The Dregoviches , also called the Dregovichi , were an East Slavic tribal union. They inhabited the territories along the lower Pripyat River and the northern parts of the right bank of the Dnieper River (more exact extents of the tribe's domain are still unknown).
43-648: The name of the tribe most probably derives from the Proto-Slavic word "*drъgъva" (found only in Southern Belarusian as "dregva" and Northern Ukrainian as "dragva, dryagva", which is a loanword from Baltic languages "dreguva" meaning ' swamp '), because the Dregoviches used to live in the marshlands . Linguists consider that they are "undoubtedly" related to a South Slavic tribe with a similar name, Drougoubitai . The first known reference to
86-439: A distinction between two pitch accents, traditionally called "acute" and "circumflex" accent. The acute accent was pronounced with rising intonation, while the circumflex accent had a falling intonation. Short vowels (*e *o *ь *ъ) had no pitch distinction, and were always pronounced with falling intonation. Unaccented (unstressed) vowels never had tonal distinctions, but could still have length distinctions. These rules are similar to
129-592: A few fortuitous instances, which have been used to verify the method and the model (and probably ultimately inspired it ), a literary history exists from as early as a few millennia ago, allowing the descent to be traced in detail. The early daughter languages, and even the proto-language itself, may be attested in surviving texts. For example, Latin is the proto-language of the Romance language family, which includes such modern languages as French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan and Spanish. Likewise, Proto-Norse ,
172-411: A language to change, and "[as] a result, our reconstructions tend to have a strong bias toward the average language type known to the investigator." Such an investigator finds themselves blinkered by their own linguistic frame of reference . The advent of the wave model raised new issues in the domain of linguistic reconstruction, causing the reevaluation of old reconstruction systems and depriving
215-750: A late-period variant, representing the late 9th-century dialect spoken around Thessaloniki ( Solun ) in Macedonia , is attested in Old Church Slavonic manuscripts. Proto-Slavic is descended from the Proto-Balto-Slavic branch of the Proto-Indo-European language family, which is the ancestor of the Baltic languages , e.g. Lithuanian and Latvian . Proto-Slavic gradually evolved into the various Slavic languages during
258-551: A macron above the letter, while in the latter it is not clearly indicated. The following table explains these differences: For consistency, all discussions of words in Early Slavic and before (the boundary corresponding roughly to the monophthongization of diphthongs , and the Slavic second palatalization ) use the common Balto-Slavic notation of vowels. Discussions of Middle and Late Common Slavic, as well as later dialects, use
301-427: A proto-language is the most recent common ancestor of a language family, immediately before the family started to diverge into the attested daughter languages . It is therefore equivalent with the ancestral language or parental language of a language family. Moreover, a group of lects that are not considered separate languages, such as the members of a dialect cluster , may also be described as descending from
344-414: A set of characteristics, or characters, found in the attested languages. If the entire set can be accounted for by descent from the proto-language, which must contain the proto-forms of them all, the tree, or phylogeny, is regarded as a complete explanation and by Occam's razor , is given credibility. More recently, such a tree has been termed "perfect" and the characters labelled "compatible". No trees but
387-422: A unitary proto-language. Typically, the proto-language is not known directly. It is by definition a linguistic reconstruction formulated by applying the comparative method to a group of languages featuring similar characteristics. The tree is a statement of similarity and a hypothesis that the similarity results from descent from a common language. The comparative method, a process of deduction , begins from
430-667: Is attested only fragmentarily. There are no objective criteria for the evaluation of different reconstruction systems yielding different proto-languages. Many researchers concerned with linguistic reconstruction agree that the traditional comparative method is an "intuitive undertaking." The bias of the researchers regarding the accumulated implicit knowledge can also lead to erroneous assumptions and excessive generalization. Kortlandt (1993) offers several examples in where such general assumptions concerning "the nature of language" hindered research in historical linguistics. Linguists make personal judgements on how they consider "natural" for
