904, is included) [APN]; 3 – separate words found in various historical documents [DK]; 4 – vernacularisms in former German dialects of East and West Prussia, as well words of the Old Curonian origin in Latvian and West-Baltic vernacularisms in Lithuanian and Belorussian [DIA]; 5 – so called Basel Epigram Kayle rekyse. thoneaw labonache thewelyse. Eg. koyte poyte. nykoyte. pe^nega doyte (this may be: Kaīls rikīse! Tu ni jāu laban asei tēwelise, ik kwaitēi pōiti, ni kwaitēi peningā dōiti ”Hello Sir! Thou already art not a good uncle if thou wilt trink but doest not will give money”). This is an inscription of the 14th c., found by St. McCluskey in one of folios of the Basel university in 1974 [BPT]; 6 – fragmentary texts a) recorded in several versions by Hieronymus Maletius in Sudovian Nook in the middle of the 16th c. – Beigeite beygeyte peckolle “Run, devils, run!”, Kails naussen gnigethe “Hello our friend!”, Kails poskails ains par antres (a drinking toast here reconstructed as Kaīls pas kaīls, aīns per āntran “A healthy one after a healthy one (one after another)!”, Kellewesze perioth/ Kellewesze perioth “A carter drives here, a carter drives here!”, O hoho Moi mile swente Pannike “Oh my dear holy fire!” [MBS]; b) an expresion from the list (F) of the Vocabulary of friar Simon Grunau, a historian of the German Order - sta nossen rickie, nossen rickie “This is our lord, our lord” [GrF]; 7 – a manuscript fragment of the first words of Pater Noster from the beginning of the 15th c. Towe Nüsze kås esse andangonsün swyntins [TN]; 8 – 100 words in strongly varying versions (A, C, F, G, H, cf. Bibliography, V. Mažiulis PKP II, 48, ftn. 7) of the Vocabulary by Simon Grunau of ca. 1517–1526 [Gr]; 9 – so called Elbing Vocabulary consisting of 802 thematically sorted words and their German equivalents. This manuscript, copied by Peter Holcwesscher from Marienburg on the boundary of the 14th / 15th c., was found in 1825 by Fr. Neumann among other manuscripts acquired by him from the heritage of Elbing merchant A. Grübnau (“Codex Neumannianus”) [E]; 10 – 11 - 12 - three Catechisms (I, II, III) printed in Königsberg in 1545, 1545 and 1561 respectively, of which two first consist only 6 pages of the Prussian text, the II being a correction of the I in an another sub-dialect, but the III one consists of 132 pages of the Prussian text and is a translation by Abel Will of Martin Luther’s Enchiridion. An adage of 1583 – Dewes does dantes, Dewes does geitka [OT] may be not Prussian (the form does in the second instance corresponds to Lith. fut. duos ‘will give’). As for trencke/ trencke “Strike! Strike!” [MBS], it is Lithuanian, not Prussian with all probability.

«Kayle rekyse. thoneaw labonache thewelyse. Eg. koyte poyte. nykoyte. pe^nega doyte.». This is not Prussian, but Lithuanian with some Prussian words. It reads as: «Kaile rekys! Tu ne jau labonas tėvelys. Ik k(v)aitei puiti, nī k(v)aitei penigą duoti.». Roberts7 18:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberts7 (talk • contribs)

You forget that the modern Lithuanian language is a reconstruction by assistence of the old-prussian language and first lithuanian books were written and printed in East-Prussia. During the Lithuanian-Polish Kingdom everybody spoke Polish and the lithuanian language was nearly dead, was only spoken in Samogitian region. In 1809 J.S.Vater enumerated 7 old-prussian variantes of Lord´s Prayer, 1 samogitian, 1 curonian but no lithuanian. -- Kaubri (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Prussian and Slavic

