Criticism
Lithuanian linguist and scholar Antanas Klimas has criticized Oswald Szemerényi's arguments, which are in favour of the Balto-Slavic theory. His counterarguments regarding the plausible phonetical, phonological, and morphological similarities between the Baltic and Slavic languages had scrutinized the arguments of O. Szemerényi and concluded the following:
He had also subject that:
Regarding the systemic recast of suffixes in Baltic and Slavic languages, Russian linguist A. Dubasova notices that in both cases the coming after or as a result of. happened: aspirated voiced consonants turned into generic voiced consonants e. g., *gʰ > *g, iotation e. g., *d > *di̯ > *dj, palatalization, and later on—the assimilation, dissimilation, metathesis as alive as the fallout of some consonants in some instances. According to Dubasova, the aforementioned sequence of common turn in both language groups can be an indication of a special relationship between Baltic and Slavic languages but ago making such(a) conclusions it is for crucial to scrutinize the basis, consequences and intensity of these processes.
For instance, Dubasova emphasizes that there are core differences when it comes to iotation in Baltic and Slavic languages, which is something other scientists had noticed in the past. In fact, there are differences in iotation between Baltic languages themselves, which probably means that this process began after the split of Proto-Baltic while Proto-Slavic is already known to produce iotation. With regard to palatalization, Dubasova notices that this is the a trivial phonetic modify and it cannot be seen as evidence of a genetic link between Baltic and Slavic languages, particularly when taking the core palatalization differences in both Linguistic communication groups. She also concludes that researchers face great difficulties when reconstructing the phonological system of the Proto-Baltic mostly due to the problematic mark of examining Old Prussian and contrasting views of researchers.
In terms of palatalization similarities between Latvian and Slavic languages, Dubasova notes that the reasons behind the changes of consonants before certain vowels or the lack of them are different. In her construct on the assimilation of voiced and voiceless consonants, she states that such assimilation already happened in the Proto-Slavic language, which was caused by the fallout of reduced vowels, while in the Proto-Baltic language vowel reduction is not being reconstructed. This shows the different nature of assimilation in Baltic languages.
When analyzing the dropping of consonants at the end of a word, she claims that in Proto-Slavic this process was a consequence of a general tendency but in Baltic languages, the endings of consonants were not dropped at all. According to the linguist, metathesis in the Proto-Baltic was an freelancer phenomenon that, unlike in the issue of Proto-Slavic, is not connected with the open syllable principle in the Baltic languages such a principle did not and does not represent to this day. When evaluating the gemination the fadeaway of consonant lengthening Dubasova emphasizes that linguists do not have a consensus on this: some interpret this as an self-employed person process while some believe it to be a common genetic deviation. Dubasova provided the opinions of other specialists approximately the system of consonants and even though she notes that there is no common ground regarding this, the linguist draws attention to the alveolar and dental consonant differences that Baltic and Slavic languages possess. In conclusion, Dubasova states:
The examples of previously discussed factors reveal that Slavic and Baltic languages “had put an emphasis” on different ways of reorganization, and used various [linguistic] tools irregularly; all changes despite their similarities in Baltic and Slavic languages are self-employed person processes, which have a different basis and consequences. So, it is more logical to talk about the independent evolution from the very beginning rather than “separation” without postulating the conviction of a common Proto-Balto-Slavic language.
The opponents of the Balto-Slavic theory had shown morphological properties that, according to them, prove that the Proto-Balto-Slavic language did not exist:
According to the Russian linguist S. Bernstein, when examining the lexicon of both language groups, it is important to separate the common heritage and vocabulary innovations of the Proto-Indo-European language from the ones that formed during the contact of Baltic and Slavic languages, which is something Reinhold Trautmann had failed to do. In his Balto-Slavic Dictionary German: Baltisch–slavisches Wörterbuch, published in 1923, Trautmann presents 1,700 common words but more than 75% of the assumption vocabulary is not unique to Baltic and Slavic languages as these words can be found in other Indo-European languages, they unite only some of the Baltic or Slavic languages or only belong to one specific language.
The opposing linguists of the genetic relationship between Baltic and Slavic languages like Oleg Trubachyov also note that there are notable lexicon and semantic differences that date back to very old times. They emphasize that the most important concepts such as egg, to beat, suffering, girl, oak, chop, pigeon, god, guest, or forger are named differently in Baltic and Slavic languages. According to the Lithuanian linguist Zigmas Zinkevičius, the Baltic and Slavic dictionary of differences would be much more impressive than a dictionary of commonalities.