473-480: Is slight dialectal variation. It also covers Late Common Slavic when there are significant developments that are shared (more or less) identically among all Slavic languages. Two different and conflicting systems for denoting vowels are commonly in use in Indo-European and Balto-Slavic linguistics on the one hand, and Slavic linguistics on the other. In the first, vowel length is consistently distinguished with
SECTION 10
#1732790225206516-659: Is termed "Pre-X", as in Pre–Old Japanese. It is also possible to apply internal reconstruction to a proto-language, obtaining a pre-proto-language, such as Pre-Proto-Indo-European. Both prefixes are sometimes used for an unattested stage of a language without reference to comparative or internal reconstruction. "Pre-X" is sometimes also used for a postulated substratum , as in the Pre-Indo-European languages believed to have been spoken in Europe and South Asia before
559-484: Is the unattested , reconstructed proto-language of all Slavic languages . It represents Slavic speech approximately from the 2nd millennium BC through the 6th century AD . As with most other proto-languages, no attested writings have been found; scholars have reconstructed the language by applying the comparative method to all the attested Slavic languages and by taking into account other Indo-European languages . Rapid development of Slavic speech occurred during
602-527: The Severians and Krivichians , it was suggested these are the same people as the Dregoviches. By the 12th century, they were assimilated into the main East Slavic peoples . The chronicles do not tell historians much about the Dregoviches. We only know that they had their own princely rule in the city of Turov . In the 10th century, the lands of the Dregoviches became a part of Kievan Rus and later
645-985: The Turov Principality . The northwestern part of the land of the Dregoviches became a part of the Polotsk Principality . This article about Belarusian history is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . This Ukrainian history –related article is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Proto-Slavic Pontic Steppe Caucasus East Asia Eastern Europe Northern Europe Pontic Steppe Northern/Eastern Steppe Europe South Asia Steppe Europe Caucasus India Indo-Aryans Iranians East Asia Europe East Asia Europe Indo-Aryan Iranian Indo-Aryan Iranian Others European Proto-Slavic (abbreviated PSl. , PS. ; also called Common Slavic or Common Slavonic )
688-429: The realist or the abstractionist position. Even the widely studied proto-languages, such as Proto-Indo-European , have drawn criticism for being outliers typologically with respect to the reconstructed phonemic inventory . The alternatives such as glottalic theory , despite representing a typologically less rare system, have not gained wider acceptance, and some researchers even suggest the use of indexes to represent
731-597: The Dregoviches is in the Primary Chronicle , where they are listed among the 12 tribes. However, there is a reference in the De Administrando Imperio of Constantine Porphyrogenitus to "δρουγουβίται", "Drougoubitai". Since the reference appears in a passage describing the "Druguvitai" as one of the Slavic peoples who pay tribute to the princes of Kievan Rus' , and they are named alongside
774-532: The Proto-Slavic period, coinciding with the massive expansion of the Slavic-speaking area. Dialectal differentiation occurred early on during this period, but overall linguistic unity and mutual intelligibility continued for several centuries, into the 10th century or later. During this period, many sound changes diffused across the entire area, often uniformly. This makes it inconvenient to maintain
817-570: The Proto-Slavic/Common Slavic time of linguistic unity roughly into three periods: Authorities differ as to which periods should be included in Proto-Slavic and in Common Slavic. The language described in this article generally reflects the middle period, usually termed Late Proto-Slavic (sometimes Middle Common Slavic ) and often dated to around the 7th to 8th centuries. This language remains largely unattested, but
860-522: The Slavic notation. For Middle and Late Common Slavic, the following marks are used to indicate tone and length distinctions on vowels, based on the standard notation in Serbo-Croatian : There are multiple competing systems used to indicate prosody in different Balto-Slavic languages. The most important for this article are: The following is an overview of the phonemes that are reconstructible for Middle Common Slavic. Middle Common Slavic had
903-536: The South Slavic languages, as well as Czech and Slovak, tended to preserve the syllabic sonorants, but in the Lechitic languages (such as Polish) and Bulgarian, they fell apart again into vowel-consonant or consonant-vowel combinations. In East Slavic, the liquid diphthongs in *ь or *ъ may have likewise become syllabic sonorants, but if so, the change was soon reversed, suggesting that it may never have happened in
SECTION 20