The following line was removed : This is an accurate synopsis, although not entirely true because Prussian did possess a few Proto-Indo-European roots in common with the Slavic languages.; (I disagree with the removal). In perfectly good faith, I assume this to be my own fault in not fully clarifying... I classified a few roots in common and an accurate synopsis out of respect to trying not to directly contradict whoever wrote the first line (about Prussian and Slavic being completely different), but in reality the aforementioned Bishop is wrong. About a fourth of the Prussian language's words bear striking similarities to Slavic roots, indeed moreso than the other Baltic languages. By saying Proto-Indo-European roots in common, I am not tracing the language back to Proto-Indo-European to find similarities : I am saying that they possessed common roots in PIE and continued to have these words in common all the way into the current (or in Prussian's case, last recorded) state of the language. Perhaps the line should read : This is not entirely accurate; there were indeed many common words which in Prussian and Slavic were more mutually intelligble than in Prussian and the other Baltic languages. (because to be point-blank about it, Prussian and the Slavic languages do possess similarities). I shall provide examples :

• Words that Prussian AND Latvian AND Slavic have/had in common :
  • Prussian Ugnis, Latvian Uguns, Polish Ogien. (Fire / Burning Conflagration)
  • Prussian Zemê, Latvian zeme, Polish Ziemi. (Earth)
• Words that Prussian AND Slavic BUT NOT Baltic have/had in common :
  • Prussian Witra, Polish Wiatr, Byelorussian Pa-viêtra (compared to Latvian Gaiss and Lithuanian Oras)

Lithuanian language has a word "Vėtra", which means "strong wind" and is related to weather, so your example doesn't prove anything. Juraune 11:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My example remains solid in proving the similarities between Slavic and Prussian, which was the initial point. Thanks for telling my about the Lithuanian Vetra, though!

Your example proves the well known fact that Baltic and Slavic languages are Indoeuropean languages. They have a huge amount of common words. English and German also being Indoeuropean languages, have very similar words with the same meaning as "Witra": English "Weather" and German "Wetter". Juraune 07:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to go, but I'll post some more when I get back. Anyway, don't put my line back in yet; although I think some information does need to be included, but I want to help hammer out precisely what when I get back. Beobach972 16:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Juraune is correct, Beobach incorrect in his assumption. For example the German word Wetter english weather, Prussian Wetro, (not as Beobac wrote:Witra) Lithuanian Vetra proof the well-known fact that Baltic and Slavic, just like German and English are Indoeuropean languages. The use of Baltic words in Eastern Europe rather shows, that Baltic languages were spread much further into areas, where now Polish and Belorusan (and Ukraine) people live, who picked up a number of words. Beoba is also incorrect in his statement Prussia: Zeme, because it is Prussian: Same. Also word for fire is:Prussian: Panno. It was Martin Kromer the prince-bishop of Warmia, who was familiar with the languages and wrote, that (Old) Prussian (Baltic language is completely different from Slavic.

Answer for Peter Isotalo: Scientific community uses Old Prussian for Altpreußisch, because Altpreußenland (Old Prussian Land) is the name used for the Prussian land (Terra Prussiae) and people before Christianisation by the 1200's, when OldPrussianland became the Teutonic Order State of Prussia and many more people moved in from different areas. Labbas 22 January 2007

Prussian

There is no other language called "Prussian (language)" but this one. Why is it under the title "Old Prussian (language)"?

Peter ^Isotalo 02:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? Low Prussian was/is named under Prussian. --Vulpes vulpes 07:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Anthony, why did you revert my removal of the link to the Meta page rejecting the proposal for an Old Prussian Wikipedia - and with rollback as if it were vandalism, no less? There is very little value in having that link in the External links section, as if it provided the reader with helpful information about Old Prussian, which it doesn't. +Angr 08:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Two things regarding this article

1. It is stated that revived Prussian is spoken by 200 people. A handful of them is listed as users. What exactly merits them to be named? Have they published in that language? Do they teach it at universities?
2. I agree with the poster above that there does not seem to be a reason to call it "Old Prussian", since there is no following language. It seems to have existed and died out without developing successors. There is Low Prussian, yes, but that is a mere dialect of Low German and contrasts with East Prussian (High German dialect, not a successor of OP either) instead of Old Prussian. Revived Old Prussian is also, well, revived Old Prussian rather than just "Prussian" or New Prussian. So it would be nice to know why this naming convention exists. (From a global rather than from a Wiki viewpoint, I mean.)193.174.122.76 (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology of 'curtis'

AFAIK Slavic chrt, chart, khort (here 'ch' is as in 'loch') are related to German 'wikt:hurtig', so I guess this is one of factoids which are dubious in EB. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Who says they aren't? The only statement is that the word was further borrowed into the Baltic. 83.25.220.33 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

attention experts

New page Prusi. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Revived Old Prussian

How big is this? Looks like too much prominence is given to some obscure and irrelevant movement. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed all traces of Neo-Prussian conlang as well as bunch of linkspams, which have absolutely nothing to do with Old Prussian language. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How old is Elbing vocabulary?