#1732790225206946-448: The accent (moved it to the preceding syllable). This occurred at a time when the Slavic-speaking area was already dialectally differentiated, and usually syllables with the acute and/or circumflex accent were shortened around the same time. Hence it is unclear whether there was ever a period in any dialect when there were three phonemically distinct pitch accents on long vowels. Nevertheless, taken together, these changes significantly altered
989-452: The accent was free and thus phonemic; it could occur on any syllable and its placement was inherently a part of the word. The accent could also be either mobile or fixed, meaning that inflected forms of a word could have the accent on different syllables depending on the ending, or always on the same syllable. Common Slavic vowels also had a pitch accent . In Middle Common Slavic, all accented long vowels, nasal vowels and liquid diphthongs had
1032-617: The ancestor of the modern Scandinavian languages , is attested, albeit in fragmentary form, in the Elder Futhark . Although there are no very early Indo-Aryan inscriptions, the Indo-Aryan languages of modern India all go back to Vedic Sanskrit (or dialects very closely related to it), which has been preserved in texts accurately handed down by parallel oral and written traditions for many centuries. The first person to offer systematic reconstructions of an unattested proto-language
1075-424: The arrival there of Indo-European languages. When multiple historical stages of a single language exist, the oldest attested stage is normally termed "Old X" (e.g. Old English and Old Japanese ). In other cases, such as Old Irish and Old Norse , the term refers to the language of the oldest known significant texts. Each of these languages has an older stage ( Primitive Irish and Proto-Norse respectively) that
1118-633: The beginning of the syllable. By the beginning of the Late Common Slavic period, all or nearly all syllables had become open as a result of developments in the liquid diphthongs . Syllables with liquid diphthongs beginning with *o or *e had been converted into open syllables, for example *TorT became *TroT, *TraT or *ToroT in the various daughter languages. The main exception are the Northern Lechitic languages ( Kashubian , extinct Slovincian and Polabian ) only with lengthening of
1161-475: The disputed series of plosives. On the other end of the spectrum, Pulgram (1959 :424) suggests that Proto-Indo-European reconstructions are just "a set of reconstructed formulae" and "not representative of any reality". In the same vein, Julius Pokorny in his study on Indo-European , claims that the linguistic term IE parent language is merely an abstraction, which does not exist in reality and should be understood as consisting of dialects possibly dating back to
1204-472: The distribution of the pitch accents and vowel length, to the point that by the end of the Late Common Slavic period almost any vowel could be short or long, and almost any accented vowel could have falling or rising pitch. Most syllables in Middle Common Slavic were open . The only closed syllables were those that ended in a liquid (*l or *r), forming liquid diphthongs, and in such syllables,
1247-573: The evidence is from the descendant languages and on the formulation of the characters by the linguists working on it. Not all characters are suitable for the comparative method. For example, lexical items that are loans from a different language do not reflect the phylogeny to be tested, and, if used, will detract from the compatibility. Getting the right dataset for the comparative method is a major task in historical linguistics. Some universally accepted proto-languages are Proto-Afroasiatic , Proto-Indo-European , Proto-Uralic , and Proto-Dravidian . In
1290-453: The family tree metaphor, a proto-language can be called a mother language. Occasionally, the German term Ursprache ( pronounced [ˈuːɐ̯ʃpʁaːxə] ; from ur- 'primordial', 'original' + Sprache 'language') is used instead. It is also sometimes called the common or primitive form of a language (e.g. Common Germanic , Primitive Norse ). In the strict sense,
1333-399: The first place. Proto-language In the tree model of historical linguistics , a proto-language is a postulated ancestral language from which a number of attested languages are believed to have descended by evolution, forming a language family . Proto-languages are usually unattested, or partially attested at best. They are reconstructed by way of the comparative method . In
Dregoviches - Misplaced Pages Continue
1376-479: The following vowel system ( IPA symbol where different): The columns marked "central" and "back" may alternatively be interpreted as "back unrounded" and "back rounded" respectively, but rounding of back vowels was distinctive only between the vowels *y and *u. The other back vowels had optional non-distinctive rounding. The vowels described as "short" and "long" were simultaneously distinguished by length and quality in Middle Common Slavic, although some authors prefer