The article says that it was written (or copied) on the boundary of 14th/15th century (i.e. circa 1400 AD) but the link included in the article claims that it was written c. 1300. This is a great difference. 128.214.145.20 (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Little Prince

This look like it might be of interest and worth inclusion:

• "Little Prince Published in Prussian". Culture.pl. 17 February 2015. Retrieved 17 March 2015.

— OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Old Prussian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070730075606/http://www.elbing.de/Eastland.pdf to http://www.elbing.de/Eastland.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://donelaitis.vdu.lt/prussian/Tr_APN.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

18th Century

I doubt this will receive attention, but I would like to ask the credibility of it saying 18th century, it mentions the bubonic plague, as if it were ravaging like the 14th century. Just trying to check it. Schwiiz (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Purported native name

People recently re-inserted several versions of an alleged "native name" [1][2][3], previously removed [4]. I am still far from convinced this is a legitimate addition, and certainly not convinced of the purported new "source" [5] either. First, this is a random website of unknown (and probably dubious) reliability, connected to the marginal "neo-Prussian" revival movement, and it doesn't apparently make any real distinction between words that are actually attested in historical sources and revivalist coinings. Second, the cited phrase, "Zināniskai nawwiniskai ezze prūsiskan billan", is not in fact the title of any citable work but merely a section heading on that website (presumably in "revived" Prussian), probably meant to render a description of a book described in that section (but that book is in German and there is no information about whether it says anything about the language name). Third, even if the name used by this website were authentic, the form of the words as contained in that cited phrase, "prusiskan billan", is almost certainly not its correct citation form but some inflected form (most probably an accusative). Fourth, even if it could be substantiated that something along the lines of prusiska- was the native form of the ethnonym "Prussian", and something along the lines of billa- was the word for "language", that simply doesn't mean it's safe to assume that a combination of these two words would have represented the native name of the language. It is simply not the case that every language has an autonym derived from the adjectival form of its associated ethnonym. Unless somebody finds a truly reliable secondary source that clearly points to an historical attestation of whatever the native name may have been, there is nothing for us to include here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Right. After several people have tried again and again to reinsert this piece, I've looked further into this. It turns out there is in fact an apparently authentic historical attestation of a language name, on the title page of one of the three catechisms mentioned in the article. It has the adverbial form "Prūsiskai" ('in Prussian'). The adjectival form that people have been trying to insert here, "Prūsiskan", is also from the same page of the catechism (as I guessed, it's not the citation form but an accusative), but it's being used as a geographical qualifier ("in the Prussian lands"), not as a language name. I haven't seen any reliable source listing it as a language name. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the book (MK is an abbreviation of Mikkels Klussis, I assume):

• PRÛSISKAI av [Prûsiskai 17] in Baltic Prussian, in Old Prussian
• PRÛSISKAN < 35 > [Prûsiskas + (Alt)preussisch MK] New / Old Prussian language
• PRÛSISKAN ↑ Prûsiskas acc Prûsiskan 17
• PRÛSISKAS aj nom sg m < 25 > [Prûsiskan 17] Baltic Prussian

You seem to be on the same page with Palmaitis that Prūsiskai is not the nominative. And the use of "Prūsiskan" as a geographical qualifier you mentioned is indicated in the second entry for "Prūsiskan". –Turaids (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: is there a rule prohibiting the inclusion of reconstructed forms or a good reason to doubt Letas Palmaitis as a reputable Baltologist? And, please, try to abstain from derogatory remarks like the ones previously made. I agree with your comments on the questionability of previous references, but my reference was not just some random authorless website or a self-published "hobby" paper. –Turaids (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's a difference between "reconstructed" forms in the sense of what responsible historical linguistics does, i.e. forms reconstructed for older stages of a language based on evidence from other stages (typically presented with an asterisk), and "reconstruction" of the entire language in the sense of a revivalist movement. The first is completely legitimate; the second is still a non-notable hobby enterprise. But based on what I just found, your claim that this is a "reconstructed" form (in whichever of the two senses) is actually false. "Prūsiskai" is attested. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

When I say "reconstructed" I'm referring to "inner reconstruction" and "complementary reconstruction". "Prūsiskai" may be attested, but, as you said, it means "in Prussian". In Lithuanian, it would be prūsiškai and definitely not used interchangeably with prūsų kalba (Prussian language). As you can probably guess if there was a nicely attested non-inflected form it would probably have been added by know. This is kind of reconstruction is as close as it can get. –Turaids (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Is the Ethnologue a reliable source?

Wikipedia has templates for citing many different editions of the Ethnologue. Surely if we can cite it as saying the Old Prussian language is extinct, we can cite it as saying that it's living. To use a source when it says what we want, and then ignore it when it changes what it says in a new edition, seems problematic in an WP:NPOV sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we shouldn't do cherry-picking for Ethnologue editions which support our own POV. The most recent edition should count. About Ethnologue as RS: as I said in my last edit summary, Ethnologue is acceptable as long as there is no other tertiary source. Peer-reviewed tertiary sources definitely outweigh Ethnologue as RS, for the simple reason that Ethnologue does not systematically cite sources, and much of the data is based on SIL-internal, often unpublished research. Ideally, I would still prefer to see a peer-reviewed academic resource that classifies the Old Prussian revival as having successfully created a sustainable speaker community, but I will not dismiss the evaluation by Ethnologue because of my own POV. –Austronesier (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: And since we're at it: can you update the data in the "revival" parameter of the infobox according to e22? Please cite the Ethnologue vitality index as well. The paywall for Ethnologue has been fortified to a Trumpian level, so much of the data that was previously at least temporarily visible ("you have X views left") is now inaccessible to most of us. –Austronesier (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Prosfilaes: Where exactly in the Ethnologue 22 link [6] do you actually see the claim that it's "living"? The page is now behind a paywall for me, but the latest archived version (from July 2019) is here: [7]. According to this version:

• there are "no known L1 speakers. The last L1 speaker died in the early 18th century."
• number of claimed (L2) speakers is no higher than "50"
• language status is "dormant". This is defined [8] as follows: "The language serves as a reminder of heritage identity for an ethnic community, but no one has more than symbolic proficiency." This is a status just one notch above "extinct".
• earlier versions of the entries said explicitly that the language "became extinct" in the 18th century (e.g. [9]). The current entry is still speaking of "other extinct Baltic languages", clearly implying that this one is also extinct.

I can see in this [10] table that some database field was once changed from "extinct" to "living" in 2009, but the field in question ("Language Type") is part of the database of ISO 639, not of Ethnologue itself, and Ethnologue provides no documentation of what criteria ISO 639 uses for such a classification.

In any case, whatever Ethnologue or ISO 639 say doesn't change the obvious fact that the revival movement is an extremely marginal phenomenon. It involves a handful of people, with next to no independent coverage in reliable, external academic sources. Almost everything we have about them is self-published material produced by the revivalists themselves. Its significance is far below the threshold of, let's say, Cornish, where a revivial movement has at least produced a substantial amount of public discussion and awareness. I am not opposed to mentioning it somewhere in the article, but moving it into the very intro sentence, either like [11] or like [12], is very clearly a matter of WP:UNDUE weight. By the way, the only reason there was a reference on the word "extinct" in the intro sentence in the first place was because of an extremely stupid edit-war about words, with a confused IP editor some months ago who insisted on replacing "extinct" with "obsolete" [13]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to Fut.Perf. for the archived link to e22. The content of e18 and e22 are virtually identical, e18 said: "Population: No known L1 speakers. L2 users: 50.", "Language Status: 9 (Dormant).", "Language Use: Became extinct early 18th century. Current reconstruction and revival efforts.". This is still a far cry from being a "living" language. And the inclusion of the revival efforts in introductory sentence is clearly WP:undue, as convincingly argued by Fut.Perf.. I opt for the original wording with Old Prussian as an extinct language. –Austronesier (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The epigram of Basel - oldest known inscription in Prussian language and Baltic language in general, middle of 14th c.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Palatalized consonants

How do we know it had palatalized consonants? I'm curious, because I thought it didn't have soft consonants. IdkGoodName (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)