1419-450: The latter half of the first millennium AD, concurrent with the explosive growth of the Slavic-speaking area. There is no scholarly consensus concerning either the number of stages involved in the development of the language (its periodization ) or the terms used to describe them. One division is made up of three periods: Another division is made up of four periods: This article considers primarily Middle Common Slavic, noting when there
1462-616: The least in Russian and the most in Czech. Palatalized consonants never developed in Southwest Slavic (modern Croatian, Serbian, and Slovenian), and the merger of *ľ *ň *ř with *l *n *r did not happen before front vowels (although Serbian and Croatian later merged *ř with *r). As in its ancestors, Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-European, one syllable of each Common Slavic word was accented (carried more prominence). The placement of
1505-414: The preceding vowel had to be short. Consonant clusters were permitted, but only at the beginning of a syllable. Such a cluster was syllabified with the cluster entirely in the following syllable, contrary to the syllabification rules that are known to apply to most languages. For example, *bogatьstvo "wealth" was divided into syllables as * bo-ga-tь-stvo , with the whole cluster * -stv- at
1548-506: The proto-language of its "uniform character." This is evident in Karl Brugmann 's skepticism that the reconstruction systems could ever reflect a linguistic reality. Ferdinand de Saussure would even express a more certain opinion, completely rejecting a positive specification of the sound values of reconstruction systems. In general, the issue of the nature of proto-language remains unresolved, with linguists generally taking either
1591-475: The restrictions that apply to the pitch accent in Slovene . In the Late Common Slavic period, several sound changes occurred. Long vowels bearing the acute (long rising) accent were usually shortened, resulting in a short rising intonation. Some short vowels were lengthened, creating new long falling vowels. A third type of pitch accent developed, known as the "neoacute", as a result of sound laws that retracted
1634-403: The smallest branches are ever found to be perfect, in part because languages also evolve through horizontal transfer with their neighbours. Typically, credibility is given to the hypotheses of highest compatibility. The differences in compatibility must be explained by various applications of the wave model . The level of completeness of the reconstruction achieved varies, depending on how complete
1677-460: The syllable and no metathesis (*TarT, e.g. PSl. gordъ > Kashubian gard ; > Polabian * gard > gord ). In West Slavic and South Slavic, liquid diphthongs beginning with *ь or *ъ had likewise been converted into open syllables by converting the following liquid into a syllabic sonorant (palatal or non-palatal according to whether *ь or *ъ preceded respectively). This left no closed syllables at all in these languages. Most of
1720-491: The terms "lax" and "tense" instead. Many modern Slavic languages have since lost all length distinctions. Vowel length evolved as follows: In § Grammar below, additional distinctions are made in the reconstructed vowels: Middle Common Slavic had the following consonants (IPA symbols where different): The phonetic value (IPA symbol) of most consonants is the same as their traditional spelling. Some notes and exceptions: In most dialects, non-distinctive palatalization
1763-447: The traditional definition of a proto-language as the latest reconstructable common ancestor of a language group, with no dialectal differentiation. (This would necessitate treating all pan-Slavic changes after the 6th century or so as part of the separate histories of the various daughter languages.) Instead, Slavicists typically handle the entire period of dialectally differentiated linguistic unity as Common Slavic . One can divide
Dregoviches - Misplaced Pages Continue
1806-405: Was August Schleicher ; he did so for Proto-Indo-European in 1861. Normally, the term "Proto-X" refers to the last common ancestor of a group of languages, occasionally attested but most commonly reconstructed through the comparative method , as with Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic . An earlier stage of a single language X, reconstructed through the method of internal reconstruction ,
1849-576: Was probably present on all consonants that occurred before front vowels. When the high front yer *ь/ĭ was lost in many words, it left this palatalization as a "residue", which then became distinctive, producing a phonemic distinction between palatalized and non-palatalized alveolars and labials. In the process, the palatal sonorants *ľ *ň *ř merged with alveolar *l *n *r before front vowels, with both becoming *lʲ *nʲ *rʲ. Subsequently, some palatalized consonants lost their palatalization in some environments, merging with their non-palatal counterparts. This happened
#205794